ProQuest Dialog: An Optimistic View
June 24, 2008
I talked with a colleague who described to me Outsell’s view of the ProQuest Dialog deal. I have not seen the report, but you can order a copy here. Note that the research company has as its url outsellinc.com. The url outsell.inc is an automotive company with the same name.
As I understood my colleague, Outsell sees a positive gain. Libraries–Dialog’s revenue bulwark–will win. ProQuest is a company focused on library information. The buyers got a good deal, paying considerably less than Dialog’s previous owners paid. My recollection is that with each sale of Dialog, the seller lost money. From a high of $400 million, this deal rings in well south of that, probably a fire sale price. Third, users benefit because ProQuest is able to leverage the terabytes of abstracted, bibliographic, full text, and semi-structured data on the Dialog computers.
This is a snippet of a Dialog Blue Sheet. It makes clear the details about a database. Can you figure this out? If you can, then you can pay as much as $100 per query to access these types of data. The market for this information is inelastic; that is, you can raise the price, but you will not be able to boost revenues. A few people will pay anything to get these data. Most people will go elsewhere.
The Optimist’s View
I can accept a positive spin on the deal. However, there may be some factors that the financial wizards with the sharp pencils may not be able to control:
- Libraries are strapped for cash. The life blood of information companies who sell to libraries is the standing order. Under budget pressure, each year standing orders get closer scrutiny. In head to head competitions, clever pricing deals can win the one year deal. The problem is that there is no renewal and thus no revenue base. With only a few big players selling online information, it may be tough to pump up revenues.
- Information users like the New South Wales’ students who will be exposed to Google may find the Dialog-style online information as archaic as my son did when I introduced him to online research in lieu of the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature in 1982. Dialog is simply not in tune with the bloggy, real timey, and Webby world of online.
- ProQuest and its parent have never been at the cutting edge of technology. Online today has to deal with scaling, commodity hardware, and fast cycle programming. Perhaps ProQuest’s technologists are as good as the engineers at Google? My thought is that ProQuest may be stretched to the limit dealing with an online system with its roots in the late 1960s. The cost to get modern may be beyond the reach of the new owners.
Google Expands Footprint in Australian School District
June 24, 2008
Six months ago, a Microsoft search wizard told me, “Google’s education sales are not significant.” I disagreed, but present and former Redmond wizards are always right or at least think they are right. Google’s efforts to get students and academic institutions to use the company’s cloud-based services like Gmail is part of the GOOG’s strategy to penetrate the enterprise. But it is a longer-term strategy because Google is willing to get student comfy with its products and services, let them get their jobs, and then pull Google along with them.
Australian IT reported on June 24, 2008, that Google landed a major school district with the help of its partner, SMS Management and Technology. You can read the full story written by Andrew Colley here. The New South Wales school district has 1.5 million students, who will soon be Googling. When the system is deployed, it will be one of the largest deployments of Gmail in the world.The deal is worth $9.5 million over three years.
The real pay off, to my way of thinking, will be the students who graduate with Google as part of their thought processes. The Microsoft wizard who told me Google’s education strategy was not worth his time may want to consider what happens if Google succeeds in winning other school districts to embrace the GOOG.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2008
As Google and Salesforce Close Dance This Google Interview Gains Importance
June 24, 2008
In my Google files is an interview with Dave Girouard, the top Googler for the firm’s enterprise division. Mr. Girouard spoke with John Zyskowski of Federal Computer Week in February 2008. The give and take ran under the title “Google’s Dave Girouard on Google-ization.” You can read the story here. When I first read it, I did not see much that resonated with my research.
Now, as Google and Salesforce.com shift from casual dancing partners to going steady, Mr. Girouard’s remarks have a new significance to me. Let me highlight three points that caught my attention against my deeper understanding of what Google and Salesforce.com are offering organizations.
First, the search appliance is not the end game. Other applications have pulled Google deeper into the enterprise. The thought that crossed my mind is that Google’s search appliances connect to other Google enterprise applications. At some point these appliances could be used to create a different type of infrastructure that unites the organization, Google, and the appliance.
Second, Google’s unique selling proposition has two points: cost and capability. As the economy weakens, Google and Salesforce.com are poised to offer increasingly diverse applications that sell themselves. Customers come seeking Google and Salesforce.com. If that model continues to work, incumbent on-premises application vendors will face higher marketing costs and customers who go looking for an alternative.
Third, Mr. Girouard suggests that more cloud-based products and services are coming from Google.
Several questions came to my mind:
- Is Google likely to move from close dancing to a more intimate relationship with Salesforce.com? The tie up would make sense and help pave the way for Google to make a play for a larger share of the multi-billion dollar enterprise systems market.
- Has Google decided that Salesforce.com’s multi tenant approach to applications has sufficient technical merit to complement Google’s own software and systems? For a period of time, I thought that Google perceived the multi tenant inventions of Salesforce.com as trivial. Maybe I was wrong and multi tenant technology is indeed a big deal for Google.
- Will Salesforce.com’s existing customer base be candidates for Google’s data management services? My reading suggests to me that Google has more data base horsepower than it talks about.
With data management looming as one of the major challenges for organizations, Salesforce.com might be a useful stalking horse. Read the interview and let me know your thoughts.
I tried to get Google to participate in my Search Wizards Speak series, but like Autonomy and Microsoft, my request fell on deaf ears. Could there be some reluctance to let me probe into such matters as data management? I can only formulate my opinions based on chunks of information such as this Federal Computer Week interview.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2008
Megaputer: An Emerging Force in Data and Text Analysis
June 23, 2008
Megaputer, based in Bloomington, Indiana, continues to expand the capabilities of its data and text analysis system. The next release, said Sergei Ananyan, one of the company’s founders, will a 64-bit version, browser-based reporting, and support for text analysis in multiple languages.
Dr. Ananyan, a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, spoke to ArnoldIT.com and said:
Megaputer keeps developing PolyAnalyst as a powerful and flexible analytic platform, but our real strength derives from the ability to build push-button custom solutions for handling typical tasks in various application domains.
Megaputer was founded in 1994, which makes the company one of the more mature in the data and text analysis fields. The company has landed a number of blue-chip customers in law enforcement, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.
As organizations realize that individual users and work units require customized content processing systems, Megaputer’s approach has been attracting attention. Megaputer can deploy its range of analytic tools to meet the needs of different users without having to do the manual coding and hands-on rework that plague many of the firm’s competitors.
The company, however, is anchored in mathematics, quite advanced algorithms. Dr. Ananyan says:
We value math, and I suppose we share that technical foundation with Google. So, okay, we are good at math just like Google but with one difference. I think we are specialists in the type of math necessary to make Megaputer solve our clients’ problems.
The key to success, says Dr. Ananyan:
While providing users of PolyAnalyst with lots of functionality, we try to lower the learning curve for new users. We spend lots of thought and effort on keeping PolyAnal6yst as simple in use as possible. We make every effort to simplify the user experience with the system. The user builds a data analysis scenario through an intuitive drag-and-drop interface. The developed scenario is represented as a graphical flow chart with editable nodes and can be shared for collaboration or scheduled as a task for future execution. The results of any analytical step can be saved in an easy-to-comprehend and visually appealing report the user generates on the fly.
Megaputer has several advantages compared to some vendors who provide a specific text processing function:
- The company’s technology suite is broad and deep, supporting on-the-fly categorization, ease-of-use, and versions for single user and on premises enterprise installations
- The strong foundation in mathematics does not get in the way of the users due to careful design of the system interfaces
- The inclusion of data cleansing, federation, and visualization functions allows the system to meet a range of needs without forcing licensees to seek add-ins or third-party utilities.
You can learn more about Megaputer here. The full text of the interview with Dr. Ananyan appears on ArnoldIT.com here as part of the Search Wizards Speak series.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Zoomii: Interesting Interactive Interface
June 23, 2008
A person who remembers old-fashioned bookstores but prefers the Amazon-type experience may want to look at Zoomii Books here. The service allows you to enter a word or phrase or explore a visual representation of a bookstore’s shelves. The notion of browsing in a book store is useful. The service runs on Amazon’s EC2 and S3 services. If you want to learn more about the company, write talk at zoomii.com. This is worth a look. I can think of applications in enterprise search where this approach would be appropriate and helpful. Too 20-something or useful to a person in assisted living? What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Microsoft: New Management Line Up
June 23, 2008
InfoWorld, a print publication that went all digital, contains a useful round up of Microsoft’s current senior management team. You can read the essay “Microsoft’s Post-Gates Management Team” here. The pop ups and quirky search engine make it difficult to locate some material on the InfoWorld Web site, so click this link while it still fresh (June 20, 2008).
The important point for me in Elizabeth Montalbano’s story is that no one is identified as having responsibility for search, text analysis, and content processing. I find this strange because search is the killer application for anyone working with information today.
My thoughts on this strange omission are:
- I am not smart enough to understand that search is the obvious responsibility of one of these senior managers, possibly Stephen Elop, president of the Microsoft Business Division.
- Microsoft believes that other areas are more important than search, assuming that those in lower management ranks will be able to deal with Google’s dominance of this application space
- Microsoft is confident that the new Live.com initiatives and the enterprise Web part for SharePoint are the key steps needed to catch up with Google and then leap frog over it.
If you have other thoughts on the “owner” of search at Microsoft, let me know via the comments section.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Update 1, June 23, 2008 6 30 pm Eastern: A reader provided us with this link. John Lervik is a corporate vice president, Microsoft Enterprise Search Group, in the Microsoft Business Division. Microsoft information page is here. A happy quack to the reader who took the time to provide this item.
Google: Friction More Powerful than Google
June 23, 2008
Om Malik’s GigaOM flagged a vulnerability that I had overlooked–friction. His essay “Delayed: Android aka Google Phone” is a summary of a Wall Street Journal story, but he pushes beyond the WSJ with this statement:
…Whimsical wishes of carriers, endless customization, software delays and of course, executive reshuffling–these are facts of life for mobile start-ups. Welcome to the club, Google.
Please, click here and read his take on the Google Android delay.
What struck me as important was that in my listing of Google’s vulnerabilities in my The Google Legacy (2005) and Google Version 2.0 (2007), I overlooked friction. GigaOM makes it clear that environmental factors such as bureaucracy and work procedures can slow most companies, including Google.
After thinking about this point, I want to suggest that as Google grows larger, the friction the company faces will go up. For competitors, evidence of “friction” hampering Google is good news. Kudos for GigaOM for making this point clear to me.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Update 1, June 23, 2008 6 45 pm Eastern: CNet has published “Google Andoid Success: I’ll Believe It When I See It” by Don Reisinger. Mr. Reisinger identifies four issues with the mobile initiative. Worth your reading time.Wall Street Journal
Update 2, June 24, 2008 Ars Technica reports that Google Android is on track. Jacqui Chang’s “Google Says Android Still on Schedule” is here. Google’s quick reaction to the seed story has been fast and forceful. One wonders how Google could have missed the opportunity to provide a clearer signal to the Wall Street Journal before the negative Android story broke. Could Google’s PR mechanism be part of the problem?
Text Analytics ROI Case: Intuit
June 23, 2008
Case studies with teeth are useful. Jeff Kelly, news editor for SearchDataManagement.com provides information about Intuit’s use of text analytics. His essay “Calculating Text Analytics ROI: Start Small and Focus on Customer Data” is here. The most interesting point for me was this statement:
Companies seeking to establish the ROI of a text analytics project should start their deployment with a specific, targeted set of unstructured data to prove the business case.
Those involved in search and text processing often try to swing for the fences with a procurement. The requirements include every feature and function the team can identify. The result is a mess. The common sense approach is to define a problem, figure out the content needed to give users what’s needed to make a decision, and deploy a system that boils an egg, not boils the ocean.
Mr. Kelly’s essay makes this obvious point clearly. Return on investment is easier to figure out when the project is bounded and narrowed intentionally.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Text Analytics; Search Fractures Identified
June 23, 2008
A quite interesting essay by Frank Diana popped into my news reader. Mr. Diana’s essay “The 4th Annual Text Analytics Summit” is here. The most interesting part of his summary of the conference is this list:
- Fraud detection
- Voice of the Employee, Customer, Community and Market
- Patient Safety, Drug Discovery, Clinical Analysis
- Law Enforcement, Intelligence Analysis
- Litigation Support / eDiscovery
- SOX Compliance, Corporate Governance
- Investment Analysis
- Marketing Campaign Analysis, Advertising Analysis
- Claims Analysis, Warranty Analysis
- Product Innovation
- Reputation Management
- Intelligent Messaging.
Mr. Diana suggests that these are areas in which text analytics will play a role. I agree, but I would like to offer several observations.
Each of these niches require tailored components to address the specific information requirements of each market. Some functions will be common such as entity extraction and email threading. Other requirements will be highly particularized such as those for law enforcement, financial applications, and health and medical applications.
The list underscores why “one size fits all search and content processing systems” continue to disappoint many users. In an organization, each user needs a particular type of information under different circumstances. Some of these may be predictable because a work process requires that an employee have access to information about a customer’s history with the company. Other information needs may be unpredictable, so interfaces and access methods have to be tailored to meet these needs.
In theory, an information platform can be customized to meet the needs of a group of users or a single user. In reality, the cost and complexity of building personalization from a common framework may tax an organization’s resources. To economize, a “good enough” system is provided. Users find the system disappointing. This situation triggers more spending and creates an inefficient information environment.
What this list suggests is that the type of laser focus that some vendors are bringing to specific markets may be the key to success in the highly competitive text processing market. Agree or disagree? Let me know via the comments section of this Web log.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Connectors: A Big Deal for Enterprise Search
June 22, 2008
In my travels on June 17 to June 20, 2008, I participated in three conversations about connectors. A connector is a program that converts a source document in one format to some other format. The idea is that a connector makes it possible for a content processing system to ingest content with a minimum of computational hassle.
For some reason, connectors are the topic of the moment in the circles in which I move. In 2005, I discovered a userful white paper on the Web site of Persistent. I had to dig the link out in order to send it to the people with whom I met last week, and I thought some readers of Beyond Search might find it useful as well.
The Persistent document is “Unified Connectors for Enterprise Search Softwares.” You can download the document here. An individual is not identified as the author. I found the write up useful.
Persistent is a firm providing software consulting, engineering, and outsourcing. Persistent makes additional information available at its Web site here.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
