Kimball vs Inmon: Two Design Philosophies

Two fundamentally different approaches govern how organizations build data warehouses. The Inmon top down method advocates building a centralized, normalized enterprise data warehouse first, then feeding departmental data marts from that conformed core. The Kimball bottom up approach builds dimensional data marts first around specific business processes, integrating them over time through conformed dimensions.

Inmon prioritizes a single source of truth. The enterprise warehouse uses normalized modeling (third normal form) to eliminate redundancy and maintain strict data integrity. This centralized approach yields consistent definitions and strong governance, but requires significant upfront investment in enterprise data modeling and longer time to deliver initial business value. Organizations adopting Inmon typically spend 6 to 18 months building the core before departments see their first mart.

Kimball delivers faster wins by building star schema marts directly for high priority business areas like sales or inventory. Each mart is optimized for its specific analytical workload with denormalized dimensions for query performance. The key to avoiding chaos is conformed dimensions: shared dimension tables (customer, product, date) with identical surrogate keys and attribute definitions across marts. This allows later integration and cross functional reporting. Implementation timelines are typically 3 to 6 months per mart.

The trade off is clear. Inmon reduces long term technical debt and semantic drift at the cost of delayed business value and higher initial expenditure. Kimball gets data into users' hands quickly but risks divergent metrics if dimension conformance discipline breaks down. Many modern implementations blend both: build a lightweight conformed core (key dimensions and shared business rules) while rapidly delivering mart after mart.

💡 Key Takeaways

•Inmon builds a normalized enterprise warehouse first requiring 6 to 18 months upfront but ensures consistent semantics and strong governance across all downstream marts

•Kimball delivers business value in 3 to 6 months per mart by building dimensional models directly, trading upfront coordination for speed to insight

•Conformed dimensions are the critical success factor for Kimball: shared customer, product, and date dimensions with identical surrogate keys prevent metric divergence across marts

•Inmon reduces long term technical debt and reconciliation costs but increases initial capital expenditure and delays ROI on warehouse investment

•Kimball risks siloed definitions if discipline breaks: sales mart and finance mart calculating revenue differently causes executive confusion and erosion of trust

•Hybrid approaches build a lightweight conformed core (key dimensions and shared business rules) while rapidly delivering Kimball style marts on top

📌 Examples

Large retailer using Inmon: 12 month project to model enterprise product, customer, store, and transaction entities in third normal form before building first sales mart

E-commerce company using Kimball: delivered order fulfillment mart in 4 months with conformed customer and product dimensions, then added marketing mart in 3 months reusing same dimensions

Financial services hybrid: built conformed account, customer, and transaction dimensions centrally (4 months), then teams independently built risk mart, compliance mart, and trading mart (2 to 3 months each) all joining to shared dimensions

← Back to Data Warehousing Architecture Overview