Attensity May Be on the Rise Again
December 20, 2013
Attensity is a name that comes to mind when organizations need to track social analytics for customer relationship management. The company has not been receiving positive PR in the past year, but when we recently visited Attensity’s management Web page. We noticed that the page had a few new faces with impressive resumes. Will these new board members take the company out of the red and place them on the right path?
Let us review each person. Howard Lau joined Attensity in January 2013, says his LinkedIn page, and he has twenty-five years in the business software sector. He used to be an executive at SAP Labs and SAP Ventures and East Gate Capital. He is now Attensity’s CEO and Chairman. Lau is a venture capitalist and has turned a profit four times the investor’s original investment. He is knowledgeable and has the right experience to turn Attensity around. He checks out well.
Thomas Dreikauss is the general manager of Attensity GmbH in Europe and has the large responsibility of running business development across Western Europe. He has worked in sales management and marketing enterprise software for over twenty years. Derikauss has proven he can build strong teams and helping companies expand beyond a small startup. He worked at Inxight Software GmbH, Xerox PARC, and Business Objects. He was probably brought onto the team, because he is noted to help companies grow when times are tough. Another good apple.
The Chief Financial Officer Frank Brown is next:
“Frank brings over 25 years of experience in the technology and finance industries. Prior to Attensity, he has worked with a number of leading companies in the software, communications, and semiconductor industries, at the executive and board level, to chart corporate strategy and manage internal operations. Frank’s experience includes positions with IBM Corporation, Andersen Consulting, Oracle Corporation and Lehman Brothers. Frank’s background also includes a number of years in the investment banking and venture capital industries. His successful track record as a venture capitalist includes investments across the technology and healthcare sectors. As the founder of Amber Ventures, Frank has worked as a senior finance executive in a variety of privately held technology companies guiding their activities in areas such as budgeting, accounting, fundraising and mergers and acquisitions. Frank received his M.B.A. from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a B.S. in Decision Sciences, Finance and Accounting.”
Brown has the important duty of bringing in revenue and rerouting financial plans. It is a difficult position to be in, especially if the company is trying to reinvent itself. Experience and openness to new ideas is the route Attensity should rely on as the company tries to get back on track. It will be a long, winding path up the mountain. These three will act as the climbing poles to keep Attensity from falling.
Whitney Grace, December 20, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Ex Endeca Execs: Giving New Life to Route 128?
October 6, 2013
I read “Cambridge Firm Is Fertile Ground for Entrepreneurs.” The Massachusetts in crowd should be thrilled with the Boston Globe’s story. In addition to a graphic which puts Endeca at the center of a universe of start ups, the story draws an interesting parallel for me:
Like its much bigger predecessors, Digital Equipment Corp. and Lotus Development Corp., two seminal Boston companies acquired by competitors, Endeca is emerging as a fount of new business activity, churning out the next generation of entrepreneurs and helping to expand the region’s technology economy.
The write up then references the influence tendrils of what I assume is “fertile ground” to Xerox, Digital Equipment, and Lotus.
The article included this passage as well:
But the $1 billion paid by Oracle made some Endeca employees wealthy, which certainly made it easier for them to decide to start companies. And more may follow. Venture capitalists report they are in contact with other Endecans who are contemplating leaving Oracle. Oracle declined to comment for this story. And the Diaspora might have been bigger had Endeca been on the West Coast, where the cycle of people leaving companies for start-ups happens much faster than in Massachusetts. One reason is that many large Boston companies have employees sign noncompete agreements, which can limit their ability to spin off a start-up. Noncompete agreements are not enforced in California. Endeca employees signed noncompetes, but so far those who have started companies are not direct competitors. The new businesses range from social media to medical records companies.
Then this quote to note: “We did a good job of training people how to be entrepreneurs,” said Papa, so that they are not all trying to just “build the next Endeca.” Steve Papa was one of the founders of Endeca.
My thoughts turned to other search companies that sold out. Has there been a similar surge of innovation from:
- Autonomy founders
- Exalead founders
- ISYS Search Software founders
- Verity founders
- Vivisimo founders
I don’t recall a similar explosion of innovation from any of these firms nor a glittering write up in a major, “real” newspaper. There are, I believe, some questions which beg to be answered:
- What makes Endeca different?
- Why haven’t other search vendors’ founders gone the start up route?
- What is the survivability of start ups created by founders of iPhrase (acquired by IBM), Inxight (acquired by Business Objects), and other long-ago winners in the buy out game?
I don’t have any answers, and I am personally delighted that there will not be another Endeca coming down the pike. The notion of blending a Yahoo style directory with key word indexing and then layering on eCommerce, publishing, business intelligence, and other functions is a path well worn by Convera, Delphes, Entopia, and some of IBM’s search efforts.
Endeca, based on my notes, was heavy on MBA think and less into Google-style technology. The list of Endeca spawned start ups includes Salsify, Thank Media, and Toast among others. Each has a hefty dose of “management.” Perhaps MBAs are the answer to market traction?
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2013
Big Outfits Buy Search Vendors: Does Chaos Commence?
May 25, 2012
I don’t want to mention any specifics in this write up. I have a for-fee Overflight on the subject. I do want to highlight some of the preliminary thoughts the goslings and I collected before creating our client-focused analysis. This write up was sparked by the recent news that the founder of Autonomy, which HP acquired for $10 billion, is seeking new opportunities after eight months immersed in the HP way. See “Hewlett-Packard Can’t Say It Wasn’t Warned about Autonomy.” This write up contained a remarkable statement, even when measured against the work of other “real” journalists:
Some will say this is a classic case of an entrepreneurial business being bought by a hulking, bureaucratic institution which failed to integrate it and failed to understand its culture. Others will say HP, desperate to do a deal, simply overpaid for a company that was going to struggle to maintain its sales and earnings momentum and was deluded about its abilities. Certainly warnings about the latter were there for HP to see before it handed over all that cash. Here’s what Marc Geall, a Deutsche Bank analyst who used to work at Autonomy, said in October 2010 about the business model: “…investment in the business has lagged revenues… [which] could affect customer satisfaction towards the product and the value it delivers.” He went on to warn that Autonomy’s service business was “too lean” and that it “risks falling short of standards demanded by customers”. All of which prompted Geall to question whether the company needed to change its business model – “traditionally, software companies have needed to change their business models at around $1bn in revenues”.
Yep, now the issues are easy to identify: the brutal cost of customer support, the yawning maw of research and development, the time and cost of customizing a system. The problem is that these issues have been identified. However, senior managers looking for the next big thing are extremely confident of their business and technical acumen. Search is a slam dunk. Heck, I can find what I want in Google. How tough can it be to find that purchase order? That confidence may work in business school, but it has not worked in the wild-and-crazy world of enterprise search and content processing.
Think back to the notable search acquisitions over the last few years. Here are some to jump start your memory:
- IBM in 2005 and 2006 purchases iPhrase (a MarkLogic precursor with semantic components) and Language Analysis Systems (a next generation content processing vendor)
- Microsoft which acquired Powerset and Fast Search & Transfer in the 2008 to 2009 period. Both vendors had next-generation systems with semantic, natural language processing, and other near-magical capabilities
- Oracle acquired TripleHop in 2005, focused on its less-and-less visible Secure Enterprise Search line up (SES10g and SES11g), then went on a buying spree to snap up InQuira (actually the company formed when two weaker players, Answerfriend Inc. and Electric Knowledge Inc., merged in 2002 or 2003, RightNow (which uses the Q-Go natural language processing system purchased in 2010 or 2011), and Endeca, an established search vendor with technology dating from the late 1990s)
- SAP snagged some search functions with its NetWeaver buy in 2004 which coexisted in a truce of sorts with the SAP TREX system. SAP bought Business Objects in 2007, the company inherited the Inxight Software, a text analytics vendor with assorted wizardry explained in buzzwords by marketing mavens.
So what have we learned from these buy outs by big companies? Here are the observations:
First, search and content processing does not behave the way other types of software learns to sit, come, and roll over. The MBAs, lawyers, and accountants issue commands like good organizational team players. The enterprise search and content processing crowd listens to the management edicts with bemusement. Everyone thinks search is a slam dunk. How tough can a utility function be? Well, let me remind you, gentle reader, search is pretty darned difficult. Unlike a cloud service for managing contacts, search is not one thing. Furthermore, those who have to use search are generally annoyed because systems have since 1970 failed to generate answers. Search outputs create more work. Usually the outputs are mostly wide of the mark. Big companies want to sell a software product or service that solves a problem like what is the back log for the Midwestern region or when did I last call Mr. Jones? The big companies don’t get this type of system when they buy, often for a premium, companies which purport to make content findable, smart, and accessible. So we have a situation in which a sales presentation whets the appetite of the big company executive who perceives himself or herself as an expert in search. Then when anticipation is at its peak, the sales person closes the deal. In the aftermath, the executives realize that search just does not follow the groove of an accounting system, a videoconferencing system, or a security system. Panic sets in, and you get crazy actions. IBM pretty much jettisoned its search systems and fell in love with open source Lucene / Solr. Good enough was a lot better than trying to figure out the mysteries of proprietary search and how to pay for the brutal research and development costs search requires.
Second, search is a moving target. I find that as recently as my meetings with sleek MBAs from six major financial firms, search was assumed to be a no brainer. Google has figured out search. Move on. When I asked the group how many considered themselves experts in search, everyone replied, “Yes.” I submit that none of these well-paid movers-and-shakers are very good at search and retrieval. Few of them have the time or patience for old fashioned research. Most get information from colleagues, via phone calls which include “I have a hard stop in five minutes”, and emails sent to people whom they have met at social functions or at conferences. Search is not looking up a phone number. Search is not slamming the name of a company into Google. Search is not wandering around midtown Manhattan with an iPhone displaying the location of a pizza joint. Search is whatever the user wishes to find, access, know, or learn at any point in time and in any context. Google is okay at some search functions. Other vendors are okay at others. The problem is that virtually all search and retrieval solutions are okay. People have been trying for about 50 years to deliver responses to queries that are what the user requires. Most systems dissatisfy more than half their users and have for 50 years. A big company buying a next generation search system wants these problems solved. The big company wants to close deals, get client access licenses, or cloud transactions for queries. But the big companies don’t get these things, so the MBAs, lawyers, and accountants are really confused. Confused people make crazy decisions. You get the idea.
Third, search does not mean search. Search technology includes figuring out which words to index in a document. Search does a miserable job of indexing videos unless the video audio track is converted to ASCII and then that ASCII is indexed. Even with this type of content processing system, search does not deliver a usable output. What a user gets is garbled snippets and maybe the opportunity to look at a video to figure out if the information is relevant. Search includes figuring out what a user wants before the user asks the question or even knows what the question is. One company is collecting millions in venture money to achieve this goal. Good luck on that. Search includes providing outputs that answer an employee’s specific question. Most systems provide a horseshoe type of result; that is, the search vendor wants points for getting close to the answer. Employees who have to click, scan, close, and repeat the process are not amused. The employee wants the Smith invoice from April, not increased risk of carpal tunnel problems. The poobahs who acquire search companies want none of these excuses. The poobahs want sales. What search acquisitions generate are increased costs, long sales cycles, and much friction. Marketers overstate and search systems routinely under deliver.
Who cares?
Another enterprise search train wreck. The engineer was either an MBA, an accountant, or a lawyer. No big deal. Just get another search train. How tough can it be to run a search system? Thanks to http://www.eccchistory.org/CCRailroads.htm
Well, the executives selling big companies a search and content processing just want the money. After years of backbreaking effort to generate revenues, the founders usually figure out that there are easier ways to earn a living. If the founders don’t bail out, they get a new job or become a guru at a venture capital firm.
SAS Gets More Visual
March 31, 2012
Inxight (now owned by BusinessObjects, part of the SAP empire) is history at SAS or almost history. Now the company is moving in a different direction.
Jaikumar Vijayan writes about a new visual analytics application recently unveiled by SAS in his article “SAS Promises Pervasive BI with New Tool.” Einstein is believed to have once said “computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid. Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together they are powerful beyond imagination.” We noted this passage from Mr. Vijayan’s write up:
Unlike many purely server-based enterprise analytics technologies, Visual Analytics gives business users a full range of data discovery, data visualization and querying capabilities from desktop and mobile client devices, the company said.
The initial version of the new tool allows iPad users to view reports and download information to their devices. Future versions will support other mobile devices as well, SAS added. The quote is actually a good description of the concept that underlies Visual Analysis. The process uses analytic reasoning to detect specific information in massive amount of data. For example, a clothing manufacturer might use it to determine current trends in ladies’ fashions. The results are presented in charts and graphs to the users, who can fine-tune the parameters until their specific queries are answered.
SAS is known for its statistical functionality, its programming language, and its need for SAS-savvy cow pokes to ride herd on the bits and bytes. Will SAS be able to react to the trend for the consumerization of business intelligence.
While the technology is impressive, SAS may be a little late to the game. Palantir and Digital Reasoning have already introduced applications that offer clients powerful Visual Analysis capabilities. Time will tell if SAS is able to catch up to some competitors’ approach. We are interested in Digital Reasoning, Ikanow and Quid.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
What Do Search Buy Outs Mean?
March 21, 2012
I worked through the 75 profiles I maintain on search and content processing vendors. Here’s a list of the Big Dogs in search in Year 2000 and what happened to these companies since this date.
| Original Name | Buyer | Comment |
| Autonomy | Hewlett Packard | “A baby tiger” |
| Blossom | Available | Hosted search |
| Brainware | Lexmark | Back office |
| Convera | Out of business | Parts sold off |
| dtSearch | Available | Low cost leader |
| Endeca | Oracle | Unclear |
| Exalead | Dassault Systèmes | Unclear |
| Fast Search | Microsoft | An add in for SharePoint |
| Innerprise | GoDaddy | Search |
| InQuira | Oracle | Unclear |
| Inxight Software | SAP property | Unclear |
| Isys Software | Lexmark | Unclear |
| Mindbreeze | Part of Fabasoft | Replacement for SharePoint search |
| Mondosoft | SurfRay | On shelf |
| Ontolica | SurfRay | Replacement for SharePoint search |
| Panoptic | Squiz | Now Funnelback |
| Recommind | Available | In and out of enterprise search |
| Stratify | Autonomy | Formerly Purple Yogi |
| Teratext | SAIC | Unclear |
| Thunderstone | Available | Enterprise search |
| TREX | SAP | Unclear |
| TripleHop | Oracle | Unclear |
| Vivisimo | Available | Customer support |
This is a selected list. These 22 companies provide a snapshot of what’s happened in enterprise search in the last 12 years. Some observations:
First, in the list of 22 entries, I have used the word “unclear” as a comment eight times. The reason is that I am not sure how the technology will be deployed or if the technology has been orphaned (TREX) or held in reserve (Mondosoft). How does one apply a “system” to a search system (Dassault Exalead)?
Second, of this set of 22 companies which I have written about in Enterprise Search Report (2004 to 2006), Beyond Search (Gilbane), and The New Landscape of Search (Pandia in Oslo), five have not been acquired to my knowledge. One wonders if and when these search vendors will be taken off the table.
Third, the list begs the questions, “What are the next wave of search and content processing companies to be purchased, merged, or integrated into a larger entity?” Great question and one which I will not answer in a free blog post.
My thoughts, before they slip away, are:
- With the interest in open source search, what will be the long term revenue and cost picture for proprietary search solutions?
- Will content analytics vendors become the “new search vendors”? IBM’s use of Lucene for its various search solutions provides a suggestion of this shift in its Content Analytics product.
- How will the companies which have acquired search technology make money from these purchases AND be able to invest in the research and development necessary to keep the systems in step with licensee requirements? Frankly, I don’t know. There is only so much money available to pump into the black hole of information retrieval for technology, which is some cases is almost 25 years young.
Net net: Okay, lots of company have acquired search and retrieval systems. Now what? Not my problem.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exogenous Complexity 2: The Search Appliance
February 15, 2012
I noted a story about Fujitsu and its search appliance. What was interesting is that the product is being rolled out in Germany, a country where search and retrieval are often provided by European vendors. In fact, when I hear about Germany, I think about Exorbyte (structured data), Ontoprise (ontologies), SAP (for what it is worth, TREX and Inxight), and Lucene/Solr. I also know that Fabasoft Mindbreeze has some traction in Germany as does Microsoft with its Fast Search & Technology solution. Fast operated a translation and technical center in Germany for a while. Reaching farther into Europe, there are solutions in Norway, France, Italy, and Spain. Each of these countries’ enterprise search and retrieval vendors have customers in Germany. Even Oracle with its mixed search history with Germany’s major newspaper has customers. IBM is on the job as well, although I don’t know if Watson has made the nine hour flight from JFK to Frankfort yet. Google’s GSA or Google Search Appliance has made the trip, and, from what I understand, the results have been okay. Google itself commands more than 90 percent of the Web search traffic.
The key point. The search appliance is supposed to be simple. No complexity. An appliance. A search toaster which my dear, departed mother could operate.
The work is from Steinman Studios. A happy quack to http://steinmanstudios.com/german.html for the image which I finally tracked down.
In short, if your company operates in Germany, you have quite a few choices for a search and retrieval solution. The question becomes, “Why Fujitsu?” My response, “I don’t have a clue.”
Here’s the story which triggered my thoughts about exogenous complexity: “New Fujitsu Powered Enterprise Search Appliance Launched in Europe Through Stordis.” The news releases can disappear, so you may have to hunt around for this article and my link is dead.
Built on Fujitsu high performance hardware, the new appliance combines industry leading search software from Perfect Search Corporation with the Fujitsu NuVola Private Cloud Platform, to deliver security and ultimate scalability. Perfect Search’s patented software enables user to search up to a billion documents using a single appliance. The appliance uses unique disk based indexing rather than memory, requiring a fraction of the hardware and reducing overall solution costs, even when compared to open source alternatives solutions…Originally developed by Fujitsu Frontech North America, the PerfectSearch appliance is now being exclusively marketed throughout Europe by high performance technology distributor Stordis. PerfectSearch is the first of a series of new enterprise appliances based on the Fujitsu NuVola Private Cloud Platform that Stordis will be bringing to the European market during 2012.
No problem with the use of a US technology in a Japanese product sold in the German market via an intermediary with which I was not familiar. The Japanese are savvy managers, so this is a great idea.
What’s this play have to do with exogenous complexity?
SAP: Lemons from Lemonade for Search Vendors
January 18, 2012
A couple of years ago I did a series of columns about SAP, the German software company which is imbued with the DNA of IBM and the more unpredictable genes of the “let ‘er rip” approach to generating revenues. Change is difficult, and SAP interests to me because the firm’s machinations are the embodiment of the dislocations that old style software vendors face in the cloudy world of Amazon, Google, and even old Big Blue herself, IBM. Keep in mind, one of SAP’s strategic moves was to purchase Sybase.
HANA emerged two years ago as a solution to the woes of organizations struggling with big data, the need to make sense of them, and the complexity which threatens to sink traditional enterprise applications. Consider SAP itself. The company owns Business Objects, once the leader in business analytics. Today I don’t think of Business Objects, which may say more about my awareness than SAP’s marketing. But I hear zero about Inxight Software which performs entity extraction and other text operations and I have heard little or nothing about TREX, SAP’s information retrieval system. I lost track of the SAP investment in Endeca long before SAP’s rival Oracle snagged the 1998 technology to “enhance” its own struggling search solutions.
What is HANA?
According to an SAP friendly blog, SAP describes HANA in this way:
HANA is the foundation and the core of all that we do now and going forward for existing products, new products and entirely new frontiers. We are transforming enterprise software with HANA, and we are transforming our entire product portfolio,” Sikka said in a statement earlier this week announcing that SAP HANA is now generally available worldwide. “But HANA is more than a product,” Sikka continued. “It is a new paradigm, an entirely new way to build applications. It is the basis for our own intellectual renewal internally at SAP—where we rethink how we design, build, deploy, service and sell products—and the basis for our customers’ and partners’ intellectual renewal—where we help customers rethink existing business problems and help them solve entirely new challenges using design-thinking.” (Source: The Top 10 Reasons SAP HANA Is Disrupting Larry Ellison’s Grand Plans]
To me, HANA is a next generation database and it now has to differentiate itself from the XML next generation database from the likes of MarkLogic, from Cloudera, from other NoSQL solutions, and from the new and improved versions of data management systems from IBM, Microsoft, and even Amazon. Big job. Maybe an impossible job?
In December 2011, I snipped the write up “Can SAP be the #2 database vendor by 2015?” I found this passage particularly interesting:
Why doesn’t SAP HANA have deeper market penetration? Put simply it is because SAP wanted it this way. Whilst HANA truly is a general-purpose database, SAP first announced it as an analytics appliance for the 1.0 release. They also priced it really high and didn’t’ offer a discount – list pricing can be as high as €180,000 for a 64GB HANA “unit”, depending on which version you require. And what’s more, SAP sells solutions and HANA is a platform, so the global sales force doesn’t quite know how to sell it in volume – yet. They didn’t want to sell it in volume in any case because they wanted to introduce it slowly to market – building stability, references along the way and avoiding expensive and embarrassing global escalations. So by the end of 2011 we should expect $100-150m of HANA sales, which is 3-5% of SAP’s total revenue. Not particularly significant, right? Well in September they released HANA as being supported for SAP’s Business Warehouse software, which allows large-scale data warehouses. And this is where it gets interesting: there are 17,000 existing BW customers, and HANA would provide business benefit to all of them.
If you are interested in HANA, you can access SAP’s primer about the solution at this link.
In the midst of the HANA hype, Seeking Alpha’s “SAP Is No Longer The Leader It Once Was” stated in December 2011:
The current most promising innovation is SAP HANA, an appliance with columnar in-memory technology enabling fast processing and near real-time analytics. According to SAP, HANA has the potential to become the next-generation system architecture, removing the use of middleware and relational databases. However, the root causes of the downturn appear outside the perimeter of the company transformations: product development, continuous customer complaints, and the 20-year aging ERP that represents the core of the customer base seem to remain unchanged. Agile is probably not enough to address the long-term issues of product development. Most likely, Agile is not the solution to fifteen years of trying to get CRM right, or to making three platform mistakes in three on-demand initiatives (CRM on-demand in 2006, Business byDesign in 2007, and SaaS Enterprise in 2009).
The Seeking Alpha analysis then makes these machine gun like statements:
Is SAP getting it right? Here is a summary of the points to keep in mind to answer this question:
SAP R&D has yet to deliver its first truly successful product since 1992 (it could be HANA overtime)
The core of ERP that holds the customer base is outdated
There seem to be no plans to develop a modern replacement product
Development of a potential new ERP would take years
Sales have declined stepping back by 3 to 4.5 years
SAP’s leadership is questionable
According to Gartner, the revenue from relicensing R/3 to ERP 6.0 is ending
Customers and employees have lost trust
Executives have been leaving
On-demand is not making progress
The customer base is increasingly at risk
Analysts estimate that HANA could produce just 10% of the revenue by 2013.
There is a gap between the buzz and the hard facts.
What does this mean for vendors who hitch their wagons to the SAP “star” as ISYS Search Software did with the announcement “ISYS Wins Software Deal with SAP”? Three points:
- Search vendors are looking at their technology and packaging it in ways to generate incremental revenue. ISYS, it appears, is in the connector game, competing with firms such as EntropySoft
- SAP seems to be lagging further and further behind the NoSQL players who are now facing headwinds despite early market leads. My example is MarkLogic, the XML database outfit
- The broader market seems to be splitting into quite different segments. SAP is going to have difficulty in the IBM and Oracle space, and it is going to have trouble with the open source NoSQL crowd which seems to prefer having Hadoop on its T shirts than HANA.
SAP remains interesting, but it is now in some danger of further marginalization. SAP needs a search system still.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
SAP: Long and Winding Road for Search
January 5, 2012
In one of the early editions of the Enterprise Search Report, that white elephant of 600 pages containing profiles of more than two dozen vendors, I described TREX, a nifty algorithm for Text Retrieval and Information Extraction. (The link is to the Wikipedia write up, however.) For those of you who are new to search, TREX is not the creature you wished you had as a pet when you were eight years old. The SAP TREX is a natural language processing search and retrieval system which was mostly home grown. Keep in mind that TREX owns the Inxight entity extraction and server technology developed by the adepts at Xerox PARC. I interviewed one of the developers, profiled the system’s approach to content processing, and pointed out that search was a killer in the SAP R/3 environment for three reasons:
- SAP assigns its own spiffy metadata to content objects, storing these in the wild and wonder proprietary R/3 environment
- SAP systems took and probably still take a long time to plan, implement, and impose on the client. My understanding is that the client does not tell SAP how the clients like to work. SAP tells the client how the client will work with the SAP system and method. Nifty for sure.
- SAP systems have struggled with a wide range of performance “opportunities.” The idea is that when something goes slowly, then the client has the “opportunity” to make changes which will speed up the large, IBM-inspired system.
A few years ago, before Endeca became the new billion dollar toy at Oracle, Endeca accepted cash infusions from outfits hooked up with Intel (yep, the company with the vision that its chips could crush any computational problem because they were so darned fast) and SAP’s investment unit (an outfit allegedly looking at ways to give SAP a leg up on the future). After watching Endeca do its recursive indexing and faceting processes, Intel and SAP shifted gears. Endeca, as you know, is now part of Oracle along with TripleHop (clustering and indexing), InQuira (natural language processing from two predecessor companies), and RightNow (also infused with search technology), Artificial Linguistics, PL/SQL’s wonky command driven search, and probably some technologies I either don’t know about or have forgotten due to advancing senility.
Will SAP slip and fall with its information retrieval solutions? A happy quack to the image source http://personalinjuryclaims1.co.uk/fall-claims/
When you want to run search within an SAP environment, many folks just embrace one of the SharePoint solutions, give TREX a go, or license a system which is compatible with some of the SAP processed content. In short, SAP’s approach to search is not much different from IBM’s or Microsoft’s.
The question to consider is, “What’s next for SAP?”
Several observations:
First, SAP has to pump money into TREX to keep the system in step with today’s information demands. With SAP dabbling in open source and focusing on higher margin products and services, TREX is probably not the long haul solution for SAP. Home grown search is too expensive.
Second, SAP continues to poke around open source software. At some point, SAP may follow in the footsteps of the company which inspired SAP in the first place—IBM. Lucene and Solr look like possible options. This is a trend to watch.
Third, SAP buys or ties up with one of the workman-like search vendors. SAP could either sign a deal to use a third party system on some basis or just buy one of the dozens of information retrieval vendors who are looking for a financial white knight. Despite the chatter about search, many search and retrieval companies are gasping for oxygen. SAP may have a tank and a breathing mask.
What’s my view? Well, since I am a mercenary goose, I don’t have an official opinion. I do find it fascinating that SAP has not moved aggressively to the Lucene Solr solution. So for now, I am going out of town and will wait until my Overflight service provides some solid data about SAP’s next move.
Hopefully it will be more artfully crafted than SAP’s pricing and customer service activities in the last two or three years.
January 5, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Search Acquisitions
November 18, 2011
One of my two or three readers sent me a link to “Acquisition: The Elephant in the Meeting Room.” I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about Mongoose, the write up, or the enterprise search sector. I have identified some of the buzzwords used to dance around the little-discussed problem of lousy enterprise search systems. If you want to catch up on the obfuscation in which marketers and “real” consultants are entangled, you may find “Search Silver Bullets, Elixirs, and Magic Potions: Thinking about Findability in 2012” a thought starter.
The main point of the Elephant article, it seems to me, is summarized in this passage:
Should you be wary of acquisitions? Not as much as you might read in the blogs and professional communities.
The write up mentions a number of high profile acquisitions and provides some color for the reasons behind the deals. My view of some of the recent deals is different from the Mongoose write up. I suppose that at age 67, I have been watching and participating in the sale of large and small companies. I learned in my work at Booz, Allen & Hamilton before it became an azure chip firm, that the reasons for a corporate action are often difficult to discern from the outside looking in.
The table below provides a run down of my personal take on why certain deals took place.
Search Silver Bullets, Elixirs, and Magic Potions: Thinking about Findability in 2012
November 10, 2011
I feel expansive today (November 9, 2011), generous even. My left eye seems to be working at 70 percent capacity. No babies are screaming in the airport waiting area. In fact, I am sitting in a not too sticky seat, enjoying the announcements about keeping pets in their cage and reporting suspicious packages to law enforcement by dialing 250.
I wonder if the mother who left a pink and white plastic bag with a small bunny and box of animal crackers is evil. Much in today’s society is crazy marketing hype and fear mongering.
Whilst thinking about pets in cages and animal crackers which may be laced with rat poison, and plump, fabric bunnies, my thoughts turned to the notion of instant fixes for horribly broken search and content processing systems.
I think it was the association of the failure of societal systems that determined passengers at the gate would allow a pet to run wild or that a stuffed bunny was a threat. My thoughts jumped to the world of search, its crazy marketing pitches, and the satraps who have promoted themselves to “expert in search.” I wanted to capture these ideas, conforming to the precepts of the About section of this free blog. Did I say, “Free.”
A happy quack to http://www.alchemywebsite.com/amcl_astronomical_material02.html for this image of the 21st century azure chip consultant, a self appointed expert in search with a degree in English and a minor in home economics with an emphasis on finger sandwiches.
The Silver Bullets, Garlic Balls, and Eyes of Newts
First, let me list the instant fixes, the silver bullets, the magic potions, the faerie dust, and the alchemy which makes “enterprise search” work today. Fasten your alchemist’s robe, lift your chin, and grab your paper cone. I may rain on your magic potion. Here are 14 magic fixes for a lousy search system. Oh, one more caveat. I am not picking on any one company or approach. The key to this essay is the collection of pixie dust, not a single firm’s blend of baloney, owl feathers, and goat horn.
- Analytics (The kind equations some of us wrangled and struggled with in Statistics 101 or the more complex predictive methods which, if you know how to make the numerical recipes work, will get you a job at Palantir, Recorded Future, SAS, or one of the other purveyors of wisdom based on big data number crunching)
- Cloud (Most companies in the magic elixir business invoke the cloud. Not even Macbeth’s witches do as good a job with the incantation of Hadoop the Loop as Cloudera,but there are many contenders in this pixie concoction. Amazon comes to mind but A9 gives me a headache when I use A9 to locate a book for my trusty e Reeder.)
- Clustering (Which I associate with Clustify and Vivisimo, but Vivisimo has morphed clustering in “information optimization” and gets a happy quack for this leap)
- Connectors (One can search unless one can acquire content. I like the Palantir approach which triggered some push back but I find the morphing of ISYS Search Software a useful touchstone in this potion category)
- Discovery systems (My associative thought process offers up Clearwell Systems and Recommind. I like Recommind, however, because it is so similar to Autonomy’s method and it has been the pivot for the company’s flip flow from law firms to enterprise search and back to eDiscovery in the last 12 or 18 months)
- Federation (I like the approach of Deep Web Technologies and for the record, the company does not position its method as a magical solution, but some federating vendors do so I will mention this concept. Yhink mash up and data fusion too)
- Natural language processing (My candidate for NLP wonder worker is Oracle which acquired InQuira. InQuira is a success story because it was formed from the components of two antecedent search companies, pitched NLP for customer support,and got acquired by Oracle. Happy stakeholders all.)
- Metatagging (Many candidates here. I nominate the Microsoft SharePoint technology as the silver bullet candidate. SharePoint search offers almost flawless implementation of finding a document by virtue of knowing who wrote it, when, and what file type it is. Amazing. A first of sorts because the method has spawned third party solutions from Austria to t he United States.)
- Open source (Hands down I think about IBM. From Content Analytics to the wild and crazy Watson, IBM has open source tattooed over large expanses of its corporate hide. Free? Did I mention free? Think again. IBM did not hit $100 billion in revenue by giving software away.)
- Relationship maps (I have to go with the Inxight Software solution. Not only was the live map an inspiration to every business intelligence and social network analysis vendor it was cool to drag objects around. Now Inxight is part of Business Objects which is part of SAP, which is an interesting company occupied with reinventing itself and ignored TREX, a search engine)
- Semantics (I have to mention Google as the poster child for making software know what content is about. I stand by my praise of Ramanathan Guha’s programmable search engine and the somewhat complementary work of Dr. Alon Halevy, both happy Googlers as far as I know. Did I mention that Google has oodles of semantic methods, but the focus is on selling ads and Pandas, which are somewhat related.)
- Sentiment analysis (the winner in the sentiment analysis sector is up for grabs. In terms of reinventing and repositioning, I want to acknowledge Attensity. But when it comes to making lemonade from lemons, check out Lexalytics (now a unit of Infonics). I like the Newssift case, but that is not included in my free blog posts and information about this modest multi-vehicle accident on the UK information highway is harder and harder to find. Alas.)
- Taxonomies (I am a traditionalist, so I quite like the pioneering work of Access Innovations. But firms run by individuals who are not experts in controlled vocabularies, machine assisted indexing, and ANSI compliance have captured the attention of the azure chip, home economics, and self appointed expert crowd. Access innovations knows its stuff. Some of the boot camp crowd, maybe somewhat less? I read a blog post recently that said librarians are not necessary when one creates an enterprise taxonomy. My how interesting. When we did the ABI/INFORM and Business Dateline controlled vocabularies we used “real” experts and quite a few librarians with experience conceptualizing, developing, refining, and ensuring logical consistency of our word lists. It worked because even the shadow of the original ABI/INFORM still uses some of our term 30 plus years later. There are so many taxonomy vendors, I will not attempt to highlight others. Even Microsoft signed on with Cognition Technologies to beef up its methods.)
- XML (there are Google and MarkLogic again. XML is now a genuine silver bullet. I thought it was a markup language. Well, not any more, pal.)
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
