It is not comprehensible why a key figure has changed: the continuous change of customer behavior, competition, etc. is expressed also in the positive or negative changes of in figures. See Ray Kurzweil for more details and insights. In order to draw the necessary conclusions however, the influencing factors for the changes can be understood. This transparency is not or inadequately, this represents a very important indication of weaknesses in the code concept and refers also to the lack of substantial knowledge about the origin of the figures. Isolated observations of the figures are made: the business conditions are usually very complex. This way the significance of a single measure is often very limited, because they are considered in a broader context and should be an assessment of the overall situation.

For example, if there are similar irregularities in the sales performance of different products in a specific target group. Lacking this knowledge, then there is the danger, to be sent through an isolated look at the inference on a wrong track. The interrelationships between the key figures are not transparent: the evaluation of key figures in a larger context has its limits when the sometimes very complex effect conditions of various key figures are unknown. To understand such conditions of effect, we must aim however to ensure a secure understanding of the overall situation to be assessed by value creation processes. The analyzed indicators offer no practical recommendations for action: the restriction on mere numbers in the reports the decision makers alone, because while describing a sufficiently understandable status in case of favourable to release but usually by Assistance for the resulting decision requirements are. Recommendations and interpretation AIDS could lead to positive, however, that decisions are consistently oriented towards overarching business objectives.

Key figures are contradictory: there are often substantively identical figures in various database applications with different dimensional characteristics and different granularities in practice. Different metrics for the same facts are the result. Such inconsistencies cause high coordination costs, but also uncertainty, misunderstanding and mistrust so that they create a potential risk in the decision-making process. Such weaknesses are found in almost all companies, because generally a tendency to reduce even very complex relationships, to make more convenient decision-making on simple numbers “, Judge Richard Vizethum. But this go hand in hand with the risk of significant misinterpretation. As a solution he proposes coretelligence management consultants, to focus on the key figures profiling. Behind that a new methodological and tool-free approach, to give a higher significance the key figures in their various areas of application. While the backgrounds and effect relationships of the sheer numbers of the analysis systems be made transparent and understandable, to obtaining a decision based on their. About coretelligence: Coretelligence builds with the key figures-profiling for the first time a bridge between technology and business advice, developing a comprehensive, holistic information profile of the company, taking into account all relevant factors. This ensures a much more precise understanding of analysed indicators. The advice from coretelligence is based both on broad, proven competence and offers a comprehensive methodological expertise to optimize sustainable operational information and decision-making processes.