Reports and their Users
Beginners versus Experts | Management versus Department | External versus Internal Reports | Creators versus Users | General versus Personal Reports | Customizing versus Peronalization versus ...
When software is designed for creating or displaying reports, distinctions are often made, in relation to user groups, which are no longer necessary. On the one hand, this may be because, in practice, these differences have never actually taken shape (for example, is every employee a specialist only in certain areas and a layman in the others?). On the other hand certain divisions of labor, arising only out of necessity, have no available supporting software.
A design that makes unnecessary distinctions, or still supports them, will not simplify the work process, or improve employee satisfaction, enough. The following boundaries, for example, can be removed here:
- Beginners versus Experts
- Management versus Department
- Exteral versus Internal Reports
- Creator versus User
- General versus Pronal Reports
- Customizing versus Peronalization versus ...
Résumé: With user-friendly tools, the number of employee groups, able to create their own reports, will be considerably increased. In addition, lower-level employees will now no longer have to sacrifice personal choice regarding the appearance and operation of reports. The technological prerequisites for these changes already exist.
Beginners versus Experts
Beginners
Many users work with information contained in reports, but do not want to go to the expense of learning how to operate reporting tools or have lengthy training. Nevertheless they want to have reports that are geared towards their particular function. Due to bottlenecks in the IT departments of many enterprises, the required experts can often not provide the necessary level of service. Hence, whenever possible, users want to create reports themselves, or at least be able to adapt them to their needs. This requires a tool that is easy to operate, intuitive and does not require the user to have a lengthy period of training.
This group of users makes little use of the options for interaction within the completed report itself. Many of these users spend only a small proportion of their working time dealing with reports. Therefore, users do not want to be offered too many confusing functions, but rather only those functions that they will really use.
Experts
On the other hand, more demands are being made on reports that are tailored optimally towards the end-user, within the context of extended display options on the screen and on paper, as well as interaction options. With the number of options available, it is unavoidable that a tool offering all the options for creating reports is fairly complicated. Even if this is evened out a little through an ergonomic tool design, the training period would still be longer than for a tool offering fewer options.
As well as experts who create reports for end-users who are beginners, there are also experts who create reports for themselves, or who navigate intensively in their reports and who require and use a great number of functions. For these users, reports or reporting tools are fundamental to their work.
Blurring the Boundaries
There are also users, who work with reports infrequently but intensively. They do not work with reports often enough to be able to learn how to use a tool comprehensively. Even so, they want to use a large proportion of the available functions. It is especially important for these users that the reporting tool is intuitive. The simplest - but certainly not the best - method here, is the option of switching between different modes (for example 'Beginner' and 'Expert'). The beginner's functions can easily be made available, and advanced functions can be activated when required. In the end, even experts have a certain supply of functions that they need to use often and do not use all of the implemented options.
However, creators of reports must also be able to design the report, so that the end users are only offered those functions that they need. The functions have to be offered in such a way that they are intuitive and appropriate.
Example: For the sake of simplicity, you can restrict the quantity of data that can be selected, by using a drop-down listbox. For a large value selection, however, this method is not suitable and must be replaced with more adequate dialog boxes. To be more precise, users have to consider a calendar overview for dates, a list for places, and an additional graphic or table for other values.
Finally, note that user observations have shown that the classical division into "Power User" and "Consumer" does not exist. Firstly, even amongst "Power Users", the range of functions actually used varies considerably. Secondly, an employee who you would classify as a "Power User" for certain reports, would usually be a "Consumer" in other areas of their work.
What does this mean?
If you abandon with the idea of overall categories, such as expert and beginner (and if report creation tool allows you to do this), reports can be tailored more directly to the needs and the know-how of the actual user. The users will, therefore, be supported better with their work.
Management versus Department
Management
Managers often do not have the time to have (and often, depending on age group, nor the interest in) software training. They demand a higher quality of data presentation, regarding both the clarity of the information presented and also the visual appearance. In many enterprises today, the consequence is that employees still use up a lot of their time preparing management information manually in a more responsive and specially tailored way.
Department
Employees within a department can usually not place such high demands on data preparation. The presentation of their data is, above all, purpose-oriented and usually depends only on the options in the report preparation program.
Blurring the Boundaries
For managers, manual data preparation, first of all, costs them valuable employee working time, secondly, delays the completion time of the report, and thirdly, prevents the manager from calling up corresponding additional information for the data. Hence, more and more managers have learned to appreciate the benefits of simply calling up well-prepared data directly from the system and from there, be able to branch to further information. If this is made easier by the system and also, if the data display satisfies the higher requirements, managers can make their decisions more quickly and more soundly. At the same time, the workload of their closest assistants will clearly be lightened.
What does this mean?
Reports for managers can - with less work for the personnel assisting them - provide the information they want, faster. Lower-level employees, through better reports, are subjectively revalued and work more efficiently. Both parties have increased job satisfaction.
External versus internal Reports
External Reports
Reports that are used not only within the firm, but also outside - whether by customers or business partners - are a prestige object for the organization. Hence, the outward appearance of the report is even more important than for internal reports for senior management. In addition, it is also important that the report represent the firm, through an integrated look and feel. This means that tools for creating reports have to support and facilitate report creation in corporate design.
The modules and templates (described under From the Data to the Report) that can be used when you create reports, are useful aids in this area. It is beneficial when you can create reports in corporate design just as easily (or even more easily) as in other designs. However, when communicating with authorities, the boundaries within which the layout can vary, are set much closer together (see: Layout versus Flexibility). In this case, publicity for the firm is of little importance.
Internal Reports
For reports that are only used within in a firm, greater freedom is allowed with design. It is in this area of reporting that the personal preferences of employees can play their biggest important role. In a society where the unique needs of individuals gain more and more significance, the topic of 'personalization' is particularly growing in importance (see: General versus Personal Reports as well as Customizing versus Personalization versus…)Blurring the Boundaries
However, it would be wrong to conclude from this that reports used externally are always standardized and internal reports are mostly individual. Firstly, even a corporate design still gives you the opportunity to play with the format of report, and secondly, within many companies there is also the requirement for even internal reports to meet certain standards. One reason for this is because reports are usually used by more than one group. Also, a standard visual design promotes employee identification with the firm.
Since users often choose the path involving the least amount of work, a tool for creating reports has to offer the use of a standard organizational design (where deviations from it are possible but causes with additional work).
What does this mean?
Reports that have a certain standard design are more easily exchangeable between colleagues and more easily accessible outside the firm.
Creators versus Users
Creator
In the days before electronic data processing, people other than the report users frequently created reports. This was time consuming, manual work that managers, for example, did not have time for.
The first electronically processed reports were programmed reports that were created by a software house, a consultancy firm, or in-house developers. Specialist employees were responsible for this. Their work was made easier when the first generic tools came onto the market. Using these tools, these specialists could create extensive reports without programming. However, these were generally so complicated to use that a specialist was again required in this area.
In addition, the reports did not have the visual appearance to begin with that was required by executive levels or for communication with the customer. In this case, electronically processed reports, therefore, had to be revised manually, or in extreme cases, completely recreated by hand.
User
For the report user, all of this is generally too complicated and time-consuming. The user prefers to pass on the work to specialists and then use only the finished, fully created report. But this leads to several problems: Firstly, the specialists - often IT specialists - are over-stretched in many organizations. This is because, in many cases - particularly in the introductory phase of the software - the planned allocation of resources for creating the report is not sufficient. Secondly, while IT specialists understand their own business area, they do not necessarily have such a full understanding of the business transactions that are supported and analyzed by the reports that they create.
Thirdly, transferring work in this way requires additional communication that can sometimes lead to misunderstandings and take up extra time. In particular, ad-hoc analyses are much more difficult in this situation.
Blurring the Boundaries
This has lead to a situation in which young employees in particular increasingly want to create reports themselves, whenever possible. However, they do not want to have extensive training to teach them how to use a complicated tool, nor do they want to carry out all the detailed configurations themselves. An intuitive (but nevertheless, powerful) tool is a great help, particularly for employees who rarely, but intensively, create reports and analyze company data with them (see Beginners versus Experts).
Moreover, such employees like to fall back on suitable, ready-made modules and templates, which simplify the process of creating reports, hide complicated creation steps and thus, accelerate the work process. These can be created by specialists (for example, from the IT department) and tailored for the user group. The workload for this is significantly less than for creating complete reports, as the number of modules and templates that have to be staged is less than the number of reports that have to be created.
What does this mean?
Users of reports are considerably more contented when they can work with the best possible reports for them and do not have to be satisfied with half-hearted solutions. Moreover, they can act with more flexibility and do not always have to wait for the specialists' help. Finally, specialists are sometimes thin on the ground and expensive, making it advantageous if they are not required so often.
General versus Personal Reports
General Reports
One of the advantages of electronic data processing is that many users from different places can easily access the same data from centrally created reports and other documents. These reports are particularly more accessible through the use of the Internet and mobile devices.
Personal Reports
However, if every report is accessible to every employee, individual employees can lose sight of the required information in the flood of reports. A large proportion of all reports is irrelevant for most employees. Also, if each user is allowed to tailor individual reports to their own needs, the number of different reports increases quite substantially.
Therefore, it is necessary to also have reports that can only be accessed by one specific user. In this way, individual employees can create a worklist of reports that they require that can be accessed quickly (as can generally available reports). In the same way, the process of creating reports has to be supported and accelerated through the use of personal modules and templates.
To a certain extent, this has already been possible for a long time via local repositories on the PCs of other employees. But this is, strictly taken, only an allocation of documentation to PCs and not of documentation to employees. As well as restricted accessibility, this solution has some additional disadvantages, as the following section explains.
Blurring the Boundaries
In practice, the basic distinction between general and personal reports is much too vague. Often, several employees have to fulfill similar tasks and therefore need to use similar, or the same reports, which can, in turn, be of no interest for their colleagues. In addition, every employee is part of a particular department and has to be able to access shared documents used internally within that department.
Therefore, the question of which reports or modules have to be visible and usable for which users, cannot just be addressed using a storage structure. Apart from manual selection, access has to be determined, rather, by the role of the user within the organization as well as its department and project affiliation. Additional aids, such as an efficient search function and an automatic notification service, complete the range that is necessary to be able to access reports quickly, efficiently and clearly. (See also: Search Help versus Report as well as Online versus Offline).
What does this mean?
Users can work more quickly, if they have well-organized support functions that they need for their tasks which can be found quickly. This is also valid for reporting.
Customizing versus Personalization versus…
Customizing
Every organization is different. Therefore, the design requirements of the reports, as well as employee authorization demands, are also different. This means that - as with all other programs - it is important that reports can be adjusted (without any programming expense). As a rule, this is done centrally, partly throughout the organization and partly at department level. This ensures a certain level of uniformity. A large amount of work can be removed for companies in this area, as the program is delivered complete with meaningful defaults. These can either be different software delivery versions or else, (similar to the desktop themes of Microsoft Windows) whole sets of settings that can be changed as a package.
Personalization
On the other hand, it would be too much of a job for employees who carry out central customizing to make individual adjustments for every single colleague. Therefore, in many areas each employee has to be able to make their own individual settings, individually. In reporting, this concerns, for example- depending on authorization -the configuration of the tool for creating reports or the selection of reports, templates and parameter assignment, as well as the organization of these in favorites, worklists and so on.
Another Alternative
However, this personalization has a crucial disadvantage: Most users do not use it. There are some users who place a lot of emphasis on being able to adapt their working environment to their own requirements in the best possible way. But at least as many users again do not take the trouble to do this and then, work more inefficiently accordingly. Hence, it is necessary to structure this personalization as simply as possible, so that even users in the second group see its benefits.
With suitable pre-customizing, you can make the personalization settings in such a way that they support user tasks in the best way possible. Here, it is important to have an efficient role concept that suitably brings together users with the same or similar tasks.
On the other hand, many software systems - not only in the area of 'reporting' - have now changed so that they are able to register the settings as they are made by employees during their everyday work. In this way, the program is gradually personalized (without the user explicitly having to do anything) and employee efficiency is increased. However, this procedure cannot be used for all settings.
Result
A good program uses all four methods: Good pre-configuration, central customizing support, enabling of explicit personalization, and a good "memory for settings" for personalization.
What does this mean?
Just as in craft work, where a good tool that is adapted to the tasks at hand in the best possible way can simplify and speed up work enormously, a reporting tool that is optimally tailored to the tasks of the user, can also increase work efficiency substantially.