For obvious reasons, this has become something of a theme recently and is an area that I have touched on in two earlier posts: Will the economic crisis actually be positive for BI? and Pitching BI in difficult economic circumstances.
The BeyeNETWORK article by Nancy Williams provides an interesting perspective and some practical guidance for BI practitioners who are grappling with the current situation. It is and is well-worth reading.
BeyeNETWORK provides viewers with access to the thought leaders in business intelligence, performance management, business integration, information quality, data warehousing and more.
Nancy serves as Vice President of DecisionPath’s Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing Consulting practice. She has more than 17 years of consulting and management experience, and is a highly sought after authority on data warehousing and business intelligence issues. Nancy is a regular instructor at TDWI World and Regional Conferences and has taught the TDWI Fundamentals and Data Modelling courses for a number of Fortune 500 companies and Government agencies. She holds an MBA from the Darden School at the University of Virginia and a BS in Education from the University of Virginia.
Very interesting and informative; thanks.
And minor note: whenever I read about BI, I always wonder if the author is thinking about market intelligence and competitive intelligence too, or if MI and CI are viewed as out of scope. Although BI and internal data warehouses are very different in focus than full-scope market intelligence, they are clearly linked – and many of the BI comments discussed on this blog equally apply to MI too.
Happy that the infromation was of interest.
I think any successful Business Intelligence implementation will always begin to have at least some external elements over time, even it its genesis more internally-focussed. As you say the areas are linked and, from a purely practical point of view, once you have a platform for delivering one, it can frequently be leveraged to deliver the other at lower cost.
Yes Alan, I think you are right that they are normally considered as ‘out of scope’. Should they be? Maybe not. Much market information is already out there as you know with market share studies and the like. However I think we have seen over the last 5 years a lot of growth in the textual BI tools like Autonomy. It might be just a guess from me but I think there will soon be even more competitive company information out there (like that listed on your site Alan and more). Take blogs as an example. Many companies increasingly turn to blogs and other social media marketing channels – these can be viewed by your competitors…analyze it, spot problems they are having and there you have an opportunity. I know some guys on the Oracle BI side of things have just started an ‘authorized’ technical blog.
And Peter, I think I used to work next door to you in New Malden. Small world.
Thank you Peter and Markgee for your comments.
Markgee, in answer to your question, “Should MI and CI be out of scope?” my answer is no because… I believe … it was only for technical (and now historical legacy) reasons why they were viewed as distinct in the first place. Just like today’s ERP, CRM, and SCM solutions that 15 years ago were each a collection of point solutions that came together under one umbrella, I think the same will happen with BI, BI 2.0, BPM, CI, and MI. Someone will have to create a new 3 or 4 letter acronym to include internal and relevant external corporate information.
My strong hope is that the corporate framework used for logically connecting all corporate internal and external information is, at its core, structured around a company’s lines of business, where true competition takes place. (See Michael E. Porter’s corporate – business unit structure.)
Alan, I agree with your analysis.
Mark, I have stopped being surprised by coincidences!
Alan, just to be clear my first post was saying that they are NORMALLY considered as out of scope ie by other people. Which I think is true.