See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230547807

Business intelligence (BI) success and the role of BI capabilities

Article  in  Intelligent Systems in Accounting Finance & Management · October 2011

DOI: 10.1002/isaf.329

CITATIONS READS

56 2,267

3 authors, including:

Oyku Isik Anna Sidorova

Vlerick Business School University of North Texas
16 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   1,040 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PHD work View project

Research Trends in Information Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oyku Isik on 03 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS IN ACCOUNTING, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt. 18, 161–176 (2011)
Published online 31 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/isaf.329

BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE

OF BI CAPABILITIES

OYKU ISIKa*, MARY C. JONESb AND ANNA SIDOROVAb

a
Operations and Technology Management Center, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Leuven, Belgium
b
Information Technology & Decision Sciences Department, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

SUMMARY
Business intelligence (BI) has become the top priority for many organizations who have implemented BI solutions
to improve their decision-making process. Yet, not all BI initiatives have fulfilled the expectations. We suggest that
one of the reasons for failure is the lack of an understanding of the critical factors that define the success of BI
applications, and that BI capabilities are among those critical factors. We present findings from a survey of 116
BI professionals that provides a snapshot of user satisfaction with various BI capabilities and the relationship be-
tween these capabilities and user satisfaction with BI. Our findings suggest that users are generally satisfied with BI
overall and with BI capabilities. However, the BI capabilities with which they are most satisfied are not necessarily
the ones that are the most strongly related to BI success. Of the five capabilities that were the most highly correlated
with overall satisfaction with BI, only one was specifically related to data. Another interesting finding implies that,
although users are not highly satisfied with the level of interaction of BI with other systems, this capability is highly
correlated with BI success. Implications of these findings for the successful use and management of BI are dis-
cussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: business intelligence; BI; BI capabilities; BI success; BI satisfaction

1. INTRODUCTION

In response to an ever increasing amount of data to analyse and growing pressure to provide better and
quicker responses to customers, many organizations have turned to business intelligence (BI) applica-
tions as a means to improve organizational decision making. Coined by the Gartner Group in 1990s, the
term BI came to embrace a variety of information technology (IT)-based tools and approaches for
helping organizations to make better use of the increasingly vast amounts of data accumulated from
both internal and external sources. Thus, BI can be defined as a system comprised of both technical
and organizational elements that presents historical information to its users for analysis and enables
effective decision making and management support, for the overall purpose of increasing
organizational performance (Eckerson, 2003; Watson et al., 2004).
Organizations today collect enormous amounts of data from numerous sources, and using BI to
collect, organize and analyse this data can add great value to a business (Gile et al., 2006). BI can also
provide executives with right time data and allow them to make informed decisions to put them ahead
of their competitors (Viaene et al., 2009). In 2010, BI topped the list of the most important application
and technology developments in an annual survey of IT executives (Luftman and Ben-Zvi, 2010). Re-
search also shows that most companies may focus their IT investment plans on BI (Evelson, 2011).

* Correspondence to: Oyku Isik, Operations and Technology Management Center, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School,
Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: oyku.isik@vlerick.com

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

162 O. ISIK ET AL.

Despite all the interest and investments, not all BI initiatives live up to management’s expectations. We
posit that failures occur when organizations make BI adoption decisions without a clear understanding
of the critical BI capabilities that define the success of BI applications. BI capabilities are critical func-
tionalities that help an organization improve its performance and adapt to environmental change
(Watson and Wixom, 2007). They range from data reliability to the flexibility of the BI in decision-
making support. As organizations take advantage of these capabilities, their BI use increases, as does
the value derived from BI applications (Watson and Wixom, 2007).
In this study, we examine the relationship between various BI capabilities and user satisfaction with
BI to provide a snapshot of the role of BI capabilities in BI success. BI satisfaction is used in this profile
as a surrogate for BI success (Lonnqvist and Pirttimaki, 2006). We use survey data collected from BI
professionals (business managers who use BI for strategic, tactical and operational decision making)
to understand the role of BI capabilities. Specifically, we focus on 10 BI capabilities that are identified
as important to BI success in the literature (Hostmann et al., 2007). They are quantitative and qualita-
tive data quality, internal and external data source quality, internal and external data reliability, user ac-
cess, flexibility, interaction with other systems, and risk management support capabilities.
Our key findings suggest that users are most satisfied with internal and quantitative data capabilities
of BI and least satisfied with external data capabilities. Overall, we observed that level of satisfaction
for advanced BI capabilities (e.g. interaction with other systems and external data reliability) is lower.
Another interesting finding is that although less than half of our respondents were satisfied with the
level of interaction of BI with other systems, this capability was highly correlated with overall BI
satisfaction.
Section 2 reviews the literature for this study. We then describe the data collection and analysis in
Section3. After reporting on the findings in Section 4, we conclude with a discussion on our findings
and their implications in Section 5.

2. LITERATURE BACKGROUND

BI has become an interest for information systems (IS), which implies systems composed of processes,
people and information that improves the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations, researchers rela-
tively recently and is a research stream that is still in development (Ponelis and Britz, 2011). Ever
since the term BI has been coined, various definitions of BI have emerged in the academic and practi-
tioner literature. While some broadly define BI as a holistic and sophisticated approach to cross-
organizational decision support (Moss and Atre, 2003; Alter, 2004), others approach BI from a more
technical point of view (Burton and Hostmann, 2005; White, 2005). BI, however, is comprised of both
technical and organizational elements (Watson et al., 2006). In the most general sense, BI presents
historical information to its users for analysis to enable effective decision making and for management
support (Eckerson, 2003). For the purpose of this research, BI is defined as a system comprised of both
technical and organizational elements that presents historical information to its users for analysis, to
enable effective decision making and management support, for the overall purpose of increasing
organizational performance.
Companies realize benefit from their BI initiatives when they manage to link it with their business strat-
egy (Viaene, 2008). Yet, most organizations struggle to measure how BI impacts the organization’s per-
formance and thus have difficulty realizing how successful their BI initiative is. In the most general
sense, BI success can be defined as the positive value an organization obtains from its BI investment.
Yet, how an organization defines BI success depends on what benefits that organization needs from its

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 163

BI initiative (Miller, 2007). BI success may represent attainment of benefits such as improved profitability,
increased efficiency (Eckerson, 2003) and reduced costs (Pirttimaki et al., 2006). For the purpose of this
research, BI success is defined as the positive benefits organizations achieve through use of their BI. An-
other approach to measuring BI success is subjective measurement (Lonnqvist and Pirttimaki, 2006). This
involves measuring the satisfaction of the decision maker with BI by asking questions regarding the effect-
iveness of the BI (Davison, 2001). This way, it is possible to learn what users think of various aspects of the
system, such as ease of use, timeliness and usefulness. With this method, it is also possible to understand
the perceptions of the extent to which the users realized their expected benefits with BI.
Most of the BI users today meet their information-processing and decision-making needs through BI
as it facilitates organizational information-processing capacity (Gallegos, 1999; Nelson et al., 2005). BI
does so by combining data collection, data storage and knowledge management with analytical tools so
that decision makers can convert complex information into effective decisions (Negash, 2004). The
wide selection of BI platforms and applications available in the market today shows that there is a de-
mand for a variety of BI functionalities. Different organizational characteristics and strategic goals may
also require using different BI capabilities. BI capabilities are critical functionalities of BI that help an
organization improve its adaptation to change as well as improve its performance (Watson and Wixom,
2007). With the right capabilities, BI can help an organization predict changes in product demand or
detect an increase in a competitor’s new product market share and respond quickly by introducing a
competing product (Watson and Wixom, 2007).
BI capabilities are critical functionalities that help an organization improve its performance and its
adaptation to change (Watson and Wixom, 2007). BI capabilities have remained largely unexamined
in academic IS research, although they have been widely discussed in practitioner oriented literature
(Eckerson, 2004; Watson and Wixom, 2007). For example, a recent Gartner Group research report
about the evolution of BI relates BI capabilities related to information access and analysis to deci-
sion-making style within an organization (Hostmann et al., 2007), where information access and ana-
lysis includes methods and technologies used to collect and analyse the information. In our paper we
delineate such information access and analysis capabilities and relate them to the overall BI success.
Specifically, we examine such capabilities as the sources from which the data are obtained, data types,
data reliability, user access in terms of authorization and/or authentication, flexibility of the system,
interaction with other systems, and the level of risk supported by the system (see Table I for a summary
of definitions). We discuss each of the capabilities below.

2.1. Data Quality

Data quality refers to the consistency and comprehensiveness of the data (Giovinazzo, 2009). BI sys-
tems today have the capacity to work with different types of data such as numerical and non-numerical
data, for which the quality is equally critical. The difference in the level of data quality is one of the
factors that may explain why some organizations are successful with their BI initiative while some
are not. Research implies that clean and relevant data is one of the most important BI success factors
(Eckerson, 2003; Isik et al., 2010). The Data Warehousing Institute estimates that data quality issues
alone cost US businesses over $600 billion dollars a year (Graham, 2008).

2.2. Data Source Quality

A data source can be defined as the place where the data that are used for analysis reside and are
retrieved (Hostmann et al., 2007). BI requires the collection of data from both internal and external

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
164 O. ISIK ET AL.

Table I. BI capability definitions

BI capability Definition Example reference

Quantitative data quality The capability of BI to manage data that can be measured or Sukumaran and Sureka (2006)
identified on a numerical scale, and analysed with statistical
methods in an accurate, comprehensive and consistent way.
Qualitative data quality The capability of BI to manage data that is non-numerical Sukumaran and Sureka (2006)
and in text, image or sound format that needs to be
interpreted for analysis purposes, in an accurate, comprehensive
and consistent way.
Internal data reliability The capability of BI to provide and manage internal data without Parikh and Haddad (2008)
any conflicts, inconsistencies, in a reliable and up-to-date manner.
External data reliability The capability of BI to provide and manage external data without Hostmann et al. (2007)
any conflicts, inconsistencies, in a reliable and up-to-date manner.
Internal data source quality The capability of BI to store, retrieve and disseminate data from Harding (2003)
internal data sources such as a data warehouse, a data mart,
or an online analytical processing (OLAP) cube in a concise,
available and readily usable manner.
External data source qualityThe capability of BI to store, retrieve and disseminate data from Harding (2003)
external data sources such as websites, spreadsheets, suppliers and
vendors in a concise, available and readily usable manner.
Interaction with other The capability of BI to provide enterprise business integration White (2005)
systems through a unified view of business data, business processes
and business applications by managing the flow of events as well
as a single personalized interface to the user.
User access The capability of BI to manage different information access Hostmann et al. (2007)
mechanisms to provide the right users the right accessibilities.
Flexibility The capability of BI to provide decision support when variations Gebauer and Schober (2006)
exist in the business processes, technology or the business
environment in general.
Risk management support The capability of BI to support decision making under conditions Harding (2003)
of uncertainty when all the facts are not known.

sources (Harding, 2003). Internal data are generally integrated and managed within a traditional BI
application information management infrastructure, such as a data warehouse, a data mart or an online
analytical processing (OLAP) cube (Hostmann et al., 2007). External data includes the data that
organizations exchange with customers, suppliers and vendors. This is rarely inserted into a data
warehouse. Often, external data is retrieved from websites, spreadsheets, audio files and video files.
The quality of these sources may have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the BI system and
satisfaction of its users. It is evident in research that organizations such as Allstate insurance company
and 1-800-Contacts retailer, who are renowned for their successful BI solutions, pay critical attention to
the sources from which they obtain their data (Howson, 2006).

2.3. Data Reliability

Data reliability refers to the dependability and accuracy of the data (Hannigan and Palendrano, 2002).
Organizations make critical decisions based on the data they collect every day, so it is vital for them to
have accurate and reliable data. Yet, there is evidence that organizations of all sizes are negatively
impacted by imperfection, duplication and inaccuracy of the data they use (Damianakis, 2008). The
Gartner Group, for example, estimates that more than 50 % of BI projects through 2007 failed because
of data reliability issues (Graham, 2008). Research also shows that organizations that have won awards
with their successful BI initiatives pay critical attention to the type of data they use, and the reliability of
their data by acting early during their BI initiative and dedicating a working group to data-related issues
(Howson, 2006).

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 165

2.4. Interaction with Other Systems

Many organizations prefer having IS applications interacting at multiple levels so that enterprise busi-
ness integration can occur (White, 2005). This integration can be at the data level, application level,
business process level or user level, yet these four levels are not isolated from each other (White,
2005). There are different technologies available for these integration types. For example, enterprise in-
formation integration enables applications to see dispersed data as though it resided in a single database
and enterprise application integration enables applications to communicate with each other using stand-
ard interfaces (Swaminathan, 2006).
For organizations that use data from multiple sources and feed the data to multiple information sys-
tems, the quality of communication between these systems directly affects the overall performance
(Swaminathan, 2006).

2.5. User Access

One size does not fit all with BI. Organizations may need to employ different BI tools from different
vendors because different groups of users have different reporting and analysis needs (Howson,
2006). Whether the organization prefers to use best-of-breed applications or a single BI suite, matching
the tool capabilities with user types is always a good strategy (Howson, 2006). This capability also
relates to the extent which the user can access the information they need for decision making with
BI. While some organizations limit user access through practising authorization and access control,
others prefer to allow full access to all types of users through a web-centric approach (Hostmann
et al., 2007). For example, the BI tool provided by Lyzasoft Inc. is an all-in-one tool that includes inte-
grated reporting, ad hoc querying and connectivity to data sources as a client-side desktop application
(Swoyer, 2008). On the other hand, QlikTech International developed QlikView, a web-centric BI appli-
cation that provides analytical and reporting capabilities for all types of users, especially easier to use
for nontechnical users (Havenstein, 2006). While web-centric systems are generally shared by large
numbers of users, desktop applications are mostly dedicated to specific users (Hostmann et al., 2007).

2.6. Flexibility
Flexibility refers to the capability of BI to provide decision support when variations exist in the busi-
ness processes, technology or the business environment in general (Gebauer and Schober, 2006).
The amount of flexibility directly impacts the performance of a system: while insufficient flexibility
may prevent using the system for certain situations, too much flexibility may increase complexity
and reduce usability (Silver, 1991; Gebauer and Schober, 2006). It is critical that BI provides the neces-
sary flexibility in the decision-making process, especially for applications or processes where
innovation and dynamism are required (Dreyer, 2006). Technology does not always support exceptional
situations, although organizations need the flexibility and robust functionality to obtain the optimum
potential from BI (Antebi, 2007). Where the problems about which decisions are made require flexibil-
ity in their assessment, this capability is key to BI success (Clark et al., 2007).

2.7. Risk Management Support

Risk management support refers to the capability to support decisions under conditions of uncertainty
(Harding, 2003). People, processes, technology and even external events can cause risks for an

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
166 O. ISIK ET AL.

organization (Imhoff, 2005), and how successfully the organization manages that risk is a capability
that directly impacts BI performance. Risk and uncertainty exist in every business decision, and orga-
nizations may use BI to minimize uncertainty and make better decisions. In particular, organizations
which have specific and well-defined problems to solve have a low tolerance for risk and thus may
be using BI to manage that risk (Hostmann et al., 2007).
As organizations take advantage of these capabilities, their BI use increases, and so does the maturity
level of BI (Watson and Wixom, 2007). Mature BI increases organizational responsiveness, which posi-
tively affects organizational performance. Thus, it is important to recognize BI capabilities to better
apply it to strategic needs (Ross et al., 1996).

3. DATA COLLECTION

The target population for this research consisted of business managers who use BI for strategic, tactical
and operational decision making across a range of organizations and industries. Data were collected
using an online survey between July and September of 2008. The firms were randomly selected and
the contact information of decision makers was obtained from a publicly available mailing list of a mar-
ket research company; 116 responses from a variety of industries, company sizes, organizational levels,
functional areas and BI experience were received (Table II). In total, the survey link was emailed to over
5000 recipients. This corresponds to a response rate lower than 1 %, which is not necessarily surprising
for web-based surveys (Basi, 1999).
The survey included questions measuring user satisfaction with BI as well as user assessments of
specific BI capabilities. Items measuring user satisfaction were selected from Hartono et al.’s (2007)
management support system success dimensions and Doll and Torkzadeh’s (1988) end-user satisfaction
measure. BI capabilities were operationalized with items developed based on the Gartner Group reports
as well as other practitioner-oriented publications from the Data Warehousing Institute (Harding, 2003;
Sukumaran and Sureka, 2006; Damianakis, 2008). Responses for all items in the survey were captured
on a five-point Likert scale.

4. FINDINGS

4.1. Satisfaction with BI

Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with several aspects of their BI systems and how sat-
isfied they were with BI overall (Figure 1). We found no significant differences in the level of satisfac-
tion among users from different industries, functional areas or organizational level. Results do indicate
that users with more BI experience were more satisfied than less-experienced BI users, in terms of the
user friendliness of and the decision-making support provided by their BI. One reason for this may be
that more advanced BI users are more aware of or make use of a greater variety of BI capabilities and
have been using BI for a longer time.
We assessed BI satisfaction across all respondents, regardless of experience or other characteristics.
Almost 70 % of all respondents indicated that they were satisfied or strongly satisfied with their BI
overall (Table III). Only 12 % of the respondents reported some level of dissatisfaction (strongly dissat-
isfied or dissatisfied). With respect to specific aspects of BI, the lowest level of satisfaction reported was
for user friendliness of BI, with only 58.6 % of users indicating some level of satisfaction. The highest

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 167

Table II. Profile of respondents

Category Respondents (%)

Functional area
Information technology 46.6
Management 9.5
Finance 7.8
Marketing 7.8
Sales 5.2
Supply chain 2.6
Operations research 0.9
Other 19.8
Level in organization
Executive 18.1
Middle 40.5
Operational 25
BI experience
New BI user 12.1
Intermediate BI user 37.1
Advance BI user 50.9
Industry
Manufacturing 10.3
Insurance/real estate/legal 9.5
Medical/health 8.6
Transportation/utilities 7.8
Wholesale/retail/distribution 7.8
Banking 5.2
Data processing services 4.3
Education 11.2
Business service/consultant 14.7
Number of company employees
<100 23.3
100–499 9.5
500–999 8.6
1000–4999 23.3
5000–9999 9.5
≥10 000 25.9
Total company annual revenue (US dollars)
>$100 million 32.8
$100 million to $499 million 12.9
$500 million to $1 billion 9.5
≥$1 billion 34.5

level of satisfaction reported was for the ability of BI to provide precise information, with 78.5 % of
respondents satisfied or strongly satisfied. Overall, the results suggest that the majority of respondents
were satisfied with BI. Yet, fewer than 25 % reported being strongly satisfied with any aspect of their
BI. This is an indication that BI users and managers are not yet getting full leverage from BI in terms
of precision, timeliness, decision-making support or even ease of use (user friendliness) that they seem
to expect. Table IV presents the means and standard deviations of responses to the BI satisfaction items.

4.2. Assessment of BI Capabilities

We next examined user assessment of the 10 specific BI capabilities. Respondents were most satisfied
with quantitative data quality and internal data reliability (Table V). This is not surprising given the at-
tention that is paid to these two capabilities by organizations, as well as vendors and consultants. We
also found high levels of satisfaction of the risk management support capabilities of BI and the level
of user access to BI applications. The capabilities with which respondents were least satisfied were

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
168 O. ISIK ET AL.

Figure 1. Satisfaction with BI.

the quality of external data sources, external data reliability and the extent of BI interaction with other
systems. For each of the capabilities we used several questions to capture satisfaction with various
dimensions of each in order to provide a richer picture of BI satisfaction. These are discussed in the
following sections.

Quantitative versus Qualitative Data Quality

Both quantitative and qualitative data quality were assessed based on four dimensions: accuracy,
comprehensiveness, consistency and overall quality of the data (Table VI). Users were generally
satisfied with all aspects of quantitative data quality. Over 70 % of respondents were either satisfied
or strongly satisfied that their BI provided overall high-quality quantitative data that are both accur-
ate and consistent.1 In addition, 68 % of respondents indicated that their BI system provided com-
prehensive quantitative data. Users were notably less satisfied with the quality of qualitative data.
Fewer than 50 % of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the extent to which their
BI system provided accurate, consistent, comprehensive qualitative data. Approximately 20 % of
respondents were dissatisfied with the overall quality of qualitative data provided by their BI.

Internal versus External Data Reliability

Internal and external data reliability were assessed based on four dimensions: inconsistencies and
conflicts associated with the data, data accuracy, regular updates of the data and overall data reliability.
Survey respondents were generally satisfied with the consistency, reliability and accuracy of internal
data. Over 75 % of respondents were satisfied with the reliability of the internal data collected by their
BI system, while fewer than 30 % reported dissatisfaction with the extent of conflicts or inconsistencies
in their internal data. Over 75 % indicated that they are satisfied that the data for their BI system is
regularly updated. Users were, however, less satisfied with the overall reliability, consistency and
accuracy of external data. Fewer than 40 % expressed satisfaction with the reliability or accuracy of
the external data used by BI systems (Table VII).

1
For ease of reading, from this point forward we use the term ‘satisfied’ to indicate respondents who were either satisfied or
strongly satisfied, and the term ‘dissatisfied’ to indicate respondents who were either dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 169

Table III. BI satisfaction response percentages

BI satisfaction items Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor Satisfied Strongly

dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied

The BI that I am using overall 3.4 8.6 18.1 56.0 13.8

How well the BI that I am using provides precise 0.9 10.3 10.3 56.9 21.6
information I need
How well the BI that I am using supports my decision 1.7 10.3 18.1 50.9 19.0
making
How well the BI that I am using provides information 2.6 13.8 17.2 47.4 19.0
I need in time
How user friendly the BI that I am using is 4.3 11.2 25.9 36.2 22.4

Table IV. BI satisfaction response descriptive statistics

BI satisfaction items Mean Standard deviation

The BI that I am using overall 3.68 0.938

How well the BI that I am using provides precise information I need 3.88 0.896
How well the BI that I am using supports my decision making 3.75 0.941
How well the BI that I am using provides information I need in time 3.66 1.021
How user friendly the BI that I am using is 3.61 1.086

Table V. BI capabilities descriptive statistics

BI capability Mean1 Standard deviation

Quantitative data quality 3.89 0.842

Internal data reliability 3.86 0.779
Risk management support 3.85 0.907
User access 3.77 0.917
Internal data source quality 3.68 0.929
Flexibility 3.51 0.890
Qualitative data quality 3.34 1.022
Interaction with other systems 3.24 0.947
External data reliability 3.21 0.870
External data source quality 2.89 1.045
1
Measured on a five-point scale, where 1 = strongly dissatisfied and 5 = strongly satisfied.

Table VI. Quantitative versus qualitative data quality response percentages

Data quality from BI Strongly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Satisfied Strongly satisfied
nor dissatisfied

Quantitative
Accuracy of quantitative data 0.9 5.2 18.1 51.7 24.1
Comprehensiveness of quantitative data 2.6 3.4 26.7 49.1 18.1
Consistency of quantitative data 2.6 6.0 19.8 47.4 24.1
Quality of quantitative data 2.6 7.8 19.8 49.1 20.7
Qualitative
Quality of qualitative data 6.9 15.5 31.9 35.3 10.3
Accuracy of qualitative data 6.0 11.2 34.5 37.9 10.3
Comprehensiveness of qualitative data 6.0 15.5 33.6 34.5 10.3
Consistency of qualitative data 6.9 12.1 34.5 37.1 9.5

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
170 O. ISIK ET AL.

Table VII. Internal versus external data reliability response percentages

Data reliability Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Satisfied Strongly

dissatisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied

Internal
Reliability of internal data collected for BI 0.9 6.9 15.5 57.8 19.0
Resolution of inconsistencies and conflicts in the 6.9 20.7 25.0 40.5 6.9
internal data collected for BI
Accuracy of internal data collected for BI 0.9 9.5 25.0 44.8 19.8
Recency of internal data collected for BI 0.9 5.2 19.0 43.1 31.9
External
Reliability of external data collected for BI 8.6 10.3 39.7 35.3 6.0
Resolution of inconsistencies and conflicts in the 6.0 16.4 36.2 34.5 6.9
external data collected for BI
Accuracy of external data collected for BI 4.3 10.3 44.8 32.8 7.8
Recency of external data collected for BI 6.9 12.9 42.2 30.2 7.8

The Quality of Data Sources

With regard to data sources for their BI systems, the users were generally satisfied with the quality of
internal data sources and less satisfied with the quality of external data sources. Quality of data sources
was assessed on four dimensions: availability, usability, conciseness and ease of understanding.
Availability and usability of internal data sources were assessed as adequate by 73 % and 66 % of
respondents respectively. Fewer users, however, were satisfied with the conciseness and ease of under-
standing of internal data sources (55 % and 40 % respectively). An even lower level of satisfaction was
associated with the quality of external data sources. Less than 30 % of respondents were satisfied with
any of the aspects of external data quality (Table VIII).

User Access
In general, the majority of users were satisfied with various aspects of their access to BI system
(Table IX). User access was assessed on two dimensions: extent of access to BI data and the vehicle
through which access is provided. Approximately 70 % were satisfied with the extent of access to BI
data and capabilities and over 60 % were satisfied with the way they access BI applications.

Risk Management Support

We found a good bit of variation in the level of satisfaction with different risk management support cap-
abilities (Table X). Only 45 % of respondents were satisfied with the way their BI system supports

Table VIII. The quality of data sources response percentages

Data source quality Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor Satisfied Strongly
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied

Internal
Availability of internal data sources used for BI 2.6 7.8 17.2 46.6 25.9
Usability of internal data sources used for BI 2.6 11.2 20.7 44.8 20.7
Ease of understanding of internal data sources 7.8 13.8 24.1 41.4 12.9
used for BI
Conciseness of internal data sources used for BI 6.0 17.2 37.1 30.2 9.5
External
Availability of external data sources used for BI 11.2 18.1 41.4 19.0 10.3
Usability of external data sources used for BI 13.8 21.6 37.9 23.3 3.4
Ease of understanding of external data sources 12.9 24.1 37.9 20.7 4.3
used for BI

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 171

Table IX. User access response percentages

User access quality Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor Satisfied Strongly
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied

Quality of the way the user accesses BI 3.4 14.7 20.7 42.2 19.0
Access to the information user needs in BI 5.2 8.6 13.8 40.5 31.9
How well BI fits the types of decisions user makes 2.6 6.0 22.4 49.1 19.8
using BI

Table X. Risk management support response percentages

Risk Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Satisfied Strongly

dissatisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied

BI support of decisions associated with high level of risk (e.g. 2.6 17.2 35.3 37.9 6.9
entering a new market, hiring a new manager)
BI support of decisions motivated by exploration and discovery of 4.3 12.1 27.6 45.7 10.3
new opportunities (e.g. starting a new business line, creating a
new product design)
BI support in minimizing uncertainties in decision making process 2.6 6.0 19.0 56.9 15.5
BI support in managing risk by monitoring and regulating the 2.6 11.2 17.2 47.4 21.6
operations (e.g. monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs),
customizing alerts or creating dashboards)

decisions associated with high levels of risk, and 20 % disagreed that their BI system even offers such
capabilities. Over 55 % of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with how well their BI systems
supported exploration of new opportunities (versus 20 % who indicated the lack of such capabilities).
The majority of respondents (over 70 %) were satisfied that their BI system helps them reduce uncer-
tainty in their decision making and that BI helps them manage risk through operational controls.

Flexibility
Users were not very satisfied with the flexibility of their BI system (Table XI). Fewer than 25 % were
satisfied with their BI system’s ability to easily accommodate changes to their business environment,
allow for rapid changes or make it easy to deal with exceptional situations. Thus, a picture emerges
of BI solutions that are fairly static in their ability to respond to rapidly changing environments.

Interaction with Other Systems

Users were split in their satisfaction with the level of interaction of BI system with other systems within
the enterprise (Table XII). Just over half (53 %) of respondents were satisfied with their BI system’s
ability to offer a unified view of business data and processes. Fewer than 45 % were satisfied with their

Table XI. Flexibility response percentages

Flexibility Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor Satisfied Strongly

dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied

How quickly BI accommodates changes in business 6.0 19.0 28.4 33.6 12.9
requirements
How well BI makes it easier to deal with exceptions 3.4 20.7 30.2 36.2 9.5
How well the BI components are organized and 4.3 18.1 26.7 37.9 12.9
integrated to allow for rapid changes

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
172 O. ISIK ET AL.

Table XII. Interaction with other systems response percentage

Interaction with other systems Strongly Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Satisfied Strongly
dissatisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied

How well BI provides a unified view of business data and processes 4.3 15.5 26.7 40.5 12.9
How well BI provides links among multiple business applications 4.3 6.9 20.7 48.3 19.8
How well BI provides a comprehensive electronic catalog of the 8.6 16.4 30.2 32.8 12.1
various enterprise information resources in the organization
How well BI provides easy and seamless access to data from other 10.3 21.6 29.3 30.2 8.6
applications and systems

BI system’s ability to offer a comprehensive catalogue of enterprise information resources and fewer
than 40 % were satisfied with their BI offering easy and seamless access to data from other systems.

4.3. Overall Assessment of BI Capabilities

In sum, our findings regarding user satisfaction with BI capabilities are as follows:

• users are generally satisfied with BI overall;

• users are most satisfied with internal and quantitative data capabilities of BI;
• users are next most satisfied with BI capabilities to support risk in decision making and user
access to BI;
• users are least satisfied with external data capabilities.
In spite of the overall relatively high level of satisfaction with BI capabilities, we observe a pattern where
the users are more satisfied with basic BI capabilities such as quantitative data quality, user access and
flexibility. Their level of satisfaction is lower for more advanced capabilities, such as the quality of quali-
tative data, quality of external data sources and external data reliability. Because satisfaction with BI cap-
abilities can be considered as an indicator of how solid these capabilities are, we conclude that quantitative
and internal data capabilities are quite well done. Also well done are the way in which users access their BI
systems, the BI responsiveness to change (flexibility), the capability to smoothly interact with other sys-
tems and the capability to support risk in decision making. Most decisions require good user accessibility
to sound quantitative data that can be pulled from a variety of systems and require some degree of flexibil-
ity in the decision-making process (Hostmann et al., 2007). These basic capabilities form the foundation of
a useful, or successful, BI. Other capabilities, such as those relating to external data sources and qualitative
data, are more advanced and are required for a different type of decision making (Hostmann et al., 2007).
Our findings indicate that these more advanced capabilities are less well done. Thus, a picture of BI
solutions that are solidly grounded in basic capabilities emerges. These solutions are most appropriate
for supporting decisions that largely require looking backward to answer ‘Where have we been?’ or ‘Where
are we now?’ questions. Organizations have not widely made use of more advanced BI solutions that
adequately support forward-looking strategic decisions which require a broader set of data and sources
to answer questions such as ‘Why are we where we are?’ and ‘Where can or should we go?’

BI Capabilities and BI Success

We next examined, in more detail, the relationship between satisfaction with specific BI capabilities and
overall satisfaction with BI. Findings showed that all but one of the 10 capabilities examined were sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with overall BI satisfaction at a = 0.05 (Table XIII). Specifically,

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 173

Table XIII. Correlations between BI success and satisfaction with BI capabilities

BI capabilities BI success

Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

User access 0.687* 0.000 116

Flexibility 0.564* 0.000 116
Quantitative data quality 0.519* 0.000 116
Interaction with other systems 0.508* 0.000 116
Risk management support 0.507* 0.000 116
Internal data reliability 0.368* 0.000 116
Internal data source quality 0.366* 0.000 116
Qualitative data quality 0.293* 0.001 116
External data source quality 0.194** 0.037 116
External data reliability 0.172 0.065 116

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

higher data quality, higher quality of data sources, better user access quality, higher flexibility, and bet-
ter risk management support, and stronger interaction with other systems are associated with higher
levels of overall BI satisfaction. Although external data quality was not significantly correlated with
overall BI satisfaction, at a = 0.05, it was at a = 0.10.
Of the five capabilities that were the most highly correlated with overall satisfaction with BI, only
one was specifically related to data (quantitative data quality). Furthermore, only three of the five cap-
abilities most closely correlated with BI success are characterized by a high level of user satisfaction
(quantitative data quality, risk management support and user access). Although less than 50 % of users
were satisfied with the level of interaction of BI with other systems and with the flexibility of their BI
system, these two capabilities were among the top five most correlated with overall BI satisfaction. This
suggests that while BI systems are largely good at providing some of the capabilities that are critical to
BI success, there is room for improvement in others.
In summary, our findings suggest that:

• adequate user access is a cornerstone of the overall user satisfaction with BI;
• users value the most BI capabilities that allow them to deal with uncertainty and change in the
environment;
• users see the value of BI in providing capabilities for interaction among various enterprise
applications;
• BI capabilities that most strongly relate to BI success are not necessarily the ones with which users
are most satisfied.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to create a snapshot of user satisfaction with BI as well as their assess-
ment of specific BI capabilities, and to examine the relationship between such capabilities and BI sat-
isfaction. Our findings indicate that the majority of respondents are relatively satisfied with BI overall
and have a positive assessment of specific BI capabilities. Yet, our results point out several implications
for developing better BI solutions. For example, improving the level of interaction between BI and
other enterprise systems may be a key to BI success. Although users are not highly satisfied with this

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
174 O. ISIK ET AL.

capability, it is strongly correlated with the level of satisfaction with BI overall. In addition, many
respondents were not satisfied with BI capabilities associated with providing access to external data.
Although such capabilities were not as strongly related to overall BI satisfaction as others, this
may suggest that the BI usage among our respondents is more internally focused, or it may be
an indication of lower expectations that the users have of such external data capabilities. It is also
possible that as the BI practice matures, users are likely to pay more attention and expect more of such
external data capabilities. Therefore, improving external data capabilities presents another important
direction in managing BI.
Our findings also highlight the strong relationship between user assessment of specific BI capabilities
and their overall satisfaction with BI. Users particularly value adequate user access, BI capabilities that
help them deal with uncertain and changing environment and the level of interaction of BI systems with
other systems. As BI continues to mature, it becomes increasingly critical to the support of decisions that
keep organizations competitive. Our findings indicate that, largely, BI solutions provide a solid set of
basic capabilities to support decisions grounded in basic questions like ‘What has happened?’ or
‘What is happening in our organization?’ Developing stronger, more advanced BI capabilities in
organizations to support decisions based on the answers to forward-looking questions may be key to
providing BI that successfully facilitates decisions in today’s dynamic, information-based organizational
environments.

REFERENCES

Alter A. 2004. A work system view of DSS in its fourth decade. Decision Support Systems 38(3): 319–327.
Antebi O. 2007. Managing by exception. Panorama Business Intelligence, http://www.panorama.com/blog/?p=13
(accessed 21 January 2012).
Basi RK. 1999. WWW response rates to socio-demographic items. Journal of the Market Research Society 41(4):
397–401.
Burton B, Hostmann B. 2005. Findings from Sydney Symposium: Perceptions of Business Intelligence. Gartner
Research, Stamford, CT, http://www.gartner.com (accessed 14 May 2011).
Clark TD, Jones MC, Armstrong C. 2007. The dynamic structure of management support systems:theory develop-
ment, research focus and direction. MIS Quarterly 31(3): 579–615.
Damianakis S. 2008. The ins and outs of imperfect data. Information Management Direct, http://www.dmreview.
com/dmdirect/2008_77/10001491-1.html?portal=data_quality (accessed 14 March 2011).
Davison L. 2001. Measuring competitive intelligence effectiveness: insights from the advertising industry.
Competitive Intelligence Review 12(4): 25–38.
Doll WJ, Torkzadeh G. 1988. The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly 12(2): 259–274.
Dreyer L. 2006. The “Right Time” for Operational Business Intelligence?TDWI What Works, http://tdwi.org/
articles/2006/05/09/the-right-time-for-operational-business-intelligence.aspx (accessed 21 January 2012).
Eckerson WW. 2004. Gauge your data warehouse maturity. Information Management Magazine, http://www.
information-management.com/issues/20041101/1012391-1.html (accessed 21 January 2012).
Eckerson WW. 2003. Smart companies in the 21st century: the secrets of creating successful business intelligence solu-
tions. TDWI The Data Warehousing Institute Report Series, http://tdwi.org/research/2003/07/exective-summary-
smart-companies-in-the-21st-century-the-secrets-to-creating-successful-business-int.aspx (accessed 14 March 2011).
Evelson B. 2011. Trends 2011 and beyond: business intelligence. Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA, 31 March,
http://www.forrester.com (accessed 14 May 2011).
Gallegos F. 1999. Decision support systems: an overview. Information Strategy 15(2): 42–47.
Gebauer J, Schober F. 2006. Information system flexibility and the cost efficiency of business processes. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems 7(3): 122–145.
Gile K, Kirby JP, Karel R, Teubner C, Driver E, Murphy B. 2006. Topic overview: business intelligence. Forrester
Research, Cambridge, MA, 5 June, http://www.forrester.com (accessed 14 May 2011).

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) SUCCESS AND THE ROLE OF BI CAPABILITIES 175

Giovinazzo W. 2009. BI: Only as Good as its Data Quality. Information Management Special Reports, http://www.
information-management.com/specialreports/2009_157/business_intelligence_bi_data_quality_governance_de-
cision_making-10015888-1.html (accessed 21 January 2012).
Graham P. 2008. Data Quality: You Don’t Just Need a Dashboard! Strategy Execution. Information Management
Magazine, http://www.information-management.com/issues/2007_50/10001727-1.html (accessed 21 January
2012).
Hannigan TJ, Palendrano C. 2002. Personalization Can Be Quite Dynamic. Information Management Magazine,
http://www.information-anagement.com/issues/20021001/5798-1.html (accessed 21 January 2012).
Harding W. 2003. BI crucial to making the right decision. Financial Executive 19(2): 49–50.
Hartono E, Santhanam R, Holsapple CW. 2007. Factors that contribute to management support system success: an
analysis of field studies. Decision Support Systems 43(1): 256–268.
Havenstein H. 2006. QlikTech looks to broaden access to BI data. ComputerWorld, http://www.computerworld.
com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004369 (accessed 21 January 2012).
Hostmann B, Herschel G, Rayner N. 2007. The evolution of business intelligence: the four worlds. Gartner
Research Report, http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=509002 (accessed 14 March 2011).
Howson C. 2006. The Seven Pillars of BI Success, Information Week, http://www.informationweek.com/news/
software/bi/191902420 (accessed 21 January 2012).
Imhoff C. 2005. Risky business! Using business intelligence to mitigate operational risk. Information Management
Magazine, http://www.information-management.com/issues/20050801/1033577-1.html (accessed 21 January
2012).
Isik O, Jones M, Sidorova A. 2010. Business intelligence success: an empirical evaluation of the role of BI
capabilities and the decision environment. Proceedings of the BI Congress II: Pre-ICIS Conference, 11–12
December, St. Louis, MO.
Lonnqvist A, Pirttimaki V. 2006. The measurement of business intelligence. Business Intelligence 23(1): 32–40.
Luftman J, Ben-Zvi T. 2010. Key issues for IT executives 2009: difficult economy’s impact on IT. MIS Quarterly
Executive 9(1): 203–213.
Miller D. 2007. Measuring BI success: business goals and business requirements. Information Management Online
(October), http://www.dmreview.com/news/10000100-1.html (accessed 14 May 2011).
Moss LT, Atre S. 2003. Business Intelligence Roadmap: The Complete Project Lifecycle for Decision-Support
Applications. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA.
Negash S. 2004. Business intelligence. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13: 177–195.
Nelson RR, Todd PA, Wixom BH. 2005. Antecedents of information and system quality: within the context of data
warehousing. Journal of Management Information Systems 21(4): 199–235.
Parikh AA, Haddad J. 2008. Right-time information for the real-time enterprise timely information drives business.
Information Management Direct, http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/2008_92/10002003-1.
html?portal=data_quality (accessed 14 March 2011).
Pirttimaki V, Lonnqvist A, Karjaluoto A. 2006. Measurement of business intelligence in a Finnish telecommunica-
tions company. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 4(1): 83–90.
Ponelis S, Britz JJ. 2011. The role of business intelligence in information-intensive small businesses: initial results
from an interpretive study. MWAIS 2011 Proceedings, Paper 23.
Ross JW, Beath CM, Goodhue DL. 1996. Develop Long-Term Competitiveness through IT Assets. Sloan Manage-
ment Review 38(1): 31–44.
Silver MS. 1991. Systems that Support Decision Makers: Description and Analysis. Wiley & Sons: Chichester,
United Kingdom.
Sukumaran S, Sureka A. 2006. Integrating structured and unstructured data using text tagging and annotation.
Business Intelligence Journal 11(2): 8–17.
Swaminathan A. 2006. Enterprise Information Integration: A Technology for Providing Integrated Views. What
Works in BI and DW,Volume 22, http://tdwi.org/articles/2006/10/23/enterprise-information-integration-a-
technology-for-providing-integrated-views.aspx (accessed 21 January 2012).
Swoyer S. 2008. Lyza Empowers New Class of BI Consumers. Enterprise Systems, http://esj.com/articles/2008/09/
24/lyza-empowers-new-class-of-bi-consumers.aspx (accessed 21 January 2012).
Viaene S. 2008. Linking business intelligence into your business. IT Professional 10(6): 28–34.
Viaene S, De Hertogh S, Lutin L, Maandag A, Den Hengst S, Doeleman R. 2009. Intelligence-led policing at the
Amsterdam-Amstelland Police Department: operationalized business intelligence with an enterprise ambition.
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 16(4): 279–292.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf
 176 O. ISIK ET AL.

Watson HJ, Wixom B. 2007. Enterprise agility and mature BI capabilities. Business Intelligence Journal 12(3): 4–6.
Watson HJ, Fuller C, Ariyachandra T. 2004. Data warehouse governance: best practices at Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of North Carolina. Decision Support Systems 38(3): 435–450.
Watson HJ, Wixom BH, Hoffer JA, Anderson-Lehman R, Reynolds AM. 2006. Real-time business intelligence:
best practices in Continental Airlines. Business Intelligence 23(1): 7–18.
White C. 2005. The next generation of business intelligence: operational BI. Information Management Magazine,
http://www.information-management.com/issues/20050501/1026064-1.html (accessed 14 March 2011).

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Intell. Sys. Acc. Fin. Mgmt., 18: 161–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/isaf

View publication stats