Search and an Asteroid Hit
July 1, 2009
I had two separate conversations this week. I can’t reveal the names of the people with whom I spoke or the companies with which the firms were affiliated. I am also going to refrain from identifying the search vendors. In short, this is a toothless post. If you don’t like gums, navigate away.
Debt, Search, and an Name Brand
A financial roll up owns an online service. The service is long in the tooth, expensive to operate, and based on software written when I was still able to see my toes. The conference call made clear that this outfit was going with a name brand search system. The procurement team bought the marketing pitch hook, line, and sinker. The head of the procurement team has an extra dollop of pride on top of a giant scoop of ego. In short, the financial roll up is buying into costs of which it believes it understands. The decision is likely to bankrupt the company. One person asked me, “How can we communicate that this decision will go wrong.” My reply was curt, “You can’t.”
In my experience, there is a certain type of self assured business professional who explains that he or she is good at technology but is really more skilled in business analysis. So the SABP (self assured business professional) assumes that he or she understands the cost issues associated with a large scale search system and simply refuses to listen. I have noticed that a remarkable number of IT professionals have perfected this skill.
The result is a seven figure deal for a name brand vendor and a significant risk of financial collapse for the licensee. Mark my words. The wizards at this outfit will rationalize the problems in dulcet tones. Jobs will be lost. The financial backers will be ruined. Pride and ego get in the way of admitting that more research and analysis have to be supplemented with tests and clear eyed analysis.
Amazing situation. I walked away from this project. When the cost overruns explore, I want to be in Harrod’s Creek and uninvolved.
Free Software and MBAs Who Can Use Google
The estimates of the size of the search sector are pretty miserable. First, most analysts discard Google because at $22 billion, it is easier to explain that it is an ad agency and, therefore, can be tossed out. Yikes. Then, the figures generated by analysts are essential created the way my mother used to back into a parking space at the mall. Trial and error, lots of guestimates, and considerable fretting until the vehicle was inserted at an angle. Close enough for horseshoes, she used to say. So, when a manager responsible for search at a European company spouts numbers, explains that he or she has limited knowledge of technology, and believes that low cost search is the way to search happiness, I clam up.
What’s going on here is that some companies just want to slap in a cheap search system as an component in “more important” software. Now “more important” means worth more than lowly search. As a result, this particular organization and its search boss want to generate revenue. The fact that the search system sucks is irrelevant.
When I brought up the point about meeting user needs, the bright eyed entitlement child said, “We believe that value comes from aggregating components.” Yeah, but if a core component doesn’t work, then what? My question was ignored. I was a person who lived somewhere in Kentucky of all places.
The result is that this outfit is using non functional search and retrieval software, assuming that the suite will make the customers’ problems with information retrieval become irrelevant. Wrong.
Observations
The need for effective information retrieval is going up. Half baked rationalizations, generalization, and just plain baloney will exacerbate financial issues. What concerns me is that these behaviors are flourishing. Search is cruisin’ for a bruisin’, and the pain will be felt by many.
Stephen Arnold, July 1, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
