A prospective partner posed a curious question to me recently. We were discussing the benefits of geo-analytics - of mapping and map visualizations - and she asked, "what is the cost of not doing this?" Impossible to nail down such a nuance? Yes and no.
If, given the use of geo-analytics across your enterprise, sales people and managers are making better decisions faster, how do you attribute this to the simple addition of a geographic view of the data? How do you quantify the competitive advantage resulting from some simple geo-analytics performed routinely by any and all? It's a matter of comparison. We reported on a recent Harvard Business School study emphatically demonstrates that
those companies that adopt analytics win (and especially so when the
CEO insists, top-down, on doing so). The cost, then of failure to adopt analytical support for decisions is the counter-factual. The companies that do not use analytics simply can't compete and they 'go out of business.' It is not about 'profits' - it is about survival. Even more pronounced, geo-analytics offers insight simply not possible with traditional business intelligence (BI) tools. We reviewed the NYT's article on that point last week. Several leading business researchers agreed that data visualization is the only way to manage increasing information volume.
The cost, then, of not using analytics and especially geo or map analytics? It is the future of your business. Take the fight against malaria - a serious global challenge. The historical lack of location intelligence is exactly why the UN Foundation is adopting a map-based analytical platform. The cost of NOT having the best intelligence in the hands of those who make tactical, every day decisions AND the strategic investments is measured in human misery over many years. Today's economic climate demands ever more effective leadership -- efficiency is not enough. During the time you spend pondering the case against geo-analytics and location intelligence, your competitor just figured it out.
| 
