Here’s a brutal truth: managing BI without ALM is like building a skyscraper with Jenga blocks. It all looks fine—until someone breathes on it.

Here’s what this video will give you: first, how to treat Power BI models as code, second, how Git actually fits BI work, and third, how pipelines save you from late-night firefighting. Think of it as moving from duct tape fixes to a real system.

We’re not here to act like lone heroes; we’re here to upgrade our team’s sanity. Want the one‑page starter checklist? Subscribe or grab the newsletter at m365 dot show.

And before we talk about solutions, let’s face the core mess that got us here in the first place.

Stop Emailing PBIX Files Like It’s 2015

Stop emailing PBIX files around like it’s still 2015.

Picture this: it’s Monday morning, you open your inbox, and three different PBIX files land—each one proudly labeled something like “Final_V2_UseThisOne.” No big deal, just grab the most recent timestamp, right? By lunchtime you’ve got five more versions, two of them shouting “THIS ONE” in all caps, and one tragic attempt called “Final_FINAL.” That’s not version control. That’s digital roulette. Meanwhile, you’re burning hours just figuring out which file is “real” while silently hoping nobody tweaked the wrong thing in the wrong copy.

On paper, firing PBIX files around by email or Teams looks easy. One file, send it over, done. Except it never works that way. Somebody fixes a DAX measure, another person reworks a relationship, and a third adds their “quick tweak.” None of them know the others did it. Eventually all these edits crash together, and your so-called “production” report looks like Frankenstein—body parts stitched until nothing fits. And when things break, you’re left asking why half the visuals won’t even render anymore.

The real danger isn’t just messy folders. It’s the fact you can lose days of work in one overwrite. That polished report you built last week? Gone—replaced by a late-night hotfix someone dropped into “Final.pbix.” Now you’re not analyzing, you’re redoing yesterday’s work while cursing into your coffee. It feels like two people trying to edit the same Word doc offline, hand-merging every edit, then forgetting who changed what. And suddenly you’re back in that Bermuda Triangle of PBIX versions with no exit ramp.

Here’s a better picture: imagine ten people trying to co-author a PowerPoint deck—but not in OneDrive. Everyone has their own laptop copy, they all email slides around, and pray the gods of Outlook somehow keep it consistent. Kim’s pie chart is slotting into slide 8 on her version but slide 12 in Joe’s. Someone else pastes “final numbers” into totals that already changed twice. Everyone pretends it’ll come together in the end, but you know it’s cursed. Power BI isn’t any different—PBIX files don’t magically merge, they fracture.

And yes, the cost is real. Teams I’ve worked with flat out admit they waste hours untangling this. Not because BI is impossible, but because someone worked off a stale file and buried the “real one” in their desktop folder. Instead of delivering insights, these teams run detective shifts—who changed which table, who overwrote which visual, and why the version sent Friday doesn’t match the one uploaded Monday. Business intelligence becomes business archaeology.

Of course, some teams argue it’s fine: “We’re small, email works. Only two or three of us.” Okay, but reality check—at two people it might limp along for a while. Do a quick test: both of you edit the same PBIX in parallel for a single sprint. Count how many hours get wasted reconciling or fixing conflicts. My bet? Enough that you’ll never say “email works” again. And the second your team grows, someone takes PTO, or worse—someone experiments directly in production because deadlines—everything falls apart.

Look, software dev solved this problem ages ago. Treat your assets like code. Put them somewhere structured. Track every single change. Why are BI teams still passing PBIX files back and forth like chain emails your grandma forwards? The file-passing era isn’t collaboration, it’s regression.

So let’s call it what it is: emailing PBIX files isn’t teamwork, it’s sabotage with a subject line. The only way out is to stop treating PBIX as a sacred artifact and start thinking of your model as code. That mental shift means better history, cleaner teamwork, and fewer nights spent piecing together ten mismatched “Final” files.

So: stop passing PBIX. Next: how to treat the model like code so Git can actually help.

Treating Power BI Models Like Real Code

Now let’s talk about the shift that actually changes everything: treating Power BI models like real code.

Think about it. That PBIX file you’ve been guarding like it’s the last donut in the office fridge? It’s one giant sealed box. You know it changed, but you have zero visibility into *what* changed, *when*, or *who touched it*. That’s because PBIX is stored in a single file format that Git treats like a blob—so out of the box, you don’t get meaningful diffs, just “yep, the file is different.” That’s as helpful as someone telling you your car “looks louder than yesterday.”

This is why so many teams shove a PBIX into Git, stare at the repo, and wonder why nothing useful shows up. Git’s not broken, it’s blind. It can’t peek inside that binary-like package to tell you a DAX measure was renamed or a relationship got nuked. To Git, every version looks like the same sealed jar.

So what’s the workaround? You split the jar open. Instead of leaving the entire model locked in that one file, you pull out the stuff that matters—tables, measures, roles, relationships—and represent them as plain text. There are tools that can extract model definitions into text-based artifacts. Once you’ve done that, Git suddenly understands. Now a commit doesn’t just say “the PBIX moved.” It reads like: “Measure SalesTotal changed from SUM to AVERAGE,” or “Added relationship between Orders and Products.” That difference—opaque blob versus readable text—is the foundation for real collaboration.

If you want a quick win that proves the point: in the next 20 minutes, take one dataset, export just a piece of its model into a text format, and drop it into a trial Git repo. Make one tiny edit—change a DAX expression or add a column—and check what Git shows in the diff. Boom. You’ll see the exact change, no detective work, no guessing game. That little test shows the value before you roll this out across an entire team.

Once your model looks like code, the playbook opens up. Dev teams live by ideas like branching and merging, and BI teams can borrow that without selling their souls to Visual Studio. Think of a branch as your own test kitchen—you get your space, your ingredients, and you can experiment without burning the restaurant menu. When you’re ready, merge brings the good dishes back into the main menu, ideally after someone else tastes it and says, “yeah, that actually works.” The explicit takeaway: branch for safety, merge after review. It’s not a nerd ceremony; it’s just insurance against wrecking the main file.

The usual pushback is, “But my BI folks don’t code. We don’t want to live in a terminal.” Totally fair. And the good news is—you don’t have to. Treating models like code doesn’t mean learning C# at midnight. It just means the things you’re already doing—editing DAX, adding relationships, adjusting tables—get logged in a structured format. You still open Power BI Desktop. You still click buttons. The difference is your changes don’t vanish into a mystery file—they get tracked like real work with proper accountability.

And when that happens, the daily pain points start to disappear. Somebody breaks a measure? Roll it back without rolling back the whole PBIX. Need to know who moved your date hierarchy? The log tells you—no Teams witch hunt required. Two people building features at the same time? Possible, because you’re not stomping on the same single file anymore. The entire BI cycle goes from “fragile file juggling” to “auditable, reversible, explainable changes.”

Bottom line: treating models as code isn’t about making BI folks pretend to be software engineers. It’s about giving teams a structure where collaboration is safe, progress is reversible, and chaos isn’t the default state of work. That’s the foundation you need before layering on heavier tools.

And since we’re talking about structure, there’s one system that’s been giving developers this kind of safety for years but makes BI folks nervous just saying the name. It’s not glamorous, and most avoid it like they avoid filing taxes. But it’s exactly the missing piece once your models are text-based.

Git: The Secret Weapon for BI Teams

Git: the so‑called scary tool that everyone thinks belongs to hoodie‑wearing coders in dark basements. Here’s the reality—it’s not mystical, it’s not glamorous, and it’s exactly the kind of history book BI teams have been missing. If you’ve ever wanted a clean log that tells you who changed what, when it happened, and why—it was built for that. The only reason it ever felt “not for BI” is because we’ve been trapped in PBIX land. Once your model is extracted into text, Git isn’t some alien system anymore. It’s just the ledger we wish we had back when “Final_v9.pbix” came crashing through our inbox.

The common pushback goes something like this: “PBIX files aren’t code, so why bother with Git?” That’s developer tunnel vision talking. Git doesn’t care whether you’re storing C#, JSON, or grocery lists—it just tracks change. If you’ve extracted your BI model into text artifacts, Git can store every line, log every tweak, and show you exactly what changed. Stop treating Git like a club you need a comp‑sci membership to join. It’s more like insurance: cheap, reliable, and a lifesaver when someone nukes the wrong measure on a Friday afternoon.

Think of Git as turning on track changes in a Word doc—except instead of one poor soul doing all the editing, everyone on your team gets their own copy, their own sandbox, and then the tool lines those changes up. Once you see history and collaboration actually work, it’s hard to imagine going back to guess‑and‑check folder chaos. That’s the upgrade BI needs most.

Now—let’s cut to the three features that matter for BI. First, history. Git keeps a complete record of who changed what. So when Jeff swears he didn’t touch the DAX measure that broke everything, you can pull the log and say, “Nice try, Jeff. Tuesday, 2:11 p.m.—and here’s exactly what you changed.” One small pro tip: don’t just commit blindly. On your next commit, include a clear message and a ticket number if your team uses one. That small habit makes the history actually useful when you’re tracing back a bad calculation months later.

Second, branching. Branching is basically your personal workshop. You create a branch, test your wild idea, break things to your heart’s content—and it doesn’t tank production. The main branch stays safe while you experiment. Then comes merging. When your model is text‑based, Git can compare your branch to the main branch, highlight the exact lines that changed, and attempt to stitch them together. Just to be clear: Git can merge text‑extracted artifacts, but conflicts are still possible. When they happen, you’ll need to review them before merging fully. This isn’t magic automation; it’s automation with guardrails.

Let’s ground this in a real situation. Two analysts are working on the same dataset. One is building new KPIs; the other is restructuring relationships. Without Git, this turns into a head‑to‑head collision over who gets to upload the “real” PBIX. With Git, both have branches. Both do their work without stepping on each other. When they’re ready, Git merges the updates, flags any true conflicts, and preserves both sets of contributions. A fight that used to be guaranteed is reduced to a quick review and a single merge commit. That’s what collaboration should look like.

But here’s the catch—you can’t just toss binary PBIX files into Git and expect miracles. Git will shrug and tell you the file changed, but not how. That’s why exporting the guts into a text‑friendly format is critical. Once you do, Git becomes the backbone of your BI process rather than a useless middleman.

What you get back is huge. A transparent log of every change. The ability to roll back a bad commit without endless detective work. A sandbox where ideas can live without wrecking production. It creates a system where innovation and safety actually co‑exist—a place where fixing a mistake is boring instead of catastrophic.

And speaking of useful—if this is already saving your team tickets, drop a sub now. I’ve got a one‑page Git starter checklist waiting on the newsletter at m365 dot show. It’s the fastest way to get the basics right the first time so your Git repo doesn’t turn into its own problem child.

So yeah, goodbye to mystery files and overwrites, and hello to clean, visible history. With Git, collaboration looks less like file roulette and more like a structured, traceable process. Which brings us to the next big hurdle—the step everyone dreads even more than file chaos. Once the work is ready, how do you move it into production without that gut‑drop moment where you’re praying dashboards don’t collapse? Let’s talk about that next.

From Chaos to Pipelines: Deploy Like a Pro

Deployments are where most BI projects either shine or explode. You know the drill—you’ve spent weeks building changes, now it’s time to get them into production, and suddenly you’re hovering over “Publish” like it’s the launch key for a nuke. One click and maybe everything works fine. Or maybe you just turned off half the dashboards in the company. That’s not deployment; that’s gambling with corporate data.

Most BI teams are still running on the coin-flip model. Someone tweaks a dataset, smashes “Publish,” and hopes the damage isn’t too bad. Sometimes the break is tiny—a measure pointing the wrong totals. Sometimes it’s catastrophic—you overwrite the live dataset and watch ten downstream reports crumble in real time. Either way, you’re wasting hours fixing disasters that never should’ve happened in the first place. That’s why structured pipelines exist.

Power BI offers deployment pipelines—or if you’re in a different setup, you can model the same idea with workspaces. The point isn’t the exact tool; it’s the principle. You build in development, validate in test, then promote into production. It’s moving from wild-west “publish directly” to controlled, stage-by-stage promotion. You don’t yank live wires with your bare hands—you run them through a breaker box, so if something shorts, you don’t set the whole building on fire.

With dev, test, and prod stages, everyone knows where the work belongs. In dev, you can experiment freely without nuking end-user dashboards. In test, you load data, run validation checks, and confirm the visuals don’t crash. Only after everything looks clean do you promote it into production. Guardrails instead of chaos, and all it takes is sticking to stages and checking work where failure won’t cause panic.

Here’s what it looks like in practice. Let’s say your team builds ten new measures and restructures key relationships. Without a pipeline, you either jam it straight into prod and cross your fingers, or spend hours manually validating screenshots and double-checking totals. With a pipeline, the workflow is clean: merge your branch into main, pipeline picks it up, test it against sample data, and when the numbers align, you trigger one button—promote it forward. That same package, already validated, lands in production untouched by human error.

And here’s a mitigation step you can take right now—even if you’re not ready to automate everything. At minimum, snapshot your production dataset and tag the corresponding Git commit before you publish. That gives you a rollback point. If the new version goes sideways, you can revert and restore instead of pulling a week-long forensic dive through folders trying to reconstruct the “last good” file.

When you’re ready to wire it into automation, you can even tie it into basic CI/CD behavior. Push into main, pipeline automatically moves the package into test, then require human sign-off before anything reaches production. It’s not a full-blown developer pipeline—it’s just a straightforward check that lowers risk without slowing delivery. You keep speed, but you don’t roll live changes on blind trust.

And no—setting this up is not an endless project. It takes a session or two to wire the first pipeline correctly. After that? It’s maintenance-free compared to firefighting broken dashboards. One setup session versus repeated hours rebuilding reports and patching hotfixes. The trade-off is so obvious it barely counts as a decision.

Once it’s in place, you gain repeatability. Every change follows the same flow. Everyone understands the stages. Nobody’s sneaking PBIX copies into prod after 5 p.m. just to meet their deadlines. Deployments stop being nerve-wracking “pray and spray” events and instead become mechanical, boring in the best way possible. Test, promote, done.

And the benefits add up. Pipeline history aligns with Git history. Promotions tie back to specific commits. You know when, how, and by who something reached production. Audits are simpler. Recoveries are faster. And your team stops wasting energy fixing last night’s self-inflicted wounds.

The question then becomes—once your deployments are repeatable and safe, how do you keep track of *why* changes were made in the first place? Because version history tells you what changed. Pipelines tell you how it got deployed. But context—the business reason—often disappears. That gap leads to the next problem we need to tackle.

Connecting the Dots: Tickets, Tracking, and Teamwork

Here’s the part teams forget: version control and pipelines keep changes clean, but they don’t explain the reason behind those changes. And without that context, you’re still left blank when somebody asks, “Why does the report look different today?” That’s where tickets, tracking, and actual teamwork plug the last gap.

Think about it—developers push commits, pipelines promote them, dashboards update. Technically, the system runs fine. But unless you tie those technical changes to a business need, you’re working blind. Maybe that sales measure was updated because Finance demanded fiscal weeks. Or maybe someone fat-fingered a column and fixed it in a panic. Without a tracking trail, both look the same in Git: one small edit. And six months later, nobody remembers what the real story was. That’s not just frustrating; it’s operational amnesia.

We’ve all been in the hot seat with this. Some VP barges in, points at a chart, and asks why last quarter’s margins don’t match what they saw today. You scroll through logs, find “Updated measure,” and realize the log just raised more questions than it answered. You know who made the change. You know when it happened. But you can’t tell them why. And without the why, you might as well be guessing during a budget review.

The reality is this: fixing a metric without documenting the reason is like patching a leaky pipe and throwing away the blueprint. Sure, the water runs again. But when the next tech opens the wall in a year, they’ve got no idea what happened or why, and they’ll end up ripping apart the wrong section. That’s what happens when BI work isn’t tied to a ticket. The patch is there, but the blueprint—the reasoning—is gone.

The grown-up move here is simple: link changes directly to a ticket system. Use whatever system your org already has—as long as it connects the request to the commit. Could be Jira, Azure DevOps, ServiceNow, or even Planner. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is consistency. Every Git commit, every pull request, and every promotion should point back to an ID that explains the business reason.

And here’s the micro-action to make it work: adopt a commit message convention. Something like “TICKET‑123: short summary.” Then require pull requests to reference that ticket. Now, when changes move through Git and into pipelines, anyone can click straight back to the request. Git tells you what changed. The ticket tells you why. Only together do you get the full picture.

The benefits are immediate. First, traceability is finally complete. You don’t just see the technical diff—you see the business request that caused it. Second, communication gets better. Analysts know which business problem they’re solving, managers can stop sending midnight texts asking who touched what, and business teams can check tickets instead of treating reports like suspicious lottery numbers. Everyone speaks through the same tracking system.

Here’s another win: compliance. For audits, you don’t need to dump screenshots or dig out old emails. You show the commit, you show the ticket, and you’re done. That’s plain evidence any reviewer understands—who changed what, when, and for what business reason. Reviews that usually sprawl into days get cut down to a quick trace between ticket and log. That’s governance people actually respect, because it’s both practical and provable.

The shift also rebuilds trust. Without proper tracking, BI teams stay in perpetual mystery mode—stakeholders assume the numbers are shady because the process is shaky. But once tickets connect every change to a business reason, accountability is visible. Every request leaves a digital footprint. Every edit has a clear justification. Suddenly, BI stops looking like backroom tinkering and starts looking like a professional operation.

And that’s the graduation point we’ve been working toward. With source control you know what changed, with Git you know when, pipelines tell you how, and ticketing captures why. Put all of that together, and you’re no longer juggling PBIX files—you’re running BI under real DevOps guardrails. It’s not overkill, it’s the bare minimum for scaling without chaos.

So the next time you wonder if ticketing is worth the hassle, remember the VP with the red face and the broken chart. Tracking commits to real requests is how you stop being the fall guy and start being the team that delivers with proof.

And with that, let’s zoom out. We’ve talked about version chaos, scaffolding models like code, branching safely, structured deployments, and tickets closing the loop. What do all those pieces really buy you at the end of the day? That’s the final truth we need to land on.

Conclusion

Here’s the blunt truth: ALM for BI isn’t about turning you into a coder—it’s about keeping your sanity. When updates are tracked, logged, and promoted through a structured flow, you stop firefighting broken files and start scaling without chaos. No mystery versions. No “who broke the chart.” Just a system that works.

Three takeaways to lock in:

* Treat models as code.

* Use Git for history.

* Enforce pipelines and ticket links.

Subscribe at m365 dot show or follow the M365.Show LinkedIn page for expert livestreams. Want the one‑page starter checklist? Newsletter’s at m365 dot show—link in description. Practical fixes, not PowerPoint fluff.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit m365.show/subscribe