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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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 BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 55 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
10
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
“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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 64 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
12
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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%
Information Builders
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 43 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
13
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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)
IBM Cognos Analysis (0.38)
IBM Cognos Reporting (0.50)
IBM Cognos TM1 (1.00)
Information Builders (0.50)
Infor PM (1.00)
Jedox PALO (2.00)
Microsoft SSAS (0.50)
Microsoft SSRS (0.75)
MicroStrategy (0.63)
MIK (1.00)
Oracle BIEE (0.33)
Oracle Hyperion (0.50)
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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)
IBM Cognos Analysis (0.50)
IBM Cognos Reporting (0.63)
IBM Cognos TM1 (0.75)
Information Builders (0.50)
Infor PM (0.75)
Jedox PALO (1.00)
Microsoft SSAS (0.63)
Microsoft SSRS (0.75)
Microstrategy (0.63)
MIK (1.00)
Oracle BIEE (0.33)
Oracle Hyperion (0.38)
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 179 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
16
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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)
IBM Cognos Analysis (1.32)
IBM Cognos Reporting (1.24)
IBM Cognos TM1 (0.92)
Information Builders (0.92)
Infor PM (0.36)
Jedox PALO (1.24)
Microsoft SSAS (0.87)
Microsoft SSRS (0.88)
Microstrategy (1.51)
MIK (0.73)
Oracle BIEE (0.73)
Oracle Hyperion (0.82)
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 170 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
17
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
IBM Cognos Reporting
ALL
SAP BO DeskI
arcplan
Infor PM
Microsoft SSAS
Information Builders
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 85 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
19
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
IBM Cognos Reporting
SAP BO Deskl
MicroStrategy
SAP BW / Bex Suite
SAS
Targit
ALL
Microsoft SSRS
Cubeware
QlikTech
Oracle Hyperion
Jedox Palo
Information Builders
arcplan
Infor PM
Pentaho
IBM Cognos TM1
MIK
BOARD
Problems in BI projects
FIGURE 12 –
Frequency of data-related
problems analyzed by product
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 106 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
20
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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)
IBM Cognos Analysis (0.93)
IBM Cognos Reporting (0.75)
IBM Cognos TM1 (1.15)
Information Builders (1.49)
Infor PM (1.05)
Jedox PALO (1.19)
Microsoft SSAS (0.91)
Microsoft SSRS (0.85)
Microstrategy (1.17)
MIK (1.12)
Oracle BIEE (0.67)
Oracle Hyperion (0.57)
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
SOURCE: BASED ON FIGURE 184 IN
THE BI SURVEY 9
21
THE BI SURVEY 9 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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 – SUMMARY BY BOARD NOVEMBER 2010
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
Top Related