BI 2.0. So now I have your attention, as everyone wants to know about this 2.0 hype. Everything has to be 2.0 today and that goes for BI as well. And I can't wait for the first clever marketeer who thinks (s)he can introduce a market game change by announcing BI 3.0! Aaargghhh.
But what is BI 2.0? Most of all, it's ill-defined. BI 2.0 is supposed to be more interactive, collaborative and should take care that all users have the management information they need. So what's new? The old Executive Information Systems in the late 1980s and early 1990s had discussion threads, public folders and advanced interactive OLAP capabilities.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for technology advancement, to deal with increasing data volumes and complexity, and to satisfy changing user requirements. But hasn't the point of BI not always been about making information a corporate asset to be exploited like capital, labor, materials and facilities? And what is blocking you from doing that with current or previous generations of technology? Probably it's not BI 2.0 that would achieve this goal, maybe we should introduce Organizational Behavior 2.0, as collaboration, interaction and information democracy are more cultural issues than anything else.
If you want to achieve a solid return on investment with BI, these are things to consider. And that's not BI 2.0, but BI 101.
frank
Comments (5)
I agree with you Frank. I think a lot of companies that are currently investing in such technologies for social interaction have the wrong expectations.
Example: right now there's wikipedia with lots of people contributing and sharing info. Management consecutivly thinks that by giving their employees the same tool, they will behave alike. They are hoping that setting up a wiki will result in information-sharing/transfer. But if my knowlegdge gives me status, or a position wihtin the company why would I share? A wiki certainly isn't going to make me do it.
So it's not "I do because I can" (technology), but "I do because I want to" (behavioural). Companies should therefore focus on creating a sharing mindset.
Posted by Rogier | August 21, 2007 10:21 AM
Posted on August 21, 2007 10:21
Frank,
I agree with your comments that the terminology BI 2.0 is not the issue i?? that iti??s BI 101. With that agreed to, maybe iti??s time to rename i??BI 101i?? to i??BI Tools 101i?? because i??business intelligencei?? means something very different to the CEO and other business execs, than it does to the CIO and other IT staff.
To business executives, i??business intelligencei?? means understanding the industries and companies that make up the global economy. A subset of business intelligence is competitive intelligence, which means understanding current and potential competitors by line of business.
So, respectfully, maybe it is time to implement BI 3.0 which includes both the information and technology frameworks necessary to combine: i??Global Economy Info 101i?? + i??BI Tools 101i??.
A suggestion in how to bridge the gap between i??BIi?? (which mostly refers to tools which help a company look internally) and i??Business BIi?? (which mostly refers to external industry and competitor information) is to use i??Best Practicesi?? to motivate companies to look both internally and externally.
Alan Michaels, co-founder
eCompetitors.com
Posted by Alan S Michaels | August 21, 2007 12:51 PM
Posted on August 21, 2007 12:51
Frank - I heard your presentation in San Diego last week. Very entertaining.
On BI 2.0, I'd suggest we take care not to dismiss it due to the initial ambiguity with which people are expressing themselves. The discourse may contain something valuable, and it may take time to clarify.
Currently, it seems the central thing people are having trouble articulating is a movement toward democratizing BI, which has always been and continues to be a Politburo-esque central planning model. Architectures, organizations, the whole shooting match seems engineered in a manner wholly at odds with the trend toward intelligence at the edge and peer-to-peer sharing -- without the central hub.
Posted by Scott Davis | August 26, 2007 9:49 PM
Posted on August 26, 2007 21:49
Rogier,
Thank you for your contribution, I couldn't agree more. You describe very well how putting in certain technologies doesn't automatically drive the right behavior. In fact, it could be even worse: putting in
certain technologies triggers the WRONG behavior. I know of one large consulting company that spent an incredible amount of time, effort and money on a knowledge management system. One of the ideas management had was to publish a monthly "Top 10 Contributors" on the Intranet, to
promote the knowledge management system. It bombed. The Top 10 was seen by the consultants as the top 10 of losers, who had time to contribute to the system. The real top consultants "obviously" would be too busy
and important to contribute. A real cultural issue...
Best regards,
frank
Posted by Frank Buytendijk | August 28, 2007 12:10 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 12:10
Scott,
I agree with you, BI is way too hiearchic of nature, this was the central point of my presentation. I never wanted to dismiss BI 2.0 in my presentation, I just wanted to point out that it is ill-defined and - as always - too technology driven. i??Put a tool in the hands of people and the world will be a better placei??. I doni??t think that is the case. That is why my presentation focused on the real chance, business and business innovation becoming more networked. As a result, BI will have to follow... It seems we are on the same page!
frank
Posted by Frank Buytendijk | August 28, 2007 12:32 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 12:32