Comments for Wouter on Business Intelligence

Comment on A basic architecture framework & some first implications for BI by Wouter

Wouter — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:32:25 +0000

Nice thinking! The additional definition in IAF (sorry, not yet publicly available but upcoming) describes the output of an information architecture as “business information components that describe what and how information is used and how it flows around the business”. As far as my knowledge goes (the last time I used it was in ‘98, does it still exists??), FCO-IM does exactly that.

However, I also experienced that FCO-IM leads rather quickly to a high level of detail, whereas an information architecture initially requires an low level of detail (i.e. ‘large building blocks’)

Comment on A basic architecture framework & some first implications for BI by Martijn evers

Martijn evers — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:52:26 +0000

“The information architecture describes the information the business uses and their interrelationships. The information architecture typically is NOT a (conceptual) data model”

IMO a language driven conceptual data modelling technique like FCO-IM could form a substantial part of an Information architecture. From such a model you could generate descriptions, ontologies, identification taxonomy and business glossary.

I agree that ER conceptual models are not very helpful within an IA.

Comment on Enterprise architecture and BI: the prequel by Jorgen

Jorgen — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:55:01 +0000

Hé Wouter, Ik ben benieuwd naar je komende blogs. Hopelijk zie je kans het tempo er in te houden. De onderwerpen klinken goed.

Comment on BI is the same, not different by Enterprise architecture and BI: the prequel « Wouter on Business Intelligence

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:33:07 +0000

[...] they are two completely different things. So, in a sense this post is a sequel to the “BI is the same, not different” post. My mind is exploding with ideas and insights I want to share with you, so the next [...]

Comment on The need for rigourness by Dirk Koopman

Dirk Koopman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:58:50 +0000

Especially the bad and the ugly. However: referencing succes stories is also often a hard job. Most succesfull implementations have had as well success as hard times. The hard times tend to be remembered longer…

The successes everybody talks about are often succeses claimed by marketing-specialized companies. Which leads to the following question: Wasn’t marketing one of the first real business implementations of BI, so where are our marketing stories?

Comment on The need for rigourness by Ronald Damhof

Ronald Damhof — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:00:42 +0000

intriguing post…Arnott said it in his article (JIT- 2005 – 20), the field of Decision Support needs more case studies.

I would like to add to this that we – as a communituy- need case studies showing not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly…

Made a reference on my blog to this post….

Comment on Book review: The profit impact of Business Intelligence by BI is the same, not different « Wouter on Business Intelligence

BI is the same, not different « Wouter on Business Intelligence — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:20:02 +0000

[...] About « Book review: The profit impact of Business Intelligence [...]

Comment on BI 2.0.1.34 by BI is the same, not different « Wouter on Business Intelligence

BI is the same, not different « Wouter on Business Intelligence — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:19:57 +0000

[...] the organization. As a result, a whole new ecosystem within the IT-world has evolved, with its own vocabulary and the urge to create its own methods, tools etc. For BI people, BI is a whole different ball-game [...]

Comment on Ad hoc reporting, the tools by Ronald Damhof

Ronald Damhof — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:02:15 +0000

Wouter – good post – you know off course that qlikview can do it all…..Or am I being cynical now…..

Comment on How does BI add business value? by Ronald Damhof

Ronald Damhof — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:21:21 +0000

Hmmm..I am tempted to agree with Stefan here. There is nothing wrong in writing a qualitative Business case. Especially in government I think this is a crucial point..getting it quantified is….like…fooling yourself. Simply because the benefits can not be put in cash flow (how would you put ‘more thrustworthy’ in Euros?).

I think it’s more a matter of entrepeneurship vs. managers…..

Managers want and demand quantitative cash flows and yes…they fool themselves. But hey – they can be accountable (‘the business case was positive!’)…..Entrepeneurs do not think this way…they evaluate the opportunities, the risks and are especially interested in the qualitative business case (maybe they dont believe the quantitive one?…).

So…lets replace all those managers in decision-spots with entrepeneurs…

I am in favor.

Anyway – do not get me wrong….writing a business case is vital for any programme or project.