Transcript OCBIG PRESENTATION BI Tool Evaluations A Methodology and

“Delivering Strategic Insight”
OCBIG PRESENTATION
BI Tool Evaluations
A Methodology and Case Studies
Robert Snoyer
Managing Partner
April 28, 2005
Steve Jones
Managing Partner
Agenda
Red Sky Overview
An Approach to BI Tool Evaluations
Components
Methodology
Case Study #1 – Telco
Case Study #2 – Health Care government agency
Questions
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
2
Agenda
Red Sky Overview
An Approach to BI Tool Evaluations
Components
Methodology
Case Study #1 – Telco
Case Study #2 – Health Care government agency
Questions
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
3
Red Sky Data Provides Solutions
Red Sky Data is a Canadian consulting company
that specializes in providing:
Business Performance Management (BPM)
Business Intelligence (BI)
and Data Warehouse (DW) solutions
The partners of Red Sky Data have provided cutting
edge solutions for several decades
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
4
Red Sky’s Lineage
Partners leave to start DVI-Dec ’98
RSI
1989 – Mar ’00
Data Visions
Acquired by Cognicase-Jun ’01
Dec ’98 – Jun ’01
Acquired by
Microforum
-Mar ’00
Cognicase
Acquired by CGI-Jan ’03
Jun ’01 – Jan ’03
CGI
Microforum
consulting group
acquired by
Cognicase-Sept ’02
Partners form RSD
-Jan ’05
Red Sky Data
Jan ’05 – present
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
5
Key Differentiator
-The Team 22 data warehouse and business intelligence
specialized consultants
Industry-recognized technical experts
Regular presenters at industry seminars
TOUG, IOUG, Informatica World, Oracle World, Master
Classes, IRMAC, OCBIG
Certified professionals
Informatica, Oracle, MicroStrategy, Cognos, Microsoft
Dedicated to the client, our organization, and
each other
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
6
Key Differentiator
- AdvantageNOW v4.0 AdvantageNOW is a framework for delivering BPM /
Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence projects on
time and on budget
Based on Ralph Kimball and “best practices”
Continuous improvement through real-life team
experiences – living framework
Comprised of:
Methods
•
•
•
•
Loading
Cleansing
Data Retention and Archiving
Reporting
Templates
Project Management Processes (PMI)
Industry specific designs and code examples
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
7
Red Sky Offers Full BI/DW Solutions
Enterprise
• Data Warehouse
(DW)
• Data Marts (DM)
• Extract, Transform,
Load (ETL)
• BI Front-End
• Meta Data
Solutions
Bus. Focused
• Data Marts (DM)
• Extract, Transform,
Load (ETL)
• BI Front-End
• Meta Data
Technology
BI
• OLAP
• Ad-Hoc Query
• Reporting
• BPM
• Dashboard (KPI’s)
• Visualization
ETL
• Informatica
• DataStage
• DTS
BI
Services
Strategic Services
• Cognos
• MicroStrategy
• Business Objects
• Readiness Assessments • Audits
• Strategies
• Product Evaluations
• Proof of Concepts • Scope Exercises
Training & Education Services
• Mentoring & Training
• Best Practices & Approaches Workshops
7/17/2015
Framework
BI ToolAdvantageNOW
Evaluations: A Methodology
& Cases
Database
• Oracle
• DB2
• SQLServer
8
Our BI/DW Expertise By Vertical
MRD
Government
Fin. Services
McDonalds
Toyota
Direct Energy
Cardinal Meat
Specialists
Cancer Care Ontario
Greater Toronto
Airport Authority
(GTAA)
Dynamic Mutual
Funds
ICICI Bank of
Canada
7/17/2015
Communications
Allstream
Rogers Cable Systems
Rogers Wireless
Telus Mobility
Carswell Thompson
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
9
Agenda
Red Sky Overview
An Approach to BI Tool Evaluations
Components
Methodology
Case Study #1 – Telco
Case Study #2 – Health Care government agency
Questions
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
10
Components of an Evaluation
Short-Listing
Paper Evaluation
RFP
Vendor Presentations
Proof of Concept
Bake-Off
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
11
Short-Listing
- Steps & Duration 1.
Develop 5-10 broad criteria for selection (ie in
business >10 years)
2.
High level research of the tools on the market
for the purposes of answering your evaluation
criteria
3.
Prepare your findings
Duration: 1 week
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
12
Short-Listing
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGTHS
Greatly simplifies all
future steps
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Possibility of prematurely
eliminating a valid
contender
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
13
Paper Evaluation
- Steps & Duration 1. Gain a good understanding of this market segment and
what makes for a successful BI tool (see Sources later)
2. Gather the business requirements from your users
3. Develop the Evaluation Criteria
4. Conduct in-depth research into the short-listed tools
and their capabilities (see Sources later)
5. Evaluate the tools against your criteria
6. Prepare your findings
Duration: 2-3 weeks
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
14
Paper Evaluation
- Sources Organizations / Web-Sites
The Data Warehouse Institute (TDWI) tdwi.org
olapreport.com
datawarehouse.com
Datawarehousing.com
datawarehousingonline.com
Industry Publications
Intelligent Enterprise (intelligenctenterprise.com)
DM Review (dmreview.com)
Vendor Web-Sites
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
15
Paper Evaluation
- Sources IT Advisory Groups
Gartner Group
Giga Information Group
Yankee Group
Meta Group
Body of Knowledge
Participation in previous evaluations
Experience with the tools
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
16
Paper Evaluation
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGTHS
Quickest turn-around time
Least demand on resources
($ and people)
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Doesn’t provide
opportunity to see the tools
in action (look & feel)
Doesn’t provide
opportunity to clarify
information with the
vendors
Doesn’t validate the
features and functionality
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
17
RFP
- Steps & Duration Formalized version of the Paper Evaluation
Same steps as the Paper Evaluation, with the
addition of:
1. Prepare and distribute the RFP document
2. Provide for a formal Q & A process
Duration: 4-8 weeks
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
18
RFP
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGTHS
Places the onus on the
vendor to provide the
responses
Seen as more impartial and
legally binding
Opportunity to clarify
information with the
vendor
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Doesn’t provide
opportunity to see the tools
in action
Doesn’t validate the
features and functionality
(but are they legally bound
anyway?)
Additional effort to prepare
the RFP (beyond preparing
the criteria)
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
19
Vendor Presentations
Must be focused - ‘Dog & Pony’ shows not
permitted
How do you guarantee this?
Detailed evaluation criteria
Involve both business and technical teams
Clearly communicate the format, criteria and purpose of
the presentations to the vendors
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
20
Vendor Presentation
- Steps & Duration 1. Prepare the detailed evaluation criteria
2. 1st presentation: focused on business users and
business functionality (‘day in the life of a user’)
3. Post-presentation review and scoring
4. 2nd presentation: focused on IT users and technical
functionality
5. Post-presentation review and scoring
6. Summarize and prepare findings
Duration: 4 weeks + (depending on # of vendors)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
21
Vendor Presentations
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGTHS
Opportunity to clarify
information with the
vendor
Opportunity to see the
tools in action
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Doesn’t validate the
features and functionality
As you increase the # of
vendors it can become
confusing (‘they meld into
one’)
Increasing demand on
resources ($ and people)
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
22
Proof of Concept
Single vendor brought in to prove their tool meets
your functional requirements
Typically done in conjunction with a Paper
Evaluation or an RFP
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
23
Proof Of Concept
- Steps & Duration 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Select the vendor for the PoC (Paper Eval, RFP, other)
Develop the criteria and use cases for the PoC
Setup the environment (servers, s/w)
Determine the subject area for PoC
Find/build data model, data sources and business rules
Develop the BI environment (cubes, reports)
Put the tool through its paces
Evaluate the outcome against expected results
Prepare your findings
Duration: 2-4 weeks (not including effort for item 1)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
24
Proof of Concept
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGTHS
Opportunity to see the tool
in action
Opportunity to clarify
information with the
vendor
Validates the features and
functionality
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Doesn’t provide a ‘safety
valve’ should the tool not
meet your expectations
Increasing demand on
resources (if it is one of the
components of your BI
Evaluation process)
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
25
Bake-Off
Just an extension of the PoC
Involves 2-3 vendors putting their tool through
the paces
Provides a ‘safety valve’ should one (or two) tools
not meet your expectations
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
26
Bake-Off
- Steps & Duration Same process as the PoC, with the addition of
these steps for the 2nd/3rd tool:
1. Develop the BI environment (cubes, reports)
2. Put the tool through its paces
3. Evaluate the outcome against expected results
Duration: 5-8 weeks (not including effort to select
the short-listed tools)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
27
Bake-Off
- Strengths & Weaknesses STRENGHTS
Opportunity to see the tool
in action
Opportunity to clarify
information with the
vendor
validates the features and
functionality
Provides a ‘safety valve’
7/17/2015
WEAKNESSES
Greatest demand on
resources ($ and people)
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
28
Red Sky’s Evaluation Criteria Methodology
Process to Create Evaluation Criteria
Determine the evaluation criteria (70-90)
Determine the ‘key differentiators’ – Type II
Other criteria are the ‘base criteria’ – Type I
Group the criteria into categories
Evaluation Criteria Scoring
Type II Criteria – 5 points (0-5)
Type I Criteria – 1 point (0-1)
Prioritize the top 4 categories and weight them 5-2.
All other categories are weighted 1
Final category scores based on:
(Avg. Type I score x 1) + (Avg. Type II score x 5)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
29
Red Sky’s PoC/Bake-Off Methodology
Preparation
Identify ‘key differentiators’, ‘base cases’ & categories
Create 3-5 use cases (i.e. build a specific report)
Create an expected results ‘answer sheet’
Involve the users throughout the process
Execution
Assign an IT resource to work closely with the vendor
throughout the build process (learning & assessment)
Eliminate generic BI learning curve by having users
evaluate the tools in small, parallel steps
Lots of hands-on time for users
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
30
Agenda
Red Sky Overview
An Approach to BI Tool Evaluations
Components
Methodology
Case Study #1 – Telco
Case Study #2 – Health Care government agency
Questions
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
31
Approach
Short-Listing
Vendor Presentations
Bake-Off
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
32
Short-Listing
Client was very familiar with BI technology and
knew what was out there
Joint decision on the vendors was based on the
clients knowledge and our experience
Decision was made to evaluate 2 vendors
Duration: < 1 week (1 week was the bench-mark)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
33
Vendor Presentations
- Steps & Duration 1. Prepare the detailed evaluation criteria
2. 1st presentation: focused on business users and business
functionality (‘day in the life of a user’)
3. Post-presentation review and scoring
4. 2nd presentation: focused on IT users and technical
functionality
5. Post-presentation review and scoring
6. Summarize and prepare findings
Duration: 6 weeks (4 weeks was the bench-mark)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
34
Vendor Presentations
- Vendor Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Metrics
Evaluation criteria (75)
‘key differentiators’ – Type II (30)
‘base criteria’ – Type I (45)
Criteria categories (12)
12 Categories
Functionality
Ease of Use/Manageability
Training and Support
Meta Data
Security
Debugging/Error Handling
7/17/2015
Deployment Management
Scheduler Capabilities
Change Management
Administration/Operational
Backup and Recovery
Technical Environment
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
35
Vendor Presentations
- Vendor Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Scoring
Type II Criteria – 5 points (0-5)
Type I Criteria – 1 point (0-1)
Prioritize the top 5 categories and weight them 5-2. All
other categories are weighted 1
Final category scores based on:
(Avg. Type I score x 1) + (Avg. Type II score x 5)
Top 5 Categories
5
4
3
2
2
7/17/2015
-
Functionality
Ease of Use/Manageability
Training and Support
Meta Data
Security
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
36
Vendor Presentations
- Sample Detailed Evaluation Sample scoring for a category with 4 base criteria
and 2 key differentiators
Category 1
Totals
7 11
Criteria #1
1 1
Criteria #2
1 1
Criteria #3
0 1
Criteria #4
0 1
Criteria #5
2 3
Criteria #6
3 4
7/17/2015
11
1
1
1
0
4
4
Max Score - Type 1 =
1
Max Score - Type 2 =
5
Differentiator
Vendor C
Vendor B
Category
and Criteria
Vendor A
Note how A and B have the same actual score but C has
a higher average due to a better key differentiator score
Maximum Scores
Type 1 Type 2
4
10
Type 1 - Actual Score
A
B
C
2
4
3
Type 2 - Actual Score
A
B
C
5
7
8
Type 1 - % of Max Score Type 2 - % of Max Score
A
B
C
A
B
C
50%
100%
75%
50%
70%
80%
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Average Score
A
B
C
3.00 4.50 4.75
0.5
2.5
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
37
Vendor Presentations
- Evaluation Summary Base Score
Category
Average Score
Weighted Score
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor A
Vendor B
Wght
Vendor A
Vendor B
Functionality
53
47
5.40
4.80
5
27.00
24.00
Ease of use/Manageability
5
5
5.00
5.00
4
20.00
20.00
Training and Support
14
15
4.50
5.00
3
13.50
15.00
Meta Data
7
7
5.00
5.00
2
10.00
10.00
Security
16
15
4.50
4.25
2
9.00
8.50
Debugging and Error Handling
4
4
1.00
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
Deployment Management
8
7
6.00
5.00
1
6.00
5.00
Scheduler Capabilities
10
10
5.00
5.00
1
5.00
5.00
Change Management
4
7
2.00
3.50
1
2.00
3.50
Administration/Operational
17
18
4.05
4.30
1
4.05
4.30
Backup and Recovery
0
2
0.00
1.00
1
0.00
1.00
Technical Environment
16
14
5.00
4.33
1
5.00
4.33
Total Score:
154
151
47.45
48.18
102.55
101.63
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
38
Bake-Off
- Steps and Duration 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Select the vendors (paper eval, RFP, vendor presentation)
Develop the evaluation criteria and use cases
Setup the environment (servers, s/w)
Determine the subject area for the Bake-Off
Find/build data model, data sources and business rules
Develop the BI environment (1 cube, 3 reports)
Put the tool through its paces
Evaluate the outcome against expected results
Prepare your findings
•
Duration: 6 weeks (5-8 weeks was the bench-mark)
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
39
Bake-Off
- Evaluation Criteria All Type I criteria were eliminated
Type II’s were re-visited to identify the most
critical (9 removed, leaving 21)
This reduced the Categories from 12 to 8
Remaining Categories
Functionality
Ease of Use/Manageability
Meta Data
Security
Deployment Management
Scheduler Capabilities
Administration/Operational
Technical Environment
7/17/2015
Eliminated Categories
Change Management
Backup and Recovery
Debugging/Error Handling
Training and Support
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
40
Bake-Off
- Evaluation Criteria Chose 5 components and weighted them according
to importance
45% - Use Cases
• Built to test the 21 Evaluation Criteria
• Business – 3/4
• IT – 1/4
25% 10% 10% 10% 100%
7/17/2015
Product Pricing
Customer Support & Service
Development Evaluation
User’s Personal Experiences
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
41
Bake-Off
- Sample Detailed Bake-Off Evaluation The Business Use Cases with the detailed use
cases for the Canned Reports Features
Business Use Cases
1.
2.
3.
a.
b.
Thin Client Capabilities
Full Client Capabilities
Canned Report Features
Create and publish (to the corporate portal) 2 canned reports, such that the second report is a drill-down from the
i.
Report specifications TBD (‘VENDOR1’ report for the 1st report?)
ii.
Publish the report to the corporate portal
Test the reporting viewing capabilities
i.
Access the first report from the web-based client, and drill down to the second report.
ii.
Return to the first report, then export it to Excel
iii.
View the report in Excel
iv.
Save report in PDF format for distribution
4.
Web-Based (zero-foot print) Client Capabilities
5.
Threshold Capabilities
6.
Aggregate Aware Capabilities (this means we need an aggregated table in the database – just drop a couple
of dimensions).
7.
History Analysis (type 2 dimensions)
8.
Ease of Use
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
Max
Vendor A
Score
Notes
Totals
60
20
10
20
Base
Score
44
16
7
14
10
7
10
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
7
42
Bake-Off
- Evaluation Summary Weighted Score
Base Score
Category
Use Cases
Business Use Cases
• Thin Client Capabilities
• Full Client Capabilities
• Canned Report Features
• Web-Based Capabilities
• Threshold Capabilities
• Aggregate Aware
• History Analysis
• Ease of Use
Max
180
100
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
VndrA
116
65
14
10
8
8
7
0
9
9
VndrB
119
61
15
7
13
7
6
0
6
7
Wght
45
25
5.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
VndrA
29.0
16.3
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
0.0
2.3
2.3
VndrB
29.8
15.3
3.8
1.8
3.3
1.8
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.8
IT Use Cases
• Metadata
• Advanced Scheduling Features
• Security
• Administration
• Performance Management
• Essbase Intergration
• Ease of Use
Development Evaluaton
• Production Installation
• Cube Development
• Essbase Intergration
• Built-In Functionality vs. Coding
Users Personal Experience
Customer Support
Pricing
Total Score:
80
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
250
51
15
7
8
6
3
6
6
28
8
6
7
7
9
5
10
168
58
12
7
7
8
7
8
9
28
6
7
7
8
7
10
6
170
20
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
10
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
10
10
25
100
12.8
3.8
1.8
2.0
1.5
0.8
1.5
1.5
7.0
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.8
9.0
5.0
25.0
75
14.5
3.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.3
7.0
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
7.0
10.0
15.0
69
7/17/2015
116/180 x 45 = 29
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
43
Agenda
Red Sky Overview
An Approach to BI Tool Evaluations
Components
Methodology
Case Study #1 – Telco
Case Study #2 – Health Care government agency
Questions
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
44
Approach
RFP
Short-Listing
Proof of Proposals (POP’s) – Part 1
Proof of Proposals (POP’s) – Part 2
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
45
RFP
Client was new to BI technology
Very aggressive timelines
Assisted client in preparing RFP and facilitating RFP
evaluation process
Defined Mandatory and Rated Requirements
Critical Rated Requirements = “Key Differentiators”
Duration: 6 weeks (4-8 weeks was the bench-mark)
12 Categories
Functionality
Ease of Use/Manageability
Training and Support
Meta Data
Security
Debugging/Error Handling
7/17/2015
Deployment Management
Scheduler Capabilities
Change Management
Administration/Operational
Backup and Recovery
Technical Environment
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
46
Short-Listing
RFP responses evaluated against:
Mandatory (18)
Rated Requirements (140)
Rated Requirements:
Assigned a score (1 - lowest to 5 - highest)
Assigned a weight (1 - lowest to 5 - highest)
Highest possible score for any one requirement: 5x5=25
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
47
Rated Requirements Scoring
- Sample -
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
48
Short-Listing - Con’t
Financial responses evaluated=TCO over 5 years:
Initial price per component
Annual support and maintenance
Development, Test, Production environments
Best Value Determination=Overall Weighted Score
80% - Rated Requirements scores
20% - Price
Top 3 vendors selected to proceed to PoP process
Duration: < 1 week
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
49
Best Value Determination
- Example Example of Best Value Determination
Highest Combined Rating Technical Merit (80%) and Price (20%)
Bidder
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
Technical Points
88
82
76
Price Quoted
$60,000
$55,000
$50,000
Calculations
Technical Points
88 X 80 = 80
82 X 80 = 74.54
76 X 80 =69.09
88*
88
88
Price Points
50** X 20 = 16.67
50 X 20 = 18.18
50 X 20 = 20
60
55
50
Total Points
96.67
92.72
89.09
Assuming three valid bids have been received and the maximum technical score that can be obtained is 100
points. Highest technical score and lowest price proposal received full rated percentage and other proposals
are pro-rated accordingly* Represents the highest technical score
** Represents the lowest priced proposal
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
50
Proof of Proposals (PoPs)
- Part 1 Conducted onsite using client equipment
Vendors provided data model and “storyboard” in
advance
Storyboard focused on Key Differentiators
Each vendor allocated 3 days:
1 day for install
1 day for prep
1 day for demo to technical and business audiences
Duration: 2 weeks
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
51
Proof of Proposals (PoPs)
- Part 1 – Con’t Debriefing with assessment team immediately
following PoP
Rated Requirements scores updated based on PoP
results
Top 2 selected to proceed to second PoP phase
Duration: 2 weeks
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
52
Proof of Proposals (PoPs)
- Part 2 Extended demonstration of product capabilities
Vendors given opportunity to “wow” business
audience
Each vendor allocated 5 days:
1 day for install
2 days for prep (working closely with business reps)
1-2 days of demo and hands-on for business
Winning vendor selected
Duration: 2 weeks
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
53
Lessons Learned
Choose a business sponsor
Will engage the business and establish the subject area
Ensure you have significant involvement from IT
and the business throughout the process
All criteria and business cases validated by the client
Keep it simple
Don’t attempt to incorporate the evaluation with a
project deliverable
Minimal criteria
Be prepared for surprises
Vendor added at the 11th hour
Decision maker “suggesting” the appropriate vendor
Project gets cancelled
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
54
Questions, Answers and Discussion
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
55
Thank-You for your Time and Interest
Robert Snoyer
Managing Partner
Red Sky Data Inc.
[email protected]
416-712-7499
Steve Jones
Managing Partner
Red Sky Data Inc.
[email protected]
416-524-9157
www.redskydata.com
7/17/2015
BI Tool Evaluations: A Methodology & Cases
56