If, as posited by an oft-used analogy, an organization's information system represents its nervous system, then a business intelligence (BI) infrastructure must represent the central nervous system and brain of the firm. BI applications enable organizational memory through data warehouses and data marts, as well as analysis in support of decision making with data mining, OLAP, and other analytical applications.
If my analogy holds, then BI projects should rank at the top of the list for management and CIOs -- particularly after 20 years of attention! Moreover, we should witness a continuous effort to push the boundaries of what the technology can do and how pervasively it is deployed within the organization. Evidence for the first statement is plentiful, and BI has indeed been ranking near the top of the list of CIO and IT managers' surveys. For example, in our own January 2007 issue,1 we found that only 36% of respondents do not use BI in some form or another. Our results are consistent with most major surveys about BI strategies and tools deployment.
Yet I have to say that, in my experience, many of these answers sound more like lip service than true commitment and a disciplined approach to business intelligence. When we dig deeper into what tools the typical organization deploys and how they are used, we find that most deployments are just one-inch deep.
My hunch is that this state of affairs is driven by the mechanics of the internal "technology project sale." Appropriating the budget for analytical initiatives and software is by no means easy. Typical organizations are still heavily biased toward automation, efficiency, and transactional applications of information technology. As an example, I recently had a conversation with a senior VP of a major international hotel company who straddles the marketing and IS functions. While discussing where the firm should go next with its pace-setting approach to IT-enabled customer service, we spent most of the time talking about operational customer relationship management (CRM) and customer self-service (e.g., remembering a guest, greeting them properly, upgrading their stay when feasible). With more than five years of work on its IT-enabled customer service initiatives, it was clear that we were just attempting to wring the last drop of value out of operational CRM. But after reframing the discussion to focus on analytical CRM, he quickly concluded that there was huge untapped potential in that area and that it may be much better to focus on that. Yet I am willing to bet that making the case for doing so will not be straightforward in an industry that is all about taking care of the guest and providing excellent service during the stay!
It should surprise none of our readers then that we feel BI is an area of great interest, one that deserves our attention and analysis. Therefore, for this issue, we tapped the expertise of two individuals with a few decades of combined expertise in the field. Our objective is to benchmark the state of BI and allow our authors to comment on the emergent lessons.
Our academic contribution is provided by Rajiv Sabherwal. Rajiv is the University of Missouri Curators Professor and the Emery C. Turner Professor of Information Systems at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Faithful CBR readers will recognize him as one of our returning authors. He is one of the foremost academic experts on strategic alignment and a contributor to our November 2006 issue on that topic. Rajiv also has a very active research stream concerning BI and was therefore at the top of my list when we decided to produce this issue.
Providing our view from the field is Vince Kellen, VP for Information Services (CIO) at DePaul University, where he offers strategic vision and manages a staff of 160 employees. Vince is also a Senior Consultant with Cutter's Business-IT Strategies and Business Intelligence practices, and he brings to the table over 20 years of experience in this area.
Rajiv begins his contribution by providing some general context for this area of interest. He then proceeds to precisely dissect and thoroughly analyze the survey data. He evaluates the determinants of BI success, subdivided into general context, readiness, features, and management concerns. He then assesses the state of BI adoption, separating organizational-level and individual-level adoption issues (a dichotomy that I find especially useful). He concludes his piece with some tangible guidelines that emerge from the survey results. Some of these will surprise you, and I think you'll find them very valuable.
Vince opens his contribution by pointing to the dismal adoption rate of BI applications within organizations. I very much enjoyed his no-nonsense writing style and willingness to take bold stances. I'm sure you will find plenty of nuggets throughout the pages of his piece. I particularly like his comparative analysis of leaders and laggards, as well as his closing arguments.
BI concepts and applications appear to have matured over the past 20 years. But don't let the recent frenzy of M&A activity in this space -- a typical signal of maturation -- fool you. As editor of CBR, I pride myself in producing an issue that fosters different perspectives and competing views. You will see that Rajiv and Vince, both experts in this field, have their share of disagreements. I take this as evidence that there are no easy answers and that business intelligence remains in a state of flux. I hope you will find this issue stimulating and useful as you chart your own course.
