Hints

RTBI usually fails because of the common approach of wanting to supply business users with pre-configured reports (Karapala, 2010a). The danger lies in the likely quick-fading need of these reports, and consequently of the entire BI service to the organization. This is not immediately evident during need analysis, and organizations most likely go on to invest inordinate amounts only to derive no returns on RTBI. However, Vesset and McDonough (2009) and Pells (2009) recommend a different approach: they recommend that RTBI implementers should take time to understand the data needs of users, more importantly, the data that could help them analyze business issues bound by their different areas of work. The main objective of RTBI should be to provide these users with data upon which flexible analytical and reporting tools could be applied for analysis. And not rigid reports, which are only good at prescribing the nature of supported decisions. With this approach, only the processing power of the hardware on which BI is based gets outdated and not necessarily the RTBI application.

Karapala (2010b) and Ness Global Industries (2010) identify as core, the need to ensure that the corporate strategy is holistically used as a guide towards defining the requirements on which RTBI should deliver. In line with what is given (in one of the previous sections) above, RTBI should serve to indicate how the currently adopted strategy is performing for business, given the available resources. Thus the ultimate measure to determine the robustness of RTBI should be determining what percentage of corporate strategy is translated into RTBI KPIs.

Langenkamp (2010) postulates that current BI initiatives are not exploited in full, but a subset of capabilities are. This is backed by Peters (2010)’s views towards cloud computing on BI, and Pennock (2010)’s discussion on how social media could be integrated into BI for more informed decisions to be taken. Cloud computing could resolve the problem of expensive vendor licenses that could be needed for pervasive BI (Peters, 2010). Thus organizations that are spanning zones and have the capacity to exploit cloud computing, should consider doing so as this could keep RTBI investments at acceptable levels. Pennock (2010) in addition prod firms to carve means to integrate social media into their RTBI solutions. In his explanation of the impact of social media on BI, he briefs that a firm stands a better future if it is enabled to identify the likely future needs of customers/clients, based on their general perceptions about issues that are relevant to business.

References:

1. Karapala, K. (2010a). The road to business intelligence success: The information focus. http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/2009_165/business_intelligence_bi-10017923-1.html?ET=informationmgmt:e1533:2230379a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IM_IMD_052010 (Accessed 19-July-2010).

2. Karapala, K. (2010b). Business intelligence strategies: Keys to success. http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/2009_164/BI_strategy-10017847-1.html?ET=informationmgmt:e1524:2230379a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IM_IMD_051310 (Accessed 19-July-2010).

3. Ness Global Industries (2010). From expected to achieved: four steps to making business intelligence work. http://www.cio.com/white-paper/595797/From_Expected_to_Achieved_Four_Steps_to_Making_Business_Intelligence_Work (Accessed 10 July 2010).

4. Pells, D.L. (2009). Global business intelligence for managers of programs, projects and project oriented organizations. http://www.pmforum.org/library/editorials/2009/PDFs/june/Editorial-Pells-BI-for-PM.pdf (Accessed 09 July 2010).

5. Vesset, D. and McDonough, B. (2009). Improving organizational performance management through pervasive business intelligence. http://www.information-management.com/white_papers/-10017909-1.html (Accessed 16 JUL 2010).