Business intelligence (BI) provides an alternative to the use of simple heuristics, gut-feel reactions, and trial and error approaches to decision making, all of which have been shown to frequently result in poor outcomes. Business intelligence is about evidence-based decision making. It involves using analytics to scrutinize data to derive information that can inform and improve decision making.

The term "business intelligence" sounds like it employs logic. Moreover, the use of statistical analysis to evaluate data suggests a kind of scientific approach to decision-making. However, while the analysis is rational, I wondered if there is a way to frame business intelligence arguments to insure that they too are being made in a logical manner.

While researching my last article, A BI Report is a “Thesis” that Requires Effective Writing, I came across a framework that might just fit the bill. It’s called Toulmin Logic.

Toulmin Logic is a format for critical thinking and scientific argument. It is named after Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher, author, and educator born in 1922. Throughout his writings, he seeks to develop practical arguments that can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works have also been useful for analyzing rhetorical arguments. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation (or “Toulmin Logic”) is considered his most influential work, as it is particularly useful in the fields of rhetoric and communication, and computer science.

I will detail it here (amended to address business intelligence) and then provide you with an example of how it can be used.
   
The Toulmin Logic Model has five phases:
   
Phase 1: Claim

• The Claim is the major proposition of the argument.
• It should be stated as concisely as possible, if possible, as a single declarative sentence. The wording of the claim is crucial because its language will determine its ability to stand up to scrutiny and argument.

Phase 2: Grounds

• Grounds comprise the body of evidence upon which the claim rests.
• Grounds may include established facts, the results of critical analyses, and supportive statements made by authorities in the field (e.g., BI analyst, and/or other managers or executives).

Phase 3: Warrant

• The warrant is a body of evidence that justifies the grounds and makes them relevant to the claim.
• The warrant materials may include the credentials of individuals and/or prior BI evidence/decisions that support the claim and their acceptance by the organization.

Phase 4: Backing

• Backing comprises further evidence for accepting the warrant.
• Backing may include records of the performance of individuals or historical evidence cited in the warrant phase that further establish their credibility in the community.

Phase 5: Rebuttal

• Rebuttal comprises counterarguments to the claim.
• It is fair and proper to cite any legitimate arguments that may refute the claim and to deal with them to the extent possible based on existing data. This prevents accusations of “selective” research and concealment of potential flaws in the claim.

   
Whew! Sounds like a mouthful! Here is a simple example that can help to illustrate its potential usefulness in structuring arguments:

An article in a “scientific” magazine that deals largely in UFO sightings states that the United States did not really land a manned spacecraft on the Moon and that the government perpetrated a massive hoax on the American public and the world at large. How can we use Toulmin Logic to refute this accusation?
   
Phase 1: Claim (the major proposition of the argument)
The United States did indeed land a manned spacecraft on the Moon in 1969, and no fraud was perpetrated by the American government concerning that achievement.
   
Phase 2: Grounds (the body of evidence upon which the claim rests)
Evidence supplied by the American government, the international scientific community, and independent international news media exists to support the claim that the landing took place.
   
Phase 3: Warrant (evidence that justifies the grounds and their relevancy)
NASA is a reputable scientific body. Further, its activities have always been closely scrutinized by other countries, particularly those who are America’s rivals in the “space race.” Their technical ability to track the spacecraft through its entire mission would have made them capable of detecting fraud at the time of the flight.
   
Phase 4: Backing (further evidence for accepting the warrant)

• International media reporting substantiates NASA’s claim. If any doubt existed, it would have been reported immediately.
• If any evidence to the contrary surfaced in the intervening 30 years, the media would have immediately published it.
• The enormous number of people involved in the Apollo Space Program would have made the perpetrating of such a hoax and keeping it a secret virtually impossible.   
  

Phase 5: Rebuttal (counterarguments to the claim)
It is possible that telemetry signals originating on the Earth were bounced from the Moon, and that video footage of the flight cameras and the landing were fabrications, given classified technology that is beyond what is generally understood. However, detection techniques available to other nations make such a scenario unlikely.

Oftentimes not much thought is given as to how to effectively structure arguments in business intelligence. Yet, a valid structure to an argument is oftentimes as important as the argument itself. In undergraduate and graduate business programs, students are taught the SWOT format for conducting situational analyses (strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats). In clinician-patient interactions, medical practitioners routinely employ the SOAP format to define their decision making process (subjective, objective, assessment, plan).

Business intelligence is ALL ABOUT making arguments. In business intelligence, we are using our tools and education to influence decision-makers. We don’t simply produce computer-generated reports and expect decision-makers to know what they mean. We examine, interpret, and convey meaning from our analyses so as to influence decision making and its outcomes. In other words, business intelligence is not a passive process, but an influential argument based on critical reasoning.

In business intelligence, we have no common methodology for framing our arguments. We have lots of data, sophisticated software, and talented analysts, but no universal framework for making our arguments. I think that business intelligence could benefit from having a general framework for structuring its arguments and what I like about the Toulmin Logic framework is that it provides business intelligence with a generic, systematic, and accepted approach for making evidence-based opinions. Moreover, it provides business intelligence with an important means by which to better educate and orient its decision making audience about what to expect from business intelligence.

My guess is that adopting a common framework for making BI arguments would make both our BI lives and our clients’ lives easier. I think it’s fair to say that people are more comfortable and more accepting of our input when they know what to expect from us. They still may not listen to us, but at least they’ll know we made logical, reasoned arguments, based on a well-known process.

Recent articles by Richard Herschel

• Talent Analytics: Another Business Intelligence Research Opportunity
• 10 Opportunities for Business Intelligence Research
• The Future of Business Intelligence
• State of Business Intelligence: Results from Survey of BI Professionals