Dr. Jerry Lucas, Telestrategies
November 14, 2011
An Exclusive Interview from ArnoldIT.com
In October 2011, I had a chance to talk informally with Dr. Jerry Lucas, an expert in telecommunications and the owner of the Telestrategies conference series. I was quite interested in his views about content processing. His interest spans text and the large volumes of information that accrue in modern telecommunications systems. One theme which threaded thought his observations was the large volume of data that is now available in digital form. I don’t want to denigrate the commercial services who chit chat about “big data” for figuring out which soap detergent is perceived as having a “smiley face” on the brand. I do want to point out that the Telestrategies’ conferences are designed for law enforcement agencies, intelligence professionals, and practitioners who either work as advisors to agencies or as product developers. Put that your AtomicPR water balloon, insert XML tags, and spam the connected world.
The full text of the interview with him appears as part of the Search Wizards Speak series, which is the largest, free collection of first person narratives about information retrieval. The full text of my conversation with him is at this link. The master index for the series is available on the Beyond Search Web site at Wizards Index.
I wanted to highlight two points Dr. Lucas made in our discussion.
First, I asked him, “What is your view of the challenges flows of digital information pose to government professionals working in law enforcement or the intelligence community?” He told me:
First and foremost are the lack of updated laws creating new lawful interception mandates. In the US the last technical mandate law passed by Congress was the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA was passed in 1994 and enacted in 1995. The key players providing today’s communication services used by bad guys—specifically, Apple, Facebook, Google, Second Life, Skype, etc.–are not covered by CALEA mandates nor any other interception assistance laws. These companies have to respond to court orders but these companies don’t have to deploy any infrastructure features to assist law enforcement. I think this is a challenge which must be resolved. A second big challenge law enforcement and intelligence professionals is the lack of educational and budget support by their senior management. As you know, today’s senior management developed professionally in their careers depending on voice calls and e-mail messaging as their prime electronic communications tools. Today many senior managers still make phone calls and send e-mails during working hours and likely watch TV during off hours. So here is my point. To understand what’s needed to police a community you have to live in that community. I call this Policing 101. But Today’s senior managers usually don’t live in the Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Second Life and other cyber space environments as part of their every day activities.
Second, I asked Dr. Lucas, “You have a unique vantage point on some quite interesting technologies. If you were to advise a developer at a large firm specializing in digital information analysis, what would be the three most important features the company should include in their next product release?”
I know you are aware of the phenomenal requirements regarding data privacy or who can access data in a law enforcement agency. Privacy policies and safeguards for open source search in an enterprise can be very lax with regard to a law enforcement agency. Data gathered on a bad guy from a communications service provides under a court order is not fair game for searching over time by law enforcement professional. Those data may have to be erased over time and more. So compliance is an essential characteristic of many products and service. Second, product feature to consider is interoperability with legacy lawful intercept and intelligence gathering products. Interoperability is very important. So called “fork lifts” are rare events in this space and no one in this space wants to see an additional screen introduced in the central monitoring center. I want to emphasize that the user interface must be simple and shouldn’t require the user to be highly computer literate.
I found that the Apple influence is extending beyond the iPhone and iPad crowd. For more of Dr. Lucas’ insights and views, point your browser to the Dr. Jerry Lucas Interview. Information about Telestrategies is located at www.ISSWorldTraining.com.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Softpedia Presents Another All-Encompassing Freeware Clipboard
November 13, 2011
Softpedia now features the Spartan Lite Multi-Clipboard as a free software download. Based on the website’s description, it appears to have some handy features. It reminds me of Evernote minus the graphics editors.
This software sells itself as being more than a clipboard application–it claims to be a complete information center for your computer. Looking at the list it can help you remember a cornucopia of different things: addresses, phone numbers, to-do lists, graphics, recipes, etc. When it boils down to it, basically the program will allow you to see if you’ve typed the same thing before, browse photos and paste them into an email, and other typical clipboard apps functions.
The site description also mentions this version’s shortcomings. It says:
“The Lite version has no time limit and no nags. The only difference between it and the full version is that it can only store 500 permanent clips whereas the full version can store 10,000.”
The purpose of this freeware in theory sounds great, but in reality it is another one of the jack of all trades but master of none applications.
Megan Feil, November 13, 2011
Is Enterprise Search Mission Impossible?
November 13, 2011
Our feeling about enterprise search is that it is difficult, complicated, and nearly impossible. Apparently we are sailing this ocean alone. Emily Rae Aldridge seems to think that the folks over at Polyspot are accomplishing the mission quite effectively. Here’s what we learned: Most people have low expectations for what is considered a usable search engine. Energy and attention in development are often devoted to the “bells and whistles” when that same energy should be put into improving the basics of search itself. Lynda Moulton expounds on the topic in her blog entry, “Why Isn’t Enterprise Search Mission Critical ?”
Why isn’t ‘search’ the logical end-point in any content and information management activity? If we don’t care about being able to find valued and valuable information, why bother with any of the myriad technologies employed to capture, organize, categorize, store, and analyze content. What on earth is the point of having our knowledge workers document the results of their business, science, engineering and marketing endeavors, if we never aspire to having it retrieved, leveraged or re-purposed by others?
Hot trends such as big data analysis and business analytics are just buzzwords if not underpinned by strong search basics. In terms of software, big data analysis and business analytics are enjoying the sharpest current growth. However, are these new approaches tangential? Do they save the user time or energy?
PolySpot thinks information management should turn isolated data into shared information. Through its open search solutions, PolySpot is keeping search mission critical. From their solutions page:
“According to IDC, information system users waste 25% of their time searching for information using multiple applications and spend several hours each week recreating content which, unbeknown to them, already exists.”
In the business world, 25% of any resource is a sizeable investment. Keep search central and invest in software solutions that improve the user’s experience and efficiency.
Information management is a topic near and dear to some of the ArnoldIT members, in particular Constance Ard. She reiterates that “software alone can’t accomplish enterprise search, it requires governance, accountability, processes, and technology.” Even she agreed that Polyspot seems committed to helping organizations accomplish the mission by concentrating on those same factors in their enterprise applications.
Jasmine Ashton, November 13, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google and Microsoft Go Head to Head Over Patent System
November 13, 2011
Google is pointing their finger at Microsoft in a battle over the inner workings of the patent system. Tim Porter, Google’s patent lawyer claims the system is broken and Microsoft is abusing it.
Their strategy has been to capitalize on the large patent portfolio they’ve built up when products like Android get marginalized. They end up making money from the success of other companies’ products. Microsoft’s has responded by saying that they are benefiting because of the natural evolution of a new industry.
Ars Technica said the following in the “Google: Microsoft uses patents when products ‘stop succeeding’” article:
“The Chronicle asked Porter the obvious question: should software be patentable? Porter refused to give a straight answer “There are certainly arguments” that copyright protection is “more appropriate” for the software industry, he said. But he would only say that “the current system is broken,” and that there has been “a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax.”
Back in 1991, Bill Gates became concerned that the industry could end up in standstill if software could be patent protected in the early days because a larger company could patent an integral and common piece allowing them to take all the profit. It seems like this day has come.
Megan Feil, November 13, 2011
Funnelback 11 Released With New and Improved Features
November 12, 2011
Funnelback , a website and enterprise search provider, launched version 11 of its product on October 1st of this year. Funnelback 11 is available on Windows and Linux and also as a cloud service and has an automated tuning engine and search-driven SEO assistant capabilities.
Funnelback 11 also has new features like updatable indexes, efficient crawling, 64-bit indexing and a new high performance search interface.
According to the Funnelback news release “Funnelback 11 Launched with Automated Tuning and SEO Assistant”; Managing Director Brett Matson said of the product:
“Funnelback 11 has the ability to continually and automatically optimise its ranking using a correct answer set determined by the customer. This enables customers to intuitively adjust the search engine ranking algorithm to ensure it continuously adapts and is optimised to the ever-changing characteristics of their own information environment. A related benefit is that it exposes how effectively the search engine is ranking,”
Regardless of the high praise that Funnelback is giving itself, our take on Funnelback 11, and this release in particular, is that its an annoying display content and that maybe they are trying a bit too hard to impress.
Jasmine Ashton, November 12, 2011
Recommind Named 193 in Deloitte Technology Fast 500
November 12, 2011
In case you missed it because this business was moving so darned fast it did not register, predictive information management software company Recommind was recently ranked 193 in the Deloitte 2011 Technology Fast 500.
The Fast 500 is a prestigious ranking of the 500 fastest-growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. Rankings are based on percentage of fiscal year revenue growth during the period from 2006-2010, in which time Recommind’s revenue grew 416 percent.
In the November 1st new release “Recommind Again Named One of North America’s Fastest Growing Companies in Deloitte 2011 Technology Fast 500” Recommind CEO Robert Tennant said:
“One of the few constants in modern business is the exponential increase in corporate data.The struggle to find relevant information is draining the resources of the world’s largest organizations. It affects everyone from the CEO to the director of IT to the in-house counsel to the average employee just trying to find an email. Fortune 500 companies are desperate for a new approach to information management, which is exactly what we give them with products like Axcelerate eDiscovery, Decisiv Search and Decisiv Email.”
I think we’re all excited to see where this company is headed and to watch it stretch and grow.
Jasmine Ashton, November 12, 2011
Google and Logitech: Fool Me Once
November 12, 2011
I am not a TV person. We leave on financial shows and when something exciting happens, one of the goslings will turn up the sound. Otherwise, I ignore the boob tube. Some of the younger goslings at ArnoldIT are rich media wackos. TV on the mobile phone. TV on the iPad. Not me. In fact, I always wondered how the Google professionals would cope with TV. The medium is porky, serial, and generally superficial. The ads have appeal, but as audiences fragment, the value of blasting out a Chevrolet commercial becomes an unwieldy task. Explaining the payoff from TV advertising is also tricky. But it seems logical that selling TV ads is not that much different from selling online ads. No brainer, right? The search part, I assumed, would be a slam dunk. How tough is it to point to a TV show. A no brainer, right?
My knowledge of TV bumped up a notch when I read “Revue This: Logitech Is Done with Google TV after $100M Loss.” Here’s the passage I noted:
At a Logitech-hosted Investors Day event Wednesday, De Luca called the Revue a mistake that cost the company well over $100 million in operating profits. The company, he said, intends to allow the device’s current inventory levels to run out this quarter. It also has no plans to introduce another box to replace the Revue. As for why the Revue was a mistake, De Luca blames the Google TV software for not being ready at launch.
Yep, software. When a software company flubs on software for TVs or iPad apps, I ask, “What is management doing?”
Logitech may have learned the meaning of the idiom “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” TV, software, $100 million. Quite a mix.
Stephen E Arnold, November 12, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Here’s a Reminder about SharePoint’s Power and Potential
November 11, 2011
It has been awhile since we found a suitable SharePoint graphic that met out high standards, but we found one from the MSDN SharePoint Developer Team Blog in the article, “Business Connectivity Services High-Level Architecture in SharePoint.”
What we discovered is that Business Connectivity Services (BCS) was first introduced in SharePoint 2007 as the Business Data Catalog (the two products do build upon the other for those worried about updates and patches). It allows SharePoint to connect with all kinds of external data sources, including CRM and ERP databases.
“BCS provides a developer with a means of pre-defining all the information needed by an application to connect with and manipulate this external data through External Content Types (ECT). The most important aspect of ECTs is that once the developer creates it, the ECT will be available for use by SharePoint users to connect and use the external systems without knowing any code.”
Our new favorite graphic shows how BCS components work together with SharePoint. SharePoint is moving towards high-level architecture with more servers and third party software to make it work properly. Take a glimpse at this image and see how it is set up. It may give you an idea on how to implement SurfRay.
Whitney Grace, November 11, 2011
ISYS Has 16,000 Customers. Did I Goof?
November 11, 2011
I covered six vendors of enterprise search systems in my June 2011 The New Landscape of Enterprise Search. An azure chip consulting firm borrowed a key word from my monograph’s title and put out a report covering twice as many vendors.
Today I read “16,000 Organizations Worldwide Now Boost Their Productivity with the ISYS 1-Click FileFinder.” In a write up about AtomicPR’s spam attack on me and the MarkLogic “reinvention of itself as more than a file markup and repository outfit,” I mentioned ISYS Search Software was licensing its connectors, essentially software widgets that allow one system to ingest the files from an incompatible system. So ISYS, ISYS, ISYS.
Years ago I met the founder of ISYS Search Software in Crow’s Nest in a suburb Sydney, Australia. I recall a very interesting lunch in a restaurant that was almost next to the ISYS headquarters. Very interesting those Australian engineers. At the time, I was doing something for some outfit sponsoring the international chief of police conference or some similar intelligence-type event. I was one of the speakers and a guest of the Australian government. In my spare time, I was either watching folks shoot red kangaroos or visiting search and information retrieval experts. After the visit, I did some work for Ian Davies, the founder. His role has changed, and I have lost track of him, his senior sales professional, and the senior engineer whom I met that day. Distance and time I suppose.
I have drifted away from ISYS because I learned that the company–despite a new president, new lines of business like licensing connectors, and introducing file finding utilities—was not hitting my radar with the sort of information I am now tracking. No problem, of course. Quite a few search vendors have changed their spots or at least their marketing pitch faster than a rap star who signs a movie deal. Examples range from Coveo becoming a customer support solution provider to Vivisimo’s puzzling “information optimization.” Other vendors have gone quiet like Dieselpoint, an XML centric search system vendor. Others have found themselves on the receiving end of a dump truck filled with cash. Think InQuira, Autonomy, Endeca, and RightNow to name four vendors who are now happily within giant corporate shells thinking about which island to buy.
My understanding is that ISYS generates about one third of its revenue from the US and the balance from elsewhere. Although the UK is a good market for ISYS, the company’s stronghold is Australia. This raises what I call “the Canadian question.” Ah, you ask, “What’s Canada got to do with Australia and ISYS?”
Here’s my point. When determining how much revenue one of my ventures can generate in Canada, I take the US revenue and then figure that Canada will product 10 percent of that amount. The reason has to do with population, appetite for the sort of products my team produces, and experience. The 10 percent can be five percent, or it could be 15 percent. However, 10 percent is a good rule of thumb.
Therefore, if a company in Australia generates $10 million a year in that country of 23 million people, then it follows that the US with its population of 308 million should produce revenue of about 12 to 13 times the Australian revenue. If we assume that ISYS is generating $10 million from the land down under, I would expect $120 million from the land up above.
I may be off base, but in our research for The New Landscape of Enterprise Search, I did not find data to support that ISYS was generating revenue in this range. Therefore, I decided to exclude the company from my monograph.
The azure chip consulting firm replete with home economics majors, a handful of former journalists, and a couple of failed webmasters sees the world differently. I think the reason is that the azure chip outfit uses its reports as sales collateral. I don’t have any first hand experience with the “real” consultants in enterprise search, but after reading some of these reports, I formed my own opinion. Yours may differ.
To answer the question, “Did I goof by not including ISYS along side Autonomy, Endeca, Exalead, Google, Microsoft, and Vivisimo?,” The answer is, “I don’t think so.”
Hoping a vendor is competing with the likes of Autonomy, Endeca, Exalead, etc. is one thing. Actually beating these firms in major accounts is a different one. Just my opinion, and I look forward to the push back from the “experts” who know more than I, aggrieved company executives who want me to revisit my conclusions about which companies are altering the landscape of search, and the “real” consultants who will swarm over my view point.
Have at it kids. Sales revenues matter. When someone plops down $1.2 billion as Microsoft did for the Fast Search & Technology system or the interesting $10 billion for Autonomy, I will make another pass over the “big six.” Until then, I need to hear first hand about how non US firms cope with my Canadian rule of thumb. I quite like the ISYS technology. But for Landscape, revenues play more of a role than technology.
Stephen E Arnold, November 11, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google Apps Sales Data Allegedly Accurate
November 11, 2011
Navigate to “GM Is Latest Battleground between Microsoft Office and Google Apps.” In the midst of he-said, she-said about the GM (either General Motors or Government Motors) account. Forget whether Microsoft or Google lands the deal. The data that surprised me appeared in this passage:
If GM were to deploy Google Apps to the 100,000 seats it has apparently contracted to study, it would be a huge win for Google. No other customer approaches that scale: The City of Los Angeles signed a contract for 30,000 Google Apps seats two years ago, but only 17,000 seats have been rolled out, with the LAPD still stalling. Genentech has about 15,000 users; KLM about 11,000 users, Valeo about 30,000, the U.S. General Services Administration about 17,000, and Rentokil about 35,000.
I found the customer counts interesting and somewhat more modest than I expected. But I don’t use either Google Apps or Microsoft Office. That 2002 version of Framemaker works like a champ for me.
Stephen E Arnold, November 11, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
