July 7, 2006
Considering the Business Intelligence Competency Center
In the last few months, several customers and prospects have asked for assistance in building dedicated offices for managing their investments in BI, Scorecarding and Financial applications. While it is too early to declare this a full fledged trend, I suspect more organizations will be considering this topic over the next few years. Each of the companies I have talked to have a different take on what they are looking for, but each firm realizes that it simply does not makes sense to build Decision Support/CPM systems in a vacuum. I often say that “CPM is a journey, not a destination.” If you take this concept to its ultimate conclusion, then it makes sense to build the capability to deliver CPM projects as effectively as possible as part of this journey. The firms I am talking to have different thoughts on what the word “effectively” means in the previous sentence. I must admit that my thoughts on this matter are also evolving rather rapidly. I am confident that there is no silver bullet here; every organization is going to have to pick and choose the right answer for itself. (is there ever a silver bullet? No) The term Business Intelligence Competency Center (BICC) has been floating around for some time. I first encountered the concept at a major utility company about 6 years ago. Like many organizations, they owned multiple Business Intelligence tools deployed in departmental and functional silos. Their version of the BICC was called something like “BI Advisory Office.” It was a part of the Information Technology organization and was made up of senior technologists. They had three primary roles: 1. Encourage Standardization They developed a list of “approved vendors” and encouraged (but could not mandate) the use of these vendors for all new development. They advised project teams on vendor selection. 2. Project QA They monitored projects and made recommendations on technical issues. They also got involved in infrastructure issues. They did not do development themselves, but acted in a advisory capacity. 3. Vendor Relationships They were supposed to act as single point of contact for support issues, new license purchases, and so forth. In practice, they usually worked closely with the project teams on support. The purchasing group handled the software buys. The natural next step in the evolution of this BI Office would have been the enforcement of the approved vendor list and development best practices. They could have developed a knowledge sharing capability, perhaps using Knowledge Management software. To move from an BI advisory group to a BI Competency center, at least in my mind, involves a change from a group of advisors to a group of doers. A BICC involves the capacity to actual deliver a working BI application in the context of a broader BI platform. What other functions makes sense in the BICC context? What happens if you move from BI, which is still essentially a technology project, into the realm of CPM? How does the BICC Change?
Filed under: Uncategorized, Enabling Technology, CPM Process Improvement, CPM Theory
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
