You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Dashboards’ tag.

If you’re considering purchasing a financial performance management (FPM) suite, you shouldn’t overlook a recent entrant in the category, Tagetik (which sort of rhymes with “magnetic”). The company, which was founded in 1986 and is based in Lucca, Italy, began by focusing mainly on Europe, but has extended its efforts in the United States in the past two years. Tagetik 4.0 is an elegant implementation of a financial performance management suite running on Microsoft’s SharePoint infrastructure.

FPM deals with the full cycle of finance department activities as well as the underlying information technology systems that support them. Tagetik’s suite addresses all of the basic requirements. It has the forward-looking elements of budgeting, planning and forecasting. Its Excel interface is familiar, since most people are trained in using spreadsheets, and most users will find working with it easy. Unlike desktop spreadsheets, though, it has a formal database behind it, meaning that rolling up and consolidating the submissions of any number of participants is almost instantaneous. Moreover, unlike desktop spreadsheets, it stores the data with important attributes such as the time period, corporate structure (division or regions, for example), product (anywhere from families down to specific stock keeping units – SKUs – if desired) and currency. It handles accounting processes. It performs statutory consolidations for US-GAAP, IFRS and other accounting regimes as well as orchestrates the accounting close process. Because its heritage is European, it handles complex legal corporate structures (such as cross-holdings). It does management consolidations, including non-GAAP cost allocations and profitability analysis. It offers a full range of easy-to-configure reporting capabilities, including dashboards and scorecards. And it supports external financial reporting, including adding the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) tags required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for companies that file periodic financial reports with that entity.

Dedicated software can significantly increase the efficiency of companies that currently use desktop spreadsheets to perform basic financial and managerial analyses, management reporting and core processes such as budgeting and the financial close. FPM suites like Tagetik’s also can enhance organizational effectiveness by facilitating more management by exception and greater collaboration across business departments and functional silos.

Because it is built on SharePoint, Tagetik’s FPM is especially well-suited to companies that have either standardized on or have in-house expertise with Microsoft servers and other infrastructure software.  One of the standout features of Tagetik’s FPM suite is its workflow, which is easy for those administering the various processes to configure and revise. The ability to quickly design and reconfigure finance processes contributes to an organization’s ability to shorten core processes and avoid unnecessary delays. Handoffs are automated and deadlines are clear, which leads to fewer dropped balls. This can be especially useful for a company that takes more than a business week to complete its accounting close, because it enables companies to manage the process more exactly, establishing clear deadlines and providing alerts when they are not met. Because the software is easily configurable, the finance organization can put process refinements in place whenever it identifies better process steps and flows, as it can for the extended close, which the software supports all the way through XBRL tagging.

Ventana Research evaluated Tagetik’s suite in our recent FPM Value Index and rated the company a Hot Vendor. In assessing the capabilities of the FPM suites we evaluate a full range of functionality; think of these software packages as multifunction tools, like Swiss Army knives for finance. Some of these capabilities address core functions that every company uses (in addition to statutory consolidation, budgeting and dashboard viewing, for example). Others support tasks that have been assumed to varying degrees by finance organizations, such as profitability management and advanced costing methods. We believe that the finance departments of midsize and larger corporations (those with 100 or more employees) need a much larger Swiss Army knife these days to fulfill their expanding roles, and that is why we base our scores on the full set of functionality in these suites, even though an organization may be looking only for budgeting or consolidation software. From our perspective, the main shortcoming in Tagetik’s suite is in its business analytics; costing and predictive analytics, for example, are rudimentary compared to the higher-scoring FPM suites.

The financial performance management suite category is a mature one. We found limited differences across the core capabilities of these packages. However, that’s not to say that companies should be indifferent about which they choose. Different organizations will find some offerings more closely aligned to how the operate; they may prefer the look and feel of one over all others; or their IT organization may have standardized on one vendor’s infrastructure and therefore the total cost of ownership of one may be substantially lower than that of others. For these reasons, and because the suitability of the FPM suite to the specific organization will affect how well a finance organization operates, I strongly recommend that companies do more than a cursory assessment. Their assessment must balance the operational needs of the finance organization with IT considerations. Vendor standardization should not trump any issues finance has with features, functionality or ease of use. On the other hand, if software from a preferred vendor works as well as others on a short list, the organization must provide good reasons why another vendor should be selected.

Tagetik is facing a crowded market but has been winning customers. I recommend that companies that are looking for a financial performance management suite – especially those that are replacing a point solution (such as obsolescent financial consolidation software) or that are moving off of spreadsheets – should add Tagetik to their list of vendors to consider.


Robert Kugel – SVP Research

Over the last several months, my colleague VP and Research Director Tony Cosentino and I have been assessing vendors and products in the business intelligence market as part of our upcoming Value Index. Tony recently wrote about the swirling world of business analytics, covering many of the dynamics of this industry. He and I have been reviewing the breadth and depth of over 15 of these vendors using our Value Index methodology, which examines the products closely in terms of usability, adaptability, reliability, capability and manageability. As we have gone through this analysis, we see the dashboard as the most common tool for displaying business intelligence. The early forms of dashboards appeared in the 1980s, but in my honest evaluation, today’s dashboards have not gotten much more intelligent in all those years. The graphics have gotten better, and we can interact with charts in what is commonly called visual discovery so you can drill into and page through data to change its presentation. So some progress has been made, but the basic presentation of a number of charts on the screen has not improved significantly and worse yet neither has the usefulness of the charts. Let’s face it: It’s a big mistake to place several bar and pie charts on a screen side by side and assume that business viewers will know what they mean and what is important in them. We cannot assume that individuals in an audience have the ability to interpret charts and draw the right conclusions from them; just being pretty or interactive will not communicate the desired message.

The lack of adoption of business intelligence that includes dashboards is notorious in this industry, and so are the billions of dollars that companies have spent on BI products in the last decade. It is not helpful to make a big statement that the technology has failed; we should look for reasons that have held it back. Here we might start by questioning whether the tools present the right information in a useful form for business people or if organizations have properly configured what tools they have purchased. If the goal is to inform them through dashboards, then maybe we need to make it explicit what the dashboard or collection of charts actually mean. Typically, this means describing in words the issues or priorities that need to be examined further. A little discipline in populating the dashboard could help, such as presenting only the charts that clearly point out issues that need attention and determining which ones to use by applying analytics. If we ask why Microsoft PowerPoint is so popular as a business intelligence tool, we probably would find that the answer is the descriptive text boxes that accompany charts, providing summary sentences or emphasizing specific bullets in a list on the slide. While many people do not like the static nature of Microsoft Excel based charts in presentations or PDF versions of them, they do through human intervention with annotation and commentary provide better explanation of the charts than dashboards are doing today. If we expect our organizations to move beyond personal productivity tools and work in a collaborative enterprise environment with dashboards, we better understand how business intelligence should adapt to the way people work and operate not the other way around. In this case it may not be true that, as the old saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words but a hundred or so hundred words explaining the relevance of the chart could really help.

Many technology vendors believe they need to provide better context in their dashboards, so they try to align the charts to the geographic area of focus, or to the product line of responsibility or to management key performance indicators to make them more usable. Providing better role-based dashboards that are generated based on the individual’s level of responsibility and the business context is a good first step, though most business intelligence vendors do not provide this level of support. But just presenting charts tuned to the context of the individual’s role that may or may not require action is not enough. We need to prioritize the information and make it like the news, with headlines and stories that people can read to determine if they need to make decisions or take action. Whether you are reading the physical or the digital version of The Wall Street Journal or USA Today, newspapers have survived over the centuries as the main source of what humans read in formats they can comprehend. When is the last time you saw a dashboard that communicated the story of its charts and explained the analytics? Well, once upon a time analytics and logic were applied to generate stories, in the early 1990s in a product called IRI CoverStory. Then it was classified as an expert system that programmatically would create English sentences based on the interpretation of the analytics in a memo that the system created. I would even be happy if we had titles and sub-titles to the charts that were dynamically created and represented something to guide an individual to what the purpose of the chart is to represent. Many of the current business intelligence technologies do not even allow for a free form text box that can be placed besides a chart which is really sad as this is one of the most basic methods used in business today. It would be great if dashboards could make these steps forward and make it easier to understand what is presented, but 20 years later, they have not.

Another thing dashboards need to do is help individuals take action based on the information they receive. My colleague Robert Kugel has written about action-oriented information technology frameworks and how they can help increase the productivity and effectiveness of our workers. To date, most developments of the notion of an action-enabled dashboard have focused on data discovery and supporting root-cause analysis; that can’t match the familiar people type actions that happen in our organization – collaboration through dialogue to address issues and opportunities.

Some of my industry colleagues have written books on dashboards to capitalize on the hype surrounding the topic. It’s about time for a set of books about the death of the dashboard or moving beyond dashboards; the current designs are not advancing the ability to take appropriate action on the information presented or provide the right level of guidance using analytics. We are entering the next wave of discussion on visual discovery, but so far much of this focus is just about using visualization on greater volumes and velocity of data, not making it more useful for the general population of business users. If we want to learn from the disappointing decades of business intelligence deployments, then we should find out what our business users really need to take action and make decisions on the information; delivering prettier charts won’t help. Until then, we are just perpetuating the past, and we know it has not had the best track record in advancing usefulness and adoption of business intelligence and dashboards.

I will follow up on this rant of the state of dashboards by writing about the lack of improvement in the types of metrics and indicators as they relate to overall business analytics, which are another source of the problems that underlie our current methods of delivering and providing access to analytics through business intelligence. We all can do a much better job in meeting the needs of business and truly advancing the usefulness of technology that still holds promise for significantly impacting organizations’ effectiveness.


Mark Smith

CEO & Chief Research Officer

Twitter Updates

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 76,631 hits

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers

%d bloggers like this: