Search May Not Mean Search
March 11, 2009
Last week, I had a disturbing conversation with a very confident 30 something. After more than a year of planning, I learned that the company had decided to deploy a key word search system from a big name vendor. I asked, “What do the employees need? Keyword retrieval? Reports? Alerts?”
The answer was, “We have that information from informal discussions. Keyword search.”
I thanked the person for lunch and walked away shaking my head. Businesses are struggling for revenue, and employees in the organizations I have visited since October 2008 strike me as wanting to make their companies successful. Employees are savvy and know that if their employer goes down the drain finding another job might not be easy.
For some, there will be increased competition. Darwinianism is an abstract concept until a person can’t find work.
The 30 something had a job. An important job. The information technology unit at this services firms had search systems but employees did not use them. The IT budget was getting scrutiny, so the manager and tech staff decided it was time to get a “new” search system.
The problem was that I had in 2003 and 2004 conducted interviews with a number of senior managers at this organization. I even knew the president of one of the operating units socially. Although my lunch took place in 2009, I realized that the IT department was going to make the same errors it had with its previous search procurements. Every two or three years, the company licensed another system. After a honeymoon of six months, the results were predictable in my opinion. Grousing and declining usage.
Vendors have a tough time breaking the cycle. Some search companies pitch a “simple solution” that is like a One a Day vitamin. Others deliver a toolkit that is far to complicated for the IT team to get working and scarce budget dollars cannot be pumped into what amounts a customized search system.
If this scenario resonates, you may want to navigate to LLrX and read the article, “Knowledge Discovery Resources 2009: An Internet MiniGuide Annotated Link Compilation” here. The listing was compiled by the prolific Marcus P. Zillman, Internet expert. What I liked about the meaty listing was it made clear to me one point: Search does not mean keyword retrieval. The list provided me with a meaty link burger. I discovered a number of useful resources. You will want to download it and do some exploration.
I did not send the list to my lunch pal, the 30 something who knows what his users want without bothering with surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observation of users in action. As long as organizations hire information technology professionals who know what “search” means, a list won’t make much difference.
You might have a more open mind. I hope so. Search defined as keyword retrieval is about as relevant today as a bronze surgical instrument in an emergency room in a big city hospital. Access to information in a way that meets the needs of individual users is, in my opinion, what search means.
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Comments
One Response to “Search May Not Mean Search”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
One has to wonder how much this all too frequent buying attitude has fueled the rise of the feature-light GSA. You’ll note the GSA doesn’t do nearly as well when the business buyer is holding the check, feeding the RFP, and measuring the ROI in dollars and cents. But the higher-end vendors are as much to blame as the buyers, and not just because of their inherent complexity. In search of valuation, most vendors have opted for faux category creation (Attivio, Autonomy/Verity, Endeca, even, to an extent, Mark Logic — trending closer and closer with their warming embrace of “Information Access”) rather than redefining the search category — and then educating the market (starting with IT). No wonder why IT buyers are all too often reduced to the lowest common denominator. It’s time to call a spade a spade…even if it looks like an excavator.