Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to get the most from a business intelligence application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at a U.K. retail bank

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

This paper focuses on the process of maximizing the benefits from a business intelligence (BI) application. A general theoretical framework of analysis is formulated based on previous research into organizational deep structure and inertia. Our framework is applied to a case study of a U.K. retail bank which used an existing customer profitability BI application to transform its marketing strategy. We find that an organization’s ability to extract strategic BI benefits is influenced by its deep structure (core beliefs, organizational structures, control systems and distribution of power) and also by its ability to overcome the effects of the multiple inertia sources that the deep structure generates. Organizations should therefore carefully consider the effects of multidimensional organizational inertia and aim to manage inertia sources in respect to information from BI applications when links that embed the BI into an organization as a whole are developed and maintained. We also present generally applicable insights into enhancing the delivery of informative long-term BI decision support for organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham C and Junglas I (2011) From cacophony to harmony: a case study about the IS implementation process as an opportunity for organizational transformation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter S (2004) A work system view of DSS in its fourth decade. Decision Support Systems 38 (3), 319–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnott D (2008) Success factors for data warehouse and business intelligence systems. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, (Mills A and Huff S, Eds), pp 55–65, December, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

  • Avison DE (1993) Human, Organizational and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin RI, Rockart JF, Scott Morton MS and Wyman J (1984) Information technology: a strategic opportunity. Sloan Management Review 25 (3), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg M (2001) Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics 64 (2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson P and Rowe F (2012) Strategizing information systems-enabled organisational transformation: a transdisciplinary review and new directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21 (2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers J (1995) Making it work: a field study of a ‘CSCW network’. Information Society 11 (3), 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buiter WH (2012) The role of central banks in financial stability: How has it changed? CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8780, London.

  • Charalambos LI (1999) The IPACS project: when IT hits the fan. Journal of Information Technology 14 (3), 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clydesdale Bank. (2013) Our business and values. [WWW document] http://www.cbonline.co.uk/supporting-our-customers/our-business-and-values/ (accessed 15 August 2013).

  • Cobham D (2012) The past, present and future of central banking. Heriot-Watt University Working Paper No. 2012–05, Edinburgh.

  • Coghlan D and Brannick T (2001) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper B, Watson HJ, Wixom BH and Goodhue DL (2000) Data warehousing supports corporate strategy at First American Corporation. MIS Quarterly 24 (4), 547–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell N and Rapley K (1991) Factors critical to the success of executive information systems in British airways. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe C (2010) Consensus forecasts and inefficient information aggregation. IMF Working Paper No.10/178, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

  • Ćurko K, Pejic-Bach M and Radonić G (2007) Business intelligence and business process management in banking operations. In Proceedings of the 29th ITI Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (Lužar-Stiffler V and Hljuz-Dobrić V, Eds) June, Cavtat, University of Zagreb, University Computing Centre (SRCE), Zagreb, Croatia.

  • Darke P, Shanks G and Broadbent M (1998) Successfully completing case study research: combining rigor, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal 8 (4), 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbashir MZ, Collier PA and Davern MJ (2008) Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: the relationship between business process and organizational performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 9 (3), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay PN and Forghani M (1998) A classification of success factors for decision support systems. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 7 (1), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz CR and Robey D (1984) An investigation of user-led system design: rational and political perspectives. Communications of the ACM 27 (12), 1202–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner Research. (2012) Gartner executive programs’ worldwide survey of more than 2,300 CIOs shows flat IT budgets in 2012, but IT organizations must deliver on multiple priorities. [WWW document] http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1897514 (accessed 16 July 2012).

  • Gersick CJG (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review 16 (1), 10–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson M, Arnott D and Jagielska I (2004) Measuring the intangible benefits of business intelligence: review and research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2004 IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Systems: Decision Support in an Uncertain and Complex World, Prato, Italy (Meredith R, Shanks G, Arnott D and Carlsson S, Eds) pp 295–305, Monash University, Victoria.

  • Greenwood R and Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 1022–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallikainen P, Merisalo-Rantanen H, Syvaniemi A and Marjanovic O (2012) From home-made to strategy-enabling business intelligence: the transformational journey of a retail organization. In Proceedings to 2012 European Conference on Information Systems (Pries-Heje J, Chiasson M, Wareham J, Busquets X, Valor J and Seiber S, Eds) European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Barcelona, Spain, Paper 28.

  • Hannan MT and Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49 (2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Polos L and Carroll G (2002) Structural inertia and organizational change – revisited III: The evolution of organizational inertia. Research Paper No.1734, Research Paper Series, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

  • Heiskanen A, Newman M and Eklin M (2008) Control, trust, power and the dynamics of information system outsourcing relationships: a process study of contractual software development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (4), 268–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jourdan Z, Rainer RK and Marshall TE (2008) Business intelligence: an analysis of the literature. Information Systems Management 25 (2), 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis BR (1982) Student accounts – a profitable segment. European Journal of Marketing 16 (3), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist A and Pirttimäki V (2006) The measurement of business intelligence. Information Systems Management 23 (1), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas HC and Baroudi J (1994) The role of information technology in organization design. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4), 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangan A and Kelly S (2009) Information systems and the allure of organizational integration: a cautionary tale from the Irish financial services sector. European Journal of Information Systems 18 (1), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata FJ, Fuerst WL and Barney JB (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly 19 (4), 487–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GA (2004) Darwin and the demon. Innovating within established enterprises. Harvard Business Review 82 (July-August), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreton R (1995) Transforming the organization: the contribution of the information systems function. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 4 (2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Australia Bank Group. (2011) Media release. Full Year Results. Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank. Profit Recovery Continues in Challenging Environment, 27 October, London. [WWW document] http://www.cbonline.co.uk/wcm-media/FY11UKMediaRelease.pdf (accessed 16 July 2012).

  • Negash S (2004) Business intelligence. Communications of the AIS 13 (1), 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olszak CM and Ziemba E (2007) Approach to building and implementing business intelligence systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management 2 (4), 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RL and Waterman RH (1982) In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philip G and McKeown I (2004) Business transformation and organizational culture: the role of competency, IS and TQM. European Management Journal 22 (6), 624–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poon P and Wagner C (2001) Critical success factors revisited: success and failure cases of information systems for senior executives. Decision Support Systems 30 (4), 393–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis RL, Sambamurthy V and Zmud RW (2001) The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: an empirical investigation. Organization Science 12 (2), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainer Jr. RK and Watson HJ (1995) The keys to executive information systems success. Journal of Management Information Systems 12 (2), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockart JF and DeLong DW (1988) Executive Support Systems: The Emergence of Top Management Computer Use. Dow Jones-Irwin, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli E and Tushman ML (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal 37 (5), 1141–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt RP (1995) Inertia and transformation. In Resources in an Evolutionary Perspective: Towards a Synthesis of Evolutionary and Resource-Based Approaches to Strategy (Montgomery CA, Ed) pp 101–132, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R, Hirschheim R and Goles T (2001) The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science 12 (2), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmeron JL and Herrero I (2005) An AHP-based methodology to rank critical success factors of executive information systems. Computer Standards and Interfaces 28 (1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders GL and Courtney JF (1985) A field study of organizational factors influencing DSS success. MIS Quarterly 9 (1), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S and Lee AS (1999) IT-enabled organizational transformation: a case study of BPR failure at TELECO. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schieder C and Gluchowski P (2011) Towards a consolidated research model for understanding business intelligence success. In Proceedings to the 19th European Conference on Information Systems – ICT and Sustainable Service Development (Tuunainen VK, Nandhakumar J, Rossi M and Soliman W, Eds) European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Helsinki, Finland, Paper 205.

  • Seddon PS, Calvert C and Yang S (2010) A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly 34 (2), 305–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva L and Hirschheim R (2007) Fighting against windmills: strategic information systems and organizational deep structure. MIS Quarterly 31 (2), 327–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma R and Yetton PW (2003) The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information system implementation. MIS Quarterly 27 (4), 533–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo HH, Tan BCY and Wei KK (1997) Organizational transformation using electronic data interchange: the case of TradeNet in Singapore. Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (4), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Sciences Basis for Administrative Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thwaites D and Vere L (1995) Bank selection criteria: a student perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 11 (1–3), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Newman WH and Romanelli E (1986) Convergence and upheaval: managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review 29 (1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML and O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38 (4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML and Romanelli E (1985) Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Straw BM and Cummings LL, Eds) pp 171–222, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4 (2), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson HJ (2009) Tutorial: business intelligence – Past, present and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 25 (1), 487–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir R, Peng T and Kerridge J (2003) Best practice for implementing a data warehouse: a review for strategic alignment. In Proceedings of 5th International Workshop ‘Design and Management of Data Warehouses’ (Lenz HJ, Vassiliadis P, Jeusfeld MA and Staudt M, Eds) September, Berlin, Germany, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 77 CEUR-WS.org.

  • Williams S and Williams N (2003) The business value of business intelligence. Business Intelligence Journal 8 (4), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams S and Williams N (2004) Assessing the BI readiness: a key to BI ROI. Business Intelligence Journal 9 (3), 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixom BH and Watson HJ (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wixom BH and Watson HJ (2010) The BI-based organization. International Journal of Business Intelligence Research 1 (1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeoh W and Koronios A (2010) Critical success factors for business intelligence systems. Journal of Computer Information Systems 50 (3), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to the editor and the reviewers for their many helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Lucy Marshall, Customer Insight Manager, of National Australia Group Europe for her valuable contribution.This research is supported in part by the Knowledge Transfer Partnership between the University of Leeds and National Australia Group Europe, trading in the U.K. as Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Keele Management School, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K.

    Alena Audzeyeva

  2. Hull University Business School, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.

    Robert Hudson

Authors
  1. Alena Audzeyeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alena Audzeyeva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Audzeyeva, A., Hudson, R. How to get the most from a business intelligence application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at a U.K. retail bank. Eur J Inf Syst 25, 29–46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.44

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.44

Keywords

Search

Navigation