Business Intelligence (BI) is an environment in which the business community receives information that is reliable, consistent, easily understood and manipulated.

The analytics produced permit not only a good view of what has happened in the organization but also where it will be in the near future and what is happening right now. I see BI as the overarching term for all analytics including those for market and competitive intelligence analyses.

BI has been used for years in the area of finance; the ability to analyze customer behaviors and buying patterns, determine profitable products and services, as well as the ability to detect fraudulent activities just a bit faster than ever before are just a few examples of how BI has contributed to smarter, more effective financial organizations.

Some best practices for any company wishing to start or expand their BI efforts include:

• Understand the business problem to be solved.

• Ensure business involvement in the project and ultimate BI solution.

• Build a sustainable architecture that is scalable (in data volumes and numbers of concurrent users), can support the performance demands it will incur, and is flexible in terms of the types of analytics it can support.

BI for financial institutions is undergoing a significant change as more and more data is captured by enterprises. The volumes of data and myriad of more sophisticated analytics that can be performed on this data are only just now being implemented and understood – and finance is leading the way!

–Claudia Imhoff, Ph.D.

About Claudia Imhoff: Claudia Imhoff, Ph.D., the President and Founder of Intelligent Solutions, is a popular and dynamic speaker and internationally recognized expert on analytical CRM, business intelligence, and the infrastructure to support these initiatives – the Corporate Information Factory (CIF Dr. Imhoff has co-authored five highly-regarded and popular books on these subjects and writes monthly columns (totaling more than 60) for technical and business magazines. She has served on the Board of Advisors for DAMA International and was chosen by the DAMA organizations to receive the 1999 Individual Achievement Award. She is an advisor and a faculty member for The Data Warehousing Institute and serves as an advisor for several technology and commercial companies.

Icon courtesy of Alessandro Rei.

Icon courtesy of Alessandro Rei.

A large U.S. government agency recently discovered this. This agency — like many others – had undertaken to consolidate its IT activities. It established a centralized data center and created a program to move all applications and application development under the management of a single centralized entity, located in the Washington D.C. area. The agency is highly dispersed geographically across the U.S.

After two years of work, the Washington leadership had been under the impression that the field had accepted the change and that further development of applications would proceed in a coordinated manner, with field units working with the Washington office. It also believed that it had completed an inventory of existing field applications.

A team gathering requirements for mobile computing blew these beliefs out of the water. The team found that field units had been resorting to using non-agency resources to get their jobs done. In particular, field units were using tools such as Google Docs and personal mobile computing accounts for 60 percent to 80 percent of their work.

Up to this point few Agency employees - and fewer consultants - wanted to challenge the centralization program, as it was a “sacred cow,” driven by a theory that consolidation would save money and tighten security. Instead, it had the effect of driving people in their field to take their work under the radar.

Once the requirements results came out, several employees spoke up. Some of their comments included the following:

The challenge you outline will not be readily or efficiently (and maybe not even effectively) solved with a centralized approach. The leadership that has eyes-on what’s happening with IT/IM are those in the [field operations].  Centralization breeds the expectation that the responsibility for policing up IT/IM discipline has been moved elsewhere; and in turn fosters the laissez-faire perspective that “since I can get my IT/IM solutions easily, quickly, and locally, why should I stop it?

Work falls into the categories of (a) Compliance, and (b) Mission Delivery. I think historically it has been a-lot easier to gain budget for Compliance efforts - the Agency often has a gun at its head. Those kinds of projects got the vast majority of the development money throughout the years and then locked it up in Steady State (maintenance of legacy). Our [portfolio management] process is heavily titled in favor of [Steady State] and therefore the status quo. Field business (mission delivery) automation is a very poor step child in comparison.

NONE of the [Washington provided applications] were effective in meeting [field level] business needs”…  I recall [a local manager] saying, ‘the combined total addresses less than 10%’, and that efforts redirected toward the [Washington-provided applications] requirements were one of their larger challenges because they interferred with priorities that had direct bearing on real business targets.

…the [Washington office] has failed to fully comprehend the value of, and opportunity costs of not addressing local systems…The part that truly mystifies me is why we can’t leverage these opportunities and gain more results with the lower costs and faster development I’m convinced we could achieve if we can but avoid forcing absolutely everything through a data center ‘keyhole’ - which of course can’t happen, everyone knows it, and everyone who is accomplishing much is finding ways to work around.”

Wow. So much for the OMB mandates for consolidation of systems, and for increased focus on measurement! The above comments are saying in no uncertain terms that consolidation - at least as implemented by this particular agency - is not working or even desirable. The comments also say that too much focus on compliance-oriented applications - which tend to be those that are designed for performance measurement - causes the budgets for real business applications to be starved.

So does excessive measurement kill the goose? And is centralization a necessary ingredient of measurement? Hardly, but centralization is a first impulse response when increased transparency is called for. It is conceptually simply: put everything in one place, and funnel everything through one group, and direct that group to build measurement systems.

But this simple approach doesn’t work for many organizations - especially large, distributed organizations - as the case above illustrates.

I am not even going to attempt to get into possible solutions in this article, because that is a separate long topic in its own right; but I will provide some food for thought on this: an approach known as a “center-led” approach [1] tends to provide the flexibility that the field needs while providing the centralized resources and expertise that the field can tap to do things in the preferred manner. In my book Value-Driven IT [2] I expound on this approach in the form of a CIO organization that acts as a mentor for the rest of the organization, but does not own IT systems or development.

1. eSourcing wiki article, describing the “center-led” approach in procurement. See
http://www.esourcingwiki.com/index.php/Center_Led_Purchasing#Center_Led_Model

2. Value-Driven IT, by Cliff Berg, 2008.

About Cliff Berg: Cliff Berg is a member of the IT-Finance Connection Advisory Board.

He is a consultant in IT process, methodology, and change management, and a former enterprise system architect. Cliff has written four books, most recently Value-Driven IT, and before that High-Assurance Design. Previously Cliff was founder and CTO of Digital Focus, now Command Information.

To be added to the free newsletter email list, contact me at carlw@it-financeconnection.com or sign up for the RSS feed via the “subscribe” icon above right. Your name and email will be used for no purpose besides sending the newsletter.

To be added to the free newsletter email list, contact me at carlw@it-financeconnection.com. Your name and email will be used for no purpose than sending the newsletter.