How Business Analytics Should Work

  • Marco Antonio Villegas-García
  • Fausto Pedro García Márquez
  • Diego José Pedregal Tercero
Chapter

Abstract

Business Analytics and Intelligence tools (BAI) are spreading across all industries. As the amount of business data exponentially grows everyday, it is critical to have appropriate tools that make it possible to consume and take profit of this digital universe. Even though BAI tools have positively evolved in this direction, meaningful and productive use of data still remains a major obstacle for most organizations. Of drowning in data, they have moved to drown in reports, dashboards and data summaries. We believe that BAI technologies should evolve towards a more holistic approach in which business users can focus on business concepts and questions, without wasting time in lower levels of cumbersome data manipulation. We propose the Business Analytics Architecture (BAA) as the infrastructure supporting ‘smart’ and enterprise BAI operations. It enables users to define the business concepts they want to focus on, as well as connecting them with data at storage level. Analytical and data-mining algorithms are intensively exploited, all guided by the ‘semantic layer’ previously depicted by business users. BAA integrating up-to-date data mining and artificial intelligence techniques as well as some well-known business practices such as Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps.

References

  1. 1.
    Cukier K (2010) Data, data everywhere: a special report on managing information. Economist NewspaperGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phillips J (2014) Building a digital analytics organizationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    May T (2009) The new know: innovation powered by analytics, vol 23. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mintzberg H (2009) Managing. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buytendijk F (2010) Dealing with dilemmas: where business analytics fall short. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davenport TH, Harris JG (2007) Competing on analytics: the new science of winning. Harvard Business PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barone D, Yu E, Won J, Jiang L, Mylopoulos J (2010) Enterprise modeling for business intelligence. In: The practice of enterprise modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barone D, Mylopoulos J, Jiang L, Amyot D (2010) The business intelligence model: strategic modelling. Technical report, University of Toronto (April 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rizzolo F, Kiringa I, Pottinger R, Wong K (2010) The conceptual integration modeling framework. pp 1–18Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP, Horvбth P (1996) The balanced scorecard, vol 6. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lawson R, Desroches D, Hatch T (2008) Scorecard best practices: design, implementation, and evaluation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2004) Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeston J, Nelis J (2008) Business process management: practical guidelines to successful implementations. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker G, Dijkman R, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L (2010) The business process modeling notation. In: Modern business process automation. Springer, pp 347–368.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen PPS (1976) The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han J, Haihong E, Le G, Du J (2011) Survey on nosql database. In: Pervasive computing and applications (ICPCA), 2011 6th international conference on. IEEE, pp 363–366Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenzerini M, Vassiliou Y, Vassiliadis P, Jarke M (2003) Fundamentals of data warehouses. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plattner H (2009) A common database approach for oltp and olap using an in-memory column database. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. ACM, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malinowski E, Zimányi E (2008) Advanced data warehouse design: from conventional to spatial and temporal applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor J (2011) Decision management systems: a practical guide to using business rules and predictive analytics. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shawe-Taylor J, Cristianini N (2004) Kernel methods for pattern analysisGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Villegas-García MA (2013) An investigation into new kernels for categorical variables. Master Thesis, 2013. http://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099.1/17172
  23. 23.
    Huang C-L, Chen M-C, Wang C-J (2007) Credit scoring with a data mining approach based on support vector machines. Expert Systems with Applications 33(4):847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenblatt F (1957) The perceptron—a perceiving and recognizing automaton. Technical Report 85-460-1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sheikh N (2013) Implementing analytics: A blueprint for design, development, and adoption. NewnesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Data Mining Group. Predictive model markup language. See www.dmg.org
  27. 27.
    Guazzelli A, Lin W-C, Jena T (2012) PMML in action: unleashing the power of open standards for data mining and predictive analytics. CreateSpaceGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu E, Strohmaier M, Deng X (2006) Exploring intentional modeling and analysis for enterprise architecture. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, 2006. EDOCW’06. 10th IEEE International. IEEE, pp 32–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Antonio Villegas-García
    • 1
  • Fausto Pedro García Márquez
    • 1
  • Diego José Pedregal Tercero
    • 1
  1. 1.Ingenium Research GroupUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations