Posts Tagged ‘BI’

Why isn’t BI / reporting supporting your ITSM efforts?

February 18th, 2010

I read an interesting blog on complaints and potential reasons around BI/reporting in the organization.

10 meanings of why-my-BI-application-is-not-useful
By Boris Evelson

Which complaints and/or reasons are (most) applicable to you, your organization or your customers?

An overview from the blog with an ITSM perspective:

1. The data is not there, because

  • It’s not in the HP service management application (e.g. HP Service Manager)
The data is there, but
2. It’s not usable as is, because
  • The data is of poor quality (e.g. out of date, inconsistent or not complete)
3. I can’t find it, because I
  • Can’t find the right report
  • Can’t find the right metadata
  • Can’t find the data
  • I don’t have access rights to the data I am looking for
4. I don’t know how to use my application, because I
  • Was not trained
  • Was trained, but the application is not intuitive, user friendly enough
  • Need extensive knowledge of the underlying HP database structure
  • Need SQL knowledge to create reports
5. I can’t/don’t have time do it myself and
  • I don’t have support staff
  • I am low on BI priority list
6. It takes too long to
  • Create a report/query
  • Run/execute a report/query
7. I need to report/analyze on something that SQL can’t do, such as
  • Faceted search
  • SQL on data with uneven, unbalanced, ragged, recursive hierarchies
8. I don’t know what I am looking for, but my application is asking to
  • Run a specific report
  • Pick specific facts and dimensions

And 2 additional ones that  I added

9. I want do it myself but
  • My application doesn’t provide self service reporting capabilities
  • My organization doesn’t allow self service reporting
10. I don’t want to do BI, I want to run my business and expect
  • My application to present helpful information not just present data

Let me know what you think!

David vH

Once in a while, someone else also has something interesting to say about BI…

September 14th, 2009

I know, I know, hard to believe, right? Hard to accept that there are interesting things to be said about ITSM, BI and operational reporting that don’t have their alpha and omega right here in Westbury Towers…

security-failWell, I hate to be the one to burst the bubble, but it turns out that someone calling himself BIguru (or is it Big Uru… not sure…) has been blogging about security within Business Objects. BIguru (or Maloy, as he seems to call himself in the real world) has written this piece, which combines a high-level, thematic view of the issues around BO security with specific examples of usage within the BO world. The actual application of security within Business Objects XI r3 is something of a black art which few can hope to understand, so it’s always useful to get a bit of insight from someone who, from the looks of things, is at the coal-face of BO every day.

The issue of security of operational data is, no doubt, going to become more important in the coming weeks, months and years as the world comes to terms with the effects of a financial crisis founded on non-regulation and non-transparency. I have a sneaking suspicion that corporate governance – already a burgeoning pseudo-industry in the noughties – is going to balloon into an obsession at the start of the new decade. Big players are going to bolt down every movable asset and bring in hordes of consultants to define security best practice in order to minimize financial risk wherever possible. And that means that even the weekly workgroup performance report is going to be audited for security soundness, so you need to make sure your understanding of BO security principles is up to snuff.

Here’s BIguru’s piece: http://biguru.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/developing-a-business-objects-security-model-bo-xi-3-1/

Tom

The Norman Foster of software

September 2nd, 2009

gherkin2Well, we have a new video available for you all to view, called SMI Suite: Behind The Scenes. It’s been a labor of love, involving a multi-million dollar budget, a crew of hundreds, a shoot lasting over six months and directorial tantrums left, right and center. Alternatively, it was done with a green screen and many many hours of painstaking post production. Not to ruin the illusion or anything.

The video is all about architecture, and as a companion piece to the video I wanted to write a blog entry about the same topic, just so the messages from the video are clear. After all, you might find it hard to focus on what I’m saying when you’re confronted with my boyish good looks in all their glory…

Sometimes we find it a little difficult to sum up neatly just how clever SMI Suite is, but we often find that when we get the chance to talk to experienced ITSM professionals in depth – and explain what’s going on behind the scenes, both with SM7 and with SMI Suite, that we almost always get a ‘gasp moment’ from whomever it is we’re talking to. It’s that moment when something suddenly makes sense and it usually falls into one of two camps. Either the person we’re talking to has just spent a month trying to understand why reporting from SM7 is so difficult, or they know precisely why reporting is so difficult, but were convinced that there was no possible solution. Remember the first time someone showed you the Rubik’s Cube? You probably thought that either there was no way a stupid toy could out-fox you, or you took one look and declared that even the greatest minds of our time could never crack such an intellectual nut. If I was going to stretch the analogy any further, I would tell you that SMI Suite is David Singmaster.

So we wanted to take some time to explain in some depth the key concepts around the architecture of SM7 and what SMI Suite does to solve the issues that the architecture raises.

First up is the simple fact that where Service Desk used a fixed, relational database to store its data, Service Manager uses a flat database structure. One of the upshots, from a reporting point of view, is the changeability of field names. So, say you have a field in Service Desk called “Priority”, the corresponding field in the SD database might be called “Priority”, or “Prty”, or “isd3y7j23hh2″ or whatever, but that back-end name would not change once it was set. Not so in Service Manager – everything is subject to change, even after initial setup. So if you were writing a SQL query to call that data, you would need to reference the field name, which might have changed since last month or last week or two minutes ago, and might change again in two minutes time. Also there’s a key difference in the way custom fields are handled – in SD they were custom only in the front end, so no matter how you renamed them in SD, the back-end fields were still called “CustomField1″, “CustomField2″, and so on. In SM7 custom names can be applied to the back-end as well.

SM7 also makes pretty extensive use of CLOBs, BLOBs and comma-delimited array fields, all of which are efficient ways for an application to store its data, but also efficient ways of making that data unintelligible to anyone or anything other than the application that wrote the data. You can think of it like a journalist who has developed his or her own form of shorthand to use when conducting interviews. It works great when the journalist wants to write up the article and can refer to the shorthand notes and quote the subject verbatim, but if the journalist’s editor wants to fact check the article and make sure the subject wasn’t quoted out of context, everything suddenly becomes very difficult, because the shorthand is gibberish.

If we accept that all of these factors make reporting from SM7 very difficult, then we’re going to need to see something pretty special from SMI Suite to solve these problems.

Well, actually, what makes SMI Suite so special is that it is designed, from the ground up, to deal with the particular challenges of SM7 – something that no other (and certainly no one-size-fits-all) application can boast. We already had a solid base in the sense that we had developed a robust, fully featured reporting solution for Service Desk – which, as you’ll remember, uses a fixed, relational database – so the challenge was really to get the SM7 data into a similar format as the SD data that we were used to reporting from.

So included with SMI Suite is a powerful ETL layer that parses the SM7 data into a separate, relational reporting database. And this isn’t just a straight dump, there are some pretty clever things going on, like data cleansing and translation of those BLOBs, CLOBs and array fields into a human-readable format. The mapping of data is based on the standard SM7 configuration, meaning that customers who make minimal customization to the SM7 implementation need only make minimal customization to the SMI Suite implementation. And for larger, more complex organizations with lots of SM7 customization, there’s a user-friendly, drag-and-drop GUI so the data mapping customizations can be easily and quickly without too much technical knowledge.

All of which basically gets us to the point where we started off with Service Desk, which is with good-quality data in a dedicated, relational reporting database, allowing us to bring in our years of experience in this kind of thing, which means standardized reporting universes, out-of-the-box reports and all the benefits of the market-leading BI software.

Which, when you think about where we were just four short paragraphs ago, is pretty awesome. Not only is it possible to run reports out of SM7, but it is possible for staff with no SQL query-writing experience, no database experience – in fact, no technical experience whatsoever – to write reports, refresh them, distribute them and so on. Which is really where SMI Suite sits head and shoulders above products like Crystal Reports or Cognos, which require you to directly query the SM7 database (potentially affecting performance), and to do so in the peculiar, techie way that the SM7 database understands. SMI Suite is all about dragging and dropping, it’s about using obvious and familiar terminology rather than interminable strings of code and it’s about adapting to the changing SM7 structure without you, the end-user, ever having to be aware of it.

This is the bit where you gasp.

Tom

Luck or wisdom?

August 20th, 2009

luckImplementing a service management solution within a customer environment is an easy task.  Install the software, tell the customer to use it according to ITIL, import some employees, CI’s and Services and Bob’s your uncle. Nothing to it.

Alright, alright; it’s slightly more complex than that. You’ll have to try and gain insight into the processes that are in place, you’ll have to discuss the requirements and wishes of the customer and flawlessly translate them to the set up of the tool, you’ll have to train the user community and you’ll have to communicate with all of the stakeholders in the organization throughout the implementation process.

So, assuming you went through all these steps and made no major mistakes along the way; is success guaranteed? Unfortunately, no. Some of these projects will end in partial success at best and will live uneventful lives.

What then is the key to success? Tough question. It’s really a combination of knowledge, experience, patience, determination and, for a part at least, sheer luck. Let me focus on the latter, because the first four are obvious. To what extent does luck play a role?

Luck, or positive circumstances beyond our control, can make the difference between a project ending in success and a project just ending. Let me illustrate this with an example from a recent implementation I did at one of the biggest insurance companies in The Netherlands.

Due to circumstances, I was lucky enough to be involved in an implementation project for the Insurer for the fourth time in 13 years (or so). The previous three projects had all ended with a mild success; nothing fancy, just okay. This last project was somewhat different than the previous three, because this time it wasn’t a merger or an upgrade but a whole new implementation of Service Desk 4.5, SSP, Report Manager, Change Calendar and Service Desk Monitor. Why? Because 4 years ago the Insurer outsourced their IT department and switched over to ServiceCenter.

Roulette-Wheel_HRNow, the outsourcing contract had been terminated and a renewed Service Desk implementation was required. Enter Westbury. The luck factor starts here. Literally no-one within the Insurer had been satisfied with ServiceCenter and its functionality (due to the outsourcer’s implementation mainly, not due to the tool itself). The way this works psychologically is that you start to remember the good old days, when streets were paved with gold and the sky was all pink and fluffy. Their good old days were the Service Desk days. And now it was back. Praise Jesus.

This feeling, shared by most in the project group(s), meant that there was an enormous sense of positivity with everyone and a real drive to make the project a success. This really started off a chain reaction. Because everyone was positive, they were very flexible in accepting the limitations of the project and the tools, and because they were flexible we were able to move forward within the projected time frame and within the projected budget. This in turn lead to more positivity.

Added to that was a project manager who played a very active role in the project and really fought like a lion to get everyone on the same page and protect the scope of the project. Also lucky because you can never choose your project manager.

The result of all this: A project that ended on time within budget and with a happy customer.  And with an additional project and the purchase of 50 additional Service Desk users. And with this blog entry.

Is there a way to influence this luck factor? Yes, maybe. By making sure the customer is aware of this factor and by driving home the notion that enthusiasm for the tool implementation as well as a very active and dedicated Project Manager are just as important as the other factors that determine the outcome of a project. Still, the luck factor cannot be overlooked. Hopefully you are lucky enough to find it on your path.

Jack

The hidden costs of BI

August 19th, 2009

The Aberdeen GroupIn a recent report (registration required) the Aberdeen Group described the success rates of enterprise companies (which it groups into Best-In-Class, Average or Laggard) in Business Intelligence projects.  Some of the result are very interesting to share.

For example, the report identified the four top hidden costs of Business Intelligence as:

  1. Year-after-year budget increases: The typical best-in-class company sees a drop in year-after-year BI budgetary costs. Average and laggard companies, however, can witness increases in BI expenses that range from 2 percent to 9 percent.
  2. Cost per user: Best-in-class companies lower per-user costs by 4.3 percent whereas average performers and laggards often see increases ranging from 1 percent to 7 percent.
  3. Time to complete projects: Best-in-class achievers complete BI projects, on average, within 14 days. Average performers take nearly three times as long (approximately 39 days) to complete a project, and the typical laggard company takes more than 12 times as long (177 days).
  4. Modifications to BI software: Altering a BI program takes less than a day for best-in-class companies; three days for average performers; and up to eight days for laggard organizations.

Or as author David Hatch put it:

“The overall cost of ownership is not about the costs of purchasing the software,” Hatch says. “The real cost factors are the hidden or the soft ones that have to do with indirect and ongoing factors.” Hatch contends that a justifiable fear of such factors hinders adoption. “People are finding [that] the resources the company needs to acquire to properly implement, deploy, support, and maintain a BI solution are far greater than the solution providers lead [users] to believe or that [users] assume on their own.”

Interesting, because that is what Westbury has seen over the last years in dealing with BI projects for HP Service Management. But a report of the Aberdeen Group isn’t complete without some recommendations. On what areas should companies focus in order to improve the success rate of their BI projects?

Aberdeen suggests that investments in the following areas will maximize results from a BI initiative:

  • Data integration and cleansing: “Companies are finding it difficult to bring data together from multiple, disparate sources,” Hatch says. Investing in tools for data management can be of help in this regard. Best-in-class companies are twice as likely as their counterparts are to institute data integration and cleansing capabilities.

Westbury recommends: make sure the back end of your BI environment can be used by non-technical people

  • End-user requirements: “You really have to stop and think about why…so many companies have deployed tools that so many aren’t able to use,” Hatch says. Companies must understand that end-users — especially nontechnical, non-data-guru types — may need different approaches. Hatch advises companies to focus on end-user needs before deploying a solution.

Westbury recommends: make sure you talk the same language as your end-users

  • Training: Top performers are 37 percent more likely to invest in extensive user training on BI solutions and 40 percent are more likely to have formed formal user committees to encourage adoption. Additionally, best-in-class companies are twice as likely as laggards and average performers are to sign up for vendor-provided services.

Westbury recommends: the more accessible your BI solution is for the end-users, the better your processes should be around training

  • Operational BI: Successful users of BI use the technology on an everyday basis rather than merely getting a summarized spreadsheet version of performance and high-level trends. Hatch says that operational BI seems to be gaining traction as companies look to make comparisons over shorter time spans rather than just examine large-scale trends.

Westbury recommends: integrate your BI solution with the supported applications, so it is readily accessible for your end-users

Great to see our own own experiences in working with the HP Service Management software backed up with a solid research like this one from The Aberdeen Group.

Floris

Improving front end or back end of BI solution?

May 19th, 2009

Being the CEO of a product company that earns its living in the grey area between IT Service Management and Business Intelligence, I’m constantly looking for BI solutions that make life easier for the Service Management community.

But what does that mean: BI solutions that make life easier! Are customers looking for more out of the box reports, KPIs, analytics or for more functionalities within the BI tool? Or should the focus be on the back end of the BI architecture: the ETL layer and database? Of course, the answer is: both. However, looking at the number one priority according to “Gartner’s - 2009 CIO Agenda: improving business processes”, I’m convinced that in this economical downturn customers are most helped by making the back end as out of the box as possible.

The focus that I will have in my blogs is on the balance between adding value by improving the front end of a BI solution and the back end. Westbury’s focus has always been on making the BI solution for Service Management out of the box and to stay away from a datawarehouse architecture in which the dependency on SQL specialists and database developers is time consuming and expensive. But, again, what should be the right balance between out of the box capabilities for the front end of a BI solution and the back end? Does the CIO really care about the back end or is he or she only interested in the end results? Again, according to Gartner the focus of CIO’s will shift in 2009 to a more process oriented approach.

Keep you posted.

Floris