<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Business Intelligence is Often Stupid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://highcontext.com/2008/01/07/why-business-intelligence-is-often-stupid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://highcontext.com/2008/01/07/why-business-intelligence-is-often-stupid/</link>
	<description>Helping associations pursue goals that matter.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:01:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Worthley</title>
		<link>http://highcontext.com/2008/01/07/why-business-intelligence-is-often-stupid/#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Don Worthley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.highcontext.com/hcarchives/2008/01/07/why-business-intelligence-is-often-stupid/#comment-361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great post.  It seems that some of the core objectives of many associations are difficult to measure in the same quantifiable terms as would be the case in the business world.  I read Jim Collins monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors this past weekend and he makes a similar point.  Identifying the right metrics is critical and in many cases the best metrics for the central objectives of an organization are more qualitative than quantitative in nature.  If this is the case, then blindly focusing on secondary, trailing indicators could end up creating dangerous blind spots for association executives, to get back to the dashboard analogy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post.  It seems that some of the core objectives of many associations are difficult to measure in the same quantifiable terms as would be the case in the business world.  I read Jim Collins monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors this past weekend and he makes a similar point.  Identifying the right metrics is critical and in many cases the best metrics for the central objectives of an organization are more qualitative than quantitative in nature.  If this is the case, then blindly focusing on secondary, trailing indicators could end up creating dangerous blind spots for association executives, to get back to the dashboard analogy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

