Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study

Transcription

1 April, 2015 Dresner Advisory Services, LLC 2015 Edition Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study Wisdom of Crowds Series Licensed to Dundas Data Visualization

2 Disclaimer This report should be used for informational purposes only. Vendor and product selections should be made based on multiple information sources, face-to-face meetings, customer reference checking, product demonstrations, and proof-of-concept applications. The information contained in all Wisdom of Crowds Market Study Reports reflects the opinions expressed in the online responses of individuals who chose to respond to our online questionnaire and does not represent a scientific sampling of any kind. Dresner Advisory Services, LLC shall not be liable for the content of Reports, study results, or for any damages incurred or alleged to be incurred by any of the companies included in the Reports as a result of its content. Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. 2

3 Definitions Business Intelligence Defined Business Intelligence (BI) is knowledge gained through the access and analysis of business information. Business Intelligence tools and technologies include query and reporting, OLAP (online analytical processing), data mining and advanced analytics, end-user tools for ad hoc query and analysis and dashboards for performance monitoring. Howard Dresner, The Performance Management Revolution: Business Results Through Insight and Action (John Wiley & Sons, 2007) Collaborative Business Intelligence Defined Collaborative Business Intelligence is a process where two or more people or organizations work together to develop a common understanding, which is shared and used to build consensus in support of organizational decision making. 3

4 Introduction This year we celebrate the eighth anniversary of Dresner Advisory Services! Our thanks to all of you that have been with us along the way, encouraging and challenging us! Since our founding in 2007, we have strived to offer a fresh, real-world and alternative perspective on the Business Intelligence (BI) market. We hope that you agree that we not only have succeeded in doing so but also continue to raise the bar offering increasingly compelling research and greater value with each successive year! Since we published our first Wisdom of Crowds Business Intelligence Market Study in 2010, we have continued to expand our research offerings to include a variety of important topics including: Location Intelligence, Advanced and Predictive Analytics, Cloud BI, Collaborative BI, Embedded BI, BI Emerging Technologies, and Small & Mid- Sized Enterprise BI. During 2015 we will add to these topics with coverage for Enterprise Planning, End-User Data Preparation, and Big Data Analytics. This publication marks our fourth annual Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence report. Collaborative computing continues to have a transformative effect upon Business Intelligence and is characteristic of the kind of cutting-edge research we re bringing to the market. In closing, we re very excited about both the market and our ability to continue to add substantial perspective and value to it! Thanks for your support! Best, Chief Research Officer Dresner Advisory Services 4

5 Contents Definitions... 3 Business Intelligence Defined... 3 Collaborative Business Intelligence Defined... 3 Introduction... 4 Benefits of the Study... 7 Consumer Guide... 7 Supplier Tool... 7 External Awareness... 7 Internal Planning... 7 About Howard Dresner and Dresner Advisory Services... 8 About Jim Ericson... 9 Survey Method and Data Collection Data Quality Executive Summary Study Demographics Geography Functions Vertical Industries Organization Size Analysis and Trends Action on Insight Methods of Collaboration Importance of Collaborative Business Intelligence Plans to Use Collaborative Business Intelligence Core BI Collaboration Requirements Data Story Telling Extended Collaborative Functionality Enterprise Collaboration Frameworks in Use Extended Collaborative Features Industry and Vendor Analysis

6 Collaborative Business Intelligence Vendor Ratings Appendix: Survey Instrument

7 Benefits of the Study This DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study provides a wealth of information and analysis, offering value to both consumers and producers of Business Intelligence technology and services. Consumer Guide As an objective source of industry research, consumers use the DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study to understand how their peers leverage and invest in collaborative BI and related technologies. Using our unique vendor performance measurement system, users glean key insights into BI software supplier performance, which enables: Comparisons of current vendor performance to industry norms Identification and selection of new vendors Supplier Tool Vendor licensees use the DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study in several important ways: External Awareness Build awareness for Business Intelligence markets and supplier brands, citing DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study trends and vendor performance Gain lead and demand generation for supplier offerings through association with DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study brand, findings, webinars, etc. Internal Planning Refine internal product plans and align with market priorities and realities as identified in the DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study Better understand customer priorities, concerns, and issues Identify competitive pressures and opportunities 7

8 About Howard Dresner and Dresner Advisory Services The DAS Collaborative Computing and Business Intelligence Market Study was conceived, designed and executed by Dresner Advisory Services, LLC an independent advisory firm and Howard Dresner, its President, Founder and Chief Research Officer. Howard Dresner is one of the foremost thought leaders in business intelligence and performance management, having coined the term Business Intelligence in He has published two books on the subject, The Performance Management Revolution Business Results through Insight and Action (John Wiley & Sons, Nov. 2007) and Profiles in Performance Business Intelligence Journeys and the Roadmap for Change (John Wiley & Sons, Nov. 2009). He lectures at forums around the world and is often cited by the business and trade press. Prior to Dresner Advisory Services, Howard served as chief strategy officer at Hyperion Solutions and was a research fellow at Gartner, where he led its business intelligence research practice for 13 years. Howard has conducted and directed numerous in-depth primary research studies over the past two decades and is an expert in analyzing these markets. Through the Wisdom of Crowds Business Intelligence market research reports, we engage with a global community to redefine how research is created and shared. Landmark research reports include the: - Wisdom of Crowds Business Intelligence Market Study (Flagship) - Advanced and Predictive Analytics Market Study - End User Data Preparation - Cloud Business Intelligence Market Study - Mobile Computing / Mobile Business Intelligence Market Study Howard ( conducts a weekly Twitter tweetchat on Fridays at 1:00 p.m. ET. The hashtag is #BIWisdom. During these live events the #BIWisdom tribe discusses a wide range of business intelligence topics. You can find more information about Dresner Advisory Services at 8

9 About Jim Ericson Jim Ericson is a research director with Dresner Advisory Services. Jim has served as a consultant and journalist who studies end-user management practices and industry trending in the data and information management fields. From 2004 to 2013 he was the editorial director at Information Management magazine (formerly DM Review), where he created architectures for user and industry coverage for hundreds of contributors across the breadth of the data and information management industry. writing. As lead writer he interviewed and profiled more than 100 CIOs, CTOs, and program directors in a program called 25 Top Information Managers. His related feature articles earned ASBPE national bronze and multiple Mid-Atlantic region gold and silver awards for Technical Article and for Case History feature A panelist, interviewer, blogger, community liaison, conference co-chair, and speaker in the data-management community, he also sponsored and co-hosted a weekly podcast in continuous production for more than five years. Jim s earlier background as senior morning news producer at NBC/Mutual Radio Networks and as managing editor of MSNBC s first Washington, D.C. online news bureau cemented his understanding of fact-finding, topical reporting, and serving broad audiences. 9

10 Survey Method and Data Collection As with all of our Wisdom of Crowds Market Studies, we constructed a survey instrument to collect data and used social media and crowdsourcing techniques to recruit participants. Data Quality We carefully scrutinized and verified all respondent entries to ensure that only qualified participants were included in the study. 10

11 Executive Summary 11

12 Executive Summary - A large majority of respondents say their organizations share information very effectively: 24 percent say their organizations have closed loop processes; 60 percent report ad hoc, informal data sharing (p. 19). - Traditional avenues for collaborating with Business Intelligence are the most popular, led by , face-to-face-meetings, and telephone calls (p. 21). - Sales and executive management are the most likely to use collaboration features within a BI tool and report the greatest use of file-sharing services (p. 22). - Organizations that consider themselves successful at business intelligence and take action on insight (see p. 20) more often use collaborative BI (pp. 26, 27, 38, 39). - Collaborative support for group-based analysis remains a mid-tier BI priority, ahead of topics including cloud BI, big data, and social media analysis (p. 28). - Between 60 to 70 percent of respondents consider collaborative business intelligence important, very important, or critically important (p. 29). - Small and large organizations perceive the greatest value in collaborative business intelligence (p. 31). - Organizations that successfully take action on insight are most likely to say collaborative business intelligence is critically or very important (p. 34). - Only 14 percent of respondents say they are using collaborative BI this year; 42 percent may use it in the future, and the remainder has no plans (p. 35). - Sales, marketing, and executive management are most likely to use collaborative BI today (p. 36). - Annotation of BI objects is the most required BI collaboration feature (pp ). - Across six data story-telling features, author highlighting is the most popular (pp ). - Close to 80 percent of respondents say collaborative frameworks are critical, very important, or important to their plans (p. 45). - Sales and executive management report the greatest interest in enterprise collaborative frameworks (p. 46). - Microsoft SharePoint remains the most popular collaborative framework with more than half of respondents reporting use. More than one-third use Dropbox and Google Docs (p. 48). SharePoint has the most vendor support (p. 63). - SharePoint is decisively preferred by very large organizations, but small organizations are now more likely to adopt Dropbox and/or Google Docs (p. 50). - Seventy percent or more of respondents consider every one of the seven extended collaboration features critical, very important, or important (p. 53). - Vendor sentiment toward the importance of collaborative BI is cooling somewhat over time, but vendors still see higher importance than users (pp ). - Most vendors in our sample already support core collaborative features (p. 58). - Data story-telling is still in early stages of support among industry vendors (p. 59). - The industry s view of the importance of enterprise frameworks is declining (p. 60). 12

13 - The percentage of vendors charging for collaborative BI is at an all-time low (p. 64). 13

14 Study Demographics 14

15 Study Demographics As in previous years, the study participants include a rich cross-section of data across geographies, functions, organization size, and vertical industries. We believe that, unlike other industry research, this supports a more representative sample and better indicator of true market dynamics. We constructed cross-tab analyses using these demographics to identify and illustrate important industry trends. Geography Survey respondents represent a broad span of geographies. North America, which includes the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, represents the largest group with 54 percent of all respondents, followed by EMEA (30 percent). By region, our sample is nearly identical to our 2014 collaborative study (fig. 1). 60% 54% 50% Geographies Represented 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 11% 6% 0% North America Europe, Middle East, & Africa Asia Pacific Latin America Figure 1 Geographies represented 15

16 Functions In 2015, the functional base also roughly mirrors last year s study with the IT department representing almost one-third of respondents. Executive management (>16 percent) and the BICC (>15 percent) are again well represented (fig. 2). Tabulating results across functions helps us develop analyses that reflect the differences and influence of different departments within organizations. 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 30.9% Functions Represented 20.0% 15.0% 16.3% 15.2% 13.4% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 4.5% 4.3% 3.8% 3.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% Figure 2 - Functions represented 16

17 Vertical Industries In 2015, vertical industry distribution is similar to consecutive prior studies. The percentage of respondents in technology and consulting industries declined slightly from 2014; the top four rankings by industry remained the same (fig. 3). Higher education representation increased slightly in 2015; other industry participation is consistent with earlier studies. We continue to encourage participation from the consulting industry, which often shows deeper industry knowledge than its customer counterparts. This also adds insight into the partner ecosystem for BI vendors. 18% Vertical Industries Represented 16% 14% 12% 15% 14% 10% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6% 4% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% Figure 3 - Vertical industries represented 17

18 Organization Size In 2015 we see strong participation from a balanced mix of small, medium, and large organizations (fig. 4). This year, small organizations make up 30 percent of the sample, mid-sized 27 percent, and large organizations slightly more than 40 percent. (Throughout the tabular findings in this report we define small organizations as those with 1 to100 employees; mid-size organizations are those with 101 to 1,000 employees, and large organizations are those with more than 1,000 employees.) 30% Organization Size Represented 27% 25% 20% 18% 15% 15% 15% 10% 8% 10% 6% 5% 0% ,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-5,000 5,001-10,000 More than 10,000 Figure 4 Organization size represented 18

19 Analysis & Trends 19

20 Analysis and Trends Action on Insight Introduced in 2014, Action on Insight is Dresner Advisory s high-level, self-grading measurement of BI best (and worst) practices. In different contexts, Action on Insight measures how well organizations put data to use beyond passive reporting/observation. As it applies to collaboration, Action on Insight reflects culture and leadership in engrained processes for sharing information. A large majority of respondents say their organizations share information very effectively. In our baseline chart, 24 percent of respondents say their organizations have closed loop (best practice) informationsharing processes. Sixty percent report ad hoc, informal data sharing at a functional or department level. The remainder underperforms. 20

21 Business Intelligence and Action on Insight Insights are rarely leveraged 4% Uncoordinated/ parochial action (sometimes at the expense of others) 11% Ad hoc (informal) action on insights across functions 60% Closed loop - Information is shared, teams work to process and act in a timely fashion; no formal boundaries 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Figure 5 - Business Intelligence and action on insight 21

22 Methods of Collaboration Traditional avenues for collaborating with business intelligence remain the most popular, led by and closely followed by face-to-face-meetings, and telephone calls. BI-embedded collaboration features, enterprise collaboration software, and social media collaboration each fell slightly compared to the previous year. By ranking, preferred methods of collaboration in 2015 are identical to 2014; the top five choices all gained some ground year over year (fig. 6) Methods of Collaboration 2012 to Figure 6 Methods of collaboration 2012 to

23 Sorted by function, traditional collaboration channels including , face-to-face meetings, and telephone calls are still the most popular (fig. 7). Sales and executive management are the most likely to use collaboration features within a BI tool and report the greatest use of file-sharing services such as Dropbox. As a leader and trendsetter, sales is most drawn to several newer methods including the use of social media (as a communication mechanism, likely via channels such as Yammer or Salesforce). Marketing is a notable laggard, especially in the use of emergent social, application, and tool-based collaboration channels. 5 Methods of Collaboration Today by Function (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative features built into our BI tool Enterprise collaboration software Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) Marketing Information Technology (IT) Finance Executive management Sales Mean Figure 7 - Methods of collaboration today by function 23

24 remains the greatest cultural common denominator of collaboration across organizations of different size. Small enterprises (1-100 employees) are most likely to embrace file sharing (e.g., Dropbox) and are the greatest users of embedded collaboration in BI tools (fig. 8). Mid-size enterprises (101-1,000) remain strong users of traditional channels including and face-to-face meetings but also embrace instant messaging and collaborative features in BI tools. Large, far-flung organizations are the greatest users of virtual meetings, instant messaging, and enterprise collaboration software (e.g., SharePoint, Yammer). 5 Methods of Collaboration Today by Organization Size (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative features built into our BI tool Enterprise collaboration software Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) ,000 1,000-10,000 10,000+ Mean Figure 8 Methods of collaboration today by organization size 24

25 Vertical industries take different approaches and use different channels for collaboration (fig. 9). Healthcare respondents are standout users of face-to-face meetings, virtual meetings, and instant messaging, all of which are more synchronous and relatively active compared to project-oriented tools. Retail and wholesale are strong on and the greatest users of collaborative features in BI. Retail also gives the highest ranking to social media, though it s uncertain whether their interactions include customers as well as co-workers Methods of Collaboration Today by Vertical Industry (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative Enterprise features built collaboration into our BI software tool Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) Financial services Manufacturing Education (higher ed) Healthcare Retail & wholesale Mean Figure 9 - Methods of collaboration today by vertical industry 25

26 Geographically, there are cultural preferences in the use of collaboration that are not readily explained by topography or co-location. North America is the greatest user of , virtual meetings, and telephone and the least likely to use collaborative features embedded in BI. Conversely, Asia Pacific is the most inclined toward collaborative BI features (fig. 10). Latin America is less likely to embrace face-to-face meetings but is the greatest user of enterprise collaboration software and social media. EMEA is an active participant but does not lead in any specific category. 5 Methods of Collaboration Today by Geography (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative features built into our BI tool Enterprise collaboration software Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) North America Latin America Mean Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East, & Africa Figure 10 - Methods of collaboration today by geography 26

27 Organizations that consider themselves successful at business intelligence more often use collaborative features built into their BI tool (fig. 11). The delta between successful and unsuccessful BI is most obvious in this category. Current use of instant messaging and use of enterprise collaboration software are also strong indicators of BI success versus BI failure. Those less successful with BI are more likely to favor telephone calls, face-to-face meetings, and virtual meetings versus their more successful counterparts. 5 Methods of Collaboration Today by Success with BI (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative features built into our BI tool Enterprise collaboration software Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) Completely successful Somewhat successful Somewhat unsuccessful Unsuccessful Mean Figure 11 - Methods of collaboration today by success with BI 27

28 Organizations that have closed-loop (best practice) processes for sharing information are clearly greater users of collaborative features in BI tools and enterprise collaboration software (fig.12). They lead lesser-performing organizations in the use of social media, instant messaging, and virtual meetings. High-performance organizations are slightly less reliant on and face-to-face meetings. Overall, the use of non-traditional collaboration channels tends to decrease in-step with the ability to act on insight. 5 Methods of Collaboration Today by Action on Insight (Weighted Mean) Face to face meetings Telephone calls Virtual File sharing meetings (e.g., Box.net, (e.g., WebEx, Dropbox) GotoMeeting) Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative features built into our BI tool Enterprise collaboration software Social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) Closed-loop processes for action Uncoordinated/parochial action Mean Ad hoc coordination across functions Insights rarely leveraged Figure 12 - Methods of collaboration today by action on insight 28

29 Importance of Collaborative Business Intelligence In 2015 the top business intelligence strategic initiatives reflect longstanding demand for the basics: dashboards, visualization, operational integration, and data warehousing (fig. 13). Collaborative support for group-based analysis remains in the middle of BI priorities and increased slightly year over year. Notably, interest in collaborative business intelligence comes in ahead of topics including cloud BI, big data, and social media analysis. (Though not depicted in fig. 13, we observe collaboration among seven initiatives rising gently year over year. The list also includes data mining, predictive analytics, advanced visualization, data discovery, social media analysis, and text analytics. Other categories were flat or declined slightly.) Technologies and Initiatives Strategic to Business Intelligence Dashboards End user self-service Data warehousing Advanced visualization Integration with operational processes Data discovery Data mining, advanced algorithms, predictive Enterprise planning/budgeting Embedded BI (contained within an application, portal, etc.) Mobile device support End user data "blending" (data mashups) Location intelligence/analytics In-memory analysis Collaborative support for group-based analysis Search-based interface Software-as-a-Service and cloud computing Pre-packaged vertical/functional analytical applications Big Data (e.g., Hadoop) Text analytics Ability to write to transactional applications Social media analysis (SocialBI) Complex event processing (CEP) Open source software Internet of things (IoT) Cognitive BI (e.g., artificial intelligence-based BI) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Figure 13 - Technologies and initiatives strategic to business intelligence 29

30 In four years of sampling, attitudes toward collaborative BI have remained mostly consistent: between 60 and 70 percent of respondents have considered collaborative business intelligence important, very important, or critically important (fig. 14). In 2015, sentiment leveled off after recovering from a slight dip in (A weighted mean interest level above 3.0 is better than average and reflects positive regard and sentiment.) 100% 90% Importance of Collaborative BI 2012 to % % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Not important Somewhat important Important Very important Critical Weighted mean 0% Figure 14 Importance of collaborative BI 2012 to

31 As in 2014, marketing and sales, followed by executive management, are the functions that consider collaborative business intelligence most important. More than 70 percent of sales and marketing respondents say collaborative BI is, at minimum, important (fig.15). Mean interest levels dip below 3.0 among finance and information technology respondents. Thus, we can generalize that collaborative BI is more of a front-office activity than otherwise. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Importance of Collaborative BI by Function Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean 0% Marketing Sales Executive management Finance Information Technology (IT) 1 Figure 15 - Importance of collaborative BI by function 31

32 Small and large organizations perceive the greatest value in collaborative business intelligence (fig. 16). This observation holds throughout the four years of our study. Small organizations typically show greater flexibility and interest in technology adoption with fewer barriers to enterprise implementations. Large organizations are friendly to institutional use of enterprise systems as common standards for information sharing at greater scale. 100% Importance of Collaborative BI by Organization Size 5 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean 0% ,000 1,000-10,000 10, Figure 16 Importance of collaborative BI by organization size 32

33 Mean interest in collaborative BI is largely consistent across vertical industries with only nuances of differences (fig. 17). Greater than half of all respondents in every industry say collaborative BI is, at minimum, important. This finding is consistent with earlier studies. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Importance of Collaborative BI by Selected Vertical Industry % Education (higher ed) Financial services State and local government Manufacturing Retail & wholesale Healthcare 1 Not important Somewhat important Important Very important Critical Mean Figure 17 - Importance of collaborative BI by selected vertical industry 33

34 Respondents in Asia Pacific and Latin America have higher regard for collaborative BI than respondents in North America and EMEA (fig. 18). The three lower grades ( not important, somewhat important, and important ) show steady gradients by geography. It s uncertain whether this result indicates specifically whether collaboration features in BI tools are less established in certain geographies, though mean interest between 2.8 and 3.5 is positive overall. 100% Importance of Collaborative BI by Geography 5 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean 0% Asia Pacific Latin America North America Europe, Middle East, & Africa 1 Figure 18 - Importance of collaborative BI by geography 34

35 Organizations that most successfully take action on insight (see p. 20) are also most likely to say collaborative business intelligence is critically or very important (fig. 19). Organizations in the middle two levels of Action in Insight place similar emphasis on collaborative BI. Lesser-performing organizations are much likelier to say collaborative BI is somewhat or not important. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Importance of Collaborative BI by Action on Insight Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean Figure 19 - Importance of collaborative BI by action on insight 35

36 Plans to Use Collaborative Business Intelligence New for 2015, we asked respondents about their plans for use of collaborative BI (fig. 20). Only 14 percent say they are using the technology this year; 42 percent may use collaborative BI in the future, and the remainder has no plans. When we compare this finding (more than half positive or inclined) to functional and overall interest levels, we see an education gap and opportunity for industry and user growth. Plans to Use Collaborative BI Yes. We use collaborative BI today, 14% No. We have no plans to use collaborative BI at all, 44% We may use collaborative BI in the future, 42% Figure 20 - Plans to use collaborative BI 36

37 Sales, marketing, and executive management are most likely to use collaborative BI today (fig. 21). By function, plans to use collaborative BI map to the perceived importance of collaborative BI depicted in fig. 13. Overall, use of collaboration within a BI tool remains new ground for most organizations, one among several competing priorities amid established forms of collaboration (e.g., , meetings, etc.). This low rate of current adoption occurs despite the fact that most collaborative capabilities embedded in BI are included at no additional cost. Plans to Use Collaborative BI by Function Finance Information Technology (IT) Executive management Marketing Sales 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No. We have no plans to use collaborative BI at all We may use collaborative BI in the future Yes. We use collaborative BI today Figure 21 - Plans to use collaborative BI by function 37

38 Organizations of different sizes are similarly inclined to use or plan for using collaborative BI. Small organizations are slightly more likely to use collaborative BI today (fig. 22). Mid-sized organizations indicate similar current adoption but are less inclined toward future plans for collaborative BI. Large organizations are slightly more likely to use collaborative BI in the future. 100% Plans to Use Collaborative BI by Organization Size 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Yes. We use collaborative BI today We may use collaborative BI in the future No. We have no plans to use collaborative BI at all 20% 10% 0% ,000 1,000-10,000 10,000+ Figure 22 - Plans to use collaborative BI by organization size 38

39 Organizations that say they are completely successful with business intelligence are also the most likely to use collaborative BI today (fig. 23). As an enabling technology, actual use of collaborative BI is a likely extension for successful organizations that already work well collectively. Thus, while actual user bases are currently only 20 percent or less, actual use of collaborative business intelligence correlates positively with perceived levels of success. 100% Plans to Use Collaborative BI by Success with BI 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Yes. We use collaborative BI today We may use collaborative BI in the future No. We have no plans to use collaborative BI at all 20% 10% 0% Completely successful Somewhat successful Somewhat unsuccessful Unsuccessful Figure 23 - Plans to use collaborative BI by success with BI 39

40 Organizations that successfully take Action on Insight are most likely to currently use collaborative BI (fig. 24). Again, Action on Insight correlates directly with actual use of collaborative BI. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Plans to Use Collaborative BI by Action on Insight Yes. We use collaborative BI today We may use collaborative BI in the future No. We have no plans to use collaborative BI at all Figure 24 - Plans to use collaborative BI by action on insight 40

41 Core BI Collaboration Requirements Our 2015 ranking of BI collaboration features (accessible features within a business intelligence tool environment) is mostly consistent with our 2014 measures (fig.25). Annotation of BI objects is the most required feature, slightly ahead of sharing objects, co-authoring, and following BI objects (e.g., in alerts to changes, updates, and audit trails) with partners or colleagues. While sentiment is up in 2015 for every feature requirement sampled, the distance between the most required (annotation at 3.8 mean) and mobile support (3.2 mean) is noteworthy. BI Collaboration Feature Requirements 2012 to 2015 Annotate BI objects (e.g., reports, dashboards, charts) with comments Share objects and commentary with other BI users Co-authoring of BI objects (e.g., reports, charts, analysis) "Follow" BI objects Collaborate around "topics" (multiple BI objects) Maintain a discussion "thread" (history) of BI interactions/discussions (asynchronous sharing) Support real-time (synchronous) interaction between users with BI objects Maintain multiple versions (history) of a BI object Save and export discussions Collaborate via mobile device Figure 25 - BI collaboration feature requirements 2012 to

42 Interest in BI collaboration features varies noticeably by function. Annotation (e.g., marking up a report for further discussion) is most important to executive management, followed by finance (fig. 26). The same two roles share high interest across a number of requirements that include co-authoring, real-time interaction, and maintaining multiple versions of a BI object. Among several areas of above-average interest, sales prioritize maintaining multiple versions of BI objects, saving and exporting discussions, and mobile device collaboration. Marketing s most prioritized feature requirement is for sharing objects and commentary Collaborative BI Feature Requirements by Function (Weighted Mean) Marketing Information Technology (IT) Finance Executive management Sales Mean Figure 26 Collaborative BI feature requirements by function (weighted mean) 42

43 Consistent with earlier studies, the span of required collaborative BI capabilities is largely steady across organizations of different sizes (fig. 27). Mid-sized organizations have slightly higher interest in sharing objects and commentary. Large enterprises are slightly above average in their ranking of maintaining multiple versions of a BI object, discussion threads, following BI objects, and collaborating around topics. Save and export discussions Collaborative BI Feature Requirements by Organization Size (Weighted Mean) Collaborate via mobile device Annotate BI objects (e.g., reports, dashboards, charts) with comments Share objects and commentary with other BI users Co-authoring of BI objects (e.g., reports, charts, analysis) Maintain multiple versions (history) of a BI object "Follow" BI objects (change/update notifications) Maintain a discussion "thread" (history) of BI interactions/discussions (asynchronous sharing) Support real-time (synchronous) interaction between users with BI objects Collaborate around "topics" (multiple BI objects) ,000 1,000-10,000 10,000+ Figure 27 Collaborative BI feature requirements by organization size (weighted mean) 43

44 Data Story Telling New for 2015, we polled respondents on data story-telling features in BI software that permit scripting of formerly static presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) with live data for more interactive discussion and drill down (fig. 28). Across six features we sampled, author highlighting is the most popular, followed by author-defined flows of visual/analytical objects. While less than 20 percent consider any particular story-telling feature critical, nearly 80 percent or more say the top four features sampled are, at minimum, important. Data "Story-telling" Features 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Author highlighting - shapes, colors, line art, annotations Author-defined navigation/flows of visual/analytical objects User interaction with visual/analytical objects within "story" Navigational aids - e.g., buttons to control flow of presentation Play, rewind, pause Author-recorded/saved voice annotations/clips Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Figure 28 - Data "story-telling" features 44

45 By function, sales has the greatest interest in most story-telling features, particularly the top three in our ranking (fig. 29). Sales also reports the greatest interest in being able to record and save a story-telling presentation for future use (which might apply to internal and/or external presentations as well as training use). Finance, marketing, and executive management are the next most interested functions and might envision replacing presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) with story-telling for existing users and audiences Data "Story-telling" Features by Function (Weighted Mean) Marketing Information Technology (IT) Finance Executive management Sales Mean Figure 29 - Data "story-telling" features by function (weighted mean) 45

46 Extended Collaborative Functionality To extend the core collaborative features of a Business Intelligence tool, organizations sometimes employ enterprise collaborative frameworks to increase features, scale, and scope. In 2015, close to 80 percent of respondents say collaborative frameworks are critical, very important, or important to their plans (fig. 30). Overall sentiment rebounded in 2015 following slight declines over the two previous years. Possibly due to the spread and awareness of common frameworks (i.e., Google Docs, SharePoint), fewer than 5 percent of respondents now say collaborative frameworks are not important. 100% 90% 80% Importance of Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks 2012 to % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Not important Somewhat important Important Very important Critical Rating average 0% Figure 30 - Importance of enterprise collaborative frameworks for BI 2012 to

47 By function, sales and executive management respondents report the greatest interest in enterprise collaborative frameworks (fig. 31). While executive management leads our functional ranking, none of the respondents in our sales sample consider collaborative frameworks less than important. Marketing, which showed the second-highest interest in 2014, now trails colleagues in IT and finance. The opinion of sales is especially strong in this area with close to 70 percent viewing collaborative frameworks as critical or very important. Along with marketing, IT and finance are least insistent on the use of frameworks for collaborative purposes. 100% Importance of Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks by Function 5 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean 0% Executive management Sales Finance Information Technology (IT) Marketing 1 Figure 31 - Importance of enterprise collaborative frameworks by function 47

48 Not surprisingly, enterprise collaborative frameworks are considered most important to very large enterprises that face greater scale and farther-flung collaborative challenges (fig. 32). We expect large enterprises to be more likely to budget for licensed (versus free) editions with stronger administrative and compliance features. 100% 90% Importance of Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks by Organization Size % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean 0% ,000 1,000-10,000 10, Figure 32 - Importance of enterprise collaborative framework by organization size 48

49 Enterprise Collaboration Frameworks in Use Microsoft SharePoint remains the most popular collaborative framework with more than half of respondents reporting use in 2015 (fig. 33). More than one-third currently use Dropbox and Google Docs. Yammer, Confluence, Salesforce Chatter and Box are the only other frameworks with greater than 10 percent adoption. 60% Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks in Use 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 33 - Enterprise collaborative frameworks in use 49

50 In 2015 we see mixed momentum among enterprise collaborative frameworks (fig. 34). Microsoft s Yammer most notably added users compared to earlier studies; we also observe growth in the use of Confluence, Box, and Jive Software. Category leader SharePoint rebounded slightly to 2013 user popularity. Google Docs gained slightly, and Dropbox lost some users among respondents in Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks in Use 2013 to 2015 Microsoft SharePoint Google Docs Dropbox Yammer (Microsoft) Salesforce Chatter Confluence (Atlassian) Box Basecamp Jive Software OpenText IBM Connections Alfresco Oracle Web Center Documentum Tibco Tibbr SAP Jam Oracle Beehive % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 34 - Enterprise collaborative frameworks in use 2013 to

51 In 2014, Microsoft SharePoint is the top choice among organizations of all sizes embracing collaborative frameworks, but that landscape shifted in 2015 (fig. 35). SharePoint is decisively preferred by very large organizations, but small organizations (1-100 employees) are now more likely to adopt easy-to-use and free editions of frameworks including Dropbox and/or Google Docs. Mid-size organizations are about equally likely to use any of the three top-ranked frameworks. Large organization use of Yammer also increased in % Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks in Use by Organization Size 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ,000 1,000-10,000 10,000+ Overall Figure 35 - Enterprise collaborative frameworks in use by organization size 51

52 In 2015, enterprise collaboration framework preferences vary significantly by function (fig. 36). Sales is the strongest user base for Yammer, Chatter, and Dropbox and also makes strong use of Google Docs. Executive management is the largest overall user of Google Docs and Box and plays strongly in SharePoint and Dropbox. Marketing has an outsized interest in Basecamp but is a relatively weak base for SharePoint. Perhaps as proxy for users, its greatest interest is toward SharePoint; IT also shows above-average usage interest in Confluence. 70% Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks in Use by Function 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Marketing Information Technology (IT) Finance Executive management Sales Overall Figure 36 - Enterprise collaborative frameworks in use by function 52

53 Extended Collaborative Features In 2015 we again polled interest in seven criteria for extended collaborative framework functionality (fig. 37). These BI features are intended to leverage collaborative frameworks for extended (enterprise-wide) insight and auditing. This year, extended sharing using collaboration platform facilities moved ahead of ability to reference and search into first place. Ability to analyze and audit decision process, which helps organizations document earlier decisions and gather best practices, also gained a rank. All other features retained their rankings from Seventy percent or more of respondents consider every one of the seven criteria to be critical, very important, or important. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Extended Collaborative BI Features % Extended sharing using collaboration platform facilities Ability to analyze & audit decision process Ability to reference & search BI content from collaboration platform Structured workflow Ad hoc workflow Project inclusion of BI objects with other objects Create BI objects within collaboration platform 1 Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Mean Figure 37 Extended collaborative BI features 53

54 By function, sales leads user interest in all but one of the extended collaborative BI features polled (fig. 38). Finance, as a process-centric function is strongly interested in both ad hoc and structured workflow. Executive management is strongest on extended sharing but polls well above average in all collaborative BI features. Given that extended collaborative BI features have enterprise implications, it is somewhat unexpected to see IT a laggard in most categories. 5 Extended Collaborative BI Features by Function (Weighted Mean) Extended sharing using collaboration platform facilities Ability to analyze & audit decision process Ability to reference & search BI content from collaboration platform Structured workflow Ad hoc workflow Project inclusion of BI objects with other objects Create BI objects within collaboration platform Marketing Information Technology (IT) Finance Executive management Sales Mean Figure 38 - Extended collaborative BI features by function (weighted mean) 54

55 Extended BI collaborative features resonate most strongly with very large and very small organizations (fig. 39). Small organizations attach their greatest importance to reference and search, and both structured and ad hoc workflows. Extended sharing, analyze and audit, and project inclusion all play toward the circumstances of a large organization with many more touch points and greater complexity. 3.5 Extended Collaborative BI Features by Organization Size (Weighted Mean) Extended sharing using collaboration platform facilities Ability to analyze & audit decision process Ability to reference & search BI content from collaboration platform Structured workflow Ad hoc workflow Project inclusion of BI objects with other objects ,000 1,000-10,000 10,000+ Mean Figure 39 - Extended collaborative BI features by organization size (weighted mean) 55

56 Industry and Vendor Analysis 56

57 Industry and Vendor Analysis Vendor sentiment toward the importance of collaborative BI appears to be cooling somewhat over time (fig. 40). The largest group (> 45 percent) now says collaborative BI is very important, and the share that says somewhat important has also grown slightly over time. 50% Industry Importance of Collaborative BI 2013 to % 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Critically important Very important Somewhat important Figure 40 - Industry importance of collaborative BI 2013 to

58 Though sentiment among the industry is cooling, vendors still place higher importance than users on the overall importance of collaborative BI (fig. 41). In 2015, more vendors than users say collaborative BI is critical or very important. No vendors say that the category is not important. Thus, while vendor enthusiasm has ebbed, we observe that the collaborative BI market is still vendor led. 50% Importance of Collaborative BI: Industry versus Users 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% Users Industry 15% 10% 5% 0% Critically important Very important Important/somewhat important Not important Figure 41 - Importance of collaborative BI: industry versus users 58

59 Most vendors in our sample already support core collaborative features (fig. 42). Industry support is currently strongest (80 percent or greater) for share objects and commentary and annotate BI objects. The areas of greatest future planning include save and export discussions and follow BI topics. Though user interest is not depicted in this chart, vendor plans are for the most part aligned with user requirements; and the three most planned capabilities (share, annotate, co-author) for the industry match those of users. Industry Capabilities/Plans for Collaborative BI Share objects and commentary with other BI users Annotate BI objects (e.g., reports, dashboards, charts) with comments Co-authoring of BI objects (e.g., reports, charts, analysis) Maintain a discussion "thread" (history) of BI interactions/discussions Maintain multiple versions (history) of a BI object Collaborate via mobile device Collaborate around "topics" (multiple BI objects) Available today 12 months 24 months No plans Save and export discussions "Follow" BI objects Support real-time (synchronous) interaction between users with BI objects 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 42 - Industry capabilities/plans for collaborative BI 59

60 Data story-telling is still in early stages of support among industry vendors (fig. 43). The most mature feature, author-defined navigation/flows, is presently supported by a bit more than half of the industry. Fifty percent or less support other polled categories, all of which include some no plans responses from vendors. Industry plans are somewhat aligned but less enthusiastic than interest expressed by users (fig. 28). The top four industry-supported and user-required features make up the same set in somewhat different order. The most out of sync is author highlighting, which is fourth in industry support but 2015 s top requirement among users. Industry Support for Data Story-Telling Author-defined navigation/flows of visual/analytical objects User interaction with visual/analytical objects within "story" Navigational aids - e.g., buttons to control flow of presentation Author highlighting - shapes, colors, line art, annotations Today 12 months 24 months No plans Play, rewind, pause Author-recorded/saved voice annotations/clips 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 43 - Industry support for data story-telling 60

61 Industry estimation of importance of enterprise frameworks is declining over time, indicating less vendor interest in integrating those engines (fig. 44). In 2015, about the same percentage of vendors as in 2014 say frameworks are critical, though this percentage is down from 2013 levels. Industry-perceived importance of enterprise frameworks is lower in all measures of positive sentiment in Declining sentiment for enterprise frameworks might presage industry intentions to release more (similar) capabilities directly. 100% Industry Importance of Enterprise Frameworks 2013 to % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Not important Somewhat important Important Very important Critical 20% 10% 0% Figure 44 - Industry importance of enterprise frameworks 2013 to

62 For the third straight year, the user sample assigns a higher emphasis on collaborative frameworks than do BI vendors (fig. 45). As noted earlier, BI vendors do not appear to prioritize integration with third-party collaborative platforms used within their BI tools. 35% Importance of Collaborative Frameworks to BI: Industry versus Users 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Critical Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Users Industry Figure 45 - Importance of collaborative frameworks to BI: industry versus users 62

63 Fig. 46 depicts the extended collaborative features currently supported by the Industry along with future plans up over the next 24 months. Extended sharing is currently the most supported feature (>50 percent); all other measures currently have less than 50 percent support. We observe sizeable no plans for all measured feature categories. The greatest planned development appears to be in support of audit capabilities, workflows, and ability to reference and search. Several of these findings are out of sync with user interest in extended collaborative BI features (above in fig. 37). Industry Support and Plans for Extended Collaborative BI Features Extended sharing using collaboration platform facilities Create BI objects within collaboration platform Ability to reference and search BI content from collaboration platform Project inclusion of BI objects with other objects Ad hoc workflow Available today 12 months 24 months No plans Structured workflow Ability to analyze and audit decision process 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 46 - Industry support and plans for extended collaborative BI features 63

64 Microsoft SharePoint remains the industry s most supported enterprise collaborative framework (fig. 47). Salesforce Chatter, Dropbox, and Google Docs also have significant industry support in The same three, along with Box, are targeted for the most development in the next 12 and 24-month periods. Industry support for integration with enterprise collaborative frameworks traditionally maps roughly to customer demand, though support can vary depending on partnerships and consulting support. Industry Support for Enterprise Collaborative Frameworks Microsoft SharePoint Salesforce Chatter DropBox Google Docs Yammer (Microsoft) Oracle Web Center Box Oracle Beehive SAP Jam IBM Connections Basecamp OpenText Documentum Alfresco Tibco Tibbr Confluence (Atlassian) Jive Software Available today 12 months 24 months No plans 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 47 - Industry support for enterprise collaborative frameworks 64

65 Throughout four years of data collection, the industry has taken a largely revenue-free approach to delivering collaborative BI features, a trend that increased in 2015 (fig. 48). From 2012 to 2013, the number of vendors charging their customers for collaborative capabilities within their Business Intelligence products decreased from 22 to 13 percent, rebounded to 21 percent in 2014, and has now fallen to an all-time low of 9 percent in We consider collaboration within BI tools a positive development that will be supported with a low barrier to entry for users going forward. 100% 90% 80% Percent of Industry Charging for Collaborative BI Features 2012 to % 87% 79% 91% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 22% 13% 21% 9% 0% YES NO Figure 48 - Percentage of industry charging for collaborative BI features 2012 to

66 Collaborative Business Intelligence Vendor Ratings In rating the vendors, we considered all core and extended collaborative features, as reported by suppliers and weighted by user priority of features and platforms. Thus, this chart represents those vendors with the strongest (or most complete) collaborative BI capabilities available. In 2015, the top vendors for collaborative BI include Pyramid Analytics, Dundas, Logi Analytics, Qlik, Yellowfin and SAP (fig. 49) Collaborative BI Vendor Ratings Birst RapidMiner Pyramid Analytics Dundas Logi Analytics Adaptive Insights Actuate (OpenText) Qlik Yellowfin Lavastorm Analytics SAP Salesforce SAS Tableau Software MicroStrategy IBM Core Features Extended Features Total Score Figure 49 - Collaborative BI vendor ratings 66

67 Appendix: Survey Instrument 67

68 68