Open Source Business Intelligence: Gartner yawns too
Just few days later IDC survey yesterday at Gartner Business Intelligence Summit Bill Hostmann, opening keynote, was quite dismissive of open-source BI .
Investigating the chicken coop.. by Meffi
[the term is becoming] kind of like the word ‘organic’ in the grocery business. It’s starting to lose its meaning, with some ‘open-source’ vendors demanding licensing fees. Open source is promising, but the business models and products haven’t kept up with the commercial products.
Seth Grimes, analyst and columnist consulting for Pentaho, points out that there is no trace of open-source BI in Gartner’s 2007 BI magic quadrant – that is no news – as results also from Nigel Pendse impressions:
the proprietary BI software vendors seem to be genuinely unconcerned by OSBI [Open Source Business Intelligence]. They never mention it to me, and they seem quite surprised if I ask them about it. A few have looked at products like Pentaho and seem totally unimpressed/unconcerned. I guess they don’t sell into [the open-source world] anyway, and therefore aren’t losing any business to OSBI that they are aware of.
Is Open Source Business Intelligence the next disruptive innovation case?
Less demanding and more price-sensitive customers might help OSBI products to grow, but low-cost disruptive innovation needs low-cost/high volume business models.
Roberto Galoppini, 
gabriele, and 1 other are discussing.
Michael 2:42 pm on March 16, 2007 Permalink
Do you think that OSS BI will have any chance?
Gartner wrote that Excel 2007 could be better than Actuate… If this is right, I also see no chance for OSS Bi solutions…
Do you have more information to this topic?
Greets
Michael
Roberto Galoppini 7:31 pm on March 17, 2007 Permalink
Hi Michael, I agree with Matt Asay saying open source BI players are transforming BI into something else. It might take time to get OS BI similar to proprietary BI, but I am not sure SMEs need them. Disruptive innovation never need perfect clones, after all.
gabriele 5:54 pm on March 20, 2007 Permalink
Do you think that OS BI is becoming similar to proprietary one? Probably some solutions do, following an OS product approach (dual licensing schema, pre-defined engines stack, …). I know something different: SpagoBI http://www.spagobi.org, following a different approach. It’s an integration platform focused on project results (e.g.: customer needs). The OS approach and business model is very important in BI domain. Innovation? Probably, in the near future. Effectiveness? Probably, now it’s the time.
Roberto Galoppini 6:53 pm on March 21, 2007 Permalink
Hi Gabriele, as I already wrote I totally agree with Matt Asay, OS BI players are targeting other customers, offering something else. As far as I understand SpagoBI, based on the Jasper report engine, is targeted to Public Administrations, am I right?
About double-licensing I believe it makes sense, sometimes, but I doubt it fits any needs. By the way BI requires a lot of consultancy, I don’t think you need any extra “lock-in” measure, right?
I would like to know more about your product and your business model, let me know if you are available for an interview any soon.
It might take time to get OS BI similar to proprietary BI, but I am not sure SMEs need them. Disruptive innovation never need perfect clones, after all.
gabriele 10:14 am on March 23, 2007 Permalink
Roberto, SpagoBI is not based on the Jasper report engine, it’s a platform integrating several different analytics tools and engines, with a non-exclusive choice: http://www.spagobi.org. It’s not targeting PAs, it’s targeting all market domains and needs; a lot of interest arises from PAs now. In my opinion the strength of OSS is not that it’s free (or cheaper, following the dual licensing schema) but that it’s more adaptive to the customers’ needs. Customers’ needs are satisfied by the development of software projects using OSS and so they need a lot of consultancy for all business domains, not only for BI. I hope that for all business domains (not only BI again) the competition is not OSS vs. proprietary; the very OSS is something different from a proprietary solution now and in the future. The challenge is for an effective solution. Sometime I talk about an OSS ecology for value, a value-hypernetwork that I think is suitable also for SMEs. No problem for an interview about business domain, if you like.
Roberto Galoppini 11:25 am on March 23, 2007 Permalink
Thank you Gabriele to keep conversating. I thought SpagoBI was based on jasper report engine because is reported in the dependencies’ list, as far as I understand you really ned only if you’re using some SpagoBI components, am I right?
I heard only about SpagoBI used within PA projects, other markets have different needs, please let me know how you cope with that.
I don’t think OSS is different “in nature”. I believe that many OS products are just licensed with OSI approved licenses, and that is proven to not make any real difference for customers. Adaptability is a nice to have, but it is definitely not granted by source code availability. Software engineering states that modifying software authored by others costs from 2 to 6 times, and sometimes even 20 times!
In this respect OS is a promise, not always fulfilled though.
Consultancy it is great for System Integrators and Consulting firms, again one size doesn’t fit all. BI is a good application area in this respect indeed.
General statements are always too vague, let’s talk about your approach!
gabriele 4:43 pm on March 23, 2007 Permalink
In short,
OS (not OSS) is different in “nature” if you think that OS is not only software “OSI approved”, but a different approach (process development, contribution, trust, network ..and more else): not general statements, facts. I’m working inside a Consortium (ObjectWeb) collaborating with other projects, individuals, integrators, SMEs. We collaborate also with projects and actors outside OW Consortium as well. Adaptability is non “granted” by source code availability, but code availability foster adaptability.
Sorry, words are words and using words we build nothing; software realizations are facts and we daily verify what OS developments makes the difference (non something like: install, configure, go live; A lot of failure with this approach). Obviously, not every time, not everywhere, not in all application domains. It’s just my experience and I hope it’s not the unique experience in OS domain. I’ve outlined my approach in Sardinia Convention PAAL 2007 (you can find a my paper in the website – sorry, it’s in Italian and tailored just for PAs).
Roberto Galoppini 6:02 pm on March 23, 2007 Permalink
Gabriele I totally follow your line of thought, let’s talk about facts. Two questions and few comments below.
Could you approximately tell me if your outside contributions are significant and at which extent?
Could you put me in touch with a SME contributing, in order to ask few questions about the OSS ecology of value you mentioned above?
Talking about the install-configure-go live (or nightly-build) method I would say that it worked quite well with few OS projects, I am definitely more sympathetic than critical of. You know why? Because when your product it is ready for prime time a vibrant community is already there. If in doubt ask Alfresco if it is or not an issue.
What makes a real difference is the modular architecture of software which strongly affects capability coordination. As with code availability, modularity is also just a precondition. What is needed to foster “lock-in free” services is a strong commitment for community-based peer production. And the community process has no much to do with the software, it is about sharing business opportunities in the long run (see MySQL and Red Hat approaches).
gabriele 12:59 pm on March 26, 2007 Permalink
Just some examples: contributions to eXo Platform, ServiceMix, Jpivot, Cimero and more… because it make no sense don’t give back a realization of general interest. But also projects integration (e.g.: SpagoBI and eXo, Talend and more ..): it means sharing projects road-map to achieve a bigger solution of general interest.
Roberto Galoppini 1:19 pm on March 26, 2007 Permalink
Gabriele I was asking about outside contributions to your project, though it is interesting to know you are contributing to others’ projects.
No SME is worth to interview to talk about the OSS ecology of value yet?
Keep in touch.
Michael 10:56 pm on June 5, 2007 Permalink
Thank you both for your contributions in this post. I have learned quite bit more since following along here.