Business intelligence
Analysis of companies, products, and user strategies in the area of business intelligence. Related subjects include:
- Data warehousing
- Business Objects
- Cognos
- QlikTech
- (in Text Technologies) Text mining
- (in Text Technologies) Text analytics/business intelligence integration
- (in The Monash Report) Strategic issues in business intelligence
- (in Software Memories) Historical notes on business intelligence
Big Data hype?
A reporter wrote in to ask whether investor interest in “Big Data” was justified or hype. (More precisely, that’s how I reinterpreted his questions. 
) His examples were Splunk’s IPO, Teradata’s stock price increase, and Birst’s financing. In a nutshell:
- My comments, lightly edited, are in plain text below.
- Further thoughts are in italics.
- Of course I also linked him to my post “Big Data” has jumped the shark.
- Overall, my responses boil down to “Of course there’s some hype.”
1. A great example of hype is that anybody is calling Birst a “Big Data” or “Big Data analytics” company. If anything, Birst is a “little data” analytics company that claims, as a differentiating feature, that it can handle ordinary-sized data sets as well. Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, Data warehousing, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Splunk | 14 Comments |
Many kinds of memory-centric data management
I’m frequently asked to generalize in some way about in-memory or memory-centric data management. I can start:
- The desire for human real-time interactive response naturally leads to keeping data in RAM.
- Many databases will be ever cheaper to put into RAM over time, thanks to Moore’s Law. (Most) traditional databases will eventually wind up in RAM.
- However, there will be exceptions, mainly on the machine-generated side. Where data creation and RAM data storage are getting cheaper at similar rates … well, the overall cost of RAM storage may not significantly decline.
Getting more specific than that is hard, however, because:
- The possibilities for in-memory data storage are as numerous and varied as those for disk.
- The individual technologies and products for in-memory storage are much less mature than those for disk.
- Solid-state options such as flash just confuse things further.
Consider, for example, some of the in-memory data management ideas kicking around. Read more
Human real-time
I first became an analyst in 1981. And so I was around for the early days of the movement from batch to interactive computing, as exemplified by:
- The rise of minicomputers as mainframe alternatives (first VAXen, then the ‘nix systems that did largely supplant mainframes).
- The move from batch to interactive computing even on mainframes, a key theme of 1980s application software industry competition.
Of course, wherever there is interactive computing, there is a desire for interaction so fast that users don’t notice any wait time. Dan Fylstra, when he was pitching me the early windowing system VisiOn, characterized this as response so fast that the user didn’t tap his fingers waiting.* And so, with the move to any kind of interactive computing at all came a desire that the interaction be quick-response/low-latency. Read more
Notes on the ClearStory Data launch, including an inaccurate quote from me
ClearStory Data launched, with nice coverage in the New York Times, Computerworld, and elsewhere. But from my standpoint, there were some serious problems:
- (Bad.) I was planning to cover the launch as well, in a split exclusive, but that plan was changed, costing me considerable wasted work.
- (Worse.) I wasn’t told of the change as soon as it was known. Indeed, I wasn’t told at all; I was left to infer it from the fact that I was now being asked to talk with other reporters.
- (Horrific.) I was quoted in the ClearStory launch press release, but while the sentiments were reasonably in line with my own, the quote was incorrect.*
I’m utterly disgusted with this whole mess, although after talking with her a lot I’m fine with CEO Sharmila Mulligan’s part in it, which is to say with ClearStory’s part in general.
*I avoid the term “platform” as much as possible; indeed, I still don’t really know what the “new platforms” part was supposed to refer to. The Frankenquote wound up with some odd grammar as well.
Actually, in principle I’m a pretty close adviser to ClearStory (for starters, they’re one of my stealth-mode clients). That hasn’t really ramped up yet; in particular, I haven’t had a technical deep dive. So for now I’ll just say:
| Categories: Business intelligence, ClearStory Data, Data integration and middleware, Data mart outsourcing | Leave a Comment |
Third-party analytics
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- (This post) Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
I’ve written a lot this weekend about various areas of business intelligence and related analytics. A recurring theme has been what we might call third-party analytics — i.e., anything other than buying analytic technology and deploying it in your own enterprise. Four main areas include:
- Business intelligence software OEMed to packaged operational application vendors.
- Business intelligence software OEMed to SaaS (Software as a Service) application vendors.
- Business intelligence software bundled into information-selling businesses.
- Stakeholder-facing analytics, which usually is just BI allowing customers (or suppliers, investors, citizens, etc.) to look into one of your databases.
| Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, Information Builders, Intersystems and Cache', Jaspersoft, Pentaho, Software as a Service (SaaS) | 1 Comment |
The 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms — company-by-company comments
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- (This post) Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
The heart of Gartner Group’s 2011/2012 Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms was the company comments. I shall expound upon some, roughly in declining order of Gartner’s “Completeness of Vision” scores, dubious though those rankings may be. Read more
Business intelligence industry trends
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- (This post) Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
Besides company-specific comments, the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence (BI) Platforms offered observations on overall BI trends in a “Market Overview” section. I have mixed feelings about Gartner’s list. In particular:
- Not inconsistently with my comments on departmental analytics, Gartner sees actual BI business users as favoring ease of getting the job done, while IT departments are more concerned about full feature sets, integration, corporate standards, and license costs.
- However, Gartner says as a separate point that all kinds of users want to relieve some of the complexity of BI, and really of analytics in general. I agree, but don’t think Gartner did a great job in outlining how this complexity reduction could really work.
- Gartner is bullish on mobile business intelligence, but doesn’t really contradict my more skeptical take. Even as it confesses that mobile BI use cases are somewhat thin (my word, not Gartner’s, and no pun intended), it sees mobile BI rapidly becoming mainstream technology.
- Gartner makes a distinction between “data discovery” tools and “enterprise BI” platforms. By “data discovery” I think Gartner means what I’d call the “pattern discovery” focus of investigative analytics. Anyhow, it seems that Gartner:
- Sees users as being confused about how the traditional pattern-monitoring kinds of BI fit with the newer emphasis on investigative analytics, and …
- … shares that confusion itself.
- Gartner observes that “Most BI platforms are deployed as systems of performance measurement, not for decision support.” It evidently sees this as a bad tendency, which is thankfully changing. Automated decisioning is part of the fix Gartner sees, along with collaboration. While I agree on both counts, Gartner oddly doesn’t also connect this to the general rise of investigative analytics.
- Gartner also had a catch-all trend of “new use cases”, listing some examples, but also sort of confessing it wasn’t doing a great job of articulating the point. I think that part of the difficulty is contortions as to what is or isn’t BI; Gartner seems to run into expositional difficulties whenever it touches on the core point that analytics isn’t all about performance-monitoring BI. Another problem is that Gartner doesn’t seem to have really thought through what does and doesn’t work in the area of analytic applications.
Here’s the forest that I suspect Gartner is missing for the trees:
- Even though all-in-one enterprise BI platforms are great at getting data to a multitude of endpoints …
- … and even though the number of endpoints for data are increasing (more users, more devices) …
- … all-in-one enterprise BI platforms fall short in helping the data be used once it arrives …
- … and all-in-one enterprise BI platform vendors will find it hard to catch up with other vendors’ data-use capabilities.
| Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, MicroStrategy, Oracle, SAP AG | 10 Comments |
The 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms — overview comments
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- (This post) Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
Gartner’s 2011/2012 Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms is out. I shall now comment, much as I did on the recent Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems, and at more length than I did on the Gartner MQ for BI Platforms three years back.
I have one current link.
The first thing to note about any Gartner Magic Quadrant is its biases. Some of the bigger grains-of-salt for me were:
- Gartner’s Magic Quadrant methodology has some seriously silly aspects, for example giving high importance to breadth of sales channels as part of “Completeness of Vision”. (Basically, “Completeness of Vision” might as well have been called “Sales and Marketing Maturity”.)
- Gartner based the whole Magic Quadrant report on a survey of 1364 users, of which 1244 — i.e. 91.2% — were vendor-supplied references.
My concerns about that latter point include: Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence | 3 Comments |
Applications of an analytic kind
The most straightforward approach to the applications business is:
- Take general-purpose technology and think through how to apply it to a specific application domain.
- Produce packaged application software accordingly.
However, this strategy is not as successful in analytics as in the transactional world, for two main reasons:
- Analytic applications of that kind are rarely complete.
- Incomplete applications rarely sell well.
I first realized all this about a decade ago, after Henry Morris coined the term analytic applications and business intelligence companies thought it was their future. In particular, when Dave Kellogg ran marketing for Business Objects, he rattled off an argument to the effect that Business Objects had generated more analytic app revenue over the lifetime of the company than Cognos had. I retorted, with only mild hyperbole, that the lifetime numbers he was citing amounted to “a bad week for SAP”. Somewhat hoist by his own petard, Dave quickly conceded that he agreed with my skepticism, and we changed the subject accordingly.
Reasons that analytic applications are commonly less complete than the transactional kind include: Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, Data mart outsourcing, Investment research and trading, Log analysis, Oracle, SAP AG, SAS Institute, Web analytics, WibiData | 13 Comments |
Departmental analytics — best practices
I believe IT departments should support and encourage departmental analytics efforts, where “support” and “encourage” are not synonyms for “control”, “dominate”, “overwhelm”, or even “tame”. A big part of that is:
Let, and indeed help, departments have the data they want, when they want it, served with blazing performance.
Three things that absolutely should NOT be obstacles to these ends are:
- Corporate DBMS standards.
- Corporate data governance processes.
- The difficulties of ETL.