Gary Angel published a long article about the incompatibility of BI Tools with Web Analytics.  Sorta reminds me of problems I'm actually experiencing; won't go into the details except to mention the problem has to do with the requirements process - it's often done by well meaning people who don't actually do web analytics. 

I could go on a rant about this - but I won't - it's too political.  Here are some quotes and my comments (in blue).

"…..The simple fact is that most of the information you need to do analysis is not generally captured in reports. And shouldn't be. Analysis is invariably a deep dive into the data. Reporting is a business tracking and alerting tool. The types of data necessary for reports and analysis overlap - but are often widely disparate. "

To me, this is the most imporatant idea in the whole article by Gary Angel - it was near the end and I'm quoting it first.  BI people, all this time your figuring out how to get the right set of reports - forget it …. it's about having the capacity to deep dive into the data and the right team to do it.

"… web analytics practice is quite distinct from most traditional BI systems - and the web analytics implementation strategy I'm talking about was a perfect example of why pulling old BI methodologies unthinkingly into the web analytics world might be both attractive and also a really bad idea. "

The problem Gary Angel identifies - that Web Analytics standard set of reports does not lend itself to a "deep dive" of the data necessary for real analysis and insight into the data - and that's all the BI Model offers and the end of the design process - a bunch of reports (many that are useless).

"….The original BI implementations where this sort of methodology was used were built in a completely different world. They were extracting data from large corporate systems where the contents and use of the subject were well known to at least a few "subject matter experts." These subject matter experts generally knew exactly what information they needed - often they were already getting that information - just not in a timely or convenient fashion. What they didn't know, was how to get that information easily.

….For that world, a "report-based" BI process really worked. It made sense."

The BI Implementation approach spawned many of the dysfunctional web analytics tool implementations in corporations today - again - I don't want to go into details because it's too political.

"…That it doesn't even remotely apply to the world of web analytics is probably obvious from the description above. First, the web marketing manager is by no means a subject matter expert in web analytics the way an accounting or HR expert was on the data in their internal corporate management systems. The web product and marketing managers almost never know what data is actually available, how web analytics data translates into real-world behavior and what kinds of reporting and analysis are necessary and effective.

Without a subject matter expert, then, the whole idea of getting requirements as a set of reports is deeply flawed. But the problems don't end there.

So…. without analysts that can map web analytics data to business processes - the whole analytics package is next to useless.

Ha! Avinash Kaushik is right - spend money on good analysts like me - don't worry about your advanced analytics packages - if you don't have the right analysts, right team, your money is going down the drain anyway.

"…In addition, a measurement system that supports nothing more than an overly complicated and unreadable reporting system is pretty much guaranteed to maintain the status quo. And not everybody has a real interest in strong, pointed measurement and analysis - there are always people benefiting from the status quo. So this method can create the appearance of exhaustive measurement without any of the discomforting reality.

Best of all, this methodology creates an environment that is nearly risk free. If and when the client needs some piece of data for analysis and it isn't available, then who is at fault? The client! Because the client didn't put the requirement into the report set. Which - given how risk averse big vendors are - may be the most attractive aspect of the whole approach."

Boy - don't I know there are people to benefit from the status quo.

Enough - read Gary Angel's article to form you own opinion.