Dresner Sample

January 30, 2017
Dresner Advisory Services, LLC
2017 Edition
Location Intelligence Market

Study
Wisdom of Crowds® Series
Licensed to Qlik
DAS Location Intelligence Market Study 2017
Disclaimer:
This report is for informational purposes only. You should make vendor and product selections based on
multiple information sources, face-to-face meetings, customer reference checking, product demonstrations,
and proof-of-concept applications.
The information contained in this Wisdom of Crowds® Location Intelligence Business Intelligence Market
Study Report is a summary of the opinions expressed in the online responses of individuals that chose to
respond to our online questionnaire and does not represent a scientific sampling of any kind. Dresner
Advisory Services, LLC shall not be liable for the content of this report, the study results, or for any damages
incurred or alleged to be incurred by any of the companies included in the report as a result of the report’s
content.
Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden.
COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Page | 2
Definitions
Business Intelligence Defined

Business intelligence (BI) is “knowledge gained through the access and analysis of
business information.”
Business Intelligence tools and technologies include query and reporting, OLAP (online
analytical processing), data mining and advanced analytics, end-user tools for ad hoc
query and analysis, and dashboards for performance monitoring.
Howard Dresner, The Performance Management Revolution: Business Results Through

Insight and Action (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)
Location Intelligence Defined

Location Intelligence is a form of business intelligence where the dominant dimension
used for analysis is location or geography. Most typically, though not exclusively,
analyses are conducted by viewing data points overlaid onto an interactive map
interface.

Page | 3
Contents
Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 3
Business Intelligence Defined ...................................................................................... 3
Location Intelligence Defined ....................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6
About Howard Dresner and Dresner Advisory Services .................................................. 7
About Jim Ericson ........................................................................................................... 8
Focus of Research .......................................................................................................... 9
Benefits of the Study ..................................................................................................... 10
Consumer Guide ........................................................................................................ 10
Supplier Tool .............................................................................................................. 10
External Awareness ................................................................................................ 10
Internal Planning ..................................................................................................... 10
Survey Method and Data Collection .............................................................................. 11
Data Quality ............................................................................................................... 11
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 12
Study Demographics ..................................................................................................... 13
Geography ................................................................................................................. 13
Functions ................................................................................................................... 14
Vertical Industries ...................................................................................................... 15
Organization Size....................................................................................................... 16
Analysis of Findings ...................................................................................................... 17
Importance of Location Intelligence ........................................................................... 17
Level of Geographic Detail Required ......................................................................... 24
Prioritized Geocoding Features.................................................................................. 29
Location Intelligence Users ........................................................................................ 35
Location Intelligence Features ................................................................................... 39
Location Intelligence User Penetration ...................................................................... 45
Cloud-Based Versus On-Premises Deployment of Location Intelligence ................... 51
User Devices Where Location Intelligence Will Be Utilized ........................................ 56
Mobile Location Intelligence Features ........................................................................ 61
Page | 4
Required Integration with GIS Vendors ...................................................................... 66

Industry Support for Location Intelligence ..................................................................... 72
Industry Support for Geocoding ................................................................................. 73
Industry Support for Location Intelligence Features ................................................... 75
Industry Support for Third-Party GIS Platforms.......................................................... 77
Industry Support for Mobile Location Intelligence Features ....................................... 78
Demand versus Supply Priorities for Location Intelligence ........................................ 80
Location Intelligence Vendor Ratings ............................................................................ 81
Other Dresner Advisory Services Research Reports .......Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix: Location Intelligence Survey Instrument ....................................................... 83

Page | 5
Introduction
This year we celebrate the tenth anniversary of Dresner Advisory Services! Our thanks
to all of you for your continued support and ongoing encouragement.
Since our founding in 2007, we have worked hard to set the “bar” high—challenging
ourselves to innovate and lead the market—offering ever greater value with each
successive year.
Our first market report in 2010 set the stage for where we are today. Since that time, we
have expanded our agenda and have added new research topics every year. For 2017,
we plan to release 15 major reports, including our original BI flagship report—in its
eighth year of publication!
Location intelligence has been somewhat of a “sleeper” topic for the past few years.
However, when we started coverage in 2014, we saw the potential for it to become
mainstream. As is the case with any topic, it takes several years of study to discern real
trends. With the growth in visualization and the emergence of IoT, location as a key
dimension and maps as a means of displaying and navigating insights have become
increasingly important.
As you read this report consider how location intelligence might be exploited or
expanded in your organization to improve your understanding of customers, markets,
assets, etc.
We hope you enjoy this report!
Best,
Chief Research Officer

Dresner Advisory Services

Page | 6
About Howard Dresner and Dresner Advisory Services

The DAS Location Intelligence Market Study was conceived, designed and executed by
Dresner Advisory Services, LLC—an independent advisory firm—and Howard Dresner,
its President, Founder and Chief Research Officer.
Howard Dresner is one of the foremost thought leaders in business intelligence and
performance management, having coined the term “Business Intelligence” in 1989. He
has published two books on the subject, The Performance
Management Revolution – Business Results through Insight
and Action (John Wiley & Sons, Nov. 2007) and Profiles in
Performance – Business Intelligence Journeys and the
Roadmap for Change (John Wiley & Sons, Nov. 2009). He
lectures at forums around the world and is often cited by the
business and trade press.
Prior to Dresner Advisory Services, Howard served as chief

strategy officer at Hyperion Solutions and was a research fellow at Gartner, where he
led its business intelligence research practice for 13 years.
Howard has conducted and directed numerous in-depth primary research studies over
the past two decades and is an expert in analyzing these markets.
Through the Wisdom of Crowds® Business Intelligence market research reports, we

engage with a global community to redefine how research is created and shared. Other
research reports include:
- Advanced and Predictive Analytics

- Big Data Analytics
- Business Intelligence Competency Center
- Cloud Computing and Business Intelligence
- Collective Insights®
- End User Data Preparation
- Enterprise Planning
- Natural Language Analytics
- Small and Mid-Sized Enterprise BI
Howard conducts a weekly Twitter “tweetchat” on Fridays at 1:00 p.m. ET. During these
live events the #BIWisdom “tribe” discusses a wide range of business intelligence
topics.
You can find more information about Dresner Advisory Services at

www.dresneradvisory.com.

Page | 7
About Jim Ericson

Jim Ericson is a research director with Dresner Advisory Services.
Jim has served as a consultant and journalist who studies end-user management
practices and industry trending in the data and information management fields.
From 2004 to 2013 he was the editorial director at Information Management magazine
(formerly DM Review), where he created architectures for user and
industry coverage for hundreds of contributors across the breadth of
the data and information management industry.
As lead writer he interviewed and profiled more than 100 CIOs,

CTOs, and program directors in a 2010-2012 program called “25
Top Information Managers.” His related feature articles earned
ASBPE national bronze and multiple Mid-Atlantic region gold and
silver awards for Technical Article and for Case History feature
writing.
A panelist, interviewer, blogger, community liaison, conference co-chair, and speaker in

the data-management community, he also sponsored and co-hosted a weekly podcast
in continuous production for more than five years.
Jim’s earlier background as senior morning news producer at NBC/Mutual Radio

Networks and as managing editor of MSNBC’s first Washington, D.C. online news
bureau cemented his understanding of fact-finding, topical reporting, and serving broad
audiences.

Page | 8
Focus of Research
In this study, we address key location intelligence issues including:
 Perceptions and intentions surrounding location intelligence

 End-user requirements and features:
o Geocoding support
o Location intelligence capabilities
o Third-party GIS integration
o Mobile location intelligence features
 Industry support for location intelligence
 User requirements versus industry capabilities
 Vendor ratings

Page | 9
Benefits of the Study

The DAS Location Intelligence Market Study provides a wealth of information and
analysis, offering value to both consumers and producers of business intelligence
technology and services.
Consumer Guide
As an objective source of industry research, consumers use the DAS Location
Intelligence Market Study to understand how their peers leverage and invest in location
intelligence and related technologies.
Using our unique vendor performance measurement system, users glean key insights
into BI software supplier performance, which enables:
 Comparisons of current vendor performance to industry norms

 Identification and selection of new vendors
Supplier Tool
Vendor licensees use the DAS Location Intelligence Market Study in several important
ways:
External Awareness
 Build awareness for business intelligence markets and supplier brands, citing
DAS Location Intelligence Market Study trends and vendor performance
 Gain lead and demand generation for supplier offerings through association with
DAS Location Intelligence Market Study brand, findings, webinars, etc.
Internal Planning
 Refine internal product plans and align with market priorities and realities as
identified in the DAS Location Intelligence Market Study
 Better understand customer priorities, concerns, and issues
 Identify competitive pressures and opportunities

Page | 10
Survey Method and Data Collection

As with all of our Wisdom of Crowds® Market Studies, we constructed a survey
instrument to collect data and used social media and crowdsourcing techniques to
recruit participants. Data for this report was collected between July and October of
2016.
Data Quality
We carefully scrutinized and verified all respondent entries to ensure that only qualified
participants were included in the study.

Page | 11
Executive Summary
 Among 30 topics under study, location intelligence ranks 20th, below traditional
topics but ahead of "hot" topics including big data and IoT (p. 17).
 More than half of respondents consider location intelligence "critical" or "very
important” (p. 18). The perceived importance of location intelligence has
increased over time and appears to be gaining new traction (pp. 19-23). Industry
perceived importance is also strong (p. 72). Overall vendor sentiment is only
somewhat in line with user expectations over time (p. 80).
 Postal code and province/state are the most important levels of detail for users.
Over time, granularity of detail is increasingly important (pp. 24-28).
 The most important geocoding user features are native geocoding, automated
geocoding and street-level support. Feature interest has grown over time (pp. 29-
34). Industry support for features is only somewhat aligned (pp. 73-74); some
features in decline have shifted to third-party integration versus core integration.
 Managers are the most targeted users of location intelligence across functions
and organizations of different sizes (pp. 35-38).
 The most important location intelligence user features are map-based
visualization, drill-down navigation, and dashboards. Feature interest grew
sharply among users in 2017 (pp. 39-44). Industry feature support is good across
leading features (pp. 75-76).
 Location intelligence penetration remains modest. We have seen modest growth
over time, and respondents describe significant growth plans (pp. 45-50).
 Respondents are more likely to prefer on-premises deployments, but are clearly
not daunted by the prospects for cloud-based deployments. (pp. 51-55).
 Desktops and laptops are the most popular devices for using location
intelligence, well ahead of mobile phones and tablets (pp. 56-60).
 Among mobile location intelligence features, query filtering is the top choice and
well ahead of reverse geocoding and geofence alerting (pp. 61-65). Industry
support is aligned with user priorities but is immature (pp. 78-79).
 The importance of GIS vendor integration with Esri and database extensions has
increased, while integration with Google has become less important (pp. 66-71).
Vendors have trended GIS integration support in line with user expectations (p.
77).

Page | 12
Study Demographics
Our survey base includes a cross-section of data across geographies, functions,
organization sizes, and vertical industries. We believe that, unlike other industry
research, we offer a more characteristic sample and better indicator of true market
dynamics.
We constructed cross-tab analyses using these demographics to identify and illustrate

important industry trends.
Geography
In our 2017 sample, 64 percent of respondents represent North American organizations
(including five Canadian provinces and a majority of U.S. states). About one-quarter
represent EMEA and about 9 percent work in Asia Pacific (fig. 1).
Geographies Represented
70.0%
63.8%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
24.6%
20.0%
10.0% 8.7%
2.8%
0.0%
North America Europe, Middle East and Asia Pacific Latin America
Africa
Figure 1 – Geographies represented

Page | 13
Functions
IT accounts for the largest group of respondents (31 percent) by function. Twenty-two
percent come from the business intelligence competency center (BICC) and 11 percent
from executive management. Finance, R&D, and Marketing/Sales are the next most
represented (fig. 2).
Tabulating results by function enables us to compare and contrast the plans and
priorities of different departments within organizations.
Functions Represented
40%
35%
31.3%
30%
25% 22.7%
20%
15%
11.4%
9.7%
10% 7.3% 7.1%
5% 2.6%
1.0%
0%
Figure 2 – Functions represented

Page | 14
Vertical Industries
Vertical industry participation in 2017 is well distributed and led by technology (13
percent) followed by financial services (10 percent), healthcare, and consulting (9
percent each. We encourage the participation of consultants; they often have deeper
industry knowledge than their customer counterparts. Third-party relationships give us
insight into the partner ecosystem for BI vendors (fig. 3).
Vertical Industries Represented

20%
18%
16% 15%
14%
13%
12%
10%
10% 9%
9%
8% 7%
6%
6% 5% 5%
4%
4% 3%
2% 2% 2%
2% 2% 1%
2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
0%
Figure 3 – Vertical industries represented

Page | 15
Organization Size
Our survey sample is well distributed across organizations of different sizes (fig. 4).
Twenty-eight percent come from small (1-100 employees) organizations, 28 percent
represent mid-size (101-1,000 employees) organizations, and the remaining 44 percent
represent large organizations of 1,000 or more employees.
Segmenting respondents by organization size helps us identify differences in behavior,

attitudes, and planning.
Organization Sizes Represented

40%
35%
30%
27.9% 27.9%
25%
22.5%
21.7%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 4 – Organization sizes represented

Page | 16
Analysis of Findings
In this fourth annual Location Intelligence Market Study, we examine the nature of
location intelligence, exploring user sentiment and perceptions, the nature of current
implementations, and plans for the future.
Importance of Location Intelligence

Among 30 topics under study in 2017, location intelligence ranks 20th, atop the lower
third among technologies and initiatives strategic to business intelligence (fig. 5).
Location intelligence interest trails traditional topics including reporting, dashboards,
end-user self-service, and data visualization, but is ahead of other familiar topics that
include big data, social media analysis and the Internet of Things. As a relatively mature
BI-related topic, we believe organizations are generally acquainted with location
intelligence regardless of its penetration in a given organization.
Technologies and Initiatives Strategic to Business Intelligence

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reporting
Dashboards
End-user "self-service"
Advanced visualization
Data discovery
Data warehousing
Data mining, advanced algorithms, predictive
Integration with operational processes
Data storytelling
Enterprise planning/budgeting
Mobile device support
Critical
Embedded BI (contained within an application,…
Governance
Collaborative support for group-based analysis Very important
End-user data preparation and blending
Search-based interface
Important
Software-as-a-Service and cloud computing
In-memory analysis
Ability to write to transactional applications Somewhat
Location intelligence/analytics important
Big data (e.g., Hadoop) Not important
Pre-packaged vertical/functional analytical…
Text analytics
Streaming data analysis
Open source software
Social media analysis (Social BI)
Cognitive BI (e.g., Artificial Intelligence-based BI)
Complex event processing (CEP)
Internet of Things (IoT)
Edge computing
Figure 5 – Technologies and initiatives strategic to business intelligence

Page | 17
The majority of respondents have a high estimation of the importance of location

intelligence in 2017 (fig. 6). More than half consider the topic to be "critically important"
or "very important.” Another 30 percent say location intelligence is, at minimum,
"somewhat important.” Just 6 percent say it is "not important;" this finding is increasingly
positive year over year

Not important, 6%
Critically important,
20%
Somewhat
important, 30%
Very important, 43%
Figure 6 – Importance of location intelligence

Page | 18
The perceived importance of location intelligence has increased across four years of
study and experienced a notable spike in interest in 2017 (fig. 7). While earlier studies
reflect a level of "stickiness," our latest finding indicates location intelligence might be
gaining new traction among BI adherents as more sources of data have come online.
Nonetheless, we expect prospects for location intelligence will vary strongly from
organization to organization. In 2017, a mean of 2.75 places overall importance toward
a level of "important."

2014 to 2017
100% 4.00
90%
3.50
80%
3.00
70%
2.50 Not important

60%
Somewhat important
50% 2.00
Very important
40% Critical
1.50
Mean
30%
1.00
20%
0.50
10%
0% 0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 7 – Importance of location intelligence 2014 to 2016

Page | 19
We would generally expect respondents that deal with the “outside world” to value
location intelligence more than internal or back-office functions. In 2017, however, the
highest level of criticality (>3.0 = "important") is found in R&D, indicating that, in many
cases, location intelligence may still be in a proof-of-concept stage (fig. 8). Executive
Management, always on the lookout for new revenue and efficiency opportunities, is
next most interested in location intelligence.

by Function
100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60%
50% 2.5 Critically important

40% Very important
2 Somewhat important
30%
Not important
20%
1.5
Mean
10%
0% 1
Research and Executive Information Business Marketing Finance
Development Management Technology Intelligence and Sales
(R&D) (IT) Competency
Center
Figure 8 – Importance of location intelligence by function

Page | 20
In 2017, North America reports the highest mean interest in location intelligence,
followed by EMEA and Asia Pacific (fig. 9). One-quarter of North American respondents
say location intelligence is "critical;" about 70 percent of North America and EMEA
respondents say location intelligence is, at minimum, "very important." In all cases, we
expect opportunity, as well as culture and custom, will be determinants of the adoption
of location intelligence.

by Geography
100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60% Critically important
50% 2.5 Very important

Somewhat important
40%
Not important
2
30% Mean
20%
1.5
10%
0% 1
North America Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East
and Africa
Figure 9 – Importance of location intelligence by geography

Page | 21
The perceived importance of location intelligence is somewhat consistent across

organizations of different sizes (fig. 10). Small organizations, most flexible to adopting
enterprise change through technology experimentation, are the least likely to view
location intelligence as "not important" and are more likely than mid-sized (101-1,000
employees) organizations to find location intelligence "critical." Among large
organizations (>1,000 employees), measures of "critical" importance are highest at
organizations with between 1,001 and 5,000 employees.

by Organization Size
100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60% Critically important
Very important
50% 2.5
Somewhat important
40% Not important
2 Mean
30%
20%
1.5
10%
0% 1
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 10 – Importance of location intelligence by organization size

Page | 22
Across industries, the perceived importance of location intelligence in 2017 is highest in

Energy and in Transportation (fig. 11). These findings are intuitive, given these
industries' historical and ongoing management of remote assets as well as those in
transit. (We are surprised to see state and local governments trailing the industry
category, given mandates for the same concerns.) Financial services and
Telecommunications are the next most likely candidates, given high volumes of remote
transactions / data transfers. Healthcare demonstrates interest in location-centric uses
from population health to asset tracking, and Retail/wholesale has obvious interest in
merchandising optimization and other concerns.

by Industry
100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60%
50% 2.5 Critically important

40% Very important
2
30% Somewhat important
20% Not important

1.5
Mean
10%
0% 1
Figure 11 – Importance of location intelligence by industry

Page | 23
Level of Geographic Detail Required

The granularity or level of geographic detail that respondents find important speaks to
the business processes or analysis related to location intelligence. Postal codes or
countries, for example, are useful to supply chain or fulfillment but also to sales region
performance or demographics. Latitudinal/longitudinal or custom geographies (less
related to a physical address) are important assets for discovery/recovery, natural
resources, wellheads, or unmarked boundaries.
Respondents are interested in and/or pursuing activity across a range of marked,

unmarked, and virtual location parameters (fig. 12). In 2017, conventional demarcations,
led by postal code and province/state, are considered critical or very important to more
than 70 percent of respondents. Country-level detail, like postal codes are "critical" to
about 45 percent of respondents. Latitude/longitude is next most important, after which
criticality drops among custom demarcations.
Level of Geographic Detail

100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60%
50% 2.5
40%
2 Critical
30%
20% Very important
1.5
10% Somewhat important
0% 1 Not important
Mean
Figure 12 – Level of geographic detail

Page | 24
Across four years of study, nearly all requirements for location intelligence levels of
detail (granularity) increased significantly (fig. 13). In 2017, postal codes show the
greatest year-over-year increase and moved ahead of province/state and country to
become the most required level of location detail. Latitude/longitude and custom
geographies saw the next most significant gains, indicating increasing support for
organization-specific granular location requirements.
Level of Geographic Detail Required 2014 to 2017

4
3.5
2.5
1.5 2014
2015
1 2016
2017
Figure 13 – Level of geographic detail required 2014 to 2017

Page | 25
By function, interest in postal codes is well clustered and led by Marketing and Sales
(fig. 14). In contrast, Marketing and Sales respondents are notably disinterested in less
granular levels of detail that cannot support customer micro-targeting by address or
other demographics. R&D respondents lead interest in province/state, country and
physical plant-level detail, while IT is distinctly most interested in latitude/longitude and
leads interest in custom geographies.
Level of Geographic Detail by Function

Postal code
4
3.5
Virtual worlds 3 Province or state

2.5
2
1.5
1
Physical store, plant,
office or other work Country
facility
Custom geography Latitude/Longitude
Executive Management Marketing and Sales

Information Technology (IT) Finance
Business Intelligence Competency Center Research and Development (R&D)
Figure 14 – Level of geographic detail by function

Page | 26
In our 2017 sample, mid-sized (101-1,000 employees) organizations express the most
interest in postal code, province/state, and country-level detail (fig. 15). Very large
organizations with more than 5,000 employees tend to focus more on physical assets,
custom geographies, and latitude/longitude.
Level of Geographic Detail by Organization Size

4
3.5
2.5
1.5 1 - 100
101 - 1000
1 1001 - 5000
More than 5000
Figure 15 – Level of geographic detail by organization size

Page | 27
By industry, Retail/wholesale has the greatest interest in postal codes (fig. 16). Along
with physical store-level detail, this relates to retail interest in inventory management as
well as opportunities in Marketing/Sales noted earlier (fig. 14, p. 26). As we might well
expect, Energy (with far-flung fixed wellhead and moving assets) reports the greatest
interest in latitude/longitude and custom geographies as well as province/state level.
Manufacturing respondents are most interested in country-level detail/codes.
Level of Geographic Detail by Industry

Postal code
4
3.5
Virtual worlds 3 Province or state
2.5
2
1.5
1
Physical store, plant,
office or other work Country
facility
Custom geography Latitude/Longitude
Healthcare Business services Financial services

Education Energy Manufacturing
Retail and wholesale State and local government Transportation
Figure 16 – Level of geographic detail by industry

Page | 28
Prioritized Geocoding Features

Consistent with our earlier studies, 2017 respondents place the greatest importance (44
percent "critical" and 39 percent "very important") on built-in or native geocoding (fig.
17). (This feature presumes that software has an understanding of geography detail
"baked in.") About 67 percent of respondents say automated geocoding (in which
software automatically recognizes geographic data elements, for example, address) is
critical or very important. Street-level geocoding is critical or very important to 60
percent of respondents. (This requirement assumes the software can cross-reference
latitude/longitude and street-level address.) While interest in customer extensions,
offline, and worldwide support trails off, these features are nonetheless critical or very
important to large minorities of respondents.
Prioritized Geocoding Features
Built-in (native) geocoding (e.g., country, region,

postal code, CBSA)
Automated geocoding support
Street-level geocoding support
Customer extensions to map data (e.g., custom

POIs)
Offline geocoding support
Worldwide geocoding support
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Critical Very important Somewhat important Not important
Figure 17 – Prioritized geocoding features

Page | 29
Year-over-year interest in geocoding increased noticeably across all measures in 2017

(fig. 18).The gains were greatest for built-in geocoding (which rose above 3.0 to a level
of "important") and automated geocoding support (which moved past street-level
support in 2017). (Automated support would include features like logic and a dictionary
to impute details from, for example, a street address or latitude/longitude entry without
additional manipulation or input.)
Prioritized Geocoding Features 2014 to 2017

4
3.5
2.5 2014
2015
2 2016
2017
1.5
1
Built-in (native) Street-level Automated Customer Offline Worldwide
geocoding geocoding geocoding extensions to geocoding geocoding
(e.g., country, support support map data (e.g., support support
region, postal custom POIs)
code, CBSA)
Figure 18 – Prioritized geocoding features 2014 to 2017

Page | 30
As with cumulative prioritization, the most prioritized feature by function in 2017 is built-
in or native geocoding, where Marketing and Sales again lead interest (fig. 19). IT
edges out Marketing/Sales interest in automated geocoding support; IT is also most
interested in street-level geocoding and offline support. R&D leads interest in the
remaining features (customer extensions, worldwide support), indicating customer
demand is incipient or unsupported in these areas.
Prioritized Geocoding Features by Function

Built-in (native) geocoding (e.g.,
country, region, postal code,
CBSA)
4
3.5
3
Worldwide geocoding support 2.5 Automated geocoding support
2
1.5
1
Offline geocoding support Street-level geocoding support
Customer extensions to map data

(e.g., custom POIs)
Information Technology (IT) Research and Development (R&D)

Business Intelligence Competency Center Marketing and Sales
Executive Management Finance
Figure 19 – Prioritized geocoding features by function

Page | 31
Organizations in different geographies (led by EMEA) all place the highest priority on
built-in or native geocoding against country, region, or postal code information (fig. 20).
At a glance, interest in geocoding features is generally highest in Asia Pacific, followed
by North America and EMEA. Asia Pacific also reports markedly greater interest than
other regions in customer extensions, offline support, and worldwide geocoding support.
Street-level geocoding is the only feature preferred by North America over other
regions.
Prioritized Geocoding Features by Geography

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Built-in (native) Automated Street-level Customer Offline Worldwide
geocoding (e.g., geocoding geocoding extensions to geocoding geocoding
country, region, support support map data (e.g., support support
postal code, custom POIs)
CBSA)
North America Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East and Africa
Figure 20 – Prioritized geocoding features by geography

Page | 32
Organizations of different sizes consistently place the highest priority on built-in or

native geocoding against country, region, or postal code information (fig. 21). In 2017,
mid-sized (101-1,000 employees) organizations have the most interest in built-in
geocoding and automated geocoding support. Large (1,001-5,000 employees) and very
large (>5,000 employees) organizations show the greatest interest in customer
extensions, offline support, and worldwide geocoding support. Generally speaking,
organization size does not play an overly large role in interest in geocoding features.
Prioritized Geocoding Features by Organization Size

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
CBSA)
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 21 – Prioritized geocoding features by organization size

Page | 33
Viewed by industry, Financial services respondents report the greatest interest in built-
in, automated, street-level, and offline geocoding feature support (fig. 22).
Transportation respondents are most interested in built-in geocoding, customer
extensions and worldwide support. Telecommunication respondents report above-
average interest in worldwide support. Retail and Manufacturing respondents’ interest is
highest in built-in and automated geocoding support.
Prioritized Geocoding Features by Industry

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
CBSA)
Financial services Telecommunications Transportation
Healthcare Education Retail and wholesale
Manufacturing
Figure 22 – Prioritized geocoding features by industry

Page | 34
Location Intelligence Users

Managers are the most targeted users of location intelligence in 2017, which in part
speaks to the operational nature of the technology (fig. 23). Middle managers are
frequent or occasional targets more than 80 percent of the time. Individual contributors
and line managers are frequent or occasional users between 70 and 80 percent of the
time. This targeting comes at the expense of executives, traditionally a first-served
audience (and the most-served group in our earlier studies), which may indicate
increasing/maturing penetration of location intelligence. Customers and suppliers are
relatively low priorities.
Location Intelligence Users

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Frequently
Occasionally
40%
Rarely
30% Not at all
20%
10%
0%
Middle Individual Line Executives Customers Suppliers
managers contributors managers
and
professionals
Figure 23 – Location intelligence users

Page | 35
Targets by geography vary somewhat in 2017, reflective of regional customs and

business structure (fig. 24). Middle managers are slightly more targeted in all
geographies, followed by line managers or individual contributors. Asia-Pacific
respondents are most enthusiastic across functions and are most likely by far to target
customers and suppliers.
Location Intelligence Users by Geography

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Middle managers Line managers

Individual contributors and professionals Executives
Customers Suppliers
Figure 24 – Location intelligence users by geography

Page | 36
Across enterprises of different sizes, middle managers are usually the most likely
targets for location intelligence (fig. 25). The exception is very large (>5,000 employees)
organizations, where line managers and individual contributors are the most likely
targets. Small (1-100 employees) organizations with thinner management ranks are
most likely to target executives. Large organizations with 1.001-5000 employees are the
next most likely to target executives. Small organizations are most likely to target
customers and suppliers.
Location Intelligence Users by Organization Size

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Middle managers Line managers

Individual contributors and professionals Executives
Customers Suppliers
Figure 25 – Location intelligence users by organization size

Page | 37
The primary targets for location intelligence skew noticeably by vertical industry (fig. 26).
Telecommunications and energy focus most strongly on individual contributors followed
by line managers. Retail/wholesale is more likely to target line managers, while
Financial services respondents are most likely to target middle managers. Healthcare,
which in our previous studies focused strongly on senior management, now is more
likely to target middle managers. Higher education's focus is on executives. Business
services expectedly leans toward individual contributors. Automotive and Transportation
respondents most often target line managers.
Location Intelligence Users by Industry

Telecommunications
4
Manufacturing Energy
3.5
3
2.5
Transportation Education
2
1.5
1
Business services Retail and wholesale
Automotive Financial services
State and local

Healthcare
government
Executives Middle managers

Line managers Individual contributors and professionals
Customers Suppliers
Figure 26 – Location intelligence users by industry

Page | 38
Location Intelligence Features

As we found in earlier studies, the most important location intelligence features
identified by respondents in 2017 are also the most conventional: map-based
visualization of information, drill-down navigation that includes zoom and pan, and maps
that are embedded in dashboards or other displays (fig. 27). These top three categories
are at least “somewhat important” to well more than 90 percent of respondents. Layered
visualizations and value/range shading are the two next most important features and
are considered “critical” or “very important” by close to 70 percent or more of
respondents. Integration with third-party GIS systems (e.g., Google, Esri) gained
momentum compared to earlier studies and is "critical" or "very important" to nearly 70
percent of respondents.
Location Intelligence Prioritized Features

Map-based visualization of data/information
Drill-down navigation through map interface
Dashboard inclusion of maps
Layering of visualizations on top of maps (e.g., heat…
Value/range-based shading of maps
Integration with third-party GIS systems (e.g., ESRI,…
Custom region definition and selection (e.g.,…
Choropleths (area fill) maps
Use of symbols to depict values
Support for location calculations (e.g., drive time,…
Animation of data on maps
Syndicated demographic/psychographic data…
Off-line mapping
Support for interior spaces (e.g., retail stores, office…
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not important Somewhat important Very important Critical
Figure 27 – Location intelligence prioritized features

Page | 39
Interest in location intelligence features reversed a 2016 downturn with sharp increases
across all measures in 2017 (fig. 28). Map-based visualization remains the most
important feature with a value of 3.4, greater than "important." Drill-down navigation,
dashboard inclusion, layering of visualizations, and value/range-based shading all
reached levels of "important" or greater. Integration with third-party GIS moved ahead of
use of symbols to depict values; choropleths also rose in ranking.
Location Intelligence Features 2014 to 2017

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 28 – Location intelligence features 2014 to 2017

Page | 40
By function, Marketing and Sales has the most bullish interest in map-based
visualization (fig. 29) and also leads interest in choropleths (area-fill maps) and support
for location calculations. The BICC is the most likely resource for the next four top
features: drill down, dashboards, layered visualizations, and value/range shading. R&D
places a higher priority upon integration with third-party GIS systems. IT is most
interested in custom region definitions.

by Function
Map-based visualization of
data/information
Support for interior spaces
4 Drill-down navigation through
(e.g., retail stores, office
map interface
buildings, conference centers) 3.5
Off-line mapping 3 Dashboard inclusion of maps
2.5
Syndicated 2 Layering of visualizations on
demographic/psychographic top of maps (e.g., heat maps,
data integration (e.g.,… 1.5 cartograms)
1
Value/range-based shading of
maps
Support for location Integration with third-party GIS

calculations (e.g., drive time, systems (e.g., ESRI, Google
distance, routing) Maps)
Custom region definition and
Use of symbols to depict values selection (e.g., polygons,
geofencing)
Executive Management Marketing and Sales

Information Technology (IT) Finance
Business Intelligence Competency Center Research and Development (R&D)
Figure 29 – Location intelligence prioritized features by function

Page | 41
Respondents in Asia Pacific lead interest in all location intelligence features, especially
in custom region definitions, area fill maps, and animation of data on maps (fig. 30).
Favorability for map-based visualization and drill-down navigation are the most tightly
clustered across geographies. EMEA respondents trail North American respondents in
all areas with the exception of integration with third-party GIS systems.

by Geography
data/information
Support for interior spaces 4 Drill-down navigation
(e.g., retail stores, office… through map interface
3.5
3 Dashboard inclusion of
Off-line mapping
maps
2.5
Syndicated 2 Layering of visualizations

demographic/psychograp… 1.5 on top of maps (e.g.,…
1
Value/range-based shading
of maps
Support for location Integration with third-

calculations (e.g., drive… party GIS systems (e.g.,…
Use of symbols to depict Custom region definition
values and selection (e.g.,…
Choropleths (area fill)
maps
Figure 30 – Location intelligence prioritized features by geography

Page | 42
Organizations of different sizes have varying interest in location intelligence features,

though many results are tightly clustered (fig. 31). Map-based visualizations have
common appeal across different-sized organizations. Where larger organizations are
slightly more interested in drill-down navigation, small organizations (1-100 employees)
have the highest interest in dashboards. Mid-sized (101-1,000 employees)
organizations lead interest in layering of visualizations and value/range-based shading.
Very large (>5,000 employees) organizations are most concerned with third-party GIS
systems and custom region definition.

data/information
Support for interior spaces 4 Drill-down navigation through
(e.g., retail stores, office… map interface
3.5
2.5
Syndicated
2 Layering of visualizations on
demographic/psychographic… 1.5 top of maps (e.g., heat…
1
maps
Support for location Integration with third-party

calculations (e.g., drive time,… GIS systems (e.g., ESRI,…
Use of symbols to depict Custom region definition and

values selection (e.g., polygons,…
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 31 – Location intelligence prioritized features by organization size

Page | 43
In our 2017 sample, the energy sector is a standout among industries with interest in
location intelligence features (fig. 32). This includes top features of map-based
visualization and drill-down navigation but is most pronounced in layering of
visualizations, value/range-based shading, integration with third-party GIS, custom
region definition and support for location calculations. Telecommunications reports the
most interest in dashboard inclusion of maps. Healthcare has slightly more interest in
choropleths (area fill maps), perhaps in pursuit of asset management or population
health studies.

by Industry
data/information
Support for interior spaces 4 Drill-down navigation through
(e.g., retail stores, office… map interface
3.5
2.5
Syndicated
2 Layering of visualizations on
demographic/psychographic… 1.5 top of maps (e.g., heat…
1
maps
Support for location Integration with third-party

calculations (e.g., drive time,… GIS systems (e.g., ESRI,…
Use of symbols to depict Custom region definition and

values selection (e.g., polygons,…
Energy Telecommunications Healthcare Financial services Education
Figure 32 – Location intelligence prioritized features by vertical industry

Page | 44
Location Intelligence User Penetration

Location intelligence penetration remains modest in 2017, though respondents describe
significant growth plans (fig. 33). Today, 59 percent of respondents report less than 10
percent penetration and only 6 percent report the highest level of penetration. Twelve-
month plans (the most dependable and likely to be budgeted) call for reducing the
lowest penetration to about 30 percent and more than doubling 11 to 20 percent and 41
to 60 percent penetration levels. Forecasts for 24 and 36 months call for extended
growth of higher levels of penetration.

2017 to 2020
100%
90%
80%
70%
81% or more
60%
61 - 80%
50% 21 - 40%
41 - 60%
40%
11 - 20%
30% Under 10%
20%
10%
0%
Today In 12 months In 24 months In 36 months
Figure 33 – Location intelligence user penetration 2017 to 2020

Page | 45
Across four years of data, we have seen steady if somewhat modest improvements in
location intelligence penetration (fig. 34). Since 2014, the lowest level (<10 percent)
decreased annually from 74 percent to 59 percent while 11 to 20 percent penetration
increased from 9 percent to 16 percent. Higher levels of penetration have not fared as
well over time. 2017 respondents reported a modest spike at the 21 to 40 percent level
and a modest increase at 81 percent or more but saw modest declines at other high
levels of penetration.
Location Intelligence Penetration 2014 to 2017

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Under 10% 11 - 20% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 61 - 80% 81% or more
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 34 – Location intelligence penetration 2014 to 2017

Page | 46
User penetration is expected to improve across all functions in the coming time frames
(fig. 35). The greatest 12-month improvements will occur in Executive Management,
indicating leadership is on board and willing to drive future penetration of location
intelligence. While Marketing and Sales are among early adopters (after executives)
longer-term plans are somewhat muted. R&D, BICC, and IT functions appear to be
getting on board with location intelligence. This is in contrast to the Finance function
with very limited adoption or future plans.

2017 to 2020 by Function
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 81% or more
40% 61 - 80%
30% 21 - 40%
20% 41 - 60%
10% 11 - 20%
0% Under 10%
Today
Today
Today
Today
Today
Today
In 24 months
In 12 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
Executive Marketing and Information Finance Business Research and

Management Sales Technology (IT) Intelligence Development
Competency (R&D)
Center
Figure 35 – Location intelligence user penetration 2017 to 2020 by function

Page | 47
By geography, Asia-Pacific respondents report the greatest current penetration of

location intelligence products and services (fig. 36). This finding comes despite the fact
that North American respondents generally prioritize location intelligence to a greater
degree than in Asia Pacific (fig. 9, p. 21). Asia-Pacific respondents also will see the
highest levels of future penetration, with 50 percent of organizations reaching the two
highest penetration levels in three years. EMEA uniformly trails North America in current
and future penetration levels, perhaps due in part to the different border and regulation
challenges across geographies.
Location Intelligence User Penetration 2017 to

2020 by Geography
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Today In 12 In 24 In 36 Today In 12 In 24 In 36 Today In 12 In 24 In 36
months months months months months months months months months
North America Asia/Pacific Europe, Middle East and Africa
Under 10% 11 - 20% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 61 - 80% 81% or more
Figure 36 – Location intelligence user penetration 2017 to 2020 by geography

Page | 48
Organizations of different sizes all expect location intelligence penetration levels to

increase consecutively in coming time frames (fig. 37). Small (1-100 employees)
organizations claim the highest current levels of penetration, a likely finding among low
headcount groups. Small organizations also have consistently higher penetration
expectations than mid-sized and large/very large organizations. Mid-sized (101-1,000
employees) organizations are the next most penetrated and also have strong future
plans to increase their base of location intelligence users. Very large (>1,000
employees) organizations are the least penetrated today (by percentage of employees),
an expected finding that we expect will decrease sharply in 12-month and extended
future time frames.

2017 to 2020 by Organization Size
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
Today
Today
Today
Today
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Under 10% 11 - 20% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 61 - 80% 81% or more
Figure 37 – Location intelligence user penetration 2017 to 2020 by organization size

Page | 49
By industry, respondents in Transportation report the highest current uptake of location

intelligence (fig. 38). Retail/wholesale is the next most penetrated and has the most
aggressive plans for dramatic levels of penetration within three years. Energy, which
leads our survey in perceived criticality (fig. 11, p. 23) is more sanguine about future
prospects, perhaps indicating that current use cases in core operational processes are
being addressed. Telecommunications respondents expect little 12-month improvement
but predict higher penetration in longer time frames.

2017 to 2020 by Industry
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
In 12 months
In 24 months
In 36 months
Today
Today
Today
Today
Today
Today
Retail and wholesale Telecommunications Energy Financial services Transportation Education
Under 10% 11 - 20% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 61 - 80% 81% or more
Figure 38 – Location intelligence user penetration 2017 to 2020 by industry

Page | 50
Cloud-Based Versus On-Premises Deployment of Location Intelligence

In our 2017 study, we asked respondents to describe the criticality of cloud-based
versus on-premises adoption of location intelligence (fig. 39). By margins of a few
percentage points, respondents are more likely to prefer on-premises deployment but
clearly are not daunted by the prospects for cloud-based deployment. Over time, we
expect prospects for both deployment models to remain intact and for cloud-based
favorability to increase.
Cloud-Based Versus On-Premises Location

Intelligence
Cloud-based (SaaS)
On premises
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Critical Very important Somewhat important Not important
Figure 39 – Cloud-based versus on-premises location intelligence

Page | 51
Interest in cloud versus on-premises location intelligence varies interestingly by

geography (fig. 40). As we might expect, Asia-Pacific respondents are more likely to
prefer cloud-based (SaaS) deployment. EMEA respondents are almost evenly divided in
their attitudes toward both deployment models. North American respondents are more
likely to prefer on-premises deployments, which may refer in part to existing legacy
investments that are initially more likely to be in house.

Intelligence by Geography
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
North America Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East and Latin America
Africa
On premises Cloud-based (SaaS)
Figure 40 – Cloud-based versus on-premises location intelligence by geography

Page | 52
By function, executive management is most interested in cloud-based deployments of

location intelligence and gives cloud its highest criticality ranking of 3.0, or "important"
(fig. 41). Perhaps by executive fiat, R&D is also currently aligning more toward cloud-
based deployment. All other functions currently report a preference for on-premises
deployment, perhaps in service of familiarity and existing investments.

Intelligence by Function
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Executive Marketing and Information Finance Business Research and
Management Sales Technology (IT) Intelligence Development
Competency (R&D)
Center
Figure 41 – Cloud-based versus on-premises location intelligence by function

Page | 53
By industry, we would expect the most penetrated verticals to favor existing deployment
models, which in first-mover form are more likely to be on premises. In that regard,
respondents in State/local government, Energy, Education, Healthcare, Automotive and
Transportation industries all have the highest bias toward on-premises deployment (fig.
42). Business services is especially more likely to offer or use cloud-based location
intelligence as are telecommunication respondents. Even the highly regulated Financial
services industry reports slightly greater favorability toward cloud/SaaS deployment.

Intelligence by Industry
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
Figure 42 – Cloud-based versus on-premises location intelligence by industry

Page | 54
Favorability toward on-premises versus cloud-based use of location intelligence varies

strongly, predictably, and even linearly by organization size (fig. 43). Small
organizations, with expense and infrastructure in mind, are much more likely (criticality>
3.0 = "important") to choose cloud-based location intelligence. As organization size
increases, so typically does experience and infrastructure in place to support on-
premises deployments of location intelligence products and services.

Intelligence by Organization Size
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 43 – Cloud-based versus on-premises location intelligence by organization size

Page | 55
User Devices Where Location Intelligence Will Be Utilized

Each year, we examine how users access location intelligence technologies and
services via fixed and/or mobile platforms and devices (fig. 44). In 2017 (as in our
earlier studies), desktops and laptops are the most popular (more than 80 percent
"critical" or "very important") and well ahead of mobile devices. In part, we expect the
drivers of this finding are "real estate" issues, multitasking, and current use cases for
location intelligence. Still, more than half of respondent organizations expect location
intelligence access across desktops, mobile phones, and tablets. As other dimensions
of use reveal, roles, industry, and geography help explain this distribution of users.
Location Intelligence User Devices

100% 5
90%
4.5
80%
4
70%
3.5 Critical
60%
Very important
50% 3 Important
Somewhat important
40%
2.5
Not important
30% Mean
2
20%
1.5
10%
0% 1
Desktop or Mobile phone Tablet computer Smartwatch
laptop computer
Figure 44 – Location intelligence user devices

Page | 56
Though business functions agree that mobile use of location intelligence technology will
be in the mix, all roles are by far more likely to access location technology on a desktop
or laptop (fig. 45). This is especially the case in Marketing and Sales, where we would
expect functions to be "in the field" more often. Generally, we can infer that analyzing
location intelligence most likely occurs in the office and at the management level versus
in the field at the operational level. It is also noteworthy that mobile phone-based
location intelligence, though well below desktop use, ranks ahead of tablet use for all
functions except Finance, where tablet and phone use are equal.
Location Intelligence User Devices by Function

Business Intelligence
Competency Center
5
4.5
4
3.5
Executive Management 3 Marketing and Sales
2.5
2
1.5
1
Business Intelligence Information Technology

Competency Center (IT)
Finance
Desktop or laptop computer Mobile phone Tablet computer Smartwatch
Figure 45 – Location intelligence user devices by function

Page | 57
A mixed-use model of mobile and fixed technologies holds across regions in 2017,
though desktop/laptop preference has the clear edge across all geographies (fig. 46).
Asia-Pacific respondents report the highest likelihood of using all devices, particularly
tablets and mobile phones, and deliver the only relevant level of smartwatch interest in
our report. After Asia Pacific, North American respondents report the next highest
interest in multiple advices and rank ahead of EMEA counterparts in all devices polled.
Location Intelligence User Devices

by Geography
5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Desktop or laptop Mobile phone Tablet computer Smartwatch
computer
North America Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East and Africa Mean
Figure 46 – Location intelligence user devices by geography

Page | 58
Organizations of different sizes all choose desktops/laptops well over all other devices
(with mean scores of 4.2 to 4.4 or "very important") (fig. 47). Small (1-100 employees)
organizations make mobile phones their second choice, while the second choice at very
large (>5,000 employees) organizations is tablets. Smartwatch use is less than
"somewhat important" at organizations of all sizes.
Location Intelligence User Devices by

Organization Size
5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 47 – Location intelligence user devices by organization size

Page | 59
Across vertical industries, desktop/laptop use is the preferred choice at all industries
sampled in 2017 (fig. 48). The gap between desktop/laptop and other devices is
smallest in business services, where mobile phone use is considered "very important"
and tablet use is well above "important." The highest score for desktop/laptop comes in
energy, where overall value is near "critical." Overall device use again indicates users
that are at headquarters rather than in the field and more likely managers versus
operational users.
Location Intelligence User Devices by Industry

Business services
5
Other 4.5 Education
4
3.5
State and local
3 Healthcare
government
2.5
2
1.5
Retail and wholesale 1 Financial services
Transportation Energy
Manufacturing Automotive
Telecommunications
Figure 48 – Location intelligence user devices by industry

Page | 60
Mobile Location Intelligence Features

For a fourth year, we measured the perceived criticality of three mobile location
intelligence feature priorities: location-based query filtering, reverse geocoding, and geo
fence alerting. In 2017, respondents strongly choose mobile location-based query
filtering (the software’s ability to query data using current location as a filter parameter)
as their highest priority (fig. 49). This feature is "critical" to 36 percent of respondents
and very important to another 42 percent. Less than 10 percent say location-based
query filtering is "not important." While less critical, the other two features sampled—
reverse geocoding (creating a physical address or place name from coordinate
information) and geo fence alerting (alerting when a device crosses a defined boundary)
—are, at minimum, "somewhat important" to 85 and 78 percent of respondents
respectively.

100% 4
90%
3.5
80%
70%
3
60% Not important
50% 2.5 Somewhat important

Very important
40% Critical
2 Mean
30%
20%
1.5
10%
0% 1
Location-based query Reverse geocoding Geo fence alerting
filtering
Figure 49 – Mobile location intelligence features

Page | 61
Location-based query filtering is again the most popular mobile location intelligence
feature across all functions studied in 2017 (fig. 50). Reverse geocoding is almost
uniformly the second most popular feature across all functions, with the exception of
Marketing and Sales. Because of a field orientation, Sales, in particular, finds utility in
geo fence alerting.

by Function
Executive Management
4
3.5
3
Research and
2.5 Marketing and Sales
Development (R&D)
2
1.5
1
Business Intelligence Information Technology

Competency Center (IT)
Finance
Location-based query filtering Reverse geocoding Geo fence alerting
Figure 50 – Mobile location intelligence features by function

Page | 62
The emphasis on location-based query filtering extends to all geographic regions in

2017 (fig. 50). In addition, all geographies, led by Asia Pacific, prioritize reverse
geocoding and geofence alerting second and third respectively.

by Geography
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Figure 51 – Mobile location intelligence features by geography

Page | 63
As we find in other measures, location-based query filtering is the strongest priority for
organizations of any size (fig. 52). 2017 sentiment for location-based filtering is slightly
higher in mid-sized (101-1,000 employees) and small (1-100 employees) organizations
than among larger peers. Where we might expect more interest at large and very large
organizations, mid-sized organizations also report the highest levels of interest in
reverse geocoding and geofence alerting.

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 52 – Mobile location intelligence features by organization size

Page | 64
Location-based query filtering is the most prioritized mobile location intelligence feature
across all vertical industries highlighted in 2017 (fig. 51). Feature preferences among
Transportation respondents are most tightly clustered to include reverse geocoding and
geofence alerting. The largest gaps between location-based query filtering and other
mobile location features are found in Manufacturing, Healthcare, Business services, and
Telecommunications.

by Industry
Telecommunications
4
State and local
Transportation
government 3.5
3
2.5
Automotive Energy
2
1.5
1
Retail and wholesale Education
Financial services Business services
Manufacturing Healthcare
Figure 53 – Mobile location intelligence features by industry

Page | 65
Required Integration with GIS Vendors

We asked respondents to prioritize integration requirements with geographic information
system vendors (fig. 54). As in previous years, the favorite integration target is Google,
which is a requirement in more than 70 percent of organizations. Esri follows distantly
with 39 percent, and database extensions (37 percent) are the remaining notable
location intelligence integration requirements.
Location Intelligence Integration with GIS

Technologies
Google
Esri
Database extensions (e.g., Oracle, Postgres)
Microsoft (Bing)
WMS (Web Map Service)
MapInfo
TomTom
NAVTEQ
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 54 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies

Page | 66
Across four years of data, we see some notable trending in location intelligence
integration with GIS technologies requirements (fig. 55). Most notably, sentiment toward
Google integration declined 14 percent compared to 2014, interest in Esri grew 9
percent year over year, and database extensions interest grew by a similar amount. All
remaining GIS technologies are down or grew minimally for 2017.

Technologies 2014 to 2017
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Google Esri Database Microsoft MapInfo WMS (Web TomTom NAVTEQ
extensions (Bing) Map
(e.g., Oracle, Service)
Postgres)
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 55 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies 2014 to 2017

Page | 67
By function, Executive Management and the BICC lead demand for Google GIS
integration in 2017 (fig. 56). Marketing/Sales and Finance are most likely to require
integration with Esri. In a likely leading indicator of demand, R&D and the BICC lead
interest in database extensions. The remaining choices, (Bing, WMS, MapInfo, etc.) all
have minimal appeal for GIS integration.

Technologies by Function
Google
100%
80%
NAVTEQ Esri
60%
40%
20%
Database extensions (e.g.,
TomTom 0%
Oracle, Postgres)
MapInfo Microsoft (Bing)
Information Technology (IT) Business Intelligence Competency Center

Executive Management Research and Development (R&D)
Marketing and Sales Finance
Figure 56 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies by function

Page | 68
Google integration demand is highest across all geographies with Asia Pacific ranking
the highest (fig. 57). By comparison, requirements for Esri and database extension
integration are highest by far in North America, second highest in EMEA and least
popular in Asia Pacific. All other GIS technology requirements have declined over time.

Technologies by Geography
Google
100%
80%
NAVTEQ Esri
60%
40%
20%
Database extensions
TomTom 0%
(e.g., Oracle, Postgres)
MapInfo Microsoft (Bing)

Figure 57 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies by geography

Page | 69
Organizations of all sizes still most prefer Google GIS integration, a requirement that
tends to decrease as organization size increases (fig. 58). Conversely, the requirement
for Esri integration increases as organization headcount increases. Requirements are
less related to size for database extensions where small (1-100 employees) and some
large (1,001-5,000 employees) organizations are most interested.

Technologies by Organization Size
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Google Esri Database Microsoft WMS (Web MapInfo TomTom NAVTEQ
extensions (Bing) Map
(e.g., Oracle, Service)
Postgres)
1 - 100 101 - 1000 1001 - 5000 More than 5000
Figure 58 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies by organization size

Page | 70
Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies varies considerably across

vertical industries (fig. 59). Among notable findings, Esri integration is universal among
State/local government respondents, is by far the top choice in Healthcare, and is tied
(with Google) as the top choice in Energy. Google is by far the top choice among all
other industries except Education, where database extensions are most popular and
likely tied to both proprietary and public data.

Technologies by Industry
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Google Esri
Database extensions (e.g., Oracle, Postgres) Microsoft (Bing)
WMS (Web Map Service) MapInfo
TomTom NAVTEQ
Figure 59 – Location intelligence integration with GIS technologies by industry

Page | 71
Industry Support for Location Intelligence

Across four years of data, industry support for location intelligence has clearly increased
(fig. 60). If not hype-laden enthusiasm, the software industry nonetheless ascribes a
"very important" view to the technology in 2017. While "critically important" estimations
have declined since 2015, "not important" appraisals have disappeared entirely across
our base of providers. While vendors tend to lead enthusiasm, this finding implies that
location intelligence is "crossing the chasm" and destined to become mainstream.
Industry Importance of Location Intelligence

2014 to 2017
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Not important
50% Important
Very important
40%
Critically important
30%
20%
10%
0%
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 60 – Industry importance of location intelligence 2014 to 2017

Page | 72
Industry Support for Geocoding

As depicted in fig. 61, industry support for geocoding features is limited today and
somewhat poorly aligned with user preferences (see fig. 17, p. 29). The top industry-
supported feature, built-in geocoding, is also the top customer preference. However,
automated and street-level geocoding support (second and third in customer
preference) rank third and sixth respectively, in industry support. Worldwide support,
least important to the respondent base, is the second most supported feature by
industry vendors in 2017.
Industry Support for Geocoding

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
No Plans
40%
24 months
30%
12 months
20%
Today: Third-party library
10% Today: Core functionality
0%
Built-in Worldwide Automated Customer Offline Street-level
geocoding geocoding geocoding extensions geocoding geocoding
(e.g., support support to map support support
country, data (e.g.,
region, custom
postal POIs)
clode,
CBSA)
Figure 61 – Industry support for geocoding

Page | 73
Across four years of data, industry support for built-in geocoding increased, but
decreased across most other parameters (fig. 62). One significant finding not
sufficiently reflected in this chart is that many of the features noted in decline
have shifted to third-party integration versus core integration. While built-in
geocoding and automated geocoding remain core functions, other requirements
(worldwide geocoding, customer extensions, etc.) are shifting to third-party libraries or
other facilities.
Industry Support for Geocoding: Core Integration

2014 to 2017
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% 2014
2015
30%
2016
20% 2017
10%
0%
Built-in Worldwide Automated Customer Offline Street-level
geocoding geocoding geocoding extensions to geocoding geocoding
(e.g., country, support support map data (e.g., support support
region, postal custom POIs)
code, CBSA)
Figure 62 – Industry support for geocoding: core integration 2014 to 2017

Page | 74
Industry Support for Location Intelligence Features

As a group, business intelligence vendors are attending to a full span of location
intelligence features (fig. 63). The top five categories of industry priorities—dashboards,
map-based visualization, choropleths, drill-down navigation, and value/range shading—
are supported by 76 to 80 percent of vendors. Industry support for features is somewhat
aligned with user expectations, though in different order (see fig. 27. p. 39). Users rank
map-based visualization as most critical, followed by drill-down navigation, dashboards,
and layering of visualizations. Choropleths, which leapfrogged to sixth in user criticality,
are among the features highly supported by vendors.

Features
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Today: Core functionality Today: Third-party library 12 months 24 months No plans
Figure 63 – Industry support for location intelligence features

Page | 75
Across four years of data, industry support for most top location intelligence features
decreased year over year (fig. 64). An exception in user sentiment noted elsewhere
(see fig. 28, p. 40) was choropleths, where industry support grew year over year. We
also see increases in other lesser feature integration priorities including custom regions,
integration with third-party GIS, and support for interior spaces. Again we ascribe some
of the declines noted here to third-party technology adoption as opposed to core
integration shortfalls.

Features : Core Integration 2014 to 2017
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 64 – Industry support for location intelligence features: core integration 2014 to 2017

Page | 76
Industry Support for Third-Party GIS Platforms

Industry support for integration to third-party GIS platforms trended along the lines of
user preferences across four years of data (fig. 63). Most notably, support for Google
declined from 82 percent to 64 percent. In the same time span, Esri support rose from
52 percent and now stands at 64 percent. Support for database extensions grew,
putting the top three industry priorities in line with user expectations (see fig. 55, p. 57).
Declining support for other third-party platforms is also in line with user behavior.
Industry Support for Third-Party GIS Platforms

2014 to 2017
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Esri Google Database Microsoft WMS (Web TomTom MapInfo NAVTEQ
extensions (Bing) Map Service)
(e.g., Oracle,
Postgres)
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 65 – Industry support for third-party GIS platforms 2014 to 2017

Page | 77
Industry Support for Mobile Location Intelligence Features

Industry support for mobile location intelligence features is aligned with user priorities
(see fig. 49, p. 61), though support remains somewhat immature (fig. 66). Half the
vendors we surveyed currently offer location-based query filtering, and less than 30
percent support reverse geocoding and/or geo fence alerting. Twelve-month plans to
expand support for geo fence alerting are especially thin.
Industry Support for Mobile Location Intelliegnce

Features
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No plans
50% 24 months
40% 12 months
Today
30%
20%
10%
0%
Location-based query Reverse Geocoding Geo fence alerting
filtering
Figure 66 – Industry support for mobile location intelligence features

Page | 78
Across four years of data, industry support for mobile location intelligence features
increased across all parameters in 2017 (fig. 67). Location-based query filtering
remained the top choice by far, though relative increases were stronger in reverse
geocoding and geo fence alerting. These findings are again in line with user sentiment.
Industry Support for Mobile Location Intelligence

Features 2014 to 2017
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 67 – Industry support for mobile location intelligence features 2014 to 2016

Page | 79
Demand versus Supply Priorities for Location Intelligence

Despite the aforementioned gaps in industry prioritization and support, the industry is
only somewhat in sync with user estimations of location intelligence criticality (fig. 68).
Where user estimations of the "critical" value of location intelligence grew, it declined
among vendors. That said, on a weighted mean basis, industry importance slightly
exceeds user importance.
User Versus Industry Importance of Location

Intelligence 2016 to 2017
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2016 2017 2016 2017
Industry Users
Critically important Very important Somewhat important Not imporant
Figure 68 – User versus industry importance of location intelligence 2016 to 2017

Page | 80
Location Intelligence Vendor Ratings

This year we include 15 business intelligence vendors in our Location Intelligence
ratings (fig. 69). For each vendor we considered geocoding support, integration, and
location features. Only vendors that scored 50 percent or greater are included in this
report.
Top vendors include Qlik (1st), Alteryx (2nd), Logi Analytics (2nd), TIBCO (3rd), Domo
(4th), and Tableau (5th).
Location Intelligence Vendor Ratings

Qlik
32
SAP Alteryx
16
Pentaho Logi Analytics
8
4
Dundas TIBCO
2
1
Birst Domo
Looker Tableau
Information Builders Sisense
MicroStrategy Pyramid Analytics
Geocoding + Integration Score Features Score Total Score
Figure 69 – Location Intelligence vendor ratings

Page | 81
Other Dresner Advisory Services Research Reports
- Wisdom of Crowds “Flagship” Business Intelligence Market study

- Advanced and Predictive Analytics
- Big Data Analytics
- Business Intelligence Competency Center
- Cloud Computing and Business Intelligence
- Collective Insights®
- End User Data Preparation
- Enterprise Planning
- Internet of Things and Business Intelligence
- Natural Language Analytics
- Small and Mid-Sized Enterprise Business Intelligence
- Systems Integrators

Page | 82
Appendix: Location Intelligence Survey Instrument
Name*: _________________________________________________
Company Name: _________________________________________________
Address 1: _________________________________________________
Address 2: _________________________________________________
City: _________________________________________________
State: _________________________________________________
Zip: _________________________________________________
Country: _________________________________________________
Email Address*: _________________________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________________
Major Geography:
( ) Asia/Pacific
( ) Europe, Middle East and Africa
( ) Latin America
( ) North America
What is your current title?
_________________________________________________
What function are you a part of?
( ) Business intelligence competency center
( ) Executive management

Page | 83
( ) Finance
( ) Information Technology (IT)
( ) Manufacturing
( ) Marketing
( ) Project/program management office
( ) Sales
( ) Research and development (R&D)
( ) Other - Write In: _________________________________________________
Please select an industry
( ) Advertising
( ) Aerospace
( ) Agriculture
( ) Apparel and accessories
( ) Automotive
( ) Aviation
( ) Biotechnology
( ) Broadcasting
( ) Business services
( ) Chemical
( ) Construction
( ) Consulting
( ) Consumer products
( ) Defense
( ) Distribution & logistics

Page | 84
( ) Education
( ) Energy
( ) Entertainment and leisure
( ) Executive search
( ) Federal government
( ) Financial services
( ) Food, beverage and tobacco
( ) Healthcare
( ) Hospitality
( ) Gaming
( ) Insurance
( ) Legal
( ) Manufacturing
( ) Mining
( ) Motion picture and video
( ) Not for profit
( ) Pharmaceuticals
( ) Publishing
( ) Real estate
( ) Retail and wholesale
( ) Sports
( ) State and local government
( ) Technology
( ) Telecommunications
( ) Transportation
Page | 85
( ) Utilities
( ) Other - Write In: _________________________________________________
How many employees does your company employ worldwide?
( ) 1 - 100
( ) 101 - 1000
( ) 1001 - 5000
( ) More than 5000
Does your organization currently use location intelligence products/solutions today?*
( ) Yes, today
( ) Future plans
( ) No plans
Which product(s) do you current use for location intelligence?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
How satisfied are you with your vendor and product for location intelligence?
( ) Extremely satisfied
( ) Somewhat satisfied
( ) Somewhat unsatisfied
Page | 86
( ) Unsatisfied
What is the level of importance of leveraging geographic location within your Business
Intelligence strategy?*
( ) Critically important
( ) Very important
( ) Somewhat important
( ) Not important
Which functions use or will use location intelligence?
Frequent Occasionally Rarely Not at all
Sales () () () ()
Marketing () () () ()
Finance () () () ()
Human () () () ()
resources
Information () () () ()
Technology
(IT)
Manufacturing () () () ()
Which levels of individuals use Location Intelligence in your organization?

Page | 87
Not
Frequently Occasionally Rarely at
all
Executives () () () ()
Middle () () () ()
managers
Line () () () ()
managers
Individual () () () ()
contributors
and
professionals
Customers () () () ()
Suppliers () () () ()
What level of geographic detail is required for your organization?
Very Somewhat Not

Critical
important important important
Country () () () ()
Province or state () () () ()
Postal code () () () ()
Latitude/Longitude () () () ()
Custom () () () ()
geography
Physical store, () () () ()

Page | 88
plant, office or
other work facility
Virtual worlds () () () ()
Which geocoding features are most important to have in your BI/Location Intelligence
product?
Geocoding is the process of finding associated geographic coordinates (often

expressed as latitude and longitude) from other geographic data, such as street
addresses, or ZIP codes (postal codes).
Very Somewhat Not

Critical
Built-in () () () ()
(native)
geocoding
(e.g.,
country,
region,
postal
code,
CBSA)
Street- () () () ()
level
geocoding
support
Automated () () () ()
geocoding
support
Offline () () () ()
geocoding
support
Worldwide () () () ()

Page | 89
geocoding
support
Customer () () () ()
extensions
to map
data (e.g.,
custom
POIs)
Which Location Intelligence features are most important to you?
Very Somewhat Not

Critical
Map-based visualization of () () () ()
data/information
Drill down navigation () () () ()

through map interface
Layering of visualizations () () () ()
on top of maps (e.g., heat
maps, cartograms)
Value/range-based shading () () () ()
of maps
Use of symbols to depict () () () ()

values
Dashboard inclusion of () () () ()
maps
Animation of data on maps () () () ()
Choropleths (area fill) maps () () () ()
Custom region definition () () () ()

Page | 90
and selection (e.g.,

polygons, geofencing)
Support for location () () () ()

calculations (e.g., drive
time, distance, routing)
Support for interior spaces () () () ()

(e.g., retail stores, office
buildings, conference
centers)
Off-line mapping () () () ()
Integration with third party () () () ()

GIS systems (e.g., Esri,
Google Maps)
Syndicated () () () ()
demographic/psychographic
data integration (e.g.,
Experian, Axiom)
Do you require integration with third party GIS vendors? If so, which ones?
[ ] Esri
[ ] Google
[ ] Microsoft (Bing)
[ ] MapInfo
[ ] TomTom
[ ] NAVTEQ
[ ] WMS (Web Map Service)
[ ] Database extensions (e.g., Oracle, Postgres)

Page | 91
What percentage of the user population use/will use Location Intelligence applications in
your organization?
81%
Under 11 - 21 - 41 - 61 -
or
10% 20% 40% 60% 80%
more
Today () () () () () ()
In 12 () () () () () ()
months
In 24 () () () () () ()
months
In 36 () () () () () ()
months
Please specify the importance of on-premises versus cloud deployment options for
location intelligence
Very Somewhat Not

Critical
Cloud- () () () ()
based
(SaaS)
On () () () ()
premises
Please specify the importance of devices by which users will leverage location
intelligence content/applications

Page | 92
Very Somewhat Not

Critical Important
Desktop or () () () () ()
laptop
computer
Mobile () () () () ()
phone
Tablet () () () () ()
computer
Smartwatch () () () () ()
Which Mobile Location Intelligence features are most important to you?
Very Somewhat Not

Critical
Reverse () () () ()
geocoding
Location- () () () ()
based
query
filtering
Geo fence () () () ()
alerting

Page | 93

Dresner Sample

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dresner Sample

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

January 30, 2017

Dresner Advisory Services, LLC

Location Intelligence Market

Wisdom of Crowds® Series

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Business Intelligence Defined

Howard Dresner, The Performance Management Revolution: Business Results Through

Location Intelligence Defined

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Required Integration with GIS Vendors ...................................................................... 66

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

We hope you enjoy this report!

Chief Research Officer

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

About Howard Dresner and Dresner Advisory Services

Prior to Dresner Advisory Services, Howard served as chief

Through the Wisdom of Crowds® Business Intelligence market research reports, we

- Advanced and Predictive Analytics

You can find more information about Dresner Advisory Services at

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

About Jim Ericson

As lead writer he interviewed and profiled more than 100 CIOs,

A panelist, interviewer, blogger, community liaison, conference co-chair, and speaker in

Jim’s earlier background as senior morning news producer at NBC/Mutual Radio

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

 Perceptions and intentions surrounding location intelligence

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Benefits of the Study

 Comparisons of current vendor performance to industry norms

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Survey Method and Data Collection

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

We constructed cross-tab analyses using these demographics to identify and illustrate

Figure 1 – Geographies represented

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Figure 2 – Functions represented

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Vertical Industries Represented

Figure 3 – Vertical industries represented

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Segmenting respondents by organization size helps us identify differences in behavior,

Organization Sizes Represented

Figure 4 – Organization sizes represented

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Importance of Location Intelligence

Technologies and Initiatives Strategic to Business Intelligence

Figure 5 – Technologies and initiatives strategic to business intelligence

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

The majority of respondents have a high estimation of the importance of location

Importance of Location Intelligence

Very important, 43%

Figure 6 – Importance of location intelligence

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Importance of Location Intelligence

2.50 Not important

Figure 7 – Importance of location intelligence 2014 to 2016

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Importance of Location Intelligence

50% 2.5 Critically important

Figure 8 – Importance of location intelligence by function

COPYRIGHT 2017 DRESNER ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC

Importance of Location Intelligence