See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224221404

Business Intelligence Maturity: Development and

Evaluation of a Theoretical Model

Conference Paper · February 2011

DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2011.90 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

38 1,064

4 authors, including:

Robert Winter Felix Wortmann

University of St.Gallen University of St.Gallen
627 PUBLICATIONS 4,606 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 649 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Value Co-Creation Language View project

Bosch IoT Lab - Connected Car View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Felix Wortmann on 20 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

Business Intelligence Maturity:

Development and Evaluation of a Theoretical Model
Gerrit Lahrmann Frederik Marx Robert Winter Felix Wortmann
Institute of Information Management
University of St. Gallen
St. Gallen, Switzerland
{gerrit.lahrmann, frederik.marx, robert.winter, felix.wortmann}@unisg.ch

Abstract strengths and weaknesses of certain domains of an or-

In order to identify and explore the strengths and
weaknesses of business intelligence (BI) initiatives,
managers in charge need to assess the maturity of their
BI efforts. For this, a wide range of maturity models
has been developed, but these models often focus on
technical details and do not address the potential value
proposition of BI. Based on an extensive literature
review and an empirical study, we develop and eva-
luate a theoretical model of impact-oriented BI maturi-
ty. Building on established IS theories, the model inte-
grates BI deployment, BI usage, individual impact, and
organizational performance. This conceptualization
helps to refocus the topic of BI maturity to business
needs and can be used as a theoretical foundation for
future research.
1. Introduction
Business intelligence (BI) is a topic widely dis-
cussed in information systems (IS) literature. Since its
first mentioning [35], BI has become an essential com-
ponent of the information supply infrastructure and a
contributor (and prerequisite) to overall organizational
success [14, 60]. Therefore, BI has gained steadily
increasing managerial and scientific attention.
Over the time, the role of BI and its impact have
evolved [60]. Its role has changed from a single-
analytical-application-view to an organizational capa-
bility of strategic importance [41]. Challenges of tech-
nical implementation are more and more replaced by
questions of business value of the overall approach,
e.g. strategic business alignment, competence in usage,
operations, and further development of a broad solu-
tion architecture [46, 58]. Recently, BI has been deno-
minated as a top business priority from formerly being
denominated as a top technology priority [37, 46].
In order to be more effective, BI requires an com-
prehensive overall view of the design and changing of
its structures [48]. An established means to identify
ganization are maturity models (MMs) [38]. They con-
sist of multiple, archetypal levels of maturity of a cer-
tain domain and can be used e.g. for organizational
assessment and development [38]. In the case of BI,
quite a high number of MMs has been proposed [34,
60].
In previous research, we identified and analyzed a
total of ten BI MMs (summarized in section 2.3) [34].
Regarding MM content, our results show that classic
IT topics, e.g. applications, data, and infrastructure, are
highly present, while other topics like efficiency, orga-
nizational structures, staff, and strategy are rarely ad-
dressed. Overall, the links between BI technology, BI
usage, and organizational performance stay unclear.
Furthermore, we identified methodical gaps in the de-
sign process of the MMs regarding the reliability (i.e.
the theoretical foundation of the model) and the expli-
cation of the underlying maturity concept (i.e. the fun-
damental understanding of BI maturity).
The work presented within this paper is part of a
larger research project (cf. fig. 1). In order to address
the above mentioned gaps, our overall research goal is
to develop a methodically sound BI MM which is
comprehensive as regards content and which clearly
guides its users how to design BI in order to contribute
to overall organizational performance. As a prerequi-
site towards this goal, a sound theoretical foundation is
needed. Based on the results of previous research in
form of a qualitative literature review and on an empir-
ical study, the objective of this paper therefore is to
develop and evaluate a theoretical model of impact-
oriented BI maturity. This model will be the foundation
for the development of an assessment instrument for
impact-oriented BI maturity and the confirmation and
broad application of an impact-oriented BI MM.
The paper is structured as follows. Next, founda-
tions of BI and MMs are presented and the related
work is analyzed. Following, we develop and evaluate
a theoretical model of impact-oriented BI maturity.
Concluding, we discuss implications for practice and
research and give an outlook on future research.

1530-1605/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE 1

 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Focus of this paper
qualitative
literature
quantitative
1st survey
review
Theoretical
State of the art model of
of BI MMs impact-oriented
BI maturity
qualitative
case studies quantitative
and/or expert 2nd survey
interviews
Assessment Confirmation &
instrument for application of
impact-oriented impact-oriented
BI MM BI MM
Figure 1. Overall research process
2. Research framework
2.1 Business intelligence
Mentioned as early as 1958 [35], BI was initially
coined as a collective term for data analysis tools [2].
Meanwhile, the understanding broadened towards BI
as an encompassment of all components of an inte-
grated decision support infrastructure [3]. In BI sys-
tems, data from operational systems is combined with
analytical frontends to “present complex and competi-
tive information to planners and decision makers.” [40]
A central component of BI systems is the data ware-
house (DW), which integrates data from various trans-
actional IS for analytical purposes [31, 32].
But still, “there is no universally-accepted defini-
tion of BI.” [60] In the context of this article, we ad-
here to the BI definition of Wixom & Watson [60],
which also includes processes (including the usage of
data, i.e. business processes): “Business intelligence
(BI) is a broad category of technologies, applications,
and processes for gathering, storing, accessing, and
analyzing data to help its users make better decisions.”
Advantages of this definition are, for example, that
it does not restrict BI to analytical frontend applica-
tions, but includes “getting data in […] and getting
data out.” [60] Furthermore, it does not only focus on
technology and/or applications. For our purpose, it is
important to have a BI working definition which is not
too narrow in scope, as we want to cover all kinds of
aspects which can be attributed to BI.
Besides data warehousing (“getting data in”), there
are other terms which consistently occur within the
context of BI. Or, as Herschel [28] puts it: “Today, the
practice of BI clearly employs technology. However, it
is prudent to remember that BI is also about organiza-
tional decision-making, analytics, information and
knowledge management, decision flows and processes,
and human interaction.” Further related terms, partially
used synonymously for BI, are decision support sys-
tems, executive information systems, management
support systems, and (business/corporate) performance
management (PM) [12, 30, 40, 57].
2.2 Maturity models and development thereof
Maturity describes a “state of being complete, per-
fect or ready.” [53] To reach a desired state of maturi-
ty, an evolutionary transformation path from an initial
to a target stage needs to be progressed [20]. MMs are
used to guide this transformation process. Initially pro-
posed in the 1970’s [25], more than a hundred MMs
have been published in the field of IS up to date [4,
38]. As these high numbers led to a certain arbitrari-
ness of the design process [4, 15, 38], methods for the
design of MMs were developed.
Important characteristics of MMs are the maturity
concept, the dimensions, the levels, the maturity prin-
ciple, and the assessment approach [33]. An overview
of these characteristics is given in table 1.
Table 1. Properties of MMs [33]
Property Description
Maturity Three different maturity concepts (or understandings of
concept maturity) can be distinguished [38]. People ( or work-
force) capability defines “the level of knowledge, skills,
and process abilities available for performing an organi-
zation’s business activities.” [13] Process maturity de-
fines “the extent to which a specific process is explicitly
defined, managed, measured, controlled, and effective.”
[42] Object (or technology) maturity defines the respec-
tive level of development of a design object [24].
Dimension Dimensions are specific capability areas, process areas,
or design objects structuring the field of interest. They
should be exhaustive and distinct [15, 38]. Each dimen-
sion is further specified by a number of measures (prac-
tices, objects, or activities) at each level [15, 20].
Level Levels are archetypal states of maturity of a certain
dimension or domain. Each level has a distinguishing
descriptor clearly providing the intent of the level and a
detailed description of its characteristics.
Maturity MMs can be continuous or staged. Continuous MMs
principle allow a scoring of activities at different levels. Therefore,
the level can be either the (weighted) sum of the indi-
vidual scores or the individual levels in different dimen-
sions. Staged models require the compliance with all
elements of one level [20]. They specify a number of
goals and key practices to reach a predefined level.
Staged MMs reduce the levels to the defined stages,
whereas continuous MMs open up the possibility of
specifying situational levels.
Assess- The assessment approach can be qualitative using de-
ment scriptions or quantitative using e.g. Likert scales [20].
2
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
The literature proposes slightly different MM de-
velopment processes which all adhere to a basic design
[4, 15, 38]. De Bruin et al. [15] propose a development
process consisting of the phases of scope, design, po-
pulate, test, deploy, and maintain. Becker et al. [4]
propose a similar process emphasizing the use of exist-
ing MMs and an iterative development. Table 2 gives
an overview of the basic MM development process.
Table 2. Basic MM development process [33]
Phase Description
Scope The scope phase defines the focus and identifies the
relevant stakeholders and targeted audiences of the
model. It determines the balance between complex reali-
ty and model simplicity.
Design In the design phase, the principle concept of maturity, the
structure of levels, dimensions, and sub-dimensions (i.e.
the meta-model) are outlined. Based on this, the descrip-
tors of the levels and their definitions are derived. There-
by, the design process can follow a top-down or a bot-
tom-up approach. A top-down approach first specifies the
levels and their descriptions. A bottom-up approach first
defines dimensions and characteristics representing ma-
turity and then derives descriptions from it.
Populate In the populate phase, the corresponding characteristics
are determined. It also defines the maturity assessment,
which includes the specification of instruments.
Test The constructed model is tested on content completeness
and intended model scope accuracy, and the assessment
instrument is tested regarding validity and reliability.
Deploy The model is deployed to the initial stakeholders and to
an independent community.
Maintain The model is maintained to ensure its evolution.
For designing and populating MMs, different ex-
ploratory research methods as well as combinations
thereof are proposed. Commonly mentioned are litera-
ture analysis, Delphi studies, case studies, and focus
groups [4, 15]. Quantitative methods are less frequent-
ly used for constructing MMs [20], as these require a
sound theoretical foundation. Testing is also mostly
done using qualitative methods. The choice of the rele-
vant research method is influenced by the scope, stake-
holders, and targeted audiences [38].
As our objective (cf. section 1) is to develop and
evaluate a theoretical model of impact-oriented BI ma-
turity as a foundation for an impact-oriented BI MM,
the study at hand contributes to the design phase of the
MM development process.
2.3 Overview of BI maturity models and require-
ments elicitation for an improved model
Quite a high number of BI MMs has been proposed
[34, 60]. In previous research, we identified and ana-
lyzed a total of ten BI MMs [34]. Table 3 gives an
overview of the identified MMs.
Table 3. Overview of BI maturity models [34]
Addressed
No. Name (year(s)) Source(s) topic(s)
1 Watson et al. (2001) [56] DW
2 SAS (2004, 2009) [26, 50] Inf. mgt.
3 Eckerson (2004, 2009) [16, 17] BI
4 SMC (2004, 2009) [8, 51] BI
5 Cates et al. (2005) [7] BI
6 Dataflux (2005) [19] Data mgt.
7 Sen et al. (2006) [52] DW
8 HP (2007, 2009) [27, 29] BI
9 Gartner (2008) [45] BI & PM
10 Teradata (2008) [54] BI & DW
We analyzed the BI MMs regarding methodology
and content. Our findings show that future research
should pay special attention to theoretical foundation,
validation, explication of the underlying maturity con-
cept, and comprehensiveness of BI MMs.
The theoretical foundation describes if the model is
explicitly based on accepted (design) theories [5]. Only
one model is theory-based: Watson et al. [56] refer to
the stages of growth approach [25]. An explicated
theoretical foundation helps to understand how the
different parts of the MMs influence each other. Due to
the missing theoretical foundation in most of the ana-
lyzed models, the links between BI maturity, BI im-
pact, and organizational success stayed quite unclear.
The maturity concept outlines the fundamental un-
derstanding of BI maturity. The most common maturi-
ty concept is object-centric (e.g. from no explicit archi-
tecture to an enterprise DW on the highest levels of BI
maturity), closely followed by people-centricity. Five
models use a maturity concept which is either people-,
process-, or object-centric. The other models use a
mixed maturity concept. A methodically sound BI MM
should explicate its understanding of BI maturity in
order to be clear what exactly is measured and what the
MM’s purpose is.
Regarding the comprehensiveness of the BI MM
content, our results show that classic IT topics, e.g.
applications, data, and infrastructure, are highly
present, while other topics like efficiency, organiza-
tional structures, staff, and strategy are rarely ad-
dressed (cf. Table 5 in the appendix). A bit surprising
is the fact that organizational structure and strategy are
rarely addressed, as BI organization (e.g. BI competen-
cy centers) and BI strategy (e.g. strategic alignment)
are two topics highly present in current IS literature
[22, 55]. With regard to people, users and staff are dif-
ferentiated. Five models address users, but only one
model explicitly addresses staff. A comprehensive BI
MM should integrate all these and further, eventually
in current BI MMs neglected aspects.
3
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

3. Theoretical development BI maturity

3.1 Re-conceptualizing BI maturity

In the following, we argue that maturity as a „state

Deployment Use Impact
of being complete, perfect or ready” [53] has to reflect
causes, e.g. “BI technology deployed”, as well as ef- Capa-
Practices IT artifact Individual
Organiza-
Individual
Organiza-
bilities tional tional
fects, e.g. “organizational impact of BI realized”. MMs
focusing solely on effects do not give any insights on
how to improve the situation at hand. Therefore, they Figure 2. Theoretical conceptualization of BI
are of limited practical utility. MMs focusing solely on maturity (adapted from [21])
causes do not give any insights on the value realized,
thereby facing similar challenges. Building on this ar- 3.2 Integrated research model
gumentation, we conceptualize BI on the basis of IS
success models and their underlying theory [21, 43, Based on the re-conceptualization of BI maturity in
49]. By doing this, we try to bring together the rigor of the previous section, we begin to design our research
the IS success models and the practical relevance of the model (cf. fig. 3) with detailing the impact of BI. On
MM field. an individual level, the BI value lays in enabling better
As written above, most often BI is understood as an decisions (individual impact) [14, 59, 60]. On an orga-
IT artifact. But in order to address the above mentioned nizational level, this will lead to a better overall orga-
comprehensiveness (cf. section 2.3), not only the BI IT nizational performance (organizational impact) [18].
artifact needs to be examined, but other aspects, i.e.
people with their capabilities and organizations (struc-
tures) with their practices, should also be considered. Organizational
support
The theoretical foundation for this differentiation is
Deployment
provided by socio-technical theory (STT) [6]. STT BI
differentiates a technical and a social system. The core capabilities
message of STT is that these sub-systems are interde-
pendent and need to be working in harmony in order to BI IT BI practices
maximize performance for an organization. Quite simi-
lar to calls to replace the IT artifact with a work system
as the core subject matter of the IS field [1], this would Individual Organizational
Use

use use
enable a broader view on BI which also recognizes the
capabilities and practices needed for successful BI.
Another important aspect is that technical maturity Individual
on its own does not lead to overall BI success. In the
Impact

context of BI, “technologies, applications, and
processes for gathering, storing, accessing, and analyz-
ing data” are used to “help […] users make better deci-
sions” (cf. section 2.1). Having the greatest architec-
ture deployed does not imply overall BI value, as there
might be no usage of the BI technologies and applica-
tions and therefore no impact on organizational per-
formance. For IS in general, this ideas have been for-
malized in various IS success models [21, 43, 49]. To
put it simple, their gist is that the deployment of an IS
influences the individual and organizational use of this
IS, which again influences the impact of this IS, both
on an individual and an organizational level.
On the basis of this argumentation, we conceptual-
ize BI maturity based the three interrelated concepts
“deployment”, “use”, and “impact” (cf. fig. 2). In the
following, this conceptualization will serve as a foun-
dation for the development of an integrated research
model.
impact
Organizational
impact
Figure 3. Integrated research model
The impact of BI is a consequence of use, which
can be differentiated into individual use (e.g. ease of
use, efficiency, and effectivity) and organizational use
(e.g. covered business topics and spread throughout the
organization) [49].
BI capabilities, BI practices, BI IT, and organiza-
tional support form the BI deployment system. As re-
gards BI IT, BI applications, architecture, data, and
infrastructure need to be considered [52, 56]. BI prac-
tices are formed on the on hand by the BI development,
operations, and management processes (e.g. BI gover-
nance, change management), and on the other hand by
strategic alignment, definition, and measurement of BI

4
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

services [52, 56]. Both BI IT and BI practices have a A total of 103 questionnaires were returned. This
direct impact on individual and organizational use and correlates to a response rate of 66 %. Because of miss-
are a result of BI capabilities, which describe the team ing values and contradictory values in control ques-
skills and the competencies of the BI staff [56, 59]. tions, ten questionnaires had to be excluded from the
Based on findings of critical success factors literature, analysis. On the basis of these criteria, 93 question-
overall organizational support in the form of sponsor- naires were selected for further analysis.
ship and championship are preconditions to establish
successful BI capabilities [44, 59]. Therefore, we diffe- Table 4. Demographic profile of the data set
rentiate these from BI capabilities which can be attri-
buted to the BI function itself, although the literature Industry sector No. % Employees No. %
does not always support this distinction. Banking 18 21% 1-199 17 18%
Altogether, successful deployment and successful Manufacturing 4 5% 200-999 15 16%
usage lead to successful decisions, which will contri- Insurance 11 13% 1000-5000 32 34%
bute to overall organizational success (cf. fig. 3). Public government 7 8% > 5000 29 31%
Services 12 14%
4. Empirical evaluation Software and IT 12 14% BI exper. in years No. %
Telecomm. 5 6% <1 5 5%
4.1 Survey design Utilities 7 8% 1-5 26 29%
Wholes. & retailing 5 6% 6-10 24 26%
For the design of the survey, we adhered to the Other 5 6% > 10 36 40%
process as proposed by [39]. Based on validated in-
struments from established IS theories [1, 6, 21, 43, 5. Results
49], we first compiled question groups for each con-
struct. Second, we modified the wording to the BI con- Partial least squares (PLS) analysis was used to test
text and converted all of the questions to semantic dif- the research model. PLS is a regression-based tech-
ferential scale format from their Likert scale format nique that can estimate and test the relationships
following the guidelines as provided by [11]. Semantic among constructs [10]. PLS was chosen due to its ro-
differential scales have been shown to yield a reduction bustness and the large number of constructs in the re-
in survey completion time leading to superior efficien- search model [23]. SmartPLS (version 2.0) was used
cy, provide a better SEM fit for research models than for data analysis [47]. The research model consists of a
using equivalent Likert scales, and statistical analyses measurement model and a structural model. The inter-
can be performed on these scales in just the way that relations between indicator variables and latent va-
they can be done for Likert scales [11]. Third, in mul- riables are specified by the measurement model. The
tiple iterations senior researchers and graduate students structural model delineates the causal relationships
identified poorly or ambiguous worded items and made between latent variables.
minor wording changes until consensus was found and
no further problems were uncovered. The remaining 5.1 Measurement model
items were included in the survey instrument, each
measured on a 5-point semantic differential scale. Be- Internal consistency (construct reliability), conver-
fore being distributed, the instrument was pretested as gent validity, and discriminant validity determine the
a whole. The final survey included demographic items quality of the reflective measurement model [23].
and items for the representation of the eight constructs As regards internal consistency, for each construct
as depicted in fig. 3. In table 6 in the appendix, the composite reliability (CR) should exceed 0.70 and av-
specific items, organized by construct, are shown. erage variance extracted (AVE) should exceed 0.50. As
table 7 shows, these criteria were met for all constructs.
4.2 Data set Regarding convergent validity, table 6 lists the survey
items and constructs and shows that loadings for all
The data was collected using a written question- items were significant at p < 0.001 and exceeded the
naire distributed at a practitioner BI conference in May minimum loading criterion of 0.70. Discriminant valid-
2010. The 157 participants were specialists and execu- ity between constructs is acceptably high when the
tives, working in the field of BI and DW in business, square root of AVE for each construct exceeds the cor-
management, and IT functions. The conference was relations between that and all other constructs [23].
attended by representatives of companies of different Table 7 lists the correlation matrix, with correlations
industry sectors, size, and BI experience (cf. table 4). among constructs and the square root of AVE as di-

5
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

agonal elements. According to table 7, the highest in- examined. A larger data set would provide better em-
ter-construct correlation was 0.71 between organiza- pirical support for our hypotheses. The data set con-
tional support and BI practices, which is still lower tains answers of business (25 %), IT (50 %), manage-
than the lowest square root of AVE (0.74 for BI prac- ment (18 %), and other (7 %) personnel. It can be ques-
tices). Thereby, the discriminant validity criterion was tioned, if, e.g., IT personnel are able to give correct
also met. Convergent and discriminant validity can be answers as regards organizational performance. In a
further confirmed when individual items load above future study, it might be advisable to relate certain
0.50 on their associated construct (cf. above) and load parts of the study to certain functional areas of an or-
more highly on their associated construct than on any ganization.
other construct. All items loaded on their constructs as
expected. Org. support
R2 = 0.00
0.50**
5.2 Structural model
BI capabilities
R2 = 0.25
At the structural level, good model fit is established 0.48** 0.60**
with acceptably high internal consistency (cf. section BI IT BI practices
5.1), significant path coefficients, and acceptably high R2 = 0.23 R2 = 0.36
R2 values [23]. The path coefficients indicate the 0.37**
0.28* 0.32*
0.52**
strengths of the relationships between the dependent
and independent variables. Standardized paths should Individual use Org. use
R2 = 0.38 R2 = 0.52
be at least 0.20 and ideally above 0.30 in order to be
0.59** 0.14
considered meaningful [9]. Bootstrapping with 200
samples was used in order to determine the signific- Individual impact
ance of the paths within the structural model. The R2 R2 = 0.46
0.65**
values indicate the amount of variance of dependent
Org. impact
variables explained by the independent variables. In
R2 = 0.42 * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.
general, no official guidelines exist, but, clearly, the
larger the R2 values, the better [23]. In early stages of
theory building and depending on the object of investi- Figure 4. Research model results
gation, lower values may be accepted, e.g. if other po-
Second, not all model inherent hypotheses are em-
tential determinants influence the dependent variables.
pirically supported. On the one hand, BI capabilities
In the structural model at hand, this might be the case
and BI IT show rather low R2 values. On the other
with the BI IT construct, as this may depend on va-
hand, the results do not attest significance for the rela-
riables not included in the model, e.g. general IT cha-
tionship between organizational use and individual
racteristics. Fig. 4 presents path coefficients and R2
impact. These issues should be addressed in future
values for the research model. All path coefficients
research.
except one are significant at p < 0.001 or p < 0.01. No
significance can be attested for the relationship be-
tween organizational use and individual impact. All R2 6.2 Implications for research
values except BI capabilities and BI IT indicate a mod-
Overall, our theoretical understanding of BI maturi-
erate model fit.
ty which comprises deployment, use, and impact of BI
has been empirically evaluated, but certain aspects
6. Discussion need further attention.
BI capabilities and BI IT show rather low R2 val-
The results of our study provide several key find- ues. Therefore, the model needs to be extended by con-
ings which should help to improve the understanding structs which better explain the amount of variance of
of BI maturity and the development and use of BI BI capabilities and BI IT as dependent ones. For BI IT,
MMs in research and practice. this may be found in general IT characteristics or the
general development history of the BI IT (e.g. if hete-
6.1 Limitations rogeneity was introduced by mergers & acquisitions).
For BI capabilities, this may be found in company rep-
In general, there are two limitations which should utation and similar items, which may attract better edu-
be noted when interpreting our research results. cated BI personnel to an organization. Some research
First, the size of the data set (93 questionnaires) and attributes items like company reputation to organiza-
the heterogeneity of the sample need to be critically

6
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
tional performance [36]. As a consequence, this would
result in a cyclic causal chain.
The results did not attest significance for the rela-
tionship between organizational use and individual
impact. Modifications of the model might be needed to
better explain the causalities in this part of the model.
Some ideas, which might lead to better model fit, are
the inclusion of culture aspects (e.g. fact-based deci-
sion making) and a modification of the individual im-
pact construct.
As a next step in research, the development of an
impact-oriented BI MM can now be based on the re-
sults of this study (cf. fig. 1). We understand impact-
oriented BI maturity as a concept that encompasses
deployment, use, and impact of BI on individual and
organizational performance. The identified causal
chains show which constructs and how much the con-
structs contribute to BI success.
Besides findings which relate to the research model
itself, the use of a fast form approach led to many duly
completed questionnaires. For future empirical studies,
this might be a hint how to improve the quality and
quantity (fewer terminations in filling out question-
naires) of the data collection methodically.
6.3 Implications for practice
In section 3, we proposed a theoretical understand-
ing of BI maturity which comprises deployment, use,
and impact of BI. Within sections 4 and 5, we eva-
luated our theoretical model empirically, with the re-
sult that most of our hypotheses hold true. Based on
our findings, practitioners now have a way to assess BI
maturity in a manner that goes beyond measuring tech-
nical capabilities. On the basis of our results, the use
and the impact of the socio-technical BI system should
be considered as well.
One central statement can be derived from our find-
ings that everybody responsible for BI certainly likes
to hear: we empirically derived that financial and gen-
eral support for BI by management and business func-
tions have a positive impact on the overall organiza-
tional performance.
7. Conclusion
Based on results of previous research in form of a
qualitative literature review and on an empirical study,
this paper developed and evaluated a theoretical model
of impact-oriented BI maturity which aims to integrate
the methodical strengths of established IS theories and
the content of existing BI MMs.
The model of impact-oriented BI maturity is a spe-
cific conceptualization of BI maturity that should stand
next to others. Nonetheless, the model should be un-
derstood as groundwork and will be the foundation for
the development and the application of an impact-
oriented BI MM.
8. References
[1] Alter, S., A Work System View of DSS in its Fourth Dec-
ade. Decision Support Systems, 2004. 38(3): p. 319-327.
[2] Anandarajan, M., A. Anandarajan, and C.A. Srinivasan,
Business Intelligence Techniques - A Perspective from Ac-
counting and Finance. 2004, Berlin: Springer.
[3] Baars, H. and H.-G. Kemper, Management Support with
Structured and Unstructured Data – An Integrated Business
Intelligence Framework. Information Systems Management,
2008. 25(2): p. 132-148.
[4] Becker, J., R. Knackstedt, and J. Pöppelbuß, Developing
Maturity Models for IT Management - A Procedure Model
and its Application. Business & Information Systems Engi-
neering, 2009. 1(3): p. 213-222.
[5] Biberoglu, E. and H. Haddad, A Survey of Industrial Ex-
periences with CMM and the Teaching of CMM Practices.
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 2002. 18(2): p.
143-152.
[6] Bostrom, R.P. and S. Heinen, MIS Problems and Failures
- A Socio-Technical Perspective. Part I - The Causes. MIS
Quarterly, 1977. 1(3): p. 17-32.
[7] Cates, J.E., S.S. Gill, and N. Zeituny, The Ladder of
Business Intelligence (LOBI): a framework for enterprise IT
planning and architecture. International Journal of Business
Information Systems, 2005. 1(1-2): p. 220-238.
[8] Chamoni, P. and P. Gluchowski, Integration trends in
business intelligence systems: an empirical study based on
the business intelligence maturity model. Wirtschaftsinforma-
tik, 2004. 46(2): p. 119-128.
[9] Chin, W.W., Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation
Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 1998. 22(1): p. vii-xvi.
[10] Chin, W.W., The Partial Least Squares Approach to
Structural Equation Modeling, in Modern Methods for Busi-
ness Research, G.A. Marcoulides, Editor. 1998, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah. p. 295-336.
[11] Chin, W.W., N. Johnson, and A. Schwarz, A Fast Form
Approach to Measuring Technology Acceptance and Other
Constructs. MIS Quarterly, 2008. 32(4): p. 687-703.
[12] Clark, J.T.D., M.C. Jones, and C.P. Armstrong, The
Dynamic Structure of Management Support Systems: Theory
Development, Research Focus, and Direction. MIS Quarter-
ly, 2007. 31(3): p. 579-615.
7
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
[13] Curtis, B., W.E. Hefley, and S.A. Miller, The People
Capability Maturity Model – Guidelines for Improving the
Workforce. 2 ed. SEI Series in Software Engineering. 2010,
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[14] Davenport, T.H., J.G. Harris, and R. Morison, Analytics
at Work: Smarter Decisions, Better Results. 2010, Boston:
Harvard Business Press.
[15] de Bruin, T., et al., Understanding the Main Phases of
Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. in ACIS 2005.
2005. Sydney.
[16] Eckerson, W.W., Gauge Your Data Warehousing Ma-
turity. DM Review, 2004. 14(11): p. 34.
[17] Eckerson, W.W., TDWI's Business Intelligence Maturity
Model. 2009, The Data Warehousing Institute: Chatsworth.
[18] Elbashir, M.Z., P.A. Collier, and M.J. Davern, Measur-
ing the effects of business intelligence systems: The relation-
ship between business process and organizational perfor-
mance. International Journal of Accounting Information Sys-
tems, 2008. 9: p. 135-153.
[19] Fisher, T., How Mature Is Your Data Management Envi-
ronment? Business Intelligence Journal, 2005. 10(3): p. 20-
26.
[20] Fraser, P., J. Moultrie, and M. Gregory, The Use of Ma-
turity Models/Grids as a Tool in Assessing Product Devel-
opment Capability. in IEEE IEMC 2002. 2002. Cambridge,
UK.
[21] Gable, G.G., D. Sedera, and T. Chan, Re-
conceptualizing Information System Success: The IS-Impact
Measurement Model. Journal of the Association for Informa-
tion Systems, 2008. 9(7): p. 377-408.
[22] Gansor, T., A. Totok, and S. Stock, Von der Strategie
zum Business Intelligence Competency Center (BICC): Kon-
zeption - Betrieb - Praxis. 2010: Hanser Fachbuchverlag.
[23] Gefen, D., D. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau, Structural
Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research
Practice. Communications of the AIS, 2000. 4(7): p. 1-77.
[24] Gericke, A., P. Rohner, and R. Winter, Networkability in
the Health Care Sector - Necessity, Measurement and Syste-
matic Development as the Prerequisites for Increasing the
Operational Efficiency of Administrative Processes. in ACIS
2006. 2006. Adelaide.
[25] Gibson, C.F. and R.L. Nolan, Managing the four stages
of EDP growth. Harvard Business Review, 1974. 52(1): p.
76-88.
[26] Hatcher, D. and B. Prentice, The Evolution of Informa-
tion Management. Business Intelligence Journal., 2004. 9(2):
p. 49-56.
[27] Henschen, D., HP Touts Neoview Win, Banking Solu-
tion, BI Maturity Model. Intelligent Enterprise, 2007. 10(10):
p. 9.
[28] Herschel, R.T., Editorial Preface. International Journal
of Business Intelligence Research, 2010. 1(1): p. i.
[29] Hewlett Packard, The HP Business Intelligence Maturity
Model: Describing the BI journey. 2009. Available:
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA1-
5467ENW.pdf.
[30] Hostmann, B., N. Rayner, and G. Herschel, Gartner's
Business Intelligence, Analytics and Performance Manage-
ment Framework. 2009, Gartner: Stamford.
[31] Inmon, W.H., D. Strauss, and G. Neushloss, DW 2.0:
The Architecture for the Next Generation of Data Warehous-
ing. 2008, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
[32] Kimball, R., et al., The Data Warehouse Lifecycle Tool-
kit. 2 ed. 2008, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[33] Lahrmann, G. and F. Marx, Systematization of Maturity
Model Extensions. in DESRIST 2010. 2010. St. Gallen:
Springer.
[34] Lahrmann, G., et al., Business Intelligence Maturity
Models: An Overview. in itAIS 2010. 2010. Naples, Italy:
Springer.
[35] Luhn, H.P., A Business Intelligence System. IBM Jour-
nal of Research and Development, 1958. 2(4): p. 314-319.
[36] Marchand, D., W. Kettinger, and J. Rollins, Information
Orientation - The Link to Business Performance. 2001, New
York: Oxford University Press.
[37] McDonald, M., Without the Business in Business Intelli-
gence, BI Is Dead! 2010. Available:
http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2010/02/11/without
-the-business-in-business-intelligence-bi-is-dead/.
[38] Mettler, T. and P. Rohner, Situational Maturity Models
as Instrumental Artifacts for Organizational Design. in
DESRIST 2009. 2009. New York.
[39] Moore, G.C. and I. Benbasat, Development of an In-
strument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Infor-
mation Technology Innovation. Information Systems Re-
search, 1991. 2(3): p. 192-22.
[40] Negash, S., Business Intelligence. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 2004. 13: p. 177-
195.
[41] Negash, S. and P. Gray, Business Intelligence, in Hand-
book on Decision Support Systems 2, F. Burstein and C.W.
Holsapple, Editors. 2008, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. p.
175-193.
8
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

[42] Paulk, M.C., et al., Capability Maturity Model, Version
1.1. IEEE Software, 1993. 10(4): p. 18-27.
[43] Petter, S., W. DeLone, and E. McLean, Measuring in-
formation systems success: models, dimensions, measures,
and interrelationships. European Journal of Information
Systems, 2008. 17: p. 236-263.
[44] Ramamurthy, K., A. Sen, and A.P. Sinha, An empirical
investigation of the key determinants of data warehouse
adoption. Decision Support Systems, 2008. 44: p. 817-841.
[45] Rayner, N. and K. Schlegel, Maturity Model Overview
for Business Intelligence and Performance Management.
2008, Gartner: Stamford.
[52] Sen, A., A.P. Sinha, and K. Ramamurthy, Data Ware-
housing Process Maturity: An Exploratory Study of Factors
Influencing User Perceptions. IEEE Transactions on Engi-
neering Management, 2006. 53(3): p. 440-455.
[53] Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. Weiner, The Oxford English
Dictionary. 2 ed. 1989, Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
[54] Töpfer, J., Active Enterprise Intelligence, in Active En-
terprise Intelligence, J. Töpfer and R. Winter, Editors. 2008,
Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 1-28.
[55] Vierkorn, S. and D. Friedrich, Organization of Business
Intelligence. 2008, BARC Institute: Würzburg.

[46] Richardson, J. and A. Bitterer, Findings: The Risks of
Losing Faith in BI. 2010, Gartner: Stamford.
[47] Ringle, C., S. Wende, and A. Will, SmartPLS 2.0. 2005.
Available: http://www.smartpls.de.
[48] Robbins, S.P., Organization Theory: Structure, Design,
and Applications. 2 ed. 1987, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
[49] Sabherwal, R., A. Jeyaraj, and C. Chowa, Information
System Success: Individual and Organizational Determi-
nants. Management Science, 2006. 52(12): p. 1849-1864.
[50] SAS, Information Evolution Model. 2009. Available:
http://www.sas.com/software/iem/.
[51] Schulze, K.-D., et al., Business Intelligence-Studie 2009.
2009, Steria Mummert Consulting AG: Hamburg.
[56] Watson, H.J., T. Ariyachandra, and R.J. Matyska, Data
warehousing stages of growth. Information Systems Man-
agement, 2001. 18(3): p. 42-50.
[57] Watson, H.J., Tutorial: Business Intelligence – Past,
Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 2009. 25: p. 487-510.
[58] Williams, S. and N. Williams, The profit impact of busi-
ness intelligence. 2007, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauf-
mann.
[59] Wixom, B.H. and H.J. Watson, An empirical investiga-
tion of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS
Quarterly, 2001. 25(1): p. 17-41.
[60] Wixom, B.H. and H.J. Watson, The BI-Based Organiza-
tion. International Journal of Business Intelligence Research,
2010. 1(1): p. 13-28.

Appendix
Table 5. Content of BI maturity models [34]
Watson et al.

Cates et al.

Sen et al.
Eckerson

Teradata
Dataflux

Gartner
SMC
SAS

HP

Dimension Description ∑
Applications Kinds of (analytical) applications in use, e.g. data mining, OLAP, or reporting 6
Architecture Overall structure of e.g. source systems, platform, integration infrastr., and appl. 3
Behavior Prevailing analytic decision culture in the org. (i.e. fact-based decision making) 4
Change Controlling and tracking of changes over time 3
Data # of subject areas, the data model(s) used, and the quality and quantity of data 6
Efficiency Ratio of resource input compared to resource output 1
Impact Individual impact and organizational impact 6
Infrastructure Components of the integration infrastr., e.g. data bases, application servers 6
Org. structure Characteristics, structure, and placement of the BI org. in the overall org. 2
Processes Degree to which BI-related activities are performed 3
Staff Experience, skills, and specialization of the BI staff 1
Strategy Strategic alignment of BI, e.g. on corporate, business, or IT objectives 1
Users Types, numbers, and locations of the BI users 5

9
 Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

Table 6. Survey items and constructs

Construct/Item Key literature Mean S.D. Loading t-statistic

BI capabilities (CA) [56, 59]
high / low experience of (internal) BI staff 3.38 1.17 0.88 22.42
high / low business competency of (internal) BI staff 3.48 1.07 0.83 24.38
high / low technical competency of (internal) BI staff 3.73 1.04 0.85 27.03
high / low social competency of (internal) BI staff 3.60 0.86 0.74 13.71
high / low specialization of (internal) BI staff 3.39 1.00 0.87 17.73
BI practices (PR) [52, 56]
high / low strategic alignment on corporate and IT strategy 3.02 1.02 0.75 12.53
planned / chaotic further development 3.09 1.04 0.73 16.21
clearly / not clearly defined BI service portfolio 2.99 1.01 0.74 17.60
distinct / non distinct measurement of BI success 2.55 1.07 0.76 17.38
distinct / non distinct BI management processes 2.67 0.95 0.74 14.43
standardized / non standardized BI development processes 2.97 1.10 0.78 17.40
standardized / non standardized BI operations processes 3.16 1.08 0.74 15.06
BI information technology (IT) [52, 56]
extensive / limited set of analytical capabilities 3.35 1.09 0.76 24.02
homogeneous / heterogeneous analytical applications 3.09 1.19 0.81 18.02
standardized / non standardized (integration-) infrastructure 3.39 1.03 0.80 15.99
standardized / non standardized overall architecture 3.01 1.09 0.74 9.20
integrated / non integrated data 3.20 1.04 0.74 11.21
Individual impact (II) [14, 59, 60]
good / bad decisions 3.72 0.70 0.82 20.97
time-saving / time-consuming decision making 3.59 0.74 0.78 11.83
performance enhancing / performance degrading 3.44 0.76 0.79 14.91
productivity increasing / productivity decreasing 3.48 0.65 0.85 19.96
Individual usage (IU) [11, 21, 43, 49]
easy / hard 3.23 0.85 0.83 27.16
efficient / inefficient 3.20 0.87 0.86 21.58
effective / ineffective 3.31 0.86 0.87 33.87
helpful / unhelpful 3.53 0.83 0.87 31.75
quite useful / quite useless 3.55 0.83 0.85 32.14
Organizational impact (OI) [18]
high / low efficiency of internal processes 3.39 0.77 0.82 21.15
good / bad organizational performance 3.52 0.69 0.82 12.01
Organizational support (OS) [44, 59]
general / no general top-management support 3.45 1.07 0.83 13.94
financial / no financial top-management support 3.29 1.04 0.88 18.26
general / no general business support 3.34 0.91 0.80 16.69
Organizational usage (OU) [21, 43, 49]
high / low number of covered business topics 3.24 1.07 0.83 23.53
high / low spread throughout the organization 3.15 1.07 0.93 51.26
universal / insular usage 2.97 0.96 0.95 48.08

Table 7. Construct properties and inter-construct correlations

Inter-construct correlationsa
2
Construct AVE CR R CA II IT IU OI OS OU PR
BI capabilities (CA) 0.65 0.90 0.25 0.81
Individual impact (II) 0.66 0.89 0.46 0.45 0.81
BI information technology (IT) 0.59 0.88 0.23 0.48 0.46 0.77
Individual usage (IU) 0.73 0.93 0.38 0.50 0.67 0.56 0.85
Organizational impact (OI) 0.66 0.79 0.42 0.28 0.65 0.37 0.43 0.81
Organizational support (OS) 0.68 0.87 0.00 0.50 0.65 0.58 0.60 0.54 0.83
Organizational usage (OU) 0.79 0.92 0.52 0.48 0.46 0.59 0.54 0.35 0.55 0.89
BI practices (PR) 0.55 0.90 0.36 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.55 0.42 0.71 0.69 0.74
a
Diagonal elements (in italics) represent the square root of AVE for that construct.

10
View publication stats