Microsoft Azure
The cloud platform underneath: compute, managed data services, networking and the governance model around them.
A large member-owned credit union, United States. A substantial data footprint was spread across more than fifteen disparate sources, which made personalised member experience impossible and slowed every business decision that depended on analysis.
A substantial data footprint was spread across more than fifteen disparate sources, which made personalised member experience impossible and slowed every business decision that depended on analysis.
Member-owned institutions compete on relationship rather than on price, which means personalisation is not a marketing nicety but the actual product. Doing it requires knowing what a member holds across every system, and most institutions of this size have accumulated more than a dozen.
Working with a Microsoft partner, data from all sources was centralised into a lakehouse on Microsoft Azure, becoming a single analytics platform for the institution.
Centralising fifteen-plus sources into one lakehouse is the unglamorous majority of this work. The headline — an 89% reduction in model run time — is a consequence of that consolidation rather than of a modelling improvement: analysis gets faster when it stops waiting for data to be assembled first.
These are the figures exactly as reported in the source. Nothing has been rounded, extrapolated or restated.
The cloud platform underneath: compute, managed data services, networking and the governance model around them.
One analytics platform over OneLake, so every workload reads the same copy of the data instead of its own extract.
The measurement is worth copying: run time on a real model is a better proxy for analytical capability than any platform capability list.
Where it usually gets harder than expected: A lakehouse that nobody has agreed the definitions for produces disagreement faster than the old extracts did. The governance conversation about what a member, a household and a product actually are is the part that determines whether this holds.
The least technical and most important step. If two functions cannot agree what a customer is, no architecture will reconcile their reports.
Ingestion through to a report somebody actually uses, before the second workload starts. Platform builds that produce nothing for nine months lose their sponsor by month six.
Every published figure traceable back to its source transaction. In a regulated setting that is a requirement; everywhere else it is what makes the number trusted.
Capacity-based compute behaves differently from licensed software. Monitoring goes in with the first workload, not after the first invoice.
If any of the above describes your organization, tell us where it hurts most. We will tell you what the same platforms could realistically do in your environment, what we would measure, and whether we think it is worth doing at all.
Describe the situation in your own words.