These potential benefits should be the fundamental idea guiding the consolidation of current performance indicator systems and requests for new information. This idea becomes even more forceful in view of this interesting consideration.

Put a price tag on the provided information

As long as adequate transparency regarding the costs for the “production” of the desired performance indicators and reports is lacking, no one can expect any special commitment to the reduction of such costs. Information is one of the most important assets in a company. The effective collection, processing, and provision of information of the proper quality consumes resources which must be used carefully and efficiently. Unfortunately, the companies recognizing this fact are few and far between. It is possible both to calculate the costs of information and to make transparent the profit realized using this information for individual BI applications, especially in the area of customer relationship management (CRM). One example of this is the successful implementation of a campaign for a new product which led to sales of several hundred thousand euros. If the IT department succeeds in putting transparent prices on its services, their utilization can be evaluated accordingly and compared with the results from day-to-day business. There are today still contradictory opinions about such a model. But there are also cases in which this type of procedure has proven its value, such as the implementation of a balanced scorecard for the management of the University Clinic in Aachen.

The BI architecture must fit the model for corporate management 

A comprehensive discussion of all of the relevant factors involved in the solution of the problem described at the outset of this article is not possible here. But before coming to a close, we should still look at the important aspect of finding the right data architecture as a basis for reporting at the corporate group level. New ideas have stimulated discussion here as well. While the model of a centralized data warehouse serving as the foundation for data marts with specific data views for performance indicator reporting has become established at the department or company level, this model proves inadequate or too cumbersome for reporting at the corporate group level. The same principles apply to the architecture as to the definition of the performance indicators: the intended management of the business units and the performance indicators required for this management determine the data architecture. This also allows room for the coexistence of a number of data warehouses, including the data marts based on them and interrelationships between them. However, a complex architecture model also means an inherent risk of a lack of transparency. It is easy to lose sight of the strict top-down definition of performance indicators which is required. Greater efforts must be made by the governance organization. So the data architecture should take the requirements for management into account, but at the same time remain true to the principle of simplicity.