ale@portfolio:~/portfolio$ cat README.md

portfolio

Every case study here answers one question: what changed because of it.

data-catalog.mdZapier · 2021

Building a Self-Serve Data Catalog

ShippedTeam: Data3 weeks
TL;DR
  • Centralized, validated, searchable data documentation in Looker.
  • Turned a scattered, confusing data landscape into a self-service resource for the whole company.
Outcome
  • time to resolve data requests
  • new-hire self-service, no data-team bottleneck
Saw It
  • Data team members, power users, and new hires kept independently asking for a "single source of truth."
  • Every vendor we evaluated pointed to the same root cause: no organized metadata layer.
Figured It Out
  • Rather than wait months for procurement, scoped a lightweight ETL.
  • Used the metadata already being gathered for the vendor evaluation.
  • Turned the eval itself into a live validation vehicle.
Did It
  • Shipped v1 in Looker in 2 weeks.
  • When feedback interviews called it "confusing," owned the restructure into v2 rather than treating the miss as final.

My Role

  • Owned the build-vs-buy evaluation and scoped the metadata ETL as the validation vehicle.
  • Ran the vendor conversations.
  • Synthesized the "confusing and overwhelming" feedback into the v2 restructure.
  • Made the call to ship a stopgap rather than wait on procurement.

Engineering Collaboration

  • Partnered directly with a data engineer on the ETL design.
  • Trade-off discussion: speed of extraction vs. completeness of metadata coverage.
  • Chose speed to get a testable v1 in front of users faster, backfilling coverage in v2.
Full breakdown

Problem & Risk

Usability Risk
  • Data documentation was scattered across formats.
  • Every data request required manual triage, slowing onboarding.
  • Data team wasting time finding and validating data sources rather than analysis.

Customer Discovery & Validation

Evidence
  • 20 internal customer interviews: repeated, unprompted requests for a "single source of truth" from data team members, power users, and new hires.
  • "Build vs. buy" vendor evaluation: same root problem to solve, no organized metadata layer.

Two different sources agree before we wrote a line of code.

Context

  • Mid-evaluation on catalog vendors, needed a decision, not just a wishlist.
  • Used the metadata gathered during vendor scoping to test the actual need in production.
  • Solved the immediate pain shipping a good quality usable product, while generating real evidence for the build-vs-buy process and definite tool.

Timeline

git log --oneline⏱ 3 weeks to v2
kickoff: vendor "build vs. buy" evaluation beginsWeek 0
discovery: metadata mapped across full data ecosystemWeek 1
ship v1: Looker catalog live, basic filtersWeek 2
feedback: feedback interviews, users flag v1 as "confusing and overwhelming"Week 3
ship v2: restructured by user need, feedback loop added, simplified main UXNext

What We Did

  • Built a lightweight ETL to extract and map the entire data ecosystem, exposed through Looker with filters for searchability.
  • First-round usage testing called it "confusing and overwhelming," a signal we didn't ignore.
  • Rebuilt into separate views by user need, added a feedback + feature-request loop.
~ rough sketch, not an actual screenshot ~

data glossary

every event + table, defined

documentation

models + FAQs, linked

data assets

source + type, discoverable

lineage

(soon) pipeline map

quality + health

live monitoring status

taxonomy

naming + classification

Who Benefits

  • New hires onboard faster without waiting on a data team member.
  • Data scientists decreasing time to find sources.
  • Non-technical stakeholders self-serve insights instead of filing tickets.
  • The business gained validated, production-tested evidence for the vendor decision, de-risking a procurement spend before it happened.

Next Steps

  • Complete the build-vs-buy evaluation.
  • Migrate to a more sophisticated catalog solution using the validated metadata model as the foundation.