ON 2009 GOTO 2006

Recent events related to PerformancePoint Planning have been surprising to some and (perhaps unsurprisingly) a source of relief for others. By now we've read all of the "told you so" and "OMG they Killed Kenny!" posts and articles, and we've read the official line from Microsoft. Those who were really passionate about PerformancePoint and the end-to-end message of Microsoft Performance Management may well look back one day and recall where they were when that (in)famous leaky post broke. When the official word finally came through, a few questions came to my mind.

Did PerformancePoint Planning really under-perform? Although this depends on whom you speak with, the issue is clearly one of software sales vs. solution delivery. Colleagues of ours who operate or work for Microsoft Partners in the U.S. have shared their problems in selling the PerformancePoint Planning module, while colleagues of ours in the U.K., South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have seen surging opportunities; in most cases the overarching reason was the unprecedented flexibility in meeting IFRS requirements. Meanwhile, the recent media release from Microsoft suggests that customers simply did not resonate with PerformancePoint Planning. What was your market experience (with customers and/or Microsoft) like with PerformancePoint?

Did Microsoft Partners, who developed marketing and operational strategies around the PerformancePoint platform, fail in their market research and planning? Let's look at the record books: 18-24 months ago industry research bodies had the business & technology world convinced that Microsoft was shaking things up in attacking the CPM market. Microsoft's competition must have believed this as well since they moved quickly in acquiring BI/CPM assets from smaller well-known companies, in order to provide their very own 'single performance management footprint'. Microsoft Partners, who watched prospects historically overlook Microsoft BI because it "couldn't do what Cognos/Business Objects could do", saw the opportunity to take the fight to competing Cognos and Business Objects Partners. "At last", certain Microsoft Partners probably thought, "now we have a full Performance Management suite too, and its compelling". Looking further into history, those Microsoft Partners who made big bets on what would eventually become SharePoint, SQL Server and Windows Server found sustainable offerings and generated significant wealth creation, delivering solutions in spaces that matched their passions. "Surely the pattern would hold true for PerformancePoint", they may have thought. Presently, Monday morning quarterbacks tell us that PerformancePoint was virtually doomed from the outset. What was your experience in evaluating PerformancePoint, the market opportunity it presented as well as your own readiness for the 'single footprint for performance management'? Would Microsoft have been so quick to bail on PerformancePoint if they didn't have to cut loose 5000 unlucky people? How did SharePoint perform in the early stages by comparison?

Was PerformancePoint Planning all too hard? Depends on whom you speak with. In our experience and those shared by our colleagues, Partners who truly understood how to speak the language of business, who understood accounting and financial concepts, who grasped sales and operations planning (S&OP), business strategy and performance management frameworks inspired customers and won successful engagements. To my mind, this was the point of PerformancePoint. Frankly, anyone could make a dashboard, but those Partners who really understood performance management to begin with really understood how much of an impact it could /and did have with CFOs, CIOs, COOs, etc. The goal of PerformancePoint Monitoring Server and Planning Server, in the end, was to help drive closed-loop business performance. Did you embrace PerformancePoint completely, or, did you focus only on one of the two server offerings in the suite?

Is the PerformancePoint Services strategy wise? If you saw 'Charlie Wilson's War' then you'll get what I mean when I say: "We'll see". In my personal (read: non-professional) opinion, I believe that by leaving Planning out of the integration strategy into SharePoint "Next", customers are probably more likely to look elsewhere for a complete performance management solution. I also believe that suddenly there is an inherent opportunity. Wise or unwise? Crisis or opportunity? We'll see.

And what about the Partners who have put it all on the line to help promote PerformancePoint as well as the many customers worldwide who have committed to the platform? Well, I can point to the words of fellow Canadian Alan Whitehouse. Chris Webb made a constructive point, too, in his parting shots. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the thought-leaders over at Adatis Consulting to weigh in.... :-)

- Adrian Downes

Update: I am informed that Alan Whitehouse is indeed American and not Canadian as I blurted out previously..... but that's still cool with me!

On Going Gold

It is a distinct pleasure for me to announce that B(iQ) is now recognised as a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner specialising in Performance Management and Business Intelligence solutions. We were the first Microsoft Partner in Australia to acheive the Performance Management specialisation, reflecting customer successes and team expertise in Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007.

Microsoft Gold Certified Partners are recognised for their expert level of skill and knowledge with Microsoft technologies, and, have the closest working relationship with Microsoft Corporation. With a growing presence in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, we continue our momentum with the uptake of Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007, our specialist area of expertise. This premium level of recognition from Microsoft is testament to our commitment to our customers, our people, our partners (especially all of our friends at Microsoft), our peers and the success of PerformancePoint in the Australian market.

Personally speaking, I am proud (and often moved) by the tireless and devoted efforts of everyone on our team.

Congratulations B(iQ)ubans! Keep up the great work!

- Adrian Downes

On the Bookshelf

"Drive Business Performance: Enabling a Culture of Intelligent Execution" by Bruno Aziza and Joey Fitts represents much more than a demystification of performance management terminology. The book is neither a re-telling of the benefits of performance management, nor a veiled attempt to shape a business case for PerformancePoint. Instead, the authors introduce novel ideas backed by case study research, culminating in a pervasive and flexible model for business transformation within the scope of performance improvement.

The Culture of Performance (CoP) Model presented by the authors bridges a gap between the establishment of a performance measurement framework (e.g., Balanced Scorecard, TQM, Lean, etc.), and the tools and methods brought to bear in executing performance measurement (read: Business Intelligence). CoP is a comprehensive model for evolving organisations into the strategy-focused enterprises that Drs. Kaplan and Norton envisioned years earlier. To be certain, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

That the authors chose to include "culture" in the name of their model cannot be understated: it directly addresses organisation-wide cultural transformation as it relates to the adoption of performance management (through the model's six phases). The authors demonstrate, with compelling evidence, that a company is more likely to achieve its desired outcomes when all its members adopt a performance-oriented mindset. Here, case studies on Expedia, Energizer and The Veterans' Health Administration (U.S.) each strike a chord on the sometimes painful transformation to a culture of performance. Aziza and Fitts make these findings practical, encouraging incubation through scored questionnaires, supporting capability models (MAP) and guiding principles. The final chapter of the book provides an excellent summary that aligns said scores to an entry point into the CoP model; this provides a reasonable indication of where an organisation may begin to improve business performance.

This excellent book warrants careful review and consideration-- it represents fresh and illuminating thinking from two of the most prominent figures in the field of performance management. For executives, directors and managers looking to improve business performance (as well as consultants specialising in performance management) consider this book essential reading.

- Adrian Downes

On Metadata-Driven Analysis Management Objects (New Link)

All code listings described in the following posts on Metadata-Driven AMO (Parts 1, 2 and 3) may now be accessed at the link below...



Cheers to Windows Live SkyDrive. Jeers to Ripway.

- Adrian Downes

On Even More Great PerformancePoint Planning Blogs & Posts

Well, actually it's one more resource this time.

Paul Steynberg, certainly the most active non-Microsoft resource on the PerformancePoint Planning and Management Reporter forums, is another excellent resource on both subjects.

Combining his background in Accounting with his passion for business intelligence, his new blog should be considered a "must-add" to your list of PerformancePoint learning resources.

To paraphrase a good friend of mine: 'bout bloody time, Paul!

- Adrian Downes

On More Great PerformancePoint Planning Blogs & Posts

Although PerformancePoint Planning can be challenging to learn, it is great to see the growing number of bloggers and posts dedicated to helping us appreciate the finer points of this feature area:

Sacha Tomey continues to add value to the learning experience with his recent post on PEL Business Rule Re-use and Pre-defined What If Scenarios. The post targets developers and IT professionals charged with creating and maintaining PEL specifically for what-if analysis. Clearly the voice of experience is sounded here.

Norm's PerformancePoint Server Blog, which has posts on PerformancePoint data integration and test environment deployments, presents a quick 20-minute video on PPS-Planning Intercompany Eliminations for a Financial Model by Forrest Dermid (Microsoft). Forrest demystifies a seemingly difficult topic for developers and IT professionals, demonstrating that whilst accounting knowledge of the subject is helpful, it certainly is not necessary to grasp.

Peter Eb. of Microsoft, a familiar expert on the TechNet PerformancePoint Planning forum continues to roll out excellent posts related to the Planning Business Client (formerly known as the PPS Add-in for Excel).

While you're at it, take the time to visit bloggers Alan Whitehouse and Jeremey Kashel, both of whom continue to add a dose of reality in their experiences with PerformancePoint Planning.

The braintrust in PerformancePoint Planning is definitely growing in blogspace...I highly recommend subscribing to these bloggers as a great way to supplement your PerformancePoint Planning education.

- Adrian Downes

On Feedback for the PerformancePoint Rational Guides

It has been a little over seven months since my esteemed colleague Nick Barclay (MVP) and I first announced our Rational Guides on PerformancePoint. Since then we have been overwhelmed by the positive feedback (emails, verbal, blogs, etc.) for our titles, especially from readers who are preparing for the MCTS: PerformancePoint exam (70-556). As always, we are greatful for all the support we have received from around the world for our books, and, are pleased to learn that so many people are benefiting from them. What follows is a humble attempt to centralize and share reviews of our books. Once again, many thanks again to everyone who shared feedback on them.

Bruno Aziza (U.S.): PPS-M&A and PPS-P Review

Chris Webb (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review

Dan English (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Daniel Upton (U.S.) :PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

David Street (U.S.): PPS-P Review

Jeff Carr (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review

Jen Hamlin (Canada): PPS-M&A Review

Josh Sale (U.S.): PPS-M&A Review

Paul Steynberg (S. Africa): PPS-P Review

Ryan Jamieson (S. Africa): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Sacha Tomey (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Teo Lachev (U.S.A): PPS-M&A Review, PPS-P Review

Tim Kent (U.K.): PPS-M&A Review

Note: if I have missed your review, then please accept my apologies and let me know ASAP by leaving a comment on this post with a link to your review.

- Adrian Downes

On Your Top 10 List for PerformancePoint Planning

While the Microsoft PerformancePoint Planning development team hasn't formally asked (outside of the Connect site), I thought a Letterman-like "Top 10 List" thread on the TechNet PerformancePoint Planning Forum would be a helpful way to stimulate suggestions, ideas and discussion for new PPS Planning features (those which could be considered for the next version of the product). On the forum, I have proposed a basic approach to listing the top 3-10 feature ideas/suggestions/improvements that you may have, with a one-line justification in terms of value to end-users and/or IT professionals.

This shouldn't be viewed as an opportunity to deride the product-- instead, consider it as a constructive means for those of us working with the product (on a regular basis) to provide community feedback. Here, the intention is to add value to the Microsoft development and product management effort.

If you are keen to share your ideas and get involved in the discussion, click here .

I see, as I type these very words, that Alan Whitehouse (another excellent PPS blogger worthy of subscribing to) has already shared his thoughts in the discussion thread.... gotta love that real-time feedback, eh?

Cheers,

- Adrian Downes

On a Well-Deserved Award for a True Microsoft BI MVP

Congratulations to B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay who recently learned he became a Microsoft MVP in the SQL Server category. Nick has put his heart into his professional passion for Microsoft BI for most of his career, and, this prestigious award validates the global Microsoft BI community view of his efforts. When the euphoria and adrenalin wear off somewhat, I'm certain Nick will have his MVP profile up and ready for viewing :-)

- Adrian Downes

On Learning SQL Server 2008 Reporting Services

...And while we are on the subject of learning, it is certainly a good idea to begin spending time with SQL Server 2008 functionality ahead of its release later this year. While a host of SQL Server 2008 books are planned, Teo Lachev has just announced that his book: Applied Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Reporting Services is just a few months away from release.

Congratulations, Teo! Looking forward to reading it.

- Adrian Downes

On Learning to Drive Business Performance

Congratulations to Bruno Aziza and Joey Fitts, two luminaries of the Microsoft BI/PM global community, on the publication of their book "Drive Business Performance: Enabling a Culture of Intelligent Execution". The work intends to illustrates real-world examples of corporate success achieved via the business discipline of Performance Management. I look forward to reading it, and plan to provide a review here in the near future.

For more information on the book from the publisher's site, click here.

To pre-order your copy from Amazon.com click here

Bruno has a number of upcoming events planned around the release of the book... click here to learn more.

If you happen to be in the area, I recommend spending time watching Bruno present-- he is certainly someone who can engage and energize a crowd!

- Adrian Downes

On the Gathering Clouds of Software as a Service (SaaS)

Recently, Becky Nagel at RedmondMag.com broke a story about the next step in Microsoft's Software as a Service (SaaS) strategy: Microsoft Online Services.

For those of us building solutions in the Business Intelligence space, and haven't already spared a thought about SaaS, it is important to be consider of the mid-to-long term implications of a hosted system-of-record (S-OR) application.

Think about the major ERP vendors moving their product to a hosted, SaaS offering (like the SAP BusinessOne trials in India in 2007). In this business model, one customer may leverage a hosted ERP, for example, paying a monthly or annual fee to use only CRM and Financials services, whilst another may prefer to use additional services for managing Suppliers, Inventory, Employees (etc.). Quickly, the third-party hosted provider is able to leverage (potentially) incredible economies of scale.

Basically we are talking about a web-based “data-in” proposition, where a business collectively enters transactional data securely via the browser for one or more key business functions. On the opposite side of the fence, BI fundamentally is a “data-out” paradigm where business data is refined and exposed as information for decision making (either strategic, operational or even individual).

Now, some of you may recall the famous book and articles by Nicholas Garr (Does IT Matter, Harvard Business School Press, 2004), who discusses the commoditisation of IT into a utility of services (aka. utility computing). Naturally there was something of a backlash from IT Managers/Directors, CTOs, and CIOs (three guesses as to why). This is what SaaS is all about and where many in the IT industry (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, and obviously the major vendors) believe the trend is heading.

From a BI Practitioner perspective, there is certainly food for thought:

First, consider the S-OR application to be, in general, the ideal data source for our BI solutions since such systems typically encompass multiple business functions or domains (again, Customers, Financials, Suppliers, Employees, Inventory, etc.). The S-OR is the end goal of a Master Data Management effort, and (as I'm sure must may currently/historically agree) often the oasis of many data integration (ETL) efforts.

Next, consider our accessibility to S-OR applications should they become hosted (or “in the cloud”). Suddenly, it seems building a BI infrastructure on-site for a customer becomes somewhat less of an issue. Right? "Cool", you might say, "web-based BI" or "hosted BI".

Now consider the shifting burden of information from a customer environment to a third-party hosting provider. Do you think it will be easier or more difficult to access data and build those lovely BI solutions for customers?

Finally, consider this: if utility computing takes root, and the hosted system of record becomes a feasible and sustainable model for business, guess where BI is going next? More profoundly, who do you suppose will be in the most likely position to deliver this likely "new form" of BI?

What are your thoughts?

- Adrian Downes

On the Best Explanation of a Financial Model with Shares Calculations

Kudos to Sacha Tomey (Adatis Consulting, U.K.) who has posted a clear and concise breakdown of how the Financial Model with Shares Calculations works in PerformancePoint Planning, illustrated with a useful example. Consider this required reading if you want to implement this model type in your Planning Applications.

Update (01 - MAR - 2008):

It should come as no surprise that such top-shelf thinking would come from the U.K.'s first Performance Management specialist in the Microsoft Certified Partner Program. Congratulations to the Adatis Consulting Team!

- Adrian Downes

On Looking for BI Specialists in Australia

B(iQ) is currently looking for BI technology specialists in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide who are keen to:

• learn and build solutions with PerformancePoint Server 2007
• work a 4-day client-facing week
• grow professionally and become a Partner in the business

We are looking for team-oriented people with compelling communication skills and the desire to grow. Industry experience with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 BI technologies (SSIS, SSAS, SSRS) is required.

Additional skills and experience with any of the following technologies are desirable:

• Microsoft Office Excel 2007
• Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 (or higher)
• SharePoint Products and Technologies (WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007)

Exposure to PerformancePoint Server 2007 in a professional setting will be highly regarded. A tertiary education and relevant Microsoft certifications (MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP: BI Developer, MCTS: PerformancePoint) will help to set you apart.

Interested parties, who are either Australian citizens or permanent residents, should send their CVs to careers@b-iq.org. All communications will be held in strict confidence.

- Adrian Downes

On the MCTS Exam for PerformancePoint Server 2007

The single Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist exam (70-556) for PerformancePoint Server 2007 is now available at Prometric. Microsoft Learning luminary Trika Harms zum Spreckel provided a preview of the exam requirements for the then-beta version of the exam here.

Just be certain to leave Tim Kent and Sacha Tomey alone.... they won't divulge any secrets.... :-)

Update (25 - JAN - 2008):

The Microsoft official preparation guide for exam 70-556 can be found here.

Update (29 - JAN - 2008):

I just sat and passed this exam today. Without giving anything away, I can confirm that pretty much all of the measurement areas shown in the prep guide appear in the exam. Good hunting!

- Adrian Downes

On the Rational Guide to Planning with PerformancePoint Server 2007

The Rational Press team have informed us that The Rational Guide to Planning with Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007 is now published and available. As mentioned in a previous post, this book is designed to help you get started with the Planning feature set in PerformancePoint Server 2007.

For those among you who have asked, here's a breakdown of the chapter content:

Print Chapters
1. Performance Management and Planning
2. Introducing PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning
3. Installing PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Tools
4. Working with the Planning Administration Console
5. Getting Started with Planning Business Modeler
6. Designing Dimensions and Member Sets
7. Building Business Models
8. Securing Business Models
9. Integrating Business Data
10. Defining Business Rules
11. Using the PerformancePoint Add-in for Excel

Bonus Chapters
A. Implementing Process Management
B. Consolidating Data through Associations
C. Operational and Management Reporting
D. Closing the Performance Management Loop

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Tony Mann, Jeff Edman, and the rest of the Rational Press team. Many thanks to Corey Hulen, Peter Bull, Bruno Aziza, Bill Baker and the many amazing people at Microsoft for their time and input. Thanks are certainly due to my friend & co-author Nick Barclay for his time and energy. It certainly has been a fantastic team effort in putting both books together and spreading the word about them.

Special thanks to my wife Mary and daughter Christine for putting up with my evening disappearances, as well as the global Microsoft BI community for their support and positive feedback.

Update (31 - Jan - 2008)

In the downloadable material for Chapter 2, the AWC Modify Script.sql file is not the correct version-- please keep an eye on the Rational Press web-site for the most up to date version, which should appear very soon. The correct version of this script can be easily re-executed against your AdventureWorksDW database (since it only drops and recreates views); running the correct script will be essential for subsequent exercises, particularly in Chapter 9.

Also, there is a missing file for Chapter 4 in the downloadable material for this Rational Guide (Thanks to Mike H for pointing this out). While we are certain Rational Press will fix this as well, I have posted the instructions below to save you from potential delays.

We apologize for any inconvenience this situation may have caused.

*************************************************
A. Prior to completing the exercises in this chapter, you will need to set up a number of users on your evaluation server or in your domain.

1. From the Windows desktop navigate --> Start --> Administrative Tools and select Computer Management.

2. Inside the left-hand pane of the Computer Management console, open the System Tools --> Local Users and Groups --> Users. Right-click the Users folder and select New User from the context menu.

3. The New User dialog box appears. Enter the following information for the new account:

User name: PPSAdmin
Password: pass@word1

4. Check the Password never expires option, uncheck the User must change password at next logon option, and uncheck the Account is disabled option if necessary.

5. Click Create, and then click Close.

Repeat Steps 1-5 for the following users:

PPSContributor
pass@word1

PPSApprover
pass@word1

PPSModeler
pass@word1

B. Set up a the following folders in your prefered directory, as follows

PATHNAME\Forms
PATHNAME\Reports
PATHNAME\AssignmentForms
PATHNAME\AssignmentMasterForms

replacing PATHNAME with the path to your prefered directory.

*************************************************

Update (01 - Feb - 2008)

Rational Press has informed us that the files for Chapters 2 and 4 are now up to date.

- Adrian Downes

On the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certifications for Practitioners

While this may be old news for some, there appears to be an emerging certification program for those who help companies to craft performance management initiatives with the Balanced Scorecard methodology.

The Balanced Scorecard Collaborative (a division of The Palladium Group founded by Dr. David P. Norton) is already active in certifying software that conforms to the Balanced Scorecard method. Now, the Collaborative is promoting two levels of certification for individuals as follows:

Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified™

• awarded after completion of four Balanced Scorecard Collaborative How-To Training Seminars as well as an on-line multiple choice exam


• reflects an "understanding and command" of the Balanced Scorecard body of knowledge

Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified Practitioner™

• requires that a candidate is already Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Certified™


• requires additional documented industry experience in implementing the Balanced Scorecard method

Both designations warrant "on going education and renewal requirements".

In my opinion, I believe the Practitioner level may be the most appealing and credible since it is awarded based on both certified knowledge and documented experience; this is quite similar to the approach taken by the Project Management Institute to qualify Project Management Professional (PMP) certification candidates.

To my mind, there will always be as many detractors as there are supporters of individual certification. Nevertheless, if you feel that certification is helpful in demonstrating knowledge and communicating differentiation among your peers, then this may well be the single best way to achieve these aims in the performance management space.

For more information on these designations click here.

What do you think? Is pursuing a Balanced Scorecard certification a worthwhile endeavour?

- Adrian Downes

On PerformancePoint Server 2007 Planning Features (Part 8)

Part 8 - Consolidation and Reporting

In Part 7 of this PPS Planning series of posts, we briefly covered how the PPS Add-in for Excel is used to enter data into a model, as well as review and approve such data (based on the assignment role of the user) as part of a scheduled cycle of assignments. In this long overdue (!) and final instalment in this series, we will take a glance at the role of associations and business rules in consolidating data for subsequent reporting.

Table 8.1 – Aligning Budget Activities to PerformancePoint Planning Tasks

8.1 Challenges in Consolidation

Consolidation of approved data contributions into a single location for financial reporting is necessary to provide a uniform view of a company’s plans. This exercise may be tedious for companies with an organizational structure that consists of many business units, product divisions or geographic locations; as you may recall from earlier posts, a PPS Planning application can be arranged into a hierarchy of model sites and subsites to reflect an organizational structure. Furthermore, although businesses may plan, budget or forecast for detailed conditions within a model subsite, decision-makers may only be concerned with higher-level figures in a less granular model. For example, in a company that sells a variety of products in several countries, stakeholders may only be concerned with summary revenue budget figures for specific countries without concern for how detailed product line targets contribute within each country. Meanwhile, product managers accountable for sales in each country can focus on approving more granular revenue targets for discrete products. Instead of resorting to duplication of effort in integrating data into both the detailed and summary models, we can take advantage of associations in PPS Planning that ultimately support management reporting in such situations.

Note: To be certain, the list of challenges in consolidation is far longer than those described here. The aim is to keep things brief as a function of covering PPS Planning at a high level.

8.2 Model, Dimension and Member Associations in PBM

In PBM, we have a dedicated workspace that allows us to configure associations that serve as conduits for moving and aggregating fact data between models. An association itself is expressed using three levels of detail: the model association, dimension associations within the model association and member associations within a given dimension association.

A model association (also called a model-to-model association) represents a coarse linkage between a source and destination model. Figure 8.1 shows the New Association dialog box that allows us to configure a source and destination model (residing in either a single model site or between model sites) for a model association. A model association also allows us to specify an Aggregation Function that indicates whether a Sum, Average, Min or Max function is perfomed on data as it moves into the destination model.

Figure 8.1 – New Association Dialog Box

Within a model association, a number of dimension associations are used to qualify the dimensions and membersets (remember: membersets are analogous to dimension hierarchies) that are involved between the source and destination in a model. Once a model association is created in PBM, we can access the dimension associations by clicking on the Dimension Association tab in the Associations Workspace. In Figure 8.2 we can create a dimension association for the Scenario dimension between both models by highlighting the Scenario dimension in each model and clicking on the Add Mapping button.

Figure 8.2 – Dimension Associations Tab in PBM

Note also that we may have additional dimension definitions that may not necessarily ‘line-up’ between models. Here, we must qualify the scope of members for an outstanding dimension—in a source model, this means that we include the tuples (or model cube cell intersections) of values that are aligned to the members to be included in the Aggregation Function. In a destination model, a single member can be specified to store the aggregated value (thereby performing a rollup of the source aggregated values).

Member associations are finely-grained pathways that allow us to quickly specify identical mappings between source and destination members that share a specific name, or, many-to-one mappings between a number of source members and a single destination member within a dimension association (this should not be confused with the scope of members we specify for outstanding dimensions within in a model association). We can also customize our mappings for situations where the source and destination member names are dissimilar.

Figure 8.3 – Member Associations Tab in PBM

In Figure 8.3, within the Member Associations tab, we can see the result of fully qualifying an identical mapping of all members of the Scenario dimension between both models, by simply clicking the Map Identical button.

The key to successfully implementing associations can be realized in how we have previously defined our dimensions and crafted our models. Upfront planning of the models to be used in a PPS Planning application is paramount; here, the power of shared dimensions can be realized as we can quickly map commonalities between models based on our knowledge of the members within a dimension.

The value of associations should become evident in situations where we may want to roll-up a number of fact values (in multi-dimensional space, aligned to specific dimension members in a model cube) in a source dimension, to a single member in a destination dimension (again, supplying a value that intersects on the member in the destination model cube). However, there are a few limitations to be aware of with associations. Firstly, associations do not support splitting or distribution of data from a tuple consisting of a single dimension member and value in a source model, to multiple dimension members in a destination model. In other words, one-to-many mappings in a member association are not supported in the current version of PPS Planning. Also, we cannot promote a percentage or fraction of the source aggregated value into the destination model with an association. Finally, an association will not remove scoped data from the source model once it has been allocated to the destination model; this may be ideal for situations where balances must be transfered from one model to another. In order to meet either of these requirements, we can implement one or more allocation business rules (performing either a PushCrossModelAllocation or PullCrossModelAllocation) that leverage the ALLOCATE or TRANSFER PEL (PerformancePoint Expression Language) statements. For completeness, an ALLOCATE statement only changes data in the destination model while a TRANSFER statement changes data in both the source and destination.

Using either approach (associations or allocation business rules), we are able to centralize fact data to support reporting from a single model. We can automate our process by creating a job (using the Process Management workspace in PBM) that executes the association or allocation business rule; this is ideal for allowing authorized users (most likely in an Approver assignment role) to execute the process manually from the PPS Add-in (Figure 8.4), thereby promoting approved data into the central model.

Figure 8.4 – Job Menu Items in the PPS Add-in for Excel (2007)

8.3 Reporting

After spending significant time in PBM, the typical BI developer might breathe a sigh of relief once the heavy lifting to get data into a central model for reporting is complete. Here, we have a few options for exposing our data for end-users.

We can take advantage of the simplicity in using the PPS Add-in for Excel. A report in this context is essentially the same as a form template (which is later instantiated for a given assignment), except that it does not allow data entry. In Figure 8.5, we can see a sample report that illustrates our ability to leverage conditional formatting features in Excel 2007.

Figure 8.5 – Summary Reporting with the PPS Add-in for Excel (2007)

Although we can publish reports from the PPS Add-in to SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services (SSRS 2005), the results may not always be what we expect since some reports may use MDX that cannot be rendered easily by SSRS 2005. Do take the time to review the Help file to learn more about these restrictions.

In my opinion, the more flexible, useful and reliable approach would be to switch gears and use the powerful PerformancePoint Monitoring and Analyzing (PPS-M&A) toolset. Here, we can surface data in a dashboard report (either with or without a scorecard) and implement further extensibility afforded by the PPS Monitoring SDK. Figure 8.6 shows the same information from Figure 8.5 (showing Budget and Forecast revenues along with Actuals) in a PPS Dashboard.

Figure 8.6 –Performance Reporting with PPS Monitoring Dashboard

Other options include using ProClarity 6.3 or PerformancePoint Professional Management Reporter (the latter of which is currently in beta at http://connect.microsoft.com/).

This concludes our high-level review of the PPS Planning feature set. To be certain, there is much more to the story on PPS Planning that can be found in the product documentation, at MSDN and TechNet, in the PerformancePoint forums, on the many informative blogs available (links to more than a few of these are listed in the right border of this blog) as well as in several books that will certainly emerge in the foreseeable future. In my opinion, the more you know, the further you go, so do take advantage of all the resources that present themselves on the subject of PPS Planning as they surface.

Thanks for reading, happy holidays, and good hunting with PPS Planning!

- Adrian Downes

On Microsoft Australia's Business Intelligence Summit

It is an honour for me to announce that B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay will be presenting at the Microsoft Australia Business Intelligence Summit to be held in both Melbourne (28 November) and Sydney (29 November). The upcoming event shall formally introduce Microsoft Office PerformancePoint Server 2007 to Australia.

2007 has been a banner year for Nick, who has channeled his passion for Microsoft BI technology into three Rational Guides, Microsoft Partner Readiness to be delivered in conjunction with Microsoft MVP Peter Myers across five major Australian cities in addition to his commitments to the Microsoft BI Summit.

Nick will be speaking on the subject of PerformancePoint Server 2007: Monitoring and Analytics.

To see the entire agenda, click here.

Nick has been instrumental in the growth of B(iQ) over the last few months. Considering that he has expertly juggled all of these activities and commitments while remaining a dedicated family guy is to be commended. Well done, my friend.

- Adrian Downes

On Gartner's Latest Report about PerformancePoint

Special thanks to B(iQ) Principal Consultant Nick Barclay for sourcing this latest report from Gartner, written by Neil Chandler on the impact of PerformancePoint Server 2007 in the corporate performance management (CPM) market.

Without stealing its thunder, the report finds that PerformancePoint is expected to approach market leadership within four to five years. The product is recommended today for organizations looking to execute a performance management initiative, having already invested in SQL Server 2005 and SharePoint Server 2007.

- Adrian Downes