TDWI BI Benchmark Report

Transcription

1 EXCLUSIVELY FOR TDWI PREMIUM MEMBERS TDWI RESEARCH 2015 TDWI BI Benchmark Report Organizational and Performance Metrics for Business Intelligence Teams tdwi.org

2 2015 TDWI BI BENCHMARK REPORT Organizational and Performance Metrics for Business Intelligence Teams TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose and Method... 2 Demographics... 2 Organization... 5 Maturity... 8 Budget Staffing, Development, and Usage Characteristics of BI Success Conclusion About TDWI TDWI is your source for in-depth education and research on all things data. For 20 years, TDWI has been helping data professionals get smarter so the companies they work for can innovate and grow faster. TDWI provides individuals and teams with a comprehensive portfolio of business and technical education and research to acquire the knowledge and skills they need, when and where they need them. The in-depth, best-practices-based information TDWI offers can be quickly applied to develop world-class talent across your organization s business and IT functions to enhance analytical, data-driven decision making and performance. TDWI advances the art and science of realizing business value from data by providing an objective forum where industry experts, solution providers, and practitioners can explore and enhance data competencies, practices, and technologies. TDWI offers five major conferences, topical seminars, onsite education, a worldwide membership program, business intelligence certification, live Webinars, resourceful publications, industry news, an in-depth research program, and a comprehensive website: tdwi.org by TDWI (The Data Warehousing Institute TM ), a division of 1105 Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or in part are prohibited except by written permission. requests or feedback to info@tdwi.org. Product and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective companies. tdwi.org 1

3 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report Purpose and Method TDWI s annual BI Benchmark Report enables business intelligence (BI) teams to compare themselves to their peers on a series of organizational and performance metrics. The 2015 BI Benchmark Report is based on a Web survey of 259 BI professionals conducted worldwide in spring and early summer This report is based on responses from IT professionals, business sponsors, users, and systems integrators to focus on the individuals who most directly drive BI initiatives. Responses from vendor representatives, professors, and students have been excluded. This report uses year-over-year comparative data to help illustrate trends in the BI industry. Multiple-answer questions and rounding account for totals that do not equal 100 percent. All figures are based on worldwide totals and represent percentages unless otherwise indicated. In the concluding Characteristics of BI Success section, we analyze a number of factors that contribute to BI success or failure, including: Development methodology To whom BI teams report BI maturity and number of years building an environment Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per project BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget BI team size as a percentage of overall IT Scope of BI environment Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization Demographics The role most heavily represented in our 2015 survey population, at 22 percent, is BI director or program manager those people most directly involved in BI strategies, systems, and alignment between business and IT. Also well represented are architects (16 percent), BI project managers (14 percent), and BI strategic consultants (10 percent). In terms of general position types, 66 percent of respondents are IT professionals, 19 percent are systems integrators or consultants, and 16 percent are business sponsors, drivers, or users. Which best describes your role? BI director or program manager 22% Architect 16% BI project manager 14% BI strategic consultant 10% Business requirements analyst 6% Subject matter expert 5% ETL developer 5% BI sponsor 4% Report developer 2% Data warehouse (DW) or database administrator 2% Data modeler 2% Data quality analyst 1% Data steward 1% Other 10% 2 TDWI RESEARCH

4 Demographics Respondents to this survey have nearly a decade (9.6 years) of BI experience on average, up significantly from 8.4 years in our 2011 BI Benchmark Report. BI professionals tend to work in various IT jobs early in their careers before discovering and committing to data-driven work. Once they make the commitment, BI professionals tend to evolve into long-term employees and remain in their positions and career path due to job satisfaction and favorable compensation. How many years of BI or DW experience do you have? 0 2 years 9% 3 5 years 14% 6 8 years 17% 9 10 years 21% 10 years or more 38% Average number of years of BI experience Financial services/banking is the industry most represented in the survey, at 11 percent of respondents, followed by insurance at 10 percent. Each of these industries uses BI technologies extensively in performance reporting, customer relationships, risk mitigation, and other areas. The consulting/professional services industry is third at 9 percent, followed by higher education at 8 percent. Which best describes your organization s primary industry? Financial services/banking 11% Insurance 10% Consulting/professional services 9% Higher education 8% Financial services/ banking and insurance are the most common industries represented in the 2015 survey. Software/Internet 6% Healthcare 5% Telecommunications 5% Government (federal) 3% Government (state) 3% Manufacturing 3% Transportation/logistics 3% Consumer products 3% Retail/wholesale/distribution 3% Other 28% Our respondent pool cuts across a variety of company sizes and geographic locations, indicating that BI is widely used by companies large and small around the world. Fifty-eight percent of respondents are at organizations with $1 billion or less in annual revenue, and 40 percent are at organizations with 1,000 or fewer employees. Most respondents are in the U.S. (48 percent), followed by Europe (20 percent) and Canada (10 percent). tdwi.org 3

5 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report More than half of respondents work at organizations with $1 billion or less in annual revenue. What are the annual revenues of your organization? Less than $100 million 25% $100 $500 million 24% $500 million $1 billion 9% $1 $2.5 billion 10% $2.5 $5 billion 6% $5 $10 billion 9% $10 $50 billion 11% $50 billion or more 7% How many employees are in your organization? % % % 501 1,000 10% 1,001 5,000 27% 5,001 10,000 11% 10,001 50,000 18% 50,001 or more 6% Where is your BI/DW team primarily located? U.S. 48% Europe 20% Canada 10% Asia 6% Middle East 6% Mexico, Central/South America 5% Africa 3% Australia/New Zealand 2% 4 TDWI RESEARCH

6 Organization Organization The majority of BI programs report to a line of business, as compared to reporting to IT. In 2015, 53 percent of respondents answered to business leaders, including the CEO, business unit heads, finance, operations, and sales and marketing. This is a pronounced increase from 2012, when 47 percent of programs reported to the business, and 2009, when 40 percent did. In contrast, the portion of BI programs reporting to IT or information management leaders declined to a new low of 47 percent in this survey series. Clearly, the BI industry has recognized that the best value from BI is realized when IT and business professionals collaborate closely in implementing and iterating BI environments. In fact, TDWI regularly hears BI professionals reject being characterized as IT because they went into BI to be closely involved with the business process, and that involvement is best aligned when reporting to the business they serve. Other trends, including a departmental focus for many analytics initiatives and cross-pollination of business and IT skills across today s professionals, also contribute to this ongoing shift. The portion of BI programs reporting to IT or information management declined to a new low of 47 percent. To what group does your BI team report? Information technology 45% 41% 41% Business unit head 12% 15% 16% Finance 11% 10% 11% Chief executive officer 7% 7% 9% Information management 10% 8% 6% Operations 5% 7% 6% Marketing 2% 3% 3% Sales 2% 2% <1% Outsourcing firm 1% 1% <1% Other 5% 6% 8% Although nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of BI environments are geared to support the enterprise, departmentally focused systems appear to be gaining in popularity. Twelve percent of BI environments support a department in 2015, up from recent years. This aligns with the trend of BI programs reporting to the business, as departmental BI environments typically have a discrete focus on optimizing customer relationship management, sales, support, supply chain, and other areas. Departmentally focused BI environments are gaining in popularity. In a related trend, analytics applications have a natural bias toward a specific department. For example, sales and marketing wants to own and control customer analytics, just as a procurement department or supply chain team wants to own supply and supplier analytics. As the number of analytics applications rises, it shifts the focus toward departmental BI, DW, and analytics. Which best describes the scope of your BI environment? Supports the enterprise 66% 67% 64% Supports a business unit 24% 26% 24% Supports a department 10% 7% 12% tdwi.org 5

7 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report Nearly half (46 percent) of organizations structure BI resources in a centralized and decentralized hybrid. As such, they gain the flexibility of a decentralized model to swiftly deploy resources to high-priority projects while benefiting from the cost-efficient aggregation and sharing of resources possible with centralization. Thirty-nine percent of organizations operate with highly centralized BI resources; highly decentralized structures are relatively uncommon, at 14 percent. Which best describes the organizational structure of your BI/DW resources? A mix of centralized and decentralized 53% 50% 46% Highly centralized 38% 37% 39% Highly decentralized 9% 13% 14% Continuing a trend of recent years, organizations continue to consolidate resources into fewer BI teams. The typical organization has an average of 4.2 BI teams in place in 2015, the lowest number recorded in this survey series and less than half the average of 10.7 BI teams in This lean approach to BI resource management is often supported by a BI competency center (sometimes called a center of excellence) that consolidates resources and makes them shareable across the enterprise; it is also supported by multidisciplinary skills cultivated by both IT and business professionals. In 2015, 58 percent of organizations had one or two BI teams; 22 percent had five or more teams. Average number of BI/DW teams How many distinct BI/DW teams exist in your organization? 1 team 36% 35% 39% 2 teams 19% 19% 19% 3 teams 12% 11% 12% 4 teams 6% 8% 8% 5 teams 7% 6% 7% 6 10 teams 11% 11% 8% 11 or more teams 9% 10% 7% BI teams typically comprise a relatively small percentage of overall IT operations. At 74 percent of organizations, BI teams are 10 percent or less of IT as a whole. Nearly one-quarter (22 percent) of BI teams represent 3 percent or less of overall IT. Holding relatively steady over the past several years, this data reinforces that organizations can make a comparatively modest investment in BI and still derive significant business benefits. Estimate the size of your BI team compared to the overall IT team. 1 3% of the size 22% 20% 22% 4 6% of the size 20% 25% 24% 7 10% of the size 35% 30% 28% 20 40% of the size 15% 19% 16% 40% or more of the size 8% 6% 10% 6 TDWI RESEARCH

8 Organization BI teams are predominantly focused on supporting finance/accounting (70 percent), the executive team (55 percent), and sales (51 percent), typically with BI dashboards, forecasting tools, and comparative analytics designed to enable informed, data-driven decisions and to adapt the business to changing conditions. IT is also well supported by BI teams (47 percent), followed by operations/production (46 percent) and marketing (45 percent). The top focus area for BI teams is finance/ accounting. Which department(s) does your BI team support? Finance/accounting 70% Executive team 55% Sales 51% Information technology 47% Operations/production 46% Marketing 45% Human resources 35% Product management 32% Service 32% Audit/compliance 31% Administration 28% Logistics/shipping 24% Research & development 24% Inventory/warehousing 22% Procurement 20% Design/engineering 13% Legal 12% Manufacturing 12% Communications/PR 11% Other 8% Numbers do not total 100 percent because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections. About three-quarters of BI environments (76 percent) support 10 or fewer subject areas, such as marketing, product management, accounting, HR, or sales. Only 10 percent of BI environments support 21 or more subject areas. The average number of subject areas supported fell slightly to 10.1 in 2015 but remains a healthy number that indicates BI is liberally applied in diverse areas across the enterprise. Average number of BI subject areas How many subject areas does your BI environment support? % 11% 14% % 36% 39% % 24% 23% % 17% 14% 21 or more 10% 12% 10% tdwi.org 7

9 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report The percentage of internal employees on BI teams has inched up slightly in recent years, from 69 percent in 2013 to 73 percent in 2015, which is good news for the traditional BI job market. External contractors/systems integrators have remained relatively steady at 14 percent, while the number of offshore/outsourced personnel has declined incrementally to 6 percent. The remainder of BI teams are comprised of external management consultants and other individuals. What percentage of your BI/DW team (FTEs) is composed of each group below? Internal employees 69% 72% 73% External contractors/systems integrators 14% 13% 14% Offshore/outsourced personnel 10% 8% 6% External management consultants 5% 6% 5% Other 1% 2% 2% In recent years of the BI Benchmark Report, large organizations ($50 billion or more in annual revenue) have made the greatest use of third-party BI services, as compared to in-house FTEs. For 2015, that reliance on external resources leapt upward to 62 percent, compared to 38 percent FTEs. Although this is consistent with a trend, tipping the balance to far more external than internal resources seems out of character. TDWI suspects this is a vagary typical of survey data, and next year s figure will probably swing back to mostly FTEs in very large organizations. Large organizations continue to make the greatest use of thirdparty BI services. Average number of years building an environment Percentage of employee/third-party FTEs on BI/DW teams by organizational revenues Maturity Employees Third Parties Less than $100 million 85% 15% $100 $500 million 87% 13% $500 million $1 billion 75% 25% $1 $5 billion 81% 19% $5 $10 billion 50% 50% $10 $50 billion 57% 43% $50 billion or more 38% 62% The percentage of BI environments in place for 11 or more years reached a new high in our 2015 survey, at 27 percent, up from 20 percent in 2012, reflecting the ongoing maturation of BI. In contrast, just 17 percent of BI environments are two years old or younger. Still, 47 percent of BI environments have been in existence for five or fewer years, reminding us that many organizations are still in the early stages of their BI journey. On average, organizations have been building out their BI environments for 7.9 years, up from 7.2 years in TDWI RESEARCH

10 Maturity How many years has your group been building its BI/DW environment? % 18% 27% 17% % 27% 16% 30% % 15% 16% 12% % 16% 20% 14% 11 or more 20% 24% 20% 27% Like the number of years building BI environments, organizations are completing more major iterations (an architectural expansion that involves revisions to data models, infrastructure, and delivery of reports and applications). The typical organization has completed 3.6 major iterations as of 2015, up from an average of 3.0 in Similarly, the number of organizations completing five or more major iterations rose to 24 percent in 2015, up from 18 percent in TDWI expects these figures to continue to rise, particularly as a major iteration is valuable in enabling a BI team to optimize its environment and accommodate new data types, data sources, and business objectives. Average number of major iterations How many major iterations of your BI/DW environment has your group completed? iteration 26% 27% 27% 25% 2 iterations 27% 24% 27% 26% 3 iterations 19% 20% 18% 16% 4 iterations 10% 9% 7% 9% 5 iterations 6% 6% 7% 10% 6 or more iterations 12% 14% 15% 14% Despite continued BI maturation, the percentage of respondents who characterize their BI implementations as advanced has remained relatively steady for the past three years. More than one-third (34 percent) consider their systems advanced in that they deliver significant business value, on a par with and down from a high of 40 percent in More than one-third of organizations are in the advanced phase of BI. Of course, advanced is a subjective term prone to changing definitions as BI technology and business objectives continue to evolve. Over time, for instance, ad hoc data discovery that was considered an innovation 10 years ago is now a de facto practice. Today, many BI teams have their sights set on more complex initiatives such as predictive analytics and integration of big data. Which best describes your group s BI/DW implementation? 2012 Beginner: We re just starting out or have completed our first major iteration 21% 23% 22% 22% Intermediate: We ve completed two or more major iterations and need to add more 39% 44% 45% 44% business value Advanced: We manage a mature environment that delivers significant business value 40% 33% 32% 34% tdwi.org 9

11 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report Forty-two percent of organizations see ROI from BI within a year. Return on investment (ROI) from BI is often swift and decisive. In 2015, 42 percent report realizing financial payback in a year or less, the highest rate in the past several years. Meanwhile, 20 percent achieved positive ROI in less than six months. This data point should be particularly valuable to help beginner organizations or teams embarking on a new BI initiative to win business sponsorship. As in past years, a sizable number (41 percent) of respondent organizations didn t calculate financial returns, which is somewhat surprising given the premium that business sponsors often place on ROI. Anecdotal evidence reveals that many sponsoring managers feel that the soft benefits of BI/DW are so great that quantifying a hard return is not required. How long did it take your latest BI iteration to deliver a positive financial return? 2012 Less than 6 months 18% 19% 13% 20% 6 months 1 year 22% 18% 22% 22% 1 2 years 15% 13% 16% 11% 2 3 years 6% 6% 4% 5% 3 or more years 1% 3% 3% 2% We didn t calculate returns 38% 41% 42% 41% The incidence of high value from BI environments ticked up in 2015, to 28 percent, matching the total of 2012 as the highest rate in this long-running survey series. Still, this area has significant room for improvement, which leading organizations are pursuing with ongoing optimization, expansion, and tighter IT-to-business alignment. The majority of respondents (52 percent) characterize their BI initiatives as delivering moderate value; the incidence of low value rose slightly in 2015, to 20 percent. To what degree do you consider your BI/DW initiative a success? 2012 High degree: Delivers business value that is widely recognized 28% 24% 25% 28% Moderate degree: Delivers moderate business value but could deliver more 59% 57% 57% 52% Low degree: Yet to deliver recognizable business value 13% 19% 17% 20% 10 TDWI RESEARCH

12 Budget Budget Capital budgets. Forty-three percent of organizations increased their BI capital spending in 2015, down from 53 percent in 2014 but on a par with More than one-quarter (26 percent) of organizations boosted capital budgets by 10 percent or more in 2015, indicating a sizable commitment to expanding the scope of their BI environments with new solutions and infrastructure. Less than half of organizations increased BI capital spending. On the other hand, 25 percent of organizations reduced BI capital spending in The median capital budget fell to $250,000, in part reflecting the greater number of smaller organizations participating in this year s survey. Capital spending on BI programs is frequently cyclical, in that a large outlay one year to support a significant iteration or expansion may position the team to meet needs for the next several years, after which capital spending is again ramped up. Capital Spending Increased 39% 53% 43% Stayed the same 35% 29% 32% Decreased 26% 17% 25% How much did your capital budget change from the previous year? Increased 10% or more 20% 27% 26% Increased 7 9% 5% 5% 1% Increased 4 6% 9% 16% 11% Increased 1 3% 4% 6% 5% Stayed the same 35% 29% 32% Decreased 1 3% 3% 3% 5% Decreased 4 6% 6% 2% 5% Decreased 7 9% 2% 0% 1% Decreased 10% or more 15% 13% 14% More than two-thirds (67 percent) of organizations have capital budgets of $500,000 or less in place for 2015, up from 58 percent last year and again reflecting the higher concentration of smaller organizations in this year s respondent pool. BI capital spending comprises no more than 10 percent of overall IT capital budgets at 72 percent of organizations, illustrating that relatively modest investments in BI can yield substantial dividends. Median capital budget 2013 $325, $400, $250,000 How big is your group s capital budget compared to the overall IT budget on a percentage basis? 0 3% of the size 35% 33% 36% 4 6% of the size 18% 18% 12% 7 10% of the size 19% 23% 24% 11 19% of the size 9% 5% 7% 20% or more of the size 19% 21% 21% tdwi.org 11

13 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report What is your group s capital budget this year? Less than $50,000 24% 21% 27% $50,000 $100,000 11% 18% 15% $100,000 $500,000 27% 19% 25% $500,000 $1 million 11% 16% 12% $1 $2.5 million 12% 12% 8% $2.5 $5 million 5% 5% 7% $5 million or more 10% 9% 5% Less than half of organizations increased BI maintenance spending. Maintenance spending. Similar to BI capital spending, organizations have somewhat diminished their maintenance budgets compared to Forty-one percent of organizations boosted maintenance spending, down from the past two years. An equal 41 percent, notably higher than , made no change in maintenance spending. Owing again to the smaller organizations in this year s study, the median maintenance budget is $265,000, down from $300,000 in Maintenance Spending Increased 48% 52% 41% Stayed the same 33% 33% 41% Decreased 19% 14% 18% How much did your maintenance budget change from the previous year? Increased 10% or more 17% 26% 15% Increased 7 9% 3% 4% 4% Increased 4 6% 14% 13% 9% Increased 1 3% 14% 9% 14% Stayed the same 33% 33% 41% Decreased 1 3% 5% 3% 5% Decreased 4 6% 5% 5% 7% Decreased 7 9% 1% <1% 1% Decreased 10% or more 8% 6% 5% Median maintenance budget 2013 $400, $300, $265,000 BI maintenance spending as a portion of the overall IT maintenance budget is 6 percent or less at half of organizations, on a par with recent years. Seventy percent of organizations peg BI maintenance spending at $500,000 or less for How big is your group s maintenance budget compared to the overall IT maintenance budget on a percentage basis? 0 3% of the size 29% 33% 28% 4 6% of the size 20% 18% 22% 7 10% of the size 24% 25% 22% 11 19% of the size 10% 6% 5% 20% or more of the size 17% 18% 23% 12 TDWI RESEARCH

14 Staffing, Development, and Usage What is your group s BI maintenance budget this year? Less than $50,000 20% 23% 24% BI maintenance budgets total $500,000 or less at 70% of organizations. $50,000 $100,000 17% 12% 16% $100,000 $500,000 26% 26% 30% $500,000 $1 million 11% 11% 11% $1 $2.5 million 15% 14% 4% $2.5 $5 million 7% 6% 8% $5 million or more 4% 8% 7% Staffing, Development, and Usage BI teams continue to shrink as organizations utilize more individuals with multidisciplinary skills and seek to improve speed and flexibility with a small, nimble approach. The average number of FTE employees deployed to a project dipped to 4.9 in 2015, down from 5.6 in 2011 and 5.1 in Sixty percent of organizations use three or fewer FTEs per project, and only 8 percent deploy 10 or more full-time BI professionals. On average, how many FTE staff are assigned to work on each project? 0 3 FTEs 63% 59% 60% 4 6 FTEs 17% 24% 21% 7 9 FTEs 6% 5% 11% Average number of FTEs per project FTEs 9% 9% 4% 21 or more FTEs 5% 3% 4% The number of projects underway at any given time varies widely across organizations. A sizable 26 percent of respondents report that their teams manage 10 or more concurrent projects, invariably a challenging task that requires effective project management, flexible resource deployment, and agility as priorities shift. Nearly half (49 percent) of organizations run four or fewer projects concurrently. The average number of concurrent projects is 4.4, down from past years. How many distinct projects does your group manage at one time? 0 1 project 10% 11% 11% 2 projects 15% 11% 11% Average number of concurrent projects projects 17% 13% 17% 4 projects 10% 15% 10% 5 projects 18% 16% 21% 6 9 projects 11% 12% 4% 10 or more projects 20% 22% 26% tdwi.org 13

15 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report BI teams rely heavily on report developers and extract, transform, and load (ETL) developers as central roles in generating business intelligence from raw data. At an average of 7.9 FTEs per team budget, report developers are the most prevalent role identified in this year s study, ahead of 6.8 ETL developers, who traditionally have topped the list of average number of FTEs by team budget. Business requirements analyst is another workhorse role on BI teams. At an average of 5.6 FTEs, business requirements analysts are relied on to help achieve IT and business alignment that is critical to BI success. Help desk/support personnel (4.4 FTEs), project managers (4.4), and data modelers (4.2) round out the top six most prevalent roles. Average number of FTEs by BI team budget Report developers ETL developers Business requirements analysts Help desk/support Project managers Data modelers DBAs Architects DW administrators Program managers Trainers Predictive modelers Technical writers BI teams are primarily focused on development and testing. Development and testing is the top focus area for most BI teams. Fifty percent of BI teams are allocated to development and testing, reflecting ongoing optimization initiatives and the introduction of new solutions to keep up with emerging business priorities. Maintenance and change management is the second most common activity (24 percent), followed by support and training (16 percent). What percentage of your BI/DW team is allocated to these tasks? Development/testing 48% 52% 50% Maintenance/change management 24% 26% 24% Support/training 15% 14% 16% Other 13% 7% 10% Agile development methodology is on the rise. The use of agile development methodologies reached a new high in this survey series, at 29 percent in Agile development has been steadily gaining popularity as an approach that supports iterative requirements gathering, development, and testing to help improve flexibility and time to value. A hybrid of agile and waterfall methodologies, however, remains the prevailing approach to development, used by 53 percent of organizations. With a hybrid, organizations get the best of both worlds the flexibility of agile and the structure of waterfall, well suited to BI projects with clearly articulated parameters. A waterfall-only approach to development is relatively rare, used by just 18 percent of organizations. 14 TDWI RESEARCH

16 Staffing, Development, and Usage Which best describes your BI development methodology? Waterfall: Sequential model in which most requirements are gathered before coding 17% 15% 18% Agile: Highly iterative model in which requirements and feedback are gathered throughout development 27% 24% 29% Hybrid: Mix of waterfall and agile models 56% 61% 53% At an average of 7.1 weeks from start to finish, adding a new data source to a data warehouse is the most time-consuming of three common tasks, though time to completion varies significantly. No one should allow new data into a DW without fully vetting the data for viability of origin, issues with quality and structure, valuable business use, governance, and the like. All that takes time, but not as much time as in the past. For instance, in the recent survey, 25 percent of BI teams can accomplish the task in two weeks or less, and another 27 percent need two months or more. Creating a complex report or dashboard is another lengthy undertaking, requiring an average of 5.8 weeks. BI teams are speedier in changing a hierarchy, with an average of 4.8 weeks. A reexamination of development methodologies and greater use of reusable code and processes may help organizations that find themselves exceeding these averages on a regular basis. On average, how long does it take to add a new source of data to your data warehouse? 1 week 10% 2 weeks 15% BI teams need 7.1 weeks on average to add a new data source. 3 weeks 7% 1 month 18% 5 6 weeks 12% 7 8 weeks 11% 9 16 weeks 19% 4 months or more 8% On average, how long does it take to create a complex report or dashboard with about 20 dimensions, 12 measures, and 6 user access roles? 1 week 9% 2 weeks 20% 3 weeks 14% 1 month 18% 5 6 weeks 11% 7 8 weeks 5% 9 16 weeks 15% 4 months or more 8% tdwi.org 15

17 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report On average, how long does it take to change a hierarchy (e.g., reclassify products or reorganize sales regions)? 1 week 24% 2 weeks 18% 3 weeks 11% 1 month 17% 5 6 weeks 6% 7 8 weeks 6% 9 16 weeks 14% 4 months or more 4% BI development teams handle the majority of help tickets. The role of handling help tickets falls most often to the BI development team, which handles 52 percent of tickets filed each month, followed by the support staff at 34 percent. For 2015, organizations dealt with a median of 30 help tickets each month. A median of 200 queries and reports are executed daily, 23 percent of them by customers or suppliers. Thirty-four percent of employees run a report at least once a week, and 45 percent of employees are licensed to use a BI tool. What percentage of help tickets does each group handle per month? Development team 39% 52% 52% Support staff 37% 36% 34% Other 25% 12% 13% Typical BI Use Percentage of BI team fully and solely dedicated to BI/DW 73% Median number of help tickets received each month 30 Median number of queries/reports executed daily 200 Percentage of queries/reports run by customers or suppliers 23% Percentage of queries/reports executed in batch and pushed to users 31% Percentage of employees licensed to use a BI tool 45% Percentage of employees running a report at least once a week 34% Figures are averages or medians across respondent organizations. 16 TDWI RESEARCH

18 Characteristics of BI Success Characteristics of BI Success To assess the factors that contribute to BI success, we measured survey responses to the question, To what degree do you consider your BI/DW initiative a success? against these select dimensions: Development methodology To whom BI teams report BI maturity and number of years building an environment Number of FTEs per project BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget BI team size as a percentage of overall IT Scope of BI environments Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization Development methodology. A hybrid of agile and waterfall methodologies is a good bet for delivering solid business value. The most widely used of the three approaches, hybrid shows the least incidence of low value in our 2015 study, at 13 percent (and in our 2014 study, at 18 percent). At the same time, the hybrid approach has ranked the best in moderate value for the past two years (it was rated highest by 58 percent of respondents in 2015). A 29 percent rate of high business value with a hybrid approach in 2015 is second only to waterfall. A hybrid development methodology delivers solid business value. Though exclusive use of a waterfall methodology is found at just 17 percent of respondent organizations, its incidence of high value rose from 32 percent in 2014 to 38 percent in On the other hand, waterfall also leads in low business value, at 33 percent in These findings underscore the importance of matching a development methodology to business objectives. For instance, waterfall is often the optimal approach for complex projects that require deep cleansing, remodeling, transformation, audit trails, and multiple approvals. Yet if waterfall is used in quick-and-dirty BI projects, development efforts and time to value may lengthen, making agile the preferred methodology. Organizations appropriately resourced for a hybrid approach benefit from the flexibility of using either agile or waterfall, as dictated by the specifications of each project. BI value by development methodology High value Moderate value Low value Agile 24% 53% 23% Waterfall 38% 29% 33% Hybrid 29% 58% 13% BI team reporting structure. This survey has historically found that BI s value is enhanced when teams report to business leaders rather than IT managers. However, this year s study reveals nearly equal incidence of high value across both reporting structures 29 percent for business-side reporting and 28 percent for IT-side (comprising both IT and information management). In fact, IT-oriented teams experience a lower incidence of low value (18 percent) compared to business-oriented teams (22 percent). Nevertheless, ample anecdotal evidence exists to support the conventional wisdom that a business-oriented reporting structure is the best bet for BI success. TDWI has observed that BI programs frequently thrive when business and IT work closely, with the BI team answering principally to business unit heads, finance, the CEO, operations, sales, marketing, and other functions. tdwi.org 17

19 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report BI value by team reporting structure High value Moderate value Low value Business 29% 49% 22% IT 28% 54% 18% Business value from BI rises with time and maturity. BI maturity and number of years building an environment. Business value from BI rises in lockstep with maturity and the number of years invested in building and optimizing an environment. As seen in past TDWI BI Benchmark surveys, organizations that have built BI environments for 10 years or more see the greatest incidence of high value, at 53 percent in 2015, and a nominal 7 percent rate of low value. In contrast, 14 percent of organizations with BI environments two years old or less saw high value, and 43 percent experienced low value. In terms of maturity, 61 percent of organizations with advanced BI environments realized high value and just 5 percent low value. Only 4 percent of those with beginner systems, however, achieved high value, and 44 percent realized low value. Beginner organizations that suffer misfires early in a BI implementation should recognize that setbacks are not uncommon at the start, and that diligence in BI over the long haul typically pays off in tangible business value. BI value by stages of maturity High value Moderate value Low value Beginner 4% 52% 44% Intermediate 17% 66% 17% Advanced 61% 33% 5% BI value by number of years building a BI environment High value Moderate value Low value 0 2 years 14% 43% 43% 3 5 years 20% 64% 16% 6 10 years 25% 61% 14% 10 or more years 53% 40% 7% BI teams of 7 or more FTEs generated the highest value. Number of FTEs per project. Larger teams (seven or more FTEs) were the most effective in generating business value in Thirty-eight percent of organizations with teams of seven or more full-time staff achieved high value with their BI implementations; 19 percent rate BI value low. In contrast, smaller teams of up to three full-time staff reported rates of 25 percent high value and 21 percent low value. Our 2015 findings reverse a trend seen in , when midsize teams of four to six FTEs were most effective from a business value perspective. This year, 33 percent of those teams achieved high BI value. The success experienced by larger teams in 2015 may reflect greater specialization of personnel, with some organizations that can afford the payroll ramping up staff with more specialized resources, driving up the number of FTEs. 18 TDWI RESEARCH

20 Characteristics of BI Success BI value by number of FTEs per project High value Moderate value Low value 0 3 FTEs 25% 53% 21% 4 6 FTEs 33% 50% 17% 7 or more FTEs 38% 43% 19% BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget. This survey has consistently found that BI success is diminished when BI capital and maintenance budgets comprise 5 percent or less of overall IT capital and maintenance budgets, and this year is no exception. Just 21 percent of low-budget organizations realized high value from BI nearly half the rate achieved by organizations at which capital and maintenance budgets are 6 percent or more of overall IT spending. However, bigger does not necessarily mean better. Results in terms of high business value were slightly better for organizations at which capital and maintenance spending comprised 6 to 10 percent of overall IT, versus those at which it exceeded 11 percent. BI value by BI capital budget as a percentage of overall IT capital budget High value Moderate value Low value 0 5% of the size 21% 56% 23% 6 10% of the size 41% 54% 5% 11% or more of the size 38% 33% 29% BI value by BI maintenance budget as a percentage of overall IT maintenance budget High value Moderate value Low value 0 5% of the size 21% 58% 21% 6 10% of the size 39% 44% 17% 11% or more of the size 38% 41% 21% BI team size as a percentage of overall IT staffing. A large BI team size in proportion to overall IT staffing appears to influence success. The greatest incidence of high value, at 43 percent, was reported by organizations at which the BI team is 20 percent or more of overall IT. At the other end, at organizations with BI teams representing 1 to 3 percent the size of overall IT, we see a high value rate of 29 percent, but also a low value rate of 29 percent, the highest among the four categories. Although higher BI staffing in relation to overall IT is a sound practice for BI success, those resources need to be backed by capable program and project management to realize the best results. BI value by BI team size as a percentage of overall IT staffing High value Moderate value Low value 1 3% of the size 29% 42% 29% 4 6% of the size 23% 59% 18% 7 10% of the size 29% 60% 11% 20% or more of the size 43% 46% 11% tdwi.org 19

21 2015 TDWI Benchmark Report Enterprise BI environments continue to deliver the best results. Scope of BI environments. As in past years of this survey, enterprise BI environments deliver better business value than those that support a department or business unit. Thirty-four percent of organizations with enterprise BI deployments achieved high business value, and just 13 percent saw low value. In contrast, departmental BI environments resulted in high value for just 8 percent of organizations, along with a 46 percent rate of low value. The high value seen from enterprise BI is a key reason why it s the most prevalent approach, in place at 64 percent of organizations, as documented in the Organization section of this report. BI value by scope of BI environments High value Moderate value Low value Supports a department 8% 46% 46% Supports a business unit 21% 54% 25% Supports the enterprise 34% 53% 13% Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization. Highly centralized BI resource organization is the most effective approach for generating high value from BI, this year s study finds. Thirty-eight percent of those with a highly centralized resource organization realized high value, compared to just 11 percent of those organizations taking a highly decentralized approach. In addition, the survey reveals the incidence of low value at 45 percent in highly decentralized environments, the least prevalent framework, used by just 14 percent of organizations. BI value by BI resource organization High value Moderate value Low value Highly centralized 38% 40% 22% Mix of centralized/decentralized 29% 55% 16% Highly decentralized 11% 44% 45% Conclusion BI s steady growth and maturation as a catalyst for better business performance are reflected in the 2015 TDWI BI Benchmark Report. The average number of years building a BI environment reached a new high in our 2015 study, at 7.9 years, as did the average number of iterations, at 3.6. As BI continues to expand, it s also becoming more lean and efficient. The average number of BI teams dropped to 4.2 in 2015, down more than half from 10.7 in 2011, and at 4.9 the average number of per-project FTEs is also down from recent years. Although part of the decline in BI team and FTE averages owes to the greater representation of smaller organizations in this year s sample, TDWI has observed that BI practices in general have become significantly faster and more cost-efficient as the industry leverages best practices and lessons learned. Meanwhile, the study reveals that more organizations are accelerating their time to value from BI. Forty-two percent of respondent organizations began realizing ROI from their latest BI iterations within one year, up notably from recent years. In concert with faster ROI, the incidence of high business value from BI reached 28 percent, the highest rate in this long-running survey series. The increases seen in the time-to-roi and business value metrics clearly indicate that BI professionals are making great progress in both creating and mastering the tactics and technologies needed to maximize BI s business impact. The BI landscape continues to evolve, and much room for improvement remains. Big data, the Internet of things, mobile devices, and the prevalence of real-time information are all whetting the business appetite for more actionable insights faster. It is up to the IT and business professionals who shape and manage BI programs to utilize their ingenuity and resourcefulness to meet these emerging challenges and lead the way to a more data-driven world. 20 TDWI RESEARCH

22 TDWI RESEARCH TDWI Research provides research and advice for data professionals worldwide. TDWI Research focuses exclusively on business intelligence, data warehousing, and analytics issues and teams up with industry thought leaders and practitioners to deliver both broad and deep understanding of the business and technical challenges surrounding the deployment and use of business intelligence, data warehousing, and analytics solutions. TDWI Research offers in-depth research reports, commentary, inquiry services, and topical conferences as well as strategic planning services to user and vendor organizations. 555 S Renton Village Place, Ste. 700 Renton, WA T F E info@tdwi.org tdwi.org