Consultant Identifies Employment Opportunity
March 12, 2011
Read Write Web has the article, “Forrester: Business Intelligence Careers Offer Hope for IT Workers.” It reiterates what we already know: tough job market for information technology workers. Forrester, a consulting firm that often links sweeping generalizations with for-fee reports, recommends that IT specialists should focus their energies on business intelligence.
We learn from this assertion that Developers, integrations professionals, and database administrators are well prepared for BI careers. But—and it is an important caveat—the hopefuls will need to bolster their skills by actively working in business intelligence. Is this somewhat circular?
The article pointed to these consultant observations about business intelligence:
Organizations are increasing investment in this area.
- BI is not easily outsourced and requires quite a bit of face-to-face collaboration with management
- BI projects need to be iterated on a frequent and ongoing basis
- BI hiring is already up dramatically
My colleagues and I at ArnoldIT.com are not sure what business intelligence means. The more we talked about this employment assertion, we concluded that there is a Catch 22 operating: one needs to be working on an active BI project to become familiar with these technologies otherwise one cannot learn the skills. We do agree that information professionals should continue to improve analytical and technical skills.
After reading this article the only thought that came to me was, “really?” Autonomy does not use the phrase “business intelligence”. What’s that tell us? Well, $800 million in revenue suggests that the phrase is probably not necessary to enjoy financial success.
Whitney Grace, March 12, 2011
Freebie
Does the Kayak Have Some Holes?
March 12, 2011
At lunch last week, the ArnoldIT.com goslings talked about travel search. We discussed the system glitches that can plague sites such as Vayama and the interminable page rendering from Orbitz and Travelocity. We also revisited the implications of the Microsoft deal with Kayak.
We talked about the information in “Bing and Kayak: Questions (and Some Answers) on Microsoft’s Latest Search Partnership.” We remembered that there were rumors that Microsoft allegedly wanted to buy the Kayak travel search service. That rumored deal did not work out. We had heard that Kayak was annoyed and thought that a pundit at a conference hinted that Bing Travel emulated some Kayak goodness. We did not notice anything ourselves, but we flap our wings to travel. We don’t fly on executive mailing tubes.
But it sure looks as if Microsoft and Kayak have formed a partnership. The ZDNet write up said:
“Both Kayak and Bing offer completely different user interfaces and different user experiences. Kayak is on the forefront of travel search – and not just flight search. Kayak creates smart technology that allows travelers to find and book travel from hundreds of travel sites at once for flights, hotels, car and cruise travel. Additionally, Kayak offers advanced travel planning, booking and management features, which offer users a comprehensive, accurate and flexible solution to travel.”
Travel seems to be in a state of flux. Google wants ITA. The airlines want to eliminate anyone or any thing that reduces their revenue. Exciting. Too bad travel itself is a less than positive experience.
Whitney Grace, March 12, 2011
Freebie
Blekko Update
March 12, 2011
In addition to filtering content farm baloney, Blekko has made some other changes to its quite useful Web search and retrieval system.
According to “Blekko Launches Link Widget and Embeddable Search Box,” we learned that the new tools are customized search and link transparency through Blekkogear. One new tool is the Blekko Link Roll widget that shows website links in real time. For those wondering if Googlebot will see this as a way to sell page rank, the links use JavaScript. A key point in the article was:
“Blekko also tells WebProNews “As you know, top brands have recently ended up in the headlines, because vendors may have paid for links to sites in order to fool search engines into higher ranking. Blekko is combating this with the link widget, which allows sites to provide the world link transparency.”
The other Web gadget is the Embeddable Search Box. Though the name isn’t that creative, the tool allows site owners to customize searches for specific content with little spam and limited to websites the owners trust.
Both tools are simple, but useful. It’s small endeavors like these that improve the Web search experience.
Whitney Grace, March 12, 2011
Freebie
Is a Facelift Needed for Google Search Results?
March 11, 2011
Plastic Surgeon’s Legal Quest To Facelift Google Search Results is one more question about the output from the popular Web search and retrieval system. In what is now very repetitive information, the Internet search giant, Google is being sued yet again, but this time by Spanish plastic surgeon, Hugo Guidotti Russo. Russo is suing Google because its search engine returns and unflattering article released when Russo was sued for malpractice by a patient that allegedly received a sub par breast surgery.
Let me stop for just a moment to let this sink in…Google is being sued for doing its job and returning relevant search information. Here’s a passage that caught my attention:
“Google’s position, of course, is that the freedom of information should trump the right to forget, and that search giants should not be responsible for grooming individuals’ search results.”
Though the U.S has fielded many lawsuits from disgruntled citizens with embarrassing search results, the US legal process seems to me to be somewhat unsympathetic when the allegation is frivolous.
However, this lawsuit is taking place in Europe and the verdict has the ability to create a mudslide effect in terms of the people’s rights to freedom of information everywhere.
Google is definitely in an interesting position.
Leslie Radcliff, March 11, 2011
Freebie
Another Internet Kill Switch Need
March 11, 2011
Could the UK Government Shut Down the Web? signals that another country wants to have a way to control access via the Internet. This article does a good job substantiating why it is a highly improbable and nearly impossible endeavor.
In Britain the person with the power to flick the “kill switch” is Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. The Civil Contingencies Act and the 2003 Communications Act give Hunt the ability to suspend internet services by ordering internet service providers to close their operations or by shutting off internet exchanges. Here’s a point that struck me as important:
“The problem comes down to the very nature of the internet in developed countries. It is a mesh of networks. It transcends borders and has no definable beginning or end. As a result of this structure it is almost impossible to isolate all the connections.”
While Hunt has the power to shut Britain off from the rest of the world via Internet, he cannot use the power except in times of extreme emergency should the country be threatened. Even then, due to the vast network interconnections and backup network systems, a secondary network system would quickly develop should the primary networks be shut down.
We have seen postings that indicate there are work arounds for “kill switches”. These range from dial up access to more elaborate methods. And what about search? No one seems to care. The issue appears to be Facebook-type and Twitter-like services, email, and the real time flow of information through RSS.
What is clear is that governmental authorities are nervous about what can happen when people use Internet technology to organize and disseminate information. But will turning off the Internet solve the problem or just be a temporary measure. The UK does not want to take a chance it seems. A desktop computer does not lend itself to mobility, but phones and other portable devices change some of the information dynamics due to real time messaging and interaction among one or more individuals.
Leslie Radcliff and Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2011
Freebie
Microsoft Business Intelligence Highlights
March 11, 2011
The push of search and content processing vendors into business intelligence continues. Not surprisingly, Microsoft is in this mini-trend as well.
The Microsoft Developer Network blog has published a “Business Intelligence Recap of 2010.” The article is a top 10 countdown of things to be thankful for. This passage caught my attention:
“One of the key highlights of SharePoint 2010, from my point of view of course, is the integration of PPS into SharePoint 2010, and the slew of new capabilities it now offers. A SharePoint service, PPS gains the scalability and reliability of SharePoint, while enabling rich new business intelligence applications and deployments.”
One can make a case that many enterprise software applications can deliver business intelligence. Is this a fair characterization of a system that shows where cost overruns occur, what supplier delivers parts that consistently meet specifications, or permit a search across email?
We have on this page a Silverlight download, a soccer player, a video, and a couple of cartoons. There are ads and headlines like “one demand sessions” and “business intelligence is here. Does this information define business intelligence? I am still confused.
The problem with business intelligence is similar to the problem with knowledge management. The terms really don’t mean anything unless the vendor makes quite specific statements about functions and features, use cases, and data management services.
My view is that as vendors, including Microsoft, struggle to find a pitch that generates leads, we will have to accept the explanation of what is essentially a content management system or a run-of-the-mill search and retrieval system as something other than what it is.
Marketing is necessary, but when any enterprise software can deliver information and data that could help a person make an informed decision, the phrase “business intelligence” is almost as meaningless as the phrase “enterprise search”.
We will have to live with words and phrases that have no specific meaning for the duration. Perhaps one reason enterprise software is dogged with a reputation for cost overruns and user dissatisfaction is that no one knows that the system is supposed to do? When installed, users realize it does not address user needs. With everyone distracted and in a hurry, defining exactly what is needed and figuring out the optimal solution is, in many cases, just not a very good use of time. Those Facebook messages and the crises that some face every hour are more important than figuring out details. Just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2011
Freebie
Google Search Algorithm: A New Direction?
March 11, 2011
Content, content, content. There is a lot of bad information, some so-so information, and not much high value information available on the public Web. The challenge is to pinpoint the high value information. For Google, the challenge is to identify the high value information and keep the Adwords revenue flowing.
After reading “Google’s New Algorithm Puts Content in the Driver’s Seat“, that word content remained entrenched in my consciousness. The author made some compelling points as he discussed Google’s new algorithm and the role content plays in several aspects of the activities performed online. Citing a noticeable, though not complete improvement to the results of high value search requests, the article expressed both praise for the new formula and relief in what he sees as an overdue shift in the approach to commerce.
One passage I noted was:
“Give them valuable content. Free. Give them plenty of it.”
This certainly seems like sound advice. But I want the information that is germane to my query. Who wants to click through a laundry list of links to find what is needed to meet my information need. I don’t.
Google’s PageRank pivoted a decade ago on the importance of links and a site’s rank. Link popularity works for Lady Gaga. Other types of queries may require content that lack have high click or link scores.
Maybe I am sensitive to coincidences. Google’s change to its method comes on the heels of some legal issues related to indexing and results ranking. Is Google trying to improve relevance, manage some push back, or generate some positive public relations? I don’t have the answers to these questions.
Micheal Cory, March 11, 2011
Protected: JustSystem XML Upgrade and SharePoint
March 11, 2011
Database Tussles: MapReduce and Parallel DBMSs
March 10, 2011
We don’t want to take sides in this fight. The points raised in “MapReduce and Parallel DMBSs: Friends or Foes?” will find plenty of experts who want to support their favorite. The authors of this paper are well known among the database elite. Not surprisingly, the article does a very good job of reviewing the strengths of each approach. The information in the discussion of each approach is quite useful, but for me, the most interesting segment of the write up was the discussion of “Architectural Differences”. I made sure I had a copy of this segment of the analysis because clear explanations of complex data management architectures are tough to locate.
For me, I found the conclusion somewhat obvious but reassuring to both sides in this battle which occupies some:
Most of the architectural differences discussed here are the result of the different focuses of the two classes of system. Parallel DBMSs excel at efficient querying of large data sets; MR-style systems excel at complex analytics and ETL tasks. Neither is good at what the other does well. Hence, the two technologies are complementary, and we expect MR-style systems performing ETL to live directly upstream from DBMSs. Many complex analytical problems require the capabilities provided by both systems. This requirement motivates the need for interfaces between MR systems and DBMSs that allow each system to do what it is good at. The result is a much more efficient overall system than if one tries to do the entire application in either system. That is, “smart software” is always a good idea.
Very useful write up.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2011
Freebie
Protected: SharePoint: Related Searches at Last
March 10, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
