Exalead: Moving the Front Line
January 26, 2009
A happy quack to the reader in California who sent me an update on Exalead. In the last 10 days, I have received a steady flow of news. The company continues to make headway in the US market.
The company has announced CloudView OEM Edition 5.0. This is a version of the product that can be embedded in third- party applications. The product has been designed for independent software vendors and software as a service providers. The OEM edition includes performance improvements with tweaks to make embedding easier and quicker. The product, as I understand it, can be used to add search and sophisticated content processing functions to email, CMS, call center, and other information centric applications.
Paul Doscher, CEO of Exalead said:
As the use of traditional Web and Web 2.0 technologies including wikis, instant messaging, social networking, and collaboration has proliferated within the enterprise, users have come to expect the same simplicity, speed, and scale from their enterprise software providers. The challenge for ISVs is to provide that same experience in their search capabilities without sacrificing the security and precision required for enterprise use. Exalead CloudView OEM Edition helps them deliver on that challenge.
(Note: you can read an exclusive January 2008 Beyond Search interview with Mr. Doscher here.)
Features of the new product include:
- Ability to deal with petabytes of data
- Aggregation, collation, and normalization of data from disparate structured and unstructured sources; for example, HTML, Microsoft Office documents and other files scattered across corporate servers, data located at SaaS providers, active and archived e-mail, relational data, proprietary application data, etc.
- Support for fuzzy and precise relevancy
- Small CPU and disk footprints
- Scalability to handle spikes
- High peak user concurrency
- Support for existing interfaces, security models, and data source
- Multi language support.
In my April 2008 Gilbane Group report Beyond Search I highlighted Exalead’s architectural advantage. Based on my research, Exalead and Google tackle scaling and performance in somewhat similar ways. (Note: the founder of Exalead was a senior AltaVista.com engineer. You can read an interview with François Bourdoncle here.)
Fast Changes: Ancient Norse Myth Becomes Reality
January 23, 2009
Fast Search & Transfer was the “Google of Scandinavia.” Its engineers–among the best in the world. The leader, Dr. John Lervik, ranked as an equal to the wizards at Autonomy, Endeca, Google, and Yahoo. He was–metaphorically speaking–a modern day version of the Norse god Thor.
Thor was the god of thunder. As a god, Thor was pretty impressive. His mistress carried an iron cutlass and was skilled in karate. Thor’s eyes (which I think meant vision and understanding) flashed lighting, er, allegedly flashed lightning since I have never seen Thor to check this out myself. Thor had everything going for him until he set out from his house in Thrudheim (maybe today’s Trondheim, the legendary place of might) to kill Jormungand, the Midgard Serpent. I think the idea is that the snake is a bad guy and Thor has to kill this creature. Short version: snake wins.
Is this Norse myth about to be reenacted? When I was in high school, I wondered how the weird stuff in myths could have been true. Now, the resignation of John Lervik (the Thor of search), may be off on a mission to kill his own Midgard Serpent. I wish him luck. I think myths have corollaries in our world.
Thor prepping for his battle with the Midgard Serpent. Source: Linsdomain.com
Mr. Lervik appears to have exited the company with which he has been closely identified for more than a decade. That’s a long time in the real world. It’s the same time that Google has been around. As Google rose after yesterday’s financial results, Microsoft Fast’s prospects appear to have dipped down.
I wonder, “Is their a connection between these two opposing curves?” What are the reasons for the departure of a high profile search wizard like Mr. Lervik? Here are my thoughts, gathered as I gaze across the murky pool of mine run off and snow melt here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, half a world away from the land of Thor and the Midgard Serpent.
Reasons I thought of include:
- The police curiosity about Fast Search & Transfer’s math skills appears to be one factor.
- The realization that Fast Search & Transfer’s technology was not the answer to some of Microsoft SharePoint search’s woes was another, making it desirable for executives to leave after a specified period of time.
- Then there’s the Microsoft’s own financial performance, which looks anemic next to Google’s on some yardsticks’.
- Autonomy’s surgical acquisition of Interwoven, yet another example of Autonomy out flanking Fast Search.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
I remember Mr. Lervik as the person who sold Fast Search’s advertising business to Yahoo to make Fast Search one of the leading players in enterprise search. When this decision was made, Google moved the opposite direction; namely, let’s do online advertising. The Google revenue trajectory has been up. The Norwegian search company’s revenue trajectory has been down relative to Google’s. Now, with this shift in leadership in my opinion Fast Search may have reached its nadir.
You can read Digi.no’s take on this here. My Norwegian is not so hot, but I think the headline runs along the line that “Lervik Throws in the Towel.” The pundits and teenage search mavens are starting to jump on this interesting development. The new boss is Bjørn Olstad, a Fast executive who is a Microsoft Distinguished Engineer. The chairman of Fast Search, according to the article, is Keith Dolliver, whom I don’t know. Another take on this executive shake up is here.
Beyond Search, Public Relations, and News
January 22, 2009
One of my neighbors has been trying out her .60 GE M134 Predator. I don’t think she had depleted uranium bullets, and I haven’t seen squirrels or my neighbors’ dogs since her fusillade. My publisher of my forthcoming Google monograph sent me a joke germane to the weird world I inhabit with this Web log. Disclaimer and editorial policy for the Web log is here in case you are not familiar with the addled goose’s approach.
First, the joke, translated by my demanding, time obsessed editor whom I have known for more than 25 years. We’re still not pals, which provides some insight to my inherent likeability. He’s a gem, of course.
Joke: Consultants, PR People, SEO Mavens Embraced
A shepherd was guarding his flock in the middle of the countryside when, in a cloud of dust, he spied a Range Rover coming towards him. The driver — a young man in an Armani suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and Hermés tie — lowered his window and said to the shepherd: “If I can tell you exactly how many sheep there are in your flock, will you give me one of them?”
The shepherd looked at the young man and replied: “Certainly”.
The man parked his car, fired up his laptop computer, connected it to his mobile phone, surfed the Web to the NASA page, communicated with a satellite navigation system, surveyed the region, opened a database and thirty or so Excel sheets with complex formulae. Finally, he printed off a detailed report of around ten pages on his miniature printer and told the shepherd: “You have exactly 1,586 sheep in your flock”.
“That is accurate,” said the shepherd. “As agreed, please take one”.
He watched the young man make his choice and install the animal in the back of his car, then he added: “If I can guess your profession correctly, may I have my animal back?” “Why not?” replied the young man.
“You are a high-powered information consultant”, said the shepherd. “Absolutely correct,” came the reply. “How did you know that?”
“It’s easy. You arrive without having been asked. You want to be paid to answer a question to which I already knew the answer and, quite evidently, you know nothing at all about my business. Now, please give me back my dog”. (Translated by Harry Collier, Infonortics, Ltd. 2009)
If you didn’t “get” the joke. Here’s a visual aid, needed because 20 percent of the US doesn’t read at the high school level and most professionals under the age of 30 (what I call the trophy generation) are often happier with a YouTube.com video than a verbal challenge-response approach to a topic.
 |
 |
Tip: the sheep is white. The dog who is ArnoldIT.com’s marketing consultant, is the caramel color animal. Both have similar ears which may confuse some of the trophy generation who think I am a publishing company.
Kosmix: YAGK (Yet Another Google Killer)
January 20, 2009
Kosmix like Cuil.com has some fibrous tendrils that connect to the Google. Not surprisingly, the Kosmix system does not tackle the Google head on. Think of Kosmix as an automated portal for information. When I visit the site, I see what’s new, I have “hot” topic to click and explore. I have trends. I have videos. In short, I get search without search. There is a search box, and it works reasonably well.
Kosmix splash page. An information portal for the 21st century.
One of the wizards behind Kosmix is Anand Rajaraman, who has considerable visibility in the Silicon Valley technology world. I have followed his Web log posts because he has demonstrated keen insight into the technical activities at Google. In December 2008 he wrote “Kosmix Adds Rocketfuel to Power Voyage of Exploration” here. Several points earned a place in my notes about search; to wit:
- Kosmix raised an additional $20 million in financing
- Google=Search+Find. But Kosmix=Explore+Browse
- The system is based on algorithmic categorization technology.
A feature summary appears on the Kosmix Web log here.
Received Wisdom about Microsoft Google Off by 30 Degrees
January 16, 2009
The dead tree version of the Wall Street Journal arrived this morning (January 16, 2009) and greeted me with Robert Guth’s article “Microsoft Bid to Beat Google Builds on a History of Misses”. You can find an online version here. You can also find a discussion by Larry Dignan here. Both of these write ups set my teeth on edge, actually, my beak. I am an addled goose, as you may know.
The premise of the Wall Street Journal article is that Microsoft had chances to do what Google is doing; to wit: sell ads, build search traffic, and buy Overture.com, among other missteps. The implication in these examples is that “woulda coulda shoulda” argument that characterizes people with a grip on received wisdom or what “everybody” knows and believes.
Mir. Dignan adds some useful points, overlooked by Mr. Guth; namely, Microsoft lacked a coherent Web strategy. Also, had Microsoft moved into ads that alone did not address Google’s focus on search. Mr. Dignan emphasizes that “you can’t count Microsoft out–even now.”
Let me from my hollow in Kentucky where the mine drainage has frozen a nice suphurous yellow this frosty morn offer a different view of the problem Microsoft faces. You can cherish these nuggets of received wisdom. I want to point out where these individual, small Google nuggets fit in the gold mine of online in the 21st century.
Received wisdom is useful but often is incomplete. Filling in the gaps makes a difference when determining what steps to take. Image source: http://www.grahamphillips.net/Ark/Ark_2_files/moses_with_tablets.jpg
What Google Did in 1998
Google looked at search and the problems then dominant companies faced. I can’t run down the numerous technical challenges. (If you want detail, click here.) I can highlight three steps taken by Google when Microsoft and others dabbling in the Internet were on equal footing.
First, Google looked at the bottlenecks in the various subsystems that go together to index digital information and make it findable. These bottlenecks were no surprise in 1998 and they aren’t today. Google identified issues with parallel processing, organizing the systems, and getting data moving the right place at the right time. Google tackled this problem head on by rethinking how the operating system could better coordinate breaking a task into bite sized chunks and then getting each chunk worked on and the results back where they were needed without bringing the computer to its knees. This problem still bedevils quite a few search engine companies, and Google may not have had a perfect solution. But Google correctly identified a problem and set out to solve it by looking for tips and tricks in the research computing literature and by tapping the expertise at AltaVista.com.
Second, Google figured that if it was going to index digital information on any scale, the company needed a way to build capacity without paying for the high end, exotic, and often flakey equipment used by some companies. One example of this type of hardware goof is the AltaVista.com service itself. It used the DEC Alpha chip, which was the equivalent of a Fabergé egg that generated the heat of a gas tungsten arc welding device. Google invested time and effort in cobbling together a commodity hardware solution.
Third, Google looked at what work had to be done when indexing and query processing. The company had enough brain power to realize that the types of read write processes that are part of standard operating systems and database systems would not be suitable for online services. Instead of embracing the traditional approach like every other commercial indexing outfit did in the 1998 to 2000 period (a critical one in Google’s technical development), Google started over. Instead of pulling an idea from the air, Google looked in the technical literature. Google took the bride’s approach to innovation: something borrowed, something new, etc. The result was what is now one of the core competitive advantages of Google–the suite of services that can deliver fast read speeds and still deliver acceptable performance with a Google Apps user saves a file.
Keep in mind that Google has been working on its business for a decade. Google is no start up. Google has a head start measured in years, not months or weeks.
Microsoft, Certified Gold Partners, and SharePoint Search
January 15, 2009
ChannelInsider.com posted a bombshell of a commentary in my opinion here. Pedro Pereira’s “Is Microsoft the Managed Services market’s Biggest Enemy?” makes some interesting assertions. The essay certainly caused this addled goose’s tiny brain to cycle two or three times. The premise of the article is that Microsoft has worked hard to round up “channel partners”. These are the companies who pay to take tests, send engineers to Microsoft classes, and agree to various terms and conditions to achieve the coveted “certified” endorsement. Mr. Pereira wrote:
But as the managed services market matures, you have to wonder how long the world’s largest software company plans to sit on the sidelines. And while you’re at it, you might chew on this: When Microsoft finally gets serious about managed services, will it do so as a partner to the channel, as a competitor or both?
Mr. Pereira identifies a number of high profile channel partners who may generate revenues that Microsoft covets. In effect, will Microsoft take the big, juicy engagements and keep the lion’s share of the revenue. IBM has morphed into a services business with an interesting history. Perhaps Microsoft will follow in IBM’s footsteps in order to keep the company’s revenue growth stable or growing.
Disrupting Microsoft channel partner structure could prove costly. If Microsoft changes the game for “certified” partners, the reconstruction may open the door to plug compatible alternatives that are no longer “certified”. Even more interesting is Google’s opportunity to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of the scenario Channel Insider describes. Image source: http://gees.usc.edu/GEES/RecentEQ/India_Gujarat/photos/photobyrediff/mdf10294.jpg
Mr. Pereira cites survey data new to me. He wrote:
A Channel Insider survey conducted over the summer found that 25 percent of MSPs have switched platforms three times, 21 percent once and 18 percent twice. Seven percent of participants reported that they have switched platforms a staggering 10 times. Yes, there are enough platforms out there to switch that many times.
As I thought about this interesting write up, several ideas occurred to me. I don’t want to lose them; to wit:
Deep Web Technologies’ Vertical Search for Business Information
January 13, 2009
In the early 1990s, Verity was the dominant enterprise search system. IBM’s confused approach to STAIRS and the complexity of STAIRS derivatives created a market opportunity. Verity took it. Verity’s founders have continued to innovate in search. I was delighted to speak with Abe Lederman (that interview is here) and learn about the innovations his company has made. Deep Web Technologies (DWT) tames the tangled world of US government scientific information. You can explore the Science.gov site here. Now, Mr. Lederman and his team have turned their attention to the needs of the person looking for substantive business information. The company’s new business search system–Biznar–débuted in October 2008.
DWT has identified about 60 business oriented Web sites and federates these sources in near real time. To this core list, the Deep Web (Biznar) takes a user’s query and retrieves results from other Web indexing services. The system then blends the results, producing a results list that is designed to answer business questions. On this select source list are such publications as:
- Business Week
- Money Magazine
- Motley Fool
- US Patent & Trademark Office
- Wall Street Journal.
Sample Query
Let’s look at a test query. I used Biznar to obtain information about “bankruptcy liability”. The system generated a result list with 1,706 entries. I ran the same query on Google.com, which returned a result list containing more than 9,400,000 results. Obviously no human could examine a fraction of these 9,400,000 results. Google advertises that it is good by virtue of indexing a lot of content. Biznar focuses on a meaningful result set of 1,700 items.
But for most people, 1,700 items are too many. Biznar makes it easy to navigate the results. Look at the results page below:
You see a two column display. The larger column presents a traditional results list with several useful enhancements:
- You see a star rating that provides an indication of the importance of the result for this specific query
- The source is displayed for each item; for example, Google Blog Search, Google Scholar, the New York Times, etc.
- The link includes a snippet of the content in the document that matches the query.
dtSearch: At a Crossroads
January 9, 2009
For years, vendors with a snap in solution to Microsoft SharePoint were like a soccer player with an unobstructed path to the goal. Microsoft kept out of the way. As long as the vendor had a way to “fix” the baked in SharePoint search system, the vendor had a shot at a sale. Often the only risk was that a competitor would block the shot. Life was good.
The Microsoft changed the rules for SharePoint search. First, the company gave away a baby search application. Next, it included a beefed up version in SharePoint but asked customers to license a separate server to get the system. Then, when that MOSS (Microsoft Office SharePoint Search) system bumped against an internal document limit, Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer SA for $1.23 billion.
Since the deal went through last year, Microsoft has not made substantive changes in the Fast Search technology. In fact, the changes have been in trade show swag (see illustration below), the cloud of silence dropped over the police action taken against the company in Norway for alleged wrong doing, and more aggressive sales tactics.
The only difference in booth handouts has been the addition of the phrase “A Microsoft Subsidiary.” Otherwise, same old, same old.
Here’s how the Microsoft sales tactics are alleged to work. I want to avoid talking about foam booth handouts and police investigations. These are matters for wiser geese than I. Microsoft visits with a customer with a clutch of Microsoft products and servers. The Microsoft sales professionals assert that the Microsoft solution is the optimal approach. The customer says, “I want to buy the Google Search Appliance or some other search system.” Microsoft sweetens the deal. The customer says, “I will use Microsoft and its search solution.” The idea is not new. Incentives are standard in search licensing. Microsoft now has a third party solution that is okay if properly resourced. Just make sure you know the implications of “resourced”.
What does this mean to vendors who are dependent on Microsoft’s lousy native search system to create a market?
That’s a good question. I had arranged to get the answers directly from the senior managers at dtSearch last year. Then without warning, dtSearch refused to participate in the Search Wizards Speak series. You can find the list of wizards who have participated here. So far about 30 firms have participated. The holdouts are Google (no big surprise there. The company wants this goose killed and grilled.), Microsoft (on going investigation so no comment I was told), and dtSearch (Microsoft centric search vendor).
Without input from dtSearch, I decided to take a quick look at what the company’s products do and then ask myself some questions about the firm’s reluctance to talk after agreeing to my terms. Brutal are these terms. I submit written questions, prepare a draft, and allow the company to review my final write and suggest changes. So far, the interview subjects have been reasonably happy. One outfit–Paris-based Exalead–reprinted the interview which was subsequently picked up and reproduced in publications as far way from rural Kentucky as Japan.
I remain curious about the impact of the Microsoft Fast tie up on companies like dtSearch. These are smaller firms who could easily be crushed beneath the wheels of the giant Microsoft marketing machine.
dtSearch
Based on the open source information available to me, dtSearch is a privately held company operating in Bethesda, Maryland. Not quite a suburb, Bethesda is home to a number of companies, including the super secret mapping unit of the US government.
The system can be used for publishing and searching database-driven Web sites, incorporation into information management applications, searching of technical documentation, incorporation into forensics applications, email filtering usage, and incorporation into a broad range of vertical-market applications (legal, medical, financial, recruiting and staffing, etc.)
The company advertises in dead tree publications. The firm’s search system is also heavily promoted by Programmers.com and its ecommerce site doing business as Programmers’s Paradise. You can get a full run down on the dtSearch prices by running the query “dtSearch” and clicking through the choices. The system reports that dtSearch begins at $189.99 for a Desktop with Spider v7.55 up to $2,375 for a three server version. Developer versions incur higher license fees, but these require what amounts to a custom price quote.
The features of the three-server versions are:
Google Revenue: Why the One-Trick Pony View Persists
January 9, 2009
A one trick pony is a pony that does one thing. Like let kids sit on its back. The one-trick pony is highly prized among certain carnival concession owners. Kids who afraid of big animals may also cotton to the one-trick pony. Wall Street likes any type of animal as long as it makes a lot of money. Google’s viewed as a one-trick pony because the company makes money from advertising. Ignore the boundaries that separate Google’s different types of advertising. The one-trick pony at the carnival might do some more interesting things in its stall at night with another pony. For the carnival impresario and the Wall Street crowd, Google’s a one trick pony shown below:
Google Blogoscoped presented a textbook example of how the one-trick pony view of Google is perpetuated. Navigate here and scan the table that shows “how Google makes money”. The useful list of more than 80 products and services includes three ways to make money. For each product and services, Blogoscoped tallied how Google monetizes these services. The three ways for Google to make money are–you guessed it–one trick ponies. There are ads and some fees to get involved with ads; for example, to be an AdWord advertiser, Google charges. But this is a variation on the one-trick pony’s ribbons, not a change to the one-trick pony.
I think it would be useful to consider these types of revenue horses. In 2009, a couple of them will be given their heads. competitors may find these ponies harder to ride than the docile one-trick pony that sits quietly as noisy kids climb on and off; to wit:
- Payments from educational institutions for various Google services. Example: the fees paid by New South Wales to license Google services for school kids
- License fees from the oft-reviled but highly-disruptive Google Search Appliance
- Subscription fees to commercial Google products and services; for example, Google Earth or SketchUp
- Payments from partners to become one of Google’s best pals
- Fees assessed to organizations when one of their top dogs decides that paying Google for Postini email archiving is better than getting caught unprepared for a discovery process.
Do you want to be standing flat footed in front of this group of ponies. Source: http://www.summers-photo.co.uk/Feb2007/images/Stampede_jpg.jpg
My list of other revenue ponies is longer than this group of five. Looking at the GOOG too closely or from one narrow angle makes it difficult to perform these tasks:
- Assess which pricing models could be implemented with little or no warning for unmonetized products and services; for example, charging me to look at pages when running a Google Book Search
- Place Google in a competitive context where advertising will not work; for example, Google charges for certain content constructs that it creates and are not available from other online services. Think a directory of specialized vendors in a specific market like video production.
- Understand what business models Google will have to implement in order to meet its financial objectives and Wall Street’s expectations; for example, if travel advertising goes down, what monetizing options are available to Google to address that shortfall.
If one wants to understand Google, one may want to keep track of the revenue herd. Granted ads generate a whopping 95 percent of Google’s “now” revenue. But going forward I like to watch those ponies. One or two may grow up to be different revenue animals. More about these options appears in my forthcoming Google and Publishing study available this spring from Infonortics Ltd. here.
Stephen Arnold, January 9, 2009
Enterprise Search: The Batista Madoff Syndrome
January 4, 2009
Two examples flapped around my aging mind this chilly and dark Sunday, January 4, 2009. I am not sure why I woke up with the names Batista and Madoff juxtaposed. I walked my dogs, Tess (my SharePoint expert) and Tyson (my Google Search Appliance dude). I asked, “How can experts be so wrong?” Both looked at me. Here’s a picture of their inquiring minds directing their attention toward me.
Forget Batista and Madoff. We want breakfast.
On our walk in the pre-dawn gloaming, I thought about Felix Batista. In mid-December 2008, Mr. Batista (a security consultant and anti-kidnapping expert) was kidnapped. Although tragic, I wondered how a kidnapping expert in Mexico to give a talk about thwarting kidnapping could get himself snatched that day. I was reminded of search experts recommending a system that did not work. I have been in some interesting situations where kidnapping and mortar attacks were on the morning’s agenda. I am no kidnapping or mortar blast expert. But I figured out how to avoid trouble, and I just used commonsense. I am not as well known as Felix Batista, of course, but the risk of trouble was high. I did not encounter a direct threat even though I was in a high risk situation. I wondered, “What was this expert doing in the wrong place and the right time anyway?” (Please, read this brief and gentle account of Mr. Batista’s travails here.)
Now Bernard Madoff, the fellow who took a Ponzi scheme to new heights. I am not concerned about Mr. Madoff. What I thought about was the headline on the dead tree version of the Wall Street Journal: “Me, Madoff and the Mind: How a Gullibility Expert Was Scammed.” Another expert, another smarter-than-me person proven to be somewhat dull. I suppose that the notions of trust, ethical behavior, and honesty get mixed into the colors of expertise and knowledge. Mr. Madoff is colored a most disturbing shade of brown.
Common Themes
What do these two unrelated incidents have in common? That was the question I pondered on my early morning walk. Let me capture my thoughts before they flap away:
First, the cult of the expert has been a big part of my work at Nuclear Utility Services (a unit of Halliburton) and Booz, Allen & Hamilton (the pre-break up and messy divorce version, thank you). Experts are easy to find in nuclear energy. A mistake can be reasonably exciting. As a result, most of the people involved in the nuclear industry (classified and unclassified versions) are careful. When errors occur, really bad things happen. The quality assurance fad did not sweep the nuclear industry. Nuclear-related work had to be correct. Get it wrong and you have Chernobyl. Nuclear is not a zero defect operation. Nothing done by humans can be. If a nuclear expert were alive, that was one easy and imperfect way determine that the expert knew something. When nuclear experts are wrong, you get pretty spectacular problems.
Visualization of the Chernobyl radiation. Source: http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/04/chernobyl_radia.html
At Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the meaning of the word “expert” was a bit softer than at Halliburton NUS. BAH (as it was then known) had individuals with what the firm called “deep industry experience”. I learned that a recent MBA qualified as an expert for some engagements. The clients were gullible or wanted to believe that Mr. Booz’s 1917 could work its magic for International Harvester or the Department of the Navy. Some BAH professionals had quite a bit of post graduate training in a discipline generally related to the person’s area of expertise. I am still not clear what a Ph.D. in business means. Perhaps I can ask one of Mr. Madoff’s investors this question? The problem was that a BAH expert was not like a Halliburton NUS expert. My boss–Dr. William P. Sommers–told me that Halliburton NUS was a C+ outfit. BAH, he asserted, was an A+ shop. I nodded eagerly because I knew what was required to remain a BAH professional. I did not agree then nor do I agree now. Some of the consultants from the 1970s, like consultants today, have awarded themselves the title of expert. I can point to a recent study of enterprise search as evidence that this self-propagation is practiced today as it was in 1970.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
