Google and the Enterprise
March 16, 2008
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!
March 7, 2008
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
