Bob Boiko, Exclusive Interview
April 9, 2009
The J Boye Conference will be held in Philadelphia, May 5 to May 7, 2009. Attendees can choose from a number of special interest tracks. These include strategy and governance, Intranet, Web content management, SharePoint, user experience, and eHealth. You can get more information about this conference here.
One of the featured speakers, is Bob Boiko, author of Laughing at the CIO and a senior lecturer at the University of Washington iSchool. Peter Sejersen spoke with Mr. Boiko about the upcoming conference and information management today.
Why is it better to talk about “Information Management” than “Content Management”?
Content is just one kind of information. Document management, records management, asset management and a host of other “managements” including data management all deal with other worthy forms of information. While the objects differ between managements (CM has content items, DM has file, and so on) the principles are the same. So why not unite as a discipline around information rather than fracture because you call them records and I call them assets?
Who should be responsible for the information management in the organization?
That’s a hard question to answer outside of a particular organizational context. I can’t tell you who should manage information in *your* organization. But it seems to me in general that we already have *Information* Technology groups and Chief *Information* Officers, so they would be a good place to start. The real question is are the people with the titles ready to really embrace the full spectrum of activities that their titles imply
What is your best advice to people working with information management?
Again, advice has to vary with the context. I’ve never found two organizations that needed the same specific advice. However, we can all benefit from this simple idea. If, as we all seem to believe, information has value, then our first requirement must be to find that value and figure out how to quantify it in terms of both user information needs and organizational goals. Only then should we go on to building systems that move information from source to destination because only then will we know what the right sources and destinations are.
Your book “Laughing at the CIO” has a catchy title, but have you ever laughed at you CIO yourself?
I don’t actually. But it is always amazing to me how many nervous (and not so nervous) snickers I hear when I say the title. The sad fact is that a lot of the people I interact with don’t see their leadership as relevant. Many (but definitely not all) IT leaders forget or never knew that there is an I to be lead as well as a T. It’s not malicious, it has just never been their focus. I gave the book that title in an attempt to make it less ignorable to IT leaders. Once a leader (or would be leader) picks the book up, I hope it helps them build a base of strength and power based on the strategic use of information as well as technology.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a company based in Denmark?
Janus and his crew are dynamite organizers. They know how to make a conference much more than a series of speeches. They have been connecting professionals and leaders with each other and with global talent for a long time. Those Danes get it and they know how to get you to get it too.
Peter Sejersen, J Boye. April 9, 2009
Exclusive Interview with David Pogue
April 8, 2009
This year’s most exciting conference for online professionals in Philadelphia is now only four weeks away. In addition to top notch speakers like David Pogue, the networking opportunities at a J. Boye conference are excellent.
One attendee said, “What I like about the J. Boye Conferences is that they bring together industry experts and practitioners over high-quality content that seems to push participants’ professional limits and gets everyone talking. So if you want to learn – but participate as well – consider joining us in Philadelphia this May.”
Instead of product pitches, the speakers at a J. Boye conference deliver substance. For example, among the newest confirmed case studies are Abercrombie & Fitch, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Pan American Health Organization, Hanley Wood and Oxford University (UK).
For a preview of what you will experience. Here’s an exclusive with David Pogue, technology expert and New York Times’s journalist. Sign up here and secure one of the remaining seats.
Why is Google so much more used than its competitors?
Mostly because it’s better. Fast, good, idiotproof, uncluttered, ubiquitous. There’s also, at this point, a “McDonald’s factor” happening. That is, people know the experience, it’s the same everywhere they go, there’s no risk. They use Google because they’ve always used Google. It would be very hard, therefore, for any rival to gain traction.
David Pogue, one of the featured speakers at JBoye 09 in Philadelphia May 5 to 7, 2009.
When will Gmail become the preferred email solution for organizations?
August 3, 2014. But seriously, folks. Nobody can predict the future of technology. Also, I’m sure plenty of organizations use it already, and it’s only picking up steam. Gmail is becoming truly amazing.
Will Google buy Twitter – and what will it mean if they do?
I don’t know if they’ll buy it; nobody does. It would probably mean very little except a guaranteed survival for Twitter, perhaps with enhancements along the way. That’s been Google’s pattern (for example, when it bought GrandCentral.)
Why is it so hard for organizations to get a grip on user experience design?
The problems include lack of expertise, limited budget (there’s an incentive to do things cheaply rather than properly), and lack of vision. In other words, anything done by committee generally winds up less elegant than something done by a single, focused person who knows what he’s doing.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a Denmark-based company?
Because they obviously have excellent taste. 🙂
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
Cirilab: Entity Extraction
April 6, 2009
I took a quick look at Cirilab in order to update my files about entity extraction vendors.
Cirilab develops practical search, retrieval and categorization software designed to increase organizational productivity by effectively harnessing key knowledge resources. Cirilab offers a range of advanced analysis and organization applications and tools.
I learned about the company when another consultant sent me links to several online demonstrations of the Cirilab’s technology. I located an older but useful discussion of the Crilab technology here. You can explore a Wikipedia entry about Winston Churchill here and a document navigator of Sir Winston’s writings here. The engine generating these demos is called the KGE or Knowledge Generation. The idea is that KGE can process unstructured text and generate insights into that text.
Source: http://www.cirilab.com/TSMAP/Cirilab_Library/Literature/Winston_Churchill/WikiKMapPage/index.htm
The company’s enterprise solutions include vertical builds of the KGE:
- Publishing. The Web Ready Publishing service allows an organization to take unstructured data in WordPerfect, Word, Adobe PDF, HTML, and even Text files, and publish it in a Web Ready Publishing format so that it is instantly available to your customers in a thematically navigable format.
- Pharma. Cirilab can “read” the documents and therefore allow “mining” of existing data.
- Legal. KGE permits discovery of information.
- Security and intelligence. Cirilab products provide unique insights into this information not otherwise available.
The company offers a range of desktop products. These are excellent ways to learn about the features and functions of the Crilab’s KGE system.
More recently, Cirilab has succeeded in developing and bringing to market a core suite of technologies known as KOS (Knowledge Object Suite) based on its Multidimensional Semantic Spatial Indexing Technology.
You can register and receive a free, thematic map of your Web site. The company is located in Ottawa, Ontario. You can get more information here.
Stephen Arnold, April 6, 2009
Adhere Solutions: Sticky Solutions and Connectors
March 31, 2009
I like Adhere Solutions’ software. I should. The company was conceived by my son, Erik S. Arnold. He once worked with the goslings, but he flew the coop to Chicago and services clients worldwide with his sticky solutions and connectors technology. Stuart Schram IV, one of ArnoldIT’s top geese, interviewed Erik Arnold. The full text of the conversation appears below. After the interview, you can read the full text of the Adhere Solutions news release about its newest product
Erik S. Arnold, Adhere Solutions. Quite Googley and reliable I wish to add.
What’s an Adhere?
Adhere Solutions is a Google Enterprise Partner providing products and services that help businesses create solutions based on Google and other cloud computing technologies. We have an experienced team of consultants to help our customers leverage Google’s Enterprise products (Search, Maps, Apps) to create business applications that improve access to information, communication and collaboration. Adhere will compliment Google’s enterprise products with other software and services to meet clients’ needs. Using Google as a foundation delivers applications faster and cheaper than traditional enterprise software approaches, while making end users happy. Few managers understand how they can create high-end solutions leveraging Google technologies.
Why are you providing connectors?
Connectors are an important piece of the puzzle to take advantage of Google technologies. For the GSA, it allows users to search across different sources of information inside an enterprise. I call the the Google Search Appliance a “SaaS in the Box,” because you can do sophisticated things with it if you leverage its APIs. However, you do have to have a good deal of search expertise to use the advanced capabilities.
Adhere Solutions wants to make it easy for GSA customers to index their enterprise data, and our connectors bridge the gap between the GSA and internal content stored in databases, document management systems, etc. This approach is the same as other enterprise software solutions, but customers are shielded through expensive professional services and setup fees. We want to educate the marketplace that they can use the GSA to perform these functions with connectors for a lower cost.
What’s a typical use case for your software?
Good question. I think that connectors in a search environment are easier to understand. We have a customer at a government agency that wishes to index a Documentum system with Google. Our connector extracts the data from Documentation, processes the data, and feeds it to the GSA. This process takes place on a server that outside of the GSA.
Image source: http://homepages.ius.edu/USTEWART/super_glue.jpg
A major reason for our investment in connectors, though, has to do with improvements to Google Apps. Google recently announced its visualization tools (http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/03/charts-charts-charts.html), so it is now possible to send selected enterprise data into Google Apps and have access to real-time visualization of your enterprise data. This to me is groundbreaking, I think that it is very cost efficient way to create business intelligence applications in a Google interface.
Can you deliver custom connectors?
We can build custom connectors, but we tend to license our connectors from established software vendors. Connecting into enterprise systems is not new, it is just that until now, no one has packaged a high end connector suite for the GSA. For lack of a better term, Adhere Solutions is more of an integrator than a software company. We use existing high quality products whenever we can.
How does a connector differentiate you from other GSA specialists?
Adhere Solutions is unique in that everyone involved has many years of enterprise search experience. Our goal as a company is to introduce Google into higher end search procurements. While Google Search Appliance is easy to get up and running, it is not uncommon to need help with basic search tasks. What is easy to Google is not easy for everyone. There are many fine GSA specialists who can help with basic setups, but we see ourselves as unique in delivering Google for high end solutions.
How do people reach you?
Write me: erik at adheresolutions dot com or call. Our number is 800 799 0520.
Here’s the full text of the Adhere Solutions news release:
Adhere Solutions Expands Its All Access Connector Suite For the Google Search Appliance to Include Enterprise Content Management Systems
Businesses now can provide employees greater access to enterprise data through the Google Search Appliance’s popular interface
Chicago, IL — March 31, 2009 — Today, Adhere Solutions, a certified Google Enterprise Partner, announced that its All Access Connector for the Google Search Appliance includes instant connectivity to over 30 popular enterprise content management systems, including EMC, Documentum, eRoom, IBM FileNet, and Lotus Notes, Interwoven’s TeamSite and Work Site, Microsoft SharePoint, Open Text, Oracle Stellent, Xerox Docushare and many more.
Adhere Solutions’ connector suite for the Google Search Appliance allows users to find information stored in disparate data sources and applications with Google’s user interface. This relieves users from having to separately search within each application and information repository. The Google Search Appliance combined with the All Access Connector empowers companies to efficiently unify information access and help users quickly find information to effectively perform their job.
“Users don’t particularly know or care about the subtleties of universal search vs. federated search – their mission is not to search, but rather to find. They are also not terribly interested in knowing WHY they cannot search for certain information,” said Dan Keldsen, noted Findability expert, Co-founder and Principal at Information Architect (www.InformationArchitected.com). “If factors in their findability frustrations have been because Google ‘couldn’t get there from here’ – the odds just significantly improved that the Google Search Appliance will be able to search across ALL of your information, rather than the ‘web native’ content Google is known for.”
Indexing connectors for enterprise content management systems are the newest addition to Adhere Solutions’ All Access Connector for the Google Search Appliance, which already includes federated search access to over 5,400 internal and external databases, repositories, subscription content sources, data feeds and business intelligence applications. With this addition Adhere Solutions delivers a suite of secure connectors to reduce the complexity and cost of searching across enterprise data repositories.
“Many organizations struggle with how to unlock their data when they have multiple content and document management solutions dispersed throughout their organization.” said Erik Arnold, Co-founder and President of Adhere Solutions. “We want every manager, IT or otherwise, to know that we enable the Google Search Appliance to provide enterprise search better, cheaper, and faster than other approaches.”
About Adhere Solutions
Adhere Solutions is a Google Enterprise Partner providing products and services that help businesses increase productivity through the accelerated adoption of Google and other technologies. Adhere’s experienced team of consultants help customers leverage Google’s Enterprise Search products, Google Maps, and Google Apps to create business applications that improve access to information, communication and collaboration.
For more information on Adhere Solutions products or services visit the company’s Web site at www.adheresolutions.com or write info@adheresolutions.com.
###
If you would like more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with Erik Arnold, please contact Amy DiNorscio at (312) 380-5772 or write to pr@adheresolutions.com
Stuart Schram IV, March 31, 2009
Journalists Struggle with Web Logs
March 30, 2009
Gina M. Chen asked, “What do you think?” at the foot of her essay “Is Blogging Journalism”. You can read her write up here. My answer is, “Nope. Web logs are a variant of plain old communications.” Before I defend my assertion, let’s look at the guts of her essay is that “fear of change” creates the challenge. She asserted that blogging is a medium.
Web logs are not causing traditional media companies to collapse. Other, more substantive factors are eroding their foundations. Forget fear. Think data termites.
Okay, I can’t push back too much on these points, which strike me as tame and somewhat obvious. I also understand the fear part mostly because my brushes with traditional publishers continue to leave them puzzled and me clueless.
The issue to me is mostly fueled by money. Here’s why:
More Online Advertising Deep, Deep Thinking
March 29, 2009
TechCrunch has a “steel cage match” underway. A Wharton professor found himself in the spotlight with some amazingly naive assertions about making money online. Today I read “Steel Cage Debate on the Future of Online Advertising: Danny Sullivan Vs. Eric Clemons” here. In my opinion, the steel cage metaphor is in itself a good way to generate traffic in order to add some steroids to the TechCrunch advertising biceps brachii.
Advertising thrives on traffic in the way muscle tissue responds to steroids.
I want to do my part in fanning the flames of this intellectual Bessemer furnace. If you are not familiar with the Bessemer method, you will want to refresh your memory about the function of draughts of air blown through coal here. The Bessemer process was abandoned in the 1950s, which provides some color for my comparison.
The spectacular but remarkably wasteful Bessemer process produced some productivity gains, but by the 1950s better methods were found. Online advertising cage matches share some similarities in their inefficient production of heat and sparks.
Here’s this week’s cage match synopsis:
Search engine marketing wizard Sullivan: Advertising will be big on the Internet.
Ivory tower behemoth Clemons: I agree but trust is a big deal. Internet advertising will account for about 20 percent of online revenues in five years.
Let’s step back.
What’s going on is a shift in proportionate spending. The revenue revolution was the Idea Lab notion that people with Web sites would pay for traffic. The big idea here is that a person would spend money to get clicks. The model is not revolutionary. Paying for traffic was a consequence of a property of electronic information; namely, magnetic centers exist which attract the majority of users. Internet traffic is not distributed evenly or randomly. To get in the flow costs money.
Newssift Technical Plumbing
March 23, 2009
Thanks to the readers who sent me information about the new “test version” of the Financial Times’s news service. I hope it revives the Financial Times as an online financial news source. I know that the FT has a solid brand and great potential.
Some of the information about vendors pointed back to TechCrunch; other readers just made statements which I will pass along for additional comment / correction. Here’s the line up:
- Endeca–the guided navigation company
- Nstein–content management (started life as a content processing company but changed and now reports record revenues)
- Lexalytics–the new entity formed with the merger / fusion of Lexalytics (sentiment analysis) and Infonic (information management)
- ReelTwo–search, data analysis, and “custom portals”.
My take on this use of multiple technologies:
First, the Financial Times’s beta makes clear that no single search and content processing system can meet the needs of a client like the Financial Times.
Second, the Financial Times implemented a try try try strategy before taking a clear sheet of paper and figuring out how to make its content more accessible to its target user group. I don’t think I can estimate the cost of the present system because it makes clear that earlier efforts at search failed. Those “sunk” and “opportunity” costs are wiped away, but a full accounting of the total cost of making FT information available to its users is more than today’s chief financial officer wants to put on his / her books for an ROI calculation. The same multi year investment in search plagues another European publishing company as well. The problem is not unique to the FT, and that’s important. The shift from traditional publishing business models and methods to Internet models is neither easy nor obvious.
The main FT.com splash page with a welcome screen that obscures the news I wanted to view.
Third, who is the intended user? The site offers a number of powerful functions. The folks who want these types of online operations may already have them available without charge from such places as http://finance.google.com, http://finance.yahoo.com, or (hold your breath) American Online here. As a side note, the AOL service (linked to via Google Finance) runs on the potent Relegence platform here.
The America Online splash page for business and financial information. Note: the information is not obscured by a pop up greeting. Remember. This is the deeply challenged America Online and it is handling business information with its own technology, not a collection of four discrete systems.
Fourth, I think the FT is late to the party. Maybe too late? The company has knuckled down to create Newssift, but the window of time for making big traffic gains has closed. Financial information and analytic tools are available to investors with online brokers such as Fidelity and TDWaterhouse. Business news is available from high traffic outfits like Yahoo News and lower profile services such as Newsflashr.
Fifth, one wonders if the price tag for integrating the various technologies has been tallied. What happens when one of the three or four vendors makes a change? I don’t have sufficient data to estimate these costs. Perhaps the costs are trivial? Somehow I doubt it.
In short, the FT is trying again. Like other companies shifting from dead tree business models to the crunchier online variety of business model, the timing is not optimal. I wish the FT and its vendors good luck and fair weather. My weather charts predict stormy seas ahead followed by a flood of red ink rushing from different points on the compass.
Stephen Arnold, March 23, 2009
Search Roll Up with CMS and eDiscovery
March 14, 2009
Two roads once diverged in a yellow wood. Now three roads merge into one muddy path. Why? Read on.
I read Barb Mosher’s “The Converging Paths of Search, eDiscovery and Enterprise CMS” here. My first pass through the article was swift. Then I went back through the write up thought about the Autonomy approach to growth: acquisitions, most recently in the eDiscovery sector. The article tackles end to end plays practiced by Open Text. The conclusion stressed that convergence is the path forward. On the surface, this view is supported by received wisdom and the actions of some high profile companies.
My view is somewhat different. First, I think search for some companies is indeed a dead end. The search technology is growing long in the tooth, and companies looking for solutions want to try newer approaches. One example is Google’s success with its Google Search Appliance, a system that certain large vendors find easy to criticize. The system may be simplistic, but the GOOG provides a potent way to make the GSA sit up and roll over. Furthermore, with about 25,000 appliances sold, the GOOG is the largest vendor of search solutions in the world. Other systems with newer technology that some big name vendors are selling in a lousy economy at a steady pace; for example, Coveo, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software.
Putting search, content management and eDiscovery in one system means a miserable path forward for the organization taking such an approach.
So what do big guys with no organic do to grow? Answer: buy promising opportunities. The fuel behind some of the acquisition activity is an inability to grow within a core market in an organic way. A short cut is needed. With some PR spin and a boatload of journalists looking for an angle, the notion of convergence gets a new lease on life.
Enterprise software is a complicated business. No company wants to have one system handle multiple tasks. The complexity of information and the context for certain content functions requires some granularity.
Database Content: Take or Use
March 12, 2009
You may want to read Out-Law.com’s “Database Infringements Depend on Taking, Not Usage of Data” here. The article tackles an issue that has triggered a European Court of Justice ruling. For me the key statement in the Out-Law.com synopsis of the ruling was:
The Directive protects against “extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or of a substantial part…of the contents of that database”. The ECJ said that infringement was independent of the use to which someone wants to put the information.
Does this ruling matter in the US or elsewhere?
In my opinion, the ruling underscores the difference between how a person who compiles and provides access to that specific compilation of data perceives the value of the data and the person who wants to repurpose some of the data in that database. I am no lawyer, but I do work with clients who can click to a Web site and find useful information; for example, the data available from a government Web site or the patent information I have compiled for my Google patent search service.
Software can now slice and dice data. A programmer can make many information “meals” with these amazing software tools.
There are different ways to view the structured data such as airline flight information or condos for sale in Baltimore, Maryland or loosely structured data such as an RSS feed or well formed XML documents.
An innovator / entrepreneur can see these data as raw material for something new. The idea is that individual data items may gain utility when assembled or organized in a way different from the way the information appear on a specific Web site. Because the information are viewable in a browser, it seems to the innovator / entrepreneur that the data or their constituent elements like a phone number are like molecules in a mixture. These can be combined without losing their original chemical structure. The data are publicly available, so the data are meant to be used.
Dead Tree Update: Times Roman Edition
March 7, 2009
Robert K. Blechman’s “The Decline and Fall of the Times Roman Empire” seemed at first glance to have little to do with my interests in search, content analysis, and text processing. You will want to read the essay in BlogCritics here. The article begins with the Times’s decision to sell its building. Once this was a great MBA notion. Now it suggests moving from a Long Island mansion to a trailer park in New Jersey. My metaphor, not the cultured Mr. Blechman’s. The Times has a number of businesses that are performing in a sub par way. Mr. Blechman provides useful background information about the information environment. His analysis is sound. For me, the most important point was:
How I see traditional media working to make newspapers, broadcast radio and television, and blockbuster motion pictures money earners in the Twitter Era. Source: http://thusagricola.com/wp-content/uploads/sisyphus.jpg
Having consolidated their smaller competitors out of existence, the declining newspapers can’t use the same trick that they used in the face of broadcast journalism, that is exploiting “local advantages in providing information to readers and connecting advertisers and consumers in a city.” This opportunity has been sucked away by the Internet.
I quite liked the phrase “sucked away by the Internet.”
Good writing. Incorrect view of reality in my opinion.
My view of this situation is distorted by my interest in search and my experience in traditional and electronic publishing. Points of importance to me not referenced in the write up include:
- Electronic aggregators tried to work with established traditional media. The Business Dateline crafted by Ric Manning (Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co.) with some modest inputs from me and others on the team had to work quite hard to [a] explain what online meant as a revenue opportunity and [b] how electronic content different from print media. Believe me. We tried, and we arrived with the seal of approval of an old line monopolistic newspaper company. Didn’t matter. The mental leap was too great for those steeped in print. Sad thing is that even today, the leap is too great. Most traditional print wizards are clueless about the differences in the media.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
