Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of inf.docx

Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of
information, such as the basic questions such as the different
levels of customers, the way businesses are doing and the
current path, what clinical trials should be and how much
money they need to go out!. With a solid, organizations accept
some choices rather than feeling. In fact, when making a
"decision" structure, a strong computer system trusts any
possibility made.
Implementing BI Tools Costs Reduction and Increase:
Manufacturers' ring managers should have reliable addresses
that will allow them to quantify the consequences of business
decision budgets if they have correct information. BI can
provide know-how in order to express links between procedures
and inventories and downward financial results.
BI is good for illustrating productivity and risk profiles, for
example, prizes and risks that may present a complex product
offer (but probably a win). Manufacturers also perform more
efficient scale economy with BI; For example, budget costs,
such as unit dollars, inventory shifts and product costs, can also
be expected to increase their costs by prior expanding (Dinter,
B., & Lorenz, A. (2012)).
In simple ways, our business is data accumulation, analysis,
report, budget and presentation. The purpose of using business
intelligence in our business is to improve the visibility of our
organizational and financial situation to better manage our

business. For example, SAP says "business instead of analytical
"business intelligence", this is the business analytics it is a
unique term that includes data warehousing business
intelligence, business information management and business
performance management, Analytical applications and
government, risk. Stock optimization
A) Sectors seasonal business cycle outstanding it's often found
their stock optimization is difficult. For example, if sales of a
specific product are shot during the summer or Christmas, the
big challenge is to keep the right amount to maximize profits.
To deal with this problem, certain companies Conservation,
conservation and food sector in general Profitability has
increased by almost 10% using BI techniques based on:
Decision Support System (DSS). Warehouse product sales and
historical data warehousing: In many cases, the results obtained
have been much more efficient and profitable Design of total
logistic and productive storage processes (Chen, H., Chiang, R.
H., & Storey, V. C. (2012)).
References:

Dinter, B., & Lorenz, A. (2012). Social business intelligence: a
literature review and research agenda.
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business
intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS
quarterly, 36(4).
Education and Teaching in Psychology
Ethics of Teaching
Beliefs and Behaviors of Psychologists as Educators
Barbara G. Tabachnick
Patricia Keith-Spiegel
Kenneth S. Pope
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Northridge
Los Angeles, CA

Lacking are comprehensive, systematically gathered data
concerning the beliefs and behaviors of psychologists func-
tioning as educators. Survey data were collected from 482
APA members whose primary work setting is in an insti-
tution of higher education. They were asked the degree to
which they engaged in each of 63 behaviors and the degree
to which they considered each of these to be ethical These
behaviors fell into such categories as course content, eval-
uation of students, educational environment, disrespectful
behavior, research and publication issues, financial and
material transactions, social relationships with students,
and sexual relationships with students and other faculty.
Of the 63 behaviors, 6 were very di~cult for participants
to evaluate on the basis of ethics, and 10 were exceptionally
controversial Of the 63 behaviors, 3 were practiced by at
least 90% of the respondents on at least a rare basis," 10
were practiced by fewer than 8%. Data are compared with
those from a previous national survey of psychologists
functioning as therapists.
Ethics and conduct of service-providing psychologists
working outside of academic settings have received con-
siderable coverage in the scholarly and professional lit-
erature. Parallel literature describing the ethical dilemmas
and responsibilities of psychologists teaching in academic
institutions has been confined almost exclusively to two
areas: supervision or treatment of students as researchers
or research participants, and sexual harassment o f stu-
dents and supervisees.
Examinations of the ethical responsibilities of univer-
sity teaching faculties across all disciplines are quite few
(see, e.g., Baumgarten, 1982; Brown & Krager, 1985;
Callahan, 1982; Deutsch, 1979; Dill, 1982; Hook, Kurtz,
& Todorovich, 1977; Schurr, 1982; Scriven, 1982; Wilson,
1982), and fewer yet for teaching psychologists (see, e.g.,

Cole, 1981; Goodstein, 1981; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher,
1985; Matthews, 1989; Redlich & Pope, 1980).
The paucity of scholarly essays and the lack of empirical
studies of ethics in academe does not mean that university
faculties have remained unscrutinized. A small stream
of books echoing concerns about professors range from
stinging indictments, such as Sykes's (1988) ProfScam:
Professors and the Demise of Higher Education or Pro-
fessor X's (1973) This Beats Working for a Living: The
Dark Secrets of a College Professor, to more thoughtful
but nevertheless unsettling criticisms such as Cahn's
(1986) Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia or the
best sellers Cultural Literacy." What Every American
Needs to Know (Hirsch, 1987) and The Closing of the
American Mind (Bloom, 1987). Perhaps this recurring
"professor-bashing" is at least partially responsible for
the tendencies of faculty members to shy away from ob-
jective self-examination.
Academic professional associations have not ignored
ethical obligations altogether, although formal policies
regulating conduct have not emerged gracefully. The
American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
does have an ethics code (AAUP, 1987), although as Dill
(1982) pointed out, early resistance to dealing with self-
discipline and conduct regulation was extensive. John
Dewey believed that the concept of academic freedom
was meaningless without a consideration of academic re-
sponsibility. Dewey founded and chaired a short-lived
committee on professional ethics in the early 1920s; yet,
it was to be almost 50 years before AAUP would adopt
its first ethics code (Dill, 1982).
The American Psychological Association (APA) rep-

resents a discipline whose members function in diverse
work settings, and academic psychologists have never been
exempted from inclusion in the mandates of the Ethical
Principles of Psychologists (APA, 1977, 1981, 1990). The
This project was supported, in part, by the small grants program
of
California State University, Northridge. Portions of this article
were pre-
sented at the 96th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological
Association in Atlanta, Georgia, in August 1988.
We acknowledge our appreciation to Gary Spiegel for
developing and
applying the random sampling technique and preparing the
surveys for
mailing, and to Barbara Nicholson for assisting with data
recording. We
thank the California State University, Northridge, Computer
Center for
use of the facility.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Barbara
G. Tabachnick, Psychology Department, California State
University,
Northridge, CA 91330.
506 May 1991 • American Psychologist
Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association,
Inc. 0003-066X/91/$2.00
Vol. 46, No. 5, 506-515

more recent revisions of the Ethical Principles have in-
eluded principles directed explicitly to teaching psychol-
ogists. For example, the current ethics code admonishes,
"As teachers, psychologists recognize their primary ob-
ligation to help others acquire knowledge and skill. They
maintain high standards of scholarship by presenting
psychological information objectively, fully, and accu-
rately" (Principle le, APA, 1990).
Our profession, however, has lacked empirical data
about what aspects of teaching are viewed as presenting
ethical dilemmas for psychologists, how often those di-
lemmas occur, and how psychologists respond. We con-
ducted the following survey to gather some initial data
about the ethical attitudes and behaviors of psychologists
functioning as teachers.
Method
A survey questionnaire, a cover letter, and a return en-
velope were sent to 1,000 psychologists (500 men and 500
women) identified from the full membership section of
the Membership Directory of the American Psychological
Association (APA, 1987). The sample was randomly se-
lected from among those who listed an academic de-
partment as their address and/or who were members of
Division 2 (Teaching of Psychology).
The survey questionnaire was adapted from that used
in a comparison study of psychologists functioning as
therapists (Pope, Tabachnick, & Keith-Spiegel, 1987).
Participants were asked to rate each of 63 behaviors in
terms of two categories. First, to what extent had they
engaged in the behavior in their work as teachers? Par-
ticipants could rate the behavior's occurrence in their

academic activities as never, rarely, sometimes, fairly often,
or very often. Second, to what extent did the participants
consider the behavior ethical? In rating whether each be-
havior was ethical, participants could use five categories:
unquestionably not, under rare circumstances, don't know/
not sure, under many circumstances, and unquestion-
ably yes.
Respondents were also asked to provide information
about their own age, sex, primary teaching setting or ac-
ademic appointment, type of teaching (e.g., classroom,
research supervision), tenure status, and primary specialty
(e.g., experimental, social, clinical).
Results
Demographic Characteristics and Ratings
of the 63 Behaviors
Questionnaires were returned by 483 of the 1,000 re-
spondents solicited; 482 provided usable data. Table 1
presents descriptions of the respondents' sex, age, primary
teaching setting, and whether tenured. Of the 469 re-
spondents who revealed their sex, more than one half
were women (253), although an equal number of ques-
tionnaires had been addressed to men and women. About
one half the respondents were between the ages of 36 and
50 (54%); 19% were younger than that, and 27% were
older.
T a b l e 1
Demographic Characteristics of Psychologists
Providing Usable Data
Character ist ic /category n %

Sex
Male 216 46.1
Female 253 53.9
Age group
35 and under 92 19.1
36 to 50 259 54.0
Over 50 129 26.9
Primary teaching setting
2oyear college 16 3.3
4-year college 103 21.4
Department granting MA 103 21.4
Department granting PhD 224 46.5
Medical school 32 6.6
Other 4 0.8
Tenured
Yes 325 68.3
No 151 31.7
Almost one half (46.5%) of the respondents were atfd-
iated with a PhD-granting department; another 43%
identified their primary teaching setting as a four-year
college or one granting the MA degree. About two thirds
of the respondents were tenured. As seen in Table 2, al-
most all of the respondents indicated having classroom
teaching responsibilities.
The most common primary specialty reported was
clinical (24%), then experimental (18%), social (16%), and
developmental (14%). Primary specialty areas are pre-
sented in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the percentage of respondents' ratings
for each of the 63 behaviors in terms of occurrence in

their own teaching and the degree to which they believe
the behavior to be ethical.
Responses Systematically Related to Sex
and Age of Psychologist
Of the 63 behaviors queried, 37 were selected a priori to
examine for differences related to sex. Because of the large
number of comparisons, o~ = .001 was set as the criterion
for chi-square analyses. By this criterion, statistically sig-
nificant relationships between sex and rating were found
for 4 of these behaviors, shown in Table 5. Men were
more likely, than were women to report being sexually
attracted to students on at least rare occasions (93% vs.
64%, respectively). 1 A larger proportion of men than
women also reported having sexual fantasies about stu-
J In reporting this and subsequent findings, we frequently
differentiate
responses of n e v e r from all of the remaining responses. It is
important
to emphasize that n o n - n e v e r categories may include many
respondents
who seldom engage in a behavior (perhaps once, a long time
ago). We
have attempted to point out behaviors for which the
preponderance of
non-never responses is rarely, and to use other criteria for
differentiating
responses when deemed appropriate. In general, we use the
criterion
that we feel best characterizes the reported behavior of our
respondents
May 1991 • American Psychologist 507

T a b l e 2
Type of Teaching
Type n %"
Classroom 468 97.3
Research supervision 344 71.4
Clinical supervision " 153 31.7
Other
Teaching supervision 7 1.5
Seminar 5 1.0
Field supervision 4 0.8
• Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents were
asked to
check all types that apply.
dents at least rarely (84% vs. 39%, respectively). Becoming
sexually involved with a student after the course was
completed was more likely among men (26%) than
women (12%), although mostly on a rare basis. Encour-
aging competition at least rarely was more common
among male instructors (85%) than among female in-
structors (63%).
To examine age differences, 27 behaviors were selected
a priori, using a criterion a = .002. The two differences
reaching statistical reliability are shown in Table 5. Psy-
chologists over 50 years of age were more likely to report
n e v e r using profanity in class (40%) than were psychol-
ogists between 36 and 50 years (29%) or under 36 years
(25%). Use of illegal drugs on at least a rare basis in one's
personal life decreased with age, with 40% of psychologists

under 36 years reporting this behavior, decreasing to 32%
among psychologists between 36 and 50 years, and to
12% among psychologists over 50 years. (Recall that about
one half of the respondents were between 36 and 50 years
of age.)
Log-linear analysis was used to examine both the in-
fluence of age and sex and their interaction on rating of
the ethicality of three selected behaviors, using a criterion
a = .017 for both partial and marginal tests of association
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). A statistically significant
association was found between sex and rating of the item:
"Teaching that homosexuality per se is pathological,"
X2(4, N = 440) = 53.11. Although 50% of the male psy-
chologists considered this to be unquestionably unethical,
79% of the female psychologists did so. Neither age nor
the Age × Sex interaction contributed to rating of this
behavior.
Rating of the ethicality of "Requiring students to use
aversive procedures with rats, pigeons, etc." was also as-
sociated with sex, X2(6, N = 454) = 25.63. This behavior
was considered to be ethical at least under rare circum-
stances by 83% of the men but only by 69% of the women.
Neither age nor the Age × Sex interaction was associated
with this rating. For the item: "Becoming sexually in-
volved with a student," the ethicality rating was associated
and their likely interpretation of the question, and attempt to
make
explicit in each case the cutoff used. Nevertheless, caution is
necessary
in interpretation of all percentages reported.
with neither age, sex, nor the interaction by the chosen
criterion.

Relationship Between Behavior and Belief
Congruence between engaging in behaviors and beliefs
about their ethicality was evaluated through the P statistic,
a test of probability of similar ranking on two indices
with ordered categories. To compensate for multiple (63)
analyses, criterion a = .0008, one-tailed test. Of the 63
behaviors, 53 reached this level, with P ranging from .28
("Teaching in buildings which could not accommodate
physically challenged students") to .82 ("Accepting for
your department a publisher's monetary reward for
adopting their text").
For the 11 items that failed to reach reliable congru-
ence, most did so because of respondents who felt the
behavior to be ethical, but reported that they had not
engaged in it. These items included "Using school re-
sources to create a 'popular' psychology trade book,"
"Making deliberate or repeated sexual comments . . . . "
"Teaching that certain races are intellectually inferior,"
"Accepting undeserved authorship on a student's pub-
lished paper, .... Accepting for yourself a publisher's mon-
etary rebate for adopting their text," "Engaging in a sexual
relationship with another faculty m e m b e r . . . " (both
items, same or different academic rank), and "Privately
tutoring students in the department for a fee."
In one instance, "Teaching while under the influence
of alcohol," there were almost as many respondents who
admitted to the behavior while considering it unques-
tionably unethical as there were those who considered it
ethical but reportedly did not indulge. No discernable
pattern of responses was evident for the remaining two
items showing discrepancy between behavior and belief:
"Teaching where there's no adequate grievance procedure

for students" and "Teaching in a setting lacking adequate
ethnic diversity among the faculty."
With only one exception ("allowing a student's 'lik-
ability' to influence your grading"), the frequency with
which the respondents reported engaging in a behavior
T a b l e 3
Primary Specialty Areas of Psychologists
Providing Usable Data
Specialty n %
Clinical 113 23.6
Experimental 85 17.7
Social 78 16.3
Developmental/Aging 67 14.0
Counseling 41 8.6
Industrial/Organization/Human Factors 27 5.6
Educational 16 3.3
Physiological and related 14 2.9
Personality 11 2.3
School 8 1.7
Other 19 4.0
No answer 3 0.6
was less than the frequency of instances in which the
behavior was ethical in their judgment. Thus, the data
suggest that the psychologists' self-reported behavior was
generally in accordance with their ethical beliefs.
Comparisons Between Teaching

and Clinical Psychologists
Log-linear analysis was used to compare the teaching
psychologists of the current study with the clinical psy-
chologists of the prior study (Pope et al., 1987) on practice
and ethicality judgments of 16 behaviors queried on both
questionnaires. Three-way associations among type of
psychologist, sex, and rating were examined, as well as
the two-way association between type of psychologist and
rating. A criterion a = .001 was set for tests of partial
association. As seen in Table 6, 8 of the behaviors were
reported more prevalently among teachers and were more
likely to be considered ethical by them. Six of the behav-
iors were more prevalent among clinical psychologists.
As seen in Table 7, however, judgments of ethicality dif-
fered for only one of those items.
For only one of the items was a three-way association
found: "Becoming sexually involved with a student
(client)." A pattern of declining ratings from neverto often
for male and female psychologists was the general trend
with the following exception. Male teaching psychologists
and female clinical psychologists responded fairly often
more frequently than sometimes for that behavior. Four
male teachers reported sometimes becoming sexual in-
volved with students, and 14 reported engaging in this
behavior fairly often. None of the female clinicians re-
ported engaging in such behavior sometimes, but two re-
ported doing so fairly often.
Differences Associated With Primary Specialty Area
To assess moonlighting behavior and attitudes, the pri-
mary specialty areas were collapsed into two categories:
(a) professional (including clinical, counseling, and the
various forms of human factors/industrial), and (b) the

remaining psychologists. A statistically significant differ-
ence in behavior was found, X2(4, N = 476) = 16.86,p <
.01eAlthough 25% of the professional psychologists re-
ported "teaching full time while moonlighting at least 20
hours per week" at least rarely, only 11% of the remaining
psychologist group did so. The difference in attitude be-
tween the two groups, although statistically significant,
was less dramatic, X2(4, N = 476) = 9.76, p < .05. Al-
though 43% of the professional psychologists felt that such
behavior was unquestionably ethical or ethical under
many circumstances, only 32% of the remaining psy-
chologists did so.
Discussion
Validity and Interpretation Issues
Interpretation of these data must involve caution. First,
this is an initial study and awaits attempts at replication.
Second, it is unclear how the attitudes and practices of
this sample of teaching psychologists compare with those
of psychologists functioning as teachers who are not
members of APA. Third, specific ethical standards may
not be applicable to and therefore may not be endorsed
by a majority of psychologists functioning as teachers. As
previously noted, ethical standards can represent attempts
to improve ethical awareness and behavior. Empirical data
about attitudes and practices should inform rather than
determine our ethical deliberations. Fourth, a few of the
listed behaviors were discovered to be ambiguous. For
example, "encouraging students to participate in your
research projects" does not indicate whether the students'
role is that of participant, assistant, or collaborator. Fifth,
the same professionals rated both the frequency of their
own behaviors and their judgments of the ethicality of

those behaviors. There is evidence, however, that such
multiple judgments do not bias the results. Borys and
Pope (1989) conducted a national survey of 4,800 mental
health professionals, in which one half were asked about
frequency of behaviors and the other half about ethicality.
Relevant results did not differ from those of research in
which the same professionals made both ratings. Finally,
most of the 63 items involved simple ratings of enor-
mously complex issues.
The discussion that follows is meant only to highlight
some major themes, patterns, and dilemmas emerging
from these initial data, rather than to provide an ex-
haustive discussion of every finding. As pointed out in
Footnote 1, results must be interpreted in the light of the
criterion chosen for dividing those who do and those who
do not report engaging in each behavior.
Behaviors That Are Almost Universal
For 3 of the 63 items, at least 90% of the respondents
indicated that they had engaged in the behavior, at least
on rare occasions (see Table 4). Note that two of these
items involve teaching when one is not completely pre-
pared: "teaching material you haven't really mastered"
and "teaching a class without adequate preparation that
day." Of course, if one teaches on a more than extremely
rare basis, it is likely that life's vicissitudes will prevent a
less-than-superhuman psychologist showing up for every
class adequately prepared. Teaching material not com-
pletely mastered may in some cases be attributable to a
department's less than ideal allocation of introductory
and required courses among its faculty, or to the diffi-
culties in keeping up with the information explosion, even
in one's own specialty. Fortunately, fewer than 4% describe
engaging in either behavior fairly often or very often. The

third item meeting the 90% criterion for almost universal
behavior was "teaching ethics or values to students." In
contrast to the other two items, for this item almost one
half(48%) of the respondents indicated that they engaged
in the behavior fairly often or very often. The frequency
and obvious significance of this behavior invite detailed
follow-up research to explore which values are being
taught (and which are neglected or avoided), the teaching
strategies, and the degree to which efforts in this area are
effective, and possible unintended or unforeseen conse-
quences.
(text continued on page 512)
I
T a b l e 4
Percentage of Psychologists Responding in Each Category (N =
482)
Your teaching b
Rating"
Item 1 2 3 4 5
Ethical~
1 2 3 4 5
1. Using school resources to create a "popular" 92.1 2.3 2.7 0.2
0.2

psychology trade book.
2. Ignoring strong evidence of cheating. 79.0 17.2 2.3 0.2 0.2
3. Giving easy courses or tests to ensure your 78.0 18.7 2.3 0.4
0.6
popularity with students.
4. Giving academic credit instead of salary for student 51.0 10.8
16.8 11.6 7.3
assistants.
5. Selling unwanted complimentary textbooks to used 46.9 13.5
22.8 10.8 6.0
book vendors.
6. Teaching full time while "moonlighting" at least 20 83.0 6.2
5.0 2.3 2.9
hours per week.
7. Dating a student. 84.6 10.2 4.1 0.8 0.2
8. Asking small favors (e.g., a ride home) from 26.8 46.7 23.2
1.9 0.8
students.
9. Hugging a student. 28.4 36,5 28.0 5.4 1.2
10. Telling a student: "I'm sexually attracted to you." 92.7 6.8
0.0 0.2 0.0
11. Accepting a student's expensive gift. 85.3 13.3 1.2 0.2 0.0
12. Teaching when too distressed to be effective. 32.8 45.4 20.1
1.0 0.0
13. Becoming sexually involved with a student. 89.0 9.5 1.0 0.4
0.0
14. Lending money to a student. 44.2 43.2 11.2 0.6 0.4
15. Accepting a student's invitation to a party. 14.1 34.4 38.8
10.6 2.1

16. Selling goods (e.g., your car or books) to a student. 74.3
20.5 3.9 0.6 0.2
17. Being sexually attracted to a student. 23.9 37.3 30.3 6.2 2.3
18. Teaching material you haven't really mastered. 8.1 53.3 35.3
2.5 0.6
19. Teaching that homosexuality per se is pathological. 93.4 2.1
2.5 0.2 0.6
20. Accepting a student's inexpensive gift (worth less 13.1 41.9
36.7 5.6 2.3
than $5).
21. Teaching a class without adequate preparation that 7.7 51.0
37.1 3.3 0.4
day.
22. Making deliberate or repeated sexual comments, 99.0 1.0
0,0 0.0 0.0
gestures, or physical contact that is unwanted by
the student.
23. Teaching while under the influence of alcohol. 95.4 3.9 0.4
0.2 0.0
24. Engaging in sexual fantasies about students. 39.8 33.8 21.2
3.7 0.6
25. Helping a student file an ethics complaint against 74.9 18.7
5.2 0.4 0.0
another teacher.
26. Teaching that certain races are intellectual inferior. 97.9 1.0
0.6 0.2 0.0
27. Encouraging students to participate in your 11.0 14.5 38.2
22.6 13.3
research projects.
28. Having students be research subjects as part of a 46.3 14.5

19.7 9.1 10.2
course requirement.
29. Accepting undeserved authorship on a student's 96.7 2.9 0.0
0.0 0.0
published paper.
30. Teaching in classes so crowded you couldn't teach 43.6 32.4
18.7 2.9 1.9
effectively.
31. Using a grading procedure which does not 46.1 36.7 11.4
1.9 0.6
adequately measure what students have learned.
32. Teaching content in a nonobjective or incomplete 26.6 50.6
16.8 2.3 1.5
manner.
33. Teaching while under the influence of cocaine or 98.1 0.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
other illegal drugs.
34. Accepting for yourself a publisher's monetary 97.9 0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
rebate for adopting their text.
35. Accepting for your department a publisher's 95.6 1.9 0.8 0.2
0.0
monetary rebate for adopting their text.
36. Allowing a student's "likability" to influence your 38.6 50.4
8.9 0.8 0.0
grading.

7.9 21.0 29.3 29.7 8.3
69.3 20.1 3,3 2.5 3.9
59.8 24.3 7.7 4.4 2.5
16.0 20.7 16.0 31.3 13.3
29.7 14.5 26.1 19.5 9.1
17.2 30.5 14.7 24.7 10.6
45.6 34.2 5.6 11.6 2.1
5.2 32.0 12.4 40.7 8.1
5.6 41.3 10.0 36.1 5.8
68.9 20.7 3.6 4.6 1.3
52.3 35.1 5.2 5.2 1.2
8.9 38.6 28.8 16.8 5.2
71.0 19.7 2.3 3.7 2.3
6.6 43.6 18.7 23.4 5.8
3.1 20.3 11.0 44.6 20.3
12.4 25.3 23.0 ~ . 3 7.5
15.4 11,4 21.2 17.2 29.0
10.8 36.7 21.4 24.1 5.6
64.3 8.3 15.8 4.4 5.4
4.8 24.9 8.7 42.5 17.6
8.5 41.3 17.8 26.8 4.1
94.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 3.5
79.3 13.7 2.3 1.0 2.7

20.3 13.5 21.4 17.6 22.4
5.0 17.2 15.4 31.5 29.5
73.2 7.3 11.8 2.5 4.1
2.9 7.1 5.2 41.7 41.7
18.7 16.2 11.0 35.7 17.2
82.4 10.8 1.0 1.2 3.3
16.0 32.4 28.2 15.4 5.8
45.2 25.3 15.8 7.3 2.5
27.6 31.7 20.3 13.5 3.3
83.0 7.1 4.1 1.5 2.5
79.7 7.9 6.6 1.2 3.1
71.2 10.8 10.0 3.1 2.9
63.3 23.4 7.1 3.1 1.7
T a b l e 4 (cont inued)
Your teaching b
RaUng"
Item 1 2 3 4 5

Ethical? =
1 2 3 4 5
37. Using profanity in lectures. 30.3 47.1 17.0 2.9 0.4
38. Allowing students to drop courses for reasons not 40.0 39.4
14.7 1.5 0.4
officially approved.
39. Engaging in a sexual relationship with another 89.4 6.4 0.8
0.6 1.2
faculty member within your department who is of
the same academic rank as you.
40. Engaging in a sexual relationship with another 89.6 5.4 1.9
0.4 0.8
faculty member within your department who is of
higher or lower rank than you.
41. Inadequately supervising teaching assistants. 57.1 31.5 7.1
0.8 0.0
42. Using school resources to prepare a scholarly 58.1 14.1 14.5
6.4 4.1
textbook.
43. Requiring students to use aversive procedures with 86.7 5.8
3.5 0.8 1.0
rats, pigeons, etc.
44. Omitt ing significant information when writ ing a 37.8 43.4
15.6 1.7 0.2
letter of recommendation for a student.
45. Including false or misleading information when 91.5 6.2 0.4

0.0 0.0
writ ing a letter of recommendation for a student.
46. Teaching where there's no adequate grievance 71.6 11.4 6.4
1.9 1.2
procedure for students.
47. Grading on a strict curve regardless of class 76.3 13.3 5.2
2.3 0.6
performance level.
48. Teaching in buildings which could not 36.3 23.9 24.3 6.8
4.4
accommodate physically challenged students.
49. Using films, etc., to fill class t ime (and reduce your 73.4
22.8 2.7 0.0 0.0
teaching work) wi thout regard for their educational
value.
50. Telling colleagues confidential disclosures told to 62.4 33.2
2.9 0.4 0.0
you by a student.
51. Teaching in a setting lacking adequate ethnic 17.2 15.6 23.0
20.5 20.5
diversity among the faculty.
52. Teaching ethics or values to students. 7.5 11.2 31.3 26.6
21.6
53. Failing to update lecture notes when re-teaching a 23.7 38.8
28.6 6.2 0.8
course.
54. Assigning unpaid students to carry out work for 71.2 22.0

4.8 0.6 0.0
you which has little educational value for the
student.
55. Privately tutoring students in the department for a 98.8 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0
fee.
56. Taking advantage of a student 's offer such as 91.7 6.8 0.4
0.0 0.0
wholesale prices at parents' store.
57. Critizing all theoretical orientations except those 62.0 27.8
6.8 1.5 0.4
you personally prefer.
58. Using cocaine or other illegal drugs in your 70.7 20.1 6.2
0.4 0.6
personal (nonteaching) life.
59. Insulting, ridiculing, etc., a student in the student 's 83.2
14.7 0.6 0.2 0.0
presence.
60. Insulting, ridiculing, etc., a student in his or her 51.0 36.9
10.0 0.4 0.0
absence.
61. Encouraging competi t ion among students. 27.0 35.7 24.5
7.7 3.9
62. Ignoring unethical behavior by colleagues. 21.2 46.1 24.3
3.7 0.8
63. Becoming sexually involved with a student only 80.7 14.7
2.7 0.4 0.4

after he or she has completed your course and the
grade has been filed.
14.3 35.3 19.9 21.0 6.4
16.8 37.1 17.8 19.9 4.1
10.0 9.3 13.5 31.3 33.6
14.1 16.0 19.7 30.7 17.2
43.2 33.2 14.1 4.1 1.7
5.8 11.4 12.4 29.9 37.8
24.3 25.1 20.1 19.1 8.3
25.7 43.6 15.1 11.8 1.7
81.3 9.1 1.9 1.9 3.3
30.5 21.6 29.7 7.9 3.3
28.2 27.6 24.1 10.4 6.8
17.8 24.3 31.7 14.5 7.5
53,5 34.0 7.1 2.3 1.7
52.1 36.1 3.5 4.4 2.5
9.5 19.9 32.8 22.6 12.4
3.9 6.4 10.6 29.3 47.7
14.5 35.3 21.4 22.2 3,5
49.4 33.6 8.5 5.6 1.2

45.4 19.7 17.0 11.4 4.4
43.8 28.6 16.4 7.3 2.3
47.5 23.2 12.9 9.5 4.1
30.7 14.7 23.4 14.9 13.9
73.4 16.2 4.4 2.1 2.1
61.4 19.9 10.0 5.0 1.7
6.8 20.3 28.4 28.6 14.1
36.3 35.9 16.2 6.0 1.5
20.7 26.3 17.0 24.5 1.2
• Responses 1-5 sum to less then 100% because of missing data.
b I = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = fairly often; 5 = very
often. = 1 =unquestionably
not; 2 = under rare circumstances; 3 = don't know/not sure; 4 =
under many circumstances; 5 = unquestionably yes.
May 1991 ° American Psychologist 511
T a b l e 5
Behaviors Significantly Related to Sex and Age
Item X = d f n
Sex (p < .001)
17. Being sexually attracted to a
student. 104.42 4 469

24. Engaging in sexual fantasies about
students. 134.69 4 465
61. Encouraging competition among
students. 41.83 4 464
63. Becoming sexually involved with a
student only after he or she has
completed your course and the
grade has been filed. 17.13 2 465
Age (p < .002)
37. Using profanity in lectures. 21.12 6 470
58. Using cocaine or other illegal
drugs in your personal
(nonteaching) life. 27.28 6 472
Behaviors That Are Rare
The most rare behavior, acknowledged by only 1% of the
respondents, was sexual harassment, which was never re-
ported on more than a rare basis. This item, "Making
deliberate or repeated sexual comments, gestures, or
physical contact that is unwanted by the student," was
quoted verbatim from the definition provided by the Eth-
ical Principles of Psychologists ( APA, 1981 ), and perhaps,
as worded, does not invite many admissions. One other
rare item, "telling a student: ' I 'm sexually attracted to
you' ," also concerned sexual issues. It is intriguing that
respondents report disclosing sexual attraction toward a
student (acknowledged on a rare basis by 7%) less fre-
quently than they report actually becoming sexually in-
volved with a student (11%, with 9.5% doing so only

rarely).
Teaching while under the influence of alcohol (less than
1% more than rarely) or of cocaine or other illegal drugs
(less than 1% ever) is rare. Few psychologists report ever
teaching that certain races are intellectually inferior (2%)
or that homosexuality per se is pathological (5%). Dis-
honesty involving including false or misleading infor-
mation when writing a letter of recommendation for a
student is unusual; it was reported by less than 1% more
than rarely.
Allowing at least the appearance of a conflict of interest
in accepting publishers' "kick-backs" is generally avoided.
Fewer than 1% acknowledged ever "accepting for yourself
a publisher's rebate for adopting their text," and only 3%
acknowledged ever "accepting for your department" such
rebates.
Although using school resources to prepare a scholarly
textbook (39%) is common, those who report ever using
such resources to create a "popular" psychology trade
book (5%) are relatively rare. Few (8%) reported ever tak-
ing advantage of a student's offer such as wholesale prices.
Only 3% reported ever taking undeserved authorship
credit for a student's project, and then only rarely.
Difficult Judgments
We defined a difficult judgment as one in which at least
25% of the respondents indicated don't know~not sure in
T a b l e 6
Items Favored by Teaching Over Clinical Psychologists (p <
.001)

Behaviors = Ethics b
Item Partial x 2 d f © n Partial X 2 d f n
8. Asking small favors of
student (client).
12. Working while too distressed
to be effective.
13. Becoming sexually involved
with student (client).
14. Lending money to student
(client).
15. Attending student's (client's)
party.
16. Selling goods to students
(clients).
63. Becoming sexually involved
with student (client) after
class (therapy) ended.
176.85 4 918 192.84 4 913
17.29 2 916 227.75 4 915
36.48 2 925 115.91 4 920
107.07 4 920 188.87 4 914
363.01 4 924 278.42 4 920

57.69 5 920 420.93 4 913
17.31 2 919 178.06 4 917
• Behaviors more likely to be engaged in by teaching than
clinical psychologists, o Behaviors less likely to be considered
unethical by teaching than clinical
psychologists. = Degrees of freedom vary because categories
were collapsed when expected frequencies were too low or
because of log-linear modeling
algorithm.
Tab le 7
Items Favored by Clinical Over Teaching Psychologists (p <
.001)
Behaviors = Ethics b
Item Partial X = d f © n Partial X = d f n
9. Hugging a student (client).
10. Telling a student (client): "I'm
sexually attracted to you."
17. Being sexually attracted to a
student (client).
20. Accepting an inexpensive gift.
24. Engaging in sexual fantasies
about students (clients)
25. Helping file a complaint

against a colleague.
38.87 4 922 n s
3 3 . 1 3 1 919 30.08
40.82 4 911 n s
21.20 4 917 n s
21.57 4 916 n s
38.01 2 894 n s
4 918
• Behaviors more likely to be engaged in by clinical than
teaching psychologists, b Behaviors less likely to be considered
unethical by clinical than teaching
psychologists. = Degrees of freedom vary because categories
were collapsed when expected frequencies were too low.
terms of whether the behavior was ethical. There were
seven items that met this criterion. The two most difficult
judgments (the only two for which more than 30% of the
respondents indicated that they didn't know or weren't
sure) involved de facto segregation: "teaching in a setting
lacking adequate ethnic diversity" and "teaching in
buildings which could not accommodate physically chal-
lenged students."
Two difficult items concerned either external or per-
sonal barriers to effective teaching: "teaching in classes
so crowded you couldn't teach effectively" and "teaching
when too distressed to be effective."

Whether encouraging competition among students,
selling unwanted complimentary textbooks to used book
vendors, and teaching in an institution that does not have
adequate grievance procedures, are ethical were also dif-
ficult judgments for respondents to make.
Controversial Behaviors
We defined a controversial item as one in which the ethical
judgments were so diverse that the SD > 1.25. Ten items
met this criterion.
It is intriguing that one half of these controversial items
concerned sexual thoughts or behavior: "being sexually
attracted to students," "engaging in sexual fantasies about
students," "engaging in a sexual relationship with another
faculty member within your department of the same ac-
ademic rank as you," "engaging in a sexual relationship
with another faculty member within your department
who is of a higher or lower rank than you," and "becoming
sexually involved with a student only after he or she has
completed your course and the grade has been filed."
Of the remaining controversial behavior items, two
("requiring students to use aversive procedures with rats,
pigeons, etc." and "selling unwanted complimentary
textbooks to used book vendors") were also difficult
judgments.
Although slightly more than one half (53%) of the re-
spondents believed that "having students be research
subjects as part of a course requirement" was either un-
questionably ethical or ethical under many circumstances,
a sizable minority (35%) believed that it was either never
or only rarely ethical.

There was a relatively narrow gap between those who
believed that "giving academic credit instead of salary
for student assistants" was deafly ethical or ethical under
many circumstances (47%) and those who believed that
it was never or rarely ethical (37%).
"Using cocaine or other illegal drugs in your personal
(nonteaching) life" was judged unethical or ethical only
under rare circumstances by 45% but unquestionably
ethical or ethical under many circumstances by 29%.
Comment on Selected Issues
Bending the rules for selected students. The importance
of objective grading procedures versus the frailties of hu-
man nature was perhaps most apparent in the finding
that a student's likability could influence assigned grades.
Note that two thirds of the respondents believed such
actions to be unquestionably unethical, but two thirds
also report having given in to such influences on at least
rare occasions. More than one half of the respondents
have allowed students to drop courses for reasons not
officially approved on at least a rare basis, and more than
one half saw this act as generally unethical. Similarly,
more than one half of the respondents report having
omitted significant information when writing a letter of
recommendation at least rarely, and two thirds of the
respondents view that behavior as generally unethical.
These are instances of, perhaps, conflicting loyalties;
helping out someone who is judged to be deserving of it
versus objectivity in maintaining the standards one knows
are important to uphold in order for the system to work
properly. Or perhaps there is a conflict between endorse-
ment of general rules of behavior versus application of
those rules to those one knows.

Including false or misleading information in a rec-
ommendation letter, however, appears to be clearly un-
acceptable. Only a small percentage of respondents report
having done that, and 90% believe such behavior to be
unethical.
Little boundary blurrings. Clinical practitioners are
admonished to keep the professional role paramount and
to resist any temptation or opportunity to interact with
a client in other roles (Borys & Pope, 1989; Pope, 1991;
Pope & Vasquez, 1991). Boundary violations are viewed
as compromising the objectivity necessary to provide
competent services, as well as increasing the potential for
exploitation and violations of trust. Students and profes-
sors also compose a sensitive dyad in that the professor
has the power to influence students' lives in a number of
significant ways, thus "students" are also explicitly in-
cluded in the portion of the Ethical Principles of Psy-
chologists that admonishes psychologists to avoid dual
role relationships (Principle 5d, APA, 1990).
Student and professor groups, however, are encouraged
to spend time together in a variety of contexts, thus mak-
ing boundary crossing difficult to avoid. Sometimes, what
with so many social and other types of activities available
to both students and faculty on and off campus, boundary
blurring seems practically built into the academic system.
Accepting invitations to students' parties is a common
phenomenon among teaching psychologists, and less than

a quarter of the sample saw any ethical problems with
this activity. Similarly, asking small favors from students
was also commonly reported, although more than one
third of the respondents believed that this was generally
unethical. More than one half of the respondents reported
having loaned money to students at least rarely, and most
saw no ethical problems if it was done only under rare
circumstances. Finally, one fourth of the respondents re-
ported selling goods (such as books or a car) to students
on at least rare occasions, with no consensus emerging
as to the ethicality of this behavior. Most of these activities,
as we would have predicted, occur much more frequently
among students and professors than among clients and
therapists (see Table 6).
Gossip and betrayal of student confidences. Relatively
few respondents reported ever having insulted or ridiculed
a student directly to his or her face, although almost one
half reported having engaged in such behavior in the stu-
dents' absence. Hefty majorities believe, however, that
the act in neither context constitutes ethical behavior.
Similarly, more than one third admitted having relayed
confidential disclosures made by students to colleagues
(mostly only rarely), although, again, the vast majority
believed this to be unethical (see also Principle 5, pream-
ble, EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists, APA, 1990). Thus,
although behavior that might embarrass or violate the
trust of a student happens often enough (usually without
the students' awareness), the perpetrators also admit to
knowing better.
Willingness to stand up to wrongdoings. Dealing with
the cheating student or unethical colleague is not relished
by anyone. Such situations are inherently distasteful, not
to mention anxiety-provoking, painful, and even fright-
ening to confront.

About one fourth of the respondents reported having
assisted students with the filing of a complaint against
another teacher, mostly only rarely. It is impossible to
ascertain from our data if the others had failed to engage
in that act because the opportunity never presented itself.
It was distressing to learn, however, that one fifth of the
respondents reported they had, at least on rare occasions,
ignored strong evidence of student cheating, and 79% had
ignored unethical behavior by colleagues. It would be of
great interest to know more about the barriers or circum-
stances that account for turning away from the ethical
responsibility to be actively involved in the monitoring
of ethical behavior of colleagues and students (see Prin-
ciple 7g of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists, APA,
1990).
Sexual relations with students and other faculty. The
sexualization of psychologists' professional relationships
with those whom they serve--as teachers, as therapists,
as supervisors, as assessment specialists, and so forth--
has been a problematic one for the profession. Some
maintain that neither the law nor the APA can legitimately
hinder the right to free association (including the right
to define that association as sexual) of two consenting
adults, whether they be teacher and student, employer
and employee, therapist and patient, or assessment spe-
cialist and job candidate. Others express concern that the
sexualization of professional relationships may cause a
variety of negative consequences including the erosion of
the objectivity necessary for professional tasks (Glaser &
Thorpe, 1986; Pope, 1989; Pope, 1990a, 1990b; Pope,
Levenson, & Schover, 1979; Pope & Vasquez, 1991; Rob-
inson & Reid, 1985). For example, teachers must assume
the role of evaluator (APA, 1979; Pope, Schover, & Lev-
enson, 1980).

Sexual attraction toward and sexual fantasies about
students were reported to occur in the majority of the
respondents, although less frequently by the women and
at less frequent rates than those of therapists toward their
clients (Pope, Keith-Spiegel, & Tabachnick, 1986; Pope
et al., 1987). Smaller percentages of respondents reported
having disclosed feelings of sexual attraction, dated, or
had sexual relations with current or former students.
When sexual feelings toward students are acted upon, the
majority of the respondents believed that this constituted
an ethical problem.
Despite the fact that sexual relations among colleagues
may raise ethical issues because of power differentials and
political intrigues, they were viewed differently than was
sexual activity between teacher and student. Only about
1 in 10 respondents reported engaging in a sexual relation
with a colleague of the same academic rank or of a dif-
ferent academic rank, and sexual involvement with a col-
league of the same rank was viewed as less ethically ob-
jectionable. Generally, however, the respondents did not
believe that sexual relations among colleagues was an
ethical problem.
Hugging students may, of course, be sexual or nonsex-
ual in nature (and, not infrequently, the two participants
may interpret that nature differently). The majority of
the respondents reported hugging students at least on oc-
casion, which is still significantly less than therapists hug
their clients (see Table 7). There was no consensus among

respondents on the ethics of hugging students.
Conclusion
Those of us who are devoted to teaching may be justifiably
skeptical of some external efforts to regulate what and
how we teach. A n d yet this skepticism may have hindered
valuable processes of ethical self-examinat ion and ac-
countabi l i ty of the sort we wish to model for and en-
courage in our students. A crucial aspect of the matu-
ra t ion and mora l development of any profession is the
collective openness and dedicat ion of its membersh ip to
study and critically examine itself.
Psychology has a rich t radi t ion of empir ical research
and respect for systematically collected data. It is t ime
for us to br ing the strengths, strategies, rigorous discipline,
and persistent inquisi t iveness of that t radi t ion to bear on
our own behavior and beliefs as teachers.
REFERENCES
American Association of University Professors. (1987, July-
August).
Statement on professional ethics. Academe, 73(4), 49.
American Psychological Association. (1977). Standards for
providers of
psychological services. American Psychologist, 32, 495-505.
American Psychological Association. (1979). Criteria for
accreditation
of doctoral training programs and internships in professional
psy-
chology. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles
of psy-
chologists (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1987). Membership
directory of
the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles
of psy-
chologists (amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist, 45,
390-
395.
Baumgarten, E. (1982). Ethics in the academic profession.
Journal of
Higher Education, 53, 283-295.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New
York: Simon
& Schuster.
Borys, D. S., & Pope, K. S. (1989). Dual relationships between
therapist
and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and
social
workers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20,
283-
293.
Brown, R. D., & Krager, L. (1985). Ethical issues in graduate
education:
Faculty and student responsibilities. Journal of Higher
Education, 56,
403-418.

Cahn, S. M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia.
Totowa,
NJ: Rowman & Littlefie'ld.
Callahan, D. (1982). Should there be an academic code of
ethics? Journal
of Higher Education, 53, 335-346.
Cole, D. L. ( 1981). Teaching tomorrow's psychology students:
Who pays
the piper?. American Psychologist, 36, 514-519.
Deutsch, M. (1979). Education and distributive justice: Some
reflections
on grading systems. American Psychologist, 34, 391-401.
Dill, D. D. (1982). The structure of the academic profession:
Toward a
definition of ethical issues. Journal of Higher Education, 53,
255-
267.
Giaser, R. D., & Thorpe, J. S. (1986). Unethical intimacy: A
survey of
sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and
female
graduate students. American Psychologist, 41, 43-51.
Goodstein, L. D. ( 1981). Ethics are for academics too!
Professional Psy-
chology, 12, 191-193.
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American
needs to
know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hook, S., Kurtz, P., & Todorovich, M. (Eds.). (1977). The
ethics of
teaching and scientific research. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Keith-Spiegel, P. C., & Koocher, G. (1985). Ethics in
psychology: Profes-
sional standards and cases. New York: Random House.
Matthews, J. R. (1989, August 13). The teaching of ethics and
the ethics
of teaching. Division 2 presidential address delivered at the
97th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, New
Orleans,
LA.
Pope, K. S. (1989). Teacher-student sexual intimacy. In G. O.
Gabbard
(Ed.), Sexual exploitation in professional relationships (pp.
163-176).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Pope, K. S. (1990a). Therapist-patient sex as sex abuse: Six
scientific,
professional and practical dilemmas in addressing victimization
and
rehabilitation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
21,
227-239.
Pope, K. S. (1990b). Therapist-patient sexual involvement: A
review of
research. Clinical Psychology Review,, 10, 477-490.

Pope, K. S. (1991). Dual relationships in psychotherapy. Ethics
and
Behavior, 1, 21-34.
Pope, K. S., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Tabachnick, B. G. (1986).
Sexual at-
traction to clients: The human therapist and the (sometimes)
inhuman
training system. American Psychologist, 41, 147-158.
Pope, K. S., Levenson, H., & Schover, L. R. (1979). Sexual
intimacy in
psychology training: Results and implications of a national
survey.
American Psychologist, 34, 682-689.
Pope, K. S., Schover, L. R., & Levenson, H. (1980). Sexual
behavior
between clinical supervisors and trainees: Implications for
professional
standards. Professional Psychology, 11, 157-162.
Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, E (1987).
Ethics of
practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as
therapists.
American Psychologist, 42, 993-1006.
Pope, K. S., & Vasqucz, M. J. T. (1991). Ethics in
psychotherapy and
counseling: A practical guide for psychologists. San Francisco:
Jossey-
Bass.
Professor X. (1973). This beats working for a living: The dark
secrets

of a college professor. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.
Redlich, E, & Pope, K. (1980). Ethics of mental health training.
Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 709-714.
Robinson, W. L., & Reid, E T. (1985). Sexual intimacies in
psychology
revisited. Professional Psychology, 16, 512-520.
Sehurr, G. M. (1982). Toward a code of ethics for academics.
Journal
of Higher Education, 53, 318-134.
Scriven, M. (1982). Professorial ethics. Journal of Higher
Education,
53, 307-317.
Sykes, C. J. (1988). Profscam: Professors and the demise of
higher ed-
ucation. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate
statistics
(2nd ed.) New York: Harper & Row.
Wilson, E. K. (1982). Power, pretence, and piggybacking: Some
ethical
issues in teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 268-281.
May 1991 • Amer ican Psychologist 515
Business Intelligence to a lot of the people is just a buzzword
where not many are aware of what it exactly means. One can

think of Business Intelligence as a high level technology driven
process that helps analyze the user data and present it in a
visual way for the end user based on which various business
decision are taken. (Negash, 2008) Usually, BI consists of a
plethora of tools that can help manipulate the data as needed
and report against the various type of data, filter the data,
gather different types of data from both internal and external
systems which can then be used by a Business Consultant o
review and analyze before sending it to the customer.
One can also create a variety of reports, user defined
dashboards, etc. to ensure the results are available to the
decision makers within the company so that they can read
through and take future decisions. (Negash, 2008)
It is really important to have a BI tool in any organization to be
able to view the data at a detailed level using which one can
analyze the profit and loss within a certain department.
(Negash, 2008) Some of the benefits that the BI offers are that
they help in better decision making, help optimize both internal
and external business process, drastically increase the operating
frequency and efficiency of the product besides staying a step
ahead of their competitors in the challenging market.(Negash,
2008)
As a part of my current job, I work on Jaspersoft, which is a BI
reporting tool using which I create user specific custom reports
to pull the data from the various tables and present it to the
customer in the required format. (Negash, 2008) Our company
has been using the BI tools for a long period of time to analyze

the data that helps give visibility to the customer on where their
spend is and how much are they spending on certain categories.
(Chaudhuri, 2011) This BI software also includes a data
visualization software embedded into it using which one can
design various types of charts besides building custom
dashboards, key performance scorecards, etc.(Chaudhuri, 2011)
My organization uses Jaspersoft tool as its BI application for a
number of reasons. The way it helps and benefits the
organization is spread across multiple departments and
areas.(Chaudhuri, 2011) Currently, we use this tool for aligning
our company objectives and activities with the strategies
defined by the executives, greatly reduce the amount of time
spent on manual data entry and data manipulation, get exposure
and in depth knowledge about real time use of customer data,
come up with various tactics and methods to cut down on
implementing costs and allocate the budget correctly and also
make sure the productivity is increasing within the company
with less spend.
References
Negash, S., & Gray, P. (2008). Business intelligence. In
Handbook on decision support systems 2 (pp. 175-193).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Chaudhuri, S., Dayal, U., & Narasayya, V. (2011). An overview
of business intelligence technology. Communications of the

Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of inf.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of inf.docx

Similar a Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of inf.docx (19)

Más de felicidaddinwoodie

Más de felicidaddinwoodie (20)

Último

Último (20)

Business Intelligence is a specialty in gaining the benefit of inf.docx