background

Data Warehouse Design Services

GroupBWT works backward from your reports. We read what each report has to show before we touch the architecture, the data models, or the integration rules. So we plan how your sources consolidate. Each metric gets pinned to a single meaning, and we leave headroom for analytical growth. Nobody builds a new database, or restructures the one you already run, until our data warehouse design services have all of that agreed.

Let's talk
100+
software engineers
15+
years industry experience
$1B-$100B
client annual revenue range
Fortune 500
clients served

We are trusted by global market leaders

Logo PricewaterhouseCoopers
Logo Kimberly-Clark
Logo UnipolSai
Logo VORYS
Logo Cambridge University Press
Logo Columbia University in the City of New York
Logo Cosnova
Essence logo
Logo catrice
Logo Coupang

Our Awards and Partnerships

AWS Partner
Databricks Brickbuilder Partner Network Bronze
Snowflake AI Data Cloud Services Partner Select
G2 Winter 2026 Leader
G2 Fall 2025 High Performer
Clutch 2026 Top Big Data Marketing Company
Clutch 2026 Top B2B Big Data Company
Clutch 2026 Top Power BI & Data Solutions Company
Award from Goodfirms
GroupBWT recognized as TechBehemoths awards 2024 winner in Web Design, UK
GroupBWT recognized as TechBehemoths awards 2024 winner in Branding, UK
GroupBWT received a high rating from TrustRadius in 2020
GroupBWT ranked highest in the software development companies category by SOFTWAREWORLD
ITfirms

What Our Data Warehouse Design Solutions Cover

Some teams come to GroupBWT with no warehouse yet. Others already run one that has stopped matching their reporting requirements or source systems, so we revise it. What you get from our DWH design services, in both cases, is the architecture plus the engineering specifications we’ve agreed together. Pipelines, deployment, and migration come after that, under a separate implementation scope.

01/06

Target Architecture and Data Flows

The plan starts at the reporting layer and works back through transformation and storage to each source system. It also marks where data gets combined and where your reporting teams pick it up. So the next source you add gets an obvious home instead of another competing copy.

Reporting Data Models

Before any schema exists, we agree the level of detail behind each row, the business entities it describes, and the relationships reports will lean on. Your analysts' real questions shape the schemas. With shared definitions, two departments can compare results without joining data at mismatched levels of detail and counting the same activity twice.

Change History Tracking

Not every change needs a history. We decide which ones do, and which values reports should treat as current. Say a B2B customer updated its account details last month. The deal it signed two years earlier should still show the old details. Overwrite them and period-to-period comparisons quietly break.

Source Mapping, Field by Field

Every field your sources send gets a row in the source-to-target mapping. The row shows where that field lands, its identifiers and format, the rule for missing values, and its transformations. When two systems code one customer differently, the matching rule is settled here, and every report drawing on both inherits it.

Storage and Query Design

Your reporting workloads, refresh frequency, volume growth, and chosen platform shape the storage and query structures. Partitioning, clustering, or distribution goes only where a workload gains from it. Queries then skip data they don't need, and joins cost no more than they have to. Real query speed shows up only in production.

Access and Quality Rules

Access boundaries, data-quality rules, and traceability requirements go into the design wherever the agreed scope reaches. Your security and business teams decide who sees what. We express those decisions in the proposed structure and controls. Engineers then build checks against agreed requirements instead of finding gaps after reports go live.
01/06
background

Ask an Architect Where Your Warehouse Design Should Start

You know what the warehouse has to support, and where your current structure keeps getting in the way. Share that with GroupBWT. One of our architects will then mark where design should begin and which requirements call for a deeper technical review. There’s no need to arrive with a finished architecture brief.

Talk to us:
Write to us:
Contact Us

Why Choose GroupBWT for Warehouse Design

Our published work includes both warehouse delivery and architecture assignments completed before migration. The delivery project is proof of integration and governance we actually implemented. The architecture work is narrower, showing how we sort out an existing warehouse’s structure before any development begins.

Warehouse Design Carried Into Delivery

GroupBWT designed a warehouse for a pharmaceutical company and then implemented it, connecting seven pipelines and mapping 22 source schemas along the way. Our team also put lineage and shared analytical structures in place, so reporting could draw on systems that had previously been disconnected.

Existing Warehouse Mapped for Modernization

An agricultural producer was running an existing SQL Server warehouse, and GroupBWT mapped 18 sources and designed a Databricks architecture for it. What we completed was the assessment and design, not the migration. It settled the proposed structure before implementation.

Reporting Dependencies Included in Design

In that same modernization assignment, GroupBWT reviewed the client’s Power BI reporting estate and grouped reports by shared data model. That work informed the proposed transition, so the architecture accounted for reporting dependencies rather than treating storage changes in isolation.

What Our Clients Say

Inga B.

What do you like best?

Their deep understanding of our needs and how to craft a solution that provides more opportunities for managing our data. Their data solution, enhanced with AI features, allows us to easily manage diverse data sources and quickly get actionable insights from data.

What do you dislike?

It took some time to align the a multi-source data scraping platform functionality with our specific workflows. But we quickly adapted and the final result fully met our requirements.

Catherine I.

What do you like best?

It was incredible how they could build precisely what we wanted. They were genuine experts in data scraping; project management was also great, and each phase of the project was on time, with quick feedback.

What do you dislike?

We have no comments on the work performed.

Susan C.

What do you like best?

GroupBWT is the preferred choice for competitive intelligence through complex data extraction. Their approach, technical skills, and customization options make them valuable partners. Nevertheless, be prepared to invest time in initial solution development.

What do you dislike?

GroupBWT provided us with a solution to collect real-time data on competitor micro-mobility services so we could monitor vehicle availability and locations. This data has given us a clear view of the market in specific areas, allowing us to refine our operational strategy and stay competitive.

Pavlo U

What do you like best?

The company's dedication to understanding our needs for collecting competitor data was exemplary. Their methodology for extracting complex data sets was methodical and precise. What impressed me most was their adaptability and collaboration with our team, ensuring the data was relevant and actionable for our market analysis.

What do you dislike?

Finding a downside is challenging, as they consistently met our expectations and provided timely updates. If anything, I would have appreciated an even more detailed roadmap at the project's outset. However, this didn't hamper our overall experience.

Verified User in Computer Software

What do you like best?

GroupBWT excels at providing tailored data scraping solutions perfectly suited to our specific needs for competitor analysis and market research.

What do you dislike?

Given the complexity and customization of our project, we later decided that we needed a few additional sources after the project had started.

Verified User in Computer Software

What do you like best?

What we liked most was how GroupBWT created a flexible system that efficiently handles large amounts of data. Their innovative technology and expertise helped us quickly understand market trends and make smarter decisions.

What do you dislike?

The entire process was easy and fast, so there were no downsides.

Inga B.

What do you like best?

Their deep understanding of our needs and how to craft a solution that provides more opportunities for managing our data. Their data solution, enhanced with AI features, allows us to easily manage diverse data sources and quickly get actionable insights from data.

What do you dislike?

It took some time to align the a multi-source data scraping platform functionality with our specific workflows. But we quickly adapted and the final result fully met our requirements.

Catherine I.

What do you like best?

It was incredible how they could build precisely what we wanted. They were genuine experts in data scraping; project management was also great, and each phase of the project was on time, with quick feedback.

What do you dislike?

We have no comments on the work performed.

Susan C.

What do you like best?

GroupBWT is the preferred choice for competitive intelligence through complex data extraction. Their approach, technical skills, and customization options make them valuable partners. Nevertheless, be prepared to invest time in initial solution development.

What do you dislike?

GroupBWT provided us with a solution to collect real-time data on competitor micro-mobility services so we could monitor vehicle availability and locations. This data has given us a clear view of the market in specific areas, allowing us to refine our operational strategy and stay competitive.

Pavlo U

What do you like best?

The company's dedication to understanding our needs for collecting competitor data was exemplary. Their methodology for extracting complex data sets was methodical and precise. What impressed me most was their adaptability and collaboration with our team, ensuring the data was relevant and actionable for our market analysis.

What do you dislike?

Finding a downside is challenging, as they consistently met our expectations and provided timely updates. If anything, I would have appreciated an even more detailed roadmap at the project's outset. However, this didn't hamper our overall experience.

Verified User in Computer Software

What do you like best?

GroupBWT excels at providing tailored data scraping solutions perfectly suited to our specific needs for competitor analysis and market research.

What do you dislike?

Given the complexity and customization of our project, we later decided that we needed a few additional sources after the project had started.

Verified User in Computer Software

What do you like best?

What we liked most was how GroupBWT created a flexible system that efficiently handles large amounts of data. Their innovative technology and expertise helped us quickly understand market trends and make smarter decisions.

What do you dislike?

The entire process was easy and fast, so there were no downsides.

How We Turn Reporting Needs into a Warehouse Design

GroupBWT works out the design with the people who know your source systems, reporting definitions, and security requirements best. We agree the scope and review criteria before detailed modeling. Your team validates business meaning; our architects and engineers specify how the warehouse should represent it.

01/03

Requirements and Source Review

First we look at the reports you need supported, then at the available schemas, representative records, and access constraints. That tells us which issues are genuine design problems and which only rest on assumptions nobody has confirmed. For the structure alone, schemas will do. For data behavior and workload decisions, we'd much rather see sample data and representative queries.

Architecture and Model Development

The architecture, the analytical models, and the source mappings all move forward together. Why? A reporting definition is no use once it's cut loose from its source data. We discuss alternatives where they affect history, integration complexity, or platform use. Conflicting definitions? Those go to a review with your technical and business stakeholders and get settled there, before pipelines or reports can inherit them.

Design Checks Before Handover

We walk the proposed models and mappings through each agreed reporting scenario, as far as the evidence available for review allows. Along with the agreed specifications, you get the design decisions, dependencies, and unconfirmed assumptions written down. Your engineers get what they need for the next stage. Performance testing on a running warehouse comes later, in implementation and testing, so we don't claim it as a design result.
01/03
blog-articles-bg-purple

FAQ

What do you hand over at the end?

It depends on the scope we agree. The package can mix architecture diagrams, logical and physical models, source mappings, and access or quality specifications. You decide with us how deep each one goes, before the work begins. You also get the assumptions and decisions that will matter when someone builds it. None of it replaces engineering work. It just makes the build clearer for your engineers.

Can the design change if our platform stays?

Yes. The parts that need revising get our DWH design solutions, and the rest of your warehouse stays as it is. How much? That’s for after we’ve seen your models, source dependencies, and reporting requirements. Certain issues can be fixed inside your current platform. Others won’t go away without a broader change to the architecture. The review tells you which is which, so nobody assumes a full rebuild from day one.

Can our own engineers implement the design?

They can. The agreed design is what they’d build against. Our part is writing the specifications they’ll need. We also pull them into technical reviews, because that’s where platform constraints come up early. Any support during development is agreed separately. Buying the design doesn’t commit you to a full implementation project.

How do you estimate a design project?

First, your sources. A few similar sources make for a lighter lift than lots of systems that all disagree. Modeling is the next thing we size up, along with what your historical data has to support. Security boundaries and validation depth weigh in too. If documentation exists and your source specialists can answer questions quickly, there’s less work to do. Our estimate comes once we’ve looked at those inputs and pinned down the scope. A limited model revision and a new multi-source architecture should not carry the same assumed schedule.

Can you also handle implementation?

We can. Implementation gets its own scope, agreed separately after design. Once you’ve got the architecture and the rules, design’s done. Pipeline building counts as implementation in our book, and so do environment setup and warehouse deployment. Then come testing and operational support, which have separate responsibilities and acceptance criteria. We spell each stage out up front. That way nobody mistakes a design estimate for what a complete production system will cost or how long it will take.

background