[repost ] BI Platforms User Survey, 2011: Customers Rate Their BI Platform Vendor Cost of Ownership

Cost has become a more important factor in choosing a business intelligence (BI) platform, and survey data from BI professionals shows what BI platforms cost and what factors raise or lower these costs. These results can guide BI leaders when they make buying decisions.

Key Findings

• Organizations are increasingly considering what they believe to be low license price alternatives solutions such as Microsoft, software-as-a-service (SaaS) and open-source vendors to augment or replace highly-priced and often incumbent platforms. However, low license price is the smallest fraction of the overall cost and does not always translate into equally low BI platform ownership costs over time.
• The survey results show that of the three main components of the cost of a BI platform — software licenses, implementation fees and administrative costs — administration costs make up as much as 75% of the overall BI platform ownership cost and are recurring, so BI leaders need to focus considerable attention here.
• Three factors affect the cost of software licenses: vendor pricing models, product packaging and product scalability.
• In general, ease of use, lowers implementation costs, but also affects factors such as the complexity of analysis performed by users and breadth of product use across BI platform capabilities.

Recommendations

• When evaluating the cost of BI platforms, extend your analysis beyond initial license fees to include implementation and administration costs.
• For any deployment, try to maximize the number of people who use the BI platform to bring down per-user costs such as by combining projects where possible.
• Balance any consideration of cost with functional requirements. Low-cost tools that do not meet requirements will not deliver the expected business benefits.
• Use a similar rigor on the selection of services providers as they make up a significant component of the overall cost.
• If you are considering moving from a high-priced vendor to one with lower overall costs, make sure you include switching costs as part of your evaluation.

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Analysis

A recent Gartner survey of 1,225 BI professionals worldwide found that cost has become a bigger factor in buying decisions. From discussions with clients, Gartner finds that most BI leaders evaluate the cost of a BI platform based primarily on license fees. However, license fees represent less than one-quarter of the total cost of a BI platform; implementation costs and especially administration costs account for three quarters, whether measured absolutely or per user (see Figure 1). The results of our survey show the average license, implementation and administration costs of offerings reported by customers from the different BI platform vendors as well as how factors such as complexity of deployments, including the number of users and size of data (Appendix 1) and ease of use influence total costs. BI leaders can use these results to evaluate the costs of the particular BI platforms they are considering.

Figure 1. Elements of the Total BI Platform Ownership Cost

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Total Cost of BI Platforms From Different Types of Vendors

Survey respondents report different total costs for the BI platforms of different types of vendors. Table 1 shows how Gartner categorizes the different vendors.

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

The results of this survey show that license cost is a small fraction of overall BI platform ownership cost. Those organizations looking to lower cost should look beyond license to implementation and in particular to administration costs for efficiencies. The findings below are based on Figure 2 that shows total BI platform ownership costs per cost category per product and Figure 3 which shows total BI platform ownership costs per user per product.

Figure 2. Total Business Intelligence Platform Ownership Cost

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Cost is adjusted for Complexity (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year costs only.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Figure 3. Total Business Intelligence Platform Ownership Cost Per User

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion. Cost is adjusted for Complexity (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

A summary of total cost findings by vendor type is discussed below.

Megavendors, Excluding Microsoft

Large, complex megavendor deployments (except Microsoft) cost the most overall, but cost less than the average on a per-user basis. (The average megavendor deployment covered in the survey had 3,230 users.) Small and less complex megavendor deployments will likely realize smaller economies of scale because they will receive smaller license discounts and cannot extend support resources over as many users. A previous Gartner survey where the average deployment size was 500 users found substantially higher per-user license costs for all megavendors, except Microsoft.

Microsoft

Microsoft has below-average license costs both on an absolute and a per-user basis. However, the total cost per user exceeds that of the other megavendors due to initial implementation and administrative costs.

Large Independent Vendors

SAS has the highest per-user cost across all cost categories. SAS and MicroStrategy have higher license and implementation costs per user than Information Builders, while MicroStrategy and Information Builders have lower per-user administration costs. Survey respondents report lower per-user costs for Information Builders across all cost categories, while MicroStrategy supports the most complex types of analysis conducted by its users. As with the megavendors, large, complex deployments will be the most costly overall, but cost less on a per-user basis, while small and less complex deployments will likely realize smaller economies of scale.

Data Discovery Vendors

Data discovery vendors show higher than average cost per user because deployments support small numbers of users. These tools also require a higher proportion of administrators, many of whom are business users — a key value proposition of these types of tools. QlikTech has the lowest cost per user profile of the data discovery vendors, although Tibco Spotfire supports the most complex types of analysis including predictive analytics. Cost considerations increase as these types of tools are more broadly deployed. Therefore, it is important to focus on negotiating strategies that account for bigger discounts for larger user volumes and on deployment strategies that maximize leverage of IT and business administrators across the user base.

Open-Source Providers

In general, open source vendors have below average license costs (though licenses for Actuate’s BIRT cost as much as many commercial alternatives). But a high number of administrators per user puts the total cost of open-source deployments on par with those of commercial vendors. Jaspersoft is the only open-source vendor with a below average total cost per user.

Small Independent Vendors

Virtually all the small departmental vendors in the survey show below average total cost on an absolute basis due to smaller and less complex deployments. However, on a per-user basis, only LogiXML and Bitam fall below the survey average. This is particularly true for Quiterian and Board, which tend to have very small deployments (among the smallest in our survey). However, both Quiterian and Board also provide extended capabilities. Quiterian provides both data discovery capabilities and predictive analytics, while Board provides both BI and corporate performance management capabilities in a single package.

Software-as-a-Service Vendors

Like the small independent vendors, SaaS vendors show lower total cost in absolute terms due to smaller and less complex deployments, but small numbers of users lift per-user costs above the average. BI leaders typically believe that SaaS deployments cost less because they require less hardware and infrastructure, and provide for easier (at least in theory) product upgrades. However, based on research conducted in April 2010, Gartner has found that cumulative license costs can exceed those of on-premises alternatives after three and five years so it is important to carefully consider the cost benefits.

Figure 4. Total Cost Per User, Breadth of Use, and Business Benefits

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Cost is adjusted for complexity (see Appendix 1).
“Breadth of product use score” is the sum of user activity percentages across reporting, ad hoc analysis (all levels of complexity), dashboards, scorecards, and predictive analytics for each vendor.
The Business Benefits score is an average of scores on 10 different benefit areas scored by respondents on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = avgerage, 6-7 = outstanding.
Orange dots represent above-average and blue dots represent below-average business benefits score.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Moreover, vendors whose customers report realizing above average business benefits tend to have less complex deployments (see Appendix 1). Figure 5 shows each of the vendors products’ complexity of deployment score on the horizontal axis versus its total cost per user on the vertical axis. An orange color dot indicates that respondents reported achieving above average business benefits for that product. Only MicroStrategy, Microsoft and Information Builders have both complex deployments and above average business benefits achieved. While only Microsoft and Information Builders have below average total BI platform ownership costs per user as well.

Figure 5. Total Cost Per User, Complexity of Deployment and Business Benefits

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Cost is adjusted for Complexity (see Appendix 1).
The business benefits score is an average of the scores on 10 different benefit areas scored by respondents on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding.
Orange dots represent above-average and blue dots represent below-average business benefits score.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

The Factors That Contribute to the Total Cost of BI Platforms

The total cost of a BI platform has three main components: software licenses, implementation fees and administrative costs. The survey results show that of the three main components of the cost of a BI platform — software licenses, implementation fees and administrative costs — administration costs make up as much as 75% of overall BI platform ownership costs and are recurring, so BI leaders need to focus considerable attention here.

License Costs

Results for Individual Vendor Products

Licenses represent the most visible component of BI platform cost, and most enterprises (shortsightedly) focus the bulk of their vendor comparison effort here. The different pricing and packaging models of BI platform vendors make direct comparisons difficult for BI leaders evaluating products. Using our survey data, we look at total costs and average costs per user, adjusted for the complexity of deployment (Appendix 1), to create a basis for comparison across vendor products (see Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6. Total License Cost Per Product

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Cost is adjusted for complexity (see Appendix 1).
N= 718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Figure 7. Total License Cost Per User

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Megavendors, Excluding Microsoft

Megavendors tend to have higher total license costs due to more complex deployments. However, all megavendors are below average in per-user costs (Microsoft is the only megavendor in the fourth, or bottom, quartile).

Microsoft

Despite complex deployments, Microsoft’s total license costs fall significantly below average, and its per-user license costs are lower than those of any other vendor in the survey.

Data Discovery Vendors

Per user, licenses for the data discovery vendors cost above average for two main reasons. First, deployments tend to be smaller so costs are spread across a small user base. Second, data discovery vendors appear to be able to charge a premium over traditional BI tools (see Appendix 4), which lack these functions. Inquiries from Gartner clients show that while the average discounts on BI platforms in 2010 was approximately 60%, discounts on data discovery tools averaged around 20%. Moreover, in absolute terms, the licenses for Tibco and QlikTech deployments cost more than those for Tableau and Advizor deployments, in part because Tibco and QlikTech have larger deployments. Moreover, a higher mix of Tibco customers deploy its analytic applications, which tend to be more expensive.

Open-Source Tools

For total license costs, all open source vendors fall below the survey average. All of these vendors tend to have smaller, less complex deployments. Jaspersoft and Pentaho fall into the bottom quartile; Actuate BIRT into the second quartile. On a per-user basis, Pentaho moves into the third quartile, and BIRT moves higher than the survey average.

Large Independent Vendors

Large independent, traditional BI platforms tend to have high total license costs mostly due to large deployments, although SAS has much smaller deployments than either MicroStrategy or Information Builders. On a per-user basis, license costs for both SAS and MicroStrategy remain above average while Information Builders falls in the bottom quartile.

Small Independent Vendors

For total license cost, the small independent vendors all fall below the survey average, mostly in the third and fourth quartile. However, per-user costs lift most of these vendors, with only LogiXML, Bitam and arcplan remaining in the bottom quartile.

SaaS Vendors

Both BI SaaS vendors in the survey, Birst and PivotLink, which both tend to have very small departmental deployments, appear to follow the dynamic of the small, independent vendors. They have below average total license costs, but these costs look higher than average when calculated per user.

Factors That Affect License Pricing

Three factors have the biggest affect on the cost of software licenses: vendor pricing models, product packaging and product scalability. BI leaders should consider these variables to evaluate the license costs of the specific products and projects they are planning.

Pricing Models: BI platform vendors offer a number of different pricing models:

• Per named user.
• By role.
• Per concurrent user or session.
• Per CPU or core.
• Per server.
• Subscription (such as SaaS).
• Open-source annual maintenance fee model (a form of subscription).
• Enterprise licensing.
• A hybrid of the models mentioned above.

When negotiating license fees, minimize license cost and risk over time by employing best practice negotiating strategies.

Packaging: The kinds of product packages that BI platform vendors offer include:

• Complete BI platform functions in one package.
• Packages of analytic applications and/or packages of core BI platform functions.
• Capabilities sold “a la carte.”

Scalability: BI platform scalability drives hardware size and CPU-based (core) license costs. The most scalable BI platforms require less hardware and maintenance effort while addressing the needs of all BI users (report consumers to power user and analysts). Assuming a well designed data model, scalability generally comprises support for:

• Concurrent users and user types.
• Workload or complexity of applications.
• Size and type of data.

The cost of scaling BI platforms can be reduced by BI platform features such as:

• In-memory and caching capabilities.
• Multi-pass SQL.
• Aggregate awareness.
• Optimized SQL for different databases.
• Function shipping to different databases.
• Multi-threaded processing, parallel processing and load balancing.

Implementation Costs

Results for Individual Vendor Products

On average, implementation costs, such as for system integrators, equal roughly 60% of license costs, so they represent a significant factor in total cost. Ease of use translates into lower implementation costs in part because easy-to-use tools allow IT developers and other BI authors to develop BI content more quickly and it allows more business users to create their own reports and analysis, thereby saving the cost of IT specialists to design them (see Figure 8). In addition, tools that support less complex deployments tend to cost less to implement.

Figure 8. Implementation Cost Per User

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Megavendors, Excluding Microsoft

All megavendors, except for Microsoft, have below average per-user implementation costs. This is likely because megavendor deployments tend to be large with significant numbers of report consumers over which to spread costs.

Microsoft

Microsoft customers report above average per user implementation costs, perhaps for these reasons:

• The need to deploy three products — Office, SQL Server and SharePoint — to meet BI platform requirements.
• The use of these three components for non-BI functions.
• The need to build Analysis Services cubes, which are often part of a Microsoft deployment.
• The use of partners for implementation.

Data Discovery Tools

Data discovery tools enable business users to develop more of their own analytic content without the assistance of the IT department. For example, Tableau developers tend to be business analysts, not IT developers while most traditional BI platforms require more specialized and often higher cost IT skills.

QlikTech and Tableau have below average implementation costs per user. Tibco and Advizor have higher Implementation costs per user in part because these vendors tend to support more complex analytic applications, including predictive analytics. QlikTech and Tableau most often support interactive dashboards and ad hoc analysis, albeit often with complex types of queries.

Open-Source Tools

Actuate BIRT and Jaspersoft fall below the survey average for implementation cost per user while Pentaho implementations cost just above average. Pentaho scores poorly on both ease of use and BI platform integration, which can affect deployment costs.

Large Independent Vendors

SAS and MicroStrategy have higher implementation costs per user than Information Builders. MicroStrategy and Information Builders tend to have much more complex deployments than SAS.

Small Independent Vendors

Implementation costs vary widely among the small independent vendors. High ease of use, particularly for developers, places LogiXML in the bottom quartile for implementation cost per user. Board, Targit and Salient have low total implementation costs, but small numbers of users lift these vendors into the first quartile for per user implementation costs.

SaaS Vendors

Birst and PivotLink have above average implementation costs per user. Like the small independent vendors, they tend to have small deployments and numbers of users over which to spread costs.

Factors That Affect Implementation Costs

In general, ease of use (for developers), in part a function of BI platform integration and BI platform developer productivity features (particularly for the full range of simple to complex types of analysis), lowers implementation costs, but ease of use (for end users) also affects factors such as the complexity of analysis performed by users and, breadth of product use across platform capabilities. Ease of use can also reduce the cost of training and change management as users adopt intuitive tools more easily. BI platforms with integrated tools rather than multiple user interfaces and tools tend to require less training, even for diverse user groups.

A number of factors drive ease of use:

• Many data discovery tool offerings (such as those of QlikTech, Tableau and Tibco Spotfire) do not use a traditional IT modeled semantic layer. These tools provide easy-to-use capabilities for business analysts to access, mash up and manipulate data with minimal IT assistance. This approach reduces the deployment and maintenance costs associated with a semantic layer, but it increases the potential for creating personal, workgroup or departmental silos, which can cost more to manage.
• Intuitive BI content authoring tools include a graphical user interface and design environment, and out-of-the-box objects and wizards, which reduce the coding required for all levels of analytical complexity.
• Widely available skills make it easier and often less costly than hard to find skills to develop analytic content.

Figure 9 maps the relationship between ease of use and complexity of deployment, per user implementation cost and business benefit. The horizontal axis rates vendor platforms by ease of use, the vertical axis by complexity of deployment, with the dotted lines showing the average scores for each measure. The size of the bubbles represents implementation costs per user while the orange bubbles show platforms whose customers reported above average business benefits on our survey. A large number of platforms in the lower right-hand quadrant show low cost and above-average business benefits correlated with high ease of use and low complexity. But vendor platforms with complex deployments can also deliver good business value although they tend to be easier to use than complex deployments from other vendors that are perceived as delivering less business value. Among complex deployments, business value does not necessarily correlate with low per-user costs. Only Information Builders achieves above-average ease of use, below-average implementation costs per user, above-average complexity of deployments and above-average business benefits.

Figure 9. Ease of Use, Complexity of Deployment, Implementation Cost Per User, and Business Benefits

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Ease of use score is a combined measure of ease of use for end users and ease of use for developers, each scored on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding.
The size of the bubbles represents implementation costs per user. The orange bubbles show vendors whose customers reported above-average business benefits on our survey.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

The survey results also suggest that ease of use expands the breadth of product functions used. Figure 10 shows ease of use scores (horizontal axis) versus breath of use scores (vertical axis) with the orange color of the dots showing vendors that support above-average complexity of analysis (such as data discovery, moderate to complex ad hoc analysis and predictive analytics) by users. Enterprises tend to use BI platforms with higher scores on ease of use for a broader range of activities (for example, reporting, ad hoc analysis and dashboards) rather than for a single function. Data discovery vendors, Tibco Spotfire, Tableau and Advizor are also used for more complex types of analysis. This paradox — ease of use combined with support for complex types of analysis — gives them their momentum in the market.

Figure 10. Composite Ease of Use, Breadth of Use, and Complexity of Analysis Done By Users

The orange dots show vendors that support above-average complexity of analysis.
Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Ease of use score is a combined measure of ease of use for end users and ease of use for developers, each scored on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding.
“Breadth of product use score” is the sum of user activity percentages across reporting, ad hoc analysis (all levels of complexity), dashboards, scorecards, and predictive analytics for each vendor.
Complexity of analysis/usage is a weighted average score based on the percentage of respondents reporting use of the platform. Activities are weighted as follows: viewing static reports = 1, monitoring performance via a scorecard = 1, viewing parameterized reports = 2, doing simple ad hoc analysis = 3, interactive exploration and analysis of data = 4, doing moderately complex to complex ad hoc analysis = 5, using predictive analytics and/or data mining models = 5.
N=1,225

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

BI platforms with strong integration also tend to have low implementation costs (see Appendix 2). Figure 11 shows ease of use scores for developers (horizontal axis) versus platform integration scores (vertical axis). The size of the bubbles represent implementation cost per user. The orange color means the vendor scored above average in product quality. Vendors with above-average platform integration scores tend to also have above-average product quality scores. Moreover, vendors, such as LogiXML, Tableau, Information Builders, Bitam, QlikTech with high ease of use for developers and high integration scores tend to also have below average implementation cost per user scores. These results suggest a correlation between integration and product quality and a correlation between ease of use for developers, platform integration and implementation cost per user.

Figure 11. Ease of Use Developers, Integration, Implementation Cost Per User, and Product Quality

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Ease of use is scored on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding.
Product quality is scored on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding.
The size of the bubbles represent implementation cost per user. The orange color means the vendor scored above average in product quality.
N=718

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Administration Costs

Results for Individual Vendors

The survey results show that administration makes up as much as 75% of overall BI platform ownership costs, and these costs are recurring, so BI leaders need to focus considerable attention here. Figure 12 and Figure 13 shows the total and per-user administration costs for individual BI platforms.

Figure 12. Total Administration Cost Per Platform

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
N=1,169

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Figure 13. Total Administration Cost Per User Per Platform

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
N=1,169

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Megavendors, Excluding Microsoft

Megavendors generally have high overall administration costs, and all score below average in administration costs per user. These results stem in part from the enterprise administration features of traditional BI platforms for supporting large numbers of users and large deployments. Departmental BI platforms and data discovery tools that are trying to move away from their departmental heritage typically have more immature management features. Also, very large user volumes allow economies of scale for administration.

Microsoft

Microsoft customers report below average administration costs per user. Gartner inquiries and other Gartner research suggest that in addition, Microsoft BI skills are widely available.

Data Discovery Tools

Tableau and Tibco have above average total administration costs while all data discovery vendors have above average administration costs per user. This can in part be explained by the fact that in data discovery deployments, more and more end users are also administrators. For Tableau, Tibco and Advizor, a higher proportion of administrators are business users rather IT professionals — not the case for most other vendors.

Open-Source Tools

Open-source tools still require administration. The administration costs per user for open source vendors is consistent with those of commercial vendors, although Jaspersoft is below the survey average.

Large Independent Vendors

MicroStrategy has below average total administration costs while both MicroStrategy and Information Builders have below average administration costs per user. Both vendors have features in their development environments that boost productivity. SAS continues to require specialized skills and is more difficult for developers to use, according to the survey.

Small Independent Vendors

Platforms from the small independent vendors all fall below the average in total administration cost reflecting their smaller deployments, but per-user administration costs are mixed. Bitam is the only small vendor in the survey with below-average administration costs per user.

SaaS Vendors

Birst and PivotLink have among the lowest total administration costs, but they rise above the survey average for per-user costs.

Factors That Affect Administration Costs

The complexity of a deployment in terms of volume of data, the number of users and pervasiveness of the deployment across an enterprise affect administration costs, as does BI platform integration and ease of use. In Figure 14, the size of the bubbles represent the total number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents, while the horizontal and vertical axes represent the amount of data and number of users, respectively (see Appendix 3 for more details on administrative resources per vendor). Actuate e.reports had the largest number of users for the average deployment, Quiterian the fewest. MicroStrategy managed the largest datasets, Advizor and Birst the smallest.

Figure 14. Efficiency of Business Intelligence Platforms Measured by Users, Data and Administrators

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
The size of the bubbles represent the total number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents.
N=1,169

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

On average, megavendors require fewer administrators per 1,000 users — they support four times the users and two times the data volumes with less than half the number of administrators, compared with the average of data discovery vendors (see Table 2). However, the megavendors’ advantage has shrunk compared to 2009, when megavendors supported 11 times the number of users and five times the data volumes with less than three times the number of administrators. Thus, data discovery vendors are not only supporting larger deployments, administrative efficiency is improving. Nonetheless, data discovery vendors still score on the high end of administrators per 1,000 users compared to other vendor categories.

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Average administration cost per user tends to go down as data and user size increases. Figure 15 shows data volume versus number of users for each vendor. The size of the bubbles represents average administrative costs per user.

Figure 15. Data Volume vs. Number of Users vs. Average Administration Cost Per User

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Cost is adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
The size of the bubbles represents average administrative costs per user.
N=1,169

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

In general, the proportion of business users who act as administrators does not lower per user administration costs (see Figure 16). Tableau and Tibco have a higher proportion of business administrators than IT administrators, consistent with their business user value proposition. With both Tableau and Tibco Spotfire, business users can mash up data, thereby reducing the need for IT support. By contrast, another data discovery vendor, QlikTech, relies more on IT professionals as administrators because data integration still requires scripting and therefore IT support.

Figure 16. Business vs. IT Administrators and Administration Cost Per User

Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner’s opinion.
Adjusted for complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1).
Total administration costs are annually recurring. They are based on the number of IT and business administration full-time equivalents reported by respondents. This number was multiplied by an average annual salary cost. This chart shows the first-year cost only.
The size of the bubbles represents average administrative costs per user.
N=1,169

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Recommendations

BI leaders can use the results of the Gartner survey to guide their analysis for BI platform costs and to identify the best product for the enterprise’s particular needs:

• When evaluating the costs of BI platforms, extend your analysis beyond initial license fees to include implementation and administration costs. By far, administration represents the most significant portion of BI platform costs. Managing them is the key to lowering total costs.
• In addition to the three main components of BI platform costs, consider the factors that affect them, such as ease of use, complexity of deployment, and BI platform integration. For example, ease of use correlates with lower per user implementation costs and broader use of the BI platform with higher achieved business benefits.
• For any deployment, try to maximize the number of people who use the BI platform to bring down per-user costs such as by leveraging resources projects where possible.
• If you are considering moving from a high-priced vendor to one with lower overall costs, make sure you include switching costs as part of your evaluation.
• Balance any consideration cost with functional requirements. Low-cost tools that do not meet requirements will not deliver the expected business benefits.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Factoring in Complexity of Deployment

Vendors have different customer mixes across large and small companies and simple to complex deployments. We account for these differences by adjusting cost numbers based on an index of deployment complexity derived from a measure of deployment complexity shown in Figure 17. We calculate the scores in Figure 17 by considering vendors’ average number of users, data volume, performance score, departmental versus global deployment, complexity of workload, and breadth of use. We then create our deployment complexity index by dividing each vendor’s complexity of deployment score by the survey average. A vendor with a high complexity of deployment (customers with larger, more complex deployments) would have an index greater than 1 whereas a vendor that primarily serves smaller, departmental deployments would have an index less than 1. Where we present costs adjusted for complexity, we divide the reported numbers by the complexity of deployment index. Adjusting for complexity moves the costs of vendors with less complex deployments upward and those of vendors with the more complex deployments downward by that factor.

Figure 17. Complexity of Deployment by Platform

N=1,225

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Appendix 2: Composite Integration Score

How well a BI platform’s components are integrated with each other directly influences integration costs and the skills needed to develop and deploy BI products. The level of a BI platform’s integration depends on how unified the semantic layer is, how many servers must be deployed and how seamlessly integrated the BI platform is with the rest of the information technology stack and complementary BI technologies. We calculated the composite integration scores for BI platform vendors based on survey participants’ responses on a scale of 1 to 7, where a score of 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding, to the following questions:

• The product is well integrated both within the platform itself and with complementary BI technologies.
• The front-end tools have a consistent user interface and menus, and users can easily move authored content from one tool to the next.
• The BI platform semantic layer is unified and fully integrated and used across BI platform tools.
• The BI platform is integrated with complementary BI capabilities and other parts of the software stack such as data integration, search, content management, enterprise applications, collaboration, business activity monitoring and business process management.
• The BI platform uses common security and a single administration application across components.

Appendix 3: Number of Administrators Per Vendor

Table 3 shows the actual numbers for Figure 14.

Source: Gartner (March 2011)

Appendix 4: Types of Data Discovery

We refer to traditional versus data discovery platforms in this report. The table below shows the high-level distinction between the two types.

Source: Gartner (March 2011)