Thinking Structurally Helps Business Intelligence Design



The design of Business Intelligence (BI) systems needs the integration of different enterprise figures: on the one hand, business managers give their information requirements in terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPI). On the other hand, Information Technology (IT) experts provide the technical skill to compute KPI from transactional data. The gap between managerial and technical views of information is one of the main problems in BI systems design. In this paper we tackle the problem from the perspective of mathematical structures of KPI, and discuss the advantages that a semantic representation able to explicitly manage such structures can give in different phases of the design activity. In particular we propose a novel model of ontology for KPI, and show how this model can be exploited to support KPI elicitation and to analyze dependencies among indicators in terms of common components, thus giving the manager a structured overall picture of her requirements, and the IT personnel a valuable support for source selection and data mart design.


Business Intelligence Query Execution Requirement Elicitation Atomic Indicator Transactional Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Decreto Ministeriale Ministero della Sanità, 24/7/95, Contenuti e modalità di utilizzo degli indicatori di efficienza e di qualità nel Servizio Sanitario Nazionale.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kimball R, Ross M (2002) The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sato H (1981) Handling Summary Information in a Database: Derivability, Proceedings of ACM international Conference on Management of Data, Ann Arbor, April 29 – May 01.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torlone R (2008) Two approaches to the integration of heterogeneous data warehouses, Distrib. Parallel Databases 23(1):69–97.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mcclean S, Scotney B, Morrow P et al (2008) Integrating semantically heterogeneous aggregate views of distributed databases. Distrib. Parallel Databases 24(1–3):73–94.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Priebe T, Pernul G (2003) Ontology-Based Integration of OLAP and Information Retrieval. Proceedings of DEXA Workshops, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Niinimki M, Niemi T et al (2007). Ontologies with semantic web/grid in data integration for olap. Int. Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(4):25–49.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie G, Yang Y et al (2007) EIAW: Towards a Business-Friendly Data Warehouse Using Semantic Web Technologies. Proc of the 6th Int. Semantic Web Conference, Busan, Korea.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nebot V, Berlanga R (2010) Building data warehouses with semantic data. Proceedings of the 2010 EDBT/ICDT Workshops, Lausanne, March 22–26.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ackoff R (1967) Management Misinformation Systems, Management Science, 14(4).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diamantini C, Potena D (2010) Exploring Strategic Indexes by Semantic OLAP Operators. In: D'Atri A, De Marco M, Braccini AM and Cabiddu F. (eds) Management of the Interconnected World. Springer, 185–192.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta G, Pontelli E et al (2001) Parallel Execution of Prolog Programs: a Survey. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 23(4):472–602.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Gestionale e dell’AutomazioneUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations