|
|
|
|
|
| Management Briefings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now and for ever: Graham Spicer, SolStonePlus (February 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the current economic conditions, many organisations are looking to ease the financial
pressure and business uncertainty they face. In this environment, one of the main factors
influencing businesses when deciding which initiatives to take is the desire to identify and
implement short-term gains, such as process automation and budget process efficiencies.
More than ever, businesses are now looking for an immediate return on any investment.
However, this focus can have a potentially adverse effect on long-term strategies. Neglecting
the longer-range vision is dangerous, and any initiative organisations take in such uncertain
economic times must deliver value in both the short and long term.
Businesses currently face a range of issues. Firstly, the recession is expected to continue well
into 2010. Despite a declaration from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research
that March 2009 was the turning point, things have not changed for businesses at all. Many are
still weighed down with debt and will be looking at initiatives to position them as market leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the mid-market missing out?: Clive Longbottom, Quocirca (January 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently, Quocirca carried out research into the use of corporate performance management
(CPM) and business intelligence (BI) tools by mid-market organisations across the UK.
The findings were worrying when one considers the need for organisations to be completely
aware of the shortcomings in how they see their business in the current financial climate.
The biggest issue revealed was a lack of knowledge about what ‘performance management’
actually is – with one third of respondents seeing it as a means of measuring the performance
of staff, and almost the same number believing it is purely for measuring the performance of the
salesforce.
Only one quarter understood performance management to be a means of monitoring,
measuring, reporting on and predicting the financial health across the whole organisation – the
definition that the vendors would prefer to see in use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blame game: Peter Thomas, Element Six (October 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The proverb “a bad workman blames his tools” is one which has a degree of history to it.
Indeed its lineage has been traced to 13th century France as in: mauvés ovriers ne trovera ja
bon hostill (les mauvais ouvriers ne trouveront jamais un bon outil being a rendition in more
contemporary French).
To me this timeless observation is applicable to present-day business intelligence (BI) projects.
Browsing through internet forums, it is all too typical to see discussions that start, “What is the
best BI software available on the market?”, “Who are the leaders in SaaS BI?” and (rather
poignantly in my opinion), “Please help me to pick the best technology for my dashboard”.
I feel that, in an important sense, the people asking these questions are rather missing the
point. To explain this view, I am going to offer a sporting analogy. Indeed sporting
performance is an area in which the aphorism “A bad workman blames his tools” is frequently
applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good on paper: Cliff Mills, NCC Research (July 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The management of paper-based information can present many problems. Organisations that
have processes around a physical item of paper – such as a supplier invoice, contract or letter –
take on a significant burden in duplicating, storing and retrieving multiple copies of that document.
Yet even with the best-run physical filing system, inefficiencies are inherent. If different parts of
the business need copies of the same document, you hit problems of version control and
access. These issues are exacerbated if the organisation works over multiple sites, introducing
unnecessary delays as staff track down time-sensitive information.
There is also the physical storage of the document ‘mountain’. A customer file can end up as a
hefty item taking up space, and is prey to physical damage by flood, fire or theft.
For many organisations the majority of documents are now created and stored electronically
and they may well have implemented an electronic document management (EDM) system, from
a vendor such as EMC, OpenText, Microsoft, etc, as their document management solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cultivating the green shoots with BI: Russell Facey, Morgan Benjamin (June 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the headlines have moved away from prophesies of doom and gloom and are making
some reference to ‘green shoots of recovery’, organisations are still looking for ways to reduce
their budgets. However, major spending cutbacks are a potentially false economy for many
business IT services, not least the new generation of business intelligence (BI) tools.
Sales may slow down when finances are tough, but they do not stop altogether – which means
there are more people fighting for a piece of a smaller pie. Therefore, when budgets are tight,
your organisation’s competitive edge is more critical than ever. That means the management
team need complete visibility of everything happening across all functions so they can make
informed choices.
In the current climate, the business-critical nature of these decisions is heightened because
they determine the ongoing success, or potential failure, of the company. BI uses data
generated on an ongoing basis, which in turn offers a better understanding of operations so that
processes can be fine-tuned to maximise both efficiency and sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the top: Clive Margolis, Acestar Solutions (March 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
“All successful people have a goal. No one can get anywhere unless he knows where he wants
to go.” – Norman Vincent Peale.
Having a strategy is the cornerstone of a successful business intelligence project. Yet all too
often, BI projects fail to deliver anywhere near the value they are capable of providing because
they do not follow an effective strategy.
The main reasons why BI strategy is so often overlooked are historic: thinking within the
organisation fails to keep up with the pace of developments within the IT industry that provides
the technical capability to ‘do’ BI.
Managers often fail to see that business intelligence is something more than just an updated
equivalent of the old computerised reports they are used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated and confused: Surya Mukherjee, Datamonitor (November/December 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The business intelligence (BI) market has recently witnessed a flurry of large-ticket acquisitions,
the simultaneous entry of several software conglomerates and rampant commoditisation.
Last year alone, three of the largest independent pure-play BI software suppliers were acquired
by larger IT conglomerates – Cognos by IBM for $4.9 billion, Business Objects by SAP for
$6.8 billion and Hyperion by Oracle for $3.3 billion. This has resulted in market consolidation,
ushering in commoditisation that threatens smaller and larger vendors alike.
In the wake of this, the larger vendors are quickly bridging gaps in their offerings and trying to
present an holistic portfolio to their customers, while the remaining smaller and pure-play
vendors are trying to establish themselves in their respective niches.
But where does all this leave users and purchasers of BI software? In a market shaken up by such large-scale acquisitions,
users are visibly in two minds – with some waiting for more stability in the market, whilst others are looking for lower prices and
added value from bundled offerings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perfecting performance: Tom Griggs, Parson Consulting (September 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In recent years, the concept of corporate performance management (CPM) and the adoption of performance technologies has
garnered substantial attention, with mixed reviews.
No-one disputes the potential benefit of performance management as these kinds of initiatives continue to rank number one in
priority and are a high area of importance for executives. In fact, a 2006 AMR Research report predicted that CPM spending
would reach nearly $23 billion – with BI spending increasing by 10% and the dashboard/scorecard segment by 26%.
Nevertheless, even with all the investment, the pay-off still remains elusive for many. A high percentage of companies are not
achieving their desired results and subsequently falling short of their performance goals.
Why is it that so many CPM initiatives fall short? Is it the strategy itself or the execution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green business intelligence: Howard Pull, Conchango (May 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Picture the possibilities… Sales soar at a UK supermarket when ethically minded customers
flock to its newly improved e-commerce site which allows them to order their usual basket of
groceries, and then rank and substitute products based on their green credentials. With a
click of a button they substitute their usual basket of products with a rival brand with a lower
carbon footprint, whose packaging is bio-degradable or used the least energy in its
production.
Elsewhere, a high-street chain announces a ‘green initiative’ of energy and emission savings to
the stock market, but then finds the data it uses to support this fails to meet the industry-defined
GRI reporting standards. The company defends the initiative as a success – but its share price
suffers.
These scenarios illustrate the power of ‘green’ business intelligence and the kind of business
opportunities and risks it presents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navigating CPM's new landscape: Simon Bell, Opal Wave Solutions (April 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have been many changes in the corporate performance management (CPM)
software market over recent years. We have seen vendors delivering greater
functionality, ease-of-use and value, and finally seen them step up to the mark with the
delivery of platforms that are actually capable of fulfilling their marketing promises.
Last year, however, saw something different. A flurry of acquisitions –including both
some long-anticipated deals and some surprises – brought a complete and rapid change
in the market structure.
Hyperion was acquired by Oracle, Cartesis and ALG were acquired by Business Objects,
which was then taken over by SAP. SAP itself had only just bought OutlookSoft to add to
its earlier Pilot purchase. The last of the big players was snapped up when IBM took
over Cognos which had itself just bought Applix.
All this left the market in confusion with a completely new triumvirate of big vendors trying to convince customers that
they knew what they were doing but that each of their competitors was in disarray!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silencing the sceptics: CJ Cox, BearingPoint (January 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
For many years, corporations have sought the holy grail of increasing their competitive advantage and profit by harnessing
their corporate data as a strategic and tactical tool. As a result, a growing number of companies have invested in a new
generation of business intelligence solutions that gather, provide secured access to and analyse data.
While these solutions can be powerful tools that save money, raise performance and meet the needs of information workers
across an organisation, many companies find they are not receiving the return on investment (ROI) they had hoped for. Much
of the disappointment in BI performance can be traced to user dissatisfaction, which results in employees either not using the
new systems well or, worse, not using them at all.
The good news is that this problem can be addressed by creative companies through a mix of technical improvements, change
management, communications and training programmes – helping them get what they hoped for from BI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over-engineered and under-used: Roger Freeston, Medley (November 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of data warehouses to support a company’s customer relationship management (CRM)
strategy is now becoming increasingly commonplace. These solutions are typically seen as the
cornerstone for the success of the CRM initiative.
However, if this is the case, why – when looking at organisations that have recently completed
a CRM initiative – do we find that the CRM data warehouse (CRM DW) is often under-used,
misunderstood and is failing to deliver the expected benefits to the business?
To understand this, we must first take a step back and consider what the rational for the CRM
DW was in the first place.
The overall objective is to provide business intelligence to achieve the company’s objectives in
attracting, servicing and retaining customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who's in charge?: Darron Chapman, TFPL Recruitment (September 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information and communications technology (ICT) plays an important role in organisations. It enables us to communicate
constantly, collaborate virtually, compete globally, share information widely across geographic boundaries and time zones, and
operate at a speed earlier generations could only imagine.
As organisations look to realise the promised return on investment in ICT, it has become apparent that the value lies in the
content it carries and not in the technology itself. So ICT has helped bring information centre stage as a key resource, a
commodity and a power base.
Excellence in information management (IM) now looks set to become a major organisational target. Like total quality
management (TQM), business process re-engineering (BPR) and knowledge management (KM), some organisations are
embracing the concept with early-adopter zeal, some protest that it is just a fad, while others point out that it is something they
have been doing for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future of BI may not be BI...: Gerry Brown, Bloor Research (June 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many BI vendors and industry commentators have been promoting the idea of ‘BI 2.0’. This new
generation of BI software is easy to use, fast and flexible. It is said that BI 2.0 will rocket user
adoption from its 25% or so penetration level of business users to 85%-plus. BI will then be truly
‘pervasive’.
This is an attractive vision from a vendor perspective. But from a buyer perspective, it raises a
number of issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turning information into intelligence: Eleanor Windsor, Osborne Clarke (May 07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business intelligence (BI) is often associated with expensive and complex IT systems. Although
these systems impress with their ability to gather data and management information, it is the
mixing of these reporting tools with the all-important human element that can really help to
improve business decision making.
BI is not just about data collection and data presentation – and it should not be sited or seen as
part of either IT or marketing.
To really work, it needs to be a function in its own right. It needs to be focused on drawing
together information from across the business, analysing and interpreting that data, and
communicating that analysis with the appropriate recommendations to the right people within
the business at the right time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blame the governance: Rupert Cavendish, Iconium (March 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world of business is constantly evolving. As organisations are increasingly subject to legislation and need to build more
complex and time-critical forms of risk management – driven by the FSA, Sarbanes-Oxley, IT security, etc – so the number of
policies, standards and procedures needed to inform and obligate staff grows larger.
Unfortunately, more policies does not mean more understanding, as staff will be even less able to find the things that relate to
them and their job, that are most immediately relevant to the projects they are working on today.
The increasing weight of legal requirements such as FSA regulation, the Freedom of Information Act, data protection, privacy
law, information security and health & safety legislation requires organisations not only to comply, but also set up audit trails to
demonstrate their compliance. Organisations also need to establish and use procedures which allow them to operate efficiently
in all departments and locations, in line with internal or external standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new information professionals: S Manwani, Henley Management College (Jan 07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
People know only too well the importance of information in competing in a global economy or protecting our society against
terrorism. This information comes in many different forms from a variety of sources and has to be validated, consolidated and
presented in order to take the right decisions.
We also appreciate that this information has to be controlled and secure so that it is not misused. The public and private sectors
have these common challenges even though their ultimate use of information is different in regards to organisational aims.
This link is illustrated by two case studies detailed below – the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Yell UK. Both Steve
Farquharson, group information management director at MPS, and Mike Fishwick, head of customer information management
at Yell, have recognised that information needs to take precedence over technology in setting and implementing policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enterprise insight: Maggie Scott, Detica (November 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data warehousing; customer insight; business intelligence; the ‘single view’ of the customer – the promise of these capabilities
is driving increasing investment in insight across organisations, suggesting an end-game in which data can be gathered from
disparate sources across the organisation, collected, integrated and transformed to create a coherent source of information. As
a result, decision making across the organisation should be both more efficient and effective.
The term ‘enterprise insight’ is often used to encompass these capabilities, bringing a range of benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Icing on the cake...or staple diet?: Michael Collins and David Willis (Sept 06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the information age, with the internet providing us with news and comment from all
corners of the world, data exploitation has been elevated from its traditional place in the
marketing mix to become a 21st century corporate necessity. In essence, businesses
have a wealth of data but a shortage of actionable information, and delivering the right
information to the right people at the right time has never been so critical to an
organisation’s success. The integration of data and its packaging up in a form that business managers can
comprehend and action is what bridges the information void. Technological advances
mean it is now within any organisation’s capability to exploit its data. Graphical data
integration tools can increase productivity, with application definitions managed via
metadata, and ongoing support no longer presents such a headache to IT heads.
Similarly, intuitive data-quality tools can quickly identify issues th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A balanced information diet: Bob Barnes, Conchango (August 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companies are realising that the provision of information to internal and external stakeholders is
vital, but they often lack a clear approach for delivering it. Consumers of information often find it
difficult to obtain the correct information and sometimes receive conflicting information from
different parts of the same company.
So what is the answer? To draw a parallel, people need both food and water to thrive. But not
just any food – what the meal is made up of is important. People may want a complete meal,
not the uncooked ingredients as they might not have the time or skills to prepare them.
Consider a company and its need to be fed by information. This structured information is like
‘drink’ – you need it regularly and it must be clean and of good quality. A lot of companies do
realise the importance of this and have their handling of this data well under control. However,
their ‘unstructured’ information – documents, emails, etc – is like food. Again this should be of good quality, clean, wellpresented
and hopefully a pleasure to consume. However when it comes to how some companies serve up their unstructured
information, it is often an unappealing stew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BI: the thinking executive's way to get ahead: Jake Liddell, Charteris (July 06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the renowned movie ‘2001: a Space Odyssey’, the on-board thinking computer, HAL, is a
great friend in a crisis until he actually causes one. Confronted for the first time with the threat
of disconnection, HAL immediately sets out to kill every human on the spaceship – and nearly
succeeds.
Today, businesses that really want to get ahead are confronted by the need to develop their
own computer-based intelligence – business intelligence. In practice, business intelligence is
not ‘intelligence’ as such – just as HAL himself perhaps wasn’t really so intelligent because he
didn’t know he could be switched back on again. Instead of trying to simulate genuine human
intelligence, BI provides what is essentially a distillation of information. This distillation allows
people to apply their own decision-forming where and when it matters, rather than taking up
valuable thinking time in mundane sorting, sifting and calculating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quality concerns: Sarah Burnett, Butler Group (June 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business intelligence (BI) has become an important organisational capability in today’s
information age. Driven by the need to make sense of the massive amounts of data that they
have at their disposal, organisations have turned to BI to convert raw data collected from daily
operations and transactions into useful intelligence to support business decision making.
Their efforts, however, continue to be hampered by data quality and integrity issues. In some
organisations source-data quality is often inconsistent at best. So there’s a need to understand
how we go about making poor-quality data better, and dirty and inconsistent data clean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality check list: Pete Singleton, Analitica (April 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you believe the analysts, business intelligence (BI) and corporate performance
management (CPM) are set to top the list of IT priorities in the coming years – and there
is no doubt that successful implementations have reaped huge rewards, for all sizes of
organisations. It is one area of business systems that can be equally rewarding to the
multinational blue-chip as well as the £100 million turnover business, and it spans a
range of industry sectors and requirements.
A good BI system should provide visibility and clarity of decision making to the business.
Executives should have simple navigation points to view performance, dig into detail and
make decisions. Analysts should have ‘speed of thought’ capabilities to analyse, answer questions and predict and
model. Operational staff should have clear and defined information that aid in their jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too much of a good thing?: Eduard Gracia, Deloitte MCS (February 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the last decade or so, offshoring has been the most remarkable trend observed in the IT arena. Put simply, offshoring
is the logical consequence of market globalisation, driven by the emergence of technologies that enable companies to
provide remotely services that until very recently could only be supplied from the location where the end customer sat.
Offshoring has already left behind its heroic days and is rapidly becoming a widespread practice. Nevertheless (or
perhaps precisely because it is becoming standard practice for many service types, such as call centres or basic IT
development), many companies assume it is easy to extend the concept to other business processes – and learn the
hard way that it is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|