Establish. Execute. Evolve. ®

ON 2009 GOTO 2006

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:40:00 +0000

Recent events related to PerformancePoint Planning have been surprising to some and (perhaps unsurprisingly) a source of relief for others. By now we've read all of the "told you so" and "OMG they Killed Kenny!" posts and articles, and we've read the official line from Microsoft. Those who were really passionate about PerformancePoint and the end-to-end message of Microsoft Performance Management may well look back one day and recall where they were when that (in)famous leaky post broke. When the official word finally came through, a few questions came to my mind.

Did PerformancePoint Planning really under-perform? Although this depends on whom you speak with, the issue is clearly one of software sales vs. solution delivery. Colleagues of ours who operate or work for Microsoft Partners in the U.S. have shared their problems in selling the PerformancePoint Planning module, while colleagues of ours in the U.K., South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have seen surging opportunities; in most cases the overarching reason was the unprecedented flexibility in meeting IFRS requirements. Meanwhile, the recent media release from Microsoft suggests that customers simply did not resonate with PerformancePoint Planning. What was your market experience (with customers and/or Microsoft) like with PerformancePoint?

Did Microsoft Partners, who developed marketing and operational strategies around the PerformancePoint platform, fail in their market research and planning? Let's look at the record books: 18-24 months ago industry research bodies had the business & technology world convinced that Microsoft was shaking things up in attacking the CPM market. Microsoft's competition must have believed this as well since they moved quickly in acquiring BI/CPM assets from smaller well-known companies, in order to provide their very own 'single performance management footprint'. Microsoft Partners, who watched prospects historically overlook Microsoft BI because it "couldn't do what Cognos/Business Objects could do", saw the opportunity to take the fight to competing Cognos and Business Objects Partners. "At last", certain Microsoft Partners probably thought, "now we have a full Performance Management suite too, and its compelling". Looking further into history, those Microsoft Partners who made big bets on what would eventually become SharePoint, SQL Server and Windows Server found sustainable offerings and generated significant wealth creation, delivering solutions in spaces that matched their passions. "Surely the pattern would hold true for PerformancePoint", they may have thought. Presently, Monday morning quarterbacks tell us that PerformancePoint was virtually doomed from the outset. What was your experience in evaluating PerformancePoint, the market opportunity it presented as well as your own readiness for the 'single footprint for performance management'? Would Microsoft have been so quick to bail on PerformancePoint if they didn't have to cut loose 5000 unlucky people? How did SharePoint perform in the early stages by comparison?

Was PerformancePoint Planning all too hard? Depends on whom you speak with. In our experience and those shared by our colleagues, Partners who truly understood how to speak the language of business, who understood accounting and financial concepts, who grasped sales and operations planning (S&OP), business strategy and performance management frameworks inspired customers and won successful engagements. To my mind, this was the point of PerformancePoint. Frankly, anyone could make a dashboard, but those Partners who really understood performance management to begin with really understood how much of an impact it could /and did have with CFOs, CIOs, COOs, etc. The goal of PerformancePoint Monitoring Server and Planning Server, in the end, was to help drive closed-loop business performance. Did you embrace PerformancePoint completely, or, did you focus only on one of the two server offerings in the suite?

Is the PerformancePoint Services strategy wise? If you saw 'Charlie Wilson's War' then you'll get what I mean when I say: "We'll see". In my personal (read: non-professional) opinion, I believe that by leaving Planning out of the integration strategy into SharePoint "Next", customers are probably more likely to look elsewhere for a complete performance management solution. I also believe that suddenly there is an inherent opportunity. Wise or unwise? Crisis or opportunity? We'll see.

And what about the Partners who have put it all on the line to help promote PerformancePoint as well as the many customers worldwide who have committed to the platform? Well, I can point to the words of fellow Canadian Alan Whitehouse. Chris Webb made a constructive point, too, in his parting shots. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the thought-leaders over at Adatis Consulting to weigh in.... :-)

- Adrian Downes

Update: I am informed that Alan Whitehouse is indeed American and not Canadian as I blurted out previously..... but that's still cool with me!

On Going Gold

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:36:00 +0000

It is a distinct pleasure for me to announce that B(iQ) is now recognised as a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner specialising in Performance Management and Business Intelligence solutions. We were the first Microsoft Partner in Australia to acheive the Performance Management specialisation, reflecting customer successes and team expertise in Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007.

Microsoft Gold Certified Partners are recognised for their expert level of skill and knowledge with Microsoft technologies, and, have the closest working relationship with Microsoft Corporation. With a growing presence in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, we continue our momentum with the uptake of Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007, our specialist area of expertise. This premium level of recognition from Microsoft is testament to our commitment to our customers, our people, our partners (especially all of our friends at Microsoft), our peers and the success of PerformancePoint in the Australian market.

Personally speaking, I am proud (and often moved) by the tireless and devoted efforts of everyone on our team.

Congratulations B(iQ)ubans! Keep up the great work!

- Adrian Downes

On the Bookshelf

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:55:00 +0000

"Drive Business Performance: Enabling a Culture of Intelligent Execution" by Bruno Aziza and Joey Fitts represents much more than a demystification of performance management terminology. The book is neither a re-telling of the benefits of performance management, nor a veiled attempt to shape a business case for PerformancePoint. Instead, the authors introduce novel ideas backed by case study research, culminating in a pervasive and flexible model for business transformation within the scope of performance improvement.

The Culture of Performance (CoP) Model presented by the authors bridges a gap between the establishment of a performance measurement framework (e.g., Balanced Scorecard, TQM, Lean, etc.), and the tools and methods brought to bear in executing performance measurement (read: Business Intelligence). CoP is a comprehensive model for evolving organisations into the strategy-focused enterprises that Drs. Kaplan and Norton envisioned years earlier. To be certain, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

That the authors chose to include "culture" in the name of their model cannot be understated: it directly addresses organisation-wide cultural transformation as it relates to the adoption of performance management (through the model's six phases). The authors demonstrate, with compelling evidence, that a company is more likely to achieve its desired outcomes when all its members adopt a performance-oriented mindset. Here, case studies on Expedia, Energizer and The Veterans' Health Administration (U.S.) each strike a chord on the sometimes painful transformation to a culture of performance. Aziza and Fitts make these findings practical, encouraging incubation through scored questionnaires, supporting capability models (MAP) and guiding principles. The final chapter of the book provides an excellent summary that aligns said scores to an entry point into the CoP model; this provides a reasonable indication of where an organisation may begin to improve business performance.

This excellent book warrants careful review and consideration-- it represents fresh and illuminating thinking from two of the most prominent figures in the field of performance management. For executives, directors and managers looking to improve business performance (as well as consultants specialising in performance management) consider this book essential reading.

- Adrian Downes

On Metadata-Driven Analysis Management Objects (New Link)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:59:00 +0000

All code listings described in the following posts on Metadata-Driven AMO (Parts 1, 2 and 3) may now be accessed at the link below...

Cheers to Windows Live SkyDrive. Jeers to Ripway.

- Adrian Downes

On Even More Great PerformancePoint Planning Blogs & Posts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:00 +0000

Well, actually it's one more resource this time.

Paul Steynberg, certainly the most active non-Microsoft resource on the PerformancePoint Planning and Management Reporter forums, is another excellent resource on both subjects.

Combining his background in Accounting with his passion for business intelligence, his new blog should be considered a "must-add" to your list of PerformancePoint learning resources.

To paraphrase a good friend of mine: 'bout bloody time, Paul!

- Adrian Downes

On More Great PerformancePoint Planning Blogs & Posts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:21:00 +0000

Although PerformancePoint Planning can be challenging to learn, it is great to see the growing number of bloggers and posts dedicated to helping us appreciate the finer points of this feature area:

Sacha Tomey continues to add value to the learning experience with his recent post on PEL Business Rule Re-use and Pre-defined What If Scenarios. The post targets developers and IT professionals charged with creating and maintaining PEL specifically for what-if analysis. Clearly the voice of experience is sounded here.

Norm's PerformancePoint Server Blog, which has posts on PerformancePoint data integration and test environment deployments, presents a quick 20-minute video on PPS-Planning Intercompany Eliminations for a Financial Model by Forrest Dermid (Microsoft). Forrest demystifies a seemingly difficult topic for developers and IT professionals, demonstrating that whilst accounting knowledge of the subject is helpful, it certainly is not necessary to grasp.

Peter Eb. of Microsoft, a familiar expert on the TechNet PerformancePoint Planning forum continues to roll out excellent posts related to the Planning Business Client (formerly known as the PPS Add-in for Excel).

While you're at it, take the time to visit bloggers Alan Whitehouse and Jeremey Kashel, both of whom continue to add a dose of reality in their experiences with PerformancePoint Planning.

The braintrust in PerformancePoint Planning is definitely growing in blogspace...I highly recommend subscribing to these bloggers as a great way to supplement your PerformancePoint Planning education.

- Adrian Downes

On Feedback for the PerformancePoint Rational Guides

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:27:00 +0000

It has been a little over seven months since my esteemed colleague Nick Barclay (MVP) and I first announced our Rational Guides on PerformancePoint. Since then we have been overwhelmed by the positive feedback (emails, verbal, blogs, etc.) for our titles, especially from readers who are preparing for the MCTS: PerformancePoint exam (70-556). As always, we are greatful for all the support we have received from around the world for our books, and, are pleased to learn that so many people are benefiting from them. What follows is a humble attempt to centralize and share reviews of our books. Once again, many thanks again to everyone who shared feedback on them.

Bruno Aziza (U.S.): PPS-M&A and PPS-P Review

Chris Webb (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review

Dan English (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Daniel Upton (U.S.) :PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

David Street (U.S.): PPS-P Review

Jeff Carr (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review

Jen Hamlin (Canada): PPS-M&A Review

Josh Sale (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review

Paul Steynberg (S. Africa): PPS-P Review

Ryan Jamieson (S. Africa): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Sacha Tomey (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Teo Lachev (U.S.A): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Tim Kent (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review

Note: if I have missed your review, then please accept my apologies and let me know ASAP by leaving a comment on this post with a link to your review.

- Adrian Downes

On Your Top 10 List for PerformancePoint Planning

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:43:00 +0000

While the Microsoft PerformancePoint Planning development team hasn't formally asked (outside of the Connect site), I thought a Letterman-like "Top 10 List" thread on the TechNet PerformancePoint Planning Forum would be a helpful way to stimulate suggestions, ideas and discussion for new PPS Planning features (those which could be considered for the next version of the product). On the forum, I have proposed a basic approach to listing the top 3-10 feature ideas/suggestions/improvements that you may have, with a one-line justification in terms of value to end-users and/or IT professionals.

This shouldn't be viewed as an opportunity to deride the product-- instead, consider it as a constructive means for those of us working with the product (on a regular basis) to provide community feedback. Here, the intention is to add value to the Microsoft development and product management effort.

If you are keen to share your ideas and get involved in the discussion, click here .

I see, as I type these very words, that Alan Whitehouse (another excellent PPS blogger worthy of subscribing to) has already shared his thoughts in the discussion thread.... gotta love that real-time feedback, eh?

Cheers,

- Adrian Downes

On a Well-Deserved Award for a True Microsoft BI MVP

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:29:00 +0000

Congratulations to B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay who recently learned he became a Microsoft MVP in the SQL Server category. Nick has put his heart into his professional passion for Microsoft BI for most of his career, and, this prestigious award validates the global Microsoft BI community view of his efforts. When the euphoria and adrenalin wear off somewhat, I'm certain Nick will have his MVP profile up and ready for viewing :-)

- Adrian Downes

On Learning SQL Server 2008 Reporting Services

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:03:00 +0000

...And while we are on the subject of learning, it is certainly a good idea to begin spending time with SQL Server 2008 functionality ahead of its release later this year. While a host of SQL Server 2008 books are planned, Teo Lachev has just announced that his book: Applied Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Reporting Services is just a few months away from release.

Congratulations, Teo! Looking forward to reading it.

- Adrian Downes

On Learning to Drive Business Performance

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:46:00 +0000

Congratulations to Bruno Aziza and Joey Fitts, two luminaries of the Microsoft BI/PM global community, on the publication of their book "Drive Business Performance: Enabling a Culture of Intelligent Execution". The work intends to illustrates real-world examples of corporate success achieved via the business discipline of Performance Management. I look forward to reading it, and plan to provide a review here in the near future.

For more information on the book from the publisher's site, click here.

To pre-order your copy from Amazon.com click here

Bruno has a number of upcoming events planned around the release of the book... click here to learn more.

If you happen to be in the area, I recommend spending time watching Bruno present-- he is certainly someone who can engage and energize a crowd!

- Adrian Downes

On the Gathering Clouds of Software as a Service (SaaS)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:54:00 +0000

Recently, Becky Nagel at RedmondMag.com broke a story about the next step in Microsoft's Software as a Service (SaaS) strategy: Microsoft Online Services.

For those of us building solutions in the Business Intelligence space, and haven't already spared a thought about SaaS, it is important to be consider of the mid-to-long term implications of a hosted system-of-record (S-OR) application.

Think about the major ERP vendors moving their product to a hosted, SaaS offering (like the SAP BusinessOne trials in India in 2007). In this business model, one customer may leverage a hosted ERP, for example, paying a monthly or annual fee to use only CRM and Financials services, whilst another may prefer to use additional services for managing Suppliers, Inventory, Employees (etc.). Quickly, the third-party hosted provider is able to leverage (potentially) incredible economies of scale.

Basically we are talking about a web-based “data-in” proposition, where a business collectively enters transactional data securely via the browser for one or more key business functions. On the opposite side of the fence, BI fundamentally is a “data-out” paradigm where business data is refined and exposed as information for decision making (either strategic, operational or even individual).

Now, some of you may recall the famous book and articles by Nicholas Garr (Does IT Matter, Harvard Business School Press, 2004), who discusses the commoditisation of IT into a utility of services (aka. utility computing). Naturally there was something of a backlash from IT Managers/Directors, CTOs, and CIOs (three guesses as to why). This is what SaaS is all about and where many in the IT industry (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, and obviously the major vendors) believe the trend is heading.

From a BI Practitioner perspective, there is certainly food for thought:

First, consider the S-OR application to be, in general, the ideal data source for our BI solutions since such systems typically encompass multiple business functions or domains (again, Customers, Financials, Suppliers, Employees, Inventory, etc.). The S-OR is the end goal of a Master Data Management effort, and (as I'm sure must may currently/historically agree) often the oasis of many data integration (ETL) efforts.

Next, consider our accessibility to S-OR applications should they become hosted (or “in the cloud”). Suddenly, it seems building a BI infrastructure on-site for a customer becomes somewhat less of an issue. Right? "Cool", you might say, "web-based BI" or "hosted BI".

Now consider the shifting burden of information from a customer environment to a third-party hosting provider. Do you think it will be easier or more difficult to access data and build those lovely BI solutions for customers?

Finally, consider this: if utility computing takes root, and the hosted system of record becomes a feasible and sustainable model for business, guess where BI is going next? More profoundly, who do you suppose will be in the most likely position to deliver this likely "new form" of BI?

What are your thoughts?

- Adrian Downes

On the Best Explanation of a Financial Model with Shares Calculations

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:47:00 +0000

Kudos to Sacha Tomey (Adatis Consulting, U.K.) who has posted a clear and concise breakdown of how the Financial Model with Shares Calculations works in PerformancePoint Planning, illustrated with a useful example. Consider this required reading if you want to implement this model type in your Planning Applications.

Update (01 - MAR - 2008):

It should come as no surprise that such top-shelf thinking would come from the U.K.'s first Performance Management specialist in the Microsoft Certified Partner Program. Congratulations to the Adatis Consulting Team!

- Adrian Downes

On Looking for BI Specialists in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:34:00 +0000

B(iQ) is currently looking for BI technology specialists in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide who are keen to:

learn and build solutions with PerformancePoint Server 2007
work a 4-day client-facing week
grow professionally and become a Partner in the business

We are looking for team-oriented people with compelling communication skills and the desire to grow. Industry experience with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 BI technologies (SSIS, SSAS, SSRS) is required.

Additional skills and experience with any of the following technologies are desirable:

Microsoft Office Excel 2007
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 (or higher)
SharePoint Products and Technologies (WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007)

Exposure to PerformancePoint Server 2007 in a professional setting will be highly regarded. A tertiary education and relevant Microsoft certifications (MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP: BI Developer, MCTS: PerformancePoint) will help to set you apart.

Interested parties, who are either Australian citizens or permanent residents, should send their CVs to careers@b-iq.org. All communications will be held in strict confidence.

- Adrian Downes

On the MCTS Exam for PerformancePoint Server 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:00:00 +0000

The single Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist exam (70-556) for PerformancePoint Server 2007 is now available at Prometric. Microsoft Learning luminary Trika Harms zum Spreckel provided a preview of the exam requirements for the then-beta version of the exam here.

Just be certain to leave Tim Kent and Sacha Tomey alone.... they won't divulge any secrets.... :-)

Update (25 - JAN - 2008):

The Microsoft official preparation guide for exam 70-556 can be found here.

Update (29 - JAN - 2008):

I just sat and passed this exam today. Without giving anything away, I can confirm that pretty much all of the measurement areas shown in the prep guide appear in the exam. Good hunting!

- Adrian Downes

On the Rational Guide to Planning with PerformancePoint Server 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:07:00 +0000

The Rational Press team have informed us that The Rational Guide to Planning with Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007 is now published and available. As mentioned in a previous post, this book is designed to help you get started with the Planning feature set in PerformancePoint Server 2007.

For those among you who have asked, here's a breakdown of the chapter content:

Print Chapters
1. Performance Management and Planning
2. Introducing PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning
3. Installing PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Tools
4. Working with the Planning Administration Console
5. Getting Started with Planning Business Modeler
6. Designing Dimensions and Member Sets
7. Building Business Models
8. Securing Business Models
9. Integrating Business Data
10. Defining Business Rules
11. Using the PerformancePoint Add-in for Excel

Bonus Chapters
A. Implementing Process Management
B. Consolidating Data through Associations
C. Operational and Management Reporting
D. Closing the Performance Management Loop

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Tony Mann, Jeff Edman, and the rest of the Rational Press team. Many thanks to Corey Hulen, Peter Bull, Bruno Aziza, Bill Baker and the many amazing people at Microsoft for their time and input. Thanks are certainly due to my friend & co-author Nick Barclay for his time and energy. It certainly has been a fantastic team effort in putting both books together and spreading the word about them.

Special thanks to my wife Mary and daughter Christine for putting up with my evening disappearances, as well as the global Microsoft BI community for their support and positive feedback.

Update (31 - Jan - 2008)

In the downloadable material for Chapter 2, the AWC Modify Script.sql file is not the correct version-- please keep an eye on the Rational Press web-site for the most up to date version, which should appear very soon. The correct version of this script can be easily re-executed against your AdventureWorksDW database (since it only drops and recreates views); running the correct script will be essential for subsequent exercises, particularly in Chapter 9.

Also, there is a missing file for Chapter 4 in the downloadable material for this Rational Guide (Thanks to Mike H for pointing this out). While we are certain Rational Press will fix this as well, I have posted the instructions below to save you from potential delays.

We apologize for any inconvenience this situation may have caused.

*************************************************
A. Prior to completing the exercises in this chapter, you will need to set up a number of users on your evaluation server or in your domain.

1. From the Windows desktop navigate --> Start --> Administrative Tools and select Computer Management.

2. Inside the left-hand pane of the Computer Management console, open the System Tools --> Local Users and Groups --> Users. Right-click the Users folder and select New User from the context menu.

3. The New User dialog box appears. Enter the following information for the new account:

User name: PPSAdmin
Password: pass@word1

4. Check the Password never expires option, uncheck the User must change password at next logon option, and uncheck the Account is disabled option if necessary.

5. Click Create, and then click Close.

Repeat Steps 1-5 for the following users:

PPSContributor
pass@word1

PPSApprover
pass@word1

PPSModeler
pass@word1

B. Set up a the following folders in your prefered directory, as follows

PATHNAME\Forms
PATHNAME\Reports
PATHNAME\AssignmentForms
PATHNAME\AssignmentMasterForms

replacing PATHNAME with the path to your prefered directory.

*************************************************

Update (01 - Feb - 2008)

Rational Press has informed us that the files for Chapters 2 and 4 are now up to date.

- Adrian Downes

On the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certifications for Practitioners

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:28:00 +0000

While this may be old news for some, there appears to be an emerging certification program for those who help companies to craft performance management initiatives with the Balanced Scorecard methodology.

The Balanced Scorecard Collaborative (a division of The Palladium Group founded by Dr. David P. Norton) is already active in certifying software that conforms to the Balanced Scorecard method. Now, the Collaborative is promoting two levels of certification for individuals as follows:

Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified™

awarded after completion of four Balanced Scorecard Collaborative How-To Training Seminars as well as an on-line multiple choice exam

reflects an "understanding and command" of the Balanced Scorecard body of knowledge

Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified Practitioner™

requires that a candidate is already Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified™

requires additional documented industry experience in implementing the Balanced Scorecard method

Both designations warrant "on going education and renewal requirements".

In my opinion, I believe the Practitioner level may be the most appealing and credible since it is awarded based on both certified knowledge and documented experience; this is quite similar to the approach taken by the Project Management Institute to qualify Project Management Professional (PMP) certification candidates.

To my mind, there will always be as many detractors as there are supporters of individual certification. Nevertheless, if you feel that certification is helpful in demonstrating knowledge and communicating differentiation among your peers, then this may well be the single best way to achieve these aims in the performance management space.

For more information on these designations click here.

What do you think? Is pursuing a Balanced Scorecard certification a worthwhile endeavour?

- Adrian Downes

On PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Features (Part 8)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:31:00 +0000

Part 8 - Consolidation and Reporting

In Part 7 of this PPS Planning series of posts, we briefly covered how the PPS Add-in for Excel is used to enter data into a model, as well as review and approve such data (based on the assignment role of the user) as part of a scheduled cycle of assignments. In this long overdue (!) and final instalment in this series, we will take a glance at the role of associations and business rules in consolidating data for subsequent reporting.

Table 8.1 – Aligning Budget Activities to PerformancePoint Planning Tasks

8.1 Challenges in Consolidation

Consolidation of approved data contributions into a single location for financial reporting is necessary to provide a uniform view of a company’s plans. This exercise may be tedious for companies with an organizational structure that consists of many business units, product divisions or geographic locations; as you may recall from earlier posts, a PPS Planning application can be arranged into a hierarchy of model sites and subsites to reflect an organizational structure. Furthermore, although businesses may plan, budget or forecast for detailed conditions within a model subsite, decision-makers may only be concerned with higher-level figures in a less granular model. For example, in a company that sells a variety of products in several countries, stakeholders may only be concerned with summary revenue budget figures for specific countries without concern for how detailed product line targets contribute within each country. Meanwhile, product managers accountable for sales in each country can focus on approving more granular revenue targets for discrete products. Instead of resorting to duplication of effort in integrating data into both the detailed and summary models, we can take advantage of associations in PPS Planning that ultimately support management reporting in such situations.

Note: To be certain, the list of challenges in consolidation is far longer than those described here. The aim is to keep things brief as a function of covering PPS Planning at a high level.

8.2 Model, Dimension and Member Associations in PBM

In PBM, we have a dedicated workspace that allows us to configure associations that serve as conduits for moving and aggregating fact data between models. An association itself is expressed using three levels of detail: the model association, dimension associations within the model association and member associations within a given dimension association.

A model association (also called a model-to-model association) represents a coarse linkage between a source and destination model. Figure 8.1 shows the New Association dialog box that allows us to configure a source and destination model (residing in either a single model site or between model sites) for a model association. A model association also allows us to specify an Aggregation Function that indicates whether a Sum, Average, Min or Max function is perfomed on data as it moves into the destination model.

Figure 8.1 – New Association Dialog Box

Within a model association, a number of dimension associations are used to qualify the dimensions and membersets (remember: membersets are analogous to dimension hierarchies) that are involved between the source and destination in a model. Once a model association is created in PBM, we can access the dimension associations by clicking on the Dimension Association tab in the Associations Workspace. In Figure 8.2 we can create a dimension association for the Scenario dimension between both models by highlighting the Scenario dimension in each model and clicking on the Add Mapping button.

Figure 8.2 – Dimension Associations Tab in PBM

Note also that we may have additional dimension definitions that may not necessarily ‘line-up’ between models. Here, we must qualify the scope of members for an outstanding dimension—in a source model, this means that we include the tuples (or model cube cell intersections) of values that are aligned to the members to be included in the Aggregation Function. In a destination model, a single member can be specified to store the aggregated value (thereby performing a rollup of the source aggregated values).

Member associations are finely-grained pathways that allow us to quickly specify identical mappings between source and destination members that share a specific name, or, many-to-one mappings between a number of source members and a single destination member within a dimension association (this should not be confused with the scope of members we specify for outstanding dimensions within in a model association). We can also customize our mappings for situations where the source and destination member names are dissimilar.

Figure 8.3 – Member Associations Tab in PBM

In Figure 8.3, within the Member Associations tab, we can see the result of fully qualifying an identical mapping of all members of the Scenario dimension between both models, by simply clicking the Map Identical button.

The key to successfully implementing associations can be realized in how we have previously defined our dimensions and crafted our models. Upfront planning of the models to be used in a PPS Planning application is paramount; here, the power of shared dimensions can be realized as we can quickly map commonalities between models based on our knowledge of the members within a dimension.

The value of associations should become evident in situations where we may want to roll-up a number of fact values (in multi-dimensional space, aligned to specific dimension members in a model cube) in a source dimension, to a single member in a destination dimension (again, supplying a value that intersects on the member in the destination model cube). However, there are a few limitations to be aware of with associations. Firstly, associations do not support splitting or distribution of data from a tuple consisting of a single dimension member and value in a source model, to multiple dimension members in a destination model. In other words, one-to-many mappings in a member association are not supported in the current version of PPS Planning. Also, we cannot promote a percentage or fraction of the source aggregated value into the destination model with an association. Finally, an association will not remove scoped data from the source model once it has been allocated to the destination model; this may be ideal for situations where balances must be transfered from one model to another. In order to meet either of these requirements, we can implement one or more allocation business rules (performing either a PushCrossModelAllocation or PullCrossModelAllocation) that leverage the ALLOCATE or TRANSFER PEL (PerformancePoint Expression Language) statements. For completeness, an ALLOCATE statement only changes data in the destination model while a TRANSFER statement changes data in both the source and destination.

Using either approach (associations or allocation business rules), we are able to centralize fact data to support reporting from a single model. We can automate our process by creating a job (using the Process Management workspace in PBM) that executes the association or allocation business rule; this is ideal for allowing authorized users (most likely in an Approver assignment role) to execute the process manually from the PPS Add-in (Figure 8.4), thereby promoting approved data into the central model.

Figure 8.4 – Job Menu Items in the PPS Add-in for Excel (2007)

8.3 Reporting

After spending significant time in PBM, the typical BI developer might breathe a sigh of relief once the heavy lifting to get data into a central model for reporting is complete. Here, we have a few options for exposing our data for end-users.

We can take advantage of the simplicity in using the PPS Add-in for Excel. A report in this context is essentially the same as a form template (which is later instantiated for a given assignment), except that it does not allow data entry. In Figure 8.5, we can see a sample report that illustrates our ability to leverage conditional formatting features in Excel 2007.

Figure 8.5 – Summary Reporting with the PPS Add-in for Excel (2007)

Although we can publish reports from the PPS Add-in to SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services (SSRS 2005), the results may not always be what we expect since some reports may use MDX that cannot be rendered easily by SSRS 2005. Do take the time to review the Help file to learn more about these restrictions.

In my opinion, the more flexible, useful and reliable approach would be to switch gears and use the powerful PerformancePoint Monitoring and Analyzing (PPS-M&A) toolset. Here, we can surface data in a dashboard report (either with or without a scorecard) and implement further extensibility afforded by the PPS Monitoring SDK. Figure 8.6 shows the same information from Figure 8.5 (showing Budget and Forecast revenues along with Actuals) in a PPS Dashboard.

Figure 8.6 –Performance Reporting with PPS Monitoring Dashboard

Other options include using ProClarity 6.3 or PerformancePoint Professional Management Reporter (the latter of which is currently in beta at http://connect.microsoft.com/).

This concludes our high-level review of the PPS Planning feature set. To be certain, there is much more to the story on PPS Planning that can be found in the product documentation, at MSDN and TechNet, in the PerformancePoint forums, on the many informative blogs available (links to more than a few of these are listed in the right border of this blog) as well as in several books that will certainly emerge in the foreseeable future. In my opinion, the more you know, the further you go, so do take advantage of all the resources that present themselves on the subject of PPS Planning as they surface.

Thanks for reading, happy holidays, and good hunting with PPS Planning!

- Adrian Downes

On Microsoft Australia's Business Intelligence Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:13:00 +0000

It is an honour for me to announce that B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay will be presenting at the Microsoft Australia Business Intelligence Summit to be held in both Melbourne (28 November) and Sydney (29 November). The upcoming event shall formally introduce Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007 to Australia.

2007 has been a banner year for Nick, who has channeled his passion for Microsoft BI technology into three Rational Guides, Microsoft Partner Readiness to be delivered in conjunction with Microsoft MVP Peter Myers across five major Australian cities in addition to his commitments to the Microsoft BI Summit.

Nick will be speaking on the subject of PerformancePoint Server 2007: Monitoring and Analytics.

To see the entire agenda, click here.

Nick has been instrumental in the growth of B(iQ) over the last few months. Considering that he has expertly juggled all of these activities and commitments while remaining a dedicated family guy is to be commended. Well done, my friend.

- Adrian Downes

On Gartner's Latest Report about PerformancePoint

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:22:00 +0000

Special thanks to B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay for sourcing this latest report from Gartner, written by Neil Chandler on the impact of PerformancePoint Server 2007 in the corporate performance management (CPM) market.

Without stealing its thunder, the report finds that PerformancePoint is expected to approach market leadership within four to five years. The product is recommended today for organizations looking to execute a performance management initiative, having already invested in SQL Server 2005 and SharePoint Server 2007.

- Adrian Downes

On Two Rational Guides for PerformancePoint Server 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:43:00 +0000

After The Rational Guide to Microsoft Business Scorecard Manager 2005 was released many people asked "so when's the PPS book coming?". Nick Barclay and I remained decidedly quiet about the idea of another book. It was, in fact, always our intention to write a PerformancePoint book, with the aim of publishing as close to RTM as possible.

Early on in the planning process we found that a single Rational Guide just didn't contain enough pages to cover the product adequately; to remedy this we wrote two books.

We are pleased to announce that the following books are soon to be published via Rational Press:

The Rational Guide to Monitoring and Analyzing with Microsoft Office to PerformancePoint Server 2007 (available November 2007)

The Rational Guide to Planning with Microsoft Office to PerformancePoint Server 2007 (available December 2007)

Based on the feedback from readers and bloggers, Nick and I have found that the interest in learning the product is massive. Our titles are designed specifically to help you get up to speed quickly with the Monitor - Analyze - Plan feature areas of PerformancePoint.

- Adrian Downes

On Preparing for the MCITP: BI Developer Certification

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:07:00 +0000

Kudos to world-reknowned consultant, trainer and blogger Teo Lachev, founder of Prologika and author of Applied Microsoft Analysis Services 2005, on his latest efforts. A new training guide, MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-445): Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Business Intelligence—Implementation and Maintenance is designed to help you prepare for the first of two Microsoft certification exams towards the MCITP: Business Intelligence Developer designation. The guide is now available from Microsoft Press and can be ordered on Amazon.

Although a book like this is certainly long overdue, I expect it to be a huge success-- I happen to know more than a few BI developers and consultants out there eager to pick up this new title. Congratulations to Teo (who provided the SSAS 2005 content) and his co-authors Erik Veerman, Dejan Sarka, and Javier Loria.

- Adrian Downes

On an Objective View of PerformancePoint Server 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:08:00 +0000

The Business Application Research Center and OLAP Report have put together an objective report on PerformancePoint Server, which evaluates the product suite across the following criteria:

- Product and Commercial Issues
- Architecture
- Data Access Functionality
- Calculation Functionality
- Reporting Flexibility
- Time Series Intelligence
- Currency Support
- Security and DBMS Issues
- Human Factors
- Application Building Features
- Performance

The 36 page report is available for download (via Microsoft) here. It is well worth the read for those of you currently evaluating the product.

- Adrian Downes

On PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Features (Part 7)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:52:00 +0000

Part 7 - Entering Budget Data and Managing Assignments

In Part 6 of this series, we initiated an assignment workflow, enabling our users to contribute, review and/or approve data entry in response to notifications. In this short post, we continue our journey through a PPS Plan cycle, using the PPS Add-in for Excel to submit or review budget data within a model, and, managing the state of the data-entry or review assignment with PPS Planning Business Modeler (PBM).

Table 7.1 – Aligning Budget Activities to PerformancePoint Planning Tasks

7.1 Entering Budget Data

Back in Excel, a contributor is able to see his/her new assignment in the PerformancePoint Action pane. Clicking on it retrieves an instance of the form template from the Planning server. In Figure 7.1 below, we see the open form associated to our assignment, with a region of yellow indicating where we may insert data.

Figure 7.1 – Data Entry Region in Matrix

Although the primary purpose of data entry is for submitting budget data, recall that we can also use data entry in concert with business rules to perform what-if analysis; here, setting up a review-only assignment would be ideal for such situations.

Another collaborative feature carried forward from Business Scorecard Manager (BSM) 2005 is the annotation. Annotations provide users with opportunities to further qualify a specific value with commentary-- in BSM 2005, a user with sufficient rights could add an annotation to any cell in a scorecard. In the PPS Add-in for Excel, annotations are aligned to a data entry cell, and the annotations themselves are stored within the Application Database (SQL Server 2005). On subsequent examination of data entry, for example, a reviewer may gain further insight on a specific budgetary value, or, if the assignment is defined appropriately, then a reviewer may add further commentary as well. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 illustrate the basic steps towards creating an annotation: right-clicking on the yellow data-entry cell, selecting ‘Annotations’ from the context menu and entering text for the annotation.

Figure 7.2 – Selecting the Annotations Item from the Context Menu

Figure 7.3 – Entering Text for a New Annotation

A subtle yet handy feature associated with annotations is the annotation view of the matrix. When this view is enabled, cells with annotations are shaded, helping a reviewer to quickly identify where a contributor has added a comment (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4 – Annotations View Enabled for the Input Form

Once satisfied with data entry, our contributor needs to publish either a draft or final submission of their work to the Planning server. Draft submissions allow for subsequent modifications by contributors, while final submissions prevent such users from submitting further changes via the input form. Users in reviewer and approval roles can also publish their work to the Planning server, with different options to mark their submissions as reviewed or approved. Figure 7.5 shows how the user may submit contributions using the PerformancePoint Action pane.

Figure 7.5 – Submitting Contributions to the Planning Server

7.2 Managing Assignments

The “contribute/examine in Excel and submit to PPS Plan” paradigm changes the state of the assignment on the Planning server, causing successive workflow tasks to execute. We can use PBM to monitor progress of an assignment as well as pre-emptively purge, stop or restart it where necessary. PerformancePoint Planning CTP2 documentation describes six states (Table 7.2) an assignment may be in at any given time during a cycle.

Table 7.2 – Six States of an Assignment in PBM

These assignment states can be managed from the PBM Process Management workspace using the ‘Available Actions’ menu item covered in Part 6. There are nine actions in total (CTP2) which can be performed against a given assignment, depending on the PBM role of the user. Table 7.3 aligns these actions to said roles.

Table 7.3 – Available Assignment Actions by PBM Role

This shorter post rounds out the overall discussion on implementing a budget cycle. All the previous topics in this series broadly describe how PPS Planning may be used to design and develop a business model covering a specific facet of an organisation.

In a previous post adopting a 1:1 approach was suggested, using a specific business model for a given budgeting domain; here, the input form we use as the key interface to a business model reinforces this view towards optimizing the user (contributor/analyst) experience. Nevertheless, most (if not all) businesses require a master budget from which budgeted financial reports are generated, and, this situation often requires consolidation once supporting budgets are complete (e.g., for sales, direct labour, raw materials purchases, capital expenditure, etc.). In large diversified companies, consolidation is a more complex exercise often involving additional intercompany and share-allocation processes-- fortunately, as we addressed in Part 4, PPS Plan offers variety of business rule sets and flexibility in customizing business rules to support budgeting needs from the small business to the large enterprise.

In the next and final post of this series, we will briefly revisit the role of business rules and rule sets in consolidating individual budgets and a few options at our disposal for creating financial reports.

- Adrian Downes

On PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Features (Part 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:16:00 +0000

Part 6 - Implementing Process Management

Once we have defined and designed business models as well as our input forms, the next step towards implementing a budget cycle is to get our analysts and contributors involved. This post provides an overview of how we use PPS Planning Business Modeler (PBM) to implement workflows relevant to budgeting.

Table 6.1 – Aligning Budget Activities to PerformancePoint Planning Tasks

A budgeting period is defined in PBM Process Management with cycles (of assignments) and jobs. In PBM terms, a cycle is basically a scheduled time frame which contains one or more tasks. An assignment involves the association of a user (which we have configured to a specific role) to a given input form (itself associated to one or more business models), to perform a required data-entry or review task. A PBM job is a system-oriented task for updating data within a model, or moving data between models. Jobs become especially useful if we need to centralize approved data from a number of models before running consolidated financial reports (budgeted financial performance, budgeted financial position, budgeted cash flow, etc.).

Figure 6.1 – Accessing the Process Management Workspace in PBM

6.1 Cycles

In order to setup one or more assignments for a user, we need to first define a cycle. Figure 6.2 illustrates the Create a Cycle wizard that launches from the hyperlink shown to the right in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.2 –PBM Create a Cycle Wizard

The wizard requires an owner, with the appropriate authority (as defined in PBM), a specific business model, as well as a data entry scope for the cycle. Data entry scope is an important feature in PBM which allows us to control the range of time in the business model (delineated by a time/date/calendar dimension) in which budget contributions (and subsequent reviews) can be made. We also have the ability to define our data entry scope in terms of a current period reference relative to the current period (here, we focus on the level in the time dimension, such as a month or quarter) with an additional offset that adds equivalent blocks of time to the current period. For example, if our business policy is to prepare budgets three months in advance, then we can specify an offset of 1 month to a current period of September 2006 which results in an October 2006 starting range for data entry in the model. We can use the offset to define the ending range as well-- an offset of 3 months from the current period results in a three-month period ending in December 2006. The key benefit to using ranges based on a current period (which we define in our time dimension) and offsets is that the current period can be dynamic. Thus, if our cycle is recurring, the data entry scope becomes a sliding window for budget contributions.

Figures 6.3 through 6.5 illustrate how we arrive at the dialog that specifies a current period reference for data entry, from the Create a Cycle Wizard.

Figure 6.3 – Editing the Starting Data Period

Figure 6.4 – Adding a Current Period Reference

Figure 6.5 – Specifying the level and offset for a Current Period

It is important to note that data entry scope and scheduled time frames for a cycle are not the same: we may, for example choose to schedule a cycle for just the first week of our current period (August 2007), wherein we submit data for the quarter starting in October 2007. Also, when we define out time (date/calendar) dimension, we may also specify that the current period for the dimension may be dynamically derived, thereby helping us to implement a rolling period for budgeting.

The wizard also requires that we specify a member of our Scenario dimension for budgeting. For some, budgeting may require multiple passes within a given time frame in the model; ensuring your Scenario dimension has additional budget “pass” members affords greater flexibility in modelling for a variety of circumstances.

After we specify our scheduled time frame for the cycle, we are prompted by the wizard to specify whether notifications to users with assignments within the cycle are made. You may recall from our coverage of the Planning Administration Console that we configured a master list of users. Entries in this list optionally include email addresses which PPS Plan uses to issue messages to contributors when a new assignment is created or, to reviewers when budget data has been submitted.

Figure 6.6 – The New Cycle in the Process Management Workspace

In Figure 6.6 we can see our defined cycle in the Process Management workspace. Note that the Status of the cycle is set to ‘Running’. If you don’t see this state of the cycle after finishing the Create a Cycle wizard, either hit F5 or refresh the PBM workspace browser. We can also use PBM’s ‘Available Actions’ Process Scheduling Task menu item to start and stop cycles, as well as completely purge a cycle and any assignments it contains from the Planning Server

6.2 Assignments

Once a cycle is defined, the owner of the cycle can create assignments specifying:

users who will enter and submit budget data
users who will review and/or approve data entry
deadlines for submissions and approvals

The key to cycles and assignments is the workflow running behind the scenes. An assignment to a user for data entry, for example, has a different state depending on whether the user has submitted data via a given input form. Once a user submits an assignment, the process scheduler changes the state of the assignment and evaluates the next portion of the defined workflow; as we just covered, if notifications are enabled, then the next person in the workflow will receive a message to either contribute their own data, or review data that someone else entered.

Selecting the ‘Forms Assignment’ tab of the Process Management workspace for our newly created cycle, and clicking the ‘Assign Forms’ hyperlink button in the right-hand Workspace task pane (shown in Figure 6.7) reveals the ‘Assignment Definition Creation Wizard’ (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.7 –Creating a Forms Assignment for the Cycle

Figure 6.8 –The Assignment Definition Creation Wizard

The Assignment Definition Wizard helps us to identify either one or more contributors on a given assignment, or, a group of contributors arranged in a submission hierarchy. A submission hierarchy represents a collection of contributors and approvers which can be defined to match approval processes among a larger number of users. Here, matching a submission hierarchy to a subset of your company’s organisation chart (for example, within a finance department where managers approve senior analyst contributions, who in turn approve junior analyst contributions) is a convenient way to delineate start-dates and deadlines according to the hierarchy itself. Using the submission hierarchy, you can specify the number days required, at a given level, to complete an assignment (the duration of the assignment), then stagger the start times according to the budgeting period-- this creates a critical path of sorts between the earliest start-time (at the lowest level of the hierarchy of contributors), the delta of durations from level to level, up to the topmost approver.

After selecting our approval chain for an assignment, we can include the input form template we configured and published to the PPS Planning Server. Clicking on the ellipses button in the ‘Form’ region of the wizard’s Data Submission page exposes a dialog box (Figure 6.9) where we can select the appropriate form for the assignment. Although the documentation indicates that more than one form may be used for an assignment, I tend to believe that keeping a 1:1 ratio between assignments and forms may well be simpler and easier to manage.

Figure 6.9 –Selecting an Input Form Template for the Assignment

After selecting the form and defining the starting- and ending-dates for the assignment, we then indicate whether our workflow will include reviews, approvals, reviews and approvals, or, alternately neither reviews nor approvals. Selecting the lattermost option brings us to the end of the wizard, while any of the other options prompt us to specify PBM-defined users to participate in the desired capacity. Reviewers and approvers may, at our discretion, edit submissions from contributors, and we can also specify deadlines for reviews and approvals (see Figure 6.10); this is necessary if we choose not to use a submission hierarchy but still wish to set deadlines for non-contributors.

Figure 6.10 –Specifying Review Conditions for the Assignment

Finally, with our assignment defined, we need to save changes to our model site before starting our assignment. Although we have defined the start-time, in CTP2 the assignment definition still needs to be instantiated (the instance itself started) in order for users to contribute/review/approve as well as for the workflow to perform its magic. For the BI practitioners out there, this is analogous to enabling a SQL Server 2005 job to automatically start at a specific time.

Figure 6.11 – Getting Ready to Enable the Assignment

As shown in Figure 6.11, highlighting the assignment and clicking ‘Available Actions’ in the workspace task pane opens a dialog box, allowing us to start the assignment instance (Figure 6.12).

Figure 6.12 – Starting (Enabling) the Assignment Instance

As we covered earlier in this post, once the assignment is up and running, the lead-off contributor may be notified of their assignment via email-- provided this was previously configured in the PAC Master User List. Furthermore, you can supply a link to the assignment (which automatically opens Excel to display it) in an email, or, you can use the link in a SharePoint web part that can be seen on a personalised MOSS site or WSS 3.0 page.

With the assignment enabled, we may proceed to enter our budgetary information. In Part 7 of this series, we will return to the PPS Add-in for Excel for data entry as well as review our options for managing assignments via PBM.

- Adrian Downes