<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Contrarian’s View of Agile BI</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/</link>
	<description>Taking on the perpetual challenge of business-IT alignment in her trenchant, irreverent style.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 15:18:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly Lautt</title>
		<link>http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Lautt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jilldyche.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-47</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The way Baseline presents and provides the BI portfolio services is very much like how I work with some of my best clients as well. It is so common in BI to do a big-bang project and then, even when it is immediately successful, have the value gradually slip away over time from lack of attention. It will only be through adding more data, adding more functionality and even retiring outdated elements that ongoing value optimization can occur. It is this Ongoing Value Optimization that I consider the third, usually ignored element of BI success (along with Strategy and Implementation as the other 2). It includes this idea of keeping the solution itself fresh and evolving. But it must also include the next level of that which is regular re-evaluation of the entire BI strategy against its actual performance in supporting the business goals.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The way Baseline presents and provides the BI portfolio services is very much like how I work with some of my best clients as well. It is so common in BI to do a big-bang project and then, even when it is immediately successful, have the value gradually slip away over time from lack of attention. It will only be through adding more data, adding more functionality and even retiring outdated elements that ongoing value optimization can occur. It is this Ongoing Value Optimization that I consider the third, usually ignored element of BI success (along with Strategy and Implementation as the other 2). It includes this idea of keeping the solution itself fresh and evolving. But it must also include the next level of that which is regular re-evaluation of the entire BI strategy against its actual performance in supporting the business goals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Sorensen</title>
		<link>http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Sorensen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jilldyche.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Excellent post Jill! I could not agree with you (and Stevens take) more. Technology is part of the process but without the supporting &quot;environment&quot; it is a road to a lot of waste and frustration. You just end up producing the wrong things faster if you forget about the engagement and collaboration aspect of the process. People and not software need to get you over that hump. The tough question is determining what is of value, hence my blog tag line being &quot;Using Agile concepts to enable BI programs to deliver the right things better&quot;. I believe this is what Agile is about.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post Jill! I could not agree with you (and Stevens take) more. Technology is part of the process but without the supporting &#8220;environment&#8221; it is a road to a lot of waste and frustration. You just end up producing the wrong things faster if you forget about the engagement and collaboration aspect of the process. People and not software need to get you over that hump. The tough question is determining what is of value, hence my blog tag line being &#8220;Using Agile concepts to enable BI programs to deliver the right things better&#8221;. I believe this is what Agile is about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Harris</title>
		<link>http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Harris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jilldyche.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great post (as always), Jill.
I also like agile, but like you and Stephen, I like it only when it is done for real and not bought, or not hurled into by companies lacking the discipline to enforce the rigor that it requires.
Companies with Organizational ADD (great term, by the way - OADD, pronounced &quot;odd&quot; because the &quot;a&quot; is silent), which are all chicken, and no pig, can scrum, scrum, scrum all they want, but ultimately instead of scrumming, they will just eventually end up screwing themselves.
Please pardon my &quot;Agile French&quot; :-)
Best Regards,
Jim
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post (as always), Jill.<br />
I also like agile, but like you and Stephen, I like it only when it is done for real and not bought, or not hurled into by companies lacking the discipline to enforce the rigor that it requires.<br />
Companies with Organizational ADD (great term, by the way &#8211; OADD, pronounced &#8220;odd&#8221; because the &#8220;a&#8221; is silent), which are all chicken, and no pig, can scrum, scrum, scrum all they want, but ultimately instead of scrumming, they will just eventually end up screwing themselves.<br />
Please pardon my &#8220;Agile French&#8221; <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Best Regards,<br />
Jim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Simon</title>
		<link>http://jilldyche.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Phil Simon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jilldyche.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/a-contrarians-view-of-agile-bi/#comment-44</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting stuff, Jill.
Let this Dr. Phil chime in. Can an organization become agile or does it have to be born agile? Let the nature vs. nurture argument apply to BI...
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff, Jill.<br />
Let this Dr. Phil chime in. Can an organization become agile or does it have to be born agile? Let the nature vs. nurture argument apply to BI&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
