BUS610: Advanced Business Intelligence and Analytics

In a famous 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case on obscenity and the limits of free speech, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it"... This failure to effectively categorize and describe in a standardized way has been used since as a common witticism on lazy thinking. We are all often lazy in our thinking when we take for granted what we know. 

Think briefly about the phrase "vanilla is better than chocolate". Students have an immediate, passionate response to this statement, but when I ask them to define vanilla, then chocolate, we hear crickets in the classroom. Once they do a little research and learn that vanilla is a key component in the delicious, sweet-tasting chocolate we all love and that chocolate by itself is bitter, they all have to agree, many despite the earlier insistence of personal preference, that without vanilla, there is no chocolate as they know it, thus vanilla truly IS better than chocolate, as it is also delicious on its own.

Consider the phrase "cats are better than dogs". Do you approve or disapprove of this statement? Describe both animals' physical, behavioral, and other characteristics. Is this an appropriate statement like "vanilla is better than chocolate?" Or, do we need to add something? Should we say "cats are better than dogs at X"? or "cats are better than dogs for Y"?Getting the question right is the key to effective analysis.

This was the world's first style manual for intelligence analysts in the civilian world in 2008 and is still one of the best. Without standardized language within your organization, communication among analysts and decision-makers will remain ambiguous. It is important to agree on a confidence scale, so your decision-makers know how confident you are of your findings, the calculation of which will include consideration of source. 

Kristan Wheaton was a Professor of Intelligence Studies at Mercyhurst University for 16 years until he became the Professor of Strategic Futures at the U.S. Army War College in 2019. His blog posts explore the detailed aspects of producing intelligence estimates and thoughts about the field. His context is typically the national security arena more often than business, but his posts are valuable as they focus on the process, not the product types. This post uses the example of an Iran National Security Estimate (NIE), the most respected intelligence document in the U.S. national security context. He emphasizes the need for a shared lexicon for expressing analytic estimates, particularly careful, standardized use of words of estimative probability (WEPs).

What does confidence mean? Are you confident in your abilities as an analyst or project manager? What makes you confident? Your overall confidence in your ability is one kind of confidence. Analytic confidence is something else entirely. It calculates how much faith you have in the estimate(s) you provide to your decision-makers. Confidence can be affected by many factors, which should be included in your evaluation of how seriously your decision-maker should take your findings.

These factors include considering whether you had sufficient time to make your estimate and were working under optimal conditions for evaluating sources and making determinations based on them. It also includes your assessment of source availability and reliability. In addition to developing accurate, concise estimates, agreeing on a confidence scale within your organization is important. Hence, your decision-makers know how confident you are of your findings. This article goes in-depth about the importance of conveying analytic confidence to help your decision-makers take action with confidence themselves.

This post is about getting to know your decision-maker, not formalizing requirements. You will have to use your intuitive skill to observe how your decision-maker takes in and processes information to communicate in a way that makes them listen. Think of a time when you have had difficulty communicating with a boss. Did you misunderstand this communication gap with something else, such as organizational culture or a bad boss? How did you resolve the gap? Did you quit in a huff or get fired or sidelined? Or did you figure out the communication problem and realize that you were the one who needed to change your style?

Using evidence-based business decision-making is derived from the scientific method and the medical field. A highly prolific writer on intelligence, Prof. Steve Marrin, lately of James Madison University in Virginia, has written extensively over the past decade about using medicine as a model for developing the discipline of intelligence. This article offers a simple description of the process and its essential pros and cons.

This article discusses the traditional process by which teams build cohesion and working relationships.

Optimal analytic teams are diverse, with varying perspectives and skill sets, with a healthy respect for each member's area and level of competence. Depending upon their competence, they will quickly learn what tasks should naturally fall to which member. Even with the best members, teams undergo a growing process, which, if well managed, they form by getting to know each other, the norm, creating healthy work patterns. They perform well, getting positive feedback from the manager and the decision-maker, which makes them stronger for the next project. The storming occurs at any point in the project, sometimes early as they scope out their turf and become aware of others' strengths and weaknesses and sometimes later when project pressures increase. In any case, research shows that when bonds appear to be fraying, the skillful manager will get out of the storm so the team can work out their issues, then re-engages to ensure the team can effectively reconcile and proceed apace. Two analyst teams were working on government research projects with three-month timeframes. To enhance the performing process, the team leaders created innovative competitions between the teams to help form identities for the individual groups. One way was a dance competition between the two teams; another was a scavenger hunt. When the storms came at the end of the first month of the project, they started playing kickball twice a week. They would come to work the following days sore, bruised, and happy to share stories of their legendary triumphs the evening before. These were two of the university's best-performing teams in ten years of contracting with this government agency.

Have you been part of a team that went through all four stages? How rough was the storm? Was the team able to reform afterward? Some observers believe a team that does not go through a storming phase performs poorly. Perhaps the storm is an indication of their level of dedication. What has been your experience?

This article effectively describes the tug-of-war in which the team manager must constantly struggle between external and internal forces. Consider the discussion questions about the politics of managing external stakeholders. This is where the manager must serve as a force field, holding back the external forces that desire to place the pressures of their influences and agendas on the team, which may include tight timelines or budgets or competing demands of the manager's immediate boss and that boss' boss. Once you add in the client's internal or external demands, the struggle becomes even more multifaceted, and the manager must become an expert juggler.

This brief talk by a champion poker player discusses the importance of analytic reasoning and information in making the best decisions and why we need to leave our intuition at home to rest up for small determinations with little consequence when we have big decisions that require data and analysis. What are the three lessons? When have you followed these lessons? Did they work well or not?

This article revisits managing project requirements. The project team and their clients or other stakeholders must agree on what is expected when the project is complete, or someone will be left dissatisfied. An important aspect of this shared understanding is whether the requirements are expressed as outputs, outcomes, or benefits. This can depend upon the type of project and the perceived needs of the decision-maker that has requested the project. Misunderstanding the basic nature of what the client or stakeholder wants can derail even the most elegantly managed project.