EXCLUSIVELY FOR

TDWI PREMIUM MEMBERS

TDWI RESEARCH

2015
TDWI BI
Benchmark
Report
Organizational and
Performance Metrics
for Business Intelligence
Teams

tdwi.org
 2015 TDWI BI BENCHMARK REPORT
Organizational and Performance Metrics
for Business Intelligence Teams

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Staffing, Development, and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Characteristics of BI Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

About TDWI
TDWI is your source for in-depth education and research on all things data.
For 20 years, TDWI has been helping data professionals get smarter so
the companies they work for can innovate and grow faster. TDWI provides
individuals and teams with a comprehensive portfolio of business and
technical education and research to acquire the knowledge and skills they
need, when and where they need them. The in-depth, best-practices-based
information TDWI offers can be quickly applied to develop world-class talent
across your organization’s business and IT functions to enhance analytical,
data-driven decision making and performance. TDWI advances the art and
science of realizing business value from data by providing an objective forum
where industry experts, solution providers, and practitioners can explore
and enhance data competencies, practices, and technologies. TDWI offers
five major conferences, topical seminars, onsite education, a worldwide
membership program, business intelligence certification, live Webinars,
resourceful publications, industry news, an in-depth research program, and a
comprehensive website: tdwi.org.
© 2015 by TDWI (The Data Warehousing InstituteTM), a division of 1105 Media, Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or in part are prohibited except by written
permission. E-mail requests or feedback to [email protected]. Product and company
names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their
respective companies.

tdwi.org  1
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

Purpose and Method

TDWI’s annual BI Benchmark Report enables business intelligence (BI) teams to compare themselves to their peers on a series
of organizational and performance metrics. The 2015 BI Benchmark Report is based on a Web survey of 259 BI professionals
conducted worldwide in spring and early summer 2015. This report is based on responses from IT professionals, business
sponsors, users, and systems integrators to focus on the individuals who most directly drive BI initiatives. Responses from vendor
representatives, professors, and students have been excluded.

This report uses year-over-year comparative data to help illustrate trends in the BI industry. Multiple-answer questions and
rounding account for totals that do not equal 100 percent. All figures are based on worldwide totals and represent percentages
unless otherwise indicated. In the concluding “Characteristics of BI Success” section, we analyze a number of factors that
contribute to BI success or failure, including:

• Development methodology

• To whom BI teams report

• BI maturity and number of years building an environment

• Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per project

• BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget

• BI team size as a percentage of overall IT

• Scope of BI environment

• Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization

Demographics
The role most heavily represented in our 2015 survey population, at 22 percent, is BI director or program manager—those people
most directly involved in BI strategies, systems, and alignment between business and IT. Also well represented are architects
(16 percent), BI project managers (14 percent), and BI strategic consultants (10 percent).

In terms of general position types, 66 percent of respondents are IT professionals, 19 percent are systems integrators or
consultants, and 16 percent are business sponsors, drivers, or users.

Which best describes your role?

BI director or program manager 22%
Architect 16%
BI project manager 14%
BI strategic consultant 10%
Business requirements analyst 6%
Subject matter expert 5%
ETL developer 5%
BI sponsor 4%
Report developer 2%
Data warehouse (DW) or database administrator 2%
Data modeler 2%
Data quality analyst 1%
Data steward 1%
Other 10%

2  TDWI RESEARCH
 Demographics

Respondents to this survey have nearly a decade (9.6 years) of BI experience on average, up significantly from 8.4 years in
our 2011 BI Benchmark Report. BI professionals tend to work in various IT jobs early in their careers before discovering and
committing to data-driven work. Once they make the commitment, BI professionals tend to evolve into long-term employees and
remain in their positions and career path due to job satisfaction and favorable compensation.

How many years of BI or DW experience do you have?

0–2 years 9% Average number of years
3–5 years 14% of BI experience
2011 8.4
6–8 years 17%
2012 8.2
9–10 years 21% 2013 9.1
10 years or more 38% 2014 9.2
2015 9.6

Financial services/banking is the industry most represented in the survey, at 11 percent of respondents, followed by insurance
at 10 percent. Each of these industries uses BI technologies extensively in performance reporting, customer relationships, risk
mitigation, and other areas. The consulting/professional services industry is third at 9 percent, followed by higher education at
8 percent.

Which best describes your organization’s primary industry? Financial services/

Financial services/banking 11% banking and insurance
Insurance
are the most common
10%
industries represented
Consulting/professional services 9% in the 2015 survey.
Higher education 8%
Software/Internet 6%
Healthcare 5%
Telecommunications 5%
Government (federal) 3%
Government (state) 3%
Manufacturing 3%
Transportation/logistics 3%
Consumer products 3%
Retail/wholesale/distribution 3%
Other 28%

Our respondent pool cuts across a variety of company sizes and geographic locations, indicating that BI is widely used by
companies large and small around the world. Fifty-eight percent of respondents are at organizations with $1 billion or less in
annual revenue, and 40 percent are at organizations with 1,000 or fewer employees. Most respondents are in the U.S.
(48 percent), followed by Europe (20 percent) and Canada (10 percent).

tdwi.org  3
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

More than half of What are the annual revenues of your organization?
respondents work at
Less than $100 million 25%
organizations with
$1 billion or less in $100–$500 million 24%
annual revenue. $500 million–$1 billion 9%
$1–$2.5 billion 10%
$2.5–$5 billion 6%
$5–$10 billion 9%
$10–$50 billion 11%
$50 billion or more 7%

How many employees are in your organization?

0–50 4%
51–100 3%
101–500 23%
501–1,000 10%
1,001–5,000 27%
5,001–10,000 11%
10,001–50,000 18%
50,001 or more 6%

Where is your BI/DW team primarily located?

U.S. 48%
Europe 20%
Canada 10%
Asia 6%
Middle East 6%
Mexico, Central/South America 5%
Africa 3%
Australia/New Zealand 2%

4  TDWI RESEARCH
 Organization

Organization
The majority of BI programs report to a line of business, as compared to reporting to IT. In 2015, 53 percent of respondents The portion of BI
answered to business leaders, including the CEO, business unit heads, finance, operations, and sales and marketing. This is a programs reporting
pronounced increase from 2012, when 47 percent of programs reported to the business, and 2009, when 40 percent did. to IT or information
management declined to
In contrast, the portion of BI programs reporting to IT or information management leaders declined to a new low of 47 percent
a new low of 47 percent.
in this survey series. Clearly, the BI industry has recognized that the best value from BI is realized when IT and business
professionals collaborate closely in implementing and iterating BI environments. In fact, TDWI regularly hears BI professionals
reject being characterized as “IT” because they went into BI to be closely involved with the business process, and that
involvement is best aligned when reporting to the business they serve. Other trends, including a departmental focus for
many analytics initiatives and cross-pollination of business and IT skills across today’s professionals, also contribute to this
ongoing shift.

To what group does your BI team report?

2013 2014 2015
Information technology 45% 41% 41%
Business unit head 12% 15% 16%
Finance 11% 10% 11%
Chief executive officer 7% 7% 9%
Information management 10% 8% 6%
Operations 5% 7% 6%
Marketing 2% 3% 3%
Sales 2% 2% <1%
Outsourcing firm 1% 1% <1%
Other 5% 6% 8%

Although nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of BI environments are geared to support the enterprise, departmentally focused systems Departmentally focused
appear to be gaining in popularity. Twelve percent of BI environments support a department in 2015, up from recent years. This BI environments are
aligns with the trend of BI programs reporting to the business, as departmental BI environments typically have a discrete focus on gaining in popularity.
optimizing customer relationship management, sales, support, supply chain, and other areas.

In a related trend, analytics applications have a natural bias toward a specific department. For example, sales and marketing
wants to own and control customer analytics, just as a procurement department or supply chain team wants to own supply and
supplier analytics. As the number of analytics applications rises, it shifts the focus toward departmental BI, DW, and analytics.

Which best describes the scope of your BI environment?

2013 2014 2015
Supports the enterprise 66% 67% 64%
Supports a business unit 24% 26% 24%
Supports a department 10% 7% 12%

tdwi.org  5
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

Nearly half (46 percent) of organizations structure BI resources in a centralized and decentralized hybrid. As such, they gain the
flexibility of a decentralized model to swiftly deploy resources to high-priority projects while benefiting from the cost-efficient
aggregation and sharing of resources possible with centralization. Thirty-nine percent of organizations operate with highly
centralized BI resources; highly decentralized structures are relatively uncommon, at 14 percent.

Which best describes the organizational structure of your BI/DW resources?

2013 2014 2015
A mix of centralized and decentralized 53% 50% 46%
Highly centralized 38% 37% 39%
Highly decentralized 9% 13% 14%

Continuing a trend of recent years, organizations continue to consolidate resources into fewer BI teams. The typical organization
has an average of 4.2 BI teams in place in 2015, the lowest number recorded in this survey series and less than half the
average of 10.7 BI teams in 2011. This lean approach to BI resource management is often supported by a BI competency center
(sometimes called a center of excellence) that consolidates resources and makes them shareable across the enterprise; it is also
supported by multidisciplinary skills cultivated by both IT and business professionals. In 2015, 58 percent of organizations had
one or two BI teams; 22 percent had five or more teams.

Average number of How many distinct BI/DW teams exist in your organization?
BI/DW teams
2013 2014 2015
2011 10.7
2012 7.0 1 team 36% 35% 39%
2013 5.2 2 teams 19% 19% 19%
2014 4.9 3 teams 12% 11% 12%
2015 4.2
4 teams 6% 8% 8%
5 teams 7% 6% 7%
6–10 teams 11% 11% 8%
11 or more teams 9% 10% 7%

BI teams typically comprise a relatively small percentage of overall IT operations. At 74 percent of organizations, BI teams
are 10 percent or less of IT as a whole. Nearly one-quarter (22 percent) of BI teams represent 3 percent or less of overall IT.
Holding relatively steady over the past several years, this data reinforces that organizations can make a comparatively modest
investment in BI and still derive significant business benefits.

Estimate the size of your BI team compared to the overall IT team.

2013 2014 2015
1–3% of the size 22% 20% 22%
4–6% of the size 20% 25% 24%
7–10% of the size 35% 30% 28%
20–40% of the size 15% 19% 16%
40% or more of the size 8% 6% 10%

6  TDWI RESEARCH
 Organization

BI teams are predominantly focused on supporting finance/accounting (70 percent), the executive team (55 percent), and sales The top focus area for
(51 percent), typically with BI dashboards, forecasting tools, and comparative analytics designed to enable informed, data-driven BI teams is finance/
decisions and to adapt the business to changing conditions. IT is also well supported by BI teams (47 percent), followed by accounting.
operations/production (46 percent) and marketing (45 percent).

Which department(s) does your BI team support?

Finance/accounting 70%
Executive team 55%
Sales 51%
Information technology 47%
Operations/production 46%
Marketing 45%
Human resources 35%
Product management 32%
Service 32%
Audit/compliance 31%
Administration 28%
Logistics/shipping 24%
Research & development 24%
Inventory/warehousing 22%
Procurement 20%
Design/engineering 13%
Legal 12%
Manufacturing 12%
Communications/PR 11%
Other 8%

Numbers do not total 100 percent because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections.

About three-quarters of BI environments (76 percent) support 10 or fewer subject areas, such as marketing, product Average number of
management, accounting, HR, or sales. Only 10 percent of BI environments support 21 or more subject areas. The average BI subject areas
number of subject areas supported fell slightly to 10.1 in 2015 but remains a healthy number that indicates BI is liberally applied 2013 10.6
in diverse areas across the enterprise. 2014 10.8
2015 10.1

How many subject areas does your BI environment support?

2013 2014 2015
1–3 16% 11% 14%
4–6 27% 36% 39%
7–10 29% 24% 23%
11–20 18% 17% 14%
21 or more 10% 12% 10%

tdwi.org  7
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

The percentage of internal employees on BI teams has inched up slightly in recent years, from 69 percent in 2013 to 73 percent
in 2015, which is good news for the traditional BI job market. External contractors/systems integrators have remained relatively
steady at 14 percent, while the number of offshore/outsourced personnel has declined incrementally to 6 percent. The remainder
of BI teams are comprised of external management consultants and “other” individuals.

What percentage of your BI/DW team (FTEs) is composed of each group below?
2013 2014 2015
Internal employees 69% 72% 73%
External contractors/systems integrators 14% 13% 14%
Offshore/outsourced personnel 10% 8% 6%
External management consultants 5% 6% 5%
Other 1% 2% 2%

In recent years of the BI Benchmark Report, large organizations ($50 billion or more in annual revenue) have made the greatest
use of third-party BI services, as compared to in-house FTEs. For 2015, that reliance on external resources leapt upward to
62 percent, compared to 38 percent FTEs. Although this is consistent with a trend, tipping the balance to far more external
than internal resources seems out of character. TDWI suspects this is a vagary typical of survey data, and next year’s figure will
probably swing back to mostly FTEs in very large organizations.

Large organizations Percentage of employee/third-party FTEs on BI/DW teams by organizational revenues

continue to make the
greatest use of third- Employees Third Parties
party BI services. Less than $100 million 85% 15%
$100–$500 million 87% 13%
$500 million–$1 billion 75% 25%
$1–$5 billion 81% 19%
$5–$10 billion 50% 50%
$10–$50 billion 57% 43%
$50 billion or more 38% 62%

Average number of years Maturity

building an environment The percentage of BI environments in place for 11 or more years reached a new high in our 2015 survey, at 27 percent, up
2012 7.2 from 20 percent in 2012, reflecting the ongoing maturation of BI. In contrast, just 17 percent of BI environments are two
2013 7.6 years old or younger. Still, 47 percent of BI environments have been in existence for five or fewer years, reminding us that
2014 7.5 many organizations are still in the early stages of their BI journey. On average, organizations have been building out their BI
2015 7.9 environments for 7.9 years, up from 7.2 years in 2012.

8  TDWI RESEARCH
 Maturity

How many years has your group been building its BI/DW environment?
2012 2013 2014 2015
0–2 17% 18% 27% 17%
3–5 29% 27% 16% 30%
6–8 17% 15% 16% 12%
9–10 16% 16% 20% 14%
11 or more 20% 24% 20% 27%

Like the number of years building BI environments, organizations are completing more major iterations (an architectural expansion Average number of
that involves revisions to data models, infrastructure, and delivery of reports and applications). The typical organization has completed major iterations
3.6 major iterations as of 2015, up from an average of 3.0 in 2012. Similarly, the number of organizations completing five or more 2012 3.0
major iterations rose to 24 percent in 2015, up from 18 percent in 2012. TDWI expects these figures to continue to rise, particularly 2013 3.2
as a major iteration is valuable in enabling a BI team to optimize its environment and accommodate new data types, data sources, and 2014 3.3
business objectives. 2015 3.6

How many major iterations of your BI/DW environment has your group completed?
2012 2013 2014 2015
0–1 iteration 26% 27% 27% 25%
2 iterations 27% 24% 27% 26%
3 iterations 19% 20% 18% 16%
4 iterations 10% 9% 7% 9%
5 iterations 6% 6% 7% 10%
6 or more iterations 12% 14% 15% 14%

Despite continued BI maturation, the percentage of respondents who characterize their BI implementations as “advanced” has More than one-third of
remained relatively steady for the past three years. More than one-third (34 percent) consider their systems advanced in that they organizations are in the
deliver significant business value, on a par with 2013–14 and down from a high of 40 percent in 2012. “advanced” phase of BI.
Of course, “advanced” is a subjective term prone to changing definitions as BI technology and business objectives continue to
evolve. Over time, for instance, ad hoc data discovery that was considered an innovation 10 years ago is now a de facto practice.
Today, many BI teams have their sights set on more complex initiatives such as predictive analytics and integration of big data.

Which best describes your group’s BI/DW implementation?

2012 2013 2014 2015

Beginner: We’re just starting out or have
completed our first major iteration 21% 23% 22% 22%
Intermediate: We’ve completed two or
more major iterations and need to add more 39% 44% 45% 44%
business value
Advanced: We manage a mature
environment that delivers significant 40% 33% 32% 34%
business value

tdwi.org  9
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

Forty-two percent of Return on investment (ROI) from BI is often swift and decisive. In 2015, 42 percent report realizing financial payback in a year or
organizations see ROI less, the highest rate in the past several years. Meanwhile, 20 percent achieved positive ROI in less than six months. This data
from BI within a year. point should be particularly valuable to help beginner organizations or teams embarking on a new BI initiative to win business
sponsorship. As in past years, a sizable number (41 percent) of respondent organizations didn’t calculate financial returns, which
is somewhat surprising given the premium that business sponsors often place on ROI. Anecdotal evidence reveals that many
sponsoring managers feel that the soft benefits of BI/DW are so great that quantifying a hard return is not required.

How long did it take your latest BI iteration to deliver a positive financial return?
2012 2013 2014 2015
Less than 6 months 18% 19% 13% 20%
6 months–1 year 22% 18% 22% 22%
1–2 years 15% 13% 16% 11%
2–3 years 6% 6% 4% 5%
3 or more years 1% 3% 3% 2%
We didn’t calculate returns 38% 41% 42% 41%

The incidence of high value from BI environments ticked up in 2015, to 28 percent, matching the total of 2012 as the highest rate
in this long-running survey series. Still, this area has significant room for improvement, which leading organizations are pursuing
with ongoing optimization, expansion, and tighter IT-to-business alignment. The majority of respondents (52 percent) characterize
their BI initiatives as delivering moderate value; the incidence of low value rose slightly in 2015, to 20 percent.

To what degree do you consider your BI/DW initiative a success?

2012 2013 2014 2015

High degree: Delivers business value
that is widely recognized 28% 24% 25% 28%

Moderate degree: Delivers moderate

business value but could deliver more 59% 57% 57% 52%

Low degree: Yet to deliver

recognizable business value 13% 19% 17% 20%

10  TDWI RESEARCH
 Budget

Budget
Capital budgets. Forty-three percent of organizations increased their BI capital spending in 2015, down from 53 percent in Less than half of
2014 but on a par with 2012–13. More than one-quarter (26 percent) of organizations boosted capital budgets by 10 percent organizations increased
or more in 2015, indicating a sizable commitment to expanding the scope of their BI environments with new solutions and BI capital spending.
infrastructure.

On the other hand, 25 percent of organizations reduced BI capital spending in 2015. The median capital budget fell to $250,000,
in part reflecting the greater number of smaller organizations participating in this year’s survey. Capital spending on BI programs
is frequently cyclical, in that a large outlay one year to support a significant iteration or expansion may position the team to meet
needs for the next several years, after which capital spending is again ramped up.

Capital Spending 2013 2014 2015

Increased 39% 53% 43%
Stayed the same 35% 29% 32%
Decreased 26% 17% 25%

How much did your capital budget change from the previous year?
2013 2014 2015
Increased 10% or more 20% 27% 26%
Increased 7–9% 5% 5% 1%
Increased 4–6% 9% 16% 11%
Increased 1–3% 4% 6% 5%
Stayed the same 35% 29% 32%
Decreased 1–3% 3% 3% 5%
Decreased 4–6% 6% 2% 5%
Decreased 7–9% 2% 0% 1%
Decreased 10% or more 15% 13% 14%

Median capital budget

More than two-thirds (67 percent) of organizations have capital budgets of $500,000 or less in place for 2015, up from 58 2013 $325,000
percent last year and again reflecting the higher concentration of smaller organizations in this year’s respondent pool. BI capital 2014 $400,000
spending comprises no more than 10 percent of overall IT capital budgets at 72 percent of organizations, illustrating that 2015 $250,000
relatively modest investments in BI can yield substantial dividends.

How big is your group’s capital budget compared to the overall IT budget on a percentage basis?
2013 2014 2015
0–3% of the size 35% 33% 36%
4–6% of the size 18% 18% 12%
7–10% of the size 19% 23% 24%
11–19% of the size 9% 5% 7%
20% or more of the size 19% 21% 21%

tdwi.org  11
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

What is your group’s capital budget this year?

2013 2014 2015
Less than $50,000 24% 21% 27%
$50,000–$100,000 11% 18% 15%
$100,000–$500,000 27% 19% 25%
$500,000–$1 million 11% 16% 12%
$1–$2.5 million 12% 12% 8%
$2.5–$5 million 5% 5% 7%
$5 million or more 10% 9% 5%

Less than half of Maintenance spending. Similar to BI capital spending, organizations have somewhat diminished their maintenance budgets
organizations increased compared to 2014. Forty-one percent of organizations boosted maintenance spending, down from the past two years. An equal
BI maintenance 41 percent, notably higher than 2013–14, made no change in maintenance spending. Owing again to the smaller organizations in
spending. this year’s study, the median maintenance budget is $265,000, down from $300,000 in 2014.

Maintenance Spending 2013 2014 2015

Increased 48% 52% 41%
Stayed the same 33% 33% 41%
Decreased 19% 14% 18%

How much did your maintenance budget change from the previous year?
2013 2014 2015
Increased 10% or more 17% 26% 15%
Increased 7–9% 3% 4% 4%
Increased 4–6% 14% 13% 9%
Increased 1–3% 14% 9% 14%
Stayed the same 33% 33% 41%
Decreased 1–3% 5% 3% 5%
Decreased 4–6% 5% 5% 7%
Decreased 7–9% 1% <1% 1%
Decreased 10% or more 8% 6% 5%

Median maintenance BI maintenance spending as a portion of the overall IT maintenance budget is 6 percent or less at half of organizations, on a par
budget with recent years. Seventy percent of organizations peg BI maintenance spending at $500,000 or less for 2015.
2013 $400,000
2014 $300,000
2015 $265,000 How big is your group’s maintenance budget compared to the overall IT maintenance budget on a
percentage basis?
2013 2014 2015
0–3% of the size 29% 33% 28%
4–6% of the size 20% 18% 22%
7–10% of the size 24% 25% 22%
11–19% of the size 10% 6% 5%
20% or more of the size 17% 18% 23%

12  TDWI RESEARCH
 Staffing, Development, and Usage

BI maintenance budgets
What is your group’s BI maintenance budget this year?
total $500,000 or less
2013 2014 2015 at 70% of organizations.
Less than $50,000 20% 23% 24%
$50,000–$100,000 17% 12% 16%
$100,000–$500,000 26% 26% 30%
$500,000–$1 million 11% 11% 11%
$1–$2.5 million 15% 14% 4%
$2.5–$5 million 7% 6% 8%
$5 million or more 4% 8% 7%

Staffing, Development, and Usage

BI teams continue to shrink as organizations utilize more individuals with multidisciplinary skills and seek to improve speed and
flexibility with a small, nimble approach. The average number of FTE employees deployed to a project dipped to 4.9 in 2015, down
from 5.6 in 2011 and 5.1 in 2014. Sixty percent of organizations use three or fewer FTEs per project, and only 8 percent deploy 10 or
more full-time BI professionals.

On average, how many FTE staff are assigned to work on each project?
Average number of
2013 2014 2015 FTEs per project
0–3 FTEs 63% 59% 60% 2013 5.1
4–6 FTEs 2014 5.1
17% 24% 21%
2015 4.9
7–9 FTEs 6% 5% 11%
10–20 FTEs 9% 9% 4%
21 or more FTEs 5% 3% 4%

The number of projects underway at any given time varies widely across organizations. A sizable 26 percent of respondents report
that their teams manage 10 or more concurrent projects, invariably a challenging task that requires effective project management,
flexible resource deployment, and agility as priorities shift. Nearly half (49 percent) of organizations run four or fewer projects
concurrently. The average number of concurrent projects is 4.4, down from past years.

How many distinct projects does your group manage at one time? Average number of
concurrent projects
2013 2014 2015 2013 4.9
0–1 project 10% 11% 11% 2014 5.1
2 projects 15% 11% 11% 2015 4.4
3 projects 17% 13% 17%
4 projects 10% 15% 10%
5 projects 18% 16% 21%
6–9 projects 11% 12% 4%
10 or more projects 20% 22% 26%

tdwi.org  13
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

BI teams rely heavily on report developers and extract, transform, and load (ETL) developers as central roles in generating business
intelligence from raw data. At an average of 7.9 FTEs per team budget, report developers are the most prevalent role identified in this
year’s study, ahead of 6.8 ETL developers, who traditionally have topped the list of average number of FTEs by team budget.

Business requirements analyst is another workhorse role on BI teams. At an average of 5.6 FTEs, business requirements analysts
are relied on to help achieve IT and business alignment that is critical to BI success. Help desk/support personnel (4.4 FTEs), project
managers (4.4), and data modelers (4.2) round out the top six most prevalent roles.

Average number of FTEs by BI team budget

2013 2014 2015
Report developers 8.4 8.0 7.9
ETL developers 8.7 9.9 6.8
Business requirements analysts 6.4 5.4 5.6
Help desk/support 4.3 4.9 4.4
Project managers 5.7 4.3 4.4
Data modelers 2.5 2.9 4.2
DBAs 2.2 2.3 2.4
Architects 2.4 2.7 2.3
DW administrators 2.0 2.1 2.2
Program managers 2.0 2.2 2.1
Trainers 1.4 1.2 2.0
Predictive modelers 1.2 1.6 1.8
Technical writers 0.8 1.2 1.2

BI teams are primarily Development and testing is the top focus area for most BI teams. Fifty percent of BI teams are allocated to development and
focused on development testing, reflecting ongoing optimization initiatives and the introduction of new solutions to keep up with emerging business
and testing. priorities. Maintenance and change management is the second most common activity (24 percent), followed by support and
training (16 percent).

What percentage of your BI/DW team is allocated to these tasks?

2013 2014 2015
Development/testing 48% 52% 50%
Maintenance/change management 24% 26% 24%
Support/training 15% 14% 16%
Other 13% 7% 10%

Agile development The use of agile development methodologies reached a new high in this survey series, at 29 percent in 2015. Agile development
methodology is on has been steadily gaining popularity as an approach that supports iterative requirements gathering, development, and testing to
the rise. help improve flexibility and time to value.

A hybrid of agile and waterfall methodologies, however, remains the prevailing approach to development, used by 53 percent of
organizations. With a hybrid, organizations get the best of both worlds—the flexibility of agile and the structure of waterfall, well
suited to BI projects with clearly articulated parameters. A waterfall-only approach to development is relatively rare, used by just
18 percent of organizations.

14  TDWI RESEARCH
 Staffing, Development, and Usage

Which best describes your BI development methodology?

2013 2014 2015

Waterfall: Sequential model in which

most requirements are gathered 17% 15% 18%
before coding

Agile: Highly iterative model in which

requirements and feedback are 27% 24% 29%
gathered throughout development

Hybrid: Mix of waterfall and

56% 61% 53%
agile models

At an average of 7.1 weeks from start to finish, adding a new data source to a data warehouse is the most time-consuming
of three common tasks, though time to completion varies significantly. No one should allow new data into a DW without fully
vetting the data for viability of origin, issues with quality and structure, valuable business use, governance, and the like. All that
takes time, but not as much time as in the past. For instance, in the recent survey, 25 percent of BI teams can accomplish the
task in two weeks or less, and another 27 percent need two months or more.

Creating a complex report or dashboard is another lengthy undertaking, requiring an average of 5.8 weeks. BI teams are
speedier in changing a hierarchy, with an average of 4.8 weeks. A reexamination of development methodologies and greater
use of reusable code and processes may help organizations that find themselves exceeding these averages on a regular basis.

On average, how long does it take to add a new source of data to your data warehouse? BI teams need 7.1 weeks
1 week on average to add a new
10%
data source.
2 weeks 15%
3 weeks 7%
1 month 18%
5–6 weeks 12%
7–8 weeks 11%
9–16 weeks 19%
4 months or more 8%

On average, how long does it take to create a complex report or dashboard with about 20 dimensions,
12 measures, and 6 user access roles?
1 week 9%
2 weeks 20%
3 weeks 14%
1 month 18%
5–6 weeks 11%
7–8 weeks 5%
9–16 weeks 15%
4 months or more 8%

tdwi.org  15
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

On average, how long does it take to change a hierarchy (e.g., reclassify products or reorganize
sales regions)?
1 week 24%
2 weeks 18%
3 weeks 11%
1 month 17%
5–6 weeks 6%
7–8 weeks 6%
9–16 weeks 14%
4 months or more 4%

BI development teams The role of handling help tickets falls most often to the BI development team, which handles 52 percent of tickets filed each
handle the majority of month, followed by the support staff at 34 percent. For 2015, organizations dealt with a median of 30 help tickets each month.
help tickets. A median of 200 queries and reports are executed daily, 23 percent of them by customers or suppliers. Thirty-four percent of
employees run a report at least once a week, and 45 percent of employees are licensed to use a BI tool.

What percentage of help tickets does each group handle per month?
2013 2014 2015
Development team 39% 52% 52%
Support staff 37% 36% 34%
Other 25% 12% 13%

Typical BI Use

Percentage of BI team fully and solely dedicated to BI/DW 73%

Median number of help tickets received each month 30

Median number of queries/reports executed daily 200

Percentage of queries/reports run by customers or suppliers 23%

Percentage of queries/reports executed in batch and pushed to users 31%

Percentage of employees licensed to use a BI tool 45%

Percentage of employees running a report at least once a week 34%

Figures are averages or medians across respondent organizations.

16  TDWI RESEARCH
 Characteristics of BI Success

Characteristics of BI Success
To assess the factors that contribute to BI success, we measured survey responses to the question, “To what degree do you
consider your BI/DW initiative a success?” against these select dimensions:

• Development methodology

• To whom BI teams report

• BI maturity and number of years building an environment

• Number of FTEs per project

• BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget

• BI team size as a percentage of overall IT

• Scope of BI environments

• Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization

Development methodology. A hybrid of agile and waterfall methodologies is a good bet for delivering solid business value. The A hybrid development
most widely used of the three approaches, hybrid shows the least incidence of low value in our 2015 study, at 13 percent (and in our methodology delivers
2014 study, at 18 percent). At the same time, the hybrid approach has ranked the best in moderate value for the past two years (it solid business value.
was rated highest by 58 percent of respondents in 2015). A 29 percent rate of high business value with a hybrid approach in 2015 is
second only to waterfall.

Though exclusive use of a waterfall methodology is found at just 17 percent of respondent organizations, its incidence of high value
rose from 32 percent in 2014 to 38 percent in 2015. On the other hand, waterfall also leads in low business value, at 33 percent
in 2015. These findings underscore the importance of matching a development methodology to business objectives. For instance,
waterfall is often the optimal approach for complex projects that require deep cleansing, remodeling, transformation, audit trails, and
multiple approvals.

Yet if waterfall is used in quick-and-dirty BI projects, development efforts and time to value may lengthen, making agile the preferred
methodology. Organizations appropriately resourced for a hybrid approach benefit from the flexibility of using either agile or waterfall,
as dictated by the specifications of each project.

BI value by development methodology

High value Moderate value Low value
Agile 24% 53% 23%
Waterfall 38% 29% 33%
Hybrid 29% 58% 13%

BI team reporting structure. This survey has historically found that BI’s value is enhanced when teams report to business
leaders rather than IT managers. However, this year’s study reveals nearly equal incidence of high value across both reporting
structures—29 percent for business-side reporting and 28 percent for IT-side (comprising both IT and information management).
In fact, IT-oriented teams experience a lower incidence of low value (18 percent) compared to business-oriented teams
(22 percent).

Nevertheless, ample anecdotal evidence exists to support the conventional wisdom that a business-oriented reporting structure is
the best bet for BI success. TDWI has observed that BI programs frequently thrive when business and IT work closely, with the BI
team answering principally to business unit heads, finance, the CEO, operations, sales, marketing, and other functions.

tdwi.org  17
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

BI value by team reporting structure

High value Moderate value Low value
Business 29% 49% 22%
IT 28% 54% 18%

Business value from BI maturity and number of years building an environment. Business value from BI rises in lockstep with maturity and
BI rises with time and the number of years invested in building and optimizing an environment. As seen in past TDWI BI Benchmark surveys, organizations
maturity. that have built BI environments for 10 years or more see the greatest incidence of high value, at 53 percent in 2015, and a nominal
7 percent rate of low value. In contrast, 14 percent of organizations with BI environments two years old or less saw high value, and
43 percent experienced low value.

In terms of maturity, 61 percent of organizations with advanced BI environments realized high value and just 5 percent low value. Only
4 percent of those with beginner systems, however, achieved high value, and 44 percent realized low value. Beginner organizations that
suffer misfires early in a BI implementation should recognize that setbacks are not uncommon at the start, and that diligence in BI over
the long haul typically pays off in tangible business value.

BI value by stages of maturity

High value Moderate value Low value
Beginner 4% 52% 44%
Intermediate 17% 66% 17%
Advanced 61% 33% 5%

BI value by number of years building a BI environment

High value Moderate value Low value
0–2 years 14% 43% 43%
3–5 years 20% 64% 16%
6–10 years 25% 61% 14%
10 or more years 53% 40% 7%

BI teams of 7 or more Number of FTEs per project. Larger teams (seven or more FTEs) were the most effective in generating business value
FTEs generated the in 2015. Thirty-eight percent of organizations with teams of seven or more full-time staff achieved high value with their BI
highest value. implementations; 19 percent rate BI value low. In contrast, smaller teams of up to three full-time staff reported rates of 25 percent
high value and 21 percent low value.

Our 2015 findings reverse a trend seen in 2013–14, when midsize teams of four to six FTEs were most effective from a business
value perspective. This year, 33 percent of those teams achieved high BI value. The success experienced by larger teams in 2015
may reflect greater specialization of personnel, with some organizations that can afford the payroll ramping up staff with more
specialized resources, driving up the number of FTEs.

18  TDWI RESEARCH
 Characteristics of BI Success

BI value by number of FTEs per project

High value Moderate value Low value
0–3 FTEs 25% 53% 21%
4–6 FTEs 33% 50% 17%
7 or more FTEs 38% 43% 19%

BI budgets as a percentage of overall IT budget. This survey has consistently found that BI success is diminished
when BI capital and maintenance budgets comprise 5 percent or less of overall IT capital and maintenance budgets, and this
year is no exception. Just 21 percent of low-budget organizations realized high value from BI—nearly half the rate achieved by
organizations at which capital and maintenance budgets are 6 percent or more of overall IT spending.

However, bigger does not necessarily mean better. Results in terms of high business value were slightly better for organizations at
which capital and maintenance spending comprised 6 to 10 percent of overall IT, versus those at which it exceeded 11 percent.

BI value by BI capital budget as a percentage of overall IT capital budget

High value Moderate value Low value
0–5% of the size 21% 56% 23%
6–10% of the size 41% 54% 5%
11% or more of the size 38% 33% 29%

BI value by BI maintenance budget as a percentage of overall IT maintenance budget

High value Moderate value Low value
0–5% of the size 21% 58% 21%
6–10% of the size 39% 44% 17%
11% or more of the size 38% 41% 21%

BI team size as a percentage of overall IT staffing. A large BI team size in proportion to overall IT staffing appears to
influence success. The greatest incidence of high value, at 43 percent, was reported by organizations at which the BI team is
20 percent or more of overall IT. At the other end, at organizations with BI teams representing 1 to 3 percent the size of overall IT,
we see a high value rate of 29 percent, but also a low value rate of 29 percent, the highest among the four categories. Although
higher BI staffing in relation to overall IT is a sound practice for BI success, those resources need to be backed by capable
program and project management to realize the best results.

BI value by BI team size as a percentage of overall IT staffing

High value Moderate value Low value
1–3% of the size 29% 42% 29%
4–6% of the size 23% 59% 18%
7–10% of the size 29% 60% 11%
20% or more of the size 43% 46% 11%

tdwi.org  19
2015 TDWI Benchmark Report

Enterprise BI Scope of BI environments. As in past years of this survey, enterprise BI environments deliver better business value than
environments those that support a department or business unit. Thirty-four percent of organizations with enterprise BI deployments achieved
continue to deliver high business value, and just 13 percent saw low value. In contrast, departmental BI environments resulted in high value for just
the best results. 8 percent of organizations, along with a 46 percent rate of low value. The high value seen from enterprise BI is a key reason why
it’s the most prevalent approach, in place at 64 percent of organizations, as documented in the Organization section of this report.

BI value by scope of BI environments

High value Moderate value Low value
Supports a department 8% 46% 46%
Supports a business unit 21% 54% 25%
Supports the enterprise 34% 53% 13%

Centralized and decentralized BI resource organization. Highly centralized BI resource organization is the most
effective approach for generating high value from BI, this year’s study finds. Thirty-eight percent of those with a highly centralized
resource organization realized high value, compared to just 11 percent of those organizations taking a highly decentralized
approach. In addition, the survey reveals the incidence of low value at 45 percent in highly decentralized environments, the least
prevalent framework, used by just 14 percent of organizations.

BI value by BI resource organization

High value Moderate value Low value
Highly centralized 38% 40% 22%
Mix of centralized/decentralized 29% 55% 16%
Highly decentralized 11% 44% 45%

Conclusion
BI’s steady growth and maturation as a catalyst for better business performance are reflected in the 2015 TDWI BI Benchmark
Report. The average number of years building a BI environment reached a new high in our 2015 study, at 7.9 years, as did the
average number of iterations, at 3.6. As BI continues to expand, it’s also becoming more lean and efficient.

The average number of BI teams dropped to 4.2 in 2015, down more than half from 10.7 in 2011, and at 4.9 the average number
of per-project FTEs is also down from recent years. Although part of the decline in BI team and FTE averages owes to the greater
representation of smaller organizations in this year’s sample, TDWI has observed that BI practices in general have become
significantly faster and more cost-efficient as the industry leverages best practices and lessons learned.

Meanwhile, the study reveals that more organizations are accelerating their time to value from BI. Forty-two percent of respondent
organizations began realizing ROI from their latest BI iterations within one year, up notably from recent years. In concert with
faster ROI, the incidence of high business value from BI reached 28 percent, the highest rate in this long-running survey series.
The increases seen in the time-to-ROI and business value metrics clearly indicate that BI professionals are making great progress
in both creating and mastering the tactics and technologies needed to maximize BI’s business impact.

The BI landscape continues to evolve, and much room for improvement remains. Big data, the Internet of things, mobile devices,
and the prevalence of real-time information are all whetting the business appetite for more actionable insights faster. It is up to
the IT and business professionals who shape and manage BI programs to utilize their ingenuity and resourcefulness to meet these
emerging challenges and lead the way to a more data-driven world.

20  TDWI RESEARCH
 TDWI RESEARCH

TDWI Research provides research and advice for data

professionals worldwide. TDWI Research focuses exclusively
on business intelligence, data warehousing, and analytics
issues and teams up with industry thought leaders and
practitioners to deliver both broad and deep understanding
of the business and technical challenges surrounding
the deployment and use of business intelligence, data
warehousing, and analytics solutions. TDWI Research offers
in-depth research reports, commentary, inquiry services, and
topical conferences as well as strategic planning services to
user and vendor organizations.

T 425.277.9126
555 S Renton Village Place, Ste. 700 F 425.687.2842
Renton, WA 98057-3295 E [email protected] tdwi.org