Christmas shopping this year really drove home to me how completely the electronics industry has made itself obsolete in recent years. The electronics stores are emptying out. All the gadgets that have been so popular in recent decades -- cameras, camcorders, VCRs, tape recorders, CD players, portable music boxes, dictation machines, game consoles, pagers, PCs, notebook computers, TVs, radios, pocket calculators, GPS navigation devices, synthesizers, mixing consoles and of course telephones (mobile and land based) have all disappeared into smart phones.

But smart phones aren't really phones at all, they are just palmtop computers that include an interface for cellular networks and a phone app. They are called smart phones for marketing reasons -- because the phone companies use them to lock consumers into overpriced network contracts. If photography were the killer app, they would be called smart cameras, which is just as appropriate. The only thing that seems to be keeping the entire electronics industry from being swallowed up by the black hole of Moore's Law is this kind of marketing wheeze and the (rapidly falling) price of screens.

I'm old enough to remember when Radio Shack was a national treasure. Now it's just a place to buy batteries while being harassed by a hard selling salesman from some telecoms oligopolist best known for hating its customers. And in this age of smart hearing aids, robotic assembly lines and fly-by-wire airplanes, its not just consumer electronics that is being computerized.

There is a discussion of some remarks I made to Ann All at IT Business Edge here, together with some opnions by Howard Dresner.

The interview reflects my opinion pretty well. I see mobile BI as a way to find new types of customers for BI more than as a way to replace existing installations. Too bad I didn't mention salespeople on the road, I think they are an important potential market as well.

Another point is that I think most people who said they expected mobile BI to be in use within 12 months were being too optimistic. The BI Survey 11 will address this question.

I'm talking to Tibco about Spotfire. It's an interesting product that I've reviewed before. It seems to me that they are moving more and more into operative BI, which fits the Tibco idea of fast data delivery that fits Tibco very well. They also seems to be putting more emphasis on ROLAP than they used to.

What is interesting is that they are also presenting a social media tool called Tibbr (wonder how they came up with that name!) and a cloud version. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but it seems to me that it doesn't fit their bus and/or ROLAP approach very well.

Their justification for the investment is that some analyst or other is predicting fast growth in this area. This reminds me of what an important ole analysts play in the market. Thanks to the analysts, a lot of BI vendors are jumping on the cloud bandwagon, even though the cloud sales channel is very different from what most BI vendors are accustomed to, and that the idea of mving data off site and then back onsite adds complexity.

I'm talking to QlikTech about their new version, coming soon. I'll be publishing the results in the BI Verdict. They are focusing more and more on these bigger accounts. I think this story fits pretty well in my informal series of posts on the subject of agile BI. By coincidence I have already discussed QlikView in a previous post.

QlikTech has a what they call a "land and expand" policy, which means getting a single department on the tool and expanding from there. Actually, all BI companies that can deliver departmental solutions have something similar. The reason for this is simple: The cost of sales for selling to a company that is already using the tool is much lower than for completely new customers. In fact, a lot of BI tools spread through companies from department to department this way.

Now QlikTech is concentrating more on enterprise accounts. So it's interesting to see that the company is moving away from the previous claim that the tool is a replacement for a data warehouse. I think that any attempt on their part to compete as an enterprise solution would just distract them from their end users.

A lot of BI companies go through a similar life cycle as they grow. Most start out as ways to create departmental solutions, which tend to be faster, more agile projects. As they get bigger management tends to concentrate on larger accounts, which means making sure they are acceptable to the IT department. But IT is more interested in keeping processes running than in agile development. As a result, the products tend to become more complex and less suitable to agile solutions.

This is a big issue for QlikView right now because they have grown so quickly in recent years. But currently the company seems to backing away from radical changes in the tool. But it applies to and BI tool that is growing.

One of the key ideas in agility is the importance of delivering real, testable results without delay. In fact, the Agile Manifesto recommends delivering working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months.

Delivery working software with two months may sound a bit extreme, but there is good evidence that short projects are more successful than long projects. In fact, our research in the BI Survey shows that the application should be rolled out to the users less than six months after the product has been selected. We have found the same result year after year in the ten year history of the Survey. Amazingly, project benefits start to fall as early as a month after the product is selected, and continue to fall thereafter. And of the many project parameters we study, none shows as clear an effect on project success as project length.

These results from the BI Survey provide clear empirical support for the idea of using agile methods in business intelligence projects. The results have remained also consistent since we started the Survey ten years ago, long before the idea of agile development or agile business intelligence became popular.

But why do short projects work so much better? Our research shows that the main problems that arise in longer projects are organizational, not technical. Needs change over the course of time, and end users lose interest in the project. Disagreements over the project goals arise. Lack of interest and disappointed end users are a major issue in business intelligence.

And needs certainly do change quickly in business intelligence. For example, another study we carried out shows that three quarters of European companies modify their planning processes one or more times a year. In an environment like this, a project that takes a year to implement is quite likely to be obsolete before it is finished. Even a six month wait can push potential users to look around for a more agile solution.

The problem this creates is that not all business intelligence projects can be carried out within a few months. This is especially true when major data management issues need to be addressed. The agile solution to this is to find way of splitting large projects into smaller ones. The usual argument against this approach is that it creates the risk of reducing efficiency in the long term. But the agile methodology is to measure success in terms of working software delivered in the short term, instead of attempting to meet nebulous long-term goals.

My blog is including on the Alltop business intelligence page, and at the time of writing I display their badge on the blog.

According to the site 'The purpose of Alltop is to help you answer the question, ”What’s happening?”' Alltop is a 1990's style Web registry maintained by human editors.

But Alltop's business intelligence page has several problems that make it less useful than it could be. The page has fallen victim to a semantic Web style gotcha. Like many other phrases, business intelligence means different things to different people. If you don't disambiguate somehow, a web registry based on a phrase may make no sense.

There are three distinct meanings of the phrase "business intelligence". The first is something about software for analyzing business data -- like my blog. The second is news about businesses, which is interesting but unrelated. These are some of those blogs:

MEED NEWS, EMARKETS.DE, B2B TRADE, DEALBOOK, ARUNDEL BUSINESS NEWS, FOREX TRADING INFO, THE FINANCE KID, ARBITRAGE MAGAZINE, SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT

The third meaning is based on a completely different meaning of intelligence -- intelligence as in IQ, as opposed to intelligence as in information for analysis. In the sense business intelligence just means being smart about business, which could men just about anything.

So Alltop's business intelligence page contain sites that are not at all related to the #businessintelligence tag on Twitter. A lot of these seem to be advice about sales and entrepreneurship or general management consulting blogs. A few are just political blogs, or blogs about general market or marketing trends. They're fine in their way, I guess, just misplaced. Here's a list:

STATSPOTTING!, WSJ: THE NUMBERS GUY, MANAGE BY WALKING AROUND, BUILDING BUSINESS VALUE, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, KNOWLEDGE WORKS, HUSTLEKNOCKIN', THE THINK HERE BLOG, LEAD VIEWS, THE SOLOPRENEUR LIFE, SMEDIO, INTERCALL BLOG, GLOBAL INSTITUTE FOR INSPIRATION, SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT, RED WING SOFTWARE BLOG, FRED67 B2B REFERRAL CLUB, RESULTS.COM BUSINESS GROWTH TIPS

I'm not criticizing any of these guys, just saying they seem to be improperly categorized.

Also Alltop is syndicating advertising material thinly disguised as blogs. Of course, maybe they're getting paid, what do I know? If not they should be. The following are BI vendors, which may or may not be problem:

RED WING SOFTWARE BLOG, LOGIXML, BIME - SAAS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI), BLOG.JINFONET.COM, MICROSTRATEGY 101, PANORAMA BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE

In addition, there are several aggregators -- Yahoo, and Beyenetwork twice. These guys can be seen as comptetitors, I guess.

In the end I think that the lack of careful stewardship reduces the usefulness of the site. The problem is that business intelligence is a vague term and needs a semantic Web to be useful. Manual editing in a web registry is a workaround, but it is not being used here to much effect.

I recently blogged about columnar and Wayne Eckerson asked me for a clearer explanation of what I mean by columnar databases "discovering hierarchies".

For example consider the approach of two well known products, IBM Cognos TM1, which is multidimensional, and QlikView, which is columnar.

My definition of a data model is a structure that is informed by an administrator, or set down in the master data. To me this is different to a structure derived from analyzing the transactions. In the following simple example, let's say I have two sales teams, one for dental hygiene products and one for soap.

If I were designing a data model in TM1, then I could create a hierarchy, which is a set of parent child relationships between the departments and the products they sell. If the soap people cross-sold some toothpaste, it would have no effect on the hierarchy, because it is predetermined by my idea of how my company is supposed to work.

If I were to import the same data in QlikView I could create a report that showed me the relationship between the sales teams and the products without defining the model. Once the data is imported, QlikView recognizes the relationships automatically.

When the soap guys cross-sell toothpaste, QlikView discovrs the new relationship, but the hierarchies stay the same in TM1, because that's how I defined the model. To me this is the key difference. On the one hand the structures are coming directly from the actuals, and on the other hand they reflect my predefined perception (or "model") of what is going on.

So columnar databases typically discover the relationships automatically, and multidimensional databases allows you to define the relationships as you want them. Another way to look at this is that the transactional data drives the master data structure in a colunmar database, but those structures are wired into the multidimensional model.

So which approach is better? It depends on the application.

The idea of hosting software off-premises is not new. In fact, software as a service (SaaS) is just a rewording of an older term referring to companies providing the service, application service provider (ASP). ASPs were a very popular investment target during the dotcom era, but not much ever came of the business model. Like so many Internet-based startup ideas in this era, most of these companies disappeared.

In fact, the only major exception to this rule was Salesforce.com, which used to refer to itself as an ASP, before the SaaS term became popular. And indeed Salseforce.com is often taken as an example in discussions of the future of BI as a service, or cloud BI.

But why was the ASP wave a failure and why should cloud computing be different? Even the often quoted success of Salesforce.com is far removed from the company’s once loudly trumpeted goal of replacing all the ERP features of SAP and PeopleSoft. Furthermore, do the forces that could make SaaS more successful than ASP also apply to the BI market?

The main argument offered by vendors in favor of cloud BI is that it is less expensive than the more typical on-premises software. The upfront capital costs of hardware contribute to these savings. The other major factor is that the company is not required to operate separate servers for the BI application.

However, both of these savings result from the investment required to own and operate the hardware for BI software. Similar savings can also be realized with strictly in-house approaches such as server virtualization. Furthermore, the use of Web technology has already eliminated one of the key costs of BI initiatives, which is the cost of rolling out the front-ends to large numbers of users.

Another argument is that mobile devices are driving SaaS BI, but as HTML5 spreads, it is hard to see why mobile devices should require a cloud solution.

We a conducting a survey to find out more about BI in the cloud. If you take part you could win an iPad 2.

I'd also be interested to hear any comments on what I have talked about here.

One of the advantage that some analytical tools such as QlikView Spotfire or Tableau claims to offer over the products they call "Traditional BI" is that they can be used without data modeling. According to this claim, data modeling is a major obstacle to agile business intelligence and not needed anyway.

Is it true that data modeling is dead? Has technology found a workaround?
The need for data modeling depends upon the application. Products that promise user friendly analysis without any data analysis are usually intended for a specific type of analysis that does not require any previously specified structure.

A good example of data does not require modeling that retailers gather about their customers. This data comes in big flat tables with many columns, and the whole point to the analysis is to find unexpected patterns in this unstructured data. In this case adding a model is adding assumptions that may actually hinder the analysis process.

However, some types of analyses only make sense with at least some modeling. Time intelligence is an example of a type of analysis that is supported by a data model. Also analyzing predefined internal structures such as cost accounts or complex sales channels is usually more convenient based on predefined structures. The alternative method of discovering the structures in the raw data may not be possible.

Planning is a common area of agile BI, and planning is rarely possible without predefined structures. It is no coincidence that the tools that promise analysis without data modeling do not offer planning features. Planning requires adding new data to an existing data set. In some cases, this includes adding new master data, for example when new products are being planned. Furthermore, there is often a good deal of custom business logic in a planning application that cannot be defined automatically. Most financial planning processes, and the analysis and simulation that goes along with them cannot be carried out on simple table.

In my view the new generation columnar databases are a welcome addition to agile BI. But I also think that their marketing is sometimes a little over the top when it comes to dismissing existing BI solution in this area.

In recent years, thanks not least to aggressive marketing by QlikTech (or Qlik Technologies as the are now often called) Tableau and Tibco Spotfire, columnar databases and in-memory databases have become very fashionable. Microsoft's VertiPaq engine, which is behind the PowerPivot product, is a good example of a tool that came in on the wave of this trend.

One of the results of these is that there seems to be some confusion about what the terms "in-memory" and "column oriented" mean, and attributes of one are often attributed to the other.

Just to be perfectly clear: A columnar database is not necessarily in-memory, and an in-memory database is not necessarily columnar.

In-memory is a somewhat vague term, since, as Nigel Pendse likes to point out, all databases have to hold data in memory to process it -- the CPU cannot directly access the hard drive. However, I would say that unlike some other tools, IBM Cognos TM1 and QlikView are in-memory. These products load everything into memory before they do anything. If there is not enough memory to fit the entire data set, the load fails and that's that. The same applies to SAP HANA. But unlike QlikView and HANA, TM1 is a multi-dimensional database.

The loading behavior of an in-memory database is much different to the MOLAP engine in Analysis Services, which is fundamentally disk-based but has sophisticated paging abilities to keep as much as the data as possible in memory, or the column oriented Spotfire, which attempts to load everything but uses paging if there is not enough memory.

Columnar is a much clearer and simpler term. It simply means that the data is stored by column instead of by row. There are a large number of analytic databases with this architecture, such as Exadata, SAND, Greenplum, Aster, or Sybase IQ, just to name a few. Some, like Vertica and VertiPaq, even refer to their columnar architecture in their names. Some columnar databases are in-memory, but many are designed to deal with huge amounts of data, up to the petabyte range, and cannot possibly hold it all in memory.

By the way, what got me off on this rant is actually this blog about Endeca Latitude 2 which actually equates the two technologies, and a Linked-In discussion the author started (which is private, so I can't link it here) with the title "Is Data Modeling Dead?"

The idea in memory databases kill data modelling comes from the fact that columnar databases are often used to discover hierarchies, and a whole generation of so-called "agile" in-memory database tools use this method. But in-memory multi-dimensional databases are still around and still very useful for analyzing data on well defined structures such as financial data.