BI costs Fortune 500 millions

I don't normally like to bring bad news up, although the Business Intelligence industry desperately needs a new guiding light. However there is always something to be learned from failures and bad news. Just like the first "F" I received in university... a wake up call for me that kicked me in the ass!

Dynamic Markets did market research, posted by TradingPattern.net and found that "BI failed to impact decision making in US and UK companies."

TradingPattern.net posts about industry risks and value creation. 218 operational execs and front line mgmt were surveyed. Some quick stats for you:

• 76% were forced to make decisions because not all the info was available in time.
• 63% believe that BI reports are simply reference documents used to justify after the decision is made.
• 70% do not receive reports that provide predictions about problems or potential opportunities.
  

Okay, those aren't great stats for an industry that promotes itself as "providing timely, accurate results to make fact-based decisions." A more alarming stat is the cost to companies -- the impact of inadequate intelligence.

$478,868 in lost revenue!

That really hits home for me. That doesn't include the cost to implement a BI solution in the first place. Now if we take a step back and look at the industry. There are a plethora of tools, consultants, methodologies, and training courses but for the Fortune 500, BI is hurting companies more than it is helping.

Now there may be some very valid reasons for this. Fortune 500 companies are large, very complex business with multiple departments all intermingled. They have high volumes of data that BI needs to distribute over a large geography. Plus just understanding their business to build a BI solution would be a tremendous effort. But as my papi would say, "you're giving into excuses."

So if we assume these stats are true and speak to the Business Intelligence industry in generalities, then we should be trying to figure out, in big leaps and bounds, how to make this work. There needs to be a vision... perhaps many visions on taking BI forward. Other software industries have gone through regular change and come out better for it. Isn't it time for Business Intelligence to go through it's paradigm shift?

BI has it all wrong?

The BI market is showing a flurry of innovation and new companies over the last year or so. Usually stale industries or high customer pain forces new ideas to come to fruition. Reading blogs of people who actually work on projects or companies that do BI, you can hear some of this pain.

So what can be done to make the experience for customers better? Well thanks Rick Rogers for the link to The Future of BI, by Tom Gonzalez. Some excellent insights and he may be onto something with his ideas for dashboards. May not solve all the problems, but every bit helps.

BI eclipsed by another technology

After reading an article on BI 2.0 thoughts came to mind that Business Intelligence has essentially become a fancy way to do organizational reporting. Nothing more. BI is simply -- reporting.

Don't confuse my simplification of BI with lack of value. BI can provide value when implemented correctly. However if you consider at a basic level, reporting displays information -- whether it's from one or more sources.

Now if I parking lot the "methods" used to bring information to the forefront (i.e. ETL) and focus on the ways customers use the results, I can consolidate this down to:

• reports (including prompted, charts and KPI reports)
• OLAP/cubes

I would even strongly challenge that OLAP is simply a navigable report (the answers are fixed and finite). So on the visualization side, the vendors and tools are essentially reporting tools with more features than say, 10 years ago.

In fact, looking at it that way, the acquisitions of BO, Hyperion and Cognos make sense. The acquirers (IBM, Oracle, SAP) simply needed a suite of reporting tools for their ERP applications. Because why would Oracle want their customers using IBM Cognos or SAP BO as the reporting tool on top of Oracle Financials?

Now let's be honest about the backend, ETL. This is data warehousing and DW has had a troubled history of failures. I would guess there are recent failures too. The question to customers is how much are you willing to spend to provide a finite set of inflexible answers based on today's business?

Plus the costs to maintain a data warehouse can be tremendous. In my opinion, a DW loses value a few months after go-live. I remember doing cost/benefit analysis for a government client to determine the value of paying $1m annually to maintain their DW/BI.

There was value in the information but not enough to warrant the cost. Although it was a System Integrators dream project. They didn't want to finish until every system was in the DW. The customer had a feeling of diminishing returns but waited years to do anything about it.

So is there a better way of integrating information? Well there are many techniques that are becoming mainstream, none of which would consider DW/ETL competition. These new technologies share information in real-time or near real-time (no nightly loads or checking the error log in the morning for failed batches).

And where's the new thinking for such things as integrating with information outside of the organization. Integrating and sharing information with partners. I hope BI can become more like Google. New websites are created daily and it only takes a few days before that information can be searched. And probably mostly done through automation. How long does it take for new data and reports to be provided in your BI/DW?

Participate in the first BI sharing network!

Want to share your ideas about business intelligence and innovation? Want to learn from real people?

Well you can with BI for Business People's own instant Q&A network. It's as simple as asking your question and someone in the network will share their ideas, advice, tips, experience, and more.

I guess you could say we're in beta because we would like people to participate in the Q&A network. Answering questions is all about sharing your experience, being interested in business intelligence & innovation, and getting some recognition (...and also learning more while talking to others).

Asking questions is all about finding the "Got Questions" box at the top right of this site. (if you're question isn't answered, have a little patience and come back soon when more people are participating in the network. Or why not participate yourself!)

This all started during conversations with Fabien Degaugue, Founder and CEO of Muchobene.

10 Questions with Simon Tucker and Ron Dimon

Before the Strategy Maps, metric stop lights, and planning/forecasting models, organizations focus on setting their strategy. Of course the meaning of strategy means something different for every organization (Mintzberg's 5P's of Strategy).

However having a formal process is key. Even more important is executing on the strategy. While talking with Simon Tucker (CEO) and Ron Dimon (COO) of Business Foundation, they share how they work directly with senior executives using a tangible, interactive methodology to help management execute on their strategy.

And these guys have experience to share previously holding senior level mgmt positions at CSG, Adaytum, Hyperion and Deloitte. So I want to share their insights because I believe they are onto something that can help many organizations.

Question 1: Hi Simon and Ron. Why do you feel organizations need the Business Foundation methodology?

Answer: Hi Tom, thanks for taking the time to talk with us. Many organizations, in our experience, have a major disconnect between their strategic objectives and what they actually measure, monitor, and plan for. They need a way to see what the true drivers of value are, spread-out across the entire enterprise. They’re tired of all the information silos they’ve built and use us to help them create and validate a roadmap to bring together the people, processes and technologies that will deliver improved performance.

Question 2: How does your previous experience at Deloitte and Hyperion support executive teams when discussing strategy?

Answer: Our company has experience dealing with C-level executives across almost every industry: from Retail, Manufacturing, and High-Tech through Non-Profits, Higher Ed, and Government. And it’s very interesting – even though strategies are certainly tied to industries, we’ve found identical problems across all industries, including things like lack of visibility into areas of the business that matter, a lack of understanding how pulling a lever in one area of the business affects outcomes in another area, and one of the big ones, not having a common business language which hinders making repeatable, fact-based decisions.

Question 3: Do organization need help bridging the gap between business and IT, seriously?

Answer: We hear it all the time! IT uses us to drive-out requirements from business functions (Marketing, Sales, Operations, HR, and so on) since we’re able to have the strategy & business conversation, and the business functions use us to help IT understand their problems and the impact those problems have on performance and results. There is much debate these days about the alignment gap between IT and the business; there are dozens of books that try to address this gap (“I.T. Wars” by Scott, “The IT Value Stack” by McCormack, and “Geek Gap” by Pfleging to name just a few). A lot of people talk about it, we actually have a proven methodology to bridge the gap.

We become IT’s “True North” – the long-term solution vision into which they are implementing short term initiatives, and each of our recommendations is validated and justified by the sponsoring business unit, so the entire business has a common solution vision (not one for IT and one Marketing and one for HR and so on).

Question 4: Would you agree, executing on strategy should include processes AND technology?

Answer: Definitely. In fact, when we connect strategy to execution, we focus on the intersection of people (and their role in the organization), process, technology, and data. We also add another dimension of strategic ‘enablers’ to the conversation. This includes the concepts of depth (how far down into the details do you need visibility), horizontal alignment (among the business functions), accountability, and compliance.

Question 5: Without giving away your corporate IP, how do you have conversations on strategy with senior executives? Any special tools?

Answer: That's what makes us unique. In two hours, with no PowerPoint, no laptops or projectors, we have a very rigorous interaction with one or two executives at a time (sometimes we can make three work). The interaction is a business conversation that takes what's already in the executive’s head, his or her unique perspective on the business and what drives value, and puts it all onto one sheet of paper. The 'special tool' is the sheet of paper. We start with our Periodic Table of Business™ database (with over 1,500 KPIs, metrics, measures, and processes – organized by industry and business function) which generates a baseline picture of the business as a matrix: functions and layers. We then tailor the sheet to fit the individual client before we get into the first meeting. So the executive sees their company laid out in a way that makes documenting what’s in their head very simple. And it invariably leads to new insights for the executive. We even had one CEO tell us "it was like being on the psychiatrist’s couch for 2-hours!"

Question 6: Can you help explain why there are so many acronyms for performance management (i.e. BPM, EPM, CPM, xPM)?

Answer: Lee Geishecker of AMR Research coined the term "Corporate Performance Management" in 2001 when she was with Gartner. It was the confluence of business planning with reporting, business intelligence, balanced scorecards and other areas. Hyperion, right after the Arbor acquisition, adopted this concept by bringing together their analytic applications (planning and financial consolidation) with their OLAP engine (Essbase) and later Business Intelligence (from the Brio acquisition). They chose the term "Business Performance Management" to extend the concept out of head-office ("corporate") and into the lines of business. It's a bit unfortunate that there was confusion between that BPM and the existing Business Process Management acronym. Cognos was hot on Hyperion’s heels and kept Gartner's CPM acronym. From there evolved Deloitte's IPM (Integrated Performance Management) and others. Today Oracle and SAP have decided on Enterprise Performance Management to extend the scope even further. To avoid the confusion, we’ve been calling it xPM, the "x" can be any letter you want – the acronym isn’t as important as the value proposition of end-to-end management of performance and getting from strategy to sustainable, predictable execution.

Question 7: Would you say "what-if" modeling is part of Business Intelligence or do you see "what-if" analysis done differently in organizations?

Answer: Business Intelligence has traditionally meant operational and financial monitoring and analysis. xPM (or EPM, BPM, CPM if you like) includes the "what if" modeling component and blends it with BI. So now what matters is that you can model an infinite number of scenarios (what happens to cross-sell and cash flow if I divest this business? What happens to customer acquisition rate if I invest more in sales training?). We see some organizations limited in their what-if modeling and analysis by their systems – some use their ERP for this and get stopped very quickly. This is where xPM on top of ERP makes sense.

But even more importantly, are they modeling and analyzing the right things in the first place? Companies should be modeling and analyzing the key drivers of the business that can deliver the most material margin, revenue, cash flow, market share, or whatever their strategic imperatives dictate.

Question 8: I've seen many organizations with planning cycles that execute on the plan but don't take the time to reforecast. I think you would call this the opposite of "The Learning Organization"?

Answer: Close. It goes beyond re-forecasting. We think organizational learning happens when you not only go back and re-forecast (and/or use a rolling forecast), but you also capture the underlying drivers that caused the shortfall or exceeding of the target. Then make sure those drivers are plugged into your models along with the assumptions and constraints for each driver. Making your models smarter and connecting them to your plans and forecasts gives you better predictability (forecast accuracy, for example) in the business.

Question 9: Would you recommend your methodology for high growth industries and organizations that constantly go through change for competitive adjustments?

Answer: Yes, certainly. The companies that get the most value from our method are those that want to make sure they're measuring, monitoring and planning for things that can have the most impact in their business. They want to leverage their investments in IT, ERP, and performance management systems. They want a way to prioritize initiatives that are in line with their strategy. It's always about the right balance. For high-growth industries, it’s about the balance between expanding scope, geographies, and markets without sacrificing quality, margin, and cash flow. For companies that need to be agile enough to respond to competitive pressures, it's about the balance between innovation (pricing, product, and business model innovation) and standardization (in processes, systems, and brand).

We also recommend our method for organizations that are facing increased pressure from the recent economic downturn. You may not be immune to changes in the economy, but you can strive to outperform your competitors. So are you modeling price and price mix? Are you forecasting average selling price? Are you performing profitability analysis by customer and product? And of all your IT initiatives, which should have the highest priority?

Question 10: Excellent talking with you both Simon and Ron. Do you have any additional links or information about Business Foundation you want to share?

Answer: Thanks for taking an interest in our company, Tom. Readers can find out about us at Business Foundation and can read about our take on xPM, strategy to execution, IT/business alignment, and other topics on our blog (http://businessfoundation.typepad.com/).

Really Simple Integration

Companies are challenged these days. So are individuals. The vast amount of information available and being created every minute is growing so fast how can one leverage that into something meaningful?

Along comes aggregation. It's seen for blog/news feeds, like AllTop, for the thousands of "top bloggers".

But what about organizations and integrating their information needs? Along comes SnapLogic with an open source RESTful architecture integration app. I spoke with Chris Marino, CEO, and John Bennett, Director of Marketing. They explained how they empower organizations through self-service... to "loosely couple a federation of systems" for enterprise mashups of data.

Here's a partial quote from their press release today:

"Really Simple Integration is a new approach to data integration" that "enables enterprises to quickly and easily make core IT data from data warehouses, Master Data Management data marts, SaaS apps, SOA Web Services and other sources."

Be sure to check them out if you're attending O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco this week. In Web 2.0/open source fashion, they have started a publicly available collection of free components, including a screencast showing a mashup of LinkedIn and SalesForce.com.

So where does this put Business Intelligence and more specifically ETL tools and the static nature of data warehouses. I think this is another step towards the end of the ETL era as we know it. Products like SnapLogic provide transformation functionality but have access to more than internal data sources. Ever heard of an ETL tool able to scrap data off a public website to merge with your sales data?

Business Intelligence has been typically limited to using an organization's internal databases, such as finance, CRM, marketing, and sales. But we're in the age of the Internet now (actually we've been here for quite some time) and to be competitive you need access to the vast amounts of information from external sources of information, such as SaaS applications and information websites.

The small to mid-sized market is where SnapLogic is positioned today. Tiny companies can leverage the open source community, while IT staff of mid-sized companies would deploy SnapLogic for efficiencies. So once the data warehouse is built, users/departments will start asking for the data in different ways. (The static issue with a DW). Or merrying DW data with data not in the DW (and they shouldn't wait 18 months for additional DW implementation to address this need). IT departments can shine by having an easy-to-use tool like SnapLogic.

Sometimes there is no time to wait for the perfect enterprise dimensional model to be designed. Organizations are organic and need to stay competitive and ever changing to keep ahead. Access to information is key.

10 Questions for Miriam Tuerk

It has been said by many, including Gartner and Forrester, that the next big innovation for BI & DW will most likely come from the data warehouse side. Sure Visualization is a hot topic lately but the "pain points" for many clients are on the back-end.

After speaking with Miriam for a few minutes, she mentioned their tool produces results from "three billion rows of data and resolved queries in seconds". So she caught my attention. And when Miriam Tuerk, CEO of Infobright, mentions a client roster of the likes of the Royal Bank of Canada, Xerox, and TradeDoubler, you know they are onto something.

Our conversation continued as we discussed Infobright's innovative solution, which I'm sharing with you.

Question 1: Hi Miriam, let’s start with your statement “Research shows that the volume of the world's data approximately doubles every three years... 92% of new information is stored on hard-disks." Do you think Infobright can help organizations analyze data faster in a more flexible way?

Answer: We have proved it at our customer sites. Our customers have wrestled with the problem of how to extract valuable information from the huge volume of data they collect. They know, as we do, that being able to quickly access key information about their business or their customers can be the difference between business success and business failure. That is why recent studies confirm that Business Intelligence is the #1 investment area for CIO’s today. Infobright designed an analytic data warehouse solution from the ground up specifically designed to provide fast answers to ad hoc, complex analytic queries without burdening IT with lengthy, resource-intensive projects.

Question 2: Okay, let's get right to the heart of Infobright's business. Why do I need your DW solution when I know I can already build dimensional models, cubes, reports, etc?

Answer: Three reasons – time, money, and the unknown. Given enough time and money, IT can develop a system perfectly designed to answer any question quickly – as long as they know the question. In today’s changing business world, however, business people don’t know in advance all of the questions they will need answers to in the future. They want the answers today, but most systems require a lot of manual work on the part of IT and database administrators to set up and maintain environments each time the business users want to perform new and different analytics on their business. Today, providing fast access to massive amounts of data requires a lot of IT resources and time. Infobright’s solution eliminates all of that work by IT, and doesn’t require buying lots of servers and storage as other products do. Instead, we developed a simple but very powerful solution that provides business users access to all of the data they need to get fast answers to unpredictable questions.

Question 3: How did you and Infobright get started? Was it a grass-roots entrepreneurial effort?

Answer: Infobright was born out of pioneering work done by a group of internationally recognized mathematicians in the emerging science of Rough Set Mathematics. They realized that they could use information about the data itself to quickly provide answers to complex queries, rather than require IT to do extensive work up front or rely on brute force from massive amounts of hardware. Seeing the benefits of this approach, RBC Capital and Flybridge Capital Partners (formerly IDG Ventures) funded the company and brought in an experienced management team to turn raw technology into industry-leading products and services. Over the past year we have expanded the capabilities of our software while growing our customer base and establishing Infobright as an emerging player in the market. For example, Infobright is the first analytic data warehouse provider to be named a MySQL Certified Storage Engine Partner. The combination of Infobright’s solution and MySQL provides organizations an analytic data warehouse that delivers unprecedented scalability, performance and ease-of-use.

Question 4: Where do you envision the DW market going, especially with recent consolidation of BI vendors?

Answer: In the “old” days – the 1990s, which is really not so long ago – smaller volumes of data, smaller and less diverse sets of users, fewer subject areas and simpler queries, allowed vendors to recommend one data warehouse solution to meet all of the business needs of the users. Just like hardware, where once we only had only the mainframe, the market is evolving and maturing such that there is no longer a “one-stop shopping” solution to meet the BI needs of businesses today. There are really two different types of workload in a data warehouse:

1. One requirement is where you have a lot of users running the same query over and over. An example would be if you had a customer data warehouse being used to support a call center for a cell phone company. Every time a customer calls in, the customer profile is pulled from the data warehouse. This is a repetitive OLTP-like query and for this a highly designed and engineered system, optimized and tuned for the specific and repetitive queries are the best solution.


2. A second requirement for data warehousing is analytics. Here, marketing, finance, sales, compliance, risk management, operations groups in companies are performing ad hoc, changing and unknown queries such as:

• “How did our 2007 Christmas sales campaign perform as compared to our 2006 campaign? Was the customer retention higher – did more of those customers buy the value-add services?” or


• “Let’s do a trend analysis understanding why there are more mortgage defaults in this area than previously – lets run a trend analysis of the last 12 months versus the last five years. Can we identify any indicators that would allow us to re-estimate/extrapolate what the defaults will be thru the end of 2008?”

These parts of the business use the data warehouse to design marketing and sales campaigns, to understand what the risk, compliance and security issues may be – and use that to operate and manage the business. Today, IT needs to assign resources and do manual work in support of all of these queries. And every day the business has new or different queries, IT must do more work. Business users need to have a “Google-like” experience for this type of data warehouse workload. They need to be able to just run the query against the data warehouse without manual intervention of IT.

This is the really big, hidden story in BI, that the growing analytic requirement is causing IT to drown under the workload it requires. They need a way to make things simpler and really change how things are run. Some technology companies are delivering value by consolidating platforms and creating integrated solutions. We have chosen to focus on the analytic use case and deliver the only product in the market that effectively solves that problem.

Question 5: What are the benefits of Brighthouse for an organization or manager looking for information?

Answer: Brighthouse delivers fast response to ad hoc, complex analytical queries across a large volume of data. It does so without requiring IT to spend time and effort to create new schemas, create indices or partition data. It is also lowers total cost of ownership through industry-leading compression that significantly reduces the amount of storage needed to support all this data. Business users get the answers they need quickly, and IT can meet high service levels with minimal effort or cost.

Question 6: You mentioned the phrase, "use the intelligence of the data." Can you share what you mean by that?

Answer: When data is loaded into the Brighthouse system, it is tightly compressed and stored in “data packs.” The Knowledge Grid automatically creates a highly compact set of metadata, which stores information about the relationship between packs and statistical information about the contents.

When a query is initiated, Brighthouse searches the grid to intelligently decide which data packs, if any, are required to resolve the query. The Knowledge Grid is created on-the-fly, dramatically increasing data load times, and eliminating the need for specialized data partitioning and indexing.

Question 7: So, what about competitors, like BI appliances, database vendors, and such? Are you taking data warehousing one step further?

Answer: The fact that there have been new entrants into the market in recent years is a clear indication that current technologies do not meet the needs of the business today. They are also an indication of high demand across a very broad spectrum of new requirements. Traditional solutions are very expensive, take a lot of time to build, and in fact, are not well suited to support the analytic queries of the business. That is why IT struggles to keep up with the demand of the business users. Many of the newer products on the market are very good at what they are designed to do – provide very fast query performance to predictable queries – but are not designed for ad hoc, unpredictable complex queries. What’s more, they all require substantial work on the part of database administrators and IT to implement and maintain.

Infobright’s solution is markedly different – it is incredibly simple to implement and maintain. Rather than extract-transform-load data, our solution is Load and Go. No new schemas, no index creation, no data partitioning. Brighthouse is simple, powerful and extremely cost effective – the best solution if you need fast answers to evolving business questions.

Question 8: How can your Brighthouse product fit within an existing BI/DW solution? Or is it better to use your product at the beginning of designing a new BI system?

Answer: When we built our product strategy, this was a very important question for us. Organizations have invested millions into their existing data warehouses and BI infrastructure. Offering a solution that leverages those investments and works within that environment was key to us and is a big part of our go-forward product road map. Brighthouse is very well suited to be added to an existing data warehouse environment. Because of our “just load it and go” capability, you can re-use all of the data modeling, ETL, and BI reports that you have already built. Many of our customers have large data warehouses already, but they aren’t able to support business users requests for ad hoc queries due to its performance impact on other users or high cost. In that case, they’ll implement Brighthouse as a complementary warehouse to provide the services their business users need.

In other cases, Brighthouse is implemented as the sole data warehouse for the company.

Question 9: During our call, you mention several amazing results seen by clients. Care to share some of those with readers?

Answer: I’d be glad to. A good example is the use of our technology in support of online advertising. Companies that advertise online want to track how well marketing campaigns are attracting their target audiences as well as detailed ROI of these campaigns. The marketing analytics providers depend on being able to rapidly run complex, ad hoc queries against huge amounts of click stream data and provide this to their customers.

Using Brighthouse, one digital marketer found that it could load 3.2 billion rows of data at an average rate of more than 300,000 rows per second! Brighthouse also compressed all-important fact tables at a ratio of 40:1 – meaning that 40 GB of raw data resulted in only 1 GB of storage, leading to huge savings in storage costs as well as improved performance.

Another user—a company that manages major online customer loyalty and incentive programs—found that Brighthouse returned query results 15 times faster than an existing solution. Brighthouse also surpassed this solution’s ability to compress data, reducing the footprint of fact tables some 35 to 43:1.

Question 10: Excellent talking with you Miriam. Do you have any additional links or information about Infobright you want to share?

Answer: For your readers who are looking for more information about what is new in data warehousing, we have an excellent white paper on our web site written by Claudia Imhoff, a well known expert in the field. Those people interested in finding out more about Brighthouse can also find additional information on our web site at http://www.infobright.com/, or contact us at any time via email at info@infobright.com.

Taming information from the Internet with one website

The mass amount of information one can spend hours reading, watching, and being entertained is limitless for any individual. Some would consider much of the information found on the Internet as noise.

Many have tried finding ways of reducing that noise for you.

Leading the charge, Guy Kawasaki is taming the volumes of information one website at a time. His latest introduction is Alltop. A website for those who just want information at their finger tips without figuring out the multitude of RSS readers, adding RSS feeds, XML, and bombarded by email updates from bloggers (which you may have received from me because of this post).

Alltop's, "all the top stories", is an execution in simplicity. Sure not all websites are on there (including this one sadly). And sure you cannot customize the list. That's because this is a list of the "top sites" on the web. It's your dashboard into the best of the blogosphere.

Guy walks you through a day in the life of using AllTop.

"Making the simple complicated is commonplace;
making the complicated simple,
awesomely simple, that's creativity."
- Charles Mingus

Relating this to Business Intelligence... when you're designing, building, or requesting changes to your Business Intelligence system, you may want to keep in mind the power of simplicity and how effective it can be. Does the business need all variations of revenue reports when a dashboard may suffice? Maybe the path from corporate Strategy Map to performance metrics could be made crystal clear for managers.

The power is not in the volumes of functionality provided by toolsets but in the clear, concise presentation of the information.

You've got questions, they have answers instantly

Instantly may not be much of an exaggeration. One of my questions was answered in 16 seconds. You can ask anything. And they most likely will have an answer! Their motto:

"No one knows everything. Everyone knows something."

The Muchobene Instant Answers site allows any question to be asked. Muchobene then places you in contact with an appropriate person who can answer it within seconds. I must say, what a great concept! I may finally be able to win at Trivial Pursuit.

Here are screen shots from the conversation I had. And the great part is, you're conversing with someone (who-knows-where) with answers you need.

Initial screen waiting for that special someone to respond to my query.


My question about 'green' technology was responded to in 26 seconds.


Some pleasant conversation via instant messaging as he or she sends me more information.


And finally closing remarks, while I rank the response I received as "Right On!", five stars.


The possibilities are endless in my mind. Imagine customer support from your bank starting a conversation with you in seconds. Never being put on hold. No automated attendants.

Simply an instant connection to people who can answer your question. Thanks Guy Kawasaki for making this happen.

Open source gets VC funding

$12M in a round of Series C funding by Benchmark Capital who has backed other open source companies like Red Hat, Zimbra, and MySQL. This makes a total of $26M of VC funding given to this US-based BI open source company.

Yes, the Pentaho group picks up another round of funding according to this Performance Guys post. The article suggests that open source is one of three disruptive technologies with Software as a Service and pre-loaded appliances being the others.

The question still remains. Can Pentaho, and really open source BI in general, compete with other on-premise vendors, such as Cognos, Business Objects, Microsoft, and Hyperion? According to the article, Pentaho reports "brisk" uptake. My take is they still need to continue converting the 3 million downloads into open source licenses (i.e. sales).

Pentaho has built a location intelligence dashboard mashup with Google Maps. And is working with Greenplum's Bizgres-based data warehousing appliance platform. So they are getting out there and integrating their products for a variety of revenue streams.

But what differentiates them enough from Cognos, BO, Microsoft, and Hyperion?

I guess the licensing costs could be significantly less. The flip side to low upfront costs is the backend support and how that support is perceived. Is there enough of a developer community to support customer implementations? Are there enough help desk and knowledge areas to give IT departments support when questions and issues arise?

Perhaps the open source BI play is in the small to mid-sized company range for now. I'm all for Pentaho and other open source BI companies as they bring competitiveness to the industry. And as they take on more market share, the proprietary vendors will be forced to adjust and improve. And that ultimately provides more choice and flexibility for customers.

Microsoft leader in execution

I'm sure you've heard the Gartner quadrants are out again. The BI vendors are graded and ranked according to Gartner criteria. And as you can expect, vendors want to be high and to the right.

This year Microsoft is a leader in platform BI and ahead of the pack for "ability to execute" on the BI vision. This means Microsoft has the competitiveness, success from it's BI products, investment in BI, and can execute on it's pricing model.

Tidbit: Did you know Microsoft spends $6B (with a 'B') company-wide on research and development annually?

And it's pricing model... which I have to say is aligned with the BI industry's goal: deliver BI for the masses. No longer will an organization have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses -- this is a cost prior to building anything for end users! Microsoft's model flips the traditionally expensive licensing model upside down.

Plus Gartner thinks Microsoft's PerformancePoint Server is coming to a desktop near you. Aimed at the mid-market and above with a CPM focus, Microsoft's BI stack integrates well with it's integration engine (BizTalk), Office products, and portal software (Sharepoint). What else could most organizations need?

And if you're interested, here are the Top 10 benefits of PerformancePoint Server from Microsoft's marketing department.

Okay, there are a few short comings but which vendor doesn't have them. One being a not so competitive data mining story. I view this as a small portion of most organizations, so I shall not dwell. The second is how they intend to deliver their BI products to customers -- through a partner community.

Yes, Microsoft isn't interested in implementing their own software, unlike Cognos and Oracle. They want to educate and train partners to do this. Today the downside is the limited choice of BI Systems Implementation partners.

The huge upside is when more partners come on board, watch out. These partners will have the collective brain-power to Outsmart, Outwit, and Outlast (yes I watch the Survivor series on TV) any in-house services group from the likes of Cognos, Oracle, etc.

So I like the Microsoft model and their products and expect to see them competing along side the other leaders that are high and to the right.

The "Platinum Rule"

From my Who's Better: Business or IT debate, I received feedback, some strongly opinionated, from people with examples of CIO's as successful sponsors/leaders of BI initiatives. I have several examples myself.

And Frank Buytendijk's rebuttal (kudos on taking the high road, Frank) shares his Platinum Rule ("those with the knowledge and experience, make the rules") and thoughts on organizational maturity. I can appreciate his statement that "the only project approach more disastrous than the IT-driven project, is the business-driven project."

While this debate on the success of IT or business driven projects is healthy, I feel we're missing something. As most leadership books will say, a good, strong leader is important but the people on the team are the ones who make it happen. Regardless how well a leader can motivate, the results are capped by the capabilities, skills, and experience of the individuals and the team as a whole.

As Jim Collins (writer of Good to Great) says, "Do you have the right people on the bus (the wrong people off the bus) and the right people in the right seats?"

This is the job of a leader... or at least it should be.

The job of the team, especially when talking about BI, is to reach for that higher rung and be the best at what you do -- architects, developers, business analysts, power users, report writers, quality assurance specialists, testers, project managers, and the list goes on.

While I think good leaders are required (great ones are hard to find), it is up to the individuals on the team to make their BI project a success. Have water-cooler conversations, share ideas, and learn from the best (and each other). Push for a team culture where you can bring your ideas to the group -- uncriticized. Freely research ways to improve your BI system -- remember the goal is information to the masses.

Okay back to the question of "who's better, an IT or business driven project"? After leaders sort out the bus and seat question, who's going to deliver BI success for your organization? I firmly believe it's not just the technically-minded people but all the people who know what is needed for your organization... from those with knowledge of the content required by the management team through to those with experience of core software functionality.

I would say without the emphasis on the team delivering BI for your organization won't reach it's full potential. Then "success" becomes only a thought dreamt up at the beginning of the initiative along with the Project Charter.

The SEC side-steps BI

Could the SEC be side-stepping business intelligence forcing companies to report financial data in an XML standard? Or could this turn into the investor's version of "financial intelligence"?

The SEC launched an XBRL-based online tool that allows investors to extract, compare and analyze executive compensation for large U.S. companies. This tool is so important to the SEC that they are pressing to mandate it as a requirement for all companies to post their financials for investors to view.

Investors can do analysis and reporting on companies to determine investment worthiness. And the best part, no Data Warehouse required.

Business Need: Ensure financial accuracy - In recent years, regulatory reporting requirements prescribed by new legislation, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States, have raised the importance of reporting accuracy and transparency.

Companies are forced to produce a public BI system, of sorts, hosted by the SEC.

Microsoft: As we know, MS Office Word and Excel have long been used to help compile, report, and consume financial information. Together, XBRL and Microsoft Office hide the complexities and shoot for wide-scale adoption in the financial community. Microsoft has a considerable lead in the market as financial people are very familiar with Excel.

With SEC's XBRL, contextual information is stored, while the language and accounting standards are irrelevant.

What is it? Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) is a worldwide industry standard for the publishing, exchange, and analysis of financial reports and data based on the XML language. The XBRL technical standard is being developed by XBRL International, a not-for-profit consortium with 200+ members worldwide.

So where does this leave you if you're managing BI and your CFO needs to produce these XBRL financial filings? Most likely the financial department will want to export directly from their financial system. In my mind, this would break BI's one shared truth concept for an organization. Or does it?

This boils down to what BI is today and what BI can do for an organization in the future. Today, SEC filings may not be your BI system's mandate. In the future, BI needs to expand it's definition. Should it always include ETL and a data warehouse? Or should BI focus on delivering content throughout the organization and to external partners or customers? I think the later.

BI has potential but is rot with problems -- failed projects, high costs, low returns. Some organizations have made BI very successful. The US Veterans Affairs is one of the largest Microsoft Analysis Services deployments in the world with a profound cost savings of over a billion dollars! Now that is successful BI!

So you may want to consider how XBRL should be apart of your BI system using an overall mandate of providing content to the masses. As for XBRL, couldn't they at least come up with a friendlier acronym!?

Where is your ego?

An excellent speaker via webinar shared with us what our greatest asset is and I felt compelled to share it with you.

The webinar was about taking advantage of your ego and team ego to build great teams. Many would pause and say it takes a big ego first -- before being successful. Or you get a big ego after achieving success.

But there is a difference between big ego and big ambition!

I must say, I learned more about myself and how our team could work better together in one hour -- I can imagine what 2 days with them would do. Did you know, 99% of us don't have inflated egos all the time but in those moments when we do, we become:

• Defensive


• Comparative


• Seek acceptance


• Showcase our brilliance

To help keep our ego's in check, Dave Marcum and Steve Smith wrote a book called Egonomics where "it's not a book about big egos, but how ego affects the performance of everyone, in everything we do—good or bad—in ways we hardly notice, but have an immense impact."


Ever had a career review and asked for feedback?

Sure, we all have. It can be hard not to become defensive during this process. We say we want feedback but receiving it from some people is so hard.

On EgonomicsLive blog, they reveal the 2 major reasons why we become defensive in this situation. We want to keep: 1) the image we want others to have of us, and 2) the image we need to have of ourselves.

However Egonomics is also about the betterment of the team.

Have you been on a team and wondered how to move from a 'good' to a 'great' performing team? Team Egonomics has short case studies and a guide you can use to discuss the Egonomics techniques directly with your team.

When you want more (and you should), Marcum Smith's personal site has loads of research and compiled results so people can understand the affects of bad ego in the workplace and at home.

Now bringing this ego stuff to BI... Is your BI team highly effective with the right people on the bus and in the right seats? Ask yourself, can you have open water-cooler conversations between business and IT stakeholders all with humble egos? Answer honestly.

You may ask whether this humble approach to ego can survive in a capitalistic "dog eat dog" world?

From Marcum and Steve's extensive research "humility is the only real way to become great". Humility was also used in the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. Both found a strong, direct link to leaders who made their companies great performers while having a humble ego.

In the BI world, we constanstly read about the problems between business and IT sponsored projects and the challenges BI projects have. What is it worth to you and your team to have a highly effective team? Could managing your ego make BI successful throughout the organization? Can you afford not to try?

As Marcum says, "Ego works for or against us in each team meeting, boardroom debate, client conversation and interview we have. When we manage ego effectively, it can push us from the mail room to the corner office, from mediocrity to excellence, from bitter discouragement to fierce determination."

Learn to manage your healthy ego.

Strategy & Leadership in January 2008

I came across Erin McCune's post on Leadership is Critical to Project Success on the Forte Financial blog. She references an earlier post of mine on Business vs IT (appreciated) but I would have to say she adds a more important educational component.

Thanks, Erin, for sending out that January 2008 Harvard Business Review is dedicated to Leadership & Strategy. Some of the HBR topics below could be interesting... guess I'll find out when I start reading on the weekend.

• The New Leader's Guide to Diagnosing the Business


• How Star Women Build Portable Skills


• The Existential Necessity of Midlife Change


• The Experience Trap


• The Founder's Dilemma

And just before I left Erin's blog, I saw her latest post on XBRL tools making reporting easier. The tool she references "maps data stored in separate systems and proprietary formats into XBRL so that it is easy to share for reporting and analysis". Excellent idea for using an open standard.

The tool by Enterprise Engineering, Inc, is an XBRL-based analytical tool that makes it possible to compare a company’s income statement, balance sheet and other financial reports to peers and industries.

However, hard to find BI vendor tools that use the XBRL standard in a non-proprietary way.

Reality Check: search is lacking

Reading Frank Buytendijk's post on search conjured up memories of the hours I've spent on Google (I admit I haven't used others, even Yahoo or LiveSearch) trying to find information or a birthday present. Sure when I know exactly what I want, it's easy... I only receive a million links to trudge through.

But when I don't know precisely or I'd like to have options to my original thought, I spend hours trying different keywords to give me those options. The same is for any keyword search in Forrester, eBay, Amazon, etc.

For example, when I was interested in buying a video camera for capturing ad hoc interviews at conventions or a spontaneous family moment (not a complicated or expensive camera), you can imagine the results I received -- 52 million. The first couple pages are riddled with product pricing and accessories -- no trusted, non-marketing information -- definitely no options!

This relates to BI too. When I search for corporate information in a BI system, such as, "sales performance 2007", I don't necessarily want every report and KPI with the word "sales", "performance", or "2007" found in the name and description. That would assume I know the name of the report or KPI from a list of thousands -- I have more important things to remember.

The search engine optimization strategies don't work for me, the average consumer. Seth Godin thinks Internet SEO's are problematic for marketers too. So today's keyword search is not working for either the consumer or the marketer.

Here's what I'd like to see from a search engine (if you know of one, BI or other, please let me know):

• Search shouldn't be a yes/no answer. When I ask for 'video camera', the search engine should also come back with options, such as, accessories and comparisons from trusted, non-marketing information. Not just 52 million results with those words or nothing.


• Search should ask me for clarification. When talking with people, we ask clarifying questions, like "did you mean camcorders, professional cameras, or picture cameras with video?" It's the help me, help you situation.


• Search should provide flexible results. From Frank's post, "If you search for a second-hand Jaguar in black, with not more than 100,000 kilometers, perhaps the dark blue one with 101,000 km is fine too."

I want search to be intuitive, easy like Google, but have some "intelligence". Access to information is great but now there is too much available to us in an inefficient manner.

Now to BI. Business Intelligence provides insight into your organization but at what cost is accessing the content. Ask yourself how easy is it for the average person in your organization to gain insight through your BI system (without knowing exactly what the name is). How easy is it for management to find information in your BI system? Do you need a dedicated power user who is the only one that knows what is available?

Think how easy BI would be adopted within your organization if access to the information was as easy as using Google.

Who's better, business or IT

I recently consulted on a large government project where the project sponsor was the CIO. There were only two people above him before you step into the land of 'professional' politicians. This CIO was savvy, smart, and needed to build buy-in from multiple stakeholders (Chiefs of Police... a difficult breed comfortable with conflict) to make this $100M project a success. You may ask how one could not be successful with that kind of cash on the table... but it happens... a lot.

I can think of failed project examples. Specifically I'm thinking of 3 projects in the last 6 years done by large consulting firms (ie. the IBMs, EDS', Accenture's of the world), where failure cost tens of millions of dollars with little or no results. Much of this was your taxpayer money hard at work by the way.

So what makes an unsuccessful project?

Some potential culprits are: technology issues, budget constraints, timeline constraints, user adoption and leadership can contribute to failure. However, leadership stands out the most for me. A leader or project sponsor can make or break the project. They give direction, remove political roadblocks, manage the money... and significant issues escalate to them for final decision.

They have lots to answer for. However let's divide sponsors/leaders into two groups: IT and business. IT sponsors may be the CIO or IT department head. Business sponsors may be CEO, CFO, or VP of a line of business. BUT...

Who makes a better project sponsor and hence best to run a BI project?

(I'm pro-business for this open debate expecting you bloggers and readers out there to provide sharp contrasts and opinionated rebuttles... and support, of course. [Bell ding to begin the round.])

Let's begin with the fact that organizations typically don't have the CIO at the decision-making table - sad but true (oops, I'm pro-business). Okay don't you think this can hinder success if the IT sponsor does not have the backing of the CxO's office? You betcha. Because, let's remember, it's the business who holds the purse strings. And the golden rule is - those with the money, make the rules.

But even without making the rules, business knows what they want and need from BI - simply gather the user & information requirements and ensure IT makes the technology happen. The misconception that IT makes is "if we build it, they will come" -- the value would be so obvious users would clamor to use the BI system. Not true without the business showing IT what they want.

So is it obvious that business sponsors should lead BI projects, especially since BI is for the business? And where do CIO's think they can do a better job? (By the way, the police project I mention above is in progress, so I'll let you know how it goes for the CIO.)

Enterprise-wide data warehousing, duh

From recent talks with organizations on preferred techniques when building their BI/DW visions, I heard a rainbow of responses. I'm sure there are many schools of thought so I spoke with a friend Dave Hewlett, an architect and BI practitioner for years.

"...In my opinion, anything under the category of “data warehouse” absolutely has to be planned enterprise wide. It really doesn’t matter if you are implementing Kimball or Inmon to be honest. The less you plan the more you have to refactor/rebuild as you develop and grow the warehouse. As it gets bigger the refactoring cycles get larger and larger requiring more and more “rebuild from scratch”. It basically turns your warehouse into an upside down pyramid of growing effort. Quick wins up front result in massive complexity down the road."

This means organizations designing their first data mart or silo from one source system or focusing on a single Line Of Business (LOB) are going to cause themselves additional re-work and budget increases while growing their enterprise BI/DW -- not to mention difficulties keeping up with a changing business.

I equate Dave's analogy to building a house. First an architect does up the plans based on your needs, wants, desires. Then a builder plans out the execution and schedules resources. All this before anything is built. You don't design and build one room in the house, then move to the next room to design & build.

That would be one funky house, if it could even be finished!

So why do organizations design one source system or data mart, instead of a big-picture view? Man, what are they thinking...? Well here is what some are thinking:

• It's easier for me to ask for and receive a smaller initial budget. I can ask for more next year when I've proven our team can deliver.
• My risks of making a mistake are reduced. I don't want to promote enterprise BI to management when I cannot be sure we will be successful.
• I want the vendor to prove themselves first. I've heard of failed BI projects before with license and consulting fees going through the roof.
• The consulting firm suggested starting small, then building it out.

These are responses from a few leaders I've spoken with - legitimate, definitely. In my mind, this thinking is similar to building software.

We all have been affected by this vis a vis monthly software upgrades. A software company builds a basic software product and gets it out the door in a rush. Then hopefully with feedback from customers, they continue to release newer versions, each one inching the product closer to the overall product vision.

Incremental building causing redesign as they go. Customers suffer the pain of not having a final product. In BI, some call this stovepipes. Others would say poor design.

So what works best for BI/DW?

1. Up-front design, best practices for enterprise-wide BI.
2. Or incremental design, budget-easing, risk-adverse data marts towards enterprise BI.

You may want to say, "Tom, we could use Master Data Management (MDM) as a way to tie together (conform) our data marts." I'm sure MDM could help in some circumstances but this does feel like a band-aid approach (unless you designed with MDM in mind from the beginning).

I think you need to design & build based on the business need.

If (or should I say when) your business needs to improve performance, are you concentrating on the entire business or a Line Of Business? If you want silos or reports or cubes or KPIs for one Line of Business, you are only focusing on operational improvements for that one LOB.

You're not looking at how that LOB performance supports the organizational strategy and goals. Which, if that is all you need to do, then you're off to the races. Then go deliver!

But... if you feel this is only the beginning and other LOB's would want something similar... the management team may want performance from their perspective... you may share common dimensions across the organization...

...then I would say you should be looking enterprise-wide design.

Acquisitions bad for customers

In the short term at least. Acquisitions can kill R&D funding and unfocus company direction during the internal integration process. Then there is all the time and effort spent on a new company message announcing the "new" product and service offerings - marketing, architectures, training.

Thank you Fayu for sending in this IT Week article about acquisitions in BI will stem innovation.

As well, it could be that during the Oracle, SAP, and IBM acquisition/integration efforts, it may create a vacuum while these big three BI vendors (geez I guess they are now) focus on internal integration. This downtime vacuum may open up a space in the market for the entrepreneurially minded. I hope it does!

Sure business for the acquired (BO, Cognos, Hyperion) will continue to sell licenses. However I agree with the article that behind the scenes people are going to be pulled into committees, working groups and potentially let go, okay, re-shuffled.

This all equates to not pushing the envelope nor being laser-focused on customer needs and the competition. Unfortunate for them... Opportunity for others!

Who's Next

Who's next in acquisition fever?

Yes, there is already debate on who's to be acquired next. I guess it could be the natural progression of things but more likely the herd mentality is cropping up. I know, I know, BI is hot right now.

But like speculators on the stock exchange who drive prices up, make their money by selling at the top, and watch the prices fall on those unaware investors... aka us normal folk who are just trying to make a buck...

I've noticed attention being focused on the remaining tier 1 independent BI vendors - but I don't want to jump on the propaganda band-wagon for companies that didn't really standout before. Not meant as an insult but there are excellent reasons why Cognos, Business Objects, and Hyperion were acquired first (I would also include Microsoft with these best of breed companies).

Then I read the typical "watch for the up & comers" called tier 2 vendors. I believe both these tier 1 & 2 vendors should all be considered either "up & comers" or "been-there-and-done-that'ers".

The question is, if we sober up from our high on acquisitions, down deep in places we don't mention in polite company, "do you really feel the need for the industry to continue consolidating?"

I think not! Any acquisition now would come across as a follower in a sea of leaders. I may exclude acquiring SAS from that list, although there are post-acquisition, merger problems with a privately owned company such as SAS.

Alas where people, investors, acquisition-hungry companies should focus their attention on are innovative, thinking-out-of-the-box companies, technologies or people that will shift BI away from lengthy, costly implementations; allowing BI to permeate throughout a company delivering on the "BI Promise"!

Otherwise BI will be downgraded to simply a component or attachment to an ERP initiative, perceived as the second-cousin, something we will do later after the "must-haves" are complete. You know, similar to what operational reporting is today. There are winners to this downgrade... IBM, SAP, and Oracle's of the world win by having a complete solution to offer, where customers can go shopping in one place for everything they need.

Another word for this... WALMART!

And how do you compete with Walmart? Carefully, not head-on and not on price. Luckily IBM, SAP, and Oracle are not selling cheap commodities - their prices are high. In stark contrast, Microsoft's licensing model is built for growth... huge growth.

So where does this leave us as customers, consultants, and practitioners? With options.

As competitors consider how you will be competitive within this consolidated BI world.

As customers consider how you will win with either the Walmart's or the up & comers.

And a final up-lifting note on market change for up & comers. A market that is squeezed into a corner has high magnitude potential for paradigm shifts and innovative ideas to alter the status quo... sometimes in a significant way!

Here's a TED video of Larry Lessig telling 3 great stories of change.