Addendum

I recently attended a business meeting with Mr. Howard Dresner, industry expert and thought leader for Enterprise Performance Management (EPM), and I paraphrased his comments in my last post on Insight vs. Accountability. In fact, it was his comments that inspired the post. Today, I came across a recent post from Mr. Dresner's blog that encapsulates and extends my paraphrasing. I thought I'd share the quote, and let you have it directly from his words:

"The inclination to buy "yet-another-tool" remains strong – even though most acknowledge it's the wrong thing to do. Of course, vendors like to sell more technology. However, most organizations already have plenty. What they lack is a roadmap and the vision to properly deploy it. But, buying another tool is so much easier than addressing the real problem: a lack of management commitment and organization dysfunction."

Food for thought…

Insight vs. Accountability: Redefining Corporate Performance

Insight: The clear (and often sudden) understanding of a complex situation. (1)

Accountability: The obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility for performance in light of commitments and expected outcomes. (2)

I recently had the opportunity to hear Howard Dresner speak at a business meeting where he touched on the scariest aspect of Enterprise Performance Management – that everyone in the organization becomes accountable (my apologies for the paraphrasing). As he spoke, I experienced an 'Aha' moment. Nobody really wants that. Not really. Well, maybe the CFO, but nobody else.

In past posts I've discussed the evolution of Business Intelligence (BI) and how we've moved from information gathering and analysis into performance-driven organizations. And while I have touched on the shift needed to create a performance-driven culture, I wanted to pause and really think about this.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERFORMANCE = ACCOUNTABILITY

It's not enough to understand where our business impacts are occurring, or even why they occur. Thus far, companies have made considerable investments to address these issues. We need to go beyond this: we need to know the what, understand the why, and ensure that the people who can take action have the tools in place to make the best decisions, and that they are accountable for the actions that they take, as well as the actions that they don't. That is a big, scary order. Imagine if every decision you made in a day showed up on a scoreboard. Hey, this was in my area of responsibility and I just blew it off, and everyone is the wiser. It cuts against the very grain of corporate culture.

Bob Kaplan and David Norton, creators of the balanced scorecard, identified in their recent Harvard Business Review article Mastering the Management System, (3) "breakdowns in a company's management system, not managers' lack of ability or effort, are what cause a company's underperformance. By management system, we're referring to the integrated set of processes and tools that a company uses to develop its strategy, translate it into operational actions, and monitor and improve the effectiveness of both."

Many companies, recognizing the benefits of performance management, have already made extensive investments in the technologies to support true organizational accountability:

• EPM systems provide the alignment between strategic, tactical and operational performance.
• The integration of data from financial, operational and stakeholder systems provides a comprehensive, accurate view of our organizational ecosystem.
• Process tools such as balanced scorecards let us manage and monitor the transition from strategy to execution.
• As we come closer to real-time analytics, we are working with a leading, predictive view of our businesses.

With these systems in place, and as we experience unprecedented insight into and understanding of our businesses, we have the infrastructure to support enterprise performance management. We need to continue to develop the business processes and philosophy that support a discipline of continuous awareness and accountability for decision-making within the company.

Building a performance-driven, accountable culture requires a ground-up rethinking of how we do business. It takes leaders from within the organization, at all levels, to drive accountability and to have the discipline to be continually aware of and adapt their plans to subtle changes in the business. They must have a view of the broader business environment, the impacts of their decisions on their own business areas as well as other groups, and access to the right information, updated in real-time. It is a tall order, but by combining accurate data, management tools, and sound business processes, companies can drastically change their performance within the market, and realize gains that go beyond financial success and into a transformation of their corporate culture.

Sources
1. Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory, WordNet, Insight

2. Government of Canada Information Management Glossary, Accountability
http://www.informationmanagement.gc.ca/docs/guid-orient/concepts/concepts07_e.asp

3. Robert Kaplan and David Norton. "Mastering the Management System," Harvard Business Review

Insight on the Gartner BI Conference in Chicago

As a long time attendee of the various Gartner events, my favorite has always been the more intimate setting of the BI summit - typically held in Chicago. Boy, was I surprised at the 1200+ attendees of this year's conference and the expectation of bigger growth to fuel a move to Washington, DC in 2009. Last year’s event pales in comparison. BI advocates, typically a cross-over role between Finance and IT, have made a rather dramatic transition into the IT camp for this conference. Many of the sessions were educational and entry-level in scope and oriented to the first time architect and supporter of Business Intelligence environments. The event has clearly moved away from the user of past years.

Also notable was the absence of discussions on the relative cost savings in deploying a BI environment for better business planning and analysis. Other than the one rather cheeky session on how to negotiate a good deal with your BI vendor, I expected to hear more about cost cutting and using BI data to enable efficiencies and identify cost-prohibitive inefficiencies. The market picture has been doom and gloom and the "R" word blatantly used. Instead I heard a great deal about enabling integration and the expansion of analytic applications.

I think this is great news! Clearly the message was to expand the BI footprint and make use of the technology that can drive profitability, not focus on doing more with less. I had conversations with luminaries such as Howard Dresner and Ron Powell, but I also spoke with a number of vendors and implementers such as IBM GBS and Palladium, who had similar messaging of exploiting the existing technologies and refining processes to drive revenue and deliver data on a more continual basis to the employees who can make the right decisions in real-time. This to me is a message of expansion and focus, rather than retrenchment and limitations. I heard a great deal about the continual need for data, an almost real-time need to do continuous planning and report on finer levels of granular information in a more automated fashion. The message was clear. BI is tops in priority and destined to gain more mindshare of senior IT executives as the business expands and focuses their growth. To grow and expand you always need Innovators who can do more with less, but also the visionaries who can see the gold amongst the rock.