Category Archives: rants

Screwing up the Screw-Ups in BI (Repost)

Back in January of 2008, SI ran this now classic post by Eric Strovink, formerly of Opera Solutions, BIQ (acquired by Opera Solutions), and Zeborg (acquired by Emptoris, which was acquired by IBM). While writing tomorrow’s rant, the doctor was reminded of this classic post and how most companies and people screw up the basics of BI and spend analysis. Since this will put you in the right frame of mind to understand tomorrow’s post, the doctor has decided to repost it.

Baseline recently put a slide show on their site illustrating “5 Ways Companies Screw Up Business Intelligence — And How To Avoid The Same Mistakes,” with data drawn from CIO Insight. The slides are an excellent example of how mainstream IT thinking misses the essential problems of business data analysis.

Let’s take the “screw-ups” one at a time:

  1. Spreadsheet proliferation (97% of IT leaders say spreadsheets are still their most widely used BI tool.)
    Spreadsheets are one of the most valuable business modeling tools available, and IT might as well understand that they’re not going away. The problem is when spreadsheets (and offline tools like Access) are used inappropriately, to manipulate transactional data rather than drawing it in the right format from a flexible store. The solution provided by Baseline is to “cleanse and validate your data, then migrate the information to a central server/database that can be the backbone of any BI strategy.” Bzzt! Sorry, a central database won’t solve the analysis problem, and at the end of the day you’ll have just as many spreadsheets as before. That’s because a fixed schema data warehouse is a lousy analysis tool, and might as well be on planet Neptune as far as usability for the business analyst is concerned. There’s nothing wrong with a reference dataset, but business analysts need to be able to manipulate its structure as easily as a spreadsheet, or they will simply extract the raw data from it and manipulate the data offline, with the same slow, expensive, and uncertain results as today.
  2. Systems can’t talk to each other (64% of IT leaders say integration and interoperability of BI software with other key systems such as CRM and ERP pose a problem for their companies.)
    Right! Except that the Holy Grail of trying to extend a “centralized” database umbrella over completely disparate systems is both incredibly expensive and nearly impossible. Baseline suggests “[partnering] with a reputable systems integrator.” Good for them — at least they dodge this bullet rather than getting the answer completely wrong. The right answer is that business analysts should be able to construct BI datasets on their own, as needed, from whatever data sources are useful/appropriate, and it shouldn’t be difficult for them to do so. Concentrating all of the information under one umbrella isn’t necessary; many umbrellas can do the job, and if they’re easy to deploy, they’re both inexpensive and provide a better and more flexible answer.
  3. No centralized BI program (61% say they don’t have a center of excellence of the equivalent of BI.)
    And they’d be well advised to tread carefully, because BI systems have a track record of poor performance and poor customer satisfaction. Why? Because the analyses you can do with a fixed data warehouse are limited to the views set up a priori by IT or by the vendor, and those views are largely immutable. Baseline dodges this one, too, suggesting the “[creation of] a data governance and data stewardship program.” Can’t argue with that in principle, but a governance and stewardship program doesn’t actually put any meat on the table. How about putting tools into analysts’ hands that they can actually use? Right now?
  4. Data lacks integrity (57% say poor data quality significantly diminishes the value of their BI initiatives.)
    Hmmm, I wonder why the data are of such poor quality. Could it be that the BI system doesn’t really provide much insight? Could it be that the fixed schemas set up by IT or by the vendor don’t have any applicability to day-to-day questions? Could it be that the inability of the BI system to re-organize and map data on the fly causes errors to persist over time? Baseline recommends spending more money on data cleansing, which might make a cleansing vendor quite wealthy, but won’t help much. It typically isn’t cleansing that’s the problem, it’s (1) the fixed organization of the data, which is guaranteed to be inappropriate for any analysis that hasn’t been anticipated a priori, (2) the ad hoc reporting on it, which has to be easy to accomplish, as opposed to requiring IT resources (see below), and (3) the fact that cleansing can’t be accomplished on-the-fly (as it should be) by the business analysts themselves.
  5. Managers don’t know what to do with results (58% say most users misunderstand or ignore data produced by BI tools because they don’t know how to analyze it.)
    Even when BI is in place, nobody knows what to do with it. Baseline recommends that “IT staffers… should work closely and regularly with business managers to ensure that measurement, reporting, and analysis tools are supporting business goals.” But this is precisely the problem. For business analysts, BI systems are difficult to use and set up, it is difficult to create ad hoc reports, and it is impossible to change the dataset organization. It is also politically impossible to change the dataset organization if it is being shared by hundreds or thousands of users. How are you going to get them into the same room to agree on the changes?

So, Baseline is proposing (in essence) that IT resources sit cheek-by-jowl with business users, to ensure that they can get value out of a system that they otherwise could not use. This is certainly a “solution” of sorts, but it’s not practical. Either business analysts can use the system on their own, or the system will be of marginal value to them. It’s that simple.

101 Procurement Damnations – We’re Almost Halfway There

Our last post chronicled our 50th Procurement Damnation that you, as a Procurement professional, have to deal with on a regular, if not daily, basis. If only these were the only 50 damnations clouding your mind and getting in your way. There are still 50 more damnations that are just as pervasive that seemingly exist only to pester you on a daily basis that we have not yet discussed!

However, before we get to the next 50, we thought it would be a good idea to summarize the list to date so that you could go back and review any posts in the series that you might have missed as this is SI’s biggest and most aggressive series to date, longer than both the 15-part “Future” of Procurement series and the 33-part “Future” Trends Expose series (that followed) combined and double the length of the maverick‘s 50 Shades of Pay series (assuming it gets completed) which, to date, only has 10 parts up and available for your reading pleasure.

There’s more that could be said, but much has been said in the 50 posts published to date and much more will be said in the next 50 posts, so, without further ado, here’s the first 50 for your reviewing pleasure.

Introductory Posts

Economic Damnations

Infrastructure Damnations

Environmental Damnations

Geopolitical Damnations

Regulatory Damnations

Societal Damnations

Organizational Damnations

Authoritative Damnations

Provider Damnations

Consumer Damnations

Technological Damnations

Influential Damnations

Bonus Posts!

Today Nintendo Lowers its 2DS Price to Just 99.99 USD

In the ongoing battle to milk every cent out of an obsolescing platform before it’s time comes to an end, today, as per ars technica, Nintendo lowers its 2DS price to 99.99 USD.

Why is this significant? It emphasizes a harsh reality of Sourcing in just about any technology or non-raw material category. Whatever you’re sourcing today, you won’t be sourcing tomorrow, and if you are, chances are the organization won’t be around much longer as sales will dry up, the balance sheet will dip into the red, and bankruptcy will be inevitable.

But should it be this way? In the age of the PC, even though, as Weird Al clearly pointed out in the now classic It’s All About the Pentiums, it was obsolete before you opened the box, it didn’t mean that you had to throw the whole thing out and get a new one to take advantage of advancements. Motherboards had removable processors extra slots and you could throw in or replace cards with math co-processors, better video cards, parallel and serial device interfaces to printers, scanners, and analog signal converters, etc. Now, you knew that eventually you would have to upgrade when a better bus came along or the register size doubled, but even then the new mother boards came with interface slots to the previous generation cards so you could keep using them until you were ready to replace them. You could keep the same case for the better part of decade with smart upgrades.

Now we have slim case laptops where everything is built in and nothing is upgradeable. You have to buy a whole new unit every two years. Not only does this mean Sourcing needs to source a whole new product design at least every six months, but it also has to focus on reclamation. Many modern electronics, especially those that run on cellular or wireless networks, require a significant amount of rare earth minerals and expensive metals that need to be reclaimed due to the limited supply. Plus, in many locales, it’s illegal for a consumer to throw it out, and not only do they need to take the product to a recycling location, but some locales, such as the EU, require the producer to take the product back and appropriately recycle it.

But you know all this, as SI has been ranting about this and the need to design for recycling since the beginning, but, at this point, that’s not enough.

At this point, SI really thinks that all products need to be designed for perpetual upgrade. It should be possible to replace all components of a device as needed as they wear out or need to be upgraded. And it needs to be easier than it was with old desktop computers where you had to open the case, remove a bunch of wires to get to the card/drive/processor, do a precise sequence of presses, twists, and pops to safely get the component out, do the reverse to get it back in, reattach the wires, put the case back on, and then power up and test you don’t cross any wires (while wearing rubber gloves, just in case).

Each component should be a self contained “box” with a standard interface connector, using an upgradeable design that can support the fastest speed the configuration of connected components can effectively support. For example, a copper-based multi-pin connector (which, as demonstrated by Thunderbolt and USB 3.1, can support data transfer rates in excess of 10 Gbit/s) for low-end consumer devices and optimal connections (which, as multiplexing technology, will allow faster and faster transfers in the future) for high-end consumer devices and business devices. Boxes should have multiple smart connectors that can register the type of device they are connected to, and the devices they are connected to (as the components will communicate over an internal high-speed network), allowing the device to be upgraded with new components, and capabilities, not imagined when the initial set of components were first built.

For portability, durability, and weather-proofing, custom enclosure boxes could be built that would hold a standard set of components that would represent a power-house desktop computer or a portable tablet/laptop (where the screen slid out of a sheath and plugged in to the top of the main box and the keyboard folded down).

We may never see this, but imagine how much easier it would be for everyone if the same components could be used for years, investments lasted longer, and Sourcing strategies could be more consistent and predictable.

Just a revelation encased in a rant triggered by a reaction to another price reduction required by planned obsolescence.

Creative or Crackpot. How do you tell the difference?

the doctor has been called both. Thought leaders early in their career, including modern legends in science and business, have been called both. And anyone who pushes the boundaries in unusual ways will be called both. But how do you tell the difference?

It’s a tough problem. There’s such a thin line between genius and insanity, and even if the individual was a genius yesterday, who’s to say the genius hasn’t crossed the line and become a bonafide crackpot today.

But it’s one that should be tackled. the doctor could cross the line himself someday and the best way to prevent that from happening for as long as possible is to be aware of the warning signs and take proactive action. (Just like the best way to avoid dementia is through a combination of good eatin’, regular exercise, stress management, and regular mental activity.)

So the doctor did some research and found a pretty interesting article over on boingboing that provided some advice on the identification of the modern crackpot.

According to the article, written by Maggie Koerth-Baker, the science editor at boingboing and a Nieman-Berkman Fellow at Harvard University from August 2014 to May 2015 (which only accepts candidates with the potential for journalistic excellence), there are five indicators that, if present, might indicate the individual has crossed the line into the realm of the crackpot (or, even worse, has always lived in crackpotopia).

1. Is the story being uttered by the individual too feel-good?
(Like the Big News from Grand Rock.) Good educators care more about the evidence, technology, or practice than the story.

2. Is the proof being presented by the individual too self-evident?
If it really is obvious common sense, the individual is not as smart as he is making herself out to be. And if it’s not, there’s more smooth in the talk than there is substance, and that should set off a lot of warning bells. Proof generally requires explanation. Sometimes lots of it.

3. If the individual is trying to convince you that acceptance of the new idea will make you smarter than the official experts, be suspicious.
Very suspicious. Experts aren’t always right, but they usually are. Plus, at best, you should be as smart as the experts. Not more so.

4. If the studies the individual is using are (really) old, if there’s only a few studies, or if the individual is trying to use some weird meta-study across mostly unrelated studies (and ignore Pinky and the Brain’s lesson in statistics), dig deep. Really, really deep. What looks like truth when you look at five samples can quickly become completely untrue when you look at five hundred.

5. If you are told that you cannot trust any other source of information (because of some big, corporate, conspiracy or because such-and-such expert is a sell-out), then the individual is either the pre-eminent expert or a complete crackpot. (And we will leave it to you to guess which one is considerably more statistically likely.) An individual must know his or her limitations. There’s a reason SI tends to focus on some things (like optimization and analysis) and ignore others (like market speculation and merger benefits). That’s because the doctor is an expert in the first and not an expert in the latter.

This is not a complete or exhaustive test, especially since the greatest of geniuses who truly see the future years before anyone else will often only have a few studies to draw on, come up with proofs so logical that they seem self evident, require you to mistrust most accepted sources of information, and present a story that is truly exceptional. However, ground-breaking advances like this tend to only happen every few decades at most. So the test present by Ms. Koerth-Baker is a good one.

Procurement is Still in the Technology Dark Ages

A recent post over on Deal Architect discussed how, despite claims to the contrary by recent analyst firms, most organizations are still in the technology dark ages, and this goes double for Sourcing and Procurement.

Not only is it the case that most organizations do not have modern e-Sourcing and e-Procurement platforms, but many are still stuck on outdated MRP and ERP systems that actually hinder, instead of help, Supply Management.

Consider the plethora of problems with ERP systems that often make it worse than not having a system at all:

There is generally little requisition management and no sourcing / tender / RFX support. In an ERP the process starts with a purchase order, flips into a goods receipt, and, maybe, just maybe, correlates with an invoice for payment.

There is generally little support for any type of real analysis. There is usually a built-in report library that has a few standard reports on suppliers, products, bills of materials, invoices, and payments.

There is only one schema, and it generally doesn’t lend itself to any particular form of analysis, reporting, or inquiry beyond the built in reports and any sort of global trade analysis, import/export analysis, tax analysis, or tariff analysis is just a pipe dream.

There’s a reason that Sourcing Innovation recently blogged about how hose that still rely on ERP could end up in the supply chain disaster record books and that is because ERP systems are not a supply chain management platform. But it, and maybe a few free web tools, are the best many organizations still have, and that has to change.

Especially when many organizations still pump millions of dollars into these platforms that don’t adequately support Procurement, don’t adequately support Sales, and don’t adequately support modern logistics and inventory management in the age of 3PLs (third party logistics) and VMI (vendor managed inventory).

Investments need to be made in the right products and platforms that serve the core needs of each department, starting with Sourcing and Procurement.  And there are plenty out there.