The nexus between run-time business intelligence (RTBI) and business objectives

Quinn (n.d.) accentuates that RTBI is not only the software that a firm procures and deploys within its structures hoping for better service, but combines a whole lot of organizational actors both human and non-human. The indivisible nexus between humans and non-humans is explained in details by actor-network theorists (see Johnson, 1988; Callon, 1986; Law, 1992 for more details). It is the working together of all these actors, driving towards a negotiated direction that yields the desired results within an organization. Quinn (n.d.) remits that organizations exist and existed without the hyped and modern business intelligence solutions. However, the enrollment of an RTBI-artifact solution into the already existing network of actors involved with decision making, could help a firm bridge the gap between the running of its operational activities and its strategic decision making activities (Quinn, n.d.). Business intelligence helps an enterprise to constantly align its choice selection with the desired business value as engraved in business goals. Arnot (2004) & Ghemawat and Levinthal (2008) recount that a firm either chooses to define all the choices it whishes to follow, or partially defines these choices but keeps an open eye on what additional choices should be further selected or removed from the initial set. Fixing choices carries with it the aftermath of seeing past ineffective methods of business processing carried forward, leading to more business losses, while flexible choice selection means learning and adapting from emergent situations. In agreement with the latter, choice selection has more to do with an RTBI-artifact and the people around it working together towards decision making, while adaptation is informed enhancement of business activity. All in all, RTBI is not only the analytical software that produces statistical reports and aesthetic graphs, but also the individuals that play the role to making sense of those and using them for advantageous business processing. This presentation looks at an RTBI model as presented by Quinn (n.d.) (see figure 1 below). The model depicts three mutually-inclusive levels of an RTBI system as strategic, analytic and operational. He further asserts that a robust RTBI would incorporate all these three layers because they support one another.

Figure 1. RTBI layers – adapted from Quinn (n.d.)

According to Quinn (n.d.) the strategic layer of an RTBI helps a business enterprise defines metrics to empirically measure business performance. These measures are visualized in graphical computer applications, which only serve to graphically depict for managers (both senior and line) what the metric scales are reading from databases as guided by predefined business rules. In business intelligence (BI) parlance, these applications are termed dashboards (Gravic, Inc., 2010). Azvine, Cui, Nauck and Majeed, (n.d.) & Quinn (n.d.) perceive the strategic layer as an enabler for RTBI to permeate the entire business domain. To illustrate with an example, say one of the strategic goals is to cut costs within a specified period in an organization. However, cutting costs may depend on a lot of antecedents that are residing in the various departments within a firm. It can for instance mean that redundancy in call-centers should be minimized, or print costs should be cut, or business processes should be reengineered etc. Thus indicators can be set on the dashboard to signal to managers whether the organizational set targets dependant on these antecedents are being realized or not. Over and above serving an indicative role, the strategic layer also enables a business to devolve strategic responsibilities to the various operational areas. Individual departments are able to see the role they are playing within the entire business enterprise by understanding their strategic responsibilities (Quinn, n.d.). In an endeavour to clarify the mutual inclusiveness of the three levels as given by the Quinn model, we are going to run in parallel a patient analogy. In this analogy the strategic layer could be likened to the senses that report to a human-being when something is not well in his/her body.

Like in human-beings, abnormality still has to be diagnosed by doctors, the strategic layer could be able to sound a signal to the responsible person at the right time, but this problem still has to be diagnosed for causality. That is, we know what went wrong, but what caused it, when, and how? According Quinn (n.d.), after a problem is spotted the analytical level should be able to tell more about the problem. This means looking at all the possible causes to an identified problem and coming with the precise cause of it. Back to the analogy, the person goes to hospital, and a doctor runs all tests and checks which have the potential to reveal the cause of the suffered ailment. Only tests and checks pertinent to the clarification of the cause of the problem are performed. This is also true for RTBI according Azvine (n.d.), which streamlines diagnosis to only the area embodying an anomaly.

The last layer is the operational layer, Quinn (n.d.) says at this level the problem is known and only the correct fix is pending. If it is a business process error, a method to fix it is worked out and applied at this level. In our analogy, that would be a point when a patient walks out of the doctor’s room with a prescription note on their hand. However, this does not guarantee that the indentified problem or ailment is going to be remedied as envisaged. The operational layer also means the dashboard lights or alarming signals, are put to normality. Meaning, all the business activities running are in agreement with the set rules, which are derived from the current corporate strategy. Going back to Ghemawat and Levinthal (2008)’s choices, if the defined rules are still not satisfying the envisaged goals, then it is time to re-look into the choices that were chosen. In simple terms it means change what is not working for business.

In sum, an RTBI connects to the various business enterprise units via the operational layer, but reveals through the strategic layer. Operational activities are forced to adhere to certain processing standards, which are simple guided by metrics derived from the corporate strategy. For instance, call-centre management in firms adopting RTBI would have a live measure of calls-per-hour or average-calls per call-centre-agent against set threshholds. Secondly, the analytical layer service both the operational layer and the strategic layer. In servicing the operational layer, analytical processing enables constant business process validation against defined rules. Everything performed during a business transaction is analyzed for correctness, authenticity and value-add. On the other hand, analytical processing helps a business projects into the future by supporting the strategic layer. That is, based on what is happening currently, new choices can be incorporated in the business strategy which might be of greater value in the future. Lastly, the strategic layer allows management to steer overall business processing with a information based instrument.

References:

1. Quinn, k. (n.d.). How business intelligence should work. http://www.informationbuilders.com/products/whitepapers/pdf/How_BI_Should_Work_WP.pdf (Accessed 17 June 2010).
2. Johnson, J. (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans together – The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems 35(3):298:310
3. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation – domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of st-Brieuc Bay. Sociological review monograph 196:233
4. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor network – ordering strategy and heterogeneity. Systems practice 5(4):379:393
5. Arnot, D. (2004). Decision support systems evolution: framework, case study and research agenda. European journal of information systems 13:247:259
6. Ghemawat, P. and Levinthal, D. (2008). Choice interaction and business strategy. Management Science 54(9):1638:1651
7. Gravic, Inc. (2010). The evolution of real-time business intelligence. Available from: http://www.gravic.com/shadowbase/whitepapers.html (Accessed 24 May 2010)
8. Azvine, B., Cui, Z., Nauck, D.D. and Majeed, B. (n.d.). Real time business intelligence for the adaptive enterprise. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.194&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 14 June 2010).