Posts Tagged ‘budget’

Business Objects auditing

March 11th, 2010

Business Objects Enterprise includes auditing functionality that allows you to verify if reports and user management are appropriate, are efficient,

and are adequately controlled to ensure valid, reliable, timely, and secure input, processing, and output at all levels of a system’s activity.


What’s in it for me?

  • A controlled environment in which it’s clear which users and user groups use objects and reports.
  • Root cause analysis to easily relate the disruption of a service to changes and users.
  • Which reports are used and which reports are ‘dead’.
  • It enables efficient license usage. Why pay for want you do not use?

The audit should answer the following questions:

  1. Who is using your reporting solution?
  2. Which groups use your reporting solution the most?
  3. Which objects they are accessing?
  4. Which reports are they using?
  5. How many user licenses are we using at any given time?

You can audit the actions of individual users of Business Objects Enterprise as they log in and out of the system, access data, or create file-based events. You can also monitor system actions like the success or failure of scheduled objects. For each action, Business Objects Enterprise records the time of the action, the name and user group of the user who initiated the action, the server where it was performed, and a variety of other parameters available in the documentation with Business Objects.

The auditable actions I like the most are:

  • Track when Objects are created, deleted of modified;
  • Track when reports are opened, saved, refreshed, created, modified and deleted;
  • Job monitoring and failure;
  • Changes and history in login behaviour of users and groups;
  • Monitoring of license usage.

A post last year on the Chennai Bi blog gives some useful guidelines on how to implement auditing: http://chennaibi.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/business-objects-auditing-in-xir3/

Martijn

Post to Twitter

Carlsberg don’t make customers… part three: the budget guy

February 24th, 2010

Well, it’s been a few weeks, but I’m back to continue this series on our ideal customer profiles. We’ve already had the Process Guy and the Tech Guy, now it’s time for the budget guy.

If you remember, the way it generally works is that the Process Guy is the alpha – he’s the one with a problem to solve that is related to process. Often the organization wants to get a handle on some real qualitative data about IT performance – either for budgetary reasons or for lofty ambitions like ITIL and continuous improvement. The Process Guy brings the Tech Guy in to establish a) that trying to get that data out of ServiceCenter or Service Manager is going to be like divorcing Cheryl Cole - painful, drawn-out and expensive, and b) that SMI Suite will remove all the pain, time and some of the money.

At some point in this sales cycle, the Budget Guy shows up, because despite the very low cost of SMI Suite, neither the Process Guy or Tech Guy has any spending power – it simply isn’t a function of their role to sign off on more than a few bucks worth of software.

In some ways the Budget Guy is interesting because he’s the first person we’ve met in the organization whom we don’t have to convince – the Process Guy and the Tech Guy’s advocacy and belief in SMI Suite does far far more to convince the Budget Guy than anything we could say to him. But still, the introduction of the Budget Guy into the proceedings is far from a gimme.

After all, he wouldn’t be doing his job – and wouldn’t be entrusted with signoff on budget – if he didn’t at least do some due diligence. Sometimes this takes the form of fact-checking and re-checking everything that has already been discussed and agreed upon with the Process and Tech guys, but more often than not, the Budget Guy wants to look at the bigger picture.

He’s usually happy to take at face value that SMI Suite can, technologically, do what it promises if the Tech Guy says so, and he also understands, with the Process Guy’s advocacy, that SMI Suite will unlock the door to satisfying certain business needs – like the need to have accurate data about ITSM activities.

But he will almost always question the business benefit of all this. To use a rather labored metaphor, identifying a new type of spot welder that allows workers to weld three times as many bits of steel together as they could before, and is five times safer, and costs half as much to run as the old type, is all well and good… but not much use if you run a day-care facility.

Luckily for us, the business benefits of SMI Suite are pretty universal, so long as the organization in question runs an IT helpdesk and uses HP ITSM software. And, of course, each company we deal with is individual, so the benefits that are applicable change from organization to organization, but when we start to talk about improving helpdesk efficiency by accurately benchmarking and constantly remeasuring response times, or we talk about cutting costs based on accurate workload metrics, the Budget Guy usually takes an interest.

Next time: the Department Head

Tom

Post to Twitter

Carlsberg don’t make customers… part one: the process guy

December 11th, 2009

weirdscience28Naturally we spend a lot of time thinking about our customers, past, present and future. And naturally all our customers are eternal delights to deal with and we never have any problems with them whatsoever. Not never.

But we do tend to find that certain implementations go more smoothly than others and we’ve done a little soulsearching about why that is. The conclusion we came to was that, for whatever reason, we – and our customers – walk away from the implementation with the most satisfaction when there is a certain make-up of people on the customer side. In fact, if we were to build our model customer from scratch (say, by putting bras on our heads, hacking into a secret government computer and feeding it pictures of customers we admired) then there would be, at the very least, four key individuals in key positions.

We thought it might be interesting to share with you each of these four archetypes – the Process Guy, the Tech Guy, the Budget Guy and the Department Head – and see if they ring any bells. We’ll start with the Process Guy and get to the others in the coming weeks.

*disclaimer: while I’m referring to all these people as “guy” and will use masculine pronouns, it should not be inferred that there is any gender bias to our depictions of the ideal customer. I’m just not prepared to write “he or she” every time, and – rightly or wrongly – the accepted workaround is to default to the masculine.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Process Guy

The Process Guy is usually our first point of contact at any given customer. He’s the one who has a problem to solve – either he’s not able to get any reporting out of his ITSM platform at all, or, if he is, it’s a laborious process that usually means he has to ask someone on the BI team to generate a report, and wait a significant amount of time to get the report back.
Process Guy has a fire in his belly! He’s interested in process improvement, he’s familiar with ITIL and he is desperate to drive forward solid initiatives that will make a real difference to the way the IT department is run.

Interestingly – and perhaps surprisingly – the Process Guy often knows a lot more about the tech side of things than you might give him credit for. Maybe he used to be a ServiceCenter admin, maybe his background is in IT and he’s come latterly to the process side of things. He may well understand the problems with the ServiceCenter / Service Manager database with regard to reporting. He probably understands what an ETL layer does, and have experience with BI tools. In the instances when he doesn’t have all the technological details himself, you can guarantee that he’s buddies with the Tech Guy (who we’ll come to in part two) and makes sure that between them they know everything there is to know.

The Process Guy is the visionary. He can see not only the problem at hand and the potential solutions to it, but also the bigger picture and the reasons to want to improve the performance of the IT department.

He wants to take control, not rely on a BI team to generate his reports when he knows that (with the right tool) he could do it himself. And while he’s technically savvy, the thing that drives him is the end-game: the ultimate benefit to the business of process improvement.

Next time: the Tech Guy

Tom

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter