Thoughts from ODTUG Kaleidoscope 2008

Kaleidoscope 2008 is getting into full swing, and I've already found some nuggets of wisdom from the speakers. Ron Moore, one of the first Essbase certified consultants in the world and founder of Marketing Technologies Group (http://www.mtgny.com/), is a speaker at Kaleidoscope this year. In conversation with him about blending analytic and relational data, he said that you:

"Just can't get by on a hammer or a saw - you need both."

From the perspective of corporate data, that just rings true. Companies can't simply rely upon cube data from their analytic applications in order to make the best business decisions, and they can't rely solely upon relational data – they need both. And to create a central data store requires cooperation between the business owners (of analytic data) and IT owners (of the relational data stores).

Many companies experience a disconnect between the Finance and IT groups, as their goals can appear to be at odds. While Finance teams often implement the business systems, it is IT who inherits the issues of compliance, maintainability, and governance for those systems. But in order to successfully integrate corporate data to provide a holistic information view, the project requires the cooperation of both groups.

In order to harness the value of the content in the cube data, we need to synthesize it within relational data sources. Ultimately, a standard rows and columns relational database is the only common ground to which every application available to the information technology industry can have ubiquitous access. Trying to achieve the bridge in the absence of relational technology creates the potential for a myriad of misinterpretation and eventually the value of the cube data would get lost in translation.

Once the cube data is exported into a relational structure, the infrastructure and data are in place to provide information access to stakeholder groups across the business. A potential next project step, incorporating data from other sources such as ERP or CRM systems or operational data stores, creates a centralized, single version of the truth for all stakeholders to work from, and provides a comprehensive, holistic view of the business that includes both operational and management data.

The benefits of this level of integration to a company are myriad. But as Ron Moore so succinctly put it, it takes both the hammer and the saw to make this kind of effort successful. Finding the tools and technologies that can help bridge the inherent gap between groups is imperative to success.

As Kaleidoscope continues through the week, I'm sure that I'll hear more about opportunities to create mutually beneficial projects between Finance and IT groups and the tools to support them. With technical and thought leaders from across the country here in New Orleans, I'm sure I'll find a few more nuggets of wisdom to share this week.

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

Ready for Operational Business Intelligence? A Good Read…

Operational reporting isn't new; I remember slogging through reams of mainframe-generated reports in my very first job out of college, many years ago. So why is operational Business Intelligence (BI) garnering so much headline real estate these days?

Expanding beyond traditional, strategic business intelligence, operational BI provides an unprecedented level of business insight to support the management of daily operations. And as we look at ways to extend our existing investments in analytic applications, this seems a natural evolution. But introducing operational BI into your organization comes at a cost. The impact on your data warehouse environment can be enormously disruptive if not approached with the understanding that this is a broad-scale project that will have significant impact (and benefits to be realized) across the organization.

Claudia Imhoff, recognized thought leader and expert on business intelligence, has published a new white paper on The Ever-Evolving Data Warehouse: Dealing with Changes and Pressures for BI Today that discusses the impacts of operational BI on the data warehouse environment. Some of her key takeaways regarding the impacts to data warehouse include:

• Scalability
• Performance
• Continuous availability
• Ability to combine different sources of data

While not exactly summertime holiday light reading, her white paper focuses on the impacts to the data warehouse and provides great food for thought for those of you who are considering or beginning an operational BI project. The paper digs into issues beyond the `headline-hype' of operational BI; in fact, the considerations that she discusses are applicable beyond operations and are equally appropriate for any project aimed at extending the foundation laid with your existing BI systems.

Instant Continuous Planning: Just Add Water (Part 2)

In the previous Continuous Planning post, we discussed the evolution of management processes from a lagging to leading view of the business and examined the business processes needed to support the continuous planning cycle.

Defining and evolving management processes requires the confluence of data across and between all stakeholders within the business environment, including customers, supply chain, and organizational groups such as Finance. For the Finance department, this means providing the means for continuous planning and the ability to consolidate these digested results with the organization's other data. To support this, there are a number of technologies that must be in place within the organization:

• Planning application
• Analytic application (OLAP database)
• Financial & operational data stores
• While not necessary, performance management tools such as scorecards and dashboards provide a feedback loop

Best practices dictate that the following technical and process requirements support the continuous planning cycle:

• 100% uptime of the planning application. This is particularly important for global enterprises where teams in various geographies are accessing data; no group can be shut down.
• Near real-time reporting. Incremental data updates and calculations provide near real-time reporting against plan data.
• Integration with operational and business data. Access to operational data provides necessary planning context; as well as instant feedback and adjustments to the plan. Availability of other data such as supporting detail or plan assumptions is integral within the reporting environment.
• Consistent performance. Ensuring fast and consistent performance is crucial during the planning cycle.

Architecture to Support Continuous Planning Cycle

The architectural framework required to support a continuous planning cycle includes:

• Change Data Capture. The planning application collects data and performs value-adding multidimensional calculations upon the data, but does not aggregate it. Through an intelligent backup process, only changed data is backed up and extracted from the application.
• Financial Data Store. At an established rate (every 2 minutes, for example), changed data is extracted from the planning application and is automatically loaded, with associated metadata and security, into the central repository. The shared data enables the ability to quickly digest and present data to the analytic applications.
• Load into the Analytic Reporting Application. From the financial data store, the financial assets are loaded into the reporting analytic application, where consolidations can be completed on-the-fly.
• Reporting from Analytic Applications. The reporting application should be easily accessible from a wide range of tools – including performance dashboards, scorecards, report writers, spreadsheets, and any other common reporting tools used within the organization.
• Alternative Architectural Options. Flexible reporting strategies can be a valuable extension of this architecture. For example, a planning cube can contain few dimensions and limited granularity. The reporting cube can have additional dimensions and a deeper level of detail to support robust reporting needs.

Previously, the support of this architecture required a patchwork of data movement tools and custom scripts that did not allow for the integration of data from the proprietary source systems into a larger financial data warehouse. This did not enable the sharing of data within the greater organization and generally required a costly combination of tools and consulting that needed ongoing maintenance and support.

But companies are now accomplishing this efficiently and cost-effectively, with a significantly lower cost of maintenance. With the availability of comprehensive, standards-based data integration solutions and management teams establishing best practices around their planning cycles, the transition from a lagging to a leading planning process, with accurate, near real-time views into operations, is a realistic goal for any organization. The return on this investment is the creation of an innovative, flexible, and dynamic planning cycle that allows your company to quickly recognize changes in the competitive landscape, the ability to model changes quickly, determine the best alternatives, implement, and measure results.

Instant Continuous Planning: Just Add Water

It's a strange feeling when personal and business lives intersect, and as I sit down to write about the value of continuous planning cycles in the business process, I am struck by recent personal experience.

It's March 25th, 10 pm, and I am sitting on the floor of my home office, a cardboard box beside me, as I stack piles of receipts, 1099s, stock sale receipts, etc in preparation for tomorrow's tax meeting with my accountant. I really don't know what to expect from this meeting – where am I in relation to the plans I set in January 2007? I could swear that I sat in the same place last year promising myself that I was going to improve this system.

And while some of you may relate to my experience (hopefully, as misery does love company), it gives me pause to think that, on a much larger scale, many of our corporate planning cycles don't fare much better. As a business director responsible for budget and planning cycles, when do you start your process? How many annual/monthly/weekly iterations do you go through? What is the effect of business change on your planning cycle? Are you feeling like there's a cardboard box beside you, yet?

With the demand for businesses to adapt quickly to changing markets in order to stay competitive and operate at maximum efficiency, we have seen significant streamlining of the planning process in recent years. In parallel, we've seen the tools and supporting infrastructure technologies become more sophisticated and robust in order to support operational and reporting needs. With pressure to move from a lagging to leading view of the business, we've evolved from annual budgets, to quarterly planning, to rolling 13 month plans and now we're recognizing the need for a continuous planning cycle that provides an accurate, real-time view of our operations.

I often hear that the concept of continuous planning in a fast-changing corporate environment is a Utopian vision rather than a realistic goal. And yet large, dynamic companies such as Symantec and Yahoo have successfully implemented continuous planning cycles into their business processes. So how do they approach this? What tools do they use? How do they measure results from their planning process?

Implementing a continuous planning cycle in your organization is not about buying a tool. It's not about agreeing to a process during a management meeting. Continuous planning requires the direction and support of the entire management team to reinvent the way the company approaches the planning process. It needs management to create a chain of accountability throughout the organization, from C-level to individual contributors; every person knows their role, their goals, the company's goals and where they stand in relation to meeting those goals. Continuous planning requires the implementation of best practices and an effective process within the organization, as well as the tools to support the process.

A successful continuous planning process requires collaboration between executive management, finance department and operational teams:
1. Define strategic goals.
2. Create plans, rolling forecasts & budgets for all levels of the
organization.
3. Roll out, analyze against execution & provide feedback loops.
4. Model & realign plans as needed.
5. Monitor & report, with audit information for regulatory & statutory
reporting requirements.

In a continuous planning cycle, steps 3 & 4 are iterative and constantly changing, driving the need for updated information to be delivered to the desktop at a near real-time rate.

To Be Continued... The Secret Sauce in the Technical Details

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.

The Challenge Remains the Same

In the recently published "Cost Cutting in Data Management and Integration, 2008," Gartner emphasizes the need to reduce costs while continuing to support BI initiatives. Sound familiar? The operating motto for CIOs and IT teams for the past several years: Do more with less.

With recent downturns in the US economy, the business needs for the data coming from BI systems have become critical to companies’ maintaining their competitiveness. When there is less money in play, companies have to understand all facets of their business: where they are making money and where they are leaving opportunities for improvement on the table, to plan continuously, and to have the frameworks in place to change directions quickly in order to stay at the forefront of their markets. There is a pressing need for accurate, reliable data from which they can analyze and gain the insight needed to make the best business decisions possible. This source data comes from the same IT team tasked with reducing their costs.

Balancing the business need for insight into the organization and the IT need to reduce costs is where innovation can occur. Gartner’s report provides a number of recommendations for cutting costs within data management initiatives, ranging from the common-sense Optimize Data Integration Tools Licensing to recommendations that are complex and require creativity within the IT teams to successfully achieve: projects like Perform Operational Database Consolidation and Perform Data Mart Consolidation. Gartner estimates the payback from data mart consolidation as a savings of “approximately 50 percent of the total cost allocated to supporting their disparate data marts if they consolidate those marts into an application-neutral data warehouse.”

Easily said, but how to get from here to there? The solution lies in feeding a central application-neutral data warehouse with business critical data from application-specific data marts. To do this requires using intelligent data movement applications to ensure that this feeding of the warehouse is both seamless (does not interfere with the data mart applications), highly dynamic (so the data is refreshed in near real-time), persisted (ensuring a physical copy of calculated or aggregated data is available in the warehouse), and auditable (for data governance and regulatory compliance).

There are myriad opportunities to reduce costs within the IT department. The challenge is to develop innovative solutions that meet the requirements of data governance, security and accuracy, and still provide business users with the data they need to drive the company forward.

InformationWeek explores the meaning of "innovation"

InformationWeek VP and Editor in Chief Rob Preston's recent article previews an intriguing new micro-site about the broader aspects of innovation within corporations, namely the "convergence of customer-focused strategies and global networks." Contributors include University of Michigan's C.K. Prahalad and M.S. Krishnan, authors of the forthcoming book I'm eager to read called The New Age Of Innovation (McGraw-Hill). We'll explore implications of this movement on Finance Systems in upcoming posts, including something Bob Evans highlights from the book's introduction about the need for corporations to bridge the "significant gap between strategic intent and 'capacity to act'."

Enterprise software - hip again?

The previous post on finance innovators caught my attention. Early in my career, I helped document the journey of some of those same early adopters in BI and financial analytics—like Steve Beitler, former Controller at Sears, and his peers at companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield of RI, Sealand (Maersk) and Lockheed Martin. I started reflecting on what helped their initiatives rise above the noise surrounding things like the Internet, AOL and cell phones in the '90s. Some argued BI, DW and financial systems lacked that cool factor back then, yet the enterprise solutions that startups were enabling for companies like Sears were grabbing headlines right alongside cool tools and gadgets.

It felt like déjà vu at a Red Herring magazine event this week. The entrepreneurs that converged on the soiree passionately described breakthroughs like wireless gas meters, on-demand Internet video TV without a PC (http://www.building-b.com/), mobile entertainment (http://www.mspot.com/) and a self-serve ecommerce site I like a lot called http://www.cafepress.com/. The energy and passion in the room brought me right back to my most recent stint at a venture-backed company that created collaborative technology for dynamic email applications.

Three prosciutto rolls later, I started to wonder…with all these hip ideas in new media and ecommerce, has enterprise software lost its cool factor? No sooner did conversations start to unfold with execs who are delivering interesting new enterprise solutions. Examples include a company that specializes in web-based task and project management (http://www.attask.com/), another that focuses on salesforce analytics (http://www.cloud9analytics.com/), and one that derives financial intelligence from data strewn across enterprise systems (http://www.staranalytics.com/, a company with whom I consult).


As the execs lobbed stories back and forth about their customers, it signaled that not only is innovation alive and well in the enterprise space, solutions are delivering real business value. Much like the time when Beitler and others made bold commitments to new platforms from startups, today's solutions are driven by customers who share their vision with vendors to help make their companies smarter and more competitive.

Conversations that evening helped me realize the tremendous impact and responsibility this community of entrepreneurs has during this unique moment in business. I walked away inspired by many promising young companies with solutions that aren’t just making our lives more enjoyable, our connections more meaningful and our contributions more lasting, they’re advancing technologies that help the corporations we work for, buy from and invest in operate more effectively based on timely, accurate information.

Now that’s pretty cool.