MSc dissertation - João Clara Silva

Universidade Católica Portuguesa

Faculdade de Ciências Económicas e Empresarias

When Business Intelligence meets Web 2.0

Can Web 2.0 tools improve Business Intelligence gathering?

Student: João Clara Silva

Advisor: Paulo Cardoso do Amaral

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science in Business Administration, at Universidade Católica Portuguesa,

May, 2010.

Can new Web 2.0 tools improve Business Intelligence gathering?

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all who accompanied me while I wrote this and particularly to:

Professor Paulo Amaral for the effort, commitment and patience dedicated to my

investigation and dissertation development.

My friends for pushing me forward with this endeavor and also for letting me lay

back and relax in the appropriate times, whether they are in Portugal or any other

part in the World.

My family for pulling my ears and constantly reminding me how important this work

is.

My colleagues who have taken time to help me and have shown their interest in and

concern for my work.

Just over night all things have arisen new.


Abstract

This MSc dissertation proposes a framework model that assesses how Web 2.0

principles can improve Business Intelligence gathering as well as contribute to improving

corporate access to information and develop better Business Intelligence services that

fit employees’ particular needs in aggregating, generating, and facilitating access to

information.

The framework model results from aggregating the knowledge and theories

obtained by researching existing frameworks and it defines the following Web 2.0

principles: contribution to data generation, openness to collective intelligence, ability to

use as a platform, technological accessibility, openness to user contribution and

experience, and portability promotion. The answer to the research question is

developed through an evaluation of these principles' impact in Business Intelligence

gathering.

Web 2.0 matters for Business Intelligence since it meets the challenges of its

current limitations. Web 2.0 provides access to an alternative market of cheaper sources

to obtain intelligence from online analytical data providers. It brings new tools that can

be easily programmed, saving the time and effort spent on gathering intelligence. It

facilitates information diffusion to multiple targets with the help of tools such as RSS

(Real Simple Syndication). It limits the information output of systems to what is essential

through innovative ways of filtering information, such as tagging and folksonomies. It

incorporates tacit knowledge from users and promotes user contributions to and

participation with intelligence tools, which enhances the overall user experience with

Business Intelligence software.

The dissertation's conclusion is that Web 2.0 can improve Business Intelligence

gathering and should therefore be considered by companies for investment.


Resumo

Esta dissertação propõe um modelo que define como os princípios da Web 2.0

podem melhorar a recolha de Business Intelligence e, simultaneamente, contribuir para

o aperfeiçoamento da informação empresarial e dos serviços que agregam, criam e

facilitam o acesso a essa informação aos colaboradores.

Este modelo resulta da agregação de conhecimento e teorias obtidas de modelos

já existentes e define os seguintes princípios da Web 2.0: contribuição para a criação de

dados, abertura para a collective intelligence, capacidade de uso como plataforma,

acessibilidade tecnológica, abertura à contribuição e experimentação do utilizador e

promoção da portabilidade. A resposta à pergunta de investigação deriva da avaliação

do impacto destes princípios na recolha de Business Intelligence.

A Web 2.0 é um tema relevante para a evolução de Business Intelligence uma vez

que alcança os desafios das suas limitações. A Web 2.0 gera fontes de informação

alternativas baratas através de online analytical data providers. Traz novas ferramentas

que podem ser facilmente programadas, poupando o tempo e o esforço investidos na

recolha de inteligência. Facilitam a difusão de informação a diversas pessoas com a

ajuda de ferramentas como o RSS. Limitam a quantidade de informação gerada pelos

sistemas de BI através de ferramentas inovadoras que filtram informação, como o

tagging e folksonomies. Incorporam conhecimento tácito dos utilizadores e promovem

o envolvimento, contribuição e participação dos utilizadores com as ferramentas de

Business Intelligence.

Como conclusão, esta dissertação indica que a Web 2.0 pode melhorar a recolha

de Business Intelligence e, assim sendo, deve ser considerada como uma oportunidade

de investimento.


List of Abbreviations

AJAX: Asynchronous Javascript and XML

API: Application Programming Interface

BI: Business Intelligence

CI: Competitive Intelligence

DSS: Decision Support Systems

INE: Instituto Nacional de Estatística

MMORPG: Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game

MP3: Mpeg - 1/2 Audio Layer 3

OLAP: Online Analytical Processing

P2P: Peer-to-peer

REST: Representational State Transfer

RIA: Rich Internet Application

ROI: Return on Investment

RSS: Real Simple Syndication

SaaS: Software as a Service

SME: Small and Medium sized Enterprises

SOA: Service Oriented Architecture

SOAP: Simple Object Access Protocol

SS: Social Software - "Any website or application which connects users with similar

interests and ideas together, via the internet, can be described as social software"

(Perks, 2003).

URL: Uniform Resource Locator

XML: eXtensible Markup Language


Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. State of the Question ............................................................................................ 1

1.2. Purpose ................................................................................................................. 2

1.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 5

1.4. Structure ............................................................................................................... 6

II. State-of-the-art ........................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Web 2.0 ................................................................................................................ 7

2.1.1. Concepts and definitions ................................................................................ 7

2.1.1.1. Web 2.0 as the result of Internet's evolution ............................................... 8

2.1.1.2. Web 2.0 as a buildup word or momentary hype .......................................... 9

2.1.1.3. Web 2.0 as a new set of tools or services ..................................................... 9

2.1.1.4. Web 2.0 as a philosophy ............................................................................ 10

2.1.2. Tools and applications in the Web 2.0 world ................................................ 11

2.1.2.1. Blogs .......................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2.2. Microblogging ............................................................................................ 14

2.1.2.3. Wikis .......................................................................................................... 14

2.1.2.4. Tags, Folksonomy and Social Bookmarking ................................................ 15

2.1.2.5. RSS (Real Simple Syndication) .................................................................... 17

2.1.2.6. Multimedia sharing .................................................................................... 18

2.1.2.7. Audio blogging and podcasting .................................................................. 19

2.1.2.8. Video blogging ........................................................................................... 19

2.1.2.9. Mash-up .................................................................................................... 20

2.1.2.10. Social networking .................................................................................... 20


2.1.2.11. MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) ................. 20

2.1.2.12. Newer services and applications .............................................................. 22

2.1.3. Technologies Supporting Web 2.0 ................................................................ 22

2.1.3.1. AJAX .......................................................................................................... 23

2.1.3.2. Rich Internet Applications (RIA) ................................................................. 24

2.1.3.3. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) .......................................................... 25

2.1.3.4. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) ................................................ 25

2.1.3.5. Microformats ............................................................................................. 26

2.1.3.6. Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) ....................................................... 26

2.2. Business Intelligence ........................................................................................... 26

2.2.1. Business (Intelligence) .................................................................................. 27

2.2.1.1. Why BI? ..................................................................................................... 27

2.2.1.2. Who uses BI? ............................................................................................. 28

2.2.1.3. How is BI being used? ................................................................................ 29

2.2.2. Concepts and definitions .............................................................................. 30

2.2.2.1. BI as a support for decision-making ........................................................... 31

2.2.2.2. BI as a technology ...................................................................................... 31

2.2.2.3. BI as a systematic approach to information and data finding ..................... 32

2.2.2.4. BI in general terms ..................................................................................... 32

2.2.2.5. Competitive Intelligence (CI) ...................................................................... 33

2.2.3. Purpose of BI ................................................................................................ 33

2.2.4. Advantages of BI ........................................................................................... 35

2.2.5. Potential drawbacks and risks of BI ............................................................... 36

2.2.6. BI tools ......................................................................................................... 38


III. Model development ................................................................................................. 40

3.1. Procedure conducted .......................................................................................... 40

3.2. Assessing Business Intelligence as a measurable concept .................................... 41

3.3. Building the new framework for Web 2.0 ............................................................ 43

3.3.1. Contribution to data generation ................................................................... 45

3.3.2. Openness to collective intelligence ............................................................... 46

3.3.3. Ability to use as a platform ........................................................................... 49

3.3.4. Technological accessibility ............................................................................ 50

3.3.5. Openness to user contribution and experience............................................. 51

3.3.6. Portability promotion ................................................................................... 53

IV. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 55

4.1. Contribution to data generation .......................................................................... 55

4.2. Openness to collective intelligence ..................................................................... 56

4.3. Ability to use as a platform .................................................................................. 59

4.4. Technological accessibility................................................................................... 60

4.5. Openness to user contribution and experience ................................................... 62

4.6. Portability promotion .......................................................................................... 64

V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 68

5.1. Concerns for future research............................................................................... 71

VI. References ............................................................................................................... 72


1

I. Introduction

1.1. State of the Question

The Internet has been gaining new applications given that more people

recognize the advantages driven by its social networking capabilities (Bernal, 2009;

Snee, 2008; Mechant, 2009; Mason, 2008), and the internet's role as a new worldwide

database for untreated data (O'Reilly, 2005; Anderson, 2007; Musser, 2007), whose

contributors are Businesses and, more recently, private users (Gillmor, 2004; Downes,

2004; Anderson, 2007).

The Internet is "formed by the global interconnection of (...) computers,

communications entities and information systems through the use of (...) communication

standards, procedures and formats (...) called protocols. It was not until 1994 that the

general public began to be aware of the Internet by way of the World Wide Web

application. The Internet is the global information system that includes communication

capabilities and many high level applications. The Web is one such application" (Kahn,

1999).

The term "Web 2.0" made its first appearance in an article written by Darcy

DiNucci in 1999 (Smith, 2009). At this time, while the Internet was in early development,

DiNucci foresaw that the capability of displaying texts and graphics could be exported to

devices other than desktop computers. (such as TVs and cell phones). Today, we take

most of these technological advancements for granted. While she did not expound the

actual definition of Web 2.0, DiNucci did trigger an important fact about it - we no

longer depend only on a computer to access the Internet. Today's Web-ready portable

devices allow steady social connection regardless of time and location.

It was only in 2004 that Web 2.0 became a common term throughout the Web

community. The reason behind all the excitement was its official presentation by Dale

Dougherty at a conference between O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International

(O'Reilly, 2005a). Dougherty noted that "far from having "crashed", the Web still had


2

exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity". From then on,

"Web 2.0" has been a term widely used and a concept more fully explored and there is

still no common agreement on what it stands for. Some agree (Madden & Fox, 2006;

Mechant, 2009; Snee, 2008; Shawn, 2005) that it is nothing but a meaningless marketing

buzzword, and others accept it as the new conventional wisdom (O'Reilly, 2005a).

From a user perspective, early Web users were treated solely as consumers;

recipients of static information, without place for comment. Users were encouraged to

listen, to receive, and become subservient (Mason, 2008). Today, even "the mass media

is being challenged by user-generated content" (Musser, 2007).

1.2. Purpose

According to the data available at "Internet World Stats" (IWS, 2009), from 2000

to 2009, Web usage in Europe grew by 297% and today more than 52% of Europeans

surf the Web. Additionally, in Portugal, the existing penetration rate goes over 41.8%

and recorded a growth of 79% since 2000. Even though these results do not refer to the

extent nor the ways which people use the Web, its evolution to a commonly accessible

asset is becoming undeniable. As announced by INE (Instituto Nacional de Estatística), in

2002 only 15.1% of all Portuguese households had Internet access, but more recent data

(INE, 2007) show that "in the first quarter of 2007, 48,3% of Portuguese households had

access to a computer at home and 39,6% to the Internet", which means that almost 82%

of households with a computer have access to the Internet.

Within a World population of almost 7 billion (UN World population prospects,

2009), 22.86% are internet users. According to the website Worldometers (WOM,

2010), these users generate over 170 billion emails, 710 thousand blog posts and about

1 billion Google searches a day.

These figures reflect the growth of Internet awareness among users. Thus user

acquaintance with the Web becomes imperative for businesses, particularly for those


3

who aim for a Web-way of practice and assessing how the Web can benefit businesses

becomes more urgent.

Currently researchers foresee two ways for companies to use the Web. Some

researchers focus on the use of its technologies, tools and applications by the company

as a way to improve customer-company relations (O'Reilly, 2005; Musser, 2007; Hoegg

et al., 2006; ); while others (Tredinnick, 2006; Hoegg et al., 2006; Bernal, 2009; McGee,

2008; Marshall, 2008; Lamb, 2004; McAfee, 2006) share a view on how Web 2.0 can

generate benefits inside the firewall (i.e. as part of the company's internal activities and

processes), namely in providing actionable information for decision-making in an effort-

less and intuitive way.

These two tasks have, so far, been Business Intelligence's responsibility. BI

systems have been in existence since 1958, when Hans Peter Luhn first defined BI as

"the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of present facts in such a way as to guide

actions towards a desired goal" (Luhn, 1958). Today, the purpose of BI is to "improve the

timeliness and quality of the input to the decision process" (Negash et al., 2003) with the

help of "applications and technologies for gathering, storing, analyzing, reporting on

and providing access to data" (Power, 2005).

Golfarelli has defined BI as "the process of turning data into information and

then into knowledge" (Golfarelli et al., 2004) thus implying that data collection is

performed by other mechanisms. Furthermore, BI as a term "replaced decision support,

executive information systems, and management information systems" (Thomsen, 2003)

for the purpose of "facilitating managerial work" (Negash et al., 2003), which means

that BI mainly functions as an asset for internal decision-making. Hence, its modus

operandi falls under the "inside the firewall" perspective mentioned previously for Web

2.0.

BI services are "big businesses" (Power, 2001), and are only affordable by

powerful companies. The small and medium enterprises (SME) "face additional hurdles,

such as tighter budgets, less sophistication and organizational knowledge, technology


4

hurdles and fewer people, meaning less time to spend on planning and analysis" (Canes,

2009). Additionally, "many companies that purchase powerful analysis and business

intelligence tools don't use them effectively" (Foody, 2009). In contrast, Web 2.0 tools

constitute a cheaper (while not free) approach to BI, dependent only on user

acquaintance with the Web, to deliver information and knowledge. Furthermore, Web

2.0, in contrast with BI, allows the integration of tacit knowledge into its tools

(Rodrigues, 2002).

Thus, Web 2.0 presents itself as an opportunity for these small and medium

companies to improve their current access to information and develop better BI services

that fit their particular needs in aggregating, generating and facilitating access to

information for their employees.

For the abovementioned reasons, investigating the current states of Web

development and Businesses Intelligence are primary in answering the research

question of this dissertation:


In order to answer this question, the following questions are also addressed in

this work, as they present particular assessments on how Web 2.0 tools can help

improve BI gathering:

Can new Web 2.0 tools help organizations to perform better Business Intelligence?

Can these new tools contribute to better decision making? (In other words, do they

constitute an update of current decision support systems?)

Are Web 2.0 tools only applicable for Web-knowledgeable workers?

Accordingly, this MSc dissertation intends to demonstrate the Web's impact on

doing business and more specifically to explore the benefits of using the latest Web 2.0

tools to improve and provide BI collection and delivery systems throughout

corporations. Additionally, this paper also aims to provide the reader with some insight

on how to facilitate Web 2.0 implementation in an organization.


5

1.3. Methodology

Developing an answer to this dissertation’s research question will be achieved in

two steps. The first step is a review of the literature, mostly ranging from 1999 to 2010,

which refers to Web 2.0 and BI sources. This review is the result of exploratory research

to identify noteworthy articles through cross-reference analysis. The majority of the

references found are academic, while others are based on professional reports and

experiences written by qualified personnel in the fields of Web 2.0 and BI.

The second step is the development of a new framework model for understanding

Web 2.0’s importance for BI. The new framework model will be developed according to

the following structure:

1. Developing a list of the most common Web 2.0 tools;

2. Constructing a new framework of features that categorize Web 2.0 that is based on

definitions and characteristics offered by researched articles;

3. Applying those features so as to understand their impact on Business Intelligence

and then identifying the Web 2.0 tools that would be of a more appropriate use to

improve BI.

While the dissertation’s new framework model for understanding Web 2.0 and

its implications for BI is developed by extensive research, the framework model is not

complete and thus has the capacity for future development through even more

extensive research of the current literature. Nevertheless, more than enough evidence

has been gathered into the new framework model to provide a positive answer to the

dissertation's research question.


6

1.4. Structure

This dissertation will now be developed in five sections. The first of these will be

a presentation of the main concepts, definitions and ideas behind Web 2.0 and Business

Intelligence. These are treated separately in order to build a sound state-of-the-art of

their limitations, applicability and evolution. The next session creates a new framework

model to explain the main Web 2.0 principles followed by a discussion which evaluates

the extent to which Web 2.0 can contribute to the task of Business Intelligence. Finally,

a conclusion is made followed by a presentation of suggestions on what future

developments might need to be further scrutinized.


7

II. State-of-the-art

This chapter scrutinizes Web 2.0 regarding its concepts and definitions and seeks

to explore in further detail the current tools and applications existent and their

associated technologies. The background research accomplished on Business

Intelligence will also be addressed as an attempt to review the current concepts and

definitions, tools and applications to businesses, as well as current advantages and

potential drawbacks.

2.1. Web 2.0

2.1.1. Concepts and definitions

Although the internet has existed for many decades, the platform for exchanging

documents, also known as “Web”, was not conceived until 1989. The Web is a

conceptual framework of information exchange utilizing globally interconnected

networks (internet). Over time it underwent several mutations, firstly being dominated

by large multinational corporations to target new and existing markets, but in mid-2004

it assumed a new position as a new age of Web users and developers began to emerge

(Mason, 2008).

In "What is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next

Generation of Software" Tim O'Reilly (O'Reilly, 2005a) mentions that the concept of the

Web 2.0 began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and Medialive

International, when Dale Dougherty1 noted that new applications and sites were

popping up with surprising regularity, revealing what appeared to be a new turning

point for the Web. Nevertheless, no commonly agreed definition of Web 2.0 yet exists

among Web 2.0 instigators, since some still think of it as a "meaningless marketing

buzzword" while others accept it as "the new conventional wisdom" (O'Reilly, 2005).

1 General manager of Maker Media division at O'Reilly Media, an American media company that publishes books and Web sites and

produces conferences on computer technology topics.


8

In fact, regardless of O'Reilly's effort to elucidate on its definition, "Web 2.0

remains a problematic concept" (Mechant, 2008) as some authors argue that "it was, at

that time, too early to rely on them exclusively" (Depauw, 2008) and that O'Reilly's

"delineation of Web 2.0 is in many ways quite nebulous, outlining the characteristics

themes of Web 2.0 approaches to information services, rather than specific technologies

(...) creating a picture that is frustratingly short on detail" (Tredinnick, 2006). Other

authors believe that "Web 2.0" is a mere buzz term created to market social Web-

applications, which "resulted in many considering it a commodity interest" (Mason,

2008). In his book "The Cult of the Amateur" Andrew Keen (Keen, 2007) suggests that

what "the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world

around us rather than deep analysis". Keen's vision of the Web emphasizes the poor

quality of content delivered to the user "when ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste

meets mob rule".

Summarizing the literature examined, it is possible to identify at least five ways

to view Web 2.0. Some relate it to the natural evolution of the Internet, others

understand it as a recent hype or marketing buzzword, a third group associates Web 2.0

to a new set of internet tools and services, a minority consider it to be a new

philosophy, and lastly, some share a more skeptical view about its real utility. These

views are briefly sketched below.

2.1.1.1. Web 2.0 as the result of Internet's evolution

Identifying Web 2.0 as the result of internet's evolution is John Musser (Musser,

2007) in "Web 2.0 - Principles and Best Practices". He defined it as "a set of economic,

social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of

the internet - a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation,

openness, and network effects". Later on, his colleague Tim O'Reilly (O'Reilly, 2006)

suggested in "Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again" that "Web 2.0 is the business

revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform".

Indeed, much of the Web 2.0 research is associated with this new platform that allows


9

"a paradigm shift (from delivering products) to delivering services that can be used and

combined with other services in new ways and harnessing growth of interactivity with

end users in new ways" (Bernal, 2009). In the same line of reasoning, "Web 2.0 has

therefore been used largely metaphorically to suggest a major software upgrade to the

world wide Web" (Tredinnick, 2006) and "although it sounds like a new generation of

technical development, it is in fact a phenomenal change of the Web" (Chan et al.,

2007).

2.1.1.2. Web 2.0 as a buildup word or momentary hype

Describing Web 2.0 as a buildup word or momentary hype is to accept the term

as a "conceptual umbrella under which analysts, marketers and other stakeholders in the

tech field could huddle the new generation of internet applications and businesses that

were emerging to form the "participatory Web" as we know it today" (Madden & Fox,

2006). It has been more recently asserted that the term "Web 2.0" has became too

popular to be useful as a research concept, and some authors, like Peter Mechant

(2009), author of "A Patchwork of Online Community-based Systems", prefer to

consider the concept of "social software" to be a more appropriate term when referring

to the discourse of innovators and researchers. Helene Snee (Snee, 2008), in "Web 2.0

as a Social Science Research Tool", also agrees with Mechant's perspective and even

states that "Web 2.0 is a social medium which creates and facilitates interactions

between people, in a way that the Web was supposed to be in the early days". Russell

Shawn (Shawn, 2005) writes in “Web 2.0 Does Not Exist” that "Web 2.0 is a marketing

slogan" since the changes occurring to the Web are incremental and therefore cannot

be classified as a pre-defined package that was meant to improve the existing Web.

2.1.1.3. Web 2.0 as a new set of tools or services

Viewing Web 2.0 as a new set of tools or services, Macaskill and Owen

(Macaskill and Owen, 2006) in "Web 2.0 To Go" state that Web 2.0 "describes a range of

increasingly popular Web services that offer users dynamic interactive models of


10

communication combined with the ability to create and share content". "The Web of

documents has morphed into a Web of data. Now we're looking to a new set of tools to

aggregate and remix microcontent in new and useful ways" (Macmanus and Porter,

2005). James McGee (McGee, 2008) supports the same view. In “Email is for Old

People” he asserts that Web 2.0 "describes a collection of Web-based technologies

which share a user-focused approach to design and functionality, where users

participate in content creation and editing through open collaboration between

members of communities of practice". User control is one of the foundations of Web 2.0,

which then enables "users to extract information and data and reuse that information

and data in a flexible way, and enabling them in the process perhaps even to change the

structure of the information system itself" (Tredinnick, 2006). Associated with user

control is users' collaboration since "Web 2.0 represents an environment where

communities of participants with common interests contribute to a collective intelligence

(...) where dynamic, hardware-independent applications can be developed with the help

of customers" (Connolly, 2007). Therefore it is common to think that collaboration in the

development of interfaces with the help of customers allows "end users to view data

quicker" (Bernal, 2009). "Web 2.0 can be seen as triggering a set of recursive social and

technical advances (...) fuelled by a desire for increased openness in the information

economy" (Mason, 2008).

2.1.1.4. Web 2.0 as a philosophy

Web 2.0 as a philosophy is closely related to the view presented above, being

"defined as the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added

value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation"

(Hoegg et al., 2006). This dissertation does not develop the concept of Web 2.0 as a

philosophy but more as a new set of tools and services since this provides the best

measurable way of analysis and is closely related to the outcome of the Web as an

evolution of the Internet. Moreover, this new set of tools can be examined and

evaluated according to their appropriateness for Business Intelligence.


11

2.1.2. Tools and applications in the Web 2.0 world

The first step towards defining Web 2.0 as a source for new tools and

applications came from Tim O'Reilly's (O'Reilly, 2005b) allusion to the concept of Web

2.0 as a platform. In his blog post "Web 2.0: Compact Definition", O'Reilly states that

"Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0

applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform:

delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people

use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users,

while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others,

creating network effects through an "architecture of participation", and going beyond

the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences". In a later post, he added

the following statement to his vision: "Web 2.0 is (...) an attempt to understand the rules

for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that

harness network effects to get better the more people use them - harnessing collective

intelligence." (O'Reilly, 2006).

Some authors, such as Wendy Macaskill and Dylan Owen (Macaskill and Owen,

2006), even believe that the Web may become the (free) operating platform of choice in

the future over paid platforms, such as Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X. Bearing this

idea in mind, there is an obvious interest for businesses to exploit the cost and

operational advantages of such a platform.

In his paper "Enterprise 2.0", Andrew McAfee (McAfee, 2006) calls Web 2.0

technologies the "new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information

(...) popular on the internet". However, he prefers the label "enterprise 2.0" in order "to

focus only on those platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible

the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers". In a similar manner, the concept

of "intranet 2.0" is born, defined as "a paradigm shift that's been building in recent years

where collaboration and free speech reign and users are encouraged to network and

form the content of the intranet site" (Scarf, 2006).


12

Conversely, in "What is Web 2.0?" Paul Anderson (Anderson, 2007) states that

new Web 2.0 tools and applications "are not really technologies as such, but services (or

user processes) built using the building blocks of the technologies and open standards

that underpin the internet and the Web. He calls them concatenations, which means

they make use of existing services.

Despite the variety of interpretations, these new tools have their origins in the

Internet. The Internet has evolved in such a way that new "Web 2.0 services allow users

to increasingly treat the Web, not their pc, as their preferred platform of use" and this is

possible because "Web 2.0 sites and services now provide a range of increasingly

sophisticated and often (free applications) that are beginning to resemble (and

challenge) desktop programs in terms of functionality" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006).

The most relevant of the new Web 2.0 tools and applications presented and

analyzed below:

2.1.2.1. Blogs

Blogs first appeared in the mid-1990s as a simplified way of publishing to the

Web and they represent "an individual's serial journal-like informal postings, typically,

but not necessarily, written by a relative expert and solicits comments from readers"

(McGee, 2008).

Blogs can be characterized by their "greater ease of Web publishing (...) allowing

almost everyone with only a little technological savvy to participate in the discursive

space of the internet" and are viewed as a "cheap way of publishing and became a way

of aggregating Web content for particular ends" (Tredinnick, 2006). Blogs are also used

"as a way for experts to quickly publish their opinions on a plethora of topics for readers

to read and respond to. The collaborative power of blogs usually comes in the form of

reader comments that most blogging technology allows for" (Marshall, 2008). The

collaboration element of blogs, also highlighted in several other Web 2.0 tools, gave


13

birth to the blogosphere, i.e. "a "world" of bloggers operating in their own environment"

(Anderson, 2007).

Blogs are commonly recognized for being "personal, opinionated, unfiltered and

often abandoned after six months", although "subject specialists blogs offer a rich mine

of information for those wanting current updates in their area of interest or expertise. A

blog though, is also an interactive tool. It allows and invites feedback and commentary

on what is posted as well as providing extensive linking to content from other blogs and

sites" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006). Moreover, "bloggers have begun to incorporate

multimedia into their blogs" (Anderson, 2007), such as music, photos, videos (video

blogs, or vlogs) and, "increasingly, bloggers can upload material directly from their

mobile phones (mob-blogging)" (Anderson, 2007).

Although Blogging has existed for over 20 years, it is taking its first steps in a

business environment. Their business application is important since, for instance, "they

may be written by one or two knowledge-area specialists or can be used to generate

input from everyone (...) often used within the corporate website or an extranet

environment to demonstrate expertise to prospective clients, create an environment of

inclusiveness and even to support a work-life balance" (Scarff, 2006).

Information in a blog is mainly structured with the help of links, i.e. "hyperlink, a

reference to a document that the reader can directly follow, or that is followed

automatically" (Wikipedia, 2010). Paul Anderson (Anderson, 2007) aggregated some

examples of linking used within a blog:

Permalink: permanent URL which is generated by the blogging system and is applied

to a particular post. If the item is moved within the database, the permalink stays the

same;

Trackback (or pingback): allows a blogger (A) to notify another blogger (B) that they

have referenced or commented on one of blogger B's posts;

Blogroll: list of links to other blogs that a particular blogger likes or finds useful.


14

2.1.2.2. Microblogging

“Microblogging is a new form of communications in which users can describe

their current status in short posts distributed by instant messages, mobile phones, email

or the Web” (Java et al., 2007). Microblogging is provided by several services including

Twitter, Jaiku and more recently Pownce, which provide a light-weight and easy form of

communication that enables users to broadcast and share information about their

activities, opinions and status, either to the general public or within a social network

(Java et al., 2007). Twitter, for example, allows a user to provide “followers” with

regular updates within 140 characters at time, bringing the concept of quick and cheap

publishing to the internet (Bushey, 2010).

Companies of all shapes and sizes are seizing the opportunities of this digital

word-of-mouth. For big companies, Twitter represents a way to offer special discounts

and opportunities, and for small businesses it presents a free and efficient alternative to

promote goods and services directly to customers. Hence, Twitter has become a new

way to deal with customer relationship management (Ankeny, 2009). Most importantly,

it has become a quick and free way for information to be distributed throughout

companies, regardless of employee location, as long as an internet access is provided.

Businesses that rely on contact lists or are event-driven are positioned to maximize this

social media opportunity (Ankeny, 2009).

2.1.2.3. Wikis

Wikis are a "means of publishing to the Web. Wiki supports the creation of full-

scale websites with its combination of templates, authoring tools and audit trails"

(Tredinnick, 2006). One of the best known examples is Wikipedia, an online

encyclopedia accessible and edited online by anyone. "The wiki is a tool to enable

collaborative authoring" and "the power to edit and update information goes to the

users" (Tredinnick, 2006). This power is also its major drawback since wikis can

misinform or even disseminate false material in the fact that "most reference materials


15

are developed by a small minority of a community, organization, or society" and "the

amount of content included in a wiki will often greatly overshadow most official

reference documents" (Marshall, 2008). Therefore, only so much can be said about the

quality and reliability of its content, or about its community of contributors since "the

experiment of Wikipedia may be a revolutionary experiment in trust, but the number of

users simply perusing Web content far outweighs those that edit it" (Mason, 2008). As a

matter of fact, only 1.37% of Wikipedia's registered users are active contributors to its

content (Wikipedia, 2010). And this raises the question of whether this collaboration

tool really works for environments with less than a couple of hundred users, like small

to medium sized businesses.

Undoubtedly, a wiki "allows multiple authors and editors to contribute

simultaneously and on an ongoing basis to a document" (McGee, 2008) and this is the

main reason why wikis constitute a revolutionary Web 2.0 tool. Paul Anderson (2007)

calls it a "collaborative tool that facilitates the production of a group work" that "unlike

blogs (...) allows previous versions to be examined, and a rollback function, which

restores previous versions". Its major advantage is that they are "free, simple to use and

set up", which makes them "ideal for specific projects and collaborative knowledge

sharing, especially if your group members are in more than one location. For some wikis,

"levels of access and content security can be set" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006). In

businesses wikis "can be used to create a knowledge base or reference for staff,

researchers, sales teams or customer service representatives" (Scarff, 2006).

2.1.2.4. Tags, Folksonomy and Social Bookmarking

The desire to find and share information among small groups, teams and

communities of practice has, not surprisingly, led to the development of a number of

shared bookmarking systems (Millen et al., 2005).

"One of the first large-scale applications of tagging was seen with the

introduction of Joshua Schacter's del.icio.us website, which launched the "social


16

bookmarking" phenomenon" (Anderson, 2007). "This bookmarking service allows users

to store their bookmarks online" and to have them "described, tagged, collaboratively

shared, and searched for by others" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006).

The free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) led to the

appearance of the term "folksonomy", officially coined by Thomas Vander Wal (Wal,

2005). Folksonomy is usually characterized by "end users of a website tagging or adding

keywords to content. Some of the first applications of folksonomy were photos and

internet bookmarks" (Marshall, 2008).

"Folksonomy describes the emergent classification structures that arise as users

"tag" information for their own ends (...) to aid in the classification of information and

knowledge (Tredinnick, 2006). "A folksonomy (a categorization system developed over

time by folks) is in some ways the opposite of a taxonomy, which is an up-front

categorization scheme developed by an expert" (McAfee, 2006). Hence, "folksonomies

rely on the similarities between the ways in which people describe disparate pieces of

information" (Tredinnick, 2006). "Web 2.0 is the interactive Web, where end users can

help define how they might categorize the data. This helped facilitate a change from the

traditional "taxonomy" to the more interactive "folksonomy", where common folks

helped drive the categorization of information in a more meaningful manner" (Bernal,

2009).

Academics, such as Paul Anderson (Anderson, 2007) used a similar tool in the

research of his report, CiteULike, a website that allows its users to add papers to their

personal library and automatically extracts the citation details. It recommends other

articles based on each user's library and fosters information sharing between users.

Particularly, a tag is a keyword that is added to a digital object (e.g. a website,

picture or video clip) to describe it, but not as part of a normal classification system"

(Anderson, 2007).


17

Eventually a new monitoring and

indexing tool for tags was born, the tag

clouds. Tag clouds "are groups of tags from a

number of different users of a tagging

service, which collates information about the

frequency with which particular tags are

used. This frequency information is often

displayed graphically as a "cloud" in which

tags with higher frequency of use are

displayed in larger text" (Anderson, 2007).

Tagging is also associated to picture sharing websites, such as Flickr or

Photobucket, where users usually “tag” someone else’s picture to identify a person. By

using multiple tags on a picture, it is possible to see photos, not only chronologically but

sorted by the people who are in them, who posted them, their locations, the events

they record, etc. (Weinberger, 2005). Recent developments in tagging are related to

tagging video content, by embedding time stamps in a video and referring each mark to

however the author wants to describe that particular timing. An example of this is

"http://redlasso.com/".

2.1.2.5. RSS (Real Simple Syndication)

RSS (or Real Simple Syndication) is a "way of syndicating Web content through

the use of content feeds, that usually combine either a lead paragraph, or a summary of

an article published on the Web or on a blog, and have a hyperlink back to its source"

(Tredinnick, 2006).

"Bloggers use RSS to generate a short notice (i.e. headline) each time they add

new content. (...) That is also a link back to the full content. With RSS, users (...) simply

consult their aggregators, click on headlines of interest and are taken to the new

content" (McAfee, 2006) of "RSS-enabled websites, blogs or podcasts without actually

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud


18

having to go and visit the site. Instead, information from the website is collected within a

feed and "piped" to the user in a process known as syndication" (Anderson, 2007). "To

subscribe to these information feeds (...) you need to download a content aggregator.

You can also customize your RSS to locate content that's appropriate to your needs"

(Macaskill and Owen, 2006) or, alternatively, subscribe to a website, such as Netvibes,

which "provides an interface to aggregated RSS content" (Mason, 2008).

According to Craig Mason (Mason, 2008) RSS "provides a structured and logical

process for distributing content without requiring users to literally engage with a

traditional centralized interface". An example of this would be to use RSS along with

tags, by requesting headlines that contain a collection of keywords, and return this

information as an RSS feed.

Another relevant aspect of RSS is that it "allows websites to constantly display

new updated content as it flows in from different sources across the Web automatically"

(Marshall, 2008), or by "aggregating from many different websites into a single user-

space" (Tredinnick, 2006).

For companies worried about opening up their systems to the internet under the

excuse that they would rather not waste work-time with site exploration, this tool is

particularly useful, since it "allows people and organizations to subscribe to external

content in XML format" (Scarff, 2006), and receive updated relevant information

through their browser or by e-mail.

2.1.2.6. Multimedia sharing

"Popular services take the idea of the "writeable" Web (where users are not just

consumers but contribute actively to the production of Web content) and enable it on a

massive scale (Youtube, Flickr and Odeo)" (Aderson, 2007).

Additionally, "BitTorrent, like other pioneers in the P2P (peer-to-peer) movement,

takes a radical approach to internet decentralization. Every client is also a server; files


19

are broken up into fragments that can be served from multiple locations, transparently

harnessing the network of downloaders to provide both bandwidth and data to other

users" (O'Reilly, 2005).

For businesses, this means having a file sharing system relying on their

employees to act as a fragmented data base; the more users exist, the faster the files

are shared among them. This also facilitates the geographical location of each person

within the same company.

2.1.2.7. Audio blogging and podcasting

"Podcast is simply making audio files available online so that users can then

download them to their desktop" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006). "Interviews and lectures

(...) can be played either on a desktop computer or on a handheld MP3 device. (...)

Podcast listeners subscribe to RSS feeds and receive information about new podcasts as

they become available" (Anderson, 2007). More recently, video files can also reside "on

a website and can be easily downloaded to a handheld device or personal computer"

(McGee, 2008).

This technology is not new and its application to a business environment is

mostly related to e-learning systems, where the users exploit a pre-bought application

or access a website and listen (and/or watch) the education material selected by their

management.

2.1.2.8. Video blogging

As bandwidth capacity increases and server space becomes available, users

became capable of uploading their own content to the Web. A clear success is the case

of You Tube. This website lets users upload, tag, watch, rate, review, and blog video

footage, and even creates playlists. You Tube is one of the fastest growing websites

today. One of its enhancements is letting content creators create and customize their

own broadcast channel (Macaskill and Owen, 2006). Similar to You Tube, users can


20

access Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/) an online community for video content creators to

share their videos among themselves and other users.

2.1.2.9. Mash-up

A mash-up is defined as "Web pages or applications that take data from more

than one (often unrelated) online source and combine it to create new hybrid services

unintended by the original content owners" (Macaskill and Owen, 2006), "to create a

unique view of interpretation" (McGee, 2008). A common example of a mash-up is the

use of Google maps to show business locations within a certain region. An example is

"The rentables" (http://www.therentables.com/), a website to locate houses for rent; it

works its platform under Google maps to show its users where the houses are located.

2.1.2.10. Social networking

Websites such as Facebook or MySpace allow users to set up interactive and

personalized Web profiles detailing personal information such as: education, age,

interests, and hobbies. Users are able to edit and customize their profile page, to display

friends, upload photographs, videos, music, create a blog, post comments on other user

profile pages, and send messages to other users (Macaskill and Owen, 2006).

Furthermore, websites like Linkedin take this personalization to the professional level,

where users can create their professional profiles that include their academic

background and corporate experience and where links are made available to past and

current co-workers and colleagues.

2.1.2.11. MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games)

Virtual worlds are understood as immersive, three-dimensional, multi-media,

multi-person simulation environments, where each participant adopts an alter ego and

interacts with other participants in real time (Wagner, 2008). There are well over a

hundred widely used virtual world applications available today, operating on several

different platforms (Wagner, 2008). Christian Wagner differentiates them in two groups:

http://vimeo.com/


21

purposeful and general purpose virtual worlds. Purposeful worlds are represented by

games such as “World of Warcraft” (or more recently, “Aion”), that require a user to

fulfill a set of quests (i.e. objectives) usually rising in difficulty and complexity. Most of

these objectives are meant to be played online in collaboration with several other users

(hence the acronym MMO). Although these objectives are apart from reality, the author

suggests that the learning experience can be very practical, “such as the impact on

altruistic behavior or the benefits of separation of duties and team work”.

On the other hand, through the use of general purpose virtual worlds, some

authors have suggested that the concept of virtual worlds could be applied to education

(Wagner, 2008; J. King, 2008). Brian King (J. King, 2008) suggests the creation of a

MMORPG dedicated to foster students learning about business in an engaging and

educational simulation game. His point is that current educational strategies do not

prepare graduates for the modern business world and they do not motivate students to

learn.

Another example being used in education (Wagner, 2008) is a virtual world

closely related to the concept of social networking sites called Second Life, “a

subscription based virtual world where registered users interact by building, playing,

working, and flying along side other virtual characters” (Mascaskill and Owen, 2006).

Here, people assume their own life in a game, or prefer to act as someone else in their

interactivity with others. Second Life currently has over 11.2 million registered avatars

and monthly growth rates are in excess of 20%. From a business resources perspective,

virtual worlds such as Second Life provide environments and tools that facilitate

creating online laboratories that can automatically recruit potentially thousands of

research subjects at a low cost (Chesney et al., 2007). Moreover, managers are starting

to realize that a great part of their young workforce are accustomed to playing online

games, and thus are more comfortable with new technological advancements (King,

2008).


22

2.1.2.12. Newer services and applications

"There is such a deluge of new services that it is often difficult to keep track of

what's "out there" or to make sense of what each provides" (Anderson, 2007). Anderson

suggests a way to categorize new services based on what they attempt to do. He

identified seven ways to categorize new services:

Social networking: professional and social networking sites that facilitate meeting

people, finding like minds, sharing content;

Aggregation services: information gathering from diverse sources across the Web

and publish in one place. Includes news and RSS feed aggregators and tools that

create a single webpage with all your feeds and email in one place. Collect and

aggregate user data, user "attention" and intentions;

Data "mash-ups": Web services that pull together data from different sources to

create a new service (i.e. aggregation and recombination);

Tracking and filtering content: services that keep track of, filter, analyze and allow

search of the growing amounts of Web 2.0 content from blogs, multimedia sharing

services, etc;

Collaborating: collaborative reference works (like Wikipedia) that are built using

wiki-like software tools. Collaborative, Web-based project and work group

productivity tools;

Replicate office-style software in the browser: Web-based desktop

application/document tools;

Source ideas or work from the crowd: seek ideas, solutions to problems or get tasks

completed by outsourcing to users of the Web. Uses the idea of power of the crowd.

2.1.3. Technologies Supporting Web 2.0

Several new technologies and concepts supporting the Web 2.0 environment

have become widely noticed. The research conducted for this study revealed some of

the most important ones, namely: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Simple Object Access


23

Protocol (SOAP), Microformats, Social software, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA),

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) and AJAX.

"Web 2.0 is about improving the user interface and enabling end users to view

data quicker" by taking "advantage of the browser as the universal client and provide a

richer interactive experience" (Bernal, 2009). The browser thus becomes the main

platform of use for these new technologies. This is made possible with the use of "key

open standards, flexible, and ever changing technologies" (Marshall, 2008) such as AJAX,

PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor), SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and APIs

(Application Programming Interfaces). These tools "significantly improved one element

of the Web that before was not as powerful: two-way communication and social

networking" (Marshall, 2008), empowering users to be active agents in creating, editing

and managing their own and others' content. Furthermore "there is less emphasis on the

software (as a package: licensed and distributed) and far more on an application

providing a service" (Anderson, 2007), hence the concept of Software as a Service

(SaaS). Most of the world of software is moving to the browser and SaaS – and therefore

to the Web and your local internet (Hinchcliffe (b), 2006).

2.1.3.1. AJAX

"Early Web browsing followed a very structured 3-stage pattern; click, load and

wait" (Mason, 2008). AJAX is a term first coined by Jesse James Garret (Garret, 2005)

and is used to describe a "set of technologies that allow browsers to provide users with a

more natural browsing experience" (Teare, 2005) "with the kind of responsive interfaces

that are commonly found in desktop applications" (Anderson, 2007).

"The key in AJAX is the term asynchronous, (...) a new paradigm for interacting

with the browser, with no need for full-page refreshes" (Bernal, 2009). Information

keeps being updated behind the scenes while the user can focus on something else on

the page. This "improves the dynamism of Web pages through individual techniques

such as Javascript, etc." (Anderson, 2007) and allows "(near) real-time updates of


24

individual elements on-screen" which "brings the user closer to the content provider or

receiver" (Mason, 2008).

Some authors find problems with the safety measurements around the use of

AJAX. Jordan Wiens (Wiens, 2007) states that AJAX "leaves users vulnerable to cross-site

request forgery attacks". As a result, without an update on an AJAX application, it is

possible that someone or something else can act on its own, pretending to be the user.

2.1.3.2. Rich Internet Applications (RIA)

"Browser technology has moved on to a new stage in its development with the

introduction of what are known as RIAs" (Anderson, 2007). A RIA "is a type of Web

application that can run independently of browsers, can run on any operating system

and, in many ways, works like a traditional desktop application" (Rapoza, 2008). The

most common RIA platform is the Flash plug-in, found in 99% of all computers in the

world" (Hinchcliffe, 2005).

The appearance of RIA is not without some controversy. According to Dion

Hinchcliffe (2005), "while the technique getting the most press by far these days is still

AJAX, there are a number of new approaches that are intent on dislocating this (...)

browser software model. The new upcoming RIAs are not only easy, but far more cost-

effective and with features that AJAX might never be able to match (Hinchcliffe, 2005).

However, Hinchcliffe (2005) agrees that many of these new application models are

breaking the model of the Web that requires the use of add-ons to the browser, and

thus these new applications have, according to him "considerably less ability to trigger

network effects". For this researcher "the right combination of features is still being

sought" for the perfect RIA.


25

2.1.3.3. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

According to Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz (Rotem-Gal-Oz, 2007), looking beyond the

hype and misconceptions related to SOA, this technology can be examined from two

main points of view, from a business perspective and a technical one.

From a business point of view, SOA analyzes a business to indentify its discrete

areas of interest and its business processes in order to suggest services for these areas

through message interfaces. The services can be choreographed or orchestrated to

realize the business processes. The goal of SOA is to increase the alignment between

business and IT and achieve business agility – the ability to respond to changes quickly

and efficiently (Rotem-Gal-Oz, 2007).

From a technical perspective, SOA is commonly thought of as architecture or an

architectural style that builds on loosely coupled, interoperable and compositional

components of software agents called services. Services have well-defined interfaces

based on standard protocols as well as policies that govern how these interfaces can be

used by service customers (Rotem-Gal-Oz, 2007; Anderson, 2007).

Web services for simple functions and tasks are being developed and integrated

together in the form of SOAs to provide advanced functions to the users. The increasing

use of SOA, interoperable Web services, and public APIs has helped the communication

between applications to applications, in a loosely coupled way (Chan et al., 2007).

2.1.3.4. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

At the foundation of Web 2.0 technologies are APIs. An API is "a system whereby

third party applications can query, display and even update content of other websites

autonomously" (Mason, 2008). In the Web 2.0 context, "an open API doesn't require the

programmer to license or pay royalties. Such "open" APIs have helped Web 2.0 services

develop rapidly and have facilitated the creation of mash-ups of data from various

sources" (Anderson, 2007). Nevertheless, although APIs and other similar tools "are


26

appearing fairly steadily (...) capable tools for creating new mashups still seem lacking.

(...)The advantage of in-browser mashups is the complete portability and mobility they

offer (Hinchcliffe, 2006).

2.1.3.5. Microformats

Microformats are widely used by Web developers to embed semi-structured

semantic information (i.e. some level of “meaning”) with an XHTML webpage (Khare et

al., 2006). Microformats allow bloggers or website owners to embed information that

services and applications can make use of without the need to visit the application’s

website and add the data (Anderson, 2007).

2.1.3.6. Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)

Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) is an XML-based protocol that defines a

framework for passing messages between systems over the internet (Loshin, 2000). In

other words, SOAP is a protocol (hence, containing several instructions) to facilitate

communication between programs over http – another protocol that is supported by all

internet browsers and servers and is thus readable in any computer. Therefore, SOAP

makes use of current widely available standards (for internet browsers) to facilitate

communication between programs.

Similar to SOAP, Representational State Transfer (REST) is an architectural idea

and set of principles that uses the Web and which provides a simple communications

interface using XML and http. According to Anderson the difference between them is

that the use of SOAP is heavyweight and REST is lightweight (Anderson, 2007).

2.2. Business Intelligence

In 1958, Hans Peter Luhn gave birth to the term Business Intelligence (BI) in his

article "A Business Intelligence System". For him, intelligence represents "the ability to

apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action

towards a desired goal" and in order to make that happen, he suggests that "an


27

automatic system is needed which can accept information in its original form,

disseminate the data promptly to the proper places and furnish information on

demand". In this sense, he fashioned the Business Intelligence System, which can be

represented by "data processing machines" that working "together with proper

communication facilities and input-output equipment" allow the accommodation of "all

information problems of an organization" (Luhn, 1958).

Later on, BI became a popularized umbrella term coined and promoted by

Howard Dresner of the Gartner Group in 1989 (Power, 2007). At the time, Dresner "was

seeking a term that would elevate the debate and better define the analysis of

quantitative information by a wide variety of users (Martens, 2006). In a more recent

interview for Computer World, Dresner states that despite the fact that BI might have

evolved differently from what he expected "it's all about ways to deliver information to

end users without needing them to be experts in operational research" (Martens, 2006).

Indeed, today "the integration of (...) information systems architecture, human

resources, and selection and use of information is still not enough". BI is about "putting

together human resources that collaborate and share knowledge with a good

information technology system that distributes useful information, enabling the

generation of individual and group capacities" (Rodrigues, 2002).

2.2.1. Business (Intelligence)

The evaluation of the applicability of business intelligence in a business context

can be addressed by answering three questions: Why is it important? To whom is it

being targeted? How is it being used?

2.2.1.1. Why BI?

"With the help of BI, companies learn to anticipate the actions of their customers

and competitors as well as different phenomena and trends of their market areas and

fields of activity. Companies then use the information and knowledge generated to

support their operative and strategic decision-making" (Hannula, 2003). Additionally,


28

"When effectively integrated into processes, BI can help an organization meet many

mission-critical goals" (Felix, 2009). These decisions may eventually lead to compulsory

adjustments within the company. According to Richard Hackathorn, "information can

only benefit the business when some action changes the course of some business

process" and to have value, it "must improve your products, enhance interactions with

customers or have similar impacts" (Hackathorn, 2001).

Alternatively, BI deployment may be triggered because management requires

the translation of the company's strategy into a "detailed set of indicators that are closer

to the operational tasks" that allow employees to better understand a company's needs

(Golfarelli, 2004). The need to accommodate data into simpler indicators can be

explained by the rise of available data. In effect, "according to Gartner Group, by 2012,

global companies will have to handle 30 times more data than they do in 2004" and for

this reason, control over key data is becoming a key success factor for businesses

(O'Connell, 2004).

Lastly, "High on the list of factors feeding the burgeoning growth rate of BI is an

increasingly regulatory environment for businesses. Government regulations, primarily in

the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US and the Combined Code on Corporate

Governance in the UK, are fueling the drive to make companies more honest and open

with their corporate information and in their external reporting" (O'Connell, 2004).

In a nutshell, individuals and businesses invest in BI systems because they want

to achieve corporate goals, they need a better grasp on the universe of data available in

the market, or because they feel the necessity of adapting to marketplace changes.

2.2.1.2. Who uses BI?

Several authors state that the key to improving the quality and timeliness of

information is to implement a holistic, user-centered analytical framework that is

designed to enhance decision-making across the entire value chain and at all levels of

the organization - staff-level workers and executive decision-makers (O'Connell, 2004;


29

Foody, 2009). "At senior managerial levels, it is the input to strategic and tactical

decisions. At lower managerial levels, it helps individuals to do their day-to-day job"

(Negash et al., 2003).

In fact, research estimates that "an increasing number of firms will target more

of their budgets toward technology initiatives that deliver information to line- and staff-

level workers and less for strategic decision making" (O'Connell, 2004).

Patrick Foody makes an important point when he states that "analysts need

applications that are user-driven, not application-driven" (Foody, 2009). The concept of

the "business power user", introduced by Rick Sherman, reflects the veracity of this

statement, since it refers to the business employee as a user that is comfortable with

technology, enjoys using cool tools and is savvy about IT processes (Sherman, 2009). In

this sense, "the BI industry needs to turn its approach inside out and start with the user

than being bound by what the technology can do" (Foody, 2009).

"In next-generation companies, however, innovation is pushed beyond the

boundaries of the company. Customers, suppliers and strategic partners are all involved

in making the company an innovative leader" (Rodrigues, 2002).

2.2.1.3. How is BI being used?

"Companies should not expect a full-scale implementation from the start, as this

may be counterproductive" (Thompson, 2009).

The third subject tackles a recommended process with which companies can

follow to implement a Business Intelligence system.

The first step is to define information sources. Companies consider their own

personnel as their most important source of information. As for external sources, they

frequently use customers, market research institutes and competitors (Hannula, 2003).

Knowing the fonts of information allow a business to deploy its BI gathering

strategy. Richard Hackathorn suggests an approach to evaluate BI that incorporates the


30

following steps: observation (looking inside the business); understanding (the dynamics

of the business); predicting (the future state of key business variables); reacting

(executing a course of action); and reorganization (improving business processes by

refining best practices) (Hackathorn, 2001).

Finally, companies may recruit internal power users to persuade other

colleagues to embrace and adopt new BI tools. "Because the power user is typically

involved from the earliest stage of the project, he or she will likely become the most

ardent advocate for the new system" (Sherman, 2009).

Providing managers and staff with accurate, intuitive, and easily interpretable

data is one-third of the recipe for improvement. However, information is only as strong

as how it is interpreted, and data brings two problems to the table: interpretation itself

is subjective and people may only see from one point-of-view; and then, too much focus

on small bits of information may deter one from seeing the bigger picture and thus

focusing attention on too narrow BI system outcomes can bring disaster. For these

reasons it is imperative, beyond providing employees with "accurate, intuitive, and

easily interpretable data", to assure the alignment with strategic objectives and a

system for accountability (Wadsworth et al., 2009).

2.2.2. Concepts and definitions

BI is generally knowledge, "typically obtained about customer needs, customer

decision-making process, the competition, conditions in the industry, and general

economic, technological, and cultural trends. BI was born within the industrial world in

the early 90's to satisfy the managers' request for efficiently and effectively analyzing

the enterprise data in order to better understand the situation of their business and

improving the decision process" (Golfarelli, 2004).

Nevertheless, "current literature on BI has proved to be fairly sketchy and

theoretical" since "there is no generally agreed conception of BI but, rather, each author

has promoted his or her own idea of its connotations" (Hannula, 2003).


31

Defining BI can be classified under different categories: as a system to support

decision making (Negash et al., 2003, Power, 2005, Rouibah et al., 2002, Canes, 2009,

Felix, 2009), as a set of technologies (Power, 2005, Foody, 2009), as a systematic

approach to search data and information (Hannula, 2003, Cody et al., 2002) or, for some

authors, as a illustration of all categories before mentioned (Adelman et al., 2002,

Negash et al., 2003).

2.2.2.1. BI as a support for decision-making

Behind the idea of BI as a support for decision-making is Solomon Negash and

Paul Gray, who assert that BI is "a natural outgrowth of a series of previous systems

designed to support decision making" (Negash et al, 2003), and as "a set of concepts and

methods to improve business decision making by using fact-based support systems"

(Power, 2005). Moreover, BI can be viewed as "a strategic approach for systematically

targeting, tracking, communicating and transforming relevant weak signs into

actionable information on which strategic decision-making is based". In other words, BI

is "a systematic approach by which a company keeps itself vigilant and aware of

developments and early warning signs in its external environment in order to anticipate

business opportunities or threats" (Rouibah et al., 2002). More recently, the focus on

knowledge gathering has shifted from outside the organization to the inside. Thus, BI is

defined today as "the ability to extract actionable insight from data available to the

organization, both internal and external, for the purposes of supporting decision-making

and improving corporate performance" (Canes, 2009), and more importantly, "to

improve information and enable employees to take action" (Felix, 2009).

2.2.2.2. BI as a technology

To refer to BI as a technology is to say that it is "a term that some financial

analysts and commentators use for categorizing a small group of software vendors and

their products" (Power, 2005). Additionally, "BI is often described as a technology that


32

helps users visualize their business. It must be easy to understand, simple to use, and

relatively intuitive" (Foody, 2009).

John K. Thompson explores the idea of BI being delivered via Software-as-a-

Service (SaaS): "BI SaaS goes much further, allowing companies to outsource the analysis

of multiple terabytes of information as part of an overall business intelligence strategy".

The motivation behind this new solution is that "BI SaaS enables firms to implement

data analytics initiatives in a fraction of the time and capital expenditure required by

traditional installations" (Thompson, 2009).

2.2.2.3. BI as a systematic approach to information and data finding

BI, as a systematic approach to information and data finding, is "defined as

organized and systematic processes, which are used to acquire, analyze and disseminate

information significant to business activities" (Hannula, 2003). This information has its

origin in databases. "Business intelligence has applied the functionality, scalability, and

reliability of modern database management systems to build ever-larger data

warehouses, and to utilize data mining techniques to extract business advantage from

the vast amount of available enterprise data" (Cody et al., 2002).

Data warehousing is "a systematic approach to collecting relevant business data

into a single repository, where it is organized and validated so that it can be analyzed

and presented in a form that is useful for business decision-making" (Cody et al., 2002).

2.2.2.4. BI in general terms

In more general terms, BI "combines data gathering, data storage, and

knowledge management with analytical tools to present complex and competitive

information to planners and decision makers" (Negash et al., 2003).

Business Intelligence normally describes the result of in-depth analysis of

detailed business data. It includes database and application technologies, as well as

analysis practices. BI is sometimes used synonymously with "decision support", though


33

business intelligence is technically much broader, potentially encompassing knowledge

management, enterprise resource planning, and data mining, among other practices

(Adelman et al., 2002).

2.2.2.5. Competitive Intelligence (CI)

Related to the concept of BI is Competitive Intelligence (CI). CI can be defined as

"a systematic and ethical program for gathering, analyzing and managing external

information that can affect your company's plans, decisions and operations" (Negash et

al., 2003). CI can also provide information about the present and future behavior of

competitors, suppliers, customers, technologies, acquisitions, markets, and the general

business environment (Vedder et al., 2002).

The purpose of CI is to gather actionable information about competitors and,

ideally, apply it to a business' short and long term strategic planning. CI can be simple –

scanning a company’s annual report and other public documents – or more elaborate –

hiring a security specialist to penetrate a competitor’s defenses (Ettorre, 1995).

For the purposes of this dissertation the analysis of BI presented here is

sufficient to understanding the general applications of what is meant by the term

Competitive Intelligence.

2.2.3. Purpose of BI

"Business intelligence is used to understand: the capabilities available in the firm;

the state of the art, trends, and future directions in the markets, the technologies, and

the regulatory environment in which the firm competes; and the actions of competitors

and the implications of these actions" (Negash et al., 2003).

Despite the several views about the meaning of BI, there appears to be a certain

agreement towards its purpose. Solomon Negash and Paul Gray (Negash et al., 2003)

present the following statement which generally describes BI's purpose:


34

"Business intelligence systems provide actionable information delivered at the

right time, at the right location, and in the right form to assist decision makers" (Negash

et al., 2003).

Time, in reference to BI, is related to "shrinking the information time window so

that the intelligence is still useful to the decision maker when the decision time comes"

(Negash et al., 2003), which means seeking to shorten the time between data gathering

and information clearance to decision makers. Additionally, because BI systems "present

complex corporate and competitive information", there is a need "to improve the

timeliness and quality of the input to the decision process" (Negash et al., 2003). Overall,

several other authors support that information must be promptly available to decision-

makers (Hannula, 2003, Luhn, 1958, Foody, 2009).

Location refers to the destiny of the information, and it can assume many forms.

For instance, Hans Peter Luhn (Luhn, 1958) states that "the objective of the system is to

supply suitable information to support specific activities carried out by individuals,

groups, departments, divisions, or even larger units. The admission or acquisition of new

information, its dissemination, storage retrieval and transmittal to the action points it

serves". Another author assumes that the "purpose of BI is to gather and provide

information to help managers make more "intelligent" decisions" (Power, 2005). "For

most companies the driving force behind starting BI activities has been a need to obtain

knowledge about the business environment and its development to support operative

actions" (Hannula, 2003). In the end, the place for information to be is near the decision

maker, whether he or she is at the top or bottom-level of the organization.

Form is an important trait of BI, that is, how information is presented to

decision-makers. Nevertheless, "many BI professionals believe that the BI job is finished

when the right information is delivered to the right person at the right time"

(Hackathorn, 2001). Although a "Business Intelligence System provides means for

selective dissemination to each of its action points in accordance with their current


35

requirements or desires" (Luhn, 1958), sometimes "the technology (...) interferes and

confuses rather than helps the user" (Foody, 2009).

2.2.4. Advantages of BI

"As the cost dropped, the number of users seeking to take advantage of a BI/DW

implementation grew" (Thompson, 2009). Costs in this area are still too high for

companies to benefit. Many analysts judge that BI solutions are out of reach for small

and medium companies who can't afford them (Negash et al., 2003; Thompson, 2009;

Canes, 2009; Wagsworth, 2009).

However, for those who can afford it, BI can bring several advantages, among

which are the following:

Gaining insight from data that improves decision-making and risk mitigation (Canes,

2009);

Deploying analytic databases and software across multiple locations (Thompson,

2009);

Providing the analytical edge that sustains innovative programs for success over the

long term (Felix, 2009);

Sparking creative adaption designed to counter issues that could show down

ongoing campaigns (Felix, 2009).

According to the empirical study conducted by Dr. Mika Hannula (Hannula, 2003)

on the top 50 Finnish Companies, the following benefits of BI were rated as important:

Harmonizing the ways of thinking of company personnel;

Broadening understanding of business in general;

Strengthening strategic planning;

Increasing professionalism in acquisition and analysis of information;

Understanding the meaning of information.

Even though several benefits can be found to support BI practice within an

entrepreneurial context, the truth is that "most BI benefits are soft" (Negash et al.,


36

2003), as they often have "constraints that (...) seem to prevent them from taking

advantage of analytics" (Thompson, 2009). For this reason, John K. Thompson

(Thompson, 2009) states some advantages of using BI through Software as a Service

(SaaS), as an alternative to current solutions:

Value-based proofs-of-concept can be created in a matter of days;

Attractive to midsize companies as well as departments and divisions of large

corporations that seek to implement cost-effective, quick, and dynamic data

analytics projects;

Costs are reduced, performance is guaranteed, and full business insight is enjoyed;

The client may specify a service-level agreement.

2.2.5. Potential drawbacks and risks of BI

"Traditionally, data warehousing and analytic implementations cost too much"

(Thompson, 2009). One of the major drawbacks of BI is the difficulty in determining its

return on investment (ROI). This is mainly driven by BI's high up-front and upkeep costs

(Negash et al., 2003; Thompson, 2009; Canes, 2009; Wadsworth et al., 2009).

"Unfortunately, although reductions in information systems cost from efficiencies (e.g.

time saved in creating and distributing reports, operating efficiencies, ability to retain

customers) can be forecast, the IT savings are only a small portion of the payoff. It would

be rare for a BI system to pay for itself through cost reductions" (Negash et al., 2003).

"Too many firms have concluded that the level of work required to implement a

traditional data warehouse and make it a success will not produce the required return on

investment" (Thompson, 2009).

Furthermore, even though "costs of deployment (...) still continue to be the most

obvious limiting factor", some "companies must still move existing data into the new

systems themselves". In other cases "IT professionals, already strained to the hilt, are

loath to assume greater responsibilities, especially projects that often deliver benefits

only to a particular department instead of the entire enterprise". One the other hand, in

some cases "Dedicated data warehouse for individual departments may be overkill"


37

(Thompson, 2009). However, whenever a company wants to shift to a less expensive BI

solution, it has to face what John K. Thompson (Thompson, 2009) calls an "unwanted

trade-off: lower technology costs were being replaced by the higher costs the IT staff

needed to maintain a system, along with the cost of frequent technology updates".

"Tapping the power of business intelligence is not simple, and the investment in

personnel and infrastructure can be significant" (Wadsworth et al., 2009). Besides

implementation costs, "putting a BI system in place includes: hardware costs, software

costs (...) and personnel costs" (Negash et al., 2003; Canes, 2009). Other typical barriers

to the deployment of BI systems are their complexity, and associated time and effort

spent by people to support those same systems (Canes, 2009).

The cost of workforce time and effort with the deployment and exploitation of

such systems cannot easily be estimated and its benefits are in some cases doubtful.

Actually, "Business analysts are drowning in a sea of data but unable to obtain the

knowledge they need to address the more difficult business problems" (Foody, 2009) and

"The sheer mass of the possibly relevant content can make analysis a daunting task"

(Felix, 2009). Analysts thus continue to sustain negative judgments about BI. On one

hand, "traditional business intelligence tools (...) appear to offer little insight" (Foody,

2009). On the other hand, the offered tools "require complex queries that can be written

only by experts, and information is often delivered several days or weeks after it was first

requested" (Foody, 2009; Thompson, 2009).

Another limiting factor related to BI systems is their inability to account for

knowledge gained from experience, i.e. tacit knowledge, in contrast to explicit

knowledge, "the one incorporated in manuals, handbooks, databases and procedures".

"Up to recently, companies have overlooked the first one (tacit) and emphasized the

latter one (explicit)" (Rodrigues, 2002).

"Business Intelligence terms and practices in companies have not yet become

very well established. Most firms think of BI activities as a process focusing on

monitoring the competitive environment around them" (Hannula, 2003).


38

Lastly, another problem identified with BI implementation is expectations.

"When evaluating a BI project's benefits you risk setting user expectations too high"

which given the problems abovementioned, "the tools to be used for client-based

analytics and reporting may not be what users expect" (Thompson, 2009).

2.2.6. BI tools

Business Intelligence software extends from software sold for querying a

database and creating a report (Power, 2005), to complex and expensive BI services. BI

platforms in 2001 were a $5.5 billion market. By the end of 2010, business intelligence

services are estimated to amount to at least $15 billion annually (Power, 2001).

Today, companies and managers are beginning to ask IT vendors for new

development tools capable of handling the changed business scenario. On the

technological side, companies are seeking to outsource information systems to cut fixed

costs. On the organizational side, in order to reduce costs they are adopting an end-to-

end strategy that involves both customers and suppliers to synchronize all business

activities (Golfarelli, 2004).

In their study to classify Business Intelligence in healthcare organizations, Ton Spil,

Robert Sterwee and Christian Teitink used a functional classification of BI tools that

utilized criteria based on the work of Alter (1977) (Spil et al., 2002):

Data oriented tools: may require the end-user to have knowledge of both the

relational structure of the databases and tables and SQL language.

o File drawer systems: in most cases queries are made by specialists. End-

users use these queries by defining variables;

o Database query tools: give more possibilities to the end-user in asking

questions at the database management system (the database).

Decision oriented tools: decision support tools (DSS) allow end-users to turn data

into information.


39

o Spreadsheets: mainly provide functionalities in the area of reports and

statistical operations;

o Online Analytical Processing (OLAP): category of software technology that

enables employees to gain insight into data through fast, consistent,

interactive access to a wide variety of possible views of information that

has been transformed from raw data to reflect the real dimensionality of

the enterprise as understood by the user.

Model oriented tools: data mining is the search for characteristic patterns or

regularity in the database:

o Neural networks: network architectures that "learn" how problems have

to be solved;

o Induction: extraction of information by generalizing from within the

database;

o Statistics: the end-user himself describes the model, which the computer

uses to analyze the data;

o Visualization: the analysis will be performed by the end-user himself,

behind the screen.

In this chapter it was possible to grasp how Web 2.0 tools are seen and what

contributions they can make towards information organization. Similarly for BI, what

impact it has made on corporate information gathering and what are the major

drawbacks BI systems have been facing. The next chapter involves building a framework

model of Web 2.0 principles, which supports the discussion on how they can help

improve BI systems.


40

III. Model development

As stated in the introduction, the main purpose of this dissertation is to

understand whether or not and how Web 2.0 tools can improve BI gathering and assess

how they can assist organizations to apply this intelligence throughout any company’s

hierarchy. Considering the research collected on what defines Web 2.0 and BI, this

chapter aims to present a resultant framework model, created with the intention to

aggregate the main principles that surround Web 2.0 tools according to the authors that

have formulated clear ideas about them. The purpose of this model is to provide the

reader with an understandable, solid and well-founded insight on how Web 2.0 can

support BI.

3.1. Procedure conducted

The model used to assess the research question is based on three types of data:

A foundation that represents the key principles of Web 2.0 - based on by the work

developed by Tim O'Reilly, Paul Anderson and John Musser;

An accessory foundation that evaluates Web 2.0 according to criteria different from

the base foundation - formulated in the work developed by other theorists and

researchers;

A set of supporting theories, which aim to explain the details behind each Web 2.0

tool analyzed - based on descriptions by specialists of each tool.

The tools considered for analysis are those already identified and scrutinized in

the literature review and are subject to an analysis of their appropriateness to BI based

on their characteristics, advantages and potential drawbacks. These tools are blogs,

micro blogs, wikis, tags, RSS, multimedia sharing, audio blogging, video blogging, mash-

ups, social networking, MMORPGs and others.


41

The following table represents the guiding principles applied in this dissertation's model

development:

Web 2.0 tools

T1 T2 T3 T4

T5 T6 T7 T8

T9 T10 T11 T12

Defining the rules by

which Web 2.0 tools should abide.

Foundation

Evaluating Web 2.0

tools according to other criteria.

Accessory foundation

Supporting theories

Supporting the

informational content for each Web 2.0 tool.

Tx Tool “x”

3.2. Assessing Business Intelligence as a measurable concept

In order to analyze the impact of Web 2.0 on BI gathering it is necessary to

identify BI features upon which to test Web 2.0 principles. This segment aims to explain

the process followed to do so.

According to the state-of-the-art, BI can assume many roles in and present

several opportunities for a company, but also presents many potential drawbacks and

risks. To assess BI as a measurable concept, the parameters subject to investigation

consist of the characteristics that define BI, the advantages of BI offerings and the

potential drawbacks and risks associated found in the supporting literature.


42

On one hand, Web 2.0 principles are tested to see the degree of compliance

towards BI basic characteristics. These have been taken from the literature review

conducted for BI and briefly summarized in the table below:

BI as a support for decision making The set of tools and capabilities that allow a company to extract insight from internal and external sources of data, track that data, and spread the insight throughout the company to support decision-making and improve performance.

BI as a technology The group of software vendors and their offering of easy to understand, simple and intuitive tools that help a company's personnel to understand their business.

BI as a systematic approach to information and data finding The systematic activities of collecting business data, storing it in data warehouses and, through the use of data mining techniques so as to extract valuable information for the company.

Additionally, the second set of parameters corresponds to the advantages

offered by BI to evaluate how well Web 2.0 can keep with current BI offerings. Likewise,

the problems of BI represent parameters (or challenges) for Web 2.0 principles to

overcome.

Advantages to accomplish Challenges to overcome Easiness of data acquisition and

analysis; Accessibility to information; Capability to foster creativity; Provision of business insight; Contribution to strategic planning; Capability of Customization.

High cost; Low return on investment and

low savings; Time and effort consuming; Local beneficiaries only; Overwhelming information

output; Lack of tacit knowledge

representation; Poor user experience.

These BI parameters are henceforth used to indicate whether a Web 2.0 benefit

contributes to BI improvement and, if it does, what methods or tools are available to

fulfill that request.


43

3.3. Building the new framework for Web 2.0

Current literature discloses two ways to approach the utilization of Web 2.0.

Essentially, authors either suggest how companies should adjust new Web 2.0 tools to

procedures performed inside a company's firewall, while others, such as Tim O'Reilly,

emphasize specifically how to make use of Web 2.0 tools to build better client

relationships.

In 2005, Tim O'Reilly published an article that aimed to clarify what Web 2.0

meant. His purpose was to demystify which startups truly belonged to Web 2.0. He

presented seven ideas behind the success stories of Web 1.0 and its most interesting

applications which, according to him, represent the core competencies of Web 2.0

companies.

Similarly, Paul Anderson (Anderson, 2007) developed six "big" ideas based on the

concepts originally outlined by Tim O'Reilly. In his paper, he tried to explain Web 2.0 as

more than just a global information space, but instead "something with much more of a

social angle to it". His focus was mainly on collaboration, contribution and community.

Lastly, John Musser (Musser, 2007) presented a set of eight underlying patterns

that, according to him, are essential to success in Web 2.0.

An extended list of authors from different backgrounds and suggesting different

approaches to Web 2.0 would provide a more complete foundation to build this

framework model. However, the list of chosen authors for this research provides

enough positive evidence to answer the research question.


44

The foundation of this study summarizes and extrapolates utilizations for BI

gathering from the essential knowledge obtained from the frameworks of ideas

presented by each of the abovementioned authors. As a result of their developments,

the foundation is a new diagram of Web 2.0 principles, presented below:

O’Reilly, 2005 Anderson, 2007 Musser, 2007Web 2.0 Framework

Data is the next “Intel Inside”

Data on an epic scaleData is the next “Intel

Inside”Contribution to data

generation

The web as a platform

Harnessing collective intelligence

End of the software release cycle

Lightwieght programming models

Software above the level of a single device

Rich user experiencesIndividual productionand user gen. content

Harnessing the power of the crowd

Architecture of participation

Network effects and the long tail

Openness

Rich user experiences

Software above the level of a single device

Perpetual beta

Innovation in assembly

Leveraging the long tail

Programming models and scalability

Openness to collective intelligence

Ability to use as a platform

Technological accessibility

Openness to user contribution and

experience

Portability promotion

Harnessing collectiveintelligence

n.a.

The parameters in the left column of the diagram represent the Web 2.0

principles and each results from the identification of common traits among each

author's characterizations of Web 2.0. For instance, the Web 2.0 principle of

"contribution to data generation" results from the authors' developments on "Data is

the next Intel inside" (O'Reilly, 2005; Musser, 2007) and "Data on an epic scale"

(Anderson, 2007). Using a thorough cross-analysis it was possible to clearly identify

common traits among the characteristics of Web 2.0 presented by different authors.

The resulting principles are used to define the structure of this research and,

along with other relevant details from the reviewed literature, this diagram systematizes

the ways in which Web 2.0 can contribute to BI improvement.


45

In order to successfully analyze both new Web 2.0 and BI, the following sections

are organized according to the principles of Web 2.0 presented in the diagram

abovementioned. In each section, key author findings are summarily explored bearing in

mind the information gathered from the foundation, accessory foundation and

supporting theories.

3.3.1. Contribution to data generation

Database management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies and every

significant internet application to date has been backed by a specialized database, such

as Google's Web crawl and Amazon's database of products (O'Reilly, 2005). Part of the

reason why data is of such importance in Web 2.0 is because it is seen as a resource that

can be repurposed, reformatted and reused through techniques like open APIs and

mashups (Miller, 2005). Hence, as the market shifted away from desktop to a model of

shared online services, it became increasingly less about function (i.e. how the service is

provided) alone, and more about data control (i.e. richness of the service). The latter

became the new source of competitive advantage, which therefore required companies

to set data and product strategies (Musser, 2007).

Data can have several classes (location, identity, calendaring of public events,

product identifiers, namespaces, etc.) and many origins. Where there is a significant cost

to create the data, there may be an opportunity for what O'Reilly calls an "intel inside"

style play, in which the entity holding data may become a specialized and reliable

supplier for that data. Alternatively, success may come from the data holding entity that

aggregates the most users/clients (O'Reilly, 2005).

An example of Web 2.0 data generation success is the case of Google. According

to Paul Anderson, companies like Google have database management and networking

as core competencies and have developed the ability to collect and manage this data on

an epic scale. Google now has a total database measured in hundreds of petabytes,

which is swelled each day by terabytes of new information (Anderson, 2007). This is the


46

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/Network_effect

result of what the author calls "network effect". Data is collected

indirectly from users and aggregated as a side effect of the

ordinary use of major Internet services and applications

(Anderson, 2006), which means that the more people use them,

the more valuable they become.

Another example of Web 2.0 capabilities can be found in

Google Maps, which provides a living laboratory for the

competition between application vendors and their data suppliers.

Google's lightweight programming model has led to the creation

of numerous value-added services in the form of mashups that link

Google Maps with other internet-accessible data sources (O'Reilly,

2005), which presents a new way to make data provide new and

useful insight.

The important aspects of Web 2.0's contribution to data generation are:

The technological advancements of online data base solutions for storing data

facilitates current companies' data management;

Controlling data and making use of APIs and mashups to provide customizable

information to users makes data become more accessible to users;

The network effect allows data providers to collect and aggregate data indirectly

from users usage of internet services and applications, delivering more accurate and

tacit data to users.

3.3.2. Openness to collective intelligence

Openness to collective intelligence describes a quality of Web 2.0 that allows

users to configure content in ways that seem most logical and easily manipulated by

them. In order to clearly differentiate this capability from the openness to user

contribution and experience, the former results from an intention of the user to change

the way in which content is presented, while the latter represents an information layout


47

that unconsciously results from the usage that users make of a certain system. The

former does not account for tacit knowledge, while the latter attempts to do so.

Web 2.0 software is "inherently designed to harness collective intelligence

through an architecture of participation" (Anderson, 2007). Ergo, the barrier of product

adoption is being minimized because users contribute for product design and growth,

becoming "the engine of better products, rapid growth, and new markets" (Anderson,

2007). Since the value of the service increases as more people start to use it (Klemperer,

2006), the network effects generated from users contributions (in blogs, wikis, etc.)

deepens (Anderson, 2007) and plays a key role (O'Reilly, 2005). This is supported by

what Paul Anderson refers to as "the wisdom of crowds", to demonstrate that some

problems can be solved more effectively by groups operating according to specific

conditions, than by the most intelligent individual member of that group (Anderson,

2007).

Similarly, a practice called crowdsourcing is becoming increasingly popular in the

Web 2.0 environment. This term was first coined in 2006 by Jeff Howe (Howe, 2006) to

refer to the process of Web-based outsourcing for the procurement of media content,

small tasks, even solutions to scientific problems from the crowd gathered on the

internet (Anderson, 2007). This reveals that users rely on the power of the intelligence

present online to find solutions to their problems.

There are several examples in the literature worth mention as they clarify the

potential of Web 2.0 tools for collective intelligence:

Hyperlinking: as users produce new content and add new sites, the structure of the

Web is altered and manipulated by other users discovering that content and linking

to it (O'Reilly, 2005). Linking page generally facilitates knowledge sharing of subjects

that share common traits. The more links to a page the easier it gets to access it;

RSS allows users to be notified of several kinds of information (such as blog entries,

stock quotes updates, weather data, photo availability, etc.) via Web which has been


48

previously selected by them (O'Reilly, 2005). RSS acts as an information filter for

content distribution that can be either customized by the user or, in some cases, by

the department responsible for sharing information to employees in a company;

Blogging is Web 2.0's best example of openness to collective intelligence. The

blogosphere is powerful because of its ability to direct the user to pages that he

might find useful. Because the blogging community is said to be highly self-

referential, if bloggers pay attention to other bloggers that magnifies their visibility

and power (O'Reilly, 2005).

Similar to blogging, Wikis also contribute to harness collective intelligence given

their capability to manage input from several different users at the same time.

The use of folksonomies also reflects the power of the community (Anderson, 2007)

since they are the result of people using their own vocabulary in order to add explicit

meaning to information. Similar to hyperlinking, folksonomies allows the user to

associate name tags to his content that facilitate other users finding it.

It is useful to notice that the openness to collective intelligence promoted by

Web 2.0 not only engages users to become more participative in building the service

itself, but also allows them access to new insights as more and more users contribute to

the service. Harnessing collective intelligence is creating an architecture of participation

that allows users to add value to an application either directly through active

participation or indirectly as a side-effect of their actions (Musser, 2007), which thus

gives rise to the network effect (Anderson, 2007). Several Web 2.0 tools are molding

how information is generated and how it is delivered to the user. The ways of

information spreading are no longer restrict to the dominant traditional media nor to

information specialists, but free for everyone with enough interest to publish.


49

From: http://stephaniefierman.com/category/blogs

3.3.3. Ability to use as a platform

Thanks to the evolution from the static Web to today's dynamism of websites,

the Web is becoming a platform with enough potential to replace desktop operating

systems. This is mainly due to the recent shift from proprietary control to open

standards (Musser, 2007) that facilitate the use of technologies such as AJAX to turn

Web applications to feel more like traditional desktop applications. Since "the value of

the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to

manage"(O'Reilly, 2005), it is safe to assume that the Web-as-a-platform is becoming

more valuable than desktop operating systems.

Today's competition lies between these platforms. On one side, single software

providers (e.g. Windows) whose massive installed base and tightly integrated system

and APIs give control over the programming paradigm. On the other side, a system

without an owner (e.g. Internet), tied by a set of protocols, open standards and

agreements for cooperation (O'Reilly, 2005), that tend to closely do as much as any

single software provider. However, the former is quickly losing advantage to the latter

because it lacks interoperability (i.e. the ability to work together with other services)

(O'Reilly, 2005). Since the Web is a platform that operates in the internet and is

accessible by a multiplicity of different devices, APIs developed in the Web-platform

guarantee interoperability from the start, contrary to programs developed for desktop

operating systems which might not be compatible in other devices.

The set of small, open standard, cheap

applications that constitute the base of the

Web-as-a-platform, are part of what is called

"the long tail", a type of “power law”

statistical distribution often seen in the

relationship between product popularity and

product choice. The long tail embodies items

(i.e. Web applications) that, despite selling far fewer units than more favored ones (i.e.


50

expensive packaged and licensed software), represent significant market opportunities

if provided to a certain number of niches. They may be individually unpopular, but add

up to a substantial amount (Anderson, 2007). After all, small sites make up the bulk of

the Internet’s content while narrow niches make up the bulk of the Internet’s possible

applications (Musser, 2007). The long tail market represents a major opportunity for

companies with not enough operating capital to spend on proprietary expensive

traditional desktop applications and software. Alternatively, companies can look for

cheaper Web application alternatives that best accommodate their needs. With Web-

as-a-platform, companies can build their own bundle of cheap open source software to

use in business activities.

The ability of the Web to be used as a platform brings several advantages,

among which is its similarity of use to traditional desktop applications made possible by

technologies such as AJAX, the promotion of interoperability between applications and

users and, lastly, the easiness of contact with more accessible long tail applications and

systems by companies.

3.3.4. Technological accessibility

A powerful force in Web 2.0 is its strong tradition of working with open

standards, using open source software, making use of free data, re-using data and

working in a spirit of open innovation (Anderson, 2007). The accessibility and openness

of some online services and applications allows users to adapt them to better fit their

needs. For instance, Google Maps' AJAX interface can be quickly decrypted to include

and remix new data, generating new services (O'Reilly, 2005). Some application and

service creators (at the far end of the tail) even choose to give up their copyrights and

allow others to remix their creations (Anderson, 2006).

The evolution of the Web demonstrates a tendency towards simplicity and ease

of use. Much of the hypertext theory, previously used in Web sites and online

applications development, is being overthrown for ideal design. Lightweight


51

programming solutions facilitate assembling software and programs in novel and

effective ways, providing opportunities for companies to beat the competition by

getting better at harnessing and integrating services provided by others. Amazon

reports that 95% of the usage of its Web services is made through XML over HTTP in a

lightweight approach referred to as REST, while the remaining 5% is done by heavy

SOAP Web services stacks (O'Reilly, 2005). Moreover, the simplicity of usage and the

lack of need of greater maintenance drops the need to have human resources to take

after the systems. In effect, Craigslist, Flickr and iPod Radar are examples of websites

that run on very few staff or that operate on open source software and low-cost servers.

These examples reflect how the use of Web 2.0 platform-development extends to new

business models (Musser, 2007).

3.3.5. Openness to user contribution and experience

Openness to user contribution and experience refers to a way in which Web 2.0

improves the design of and the ease with which programs and systems are used, based

on an architecture of participation, or “a built-in ethic of cooperation, in which the

service acts primarily as an intelligent broker, connecting the edges to each other and

harnessing the power of the users themselves” (O'Reilly, 2005). In other words, “the

architecture of participation occurs when, through the normal use of an application or

service, the service itself gets better” (Anderson, 2007). Additionally, this segment

expands the concept of perpetual beta, in which software and program releases are no

longer made, but the users are required to engage in and contribute to an eternal

update of the programs and services they use.

The evolution in Web design, Web pages and the development of a new

generation RIAs, which carry the best elements of the desktop and online user

experiences, provide the user with highly interactive, responsive experiences with rich,

graphical user interfaces (Musser, 2007). The design of these services can improve and

facilitate mass user participation (Anderson, 2007) and can be achieved by combining

the best of online and offline experiences, resulting in higher user satisfaction and


52

genuine competitive advantages (Musser, 2007). For example, AJAX allows Web

applications to be as rich as local PC-based applications and Gmail, combines the

strengths of the Web with user interfaces that approach PC interfaces in usability

(O'Reilly, 2005).

A company's success relies on its ability to harness the potential of Web 2.0 and

create applications that learn from their users (O'Reilly, 2005), encouraging involvement

by providing an architecture (easy-of-use, handy tools, etc.) that lowers the barriers to

participation (Anderson, 2007). Automated systems that are able to learn from their

users are a big step in Web services development. Amazon.com already provides a

similar service and is able to advise users on products they may be interested in based

on their browsing pattern. Companies may use such systems to facilitate decision-

making or to identify their employees major concerns, since by looking at the system

they can see what employees are mostly looking after.

In the Internet era, users think in terms of services, not packaged software, and

they expect these services to improve over time without versions or installations

needed. Software has become a service that is always on and always improving (Musser,

2007). For this reason, operations that maintain software enhancement need to be

executed on a daily basis (Google's success depends in automating processes to gain

cost advantages over competitors) and users need to be treated as co-developers

(contributing to service development in a continuous manner) (O'Reilly, 2005). Today,

services such as Gmail and Flickr are always considered to be in beta-testing since they

are "developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or

even daily basis" (O'Reilly, 2005).

Nowadays, power that once belonged solely to public media is now accessible

and capable of manipulation in private users' hands. The public and corporatized media

is undergoing profound changes as the implications of the Web's existence reveal new

capabilities of the media's former audience to contribute its own materials for


53

programs, newspapers and websites. Much of recent media attention concerning the

rise of Web 2.0 phenomenon has focused on UCG (Anderson, 2007).

3.3.6. Portability promotion

Another feature of Web 2.0 is that it is no longer limited to the PC platform

(O'Reilly, 2005). Internet applications and services that are limited to a single device are

less valuable than those that are connected, since it is becoming increasingly common

for individuals to assess the same content from several sources every day (office

desktop, laptop, home computer, portable media player, game console, and mobile

phone) (Musser, 2007).

John Musser provides two examples of the potential of portability in Web 2.0

(Musser, 2007):

Snapshots can now be captured from a mobile phone; sent by email over wireless

carrier network to a desktop computer for editing; uploaded to an online photo-

sharing service; collaborated on by other users via comments, ratings, and

groupings; syndicated via RSS and APIs to more devices including a home television

via TiVo-like services; and downloaded to handheld photo-capable media players.

Desktop computer users can create music playlists via online databases and

download them to portable devices. Actual listening histories are later uploaded

from devices to an online music service, and collaborative filters algorithmically

combine and filter to create virtual radio stations streamed to browsers and other

devices; new Internet-aware home stereo components connect these streams

directly to users’ living rooms.

Similarly, iTunes is the best example of the portability principle to date and most

of its success is attributable to its “integrating data and services across desktops, mobile

devices and internet servers" (Musser, 2007). The application seamlessly reaches from

the handheld device to a massive Web back-end, with the PC acting as a local cache and


54

control station (O'Reilly, 2005). However, iTunes is not a Web application per se, but it

leverages the power of the Web platform, making it a seamless, almost invisible part of

their infrastructure (O'Reilly, 2005).

This chapter's summarizes what constitutes each of Web 2.0's principles of the

proposed framework model based on the research conducted. Using this model, the

following chapter discusses on how the abovementioned Web 2.0 principles can in

effect contribute for BI improvement.


55

IV. Discussion

In the previous chapter, a research model was developed based on an outline of

professional contributions to an examination of Web 2.0 principles. Following the

model, this chapter will develop the applications of Web 2.0 principles for the benefit of

corporate BI.

4.1. Contribution to data generation

By analyzing the contribution of Web 2.0 to data generation, it is possible to see

that data can be collected from the way users utilize internet applications, be stored

more cheaply and distributed more easily among users.

To begin with, online business organizations (Google, Ebay and Amazon) possess

the ability to gather intelligence about customers, products, markets, competitors, etc.

by "continuously data mining, monitoring and analyzing e-content" (Bhatnagar, 2009)

concerning how people use internet services and applications, with the help of

"techniques (e.g. integrated search and in-memory analytics) capable of analyzing large

data sets" (King, 2008). Google Analytics and Webtrends are examples of tools that

report the results of such work. These tools provide businesses with two advantages.

First, because most of the data they collect derives from user participation, most of the

effort in providing data is on the user, which makes data acquisition easier and cheaper.

Moreover, these tools "require minimum IT intervention" (Bhatnagar, 2009), reducing

time and effort spent on retrieving information. Consequently, companies providing

such service posses a strategic advantage over traditional BI suppliers.

Additionally, although storage and bandwidth costs have been decreasing, the

demand of managing large amounts of information still presents challenges, particularly

for audio, photo and video data (Musser, 2007). One solution would be to outsource

such management capabilities to "cloud computing" services. These services are

"typically charged by usage and can be scaled dynamically" (Warr, 2009), which means

the company would only pay depending on how much capacity it needed. Alternatively,


56

companies could use websites such as Flickr and Youtube to store rich data for free.

Therefore decreasing the costs of storing, handling and distributing data.

Finally, by leveraging simple, open data formats and distribution mechanisms

(like RSS) companies can create low-cost mechanisms for wider internal distribution of

data (Musser, 2007). Besides, using RSS would lower the complexity of handling data by

allowing users to sort the information they would want BI solutions to report.

A limiting factor is that "different companies would tend to focus on one or more

Internet tools for their environmental scanning needs, which depends on a firm's

experience with the Internet", among others (Pawar et al., 1997). Consequently, success

depends on a company's willingness to invest in education, which could be more costly

than the benefits generated.

Another limitation concerns data privacy and copyrights. As companies begin to

realize that data control may become a chief competitive advantage, "we may see

heightened attempts at control" (O'Reilly, 2005). Most online available data is accessible

due to copyrights being only loosely enforced. if harsh copyrights enforcement is

established, that may compromise the amount and richness of information gathered.

4.2. Openness to collective intelligence

The openness to collective intelligence by Web 2.0 reflects an increase in

collaboration between individuals, facilitated by the architecture of participation and

the use of social software. As a product of such interaction there are network effects.

4.2.1. The use of social software

According to analysts at Gartner, collaborative decision-making combines the

information from BI systems with collaborative input gleaned through the use of social

software (Schlegel et al, 2009). Social software "represents an ideology (...) whereby

both the developer and consumer are collaborators in development" (Mason, 2008). The

consumer/user can contribute to the BI system in two ways. First, they can employ


57

social software to help developers improve the BI system either by using comments and

rating tools to evaluate its functionality, or by using wikis and blogs to discuss most of

their usage difficulties. Second, they can apply ratings to evaluate the usefulness of the

system's outputs, recur to tags, folksonomies and social bookmarking to more efficiently

organize those outputs and, finally, use comments to enrich those outputs.

One limitation is that the results of tagging/rating/commenting can be dubious

since one does not know how acquainted with a certain issue a person needs to be in

order to rate and comment on it. Consequently, there is no control over the quality level

of the inputs generated, unless some control over user access is implemented.

Additionally and inspired by social applications like Facebook and Linkedin, BI

systems could incorporate profile pages for each employee to facilitate the

identification of knowledge pools in the firm. The access to intelligence would be

facilitated even further if those profiles included comments, ratings and tags to BI that

person used in the past.

4.2.2. The architecture of participation

Opening BI applications to collective intelligence means guaranteeing an

architecture of participation that brings users with different corporate backgrounds

(from managers to sales personnel) to access data in ways that make the most

contextual sense to them (King, 2008), certifying that BI reports are being adjusted to

and evaluated by different hierarchical echelons. Therefore, top management collects

more complete insights and become better informed for decision-making.

4.2.3. The collaboration environment

Tools such as blogs, wikis, forums, MMORPGs and other collaboration

technologies provide lower-cost, easier-to-adopt, scalable solutions to solve long-

standing enterprise issues (Musser, 2007) relying on effective collaboration


58

"environments that enable decision makers to discuss an issue, brainstorm options,

evaluate their pros and cons, and agree on a course of action" (Schlegel et al, 2009).

For example, "Greenphosphor.com" is a developer building tool that allows

Second Life (a MMORPG) users to visualize and interact with complex data "in world"

and then to reach collaborative decisions based on them(Middleton, 2009). The use of

such collaboration platforms reduces server costs and expands the recruitment market

to the World.

However, the risk of internet collaboration platforms is the lack of control over

the quality, format and security of information display, because the company does not

own the servers. Moreover, if employees are not familiar with such platforms, these are

not likely to become widely adopted. For these reasons, there can be some degree of

improvement of BI systems in what concerns their collaborative capabilities, but maybe

not to the point of fully externalizing the collaboration platform.

4.2.4. The resultant network effects

Ultimately, the level of success of Web 2.0 and BI services is measured by the

generated network effect. A successful service guarantees online social interaction,

collaboration and product development and improvement. When users find the service

practical and useful, the network effect begins to build. As a consequence, individuals

become locked into that service, since "switching to another would mean they would

have less people to share their work with" (Anderson, 2007). It is not yet clear whether

the network effect is a good or a bad thing. On one hand, once the network effect

begins to build and people become aware of the increase in a service's popularity, a

product often takes off very rapidly in a marketplace (Anderson, 2007). However, if the

user becomes dependent on that service and a better solution appears, he will not

move unless all people that he is used to work with move along as well, which can be

more difficult to achieve. Another problem with network effects is the difficulty to

actually achieve it. Because only a small percentage of users contribute for most online


59

projects, and even the largest enterprises have only a fraction of the entire universe of

users, this smaller scale can lead to a much smaller pool of actual participants (Musser,

2007).

4.3. Ability to use as a platform

The similarity of use to traditional desktop applications made possible by

technologies such as AJAX may change the way in which BI software is developed. Not

only would the user be accustomed to see a more familiar design while navigating

online, but information could be perceived more easily. However, "although BI vendors

have ported most desktop functionality to browsers, for the most part, we do not

leverage the Web, we just deploy WebTops" (Raden, 2006). The opportunity to improve

BI is still open as "the wider capabilities made possible by Web 2.0, such as

collaboration, advisers, personal agents and cognitive engines, have not entered the BI

space yet" (Raden, 2006).

If BI is indeed supplied through an application that would run on any desktop,

interoperability comes into play. Having the same way to present data and contribute to

decision-making at all levels of an organization would provide several advantages. First,

data communication in the company could be standardized. As employees at all levels

receive information through the same service, communication between departments

and between frontline and top management becomes easier. Second, because a

platform would allow its users to evaluate the information that is being supplied to

them, the application would be capable of being rated by its content and criticized

through collaborative tools, which could provide all users with a better insight on the

company's business. Third, as a platform, the application can be customized according

to what users feel is more appropriate, facilitating the navigation process, the access to

information and understanding of the BI generated.

As the theory of the long tail explains, Web 2.0 makes it possible to access

applications and services providers for a lower price than those of BI professionals. After


60

all, "the nature of online commerce can significantly lower distribution, inventory and

sales costs" (Musser, 2007). Nevertheless, there is a trade-off for using such

applications. The reduced costs also come from "enabling more self-service IT with tools

like wikis and mashup-style integration tools" (Musser, 2007). Although employees

might become less dependent on the IT department, they would still have to adapt the

applications to fit their needs, thus loosing time. In one way, customization and design

of BI applications may come before time effectiveness, and this balance must be

discussed among the company's management officials.

Another application of Web 2.0 in BI is how information can be better displayed

in BI systems (King, 2008). The literature review has shown that current BI applications

do not provide a friendly user experience. They appear to offer little insight and have

difficulty in addressing business problems. They require experts to deal with all the

service formatting and programming and results of those systems may take too long to

be useful (Foody, 2009). Effective information retrieval of both structured and

unstructured enterprise data is one of corporate IT's greatest deficiencies - this is where

vast amounts of valuable information goes underused (Musser, 2007). Using Julia King's

example (King, 2008), if on one hand it is possible to have a call center agent to have

access to multiple types of information about the caller and have it display on the same

screen, even though that data might be stored in several different places, then it would

be possible to apply the same principle to BI tools. A BI tool that acts as a middle

software and that is only capable of displaying useful information sourced from

different places.

4.4. Technological accessibility

The way BI software is licensed and deployed is still firmly rooted in pre-Internet

thinking, unlike Web 2.0 development leaders who invest in continuous improvement,

with no upfront licensing cost, just usage, running on massively scalable commodity

hardware over open-source operating systems (Raden, 2006). The technological

contributions of Web 2.0 to BI gathering relate to scalability, lightweight and cost.


61

Scalability and lightweight may have an influence over cost, since "changes in cost,

reusability, process, and strategy mean much more can be done for much less" (Musser,

2007). However, for this discussion's purpose it is useful to grasp them separately.

Scalability means having the "technology to deliver products to market faster

and cheaper without sacrificing future growth" (Musser, 2007). Scalability is mostly a

technological capability to describe that software is capable of growing to better

accommodate more users and/or more capabilities without having to suffer drastic

changes in its programming. The use of scalability in BI systems would allow companies

to engage in less upgrading investments through the years, thus reducing time and

money losses.

Lightweight means that Web 2.0's software programming requirements are less

complex and more accessible to tech-savvy users, assuring advantages for BI users and

for the company. From the user side, the use of lightweight technologies (mashups,

REST, etc.) to program BI systems promotes information delivery efficiency, because

they can be easily adapted to best fit users' needs, delivering improved usage

experience (e.g. using mashups to mix data and create more dynamic information

displays); conversely, they improve business insight since users could choose the type of

information output they would like the system to provide. From the company side,

simple programming requisites lessens the time and effort taken in retrieving

intelligence from the systems and the need for human resources to develop and

maintain them, promoting cost reductions. Hence solving "the problem of overburdened

IT departments or in-house BI experts to fulfill users' request for information" (King,

2008).

By adopting a lightweight, scalable approach, many traditional costs and risks

can be reduced and less upfront capital is required before seeing a return on investment

(Musser, 2007). The cost reduction may come from the use of cheap open-source

software, mainly available at the market's long tail. In the past it was not possible to use

Microsoft Office without (legally) without paying the royalties. Today Open Office or


62

even (online) Google Docs basically provide the same service. The market for open

applications brings chief advantages:

A drop in the effort and cost of engaging in research and software development to

gather intelligence indoors (decreasing the first mover disadvantage);

Companies can reduce the risk of software malfunction by waiting for the

technological maturity of applications and services built by others and adopt them

only when others have proven their worth;

Open applications are cost-advantageous since they provide a cheap, but still

reliable alternative to expensive BI solutions.

Additionally, "small BI vendors are trying to show their innovation stripes in a

rapidly consolidating industry" (Weier, 2008). As a consequence, this new market

provides the opportunity for companies to outsource this services "by asking a

specialized developer of such solutions" (Pawar et al., 1997), lowering the cost and

hassle of having to deal with BI software management internally. Alternatively, there is

a "new class of offerings designed to let businesses quickly mash up public Web sources

with internal data sources to create a new breed of analytic applications" (Weier, 2008).

The latter could be used in BI software as a stepping stone to rely solely on open

software solutions to provide a company with intelligence.

However, one of the major barriers to technological accessibility for BI is

intellectual property rights (e.g. copyrights) as, if applied to open software, they can

disrupt the cost advantages discussed above by closing access to the long tail market.

4.5. Openness to user contribution and experience

The complexity of BI software usage, the time wasted in getting results, the lack

of tacit knowledge display and the overwhelming amount of information that reaches

users constitute some of the barriers to adoption. However, there are some concepts in

which Web 2.0 tools design can help change this.


63

The application of technologies such as AJAX in BI systems facilitates user

adoption and engagement with software by providing a much friendly interface that

replicates standard desktop software capabilities, making users feel more comfortable

with the BI system's working environment. In a business context this is particularly

important because users not always take advantage of software's full potential, which

then becomes a burden to the company.

The development of Web 2.0 occasioned the appearance of the "prosumer",

who actively uses and generates online content. User generated content is at the

foundation of the openness to user contribution. The proliferation of tools, such as

Youtube, Flickr and other websites have made it possible for users to upload their own

content. If a BI system is ready to take on multiple types of data (e.g. video, audio,

pictures, etc.) that users create, its value increases the more participative users it gets.

One of the problems with such capability is space, or how companies can afford to store

all the information to support decision-making. The answer to that problem may very

well be in associating pages like Youtube to store videos made by company users and

link those videos to the information on the BI system or, alternatively resort to cloud

computing solutions.

Finally the concept of architecture of participation suggests that applications can

learn from their users, and so could BI applications. This opens two possibilities of

application for BI. On one hand, applications can be improved by direct user action.

Although BI software does not necessarily need to be connected to the Web, if it

possesses a relevant amount of constant users, that community can be engaged in real-

time testing of new features (i.e. become beta testers) and contribute to the service

improvement. In this way companies do not need to constantly be purchasing updated

versions of the same software, but can save the investment for internal BI application

development. On the other hand, applications can be improved by indirect user action

and this is where most BI systems fail, in delivering tacit knowledge (i.e. a person's

experience, their preferences, their rating of a given content, etc.). Consequently, they


64

fail in evaluating the relevance of data for each possible user. Several Web 2.0 tools are

capable of recognizing a user's choices and could thus provide information on a user’s

interest which would repair this BI flaw.

Web 2.0 has shown that "delivering the right content in the optimum manner

stems from understanding visitor behavior on site" (Bhatnagar, 2009). Thus users would

feel much more engaged with a BI tool if given the chance to contribute to its content. If

BI tools are capable of being manipulated so that users can upload their own ways of

looking at information, the system itself becomes more appealing and rich at the same

time.

However, it would be quite difficult to change the way in which companies

actually gather BI. According to Mary Hayes Weier, it is hard to imagine Web 2.0

approaches eliminating the need for users to run queries on data and generate reports.

She says that the new mashup technologies are mainly ways for presenting information

in new, appealing forms while bringing in helpful external information (Weier, 2008).

4.6. Portability promotion

Web 2.0 promotes portability of information and data across multiple devices. In

a business context, stakeholders can have access to information regardless of their

location and type of equipment they use, as long as the equipment has internet access.

This system also guarantees that information spreads at a faster pace, rather than using

just an e-mail to do so. The implications for BI gathering are not given by portability per

se. Portability is only one of Web 2.0's ready devices characteristics and the advantages

brought by it only apply if users in a company do have access to them. However, they do

bring up the subject of having available any information in any part of the World.

Accessibility to information comes in many forms. Since the platform in which

Web 2.0 operates is the internet, given the rise of internet enabled gadgets, the source

of intelligence is no longer limited to the computer. "Yet, even that multiaccess scenario

will soon seem quaint given the rapid growth of Internet-aware devices and the coming


65

sensor Web where data streams online in ever-increasing speed and quantity. This is

where the Web as platform truly reaches every edge" (Musser, 2007).

The more varied devices there are, the more opportunities there are for BI to be

available to users, which brings two advantages. First, since the internet is a platform

whose characteristics do not change regardless of the equipment used to access it,

users can select the gear that best fits their needs. Second, if information becomes

available in every platform, BI becomes portable. An example would be having a sales

force spread around the World in which the only thing they would need would be an

internet browser-enabled device to assess BI reports. Portability of BI is not necessarily

expensive, but only as expensive as accessing the internet. Since information flows

through the internet, it only takes a validation in the receptive device to identify

whether or not the user has access to the content.

Moreover, "P2P (peer-to-peer) technologies break the Internet down by

rendering each client as a server and shredding files so they can be served from multiple

locations" (Raden, 2006). This is an important aspect for companies that spend a

significant amount of money in data base space and management. Companies can have

either one of two options. On one hand, instead of having each device to act as a server

to carry BI, a device could be used only as a way to access that intelligence, which would

be stored somewhere on the internet under cheaper servers, thus reducing a company's

costs in BI data bases. On the other hand, if a company values the speed to access

information, then each device can act as a server for BI storage. The more a certain BI

report is asked for, the more devices it is in, and so the more quickly it can be

downloaded to another device.

However, devices are only gradually becoming location-aware and many edge

platforms have limitations in raw performance, input/output capabilities, and limited or

no ability to function when not connected to the network. (Musser, 2007). As a

consequence, the benefit of such portability for BI cannot currently be fully

implemented.


66

In summary, this chapter has disclosed several instances where the

improvement of BI is achievable with the use of Web 2.0, namely: the use of online data

providers that market cheaper solutions for BI data storage, management and

distribution; the use of social software to evaluate and contribute to the richness of BI

systems as the result of network effects; the development of platforms that standardize

communications, facilitate classification and rating of BI system's information output,

customized according to users' needs; systems that allow integration of data from

several different sources and that facilitate information display; the access to a market

of lightweight, scalable and cheap solutions that not only adapt to the company growth

needs, but also are easy to program and maintain; the contact with technologies such as

AJAX that can help build user friendly interfaces that also harness user participation and

commitment to contribute to BI systems' improvement; the deployment of software

capabilities that can learn from user interaction with the BI system; the widening of

portable devices capable of receiving BI reports, enabling companies to virtually make

intelligence accessible from any place in the World at a faster pace.

The advantages provided by Web 2.0 technologies for BI are thus undeniable.

User participation is a major characteristic for improving data collection and Web 2.0 in

general allows small and medium-sized business owners to access information normally

acquired by the budgets of larger competitors. Web 2.0 allows communication among

all departments in a company and thus enriches information for decision-making. The

need for caution in adapting Web 2.0 technologies to BI gathering remains since

companies must prepare their employees to utilize the tools efficiently and strategically.

The need for instruction and continuing guidance of employees at every level of the

company will present challenges. With effect, Web 2.0 tools can indeed improve

Business Intelligence gathering.


67

This chapter analyzes how Web 2.0 can help improve BI gathering in several

fields and mentions in which areas it should be improved. The subsequent chapter

summarizes the Web 2.0's impact on BI gathering and presents a conclusion to this

dissertation by answering the research question proposed in the introduction.


68

V. Conclusion

BI presents challenges that Web 2.0 must overcome. However, the dissertation’s

model development chapter has shown that Web 2.0, not without problems and the

need for further developments, meets these challenges.

In its contribution to generating data for BI systems, Web 2.0 presents solutions

such as online analytical tools, cloud computing solutions and RSS solutions that gather,

store, manage and distribute intelligence throughout the organization, guaranteeing

that managers are better and more accurately informed for decision-making. Moreover,

these online solutions are cheaper, allowing a tight control over the costs of data

storage and management, consequently providing savings for companies that perform

BI.

In what concerns the openness to collective intelligence, Web 2.0 could increase

the efficiency of business decision-making with the help of collaborative platforms, such

as blogs, wikis and MMORPGs that provide low cost alternative solutions for workers to

share and produce intelligence among themselves. Moreover, corporate BI systems

could be developed through the use of tags, folksonomies and social bookmarking to

evaluate its content and better reveal what is really important for readers and

determine if collaboration tools are useful and providing the right information. On the

other hand, the use of ratings based on user opinions without knowing their curricula

means results can be rather dubious, and may not contribute to intelligence

improvement. Lastly, the use of social software applications, such as profile pages, will

give greater access to those in a company who possess BI, and the deployment of an

architecture of participation that engages users from different hierarchical backgrounds

in a company to contribute to the sharing of information among all types of employees

and not just a company’s Web experts.

The new platform of collaboration represented by Web 2.0 presents a solution

that facilitates decision-making by providing a standardized way of communication,


69

enabling companies to receive input from all levels of the organization. Web 2.0

technologies like AJAX can facilitate information retrieval by simplifying how it is

displayed, thus reducing a reader’s confusion. Furthermore, access to the long tail

market provides contacts with low-cost suppliers of BI solutions, providing companies

with new opportunities to renew entirely, or partially, their existing BI system.

The level of technological accessibility provided by Web 2.0 technologies

guarantees access to scalable, lightweight programming tools to build BI software that

evolves with the company's growth thus preventing unnecessary investment in human

resources to operate it and minimal IT intervention to update systems. Moreover, the

use of lightweight programming software that is easily accessible by tech-savvy users

facilitates employee participation in BI development. On the other hand, lack of

familiarity with such tools will hinder employee performance.

Opening BI systems to user contribution improves decision-making because it

allows the consideration of new insights from user generated content, either stored in

free websites or through cloud computing solutions. Web 2.0's capability of assimilating

tacit knowledge helps in recognizing patterns in employees' usage of software and with

the help of technologies, such as AJAX, they can improve how BI reports are displayed

and overcome user resistance to interact with them. On the downside, companies

would still need to invest time and effort in educating their users to familiarize

themselves with Web 2.0 tools functionality, but given the general knowledge of

computers, especially by young workers, education should proceed smoothly.

In what concerns the portability promoted by Web 2.0, users can more easily

share intelligence with the help of peer-to-peer solutions and this will significantly

contribute to lowering the costs of data storage and management. Furthermore, the

ability to collect intelligence from various devices can increase the speed of data sharing

and thus improve the pace at which decisions can be made.


70

This MSc dissertation has explored the research question "Can Web 2.0

principles and tools improve the gathering of Business Intelligence?" The dissertation's

research has answered the question in the affirmative, indicating many areas in which

Web 2.0 could improve corporate BI. Furthermore, the dissertation has developed a

model to define specific ways in which Web 2.0 improves the development of existing BI

tools in creating new knowledge areas that are accessible to more corporate users.

Thus it is clearly demonstrable that Web 2.0 can improve Business Intelligence

gathering and should be considered by companies for investment as a supporting tool in

daily business activities or as an improvement of already existing decision support

systems.


71

5.1. Concerns for future research

Although enough evidence has been gathered to provide a positive answer to

the dissertation's research question, the suggested model for understanding Web 2.0

and its implications for BI is not complete and thus has the capacity for future

development through even more extensive research of the current literature. In order

to reinforce the model's validity further studies, which consider more sources, should be

made.

Several subjects not developed within this dissertation call for further research

and development. Among the most important are the following:

Future research should define ways to promote the use of Web 2.0 tools in BI

among corporate employees, since without user participation such tools become

irrelevant. The question that is still to be answered is “In what ways can companies

implement strategies that insure corporate-wide use of Web 2.0 tools for BI gathering?”

Thus, personnel motivation is a future key subject and managers should look closely on

how to make their employees engage with Web 2.0 tools.

Another important issue is the security of corporate information when

employees utilize Web 2.0 tools. The low cost advantages of using Web 2.0 are directly

related to the fact that these tools are open and free, used and easily accessed by

anyone. In a business environment of sensitive and confidential information it becomes

extremely important to assess how companies can benefit from Web 2.0 technologies

while, at the same time, guaranteeing the security of corporate information.

Finally, an area of needed future research is defining ways in which businesses

can extend the use of Web 2.0’s collaboration platforms through new relationships with

different stakeholders. In other words, "When Web 2.0 extends your business processes

to your suppliers, customers, partners and regulators in a truly distributed architecture,

who will own the data?" (Raden, 2006). How can one guarantee data integration from

all sides?


72

VI. References

ADELMAN, C., MOSS, L., BARBUSINSKI, L. (2002). I found several definitions of BI. DM

Review. Available at: http://www.dmreview.com/article_sub.cfm?articleId=5700 (last

accessed: 21 November 2009).

ANDERSON, C. (2006). The long tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand.

Random House Books: London, UK.

ANDERSON, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for

education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch.

ANKENY, J. (2009) How Twitter is revolutionizing business. Innovation+.

BERNAL, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and Social Networking for the Enterprise.

BHATNAGAR, A. (2009). Web Analytics for Business Intelligence. Online magazine.

BUSHEY, C. (2010) All a twitter. Journal of property management. Vol. 71. Issue 1, pp 24-

37.

CANES, M., (2009). Business Intelligence for the SME. CA Magazine. September 2009.

CHAN, K., CHAN, B. (2007). Positioning Services in Web 2.0. Strategic Integration of

Surveying Services. Hong Kong SAR, China.

CHESNEY, T.; CHUAN S.; HOFFMANN R. (2007). Virtual World Experimentation: Na

Exploratory Study. The University of Nottingham.

CODY, W. F., KREULEN, J. T., KRISHNA, V., SPANGLER, W. S. (2002). The integration of

business intelligence and knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal.

CONNOLLY, J.M. (2007). Techs turn to Web 2.0. B to B, 92(4), pp. 24.

DEPAUW, J. (2008). Web 2.0 under the Actor-Network Theory point-of-view:

conceptualization and definition analysis. Universite Libre de Bruxelles.


73

DINUCCI, D. 2009 (1999), Fragmented future. Available at:

http://cdinucci.com/Darcy2/articles/Print/Printarticle7.html (last accessed: 14 January 2010).

DOWNES, S (2004). Educational Blogging. EduCause Review. Vol. 39, No. 5, Sep/Oct

2004, pp. 14-26. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0405.asp (last

accessed: 20 December 2009).

ETTORRE, B. (1995) Managing competitive intelligence. Management Review 10, pp. 15-

19.

FELIX, K. (2009). Take Action With Business Intelligence. Econtent.

FOODY, P. (2009). User-Centered Business Intelligence. Business Intelligence Journal. Vol

14. No. 4. Pp 17-25.

GARRET, J. (2005). Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications.

GILLMOR, D. (2004). We the media. O’Reilly.

GOLFARELLI, M., RIZZI, S., CELLA, I. (2004). Beyond Data Warehousing: What's Next in

Business Intelligence?.

HACKATHORN, R. (2001). Making Business Intelligence Actionable. Information

Management Magazine.

HANNULA, M., PIRTTIMAKI, V. (2003). Business Intelligence: Empirical Study on the top

50 Finnish Companies. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge.

HINCHCLIFFE, D. (2006). Making The Most of The Web: Creating Great Mashups, Web

Mashup Styles Examined. Available at: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/ (last

accessed: 20 December 2009 ).

HINCHLIFFE, D. (2006). The coming RIA wars: a roundup of the Web’s new face.

Enterprise Web 2.0, Sept. 11th, 2006. ZDNet.com. Available at:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=65 (last accessed: 14 January 2010).

http://cdinucci.com/Darcy2/articles/Print/Printarticle7.html

http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0405.asp


74

HOEGG, R., MARTIGNONI, R., MECKEL, M., STANOEVSKA-SLABEVA, K. (2006). Overview

of business models for Web 2.0 communities.

INE Press release(2005) - Inquérito à Utilização de Tecnologias da Informação e da

comunicação pelas Famílias 2005. Available at:

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_bo

ui=5453072&DESTAQUESmodo=2 (last accessed: 22 January 2010).

Internet World Stats (IWS, 2009) is an international website that offers free, up-to-date

data on worldwide Internet usage, population statistics and market research data. IWS

obtains its data from such sources as Nielsen/NetRatings, the International

Telecommunications Union, local telecommunications regulating agencies and other

reliable sources.

JAVA A., SONG, X., FININ, T., TSENG, B. (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding

Microblogging Usage and Communitites. University of Maryland Baltimore County.

KAHN, R. E., CERF, V. G. (1999). What is the Internet (And What Makes It Work).

KHARE, R., CELIK, T. (2006). Microformats: a Pragmatic Path to the Semantic Web.

Proceedings of WWW2006, Edinburgh, UK.

King, B. J. (2008). Using a MMORPG to teach about new media & Web 2.0 business

models & competition in saturated markets & interactive thinking.

KING, J. (2008). Can Web 2.0 save BI?. Computer World.

KLEMPERER, P. (2006). Network Effects and Switching Costs: Two Short Essays for the

New Palgrave. Working Paper series. Social Science Research Network. Available at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=907502 (last accessed: 13 January

2010).

LAMB, B. (2004). Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not. Educause Review Vol. 39, No.

5, pp. 36–48. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0452.asp (last

accessed: 14 January 2010).

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=5453072&DESTAQUESmodo=2

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=5453072&DESTAQUESmodo=2


75

LOSHINM P. (2000). Simple Object Access Protocol. Computerwirld, 9/4/2000,

LUHN, H. P. (1958). A Business Intelligence System. IBM Journal.

MACASKILL, W., OWEN D. (2006). Web 2.0 To Go. National Library of New Zeland.

MACMANUS, R., & PORTER, J. (2005). Web 2.0 For Designers. Web 2.0 Design:

Bootstrapping the Social Web. Available at: www.digital-Web.com (last accessed: 13

November 2007).

MADDEN, M., & FOX, S. (2006). Riding the waves of Web 2.0., Internet Revolution., 6.

Pew Internet Life Project.

MARSHALL, K. R. (2008). Utilizing Web 2.0 Technology to Enhance Enterprise Knowledge

Management.

MARTENS, C. (2006). Business intelligence at age 17. Computer World. Available at:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/266298/BI_at_age_17 (Last accessed: 14

January, 2010).

MASON, C. (2008). Web 2.0 as a social movement. University of Plymouth. School of

Computing, Communications & Electronics.

MCAFEE, A.P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 47(3), pp. 21-28.

MCAFEE, A. P. (2006). It's Ready Or Not For Enterprise 2.0. Information Week. July 1,

2006. Available at:

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189600656 (last


MCGEE, J. (2008). Email is for Old People - New ways to communicate with students

using Web 2.0. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.


76

MERCHANT, P. (2009). A patchwork of online community-based systems: can social

software be used to augment online individual social capital?. Research Group for Media

and ICT (MICT), Ghent University, Belgium.

MIDDLETON, C. (2009). Web 2.0 meets Business Intelligence. Computer weekly.

MILLEN, D., FEINBERG, J., KERR, B. (2005). Social Bookmarking in the enterprise. ACM

Queue, Nov 2005. Available at:

http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=344 (last


MILLER, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the New Library. Ariadne. Issue 45. UKOLN.

Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/#14 (last accessed: 14 January

2010).

MUSSER, J. (2007) Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. O'Reilly Radar.

NEGASH, S., GRAY, P. (2003). Business Intelligence.

O'CONNELL, B. (2004). Bringing Business Intelligence to the masses. Econtent.

O'REILLY T. (2005) Web 2.0: Compact Definition? O'Reilly Media.

O’REILLY, T. (2006). What is Web 2.0. O’Reilly Computer Books. Available at:

www.oreilly.com (last accessed: 13 January 2010).

O’REILLY, T. (2003). The Architecture of Participation. ONLamp.com. Available at:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3017 (last accessed: 13 January 2010).

O’REILLY, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the next

generation of software. O’Reilly Media Inc. Available at:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.html

(last accessed: 13 January 2010).


77

O’REILLY, T. (2006). People Inside & Web 2.0: An interview with Tim O’Reilly.

OpenBusiness website. Available at: http://www.openbusiness.cc/category/partners-

feature/ (last accessed: 13 January 2010).

O’REILLY, T. (2006). Open Source Licences are Obsolete. O’Reilly Radar. Available at:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open_source_licenses_are_obsol.html (last


O’REILLY, T. (2006). Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again. O’Reilly Radar. Available

at: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/Web_20_compact.html (last accessed: 13

January 2010).

O'REILLY T., BATTELLE, J. (2009). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On.

PAWAR, B. S., SHARDA, R. (1997). Obtaining Business Intelligence on the Internet. Long

Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 110 to 121.

PERKS, M. (2003). Social software - get real. Spiked. Available at:

http://www.spikedonline.com/Articles/00000006DCF1.htm (last accessed: 21 November

2009).

POWER, D. (2005). What is business intelligence?.

POWER, D. J. (2007). A Brief History of Decision Support Systems. DSSRResources.com,

World Wide Web. Available at: http://DSSResources.com/history/dsshistory.html (Last


RADDEN, N. (2006). Dashboard: Web 2.0's Effect on Business Intelligence. Available at:

http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=185300410 (last


RAPOZA, J. (2008). RIA War Is Brewing. Available at:

http://etech.eweek.com/content/application_development/ria_war_is_brewing.html (last


http://www.spikedonline.com/Articles/00000006DCF1.htm

http://etech.eweek.com/content/application_development/ria_war_is_brewing.html


78

RODRIGUES, L. C. (2002). Business Intelligence: the management information next step.

Regional University of Blumenau, Brazil.

ROTEM-GAL-OZ, A. (2007). What is SOA anyway?. Available at:

http://www.rgoarchitects.com/Files/SOADefined.pdf (last accessed: 13 January 2010).

ROUIBAH, K., OULD-ALI, S. (2002). PUZZLE: a concept and prototype for linking business

intelligence to business strategy. Strategic Information Systems.

SCARFF, A. (2006). Advancing Knowledge Sharing with Intranet 2.0. Knowledge

Management Review, 9(4), pp. 24.

SCHLEGEL, K., SALLAM, R. L., ROZWELL, C. (2009). The Rise of Collaborative Decision

Making. Gartner RAS Core Research Note.

SHAW, R. (2005). Web 2.0? It doesn’t exist. Available at:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/iptelephony/?p=805. (last accessed: 20 December 2009).

SHERMAN, R. (2009). Business Intelligence Goes Back to the Future, Part 1. Available at:

http://www.information-management.com/news/1030746-1.html (last accessed: 21

November 2009).

SHERMAN, R. (2009). Business Intelligence Goes Back to the Future, Part 2. Available at:

http://www.information-management.com/news/1034667-1.html (last accessed: 21

November 2009).

SMITH, P. (2009). Web 2.0wned - A history of malware of the Web.

SNEE, H. (2008). Web 2.0 as a social science research tool. University of Manchester.

ESRC Government Placement Scheme, The British Library.

SPIL, T. A. M., STEGWEE, R. A., TEITINK, C. J. A. (2002). Business Intelligence in

Healthcare Organizations. Tree Computer Society.


79

TEARE, D. (2005). An Introduction to Ajax. Dev2Dev articles. Available at:

http://dev2dev.bea.com/ (last accessed: 20 December 2009).

THOMSEN, E. (2003). BI's Promised Land. Intelligent enterprise.

THOMPSON, J. K. (2009). Business Inteligence in a SaaS Environment. Business

Intelligence Journal. Vol 14. No. 4. Pp. 50-55.

TREDINNICK, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business - A pointer to the intranets of the future?

London Metropolitan University, UK.

VANDER WAL, T. (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia. Available at:

http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1750 (last accessed: 21

November 2009).

VEDDER, R. GUYNES C. (2002). CIO's perspectives on competitive intelligence.

Information Systems management.

WADSWORTH, T., GRAVES, B., GLASS, S., HARRISON, A. M., DONOVAN, C., PROCTOR, A.

(2009). Using business intelligence to improve performance. Healthcare financial

management.

WAGNER, C. (2008). Learning Experience with Virtual Worlds. Journal of Information

Systems Education. Vol. 19, Issue 3. pp 263-266.

WARR, W. (2009). Cloud computing. Available at:

http://www.qsarworld.com/files/Cloud-computing.pdf.

WEIER, M. (2008). New Web 2.0-Oriented BI Tools Offer A Path Around IT. Available at:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/business_intelligence/showArticle.jhtml?articl

eID=207000232 (last accessed: 20 December 2009).

WEIER, M. (2008). When Web 2.0 and BI Collide, IT May Be The First Casualty. Available

at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/03/31/3357173.htm (last accessed: 20

December 2009).


80

WEINBERGER, D. (2005). Taxonomies to Tags: From Trees to Piles of Leaves. Release 1.0,

Volume 23, No. 2., February, pp. 2-32.

WIENS, J. (2007). Is Web 2.0 Inherently Insecure?. Network Computing, 18(7), pp. 22.

Worldofmeters (WOM, 2009) is an international website that offers free world statistics

updated in real time. WOM obtains its data from the most reputable organizations and

statistical offices in the world (available at their website).