Big Bandits? Apple, Google, or Microsoft
January 16, 2011
I feel enervated when an azure chip consultant forces me to decide which company is not just a bandit, the biggest bandit. Navigate to “WebM vs. H.264: Google Bets Big on Itself.” The write up does a good job of explaining how these large monopolies are trying to become even larger and exert more control over things digital. I am not a video hound, but the goslings and many other folks in Harrod’s Creek cannot get through a day without large doses of kick back, couch potato action. The addled goose? Not so much.
The story quotes a poobah from the azure chip consulting firm, Yankee Group. Here’s the quote I liked:
“The question is, who are you going to trust to not hold standards licensees to ransom? Little MPEG or giant Google?” Howe [Yankee Group expert] asked. “At this point, I don’t think we know who is the bigger bandit.”
Wow. Apple, Google, and Microsoft described as alleged bandits. Exciting.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2011
Freebie, unlike the advice of azure chip consultants commenting about banditry.
Poobah Tilts at Azure Windmill
January 11, 2011
Before reading my comments, point your browser thingy at “Gartner Gets It Wrong With Cloud Quadrant.” Read it. Note this set up paragraph, worded to avoid litigation but worded to make the azure chip outfit “pundits” steam:
The Gartner Magic Quadrant isn’t an entirely accurate, or even objective, measure of who’s who in any given IT field. If you haven’t heard, the analyst firm’s ranking system has been called out as being everything from merely subjective (as opposed, I guess, to being only partially subjective like every other list of industry leaders) to rewarding vendors that have paid Gartner the most money for its services. I can’t comment on these allegations, nor do I care to. What I can say is that with its latest Magic Quadrant for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service and Web Hosting, Gartner just flat got it wrong.
So what’s the subject?
Cloud computing, one of the many, many next big things in computing. Never mind that timesharing and online services have become part of the furniture for living. Cloud computing is a big deal. Gartner sees the cloud revolution one way and the author of the “Gets It Wrong” write up another. I am not sure either is correct. The one true way is a tough path to discern.
Where did Gartner allegedly slip off the gravel path and tumble in the muck? Here’s the passage I noted:
Initially, it seems inconceivable that anybody could rank IaaS providers and not list Amazon Web Services among the leaders.
Yeah, mon. Gartner excludes outfits who don’t match their criteria. Don’t like it. Well, there are some options, which I will leave to your imagination.
What outfits are leaders in cloud ystuff? My view is just check out the vendors in lists like this one. You can get some color on this Y Combinator list here.
🙂
What happens when poobahs fight? Clarity gets trampled. Loss of clarity, just another way to say marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, January 11, 2011
Freebie
Forrester Tips on Metadata. Whoa, Nellie!
January 4, 2011
The growth of the Internet over the past couple of decades has created a massive amount of regulated and unregulated data that can be a headache for enterprises to sort through.
According to the ZDNet article “Metadata Virtualization and Orchestration Seen as Critical new Technology to Improve Enterprise Data Integration,” business leaders are now recognizing that managing and exploiting information is a core business competency that will increasingly determine their overall success. Therefore, they need to invest in technology and often third party solutions that will manage their data for them.
Noel Yuhanna, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research, and Todd Brinegar, Senior Vice President for Sales and Marketing at Stone Bond Technologies help readers better understand these issues in a panel discussion.
The article asserts:
This discussion then examines how metadata-driven data virtualization and improved orchestration can help provide the inclusion and scale to accomplish far better data management. Such access then leads to improved integration of all information into an approachable resource for actionable business activities.
Behind all of the unbelievable double talk and jargon, there is a good point to this article. However, one must winnow.
Jasmine Ashton, January 4, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
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.
Mid Tier Consultant Evokes a Small Search Chuckle
December 22, 2010
Short honk: Mark Harrison’s blog has an interesting post about the “Gartner MarketScope for Enterprise Search.” Take a look at the search ranking charts. Does it appear funny to anyone else? Harrison makes an interesting observation that Gartner claims Microsoft has “surged to a leadership position by offering both effective basic search and more sophisticated search for inward- and outward-facing applications.” We think the rankings are amusing, but even more interesting is the fact that procurement teams believe the rankings.
Whitney Grace, December 22, 2010
Freebie
Search Analyst Evaluation
December 21, 2010
“Analytics, Schmanalytics! How to Evaluate an Analyst” reminds us that analysts, unlike lawyers or accountants, are not professionally licensed and gives advice on how to know you are getting your money’s worth. The conclusion: “If you need analytics help, make the effort to assure yourself that the analyst is technically competent, understands your business and has the communications skills that you need.” Some things to look for are formal education or experience in the specific area to be analyzed, familiarity with businesses similar to yours, and a communication style that will suit the situation in which the presentation will be made, whether it be to your boss or in court. Then again, if a search consultant promises to get you sales leads or sales, you might want to ignore this advice all together.
Alice Wasielewski, December 21, 2010
Freebie
Enterprise Search: Baloney Six Ways, like Herring
December 21, 2010
When my team and I discussed my write up about the shift of some vendors from search to business intelligence, quite a bit of discussion ensued.
The idea that a struggling vendor of search—most often an outfit with older technology—“reinvents” itself as a purveyor of business intelligence systems—is common evoked some strong reactions.
One side of the argument was that an established set of methods for indexing unstructured content could be extended. The words used to describe this digital alchemy were Web services, connectors, widgets, and federated content. Now these are or were useful terms. But what happens is that the synthetic nature of English makes it easy to use familiar sounding words in a way to perform an end run around the casual listener’s mental filters. It is just not polite to ask a vendor to define a phrase like business intelligence. The way people react is to nod in a knowing manner and say “for sure” or “I’ve got it.”
Have you taken steps to see through the baloney passed off as enterprise search, business intelligence, and knowledge management?
The other side of the argument was that companies are no longer will to pay big money for key word retrieval. The information challenge requires a rethink of what information is available within and to an organization. Then a system developed to “unlock the nuggets” in that treasure trove is needed. This side of the argument points to the use of systems developed for certain government agencies. The idea is that a person wanting to know which supplier delivers the components with the fewest defects needs an entirely different type of system. I understand this side of the argument. I am not sure that I agree but I have heard this case so often, the USB with the MP3 of the business intelligence sound file just runs.
As we approach 2011, I think a different way to look at the information access options is needed. To that end, I have created a tabular representation of information access. I call the table and its content “The Baloney Scorecard, 2011.”
Yahoo and a Not So Merry Holiday
December 15, 2010
I am burned out on Yahoo. I did my first Yahoo analysis in 2002, and the company bored me then. I found the Semel and Yang escapades amusing. I even perked up when the Yahooligans made a commitment to search and then generated results for my test queries that left me baffled. Even the new US Department of Treasury search system looks good when compared to Yahoo’s results. For a test, open a new browser window, click on the shopping tab, and do a search for “Angel perfume.” You don’t need the quotes. Here are the first two results. Remember. I want to buy a bottle of perfume.
The hit under the pictures has this headline: “Angel Perfume Is Dangerous.” Click on the link. I get a weird animated page with the title “Clarins and Thierry Mugler Acknowledges that Angel Perfume Is Dangerous.” Great information if I were doing this search on a general Web index: “’Angel perfume danger.” I am not. I want to buy perfume.
This is an example of Yahoo’s search. I hope the Yahoo ad sales people don’t pitch the Angel perfume account. This query is not what I expected. I want to buy the perfume, not learn that it, like any similar substance, will burn or kill me if I drink it. Buy is the operative concept. Run the query on Google Shopping and you get links to buy perfume. The Math Club gets it right. The Yahooligans do not.
“Yahoo Still Silent On Today’s Layoffs, But Employees Vent” did not amuse me. In fact, it forced me think about the trajectory of online services companies. When money is flowing, there is no investment in managing the business. When times get tough, management becomes a tough problem. In fact, some online companies may be unmanageable. Google’s solution is to manage by controlled chaos. After more than a decade of “controlled chaos,” Google is starting to show some signs of strain. I mean two operating systems plus the Google infrastructure, the Buzz thing, the Wave thing, the hassle with every offended Street View weak sister, et al.
Here’s the killer quote from the TechCrunch article cited above:
The atmosphere here has never been worse.
That will keep the blue chip folks busy. Will Yahoo survive? Will a white knight ride to rescue the Yahooligans? Will AOL cut a deal that makes 1 + 1 = 3?
Not sure. What is clear to me is that first AOL lost its way, now Yahoo. The question is, “Which big online outfit is next?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2010
Freebie
A 21st Century Great Chain of Being?
September 4, 2010
As social technologies take hold and challenge the relationships between data, information, knowledge and wisdom within enterprise organizations, a new hierarchy becomes relevant. The Web site cmswire.com explores this interesting theory in a recent article titled, “Social Media Is Challenging Notions of the Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) Hierarchy.” According to the article, social media networks are challenging the historical DIKW model, as described by Jonathan Hey and many before him.
The traditional DIKW model begins with data as unprocessed information, then processed information. Next comes knowledge, then wisdom. The article says that “Social media can speed the capture and dissemination of knowledge. And therefore, the lines between information and knowledge begin to blur. Certainly, the further you move up the hierarchy, the less structured information becomes and the harder it is to capture.”
Interesting points. Some recent DIKW versions are downplaying or omitting wisdom. Knowledge is one thing, but knowing when to use that knowledge requires wisdom. Just a thought. Middle Ages. Great chain of being. Formal social hierarchy. Horses trampling peasants.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Consultants Face the Lash and Backlash
September 4, 2010
Okay, a person gets RIF’ed. Or one gets nuked. Or one gets rationalized. What does one do? One can mail résumés, work on your LinkedIn postings, make phone calls, or become a consultant. Not much is required except printing a business card, creating a free Web page on Weebly.com, and posting to social sites.
Fortunately, as an addled goose, I am unqualified for modern day consulting. Geese in general and this goose in particular is suited to paddling around the pond or making like Jackson Pollock with a car hood as my canvas. However, lots of folks are hanging up their shingle and chasing billable hours.
There are quite a few prospects out there in the present business jungle. A charity’s supporters don’t stuff money in envelopes. Government bean counters kill a program. A company’s profits crater. So, wise managers, accustomed to getting a pay check every two weeks, hire a management consultant to access the situation and recommend solutions.
Here’s a news flash. Instead of growing the company, the consultant’s recommendations backfire, and the outfit the consultant advises enters a death spiral, maybe declaring bankruptcy or selling at a bargain price like mismatched shoes at Carnival Shoe Store, the buy one, get a pair free outfit down the hollow.
Sound familiar? In an article titled “Management Consultancy Scam” the news site nation.com expounds on a fascinating study conducted by the Cranfield School of Management. The article says that “just 36 percent” were happy with the consultant’s results. The strategies pushed by these consultancies are in fact disastrous and hasten the collapse of a company or service.
When folks who depend on a paycheck lose their exoskeleton, what are they supposed to do? Mow grass? Install electric fences? Paint houses? Nope, consult. A feedback loop of sort emerges, don’t you think? Everyone knows how to search. How tough can it be to be a search expert? Trivial for sure. I am “real” certain.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
