Proposal Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Last Name: Mayne First Name: Andrew Period: 4th

Overarching question: How can Business Intelligence (BI) software improve the communication and effectiveness of data
presentation and when is it cost effective?

Key Terms (list and define in the space below)

Business Intelligence software – a set of different softwares designed to give insight into large data sets when used together.

Data Presentation – The presentation of any data set, large or small, using graphs, charts, or other visual summaries

Communication – the ease of understanding when a set of data is presented, how easily an audience understands.

Effectiveness – How much the data presented improves the targeted trends and practices.
 Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Foundational Sub Problem 1: How can data effectively be presented, and what are the common mistakes in data presentation?

APA Purpose Framework Sampl Design Variables/ Results Controversies Assumptions Implication
format e instrument , , Limitations s for
referenc Overarching Hypothesis s disagreements and practice,
e Question / Objective How the How the with other Delimitations research,
data was Validity hypothesis was authors theory
collected and supported/rejecte
? Reliability d You will add
a list of
Conclusion and authors
further studies referenced in
this section
on a separate
page
Diong, These To All Ten All papers Overall, 76-84% No When raters Our results
J., recommenda determine papers questions were of papers with disagreements could not confirm
Butler, tions were if data publish and independen written measures were found unambiguous that the
A. A., made so presentatio ed in scoring tly scored that summarized ly interpret quality of
Gandevi authors n has the criteria by three data variability the data, statistical
a, S. C., would improved Journal were raters used standard either reporting is
& implement since the of develope (AAB, JD, errors of the individually generally
Héroux, them in publication Physio d to MEH). mean, and 90- or as a team, poor.
M. E. future of the logy assess Scores that 96% of papers did we scored Overall,
(2018). research Journal of and the statistical differed not report exact p- papers to these
Poor reports. Physiology British reporting, between values for primary give authors results
statistica However, it ’s editorial Journal data raters were analyses and post- the benefit of highlight
l is not known series. of presentati discussed hoc tests. 76-84% doubt. (p. 3) the sheer
reportin whether Specificall Pharm on and to reach of papers that magnitude
g, reporting y, we acolog spin in agreement plotted measures of the
inadequ practices in assessed y in the text by to summarize problem:
ate data these statistical the and consensus. variability used poor
presenta journals reporting, years figures of The standard errors of statistical
tion and have data 2007- the wording of the mean, and reporting
spin improved presentatio 2010 extracted the only 2-4% of and
persist since the n and spin and papers. questions, papers plotted raw questionabl
despite publication in a 2012- Questions scoring data used to e
editorial of this random 2015 assessing criteria, calculate interpretatio
advice. editorial sample of and statistical and scoring variability. Of n of results
Plos advice. (p. 2) papers indexe reporting instruction papers that are truly
ONE, published d on in the text s were reported p-values common
13(8), 1- in the four PubMe (Q1-5) refined to between 0.05 and practice for
10. years d were determine avoid 0.1, 56-63% many
doi:10.1 before and extract d if and different interpreted such scientists. .
371/jour four years ed. how interpretati p-values as trends To improve
nal.pone after the Papers written ons by or statistically research
.020212 editorial were measures raters. The significant. (p.3) practices,
1 advice by exclud that questions In summary, these
Drummond ed if summariz are shown reporting practices initiatives
and Vowler they e in Fig 1. have not aim to raise
was were variabilit Scoring improved despite awareness
published. editori y were criteria and published editorial of the
(p.2) als, defined, additional advice. Journals issues,
review and if details of and other educate
s, exact p- the members of the researchers
erratu values questions scientific and provide
ms, were are community tools to
comme reported provided in continue to implement
nts, for the scoring advocate and the various
rebutta primary informatio implement recommend
ls, or analyses n sheets in strategies for ations.
part of and post- the change, but these While the
the hoc tests. supporting have only had enduring
Journal Questions informatio limited success. success of
of assessing n (S2 File). Stronger these
Physio data When incentives, better initiatives
logy’s presentati scoring education and remains to
Crosst on in was widespread be
alk figures completed, enforcement are determined,
corresp (Q6-8) papers that needed for we remain
ondenc determine were enduring hopeful for
e d if and difficult or improvements in the future.
series. how ambiguous reporting practices There is
A plotted to score to occur. (p.7) considerabl
rando measures (less than e
m that 5% of all momentum
sample summariz papers) throughout
of 20 e were science, and
papers variabilit reviewed many
before y were by all leaders
and 20 defined, raters and from
 papers and if raw scoring various
after data used determined disciplines
the to by have
editoricalculate consensus. stepped up
al the (p.3) to lead the
advice variabilit way. (p. 6-
was y were 7)
used toplotted.
assess Questions
the assessing
claritythe
of the presence
scoringof spin
instruc(Q9-10)
tions determine
and d if p-
scoringvalues
agreem between
ent 0.05 and
betwee 0.1 were
n interprete
raters.d as
(p. 2- trends or
3) statisticall
y
significan
t. (p. 2)
Djalalini What are the The present We We To assess Most of the time, No Shortcoming As a
a, S., main paper is retriev conducte the quality using primary or disagreements s in accuracy feasible
Kelishad problems of intended to ed da and secondary data is were found of parameter solution,
i, R., Iranian reveal the 3,253 systemati availability not optimal. In estimations both the
Qorbani, scientific main records c review of data in order to adopt a or even gaps authors and
M., papers? (p. problems ; of to papers, we more useful in data scientific
Peykari, 831) of Iranian these identify considered approach, we presenting journals
N., scientific 1,875 the trend the should focus on methods and must be
Kasaeia papers and were of following selecting data that skills limited simultaneou
n, A., some data from overweig four main are appropriate to our access to sly more
Moghad provision interna ht and domains: the research targeted responsive
dam, S. based tional obesity in a) Quality question and the accurate for the
S., & ... comments and a 24-year of studies, available reliable data. paper
Farzadfa that can be 1,378 interval b) Quality resources to the For instance, quality.
r, F. helpful for from from report of researcher. Other what is Journals
(2014). providing nationa 1990 to the results, important reported as should
Suggesti better data l 2013 in c) determinants are missing data adopt more
ons for in the field databa Iranian Responsive time, money, and in a policies for
better of national ses. children ness of personal paper/report, data quality
data and sub After and correspond expertise.9,13–14 whether it and data
presenta national refinin adolescen ing It is also was an exact sharing.
tion in prevalence, g ts. authors, noteworthy that report or if it They must
papers: incidence steps, Retrieval and d) working with was consider
An estimates 129 of studies Diversity secondary data is extracted more
experien and trends (3.97% was in study efficient from obligatory
ce from of ) performe settings. economically and researcher standard
a childhood papers d through We used provides more error in data protocols
compreh obesity and remain Thomson the GBD extensive data. At estimation, for data
ensive overweight ed Reuters (Global the same time, in will be qualities,
study on . (p. 831) related Web of Burden of some situations, decisive in more exact
national to our Science, Diseases) ambiguity in the strength peer-
and sub- study PubMed, validated details of data of the reviews,
national domai and quality collection association and
trends of n (p. Scopus, assessment processes and and analysis providing
overwei 831) as well as form which aims of studied that is instructions
ght and Iranian has three misleads the calculated in to authors
obesity. databases parts: researchers. future chains regarding
Archives including general (p.832) of studies the public
Of Irandoc, informatio based on availability
Iranian Scientific n, them (p. 832) and sharing
Medicin Informati sampling of data
e (AIM), on quality, from
17(12), Database and submitted
830- (SID), measureme manuscripts
836. IranMede nt quality. . Using
Retrieve x based Based on journal
d from on our the total authority,
the search score, the non-
Academ strategy. quality of responsive
ic For more article correspondi
Search accuracy, might be ng authors
Complet in ranked as have to be
e addition excellent obliged
database to the (13–18), to share
. searched good (6- their data
articles 12) or poor when
and (<=5). researchers
national Papers that ask them.
and sub- had poor Furthermor
national ratings e, it is
studies, were essential to
we excluded develop
detected and data regulatory
all papers were mechanism
that were extracted s for
cited in from journals to
the moderate ensure that
reference and high such
s of quality policies
retrieved studies would be
papers (12). The consistently
and quality followed by
 reports. assessment authors and
(p.831) was researchers.
followed (p. 832,
independen 835)
tly by two
research
experts and
probable
discrepanc
y between
them was
resolved
based on
third expert
opinion.
Agreement
was
assessed
using
Cohen’s
kappa
statistic.
The kappa
statistic for
agreement
on quality
assessment
was 0.92.
(p. 831)
Shah, P., Why are The first Resear These Variables: In summary, 3 None Found Limited in Choose the
& some graphs goal of this ch on three Identificati classes of factors two ways. format
Hoeffner relatively paper is to graph processes on of have been shown First, it depending
, J. easy for present a aspects imply that visual to affect the focuses on on the
(2002). viewers to review of (p. 51) three features, interpretation of the communica
Review comprehend the factors Relation of graphs: (1) A interpretation tion goal.
of graph for a empirical play an visual characteristic of of graphs Use
compreh particular literature important features to the visual display, depicting multiple
ension task, and on how role in conceptual (2) the viewers meaningful formats to
research others more viewers determini relations knowledge of data, communica
: difficult? (p. interpret ng a that are graphical schemas generally in te the same
Implicat 49) graphs and viewer’s represented in conventions, context of data. Use
ions for the factors interpreta by those and (3) The science and the “best
instructi that make tion of features, content of the social visual
on. graphs easy data: the referent of graph and the studies. dimensions
Educati or difficult characteri the viewers prior Research has to convey
onal to stics of concepts knowledge and happened in metric
Psychol understand. the visual being expectations about a variety of information
ogy The display quantified. the content. ways so when ever
Review, difficulty (bar or (p. 50-51) Research on graph focus is on possible.
14(1), of line interpretation can studies for Use
47-69. comprehen graph, be used to help which there animation
sion is not color or develop are clear with
merely a black and guidelines for the educational caution.
function of white, design of graphs implications Reduce
characterist etc. ), as text adjuncts or (p. 49-50) working
ics of the knowledg in educational memory
graph itself e about software, as well demands.
but is also graphs as for the teaching Choose
influenced (graph of graphical colors
by how schemas), literacy skills. (p. carefully.
those and 66) The “third”
features content dimension
interact (e.g. age is okay
with the vs height, unless
viwer’s time vs precise
knowledge distance). metric
 and Below, information
objective. we is need.
The second discuss Choose
goal of this research aspect
article is on these ration and
the discuss three data density
the factors carefully
implication and its Make
s of the implicatio graphs and
graph n for text
comprehen instructio consistent.
sion n. (p. 51) (p.62-63)
research
for
discussing
of graphs
for students
and for
teaching
graphical
literacy
skills. (p.
49)
With respect It is To We begin We used Even though we First, the Suffice it to This means
Valentin to BASP’s intended as illustra by the have provided great majority say that that
e, J. C., editorial a basic te how articulatin reported tools that we think of producers virtually researchers
Aloe, A. policy, how primer on to g some scale-level will help users and users of everyone and their
M., & can we ways to explor basic means, confront these statistical involved in consumers
Lau, T. prompt explore and e and principles standard challenges, doing significance the NHST will have to
S. authors to present the present about deviations, so will often tests have debate agrees exercise
(2015). move away results of data data and sample involve fundamental with the more
Life from simple an for presentati sizes to ambiguous misconceptio following judgment
after and experiment contin on. We simulate judgments, and ns about what assertions. when
NHST: relatively so that uous then the ambiguous the results First, the deciding
How to uninformativ researchers outco provide underlying judgments are arising from great what a
describe e assertions and their mes, several data where judge an NHST majority of particular
your like ‘‘the readers can we suggestio structure. preferences get mean. These producers study
data result was better used ns for Although revealed. In spite include the and users of reveals
without statistically understand the presentin our of this caveat, we widespread statistical about the
“ p -ing” significant, what the study g and simulated believe that beliefs that (a) significance relationship
everywh p<.05’’ and data reveal by interpreti data providing rich p is the tests have under
ere. toward about their Mahler ng data provide a graphic and probability fundamental question.
Basic & richer and research , when the very good numeric that the null is misconceptio For
Applied more question. Becker outcome approximat descriptions of false (e.g., ns about example,
Social informative (p. 261) ley, is ion of data will allow Cohen, 1994); what the they will
Psychol ways of and continuou Mahler et users to reach (b) a small p results have to
ogy, describing Vogel s, and we al.’s data their own means that the arising from determine if
37(5), and (p. conclude (e.g., our conclusions about result is an NHST the effect
260- presenting 262) with simulated what the study generalizable, mean. size is large
273. their data. To suggestio d¼þ0.28, reveals about the that is, the Second, the enough to
doi:10.1 (p. 261) illustra ns for Mahler et research question, next study on ‘‘ritual’’ of be
080/019 te presentin al.’s and will provide a the same topic NHST meaningful
73533.2 metho g and d¼þ0.37), stronger basis for is highly obscures in the
015.106 ds for interpreti there will informed likely to also important theoretical
0240 explori ng data be slight discussions about result in a results, most and=or
ng and when the differences that important rejection of notably practical
present outcome between question. Or in the null indicators of context of
ing is binary. what we Tukey’s words, hypothesis the practical the research
data (p. 261) present we hope that a (e.g., Tversky meaning of question,
for next and focus on rich & Kahneman, the and they
binary what description will 1971); and (c) relationship will have to
outco Mahler et help us arrive at a difference in being thoughtfull
mes, al. would an approximate statistical studied. y
we use have answer to the right conclusions Third, NHST contextualiz
Bolkan presented question, instead across two results in a e their
and had they of a precise analyses binary results in
 Anders followed answer to the means that the reject=do not the
en’s these wrong question. effects in the reject empirical
(2009) procedures (p. 268) two analyses decision, (p. history of
study with the were 260-261) the research
examin actual data. statistically question (p.
ing the (p. 262) significantly 268)
extent different from
to one another
which (e.g., Gelman
getting & Stern,
individ 2006). (p.
uals to 260)
endors
ea
salient
self-
image
results
in
increas
ed
rates of
compli
ance.
(p.266)
Weissge How is data However, We We Variables: Bar graphs were No The study Univariate
rber, T. presented in studies of system conducte appearance the most disagreements examines scatterplots
L., scientific the Journal atically da of not of a commonly used were found articles two are the best
Milic, papers (p.1) of the review systemati type of figures for years old. choice for
N. M., American ed all c review graph. presenting Doesn’t showing the
Winham Medical full- of Type of continuous data. analyze trend distribution
, S. J., & Associatio length, standard data 85.6% of papers that of the data
Garovic, n[1]and the origina practices represented included at least presentation in these
V. D. British l for data . one bar graph. was on. (p.3) small
(2015). Medical researc presentati Instrument: Most of these samples, as
Beyond Journal [2] h on in Manual papers used bar boxplots
bar and provide articles scientific review of graphs that and
line compelling publish papers, documents. showed mean ±SE histograms
graphs: evidence ed in contrastin Validity (77.6%, Panel B would be
Time for that the g the use and in S2Fig), rather difficult to
a new fundament top25 of bar reliability: than mean interpret.
data al changes %of graphs Good ±SD(15.3%). Line By
presenta in the types physiol versus content graphs and point displaying
tion of figures ogy figures validity and error bar plots the full
paradig that journal that and were also dataset,
m. Plos scientists s provide analysis of common (61.3% scatterplots
Biology, use are betwee detailed multiple of articles, Panel allow
13(4), 1- needed n informati traits. AinS2 Fig), and readers to
10. (p.1) Januar on about Good test most showed detect gross
doi:10.1 y 1and the retest mean ±SE. violations
371/jour March distributi reliability Figures that of statistical
nal.pbio. 31,201 on of the (p. 2-4) provide detailed assumption
1002128 4 (n data(scatt information about s and to
=703)t erplots, the distribution of determine
o boxplots, the data were whether the
assess and seldom used. results
the histogram 13.4% of articles would have
types s). (p.2) included at least been
of one univariate different
figures scatterplot, 5.3% using
that included at least alternative
were one boxplot, and statistical
used to 8.0% included at analysis
present least one techniques.
contin histogram. The This is
uous journals that we especially
outco examined publish important
me research for
data(S conducted by investigator
1Fig investigators in s who use
and many fields; parametric
Table therefore, it is analyses to
A in likely that compare
S1Text investigators in groups in
).We other disciplines small
also follow similar studies. We
abstrac practices. The created free
ted overuse of bar Excel
inform graphs and other templates
ation figures that do not that are
on provide available in
sample information about the
size the distribution of supplement
and the data has also al files for
statisti been documented the
cal in manuscript
analysi psychology[3]and (S2Text and
s medicine (p. 3-4) S3Text). (p.
proced 6)
ures,
as
these
factors
may
influen
ce
figure
selecti
on.
 Detaile
d
metho
ds and
results
are
present
ed in
the
data
supple
ment
(p. 3)

Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Foundational Sub Problem 2: What is BI software and how does it allow for easy and effective communication of data?

APA Purpose Framework Sampl Design Variables/ Results Controversies Assumptions Implication
format e instrument , , Limitations s for
reference Overarchin Hypothesis s How the disagreements and practice,
g Question / Objective How the hypothesis was with other Delimitations research,
data was Validity supported/rejecte authors theory
collected and d
? Reliability You will add
Conclusion and a list of
further studies authors
referenced in
this section
 on a separate
page
Acosta, A. how goal- This paper The Activity The Information None Found Though no However,
P., Espino, oriented aims to context 2: To requiremen scoping consistent goal-
M. M., & models present a of design the ts of a requirements were data sources oriented
Casamayor allow tactical BI analysi dashboar dashboard modeled as tasks were found requirement
, R. B. capturing dashboard. s was d. are divided to be implemented for some of s as well as
(2016). the (p. 681) the In this into four by the actor the metrics, the models
Goal- requirement develo activity, a categories Dashboard in Late this proposed in
oriented s of a pment tool [2]: Requirements. To hierarchy of [15] are
dashboard' dashboard of a develope Informatio accomplish goals and equally
s and aligning dashbo d by the n scoping: Information tasks allowed useful when
requireme the metrics ard to authors of The management modeling developing
nts with of a measur the paper dashboard requirements, an Information a non-BI
i*: a case dashboard e and was used should analysis of the scoping and dashboard.
study. with the to to create provide OLTP data source Goals- Future
INGENIA goals of monito the visual relevant SIGENU was oriented works will
RE - decisionmak r the interface informatio performed, requirements be
Revista ers? (p.683) perfor of the n to the represented as a (p. 687) developed
Chilena mance dashboar user. task belonging to to validate
De of d. The Informatio the actor this idea.
Ingeniería, student criteria n Dashboard However,
24(4), s in the for manageme analyst. any other
680-689. Facult selecting nt: The Furthermore, BI tool
y of this tool quality, several ETL might be
Inform were quantity processes were used to
ation mainly and performed to design the
Engine two: 1) correctness assure correctness visual
ering whether f data-must of data and to interface of
at the tool be ensured. build a Data Mart. the
CUJA fulfilled Functions: Functions dashboard.
E (p. the The requirements were (p. 687)
681) requireme dashboard modeled as tasks
nts of the should to be implemented
dashboar provide by the actor
d and 2) functions Dashboard in Late
the that fit the Requirements.
experienc needs of Finally, User
e of the decision- interface
Dashboar makers to requirements were
d improve modeled as soft-
designer decision goals belonging to
with the making. the actor
tool. User Dashboard. In
The interface: addition, it was
selected Informatio represented how
tool is n should be the tasks might
presented presented affect these soft-
in [24] to the goals and how the
and decision- soft-goals might
consists maker in a affect the goals of
of a graphical the dashboard. All
module way (p. this allowed
integrated 682) evaluating
to a BI alternatives of
suite solutions,
develope depending on
d by the whether the tasks
authors of and soft-goals
the paper affected the
as well. requirements
As a positively or
requireme negatively. (p.
nt to use 687)
the
module,
 Microsoft
Analysis
Services
(MAS)
OLAP
(On-Line
Analytica
l Process)
cubes
need to
be
created.
(p. 686)
Andronie, Aviation To explore Two of Some of Volume – Analyzing the None found Some of the Further
M. (2015). data come big data the the best big data is different business best known research can
Airline in large and offer most known stored in intelligence tools business be
application volumes, decision used business large available on the intelligence conducted
s of having support at airline intelligen quantities, market, it was software regarding
business varied all levels in industr ce making it concluded that a products will the
intelligenc formats and a company y software impossible company that has be analyzed possibility
e systems. continuousl special specifi products to analyze access to large in the present to integrate
INCAS y, having all software c will be or process volumes of data section with into a
Bulletin, the systems busine analyzed it without has two options to the purpose common
7(3), 153- characteristi have to be ss in the dedicated extract useful of making a platform the
160. cs of big used, also intellig present computer decision support comparison advantages
doi:10.131 data. Big known as ence section software information: between of both
11/2066- data with business produc with the and high processing data by them and general
8201.2015 provenance intelligence ts are purpose computatio using general outlining the purpose and
.7.3.14 from the / business present of making nal power; purpose business advantages dedicated
airline intelligence ed in a big data intelligence and business
industry, type Table comparis also systems or disadvantage intelligence
according to systems. 2, with on requires processing data by s of using systems
the paper (p. 155) their between large using industry such tools in (flexibility,
Cross- main them and storage specific business the airline performanc
Platform charact outlining devices, its intelligence industry. e, multiple
Aviation eristics the quantity systems. After Table 1 functionaliti
Analytics as advantage being only presenting both presents es, access to
Using Big- adverti s and limited by the general- some industry
Data sed on disadvant the purpose and general- specific
Methods the ages of capacity of airline industry purpose data). (p.
can have official using storage on specific business business 160)
multiple websit such tools these intelligence tools, intelligence
sources: es. (p. in the devices; it was concluded tools,
flight 158) airline Variety – that the former together with
tracking industry. big data is offer to their
data, Table 1 found in a companies more advantages
passenger presents wide flexibility and a and
information, some variety of wider range of disadvantage
airport general- formats; instruments, but, s. The
operations, purpose the variety in the same time, advantages
aircraft business of the big they are not as and
information, intelligen data can adapted to the disadvantage
weather ce tools, pose an needs of airline s presented
data, airline together important companies as the are
information, with their problem latter. On the synthetized
market advantage for those other hand, after
information s and who dedicated airline consulting
and air disadvant develop industry business several
safety ages. The algorithms intelligence dedicated
reports [1]. advantage to explore systems offer websites
(p. 154) s and or process solutions to with users’
disadvant it; its specific problems opinions.
ages variety also that airline (p.157)
presented makes big companies are
are data facing, offering
synthetize exploration even access to
d after much more specific data
consultin challengin interesting to such
g several g than companies.
dedicated convention Dedicated airline
websites al data industry business
with sources intelligence
users’ such as systems are not
opinions. structured only useful to
(p. 157) data airline companies,
warehouse but also to others
s or involved in
relational related businesses.
databases. (p. 160)
Velocity –
big data is
generated
almost
continuous
ly from
different
technologi
cal or
economic
processes,
such as
those
found in
the airline
industry:
data related
to air
traffic, data
coming
 from
sensors in
airplanes
etc.
(p. 153-
154)
Cristescu, The success Actually a The Statistical In the A Business None found Only looks at A Business
M. P. of a BI Business compa Analysis questionnai Intelligence Microsoft BI Intelligence
(2017). solution Intelligenc ny has re for solution helps the solution
Business consists, in e solution investe clients of user within an makes it
intelligenc the end, in should be d, with the magic organization to easy to the
e how much it capable of consist quadrant achieve the teams to
integrated helps the providing ency in many following targets: understand
solutions. users, evaluations the customers achieving the business
Revista managers that are constru Microsoft enterprisecritical data
Academiei and simply ction have or profit figures to throughout
Fortelor technicians, impossible and shown the be exceeded; the
Terestre, in an to get in improv TCO (Total maximizing enterprise
22(4), organization other ways. ement Cost of profitability by interaction
270-275. to achieve (p. 270) of the Ownership identifying the and
Retrieved the BI ) most profitable synthesize
from the company’s functio (Microsoft programs; search the results
Academic critical ns of Corporatio for opportunities of the
Search goals (p. the n, 2010a) to reduce costs comprehens
Complete 270) three as the most throughout the ive review,
database. essenti important Organization; trends and
al reason for avoid overuse of forecast
offerin choosing IT resources, results to
gs: Microsoft business-teams understand
Micros BI as the becoming more the
oft bidder, confident in their implications
Office, while the own forces; of these in-
Micros costs are enabling faster depth
 oft indicated and more glances
SQL less effective use of IT over the
Server frequently for business and objectives
and in the domestic of the
Micros questionnai customers, enterprise.
oft re as a compiling a Business
ShareP barrier for summary of 360 Intelligence
oint to a wider degrees geared users
increas spread of towards understand
e their Microsoft customers. (p. what
value. compared 275) happened,
(p. to most of what is
271) the other happening
tenderers. and what
(p. 272) steps need
to be taken
in the
future. (p.
275)
Klisarova- Modern The data Methodol Variables: BI and analytical According to Gartner The number
Belcheva, companies purpose of from ogy suppliers, platforms market (1), business connects the of
S., Ilieva, have always this work is annual employed buyers, is highly intelligence future of BI customers
G., & needed such analyzing reports in this differences competitive – the means with the and users
Yankova, software, and from paper between number of “knowledge functionality significantl
T. (2017). but it was in evaluating leading includes: software, vendors is gained smart data y rose in
Business the 10s of current researc - content regression growing, the through the discovery 20132016.
intelligenc the XXI state of h and analysis analytics products and access and (naturallangu Business
e and century that BIS market advisor and technologies that analysis of age realizes the
analytics - it became and y firms secondary Instrument: are offered have business processing, importance
Contempo widely outlining such as analysis – Statistical increasingly richer information. natural- of BI
rary accessible significant Gartne for analysis functionality, Business language software for
system and virtually trends in r, researchi (p.299) prices of intelligence query and improving
model. indispensabl BI Dresne ng the BI traditional BI tools and natural- competitive
Trakia e as a technologie r market as solutions are technologies language ness and
Journal Of convenient s Adviso a falling. The include query generation) invests
Sciences, means of developme ry dynamic choice of software and reporting. for text- and more in it.
15(Supp1) optimizing nt for the Servic collection product is heavily According to voice-based The new BI
, 298-304. costs and last five es, and of determined by the other authors, interaction system
doi:10.155 increasing years. (p. IDC participan offered (2-6), BI is and its model can
47/tjs.201 revenue. (p. 298) (p. ts functionality, neither a realization serve as a
7.s.01.053 298) 299) (suppliers therefore, the next product, nor a will hold a benchmark
and logical steps in system. It is significant for
buyers), future research an sway over comparison
BI are: - analyzing architecture the future in
instrumen functional and a ranking in researching
ts and characteristics of collection of the Quadrant. future
their commonly used integrated (P. 303 technologic
characteri BI tools and operational al
stics; - - proposing a applications, innovations
comparati multi-criteria (p. 298) in BI. It is
ve system for their flexible and
analysis – evaluation. can be
for adapted to
determini Knowledge of reflect
ng the current state of changes. (p.
similaritie affairs, main 303)
s and participants and
difference offered products
s in on the BI market
research will aid potential
conducte clients in
d by the choosing suitable
mentione BI solution. (303-
d research 304)
and
advisory
companie
s; - for
statistical
analysis
and
objectiviz
ation of
obtained
results,
the
following
methods
were
used:
tabular,
graphical
and
descriptiv
e
analysis,
as well as
dispersio
n analysis
in MS
Excel
2016; -
regressio
n
analysis,
moving
averages,
and
exponenti
al
smoothin
g – for
forecastin
g trends
in sales
volume
(in
monetary
terms)
and
market
share of
suppliers
via
Analysis
ToolPak
in MS
Excel
2016; -
generaliz
ation of
empirical
data and
uncoverin
g
relationsh
ips
between
market
participan
ts; -
modeling
 and
synthesis
in
developin
ga
modern
BIS
architectu
re.
(p.299)
Lewandow Modern In this The In this The effects The presentation None found The first day The authors
ski, R., database paper, an solutio project, of the of the on this scale plan as a
Fronczak, systems are attempt has n was the data implement implemented is a relative next step to
E., very been made to was ation of concept of the start date, develop a
Wawrzyni efficient and to launch analyzed electroniza application of defined as tool so-
ak, K., capacious; introduce a Data in more tion tools Business the day on called
Łagodzińs therefore, the Excha than sixty vary that Intelligence which the “knowledge
ki, M., & the actual outlooks of nge data bases the solutions in a first medical cube”
Czechums problem is establishin Structu on an probability health service event took which will
ki, W. not how to g re OLTP of failure is organization, place, register,
(2012). store data correlation (DXS), (OnLine higher than intended to recorded integrate,
The but how to s between which Transacti that of the determine the from day n, and present
application use it medical enable on success correlations being earlier knowledge
of effectively events and s the Processin [12]. The between medical than the date to the user.
business (p. 89) their results multi- g) server most events and their of the At the same
intelligenc using a party operating critical results, allows us identification time, it will
e solutions Business exchan in the MS factors that to formulate a of the TNM minimize
in a health Intelligenc ge of SQL impact the basic conclusion code, which integration
care e tool kit. data 2005 effectivene that such determines services and
organizati The paper and environm ss of a BI solutions, the stage of enable
on. studia outlines the organi ent. In system are: structurally development finding the
i materialy process of zed order to output adapted to provide of the cancer shortest
polskiego sourcing collecti improve informatio business analysis, in the OC links or the
stowarzysz knowledge on of the n accuracy, may well be medical kind of lack
enia from large data usefulnes conformity applied in the system. (p. of them for
zarzadzani sets of transfe s of the to the medical sector, 94) a minimal
a wiedza / medical rred databases, requiremen and even more so path
studies & data of throug the ts, and where business between
proceedin patients h the following support of and health individual
gs polish from the DXS. BI organizatio services overlap. objects. An
associatio Oncology (p. 91) services nal It also concerns organized
n for Centre (p. were efficiency the data structures register of
knowledge 91) applied: [13]. One in transactional knowledge
manageme MS SQL of the ways data sets, which is
nt, (58), 2008 to optimize occur on the indispensab
89-100. SSIS internal borderline of le for
(SQL processes medical and successful
Server in hospitals economic and knowledge
Integratio is to organizational managemen
n introduce a problems. The t. (p. 99)
Services), standardize condition
SSAS d format of precedent for the
(SQL data task identified in
Server recording the title is a
Analysis and competent
Services), automation preparation of the
and – for of data Data Warehouse
presentati acquisition environment,
ons – and which would
Microsoft exchange guarantee that the
PowerPiv methods information
ot. The that would resources are
choice of not require reliable and
BI tools human proper for the
was interventio intended analyses.
determine n [14] (p. The systems from
d by the 91) which the
desire to information would
ensure be acquired by the
coherence DW should meet
of the these
environm requirements as
ent for well. (p. 98-99)
OLTP and
OLAP
servers,
as well as
by the
price
factor.
The
OLAP is
a new
model of
data
processin
g, which
is
designed
to support
data
analysis
processes.
In this
model, it
is
possible
to analyze
data in
multiple
user-
defined
‘dimensio
ns’ (time,
place,
product
classificat
ion, etc.).
The
analysis
consists
in
calculatin
g
aggregate
s for
defined
dimensio
ns. It
should be
underline
d that the
whole
analytical
process is
controlled
by the
user [15].
(p. 93)
References (Both from FSP 1, FSP 2, FSP 3 etc.; and references from the controversies, disagreements with other authors’
column)
*Note: Always in APA format on a separate page.

References

Acosta, A. P., Espino, M. M., & Casamayor, R. B. (2016). Goal-oriented dashboard's requirements with i*: a case study. INGENIARE

- Revista Chilena De Ingeniería, 24(4), 680-689.

Andronie, M. (2015). Airline applications of business intelligence systems. INCAS Bulletin, 7(3), 153-160. doi:10.13111/2066-

8201.2015.7.3.14

Cristescu, M. P. (2017). Business intelligence integrated solutions. Revista Academiei Fortelor Terestre, 22(4), 270-275. Retrieved

from the Academic Search Complete database.

Diong, J., Butler, A. A., Gandevia, S. C., & Héroux, M. E. (2018). Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin

persist despite editorial advice. Plos ONE, 13(8), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202121

Djalalinia, S., Kelishadi, R., Qorbani, M., Peykari, N., Kasaeian, A., Moghaddam, S. S., & ... Farzadfar, F. (2014). Suggestions for

better data presentation in papers: An experience from a comprehensive study on national and sub-national trends of

overweight and obesity. Archives Of Iranian Medicine (AIM), 17(12), 830-836. Retrieved from the Academic Search Complete

database.
Dresner, H. (2007). The performance management revolution: Business results through insight and action. 231

Klisarova-Belcheva, S., Ilieva, G., & Yankova, T. (2017). Business intelligence and analytics - Contemporary system model. Trakia

Journal Of Sciences, 15(Supp1), 298-304. doi:10.15547/tjs.2017.s.01.053

Lewandowski, R., Fronczak, E., Wawrzyniak, K., Agodziski, M., & Czechumski, W. (2012). The application of business intelligence

solutions in a health care organization. Studia I Materialy Polskiego Stowarzyszenia Zarzadzania Wiedza / Studies &

Proceedings Polish Association For Knowledge Management, (58), 89-100.

Moss, L. T., Atre, S. (2007). Business intelligence roadmap: The complete project lifecycle for decision-support applications. 576

Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology

Review, 14(1), 47-69.

Valentine, J. C., Aloe, A. M., & Lau, T. S. (2015). Life after NHST: How to describe your data without “ p -ing” everywhere. Basic &

Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 260-273. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1060240

Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond bar and line graphs: Time for a new data

presentation paradigm. Plos Biology, 13(4), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128