Anti Search in 2011
November 1, 2010
In a recent meeting, several of the participants were charged with disinformation from the azurini.
You know. Azurini, the consultants.
Some of these were English majors, others former print journalists, and some unemployed search engine optimization experts smoked by Google Instant.
But mostly the azurini emphasize that their core competency is search, content management, or information governance (whatever the heck that means). In a month or so, there will be a flood of trend write ups. When the Roman god looks to his left and right, the signal for prognostication flashes through the fabric covered cube farms.
To get ahead of the azurini, the addled goose wants to identify the trends in anti search for 2011. Yep, anti search. Remember that in a Searcher article several years ago, I asserted that search was dead. No one believed me, of course. Instead of digging into the problems that ranged from hostile users to the financial meltdown of some high profile enterprise search vendors, search was the big deal.
And why not? No one can do a lick of work today unless that person can locate a document or “find” something to jump start activity. In a restaurant, people talk less and commune with their mobile devices. Search is on a par with food, a situation that Maslow would find interesting.
The idea for this write up emerged from a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The attendees were trying to figure out how to enhance an existing enterprise search system in order to improve the productivity of the business. The goal was admirable, but the company was struggling to generate revenues and reduce costs.The talk was about search but the subtext was survival.
The needs for the next generation search system included:
- A great user experience
- An iPad app to deliver needed information
- Seamless access to Web and Intranet information
- Google-like performance
- Improved indexing and metatagging
- Access to database content and unstructured information like email.
Iron Mountain Magnetic Again?
September 26, 2010
Iron Mountain is an unusual company. The firm’s business is built on moving paper from a file cabinet to a secure location. Put those documents in a box and store them in a cave, an “iron mountain”. From paper, the company moved to digital content and entered the digital archiving business. Along the way, the firm snapped up Purple Yogi (now known as Stratify). Purple Yogi was an early “automated classification” and search system for content. The Purple Yogi folks had an interesting approach, but like many of the early “automatic” systems, humans were needed. As a result, dealing with “big data” was not the system’s core competency. Purple Yogi morphed into Stratify and focused on the legal market where the content domains were bounded and billable human labor was part of the business model. Iron Mountain acquired Stratify (né Purple Yogi) in 2007 as I recall. then in a somewhat surprise move to the goose, Iron Mountain acquire Mimosa Systems, another document processing outfit. According to the Iron Mountain news release:
The deal provides Iron Mountain with an integrated archive for email, SharePoint data and files, and gives the company an on-premises archiving option to complement its existing cloud-based archives. The ability to archive and manage data both onsite, inside the customer’s firewall, and remotely in the cloud makes Iron Mountain a one-stop shop for data capture, archiving and management. It also provides the company’s customers with greater flexibility and choice for managing their information. Additionally, the company can now capture and manage a broader range of enterprise information from so-called “edge-of-the-network” devices like desktop PCs and laptops as well as from company repositories like email stores, SharePoint servers and file systems. Many larger businesses still prefer to keep this data on their premises today. Finally, the acquisition allows Iron Mountain to extract intelligence from the information it manages both on-premises and in the cloud, advancing the company’s larger strategy to help enterprises lower the costs and risks associated with storing and managing information.
The search and content processing company has quite a few players. My experience is that most of today’s search wizards wearing their azurini T shirts and selling their advice to search-challenged procurement teams don’t know much about Purple Yogi or Mimosa.
The reason is that specialist firms deliver narrow solutions to segments of the market too small or esoteric to trigger a reading on the English majors’ Geiger counters.
Upon reading “Are Iron Mountain Shares Ready to Climb?”, I asked, “What’s the PR push all about?” The link to the story is likely to go dead because the source is Barron’s, a Murdoch property so you may have to pay to see the info when you read this post.
The reason for the “excitement” about Iron Mountain is that Iron Mountain’s share price has not exactly set the “recession is over” world on fire. Nevertheless, Warren Buffet likes the stock and that’s enough for Barron’s. Toss in the promise that Iron Mountain will win big in the cloud computing space, and you have a PR opportunity.
Barron’s notes that Iron Mountain has some challenges. These include management policies, a revenue base built on paper documents, and lots of competition.
My view is different. I think Iron Mountain is a company that can generate a hefty return with a shift in management focus and a rebuild of its core technical approach. I think that buying companies like Stratify and Mimosa do not solve problems; they create more problems. Without a more robust technical vision, Iron Mountain is not likely to have the magnetic pull that savvy folks like Warren Buffet require. Therefore, if Mr. Buffet wants to make a killing, he is going to have to make slow, methodical changes that first affect management and then technology. Without these shifts, Iron Mountain is going to have some difficulty dealing with the Amazon-type or Rackspace-type of approach. A Yahoo or Google style approach to next generation technology will be tough to make work. How patient is Mr. Buffet?
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2010
Freebie
Search Industry Spot Changing: Risks and Rewards
September 20, 2010
I want to pick up a theme that has not been discussed from our angle in Harrod’s Creek. Marketers can change the language in news releases, on company blogs, and in PowerPoint pitches with a few keystrokes. For many companies, this is the preferred way to shift from one-size-fits-all search solutions described as a platform or framework into a product vendor. I don’t want to identify any specific companies, but you will be able to recognize them as these firms load up on Google AdWords, do pay-to-play presentations at traditional conferences, and output information about the new products. To see how this works, just turn off Google Instant and run the query “enterprise search”, “customer support”, or “business intelligence.” You can get some interesting clues from this exercise.
Source: http://jason-thomas.tumblr.com/
Enterprise search, as a discipline, is now undergoing the type of transformation that hit suppliers to the US auto industry last year. There is consolidation, outright failure , and downsizing for survival. The auto industry needs suppliers to make cars. But when people don’t buy the US auto makers products, dominoes fall over.
What are the options available to a company with a brand based on the notion of “enterprise search” and wild generalizations such as “all your information at your fingertips”? As it turns out, the options are essentially those of the auto suppliers to the US auto industry:
- The company can close its doors. A good example is Convera.
- The search vendor can sell out, ideally at a very high price. A good example is Fast Search & Transfer SA.
- The search vendor can focus on a specific solution; for example, indexing FAQs and other information for customer support. A good example is Open Text.
- The vendor can dissolve back into an organization and emerge with a new spin on the technology. An example is Google and its Google Search Appliance.
- The search vendor can just go quiet and chase work as a certified integrator to a giant outfit like Microsoft. Good examples are the firms who make “snap ins” for Microsoft SharePoint.
- The search vendor can grab a market’s catchphrase like “business intelligence” and say me too. The search vendor can morph into open source and go for a giant infusion of venture funding. An example is Palantir.
Now there is nothing wrong with any of these approaches. I have worked on some projects and used many of the tactics identified above as rivets in an analysis.
What I learned is that saying enterprise search technology is now a solution has an upside and downside. I want to capture my thoughts about each before they slip away from me. My motivation is the acceleration in repositioning that I have noticed in the last two weeks. Search vendors are kicking into overdrive with some interesting moves, which we will document here. We are thinking about creating a separate news service to deal with some of the non-search aspects of what we think is a key point in the evolution of search, content processing and information retrieval.
The Upside of Repositioning One-Size-Fits-All-Search
Let me run down the facets of this view point.
First, repositioning—as I said above—is easy. No major changes have to be made except for the MBA-style and Madison Avenue type explanation of what the company is doing. I see more and more focused messages. A vendor explains that a solution can deliver an on point solution to a big problem. A good example are the search vendors who are processing blogs and other social content for “meaning” that illuminates how a product or service is perceived. This is existing technology trimmed and focused on a specific body of content, specific outputs from specific inputs, and reports that a non-specialist can understand. No big surprise that search vendors are in the repositioning game as they try to pick up the scent of revenues like my neighbor’s hunting dog.
Apptus Theca
June 24, 2010
Quite a few search and content processing companies describe themselves as “leading”. The headline “Europe’s Leading Search Technology Company Apptus, Offers a Safe Passage for All Users of Fast on Linux and Unix to Apptus’ Search Platform Theca” caught my attention. The byline was Stockholm, which is definitely a technology center. Microsoft has a large presence. The content management company EPiServer and the smart content processing vendor Silobreaker have roots in the Stockholms skärgård. Microsoft has a significant presence as well. Apptus lit up my radar on one of my visits to Scandinavia. The company was positioned to me as an eCommerce integrator focusing on directory implementations and retail.
The news item, reported on Yahoo so it may become a 404 in a heartbeat, made several interesting points.
First, the news release informed me that Apptus is “Europe’s leading search technology company.” A bit deeper in the news release was this qualifier, “Europe’s leading developer of search and content enrichment services for online directories.” This statement matched my understanding of the the company’s focus. Too bad the headline says one thing which I did not believe and the first paragraph said another thing which seemed to match what I knew about the company. Ah, 20-somethings. Such a delight are they.
Second, Microsoft’s dumping the Linux/Unix Fast Search & Transfer ESP has spawned a competitor. Although the news release does not tell me, I heard that Apptus is using open source search technology and going after the orphaned Fast ESP Linux/Unix users. This makes sense, and the idea that an outfit with expertise in search implementation, tuning, and integration is a good one in my opinion.
Third, Apptus is one of the higher profile outfits taking advantage of Microsoft’s decision to expand its business and give open source search a boost. Keep in mind that Apptus has customers in 18 countries and counts among its clients Yell.com and World Color Press (formerly Quebecor), among others.
In my opinion, what I see happening is a fracturing of an already mixed up and fluid segment of the software industry. I assume that my two or three readers will disagree, but here’s my working hypothesis:
- Microsoft’s dumping of Fast Linux/Unix is giving additional impetus to Lucene/Solr. Vendors of proprietary search and content processing solutions may find that Microsoft has unwittingly created an unexpected consequence. It is too soon to tell if Microsoft knows about what I can call the “Apptus effect”. I will have to sit back and watch.
- SharePoint centric search vendors may find the open source search providers capturing more customers. SharePoint centric vendors, therefore, may face some tough choices; for example, put resources into fighting the Apptus-style plays, focus only on SharePoint and abandon the Linux/Unix market, or go all in and support Microsoft and Linux/Unix.
- The search and content processing vendors who want to offer platforms will have to step up their marketing. Microsoft and Google are platform companies, and it will be increasingly difficult to get attention for very good, but less well known options.
- Specialty search vendors will be forced to focus even more sharply on point solutions. This means that crazy marketing lingo aside, some companies will have to pick a sector like customer support and, in the words of Project Runway’s Tim Gunn, “make it work”. The days of morphing from business intelligence, semantics, eDiscovery, and appliances may meet with greater skepticism. Customers with problems will want a best of breed solution and the Heinz 57 varieties creature may be a turn off.
- Cloud search solutions may become more desirable. I had a conversation yesterday and pointed out that SAS Teragram offered a cloud solution before the cloud had become the buzzword du jour. Companies like Blossom.com have proved to me that hosted search works like a champ and shaves money and time off search and retrieval.
To sum up, the Apptus announcements strikes me as a big deal. Aside from my stumbling over the Apptus news release headline, there’s a message in the Apptus news item. Who is listening? Search vendors facing financial pressure may want to perk up their ears.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24,2010
Freebie
BA Insight Announces Longitude V4
June 15, 2010
I get quite a bit of information about snap in search and content processing systems designed specifically for Microsoft SharePoint. Many organizations find SharePoint and its components, add ins, and third party enhancements exactly what is needed to crack tough information management problems.
Make your SharePoint search as quickly as a Bugatti Veyron accelerates.
BA Insight – along with Fabasoft Mindbreeze, SurfRay, Coveo, Exalead, and other vendors – offers a search solution for SharePoint licensees. You can read about the “state-of-the-art search features” in “BA-Insight Announces Next-Generation Search Technology for SharePoint and FAST Search 2010 at Microsoft TechEd 2010 Conference. BA-Insight’s Longitude Version 4 Provides Automatic Optimization of Microsoft’s 2010 Enterprise Search Products.”
Among the state-of-the-art features are, according to the write up:
- Highly scalable performance, superior to Flash/Java in speed of rendition
- More efficient engine for rendering complex pages and 3D animation
- Linking of structured and unstructured data
- Text recognition within an image format, where OCR is executed on the fly
- Translation from foreign languages
- Strong .Net integration – customer ability to embed existing custom .Net extensions into the Silverlight viewer
- Full use of all existing Longitude Search Connectors
- Indexing of email including attachments
- Parametric search.
The description of this product might bring tears to the eyes of BA Insight’s competitors and smiles of joy to SharePoint licensees who struggle to get a distributed SharePoint system humming like a Bugatti Veyron.
You can get more information about the BA Insight “state of the art” system at www.ba-insight.com. Each time I read about a search solution for SharePoint I wonder what creates such a thriving business in SharePoint search now that Microsoft owns the Fast Search & Transfer technology.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2010
Exalead Acquired by Dassault
June 11, 2010
I have done some work for Exalead over the last five years, and I have gone down in history as one of the few people from Kentucky to talk my way into the Exalead offices in Paris without an appointment. L’horreur. I had a bucket of KY Fry in my hand and was guzzling a Coca Lite.
Out of that exciting moment in American courtesy, I met François Bourdoncle, a former AltaVista.com wizard. He watched in horror as I gobbled a crispy leg and asked him about the origins of Exalead, his work with then-Googler Louis Monier, and his vision for 64 bit computing. I wrote up some of the information in the first edition of the Enterprise Search Report, a publication now shaped into a quasi-New Age Cliff’s Notes for the under 30 crowd. I followed up with M. Bourdoncle in February 2008, and published that interview as part of the ArnoldIT.com Search Wizards Speak series. The last time I was in Paris, I dropped by the Exalead offices and had a nice chat. I even made a video. Several Exaleaders took me to dinner, pointing out that McDo was not an option. Rats.
So what’s with the sale of Exalead to Dassault Systèmes?
The azure chip crowd has weighed in, and I will ignore those observations. There is some spectacular baloney being converted into expensive consulting burgers, and I will leave you and them to your intellectual picnic.
Here’s my take:
Differentiator
There are lots of outfits asserting that their search and content processing system will work wonders. I don’t want to list these companies, but you can find them by navigating either to Google.com or Exalead.com/search and running a query for enterprise search. The problem is that most of these outfits come with what I call an “interesting history.” Examples range from natural language processing companies that have been created from the ashes of not-so-successful search vendors to Frankenstein companies created with “no cash mergers.” I know. Wild, right. Other companies have on going investigations snapping like cocker spaniels at their heels. A few are giant roll ups, in effect, 21st century Ling Temco Vought clones. A few are delivering solid value for specific applications. I can cite examples in XML search, eDiscovery, and enhancements for the Google constructs. (Okay, I will mention my son’s company, Adhere Solutions, a leader in this Google space.)
The point for me is that Exalead combined a number of working functions into a platform. The platform delivers search enabled applications; that is, the licensee has an information problem and doesn’t know how to cope with costs, data flows, and the need for continuous index updating. The Exalead technology makes it easy to suck in information and give different users access to the information they need to do their job. For some Exalead customers, the solution allows people to track packages and shipments. For other licensees, the Exalead technology sucks in information and generates reports in the form of restaurant reviews or competitive profiles. The terminology is less important than solving the problem.
That’s a key differentiator.
Technology
Google and Exalead were two outfits able to learn from the mistakes at AltaVista.com. Early on I learned that the founder of Exalead could have become a Googler. The reason Exalead exists is that M. Bourdoncle wanted to build a French company in France without the wackiness that goes along with tackling this mission in the US of A. Americans don’t fully understand the French, and I can’t do much more than remind you, gentle reader, that French waiters behave a certain way because of the “approach” many Americans make to the task of getting a jambon sandwich and a bottle of water.
I understood that M. Bourdoncle wanted to do the job his way, and he focused on coding for a 64 bit world when there were few 64 bit processors in the paws of enterprise information technology departments. He tackled a number of tough technical problems in order to make possible high performance, low cost scaling, and mostly painless tailoring of the system to information problems, not just search. Sure, search is part of the DNA, but Exalead has connectors, text to voice, image recognition, etc. And, happily, Exalead’s approach plays well with other enterprise systems. Exalead can add value with less engineering hassles than some of the firm’s competitors can. Implementation can be done in days or weeks, and sometimes months, not years like some vendors require.
So the plumbing is good.
That’s a high value asset.
Vamosa and SchemaLogic
March 24, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who took me to task for not covering SchemaLogic more diligently. I check out my Overflight service and I can tell quickly if a search and content processing vendor is making some marketing tracks. Autonomy is on the ball; many of the vendors I track are either lacking in marketing savvy, marketing resources, or marketing energy.
I want to point to SchemaLogic’s tie up with Vamosa. SchemaLogic makes a controlled vocabulary server. The company has other technical capabilities, but I want to highlight the server product. With it, an organization can tame the wild ponies of uncontrolled tagging. SharePoint offers this users-can-do-it approach, and I think that uncontrolled tagging creates some interesting retrieval challenges. SchemaLogic’s server is a traffic cop, authority file, and repository. The software enforces some order on indexing or metatagging as the 20-somethings prefer.
Vamosa is a services firm and it is one of the many companies that offer consulting and information governance expertise to organizations. The idea is that in a SharePoint environment, people learn pretty quickly that there are problems “finding” information. Vamosa to the rescue.
The tie up allows Vamosa to offer a solution and SchemaLogic to get some marketing support. You can get details about the deal in the write up “Vamosa Adds More Content Governance Capabilities via MetaPoint.”
For information about Vamosa navigate to the firm’s Web site, www.vamosa.com. For information about SchemaLogic, you can find information at www.schemalogic.com.
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2010
Hewlett Packard Trim 7
March 12, 2010
Hewlett Packard, a company that I continue to associate with low cost printers and high cost ink, lit up my radar with its acquisition of Lexington, Kentucky-based Exstream Software two years ago. Exstream (now Enterprise Document Automation), like IBM Ricoh Infoprints and Streamserve, generates outputs like invoices with warranty reminders and auto payment bills with coupons for oil change discounts. I learned that in February 2010, HP stepped up its footprint in document management. One of the source documents I examined is “HPTrim 7… How We Got Here?”. The gray background and the dark blue highlights on text were a bit much for the addled goose’s eyes, however. For me, the most interesting segment in the history of Trim 7 was this passage:
Market consolidation meant that lots of little players were gobbled up, as the larger vendors strived to meet the ever challenging demands of the marketplace, picking up technology from these smaller companies and making them a part of their overall product line. Hewlett-Packard, one of the largest IT companies in the world, did the same, acquiring TOWER Software in 2008, but with one subtle difference. Rather than cannibalize the technology and abandon the product, they kept almost all of the staff from the TOWER acquisition and told them to build the next version of what is now known as HP TRIM. And – there were no other products that HP TRIM had to compete with internally unlike a lot of the other acquisitions: IBM/FileNet, OpenText/Hummingbird/Vignette, and utonomy/Zantaz/Interwoven/Meridio. HP wanted to concentrate on the product that was HP TRIM, and add the backing that only a company like HP can bring to a product. And so, HP TRIM 7 was born.
Digging through the text, HP bought an outfit called Tower and is rolling in other software to create the “new” document management business. You can locate the main page here. Three points jumped out:
First, I did not see any indication that HP’s dynamic document system integrates our “touches” the Trim 7 product. That’s strike me as an indication that HP is chasing revenues from silo sales, not integration.
Second, how does one find a document? I could not locate any information about the search and retrieval functions within Trim 7. I surmise that if I use Trim 7 for SharePoint, I in theory would be able to use the Microsoft Fast ESP system to search for content. That also seems to be quite a bit of work; that is, consulting revenue for HP or its partners. My query “search HP Trim” resulted in 10 hits but noting on point. One result was this page, which was heavy on marketing an light on locating information within the Trim 7 system. After a legal eagle drops a gift on a company named as a party in a legal matter, job one is answering the question, “What’s this about?” Trim 7 may not be able to answer that question.
Third, HP seems to be grabbing enterprise software companies that address really big information problems. With HP’s push into printers and ink, I saw a success that may have caught the firm’s hardware mavens by surprise. The trajectory in enterprise software is being driven from bit money acquisitions. I think that the surprise of printing consumables will be different from the surprise of acquisition-based growth. One was emergent; the latter is closer to MBA spreadsheet fever.
Big bets. Big win or big loss? I am leaning toward the loss option. Outlook: worth monitoring.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because HP derives significant revenue from ink, I think I have to report non payment to the US government’s printer, GPO.
Is Content Management a Digital Titanic?
February 25, 2010
Content management is a moving target. Unlike search, CMS is supposed to generate a Web page or some other type of content product. The “leaders” in content management systems or CMS seem to disappearing into larger organizations. Surprising. If CMS were healthy, why aren’t these technology outfits growing like crazy and spinning off tons of cash?
I am no expert in CMS. In fact, I am not an expert in anything unlike the azure chip consultants, poobahs, and pundits who profess deep knowing at the press of a mouse button. In my experience, CMS emerged from people not having an easy way to produce HTML pages that could be displayed in a browser.
If HTML was too tough for some people, imagine the pickle barrel in which these folks find themselves today. In order to create a Web site, more than HTML is required. The crowd who relied on Microsoft’s Front Page find themselves struggling with the need to make Web pages work as applications or bundles of applications with some static brochureware thrown in for good measure.
To make a Web site today, technical know how is an absolute must. Even the very good point-and-click services from SquareSpace.com and Weebly.com can baffle some people.
The azure chip consultants, the mavens, and the poobahs want to be in the lifeboats. Women and children to the rear. Source: http://www.ronnestam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/lifeboat_change_advertising_sinking.jpg
Move the need for a dynamic Web site into a big organization that is not good at technology, and you have a recipe for disaster. In fact, the wreckage created by some content management vendors, pundits, and integrators is of significant magnitude. There’s the big hassle in Australia over a blue chip CMS implementation that does not work. The US Senate went after the bluest of the blue chip integrators because a CMS could not generate a single Web page. Sigh.
A Free Pass for Open Source Search?
February 11, 2010
Dateline: Harrod’s Creek, February 11, 2010
I read Gavin Clarke’s “Microsoft Drops Open Source Birthday Gift with Fast Lucidly Imaginative?” I think that the point of the story was “a free pass” to “open source search providers like Lucid Imagination” is interesting. However, I am not willing to accept “free pass”, a variant of the “free lunch” in my opinion.
Here’s my view from the pleasant clime of snowy Harrod’s Creek.
First, in my opinion, most of the Fast Search & Transfer licensees bought into the “one size fits all” approach to search: facets, reports, access to structured and unstructured data, etc. As many of these licensees discovered, the cost of making Fast’s search technology deliver on the marketing PowerPoints was high. Furthermore, some like me learned how difficult it was for certain licensees to get the moving parts in sync quickly. Fast ESP consisted, prior to the Microsoft buy out, of keyword search, semantics from a team in Germany, third-party magic from companies like Lexalytics, home brew code from Norwegian wizards, and outright acquisitions for publishing and content management functionality. Wisely, many search vendors have learned to steer clear of the path that Fast Search & Transfer chopped through the sales wilderness. This means that orphaned Fast Search licensees may be looking at procurements that narrow the scope of search and content processing systems. In fact, there are only a handful vendors who are now pitching the “kitchen sink” approach to search.
Source: http://www.graceforlife.com/uploaded_images/no_free_lunch-772769.jpg
Second, open source search solutions are not created equal. Some are tool kits; others are ready-to-run systems. Lucid Imagination has a good public relations presence in certain places; for example, San Francisco. For those who monitor the search space, there are some other open source vendors that may provide some options. I particularly like the open source version of Lucene available from Tesuji.eu. Ah, never heard of the outfit, right? I also find the FLAX system available from Lemur Consulting useful as well. I think the issues with Fast Search & Transfer are not going to be resolved by ringing up a single vendor and saying, “We’re ready to go with your open source solution.” The more prudent approach is going to be understanding what the differences among various open source search solutions are and then determining if an organization’s specific requirements match up to one of these firms’ service offerings. Open source, therefore, requires some work and I don’t think a knee jerk reaction or a sweeping statement that the Microsoft announcement will deliver a “free pass” is accurate.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
