Marcel Wiedenbrugge wrote a nice response to my blog, and he posted some interesting questions. So here's my 2 cents worth. . .
Marcel: I noticed that in the IT business, for 'outsiders', we still (increasingly) use incomprehensive words and concepts (hidden in all kind of - sometimes - abstract English shortcuts): even among experts this sometimes causes (communication) problems. Why not make language (communication) easier and focus on the user instead of the technology (solution driven, reliable technology based). I am anxious about your point of view.
Frank: There is indeed a lot of jargon out there, but let me pushback a little. Jargon has a reason: being concise and precise at the same time. Having a term for something makes it easier to address it and minimize the chance of misinterpretation. This is common in all professional fields, did you ever try to communicate with a financial expert on IFRS terminology? Or with a doctor? There is a point to calling the collarbone "clavicula" in Latin, so that doctors speaking different languages have the same understanding and not have to translate "sleutelbeen" into "collarbone." So we should not get rid of jargon, the confusion would be enormous. Having said that, ofcourse it makes sense to take a solution driven approach when implementing IT projects. What are the business benefits? What strikes me as odd, that it is usually IT that is responsible for that too. Shouldn't the business take an active and committed role in that?
Marcel: Despite the fact that a lot has changed over the past decade, I believe there still is limited focus on intelligent solutions such as, analytic and predictive modelling and intelligent real time optimization of processes (most of the so called BI is still about 'analyzing' static data).
Frank: I agree. . . and I don't. It is a strong misconception, popping up every few years, that analyzing static data is old-fashioned. You see, every organization has two loops of management. In the first loop of management you monitor if you are doing well against established targets and parameters, in the second loop of management you ask yourself if you have the right parameters, measure the right things or if you are still managing the right process. The second loop of management requires off-line analysis. Imagine you are looking into customer segmentation, and every time you do a new analysis, there's new records in the database. How can you compare the various analyses with each other? You can't. Analysis requires a stable data set, regardless of what is technically possible. On the other hand, static data analysis is not everything. Of course, the first loop of management needs analytical power as well, as real-time as possible. Have a look at Oracle Real-Time Decisions (RTD), or the data mining capabilities right within the database. I agree with you that this is an exciting area of innovation.
Marcel: About communication: I recently heard a very interesting webcast on the influence of organzational culture and the implementation of BI. I think that's true. If BI is implemented without thorough understanding of the business culture, chances of failure significantly increase. What do you think?
Frank: Couldn't agree more. In fact, I have written about that a few times already in my blog. Check:
http://blogs.oracle.com/frankbuytendijk/2008/03/epm_and_corporate_cultures.html and http://blogs.oracle.com/frankbuytendijk/2007/10/16. In fact, my upcoming book will largely deal with the behavioral aspects of business intelligence and performance management, and in my workshops world-wide I am teaching how to use various dimensions of cultural aspects, based on Hofstede, Trompenaars and a few other frameworks, to come to better BI and EPM implementations. So am totally on board with you there.
