The OLAP Surveys are the largest independent surveys of BI usage
worldwide. Unlike most surveys, they are not vendor sponsored or
influenced and have been in operation since 2000, so they provide a
unique record of not only the current picture, but also medium term
trends.

In order for the results to be as statistically accurate as possible,
each year we invite large numbers of users and implementers to provide
feedback on their experiences online. Participants receive a summary of
the findings plus they are entered into a draw to win one of a number of
$100 Amazon vouchers.

Some of the products we are particularly interested in are Applix TM1,
Business Objects, Cartesis Magnitude, Cognos, Essbase, WebFOCUS,
Microsoft Analysis Services, MicroStrategy, Mondrian, Oracle Discoverer,
Express, OLAP Option or Siebel Analytics, OutlookSoft, QlikView, SAP BW
and SAS OLAP -- but if you use any other similar products, you are
welcome to participate.

Click on http://www.survey.com/olap6sur12.html if you would like to
participate.

Hi Nigel. I haven't seen a copy of your report for a while now. Does it
distinguish between servers (i.e. OLAP engines - few and far between these
days), clients (i.e. the generic slice-and-dice type) and applications (i.e.
functional applications that actually use, and rely on, an OLAP data
source)?

Tony Proctor

"Nigel Pendse" <nigelp.nospam (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote

Tony,

It's hard to make clear distinctions any more, as all the major products
overlap too much. Even MOLAP vs ROLAP or client/server vs Web
distinctions are hard to make now with the major products.

For example, how would you classify MicroStrategy? It includes a ROLAP
engine, a Q&A client (Web or client/server), application building tools,
formal reporting, etc. You can use it as a client with Analysis Services
or SAP BW, or use Excel as a client to the MicroStrategy engine. Apart
from its ROLAP engine, it also has a form of RAM-based cubes.

Much the same could be said of Cognos 8 or Business Objects XI (though,
of course, since the demise of your Holos, BO doesn't have a distinct
OLAP engine as such). And while Essbase is and was a distinct MOLAP
engine, Hyperion now markets it as part of the System 9 bundle which
includes front-end tools, and the Essbase name has been partly dropped.
Equally, Hyperion Planning includes a bundled version of Essbase, while
HFM does not even use Essbase.

So, a few years ago, from The OLAP Survey 2, we switched to
concentrating on business benefits rather than trying to classify
products based on their features -- after all, *all* BI tools are
intended to deliver business benefits, regardless of their architecture
or detailed features. We also use the BBI (business benefits index) as a
KPI to calibrate every other aspect of deployments. That does allow us
to compare products as diverse as OutlookSoft and MicroStrategy. And the
results are very revealing and have produced a range of surprising, but
consistent, insights.

Nigel

"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor (AT) aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_ (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:e8lbl3$j05$1 (AT) reader01 (DOT) news.esat.net

I guess that blurring of distinctions has always been true to some extent
Nigel. :-)
However, do companies still have to be classified as a "vendor" of an OLAP
product to be included in the report? My specific interest here concerns
applications that make real-life use of OLAP, as opposed to the providing
the underlying engine or providing some type of viewer or reporting tool.
The take-up of OLAP in the industry is still disappointingly low with many
companies (& individuals) missing the point, and believing that only SQL
matters. I'd be pretty interested myself to see how many products have used
OLAP to deliver a real-life solution.

Tony Proctor

"Nigel Pendse" <nigelp.nospam (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote

Tony,

Yes, there has always been some blurring, but it's stronger now than
ever, as vendors have diversified their product functions, and as open
APIs allow products to be combined in novel ways.

We are very happy to include applications based on OLAP technology, as
opposed to just the technologies themselves. But, in the interests of
statistical reliability, we have a minimum threshold for any product to
be analysed separately in the final report, and in the past, no
individual applications have reached this threshold -- it seems that
users are happier to report on tecnology than application products. But
I'm pleased to say that, this year, we already know that at least one
application is set to pass the threshold.

Nigel

"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor (AT) aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_ (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:e8lok8$ncv$1 (AT) reader01 (DOT) news.esat.net