Business Intelligence Competency Center
December 15, 2008
Storage companies are quite creative. Consider the phrase “business intelligence”. When one applies this phrase to General Motors or the Chicago Tribune, the word oxymoron comes to mind. An oxymoron expresses an incongruity; for example, “government efficiency” or “go fast slowly”. EMC wants to certify competency, so the company created a one-stop shop for business intelligence in a Competency Center. You can read the Intelligent Enterprise (another oxymoron?) article by Antone Gonsalves here. Mr. Gonsalves wrote:
The center would help IT organizations evaluate, plan and architect their implementation with EMC acting as the information infrastructure provider and the data warehouse/business intelligence software provider. EMC would take on the dual role through its consulting services, which would provide white papers, planning and design and the integrated joint applications.
Now EMC is a publicly traded company with a share price in the $10 range. Google Finance says here:
EMC’s Information Infrastructure business consists of three segments: Information Storage, Content Management and Archiving, and RSA Information Security. In December 2007, the Company acquired Dokumentum Services CIS, a distribution and consulting services provider focused on providing marketing, support and maintenance, consulting, training and localization services related to its Content Management software. In March 2008, the Company completed the acquisition of Document Sciences Corporation and Infra Corporation Pty Limited.
My brief and memorable encounters with Documentum gave me a new respect for complexity. I assume the Competency Center will bridge the gap between storage devices and information management and access. Nifty marketing angle. When I was younger, I would have less skeptical about a Competency Center. Now I think it is a way to teach customers how to get really complicated stuff to work.
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
Google Recipes
December 15, 2008
Last week I showed some “in the wild” functions on Google. These are test pages on which certain Google features appear. Finding an “in the wild” service is a hit and miss affair. I was curious about the query “recipes”. On Wednesday, December 10, 2008, I ran the query and it was ho hum regular Google laundry list format. Today (Sunday, December 14, 2008), the query generated an interesting result page. First, the Programmable Search Engine drop down box appears. Second, the source of the recipes is a Web site at http://allrecipes.com. Third, a hot link to a definition of recipes appears under the line about customized search results; for example, Results 1 – 10 of about 148,000,000 for recipes [definition]. (0.15 seconds). When I clicked the definition, I was directed here.
Advertisers may be willing to pay extra to be featured with the Google categories for their Web site or the “definition” hot link. Add to this the insertion of AdWords into the drop down suggestion box and what have you got? Subtle monetization. The GOOG is going to hit its revenue targets by offering advertisers some very tasty ad options. Ads, like Web pages, are losing their zing. The GOOG is responding.
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
Googlewashing
December 15, 2008
Andrew Orlowski’s “Google Cranks Up the Consensus Engine” strikes me as an important article. The hook for the story here was Googler Marissa Meyer’s comments, reported in TechCrunch. Mr. Orlowski wrote:
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results.
I agree.
Mr. Orlowski continued:
In the absence of editorial confidence, Google – the Monster that threatens to Eat The Media – now defines the purpose of the media. All media companies need do is “tap into the zeitgeist” – Google Zeitgeist™!
Several thoughts ran through my mind. On Friday, December 12, 2008, we met with one of our clients and showed where the ArnoldIT.com Web pages appear in Google result lists. Most of our test queries appear in the first page of Google results except for one: queries for Arnold and Google patents. We noted the anomaly, and we assumed that my study based on Google patent documents was no longer hot. We ran some more queries and concluded that the study called “Google Version 2.0” and its link to my name and Google patents were tough to find. Maybe Mr. Orlowski provides a piece of the puzzle we encountered?
Mr. Orlowski is on the right track with his analysis and I look forward to his following this line of inquiry. Human manipulation is more expensive than machine processes. But when it comes to shaping search results to pump advertising or make certain information tough to find, I think humans work pretty well. Could those fancy systems and methods not work very well?
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
Cloud Computing Challengers: Pundits Cheer for Their Clients
December 15, 2008
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Briefings Direct. The link pointed me to a transcript of a discussion among a group of analysts. I am fascinated by the prognostications of pundits. The deepening economic crisis and miserable track record of large information technology projects make me hungry for information about the future. These pundits are responsible for approaches to systems that some companies embrace. I could draw a connection between pundits and the present crisis in information technology, but I will not. Instead, let me capture the points that I noted as I worked my way through “BriefingsDirect Analysts Handicap Large IT Vendors on How Cloud Trend Impacts Them.” The set up is that cloud computing is a trend and the large information technology vendors are horses in a race. The participants in this discussion will, in theory, give the odds for selected vendors’ in the cloud computing horse race.
First, one of the pundits asserts that Microsoft “has the most to lose.” I believe that “lose” means revenues from on premises licensing of Office and products such as SQL Server. Okay, I understand that point and I see a grain of truth in the “most to lose” remark. One thought I have is that Microsoft is spending to make its software and services’ strategy viable. The spending coupled with erosion of on premises revenue ups the ante. Maybe the Briefings Direct session will focus on the economics of the Microsoft “to be” architecture.
Second, one of the panelists points to big companies like IBM and SAP who sell direct and who have established reseller channels. The idea is that these vendors are trying to maximize their sales impact. I am uncomfortable with the implication that big vendors have their act together. SAP, one of the companies with this sell direct and rely on an ecosystem approach, is in a tar pit. SAP’s missteps may be a glimpse of what will happen when more big companies with zero track record in offering software from data centers on a subscription basis try to make money. Again, the combination of capital investment and lack of experience may make these initiatives bleed red ink. IBM, for instance, tried Internet services and dumped the business to AT&T. IBM is a consulting company that also pushes software and hardware. There are too many assumptions about big companies succeeding in the cloud for me to be optimistic.
Third, the notion that cloud computing is a wide open race is intriguing. I think cloud computing, like telephony in the early 20th century, is one of the those utility services. If a single company has an advantage, that company could make it difficult for competitors to get sufficient market traction to survive. Customers unwittingly act to make a monopoly come into existence. I see a hint of this in Google’s dominance of Web search and advertising. A company like Google or maybe Google itself could capture a dominant position. The Google Effect, then, is companies without Google’s technology advantage and customer base spending to catch up. Google keeps moving forward incrementally and retains its dominant position. I think that Google’s 70 share of Web search could be replicated in other cloud markets as well. The diversity dies out even some vendors offer better solutions.
Who will win? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, or SAP?
Fourth, the cloud approach means “flex sourcing”; that is, (I think) using what you need in the cloud and having some software on premises. My thought is that this is a commonsense approach. I don’t think “commonsense” applies to cloud services. The cost and complexity of on premises systems is probably a deal breaker for many organizations in today’s economic climate. The shift to cloud services may be forced upon companies. If a flash point exists, the cloud shift could be somewhat sudden, maybe like the emergence of the Internet as a utility. In that type of situation, the rules go out the window. Commonsense says, “That’s not likely to happen” as the shift occurs. These pundits are supporting the status quo and the status quo is crumbling as they opine.
Finally, one of the pundits suggests that a Microsoft – Yahoo tie up is good for Microsoft. This point caps a discussion of tie ups for cloud services; for example, Amazon and Oracle. Wow. I am not sure if Microsoft has the technical savvy to fix up the nicks and scratches in the Yahoo infrastructure at the same time it is struggling to build out and optimize its own data centers. I think the cheerleading for the big companies ignores the fundamental problem of getting from “to be” to “as is.” I am no Google fan goose, but I think the GOOG is going to stomp on some of these assertions relative to Microsoft and the other big companies mentioned in this discussion.
Google Alert Change
December 14, 2008
My Google Alert changed today. I get an alert for the phrase “enterprise search.” Yesterday I received text only. Today I received text and embedded pictures. Here’s a screenshot of my improved Google Alert. I prefer text in alerts because the BlackBerry I have does a lousy job with html mail.
Has anyone else noticed this change? Am I late to the party? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, December 14, 2008
Chrome Bumps Firefox
December 14, 2008
Chrome, which is viewed as Google’s browser, has run over Firefox. According to PC World here, on Saturday, Google replaced Firefox with Chrome in the Google Pack download bundle. The article “Google Dumps Firefox from Download Bundle, Swaps in Chrome” said that in non-English versions of Google Pack Firefox is still included. Chrome is much more than a browser. My research suggests that Chrome is an umbilical to the infrastructure of the Googleplex. Chrome is, therefore, a very big deal for the GOOG. Firefox just became road kill as Google’s Hummer grinds forward. Who’s next? I guess we will have to wait until next week end to find out.
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
MOSS 2007: Teetering on the Brink in 2009
December 14, 2008
The year numbering strikes me as odd. It’s the tail end of 2008, and I am reading about MOSS 2007’s accomplishments. In two weeks it will be 2009. I think, “What’s been accomplished in SharePoint” in this time period?” Well, I don’t have a very good answer. I have quite a few questions about Microsoft’s MOSS 2007; for example, how can one minimize the complexity and cost of the system while delivering sub second response times? With an eagerness that surprised the other geese in the pond, I read “SharePoint 2007 – A Quick Review” here. The write up was brief. Here are the points that jumped off the page and lodged in my goose brain:
- MOSS 2007 is user friendly
- MOSS 2007 indexes business data and “other relevant information from remote data stores”
- MOSS 2007 supports collaboration
- MOSS 2007 supports standards
- MOSS 2007 improves in Web and “Web 2.0 content management”
The writer notes, “There is however, some difficulty that is experienced with customization and there are also concerns about ongoing maintenance.”
Stepping back, I don’t agree that MOSS 2007 is that much different from previous versions of SharePoint. The product is positioned as a Swiss Army knife. Most of the features my team and I have tested are convoluted and buggy; for example, accessing Dynamics and Performance Point data rank right up there with getting a root canal or a hip replaced.
SharePoint is a remarkable product, but I don’t think the list of benefits and features in this write up maps to what I have experienced. SharePoint, MOSS 2007, and the Fast Web part will help consultants have a pleasant holiday and a great 2009. SharePoint consulting is a booming business. But the cheerful summary can’t neutralize the ominous shadow of “some difficulty” referenced fleetingly by Moss Consulting.
Stephen Arnold, December 14, 2008
Nstein and Taxonomy Improvement
December 14, 2008
Nstein Technologies is helping media companies like Scripps, Bonnier, and Time expand search taxonomies to return better search results. By customizing word relationships, Nstein uses semantics to categorize results in context. The goal is to increase user satisfaction. By giving them better results in searches, the customers are more likely to return to the Web site. To support the idea, Nstein redesigned its entire site, incorporating a custom taxonomy to increase reader satisfaction. Their example: “Stuffing” was added to the taxonomy – and an association was made between “Dressing” with “Stuffing,” so no matter which keyword a reader chose, all relevant recipes would appear. Companies also are going farther than custom taxonomies – they are adopting and expanding authority files (controlled lists of products, companies, locations, people, etc.)
It all comes down to making search better.
Jessica Bratcher, December 14, 2008
Autonomy: The Next Big Thing
December 14, 2008
I enjoy the hate mail I get when I write about Autonomy’s news announcements. Some of my three or four readers think that I write these items for Autonomy. Wrong. I am reporting information that my trusty newsreader delivers to me. Here’s a gem that will get the anti-Autonomy crowd revved on a Sunday morning. The article appeared on SmartBrief.com as news. The headline was an attention grabber: “Autonomy at the Cutting Edge of New Multi-Trillion dollar Sector According to Head of Gartner Research.” You can read it here. The url is one of those wacky jobs that can fail to resolve. The core of the story for me is that Gartner has identified a “multi trillion dollar sector.” That has to be good news to those who pay Gartner to make forecasts about markets. Search and content processing has been chugging along in the $1.3 to $3.0 billion range if one ignores the aberration that is Google. I find it hard to believe that Gartner’s financial forecasts can be spot on, but who knows? In case, you want to know what a trillion is, it is one followed by a dozen zeros. The Gartner fellow with the sharp and optimistic pencil is identified as Peter Sondergaard, Senior Vice President, Gartner Research. The source, according the the news release, is an interview with an outfit called Business Spectator. I wonder if a few extra zeros were added as Mr. Sondergaard’s pronouncement was recorded? So, what’s this forecast have to do with Autonomy? Autonomy said in its input to SmartBrief:
Autonomy Corporation plc , a global leader in infrastructure software for the enterprise, today announced that its vision of searching and analyzing structured and unstructured data has now been validated as the next big thing in business IT. According to an interview with Business Spectator, Peter Sondergaard, Senior Vice President, Gartner Research, predicts that the next quantum leap in productivity will come from the use of IT systems that analyze structured and unstructured data. Sondergaard says that Autonomy is at the cutting edge of the new search technology, a sector in the IT industry that will ultimately earn multi trillion dollar revenues.
The story appeared on PRNewswire and on one of the Thomson Reuters’ services. With economies tanking, I am delighted to know that the sector in which I work is slated to become a multi trillion dollar business. I hope I live long enough. Since laughter is a medicine that extends one’s life, I look forward to more Gartner forecasts and to Autonomy’s riding the crest of this predicted market boom.
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
Google Netscape: What the Dickens!
December 14, 2008
I read Joe Wilcox’s articles for the eWeek Microsoft Watch section. I noticed “The Ghost of Netscape Past Is Google.” I must admit the allusions confused me. Netscape, a company without a means of generating sufficient revenue to stay alive. Netscape is no Marley. Netscape died because its business model could not withstand the shock of Microsoft’s giving away Internet Explorer. The passage I most enjoyed in Mr. Wilcox’s write up was:
The Ghost of Netscape Past later comes and hauls the goosebumped Steve Ballmer from his bed—gads, clothed only in an XXL Microsoft Softwear T-Shirt and boxer shorts. The ghost takes Steve to Netscape’s headquarters in late 1995, where employees celebrate an amazing IPO. Time moves forward some months to meetings where Netscape employees brainstorm about creating a Web-based operating system.
Microsoft’s retro clothing makes an appropriate entrance, but the metaphors did not illuminate; they darkened. The checklist of notable developments that plague Microsoft is interesting. But the dénouement is not satisfying. Mr. Wilcox’s last sentence is supposed to be the kicker: “He [Steve Ballmer] will go back in time and buy start up Google.”
Microsoft’s real problem is the ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Will the firm survive the Google of the now and tomorrow?
This doesn’t do much for me. Here’s my take.
First, Netscape lacked a business model and was easy to Microsoft to deprive of oxygen. Google has a business model that is disruptive and, as it turns out, not so easy to derail or duplicate. The Google business model is the “now” for Microsoft. The Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas presence has effectiveness because the main character is excluded. Scrooge, in Mr. Wilcox’s article, is on the outside looking in. The mention of Scrooge’s name throws water on the Cratchit’s celebration. Scrooge starts to “get it”, but I don’t see any significant understanding in Mr. Wilcox’s protagonist (Steve Ballmer).
Second, the real problem is the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. The ghost for the future presages death, oblivion, and emptiness. When Scrooge understands the fate he will face, he begs for another chance. Microsoft in Mr. Wilcox’s version of this story does not have a second chance. The company has its “now” and decisions are not remediable; for example, who can undo the acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer with its complexity and police troubles. Who can undo the whipping that Nintendo continues to administer to the Xbox? Who can fix the Vista gaffe? Who can address performance issues with certain Microsoft cloud services? Who can address Internet Explorer security?
Third, the miserable Scrooge changes. Scrooge reforms himself, which is deeply satisfying to both Victorian readers and today’s readers who lap up sentimental porridge. Unfortunately, Microsoft Mr. Ballmer (whom I assume is Scrooge in Mr. Wilcox’s article) exists within a bubble. Cultural shifts are glacial, and I don’t think Dickens would feel comfortable with the notion of buying Google to survive. If — and it is a big “if”– Microsoft could go back to 1998. Microsoft would try to squash Google like a tick plucked from a show dog. What was there to buy? Search. Search was a loser in 1998, and Microsoft was riding the portal bandwagon while collecting millions for upgrades to its desktop software.
Here’s one possible way to create a “21st Century Digital Christmas Carol”.
The math club takes over the world. A new application platform replaces windows. Amazon, Apple and Google divide up the spoils and yesterday’s leaders get satisfying jobs as Wal*Mart greeters. What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
