Towards a Business Intelligence Framework for UnisaPresented to SPCC 7 May 2009

Current Budget

Prev. Budget

Year+1 Budget

Year+2 BudgetYear+3 Budget

Year+4 BudgetHeadquarters British Columbia

Prairie Central

Quebec

Atlantic

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%

50.00%60.00%

70.00%

MEASURES

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

Professor George SubotzkyExecutive 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

UnitsInputs, Processes, Outputs, Outcomes & Performance Measures

INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE &

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

• Monitoring and Evaluation

(BI/Institutional Research)• Quality

Assurance/Service• IPMS• Risk ManagementOngoing:• 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 PlanStrategic 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

Projectsact

IOP & STRATEGIC PROJECTS

Strategically-aligned Outcomes, Objectives, Outputs & Performance Measures

IntegratedStrategic

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 ExternalDISA

4 types of Outputs/Services

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

AND ANALYTICAL

SUPPORT SERVICES

• Formal & informal

• BI support

BI/IR ENTERPRISE

ARCHITECTURE

plan

review

change

act

IntegratedStrategic

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

OpsDomain

1

OpsDomain

2

OpsDomain

3

OpsDomain

4

OpsDomain

5

OpsDomain

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 6.8Manage 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%.

However, this remains 2,7% below the 2008 target of 59%.

Further, a slight increase of 0,4% was evident between 2006 and 2007.

Action/Responsibility

Appropriate steps by VP: F&E, reporting to Mancom and Finance Committee of Council

Current Institutional Performance against 2015 Strategic Plan: Scorecard Performance

Trend Performance

Indicator Target

Target Date

Current Performance

Current Performance Against Target

Prognosis of Meeting 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 Rate, 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 targets 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 sidewards (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 A

naly

tic M

atur

ityManagement 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 A

naly

tic

Matu

rity

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 Framewo

rk

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

Programmeand Course Intelligence

Domains of BI at Unisa

Users

Portal

Extraction

Data-warehouse

Students

Research

Extraction

Current Budget

Prev. Budget

Year+1 Budget

Year+2 BudgetYear+3 Budget

Year+4 BudgetHeadquarters British Columbia

Prairie Central

Quebec

Atlantic

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%

50.00%60.00%

70.00%

MEASURES

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

Datamarts

Source databases

Data

Information

Intelligence

HR

Finance

Estates

ICT DISA/BICC

Datamarts

• 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 FramePHASE 1: FINALISATION OF BI STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

Finalise documentSPCC Working Group feedbackMC approval

March 2009

PHASE 2: DETAILED ROADMAP FINALISED AND IMPLEMENTED

Structures and team operationalised Consultants appointed

April 2009May 2009

Project launchInstitution-wide Advocacy Campaign conducted with feedback

May 2009 - onwards

Develop Project Charter with consultants June 2009BI 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’