Data inconsistency has long been a major challenge for organizations, with Gartner reporting that poor-quality data costs businesses a staggering $12.9 million annually. This issue has led data leaders to seek a “single source of truth” for their business intelligence (BI) and analytics systems, ensuring that decision-makers rely on the same data and consistent definitions. However, finding a reliable and unified source has proven difficult as data environments have become more complex.
In response to this challenge, BI providers introduced the concept of a semantic layer, an abstraction layer designed to bridge the gap between complex, raw data and the business logic that non-technical users need to make informed decisions. The semantic layer maps data to familiar business terms and relationships, allowing business users to engage in self-service analytics without needing to understand the intricacies of the underlying data. By doing so, it enables the use of standardized terms like “revenue” and “profit” across the organization, making data more accessible and understandable to a wider audience.
However, the proliferation of BI tools and their respective semantic layers has introduced new complications. Tools like SAP BusinessObjects first incorporated a semantic layer in the 1990s, but these early BI systems were often monolithic and difficult to use. As a result, more intuitive tools like Tableau, Power BI, and Looker gained popularity. While these newer tools provided better user experiences, their rapid adoption and widespread use across various departments created a fragmented landscape of BI and analytics platforms. Each tool came with its own semantic layer, further complicating the goal of achieving a unified view of the data.
Today, this fragmentation has led to inconsistent data definitions, measures, and business logic across different parts of the organization. Separate teams now manage their own semantic layers, which has resulted in discrepancies in how data is interpreted and understood. For example, the definition of an “active customer” can vary depending on the department—some may define it based on subscription status, others on recent logins or trial sign-ups. These inconsistencies not only cause confusion but also hinder collaboration across teams, impacting accuracy in reporting and decision-making, and ultimately undermining trust in the data.