• Home
• About

Boston Search Engine Meeting, Day Two

The most important news on Day Two of Infonortics’ Boston Search Engine Meeting was the announcement of the “best paper awards” for 2008. The Evvie–named in honor of Ev Brenner–one of the leaders in online information systems and functions–was established after Mr. Brenner’s death in 2006. Mr. Brenner served on the program committee for the Boston Search Engine Meeting since its inception almost 20 years ago. Mr. Brenner had two characteristics that made his participation a signature feature of each year’s program. He was willing to tell a speaker or paper author to “add more content” and after a presentation, Mr. Brenner would ask a presenter one or more penetrating questions that helped make a complex subject more clear.

Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the Evvie is an attempt to keep Mr. Brenner’s push for excellence squarely in the minds of the speakers and the conference attendees.

This year’s winners are:

• Best paper: Charles Clarke, University of Waterloo. His paper “XML Retrieval: Problems and Potential” explained that XML (Extensible Markup Language) is no panacea. Properly used, XML systems create new ways to make search more useful to users. He received a cash prize and an engraved Evvie award.
• Runner up: Richard Brath, Oculus, for his paper “Search, Sense-Making and Visual User Interfaces”. In this paper, Mr. Brath demonstrated that user interface becomes as important as the underlying content processing functions for search. He received an engraved Evvie award.

Left: Richard Brath (Oculus), center: Stephen E. Arnold (ArnoldIT.com), right: Charles Clarke (University of Waterloo).

This year’s judges were Dr. Liz Liddy, Syracuse University, Dr. David Evans, Just Systems (Tokyo), and Sue Feldman, IDC Content Technologies Group. Dr. Liddy heads the Center for Natural Language Processing. Dr. Evans, founder of Clairvoyance, is one of the foremost authorities on search. Ms. Feldman is one of the leading analysts in the search, content processing, and information access market sector. Congratulations to this year’s Evvie winners.

Read more

Boston Search Engine Meeting, Day One

The Infonortics’ meeting attracts technologists and senior managers involved in search, content processing and information access. For the full program and an overview of the topics, navigate to http://www.infonortics.com.

Summaries of the talks and versions of the PowerPoints will be available on the Infonortics’ Web site on or before May 2, 2008. I will post a news item when I have the specific link.

Background

This conference draws more PhDs per square foot than a Harvard coffee shop. Most of the presentations were delightful if you enjoy equations with your latte. In the last two years, talks about key word search have yielded to discussions about advanced text manipulation methods. What’s unique about this program is that the invited presenters talk with the same enthusiasm an undergraduate in math feels when she has been accepted into MIT’s PhD physics program.

The are often spiced with real world descriptions of products that anyone can use. A highlight was the ISYS Search Software combined useful tips with a system that worked–no PhD required.

Several other observations are warranted:

• Key word search and long lists of results are no longer enough. To be useful, a system has to provide suggestions, names people, categories, and relevance thermometers
• An increasing appetite for answers combined with a discovery function.
• Systems must be usable by the people who need the system to perform a task or answer a question.

Chatter at the Breaks

Chatter at the breaks was enthusiastic. In the conversations to which I was party on Monday, three topics seemed to attract some attention.

First, the acquisition of Fast Search by Microsoft was the subject of considerable speculation. Comments about the reorganization of Microsoft search under the guidance of John Lervik, one of Fast Search’s founders sparked this comment from one attendee: “Organizing search at Microsoft is going to be a very tough job.” One person in this informal group said, “I think some if not all of the coordination may be done from Fast Search’s offices in Massachusetts and Norway.” The rejoinder offered by one individual was, “That’s going to be really difficult.”

Second, the search leader Autonomy’s share price concerned one group of attendees. The question was related to the decline in Autonomy share price on the heels of a strong quarterly report. No one had any specific information, but I was asked about the distribution of Autonomy’s revenue; that is, how much from core search and how much from Autonomy’s high profile units. My analysis–based on a quick reading of the quarterly report press announcements — suggests that Autonomy has some strong growth from the Zantaz unit and in other sectors such as rich media. Autonomy search plays a supporting role in these fast-growth sectors. On that basis, Autonomy may be entering a phase where the bulk of its revenue may come from system sales where search is an inclusion, not the super charger.

Finally, there was much discussion about the need to move beyond key word search. Whether the adjustment is more sophistication “under the hood” with the user seeing suggestions or an interface solution with a range of graphic elements to provide a view of the information space, the people talking about interfaces underscored the need to [a] keep the interface simple and [b] make the information
accessible. One attendee asked at the noon break, “Does anyone know if visualization can be converted to a return on investment?” No one had a case at hand although there was some anecdotal evidence about the payoffs from visualization.

Wrap Up

The second day’s speakers are now on the stage. Stay tuned for an update.

Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2008

Nstein: Joining Other Search Vendors in the Infomercial Parade

Nstein is a company that “delivers a complete lifecycle of solutions tailored for content-driven organizations to define and build a unique online brand experience that leverages assets, increases online revenues and meets customer expectations.” Now it is in the for-fee conference business.

Nstein has joined the parade of vendors running infomercial conferences. The idea is that a vendor hosts a conference, arranges for appropriate speakers, and runs a two- or three-day promotion. This type of infomercial makes sense for vendors for two very good reasons. The money once allocated to independent conference organizers for a booth and maybe a slot on a crowded program gets focused on one idea–the informercial owners’ product.

The second reason is perhaps even more pragmatic–control. An independent conference organizer can put on a panel a critic of a technology. There may be a rare annoyed customer. Even worse, a loud mouth in the audience can ask a difficult question and then make a vendor look like a contestant on “Are You Smarter than a Third Grader” who doesn’t know the answer.

In the good old days, vendors of search systems had user groups. A vendor would invite users to a location. The vendor would talk, and the users would trade ideas, some code snippets, and voice their concerns to management. Well, let me tell you that these became less folksy when the founder-owners of the companies were replaced by smart lawyers and with-it MBAs. The user groups are nowhere to be found in enterprise search and related disciplines. You can still locate a user group in the library world, and one company–Cuadra Associates where owner-founder-wizard Carlos Cuadra–is still running the company.

We are now in the midst of a boomlet of controlled-message conferences. There are many examples; for instance:

The Oracle conferences do double duty. These explain the Oracle way and provide a showcase for specific Oracle products. The Oracle SES10g–Oracle’s search and content processing system loaded with security options–has not had the PR muscle this year. The Oracle shows are combinations of technical evangelism for products like SES10g which has a low profile in some sectors, unabashed sales efforts, and Oracle fun.

Microsoft’s shows are good, but the attendees are sloshing with the particular Kool-Aid distributed by each Microsoft event. At the last Microsoft event I attended, I had to buy an extra duffle to cart home the free goodies, the hard copy documents, baseball caps, and T shirts (pretty good quality at that).

For search and retrieval, Fast Search & Transfer has its FastForward Conference, a Web log, and a stream of publicity that imprints the name of the company and hustles up attendees. This year’s bash attracted more than 1,500 attendees, a number of semi-objective speakers, and a handful of investor types who sniffed for a deal.

Endeca has announced that it will host its search conference this year “to encourage openness, collaboration, innovation among Endeca Developers, Partners, and Owners”. You can read about the 2007 conference here. I wasn’t able to come up with a link to the 2008 program, but I know it’s on the Endeca Web site. Glitch in Google, I suppose.

Not surprisingly, Nstein–a company that has repositioned itself from metatagging system to a broader media / marketing / content management / search solution–in in the game. The conference is “Innovation Leaders Summit 2008″. I am certain you will want to attend and learn about innovation from May 14 to 16, 2008. You can read more here and sign up. The cost is $1,195. (Turn down your speakers, this landing page plays sound. I assume that’s an innovation. There’s also a video on the page, another innovation.)

The agenda includes a track to help you chart a Google strategy. Judging from the program, it appears that there is a wide sweep to the program. Topics span search engine optimization (SEO), federated search, and workflow solutions are on tap. There’s a strong Canadian flavor to the preliminary list of speakers. And, there are Nstein executives on the program as well. When I visited the site (briefly due to the music playing), I saw mostly Nstein executives. The implication is that Nstein has mastered these diverse topics. Most search and content processing senior managers are competent in the any and all topics related to search and content processing, so relying on the firm’s executives makes sense in the sponsored-conference setting.

One plus is that conference will be held in “old” Montréal, a venue which has some wonderful restaurants and a number of interesting shops.

There is a downside to these infomercial conferences, and it’s one that is now having impacts that are not discussed in the professional journals or on specialist Web logs.

First, the messages at these conferences are shaped and channeled. The rough edges of an independent conference include talks that may be critical of a technology or a particular trend. A vendor-owned and vendor-operated conferences reduces the likelihood that the potentially disruptive questioning of a vendor once characteristic of traditional user groups is reduced. Unhappy customers and competitors don’t get to the podium.

Another consequence of vendor-owned conferences is that these are slowly sucking attendees from broader search-related conferences. I don’t want to identify any of these events, but attendance at some search-centric events is beginning to erode. I’m not talking about the SEO conferences. These are thriving because a Web site that’s not “in Google” doesn’t exist for all practical purposes.

The conferences are the more generalized looks at search and content processing. The vendor-sponsored shows are more uptown, and, therefore, pull attendees from the more traditional venues. If traditional conference organizers can’t revivify their offerings, we may lose some important oppotunities to hear objective albeit uneven presentations about search and content processing. Imagine watching TV and seeing only infomercials. As terrible as TV is, a diet of infomercials would present an odd view of reality. No presidential election but quite a few epoxy putty and thigh slimming messages.

The killer, of course, is money. When vendors run their own shindig, the conference companies take a financial hit. Fewer attendees and fewer exhibitors could mean the end of some useful, specialist programs.

I’m still a fan of the old-fashioned, let-the-customer-speak user groups. That shows how out of touch I am. I also like the objective shows. Speakers at these shows aren’t operating within guidelines the vendor lays down.

Stephen Arnold, April 22, 2008

EVVIE at the Boston Search Engine Meeting

Infonoritcs, Ltd. (Tetbury, Glou.) announced that the EVVIE award for the best paper will be awarded on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. Everett Brenner is generally regarded as one of the “fathers” of commercial online databases. He worked for the American Petroleum Institute and served as a mentor to many of the innovators who built commercial online.

The Boston Search Engine meeting attracts search professionals, search vendors, and experts interested in content processing, text analysis, and search and retrieval. Held each year in Boston, Ev, as he was known to his friends, demanded excellence in presentations about information processing.

Sponsored by Stephen E. Arnold (ArnoldIT.com), this award goes to the speaker who best exemplifies Ev’s standards of excellence. The selection committee consists of the program committee, assisted by Harry Collier (conference operator) and Stephen E. Arnold.

Mr. Arnold said, “I saw Ev shortly before he died. One of the things we talked about was selecting good speakers for the Infonortics conference. He asked me, “Is it possible to give special recognition to those who do outstanding work?’ I spoke with Ev’s wife and she agreed that an annual award was appropriate. Harry Collier made the EVVIE a part of the annual Search Engine Meeting. This award is one way for us to respect his contributions and support his life long commitment to excellence.”

The awardee receives a cash prize and an engraved plaque. Information about the conference is avaiable on the Infonortics, Ltd. Web site at www.infonortics.com and here. More information about the award is here.

Don Anderson, Intellas.com, March 20, 2008

ISYS Search Software: A Case Study about Patent Analysis

One of the questions I’m asked is, “What tools do you use to analyze Google’s patent applications, patents, and engineering documents?” The answer is that I have a work horse tool and a number of proprietary systems and methods. On March 7, 2008, the AIIM conference organizers gave me an opportunity to explain to about 40 attendees my techniques.

Before beginning my talk, I polled the audience for their interest in text analysis. Most of those in the audience were engaged in or responsible for eDiscovery. This buzz word means “taking a collection of documents and using software to determine [a] what the contents of the document collection are and [b] identifying important people, places, things, and events in documents,” eDiscovery needs more than key word, Boolean, and free text search. The person engaged in eDiscovery does not know what’s in the collection, so crafting a useful key word query is difficult. In the days before rich text processing tools, eDiscovery meant sitting down with a three-ring binder of hard copies of emails, depositions, and other printed material. The lucky researcher began reading, flagging important segments with paper clips or color bits of paper. The work was time consuming, tedious, and iterative. Humans — specifically, this human — have to cycle through printed materials in an effort to “connect the dots” and identify the substantive information.

You can see a version of the PowerPoint deck used on March 6, 2008, here. The key points in the presentation were:

1. Convert the source documents into a machine-manipulable form. This is a content transformation procedure. We use some commercial products but use custom scripts to handle most of our transformation work. The reason is that patent applications and patents are complicated and very inconsistent. Commercial products such as those available from open source or third - party vendors are not easily customized.
2. Collections are processed using ISYS Search Software. This system — which we have been using for more than five years — generates an index of the documents in the collection, identifies entities (names of people, for example), and provides a number of useful access points by category. We typically copy claims or sections of the abstract and run additional queries in order to pinpoint similar inventions. In the case of Google’s disclosures, this iterative process is particularly important. Google routinely incorporates other patent applications in patent applications. Chasing down these references is difficult without ISYS’s functionality. Keep in mind that other vendors’ systems may work as well, but I have standardized in order to minimize the surprises that certain text processing systems spring on me. ISYS has proven to be reliable, fast, and without unexpected “gotchas”. You can learn more about this system here.
3. Specific documents of interest are then reviewed by a human who creates an electronic “note card” attached to the digital representation of the source document and to its Portable Document Format instance if available. Having one-click access to patent applications and patents in PDF form is essential. The drawings, diagrams, figures, and equations in the text of a document must be consulted during the human analysis process.

The PowerPoint deck is here. What software do you use to analyze patent applications, patents, and engineering documents? Let me know.

Stephen Arnold, March 18, 2008

Google and the Enterprise

On March 4, 2008, I delivered a short talk followed by open discussion at the AIIM Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. The title of my talk was “Google: Disrupting the Traditional World of Enterprise Applications”.

The core idea of my talk is that Google is poised to offer more enterprise applications and services. Most of the attention is directed at what some journalists characterize as “Microsoft Office killers”. That emphasis is incorrect. The more interesting enterprise functions include map-related capabilities and data integration and management functions.

Unfortunately I do not reproduce the online sessions I access when talking in front of an audience. I do not reproduce all of the visuals I use in my PowerPoint deck. Some of these figures come from my studies to which the copyright has been assigned to litigious publishers, an evil breed indeed. If you want to talk to me about an in-person briefing, you can send me email here: ait at arnoldit.com. I’m cutting back on my travel, but I will give your request serious attention. You can also buy copies of The Google Legacy and Google Version 2.0 from Infonortics, Ltd., in Tetbury, Glou. and in April 2008 my new study, Beyond Search: What to Do When Your Search System Won’t Work from Frank Gilbane. Most of the information in this AIIM briefing came from these studies.

Transportation

The first example uses Google’s familiar Maps and Earth service. You can look at digital versions of maps, plot routes, and see the names of local businesses, among other well-worn functions. With a click, you can replace the map with a satellite image. New features make it possible for you to upload data, display thos data on a map, and perform a wide variety of manipulations. The audience continues to enjoy looking at Google’s examples as well as those from clever Google Map hackers. Here’s a St. Patrick’s day Google Map that gives you some idea of the ways in which multimedia data can be embedded in a Google Map.

So what’s this have to do with an enterprise, government agency, or association. Quite a bit. The example I used in my talk is that Google is in the transportation routing, management, and logistics business. Few know about its capabilities in this field. When I asked a Googler about it, the response I received was, “I don’t know anything about that function.” While not surprising to me, the response illustrates how Google’s employees often lack a “big picture” view of what the company’s technical engineers have created and other Googlers have sold.

My example is Google’s transportation routing system in use in San Francisco, California. A Google employee can use a mobile phone to SMS for a shuttle pick up. Google’s automated system receives the request, figures out when a shuttle can be dispatched to the Googler’s location, and SMS es back to the Googler when the shuttle will arrive. The Google system updates the routing information to the human driver of the shuttle who proceeds to the location.

In this way, Google can provide “green” transportation services without the cost and hassle of traditional bus routes. You can read more about this invention in Google patent document US20060149461.

What’s this have to do with the enterprise? The technology disclosed in the patent document suggests to me that Google can use the same sytstem and method to:

• Provide shuttle routing services to municipalities or to private operators of services such as airport shuttles
• Offer cloud-based routing services to trucking and delivery companies
• Apply the functions to broader logistics problems so that data and routing can be displayed in real time.

One of the fastest growing businesses at Google, according to my sources, is what is known as geo spatial services and applications. But Google’s capabilities give it the flexibility to move quickly and without warning into adjacent business sectors such as logistics.

The Google Search Appliance

This section of my talk described the GSA or Google Search Appliance. The enterprise group at Google has its own engineers and sales team. With each version of the GSA, the system improves. With more than 10,000 customers worldwide, Google’s GSA is arguably one of the most widely-used behind-the-firewall search systems. It’s no longer necessary to license a GSA to provide Web site search. Google’s free custom search engine can handle that job.

But the GSA is less interesting to me than the OneBoxAPI. In my talk, I showed several examples of how Google’s OneBox API makes it possible to use the GSA to federate information. (Federation means that a search system takes information from multiple sources and displays one relevance ranked list of results.) But I find laundry lists uninteresting.

The GSA goes “beyond search” as you can see in this Google screen shot I sucked down from the Web before the link went dead.

The tiny red and green bars in the screen shot graphic show the GSA pulling data about the query from a Microsoft Exchange Server. The traditional list of results is enriched with a dynamic view of the subject of the query’s schedule. In short, the GSA lets you pull a colleague’s phone number, schedule, and other related information by typing a first and last name into the GSA search box.

I find this suggestive, but I challenge the audience to tell me if a system can apply a certainty score to each result or provide a one-click way to determine where these data originated. The audience at my talk rarely speaks up, and on this occasion, a few people shook their heads. The others in the audience didn’t know how to query on certainty or lineage and let my question hang unanswered.

Google is working on a system that adds these types of queries to its search system. Information about this function is scarce, and I am now looking through Google’s public information to find more clues. So far, I have a buzz word uncertainty score and a name which may or may not be correct, Dr. Levy. Stay tuned on this subject. You will find a 10-page discussion of this fascinating extension to Google’s search technology in Beyond Search.

What’s this function bring to the enterprise? That’s a difficult question to answer. I think that it would be very useful to have a score such as 79 percent or 21 percent attached to each search result to indicate how likely the information were to be correct. Right now, few people looking for information give much thought to the reliability of data or to their provenance. This technology, if my research is accurate, would allow Google to expand its services to the enterprise for competitive intelligence. Law enforcement, of couirse, would be quite interested in knowing the likelihood of an item’s being accurate.

Wrap Up

Despite the small turnout for the talk, Information Week ran a short news item about one of the examples I used to illustrate my theme. You can read the story here. More information about a less visible Google enterprise application appears in the Entchev TIS Architects Web log. The New Jersey Transit Authority has partnered with Google to allow NJTA customers to plan their trips using Google. You can read this story here.

I’ve posted a PDF version of the PowerPoint deck I used to illustrate my talk. You will find that information on the ArnoldIT Web site on Monday, March 17, 2008. I have to jump through some hoops to create a usable PDF, so don’t look for this deck until Monday, probably about 4 pm US Eastern time.

Stephen Arnold, March 16, 2008

CMS: Houston, We Have a Problem!

The 2008 AIIM show is history.

I spent several days in Boston (March 3, 4, 5, 2008), wondering why the city built a massive concrete shoe box, probably designed by a Harvard or MIT graduate inspired by Franz Kafka and post-Stalinist architecture. It’s obvious no one had the moxie to tell our budding Leonid Savelyev that people expect mass transit, doors to the hotel across the street, and an easy-to-navigate interior. Spend a few hours wandering around this monstrosity, and you may resonate with my perceptions of this facility.

There’s another disaster brewing under the AIIM umbrella. That’s what the in-crowd calls content management. Synonyms in play at this show included CMS, ECMS (enterprise or extreme content management systems), and eDocuments, among others.

These synonyms are a radio beacon that says to me, loud and clear: “We have a way to help you deal with electronic information.” These assurances wrapped in buzzwords make it clear that organizations are: [a] unable to deal with basic storage and findability tasks; [b] confused about how business processes can and should intersect; [c] staggered like a punch drunk fighter with the brutally punishing costs of these eDoc solutions; and [e] scared because a mistake can send them to court or, even worse, jail. No one I met fancied doing a perp walk in an orange suit due to a failure to comply with regulatory mandates, legal discovery, and basic, common sense record keeping.

Folks were pretty thrilled to get a Google mouse pad from the Googlers or a rubber ball with flashing lights in it from Open Text. But amidst the bonhomie, there was a soupçon of desperation.

To me CMS and its step children attempt to make a run-of-the-mill operation into a high-end publishing company. The problem with attempting to embed an intellectual process dependent on information into software is that most people aren’t very good informationists. Using a BlackBerry or an automatic teller machine is not the same as creating useful, accurate, on-point information. CMS has now morphed from managing a static Web site’s content into a giant, Rube Goldberg machine that ingests everything and outputs anything, at least according to the marketers I met.

Electronic information is now a major problem for most employees, senior managers, and vendors. Building a solution that is affordable and satisfies the needs of the Securities & Exchange Commission from Tinker Toys is a tough job. I saw lots of Tinker Toy solutions on offer. I’m genuinely concerned about the problems these systems are exacerbating. “Trouble,” as one cowboy said to his side kick, “is coming down the line.”

This essay highlights the three of my take-aways from this conference and exhibition. According to the chatter, there were more than 2,000 paying attendees who sat through lectures on subjects ranging from “Architecture Considerations in Electronic Records Management Software Selection: to “Pragmatic to Value Add: Will Anyone Really Pay for It?”. There were product reviews disguised as substantive lectures. I suffered some thin gruel that passing as a solid intellectual feast. I heard that another 20,000 people fascinated with copiers, high-speed imaging, and digital information wandered through the charming aircraft hanger of an exhibit hall.

Most of the presenters “follow the game plan”. The talks are in the average to below average grade range. A few are interesting, but finding one is a hit-and-miss affair. This conference housed a Drupal conference, something called On Demand, and the AIIM conference. For my purposes, there’s one conference, and the unifying theme was lots of people talking about electronic information.

What I Learned

Let me compress 18 hours of AIIM experiences into these points:

1. Digital content is a major problem for most organizations. CMS is the band aid, but none of the vendors has a cure for information obesity. None of the customers with whom I spoke using vendors’ solutions are in shape for a digital triathlon. Systems are expensive and flaky. Budgets are tight, and the problems of storing, finding, and repurposing information are getting worse fast.
2. Vendors with hardware solutions that scan paper, print paper, and manipulate digital counterparts of paper are spouting digital babble and double talk. Vendors of quasi - copy machines talk about hardware as if it were bits in a cloud. AIIM has its roots in scanning, micrographics, microfilm, and printing. Hardware — even when it is the size of an SUV — is positioned as software, a system, and a platform. Obviously hardware lacks sizzle. Vendors with software solutions talk about the pot of gold at the end of the dieters’ rainbow. It just ain’t true, folks. It’s a Nike running shoe commercial applied to information. No go. Sorry.
3. Marketing messages are not just muddled; the messages are almost incomprehensible. Listening to earnest 30 - year olds tell me about “enterprise repositories with integrated content transformation and repurposing functionality” and “e - presentment” left me 100 percent convinced that the information crisis has arrived, and the vendors will say anything to get a deal and the buyers will buy whatever assuages their fears. Rationality was not a surplus in these sales pitches.

My stomach rebels at baloney.

The “Real” Problem

Organizations right now are fighting a three - front war against digital information. I know that the AIIM attendees are having a tough time expressing their challenges clearly. The people with whom I spoke can only describe the problem from an individual point of view. Vendors want to be all things to all people. The dialogs among the customers and the vendors are fascinating and disturbing to me. I think the market is in a state of turmoil.

Digital information is a different type of challenge for an organization. On one hand, it eliminates the hassles of recycling some information. Cut and paste is a wonderful function. But if your work processes are screwed up, digital information only creates more problems. If your employees aren’t good informationists, you will produce more dross than ever. You will, of course, do it more quickly which adds to the problem. Furthermore, finding something remains tough. Automated systems are expensive, complex, and fully capable of going off the rails with no warning.

What was crystal clear to me is that most business processes have not been “informationized”, to use a weird verb form I heard at the show. Work flows are based on human actions. Humans are just not very good at “being digital”.

Wrap Up

An inability to handle digital information is a problem of great import. Regulators expect companies to manage digital information. Organizations aren’t set up to deal effectively with the data volume and its challenges — format, versions, volatility, non-textual components, etc. The problem is not getting better. The problem is getting bigger.

One well-fed, sleek senior manager smirked with pride about the huge prices paid by certain firms to acquire enterprise content management companies (ECM or enterprise CMS in the jargon of AIIM). He pointed to two firms — EMC and Hewlett Packard — as particularly adept practitioners of snapping up “hot” companies in order to get “high margin upsides”. “There’s a big market for this high-end solution,” he asserted.

I think this weird MBA speak means that EMC and HP want to buy into a sector with fat margins and semi-desperate customers. This can work, but I am not sure that these two firms’ “solutions” are going to solve the information challenges most organizations now face. EMC wants to move hardware. HP wants to sell printers and ink.

I’m probably wrong. I usually stray into the swamp anyway.

I think information mis-management will bring the direct downfall of some organizations in the next few months. Tactical fixes will not be enough. When an information-centric collapse occurs, perhaps buzzwords will give way to new thinking about digital information in organizations. More meat, fewer empty calories, please!

Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2008

• 
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  

  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleages worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.
•  Only search links from this page:
  

• Search News

  • Bender Forms Group to Promote OLPC's Sugar UI - PC World
  • Analyst: PS3, 360 due for price cuts - GameSpot
  • Cyber Bullying Mom Charged in Suicide In MySpace Case - CRN
  • Apple Signs More Nonexclusive iPhone Deals - InformationWeek
  • Threatened Bear May Hold Health Secrets - Living on the Earth
  • Lawmakers concerned over Charter's Web tracking - The Associated Press
  • Nintendo set to launch "Wii Fit" exercise game - Reuters
  • Poring over Mars pictures - MSNBC
  • Google Maps Could Cross EU Privacy Laws - BusinessWeek
  • Who Is Facebook Trying to Protect? - TechNewsWorld

• Blogroll

  • Alt Search Engines
  • BMOC
  • Enterprise Cloud Computing
  • Pandia
  • Philipp Lenssen

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in