Almost all human beings, except for the blind or visually challenged, are by nature visually orientated. Our eyes constantly monitor our surroundings searching for things that are out of the ordinary. This real time interface between eyes and the visual cortex of the brain has helped the human race survive by quickly recognizing danger. The great thing about this is that we are also able to filter out all the noise. For example, if you want to mail a letter and during the trip from your home to the mailbox you see every little detail, you probably never get there. So we ignore the stuff that we already know or looks the same all of the time. Only the things that look different get our attention. At the present time this ability to quickly spot dangerous animals or other threats is most often used for other purposes: shopping! Store owners, website builders, they all try to grab our attention using visual stimuli. Recently I was at the new Starbucks coffee shop at Schiphol airport in the Netherlands. My eyes quickly spotted a new Ready To-Go coffee tumbler. It was different from the normal ones because it had some kind of holiday season appearance. Being a collector of Starbuck Coffee Tumbler (I know this is a bit geeky…) I bought it on the spot. For Business Intelligence it is not so much different. As we are confronted with an enormity of data we try to find ways to interpret it. We try to find the information or even knowledge in this overload of data. Therefore we use Business Intelligence. But this information is presented to us in more or less the same manner, shape or form. Therefore we are quickly bored with it. Knowing this and the fact that our eyes and brains have this great ability to recognize patterns and trends we need effective visual communication of data that changes its shape or form to grab our attention when needed and allows us to quickly asses if the information presented holds some kind of pattern of interest. We need visual business intelligence that makes use of our intuitive skills. Just take a look at the work of Stephen Few (http://www.perceptualedge.com/) one of the evangelists of visual Business Intelligence or tools like Gapminder (http://www.gapminder.org/) to see what I mean.

Detailed insight into crucial data and events is a necessity for organizations that want to navigate a constantly changing, information-rich environment. Organizations that know how to connect the use of data to their strategic objectives are more intelligent: they become ‘Intelligent enterprises’, constantly reading, analyzing and reacting to information inside and far outside the companies’ boundaries. Information thus becomes a corporate asset, which infuses itself into all strategic and operational parts of the business. As a result it’s only natural that more and more organizations want to start a Business Intelligence initiative.  However BI initiatives cost money. This is often an inhibiting factor for many companies. At the one hand they need BI to face the business challenges of today’s market but at the other hand they need some kind of justification before they can start. This justification can take two shapes or forms.  The first and most well known is the business case. Basically this is a quantitative analysis of all expected costs versus the expected yield or profit resulting into a return-on-investment. The business case involves calculations on lower costs, more effective processes or less manpower. Those are all very tangible and well defined attributes. Business cases are often made by business departments in order to obtain a budget.   The other is less known - probably far more difficult - but with a higher yield. It involves a non quantitative analysis based on vision. Driven by thought leadership an ideal or goal is formed. Unlike the business case there are no tangible attributes. The advantages or benefits can be things like qualitative better decisions or accessing unknown data sources. Often these initiatives are considered to be vague or soft. There is a promise of profit not a proof of profit or like I call it: return-on-intelligence. This vision based justification is often made on an organizational level in stead of departmental. In my opinion, in this day and age a company can not allow it self to remain without business intelligence and survive the increased competition. A BI environment is a necessity just as much as a LAN or transactional business applications. Therefore they need BI initiatives even without a cold business case. I encourage all companies to take this vision based approach. Not only will it lead to more commitment from your employees, it will also support the execution of your strategy. And in the long run – there is proof enough for that – it will also pay back on its investment.

Take a look at this post on the Eweek website:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2227695,00.asp

Reuters wrote on December 4th: ´Shares in software maker SAP extended gains and hit the day’s high on Monday as traders cited market talk of bid interest from Microsoft. SAP declined comment”. If this is true it would be an interesting wave in the latest developments in the BI vendor consolidation tsunami. I asked Ron Torrico, the Microsoft BI Guru Online within Capgemini, for his opinion. Here are his two cents. He expects there will be a clash of cultures, therefore he suggests operating the companies as two separate entities. In his opinion SAP can benefit from the technology know how within Microsoft. But SAP has been investing in integration with IBM Websphere, which is not the core-competence of the guys in Redmond.On the business side, positioning Dynamics for the small, medium business and SAP for the Enterprise level sounds like a good plan. You can be sure that Larry (Oracle) will be pissed off. It may also encourage SAP to be more open. So again, as many of the recent acquisitions, it seems that market share is again the major driver behind this and not so much the technology.

This is the second part of my posts about the ‘universal truths in business intelligence’. Check out what Frank Buytendijk thinks at: http://blogs.oracle.com/frankbuytendijk/2007/12/04#a95 4. BI projects need high level sponsorship. The reason for this is that we want to introduce Business Intelligence in the organization. It is all about creating awareness and enthusiasm. So do we really need a high level sponsor or manager for this? Perhaps in a very rigid hierarchic organization you do. But we Dutch do not deal well with a top down approach. The real innovation comes from the work floor, we think. I think organization can benefit much more from a highly committed thought leader.  3. BI development should be done incrementally. What would be the opposite of that? Probably some kind of big bang approach where all the functionality can be delivered in one single release. That sounds nice but often this is not possible for BI. To start with I find that when users start to interact with the new BI system they come up with new insights followed by change requests. A successful incremental approach focuses on the identification and prioritization of the most beneficial increments or slices. This should be based on the priority of the objective (is this a key process, is it in line with our strategy?). Other qualifying criteria can be availability and quality of the data. Each slice should be a complete solution. BI projects – just as in real life – should have a first things first approach. Delivering incrementally – keeping the long term view in mind – allows for faster speed to value. So I agree with this truth.  2. BI projects require a business driven approach. Any BI project or program should have business value. Creating a business intelligence environment without a goal is a mission impossible. We do not need data warehouse projects. We need project that can create more sales or reduce churn. A data warehouse or business intelligence project can support this goal. However I do not think that it is should necessarily be the business user who initiates such a project. IT can play an important role in taking the lead by showing what is possible. Especially by creating a prototype. See also my other post on IT push or pull (http://www.biguru-online.com/2007/12/04/active-push-or-passive-pull-role-for-it/).   1. BI needs one version of the truth? Has anyone of you ever played bullshit bingo? It was one of the sources of inspiration for this post. You take 10 of the most used words and cross them out during a meeting when used. Single version would be on the top of that list. I hope that from this day forward no one will ever use this expression again. This was born out of fear for multiple version in spreadsheets across organization. And frankly, I cannot stand the expression anymore. Also I totally disagree with it. Understanding is always determined by its context! And all communication should differ for each target group. Creating a single version – let alone the office politics involved in that – is an utopia. Instead let us focus on a single version of the facts (data quality, lineage and so on). To me the focus should be on the definitions or meta data. As long as the definition is clear you can have different version per context. So are there any ‘truths’ that we missed in our top 10? We would appreciate your suggestions. Also if you disagree with what I said (or agree for that matter) please post a comment. Remember this blog is all about the possibility to be an online BI guru yourself. It is a platform for an open discussion about BI – not just a floorshow for my thoughts.

Alles is BI [Click to open pdf]

Everything is BI, but what is BI and what is happening in the BI world with all the vendor consilidation?

In this pdf file you can find an article (I was interviewed for this) published in channelworld about the subject.

ARTICLE IS IN DUTCH