Repositioning Search: A Cultural Shift for BI
December 28, 2010
I am in the baloney business, and I have no problem making clear my professional life. Sure, a few products made a couple of bucks, but I was trained in the consulting business by some good mentors at Halliburton Nuclear Utility Services and Booz, Allen & Hamilton. Consequently, my baloney recognition system works reasonably well. Today, I find, it lights up frequently. Recent examples include:
- A 20 something wishing good luck in my career. The lass did not know that I am 66 and at the end of a long, dismal career. Things won’t get much better in my opinion.
- A CEO who just wanted to chat, brushing aside my reminder that I charge for my time.
- A VP of technology at a Fortune 100 company wanting me to provide competitive profiles on a number of companies in the text processing sector. The communication problem was that I did not want to work for that firm on its bureaucratically polished terms.
This post focuses on some business recommendations that, I suppose, are relatively harmless. Nevertheless, I found the write up fascinating because it has the potential to perpetuate some methods that are almost certain to increase costs and yet another failed information access system. Let’s begin.
Baloney As Knowledge and Insight
I found “Business Intelligence Programmes Should Be Viewed As a Cultural Transformation” interesting and wildly out of touch with the reality in many US organizations. That reality, as you know from the opening paragraphs, goes through the motions of resolving a problem and often creates a great cost black hole. The problem? Unsolved so the cycle begins again.
The write up reports on three actions to address a problem with business intelligence. Note that the definition of “business intelligence” is not included, so the reader is supposed to “know” what “business intelligence” is. Hmm.
What’s the article recommend?
Three actions, each oh-so-easy to convert to business platitudes.
First deliver “the right information to the right people.” Okay, but what if one does not know what information is available or if it is correct. Once that has been addressed, who are the right people. Most organizations have had some staff reductions. Who needs what? Good question and one that is often not answered in a way helpful to the people trying to level up to a business intelligence system.
Second, “change the mindset” in order to answer the “right questions”. Okay, but what happens if we don’t know what questions to ask because our view of the information is limited or just incorrect. What if the company allows professionals to make decisions without worrying about checking with the boss on every matter?
Finally, “create a project team based on information needs.” Great idea, but the reality of organizations is that if the view of the information available is incorrect and the questions the team wants answered are wrong, how will the project team be the “right team” for the task.
Looks like a recipe for management disaster. In fact, the present economic problems many organizations face are a result of this type of second-class thinking. The use of a fuzzy term to replace a now discredited and equally fuzzy term is part of the problem.
Observations
If you are a small business, you can buy Sowsoft’s Effective File Search for $30. The software searches the contents of a computer, works quickly, and is hassle free. If you need to have a search system that can index information on other computers in the office, you can buy an inexpensive system from the likes of X1, dtSearch or ISYS Search Software, but I would remind whoever is looking at search to check out Lucene/Solr, FLAX, or Blossom. Depending on the organization’s technical capabilities, these solutions can cost a modest amount.
But many organizations perceive themselves to be giants among shorter people. These organizations gravitate to solutions hawked by IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle and dozens upon dozens of vendors. No one has a definitive scorecard, and for the most part, big companies like the dearth of information.
I don’t fault the mid-tier consulting firm for cooking up recommendations and ideas that may generate business. My concern is that the lingo used is performing an “uplevel” or “level up” function. The term gets some of its meaning from playing video games. The more points one scores allows the player to advance to another level of the game. Hence, level up. The mental trick is to get from one place to a better place. In the better place, one has new opportunities and weapons. The new term puts a plank over the muddy ground so the organization can move to a clean, well-lighted place where the white diodes of business intelligence glow without untoward energy consumption.
So companies need to make a cultural change. The problem is that change is difficult, and advice about change is easy. In fact, if you want to know how difficult change is, navigate to “Top 50 Management Gurus” and look who made the list and its date. Some of the gurus have left some pretty interesting companies behind, including organizations founded by the guru that simply defy change. That’s why Microsoft’s mobile phones are behind the curve and why Dell Computer has to work overtime to rebuild its quality reputation. Others are theorists or popular authors. In fact the list itself has not been changed since 2002. Change, huh.
Let’s think about change in order to improve information access in an organization. To make the example easy, let’s think about a company with $300 million in revenues. The procurement system requires a team of people. There may be a selection process, but it often is somewhat haphazard and some logical participants are busy on more important tasks. “Important” is situational, so many procurement teams may not have the appropriate individuals. If the procurement is an add on to existing work, the procurement team may have members who go with the flow. The work, as a result, may mostly be done by one team member. Yep, the system works pretty much like any non compensated activity. The eager beaver or hard worker inherits the job. Others just fire comments from the sidelines.
Now many procurement teams fly blind, but in my experience, a team can get some outside help from an expert. Tossing in some dough to keep the team on track makes “business sense.” The phrase is a nice method of saying, “The team may go off track. Let’s get a consultant to help.”
What happens? In most cases, the search system does not work. Hence, there is a need to level up. Who needs search? That failed. What our company needs is business intelligence. The fancy phrase “business intelligence” or some other buzzword is a way of tackling an old problem with some “level up” semantic window dressing. By using a fancy phrase, the whole efforts “sounds” much more important.
Most organizations resist change. Need evidence”
How about financial institution reform? Check out the bonuses paid to Wall Street financial executives. How much change has taken place?
Other equally stark examples exist. Look at the staffing challenges for a senior citizen facility. What about finding a “real” job? These institutions can fix their employment problem by changing. But certain constraints are placed on the senior citizen facility’s management. Change is glacial, and many senior citizen facilities operate much as they have for decades. Change is next to impossible so the health method just chugs along in a swarm of fancy words, phrases, and regulations.
Conclusion
What does the mid tier consultant recommend that is concrete?
Zip. Nada. Zero. The big goose egg.
The recommendations are pure filler. The ideas are generalizations that appear to offer guidance but deliver high fat and high calorie tidbits. As a result, the shift from search to business intelligence is word play. The problem is one of information, and it is a tough problem, exactly the type of problem that many organizations are unable to address in an effective manner. Talk will not change the economic realities wrong-headed thinking and management baloney create within a market-driven setting. Just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, December 28, 2010
Freebie unlike the support of most mid-tier consulting firms
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
