See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324571401

Towards a Classification Framework of Business Intelligence Value Research

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
4 418

3 authors:

Sunet Eybers Jan H Kroeze

University of South Africa University of South Africa
38 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS    189 PUBLICATIONS   563 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ian Strydom

7 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

User Experience of eModeration View project

Humanities-enriched Information Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan H Kroeze on 17 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Towards a Classification Framework of Business Intelligence Value Research

Sunet Eybers1, Jan H. Kroeze2, Ian Strydom3

1
School of Computing, University of South Africa (UNISA), Florida, Johannesburg, South Africa
sunet.eybers@yahoo.com
2
School of Computing, University of South Africa (UNISA), Florida, Johannesburg, South Africa
kroezjh@unisa.ac.za
3
School of Computing, University of South Africa (UNISA), Florida, Johannesburg, South Africa
istrydom45@mail.com

Abstract. Business Intelligence and Analytics (BI&A) and the topic of ‘big data’ have sparked renewed interest in the
discipline of Business Intelligence (BI) and the challenges associated with the implementation thereof. Although the
benefits of the powerful analytical capability of BI&A are obvious, not all organisations have reached the maturity of dealing
with big data. For some organisations, the focus remains on implementing ‘traditional’ BI capabilities based on structured
data (also known as BI&A 1.0) such as data warehousing. For this reason, the value of such implementations remains a
burning issue, especially in tough economic times. As a result, the authors embarked on a journey of investigating the current
published academic material focusing on the value added by BI projects to organisations. Various focus areas have been
identified and presented in a conceptual classification framework. This provisional framework makes an important academic
contribution as it provides the reader with various approaches to identify, evaluate and justify the value of such projects either
prior to, during or after projects; monitor the potential value in the course of the project; identify gaps in current research and
identify future research opportunities.
Keywords. Business intelligence, business value, success, maturity.

1 Introduction
The interest in Business Intelligence and BI related projects seemed to have increased substantially, both under practitioners
and academic scholars. Despite challenging financial times, BI implementations remain one of the highest priorities for
organisations [14]. Also the number of BI related papers published in peer reviewed journals has steadily increased over the
past decade [23]. The latest trend towards the growing analytical capability required by huge datasets, labelled as ‘big data’,
contributed to renewed interest in the application and capability of Business Intelligence and Analytics (also known as
BI&A) [7]. However, whilst the benefits reaped by organisations implementing BI&A 2.0 and BI&A 3.0 are obvious, not all
organisations are currently implementing this type of capability, and some are still stuck in BI&A 1.0. For this reason, the
benefits of BI&A 1.0 cannot be discarded and stakeholders demand feedback in terms of the value of such implementations.
Also, even when BI&A 2.0 and 3.0 are implemented, benefits are often lagging. For this reason, it is sometimes imperative
to establish business benefits ex-ante (before), during or post-ante (after) implementations. It therefore seems surprising that
a literature review by [23] found that research pertaining to the benefits offered by BI implementations seems to have been
neglected when compared to other focus areas. However, it remains an important topic of interest for various reasons.
Firstly, it is important to identify and understand BI competencies in decision environments contributing to successful BI
implementations [22]. Secondly, the need has arisen to develop tools necessary for analysing, predicting and managing
success in BI organisations due to huge capital investments [1]. Thirdly, it remains challenging to justify BI investments due
to indirect, intangible benefits across organisations [15]. Fourthly, the research pertaining to BI value measurement seems
insufficient [20], [34]. Fifthly, various authors recognize the need for the development of accurate and reliable measurement
methods for measuring the business value of BI implementations [2], [28]. Lastly, there is a need to investigate the
relationship between costs and benefits of BI solutions [11].
The objective of this paper is to consolidate current BI value research contributions and subsequently propose a provisional
classification framework for BI value research. The primary research question can therefore be articulated as: What
academic research has been conducted and published over the last decade focusing on the business value achieved in
organisations as a result of a business intelligence implementation?
The proposed framework will make numerous contributions. Firstly, the framework will present the reader with a summary
of existing academic research focusing on the topic of BI value. Secondly, gaps in the current research are identified for
future research opportunities. Lastly, the extent is exposed to which BI value research is investigated. Future research efforts
can therefore build on the current structure.

2 Research Methodology
A literature review approach was used to investigate the extent to which BI value has been researched (this is similar to an
approach followed by [5]). An extensive literature search was performed targeting various peer-reviewed academic resources
including (a) the current Association for Information Systems (AIS) senior scholars’ basket of top IS journals available on the
AIS website; as well as (b) proceedings from academic conferences on the topic of Information Systems (IS) (as part of the
AIS accredited conferences). The senior scholars’ basket was selected due to the focus on the top IS journals in the field.
This selection approach is similar to the approach followed by renowned authors such as [7] and [23]. Also, conference
proceedings comprise the latest research information pertaining to the field of BI.
Table 1. AIS senior scholars' basket of top IS journals (top 8)
European Journal of Information Systems
Information Systems Journal
Information Systems Research
Journal of the AIS
Journal of Information Technology
Journal of Management Information Systems (MIS)
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
MIS Quarterly

The following search criteria were used in the search process against all fields (including abstract, keywords and title):
“business intelligence” AND “value”; “business intelligence” and “evaluation”; “business intelligence” and “success”;
“business intelligence” AND “worth”; “business intelligence” AND “performance management”; “business intelligence”
AND “impact”. All aspects of the BI concept was considered, including BI as technology (such as data warehousing, OLAP,
decision support systems), product (data, information, knowledge, decisions) as well as process (extract, transform and load
processes) [43]. No further demarcation of BI was considered, despite the BI evolution classification into BI&A 1.0 (data
warehousing), BI&A 2.0 (analytical web applications) and BI&A 3.0 (mobile technology) of Chen et al. [7].
The search was further restricted to include results from the past decade, from 2000 to 2013. Although BI is perceived as a
young discipline (less than 25 years old) [32] the search was not expanded to include the entire period. The main reason for
the decision is the fact that BI, prior to 2000, was often referred to using encapsulating terminology such as decision support
systems (DSS) and management information systems (MIS) [3], [16]. Although introduced in 1989 by Howard Dressner
[52] BI, as a discipline, did not receive sufficient academic focus prior to the turn of the century. This is evident when a
general search is conducted for the keyword “business intelligence” when using any renowned academic search engine. For
example, the PROQUEST (ABI/INFORM Global) search engine was used to perform a complete search (with no date
restrictions). The search returned 41 records for the period 1990 to 1999; 522 records for the period 2000 to 2009 and a total
of 491 records for 2010 to 2013 (search conducted on 1 September 2013). The results set returned using a restriction for the
period 1990 to 1999 was therefore excluded because of the majority of the articles published in the latter periods. Even if the
period prior to 1990 was included, it would probably not have impacted much on the literature results set.
The initial literature search resulted in a temporary set of 449 journal articles and 1524 conference papers and proceedings.
The articles were further evaluated for relevancy using the article abstract. The preliminary literature pool was compiled. A
backward literature search was conducted to identify additional possible resources after which the final literature pool was
finalized. A backward literature search entails the evaluation of the reference list contained in the articles returned as part of
the literature pool to identify possible related articles on the topic. A list of the final literature pool utilized for the
construction of the framework is displayed in Table 2.

Fig. 1. Literature review process

A meta-synthesis approach was used to integrate, evaluate and interpret the content of the final qualitative literature pool.
This approach was used to identify the main unit of investigation within the studies and identify common key elements as
well as the academic contribution made. For example, studies investigating success factors of BI implementations using
critical success factors were classified accordingly.

3 BI Value Research: Proposed Framework

As a result of numerous researches investigating the value of IT related implementations many models, frameworks and
taxonomies that prove the wealth of implementations have seen the light. Some of these results have been empirically
verified through extensive testing, whilst some remain conceptual based on theoretically founded theories without extensive
testing. However, all these studies strive towards achieving the same objective – to prove the business value to organisations
as a result of the investment. A similar scenario is evident in the BI research area.
BI value literature can be broadly classified into two categories. The first category reused existing IT value models,
frameworks and taxonomies applied to a BI environment [38]. The second category developed bespoke models specifically
tailored for the BI environment [54], [56]. Both categories were considered.
The first section in the proposed framework classifies research focused on pre-conditions for maximum business value.
These studies focus on organisational or process maturity, organisational or process readiness and success models. In
instances where these conditions exist BI business benefits are expected.
The second section focuses on organisational level investigations as well as process level investigations and subsequent
interrelationships. It is postulated that the value realized on process level will have a direct impact on the organisational level
as well as the interrelationship between process and organisational level capabilities.
Critical success factors as well as project success failure is classified as the last category in the framework. These critical
success factors should be tracked in order to realize business value. Also, project success studies explore the reason for
project success or failure and subsequent benefits. This section might also contain organisational or process level
investigations.
The focus areas briefly discussed above are depicted in Fig. 2 and form the basis of the proposed framework. Each focus
area is discussed in more detail.

Fig. 2. A framework of BI value research

3.1 Preconditions for Realized Value

Numerous studies focus on the pre-conditions required to realize BI value as a result of implementations. Some studies focus
on organisational and/or process level maturity, the readiness of an organisation and/or processes for a BI implementation or
contributing factors of project success. These studies postulate that for an organisation to maximize benefits of BI
implementations, a particular maturity level, readiness level or conditions for success should be present.
Similar to the main challenge when defining BI, studies investigating the maturity and/or readiness for BI implementations
focus on individual aspects of BI as a discipline, namely technology [24], [53], process or product [11] of which technology
(data warehousing) is more prevalent. Although valuable to organisations a complete maturity or readiness model should
focus on all aspects of BI.
BI Maturity Models
Maturity models assist organisations in identifying the maturity of the organisation on either process or organisational level.
The approach proposes an analysis to identify the current maturity level of the organisation. The current level is then
compared to a future desirable maturity level. Subsequent activities are identified to proceed to the next level within the
maturity model to achieve the corresponding benefits of the succeeding level [11]. The objective of a maturity model is
twofold. Firstly, the focus is on the improvement of corporate data management [19]. Secondly, gaps in the current
implementation can be identified when benchmarked against the next desirable level in the maturity level. A higher level in
the maturity model implies more benefits [12], [53].
A number of maturity models were identified in the course of the literature review process. Whilst some models focused on
the maturity of BI [11-12], [19], [42], [27], [36], others focused on data warehouse maturity [53].
There are many advantages of using BI maturity models in organisations. These models prescribe a structured approach to
introducing or enhancing the current or new BI capability within organisations, contributing to the realization of maximum
business value. Also, the existence of certain characteristics (pertaining to a particular maturity level), can contribute to the
predictability of the success of a BI implementation.
Dinter [11], on the contrary, identified a number of disadvantages of maturity models. The vast number of maturity models
available might pose a challenge to users in the selection of the appropriate model. Also, the research development methods
of these models are not always disclosed, questioning the validity and reliability of the instrument. As a result, these models
are not always empirically tested. Maturity models focus on sub-sections of BI such as data warehousing or data quality,
similar to perspectives of the proposed BI framework in this paper (namely readiness assessments). The applicability to BI as
holistic implementation might be questionable. The various lower levels of maturity models are not always disclosed,
making it challenging when implementing these models. Finally, maturity models include a subjective component containing
an element of individual preference.
BI Readiness Assessments
Readiness assessments investigate the organisations’ inclination for achieving success prior to a BI implementation. It is a
business centric assessment and includes investigations into certain organisational, process and technical level characteristics
to establish readiness [54]. The main objective of a readiness assessment is to minimize risk when implementing a BI
solution. One such example is the assessment of the organisation’s ability to provide BI systems with data. The lack of data
will increase the risk of project failure.
Advantages of using readiness assessments focus on the period prior to BI implementations. If the susceptibility of the
organisation towards the BI implementation can be established, corrective action can be implemented, therefore mitigating
the risk of project failure. In addition, if the ideal incubation period is established prior to the BI implementation, the
implementation should be uneventful. Unfortunately, these readiness assessments are often created focusing on the sub-
components of BI such as data warehouses [54], [24].
BI Success Models
In the context of BI, Shollo and Kautz (2010) describes BI success as the positive benefits obtained as a result of the
implementation [44]. The organisation’s and subsequent stakeholders’ definitions of success depend on the anticipated
benefits.
The application of success models in the context of BI varies substantially, depending on the objective of the method used.
Some success models aim to understand the elements affecting or contributing to successful implementations including
critical success factors (CSF) [1], [20], [37], [33], [31]. On the other hand, some studies focus on understanding, assessing
and scrutinizing the success of BI implementations either by using instruments [38] or BI success models [26], [56]. Some
studies include the influence of contextual factors on the success of BI implementations [13] such as BI capabilities [22].
Data warehouse success has also been a topic of investigation by authors such as [55], [43], [21].
The advantage of using success models is obvious. The early identification of characteristics necessary for the successful BI
implementation can minimize project failure risk. Unfortunately, similar to maturity models, success models might be
subjective, containing an element of individual preference. Also, some of the models proposed focus on sub-components of
BI such as data warehousing [26], [43].

3.2 Value Investigations at the Organisational Level of Analysis

Studies focusing on the organisational level of analysis assess the organisational impact of IT on organisational performance
[17]. The bigger the positive impact the more business value is realized. In the context of BI, [6] supported the same view,
focusing on identifying both individual and organisational competencies necessary to realize benefits of BI implementations.
These competencies should be embedded in Business Intelligence Systems (BIS) in order to maximize business value [18].
In an attempt to ensure the realisation of BI benefits, [30] proposes a six sigma approach as part of the BI project
management process. The six sigma approach is a methodology focusing on the quality of outputs. The approach is typically
applied by organisations striving towards a zero defect deviation of products. In the application proposed by [30], the author
propose certain objectives (or so-called “Critical to Quality” (CTQ) goals) to be achieved, for example quality of data. These
are similar to organisational wide critical success factors (CSF). If these factors are positive, project benefits will be realized.
The stakeholder theory is applied by [47] to their BI value investigation. The focus of the study was on the so-called new-
form organisation with its unique characteristics. The approach includes a unique value creation objective identified across
all organisational boundaries. These objectives can be monitored and assessed in performance management investigations.
This approach has several advantages. Firstly, it might be easier for the evaluator to relate the benefits or value identified on
this level to the overall organisational goals. Secondly, a broader view of benefits might be necessary to identify the impact
on organisational decision making and competitive advantage.

3.3 Value Investigations at the Process Level of Analysis

Various studies pertaining to IT value investigations focus on the value of investments generated on process level, also
known as the process approach [4], [46], [49]. Process theory, in general, investigates ‘how’ the value occurs by means of
inputs resulting in desirable outcomes and the interrelationships between these constructs [49]. This approach is also used by
[57] to investigate the value of BI to organisations.
Subsequently in the context of BI, [48] argues that an investigation on business process level is necessary to understand the
business value created on organisational level. The study uses a customized model based on the process model by [49] as
well as [28]. The finding is that business benefits are realized on various activities across all the processes but that they are
challenging to measure due to the indirect and delayed onset of benefits. On the contrary, the impact of BI implementations
is usually more visible on process level. These individual process level benefits contribute directly to the overall
organisational level performance.
Unfortunately, this approach requires that the evaluator have a thorough understanding of the various organisational
processes.
3.4 Value at the Organisational and Process Level of Analysis and Subsequent Interrelationships
Whilst some authors argue that an investigation on business process level is necessary to understand the IT business value
realized on organizational level [8], [29] other authors focus on understanding the relationship between the two constructs
[13]. The focus of these studies is the mutual affiliation rather than the business value outcome.
There seems to be a (positive) correlation between business process performance and organizational performance. However,
the strength of the correlation varies between various industries [13]. Therefore, context should be considered when
designing performance management measurement systems for the purpose of value realization.
In a study conducted by [2] the Content, Context, and Process (CCP) framework [50] is utilized to analyse the effectiveness
of an existing evaluation process. The study found that traditional financial measures are too narrow and that the evaluation
technique should include content, process and context.
This approach allows for a holistic approach to the identification of the value of BI implementations both on strategic and
operational level. Unfortunately, this approach can be complex to implement.
A summary of the BI value models, frameworks, tools and techniques used as basis for the framework is given in Table 2
followed by a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the focus area (in Table 3).
Table 2. Summary of BI value models, frameworks, tools and techniques
Classification Contribution Author
Preconditions for value or
success:
Maturity models (BIMM) BI Maturity Model (biMM) [11]
Americas SAP User Group (ASUG) BI maturity model [19]
Data warehousing stages of growth [53]
Classification Contribution Author
BI Maturity Model [12]
Service-Oriented Business Intelligence Maturity Model (SOBIMM) [42]
Theoretical BI maturity model [27]
Data warehouse process maturity [41]
Business Intelligence Maturity Model (BI MM) [36]
Readiness assessments Method for BI readiness assessment [54]
Success factors indicating readiness [24]
Success models Instrument for understanding, evaluating and analysing success of BI solutions [38]
Data warehouse success model [54]
Critical success factors [20]
Critical success factors [37]
Critical success factors [33]
Critical success factors framework [31]
BI success model [26]
Capability assessment framework [22]
Framework for CSF [1]
Model for BI success [56]
System success factors in DW [43]
Structural model of DW success [21]
DeLone and McLean’s success model tested in BI environment [51]
Process level Business value process model [48]
Process oriented research approach for investigating value [57]
Process and variance model [40]
Organisational level Six sigma approach [30]
Model of organizational competencies for BI success [6]
Stakeholder model of BI [47]
Success in BI-based organisations [34]
Success factors in BI systems [18]
Assessment framework [45]
Both process and Theory of content, context and process (CCP) for BI (based on [48]) [2]
organisational level and BI value measure instrument [13]
interrelationships

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of BI framework focus areas

Classification Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)

Preconditions for value or success:
Maturity models (BIMM)
Structured approach to introducing or There are many maturity models
enhancing the current or new BI available and it might be
capability can contribute to the creation challenging selecting the
of maximum business value. appropriate model.
Classification Advantage(s)
The existence of certain characteristics
(indicate a particular maturity level)
can contribute to the predictability of
the success of the BI implementation.
Readiness assessments The susceptibility of organisations
towards the implementation of BI can
minimize risk for failure.
If the correct incubation environment
exists for BI implementations, the
contributed value should be more [54].
Success models Early identification of characteristics
necessary for successful
implementation of BI can minimize
project failure risk.
Process level The impact of BI implementations is
usually more visible on process level.
The value experienced as a result of BI
implementations on process level
contributes directly to the overall
organization level.
Organisational level It might be easier to relate the benefits
or value on this level to the overall
strategic goals.
A broader view of the benefits of BI
implementations might be necessary to
identify the impact on organisational
decision making and competitive
advantage.
Disadvantage(s)
Some maturity models focus on
sub-sections of BI such as data
warehousing or data quality [11].
The research development method
of some of the models is not always
disclosed [11].
The various lower levels of
maturity models are not always
disclosed making it challenging to
implement [11].
Not all maturity models proposed
are empirically tested [11].
Maturity models include a
subjective component containing an
element of individual preference
[11].
Often focus on sub-components of
BI such as data warehousing [54].
Similar to maturity models, success
models might be subjective,
containing an element of individual
preference.
Some success models focus on sub-
components of BI such as data
warehousing [26], [43].
Business process improvement
interventions should commence
prior to a BI implementation to
ensure maximum value.
Individual processes should be well
understood and documented for this
approach to be successful.
Classification Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
Both process and organisational level This approach allows for a holistic This approach can be complex.
and interrelationships approach to the identification of the
value of BI implementations both on
strategic and operational level

4 Challenges and Limitations

The term BI is an encapsulating term, referring to many aspects of BI products, processes and technologies. This study
focuses on all these aspects, contributing to an extremely wide scope. Perhaps the scope should be contained by focusing on
only one aspect of BI, for example data warehousing.
On the other hand, various studies focus on a particular aspect of BI (for example processes) without considering all aspects.
The question remains if the findings of research studies with such a narrow scope are generalizable to the entire scope of BI.
The objective of the study was to present a provisional framework of current research conducted. The result was a first draft
of a broad classification method based on current academically published articles. Although it might appear as if the first
version of this framework is merely a list of bibliographies, it serves as a starting point for a proper classification framework.
The suggested framework is a work-in-progress, and the various perspectives identified as part of this framework would have
to be critically compared in future work in order to increase the usability and value of the proposed framework. This,
together with the additional dimensionality of the various versions of BI&A (1.0 to 3.0) might be used to compare the various
approaches used according to the focus areas identified. All these will be considered during the next phase of the ongoing
study.
The number of BI academic published material is on the increase and the latest material would have to be considered to get a
true indication of the status of BI value research.
The current literature review scope should be enlarged to perhaps include other BI&A specific resources as identified in a
paper by [7].

5 Conclusion
The objective of the paper was to investigate the extent to which BI value has been researched in order to present a
summarized consolidated view in a framework. Although similar work has been done by [39] focusing on IT value research,
little evidence could be found of a similar framework focusing on BI. Furthermore, the framework classified, categorized
and synthesized BI value academic literature for the last decade. This was similar to an approach used by [5] on the topic of
telework.
The framework presented identifies the extent to which BI value has been researched as well as gaps with a view to future
research. Firstly, there seems to be a need to investigate mobile BI (also known as BI&A 3.0) as well as BI applicable to
social media which is currently in its infancy. Secondly, the investigation highlights the lack of published academic material
focusing on the evaluation of the organisational level of analysis, followed by the process level of analysis and the
interrelationships between these two levels. It seems as if the focus is on investigations of pre-conditions of success, such as
maturity models, readiness assessments and success models.
A possible explanation for the lack of organisational level focus might be attributed to the assessment of the net value of both
tangible and intangible benefits of BI implementations without considering lower level (process level) characteristics.
The research focus areas identified in the framework are in line with the level of the measurement research field as described
by [39] in his taxonomy of IS business value research. This refers to both the organisational or process level unit of analysis.
The importance of considering the level of analysis is stressed by [10] postulating that the distinction between the levels
contributes to the explanation of the productivity paradox. The separation of the different levels is useful to structure research
and to resolve conflicting results. This is similar to the approach used by Sidahmed [45]. It is also argued that, beyond the
distinction between the levels, the interrelationship between the levels can provide useful insights into how Information
Systems (IS) generates value [9], [25].
The framework contributes to the existing pool of academic literature as it provides the reader with a high level classification
framework for current BI value literature; identifies gaps in the current research (as discussed above); identifies future
research areas; and contains a bibliography of academically published research according to the identified focus areas.

References

1. Adamala, S., Cidrin, L.: Key Success Factors in Business Intelligence. J. Intell. Stud. Bus. 1, 107-127 (2011)
2. Arnott, D., Gibson, M.: The Evaluation of Business Intelligence: A Case Study in a Major Financial Institution. ACIS
2005 Proceedings, Paper 97 (2005)
3. Arnott, D., Pervan, G.: Eight Key Issues for the Decision Support Systems Discipline. Decis. Sup. Syst. 44, 657–672
(2008)
4. Byrd, T.A., Davidson, N.W.: An Empirical Examination of a Process-oriented IT Business Success Model. Inf.
Technol. Manage. 7, 55-69 (2006)
5. Boell, S.K., Campbell, J., Cecez-Kecmanovic, Cheng, J.E.: Advantages, Challenges and Contradictions of the
Transformative Nature of Telework: A Review of the Literature. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17 (2013)
6. Chasalow, L.C.: A Model of Organizational Competencies for Business Intelligence Success, Doctor of Philosophy in
Business, Department of Information Systems, Virginia Commonwealth University (2009)
7. Chen, H., Chiang, R.H.L. and Storey, V.C.: Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact. MIS Q.
36, 4:1165-228 (2012)
8. Davern, M., Kauffman, R.: Discovering Value and Realizing Potential from IT investments. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 16, 4,
121-144 (2000)
9. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Yen-Year Update.
J. Manage. Inf. Syst. Spring, 19, 4, 9-30 (2003)
10. Dehning, B., Richardson V.J: Returns on Investments in Information Technology: a Research Synthesis. J. Inf. Syst.
16, 1, 7–30 (2002)
11. Dinter, B.: The Maturing of a Business Intelligence Maturity Model. AMCIS 2012 proceedings. Paper 37 (2012)
12. Eckerson, W.: Performance Dashboards: Measuring, Monitoring and Managing your Business. Wiley-Interscience,
NYC (2007)
13. Elbashir, M.Z., Collier, P.A., Davern, M.J.: Measuring the Effects of Business Intelligence Systems: The Relationship
Between Business Process and Organizational Performance. Int. J. of Acc. Inf. Syst. 9, 135–153 (2008)
14. Farrokhi, V., Pokorádi, L.: The Necessities for Building a Model to Evaluate Business Intelligence Projects – Literature
Review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. Surv. (IJCSES), 3,2, April (2012)
15. Gartz, U.: Enterprise Information Management. In: Business Intelligence in the Digital Economy: Opportunities,
Limitations and Risks, Raisinghani, M. (eds.). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing (2004)
16. Gray, P.: Business Intelligence: A New Name or the Future of DSS?. In: DSS in the Uncertainty of the Internet Age.
Bui T., Sroka H., Stanek S., Goluchowski J., (eds.). Publisher of the Karol Adamiecki, University of Economics,
Katowice (2003)
17. Gustafsson, P., Franke, U., Hook, D., Pontus, J.: Quantifying IT Impacts on Organizational Structure and Business
Value with Extended Influence Diagrams. In: Stirna, J., Persson, A. (Eds.). IFIP Int. Fed. Inf. Process. 138-152 (2008)
18. Grublješič, T., Jaklič, J.: Conceptualization of BIS Embeddedness Determinants. Proceedings of the Nineteenth
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17 (2013)
19. Hawking, P.: Business Intelligence Excellence: A Company’s Journey to Business Intelligence Maturity. AMCIS
proceedings, Paper 63 (2011)
20. Hawking, P., Sellitto, C.: Business Intelligence (BI) Critical Success Factors. ACIS 2010 proceedings, Paper 4 (2010)
21. Hwang, M., Xu, H.: A Structural Model of Data Warehousing Success. J. Comput. Inf. Syst, 48-56 (2008)
22. Isik, O.: Business Intelligence Success: An Empirical Evaluation of the Role of BI Capabilities and Organization's
Decision Environment. AMCIS 2009 Doctoral Consortium, Paper 13 (2009)
23. Jourdan, Z., Rainer, R.K., Marshall, T.E.: Business Intelligence: An Analysis of the Literature. Inf. Syst. Manage. 25,
121-131 (2008)
24. Kimball, R., Ross, M., Thornthwaite, W., Mondy, J., Becker, B.: The Data Warehouse Lifecycle Toolkit, 2nd ed.
Indianapolis, Wiley Publishing (2008)
25. Kohli R., Grover V.: Business Value of IT: An Essay on Expanding Research Directions to Keep Up with the Times. J.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9,1, 23-39 (2008)
26. Kulkarni, U.R., Robles-Flores, J.A.: Development and Validation of a BI Success Model. Proceedings of the
Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17 (2013)
27. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Business Intelligence Maturity Models: An Overview. Proceedings
of the VII Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (itAIS 2010), Naples, Italy (2010)
28. Marshall, P., McKay, J., Prananto, A.: A Process Model of Business Value Creation from IT Investments. Proceedings
of the Fifteenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, December 1-3, Hobrt, Tasmania (2004)
29. Melville, N., Kraemer, K.,, Gurbaxani, V.: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative
Model of IT Business Value, MIS Q., 28, 2, 283-322 (2004)
30. Miller, D.: Improving Business Intelligence: The Six Sigma Way. Holt, Thompson and Associates, United States of
America (2010)
31. Mungree, D., Rudra, A., Morien, D.: A Framework for Understanding the Critical Success Factors of Enterprise
Business Intelligence Implementation. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17 (2013)
32. Negash, S., Gray, P.: Business Intelligence. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings, Paper 423 (2003)
33. Olbrich S., Poeppelbuss J., Niehaves B: BI Systems Managers’ Perception of Critical Contextual Success Factors: A
Delphi Study. ICIS 2011 Proceedings, Paper 12 (2011)
34. Olszak, C.M.: The Business Intelligence-based Organization – New Chances and Possibilities. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance (2012)
35. Pirttimǎki, V., Lönnqvist, A., Karjaluoto, A.: Measurement of Business Intelligence in a Finnish Telecommunications
Company. Electron. J. Knowl. Manage., 4, 1, 83-90 ( 2006)
36. Raber, D., Wortmann, F., Winter, R.: Towards the Measurement of Business Intelligence Maturity. ECIS 2013
Proceedings, Paper 109 (2013)
37. Sangar, A.B., Iahad, N.B.: Critical Factors that Affect the Success of Business Intelligence Systems (BIS)
Implementation in an Organization. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 2, 2, 176 (2013)
38. Schieder, C., Gluchowski, P.: Towards a Consolidated Research Model for Understanding Business Intelligence
Success. ECIS 2011 proceedings, Paper 205 (2011)
39. Schryen, G.: Preserving Knowledge on IS Business Value - What Literature Reviews Have Done. Bus.Inf. Syst. Eng. 2,
4, 233-244 (2010)
40. Seddon, P., Constantinidis, D., Dod, H.: How Does Business Analytics Contribute to Business Value? Thirty Third
International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando (2012)
41. Sen, A., Sinha, A.P., Ramamurthy, K.: Data Warehousing Process Maturity: An Exploratory Study of Factors
Influencing User Perceptions, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 53, 3, 440-455 (2006)
42. Shaban, E., Helmy, Y., Khedr, A., Nasr, M.: Business Intelligence Maturity Models: Toward New Integrated Model,
ACIT 2011 proceedings (2011)
43. Shin, B.: An Exploratory Investigation of System Success Factors in Data Warehousing, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4, 1 (2003)
44. Shollo, A., Kautz, K.: Towards an Understanding of Business Intelligence, ACIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 86 (2010)
45. Sidahmed, M.: Business Intelligence Impact Assessment. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, Paper 205 (2007)
 46. Silvius A.J.G.: Does ROI Matter? Insights into the True Business Value of IT, The Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval., 9, 2, 93-
104 (2006)
47. Simmons, C.: A Stakeholder Model of Business Intelligence, in Anandarajan, M., Anandarajan, A., Srinivisan, C. (Eds.)
Business Intelligence Techniques: A Perspective from Accounting and Finance, Berlin, Springer (2004)
48. Smith, D. and Crossland, M.: Realizing the Value of Business Intelligence. In: Advances in Information Systems
Research, Education and Practice, 274, 163-174, Springer, Boston (2008)
49. Soh, C., Markus, M.: How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis, Proceedings of the Sixteenth
International Conference on Information Systems, 29-41 (1995)
50. Symons, V.: A Review of Information Systems Evaluation: Content, Context and Process, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1, 3, 205-212
(1991)
51. Tona, O., Carlsson, S., Eom, S.: An Empirical Test of DeLone and McLean’s Information System Success Model in a
Public Organization. AMCIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 10 (2012)
52. Watson, H.: Tutorial: Business Intelligence – Past, Present and Future. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25. Article 39
(2009)
53. Watson, H., Ariyachandra, T., Matyska, R.J.: Data Warehousing Stages of Growth. Inf. Syst. Manage. 18, 3, 41-50.
(2011)
54. Williams, S., Williams, N.: The Profit Impact of Business Intelligence, Elsevier, United States of America (2007)
55. Wixom, B.H., Watson, H.J. An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success. MIS Q.
25, 1, 17-41 (2001)
56. Yeoh, W., Koronios, A.: Critical Success Factors for Business Intelligence Systems. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 50, 3, 23-32
(2010)
57. Yogev, N., Fink, L., Even, A.: How Business Intelligence Creates Value. ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 84 (2012)

View publication stats