The BI Survey 9 (via Board)

BOARD SUMMARYTHIS DOCUMENT IS A SUMMARY, PREPARED

BY BOARD, OF THE FULL 489 PAGE BI SURVEY 9

The new world of BI and CPM

Over 2000 users evaluate BI and CPM products

THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010

Overview of The BI Survey 9 4

The Sample 5

Vertical Markets................................................................................................. 5

Products Included 6

The Business Benefi t Index 7

Business benefi ts achieving.............................................................................. 7

Business achievement KPIs............................................................................... 8

The Purchase Cycle 9

Why organizations choose products............................................................. 10

Does product choice affect the business benefi ts?.................................... 11

Deployment, Costs and Applications 13

Applications by product and implementation............................................ 14

Applications per administrator....................................................................... 15

Departments using BI....................................................................................... 15

Vendor effectiveness 17

Intention to buy more licenses....................................................................... 17

Competitive evaluations................................................................................ 18

Implementation 19

External fees by product and suite................................................................ 19

Problems in BI projects 20

Problems encountered................................................................................... 20

Product support quality................................................................................... 21

Some overall key fi ndings of the BI Survey 9 22

Conclusion 23

The Content

3


Overview of The BI Survey 9

The BI Survey 9 follows on from eight successful edi ons of The BI and OLAP Surveys. This

ninth edi on has increased the product range s ll further, including not only products from the

wellknown BI giants, but also specialist products from much smaller vendors and open source

vendors.

The BI Survey provides a detailed quan ta ve analysis of why customers buy BI tools, what

they use them for, how successful they are and why they eventually abandon them. It is based

on the analysis of the real-world experience of over 3093 respondents (a! er data cleansing,

1853 users, 317 consultants and 495 vendors remained) from around the world. The BI Survey

is the largest, most thorough fact-based analysis of the growing BI market. The BI Survey 9

beneÞ ts both from the experience of the eight previous edi ons and the ability to analyze

trends based on up to nine years of data.

Unlike much analyst research, The BI Survey is not based on anecdotal accounts or personal

opinions, and nor is it intended to be a measure of market shares. Unlike The BI Verdict, it

does not include product reviews, case studies or qualita ve product comparisons. Nor does

The BI Survey a" empt to forecast future trends. Indeed, it provides evidence that many such

forecasts are unreliable.

As with the previous eight edi ons, no vendors were involved in any way with the formula on

of The BI Survey. Unlike most other surveys, it was not commissioned, suggested, sponsored

or inß uenced by vendors. For example, there were no sponsored or private ques ons and

the ques ons were compiled without reference to vendors. Vendors were not given an early

preview of the data, nor were they allowed to review the report before comple on. Vendors

who purchase the Survey get exactly the same document as anyone else; there are no private

analyses.

The Survey was conducted across about 90 countries, with the following geographic split:

North America 26 percent, Europe 57 percent, and rest of world 17 percent. Clearly, the sample

comes from a wide range of ver cal markets. No single industry dominates, but some are

obviously more heavily represented than others. The median revenue of companies surveyed

was about $430m.

Many of the products that have been collected data on had only a handful of respondents,

but generally subsamples of fewer than 40 responses have not been separated out for analysis.

For some more complex analyses, the threshold for analysis was set higher, so the majority of

the products are not analyzed individually.

In descending order, 23 products or groups of products had enough usage to be analyzed

individually throughout this Survey: MicroStrategy, QlikTech, Microso! SSAS, SAP BW / BEx

Suite, Cubeware, BOARD, SAP BO WebI, Bissantz, IBM Cognos Repor ng, Informa on Builders,

arcplan, TARGIT, Jedox PALO, Microso! SSRS, MIK, Oracle BIEE, SAS, IBM Cognos Analysis,

Pentaho, Infor PM, Oracle Hyperion, and SAP BO DeskI. IBM Cognos TM1 is also included in

most analyses, as its numbers were just under the threshold.

BOARD is included in The BI Survey (formerly The OLAP Survey) for what is now the Þ ! h

year in a row, with highly impressive results. 95 respondents named BOARD as their primary

product. BOARD was therefore included in all detailed product-related analyses and belongs to

the top 10 % of products that received the most answers in this survey. This summary shows

the most interes ng Þ ndings of The BI Survey 9, compiled by BOARD Interna onal.

4


The Sample

VERTICAL MARKETS

Clearly, the sample comes from a wide range of ver cal markets. No single industry

dominates, but some are obviously more heavily represented than others. Industrial equipment

manufacturing (the Þ ! h largest industry last year) replaced retail as the third largest industry.

Banking and insurance remain at the top.

Product

Fin

an

cia

l

serv

ice

s

Ba

nk

ing

IT s

erv

ice

s

Re

tail

Ind

ust

ria

l

eq

uip

me

nt

He

alth

ca

re

Co

nsu

me

r

go

od

s

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Pro

fess

ion

al

serv

ice

s

So

ftw

are

Oracle Hyperion 22% 15% 5% 10% 2% 2% 7% 7% 10%

SAS 24% 13% 9% 9% 2% 4% 2% 7% 2%

SAP BO DeskI 10% 10% 5% 8% 8% 8% 15%

Pentaho 5% 2% 19% 12% 5% 5% 5% 10%

QlikTech 8% 5% 5% 6% 7% 12% 5% 1% 8% 5%

SAP BO WebI 9% 16% 4% 1% 6% 5% 10% 6% 2%

IBM Cognos Repor ng 13% 9% 5% 4% 9% 8% 3% 4% 6%

Targit 3% 3% 5% 11% 16% 2% 9% 6% 2% 3%

Oracle BIEE 6% 10% 4% 14% 4% 4% 4% 4% 8%

Microstrategy 5% 12% 2% 19% 3% 6% 3% 5% 2% 2%

Microso! SSAS 7% 9% 12% 6% 1% 2% 6% 5% 4% 7%

Jedox PALO 10% 3% 7% 10% 3% 7% 8% 7% 3%

Informa on Builders 11% 11% 7% 1% 8% 10% 4% 4%

Microso! SSRS 7% 9% 11% 2% 7% 7% 2% 4% 7%

IBM Cognos Analysis 11% 9% 9% 2% 7% 7% 7% 4%

Bissantz 3% 4% 5% 4% 10% 6% 5% 6%

BOARD 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 4% 11% 1% 5% 2%

arcplan 6% 3% 4% 1% 9% 3% 10% 3%

SAP BEx 3% 2% 8% 4% 8% 3% 6% 3% 2% 1%

Cubeware 5% 2% 6% 5% 11% 4% 3% 1%

IBM Cognos TM1 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 5% 8% 5% 3%

Infor PM 5% 2% 5% 15% 2%

MIK 2% 4% 15% 2% 2% 2% 2%

TABLE 1 - Industry sector

analysis by product (in percent)

SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 11 FROM

THE BI SURVEY 9

5


Products Included

The following Table 2 lists all the ‘primary’ products used by the respondents, and the number

answering ques ons on each.

Category Primary product Respondents

Included in most

detailed, product-

level analyses

MicroStrategy 172

QlikTech QlikView 146

Microso! SQL Server Analysis Services 123

SAP BW / Business Explorer (BEx) 111

Cubeware Cockpit 108

BOARD 95

SAP BusinessObjects WebIntelligence 93

Bissantz 79

IBM Cognos Repor ng 79

Informa on Builders WebFOCUS 71

arcplan 68

Targit 64

Jedox PALO 60

Microso! SQL Server Repor ng Services 54

MIK 53

Oracle BIEE 49

SAS 46

IBM Cognos Analysis 45

Pentaho 42

Infor PM 41

Oracle Hyperion Essbase / Planning 41

SAP BusinessObjects DesktopIntelligence 40

IBM Cognos TM1 39

Generally included

only in aggregated

analyses

SAP Business Objects Crystal Reports 31

Oracle Discoverer / BISE 21

Infor PM Applica on Studio 18

Oracle Hyperion Intelligence / Interac ve Repor ng 18

SAP BPC (former OutlookSo!) 14

IBM Cognos Planning 9

Jasperso! 9

Actuate Pla"orm / Eclipse BIRT 8

Microso! PerformancePoint Server 8

Others 315

Total 2150

TABLE 2 - Products included in

the sample

SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 165 IN

THE BI SURVEY 9

6


BUSINESS BENEFITS ACHIEVING

Achieving business beneÞ ts is, a! er all, the whole purpose of any BI deployment, so it makes

sense to compare deployments based on the extent to which this has been done. This is more

important than speciÞ c technical achievements. The Survey calls this combined weighted score

the BBI – Business BeneÞ ts Index.

The beneÞ ts listed in the ques onnaire were:

Saved headcount in IS (Informa on Services)•

Saved headcount in business departments•

Reduced external IT costs (e.g. hardware, external support and consul ng, or so! ware •

licensing)

Saved other non-IT costs (e.g. inventory, waste, Þ nancing)•

Faster or more accurate repor ng•

Increased revenues through be" er sales and marke ng analysis•

Improved customer sa sfac on through enhanced product quality and/or service •

levels

Be" er business decisions through more thorough or mely analysis•

Other (specify)•

Customers of vendors like BOARD, Bissantz, arcplan and QlikTech are repor ng higher levels of

business beneÞ t than those of larger vendors like SAP, Oracle Hyperion, and IBM, with BOARD

being the best solu on.

The Business Benefi t Index

,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

SAP BO Deskl

SAP BW / BEx Suite

SAP BO Webl

Oracle BIEE

Targit

IBM Cognos Analysis

Pentaho

SAS

Microsoft SSRS

Oracle Hyperion

IBM Cognos Rep.

MIK

Infor PM

QlikTech

IBM Cognos TM1

MicroStrategy

Microsoft SSAS

Bissantz

Cubeware Cockpit

arcplan

Information Builders

Jedox PALO

BOARDSaved Headcount in IS

Saved Headcount in Business Departments

Reduced external IT Costs

Saved other non-IT Costs

Faster or more accurate Reporting

Increased Revenues through better Analysis

Improved Customer Satisfaction

Better Business Decisions

FIGURE 1 - Business BeneÞ ts

enjoyed by product (Cumulated

weighted scores)

SOURCE: FIGURE BY BOARD BASED ON

DATA IN FIGURE 21 IN THE BI SURVEY 9

7


BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT KPIS

“Business Achievement KPIs“, based on a combina on of the BBI and Goal Achievement Index

(GAI), measures how well the product delivers business value and helps organiza ons meet

their goals. BOARD users ranked the product as the second best solu on out of the 23 most

widely used products worldwide.

,700 ,800 ,900 1,00 1,100 1,200

arcplan (1.17)

Bissantz (1.11)

BOARD (1.16)

Cubeware (1.13)

IBM Cognos Analysis (0.79)

IBM Cognos Reporting (0.92)

IBM Cognos TM1 (1.11)

Information Builders (1.08)

Infor PM (1.10)

Jedox PALO (1.14)

Microsoft SSAS (1.03)

Microsoft SSRS (0.89)

Microstrategy (1.01)

MIK (1.05)

Oracle BIEE (0.82)

Oracle Hyperion (0.93)

QlikTech (1.04)

SAP BO WebI (0.80)

SAP BO DeskI (0.72)

SAP BEx (0.84)

SAS (0.88)

Targit (0.88)

Pentaho (0.87)

FIGURE 2 – Business

achievement KPIs

SOURCE:

BASED ON FIGURE 191 IN

THE BI SURVEY 9

“By integra ng repor ng, analysis and planning in a single product, BOARD helps companies

manage and control the en re decision-making process: from data collec on to informa on

analysis; from goal-se! ng to decision-making; from opera onal execu on to results monitoring”,

analyzes DR. CARSTEN BANGE, managing director of the BARC INSTITUTE this result.

“Users beneÞ t from a single source for corporate informa on analysis, repor ng and planning

and can achieve a shared vision of corporate performance throughout the organiza on.

Moreover, thanks to an easy handling of the product, any BI and CPM applica on can be quickly

created and rapidly adapted to the changing business requirements, maintaining an agile

company”, adds GIOVANNI GROSSI, BOARD CEO.

8


Many organiza ons carry out detailed, formal evalua ons of mul ple products before

purchase, but not all do. It is in the winning vendor’s interest not to have had to go through

a formal compe ve evalua on process. Buyers also Þ nd it a confusing, me-consuming and

possibly expensive process. It must therefore be temp ng for many to skip this phase, and to

just opt for a product:

that is already used within the organiza on•

that comes bundled with another product already in use•

that was used in a previous job by a key team member or•

whose supplier is regarded as a strategic vendor.•

But is this a good idea?

The Þ gure below compares each of the nine beneÞ t scores for sites with and without formal

evalua on. It is remarkable that every one of the nine business beneÞ ts improves when even

a single product, formal evalua on is performed, rather than simply buying with no formal

product evalua on. They all improve further if the formal evalua on process is extended to

become a true mul vendor comparison.

,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

Competitive evaluation Single product evaluation No formal evaluation

Better reporting

Saved headcount elsewhere

Reduced external IT costs

Saved other non-IT costs

Better reporting

Increased revenues

Improved customer satisfaction

Better business decisions

The Purchase Cycle

FIGURE 3 - BBI analyzed by evalua on

SOURCE:

BASED ON FIGURE 54 IN THE BI SURVEY 9

9


WHY ORGANIZATIONS CHOOSE PRODUCTS

Respondents had 17 op ons to choose from as an answer to the ques on: “Why was the

so! ware chosen?”:

It seems that there is a tendency for buyers to focus on product-related criteria that reinforces

the trend towards a best-of-breed approach and encourages smaller vendors to challenge the

large vendors that dominate the market. Overall, the most common reasons cited for selec ng

products were func onality (43 %) and ease of use for end-users (38 %). Fast performance was

only cited by 19 % of buyers, price by 18 % corporate standards and ease of use for applica on

builders by 15 %.

The most rarely cited reason again was the range of server pla# orms supported (2 %). Ease-

of-use for end-users was cited by 59 % of BOARD customers as one of the main reasons they

chose it, with ease-of-use for applica on builders coming in at 38 %. This placed BOARD again

at the top of all solu ons for ease-of-use for applica on builders (SEE FIGURE 1).

Reason Responses count Percent of Cases

Func onality/product features 790

Ease of use for end-users 698

Integrates with other products already in use 370

Fast performance 341

Low price 333

Completed “proof of concept” faster or be!er

than others 317

Ease of use for applica on builders 281

Corporate standard 279

Bundled with another product 261

Ability to support large numbers of concurrent

users 257

Large data handling capacity 190

Product reputa on 185

Availability of local support 160

Web architecture 152

Vendor rela onship/reputation 139

Chosen vendor did a be!er sales job 94

Range of server pla"orms supported 36

2,0%

5,1%

7,6%

8,3%

8,7%

10,1%

10,3%

14,0%

14,2%

15,2%

15,3%

17,2%

18,1%

18,5%

20,1%

38,0%

43,0%

TABLE 3 - Frequency of reasons

given for choosing BI products


THE BI SURVEY 9

10


“This reß ects BOARD’s programming-free toolkit approach that enables an easy and

uncomplicated use of the so ware in most diverse company departments. Individual

requirements can be realized with this product due to its development capabili! es.”, believes

DR. CARSTEN BANGE, managing director at the BARC INSTITUTE.

DOES PRODUCT CHOICE AFFECT THE BUSINESS BENEFITS?

Achieving business beneÞ ts is, a er all, the whole purpose of any BI deployment, so it makes

sense to compare deployments based on how well they have performed. The BI Surveys use

the Business BeneÞ ts Index (BBI) to measure the success of BI projects. This is widely applied

throughout this Survey, and is a handy way of assessing which methods of product selec! on

are typically associated with successful projects. “If you consistently try to let the BBI analysis

guide your BI selec! on and deployment decisions, you are very likely to save money and have

more successful BI deployments that are more popular with end-users. Given the number of

failed or disappoin! ng BI projects, this could be a lifesaver.” explains DR. CARSTEN BANGE,

BARC INSTITUTE.

FIGURE 5 shows the ranking of selec! on criteria, based on the BBI of the projects associated

with each method. Color coding is used to dis! nguish between product (blue) and vendor

& cost (grey) - related criteria. The results are clear: product-related criteria are generally

connected to a higher BBI than vendor & cost aspects.

2%

5%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%

10%

10%

10%

10%

11%

11%

12%

12%

13%

14%

19%

20%

23%

26%

26%

38%

38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

SAP BW/ Bex Suite (111)

SAP BO DeskI (40)

SAS (46)

IBM Cognos Analysis (45)

SAP BO WebI (93)

IBM Cognos Reporting (79)

Jedox PALO (60)

Infor PM (41)

Oracle Hyperion (40)

Bissantz (79)

Oracle BIEE (49)

Microsoft SSRS (54)

Information Builders (71)

arcplan (68)

Pentaho (42)

MicroStrategy (172)

ALL

TARGIT (64)

Cubeware (108)

Microsoft SSAS (123)

IBM Cognos TM1 (39)

MIK (53)

QlikTech (146)

BOARD (95)

FIGURE 4 - Reason for choosing

a product:

Ease of use for applica! on

builders

SOURCE: FIGURE BY BOARD

BASED ON DATA FROM FIGURE 62 IN

THE BI SURVEY 9

11


This analysis broadly conÞ rms what was reported in previous edi! ons of The BI and OLAP

Surveys: that all too many organiza! ons are allowing corporate factors to get in the way of

successful BI projects. Despite not being in the top three selec! on criteria actually applied, fast

query performance emerges as the selec! on criterion most closely linked to project success,

just as it has in almost every previous year. Ease of use for applica! on builders and end-users

consistently belong to the criteria with the best project success chances.

Just as was found in previous years, product func! onality has a rela! vely low correla! on

with project success, although it fared somewhat be" er than in previous years. This was the

most frequently cited reason for choosing products, not only in this edi! on of the Survey, but

in every one of the previous edi! ons — and yet it ranked only sixth in the BBI-driven rankings.

This again conÞ rms that organiza! ons spend too much ! me assessing product features — even

though most mature products are likely to have all necessary features, and minor gaps can be

worked around.

5,04

4,91

4,83

4,63

4,57

4,55

4,48

4,32

4,31

4,29

4,18

4,14

4,08

4,07

4,04

3,80

3,78

3,68

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

Fast performance

Proof of concept faster or better

Ease of use for application builders

Ease of use for end-users

Range of server platforms supported

Functionality/product features

Large data handling capacity

Web architecture

Availability of local support

User scalability

Low price

Integrates with other products already in use

Vendor relationship/reputation

Chosen vendor did a better sales job

Product reputation

Bundled with another product

Corporate standard

Other

Product related criteria

Vendor and Cost criteria

FIGURE 5 – BBI-driven ranking of

selec on criteria


THE BI SURVEY 9

12


BI so ware vendors have long suggested that BI is becoming mainstream, and that more and

more employees would soon be regularly using BI applica! ons based on their products. A wide

variety of vendors have adopted the slogan “BI for the masses” to promote this idea.

But the results of the Survey show that BI has not yet come to the masses.

Only about 11 % of companies have more than 50 % of their employees as regular users of BI

applica! ons. About 34 % of sites expect to buy more licenses in the future and 29 % expect not

to. Thus the ‘posi! ve gap’ (the di# erence between those who do and don’t expect to buy more

seats) was 5 %, less than half the gap found by The BI Survey 8, which was already the lowest

Þ gure since The Survey started in 2001.

The Þ gure below shows big di# erences in breadth of deployment by product. Repor! ng tools

like Informa! on Builders and Microso SSRS are likely to be deployed to larger propor! ons

of employees than are CPM-oriented products like Infor PM or IBM Cognos TM1. This is also

reß ected in the overall vendor Þ gures. “Notable is one excep! on: BOARD is ranked higher than

the other CPM-oriented products,” observes BARNEY FINUCANE, author of THE BI SURVEY 9.

36,6%

29,8%

26,2%

26,0%

25,8%

24,8%

23,5%

23,4%

23,2%

22,7%

22,6%

22,4%

21,5%

21,1%

20,2%

19,4%

19,1%

18,5%

17,8%

16,8%

16,5%

15,6%

11,7%

11,5%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0% 40,0%


Microsoft SSRS

Microsoft SSAS

IBM Cognos Analysis

MicroStrategy

arcplan

BOARD

SAP BW / Bex Suite

Pentaho

TARGIT

QlikTech

SAP BO DeskI

ALL

IBM Cognos Reporting

SAP BO WebI

Cubeware

Oracle Hyperion

Jedox PALO

SAS

Bissantz

Oracle BIEE

IBM Cognos TM1

MIK

Infor PM

Deployment, Costs and Applications

FIGURE 6 – Average propor on

of employees using the BI

applica on by product


THE BI SURVEY 9

13


APPLICATIONS BY PRODUCT AND IMPLEMENTATION

The Þ gure below analyzes the applica! on mix by product. MicroStrategy sites reported the

most applica! ons, closely followed by SAS. Oracle BIEE sites reported the fewest. The products

are sorted by the average number of applica! ons men! oned, and the applica! ons are sorted

by the frequency of men! ons.

This chart is a useful guide to shortlis! ng products for evalua! on: if a product is o en used

for applica! ons like the ones you are proposing, then it probably has the right capabili! es, and

vice versa. This can save a lot of ! me evalua! ng func! onality. Note however that Informa! on

Builders, Micro-Strategy and QlikTech users said they were planning. Clearly they were not

doing it with the main product, because these products do not have that func! on.Sta

nd

ard

Re

po

rtin

g

Ad

ho

c q

ue

ry

An

aly

sis

Da

shb

oa

rds

Bu

dg

etin

g a

nd

Pla

nn

ing

Re

po

rts

on

op

era

tiv

e p

roc

ess

es

Fin

an

cia

l

co

nso

lid

atio

n

Da

ta m

inin

g

BI a

lre

ad

y

em

be

dd

ed

Sc

ore

ca

rds

Inte

gra

tio

n o

f

Kn

ow

led

ge

an

d B

I

Oth

er

Products

MicroStrategy (5.0) 99% 90% 68% 61% 34% 53% 46% 30% 24% 42% 34% 6%

SAS (4.9) 95% 100% 87% 39% 33% 49% 34% 53% 41% 28% 32% 30%

QlikTech (4.9) 81% 69% 74% 89% 39% 54% 34% 43% 22% 45% 25% 5%

Informa on Builders (4.7) 94% 81% 38% 69% 42% 56% 59% 34% 34% 25% 36% 8%

BOARD (4.7) 95% 90% 81% 68% 67% 46% 34% 33% 26% 27% 29% 0%

TARGIT(4.6) 91% 81% 85% 34% 50% 56% 46% 38% 28% 20% 29% 13%

IBM Cognos TM1 (4.6) 97% 97% 83% 31% 90% 25% 56% 23% 24% 18% 8% 0%

MIK (4.5) 100% 96% 95% 33% 88% 34% 33% 21% 11% 35% 10% 10%

Bissantz (4.5) 96% 90% 84% 47% 46% 37% 25% 47% 19% 17% 13% 6%

IBM Cognos Repor ng (4.5) 96% 83% 70% 51% 43% 38% 46% 17% 26% 32% 26% 6%

SAP BO WebI (4.4) 98% 87% 59% 62% 40% 51% 47% 30% 28% 31% 27% 8%

Microso! SSAS (4.4) 88% 81% 58% 53% 41% 44% 34% 22% 33% 31% 29% 9%

SAP BW/ BEx Suite (4.2) 91% 91% 68% 49% 64% 38% 46% 21% 41% 24% 18% 12%

Oracle Hyperion (4.2) 94% 91% 71% 52% 91% 17% 71% 29% 14% 22% 18% 0%

SAP BO DeskI (4.1) 100% 97% 79% 32% 48% 56% 57% 35% 23% 8% 13% 10%

Infor PM (4.1) 100% 92% 72% 37% 89% 18% 52% 33% 5% 12% 11% 0%

arcplan (4.1) 95% 56% 56% 55% 60% 39% 30% 10% 26% 42% 14% 24%

Oracle BIEE (4.1) 86% 79% 46% 89% 22% 39% 15% 23% 30% 33% 29% 0%

Cubeware (4.1) 90% 88% 83% 47% 48% 28% 14% 9% 28% 21% 3% 0%

Microso! SSRS (4.0) 100% 68% 47% 58% 43% 37% 34% 10% 42% 33% 21% 7%

IBM Cognos Analysis (4.0) 92% 85% 82% 49% 44% 48% 27% 37% 32% 19% 21% 0%

Jedox PALO (3.8) 91% 76% 68% 53% 68% 14% 27% 17% 9% 18% 5% 6%

Pentaho (3.6) 86% 56% 45% 52% 16% 46% 15% 19% 12% 3% 35% 27%

Suites

MicroStrategy (5.0) 99% 90% 68% 61% 34% 53% 46% 30% 24% 42% 34% 6%

SAS (4.9) 95% 100% 87% 39% 33% 49% 34% 53% 41% 28% 32% 30%

Microso! (4.3) 92% 77% 55% 55% 42% 42% 34% 18% 36% 31% 26% 8%

IBM Cognos (4.3) 95% 84% 75% 50% 43% 42% 40% 23% 28% 28% 24% 4%

SAP BW/ BEx Suite (4.2) 91% 91% 68% 49% 64% 38% 46% 21% 41% 24% 18% 12%

SAP BO (4.2) 98% 86% 60% 51% 41% 50% 49% 30% 26% 27% 21% 6%

Oracle BIEE (4.1) 86% 79% 46% 89% 22% 39% 15% 23% 30% 33% 29% 0%

TABLE 4 – Applica ons analysis

by product

SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 50

FROM THE BI SURVEY 9

14


APPLICATIONS PER ADMINISTRATOR

Administra on costs increase as the number of applica ons the so! ware is used for increases.

This is because administering a simple system with a large number of users does not necessarily

require as much e" ort as several systems with varying content.

BOARD is very widely deployed with rela vely low administra ve costs, thanks to its easy and

programming free handling. One single administrator can typically handle at least twice as

many applica ons compared with most other products in this category.

DEPARTMENTS USING BI

The BI Survey has included a new ques on since 2007: Which business func ons use the

applica on(s)? On average, 4.6 func ons are served, up from 4.3 in the previous year. Four

departments have a greater than 50% chance of using BI applica ons, with Þ nance well in

the lead, followed by top management, sales and IT. It is interes ng, and perhaps surprising,

that marke ng is signiÞ cantly less likely to be using BI applica ons than sales; one might have

thought that marke ng departments had more need for data analysis.

,300 ,800 1,300 1,800 2,300

arcplan (1.00)

Bissantz (1.25)

BOARD (2.50)

Cubeware (1.00)





Infor PM (1.00)

Jedox PALO (2.00)



MicroStrategy (0.63)

MIK (1.00)

Oracle BIEE (0.33)


Pentaho (0.75)

QlikTech (1.25)

SAP BO WebI (0.50)

SAP BO DeskI (0.67)

SAP BW/ BEx Suite (0.25)

SAS (0.56)

TARGIT (1.54)

Figure 7 – KPI: Applica ons per

administrator

SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 178

FROM THE BI SURVEY 9

15


This chart below shows how many business func ons each administrator of a given product

administers on average. The more business func ons per administrator, the longer the bar. It is

no ceable that the dashboard solu ons (arcplan, BOARD, QlikTech) are widely deployed with

rela vely low administra ve costs.

“The e ort to run and administer BI projects is an important success factor. BOARD comes in

Þ rst for business func! ons per administrator. Due to the easy and programming free handling,

an administrator can handle almost twice as many business func! ons compared to other

products”, says BARNEY FINUCANE, author of THE BI SURVEY 9.

,300 ,500 ,700 ,900 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900

arcplan (1.25)

Bissantz (1.00)

BOARD (2.00)

Cubeware (1.00)





Infor PM (0.75)

Jedox PALO (1.00)




MIK (1.00)

Oracle BIEE (0.33)


QlikTech (1.25)

SAP BO WebI (0.63)

SAP BO DeskI (0.83)

SAP BEx (0.31)

SAS (0.38)

Targit (1.54)

Pentaho (0.88)

FIGURE 8 – KPI: Business

func ons per administrator


THE BI SURVEY 9

16


INTENTION TO BUY MORE LICENSES

No one knows more about how a product performs in the real world than the customers

already using it. All too o! en, they Þ nd that products don’t live up to expecta ons, or that the

vendor does not support the product properly. Such customers will probably end up not even

using all the licenses they have already bought, and certainly won’t be buying any more. So it is

a very posi ve sign if exis ng customers say they expect to purchase more licenses – as BOARD

customers do.

“BOARD customers clearly expressed their inten! on to purchase more licenses – recogni! on not

only to BOARD as a product, but to the support as well. As a ma" er of fact BOARD has always

focused on support excellence and product quality and now we are harves! ng the rewards of

our hard work,” explains GIOVANNI GROSSI, BOARD CEO.

0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5 1,7

arcplan (0.96)

Bissantz (1.32)

BOARD (1.32)

Cubeware (1.05)





Infor PM (0.36)

Jedox PALO (1.24)




MIK (0.73)

Oracle BIEE (0.73)


QlikTech (1.75)

SAP BO WebI (0.64)

SAP BO DeskI (0.30)

SAP BEx (0.43)

SAS (0.78)

Targit (1.26)

Pentaho (0.57)

Vendor effectiveness

FIGURE 9 – KPI: Inten on to

buy more licences


THE BI SURVEY 9

17


COMPETITIVE EVALUATIONS

The BI and OLAP Surveys have repeatedly shown that buyers beneÞ t from conduc ng a serious

compe ve evalua on before selec ng products.

This is why when deciding which products to evaluate, it is useful to know which have fared

well in other organiza ons’ product selec ons.

It is an easy way to minimize research e" orts and quickly eliminate the ‘losers’. The Þ gure

below shows which products are most likely to be chosen in a compe ve evalua on.

Product Competitive

evaluation

Single product

evaluation

No formal

evaluation

MIK 75% 9% 15%

arcplan 71% 7% 22%

Cubeware 70% 19% 10%

BOARD 69% 15% 16%

MicroStrategy 69% 17% 13%

Infor PM 66% 20% 15%

Bissantz 65% 27% 9%

IBM Cognos TM1 64% 13% 23%

SAS 63% 7% 30%

Oracle Hyperion 63% 15% 23%

Informa on Builders 61% 17% 23%

Jedox PALO 60% 15% 25%

QlikTech 58% 24% 18%

Pentaho 57% 21% 21%

All 57% 18% 25%

IBM Cognos Repor ng 56% 11% 33%

TARGIT 48% 17% 34%

SAP BO WebI 47% 24% 29%

IBM Cognos Analysis 47% 29% 24%

Oracle BIEE 43% 31% 27%

Microso! SSRS 43% 17% 41%

SAP BO DeskI 38% 20% 43%

Microso! SSAS 36% 18% 46%

SAP BW / BEx Suite 32% 22% 46%

FIGURE 10 – Frequency

distribu on of evalua on types

by product

SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 71IN

THE BI SURVEY 9

18


EXTERNAL FEES BY PRODUCT AND SUITE

The Þ gure below analyzes implementa on fees by product. SAP BW / BEx Suite has the

highest values by a signiÞ cant margin, as it had in previous years – thanks to the programming

free toolkit approach of BOARD, there are much lesser external fees required to implement

BOARD.

784

661

515

407

332

328

267

208

202

144

141

138

105

103

81

72

68

56

55

49

46

46

41

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

SAP BW / Bex Suite

Oracle Hyperion

Oracle BIEE

MicroStrategy

IBM Cognos Analysis

SAS

SAP BO WebI


ALL

SAP BO DeskI

arcplan

Infor PM

Microsoft SSAS


Bissantz

MIK

Microsoft SSRS

Cubeware

IBM Cognos TM1

QlikTech

TARGIT

Pentaho

BOARD

Jedox PALO

Implementation

FIGURE 11 – Average external

implementa on fees in

thousands of dollars by

products


THE BI SURVEY 9

19


PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

BI deployments depend on a complex choreography of people, data and technology. If any of

these fails to perform, the problems soon mount up – and almost 70 percent of our respondents

iden Þ ed at least one major problem that had occurred. As in previous years, problems were

placed into three categories:

People•

Data•

Product•

With the excep on of query performance, people and data problems were more common

than most technical (product-related) problems. This has been a consistent Þ nding in The BI

and OLAP Surveys.

BOARD again was ranked best in the fewest data-related problems category. Regarding fewest

people-related problems, BOARD has been ranked third.

31,183%

28%

26,582%

26,531%

24,444%

22,785%

22,500%

22,093%

21,622%

19,565%

18,750%

18,600%

18,519%

18,519%

17,808%

17,500%

16,667%

14,085%

13,235%

12,195%

11,905%

10,256%

7,547%

5,263%

,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% 30,00%

SAP BO Webl

Microsoft SSAS

Bissantz

Oracle BIEE

IBM Cognos Analysis


SAP BO Deskl

MicroStrategy

SAP BW / Bex Suite

SAS

Targit

ALL

Microsoft SSRS

Cubeware

QlikTech

Oracle Hyperion

Jedox Palo


arcplan

Infor PM

Pentaho

IBM Cognos TM1

MIK

BOARD

Problems in BI projects

FIGURE 12 –

Frequency of data-related

problems analyzed by product


THE BI SURVEY 9

20


PRODUCT SUPPORT QUALITY

Related to product reliability is support quality: if a product is unreliable, or just hard to use,

product support is called into ac on. This is yet another area where there are big di" erences

between vendor performances.

Today, a! er numerous acquisi ons and merges on the BI and PM market, product support

is one of the most important issues for users. It’s good to know that BOARD has always

focused on high quality support and strong customer involvement regarding further product

development.

This has been proven by the good results BOARD has achieved in this category, not only this

year but since its Þ rst inclusion in the BI Survey

0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5

arcplan (1.21)

Bissantz (1.53)

BOARD (1.24)

Cubeware (1.34)





Infor PM (1.05)

Jedox PALO (1.19)




MIK (1.12)

Oracle BIEE (0.67)


QlikTech (1.18)

SAP BO WebI (0.58)

SAP BO DeskI (0.24)

SAP BEx (0.72)

SAS (0.99)

Targit (1.19)

Pentaho (0.96)

FIGURE 13 – KPI: Product

support quality


THE BI SURVEY 9

21


Realizing business benefi ts:

A weighted Business BeneÞ t Index (BBI) is calculated and used to compare as many factors as •

possible throughout the Survey. This can be used by buyers to maximize the business beneÞ ts

from their own projects.

BOARD, Jedox and Cubeware sites were most likely to report that they had realized beneÞ ts •

(they had the highest BBI).

SAP BW / BEx Suite, SAP BO WebI and SAP BO DeskI were the sites least likely to achieve •

business beneÞ ts. SAP sites have consistently reported the lowest level of realized business

beneÞ ts in each of the nine years that the BBI has been calculated.

Another consistent trend is that business beneÞ ts were most likely to be achieved if projects •

went live quickly. There was a steady fall-o as ini! al rollout ! mes rose. The small number of

projects that took more than two years to roll out achieved few business beneÞ ts.

Goal achievement:

As in previous years, the values are signiÞ cantly lower for products from large vendors than for •

individual products from the smaller vendors, with the notable excep! on of IBM Cognos TM1.

The purchase cycle

Product-related reasons – par! cularly func! onality and ease of use for end users – dominate •

the purchase decision. Vendor-related reasons are less important. If buyers show li" le interest

in vendor-related criteria the brand argument for mega-merger loses a good deal of its force.

The analysis shows that fast performance and well-executed proof-of-concept are associated •

with highest BBI score. Adop! ng corporate standards is associated with the lowest BBI of any

of the criteria we listed.

Implementation and rollout times:

There was some correla! on between project success and implementa! on spend. The Business •

BeneÞ ts Index (BBI) peaked for projects with an external consul! ng spend of less $5k to $25k.

It ß uctuated above that, but the overall trend is for the BBI to decline in projects with higher

implementa! on costs. This is probably a reß ec! on of the increasing problem rates as projects

get larger.

Problems in BI projects:

Of those already using BI today 32 % of users saw no business need to deploy the solu! ons •

more widely, and 33 % said they plan to purchase more licenses of their current products (22

% expect not to). The overall levels of sa! sfac! on remain high: 70 % of respondents said that

their projects had largely or completely met their business goals. And less than 1% reported

that the goals had not been met at all, a signiÞ cantly lower score than in previous years.

The single most common problem was poor data quality with 18 %, followed by slow query •

performance and company poli! cs with 16 %. These three problems have dominated the list

consistently since 2001.

Other common people-related problems included administra! ve problems, lack of interest •

from business users and failure to agree on or changing business requirements.

SAP BW users had the most product complaints, especially in query performance. QlikTech •

reported signiÞ cantly more problems than in 2008.

So# ware cost and administra! on complexity were the biggest deterrents to wider deployment. •

By product, SAP BO DeskI sites saw the most deterrents to wider deployment, par! cularly high

costs and administra! ve and maintenance complexity.

$

Some overall key fi ndings of the BI Survey 9

22


The BI Survey 9, the leading independent Survey of real-world BI implementa! ons, provides

unique, sta! s! cally signiÞ cant insight into actual BI implementa! ons and customer experiences

with various BI products. It’s an in-depth analysis of essen! al and unique informa! on from

over a thousand organiza! ons, covering their experiences with both buying and using BI tools,

including the problems they encounter, query performance, product related problems, product

support ra! ngs, implementa! on ! mes, etc. Since the choice of BI product has a signiÞ cant

impact on overall BI project success as the results of the Survey have shown, it is advisable to

accomplish product evalua! ons, star! ng with a close review of the product benchmarks in The

BI Survey 9, when embarking on new BI projects.

Notable results in The BI Survey 9 are the widely varying customer experiences and product

results among the BI products.

BOARD was consistently ranked among the top products that have been analyzed in the

Survey in the following categories:

Business BeneÞ t Index•

Applica! ons per admin•

Business func! ons per admin•

BeneÞ t: reduced other non IT-costs•

BeneÞ t: saved headcount in IS•

Ease of use for applica! on builders•

Fewest data-related problems•

Furthermore, BOARD ranked in the top 5 in the following categories:

BeneÞ t: be" er repor! ng & higher revenues•

BeneÞ t: reduced external IT-costs•

Quality and support•

Product support quality •

Compe! ! ve win rate•

Inten! on to buy more licenses •

Range of applica! ons deployed•

Business achievement•

Fewest external implementa! on fees•

Ease of use for end users•

“BOARD’s consistent high ranking posi ons in many of the key areas we analyzed in the survey

is a very credible achievement and not just limited to technical aspects, such as fewest data-

related problems. BOARD ranked top in seven categories, among them the BBI, possibly the

most important KPI of all in the survey. Furthermore BOARD achieved ten more rankings in the

top 5. This emphasizes once more the solid strength of the product in a wide range of areas

and places BOARD ahead of other established brands in many key areas”, concludes Barney

Finucane, (BARC), author of THE BI SURVEY 9.

Conclusion

23

Date post:	22-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anibal-goicochea
View:	732 times
Download:	0 times

The BI Survey 9 (via Board)

Documents