I just skim read a Cognos manual while waiting for my flat to be checked for Carbon Monoxide coming out of my boiler.

It seems the approach is

1. An expert uses sequel to build a datamart within COGNOS which almost seems to be a single segment table with dimensions and measures.

2. The user then uses COGNOS to interogate this datamart which since it is entirely under Cognos control is not subject to the vagaries of external products. There is a set of analysis tools slice and dice, write report, alert, burst etc.

Questions

1. Addressed to someone who knows both products. Does this seem to be an appropriate analysis?

2. It seems to me that Cognos has gone for the 80:20 approach in that it looks at the 80% of most wanted and devotes its entire effort into doing those things well whereas WebFOCUS is a vastly more powerful tool capable of the 100%.

3. Cognos is going to require a datamart per report it seems - is this right.

That said Cognos is very popular but I am still looking for a reason why.

Would be interested to hear the opinions of others.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Emily McAllister>,

You are right hammo1j. I work for a large government body. Three years ago the CIO's office did a competitive solicitation to evaluate BI Solutions and COGNOS was chosen as the standard. It was mandated that all new reporting and BI development be done in Cognos. Well, three years later the departments found that it was a total failure for large operational reports. Each report needed a separate view/mview, and by the time the datawarehouse was loaded and mviews were built for the multitude of reports, it tool up to 48 hours.
So, we(WebFOCUS team) are now in the process of converting all the operational reports to WebFOCUS.

I don't think a failed implementation can be blamed entirely on software GGSD. Especially when you mention materialized views when the metadata layer of webfocus almost requires these for OLAP functionality on large sets of data.

Just like a recession can't be entirely blamed on the poor financial decisions in housing and foreclosure by a few select folks in a few select areas.

I do not use Cognos, never have. I know Crystal/BO and Webfocus only. I put together a Crystal/BO solution for a client that took about 2 years. I've been using webfocus for about 2 years now, and have made a fraction of the progress we made with Crystal. It IS NOT technology related.

Well, just like you can't say that it cannot be blamed entirely on software, you also can't say that software IS NOT to blame. It is probably a combination of both. Having previously worked for IBI and run into Cognos in many competitive situations, there are many areas where WF beats Cognos hands down. The previously mentioned issues with having to build the views is a good point.
Your previous development experience is your own "filter" of how things work. Someone else may have been able to make twice the progress in 2 years with WF as opposed to some other tool. So I would argue that IT IS software related as well as staff expertise, development methodology, and project management.
My "filter" of WF development is rapid development, very few roadblocks, wide deployment, and happy end users. I have seen failed implementations of both Cognos and WF, (and other BI tools). Ratios would be about 5 failures of the others for every 1 WF.

just adding my 2cents.
Cognos - if your looking to have BA or management write reports this is the tool. I have never had to go into CODE to get Cognos to sing and dance.
Webfocus - sings and dances if you have someone who has the ability to code. High level graphs(heat maps) are able to be customized but are not in Cognos. However once adjusted within the code, are not available to update via the gui.

Webfocus would be ideal for companies who maintain highly skilled developers
Cognos - anyone can learn.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JanetKay,

I'll add my 2 cents too.
WebFOCUS isn't and apples to apples comparison to other tools. Components of WebFOCUS may be apples to apples.

I've found BA/Management people take to Info Assist but asking them to develop something complicated with the developer tool is usually asking too much.

I do agree that if a company is going to build complex reporting they will need to maintain the skill level.

I've had experience in BOBJ and in WebFOCUS over the years. As Darin says, you can't 100% blame the tool. Each tool has its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, if you have a strong set of BA's who can define KPI's well and people are aligned to what they need, a tool like BOBJ or Cognos can work really well. In my experience these tools work really well when you can agreggate data and you have a strong understanding of the questions end users are asking.

Where I see WebFOCUS coming in, and being stronger then these tools, is where that stops and the searching begins. The flexibility helps me deal with the questions that are outside of whats been designed. Or, as has been my experience in my working life, is that the end users don't know what they want or need, and like the rest of us are figuring it out as they go. WebFOCUS allows me to not have to create 100 different views of the data to satisfy that, but much less. While at the same time allowing me to more easily customize the look and end user experience to a specific audience. Something that I found extremely difficult in BOBJ. WebFOCUS allows a lot more in the way of being able to create tools/applications for multiple layers of skill sets. From Guided Adhoc Applications to your more curious end users with Info Assist, to a full blown Developer Suite that allows me to tweak things as needed when I run into road blocks.

Unfortunately, with every upgrade I see the latter being chipped away. I see functionality being made harder to get at or removed from the tool completely. Case in point is Francis's post regarding being able to copy and paste something as simple as a report path. Official answer was, use the GUI. That kind of thinking is dangerous for what to me has been the major differentiator of this product.

Ask me this question again in 2 years... I might have a different answer for you. Only time will tell.