There's a lot of jargon encouraging a business based on intelligence. Marketing hype often talks of the ‘fact-based' or ‘real-time' business. But it's disingenuous, since all good companies operate on intelligence. The arrival of technological products that handle that intelligence is not solving a particular problem as much as enhancing a pre-existing role.
Yet this can lead to the suspicion that BI aims to replace the instincts of business leaders, usurping their guidance. It has bred hostility to BI, misinterpreting the value BI solutions can bring to an organisation, says Riona Naidu, head of Consulting Services & Marketing at Knowledge Factory.
"BI shouldn't be an uncomfortable thing. It shouldn't be a big move. It should be something that works alongside what the business is actually doing, just making it a bit more efficient and to the point."
BI should complement the culture of an organisation, not upset it. CEOs aren't exclusively fact-based and technology can't replace their intuition. If done right, BI serves to inform a leader's decisions or creates an opportunity for them to test their hypothesis. Yet a successful approach to BI requires leaders not to be blind to the promises of modern intelligence gathering. Real progress requires vision. Says Juan Thomas, Solutions director of PBT Group: "Companies that are really getting value from their investments are the ones that keep investing in newer and better technologies. We have the capability to do it, but do we have buy-in from a programme manager or the C-level?"
Walmart is often cited as a wholly technology-driven company. It has long embraced technological developments in supply chain management to keep its pricing both competitive and profitable. Most recently, the company merged its various IT divisions into Walmart Technology, a single monolithic entity that surveys all of the retail giant's technology plans from close to the business' pulsing heart. It is also a trailblazer of BI adoption.
You have to understand the business context and then work back to what data is required to deliver the intelligence that will enable you to make the good decisions.
But can the onus really be put on business to appreciate the cat's cradle of technicality present under BI's hood?
But not everyone agrees with this view. The best BI successes, says PBT Group's Thomas, tend to come from leaders who take an interest in the technology side of things: "Most of the success stories I know of are where your executives are really interested in that technical landscape. I think that's where, once you understand why we do what we do, there is immediate buy-in. We shouldn't underestimate executives' understanding. If you're throwing R30 million at a BI shop for five years, you will start asking questions."
Gary Allemann, MD at Master Data Management, combines the two views, saying it's important for leaders to have their minds on both the business outcomes and the technology behind it. Otherwise the eagerness for BI can lead to some expensive mistakes.
So the idea that IT is the central custodian and guardian of all data in an organisation...I don't buy that.
Executive buy-in and the vision of a fact-driven company are important steps towards BI nirvana, but the process still faces a significant barrier: who owns it?
But passing the buck to IT is almost reflexive. BI relies on data and data represents all the information in an enterprise. The management of that information quickly becomes an issue of governance as part of the King legislation framework. Since governance is often managed through technology solutions, says Chris O'Connell, MD of BITanium Consulting, companies habitually kick the BI ball to IT.
"King puts (information governance) responsibility firmly on the company's plate. My feeling is IT is the proxy responsible for that key responsibility," he says, leading them to become automatic heirs to a technology-based regime such as BI.
The problem is that if you don't understand the data and you don't understand the model, how do you know if that model is correct for that data?
"Most customer data in SA today does not reside in the IT realm," he says. "It sits on a Salesforce cloud or Microsoft Azure cloud somewhere. IT can't manage that. It has no say over that. They often don't even know their marketing or sales teams have put data in the cloud. So the idea that IT is the central custodian and guardian of all data in an organisation...I don't buy that."
Then what role can IT play? Says O'Connell: "I think its role becomes putting the guard rails in place, to make sure that business doesn't hurt itself."
Matthew Cook, Business Development manager at Datacentrix, agrees, noting that often business moves faster than IT. Even though the responsibility to find a solution is passed on to the technologists, users soon grab at the reigns again.
Allemann is not convinced a sandbox for business should be on IT, not in terms of BI: "Business needs to be defining what those boundaries are. We trust our financial data, but we don't give it to IT and say, ‘It was your responsibility, so you sign off on these reports'. It's signed off by the accountants, the auditors. So when we're looking at marketing data, or sales data, or inventory, it's not IT's problem to make those reports accurate. It becomes their problem, because they have a role to play. But business needs to engage right from the start."
A central theme starts to emerge from the conversation: embracing BI is neither simple nor iterative. It requires a lot of upfront hand-wringing and decisions that need to be carried through by all, as well as an understanding by the company leadership of its various moving parts. A BI solution can't simply be delegated, then judged by the results.
Does this mean there are no quick wins in a BI environment? That may well be the case. If anything, BI needs to be pre-empted by an overarching plan: a framework that stops BI's organic growth from overwhelming everything. Just consider how many reports a company generates and how often the nature of those reports changes as people shift positions. The result is information overload and the death of clarity. Losing control over BI is always a risk, hence the need of a steady hand from the start.
Yet Naidu says there is still a role for some quick wins in BI: "It's part of the culture change. You walk into any boardroom and you have the pro-data crowd that wants the BI systems right away. Then you have the pro gut-feel and then some people who are in-between the two. Quick wins is one way to unify everybody and prove the case as they go on."
Hoggarth, though, feels optimistic that the modern innovation around BI is making it more feasible to get insight faster, because it's no longer restricted to internal data.
"We have the tools, but often the raw ingredients for those wins don't exist within the company itself," he says. "They are out there somewhere. They want to know what competitors are doing and what customers think. BI hasn't been able to do that. It can now and that's the inflection point. This is a very exciting time for BI."
This article was first published in the [June 2016] edition of ITWeb Brainstorm magazine. To read more, go to the Brainstorm website.
Our comments policy does not allow anonymous postings. Read the policy here