In a move that turns the heat up on Microsoft Excel, Google is partnering with business intelligence firm Panorama Software to develop a software-as-a-service (SaaS) analytics, reporting and data visualization tool for its free online Google Docs applications suite. The BI firm that handed Microsoft the original OLAP technology that’s now included in SQL Server database management system, is working with Google to push BI and data visualisation capabilities into Google’s Docs applications suite which mimics Microsoft Office with free online word processing, spreadsheet and presentation applications. At the same time rumors are surfacing that Microsoft in experimenting with an online office suite with codename Albany. This in an attempt to fend off competition like Google docs. The Panorama software, which has been released as a beta version this week, is offered as a free desktop gadget that works with Google Spreadsheets. It draws on analysis, reporting, dashboard, visualisation (charting) and data modelling tools that are part of Panorama’s NovaView BI suite. These elements combine to create Panorama Pivot Tables that can be embedded and manipulated in applications like Google Spreadsheets. This Google initiative perfectly fits into one of the BI megatrends for 2008: Integration. We have seen that Business Intelligence continues to integrate with operational processes. The preferred tool of choice in operations is still the spreadsheet (Excel). Microsofts ‘BI for the masses approach’ also boosts excel as their BI frontend. If Google wants to compete with Microsoft (in the BI area) then targeting the spreadsheet sounds like a well thought strategy. But if you compare the installed base of MS Office and Google Docs there is still a long way to go before somebody in Redmond looses sleep over this. Also we have seen a consolidation of BI vendors in 2007. This means that small(er) BI vendors will be looking for partners to survive (or create niche solutions). Again also sound strategy thinking by the guys and girls at Panorama. That they have been in bed with Microsoft before makes it even more exciting.  Finally the Vendor consolidation has created an renewed interest in open source software. Clients are afraid to be ‘owned’ by one mega vendor. Google may be perceived as a alternative. In conclusion, we could argue that the BI vendor consolidation has made the BI market more volatile by creating new chances for innovative parties even from a non traditional BI background.

I was asked by an IT magazine in the Netherlands to come up with a couple of practical tips on BI service delivery. In my opinion the most important element in service delivery is creating a optimal mix of all crucial elements. My submitted three practical tips cover design, build and implementation. However it is just a start. Please join me to create a top 10 in BI service delivery.  [1] When designing a Business Intelligence environment always consider target groups and type of usage.Target groups: Some users such as managers often have the need for a high level dashboards with little detail. However other users like analysts need lot of detail and powerful analysis tools. Every target group needs their own environment in form, function and frequency (of data refresh). Usage: There should be a mix of fast (ad hoc) and structural (more long term) BI solutions and products for the end user of a BI environment. [2] Excellent BI specialists are a scarce resource but are crucial for the success of the BI environment. Do not cut back on quality. Make sure you have a proper mix of ‘hardcore’ geeks as well as business architects or BI visionaries. In order to make the costs controllable consider outsourcing parts of your BI environment. A good starting point would be technical realization (build) and application maintenance.  [3] Don’t stop when it’s finished. After the technical realization of the BI environment the real work just starts. A critical success factor for this is the BI Competence Center. This center should mix IT and business components to ensure the optimal use of BI within the organization. It should be the BICC that pro actively supports the users in their daily work. In this phase it is no longer about high level sponsorship but more about working floor thought leadership.

What is the most annoying thing that can happen when you want to buy a carton of milk? That the milk is out of stock! As a customer this is very frustrating. As a consumer of a certain product of service you want to get what you need. The same applies for BI. Whether it is a report, cube or specific tool specialist. But who is the BI customer? This depends on the supplier perspective. In ‘our world’ there are two types of suppliers of BI products and services: Systems Integrators and the BI department within organizations. The SI supplies BI knowledge and capabilities to the BI department. That is their customer. The BI department supplies reports, cubes and so on to different departments within their organization. An example: A SI delivers a reporting consultant to the BI competence Center within a large supermarket organization. This BICC delivers reports to the replenishment organization within the supermarkets. The performance of the BI consultant will be done by the BICC. For example using a assessment report. The performance of the BICC will be evaluated with the replenishment organization. They will probably use a Service Level Agreement for this or the yearly Customer Satisfaction Survey. In both cases the accountability is a direct relationship between supplier and customer. However the true performance can only be measured by the customer of the customer. Or maybe even their customer. What do I mean with this? For example, from the perspective of the SI the customer is not the BICC but the replenishment organization. If they are happy with the reports the BI consultant did his job satisfactory. And from the supermarket perspective the customer are the clients in the local supermarkets. If they can find their carton of milk the replenishment department did their work as they should.  In conclusion, you could argue that the current system for evaluating BI performance is incomplete or even incorrect. By limiting the evaluation to the performance between the direct relationship between supplier and customer an incomplete picture is drawn. Therefore both SI as well as organizations with a BI department should find a different way of measuring performance going down the complete value chain of BI. What do you think? Should we evaluate the BI performance with the availability of the carton of milk?