Wall of Shame: Yahoo’s Digital Barrier
April 21, 2009
Short honk: Bloomberg.com’s “Yahoo’s Balogh Works on Tearing Down Wall of Shame” stopped me. Brian Womack’s article here said, “Yahoo! Inc. Chief Executive Officer Carol Bartz said last month that she created a “wall of shame” for products she isn’t happy with. She’s counting on her top technology executive to fix them. Ari Balogh, recruited as chief technology officer last year, added product-management duties in February after a reshuffling of the Sunnyvale, California-based company. Balogh now needs to chart the future of Yahoo’s more than 50 products – – from e-mail to online dating to the search engine.” I loathe the extra clicks I have to perform to see my email. I don’t think too many products is the sole issue. This addled goose believes that Yahoo’s user interface is old, wonky, and annoying. More than cosmetics are needed at Yahoo. With silos and heterogeneous infrastructure, cosmetics may be what Yahoo has time and money to do.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
GEFCO and Exalead: Win International Prize for Innovation
April 21, 2009
Congratulations to GEFCO, and by extension, Exalead, for winning the Grand Prix et Trophée de l’innovation prize in recognition of innovation in business information management. The trophy was presented on April 7, 2009, by
CIO-online.com, Le Monde Informatique and IT News Info. There’s a video of the awards here ttp://www.trophees-cio.com/ and a PDF profile of the winners and projects at CIO Online.
A leading European provider of vehicle transport, logistics, and other transportation services, GEFCO earned its award thanks to Exalead, a leader of search based business application solutions and information access in the enterprise and on the web. GEFCO won the CIO-online.com trophy for its new vehicle track and trace service built on Exalead CloudView’s platform (You can read about CloudView here.
GEFCO uses Exalead CloudView to drive a search based application engine and real time operational tools for reporting, query, and analysis of the database of vehicles delivered logistics and spare parts management.
ArnoldIT.com interviewed Paul Doscher, U.S. CEO of Exalead, in January 2009, and Mr. Doscher spoke of their partnership with GEFCO then. He stated:
GEFCO is using Exalead to track their vehicles. GEFCO’s new ‘Track and Trace’ application is built upon Exalead’s flagship platform that offers powerful search functionality and can provide up-to-the-minute information from an extremely large data set. You can read the entire interview on the Search Wizards Speak service here.
Jessica Bratcher, April 21, 2009
Cyberwarfare Shoots Down an Aircraft
April 21, 2009
Short honk: Everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Slashdot is reacting to the reality of cyberwarfare. You can read the Wall Street Journal’s tabloidesque coverage here. For those of you with a more scholarly approach to what’s been going on for many years, click here to buy and then read Information Warfare by Winn Schwartau. Although more than 15 years old, you may as well start with one of the best discussions I have examined. Put the energies and hand waving into practices that close security loopholes. The barn, the horse—you know the aphorism. Search is an important function in these escapades. Unlike some enterprise search vendors, some bad guys use sophisticated findability methods.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
Web Log Mash Up: SodaHead and Technorati
April 21, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this story on MSN Money: “SodaHead Joins Forces with Technorati to Enable Content Exchange between Blogging Powerhouses” here. The word “powerhouse” caught my attention. I zipped over to http://trends.google.com and queried “sodahead, technorati, blogger, and wordpress”. The Google chart told me on April 20, 2009:
The lines along the x axis are SodaHead and Technorati. The gold lines is Google’s Blogger.com and the green line is WordPress. I think these data provide interesting context for this statement that appeared in the MSN story:
SodaHead, a leading opinion community focused on discussing today’s hottest topics, announced a strategic partnership with Technorati, the authority on the blogosphere. The powerful alliance gives SodaHead members direct access to Technorati content embedded in SodaHead’s online community. Additionally, Technorati will feature SodaHead’s topical “Polls of the Day” selected by relevancy to Technorati posts.
My thought is that Technorati may be looking for a way to regain momentum. Polls may do it. What’s clear is that buzz in Web log centric companies seems to be falling into the gravitational pull of Blogger.com and WordPress. I expect more changes for Technorati in the months ahead. The idea of mashing up social information (polls) with blog content is interesting, but will it be enough? I once relied on Technorati for search. Now I find myself looking elsewhere for fast cycle information. More real time content available within Technorati with a supple search system would be a definite lure for me.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
Rev Up Your Web Strategy: New Study from J Boye
April 21, 2009
Beyond Search read with interest “Best Practices for Creating a Web Strategy: What Web Managers Need to Know”
by Dorthe R. Jespersen & Peter E.B. Nissen J. Boye March 2009. You will want to snag a copy even if you are content with your present Web site. (More information is available here.)
The first line of the Executive Summary is “Too many web teams suffer from lack of direction or constant organizational battles.” This reviewer, once a one-man information center and web manager, experienced the problem of direction first hand in failing to get a web strategy for a non-profit off the ground as his CEO told him straight off that the budget was no problem and that he would take full responsibility. He grabbed the ground and the direction and eventually terminated this reviewer’s position.
Using interviews with nineteen mostly Danish public and global organizations and a couple private companies and drawing upon several conferences and a 250 member community of practice in Europe facilitated by J. Boye, this monograph is targeted at the web manager who wants to create a good web strategy. While specifically aimed mainly for the web manager of public websites, I find much that private commercial web managers will benefit from. Furthermore, I believe the European longer term perspective and careful presentation will be welcomed by webmasters and companies in the U.S.
This 35-page vendor neutral paper spells out clearly and with abundant examples how to engage and understand web strategy obstacles tactically and how to communicate with the correct language and produce effective deliverables within the context of the organization’s structure and politics. It is above all a management document for web managers. Forty percent of its pages are dedicated to its raison d’etre that web strategy is an in-house process involving top management, stakeholders, and others and makes it clear that, although the web team would prefer dealing with tools and technology, the real problems have to do with overall business goals, describing an urgent business need that is web-answerable, defining priorities and establishing meaningful measurements to evaluate the benefit of the implemented web strategy.
Actionable yet many layered and dimensioned, the authors make this also a guide for builders of intranets and provide an external link for alternative advice on how to expedite in special situations and circumstances.
The troubleshooting chart at the close nicely sums up and provides clear pointers. This is an important contribution and I look forward to more publications from this firm.
FYI, one of the co-authors has a blog posting entitled “Creating the perfect web strategy: signs of danger” at http://www.jboye.com/blogpost/creating-the-perfect-web-strategy-signs-of-danger/
Marc Arenstein, April 21, 2009
Microsoft and Its Cost Value Message
April 21, 2009
We live in an era of knowledge value. I encountered this phrase after a visit to Japan 20 years ago. The idea is set forth in a very important book called The Knowledge Value Revolution. You can get a copy here. Taichi Sakaiya will require some effort, but I think the time will be well spent. One idea in the book is the notion of value. When I read articles or hear speeches that use the term “value” I wonder if the speaker has internalized Mr. Sakaiya’s explication.
I read the CNet article “Microsoft to Open Source: Please Don’t Compete on Price” here. As reported by Matt Asay, the Microsoft plea is for open source vendors to shift from marketing that pitches price as an advantage and start talking about value. I had to read the summary of Sam Ramji’s comments twice to make sure I understood his angle.
The notion of “value” is quite different from cost. A cost is easy to describe and measure. To soften the edges of the cost analysis, MBAs and other grifters have chopped up costs into indirect and direct costs. Some add notions of “burdened” and “unburdented”. Systems designed to track costs in certain government agencies simply don’t work. These systems were set up to put some costs in one silo and other costs in different silos. Then guidelines were put in place to prevent one silo from reporting costs is exactly the same way as another silo. In self defense, most savvy managers pick a specific cost factor and hang the project on that cost. The idea is to make an apple to apple comparison of the cost of licensing a search system or the cost of running an on site training program for 10 people. The manager ignores indirects and otehr types of MBA and accounting embroidery.
Value, particularly value in an information centric organization, is even fuzzier. Value sucks in costs and runs them through a denin stressing machine so the dollars become soft and edges get frayed. The “value” becomes fuzzy and it is more difficult to pull off an apple to apples comparison of a soft, fuzzy concept that a licensing cost. Marketers thrives in the value space. Heck, that’s what Shakespeare would be doing if he were alive today. There’s big money in the jargon, buzzword, and euphemism business.
“Knowledge value” kicks up the argument several levels. The perception of value pivots on the information available and how those data exist in a context. Mr. Sakaiya analyzes the concept of “knowledge value” in such a way that even I could figure out the brilliance of the Toyota Corporation’s Lexus pricing tactic.
What Microsoft is doing is remarkable. On one hand, the company is making many separate products available in one shopping basket component. The price for these shopping baskets is very attractive. XP for a netbook is a bargain because Microsoft is using price to shut the door on Linux. SharePoint includes search, collaboration, work flow, Web design, and content management for a flexible price that is usually lower than competitors’ price points for comparable features.
Microsoft competes on the basis of price. Sam Ramji wants everyone else, particularly the open source vendors, to compete on value. The idea is that Microsoft imparts more value to its products because of its widespread adoption, its dominance on the desktop, the number of junior college programmers who can use VisualStudio, and the vast Microsfot support network. The value is so great that the low price suddenly is put in a context of serious investment in the Microsoft ecosystem.
The way I understand Mr. Ramji’s argument is that Microsoft can compete on price. Everyone else can compete on value.
I am not sure if Mr. Ramji would agree with my interpretation. I have a hunch that open source vendors who provide software at a lower license cost are prepared to argue that their service fees are more competitive than Microsoft’s. The value, therefore, is a combination of lower licnesing costs and going-forward strategy that gives an organization greater control of those hockey stick cost overruns that often plague some enterprise software deployments.
Open source is gaining traction. How do I know? The “plea” expressed in this summary of Mr. Ranji’s remarks underscore the fact that open source is an issue for Microsoft. Google is a problem but open source may be an even bigger problem going forward. I am looking forware to a bargain priced copy of Windows 7.
Part of the knowledge value revolution is that buyers are getting better at determing which companies deliver knowledge value, not just lower prices and basic value.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
Passport Canada: Caught with Its Tech in a Time Warp
April 21, 2009
CTV posted an item from “The Canadian Press” called “Online Form Poses Problem for Passport Canada.” You can read the story here. Passport Canada does what its name says—handles documents related to immigration. Another unit of the Canadian government is the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department. The agency put some blank forms on its Web site. The form – PPTC 132 – is useful for getting a passport without a person who can verify the John Smith is “really” John Smith. The CTV.com story said:
Canadians who are overseas and need a passport require the form, which allows them to make their own declaration under oath.
Passport Canada keeps the form under tight control. Foreign Affairs Department put the form under loose control. Excitement ensues.
Some thoughts:
- Coordination within and among government agencies is not too good, not just in Canada, but in most countries. Parkinson’s Law and political budget walls are two good reasons
- Online remains a mystery in the Internet age
- The notion of a form repository is a tricky one. The US initiative that I bumped into years ago seems to be ineffective
- Removing information once it is “out there” is tough.
Are there lessons in this example? Lots. Easy and quick and cheap fixes. Pick two.
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
Fast Search ESP 2009: Some Soft Information about a Hard Problem
April 20, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this interesting and suggestive article “One Year with Microsoft – A Fast Perspective”. The write up appeared on April 17, 2009, on the Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog. You must read the posting here. The author is Nate, which does not tell me much. In such circumstances, I remind myself that the posting may be a spoof. For my purposes, the snippets of text below are intended as aides de memoire for myself. I have added some preliminary, informal comments to capture the excitement I experienced when I read the post. (The original Microsoft intent to buy Fast Search announcement is here.)
Now to work:
Nate, the author, has worked in “the industry” for 13 years with six years in the Fast Search & Transfer business. Keep in mind that search has been around for more than 40 years and six years is a good start. I assume the author’s experience in search has been shaped by what I call “the Google era”. The sale of Fast Search was precipitated because Fast Search was struggling with money. Fast Search and Google came out of the gate at about the same time in the late 1990s. Google ended up with $20 billion in revenue in the same interval that Fast Search & Transfer approach $80 million (estimated after the 2007 revenues were revisited), a police action, and a a hugely complicated search system that was tough to install. I heard that Google’s “search is simple” campaign was partly in response to the complexity of the installation process for Fast Search ESP and similar old style systems.
The author explained where Fast Search fits in the giant Microsoft Corporation. I did not understand the acronyms, but there were enough units involved to tell me that search is not at the top of the tech pyramid at Microsoft.
Nate presented the acquisition as a pat on the back for a job well done. I respectfully suggest that a financial restatement and a police action are not meritorious.
Nate referenced the Fastforward 2009 conference (which I believe I heard will be merged into another Microsoft conference) as the place where the vision for Fast Search was set forth. He provided a link to a SharePoint unit manager, Kirk Koenigsbauer. The bulk of the Web log write up is a restatement of information presented at the Fast conference earlier in 2009. The key points in my opinion were:
First, commitment. Nate reminded me that Oslo is where the search action is. The discussion of commitment puzzled me. A passage that I noted was:
To be honest, search is such a generally valued concept and the possibilities are so compelling when it’s combined with other Microsoft products and technology that it’s all we can do to stay focused on our main priorities. It’s a good problem.
The word “honest” snagged me. Was the earlier part of the write “not honest”? The statement “it’s all we can do to stay focused on our main priorities” underscored the likelihood that Microsoft is still not sure what’s important in behind the firewall search.
Second, vision. Nate asserted that Microsoft’s vision for search and Fast Search’s vision for search “matched”. I stopped and got out my yellow highlighter and worked through this statement. Microsoft’s vision has been to catch Google and deliver “findability” that keeps SharePoint users and administrators happy. In my descriptions of Fast Search, I use the word “complex” quite a bit. Nate’s vision was, if I read the “visioin” paragraph correctly is to think about Microsoft Surface, which is a touch screen interface. The idea I surmise is to change the interface to search, not the plumbing of search. I received an award from a government agency that included a picture of “lipstick on a pig”. The idea was to remind me that the work I had done would not change the outcome of a government policy, just make it pretty. I thought of that award’s snapshot of a pig when I read about the push to interface.
Third, product plans. Nate references the roadmap. I love roadmaps. I asked myself, “When will there be specific product details?”
Nate concluded by revealing that:
There you have it, my first post for the Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog. Look for more posts from me in this general category of enterprise search vision and strategy. I welcome all comments on this and future entries. Next up – Search plus Natural User Interfaces.
I crave write ups about:
- Information about on going support for Linux and Solaris installations of Fast Search
- Detail about the migration plans to Windows servers
- Return on investment analyses comparing Linux versus Windows servers
- Documentation about the interaction of Fast ESP subsystems with one another
- Index updating cycles
- Scaling best practices
- A reference architecture for processing terabyte flows of unstructured information in a 24 hour refresh cycle
- Version upgrade roll backs methods when a point upgrade goes off the rails.
Those topics would hold my interest more than comments about commitment, vision, and plans. The addled goose honks, “Detail, please.”
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
World Digital Library: More than Google Books and Europeana
April 20, 2009
On April 21, 2009, the World Digital Library becomes officially available. You can access the site here. The objectives of the WDL are:
- Promote international and intercultural understanding
- Expand the volume and variety of cultural content on the Internet
- Provide resources for educators, scholars, and general audiences
- Build capacity in partner institutions to narrow the digital divide within and between countries.
You can run a key word query or narrow by place, time, topic, or type of item.
According to Australia’s The Age here,
Bringing together priceless material, from ancient Chinese or Persian calligraphy to early Latin American photography, it is the world’s third major digital library, after Google Book Search and the EU’s new project, Europeana. Drawing on content from libraries and archives worldwide, it aims to reduce the rich-poor digital divide, expand “non-Western” content on the web, promote better understanding between cultures and provide a global teaching resource.
What is the future of the many virtual library initiatives? What about the neighborhood library? What about federating the catalogs of Google Books, Europeana, and the World Digital Library. I don’t want to run three separate queries. Do you?
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
Google in Trouble
April 20, 2009
Ad Age tackles the thorny question of Google’s brand with the analysis billed under the headline “Is Brand Google in Trouble?” here. To make the point, Ad Age’s art director spelled “trouble” using the Google logo colors. lIn my mind, I was expecting the page to play a riff from The Gladiator from Robert Meredith Wilson’s days with the Sousa band. Instead I heard “But He Doesn’t Know the Territory” from the Music Man. Trouble right here in River City.
The Ad Age article asserted that Google’s economics have “have come back to earth.” Google has a strong consumer brand. The company has to beware of its “third rail”, which is privacy. The idea is that Google can electrocute itself I think. The Ad Age article said:
PR and branding experts advise Google to stay focused on building the next excellent product and not distract itself with what competitors are doing. And, they say, it’s important to listen to consumers; it’s impossible to please 100% of people, and the conversations in the trade and media world can seep out to the public. What’s important is to be transparent and human about addressing criticism.
As I said, “But He Doesn’t Know the Territory”.
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
