Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Neda Abdolvand

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 9. ANOVA application test

Table 9 ANOVA application test

Related Figures (37)

In the following, ten layers of the proposed framework are described.
In the following, ten layers of the proposed framework are described.
Table 1. A map of the proposed framework classification with the Common FEAF (Office of Management and Budget, 201'
Table 1. A map of the proposed framework classification with the Common FEAF (Office of Management and Budget, 201'
Table 2. Classification CSF of business intelligence based on EA (Office of Management and Budget, 2012)
Table 2. Classification CSF of business intelligence based on EA (Office of Management and Budget, 2012)
Table 3. Expert characteristics The second questionnaire is designed to evaluate the importance of separate perspectives of the framework differs at different maturity levels using the Likert scale method (at five different maturity levels, from one to five). The maturity model used is derived from the Davenport maturity model in which there are five components of measuring success factors (data, enterprise, leadership, target, and analysts) and five levels of maturity (maturity 1 (analytical disability), maturity 2 (local analysis), maturity 3 (analytical passion), maturity 4 (analytical companies), and maturity 5 (analytical competi- tors)).
Table 3. Expert characteristics The second questionnaire is designed to evaluate the importance of separate perspectives of the framework differs at different maturity levels using the Likert scale method (at five different maturity levels, from one to five). The maturity model used is derived from the Davenport maturity model in which there are five components of measuring success factors (data, enterprise, leadership, target, and analysts) and five levels of maturity (maturity 1 (analytical disability), maturity 2 (local analysis), maturity 3 (analytical passion), maturity 4 (analytical companies), and maturity 5 (analytical competi- tors)).
Figure 2. Comparison of the average importance of the primary perspective of success at different maturity levels
Figure 2. Comparison of the average importance of the primary perspective of success at different maturity levels
Figure 3. Comparison of the average importance of he supportive perspective of success at different maturity levels
Figure 3. Comparison of the average importance of he supportive perspective of success at different maturity levels
Table 4. Anova strategy test Table 5. Tukey strategy test Table 5 of the Tukey test of strategy, matures in which the average importance of the strategy is dif- ferentiated including three subsets (level 1, level 2) (level 2, level 3) (level 3, level 4, level 5). As can be seen in Table 5, in subset 1, the average importance of the strategy layer at maturity one is equal to the average effect of the strategy layer at maturity two. In subset 2, the average importance of the strategy at maturity two and maturity three is equal. In subset 3 the average importance of strategy in maturity three, maturity four, and maturity five are also equal. Similarly, Tables 6 to 19 can be inter- preted, where maturity levels with the same average importance are shown.
Table 4. Anova strategy test Table 5. Tukey strategy test Table 5 of the Tukey test of strategy, matures in which the average importance of the strategy is dif- ferentiated including three subsets (level 1, level 2) (level 2, level 3) (level 3, level 4, level 5). As can be seen in Table 5, in subset 1, the average importance of the strategy layer at maturity one is equal to the average effect of the strategy layer at maturity two. In subset 2, the average importance of the strategy at maturity two and maturity three is equal. In subset 3 the average importance of strategy in maturity three, maturity four, and maturity five are also equal. Similarly, Tables 6 to 19 can be inter- preted, where maturity levels with the same average importance are shown.
Table 6. ANOVA business test Table 7. Tukey business test
Table 6. ANOVA business test Table 7. Tukey business test
Table 8. ANOVA data test
Table 8. ANOVA data test
Table 10. ANOVA network and infrastructure test
Table 10. ANOVA network and infrastructure test
Table 13. ANOVA standard/configuration management test Table 14. Tukey standard/configuration management test
Table 13. ANOVA standard/configuration management test Table 14. Tukey standard/configuration management test
Table 11. ANOVA security test Table 12. Tukey security test
Table 11. ANOVA security test Table 12. Tukey security test
Table 15. ANOVA human capital management test Table 16. Tukey human capital management test
Table 15. ANOVA human capital management test Table 16. Tukey human capital management test
Table 17. ANOVA project management test Table 18. ANOVA environment test
Table 17. ANOVA project management test Table 18. ANOVA environment test
Table 19. Tukey environment test
Table 19. Tukey environment test
Table 20. Critical success factors of BI
Table 20. Critical success factors of BI
RANKING CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF BI
RANKING CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF BI
Table 21. Ranking of BI critical success factors
Table 21. Ranking of BI critical success factors
Figure 4. Comparison of the importance of primary perspective at BI maturity levels
Figure 4. Comparison of the importance of primary perspective at BI maturity levels
Pairwise comparison scale for AHP preferences, numerical rating, verbal judgments of preferences. If an element in a row has greater or equal importance than the element in the column, use the following table: But if the element in the column is more important than the element in the row, use the inverse of the mentioned procedure, which means employing the following table: Personal information First Survey Questionnaire
Pairwise comparison scale for AHP preferences, numerical rating, verbal judgments of preferences. If an element in a row has greater or equal importance than the element in the column, use the following table: But if the element in the column is more important than the element in the row, use the inverse of the mentioned procedure, which means employing the following table: Personal information First Survey Questionnaire
Please rate the effectiveness of each of the categories at different levels of maturity (Davenport BI] maturity model) in integers for the range of 1 to 5. Ramina Farshadi has graduated from Shahid Beheshti University with a Master of Information Technology Engineering - Enterprise Architec- ture. She is interested in the field of business intelligence and enterprise architecture. Second survey questionnaire APPENDIX B
Please rate the effectiveness of each of the categories at different levels of maturity (Davenport BI] maturity model) in integers for the range of 1 to 5. Ramina Farshadi has graduated from Shahid Beheshti University with a Master of Information Technology Engineering - Enterprise Architec- ture. She is interested in the field of business intelligence and enterprise architecture. Second survey questionnaire APPENDIX B
Related topics:
Computer ScienceKnowledge ManagementAnalytic Hierarchy ProcessLibrary and Information StudiesBusiness and ManagementCritical Success FactorPsychological Maturity
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved