There are so many great sources out there today and so many great writers. Would you be interested in having another theme week? What will bring you back to our LUCRUM Site? Our LUCRUMites have first hand experience with Utilities, Smart Grid, Healthcare, Business Intelligence, Data Analytics, Data Mining, Data Lifecycle analysis, Metadata, Prototyping, ETL, OLAP, Reporting, TARGIT, Microsoft (Excel, SQL Server, Analysis Services, Integration Services, Reporting Services), Oracle, Apple and general Cincinnati knowledge.

So what do you think? Theme week??

– Jodie

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

Say the name Sean Connery, and virtually everyone who enjoys movies will think of his most famous line: “The name is Bond, James Bond.” Ian Fleming’s spy novels made the Bond character popular before Connery first played him onscreen in 1962. And five other actors have played Bond during the last 45 years. But it is Connery most of us see in our heads when we hear the famous musical riff from every film’s opening sequence. And Connery is the standard against which all other would-be Bonds – perhaps even all other secret-agent characters – are measured. Does the name George Lazenby mean anything to you?

Yet, of the 28 nominations and 12 awards recognizing his acting prowess, none were for his role as James Bond. Not only has he starred in dozens of films other than Bond flicks, he defied the bane of the acting world – typecasting. In fact, he won an Oscar not for playing a super-spy, but for his turn as Jim Malone, the aging, street-weary Irish cop in The Untouchables.

Connery’s secret? Transformation. He captured our collective imagination as the dashing British Bond, but he realized the role was ultimate a dead end. He made the tough decision to abandon the old role in his comfort zone at the height of its popularity in order to improve his long-term career prospects. He then used his box office appeal as leverage with the studios to give him the broader roles he knew were critical to his professional survival.

Today’s senior IT execs, and those who aspire to move up the ladder, can take a few pointers from Connery.

During the late ’90s, IT executives were the stars of many businesses, capturing the imagination of their companies and customers by leading them in new directions for information technology. E-commerce. Web services. Name a tech trend; the CIO and his/her senior staff were in the lead. But as the world moved from seeing technology on its own as a strategic advantage, and began making technology decisions based on the business value they were supposed to bring instead, the CIO and senior IT execs went from stars to bit players in their organizations. They were typecast as the tech geeks with no business sense.

New priorities have replaced the corporate IT “space race” of the last century in the minds of C-level executives: compliance, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and outsourcing. No longer impressed with IT’s nuts and bolts, CEOs, CFOs and COOs are more concerned with IT’s cost and its contribution to generating value. With little more to offer than gripes about interoperability and the shortage of IT workers, many CIOs risk losing their seats at the executive table.

Like Connery using Bond as leverage, today’s CIOs and other senior IT executives need to branch out from their traditional roles in order to become true information officers – the type who understand how technology applies to the financial, operational and competitive sides of the enterprise. Based on my experience of talking to CIO’s, IT executives and aspiring IT executives everyday, here are a few suggestions on how to fight the technology typecast.

Business First

Actors call this “sharpening their craft.” Business pundits call it “business/IT alignment.” What it means is understand the basics of your industry and your organization first. Know your company’s customers, suppliers, and competitors. Read broadly and deeply about business, to be perceptive about management, markets, global culture and accelerating change that technology is in large part driving. Know before your executive peers can blink that – the world is flat – the tail is long – the ocean is blue – and – the implications that the truth can be terribly inconvenient. Insert perceptive IT questions into your company’s customer satisfaction surveys and champion the insights. Try to get a seat at Board meetings as a participant, advisor, observer or guest. Develop IT buy-in with your executive peers make sure you have a clear IT governance strategy that the CFO and/or general counsel helped develop. This is the first step toward an IT vision that ties into business objectives, strategies and measurements.

Refocus Your IT Organization Away from Commodity Activities and Toward Business Value

If you want to increase your standing in the enterprise, you have to show more than mere competence at what’s expected. Here’s an example. Ben Stiller gets a lot of work in Hollywood. But he doesn’t command Connery money. That’s because he’s essentially playing one of the three Ben Stiller types in every movie.

CIOs and their organizations should emulate Connery’s ability to evolve with the times and changing needs of the “audience.” Departmental time management is an excellent example of adapting to dynamic conditions. Time and resources will always be finite. What will change is how those hours and resources are deployed. Identify IT activities that have been commoditized. Some may be critical and require world-class performance. But, they will still be commodities that offer no differentiating value to your company. Treat them as such. Outsource those activities to specialized providers, and then stack internal time and resources against objectives dictated by business strategy.

Remember that the definition of an IT commodity will change over time and in response to market conditions. So, stay agile and flexible with staff and budget deployment. But also stay focused on the brainwork instead of the mechanical work, and you will provide greater value.

Want to know what practices work best? Keep in touch with your peers – their careers and their organizations. Outsiders have no political stake in the game and can provide insight and honest feedback.

Measure Results

Much like distribution doesn’t measure a film’s success – the box-office take does -activity in IT doesn’t equal results. Your staff may be busy doing something. But that something may not be moving the business forward.

IT managers focus on activities. CIOs and senior IT executives must focus on leadership, goals and results. Tie your department’s results to business objectives anchored by the business’ front-line results. For example, if the business missed its numbers for the quarter, you should consider IT’s role in that deficit and how IT can help put revenue back on track. Keep measurements simple and keep them aligned with executive priorities and operational plans. Measure IT in a business context rather than an IT-focused one and you will increase your prestige with other executives.

Nurture and Grow Business and IT Strategy Together

Some of the actors who followed Connery followed his successful strategy and parlayed a stint as 007 into more lucrative work. Some did not. You should expect the same experience with your IT staff. As you transform your role in the business, it’s important that your people follow that path as well. Encourage them to pursue the same kind of new education and awareness you are. Do what you can to provide growth opportunities for them. After all, you are a team, and you will only go as far as the team can take you.

For example, you can provide your team members with an “MBA career roadmap” instead of an IT-centric employee development plan. Get their buy-in that their careers have to be aligned with the business and not just tethered to IT. The more they understand how business works, the better prepared they’ll be to make valuable contributions to the organization.

Accept that not all of the team will follow this path. Some will – and should – remain focused on the nuts and bolts of IT. In fact, it’s your job as a leader to help individuals discover when this role fits and what value it delivers.

The rapid pace of change in technology and the dynamic nature of global business put CIOs and senior IT execs of all kinds, from midsized company to major corporation at risk of being typecast as a one-role actor. If you aspire to the executive suite, you need to ask yourself: Am I Connery? Or am I Lazenby?

Bond fans know what I mean.

– JB

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

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

– Jodie

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

For centuries, the encyclopedia was viewed as the single most reliable reference source for just about everything. Encyclopedia articles were written, edited, vetted and edited some more, until finally an article appeared that was as close to absolute truth as humans could make it. 

Then came the Internet, and shortly thereafter sites such as Wikipedia. Now, instead of content on a given topic being determined by the elite few, anyone can contribute their thoughts, ideas and points of view. How egalitarian. The other side to it is all of this collaboration has created what comedian Stephen Colbert refers to as “the reality we can all agree on.”

That may be bad for pure academic research. Not to mention students trying to write their term papers with as little effort as possible. But it could be the way of the world for IT executives in the future. Forty-four percent of those surveyed by CIO Insight in November 2007 agreed that technologies that “gather and present the wisdom of crowds” will be among the most important technological developments in 2012 to 2017.¹ So perhaps the “wiki way” will not be so bad for the business world.

For years, when organizations would outsource applications or services, they pretty much had to take whatever the supplier offered. And just as with the politics Colbert skewers on a regular basis, sometimes the choice wasn’t that you wanted option A so much as you really didn’t like option B, and wouldn’t use it/vote for it in a million years.

The wiki mentality has the chance to change that. Rather than settling for a hard set of capabilities based on the knowledge and abilities of the supplier’s internal development team, taking a wiki-like approach means using a much larger set of brains to create an application or service that is more flexible than in the past. This flexibility gives it the ability to satisfy a much larger set of demands, and to do it without waiting for the next major revision.

Take infrastructure management services, for example. A decade ago outsourcing the management of the data infrastructure at all was considered heretical. It was an organization’s strategic advantage, and thus not to be trusted to outsiders. Today, we’ve come to realize that the data (and our ability to analyze it) is the strategic advantage. The infrastructure is merely the vessel that holds it. It’s just like the difference between gold bars and a vault. One has intrinsic value, and the other is merely there to contain and protect that value.

Because of that, organizations are finding less and less reason to keep (and manage) the infrastructure inside their own walls. Perhaps the one thing holding them back is finding an infrastructure management partner that will do things the way they want them done.

With a wiki-style approach, that will change. The suppliers will become used to taking and incorporating customer input not only to satisfy the needs of a particular customer, but also to benefit their entire customer base. In other words, the ideas/improvements that Company A wants to implement are seen by other customers, and together the customer base helps drive the way the infrastructure is managed. The business model then becomes the reality the customers can all agree on.

This wiki mentality is also being used in areas such as product development. Open source software is doubtless the best-known example. Open source applications are constantly being improved upon by the people who use them; more importantly, as users develop improvements they are morally and contractually obligated to share their innovations with all other users. It doesn’t take long before one person’s great idea becomes the reality all users can agree on.

This idea is now being expanded into other product areas. Communities are springing up to help organizations tap into a much wider range of brain power than they’ve had access to in the past. Here’s how they work:

Suppose Company A has an idea for a product or service, but isn’t quite sure how to make it work. They can go to a community site and look for individuals or other organizations that may have the expertise they need, or they can post a notice of their needs on the community site. Company A and interested members of the community can then brainstorm the concept, divide up the work and ultimately share in the rewards.

One of the advantages of this community-based approach is that it removes many of the old limitations of business, such as geography and budget. Organizations are free to seek out talent wherever it happens to live and can review solutions from several providers – while only paying for the one they ultimately accept. The end result is the sum of the knowledge of all who contribute to it, which is certain to be greater than the knowledge of any single individual or organization.

Therein lays the opportunity. Rather than relying solely on our own knowledge and experience the way the old encyclopedia-makers did, the wiki approach allows organizations to leverage a much broader range of knowledge and experiences than they could ever afford to develop internally. Sure, some of that “knowledge” might elicit a smirk from Stephen Colbert. But it won’t take long before the cream rises to the top, as it always does. And at that point, the business reality truly will be one we can all agree on.

Reference:

1. CIO Insight. “The Technologies of Tomorrow.” CIOInsight.com, December 12, 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

SEGUE

Speaking of Dashboarding…what is your corporate dashboard doing for you?  Are you learning new things about your services and products?  Does it help you to manage things differently?  You read above how thefuturevalueofbusiness.com dashboard helped me to manage my posts differently.  I’d love to hear your stories of how your corporate dashboard caused you to change how you managed your business.  Share them below!

In the meantime…I hope you enjoy John’s posts this week.

– Jodie

I was running a few searches today and found some material from our own John Bostick that didn’t make it here to TheFutureValueOfBusiness.com.  I thought I would share it with you today.  The Information System Security website that it’s posted on allows no comments, so feel free to share your thoughts here!

- Jodie

This story parallels an area in Information Technology called “Business Intelligence.”   Business Intelligence is also known as “Data Warehousing” and “Executive Information Systems” with dash boards or digital cockpits.  The IT organization provides a rich repository of data for the business knowledge workers.   Providing data has become so important; in addition, the tools leveraged have become more and more rich in functionality.  And yet, the number of business users truly leveraging this kind of technology-oriented business information environment lags the productivity that the organization could receive.  Simple questions like:  who are my best customers and why?  What’s my best product and what is its margin contribution?  Why is my market share in a particular geography increasing where in another market it’s declining?   How can I get my business results information faster so I can be more informed on the ever-changing aspects of the market?   A user says, I can make a lot of informed decisions….how can I make even more of them instead of hire more decision-makers?   The business and market questions go on and on and on.

As IT professionals, we are used to being held accountable to deadlines with ever changing resources and requirements.   In the world of Decision-Making, as data warehousing managers, we often are rushing to meet these same deadlines.  Often the deadlines and deliverables overshadow the underlying purpose for building the data warehouse. The good thing about bad times is that they force us to slow down and painstakingly evaluate what we are doing. So, although there are dark clouds ahead, there is a silver lining in the reality of our environment in having to do “more” with “less” resources. 

Here are 3 tips to consider making your Data Warehousing environment even more “ready” for business decision-makers. 

1. Meet with the Business Decision-Makers frequently.   I am suggesting that a weekly meeting at a minimum would be beneficial in order to review their data, listen carefully to understand what data they are really using, and what data they may be leaving behind.   Is the data they are leaving behind the result of not understanding how to use the data, is the data no longer relevant to their decisions, or perhaps the data is too summarized or too detailed?
2. Document the business flow of the data graphically using business terms, not technology metadata definitions.  Distribute the business document to all business and IT users so that everyone really knows how the data is being used in the context of business.   Too often, we revert to memorizing the technical definitions and only use them.  We lose the business context and as new people join the data analysis, the true business definitions are lost. 
3. Proactively have discussions sponsored by IT with the Business Users about the cleanliness of the data and how IT is transforming the data.    Show them the techniques that you are using to cleanse the data and transform it so that there’s a common repository of data that they can use.   The more the Business Users understand what you do in context of the IT problem, the more they will provide their insight into how the data is most meaningful to use. 

Chinese “Business Intelligence” Proverb:  If you plan for one year, plant rice.  If you plan for 10 years, plant trees.  If you plan for 100 years, educate mankind.

Not so.   Dilbert is alive, healthy, and very much well fortified in the “partnership” between IT and Business.

Here’s 10 Telltales from a person that has both a IT and Business professional’s perspective that you really do have a Business Intelligence partnership.

1. Lunch. OK, I’m writing this waiting for one of my manager’s to bring me a “sack lunch” turkey sandwich.   But I’m serious.   Lunch.   When’s the last time you have been to lunch with your business user?   When has he or she picked up the tab for that lunch?  Communications is the key to any Business Intelligence initiative since the information requirements are dependent on the external business environment most of the time and, in today’s marketplace, the environment is constantly changing.   Frequency and intimacy of conversation not only about last weekend’s loss of your favorite playoff team but more so what’s going on in business last week that is going to affect the kind of questions you are looking to “ask your data?”
2. Mea Culpa. Saying that you made a mistake…Rework, reloads, unsuccessful night refreshes…operating a business intelligence environment is not easy work.   There’s a lot of moving parts to a mature BI platform along with updates, patches, network traffic and internet dependencies and the like.   There’s got to be daily production huddle sessions, weekly project enhancement meetings, quarterly capital, budget and funding meetings, and annual business strategy alignment sessions.   All of these meetings have to be tightly integrated between IT and the Business in order for the Business Intelligence platform to prosper.
3. Monitoring & measuring. “What doesn’t get measured doesn’t get managed” as the modified saying goes.   A mutually-agreed measurement and operational reporting system needs to be applied to any Business Intelligence initiative.  At least, the successful ones.   The partnership has proactively agreed to “what constitutes acceptable” in advance so that both parties can provide a seamless report card.
4. Social measurements, too. Not only do we want to measure “system performance” and other traditional IT operational metrics, one also wants to consider the social aspects of the platform.  Is everyone timely and present at the respective meetings?   Was everyone prepared with their part for the meeting?   Are the “partnership duties” getting deprioritized (this especially happens in the business side since the business operationally will pull the business people directly into business problems and not IT problems.
5. Cradle-to-grave Documentation. Documentation doesn’t mean to just put the information into a project plan when building the BI platform and then shove it into a drawer.  Rather, documentation of the business questions that are asked every day, week, month, quarter depending on the business problems involved.  The business is changing, thus, driving heuristic questioning.   Having an active collaborative environment to document these is extremely important to sustain the platform.
6. Executive sponsorship by both IT and the Business. Even though most of the activity is well beneath the executive offices, the business questions being analyzed and solved are most likely directly related to the profitability and the overall strategy and performance of the business.   So, do they go to lunch?   Do they understand that there’s a Business Intelligence Partnership?  Smile.
7. Show me the money!   Funding. How budgets get spread between IT and the Business can actually be the fundamental reason why a Business Intelligence initiative succeeds or fails!!!   There’s a lot to be said about the CIO that can navigate through today’s budget world.  How a CIO leverages both capital appropriations and current expense for Business Intelligence requires the involvement of the Business.  You see, building the environment with hardware and software and consulting services can all follow GAAP principles for accounting.   Where the difficulty lies is how to separate the operational overhead of running the BI platform along with the constant stream of enhancements.   If one doesn’t budget for the enhancements, the platform ends up slowly (or quickly in today’s economy) becoming antiquated.
8. A partnership of Innovation. Most of what IT does is not innovation itself.  They use innovative technology; although once deployed, it is an operational system that is supposed to run and run and run.  IT professionals are paid to execute, operate, and make budget….and most of the time at the lowest common denominator when it comes to operational availability and budget.    BI platforms are rich with innovation through new technology, of course, but more so through Heuristic Questioning about the business problems at hand that day.  Innovation comes through leveraging data and asking “Why?” and “What if?”   The BI partnership must have an innovation DNA in order to truly leverage the data to its greatest value.
9. Survived a reorganization or three? When, not if, the company/organization reorganizes, the Business and IT organization can change slightly or dramatically.  I have seen many a healthy BI partnership get destroyed over new org charts.   When you reorganize, the IT and Business leadership must have a Partner Summit of sorts in order to protect the operational care, feeding and ongoing plans of the Business Intelligence environment.
10. Internal public relations. I was with the famous Peter Drucker at the 1996 Cognos Convention out in San Diego and had a chance to ask him some questions.   Why can’t we get everyone to want to have their data in one location so we can get rid of all of these disparate spreadsheets?   “In the old days, man fought with swords, daggers, clubs, and ultimately, guns.   We are carnivores and that will remain.  Today, we fight with information.  We hide it, disguise it, hoard it, and mislead with it.   It’s our contemporary personal weapon of force.”  Based on some of the latest stories coming off of Wall Street, the CDO crisis, the Mortgage lending crisis, and the insider trader diabolical, and certainly the many Ponzi schemes that have ruined many a retirement savings plan, I have to agree with what Dr. Drucker said.  At the same time, I truly believe in the good of mankind, if the IT and Business groups have strong leadership, an active business strategy, and a general knowledge that if the team is rowing all at once you can accomplish more than if you are not, then the general support of a Business Intelligence platform will be a positive enabler for the company’s well-being.

There are probably 10 more ideas supporting a Business Intelligence Partnership with IT and the Business.  I hope that these Telltales stimulate you to advance your partnership!  Good Luck!

From an IT perspective, there are a lot of differences between these definitions throughout the years.  At the same time, how do they really differ from a business executive viewpoint?   Are the decisions in business being made today differ significantly from decisions that were made yesterday?  Does the thinking process differ from an analytical viewpoint?  Does having more data mean that you can make better decisions?  Are decision-makers better off with all of the data that is available?   How does the business executive think about “business intelligence” from an information viewpoint?

Here’s a three-part “Maslow’s Triangle” layered model to think about Business Intelligence from a business perspective.

1.  How’s Business?

First, at the base of the triangle, you have to ask “How’s Business?”   This layer really emphasizes “time over periods” of transactions.    Traditionally, this area is termed “transactional reporting” and simply put, is giving the user their numerical tabulation of data at the end of a period.   What would a business person define as “Best in Class” in this area?   Give me my reports as near-time as possible for the period that I am looking at and be able to sub-category my different business lines, product lines, financial divisions, etc.  Most of the data could be described as the data from “double-entry bookkeeping systems.”  With today’s ERP-style systems, this kind of information is fairly accessible as long as you are dependent on internal data only.   Some data feeds may be external feeds or internal non-structured data sources that still have the same timeframe.  Examples would include “customer satisfaction” data, quality data, and other operational inputs.

For example:

“What is the revenue over the last quarter?”

“How many X was sold in the last week?”

“What is the profit for the month?”

2.  Why?

The next layer up the triangle is simply put “Why?”   Why did the business’ Eastern Region have a 5% increase in sales year over year?  Why did we miss our numbers in the last week of the quarter?  Why did our market share grow in our mature product line in the last 2 quarters?

3.  What If?

The last layer of the triangle is “What If?”   If one can receive their business results from “How’s Business” and then is able to determine “Why” the business performed in this fashion, the “What If?” pinnacle of the triangle will provide a roadmap for the decision-maker to model their potential decisions that they have in mind.

For example, if one knows their financial performance and also sees where the business over-achieved and where it under-achieved, it is able to move resources of the business (management & money) to the area of need.  Whether the strategy is to provide more or less resource is up to the person involved.   The numbers themselves are not going to make the decision.

So, then is “Business Intelligence” an oversold phrase in the world of Information Technology? A “Qualified Yes” and a “Qualified No.”   The challenge today is that the tools actually work and work well if the approach taken is right.   At the same time, recent publications and noted experts all agree that the road to Business Intelligence is cluttered with a lot of failed attempts, a lot of capital spend that isn’t going to be realized from an investment viewpoint, and a lot of disenfranchised users.

I’ll write about this dilemma in my next blog.