A little while ago I posted a blog entry about the Management Decision Making Process. You can re-read this article on this link.

The slide to recall from this blog entry is this one.

Today I want to talk about “Deciding and Investing”.

For all of my 30 year career in IT there has been “tension” between “Business” and “IT”. It was understandable 30 years ago because computers were so expensive and IT processes were so new. There was a great deal of skepticism from “Business” towards what “IT” was doing. There was a lot of talk about “more people from IT should learn the business”.

Leading companies such as IBM created positions called “Business Analysts”. This was a position where a person trained as an IT person would spend time in the business to learn. They would then become the “conduit” for later projects. Sometimes a person from “the business” was placed in to development project to help with “Requirements Definitions”. But the traffic was 80%+ from IT in to the business to learn the business.

In the 80s it was never questioned that the business managers owned the responsibility of the Management Decision Making Process because IT was so isolated from these business processes. IT could have little idea and little credibility at the table where business decisions were being made.

As the world of “Business Intelligence” emerged and the technology to build Business Intelligence Systems became more and more complex it became more and more obvious that there was a need for more people who could cross the “Business” vs “IT” chasm as it was at the time.

The Meta5 product focused on Business Managers and Power Data Analysts as the users of the system. Because of this many consultants who worked with the Meta5 product who were trained as “IT people” were able to migrate across to “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” of the business people. Many Meta5 consultants could just as easily talk to the CEO, CFO and CMO as they could to the CIO.

Back in the early 90s, when this was first happening, I believed that what we would see is a “new era of co-operation” between business and IT. I believed that business managers would welcome with open arms the IT people who had spent the years it took to learn their business as well as their best business analysts.

How wrong could I be! Over the last 25 years or so I have observed a very interesting pattern develop. I have bounced this idea off many other people and they say they have seen the same thing too. Of course, given the diversity of companies I am by no means saying this is all companies all the time. But this pattern has emerged often enough that it is worthy of a blog entry.

What I expected to see was that the IT people who had made an effort to bridge the gap between business and IT would be rewarded by both parties as “ambassadors” who were working to create better business results via co-operation and collaboration.

What I actually see is that those who made this transition, often over years of projects and hard work, are rejected by both camps to a greater or lesser degree! At first I just thought these were “isolated examples”. But as the years wore on they seemed to be happening more and more. Business people seem to have a deep suspicion of “IT people” who make the claim of knowing their business well. Meanwhile, IT people have a rather deep and unjustified suspicion of people who have spent “too long with the business people” as something of a “spy in the camp”.

If you want proof that this seems to be a wider trend outside just my anecdotal experience? I invite you to notice how few people there are in Business Intelligence today who can clearly demonstrate the ability, with a track record, of being able to present themselves credibly on both sides of the house. We have had this sort of BI for 25 years. If this role was valued and rewarded you would see many people in this role. The fact is that people who are able to perform this role are rare. This is having an effect on our Business Intelligence projects.

The failure rate of Business Intelligence projects remains stubbornly high at around 50%. One might well ask: “Why do we have a 50% failure rate after 25 years?” Shouldn’t that rate have reduced dramatically over the years? Since it is not reducing? Why is it not reducing?

One of my pet theories is this. That the “Business” is not taking enough ownership of the Business Intelligence projects. That the “business people” are only too willing to allow IT to go ahead and build “something” and hope that it will meet their needs. This is as oppose to being more involved in the process to make sure that what is being done on the Business Intelligence projects will deliver economically in a cost justified fashion. By being more “hands off” the business people create a useful excuse for IT for any project failures.

Of course, this is bold claim. However, after 25 years in business intelligence, I am willing to nail my flag to the mast and say this.

“The more the business people can be involved in a Business Intelligence project the more likely that project is to deliver economically.”

I could also restate that to be as follows:

“The more the business people see the Business Intelligence project being about supporting the Management Decision Making Process, the more likely the project and delivered system is to deliver economically.”

Example? I like to give examples. One of our consultants was recently asked to assist write a BI tender for one country of a large telco corporation. The previous project had been cancelled due to lack of delivery after about USD2 million had been consumed. The tender was to go to market to get the job done properly this time. Our consultant had a great deal of experience in tender development as well as answering them.

On arrival it was the usual story from IT. “The business people could not explain to us what they needed, that is why the project failed.” Our consultant openly questioned that it could be possible for such a large telco to have business managers who could not explain what they needed from a Business Intelligence system, especially because they had so many BI Systems in production all around the world.

After much to-ing and fro-ing our consultant was finally allowed to talk to the business managers starting with the CFO. The IT project manager accompanied him. The IT project manager was a 10 year telco veteran who was responsible for numerous projects.

As suspected, the business users knew exactly what they needed and were perfectly able to articulate those needs to our consultant. Indeed, as a telco, their needs were very predictable and there were few “surprises”. About 90% of what was articulated was “standard” for telcos. There was about 10% which was “new” to some extent or other. We could have built a data warehouse for them that hit 90% of their needs without even speaking to the business users. That is how “normal” the telco was.

At a regular review meeting with senior IT management to report progress the IT Project Manager was asked his opinion as to progress and how our consultant was doing. One of his comments was along the lines:

“When “John” talks with the business people it is obvious they understand what he is talking about and that he understands what they are talking about. What I found amazing is that I understand almost nothing of what they are talking about! It makes no sense to me! They are not talking “IT language”. They are talking about telco, but I can not understand what they are saying.”

Of course, by then it had become obvious that the IT people who had talked to the business people on the previous project could not understand what it was that the business needed. It was not expressed to them in terms they could understand. They did not stop the project just because of a minor thing like not being able to understand what the business needed! After all? There were schedules to keep and deadlines to meet!!

As much as it might upset IT? It is my opinion, based on my last 25 years of working in the Business Intelligence area, that the more successful projects have been the projects where there was stronger business leadership and stronger business involvement.

This might not sound “earth shattering” until you look at the 50% failure rate and you consider that projects like the one I just cited are very common. They are not unusual at all.

If you are a Power Data Analyst on the business side of your company? Then I would urge you to promote to your management the idea that stronger and more active involvement by business managers in the Business Intelligence projects is more likely to produce greater levels of benefit. I would urge you to make the case that “leaving Business Intelligence to IT” is less likely to deliver the commercial benefits that are possible.

Do I have statistics and surveys to prove what I am saying? No. We are not Gartner Group. We do not go around conducting independent vendor neutral surveys because we are a vendor. However, in talking to hundreds of companies over more than a 25 year period? Having listened to the feedback of so many consultants on so many projects? The gap between “Business” and “IT” is alive and well and getting bigger in the area of Business Intelligence.

Since the Business is ultimately responsible for the performance of the company, not IT, it is up to the Business to take the leadership and ownership position. Not IT.

How Does Business Take More Ownership?

Having pointed out what I perceive to be a problem it is incumbent on me to point out some ideas for solutions. Of course, there is no “silver bullet” for businesses to take ownership of Business Intelligence Solutions. But there are some things that you can do that will increase your chances of delivering a successful Business Intelligence project and to derive substantial business benefit for the years of its operations.

1. Focus on the Management Decision Making Process.

In all sizable businesses there are decisions that are repeatedly made where that decision must go to at least a first level manager to be approved. As decisions become larger and cost more and have greater impact they go to higher levels of management. Of course, the biggest decisions go to the board members who represent the interests of the shareholders directly. Even the CEO of a company reports to the Board.

Your Business Intelligence System should be employed everywhere decisions are made. It should be embedded in the management decision making process. The alternatives considered should be stored in the Business Intelligence System. The investment. The timing. The conditions. The ongoing results. Notes about adjustments made. Everything and anything about decisions made and their results should go into your Business Intelligence System.

Sometimes your managers will not want to record this information. Sometimes they will want to “interpret” or “massage” the numbers before they float further up the management hierarchy. The obvious reason is that sometimes those numbers expose managers who are not performing well. Senior management must remain strong and resolute and insist that the Business Intelligence System is embedded in to the decision making process and used.

Example? In one client the marketing managers rebelled at the idea that their great marketing ideas should be tracked in minute detail. They were creative people and it was an insult that they would have to break down their creativity to mere facts and figures.

The Chief Marketing Officer gave a presentation where he empathized with the creativeness of his marketing managers. He openly stated that it was not mandatory that anyone complete the new on line forms that would capture the details of their marketing programs. He reiterated his belief in freedom of choice. He concluded with the idea that in the same spirit of freedom of choice he would not sign off the budget for any marketing campaign where he could not find the full details properly completed in the new Marketing Analysis System.

Of course, the result 2 years later was that the impact of the marketing dollar spend had substantially increased. Yes, some weak links were found. Some accepted the challenge to lift their game. Some moved on. Two years after this speech the overall performance of the company was much enhanced. That is the purpose of a Business Intelligence System.

If you do just one thing? Do

“Every time we make a decision around here we use the Business Intelligence System to help us make the decision and we record the decision in the Business Intelligence System”

You will improve your business performance dramatically. Of this you can be certain.

2. Focus on answering the “just thought of” questions…FAST!

This is paraphrasing a conversation with an actual Meta5 prospect who went on to buy.

Chief Marketing Officer: “I want to know the answer to any question I care to ask. I don’t know what questions I might ask. But I want the answer back before I forget why I asked the question in the first place.”

Meta5 Consultant: “Interesting. May I ask, how long that might be? “before I forget why I asked the question”? “

Chief Marketing Officer: “If my Power Data Analyst can finish his cup of coffee before the computer answers the question? That’s too long. I guess that’s around 5 minutes.”

When a manager comes to you with a “just thought of question” can you develop a one off, ad hoc application? Can you get an answer from your Business Intelligence System inside 5 minutes of hitting the go button on the query or application you built? Or do you need to go to IT to get the queries/analysis/reports created and then run the application/report when they give it back to you?

There is great value in being able to create your own ad hoc applications to the “just thought of question” because it encourages asking more questions. If you can get answers to “just thought of questions” fast, with no IT intervention, then you, or the business managers you serve, will ask more questions.

Asking more questions is, by definition, a good thing. Organizations where people are not asking “just thought of questions” are organizations that have made it so hard that people have become discouraged and no longer challenge the status quo and no longer wish to push the boundaries to improve the business. The business settles in to a routine that is acceptable. This is often followed by stagnation which is inevitably followed by loss of market share and revenues.

3. Focus on the BIG questions for BIG decisions

Combining the above two ideas? I can now also comment on the “big” questions for “big” decisions.

Where do the “big decisions” happen? They happen in the board room.

The process of board members making big decisions is quite well known. Someone from the company stands up and gives a very well prepared presentation. If s/he has done his/her job well s/he will have provided some form of documentation about the idea/project that is being presented as supporting information. This documentation may even have been given to the board members before the meeting for their scrutiny. After all? The decision will usually involve large sums of money, time and effort if it is being made by the board members.

We all know that it is human nature for the presenter of his/her own idea to be economical with the truth about any areas which might be perceived as negative to the approval of the project. Whether that economy with the truth is intentional or subconscious does not really matter. What matters is that every board member can be sure that sometimes they are being asked to make a positive decision where a negative decision is in the best interests of the shareholders they represent.

So how do these board members assess the project they are being asked to approve over and above the information presented to them in substantiating documentation and in presentations?

Simple. They ask questions!

These questions are “just thought of” and they can not all possibly be anticipated by the presenter. So what happens if a board member asks a very good question that the presenter can not answer? A question critical to the passage of a positive decision? What happens is the decision needs to be put on hold until the question can be answered. That might mean that the decision is suspended until the next board meeting.

Here is a question for you and your company.

Do you have a Business Intelligence System where you can put a computer in the board room and you can have your best Power Data Analyst at the computer and you can get the answer to any question asked in 5 minutes 95%+ of the time?

If you do not? Would you like one?

If you were able to answer 95% of the questions put to you by your board members during board meetings? How much would that be worth to your company in terms of lost opportunity costs recovered for decisions that would have been delayed over concerns they are the right decisions to make?

My guess is “a lot”. You might make a better guess than me knowing your company.

We have actually have customers who put a Meta5 workstation in to their board rooms so that the Power Data Analyst could answer any question thrown at him/her in order to progress the Management Decision Making Process of the “big decisions”.

If you can get to this level in your company? You can rest assured that your Business Intelligence System will generate substantial economic value.

If you do not have your Business Intelligence System actively available to your Board Members in their Board Meetings? Why not? It is an interesting question to ask, isn’t it!

If you can answer the questions of your board members in 5 minutes 95%+ of the time? You can answer most other people’s questions just as fast.

Meta5: Fastest Time To Answer.

If you want to enable the Business to take more ownership of the Business Intelligence System in your company? Meta5 is one product that enables just that.

Meta5: The Better Way.

Thank you for your time and attention.