## 7 Discussion
### Feedback from the Demonstration Phase  
HE-BIA MM v1.0 incorporated the initial qualitative feedback received during the 2019 EUNIS BI SIG workshop. In this workshop, participants were divided into six groups (of five), and each group performed a maturity assessment using one university as a case study. The selected case studies were HEIs in which one of the group's participants was affiliated and knowledgeable of the BI initiative. The selected HEIs were from Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Norway, and Portugal. Participants were given a copy of the maturity model (version 0.1), a two-page document with an introduction to the model and recommendations on how to perform the assessment, and a feedback form. The assessment exercise took 40 min. Groups then gave a five-minute presentation discussing their case and sharing insights on the usefulness of the model and the exercise itself. Table 2 summarizes the qualitative feedback received in this workshop, compiled from the feedback forms and oral discussions. The initial feedback was extremely positive. The maturity assessment exercise enabled very fruitful discussions in each group and as a whole during the presentation of cases. The maturity model was well received and deemed useful for practitioners. It was considered with the potential to be a benchmark tool and a more systematic way to approach university management in order to secure funding and all the required resources for the BIA initiative. Negative feedback was always given in terms of improvement. Specifically, regarding the maturity dimensions, participants mentioned the ambiguity of some terms which required clarification (e.g., semi-structured data, real-time data streams) and questioned the definition of two dimensions: Performance management and Cloud computing infrastructure. This led to the major revision of HE-BIA MM v1.0. The Performance management dimension was renamed Academic analytics support, and the Cloud computing infrastructure dimension was revised into the IT infrastructure dimension, as detailed in Figure 5.  
The Performance management dimension was well designed, but its name was controversial. Hence, the name change, using a HE domain-specific concept as academic analytics support. Regarding the Cloud computing dimension, several workshop participants questioned its direct relevance to BIA. Some asked if moving to the cloud is always an advantage? Others expressed their view that it is not a technical feature list that represents maturity but rather how well the underlying infrastructure meets and supports the actual organizational needs. These concerns and the subsequent in-depth discussions between the researchers and the participants lead to the removal of cloud computing as a dimension replacing it with the new Technical infrastructure dimension (see Figure 5). The Analytical culture dimension was also renamed as Analytical and decision-making culture, as suggested. Finally, the comments on the levels led to an improvement in the assessment method, acknowledging upfront to participants that level descriptions were sometimes generic hence perfect matches might be difficult to attain. If the current assessment is in-between two levels due to a partial match, then the lower level of maturity should be selected. Participants were also informed that the distance between consecutive maturity levels would typically vary.