Management Views Search as a Side Issue
June 25, 2008
Dave Valiante’s “Enterprise Search a High Priority for Most Users, But Not for Companies” is an important essay. You can read it on the Wall Street Technology Web site here. The url is a tricky one: www.wallstreetandtech.com.
He reports on a study that says “many businesses [are] unaware of the importance of findability. His write up contains a number of interesting statistics from the report based on a survey of 500 business users. The AIIM study triggered a flurry of news items about user dissatisfaction with search, but Mr. Valiante’s essay digs a bit deeper into the results.
The one finding that jumped out at me was:
The survey states that most organizations do not have a strategic approach for enterprise search and shows that 49 percent of respondents have “no formal goal” for enterprise findability within their own organizations.
What a remarkable finding. With search an essential first step in performing work today, the idea that organizations have “no formal goal” is intriguing. Let’s assume that the finding is spot on. Half of the organizations surveyed view search and retrieval as a non-issue. If true, this explains why point solutions for customer support, litigation support, and business intelligence sell throughout an organization. Licensees are neither interested in systems already installed or, even more likely, indifferent to getting a system that meets very specific needs. Silos are not aberrations. Isolated systems, often containing content already processed by another system in the organization, are standard operating procedure.
No wonder an organization’s information technology department often shows little enthusiasm for a search or content processing system. With systems flowering, existing technical resources may be stretched to the limit. Another related thought I had, again assuming the finding is accurate, is that vendors have little incentive to change their marketing and sales strategies. A vendor can jump from market sector to market sector looking for customers who have a specific problem.
My research reveals user dissatisfaction with search and retrieval. The information in Mr. Valiante’s write up tells me that dissatisfaction is likely to be the norm in many organizations until management understanding matures. Agree? Disagree? Use the comment sections to share your views.
Stephen Arnold, June 25, 3008
SharePoint and Lotus Notes: Deeper and Wider Challenges
June 24, 2008
Oliver Marks’s “Microsoft Office SharePoint Server: A Next Generation of Deeper, Wider Content Silos?” stopped me in my tracks. You may want to read the complete essay here. Mr. Marks has done a nice piece of work. The seed from which this analysis germinated was a discussion at the Enterprise 2.0 conference during which Microsoft and IBM each demonstrated their respective products, SharePoint and Lotus Notes.
I have some lame duck experience with both systems, and I have to admit, I am not exactly sure what product category is appropriate for either product. Mr. Marks’s nailed the issue squarely in two of his observations.
First, with regard to IBM and Lotus Notes, he writes:
…It’s not too hard to see where that supertanker is sailing: over time enterprises whose backbone is Lotus Notes will eventually upgrade to Lotus Connections to take advantage of adequate collaboration capabilities.
Second, he observes:
The road ahead for SharePoint users is less clear. The partners and front end providers for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS), which is built on top of Windows SharePoint Services (WSS) continue to build, with some excellent contextual products signing on…Partners are seeing an opportunity to create a view into otherwise impenetrable SharePoint silos.
I agree with his assessment that Microsoft has a number of “disparate products” and uniting them will be interesting to watch.
As I thought about his metaphors “deeper, wider content silos”, several thoughts swirled through my mind.
First, SharePoint and Lotus Notes are what I think of as software that can be dressed in a costume to assume a large number of guises. In the US government, Lotus Notes means email. True,there are “spaces” for shared documents, calendars, and collaboration tools. But email is the fuel that powers many of the agencies with which I am familiar. Lotus Notes is defined by its users. SharePoint can be a document manager, or as one consultant told me “a next-generation operating system for the enterprise”. I think the fuzzy boundaries are a clear indication that both IBM and Microsoft want a class of software that can be sold anywhere, anytime, to do anything. Fuzzy makes it difficult for competitors to pin down exactly what feature set is appropriate for a particular organization. It is like playing cards against a person who can change cards at will.
Second, both SharePoint and Notes create repositories and data stores that can be difficult to normalize, index, deduplicate, and index so users can find a specific document. I recall a situation in one company where a needed attachment was shared in a workspace. In this particular organization, the originator of the document worked in the unit that was anchored in Notes. Several colleagues were from a group relying on Microsoft Exchange. In the span of seven days between virtual meetings in a shared space, the attachment was copied, modified, emailed, and transferred across and within each of the environments. A query for the document produced an unusable list of “hits”. The only way to find the particular version needed by the group was to inspect each instance manually. Mr. Marks’ “deeper and wider” allusion evoked in my mind a flood of murky brown water in Cedar Rapids. What a problem for residents and what a mess the flood creates.
Finally, the problem of managing information within and across boundaries of polymorphic software systems like SharePoint and Lotus Notes is growing. Most users of these systems do the best they can to create documents and share them. The flood of digital information combined with users’ willingness to distribute copies forwarded hither and yon, make changes to attachments, and create local stores with unique file names is the reality in most organizations. The management tools provided with SharePoint and Lotus Notes have not kept pace with the data management challenge.
What’s my take? I think that both of these systems create time bombs for system administrators; specifically:
- The cost of figuring out what is in these systems and then deducing like Sherlock Holmes what is what is hidden but sucking scarce resources
- The administrative tasks necessary to index and make findable information in these systems is getting larger and more time consuming by the day. One question that concerns me is, “How do I know I have located each relevant document for this particular matter?” I just do not know what I have missed.
- The legal vulnerability of organizations with these systems is ratcheting upwards. Email is a challenge. Who has seen what? Where is a particular document? What is the lineage or family tree of a document with an important change?
Agree that SharePoint and Lotus Notes are great as they are? Let me know. Do you believe that these polymorphic systems have some rough edges? Share your viewpoints in the comments section to this Web log.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2008
ProQuest Dialog: An Optimistic View
June 24, 2008
I talked with a colleague who described to me Outsell’s view of the ProQuest Dialog deal. I have not seen the report, but you can order a copy here. Note that the research company has as its url outsellinc.com. The url outsell.inc is an automotive company with the same name.
As I understood my colleague, Outsell sees a positive gain. Libraries–Dialog’s revenue bulwark–will win. ProQuest is a company focused on library information. The buyers got a good deal, paying considerably less than Dialog’s previous owners paid. My recollection is that with each sale of Dialog, the seller lost money. From a high of $400 million, this deal rings in well south of that, probably a fire sale price. Third, users benefit because ProQuest is able to leverage the terabytes of abstracted, bibliographic, full text, and semi-structured data on the Dialog computers.
This is a snippet of a Dialog Blue Sheet. It makes clear the details about a database. Can you figure this out? If you can, then you can pay as much as $100 per query to access these types of data. The market for this information is inelastic; that is, you can raise the price, but you will not be able to boost revenues. A few people will pay anything to get these data. Most people will go elsewhere.
The Optimist’s View
I can accept a positive spin on the deal. However, there may be some factors that the financial wizards with the sharp pencils may not be able to control:
- Libraries are strapped for cash. The life blood of information companies who sell to libraries is the standing order. Under budget pressure, each year standing orders get closer scrutiny. In head to head competitions, clever pricing deals can win the one year deal. The problem is that there is no renewal and thus no revenue base. With only a few big players selling online information, it may be tough to pump up revenues.
- Information users like the New South Wales’ students who will be exposed to Google may find the Dialog-style online information as archaic as my son did when I introduced him to online research in lieu of the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature in 1982. Dialog is simply not in tune with the bloggy, real timey, and Webby world of online.
- ProQuest and its parent have never been at the cutting edge of technology. Online today has to deal with scaling, commodity hardware, and fast cycle programming. Perhaps ProQuest’s technologists are as good as the engineers at Google? My thought is that ProQuest may be stretched to the limit dealing with an online system with its roots in the late 1960s. The cost to get modern may be beyond the reach of the new owners.
Google Expands Footprint in Australian School District
June 24, 2008
Six months ago, a Microsoft search wizard told me, “Google’s education sales are not significant.” I disagreed, but present and former Redmond wizards are always right or at least think they are right. Google’s efforts to get students and academic institutions to use the company’s cloud-based services like Gmail is part of the GOOG’s strategy to penetrate the enterprise. But it is a longer-term strategy because Google is willing to get student comfy with its products and services, let them get their jobs, and then pull Google along with them.
Australian IT reported on June 24, 2008, that Google landed a major school district with the help of its partner, SMS Management and Technology. You can read the full story written by Andrew Colley here. The New South Wales school district has 1.5 million students, who will soon be Googling. When the system is deployed, it will be one of the largest deployments of Gmail in the world.The deal is worth $9.5 million over three years.
The real pay off, to my way of thinking, will be the students who graduate with Google as part of their thought processes. The Microsoft wizard who told me Google’s education strategy was not worth his time may want to consider what happens if Google succeeds in winning other school districts to embrace the GOOG.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2008
As Google and Salesforce Close Dance This Google Interview Gains Importance
June 24, 2008
In my Google files is an interview with Dave Girouard, the top Googler for the firm’s enterprise division. Mr. Girouard spoke with John Zyskowski of Federal Computer Week in February 2008. The give and take ran under the title “Google’s Dave Girouard on Google-ization.” You can read the story here. When I first read it, I did not see much that resonated with my research.
Now, as Google and Salesforce.com shift from casual dancing partners to going steady, Mr. Girouard’s remarks have a new significance to me. Let me highlight three points that caught my attention against my deeper understanding of what Google and Salesforce.com are offering organizations.
First, the search appliance is not the end game. Other applications have pulled Google deeper into the enterprise. The thought that crossed my mind is that Google’s search appliances connect to other Google enterprise applications. At some point these appliances could be used to create a different type of infrastructure that unites the organization, Google, and the appliance.
Second, Google’s unique selling proposition has two points: cost and capability. As the economy weakens, Google and Salesforce.com are poised to offer increasingly diverse applications that sell themselves. Customers come seeking Google and Salesforce.com. If that model continues to work, incumbent on-premises application vendors will face higher marketing costs and customers who go looking for an alternative.
Third, Mr. Girouard suggests that more cloud-based products and services are coming from Google.
Several questions came to my mind:
- Is Google likely to move from close dancing to a more intimate relationship with Salesforce.com? The tie up would make sense and help pave the way for Google to make a play for a larger share of the multi-billion dollar enterprise systems market.
- Has Google decided that Salesforce.com’s multi tenant approach to applications has sufficient technical merit to complement Google’s own software and systems? For a period of time, I thought that Google perceived the multi tenant inventions of Salesforce.com as trivial. Maybe I was wrong and multi tenant technology is indeed a big deal for Google.
- Will Salesforce.com’s existing customer base be candidates for Google’s data management services? My reading suggests to me that Google has more data base horsepower than it talks about.
With data management looming as one of the major challenges for organizations, Salesforce.com might be a useful stalking horse. Read the interview and let me know your thoughts.
I tried to get Google to participate in my Search Wizards Speak series, but like Autonomy and Microsoft, my request fell on deaf ears. Could there be some reluctance to let me probe into such matters as data management? I can only formulate my opinions based on chunks of information such as this Federal Computer Week interview.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2008
Zoomii: Interesting Interactive Interface
June 23, 2008
A person who remembers old-fashioned bookstores but prefers the Amazon-type experience may want to look at Zoomii Books here. The service allows you to enter a word or phrase or explore a visual representation of a bookstore’s shelves. The notion of browsing in a book store is useful. The service runs on Amazon’s EC2 and S3 services. If you want to learn more about the company, write talk at zoomii.com. This is worth a look. I can think of applications in enterprise search where this approach would be appropriate and helpful. Too 20-something or useful to a person in assisted living? What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Microsoft: New Management Line Up
June 23, 2008
InfoWorld, a print publication that went all digital, contains a useful round up of Microsoft’s current senior management team. You can read the essay “Microsoft’s Post-Gates Management Team” here. The pop ups and quirky search engine make it difficult to locate some material on the InfoWorld Web site, so click this link while it still fresh (June 20, 2008).
The important point for me in Elizabeth Montalbano’s story is that no one is identified as having responsibility for search, text analysis, and content processing. I find this strange because search is the killer application for anyone working with information today.
My thoughts on this strange omission are:
- I am not smart enough to understand that search is the obvious responsibility of one of these senior managers, possibly Stephen Elop, president of the Microsoft Business Division.
- Microsoft believes that other areas are more important than search, assuming that those in lower management ranks will be able to deal with Google’s dominance of this application space
- Microsoft is confident that the new Live.com initiatives and the enterprise Web part for SharePoint are the key steps needed to catch up with Google and then leap frog over it.
If you have other thoughts on the “owner” of search at Microsoft, let me know via the comments section.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Update 1, June 23, 2008 6 30 pm Eastern: A reader provided us with this link. John Lervik is a corporate vice president, Microsoft Enterprise Search Group, in the Microsoft Business Division. Microsoft information page is here. A happy quack to the reader who took the time to provide this item.
Google: Friction More Powerful than Google
June 23, 2008
Om Malik’s GigaOM flagged a vulnerability that I had overlooked–friction. His essay “Delayed: Android aka Google Phone” is a summary of a Wall Street Journal story, but he pushes beyond the WSJ with this statement:
…Whimsical wishes of carriers, endless customization, software delays and of course, executive reshuffling–these are facts of life for mobile start-ups. Welcome to the club, Google.
Please, click here and read his take on the Google Android delay.
What struck me as important was that in my listing of Google’s vulnerabilities in my The Google Legacy (2005) and Google Version 2.0 (2007), I overlooked friction. GigaOM makes it clear that environmental factors such as bureaucracy and work procedures can slow most companies, including Google.
After thinking about this point, I want to suggest that as Google grows larger, the friction the company faces will go up. For competitors, evidence of “friction” hampering Google is good news. Kudos for GigaOM for making this point clear to me.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Update 1, June 23, 2008 6 45 pm Eastern: CNet has published “Google Andoid Success: I’ll Believe It When I See It” by Don Reisinger. Mr. Reisinger identifies four issues with the mobile initiative. Worth your reading time.Wall Street Journal
Update 2, June 24, 2008 Ars Technica reports that Google Android is on track. Jacqui Chang’s “Google Says Android Still on Schedule” is here. Google’s quick reaction to the seed story has been fast and forceful. One wonders how Google could have missed the opportunity to provide a clearer signal to the Wall Street Journal before the negative Android story broke. Could Google’s PR mechanism be part of the problem?
Text Analytics; Search Fractures Identified
June 23, 2008
A quite interesting essay by Frank Diana popped into my news reader. Mr. Diana’s essay “The 4th Annual Text Analytics Summit” is here. The most interesting part of his summary of the conference is this list:
- Fraud detection
- Voice of the Employee, Customer, Community and Market
- Patient Safety, Drug Discovery, Clinical Analysis
- Law Enforcement, Intelligence Analysis
- Litigation Support / eDiscovery
- SOX Compliance, Corporate Governance
- Investment Analysis
- Marketing Campaign Analysis, Advertising Analysis
- Claims Analysis, Warranty Analysis
- Product Innovation
- Reputation Management
- Intelligent Messaging.
Mr. Diana suggests that these are areas in which text analytics will play a role. I agree, but I would like to offer several observations.
Each of these niches require tailored components to address the specific information requirements of each market. Some functions will be common such as entity extraction and email threading. Other requirements will be highly particularized such as those for law enforcement, financial applications, and health and medical applications.
The list underscores why “one size fits all search and content processing systems” continue to disappoint many users. In an organization, each user needs a particular type of information under different circumstances. Some of these may be predictable because a work process requires that an employee have access to information about a customer’s history with the company. Other information needs may be unpredictable, so interfaces and access methods have to be tailored to meet these needs.
In theory, an information platform can be customized to meet the needs of a group of users or a single user. In reality, the cost and complexity of building personalization from a common framework may tax an organization’s resources. To economize, a “good enough” system is provided. Users find the system disappointing. This situation triggers more spending and creates an inefficient information environment.
What this list suggests is that the type of laser focus that some vendors are bringing to specific markets may be the key to success in the highly competitive text processing market. Agree or disagree? Let me know via the comments section of this Web log.
Stephen Arnold, June 23, 2008
Business Intelligence: Revenues Drift Down
June 21, 2008
The business intelligence revolution has come and seems to be headed for knee surgery. The nimbleness is gone. If Information Week has it right, business intelligence in the US needs help to get back on the revenue treadmill. Mary Hayes Weier’s essay “Business Intelligence Software Growth Shows Dramatic Drop in U.S.” is here. Ms. Weier’s key point is, “Sales growth of BI software in the United States…sputtered to just five percent.”
BI, as the aficionados prefer, is the stuff that fires the synapses of smart managers. That may be true, but the market is dominated by a handful of companies who seem to be intent of sucking the oxygen from the market, stunting smaller BI vendors, and competing with one another.
Software giants like IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle seem to be moving to a super sized version of Microsoft Office only this time the suite contains application servers, databases, analytics, and search. Will this strategy of delivering a dump truck filled with software help or hurt business intelligence?
My thought upon reading Ms. Weier’s essay was that the effect of on premises systems of such complexity will hasten the emergence of cloud-based solutions. The reasons are easy to identify:
- Information technology departments are no longer able to budget reliably. The slightest glitch can chew through a budget. More complexity means more glitches and less control and predictability in IT spending. Solution? Shift to the cloud and a price list.
- Vendors will find their marketing assurances losing efficacy. Customers cannot afford systems that do not work as advertised. For many years, licensees have been reluctant to grouse. That is beginning to change. Even stage managed vendor trade shows are becoming tough to hold to the party line. Going forward, licensees may become more vocal in their criticism of software and pricing policies. Buggy software “sells” consulting services until licensees get savvy about this ploy.
- Smaller firms may find it easier to explore alternative delivery, pricing, and support models. A small vendor has narrow margin of error. On the other hand, a smaller outfit can make a change to a business quickly. When there are large numbers of competitors, one or two of these outfits may find the keys to the kingdom. The giant firms will be unable to adapt quickly and in effect become more vulnerable.
The business intelligence wave has come, hit the shore, and is now receding. Companies want to make decisions based on data, and the winners will be firms who can make complexity less painful from the cloud. My hypothesis is that a shake up is coming. It may take many years, but the dominant companies will be the BI equivalent of Toyota and Honda surrounded by a small number of specialists. Whom do you think will emerge as the BI winners? I am going to put my money on the GOOG for these reasons: big league analytics in an easy to use package, cloud capability, and big data to complement the puny data sets most companies crunch for their current BI analyses.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
