<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pragmatic Business Intelligence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.datamartist.com/pragmatic-business-intelligence/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.datamartist.com/pragmatic-business-intelligence</link>
	<description>Reduce cost with self serve data transformation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:22:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward S.</title>
		<link>http://www.datamartist.com/pragmatic-business-intelligence/comment-page-1#comment-366</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 17:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.datamartist.com/?p=2236#comment-366</guid>
		<description>On the flip side - it&#039;s funny how these &quot;side systems&quot; have come to be so acceptable for BI, but not for other systems.  For example, it would be ludicrous to imagine someone in corporate finance creating his or her own Access- or Excel-based General Ledger system because they found the corporate standard one too confusing, or too slow or (even better) didn&#039;t like the numbers.

And yet it&#039;s quite common to find desktop solutions that are developed by one user in isolation, in order to &quot;report&quot; the numbers from the very same GL system!

It&#039;s a bit of a double-standard that paints BI in a &quot;not quite as rigorous&quot; or &quot;not quite as important&quot; light.  Good management support would go a long way towards fixing this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the flip side - it's funny how these "side systems" have come to be so acceptable for BI, but not for other systems.  For example, it would be ludicrous to imagine someone in corporate finance creating his or her own Access- or Excel-based General Ledger system because they found the corporate standard one too confusing, or too slow or (even better) didn't like the numbers.</p>
<p>And yet it's quite common to find desktop solutions that are developed by one user in isolation, in order to "report" the numbers from the very same GL system!</p>
<p>It's a bit of a double-standard that paints BI in a "not quite as rigorous" or "not quite as important" light.  Good management support would go a long way towards fixing this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
