BI and analytics service discovery — data maturity assessment (DCAM/DMM), dashboard landscape inventory, semantic layer evaluation, self-service analytics readiness, data literacy assessment, analytics use case portfolio, and BI transformation roadmap. Distinct from bi-architecture (design skill); this is the discovery/assessment for BI-as-a-service engagements. Use when the user asks to "assess BI maturity", "evaluate analytics capabilities", "dashboard inventory", "data literacy assessment", "semantic layer review", "self-service analytics readiness", "analytics use case prioritization", "BI transformation roadmap", or mentions BI-as-a-service, analytics maturity, dashboard consolidation, data democratization, DCAM, DMM, or data literacy.
From pmnpx claudepluginhub javimontano/mao-pm-apexThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
examples/README.mdexamples/sample-output.htmlprompts/prompt.mdSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Provides React and Next.js patterns for component composition, compound components, state management, data fetching, performance optimization, forms, routing, and accessible UIs.
Genera un discovery integral de BI & Analytics que cubre data maturity assessment (DCAM/DMM), dashboard landscape inventory, semantic layer evaluation, self-service analytics readiness, data literacy assessment, analytics use case portfolio, y BI transformation roadmap. Distinto de bi-architecture (skill de diseño de arquitectura BI); este skill es el discovery/assessment para engagements de BI-as-a-service.
Los datos sin contexto son ruido. Los dashboards sin adopción son decoración. La analítica solo transforma cuando la organización entera sabe leer, cuestionar y actuar basándose en datos.
The user provides a project or client name as $ARGUMENTS. Parse $1 as the project/client name used throughout all output artifacts.
Parameters:
{MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
{FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual{VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — S1 + S6 + S7 only) | técnica (full 7 sections, default)If reference materials exist, load them:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/
Assessment de madurez de gestión de datos usando frameworks estándar de la industria.
Frameworks de referencia:
Dimensiones de assessment:
| Dimensión | Evalúa | Indicadores clave |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Estrategia de datos, alineación con negocio, inversión | Data strategy document, CDO role, budget dedicado |
| Governance | Políticas, roles (data owners/stewards), compliance | Data council, policies documented, steward network |
| Quality | Completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness | Quality scores per dataset, monitoring automatizado |
| Architecture | Data platform, integration, metadata management | Data catalog, lineage, integration patterns |
| Operations | Pipelines, SLAs de datos, incident management | Pipeline uptime, data freshness SLAs, incident process |
Maturity levels (1-5):
| Nivel | Nombre | Descripción |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial | Datos en silos, sin governance, calidad desconocida |
| 2 | Managed | Alguna documentación, governance parcial, quality básico |
| 3 | Defined | Procesos estandarizados, governance formal, quality monitoreado |
| 4 | Quantitatively Managed | Métricas de performance, SLAs, continuous improvement |
| 5 | Optimizing | Data-driven culture, innovation, predictive quality management |
Gap analysis: Delta entre maturity level actual y target por dimensión. El target no siempre es nivel 5 — depende de las necesidades del negocio.
Output: Data maturity radar chart con score por dimensión, overall maturity level, y gap analysis to target.
Inventario completo del landscape de dashboards y reportes existentes.
Inventory dimensions:
| Campo | Descripción | Ejemplo |
|---|---|---|
| Tool | Herramienta de BI utilizada | Power BI, Tableau, Looker, Qlik, Google Data Studio, Excel |
| Dashboard/Report name | Nombre del artefacto | "Sales Monthly Dashboard", "HR Turnover Report" |
| Owner | Quién lo creó y mantiene | Finance team, IT, individual analyst |
| Business area | Departamento o función de negocio | Sales, Finance, Operations, HR, Marketing |
| Refresh cadence | Frecuencia de actualización | Real-time, daily, weekly, monthly, manual |
| Data sources | Fuentes de datos que alimentan | ERP, CRM, Data Warehouse, spreadsheets, APIs |
| Adoption | Nivel de uso real | High (daily use), Medium (weekly), Low (rarely opened), Abandoned |
| Last modified | Última actualización del artefacto | Date |
Redundancy identification:
Inconsistency identification:
Tool sprawl assessment:
Output: Dashboard inventory table con adoption metrics, redundancy map, y tool sprawl assessment.
Evaluación de la consistencia de definiciones de métricas y la existencia de una fuente única de verdad.
Metrics definitions consistency:
Business glossary coverage:
Single source of truth assessment:
Metric conflicts and reconciliation needs:
Output: Semantic layer assessment con metric conflicts inventory y single source of truth score.
Evaluación de readiness para analytics democratizado.
Current self-service capabilities:
Data access policies:
Tool availability:
Training programs:
Readiness score:
| Dimensión | Score 1-5 | Peso |
|---|---|---|
| Tool availability | - | 20% |
| Data access governance | - | 25% |
| Data quality trust | - | 25% |
| User training | - | 15% |
| Support structure | - | 15% |
Self-service analytics readiness = weighted average. Score >3.5 = ready para self-service. Score 2-3.5 = necesita preparación. Score <2 = riesgoso sin inversión significativa.
Output: Self-service readiness scorecard con dimensiones, scores, y recommendations.
Evaluación del nivel de data literacy de la organización.
Data literacy by department/role:
| Nivel | Nombre | Descripción | Indicadores |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Data-unaware | No usa datos para decisiones | Decisiones por intuición, no consulta reportes |
| 2 | Data-consumer | Consume reportes predefinidos | Lee dashboards, no cuestiona los datos |
| 3 | Data-conversant | Interpreta datos, hace preguntas | Identifica trends, pide drill-downs, cuestiona outliers |
| 4 | Data-literate | Analiza datos independientemente | Crea visualizaciones, hace análisis ad-hoc |
| 5 | Data-fluent | Influye decisiones con datos | Diseña KPIs, propone experimentos, comunica insights |
Assessment por departamento:
Training needs identification:
Data champions network assessment:
Cultural barriers to data-driven decision making:
Output: Data literacy map por departamento con nivel actual, gaps, training needs, y cultural barriers.
Portfolio priorizado de oportunidades de analytics.
Categorización de use cases:
| Tipo | Pregunta que responde | Complejidad | Ejemplo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Descriptive | ¿Qué pasó? | Baja | Dashboards de ventas, reportes financieros |
| Diagnostic | ¿Por qué pasó? | Media | Root cause analysis, drill-down analysis |
| Predictive | ¿Qué va a pasar? | Alta | Forecasting de demanda, churn prediction |
| Prescriptive | ¿Qué debemos hacer? | Muy alta | Pricing optimization, resource allocation |
Impact x Feasibility scoring:
| Criterio | Score 1-5 | Descripción |
|---|---|---|
| Business impact | - | Revenue impact, cost savings, risk reduction, customer experience |
| Data availability | - | ¿Los datos necesarios existen, son accesibles, y tienen calidad suficiente? |
| Technical feasibility | - | ¿La infraestructura y skills actuales lo permiten? |
| Organizational readiness | - | ¿El área de negocio está lista para actuar sobre los insights? |
| Time to value | - | ¿Cuánto tarda en entregar valor? (shorter = higher score) |
Composite score: (impact * 0.35) + (data_availability * 0.20) + (technical_feasibility * 0.20) + (org_readiness * 0.15) + (time_to_value * 0.10)
Top-10 use cases: Para cada use case del top-10:
Output: Use case portfolio con top-10 prioritized, scoring matrix, y clasificación quick-win vs strategic.
Roadmap de transformación BI faseado con maturity targets.
Quick Wins (Meses 1-3):
Medium-Term (Meses 4-9):
Strategic (Meses 10-18):
Per phase:
Output: Roadmap visual faseado con maturity targets, use case activation, y adoption metrics.
| Decisión | Habilita | Restringe | Cuándo Usar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single BI tool | Consistency, licensing simplicity | Less flexibility, migration cost | Organizaciones con <500 BI users |
| Multi-tool strategy | Best-of-breed per use case | Complexity, inconsistency risk | Enterprise con needs muy diversos |
| Centralized BI team | Quality, consistency, governance | Bottleneck, slower time-to-value | Data maturity <3, governance priority |
| Federated model | Speed, domain ownership | Inconsistency, duplication risk | Data maturity >3, strong governance |
| Semantic layer first | Single source of truth, trust | Investment before visible value | Metric conflicts causing business issues |
| Self-service first | User empowerment, speed | Quality risk without governance | High data literacy, strong governance |
| Advanced analytics early | Competitive advantage, innovation | Requires foundation (data quality, infra) | Only if descriptive/diagnostic is solid |
Organización sin data warehouse (todo en spreadsheets): S1 maturity será nivel 1. El roadmap debe incluir data infrastructure foundation como prerequisito antes de BI. Referir a data-engineering y bi-architecture para el diseño técnico.
Múltiples herramientas de BI con ownership político: El dashboard consolidation es técnicamente simple pero políticamente complejo. Mapear stakeholders y sus intereses. Proponer coexistencia temporal con semantic layer unificado como puente.
Organización altamente regulada (banca, salud): Self-service analytics tiene restricciones de compliance (quién puede ver qué datos). Row-level security y data classification son pre-requisitos. Regulatory reporting tiene prioridad sobre self-service.
Data literacy muy baja (nivel 1 organization-wide): No intentar self-service analytics. Enfocarse en data literacy training + dashboards curados por equipo centralizado. Self-service es meta a mediano plazo, no punto de partida.
Analytics use cases que requieren datos que no existen: Documentar el gap de datos como pre-requisito. Algunos use cases requieren instrumentación (new data capture) antes de analytics. Incluir data collection como fase en el roadmap.
Before finalizing delivery, verify:
| Format | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
markdown | Yes | Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient. |
html | On demand | Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact. |
dual | On demand | Both formats. |
Default output is Markdown with embedded Mermaid diagrams. HTML generation requires explicit {FORMATO}=html parameter.
Primary: BI_Analytics_Discovery_{project}.md -- Data maturity assessment, dashboard landscape inventory, semantic layer evaluation, self-service readiness, data literacy assessment, analytics use case portfolio, and phased BI transformation roadmap with maturity targets.
Diagramas incluidos:
| Caso | Estrategia de Manejo |
|---|---|
| Organizacion sin data warehouse (todo en spreadsheets) | S1 maturity nivel 1. Roadmap incluye data infrastructure foundation como prerequisito. Referir a data-engineering y bi-architecture. |
| Multiples herramientas de BI con ownership politico | Consolidation es tecnicamente simple pero politicamente complejo. Mapear stakeholders. Proponer coexistencia temporal con semantic layer unificado. |
| Organizacion altamente regulada (banca, salud) | Self-service analytics con restricciones de compliance. Row-level security y data classification son pre-requisitos. Regulatory reporting tiene prioridad. |
| Data literacy muy baja (nivel 1 organization-wide) | No intentar self-service. Dashboards curados por equipo centralizado. Self-service como meta a mediano plazo. |
| Analytics use cases que requieren datos inexistentes | Documentar gap de datos como pre-requisito. Incluir data collection como fase explicita en roadmap. |
| Decision | Alternativa Descartada | Justificacion |
|---|---|---|
| DCAM/DMM como frameworks de madurez | Frameworks propietarios, assessment ad-hoc | DCAM (EDM Council) y DMM (CMMI Institute) son estandares reconocidos de industria con benchmarks disponibles. Permiten comparabilidad entre organizaciones. |
| 7 secciones de discovery | Assessment de 3 secciones rapido, assessment de 12 secciones exhaustivo | 7 secciones cubren el ciclo completo: maturity, landscape, semantic, self-service, literacy, use cases, roadmap. Variante ejecutiva reduce a 3 sin perder decision-readiness. |
| Data literacy como seccion dedicada (S5) | Literacy como sub-seccion de self-service readiness | La literacy organizacional es el predictor mas fuerte de ROI de BI. Merece evaluacion independiente con niveles 1-5 por departamento y plan de training dedicado. |
| Impact x Feasibility scoring compuesto (5 criterios) | Scoring simple de 2 criterios (impacto y esfuerzo) | 5 criterios (impact, data availability, technical feasibility, org readiness, time-to-value) con pesos diferenciados producen priorizacion mas robusta. |
graph TD
subgraph Core["Conceptos Core"]
MATURITY["Data Maturity (DCAM/DMM)"]
DASHBOARD["Dashboard Landscape"]
SEMANTIC["Semantic Layer"]
SELFSERV["Self-Service Readiness"]
LITERACY["Data Literacy"]
PORTFOLIO["Use Case Portfolio"]
ROADMAP["BI Transformation Roadmap"]
end
subgraph Inputs["Entradas"]
TOOLS["BI Tools Inventory"]
METRICS["Existing Metrics & KPIs"]
TEAMS["Business Teams"]
DATASRC["Data Sources"]
end
subgraph Outputs["Salidas"]
REPORT["BI Analytics Discovery Report"]
RADAR["Maturity Radar Chart"]
SCATTER["Use Case Impact x Feasibility"]
GANTT["Transformation Roadmap"]
end
subgraph Related["Skills Relacionados"]
BIARCH["bi-architecture"]
DE["data-engineering"]
DQ["data-quality"]
DG["data-governance"]
ASIS["asis-analysis (Data-AI)"]
end
TOOLS --> DASHBOARD
METRICS --> SEMANTIC
TEAMS --> LITERACY
DATASRC --> MATURITY
MATURITY --> ROADMAP
DASHBOARD --> SEMANTIC
SEMANTIC --> SELFSERV
SELFSERV --> PORTFOLIO
LITERACY --> PORTFOLIO
PORTFOLIO --> ROADMAP
ROADMAP --> REPORT
REPORT --> RADAR
REPORT --> SCATTER
REPORT --> GANTT
BIARCH -.-> SEMANTIC
DE -.-> MATURITY
DQ -.-> SELFSERV
DG -.-> SEMANTIC
ASIS -.-> MATURITY
Formato Markdown (default):
# BI & Analytics Discovery: {project}
## S1: Data Maturity Assessment (DCAM/DMM)
### Overall Maturity Level: {level}/5
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidencia | Gap to Target |
...
## S2: Dashboard Landscape Inventory
| Tool | Dashboard | Owner | Area | Refresh | Adoption |
...
### Redundancy Map
### Tool Sprawl Assessment
## S3-S5: [Semantic, Self-Service, Literacy]
## S6: Analytics Use Case Portfolio
### Top-10 Use Cases
| Use Case | Tipo | Impact | Feasibility | Score | Ranking |
...
## S7: BI Transformation Roadmap
### Quick Wins (Meses 1-3)
### Medium-Term (Meses 4-9)
### Strategic (Meses 10-18)
Formato PPTX (bajo demanda):
Slide 1: Portada — BI & Analytics Discovery: {project}
Slide 2: Executive Summary — maturity level + top-3 findings
Slide 3: Data Maturity Radar — 5 dimensiones scored 1-5
Slide 4: Dashboard Landscape — tool sprawl + adoption heatmap
Slide 5: Semantic Layer Assessment — metric conflicts count + single source of truth score
Slide 6: Data Literacy Distribution — department-level bar chart
Slide 7: Use Case Portfolio — Impact x Feasibility scatter plot
Slide 8-9: BI Transformation Roadmap — phased Gantt
Slide 10: Next Steps + Budget Magnitudes (FTE-meses)
Formato HTML (bajo demanda):
BI_Analytics_Discovery_{project}_{WIP}.htmlFormato DOCX (bajo demanda):
{fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.docxFormato XLSX (bajo demanda):
{fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx| Dimension | Peso | Criterio |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | Activacion correcta ante keywords de BI maturity, dashboard inventory, data literacy, semantic layer, self-service analytics, analytics use cases. |
| Completeness | 25% | 7 secciones cubren maturity, landscape, semantic, self-service, literacy, portfolio, y roadmap. Maturity assessment con 5 dimensiones. |
| Clarity | 20% | Scoring 1-5 por dimension interpretable. Use cases clasificados por tipo (descriptive/diagnostic/predictive/prescriptive). Cultural barriers documentadas. |
| Robustness | 20% | Edge cases (no warehouse, BI politics, regulacion, low literacy, datos inexistentes) manejados con estrategias practicas. |
| Efficiency | 10% | Variante ejecutiva reduce a S1+S6+S7 (~40%). Composite scoring con formula explicita para priorizacion reproducible. |
| Value Density | 15% | Dashboard consolidation como quick win. Metric conflicts inventariados con impacto. Roadmap faseado con adoption metrics targets. |
Umbral minimo: 7/10. Debajo de este umbral, revisar maturity dimensions coverage y use case scoring rigor.
Autor: Javier Montano · Comunidad MetodologIA | Ultima actualizacion: 15 de marzo de 2026