Towards a Business Intelligence Framework for Unisa

rangaleclickΛογισμικό & κατασκευή λογ/κού

4 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 11 μήνες)

73 εμφανίσεις

Towards a Business Intelligence
Framework for Unisa


Presented to SPCC

7 May 2009

Professor
George Subotzky

Executive Director:

Information
and Strategic Analysis


Overview of presentation


Background & Context


Integrated Strategic Planning Framework


DISA role and mandate within this


What is BI? Key concepts:


IM MI & BI


OPM


Outputs, outcomes and performance measures/indicators


The Information Hierarchy: The BI Pyramid


Analytic Maturity Curve


Technological Maturity Curve


Elements of the BI Framework


Special focus on External environmental scanning/ scenario building


Acknowledgements


Suzette van Zyl


Conceptual Genesis of BI
Unisa


Research/PhD


Project leader


George Subotzky


Eager novice, quick learner


Prof Baijnath: Convinced supportive champion


Gartner: mixed value report


Business Intelligence 2008 Conference

OPERATIONS




Functional/Operational Units

Inputs, Processes, Outputs, Outcomes
& Performance Measures

INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE
& STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT





Monitoring and Evaluation

(BI/Institutional Research)



Quality Assurance/Service



IPMS



Risk Management


Ongoing:



Strategic Reflection/Review



Environmental Scanning

CHANGE MANAGEMENT




Strategic Change Initiatives


Continuous Improvement
Initiatives


These are identified through
ongoing review process, and then
find expression, as the case may be,
in:



New or revised Strategy or
Strategic Projects



Objectives and Actions in the IOP


Changes to Operations, the
Business and Enterprise
Architectures and Enabling
Conditions

FUNCTIONAL
PLANS (PROJECT
-
BASED)


eg

Academic, Research, HR, Estates, ICT

Functional
Outcomes, Objectives, Outputs &
Performance Measures, Integrated Scheduling

plan


STRATEGY FORMULATION



Mission, Vision, Business Model (ODL)



Strategic Plan

Strategic Outcomes, Objectives & Performance
Measures (all shaped by Social Mandate)

review

change

RESOURCE ALLOCATION (SRAM)




Budget



ACHRAM & PADRAM

Enabling Conditions

(in addition to appropriate Business &
Enterprise Architectures)



Effective Leadership &
Management


Conducive Climate &
Culture

Business & Enterprise
Architectures


Shaped by strategy
-

the
optimal configurations of:



People/capacity



Processes/Systems



Resources/Infrastructure



Technology

Strategic
Projects

act

IOP & STRATEGIC PROJECTS


Strategically
-
aligned Outcomes, Objectives,
Outputs & Performance Measures

Integrated

Strategic

Management

Framework

33

DISA

UNISA

Business
Units/

Business
Units

Business
Units

Business
Units

Business
Units

Business
Units

Pol. Ec.

HE

Policy

ODL

HE

Dev.

DISA Mandate

Integrated Strategic Management Framework

DATA TO INFORMATION + ANALYSIS = STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE

DATA

Vision, Mission, SP & Business Model (ODL)

INFORMATION &
ANALYSIS/IR
OUTPUTS



Calendarised


Periodic


Ad hoc Requests


Strategic
Discussion
Forum

STATUTORY
REPORTING




HEMIS


Other External
Stakeholder
Requirements

ICT + IR

External

DISA

4 types of Outputs/Services

DATA

STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
AND ANALYTICAL
SUPPORT
SERVICES



Formal &
informal


BI support

BI/IR

ENTERPRISE
ARCHITECTURE

plan

review

change

act

Integrated

Strategic

Management

Framework

INSTITUTIONAL
INFORMATION &
ANALYSIS PORTAL


Institution
-
wide
Web
-
based BI
Analytic Tool


Downloadable I
& A outputs

DISA 2
-
fold Initiative

1.
Institutional information and analysis portal


Automated, web
-
based, easily accessible single,
authoritative information source


Vast enhancements on HEDA


Now includes pilot Student Tracking


System


First step towards BI framework


Software clunky


Remains management information

ICT Enterprise Architecture

Ops

Domain

1

Ops

Domain

2

Ops

Domain

3

Ops

Domain

4

Ops

Domain

5

Ops

Domain

6

Portal:

Institution
-
wide Dissemination of

Information &
Analysis (BI & IR)

BI ‘Enterprise’
Architecture

Business Architecture (Process Maps)

DISA 2
-
fold Initiative

2.
BI framework


Cutting edge, long
-
term
solution to supporting
organisational performance
management, integrated
planning


In this way, contributes
towards the achievement of
strategic and operational
goals

The BI Process Thus Far


Genesis of concept


Presentation to
Mancom
: August 2006


Enriching our conceptual understanding of BI


Framework & Strategy document: Engagement with
consultant: Gartner


BI 2008 conference: confirmed this direction and
approach


Workshopping

&
finalisation

of document: Working
Group & SPCC


Mancom

approval: 10 March 2009


Approach from HR, CAES ED, Budget


Microsoft Performance Point proof of concept


What is BI?


BI is
actionable information
which has been
structured analytically and contextually
in
order to measure and manage organisational
performance against strategic and
operational targets and thereby to effective
support management, decision
-
making and
planning and, in particular, the attainment of
organisational goals and effectiveness

What is a BI framework?


A BI framework comprises a number of elements (see
below) to govern the entire process of automatically
collecting, integrating, analysing, presenting and utilising
up
-
to
-
date, reliable, relevant institution
-
wide information
from multiple sources to support OPM.




The BI framework utilises sophisticated web
-
based portal
technology to disseminate customised information to each
manager in the form of highly visible aggregated
dashboards and scorecards, with the ability to drill down
into detail. It systematically provides relevant information
across the entire enterprise, covering and integrating all
processes. It represents the single, authoritative source for
institutional information.

MI
vs

BI


MI provides summarised operational information,
usually only in one functional business area such as
students, HR, research etc. It is designed to deal
with simple data configurations. It thus lacks
integration across functional areas.




To take a simple example:


Management information merely provides an HR
profile.


Business intelligence is structured to analyse and
explain the changing gap between the current and
historical HR profile and targets with a view to
reaching the targets.



IM
vs

MI


Information management refers to the process of
organising
, preserving, ensuring integrity and
disseminating information


It involves defining and applying meta
-
data
elements, in particular business rules which are
consistent with operational processes (e.g. personnel
categories, definition of part
-
time contracts), and
ensuring that systems are structured accordingly and
aligned to business needs


Responsibility for this lies with the owner


functional areas


Key Features of BI


Uses sophisticated web
-
based IT to
automatically collect, integrate, analyse and
present up to date, reliable, relevant
institution
-
wide information from multiple
sources


Action oriented


Cross functional, integrated strategic
perspective


Analytically and contextually structured
(according to the information hierarchy)


Oganisational


Performance Management
(OPM)


Aims the narrowing gap between strategy
and execution


An integrated, evidence
-
based management
practice


Involves planning, forecasting, scenario
-
building and budgeting


Utilises BI systematically to monitor, analyse
and measure strategic and operational
activities against targets in performance
indicators

OPM, PIs & BA


OPM

ensures that operational objectives are systematically
integrated across functional areas and aligned to organisational
strategic objectives. To achieve this, performance indicators and
exception thresholds or triggers are derived from detailed process
maps within and across organisational units which form part of the
business architecture.


Performance indicators
are customised in relation to the processes,
objectives and targets across organisational units. They are
presented on dashboards and performance scorecards for
organisational units and for the organisation as a whole.


The aim of the OPM
dashboard

is to empower managers to make
evidence
-
based decisions by presenting summarised overviews of
performance metrics. Sophisticated software applications allow
managers to drill down into detailed operational information
where required.

Dashboards &
Scorecards


A
dashboard

is a single
-
screen, summarised and highly
graphical display that enables managers and knowledge
-
workers to monitor and analyse an organization’s activities
and processes. It presents up
-
to
-
date actionable BI at a
glance on the status of key operational activities, processes
and forecasts. This is sometimes referred to as
Business
Activity Monitoring (BAM)
.




A
scorecard

is a performance
-
oriented type of dashboard.
It presents up
-
to
-
date actionable BI at a glance on the
status of organisational performance against strategic and
operational objectives and targets, by means of relevant
performance indicators. This is referred to as
Organisational Performance Management (OPM)
.


Strategic Objective 6.8

Manage financial, human and infrastructural resources rationally to monitor expenditure,
optimise value, manage risks and ensure financial sustainability

Target 8: Reduction in personnel expenditure to 59% of total expenditure by
January 2008

Performance Indicator 11:

Personnel expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure, 2004
-
7


Personnel expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure, 2004
-
7

2007 Status:

2,7% below target



Between 2004 and 2007,
personnel expenditure as a
proportion of total
expenditure was reduced
from 65,7% to 61,7%.


䡯weverⰠ瑨楳 re浡楮猠㈬㜥
扥bow 瑨e ㈰2㠠瑡t来琠o映㔹5.


䙵r瑨erⰠ愠s汩杨琠楮捲e慳e o映
〬㐥 w慳 e癩摥n琠扥瑷ten
㈰2㘠慮搠㈰2㜮

Action/Responsibility


A灰ropr楡ie ste灳p批b噐㨠䘦FⰠ
re灯r瑩t朠to
䵡n捯c

慮搠
䙩F慮捥 䍯浭m瑴ee o映䍯un捩氠


Current Institutional Performance

against

2015

Strategic
Plan
:

Scorecard

Performance
Trend

Performance

Indicator

Target

Target
Date

Current
Performance

Current Performance
Against Target

Prognosis of
Me
eting Target


PI 12: Nett surplus as a proportion of annual
turnover
, 2004
-
7

5%

2008

11%

Target exceeded by 6%

Almost certain




PI 1: Aggregate Course Success Rate, 2004
-
7

56,0%

2010

54,7%

1,7% below target

Probable

PI 6: Research outputs/academic

against 2015
and DoE targets
, 2004
-
6

Unisa: 1,0

DoE: 1,035

2015

2015


0,44

Below target

Possible

PI 8: Research outputs increased by 70 points per
annum for 2006

2010

70

2006
-
10

65,89

4,11 below target

Probable


PI 3: Unisa Student Satisfaction Index
, 2005
-
7

90,00

2015

70,18

19,82 Below

Unlikely

PI 7: Position among South African universities in
terms of research outputs
, 2005

Among Top 5

2015

Position 6

Below target

Possible

PI 11: Personnel expenditure as a proportion of
total expenditure
, 2004
-
7

59%

2008

61,7%

2,7% above target

Probable


PI 4: Headcount Enrolments, 2004
-
7

258 023

2010

239 851

Already close to target

Impossible

PI 5: Student
-
to
-
Academic Staff Ratio, 2004
-
7

140

2015

179

Above target

Unlikely


PI 2: Aggregate Throughput Ra
te, 2005
-
7

8,37%

2010

6,45%

1,92% below target

Impossible

PI 9: Student Support Service Satisfaction Index
(SSSSI), 2005
-
7

90,00

2015

64,63

25,37 below target

Unlikely

PI 10: Dropout rates
, 1998
-
2003

Decrease 3%

2015

Generally low

Below target

Unlikely

Not yet
available

PI 13: Annual Staff Satisfaction Index, 2007

Unspecified

-

Generally low

Baseline

-

PI 14: Employment Equity Profile, 2004
-
7

In EE Plans

Severely skewed

Baseline

-

Commentary

From this table, we can see that

(apart from the two new t
argets for which performance trends are not yet available)
:


1.

Only
one target (PI 12) is
currently
being met

(green robot)
, but the trend in this case is sidewards
(horizontal orange arrow)

2.

A further three (PIs 1, 6, & 8) are not being met

(red robot)
, but
the trends are in the right direction

(
upward
green arrow)

3.

Three more
(PIs 3, 7 & 11)

are not being met
(red robot)
,
but the trends are
sideward
s

(horizontal orange arrow)

4.

Another five
(PIs 4, 5, 2, 9 & 10)

are not being met
but
the trends are in the wrong

direction
(red robot and arrows


up
or down as the case may be)

Assessing current institutional performance against targets must be seen against the relevant target dates. That is, we need
to assess where we are
currently
in
relation to we need to be by
when. On this basis, we can see that although several of the targets have not currently
been
met, the prognosis of eventually doing so
:

5.

In
four
cases is almost certain/probable

6.

In
a further two cases is possible

7.

In
six cases is unlikely/impossible

Progress Monitoring

vs

OPM

It is important to distinguish between:


Progress monitoring
(monitoring of progress
in relation to planned actions, activities,
outputs and milestones by means of project
management software and methods) and


Organisational/departmental performance
management
(analysis and explanation of
performance and evaluation of impacts in
relation to planned targets and outcomes by
means of appropriate PIs)



Strategic:
VC
&
Portfolios
Tactical
:
Department/
Directorate
Operational:
Division/Project
Volume/
detail
Value/
Aggregation/
Integration
Analytic format
Data
Information
Intelligence
Scorecards
Dashboards
Reports
Presentation format
The Information Hierarchy:

The BI Pyramid

Historical
reporting

Time/technology

Progress
monitoring

Analysis/

interpretation

Real
-
time
reporting

Evaluation

Explanation

Prediction

Actionable
intelligence

BI Analytic Maturity

Management information

What happened?

What changed?

What is happening?

What is changing?

What does the change signify?

What trends are apparent?

Was the goal/target reached?

Were any critical levels reached?

Why did it happen/not happen?

What factors contribute to outcomes?

What was the impact of an initiative?
Was the intended outcome achieved?

What will happen and why?

What is the likely outcome and
impact?

How can we make

things happen/improve?

Business intelligence

The analytic
maturity curve

Time/technology

Manual data
digging &
dissemination

BI
framework

Automated,
web based
information
portal

BI Analytic Maturity

BMI, Planning Office, DPA, early DISA

Future DISA

The Technology
Maturity Curve

Current DISA

(still MI, not BI)

Manual data
digging …

BI
framework

Automated,
web based
information
portal

… And
dissemination

BI
Framework

BI Strategy


Rationale


Elements & Definitions


Roadmap

Management


Management &
Operational
Structures, including
the BICC


Roles &
Responsibilities

Operational
Standards


Quality assurance


Business rules


Metadata


Data models


Data integrity


Security & access
control

Infrastructure


Technology

-
Data storage, Server & PC
architecture, software


HR resources & capacity

BI Architecture


Why?


For whom?


What?


When?


Where?


How?


By whom?

Implementation


Advocacy


Change management
strategy


Workplan

BA/
Process
maps

Different views:
Institution,
Portfolios/
Colleges/
Business Units
Student
Intelligence
Operational
Intelligence
Financial
Intelligence
External
Strategic
Intelligence
HR
Intelligence
Programme
and Course
Intelligence

Domains of
BI at
Unisa

U
s
e
r
s

Portal

Extraction


Data
-
warehouse



Students


Research

Extraction

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
AB
BC
CO
EO
FO
MB
NB
NF
No. of Members
Legend
Recreational
COMPSK
EXECUTIVE
OFFICIAL
PRECSK
TESTSK
Source
databases

Data

Information

Intelligence

HR

Finance

Estates

ICT

DISA/BICC



Analyses/


Research Reports/
Briefings



Statutory Reports



Ad Hoc Queries


Data warehousing


Reporting & Analysis

DISA/BICC Outputs

The BI Strategy
Roadmap

Main
phases

Action Plan / objective

Time Frame

PHASE 1: FINALISATION
OF BI STRATEGY
FRAMEWORK

Finalise document

SPCC Working Group feedback

MC approval


March 2009

PHASE 2: DETAILED
ROADMAP FINALISED
AND IMPLEMENTED

Structures and team operationalised

Consultants appointed

April 2009

May 2009

Project launch

Institution
-
wide Advocacy Campaign conducted
with feedback


May 2009
-

onwards

Develop Project Charter with consultants

June 2009

BI product procured through tender process

June 2009

Initial set of PIs, dashboards and scorecards in
place; feedback on usefulness

June 2009 onwards

BI product procured through tender process

July 2009

Initial group of users identified and training
commenced

October 2009
onwards

PHASE 3: FURTHER
ROLLOUT

Revised project deliverables

2010
-
2011

DISA BI Engagement
Process


Engagement with functional areas to determine optimal BI
requirements (truth test: why before what)


Scrutiny of College/departmental strategic & operational
plans to determine consistency between objectives,
actions, performance measures/indicators and different
kind of targets (output, quantitative, outcomes,
planned)


strategy map, identifying main contributing actions to
desired outcomes


Determine appropriate/measurable PIs, information
sources, formats and custodians


Arrange gathering, processing, formatting and
dissemination of dashboards and scorecards (incremental
approach)


Involve appropriate strategic and operational staff
members, including identified ‘Super Users’