Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:A Framework for Understanding the Critical Success Factors of Enterprise Business Intelligence Implementation

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
As discussed before, setting a framework for those factors that are critical to the success of a BI implementation in an organization is the first step. Table 1 lists and describes these ten factors along with references to articles where they are quoted and discussed.

Table 1 As discussed before, setting a framework for those factors that are critical to the success of a BI implementation in an organization is the first step. Table 1 lists and describes these ten factors along with references to articles where they are quoted and discussed.

Related Figures (5)

Table 2. Ratings of CSFs by practitioners It can be seen from the table that committed management support, committed and informed executive sponsor, clear visior and well defined system requirements, user oriented change management, alignment of BI strategy with business objectives appropriate team skills, adequate resources and project scope management have a mean greater than 3.5 and thus are considered as being closer to important and very important. On the other hand, flexible and appropriate technological had < mean of 3.15 and was closer to being neutral as a factor. To this end, this factor is seen to be the least important from the framework.
Table 2. Ratings of CSFs by practitioners It can be seen from the table that committed management support, committed and informed executive sponsor, clear visior and well defined system requirements, user oriented change management, alignment of BI strategy with business objectives appropriate team skills, adequate resources and project scope management have a mean greater than 3.5 and thus are considered as being closer to important and very important. On the other hand, flexible and appropriate technological had < mean of 3.15 and was closer to being neutral as a factor. To this end, this factor is seen to be the least important from the framework.
Given that all P values are greater than 0.05 (Table 3), we therefore, accept the null hypothesis for the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that all the three positions have rated all the ten critical success factors approximately in the same way. The experiences reported from the interviewees clearly supported the multi-dimensional CSFs identified in the critical literature review, although, with some adjustments of a few contextual elements.
Given that all P values are greater than 0.05 (Table 3), we therefore, accept the null hypothesis for the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that all the three positions have rated all the ten critical success factors approximately in the same way. The experiences reported from the interviewees clearly supported the multi-dimensional CSFs identified in the critical literature review, although, with some adjustments of a few contextual elements.
Based on the findings and discussion of the CSFs above, Table 4 summarizes the CSFs and associated revised contextual elements amended by the findings of the interviewees. Furthermore, the interviews also helped in explaining the nature and causes of the new CSFs identified.
Based on the findings and discussion of the CSFs above, Table 4 summarizes the CSFs and associated revised contextual elements amended by the findings of the interviewees. Furthermore, the interviews also helped in explaining the nature and causes of the new CSFs identified.
Table 4. CSFs and revised contextual elements
Table 4. CSFs and revised contextual elements