=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Aligning Data Warehouse Requirements with Business Goals
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-978/paper_12.pdf
|volume=Vol-978
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/istar/MateTY13
}}
==Aligning Data Warehouse Requirements with Business Goals==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-978/paper_12.pdf
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
Aligning Data Warehouse Requirements with
Business Goals
Alejandro Maté1 , Juan Trujillo1 , Eric Yu2
1
Lucentia Research Group
Department of Software and Computing Systems
University of Alicante
{amate,jtrujillo}@dlsi.ua.es
2
Department of Computer Science
University of Toronto
{eric}@cs.toronto.edu
Abstract. According to the Gartner Group, over 70% of Business Inte-
lligence (BI) projects fail. Among the reasons are the different languages
employed by IT and business people and the necessity of a long-term BI
plan describing the goals of the organization. In current practice, when
building the data warehouse (DW), strategic plans are rarely considered.
In this paper, we propose a method to align the business plan with DW
requirements analysis. By aligning the DW, we (i) validate the correct-
ness of each decision makers’ goals, (ii) ensure that their decisions and
the DW contribute towards organization goals, and (iii) provide a long-
term unified BI strategy. We instantiate this alignment by combining i*
for DWs with strategic business models.
Keywords: Business Intelligence, business plan, data warehouses, align-
ment, BIM
1 Introduction
Data Warehouses (DW) integrate numerous heterogeneous data sources in mul-
tidimensional structures in support of the decision-making process. In order to
be successful, recent DW development approaches, such as [5], include a require-
ment analysis step based on goal models. During this step, the requirements of
individual decision makers, who are the users of the Business Intelligence (BI)
system, are gathered by means of questionnaires and interviews.
The main drawback of the techniques used during the requirements step is
that they obtain only a partial view of the problem from each decision maker.
Moreover, these partial views may not always be aligned with the business plan,
which, together with the gap between IT and business people, makes it difficult
to validate the goal models. In turn, the lack of alignment between individual
decision makers and the business plan is translated into a lack of long term en-
terprise BI strategy, which is one of the key factors to successfully apply BI.
This problem arises whenever business goals are not considered during the re-
quirements analysis step. For example, a fictitious car dealer company EURent
67
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
pursues the goal of “Be positioned within the top 10 car dealers”. EURent Sales
Manager is considering how to improve the “Car Sales” process by “Increasing
the margin of benefit per sale”. While this particular goal improves the results
of the sales process, it does not contribute to the increasing number of cars sold.
In this paper, we propose to tackle this problem by aligning the business
strategy with current BI and DW goal models. Therefore, we ensure that our
BI-enabled decision making is consistent with the business strategy. First, we
elaborate a strategic goal model from the business plan to formalize business
goals and trace business indicators. Then, we align and relate decision makers’
goals with business goals. Therefore, we ensure that all the decision makers are
contributing towards the overall goals of the enterprise, and identify business
goals that are being overlooked by decision makers.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the
related work in DW requirements. Section 3 describes the alignment process and
the main contributions of our work. Section 4 presents the conclusions. Section
5 describes the ongoing and future work in this area.
2 Related Work
Until now, most of the attention in DW requirements analysis has been focused
on requirements elicitation. Current techniques [2, 5–7] are focused on gather-
ing requirements by means of interviews and questionnaires. However, although
it has been stated that DW requirements can rarely be gathered correctly and
comprehensively from individual decision makers [7], only in [2] do the authors
consider organizational modeling in the requirements step. Unfortunately, the
focus of organizational modeling in [2] is to identify the information stored in
business processes, rather than obtaining business goals. Therefore, these ap-
proaches do not ensure that decisions being taken are aiming to provide a benefit
for the organization according to the business plan, nor they do ensure that all
the organization’s goals have been considered in the decision making process.
3 Scientific Contributions & Tool
In this section we present the main contributions of our work, as well as the
current tool support for our approach. Our contributions are described in the
following order: (i) a method to perform the alignment between DW requirements
and business goals, (ii) a set of mappings to instantiate the alignment method,
by using i* for DWs [5] for modeling decision makers’ goals, and the Business
Intelligence Model (BIM) [1] for modeling the business strategy, and (iii) show
how these mappings and models can be implemented in a tool.
First, the alignment method is shown in Figure 1. The alignment process
starts by modeling decision makers’ goals by means of techniques used in cur-
rent DW approaches. As a result, an i* for DWs model is created for each decision
maker. In parallel, or after DW requirements have been obtained, the business
68
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
strategy model is created by using the information from the business plan. Busi-
ness plans include information regarding business goals, the objectives associated
with each goal, and may also include information regarding business processes.
Once both models have been obtained, we proceed to the alignment step. First,
we align the concepts used to model decision makers’ goals with those used to
model business goals, in order to ensure that we correctly relate individual goals
with business goals. Then, in collaboration with a domain expert, we align each
concrete decision maker goal to a specific business goal. Finally, we analyze the
alignment and perform changes as necessary.
Since currently there is no standard for modeling decision makers’ goals nor
business strategies, they can be instantiated according to different frameworks,
thus leading to different results. Therefore, in order to instantiate the method,
it is necessary to perform an ontological mapping between the concepts of the
specific frameworks being used. In our case, we make use of i* for DWs in order to
model decision makers’ goals, and BIM for modeling the business strategy. Thus,
we analyze the definitions and characteristics of each concept included in these
metamodels and align them to ensure their correct use. Due to space constraints,
we provide only a brief overview of the metamodels, and focus specifically on
aligned elements.
First, i* for DWs [5] is an extension of i* that includes several types of actor
goals to describe the decision making process rationale: Strategic Goals, Decision
Goals, and Information Goals. Strategic Goals are goals with the highest level of
abstraction, such as “Attract new customers”, while Decision and Information
Goals are included to describe the steps required in the decision process to
achieve the Strategic Goals. We formally describe a Strategic Goal as follows: A
strategic goal Si describes a change from a current situation into a better one, as
seen by one decision maker DMj . The change described by Si must be related
to an objective Ok of one Business Process BPm , e.g. “Sales”. Therefore, it is
said that Si improves BPm . If Si is achieved, it causes an immediate benefit Bp
for the organization, that may or may not be measurable. Finally, i* for DWs
also includes lower level abstraction elements that realize Information Goals
and define the structure of the DW: Contexts and Measures. Contexts describe
Fig. 1. Steps involved in the alignment method
69
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
concepts involved in BPm , such as “Customers”, while Measures are quantitative
values v that evaluate the performance of BPm , such as “Quantity Sold”.
Second, in order to create the business strategy model, we use BIM [1, 4].
BIM includes four core concepts that allow us to formalize the elements within
the business plan: Intentions (business goals), Situations, Indicators, and Pro-
cesses (see [4]). An Intention defines a desired situation for the enterprise, as
defined by one or more persons of authority A = {Ai , ..., An } in the business
plan, where A usually is a subset of the decision makers. Intentions can be clas-
sified as Strategic (long term), Management (medium term), and Operational
(short term), and are realized by one or more Processes, BPi , ..., BP n. An ex-
ample of a Strategic Intention of the organization EURent is “To be a Premium
Brand car rental company”. Next, Situations describe internal or external fac-
tors, such as “Economic Crisis”, that may affect Intentions or Processes, while
Indicators measure the performance of a Process or Intention. Indicators include
a target value t to be achieved, a threshold th that separates average from bad
performance, and a worst value w that describes the worst performance. Finally,
Processes represent Business Processes, such as “Sales” or “Rentals”.
According to the descriptions provided in the i* for DWs and BIM proposals,
Decision and Information Goals, and Contexts from i* for DWs cannot be aligned
with any element in BIM. The main reason is that BIM focuses on representing
the business strategy and does not consider elements specific to the individual
decision making process, such information requirements or actors.
Next, Business Processes and Measures from i* for DWs can be easily aligned
with BIM elements. First, Business Processes refer to the same concept as Pro-
cesses. Second, Measures provide a value vi that measures the performance of
a business process. These values are one of the basic elements used to calculate
Indicators that monitor elements in the business strategy. A Measure can be
related or transformed into an Indicator Ij if (i) vi is used in the calculus of Ij
and (ii) the rest of the values tj , thj , and wj are defined.
Finally, Strategic Goals can be aligned with Intentions as follows: accord-
ing to our formalization, achieving a particular decision maker strategic goal
Table 1. Elements aligned between i* for DWs and BIM and their characteristics
i* for DWs BIM Details i* for DWs Details BIM
Business Business Not detailed, May be detailed,
Process Process Strategic Goals improve Realizes goals
its results
Strategic Goal Strategic Intention Future, Focused, Future, Focused,
Long-term, Qualitative Long-term
or Quantitative, Qualitative,
Improves business process Measured by KPI
Measure Indicator Measures the Future, Time-Targeted,
performance of Long or Short-term,
a Business Process Measures Goal and
without target values Process performance
70
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
Fig. 2. Business strategy editing using the Lucentia BI Tool
Si improves a process BPm . Thus, this improvement helps the organization to
achieve a business intention Ij , realized by BPm . There are, however, two lim-
itations to automate this alignment. First, Si may improve a specific objective
Ok that does not have an impact on Ij . For example, improving the “Car Sales”
process by “Increasing the margin of benefit” does not have an impact on “Be
positioned within the top 10 Car Dealers”. Second, in practice, not every busi-
ness plan or strategy provides references to the business processes that realize
each intention. Thus, it is necessary to collaborate with a domain expert in order
to identify if the particular goals are aligned with the business intentions or not.
The alignment is summarized in in Table 1, along with the informal descrip-
tions provided by the frameworks for each element.
After aligning the concepts, the last step is aligning the elements within
the goal models obtained from decision makers with the business strategy, thus
obtaining a combined model that covers both individual as well as organizational
views. We have successfully tested our approach in an experimental case study,
creating a business strategy from a business plan and interviewing experts in
information analysis to obtain decision makers’ goals. However, due to space
constraints, the case study will be described in a future extended version.
Our approach is supported by our tool, the Lucentia BI suite, which allows
us to model (i) user requirements by means of i* for DWs, (ii) business strategies
by means of a particular implementation of BIM, and (iii) a trace metamodel,
described in [3], that allows us to materialize the alignment between user re-
quirements and the business strategy. The tool is based on Eclipse and includes
a set of modules, each designed to support an specific task. An screenshot of the
tool can be seen in Figure 2.
4 Conclusions
In this paper we have presented an alignment between the business strategy,
modeled using BIM, and DW requirements, represented by i* for DWs. Our
process results in an alignment that allows us to (i) validate DW requirements
according to the business strategy and identify non-aligned goals, (ii) provide a
71
Proceedings of the 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Vol-978
long-term BI strategy to be pursued, including what information is being used by
the organization to support each goal, (iii) identify the different decision makers
participating in a business goal, thus providing awareness, and (iv) evaluate if
decision makers are being successful by analyzing the values of indicators related
to business goals.
While extending i* to consider all the elements within the business strategy
would overcomplicate the model, our initial applications have shown that it can
be combined with other models in order to capture both the particular viewpoint
of each decision maker as well as the overall strategy of the organization.
5 Ongoing and Future work
The current ongoing work is focused on making it easier for businesses to apply
our proposal. In order to achieve this, we plan to semi-automate the process of
obtaining an strategic model directly from the business plan. Therefore, we are
analyzing the viability of defining a series of pattern-based transformations in
order to save time and costs.
In the medium-term we plan to apply our approach to a real case study
and evaluate the results. Since then structure of business plans may vary from
one organization to another, we plan to minimize the impact of this variabil-
ity by using the standard Business Motivation Model, proposed by the Object
Management Group group.
Acknowledgments This work has been supported by the MESOLAP (TIN2010-
14860) and GEODAS-BI (TIN2012-37493-C03-03) projects from the Spanish
Ministry of Education and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity.
Alejandro Maté is funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (ACIF/2010/298).
References
1. D. Barone, E. Yu, J. Won, L. Jiang, and J. Mylopoulos. Enterprise modeling for
business intelligence. The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pages 31–45, 2010.
2. P. Giorgini, S. Rizzi, and M. Garzetti. GRAnD: A goal-oriented approach to re-
quirement analysis in data warehouses. Decision Support Systems, 45(1):4–21, 2008.
3. A. Maté and J. Trujillo. A trace metamodel proposal based on the model driven
architecture framework for the traceability of user requirements in data warehouses.
Information Systems, 37(8):753 – 766, 2012.
4. A. Maté, J. Trujillo, and J. Mylopoulos. Conceptualizing and specifying key per-
formance indicators in business strategy models. ER’12, pages 282–291, 2012.
5. J.N. Mazón, J. Pardillo, and J. Trujillo. A model-driven goal-oriented require-
ment engineering approach for data warehouses. Advances in Conceptual Modeling–
Foundations and Applications, pages 255–264, 2007.
6. N. Prakash and A. Gosain. Requirements driven data warehouse development. In
CAiSE Short Paper Proceedings, pages 13–17, 2003.
7. R. Winter and B. Strauch. A method for demand-driven information requirements
analysis in data warehousing projects. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the
36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pages 9–pp. IEEE, 2003.
72