61% of respondents are less than satisfied with their current process of creating information applications and are only lukewarm about their current information application technology.  Here are their complaints:

• It takes too long to assemble and deploy applications.
• It is too difficult to assemble and view information into a simple view.
• There are not enough capabilities to integreate and normalize information from disparate applications.

WOW!  I ask all of you fellow BI folks out there…what are you doing to solve this problem???  Why is it with all of the tools available today, our users are finding it too difficult to use them!!  What are WE doing wrong?

As I mentioned, I am working with a customer on Financial Models this summer.  I am fortunate to work with some SUPER SMART people in this group.  They have come up with the most ingenious ways of getting their data out of old clunky systems.  They can create some of the most INSANE Excel formulas to manipulate data!  Their Excel sheets are visually appealing and get data to their management in a timely manner.  I’ve had some spreadsheets that have taken me days to figure out the Excel formulas (and I’m a guru!).  They are awaiting IT to “build them a DW” to make their lives easier.  Here’s to hoping that it can deliver on their expectations!  Here’s what I would do to ensure that it does:

1.  Use an iterative methodology to build the DW.  Recreate existing Excel reports from the DW as you go.

2.  Implement a user-friendly reporting tool that allows them to create their own reporting.  Give ‘em lots of drag and drop functionality and make sure it can Export to Excel.

3.  Create a request process that allows the DW to change with the Business.  Creating a process that queues up the work for months and months does not help the business user to create the financial package that’s needed at the end of the month.

4.  Keep the model flexible.  Doing this will ensure that you can always add a new organziation, hierarchy or measurement.

5.  Build cubes!  These users are smart cookies and they aren’t afraid of a Pivot Table.  Give them the flexibility and performance of a cube and let them start to uncover their data.

Hmmm…what’s missing from my list?  What would you add?

Happy building!

 - Jodie

The first and probably most important non-technical differentiated aspect of iStream is the concept of Alignment.  Many consulting organizations and internal IT organizations have some type of design or planning step often called “Envisioning” as an initial step in their development process.  This is for good reason:  understanding the customer’s end goal or picture of success is critical to the success of the project.  At the same time, this does not procedurally support the fact that many individuals are involved in determining the success of a project, and further, in most cases these individuals are not in detailed agreement in regards to what that success looks like, or how it is defined.  Alignment takes this into account, and is a prescribed process to ensure a common understanding of the success criteria by the key stakeholders involved in any enterprise project, including department heads and/or the Information Technology department.  This includes a focus on ensuring that a miscommunication cannot occur where language is not specific enough, for example in clarifying the accepted definition of the term “Sales” in a company.  To explore this a bit, is “Sales” the number of transactions? The dollar volume closed?  Over what timeframe? By what channel? (sales people, resellers, distributors, telesales, etc.) As simple as this concept may sound – misunderstandings or assumptions in areas as simple as this are generally a key reason for project failure.  In this area, LÛCRUM is unique and differentiated in its development approach.

Another key differentiation of LÛCRUM’s approach, particularly as it relates to Business Intelligence, is in the concept of the iteration of a project.  The iStream methodology allows for iteration in the development of the end result, particularly through the recognition that many pieces may make up the whole.  For example, related to Business Intelligence; we may begin by working with an individual decision maker, say the VP of Marketing.  In working with this person we may offer to them the YourView Instant Analytics solution, allowing them to rapidly see their information in a new way through the combination of several different reports or sources into a single view.  Per the YourView solution, this can take place in a matter of days; however by definition it follows the iStream process – however abbreviated – as it is focused on only a single user.  When that VP is prepared to create a complete solution for the Marketing department, the initial work now functions as a pilot/proof of concept rolling into the Alignment, Discover and Architect components of iStream for the larger YourView 360 (Data Mart) project.  In this fashion, we are “iterating” our development of the data mart through one or more “Instant Analytics” projects.  Both projects follow iStream; however the smaller engagements feed into the larger.  When that organization is prepared to roll out an Enterprise Data Warehouse – the same holds true, the work that had been completed at the Data Mart level for the Marketing department will now be employed in the Alignment, Discover and Architect phases of the Enterprise Data Warehouse project.  In this fashion the work that we accomplish at any level of the Business Intelligence Solution chain is applicable for the next, and all would be accomplished using iStream.

While the items above are not descriptive of the entirety of iStream, nor of the entire list of benefits of the LÛCRUM approach, they are absolutely two of the components of iStream which differentiate it from the plethora of SDLC approaches available in the market, and another aspect of what makes LÛCRUM a unique Business Intelligence Consultancy.

To get at the data that most executives feel they need to make accurate decisions, many turn to the manual modification of existing reports, or the creation of their own “Pet” spreadsheet they use almost daily, or certainly many times a week. 

 In an update to a report cited last spring on this site, a September, 2009 Dartmouth University study suggests that the error rates in formulas on spreadsheets in their study were only .087% of all formulas they audited.  HOWEVER, these were in cases where the formula produced the WRONG RESULT, and actually resulted in 87% OF THE SPREADSHEETS REVIEWED having errors in which the spreadsheet then produced the wrong result. 

How good is good enough?  What if you could reproduce the “Pet” spreadsheet in a true Business Intelligence solution which would ensure that the data and results in the sheet were as solid as the data in your transactional systems in the first place?  How much does the wrong data or the wrong decision cost you, or your company?  I would argue that “good enough” might just be good enough, if you could ensure that the data was accurate, and mitigated the possibility of error, while increasing the timeliness of the information to the decision maker.  We have deployed such systems in a couple weeks’ time leveraging tools like SharePoint, Excel, and other software products that our customers already owned, and quickly delivered a system to our customer where we dramatically increased the accuracy of their information.  These solutions form the basis of our iterative approach to Business Intelligence.

********************

Recently I came across a quote by the legendary Chicago Sun-Times journalist Sydney Harris who observed, “Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same, but get better.” Nothing like a little paradox to reboot the brain and inspire a new look at the same landscape.

We want things to stay the same – only get better. Ain’t that the truth? There’s a lot of comfort in things remaining the same. We know what to expect, we can predict our reactions, nothing is going to catch us off guard and cause us pain or make us look bad.

We gain a sense of security in things remaining the same, especially over a long period of time. It’s like a baseball hitter who spends hours hitting off a pitching machine. The speed and location of the ball are predictable, so eventually, no matter how fast the pitch comes in, the hitter can whack it. He starts feeling good about himself. Then he gets into a game where the pitcher is changing speeds and location, and suddenly those hard line drives turn into soft pop-ups and groundouts. Without the predictability of the machine, hitting becomes a much tougher job.

Change by definition upsets the status quo. Sometimes that’s good. Sometimes it’s not. If it makes things better, then we love it. But because we only know the outcome after the change occurs, we hate the prospect of it, mostly because we’re afraid of losing what we already have. That’s human nature.

While I was in the process of wrapping my brain around this concept I was given a copy of a recent article by Geoffrey Moore from the Harvard Business Review.¹ The article has proved very helpful in understanding the power of this paradox – stay the same only better.

The always-insightful Moore pointed out that there are three terms or time horizons we work in. Normally we deal in the short-term horizon and the long-term horizon. But according to Moore, there is also the overlooked, often borrowed from and always-misunderstood middle-term horizon, which ironically is the only place where innovative ideas can gain traction.

Eureka! Paradox solved – or at least given clarity.

We are very comfortable in the short term, getting instant gratification for our immediate needs – be it food (hence the proliferation of quick-service restaurants), receiving a thumbs-up for doing a good job, making a quick sale, or achieving our quarterly quota, etc. Hitting a short-term objective is satisfying, although getting there can be difficult. Still, the shorter the term we’re dealing with, the fewer chances there are for the rules, the environment or the assumptions we’re working under to change. As Harris points out, we would prefer it if it were a bit easier.

We are comfortable in long-term thinking about the future, designing new products and services, opening new geographic markets and starting new businesses because we apparently enjoy a degree of accountability that is, shall we say, more fluid at the edges. The future is ripe with possibility, riches and romance; or as they say in baseball – all teams look good in spring training.

The other comfort with the long term is that if changes do sneak up on us, we will have time to react to them. Changes that face a long-term outcome aren’t nearly as traumatic, giving us the opportunity to try different things, regain our equilibrium and return to a state of nonchange before we reach the day of reckoning. Things may have changed in truth, but they don’t feel like they did as much because we have time to assimilate the changes.

“Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same, but get better.”

What Moore gets right in his essay and that the Harris quote misses is that innovation is not actually a dilemma. A dilemma is a choice between two painful alternatives. Moore demonstrates that there is a third alternative, a middle horizon or a middle term, that incorporates the best of the other two. He says that in order to implement change, we need to create a space in this middle horizon that is free from the pain and rewards of the short-term horizon and also free from the open-ended “explore all options” thinking of the long-term horizon.
 
What’s needed, then, in order to implement innovation and alignment in the middle horizon, is a little wiggle room. I realize the term “wiggle room” isn’t listed in the glossary of the latest MBA textbooks – but it works for me. Wiggle room means there is flexibility in the business expectations of ROI and market share for new product and service innovations, making the prospect of change a less fearsome one; but it also means there are needed restraints that sharpen the focus. There is less of a tendency to push off concerns about the consequences of your actions on “future you” when the future is not as far off. Flexibility with restraint is the ideal environment to nurture innovation.

One of the ways to create an innovative middle horizon is to build both flexibility and structure into an IT organization through the use of managed services. On the flexibility front, managed services give companies two critical advantages – flexibility of capital resources and flexibility of human resources.

Innovation by its nature requires a large investment in human resources in particular. In most cases, it helps to have many minds brainstorming a variety of concepts from different points of view to nurture innovation. It also takes a fair amount of freedom from the restraints of day-to-day work in order to envision what does not already exist or is not already a part of the corporate culture. Yet it is difficult to achieve that free-thinking mindset when your best resources are bogged down in the day-to-day tasks involved in keeping the current business operating. Offloading the mundane tasks onto a managed services provider frees your experts to think in an innovative way. Reducing current cost and avoiding future costs also enables new products and services to attain more realistic maturity cycles.

Managed services address the structure part of the equation by making the costs of ideas real. In a typical organization, the cost of the day-to-day running of IT tends to be loosely defined, coming out of a central budget that can be applied conveniently. When working with a managed services provider costs are much more tightly controlled, with greater accountability across the board. Knowing this level of detail helps place a practical focus onto innovation, assuring that it is being driven by the needs of the business, not just innovation for its own sake.
In the end, business survival is about bringing innovation to market. Managed services are an often-overlooked yet critical tool in a CIOs portfolio for creating that little bit of wiggle room in the mid-term horizon for new products and services to find their potential. They can help take some of the fear and pain out of change by redefining roles in order to encourage it. While the individuals may not learn to love change unequivocally, they may at least learn to embrace it as a necessary step on the road to success. And that’s definitely movement in the right direction.

Reference:

1. Geoffrey Moore. “To Succeed in the Long Term, Focus on the Middle Term.” Harvard Business Review. July/August 2007.

– JB

*******************************

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo once said, “Situational variables can exert powerful influences over human behavior, more so than we recognize or acknowledge.” That certainly appears to be true when we look at how we work with people who provide services to us in our personal lives versus those who do it in the business world. In our personal lives, we tend to hire specialists. We look for people who have an expertise in a particular area, and count on them to do that one thing. You wouldn’t ask the company that takes care of your lawn to provide daycare services for your children. You don’t ask the plumber to build custom kitchen cabinets. You wouldn’t think to ask the person who fixes your car to tailor your suit or clean your house. Yet, in the business world we always seem to want to take the “holistic” route, i.e., find that one supplier who can do everything for us. We’re hoping that a company will come in, get to know our business, and then start solving problems and/or removing burdens for us.

At first, bringing in that big company works because they’re hired to perform a specific task or function. When we initially hire an outside supplier, we carefully vet several contenders until we finally select the one we believe has the greatest expertise in whatever it is we need done.

Once the supplier is on board and solving the problem we hired it to solve, either we start asking the team to do other things for us, or the team starts looking for other things to do for us to expand their “web of influence.” Or both. It doesn’t take long before we’ve strayed far from their core area of expertise and are now settling for less than optimum solutions – often merely for the sake of convenience. Proximity, or already being on the approved vendor list, becomes one of those “situational variables” Zimbardo mentioned. And that’s just not right.

In today’s business world with all its complexities and nuances, specialization in operational tasks is really the better way to go. Every operation requires so much specific knowledge that it’s impossible for any one person or even one organization to possess it. While taking a holistic approach may sound good in theory, in practice it tends to lead more to frustration and disappointment than success. When that happens, the business almost always suffers – and often a very good supplier for certain things winds up getting judged more for what it can’t do very well than what it can.

The other negative that comes out of trying to adopt a holistic approach in an era that requires specialization is that organizations become fatigued trying to get more out of a supplier than that supplier is capable of providing. The result is the enterprise gives up on demanding excellence and instead ultimately settles for mediocrity.

Hiring specialized suppliers of operational tasks and services avoids putting organizations in a state of “supplier fatigue.” The specialists tend to yield a higher level of performance across the board, because their knowledge is an inch wide and a mile deep rather than the other way around. Specialized suppliers have the time, interest and resources to become experts in their specific area, and as long as they stay within that area they can provide a higher level of continuous service. Bringing in as many of them as is needed tends to raise the organization’s expectations the way a rising tide raises all boats. It sets a standard of excellence across the entire organization. And if the need arises to find a different supplier due to performance issues, that one segment can be excised without affecting the entire operation.

It’s really about portfolio management. Think of it this way: It is without doubt easier to manage a single stock than a diverse portfolio. But it’s also a lot riskier. In addition, a single stock only answers part of a savvy investor’s needs. It can be aggressive, conservative, poised for growth, capable of protecting gains, etc. – but it can’t be all of them. Smart investors select the best stocks to accomplish all of their investing goals. That’s what smart organizations do, too – select their suppliers based on specialties and required outcomes, then manage that portfolio scrupulously.

A holistic approach to outsourced services may seem solid on the surface, but when you dig deeper you’ll see it’s really laden with holes. Creating a tightly managed network of specialty suppliers assures you get the best each has to offer rather than having to settle for both good and bad.

Don’t get psyched out. Avoid allowing situational variables to dictate your behavior. Instead, use the same approach to hiring business suppliers as you do with suppliers in your personal life. You’ll find your results greatly surpass your expectations.

– JB

As you can see, the results are a bit mixed, with the clear interpretation being that the iPad is just a giant iPhone (which was my vote by the way).  I’ve found it really funny that people think of this as a BAD thing!  I think extending the capabilities of the iPhone makes a lot of sense.  Giving me the ability to compose documents, prepare (and deliver) presentations, manage email and read web pages on a full size screen are major parts of my day.  As a matter of fact, I’m not alone in this.  John C. Welch (be careful if you Google him – he’s…a…how do you say it…”colorful”) an IT Director and long time writer/advocate of Macs wrote that nearly 90% of his employees are just heavy web and mail users.  He mused that this device would be great for road warriors and sales people alike.  He, like I, believes that this will not likely be the only device used by his people, but rather another complimentary device.  Now, John works for an advertising agency so his experience may not be like yours.  I do, however, believe that this device may become the primary device for the following groups of people:

1. Busy Execs (which ones aren’t busy??) - especially those that are primarily reviewing company metrics, business plans, emailing, and traveling
2. Salespeople – these guys and gals spend the majority of their time updating their CRM system, emailing customers, and delivering presentations written by someone else
3. Road Warriors – I’ve spent enough time in airports to know that getting through security with that bad is a huge back killer…this would be a great alternative, especially for those consulting types where the work PC/laptop needs to remain at the client site.  No need to keep a second laptop with you during the week if you have an iPad
4. Students / Teachers - University students and even high schoolers (and below??) will find this a great alternative to the laptop.  Less likely to get broken and more powerful then pen and paper.  Imagine if you are a grad student working during the day and going to school at night.  The iPad can stay with you all day and fits neatly into your existing  laptop bag  (I have this BIG idea for the paperless classroom too…if only!)
5. Plant Managers / Ops Managers – Now that most ERP systems are on the web, I can see all of my daily production data on my iPad.  This would allow me to spend more time on the floor and still be able to answer any production/operational issues on the spot.

Notice, I did not mention IT, Accounting, Finance or Engineering.  These are traditionally very heavy users of a PC.  They are creating large spreadsheets, writing complex equations or programming all of those great apps that we use today.  They may WANT an iPad, but it’s not likely going to become a primary device for them.

So I fall somewhere into categories 1-3 above.  I’m still excited for the iPad release and plan to stand in line the day the 3G model comes out.  I’ll take pictures and let you know if it lives up to the hype.

- Jodie

The whole cheesecake, text message snafu led me to think – HOW DEEP IS YOUR METADATA??  Consider the following:

• Mmmmm = Yummy
• Hmmmm = Thinking
• Ummmm = Thinking

In your organization, how many variants do you have to the word Revenue?  It’s really the same thing:

• Invoiced Revenue = Stuff we sent a bill for
• Sales Revenue = Value of an order
• Recognized Revenue = $$ added to the financial statements

As you start to build your data warehouse, you may run into the same issue.  How do you keep it all straight?  Certainly in a word document or in your requirements document you’ve created the definition.  But how accessible are those documents at the conclusion of the project?  How are they distributed to the end-users?  Are they in a user manual somewhere?  How often is that manual consulted?  When new reports are being created or new project teams are being established, are these documents reviewed at the beginning of the new effort?  If there is a conflict in the definition, whom should be called to resolve the dispute?  Sounding familiar??

LUCRUM partners with a great local company, Balanced Insight.  Balanced Insight makes a product called Consensusthat allows you to track your metadata, organize it, and build data structures to support it.  Imagine if you could produce a picture to show your customer how data is related.  This picture allows them to confirm that “you’ve got it!”.

Consensus also allows you to see how the terms are defined and interconnected.  Using a tool like Consensus allows you to set priorities and target the items that may “break” if a system is converted or taken off-line.  I can’t imagine gathering requirements without using this tool!!

I don’t know if it will save my next iPhone auto-correct issue, but it sure would be helpful.

-  Jodie

As a programmer, I spend a lot of time on the computer at work and at home. I was having lot of problems with my eyes. They hurt all the time and I always felt drained. The glare of the lights in the office was painful. My solution was to create a pair of computer glasses. I’ve been using them for 8+ years and could not be happier. I don’t wear glasses, but I want to keep my eyes protected and healthy. I went and had an eye exam and told the doctor about my problems. I worked with him on creating a pair of glasses tailored to my needs. He had a computer in his office and a kit that let him build test glasses with different lenses. I sat at his computer while trying different lens combinations. I chose lenses with a slight magnification to them. This allows me to use a smaller font to view more code on the screen, but it appears larger which helps my eyes. I also added an anti-glare coating to protect my eyes from the glare from lights and the monitor. The first time I put on the glasses I was amazed at how my eye instantly stopped hurting.

Since my first pair I have had another pair made. Since I am older, I needed a slight prescription, but they still work very well. I also added scratch resistant lenses since I carry them around a lot. I also wear my glasses in meetings since the glare from the light hurts my eyes. The glasses are not cheap (about $200), but well worth the money. Here are some other suggestions from around the web on reducing eye strain: 

1. Take a break every hour to stretch your legs as well as your eyes. Look out a window and focus on far away objects. Close your eyes for a while.
2. Keep your eyes hydrated. Dry eyes leads to irritation and strain.
3. Get your eyes check annually to check for problems or if you need a prescription correction.
4. Use high resolution LCD monitors. Adjust the brightness and contrast to a comfortable level.
5. Use dual monitors and place them at different distances so your eyes have to refocus as you look at each monitor.
6. Adjust your font size and type to one that is clear to you. Change out white background to a light shade of blue or other light color. White backgrounds are very harsh.
7. Change the viewing distance of your monitor. Sitting to close causes eye strain. Move your monitor back and increase the font size.
8. Don’t work with all the lights off. Can cause I high contrast between monitor and room. Dim lights if you have trouble with bright lights
9. Use a TFT and enable Clear Type (or equivalent technology). Ensure it is also correctly tuned for your system using the Clear Type tuner.
10. Limit your computer screen time when not at work.

Remember to take care of your eyes and happy coding. 

 - Jeff Rollins

• Which products will sell best in a down economy?
• Who is likely to be a loyal customer, and who is not?
• Which treatment would be the most effective for this patient?

Answers/predictive models based not upon gut instinct – but upon the facts derived from the very real treasure trove of data locked up in transactional IT systems. Very cool concept. It may not be an iPad – but I think Microsoft’s predictive capabilities will have a big impact on their intended market nonetheless, and I’m very excited to be a part of it!