Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 275–288 | Cite as

Enabling self-service BI: A methodology and a case study for a model management warehouse

  • David Schuff
  • Karen Corral
  • Robert D. St. Louis
  • Greg Schymik


The promise of Self-Service Business Intelligence (BI) is its ability to give business users access to selection, analysis, and reporting tools without requiring intervention from IT. This is essential if BI is to maximize its contribution by radically transforming how people make decisions. However, while some progress has been made through tools such as SAS Enterprise Miner, IBM SPSS Modeler, and RapidMiner, analytical modeling remains firmly in the domain of IT departments and data scientists. The development of tools that mitigate the need for modeling expertise remains the “missing link” in self-service BI, but prior attempts at developing modeling languages for non-technical audiences have not been widely implemented. By introducing a structured methodology for model formulation specifically designed for practitioners, this paper fills the unmet need to bring model-building to a mainstream business audience. The paper also shows how to build a dimensional Model Management Warehouse that supports the proposed methodology, and demonstrates the viability of this approach by applying it to a problem faced by the Division of Fiscal and Actuarial Services of the US Department of Labor. The paper concludes by outlining several areas for future research.


Business intelligence Model management Analytics Modeling Self-service 


  1. Blair, D. C. (2002). The data-document distinction revisited. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 37(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1988). GAMS: a user's guide. Redwood City: Scientific Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Choobineh, J. (1991). SQLMP: a data sublanguage for representation and formulation of linear mathematical models. ORSA Journal on Computing, 3(4), 358–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, D. R. (1995). Comment on “model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 158(3), 455–456.Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham, K., & Schrage, L. (2004). The LINGO Algebraic Modeling Language. In J. Kallrath (Ed.), Modeling languages in mathematical optimization (pp. 159-171). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Davenport, T. H. (2013). Telling a Story with Data. Deloitte Review, 12.Google Scholar
  9. Davenport, T. H., & Kim, J. (2013). Keeping up with the quants. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., De Long, D. W., & Jacobson, A. L. (2001). Data to knowledge to results: building an analytic capability. California Management Review, 43(2), 116–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deokar, A., & El-Gayar, O. F. (2011). Decision-enabled dynamic process management for networked enterprises. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(5), 655–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Gayar, O. F., & Deokar, A. (2013). A semantic service-oriented architecture for distributed model management systems. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finlay, P. N., & Mitchell, A. C. (1994). Perceptions of the benefits from the introduction of CASE: an empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fourer, R., Gay, D. M., & Kernighan, B. W. (1990). A modeling language for mathematical programming. Management Science, 36(5), 519–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geoffrion, A. M. (1987). An introduction to structured modeling. Management Science, 33(5), 547–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geoffrion, A. M. (1989). The formal aspects of structured modeling. Operations Research, 37(1), 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guazzelli, A., Zeller, M., Lin, W-C., & Williams, G. (2009). PMML: an open standard for sharing models. The R Journal, 1(1), 60.
  18. Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J. G., & Sawyer, S. (1997). The effective use of automated application development tools. IBM Systems Journal, 36(1), 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hampton, J. (2011). SEMMA and CRISP-DM: data mining methodologies. Accessed 21 July 2016.
  20. HBR Analytic Services (2012). The evolution of decision making: how leading organizations are adopting a data-driven culture. Harvard Business Review. Accessed 18 September 2015.
  21. Henschen, D. (2014). IBM Watson analytics goes public. InformationWeek. Accessed 14 February 2015.
  22. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iivari, J. (1996). Why Are CASE tools not used? Communications of the ACM, 39(10), 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimball, R. (1997). A dimensional modeling manifesto. Database Magazine, 10(9), 59–78.Google Scholar
  25. Kottemann, J. E., & Dolk, D. R. (1992). Model integration and modeling languages. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kridel, D., & Dolk, D. (2013). Automated self-service modeling: predictive analytics as a service. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 11(1), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lending, D., & Chervany, H. L. (1998). CASE tools: understanding the reasons for non-use. Computer Personnel, 19(2), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin, E., Schuff, D., & St. Louis, R. (2000). Subscript-free modeling languages: a tool for facilitating the formulation and use of models. European Journal of Operational Research, 123(3), 614–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lundell, B., & Lings, B. (2004). Changing perceptions of CASE technology. Journal of Systems and Software, 72(2), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madhusudan, T. (2007). A web services framework for distributed model management. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science. Chicago: J. Dewey Society.Google Scholar
  32. McMurtrey, M. E., Grover, V., Teng, J. T. C., & Lightner, N. J. (2002). Job satisfaction of information technology workers: the impact of career orientation and task automation in a CASE environment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy, F. H., Stohr, E. A., & Asthana, A. (1992). Representation schemes for linear programming models. Management Science, 38(7), 964–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Object Management Group (2003). Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM) Specification. Accessed 24 April 2015.
  35. Pack, D. J. (1987). A practical overview of ARIMA models for time series forecasting. In S. G. Makridakis & S. C. Wheelwright (Eds.), The handbook of forecasting: a managers guide (pp. 196–218). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Pechter, R. (2011). PMML conformance progress report – five years later. In Proceedings of PMML’11 (pp. 6–15). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, S. R. (2015). Summary of state models. Unpublished working paper. New Brunswick, NJ: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.Google Scholar
  38. Power, D., & Sharda, R. (2007). Model-driven decision support systems: concepts and research directions. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 1044–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohanizadeh, S., & Moghadam, M. (2009). A proposed data mining methodology and its application to industrial procedures. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4, 37–50.Google Scholar
  40. SAS Institute (1998). Data Mining and the Case for Sampling. SAS Institute Best Practices Paper, Carey, NC.Google Scholar
  41. Senn, J. A., & Wynekoop, J. L. (1995). The other side of CASE implementation. Information Systems Management, 12(4), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sottara, D., Mello, P., Sartori, C., & Fry, E. (2011). Enhancing a production rule engine with predictive models using PMML. In Proceedings of PMML’11 (pp. 39–47). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wit, E., van den Heuvel, E., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2012). ‘All models are wrong…’: an introduction to model uncertainty. Statistica Neerlandica, 66(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  3. 3.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Grand Valley State UniversityAllendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations