tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80097986570726208732024-03-13T17:01:12.696-07:00Business Intelligence Now and the FutureObservations from a Business Intelligence, Analytics and Performance Management Evangelist, Apologist, Futurist and GeekDale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-67047745307832305142011-09-01T13:37:00.000-07:002011-09-04T13:44:00.111-07:00We have moved<p> </p> <p>Everything changes, nothing stays the same. For me, it is on to the next phase of blogging. Now powered by Wordpress and with my own domain name.</p> <p>Continued comment, observation, opinion and prediction on the business of information but in a new place.</p> <p>From September 2011 it will be <a href="http://decisionhacker.com/">http://decisionhacker.com/</a> </p> <p>See you there.</p> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-35360688254657099582011-04-21T11:37:00.001-07:002011-04-28T08:12:52.247-07:00If only BI was as efficient as Facebook<p><strong><em><font size="4">BI, Facebook and Decision Loops</font></em></strong></p> <p><strong><em><font size="5">I</font></em></strong> was at an analysts briefing event with IBM last week who were sharing their thinking on Social Business and what I believe is the inspired and innovative pairing of Connections Collaboration and Cognos Business Intelligence. IBM’s Social Business Leader for Northern Europe, <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=654411&authType=name&authToken=woL4&trk=tyah">Jon Mell</a> shared a slide that compared the number of operations it takes to share a photo and gather feedback with friends on facebook and the number of operations it takes to do the same on email. </p> <p>This set my mind racing. If there are efficiency gains on something simple like sharing and getting feedback on a photo, imagine the productivity gains on sharing critical business information through Business Intelligence reports.</p> <p>Why do I say this? Because sharing a photo is typically a single ‘sharing loop’ process. Someone publishes the photo, others contribute with their clever and witty observations. Done. A single loop. Count ‘em. One. (A quote from Muppet Treasure Island, btw)</p> <p>The out-dated view of BI is that it is shared this way too. That it’s published and the job is done. This just doesn’t hold true any more and I am not sure it ever did. BI requires many sharing loops. Ten, distinct loops to be precise;</p> <ol> <li><strong>Meaning Loop. </strong>Gain and assign agreement on the <strong>meaning</strong> of the information </li> <li><strong>Implication Loop</strong>. Decide if the <strong>implication</strong> is neutral or if there is a problem or opportunity <li><strong>Investigation Loop. </strong> If there is an issue then it will be rare that the one piece of business intelligence will provide the full story. This loops is about <strong>investigating</strong> the problem or opportunity is in more detail. <li><strong>Solution Loop</strong>. Determine possible <strong>solutions</strong> to exploit the problem or resolve the problem <li><strong>Decision Loop. </strong>To<strong> </strong>decide on the best possible solution <li><strong>Action Loop. </strong>Once the solution is determined it will be broken down into tasks and assigned to individuals to be <strong>actioned</strong>. <li><strong>Progress Loop</strong>. Providing feedback on the <strong>progress</strong> of the solution <li><strong>Monitoring</strong> <strong>Loop. </strong>To determine if the solution has been successful or if the group need to return to refine the tasks or redo some loops. <li><strong>Conclusion Loop</strong>. Closure. Establish agreement that that there are no further actions and that the problem or opportunity is resolved. <li><strong>Celebration Loop. </strong>Acknowledge the support and contributions of those involved</li></ol> <p>That’s ten loops which means that if sharing a photograph on Facebook is more efficient than sharing it in the office using email, the productivity benefits of doing ‘real’ business are tenfold.</p> <p>There are those that are sceptical about Facebook styled social platforms in the office because they may waste time. The opposite is true. Organisations need social platforms, particularly for collaborative decision making. Without them, they are wasting time.</p> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-6184536709848947482011-04-16T06:46:00.001-07:002011-04-16T06:49:11.403-07:00Information Disconnection<p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_sET4bF7y1AU/TamdzlOlQVI/AAAAAAAAACg/8JaoDIBy3fM/s1600-h/image%5B11%5D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px 6px 0px 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; float: left; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" align="left" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_sET4bF7y1AU/Tamdz_bZV3I/AAAAAAAAACk/M6AV799uuQQ/image_thumb%5B7%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="145" height="101"></a></p> <h2>Organisational Decision Making</h2> <p>Organisational decision making is my current preoccupation. After all, as BI practitioners, this is at the heart of the value we bring to an organisation. If we aren’t improving decisions then I am not sure what we’re for.</p> <h2>Reach</h2> <p>In an earlier post, I talked about trashcan theory. This is the theory that describes organisations as a collection of people aware of problems, people that are aware of solutions but unaware of the problems and people that control the allocation of money and resources but are unaware of both the problems and the solutions. Good decisions are made when problems, solutions and effort are all aligned but if these things are jumbled up (like in a trashcan) then decisions might not only be poor but they can appear to be random. This provokes those that didn’t make the decision to ask “Why did they do that?” </p> <h2>Good Decisions also need Information</h2> <p>But good decision making needs information. Decisions without information can still be systematic. They can also be thorough with all possible outcomes discovered, debated and properly considered. Without information though, they are uninformed. In many situations experience, assumption and instinct can make a reasonable proxy for information but would you invest your own money this way? Given the choice of a well researched stock or one that a mate has a good feeling about where would you place a sum (large enough that it would hurt) of money? </p> <h2>Business Intelligence isn’t reaching decision makers</h2> <p>This is a bold statement but there is a worrying amount of evidence to support it. Depending on the survey BI is deployed to round 8% of the organisation. Knowledge workers make up between 30% and 45% of the labour force in developed economies, more depending on the definition. Not all knowledge workers need all information, of course, but the gap is significant. The ‘intelligence gap’ isn’t going to get better either. The volume of available data is growing exponentially. Last year we all generated 1.2 zettabytes (remember when ‘tera’ equalled ‘big’?) so as we congratulate ourselves on a job well done we also have to think about what we actually need to know from all of that stuff<sup>21</sup>. </p> <h2>Easier not to know?</h2> <p>Even more worrying is that decision makers are telling us that they know they are making decisions without information. In one study (Accenture, Competing Through Analytics) the suggestion is that 40% of major business decision are being made without reference to information from analytics applications. As a BI Practitioner it’s difficult to feel good about that number.</p> <h2>It’s all in there</h2> <p>In many cases, the information is actually available. In an earlier post, I used the UK retailer Boots (a business I have an immense amount of respect for) as an example. They launched what turned out to be hugely unprofitable ‘Wellbeing’ services because they had detected a slowdown in their core business. When they abandoned Wellbeing in favour of a return to their base beauty business they did so on the basis that their base beauty business was still growing. They absolutely, positively had that data all along. It was just disconnected from the decision.</p> <h2><font color="#ff0000">Just</font> disconnected</h2> <p>To say ‘just’ disconnected is to diminish the importance though. The emerging use of social business tools in organisations is going to make it possible, for the first time, to join up the decision making process and the information that informed it. It’s a tiny connection that can have a profound impact on the quality of decisions. That one single connection will make the decision more transparent, more open and more accountable in a way that the decision makers may need to think again and possibly even make a better decision.</p> <p>There it is. Better decisions. </p> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-60022891065305072082011-03-15T14:18:00.001-07:002011-03-20T13:13:23.430-07:00Decision Making Black Holes<p><img style="display: inline; float: right" align="right" src="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEBHEBgBeajGMUFHwVQZbUB9AYy1RhImfR4KsWKI4tpwfOx5AS&t=1" width="184" height="150"></p> <h4>A Funny Thing Happens at the Forum</h4> <p><font size="2">Meetings are one of the most common decision making ‘forums’ we are all regularly involved in. In fact one in five company meetings we take is to make a decision. As a way of making decisions though, they can be problematic. Once the meeting has concluded, the connection between information shared, decisions made and actions taken can be weak even lost. It’s as if the meeting itself were a decision making black hole.</font></p> <h4>Some Decisions are More Equal Than Others</h4> <p><font size="2">Some decision making meetings are impromptu for making a timely, tactical decision quickly. Others are regular, formal and arranged around the ‘drum beat’ or ‘cadence’ of a business to make more strategic decisions. The more strategic the decisions and longer term the impact the less frequent the forum so a Senior or Executive Management Team may only meet quarterly for a business review (QBR) </font></p> <h4>How a QBR ‘Rolls’</h4> <p><font size="2">A typical QBR will see Senior Managers sharing results in PowerPoint, possibly with financial results in spread-sheets which I would hope have at least been extracted from a Business Intelligence application.</font></p> <p><font size="2">If the SMT are reasonably well organised, they will summarise their conclusions and actions in meeting minutes. The meeting minutes will be typed up by an assistant in a word document and then distributed in email.<br><br>Throughout, they will all have been keeping individual notes so will walk out with these in their daybooks. The most senior manager in the room might not do this particularly if it’s their assistant who’s taking the minutes.<br><br>Later, actions from daybooks and minutes are likely transferred to individuals to-do lists and all follow-up will be conducted in email and phone calls.</font></p> <h4>An Implosion of Information, Conclusion and Decision</h4> <p><font size="2">So let’s recap. Critical decisions about how resources are going to be allocated will be discussed in a ‘QBR’ and yet the artefacts of this critical decision making forum are scattered into Word documents, excel spread-sheets, emails and outlook tasks. Tiny fragments of the discussion, information, conclusion, decisions and activities implode around the organisation. To be frank, the team are now only going to make progress because the forum was recent and can be relatively easily recalled.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Of course, once time or people move on so does the corporate memory of the decision. Conversations begin with ‘what did we agree to do about that cost over-run?’ or ‘why did we say we were ok with the revenue performance in Q1?’ </font></p> <h4>Executive Attention Deficit Syndrome</h4> <p><font size="2">Many executives complain of a syndrome that feels like ADS. This is because the more senior the manager the more things they will probably have to deal with at an increasingly superficial level. A functional head will probably spend no more than 15 minutes on any one thing. To productively make decisions they will need to be able to have the background, status and related information to hand so that they can deal with it quickly and move on to the next thing. Decision making black holes contribute to this feeling of EADS.</font></p> <h4>CDM and Corporate Memory</h4> <p><font size="2">Corporate Decision Making platforms will be successful when they connect;</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="2">Decisions</font> <li><font size="2">Information on which the decision was made</font> <li><font size="2">Insight derived from the information</font> <li><font size="2">Actions taken on the decision</font> <li><font size="2">Results of the actions </font></li></ul> <p><font size="2">This means total recall of corporate decisions good and bad so that, over time, decisions can be recalled, evaluated, re-used or improved. A far cry from current decision making forums which whilst functional are inherently flawed, fragmented and are not improving the timeliness and quality of decisions in our organisations.</font></p> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-16908574228766047292011-03-13T08:32:00.000-07:002011-03-15T13:20:47.930-07:00Collaborative Business Intelligence and Managing Agreement, Not Conflict<div style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><b>Before you Set Off</b></span></div> <table style="text-align: right; float: right; margin-left: 1em" class="tr-caption-container" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="text-align: center"><a style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; clear: left; margin-right: auto" href="http://www.videoarts.com/images/products/ABILENE.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://www.videoarts.com/images/products/ABILENE.jpg" width="200" height="112"></a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="text-align: center" class="tr-caption"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Home of the Paradox</span></td></tr></tbody></table> <p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Abilene, Texas seems to be an entirely reasonable place. Jessica Simpson (Daisy to Johnny Knoxville's Luke Duke) was born there and I understand that the museums are free during their monthly Artwalk event. There is even a Country and Western song about Abilene which, last time I checked, there isn't about my home town in Surrey. It seems unfair then, that the place has a whole paradox named after it. </span></p> <blockquote> <p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><font color="#4f81bd" size="4">“</font><em>Cohen contends that managing agreement is the single most pressing issue facing organisations today<font color="#4f81bd" size="4">”</font></em></span></p></blockquote> <p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">The Abilene paradox describes a particular problem with group decision making. and was introduced by a management expert, Jerry B Harvey, in his article The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.</span><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><br><b>The Long and Winding ...</b></span><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><b></b>In the article Jerry described something that happened when they were visiting family in Coleman Texas. The family were playing domino's on the porch and enjoying iced lemonade when Jerry's father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene, some 53 miles north, for dinner.</span><br><br>It was over a 100 degrees outside and Jerry really didn't like the idea of a 106 mile round trip in an old Buick without air conditioning but Jerry’s wife responded before he had time to say anything with, "Sounds like a great idea. Jerry felt out of step but thought he might still avoid it by adding ‘Sounds good to me … if your mother wants to go’. However, Jerry’s mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time".<br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">So, they were set. The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is is less than average. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><b>The Game of Recrimination</b></span><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">To be sociable and break the silence as they are cooling down after the ride, Jerry says ‘It was a great trip, wasn’t it’ Jerry’s mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Jerry’s wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." Jerry’s father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">The group then did what all groups do in these situations, they played the game of recrimination. No prizes, none of the time. When they couldn't identify a suitable culprit they sat back, puzzled and perplexed as to why they all decided to take a trip which none of them wanted to. They would actually all have preferred to stay on the porch and relax.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">We tend to think that the biggest challenge in organisational decision making is managing conflict but what the Abilene paradox describes is the difficulty in managing agreement. I’ll say that again … not managing conflict but dealing with decisions when we agree. It's absurd but then again, that is exactly what a paradox is.</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><br></span><br></p> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><b>Are we there yet?</b></span><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Cohen contends that managing agreement is the single most pressing issue facing organisations today.</span><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><br></span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">There are a number of psychological themes at play including what Cohen describes as Action Anxiety (the need to 'do something') and Fear of Separation (the need 'to be in agreement with the group').</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">However, at the core of avoiding the Paradox is communication. A lack of clarity about the intent of the group and the preference of the individuals. It should be really easy to avoid coming out of a meeting where everyone appeared to agree but individuals whisper 'that will never fly' but it isn't.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">The increasing adoption of collaborative decision making tools will, of course, introduce some hitherto unknown problems but they will provide an opaque forum for individuals to be clear about their views.</span><br><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Decision making forums where the contributions are considered, clear, balanced and accurately recorded are less likely to result in a 106 round trip in the heat. Of course, some of the issues are cultural but structured, collaborative decision making is an opportunity for;</span></div> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"></span> </div> <ul> <li> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"></span><b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><font color="#4f81bd">Clear and Considered Input</font>. </span></b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Interestingly one of the most potent techniques for getting individuals to put more thought into their contribution to a decision is to ask them to write it down. What's more it's on the record so they're committed.</span></div></li> <li> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><font color="#4f81bd">All Views Heard, None Drowned Out</font>. </span></b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">In a meeting you would think that we would all use the one mouth and two ears in proportion but that is not always the case. A CDM Forum means that all participants can record their view, everyone can be heard without interruption.</span></div></li> <li> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><font color="#4f81bd">One Memory of the Decision</font>. </span></b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">Take a look at your next meeting and everyone is making their own notes based on their own view of the meeting. If the meeting is facilitated and someone is recording the views of the group on a whiteboard then we see different behaviours. This is what CDM forums do too. </span></div></li></ul> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"></span> </div> <div style="text-align: left; margin-top: 4.32pt; unicode-bidi: embed; direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; vertical-align: baseline; language: en-gb; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; punctuation-wrap: simple"><b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span">The final mile</span></b><br><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="Apple-style-span"><b></b>So if you want to enjoy free art on the first Thursday of the month then Abilene is the place to be. However, if it's a hot and dusty day and you're enjoying the shade then before you set off check that the group really want to go, that everyone has been heard and is committed and finally that you have air conditioning.</span></div> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-18346153943787167102011-02-20T07:20:00.000-08:002011-03-15T13:32:52.078-07:00If the decisions are poor then BI is for nothing<h2> </h2> <h5>Good Decision/Bad Decision</h5> <p><img style="display: inline; float: right" align="right" src="http://www.good-decisions-bad-decisions.co.uk/images/goodbad.jpg" width="184" height="145">This has been something of a preoccupation for me of late. We spend much of our time debating the technologies. We invest valuable time in deciding if we should we go with mega-vendors (IBM, Oracle, SAP) or a challenger? We agonise over should it be cloud or on-premises, mart or warehouse, dimensional or relational? And it is all, frankly academic if the businesses is not making good decisions.<br><br>There is no shortage of material that try and make sense of why good people and great businesses make monumentally bad decisions. In the book '<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Think-Again-Leaders-Decisions-Happening/dp/1422126129">Thing Again</a>:Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions' by Sydney Finkelstein, Jo Whitehead and Andrew Cambell the focus is on the strategic decisions that have dramatic and highly visible consequences for the organisation.<br></p> <h5>Good People in Great Organisations Can Make Poor Decisions</h5> <p>An example is one of the UK's premier retailers Boots which enjoys one of the largest footfalls in the UK. Established in the 19th century, it is now a subsidiary of £20billion Alliance Boots. In September 1998, the Chief Executive, Steve Russell excitedly <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/boots-extracts-itself-from-lossmaking-dentistry-546360.html">announced</a> a range of healthcare offerings including dentistry, chiropody and laser hair removal. Five years later, the initiative had lost in the region of £100m and Boots needed to break open the piggy bank and look down the back of the sofa for another £50m just to close down the operation and convert that premier retail space back to being ... retail. It almost goes without saying that the changes were implemented by a new CEO, Richard Baker.<br><br>Apparently, one of the chief reasons for making the move into Healthcare services was that a slowdown in the Beauty business 'had been detected'. However a spokesman was later quoted in the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/boots-extracts-itself-from-lossmaking-dentistry-546360.html">Telegraph </a>as saying that 'they recognised that these areas are still growing strongly'.<br><br>Let's stop there for a second. Spotting trends in sales and revenue by product category is probably marketing and business 101. And even the most rudimentary business intelligence solution should be trending sales over time. Yet the trend in sales in a key category for Boots was diagnosed as slowdown and only a few months later as growth. Of course, the slowdown may have been a short-term blip but the point of trending is to smooth these out for the purpose of longer-term planning. And, the error in trending might be more understandable had it not been for the fact that the later growth was characterised as 'strong'.<br><br>Of course, I am not on the board of Boots and I have an advantage shared with all those analysts and commentator that put the boot (or should that be Boots) into Mr Russell ... hindsight. Indeed, it's a testimony to the strength of Boots as a high street giant that they can make major booboo's and still go on to survive and thrive.<br><br>And organisations are complex systems of individuals and interactions. Large organisations are very complex. This is why organisational decision making doesn't always stand up to the scrutiny of us as individuals who retrospectively try and apply the logic of rational decision making to such mistakes.</p> <h5>Garbage Can Theory</h5> <p>However, what my own experience tells me is that information is all too often disconnected from the decision. </p> <div style="margin: 0px">There is a theory of organisational decision making referred to as the '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen#Garbage_Can_Model">garbage can model</a>' ('rubbish bin model' to me) It points out that organisations comprise problems, people that can solve the problems and people that make the decisions. The model asserts that these three things are typically disconnected so that the successful application of all three things appears to be random. I would add one more to James G March and Johan Olsen's model ... information from which an informed decision can be made. Of course another variable makes successful decision making even more random.</div> <div style="margin: 0px"> </div> <div style="margin: 0px">The availability and application of the factors behind a well informed decision go some way in helping us understand why leaders with great track records in premier businesses make awful decisions. As practitioners in information solutions I would assert that it is time that we stop building islands of business intelligence and build systems that connect more closely with the people that make the decisions. I also need to find another high street chain that can help me with laser hair removal.</div> Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-30136207140967180842011-02-05T17:16:00.000-08:002011-02-05T17:16:38.317-08:00Traditional BI teams are missing the boat on social analyticsBeing a natural owl and not a lark, it takes something really important or deeply interesting to get me into the City for a 7.30 am breakfast meeting. Ed Thompson of Gartner speaking on how Sales, Marketing and Customer Services are making use of social media last week more than qualified.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div><div>The focus was not the usual 'if facebook were a country' hype but very much on how ordinary businesses are adapting to the world of social media and getting ahead through practical application of new and innovative solutions. Interestingly, the most common applications are brand monitoring and company watching in the form of B2B CRM and Competitive Intelligence. Sectors already adopting include Retail, Hi-Tech, Media and Consumer Goods businesses.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Insight came thick and fast but one thing that stood out was that IT are nowhere to be seen. This is, at least, partially because these are new solutions, usually cloud based and IT involvement isn't mandatory. However, with the internal department involved in less than 2 out of 10 initiatives, they are getting left behind. It could be argued that they only have themselves to blame. When I work with my customers and they tell me that a new server will take 15 weeks to build or that it will be 8 weeks before a new report will run for the first time then I find it difficult to side with the 'professionals'. Business cycles are getting shorter and shorter whilst IT surrounds themselves with processes and models designed to reduce risk, increase quality and security but that also kick delivery dates so far over the horizon that the business have stopped asking for help.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Those that are involved are busy defining standards, mandating architectures and generally slowing things down. My advice to IT departments, BI teams and competency centres involved in such activity is stop. Just stop.Things are moving quickly and by the time you have updated the version control on your feasibility study, it's out of date. Now is the time for adoption and execution (Ed's words not mine, btw) The business needs support in getting information on what their customers are saying about their products or the latest marketing campaign. The sales team want to identify reasons to pick up the phone and sell to their prospects and they want it embedded in their CRM systems and processes. Marketing want to understand what competitors are doing, if they are forming new partnerships, announcing new products and how the market is responding. All of this, delivered regularly and routinely, is becoming as critical as daily sales, fulfilment, basket analysis or the senior management team's dashboards.</div><div><br />
As information professionals we should be helping the business corral the world of social media and on-line content. We should be investing time in understanding the new challenges and opportunities that semantic and content analytics represent. We should also be embracing, experimenting and learning from the emerging technologies that address them. Most of all we should be adopting and implementing.<br />
<br />
</div><div>The growth of SaaS means that the business has a choice now. When it comes to social analytics the early adopters are looking at a range of vendors with innovative solutions that require no more implementation than adding a new bookmark. Then they are looking at their IT teams who are offering them a four page 'IT request approval' form. Where would you go?</div></div>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-18966188077354082232011-01-23T09:32:00.000-08:002011-01-23T09:45:04.724-08:00Death of the BI GeneralistI have fond memories of the 90s. I spent a fair amount of it being a 'Cognos Consultant' travelling the length and breadth of the UK being an expert in all things Cognos. There was a great sense of independence and autonomy. It was possible to pitch up at a new Client with 2 CDs (One for PowerPlay, one for Impromptu) and install the software on a handful of PCs on Monday morning and by Friday I would have interviewed for requirements, built a metadata model, cubes and reports and would be huddled around a desktop with the users putting the final touches to what I dared to call a BI application.<br />
<br />
It was the day of the renaissance BI Consultant, the Polymath. We all felt like experts from the time of we opened the jewel case to the point the user signed off their brand new Business Intelligence application.<br />
<br />
As much as I enjoyed this, I don't yearn after these as simpler times. The solutions we built were great and delivered real and incremental value. They didn't, however, have the breadth, depth and coverage as the best implementations today. These are deployed over the web to hundreds, sometimes thousands of users covering multiple business domains. Modern performance management solutions have bought together Sales, Marketing, Operations, Finance and the Senior Management Team together in ways that were less achievable perhaps even impossible ten years ago.<br />
<br />
There is a cost though. The range of skills required to deploy a modern BI (or Business Analytics) Application is broad. Take the individual that installs the software. What used to require a working knowledge of Windows and an installation manual now also needs an understanding of web servers, operating systems, virtualisation, application servers and security all in multiple flavours. It may also require systems management conversations to configure for fail-over and load-balancing in a way that wasn't required before because it wasn't possible. And whilst the internet means we are all effectively sharing a single network it stands to reason that it is important to understand all the different ways of communicating and processing on this single, global network.<br />
<br />
So far, we have only unwrapped the cellophane but things get really interesting when we get our hands on data. The possibilities for delivering value from the vast array of corporate data assets as improved dramatically but this means that they need to be integrated too. This required an in-depth understanding of relational and dimensional modelling techniques, databases sql and at least one ETL tool. Whilst there are some tools that simplify this process with tools and (usually) OLAP cubes, they are typically departmental in scale. Modern solutions may also required a mix of on-premises and cloud data and a mix of structured, and unstructured which increases the richness of the solution but also the number of things a developer needs to keep in their head.<br />
<br />
So where does this leave us? If you have a team of homogeneous 'BI Developers' then their skills may be too general. I am working with one client in an advisory capacity at the moment and they have one consultant that has implemented everything. He has been very successful too. However, their business, though, is of a size where he can wrap his arms around the requirement, the infrastructure and the data. He also has exceptional aptitude and is an outstanding consultant throwing herculean effort at their projects. For the rest of us mortals we need to divvy up the responsibilities.<br />
<br />
Many of my clients tend to do this across technical/systems, data and application. It's not the only way but works really well. The IS team pick up the install and maintenance of the application server environment, a data team create a single reporting database/data warehouse/marts and a BI team maintain metadata and the reporting application in all it's variants of reports, analysis, dashboards, scorecards etc.<br />
<br />
There are interesting implications for the modern, complex out-sourcing and off-shoring organisation. Another of my clients based in the City out-source their databases including data warehouse development. Because there is a cost each time they want to add a new data item for the purpose of BI they tended to try to resolve new requirements in metadata or the reporting application. Inevitably the quality of their solution deteriorated over time because they were not always extending or fixing in the right place. Eventually, the sticking plasters gave out and they were forced to back to first principles which had implications of cost and re-work.<br />
<br />
The more common issue is one of a shared design. Changes to data impact ETL, metadata, reports and the application. A new requirement might need to be changed in one or all of these places. Whilst usually a number of small and straightforward changes, they do need to applied consistently. To co-ordinate activity when the solution is expanded or enhanced there needs to be a common data model. In our experience this needs to be two models. One, a logical (and relational) model that represents the business data in a perfect and integrated world. Secondly a dimensional model that represents the data as the business see it in their reporting application through reports and metadata. These are surprisingly rare in our experience and usually not because they take a long time to draw (they don't) Our suspicion is that what makes these time consuming is the need for consensus. However, if there is no consensus then there is a risk that the solution is already flawed.<br />
<br />
So, a BI/Analytics solution cannot be built single-handedly. It requires a range of skills and it's difficult to be an expert in all of them. The generalist then is fading away and being replaced by a team and a shared design who can deploy solutions with greater reach and richness than when we could ever have believed a few short years ago.Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-14291792880076649372011-01-09T06:25:00.000-08:002011-01-11T06:57:47.635-08:00What 127 Hours Tells us About Social NetworksIn an interview this week for Mark Kermode's Film Review show, Danny Boyle made it clear that he used the success of Slumdog to make a film that might otherwise not have been made. To leverage the success of 2010 most acclaimed film is an indication that 127 hours is more than this years 'would you?' movie.<br />
<br />
For those few that have not yet heard about it, it is the true story of Aron Ralston who gets trapped under a boulder whilst canyoneering alone in Utah. The desperate measure that he takes to free himself is well documented so it is not giving anything away to say that he was trapped by his arm, he has a multi-tool (a really cheap one) and a little under 127 hours to debate if he should ... or should not.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Before, I go on you might be wondering what's the connection between BI and Social Networks let alone the connection between Danny Boyle's latest movie and Social Networks. Those that follow my posts and tweets will know that Social platforms interest me because I think they are changing the way we share and use information in business and will profoundly change the Business Analytics space over the coming years. A social platform has already made it into IBM Cognos 10 because these guys, again, are ahead of the game. Many don't see it yet because the original use of social platforms have trivialised their significance but it's there nonetheless.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Back to the connection. Aron Ralston, played by James Franco, is an all-American hero. He's young, fit, strong, intrepid and independent. He is good at what he does, he has spent a lot of time in his chosen wilderness and is able to navigate it with speed and ease. In fact, at one point in his story, he briefly but convincingly takes the role of park guide. The hopelessness of his literal and figurative fall takes a long time to sink in for our hero. Indeed, when it does dawn on him that he could have shared his hiking plan with his friends or family it wouldn't be exaggerating to call it an epiphany. It's clearly a powerful realisation for Aron that he's not a hero, he's an arse.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">There is a moment in the movie where Aron says 'thank you'. It's a strange moment. I don't want to give away why it is strange but if you see the movie, you will know why. For me, it was significant because he knew that if he made it home alive (which was still, by no means certain) then he would be changed forever. He would live the rest of his life in the knowledge that however strong, smart and experienced he was that those tiny connections we all make each day matter. Sometimes in small ways because it's just about about sharing. Sometimes in significant and surprising ways.<br />
<br />
For me, I am continually and pleasantly surprised by what I learn on the subjects of analytics, organisational leadership, productivity, start-ups and social media in my twitter stream. It's full of links to content that cover important ideas from solid thinkers. Admittedly none of them are life-saving but, at a stretch, a rare few might be described as life-changing. Each of them make a tiny but positive difference and sometimes someone in my network helps me (or me them) in a game changing way. </div>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-27259127496723097812010-11-25T10:35:00.000-08:002010-12-12T03:49:05.362-08:00Single version of the truth, philosophy or reality?We all hear this a lot. The purpose of our new (BI/Analytics/Data Warehouse) project is to deliver 'a single version of the truth'. In a project we are engaged with right now the expression is one version of reality or 1VOR. For UK boomers that will almost undoubtedly bring to mind a steam engine but I digress.<br />
<br />
I have to admit, I find the term jarring whenever I hear it because it implies something simple and attainable through a single system which is rarely the reality.<br />
<br />
In fact it's rarely attained causing some of our community to ponder on it's viability or even if it exists. Robin Bloor's <a href="http://www.dataintegrationblog.com/robin-bloor/is-there-a-single-version-of-the-truth/">'Is there a single version of the Truth'</a> and <a href="http://www.ocdqblog.com/home/beyond-a-single-version-of-the-truth.html">Beyond a single version of the truth</a> in the Obsessive Compulsive Data Quality blog are great examples.<br />
<br />
Much, on this subject, has been written by data quality practitioners and speaks to master data management and the desire, for example, for a single and consistent view of a customer. Banks often don't understand customers, they understand accounts and if the number of (err, for example Hotel Chocolat) home shopping brochures I receive is anything to go by then many retailers don't get it either. Personally I want my bank and my chocolatier to know when I am interacting with them. I'm a name, not a number, particularly when it comes to chocolate.<br />
<br />
This problem is also characterised by the tired and exasperated tone of a Senior Manager asking for (and sometimes begging for) a single version of the truth. This is usually because they had a 'number' (probably revenue) and went to speak to one of their Department Head about it (probably because it was unexpectedly low) and rather than spending time on understanding what the number means or what the business should do, they spent 45 minutes comparing the Senior Managers 'number' with the Department Heads 'number'. In trying to reconcile them, they also find some more 'numbers' too. It probably passed the time nicely. Make this a monthly meeting or a QBR involving a number of department heads and the 45 minutes will stretch into hours without any real insight from which decisions might have been made.<br />
<br />
This is partly about provenance. Ideally it came from a single system of record (Finance, HR) or corporate BI but it most likely came from a spreadsheet or even worse a presentation with a spreadsheet embedded in it.<br />
<br />
It's also about purity (or the addition of impurities, at least) It might have started pure but the department head or an analyst that works in their support and admin team calculated the number based on an extract from the finance system and possibly some other spreadsheets. The numbers were probably adjusted because of some departmental nuance. For example, if it's a Sales Team, the Sales Manager might include all the sales for a rep that joined part way through the year whilst Finance left the revenue with the previous team.<br />
<br />
It will be no comfort (or surprise) to our Senior Manager that it is also a Master Data Management problem too. Revenue by product can only make sense if everyone in the organisation can agree the brands, categories and products that classify the things that are sold. Superficially this sounds simple but even this week I have spoken with a global business that is launching a major initiative, involving hundreds of man hours to resolve just this issue.<br />
<br />
It's also about terminology. We sacrifice precision in language for efficiency. In most organistions we dance dangerously around synonyms and homonyms because it mostly doesn't catch us out. Net revenue ... net of what? And whilst we are on the subject ... revenue. Revenue as it was ordered, as it was delivered, as it was invoiced and as it is recognised according to GAAP rules in the finance system. By the way does your number include credit notes? And this is a SIMPLE example. Costs are often centralised, allocated or shared in some way and all dependent on a set of rules that only a handful of people in the finance team really understand.<br />
<br />
Finally, it's about perspective. Departments in an organisation often talk about the same things but mean subtly different things because they have different perspectives. The sales team mean ordered revenue because once someone has signed hard (three copies) their job is done whilst the SMT are probably concerned about the revenue that they share with the markets in their statutory accounts.<br />
<br />
So is a single version of the truth philisophy? Can it really be achieved? The answer is probably that there are multiple versions of the truth but they are, in many organisations, all wrong. Many organisations are looking at different things with differing perspectives and they are ALL inaccurate.<br />
<br />
A high performing organisations should be trying to unpick these knots, in priority order, one at a time. Eventually they will be able to look at multiple versions of the truth and understand their business from multiple perspectives. Indeed the differences between the truth's will probably tell them something they didn't know from what they used to call 'the single version of the truth'.Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-92155614309678085352010-11-05T11:00:00.000-07:002010-11-05T11:00:50.844-07:00Five Cloud MythsI know, this is a BI Blog, not a Cloud Blog but the Cloud is affecting everything and whilst BI in the Cloud will be difficult, it's journey from on-premises to cloud might be long but ... it is inevitable.<br />
<br />
In any case, I have heard and would like to dispel the following five myths that I have heard at least once in the last few weeks.<br />
<br />
Myth 1. Cloud will Dis-intermediate<br />
I remember a keynote presentation from a presenter I deeply respected on the explosion of the web and how it would bring about dis-intermediation. The logic was sound. Consumers can connect directly with providers so the need for brokers, intermediaries and miscellaneous third parties appeared to be unnecessary. The growth of cloud computing has caused some to predict the same and yet a cursory glance of the services on offer will demonstrate there is no reduction in intermediaries or intermediation opportunity. If a service, offering or product will make things easier for a consumer then they will buy it. It might be comparison, consolidation or simply cheaper prices but if you can add something and make the connection painless then you can come to the party and make money for adding value.<br />
<br />
Myth 2. Cloud is Bad for Services<br />
With infrastructure issues 'solved' and the availability of commodity services that fix common problems like tax and currency exchange calculations some are suggesting that the opportunity for consulting provision will diminish. My educated response to this is 'yeah right' I have yet to meet the business that has solved all the issues and is not looking for any more innovation to reduce cost or get a competitive leg-up. If the simple things are going to get solved in one place then fantastic, we can all move on to innovating and adding real value. We're all tired of solving the same problems so let's get the solutions in the cloud and build some real innovation on top of them.<br />
<br />
Myth # 3. Cloud Means Blue Sky<br />
Hmm. Cloud encourages a lot of blue sky thinking. But there are few businesses starting with a clean sheet (if you will pardon the mixed metaphor) There are on-premises systems to integrate, proprietary solutions that will not leave the office without a fight and that's without thinking about how difficult Cloud BI can be given that it involves the complex integration of what is often large volumes of data. And multi-tenanted solutions need everyone to play nicely so those queries from hell need to be reigned in or it stays on-premises.<br />
<br />
Cloud is (like Performance Management) a journey that needs careful planning whilst delivering improvements along the way.<br />
<br />
Myth # 4. Cloud is ASP<br />
This is usually suffixed with the phrase 'but marketed differently'. Of course, it has some commonality with the principles of application service provision but to dismiss it as 'the same as' is to miss the point as profoundly as Cloud will change our industry.<br />
<br />
Myth #5. Cloud is a Fad<br />
Actually Myth #4 is often rolled out as 'evidence' of just how faddish Cloud is. In fact Cloud is having an impact on all system wherever it is physically located. Users now expect their systems in the office to be as easy to use and visually appealing as the web sites they use at home. In fact they do both in both locations. Cloud has also set the expectation that all systems will be available on all devices. It's not mobile or desktop anymore, it's a range of devices.<br />
<br />
As final evidence that Cloud is not a fad, it's clear to me that to be a successful cloud vendor, like Salesforce, then you have to continue to show value month after month or your users will go elsewhere. As Phil Wainewright, CEO of Procullux Ventures put's it ... software used to be a holiday romance but cloud requires a long-term relationship. If that means I am married to Marc Benioff then I might need to re-think the analogy but there is no doubt that Cloud vendors need to play the long game.Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-18529980308107138322010-10-24T10:44:00.000-07:002010-10-24T11:02:33.058-07:00Too many choices for the modern analytics Solution Architect<div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We analytics practitioners have always had the luxury of alternatives to the RDBM as part of our data architectures. OLAP of one form or another has been providing what one of my colleagues calls ‘query at the speed of thought’ for well over a decade. However, the range of options available to a solutions architect today is bordering on overwhelming.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First off, the good old RDBMS offers hashing, materialised views, bitmap indexes and other physical implementation options that don’t really require us to think too differently about the raw SQL. The columnar database and implementations of it in products like <a href="http://www.sybase.co.uk/products/datawarehousing/sybaseiq">Sybase IQ</a> are another option. The benefits are not necessarily obvious. We data geeks always used to think the performance issues where about joining but then the smart people at <a href="http://www.infobright.com/land/PPC_columnar1.html?_kk=infobright&_kt=c989e680-8f62-451e-82f4-138edac7c44c&gclid=CNvO657pxqQCFWIA4wodKXuoUQ">InfoBright</a>, <a href="http://www.vertica.com/verticadatabase?_kk=kickfire&_kt=93199f44-8198-4e8d-85d5-8a6ee6e3086d&gclid=COL1irfpxqQCFdD92Aod4VBPDw">Kickfire</a> et al told us that shorter rows are the answer to really fast queries on large data volumes. There is some sense in this given that disk i/o is an absolute bottleneck so less columns means less redundant data reading. The Oracle and Microsoft hats are in the columnar ring (if you will excuse the mixed geometry and metaphor) with Exadata 2 and Gemini/Vertipaq so they are becoming mainstream options.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Data Warehouse appliances are yet another option. The combined hardware, operating systems and software solution usually using massively parallel (MPP) deliver high performance on really large volumes. And by large we probably mean Peta not Tera. Sorry NCR, Tera just doesn’t impress anyone anymore. And whilst we are on the subject of Teradata, it was probably one of the first appliances but then NCR strategically decided to go open shortly before the data warehouse appliance market really opened up. The recent IBM acquisition of <a href="http://www.netezza.com/">Netezza</a> and the presence of Oracle and NCR is reshaping what was once considered niche and special into the mainstream. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We have established that the absolute bottleneck is disk i/o so in memory options should be a serious consideration. There are in-memory BI products but the action is really where the data is.Databases include <a href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/timesten/overview/index.html">TimesTen</a> (now Oracle’s) and IBM’s <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/soliddb/">solidDB</a>. Of course, <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/products/tm1/">TM1</a> fans will point out that they had in-memory OLAP when they were listening to Duran Duran CD’s and they would be right. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The cloud has to get a mention here because it is changing everything. We can’t ignore those databases that have grown out of the need for massive data volumes like Google’s BigTable, Amazon’s RDS and Hadoop. They might not have been built with analytics in mind but they are offering ways of dealing with unstructured and semi-structured data and this is becoming increasingly important as organisations include data from on-line editorial and social media sources in their analytics. All of that being said, large volumes and limited pipes are keeping many on-premises for now.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
So, what’s the solution? Well that is the job of the Solutions Architect. I am not sidestepping the question (well actually, I am a little) However, it’s time to examine the options and identify what information management technologies should form part of your data architecture. It it is no longer enough to simply chose an RDBMS. </span></div>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-15131211531618352062010-08-13T10:15:00.001-07:002010-08-13T10:32:26.819-07:00External BI and How Weight Loss is More Interesting than Life itself<span xmlns=''><p>More and more we find ourselves helping customers with externally facing business intelligence as well as what we might call traditional and internally facing business analytics.<br /></p><p>Those that work with me will know that I advocate articulating BI requirements as business questions so External BI can be characterised as answering questions like;<br /></p><ul><li>Which of my prospective customers are doing things that they might need our help with?<br /></li><li>What are my competitors doing that represent threats or opportunities?<br /></li><li>What is happening in my marketplace that will affect our strategy?<br /></li></ul><p>B2C businesses might also ask questions like;<br /></p><ul><li>What are our customers saying about us?<br /></li><li>Do we have a good or poor reputation?<br /></li><li>What do people think about our brand?<br /></li></ul><p>It is important that the answers to the first block of questions are detailed so that you get answers from editorial sources, blogs and tweets that might include 'Our #1 competitor has changed their advertising agency' or 'One of key accounts is rumoured to be making an acquisition' The second block may also need detailed answers but it is surprising how much can be determined by monitoring the volume of traffic or 'buzz'.<br /></p><p>A solution we recently built for a pharmaceutical company gave us some fascinating insights based on buzz. During the first two weeks of the implementation one of their drugs was associated with cancer. As you might imagine, the volume of posts, news stories and tweets spiked dramatically. Over the next few days, the volume decreased as the facts became known and rumour and speculation were displaced. Eventually the buzz quietened to normal patterns. Unusually, the following week, a second rumour surfaced. This time, that the very same drug was associated with weight loss. The same pattern emerged with a pronounced spike over a few days followed by a calm induced by rational and factual information dissemination. What was surprising to us was that the spike associated with weight loss was higher and longer. In other words, there was more interest, more conversation and more interaction when a product was associated with weight loss than when it was associated with a terminal disease.<br /></p><p>Sigh.</p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-9727200507109751572010-07-14T04:26:00.001-07:002010-08-26T07:45:27.054-07:00CRM A great source for Sales Performance Management but a terrible substitute<span xmlns=""><p>The reputation of CRM implementations is a mixed one but we could say that about many IT endeavours. The good news though is that there seems to be a more balanced take now. Take a look at Lauren May's article, <a href="http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=68079">'CRM is No Longer a Four Letter Word'</a> as an example.<br /></p><p>There are many reasons that it has a bad rep. Not least because many organisations focused on IT, systems and process but forgot that it was essentially about the err Customer. And the costs! In the high profile, now failed, EDS implementation for Sky, the original costs before (allegedly) spiralling out of control were estimated at over £40m. <br /></p><p>In spite of the misses, CRM is still a purchasing priority for CIO's in 2010 according to Ed Thompson, Gartner Analyst who suggests "For most organizations, the single most logical way to differentiate the business is through great customer experiences, rather than having the lowest cost or most innovative products and services".<br /></p><p>However, I can't help think that some of the reputation is based on the classic principle that it was oversold and under delivered. Analytics are a good example of this with many of the platforms promising innovative ways of analysing sales performance. They promise democracy through dashboards but it was never going to be that simple.<br /></p><p> CRM implementations are allowing us to capture more about sales processes and activities than ever before. However, valuable and actionable insight will not simply fall out of the CRM implementation. The biggest challenge is that they all treat their own data like an island. Useful sales analytics can only typically come from bringing together information from Sales, Marketing and Finance systems.<br /></p><p>Ask a sales rep for the revenue number and they will tell you what was booked on the order. But we all know that a lot can happen between an order and an invoice and the difference is a constant source of frustration to a management team trying to drive the business in the right direction using a gage with one set of numbers and three needles all at slightly different points. And, of course, the cost of a campaign or the profitability of customers is not information captured in a CRM platform but requires information from the CFO and the Marketing Director too. Reporting or dashboard tools in a CRM implementation are great at reporting operational CRM but they cannot bring information together from all those places that are needed in a meaningful way. At least, not yet.<br /></p><p>I am not being critical of CRM systems. Their existence has opened up new opportunities for the analysis of sales performance for organisations and that's a very good thing. However, those that expect integrated analytics that provide useful insight into the plan variance, demonstrate which sales tactics are working or identify which products and customers are proving more profitable may not get it from their shiny new CRM dashboards. Meaningful and actionable insight can only come from combining CRM information with other organisational data into a coherent and common framework. It can, as I have seen it done in many instances, look like it is part of the CRM implementation but the real work is done behind the scenes by smart data warehousing and enterprise business intelligence tools.<br /></p><p>Do you know where your sales organisation is heading? Sales Leaders take the IBM Sales Performance Management Assessment here;<br /></p><p><a href="http://www.artesiansolutions.com/bathwicksurvey"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;">www.artesiansolutions.com/bathwicksurvey</span></a><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;"><br /> </span></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-67724049175860686922010-06-20T10:44:00.001-07:002010-06-20T10:50:18.829-07:00BI Requirements Should Be Challenged and Discussed not just Gathered<span xmlns=""><p>There are many resources remonstrating with the IT community on the importance of gathering requirements. Failing to gather requirements, they warn, will lead to a poor solution delivered late and over budget. This is largely inarguable.<br /></p><p>However, I would warn that simply 'gathering' requirement is as big a risk. Fred Brooks, author of 'The Mytical Man Month' once said that 'the hardest part of building a software system is deciding what to build'. And deciding what to build is a two way process rather than the act of listening, nodding and documenting that we all too often see in Business Intelligence projects.<br /></p><p>From time to time, I hear someone cry foul on this assertion. They argue that it seems like the tail is wagging the dog or that the business cannot compromise on the requirement. I usually point out that simply building what the user asked for doesn't happen in any other field of engineering. Architects advise on the cost of materials when planning a major new office building, City officials take advice on the best possible location for a bridge and environmental consultants are actively engaged in deciding exactly if and what should be built in any major civil engineering project.<br /></p><p>And this is exactly how we should approach business analytic requirements. As a two-way exploration of what is required, possible solutions and the implications of each. Incidentally, this is particularly difficult to do if business users are asked to gather and document their own requirements without input from their implementation team.<br /></p><p>An example of why this is important is rooted in the fact that many BI technologies (including IBM Cognos) are tools not programming languages. They have been built around a model to increase productivity. That is, if you understand and work with the assumptions behind the model reports, dashboards and other BI application objects can be built very quickly. Bend the model and development times increase. Attempting to work completely around the model may result in greatly reduced productivity and therefore vastly increased development time.<br /></p><p>So be wary of treating 'gathering' and 'analysis' as distinct and separate steps. Instead, the process should be an iterative collaboration between users and engineers. Requirements should be understood but so should the implications from a systems perspective. The resulting solution will almost undoubtedly be a better fit and it will significantly increase the chance of it being delivered on time, at the right cost and with an increased understanding between those that need the systems and those that build them.<br /></p><p><span style=" ;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:9pt;color:#222222;"><strong>"We fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we get the wrong solution to the right problem", <em>Russell Ackoff, 1974</em></strong></span></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-79660454105332999342010-05-31T11:49:00.001-07:002010-10-07T03:55:31.993-07:00The Empire State Building and BI Projects<span xmlns=""><p>I was in New York a few weeks ago and took the family to the Empire State Building. It's opening in 1931 coincided with the great depression. In fact, so much of its space remained unoccupied that it became known, for a while, as the Empty State Building. Today, no one can argue with its fame or its success. Even if it is now only the 15<sup>th</sup> tallest building in the world, it stands as an encouraging reminder that many successful projects span economic cycles.<br /></p><p>It would be foolish to argue that, a BI project, started today, will still be in place in eight decades. Indeed, many will be replaced in as many years. However, many BI competency centres or departments have been initiated in similar circumstances. Many evolved during the last economic downturn to help businesses identify less profitable parts of the business or simply those areas that could withstand cutbacks without reducing the businesses ability to react when the economic cycle reversed. Accurate insights helps business navigate through a recessionary market and then, once through, help them identify the products, markets and geographies that show signs of growth first.<br /></p><p>This goes some way into explaining why last month's Gartner report, <a href="http://www.b-eye-network.com/view/13495">'Market Share:Business Intelligence, Analytics and Performance Management'</a> found that BI continues to outgrow other enterprise software. Year on year, 2008 to 2009, BI grew at a little over 4% to $9.3billion. I am not convinced that anything can be called 'recession proof' but three decades of growth in a market now dominated by SAP (BO) IBM (Cognos) Oracle, Microsoft and the global SAS campus doesn't appear to be over yet. My own view is that the most significant reason for consistent growth in the BI market is rooted in something a colleague of mine reminds me of from time to time. BI, he asserts, is a process not a project. BI as a market continues to grow precisely because its organisational adoption continues to grow. Successful BI implementations satisfy one set of requirements but new ones emerge.<br /></p><p>One final parallel between the famous New York landmark and BI projects. Apparently the famous art deco spire of the Empire State was intended to be a mooring mast for dirigibles but this proved wildly impractical once the building was completed. The broadcast tower that replaced the dirigible mooring is a spectacular example of adapting a project as the business around it changed and more about the environment became known rather than theoretical. </p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-52392144187516613852010-04-08T15:33:00.000-07:002010-04-08T05:06:06.748-07:00Why are targets a political football?<span xmlns=""><p>Battle lines are being drawn up as we head towards the election and interestingly there is a new point of contention for the major parties. Targets. In relation to the NHS, indeed any Government department, they have become short hand for "too many middle managers", "waste" or "red tape".<br /></p><p>In a recent BBC article <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8538601.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8538601.stm</a> Professor David Kerr, a political adviser suggests that patient choice has been affected by a "blizzard of targets" and that the NHS has been left "bogged down by process driven targets". A cursory glance might leave many thinking that targets are a fairly bad idea. Valuable resources otherwise engaged in the business of saving lives are redirected to meaningless management of numbers. Even Radio 4 presenters are starting to suggest that a core component of "efficiency" would be to "drop all those targets".<br /></p><p>I can't think of any human organisational endeavour where we assume that planning outcomes and taking a reading to measure progress against plan would be considered inefficient. Should we have built Terminal 5 without monitoring current and forecasting future passenger throughput? Fly to New York without (albeit automatically) monitoring the land speed, altitude and current position? Start at either end of the Channel Tunnel without monitoring when (or if) it will meet in the middle? I appreciate that the nature of the news can mean that complex subjects are overly simplified and that politicians need to work with sound bites but to suggest that targets are inherently a bad thing would be to mislead in the extreme. Let's find some other shorthand for overly bureaucratic departments, saying that it is 'all those targets' doesn't cut it. Measuring the wrong things or measuring the right things inefficiently is wasteful but measuring nothing means that a business (or a department) is guessing it's way to the next crisis. </p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-2405670879609024702010-03-14T17:30:00.000-07:002010-03-15T05:18:48.356-07:00The Journey from BI to CPM: Part 3, Cause and Effect<span xmlns=""><p>So far we have established that there is no single journey from BI to CPM. Instead it is an evolution that builds on successful implementation and aligns itself closer to the business in order to drive deeper and sustainable success. In the last post I also described a process of establishing requirements which was less about reporting and more about establishing the business priorities, the objectives required to deliver against them and then, in turn, the metrics required.<br /></p><p>In this post I want to encourage you to expand on the objectives to understand how they are going to be achieved. This will help the business identify if it is measuring the right things whilst validating what you have discovered so far. It may also uncover related or more detailed information requirements.<br /></p><p>For example, the engineering business we talked about in part 2, were looking to increase market share. One of the objectives they identified to achieve this was to increase account share. If we continue to explore this objective further we are likely to identify the initiatives required to achieve it. To increase account share the sales team must cross-sell. In order to cross-sell there has to be collaboration across the sales people that sell their products and services into a single account. In order for the sales team to cross-sell the services team must also align around a strategic account plan.<br /></p><p>So our objective to increase account share actually becomes a series of cause and effect objectives or initiatives;<br /></p><p>INCREASE MARKET SHARE by increasing account share<br /></p><ul><li>Cross Sell<br /></li><li><div>Align services to strategic account plan<br /></div><ul><li>Encourage global account collaboration<br /></li><li>Create compensation plan that reward global account collaboration<br /></li></ul></li></ul><p>Here, we can see a basic cause and effect between these objectives. We can also see that they begin to cross departments because sales, services and HR all own objectives that contribute to the ultimate senior management team objective of increasing market share.<br /></p><p>There are a number of methodologies which would drive these discussions including those introduced by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in a series of books including <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strategy-Focused-Organization-Scorecard-Companies-Environment/dp/1578512506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265187517&sr=8-1">'The Strategy Focused Organisation'</a> and through their organisation <a href="http://www.thepalladiumgroup.com/">Palladium</a>. This approach organises this cause and effect matrix of objectives across the four balanced scorecard perspectives financial, customer, internal and learning and growth. The completed diagram, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_map">strategy map</a>, is a compelling visual representation of those objectives that should be driving the organisational strategy.<br /></p><p>Whatever methods or techniques are used, the essence is aligning organisational information with current business priorities. The alternative, to either replicate (albeit improve) existing systems or to ask the business to mock up endless cross tabs in spreadsheets to communicate their requirements would only deliver partial success.<br /></p><p>These last two posts have been about the impact of information systems on performance management. Whilst critical, this is only part of the story. Performance Management is also about what the business does with the insight. How it collaborates, adapts and executes the plan which in turn requires robust planning, budgeting and forecasting. More on this in future posts.<br /></p><p><em>This series of posts draws greatly from the work of Kaplan and Norton and their approach to Corporate Performance Management using the Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps. </em></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-15240548399344749792010-01-24T09:05:00.000-08:002010-01-24T14:44:51.493-08:00The Journey from BI to CPM: Part 2, Establish Business Objectives<span xmlns=""><p>This part of the journey is about asking if you are measuring the right things today. This seems like an obvious point but reporting systems are often put in place around those things that are easy to measure rather than those things that are important. Over time, systems are replaced but this can make things worse not better. It is all too common for the new system to deliver more or less the same information but in a new technology. Faster, sexier, more charts, in a dashboard, around a scorecard, through a browser but essentially the same old information the organisation has always reported.<br /></p><p>To determine what needs measuring requires a more considered approach, a step back. It requires an understanding of the few critical business goals or objectives that are important today. Obviously, this will depend on who in the business you ask. Ask the board and the response is likely to include the strategic objectives and financial outcomes that describe how the company creates value for its shareholders. Ask a functional head and the response is more likely to include those things that contribute to financial outcomes. Sales Management might be looking to "improve sales productivity", engineering to "increase number of product launches" and marketing "increase campaign effectiveness"<br /></p><p>There are techniques for organising the various objectives across an enterprise into a coherent whole but it is too large an undertaking for me to cover here. Similarly, I am not advocating a lifetime of paralysis through analysis here. At this stage it doesn't matter about the level. Some objectives will be strategic, some tactical, some board level and some departmental. Whichever part of the organisation you are engaged with will both constrain and influence the answer to your questions, what matters is to ask about objectives, vision and goals. For example, I recently worked with the European Management Team of a global engineering company. They were tasked with growing revenues in a market that wasn't growing. This obviously meant taking market share.<br /></p><p>Their approach to achieving this was to go after larger deals through the direct channel whilst growing their indirect channel to pick up deals in the mid market. This strategy could be articulated as a number of objectives;<br /></p><ul><li>Grow indirect sales<br /></li><li>Close more deals that of €1m or more<br /></li><li>Retain existing customers<br /></li><li>Increase account share<br /></li></ul><p>The next step was to identify the metrics by which these objectives could be measured which included;<br /></p><ul><li>Grow indirect sales (% Indirect Revenue Against Total)<br /></li><li>Close larger deals (#Deals >=€1m)<br /></li><li>Retain existing customers (Renewal Retention%)<br /></li></ul><p>So it is really straightforward. Ask the business what it is trying to achieve, to articulate the objectives and then determine how they can be measured. The example above is fairly high level and strategic but the approach to more tactical requirements is exactly the same. What are you trying to achieve? How are you trying to achieve it? How do you measure it?<br /></p><p>The next part of the journey will require that you understand the initiatives that support these objectives and then further, the metrics that drive those.<br /></p><p><em>This series of posts draws greatly from the work of Kaplan and Norton and their approach to Corporate Performance Management using the Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps. </em></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-27606941695041759332009-11-15T05:28:00.001-08:002009-11-15T08:46:58.376-08:00The Journey from BI to Corporate Performance Management: Part 1.<span xmlns=''><p>In this series of posts, I will examine how organisations are making the journey from Business Intelligence to Corporate Performance Management. As this is the first in the series let's examine the obvious question 'what is the difference between BI and CPM?'<br /></p><p>During my time with a market and thought leader in this field, Cognos, there were a number of views which give us a useful way of examining this question;<br /></p><p>Firstly, that <strong>BI and CPM are the same thing</strong>. I have already given away my own view on this with the title of this post. Let's start with what BI is. A reasonable definition is that BI is the use of information for the purpose of decision making. It is distinct and different from 'reporting' which has an operational focus. BI systems are used by managers across the enterprise to drive informed and accurate business decisions. Strategic BI, using scorecards and dashboards for example, is used by the senior management team as a strategic decision making tool and come close to the definition of CPM. However, not close enough.<br /></p><p>Secondly, that <strong>Enterprise Planning and CPM</strong> are the same thing. This is a view held by some Planning, Budgeting and Forecasting (PB&F) specialists that think of BI as 'just reporting'. Understandably, they hold the view that driving organisational behaviour through the planning process by making it more frequent than the traditional annual 'spreadfest' is at the heart of CPM. If we also consider that PB&F systems do make it easy for profit and cost centre managers up and down the organisation to take an active part in the process then we are certainly getting close to CPM. They are not the same thing though.<br /></p><p>Thirdly that <strong>BI and Enterprise Planning combined are the same as CPM</strong>. An organisation that implements systems for measuring performance, for adapting the plan and for managing the impact on forecasted revenues is clearly looking to both measure and change performance. Implementing the systems to report, analyse, plan and monitor is certainly critical to CPM. However, BI plus PB&F is still not CPM.<br /></p><p>Finally, the view that I subscribe to, is that CPM involves the systems (<strong>BI and PB&F</strong>) but <strong>also the business processes and strategic approach to performance management </strong>as characterised by methodologies such as Economic Value Add (EVA) or the Balanced Score Card (BSC). An organisation that implements the systems, adapts the strategic decision making process and changes business processes is truly executing on the CPM vision. <br /></p><p>CPM is often described as a 'journey'. It is a fundamental change to the way in which many organisations manage themselves today so there are no magic bullets, applications or software features. CPM does not come 'out of a box'. Instead the change may begin with a series of BI implementations that cause an organisation to challenge 'established wisdom' and manage with a much deeper organisational insight. Alternatively it may begin with a corporate initiative to adopt the Balanced Scorecard aligning, at the highest level, strategic direction with organisational activity. What is interesting to me is that many such initiatives are described as failures because they 'didn't make CPM happen' Of course many of these are poorly executed implementations but occasionally they are, in themselves, as successful as they can be. Take a step back, look at them again and they may well be a perfectly reasonable step forwards on a CPM journey that is rarely short or simple but often worthwhile.<br /></p><p>In the next post I will describe some of the steps that might be made on the CPM Journey wherever you are today.</p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-31916532496887825442009-09-23T11:13:00.001-07:002009-09-23T11:16:13.748-07:00Data Warehouse Design, A Two or Three Tier Approach?<span xmlns=''><p>A recent LinkedIn <a href='http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=108904&discussionID=7400041&sik=1253728491820&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=%2Eana_108904_1253728491820_3_1'>discussion</a> on data warehouse design approaches has reassured me that after a decade of running and managing BI projects that there is still healthy and lively debate on what is the 'right' approach. This particular discussion is focused on if there should be two 'tiers' or three with a tier representing a transformation step and (usually) a persisted data schema.<br /></p><p>A two tier approach comprises loading or staging which is transformed into a second, dimensional tier. The three tier approach includes an interim step, a relational integrated schema.<br /></p><p><span style='color:black'>One of the common (and understandable concerns) is that three tiers will increase development times. The logic is seemingly sound. It *must* take longer to build three things than it does to build two things. However, in reality it doesn't! <br/><br/>The reason it doesn't is simple. Whilst there are many successful implementation using only two tiers, there are always three critical transformations to make, three essential data problems to 'fix'. </span><br /> </p><p><span style='color:black'>These are; <br/><br/>1. <strong>Load</strong>. This is the job of extracting data from source databases quickly and without disrupting source applications. <br /></span></p><p><span style='color:black'><br/>2. <strong>Integrate</strong>. Critically, this is integrating and representing the loaded data into a single, consistent (relational) format. <br /></span></p><p><span style='color:black'><br/>3. <strong>Present</strong>. This is simplifying the enterprise model into a dimensional schema that is highly performant and is easier for end users to navigate.<br/><br/>The choice then is to do this in three simpler steps or two more complex (actually one simple load step and one *really* complex integrate/presentation) step. <br/><br/>Finally, a three tier approach has consistently proven to be easier to maintain and support when the inevitable change requests start to come through. Actually a three tier approach implemented correctly can prove to be easier and therefore more cost effective than two tier over the total life of an application.</span></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-25168319419442681062009-07-30T17:30:00.000-07:002009-07-30T09:32:54.666-07:00BI Application Design – The Missing Step<span xmlns=""><p>If Amazon applied typical BI application design techniques to their web site the user experience might be very different. For example, I might be browsing the DVD's for a gift and need a little inspiration so I hit the 'reports' tab. Here I get presented with a long list of reports, one of which one is 'Top n Products'. I then get prompted with a pick list of products where I select 'DVD' and finally I select '10' to get the Top 10. The list is pretty interesting, but there is nothing that grabs me so I decide to look at the next 10. I re-run the report, selecting 20 instead of 10. This time, I spy the ideal box set and go back to the main site to make my purchase. I am sure you get the picture by now. It sounds awful, clunky and not at all like the actual Amazon experience.<br /></p><p>BI reports can sometimes get designed with little or no understanding of the decisions they support. Actually, more often than not, the requirement is communicated as a report layout and the underlying business need is at best inferred or at worst lost in a fixed specification of rows, columns, filters, sorting and grouping. Without an understanding of the audience for the report or how the information is used, the report layout communicates a general requirement in a one-size-fits all report.<br /></p><p>A BI specialist on a project that we are currently assisting with recently demonstrated how it should really be done.<br /></p><p>The requirement is for a team of internal sales reps each targeted with a number of customers to call each month. Our BI specialist was asked to provide a report which compared actual calls made with target. Rather than creating one multi-purpose report, he created three specific solutions. One for the rep, one for the sales managers and one for the senior management team. The report for the rep contains the number of calls they have made, their target and how many calls they need to make today, this week and for the remainder of the month. It is run daily. The rep can plan their daily, weekly and monthly activity based on this information. The report for the sales managers is ranked so that they can manage the individuals accordingly. This report is weekly, reflecting the frequency with which they review and action the performance of their teams. The senior management team report is monthly and is a team summary for monthly and quarterly sales performance meetings with the sales managers.<br /></p><p>Of course, the Amazon comparison is not completely fair. Whilst it is using highly summarised information for the purpose of decision making the decisions are discrete and simple. Which computer game should I buy? What computer games did others that bought this one also buy? It is also an application that has a single user type – customer. Not only that, there are millions of users which makes design effort not only cost-effective but critical to generating revenue.<br /></p><p>However, some of the design principles absolutely apply;<br /></p><ol><li>Understand the decision (which reps do I need to coach to make more calls?)<br /></li><li>Understand the information required to make the decision (how many calls they have made, what is their target and what is the variance)<br /></li><li>Identify the actions that can be made as a result of decision making (reps may be incented, coached or disciplined)<br /></li><li>Link the information as closely as possible to the business process it supports (sales managers review activity levels every Friday morning)<br /></li></ol><p>Finally, this doesn't mean there is not a case for analysis. BI supports managers and not all decision making is predictable and routine. The business environment is continuously changing and each month or quarter will throw up new and interesting business challenges to solve. These can be subtle variants of historical business challenges or completely new. This is where decision makers need the flexibility to explore and analyse trends, exceptions and patterns to validate what is happening and determine the actions that they will take next.<br /></p><p>The answer, as is often the case, lies in a combination of providing BI reports that support decision makers closest to the point at which they need to make the decision along with the flexibility we have come to expect from good OLAP tools. </p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-50007283388256725272009-07-01T09:36:00.000-07:002009-07-02T10:36:43.496-07:00Integrating Business Intelligence and Planning<span xmlns=''><p>I was prompted to post on this subject by a LinkedIn question, <a href='http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=40057&discussionID=4702346&sik=1246466288464&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=%2Eana_40057_1246466288464_3_1'>what place do your Cognos or Hyperion Planning applications have in your Enterprise Data Warehouse?</a><br /> </p><p>The major vendors, including IBM (Cognos), SAP (BOBJ) and Oracle (Hyperion) have both Planning & Forecasting and BI solutions in their vast product portfolio. The questioner was focused on understanding what the challenges are in integrating data from the planning application into the enterprise data warehouse. It is, after all, common for the business to want to report, say actual revenue along with planned or forecast revenue and a variance. This is basic corporate performance management and answers the question 'how am I doing against plan?' or 'am I going to make forecast?'<br /></p><p>There is an understandable misconception that because both the BI tools and Planning tools come from the same vendor that they 'automatically' integrate. They don't. There are points of integration including UI, security and, in Cognos Planning, functionality to create a reporting database and metadata. However, none of this represents a panacea. If you think about it for a moment, they can't. A planning or forecasting application is as just that, an application. It is another source of data along with all other operational systems and the reporting requirements have to be considered carefully. And, of course, the way in which plan and actual data are integrated and reported should be driven from the requirement and not vendor product functionality.<br /></p><p>There are a number of considerations, including;<br /></p><p><strong>Data flows both ways</strong>. A planning application usually requires actual data because it is common for business managers to build this year's plan from a prior year's actuals. Or it might be that YTD actual will help business manager pull together more accurate forecast numbers. This means that actual data needs to flow from the data warehouse into the planning application. Similarly, a planning application may require historical plans which are not stored in the planning application but might be found in the EDW or other operational sources.<br /></p><p><strong>Data in a Cognos Planning Database is not Like Other Operational Data. </strong>Cognos planning models are incredibly flexible. However, this means that that changes to the model, even seemingly trivial changes, can result in column and/or table name changes. This will 'break' the metadata and reports. Add to this the fact that planning applications, unlike other operational applications, can change each year and you will find that you are trying to hit a moving target. A level of abstraction is required to protect the reporting from these application changes which is one of the reasons that EDW's exist in the first place.<br /></p><p><strong>Planning Hierarchies are not the same as Dimensions. </strong>It is not unusual for planning hierarchies to be extracted from dimensions in the EDW. However, they are not always the same thing. For example, it may be that major products are forecast individually but below a certain threshold products are forecasted as 'other'. This is, perhaps, a trivial example but is just another example of what we already know. That reference or master data can be subtly different across operational systems and the business has to define a common definition for the purpose of consistent management reporting.<br /></p><p><strong>Planning Reporting is Real-Time. </strong>There is usually an operational (and therefore real-time) requirement to report during the planning process. The finance team or profit centre managers adjust their forecast numbers across dimensions until they arrive at an overall plan that meets the objectives set for them by their senior management team. They will want to repeatedly run reports to validate the latest position. This real-time reporting requirement might drive the developers of the planning application to build all reporting from within the planning application but will get frustrated that as the reporting requirements grow so will the need to import more and more actual data into the planning application. Again this simply confirms what we already know about data warehousing. Some reporting requirements are operational and need to come from the operational application, others are summarised BI or management reporting and will be developed against the EDW.<br /></p><p>This isn't an exhaustive list of considerations but they do illustrate why reporting requirements for a planning application should be considered at the outset of a planning application project. It is inevitable that integrated, consistent, enterprise reporting will need extensions to the BI and EDW solution whilst other real-time, operational reports will stay within the planning application. This is why a reporting solution from a planning application should be properly architected rather than expected to appear 'out of the box' form the product vendor. <br /></p><p><br/> </p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-65742422728617770092009-06-23T05:45:00.001-07:002009-06-24T00:34:55.755-07:00Business Intelligence and the Semantic Web<span xmlns=''><p>Analytics strategist <a href='http://www.intelligententerprise.com/experts/grimes/'>Seth Grimes</a> was in town last week speaking in Covent Garden on the subject of Web 3.0. For those still catching up with what this means then the evolution of the web is generally thought of as;<br /></p><div><table border='0' style='border-collapse:collapse'><colgroup><col style='width:87px'/><col style='width:529px'/></colgroup><tbody valign='top'><tr style='background: #d3dfee'><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-left: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle' colspan='2'><p>Web 1.0</p></td><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle'><p>Retronym which refers to the web as largely a publishing paradigm</p></td></tr><tr style='background: #a7bfde'><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle' colspan='2'><p>Web 2.0</p></td><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle'><p>The interactive web characterised by the rise of social networking</p></td></tr><tr style='background: #d3dfee'><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle' colspan='2'><p>Web 3.0</p></td><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle'><p>The semantic web. Functionally rich and understandable to machines as well as people</p></td></tr><tr style='background: #a7bfde'><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle' colspan='2'><p>Die Hard 4.0</p></td><td style='padding-top: 1px; padding-left: 7px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-right: 7px; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt; border-right: solid #7ba0cd 1.0pt' vAlign='middle'><p>Fourth instalment of the Bruce Willis franchise released in the US as <em>Live Free or Die Hard</em></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Whilst web 3.0 is some way off there are some early glimpses into the world of possibilities with search engine innovations from <a href='http://www.google.co.uk/'>Google</a> and <a href='http://www.wolframalpha.com/'>Wolfram Alpha</a>. Fellow BI blogger, <a href='http://peterthomas.wordpress.com/'>Peter Thomas</a> who also writes about this subject in his blog <a href='http://peterthomas.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/literary-calculus/'>Literary Calculus</a> uses the example <a href='http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=age+of+the+pope'>http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=age+of+the+pope</a>.<br /></p><p>What interests me about the semantic web though, has much less to do with what might be described as contextually aware searching and more to do with the impact on Business Intelligence.<br /></p><p>BI, since the 1970's, has been almost entirely focused on numbers. This is understandable given that these tend to be highly structured, organised and available in databases. Arguably though, this wasn't the original vision. In his 1958 (yes, 1958) article "<em>A Business Intelligence System"</em>, IBM visionary, <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Peter_Luhn'>Hans Peter Luhn</a> describes the objective as <strong>"</strong>to supply suitable information to support specific activities carried out by individuals, groups, departments, divisions.." and what Luhn goes on to describe is statistical analysis of text and documents as information sources.<br /></p><p>Seth Grimes, in his Intelligent Enterprises article <a href='http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211900005'>BI at 50 Turns Back to the Future</a> makes the point that BI has more latterly revisited this original vision on the analysis of text and document sources which, after all, reflects the vast bulk of corporate data.<br /></p><p>Early innovators, including my own company <a href='http://www.artesiansolutions.com/'>Artesian</a>, are already making progress in the field of analysing documents for the purpose of business intelligence. This new breed of semantically aware business intelligence technology can "supply suitable information" to "support activity" by answering questions like;<br /></p><ul><li><em>'which of my competitors are growing and which are declining?' </em><br /> </li><li><em>'are my customers launching initiatives that could be supported by our products or services?'</em><br /> </li><li><em>'do market behaviours indicate a declining need for our products?'</em><br /> </li><li><em>'how did customers respond to our competitors when they changed their business in a way that we are also considering?' </em><br /> </li></ul><p>This isn't to suggest that semantically aware BI should function like search engines. Indeed, I would strongly argue that it should not. Search engines deliver a single set of answers to a single ad-hoc question. Business processes are much more frequent, diverse, repeatable and involve wider audiences. Further, businesses require scalability and high degrees of automation. Here, the business questions need to be regularly monitored, visualised, distributed, shared and collaborated around. Interestingly this has more in common with today's best practice BI systems. So there it is. The shape of semantically aware BI is emerging through the fog of future developments and it is unsurprisingly an evolution of what is best about business intelligence as we know it today with some breakthrough thinking that will unlock meaning from the colossal volume of corporate and online documents.</p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8009798657072620873.post-14559637418506522372009-06-17T16:07:00.000-07:002009-06-17T04:51:28.814-07:00BI Project Managers and Eyebrows<span xmlns=""><p>Like eyebrows, you don't really notice project managers when they are there but if you are rash enough to let them go you will end up looking startled and stupid.<br /></p><p>I point this out because over a period of more than 10 years I have had the opportunity to observe many, many BI projects and one of the most surprising patterns is the scaling back of project management largely because the project is going well!<br /></p><p>The openly declared reason is usually cost or some other misdirection but it is invariably preceded with pointed questions about what value the project manager has been adding to a project that is going so well. Perversely, the better the project is doing, the higher the risk that there will be murmurings about things like the overhead of project reporting and that project management activity will ultimately be reduced or even removed altogether. It has become as common and predictable as it is deeply and logically flawed.<br /></p><p>Perhaps this is one of the phenomena that explains why the trend for project failure is not getting any better. According to the latest Standish Group report which is covered by Peter Taylor, author of 'The Lazy Project Manager', in his blog '<a href="http://advice.cio.com/peter_taylor/are_your_project_managers_working_too_hard_to_be_successful_for_you?page=0%2C0">Are your Project Managers working too hard to be successful?</a><span style="color:black;">' instances of </span>challenged (late, over budget or reduced deliverable) projects continues to rise.<br /></p><p>As BI practitioners we often value technical skills, competency in the reporting tool and the deep musing of the data architect and yet have a blind spot when it comes to project management. This may be partly because early BI projects were often departmental in scale. It may also be because many of today's BI Competency Centres originated as 'skunk works' initiatives and see project management as all methodology and meetings but we ignore it at our peril.<br /></p><p>It is true that project management can be at its most obviously valuable when priorities need resetting, additional resources have to be secured or controlled management escalation is called for. However, we shouldn't assume that if a Project Manager is not doing these things that they are not doing anything.<br /></p><p>Planned projects with predictable timescales along with accurate project reporting are rewarded with confidence from our business sponsors. A considered set of risks based on real-life experience of BI projects will mitigate against them becoming time sucking issues and properly managed issues will prevent them becoming show-stoppers.<br /></p><p>A good Project Manager may make it look easy but don't take the lack of fire fighting and crisis meetings as an indication that nothing is being done. Look deeper for the benefits of order over chaos or be prepared to invest in an eyebrow pencil for a look that is decidedly a poor second best.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p></span>Dale Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409631534138180105noreply@blogger.com2