Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comprehensive Model of Business Intelligence: a Case Study of Nano's Companies


Affiliations
1 Business administration of Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The implementation of business intelligence (BI) system is a complicated undertaking requiring considerable resources. This research tries to identify the critical success factors that affect the Business intelligence Implementation. The study develops a CSF's framework crucial for BI systems implementation. Next, the framework and the associated CSF's are delineated through a series of NANO's Organization. The empirical findings demonstrate the construct and applicability of the frame work. This study from the aiming view point is practical and from method of data collection and analysis view point is descriptive and is of correlative type. The model of the research has two parts that includes: Critical success factors of business intelligence and system success. Through this model, eight hypotheses were developed that six of them were confirmed. Base on the results of this research, it is recommended that Nano's companies must empower their information technology capacity to have better chance to be the winner of the competitive world.

Keywords

Business Intelligence System, Critical Success Factors, Nano's Industry
User

  • Abu Ali AN and Abu Addose HY (2010) Data warehouse critical success factors. Europ. J. scientific Res. 42(2), 326 – 335.

  • Adelman I and Yeldan AE (1999) The role of government in economic development. Department of agricultural and resource economics and policy division of agricultural and natural resources university of California at Berkeley.

  • Akhavan P and Jafari M (2006) Critical success factor’s of knowledge management systems: multi – case analysis. Europ. Business Rev. J. 18(2), 97-113.

  • Akhavan P et al (2010) The challenges of knowledge management portals application and implementation : A Iranian organization case study. Intl. J. Industrial Engg. Computations.1, 79-93.

  • Albareda L et al (2008) The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses. Business ethics. Eur. Rev. 17(4), 347- 363.

  • Al Busaidi KA et al (2010) Sharing knowledge to knowledge management system: Examining the motivator and the benefits in a Omani organization. J. Organizational KM. 928-935

  • Al – Hudhaif SA (2010) Measuring quality of information system services in manufacturing organization in Riyadh. JKAU : Econ & Adm, 24(1), 151-171

  • APQC (1999) Knowledge management: executive summary. Consortium benchmarking study best – practice report, American productivity & Quality center : www.apqc.org

  • Arnott D (2008) Success factors for data warehouse and BI systems. Center for decision support and enterprise systems research, Monash university, Melbourne, Australia. 55-65

  • Arnott D and Pervan G (2005) A critical analysis of DSS research. J.Information Technol. 20(2), 67 - 87.

  • Bell DVJ (2002) The role of government in advancing corporate sustainability. Sustainable Enterprise Acad. York University.

  • Bhatti TR (2005) CSF’s for the implementation of enterprise resource planning. 2nd Int.Conf. Innovation in Information Technol. 21-34

  • Bhatnagar S (2003) Role of government: as an enabler, regulator, and provider of ICT based services. Asian forum on ICT policies & e – strategies, Kuala lumpur : www.Apdip.net/asian- forum

  • Bozbura FT (2007) Knowledge management practices in Turkish SME’s. J. Enterprise Information. 2(2), 209- 221.

  • Buckman R (1999) Collaborative knowledge. Human resource planning. 22(1), 22-23.

  • Chan LK et al (2011) A SOA – driven BI architecture. Communication of the IBIMA. pp: 8.

  • Chang MH and Harrington JE (2000) Centralization vs. decentralization in a multi – unit organization: Computational model of a retail chain as a multi – agent adaptive system. Management Sci. 46(11), 1427-1440.

  • Chong SC (2006) Knowledge management critical success factors: a comparison pf perceived importance versus implementation in Malaysian ICT companies. The learning organization. 13, 230-256.

  • Davenport TH et al ( 2007) The Dark Side of Customer Analytics. Harvard Business Review .85 (5), 37-48

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness perceived ease of use, User acceptance of IT. MIS Quarterly. 13, 319– 340.

  • Day J and Wendler J (1998) Best practice and beyond knowledge strategies. McKinsey Quarterly. 1, 19-25.

  • Dehenry F (2009) Accessing BI readiness. FMT systems Inc., as viewed on 21st August

  • Drew SAW (1997) From knowledge to action: the impact of benchmarking on organizational performance. Long range planning. 30(3), 427-441.

  • Du Plessis M (2007) Knowledge management: What makes complex implementations successful?. J. knowledge management .11(2), 91-101

  • Eckerson W (2005) Dashboard or scorecard: which should you use?. TDWI Case studies & solutions Elect. Newsletter. Jan 11

  • Ellis TS and Webster RL (1998) Innovativeness of IS managers toward telecommunicating: A structural equation model. J. Computer. IS. 39(3),161 -168

  • ESCC UA (2009) Overview: bi reference guide. U.S army enterprise solutions competency center.1-120

  • Garrity EJ and Sanders GL (1998) Information systems success measurement. Hershey,USA: Idea group publishing. 1-184

  • Greco I (1999) Knowledge is power. J. Business Strategy. 20(2), 18 - 22.

  • Gremillion LL (1984) Organization size and information system use:and empirical study. J. Management Information sys. (1)2, 4-17.

  • Hair JF et al (2006) Multivariative data analysis (6th Edn), Pearson prentice hall, New Jercy.

  • Hassanali F (2002 ) Critical success factors of KM “, www.kmadvantage.com/docs/km-articles/Critical- Success-Factors-of-Knowledgemanagement.pdf

  • Howson, C (2000) Successful BI : secrets to making BI , a killer App “, McGraw. Hill companies.

  • Hung YH and Chou SC (2005) On constructing a Knowledge management pyramid model. 2005 IEEE Intl. Conf. information Reuse & Integration. 1-6

  • Indeje WG et al (2010) Organizational culture and information systems implementation: A structuration theory perspective. Sprouts, working papers on Information sys. 10(27)

  • Katsoulakos T and Katsoulacos Y (2007) Strategic management, Corporate responsibility and stakeholder management integrating corporate responsibility principles and stakeholder approaches into main stream strategy: a stakeholder – oriented and integrative strategic management framework. Corporate Governance. 7(4), 355-369.

  • Knightsbridge Inc (2006) Getting smart about BI: best practices deliver real value. Business week res. serv.

  • Kumarasinghe S et al (2003) Influence of corporate culture, structure and strategy on organizational performance: an empirical study of business organizations in Sri Lanka. Japan. J. Administ. Sci. 16(3), 227-242.

  • Kumar R (2005) Research methodology: a step by step guide for beginners. Sage publication.1-418

  • Lawler EE (1999) Rethinking organization size. www.fing.edu.uy/tecnoinf/cursos/.../rethinkingorganiza tionsize.pdf

  • Liebowitz J (1999) Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management strategy. Knowledge and process management. 6(1), 37-40.

  • Markarian I et al (2007) CSF deploying pervasive BI. USA: Informatica, Teradata, Microstrategy.1-18

  • McDermott R and O’Dell C (2001) Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. J.KM. 5(1), 76-85.

  • Melone NP (1990) Theoretical assessment of the user satisfaction construct in IS research. Manage. Sci. 36(1), 76 – 91.

  • Moffett S et al (2003) An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications. J. KM. 23(3), 6– 26.

  • Moore GC and Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure perceptions of adopting an IT innovation. IS Res. 2(3), 192–222.

  • Murray D (2009) 7 principles for implementing high value BI on a budjet. Taleau software.

  • Nadeem M et al (2003) Application of BI in banks (Pakistan) shared Zulifqar Ali Bhutto institute pf science and technology.

  • O’ dell C and Grayson I (1998) If only we know what we know : identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Managnt. Rev.40(3),154-165.

  • Olszak CM and Ziemba E (2003) BI system in the holistic infrastructure development supporting decision making in organization. Interdisciplinary J. Information, knowledge & Manage. 1,47-58

  • Oxford dictionary (2010) Government. www.oxforddictionaries.com.

  • Petroutsatou C and Lambropoulos S (2007) Early estimating of road tunnel construction cost. Technika Chronika, Technical chamber of Greece, I. 1(2), 99- 110.

  • Pitt LF et al (1995) Service quality: a measure of IS effectiveness. MIS Quaterly. pp: 173 – 186.

  • Platon AS (2009) Introduction to BI and data warehouse. Copenhagen, Denmark, Platon AS.

  • Reimann BC (1974) Dimensions of structure in effective organizations: some empirical evidence. Acad. Manage. J. 17,693–708.

  • Rud P (2009) BI success factor: tools for aligning your business in the global economy, John wiley & sons, Inc.1-283

  • Ryan SD and Prybutok VR (2001) Factors affecting knowledge management technologies: a discriminative approach. J. Compt. Information Sys .41(3), 31– 37.

  • Saich T (2004) The changing role of government: background note for the world bank report on china’s 11th five year plan. Kennedy school of government, Harvard university.

  • Salegro A et als.(2008) Application of BI methods for personalizing tourist. WSEAS transaction on system, 7(10), 1176 -1185

  • Saraph JV et al (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision sci. 20, 810–829.

  • Sayal AH et al (2000) An empirical investigation of use of IT among small and business organization: A Bruneian scenario. Elect. J. Information Sys. Developing Countries. 2(7), 1-17.

  • Schneider B (1975) Organizational climate: an essay personnel psychology. 28, 447-479.

  • Skyrme D and Amidon D (1997) The knowledge agenda. J.KM. 1(1), 27-37.

  • Sharaki and Esmaeeil poor (2010) Apllication of BI system in order to support sugar market. Proce. Conf. Organiz. Intelligence, BI in Iran. 1-9

  • Simmers CA (2004) A stakeholder model of business intelligence. Hicss. Proc. 37th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. Sys. Sci. 8(80), pp: 223b.

  • Tocan MC (2009) Critical factors to KM implementation. Int. Conf. Econ. & Administ. University of Bucharest, Romania.

  • Tomer A and Pugesek BH (2003) Guidelines for the implementation and publication of structural equation models in Pugesek BH,Tomer A,Von eye, A.(Eds), structural equation modeling : application in ecological and evolutionary biology, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.

  • Valimohammadi C (2010) Identification and prioritization of CSF’s of knowledge management in Iranian SME’s: an expert’s view. Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 4(6), 915-924.

  • Vesset D (2005) Worldwide DW tools 2005 vendor shares. Technical report, IDC: www.IDC.com.

  • Vodappalli NK (2009) CSF of BI implementation .Master’s thesis report, IT University Copenhagen.

  • Watson H and Haley B (1997) Data warehousing: a framework and survey of current practice. J. Data warehousing. 2(1), 10-17.

  • Watson H and Ariyachandra T (2005) Data warehouse Architectures: Factors in the selection decision and success of architectures. www.terry.uga.edu.

  • Wild RH et al (2002) A framework for e–learning as a tool for Knowledge management. Indust. Manage. & Data sys. 102(7&64), 371–380.

  • Wixom BH and Watson H (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success.MIS quarterly. 25(1),17–41.

  • Wong KY et al (2005) Is equivalent to information technology?. Proc.4th Europ. Conf. Knowledge Managnt. Oxford Univ, Oxford. 989-997.

  • Xu H and Hwang M (2008) A structural model of deta warehousing success. Scholarship and professional work. Business paper. pp: 78.

  • Yarmohammadzadeh p et al (2011) The analysis of relationship between organizational structure and IT : and the barriers to its establishment at the university of Isfahan from the faculty member’s view points. Higher education studies. 1(1), 98-104

  • Yeoh W (2011) BI systems implementation: Testing a critical success factors framework in multiple cases. Intl. J. Business information sys. 8(2), 192-205

  • Yeoh, W et al (2008) Managing the implementation of business intelligence systems: a critical success factors framework, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.79–94

  • Yin RK (2003a) Case study research: design and methods, Third edition, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, London and New Dehli.

  • Zannetos ZS and Sertel MR (1970) Computerized management information systems and organizational structures, Massachusetts institute of technology, Cambridge, working paper.


Abstract Views: 560

PDF Views: 142




  • Comprehensive Model of Business Intelligence: a Case Study of Nano's Companies

Abstract Views: 560  |  PDF Views: 142

Authors

Hosseini Mirza Hasan
Business administration of Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Forozandeh Lotfollah
Business administration of Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Motamedi Negar
Business administration of Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The implementation of business intelligence (BI) system is a complicated undertaking requiring considerable resources. This research tries to identify the critical success factors that affect the Business intelligence Implementation. The study develops a CSF's framework crucial for BI systems implementation. Next, the framework and the associated CSF's are delineated through a series of NANO's Organization. The empirical findings demonstrate the construct and applicability of the frame work. This study from the aiming view point is practical and from method of data collection and analysis view point is descriptive and is of correlative type. The model of the research has two parts that includes: Critical success factors of business intelligence and system success. Through this model, eight hypotheses were developed that six of them were confirmed. Base on the results of this research, it is recommended that Nano's companies must empower their information technology capacity to have better chance to be the winner of the competitive world.

Keywords


Business Intelligence System, Critical Success Factors, Nano's Industry

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2012%2Fv5i6%2F30475