A Challenge for Federal Records Management
October 6, 2020
Federal agencies are facing a mandate without adequate funding. This is sure to go smoothly. GCN explains why, for these entities, “Records Management Is About to Get Harder.” The White House’s Office of Management and Budget is requiring federal agencies to completely shift to electronic recordkeeping by the end of 2022, after which the National Archives and Records Administration shall accept no new paper records. The directive presents two challenges which overlap: digitizing existing records and providing a process whereby new records are created digitally in the first place. Officials plan to begin at the intersection of those requirements, invoking a Venn diagram. They must be as efficient as they can because, we’re told, Congress is reluctant to loosen purse strings enough to sufficiently fund the project.
The article cites a recent discussion among federal records management specialists regarding the transition. Reporter Troy K. Schneider writes:
“Although agencies’ readiness levels varied widely, most participants said they were on track to meet the M-19-21 deadlines. Yet whether the available tools and resources are sufficient, however, is another matter. ‘There never are enough resources,’ one official said. ‘We’ve got great resources to the extent that we have them,’ referring to the staff and the record schedules that have been developed, but the work will outstrip them — and this year’s telework-driven embrace of collaboration tools has only increased the degree of difficulty….“Complicating that resource challenge in terms of staff and money is the rapidly growing suite of communication tools agencies use. Too often, participants said, the adoption and deployment of those tools is happening before Federal Records Act requirements are accounted for.”
SharePoint and Office 365 are but two examples of software in which agencies have invested much that may not be able to keep pace with current governance needs and a greatly increased cloud-centered user base. One suggestion is to mimic the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program now used by the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration for their approved product lists, reporting requirements, and cybersecurity funding. Whatever the solution, we’re told:
“Ultimately, the group agreed, fundamentals are more important than specific technologies. ‘What I’ve seen in looking at my compatriots in other agencies is they spent incredible sums of money to deploy a technology,’ one participant said. ‘And those solutions have not been nearly as effective as they have been sold as because some of the fundamentals hadn’t been done — like understanding your record schedule and the organizational and institutional changes around processes and capabilities that really need to be in place to feed the right records.’”
Indeed, rushing to choose a solution before closely examining one’s needs is a recipe for waste and disappointment. Let us hope decision makers think things through and spend the limited funds wisely. If they do not, our nation’s records are bound to become a huge, paperless mess.
Cynthia Murrell, October 6, 2020
Hulbee Is In the Enterprise Search Derby
June 18, 2020
Enterprise search should be an easy out-of-the-box, deployable solution, but more often it is a confusing mess. Companies like Hulbee Enterprise Search develop search programs that delete the guesswork and immediately function:
“Hulbee Enterprise Search not only provides a simple search software, but also consolidates our experience and knowledge, which has been accumulated for over 17 years and combines intelligent search, format diversity, different corporate infrastructures, security, etc. in areas such as document management.
Our goal is to create a timely software technology for you that meets all security requirements. We would be very pleased if you test our software. Request a Proof of Concept.
Our software complements existing software products from other manufacturers such as SharePoint, Exchange, DMS etc. through the innovation of the search. It is thus not a competition, but an addition to and completion of the optimal search in the company.”
The purpose of enterprise search is to quickly locate information, so it can be employed by a business. Information includes structured and unstructured data, so enterprise search needs to be robust and smart enough to filter relevant results. Search must also be compliant with security measures, especially as more businesses host their data on clouds.
Enterprise search solutions like Hulbee must be flexible enough to adjust to changing security measures, but also continue to offer the same and better features for search.
Customization is key to being a contender in the marker for enterprise search.
Whitney Grace, June 18, 2020
AWS Kendra: A Somewhat Elastic Approach to Enterprise Search
May 12, 2020
Elastic, Shay Banon’s Version 2 of Compass, has a hurdle to jump over. Elasticsearch has been a success. The Lucene-centric “system” which some call ELK has become a go-to solution for many developers. Like Lucidworks (It does?) and many other “enterprise search and more” vendors, Elasticsearch delivers information retrieval without the handcuffs of options like good old STAIRS III or Autonomy’s neuro-linguistic black box.
Amazon took notice and has effectively rolled out its own version of enterprise search based on … wait for it … the open source version of Elastic’s Elasticsearch. The service has been around since Amazon hired some of the Lucidworks (It does?) engineers more than five years ago after frustration with the revolving doors at that firm became too much even by Silicon Valley standards. Talk about tension. Yebo!
Amazon has reinvented Elasticsearch. The same process the Bezos bulldozer has used for other open source software has been in process for more than 60 months. Like the system’s Playboy bunny namesake, Kendra has a few beauty lines in her AWS exterior.
A tweak here (access to Amazon’s smart software) and a tweak there (Amazon AWS pricing methods), and the “new” product is ready for prime time, ready for a beauty contest against other contestants in the most beautiful IR system in the digital world.
“Amazon Launches Cognitive Search Service Kendra in General Availability” reports:
Once configured through the AWS Console, Kendra leverages connectors to unify and index previously disparate sources of information (from file systems, websites, SharePoint, OneDrive, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Amazon Simple Storage Service, relational databases, and elsewhere).
Does this sound like federated search or the Palantir Gotham approach to content?
Well, yes.
The reason is that most enterprise search vendors like Coveo, Attivio, X1, IBM Omnifind (also built on Lucene), and dozens of other systems make the same claims.
The reality is that these systems do not have the bits and pieces available within a giant cloud platform with quite a few graduates of an Amazon AWS training program ready to plug in the AWS solution. For example, if a government agency wants the search in Palantir, no problem. Palantir deploys on AWS. But if that government agency wants to use Amazon’s policeware services and include search, there’s Kendra.
You can get a free copy of the DarkCyber Amazon policeware report’s executive summary by requesting the document at this link.
What does Amazon bring to the enterprise search party?
The company has more than 200 services, features, component, and modules on the shelf. Because enterprise search is not a “one size fits all”, the basic utility function has to fit into specific enterprise roles. For most enterprise search vendors, this need for user function customization is a deal breaker. Legal doesn’t want the same search that those clear minded home economics grads require in the marketing department. Microsoft SharePoint offers its version of “enterprise search” but paints over the cost of the Microsoft Certified professionals who have to make the search system work Fast. (Yep, that’s sort of an inside search joke.)
Amazon AWS provides the engine and the Fancy Dan components can be plugged in using the methods taught in the AWS “learn how to have a job for real” at a company your mom uses to shop during the pandemic. Amazon and Microsoft are on a collision course for the enterprise, and the Kendra thing is an important component.
The official roll out is capturing headlines, but the inclusion of Lucene-based search invites several observations:
- Despite AWS’ pricing, an Amazon enterprise search system allows the modern information technology professional to get a good enough service with arguably fewer headaches than other options except maybe the SearchBlox solution
- Enterprise search becomes what it has been for most organizations: A utility. Basic information retrieval is now an AWS component and that component can be enhanced with SageMaker, analytics, and other AWS services.
- Amazon wins even if Kendra does not win the hearts and minds of IBM Omnifind, Inbenta, and Algolia users. Why? Most of the cloud based enterprise search vendors support the AWS platform. What are the choices? The wonky HP cloud? The “maybe we will kill it” Google Cloud? Azure, from the outfit that cannot update Windows 10 without killing user computers who activate game mode? Plus, dumping Kendra for another TV star inspired search system is easy. Chances are that, like Palantir, AWS hosts and supports that competitive system too.
Net net: The fight with Microsoft is escalating. The Bezos bulldozer will run over open source outfits and probably some AWS customers. But Kendra’s turning her gaze on the bountiful revenues of Microsoft in the enterprise. Will Amazon buy a vendor of Word, PowerPoint, and Excel clones?
Exciting times, maybe not just because of enterprise search? Why did those defectors from Lucidworks (It does?) embrace Lucene and not SOLR? Maybe they did that too?
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2020
Microsoft Search: Still Playing an Old Eight Track Cassette?
November 20, 2019
How many times has DarkCyber heard about Microsoft’s improved search? Once, twice? Nope, dozens upon dozens. Whether it was the yip yap about Fast Search & Transfer, Colloquis and its natural language processing, Powerset and its semantic search system, Semantic Machines for natural voice functions, or the home brew solutions from hither and yon in the Microsoft research and development empire. There’s Outlook search and Bing search and probably a version of LinkedIn’s open source search kicking around too.
But that’s irrelevant in today’s “who cares about the past?” datasphere. DarkCyber noted “Here’s How Microsoft Is Looking to Make Search Smarter and More Natural.” What is smart search? An abrogation of user intentions? What is more natural? Boolean logic, field codes, date and time metadata, and similar artifacts of a long lost era seem okay for the DarkCyber team.
The write up explains in its own surrealistic way:
Microsoft’s ultimate goal with Microsoft Search is to provide answers not just to simple queries, but also more personalized, complex ones, such as “Can I bring my pet to work?”. The Microsoft Graph API, semantic knowledge understanding from Bing, machine-reading comprehension and the Office 365 storage and services substrate all are playing a role in bringing this kind of search to Microsoft’s apps.
Yeah, okay. But enterprise SharePoint users still complain that current content cannot be located. The current tools are blind to versions of content residing on departmental servers or parked in a cloud account owned by the legal department. And what about the prices just quoted by an enterprise sales professional? Sorry. You are out of luck, but Microsoft is… trying.
Now grab this peek into the future of Microsoft search:
Turing in Bing already has helped Microsoft to understand semantics via searching by concept instead of keyword. Natural-language processing also has helped with understanding query intent, she noted. Semantic understanding means users don’t have to expect exact word matches. (When searching for Coke, matches with “canned soda,” also could be part of the set of results generated, for example.) The Turing researchers are employing machine reading, as well, to help with contextual search/results.
The chaotic and often misfiring Microsoft search technologies do one thing well: Generate revenue for the legions of certified Microsoft partners.
Users? Yeah, Microsoft may help you too. In the meantime, the lawyers will manage their own contract drafts and eDiscovery materials. The engineers will stick with the tools baked into AutoCAD type systems? The marketers will do what marketers in many companies do? Stuff data on USBs, into the Google cloud, or copy the files to a shared folder on a former employee’s desktop. Yes, it happens.
Microsoft and search. Getting better. Here’s a snippet about Powerset (CNET, 2008)
Much of what Powerset has enabled with its technology is a superior user experience for searching. Powerset’s Wikipedia search, which surfaces concepts, meanings, and relationships (like subject, verbs, and objects in a language), is the very small tip of the iceberg.
Time for a new eight track tape?
Stephen E Arnold, November 20, 2019
Enterprise Search and Grease Management
June 7, 2019
I see some crazy stuff. Every once in a while, a really crazy item crosses my desk. The example I wish to highlight today is called “Enterprise Search Software Market to depict huge growth, Key Methodologies, Top Players: SharePoint, IBM, Lucidworks, Microsoft FAST, Oracle, Amazon CloudSearch, Apache Lucene, Attivio.” My hunch is that rolling in Amazon and Microsoft cloud revenues will make almost any market look like Popeye the Sailor Man. The reality is that enterprise search came and went in a blaze of litigation and embarrassment. Some of the exhaust seems to be emanating from the Hewlett Packard litigation related to the former medical device maker’s acquisition of an enterprise search vendor.
Enterprise search has overpromised and under delivered for about 50 years. Elsewhere I have recounted the adventures of services which most people don’t recall or simply knew nothing about. Remember InQuire, the service with forward truncation? A more recent fumble is the disappearance of those cheerful yellow Google Search Appliances, its staff, and the marketing collateral promising an end to the misery of traditional enterprise search solutions.
The buzz has not died down at at Reports Monitor. You can read their remarkable news release at this link. Forget the incredible hyperbole of “huge growth.” Hello, Reports Monitor, one can download a perfectly good enterprise search system from open source repositories. There are low cost systems available from outfits like Funnelback. You can get a next generation system from vendors of intelware. Don’t recognize the term? Don’t worry. These vendors don’t know what enterprise search means. And there are some companies which this report does not list as players. Want these names? Sorry, that’s information for which I charge a fee. Believe me. Reports Monitor and perhaps you, gentle reader, don’t know about these companies either.
What causes me to write about a report which is a bit on the wild side? How about this passage:
Key Insights:
- Complete in-depth analysis of the Grease Management in Commercial Kitchens
- Important changes in market dynamics.
- Segmentation analysis of the market.
- Emerging segments and regional markets.
- Historical, on-going, and projected market analysis based on volume and esteem.
- Assessment of niche industry players.
- Market share analysis.
- Key strategies of major players.
Yep, grease management. Now we’re getting to the heart of slippery data and even more slippery reports about enterprise search. The report provides region-wise data. Great stuff.
News flash: Enterprise search left the dock and took on water. Some outfits torpedoed their investors, customers, and partners. Others have tried to become business intelligence, analytics, even customer service support systems. Did not work too well.
Why?
Enterprise search is not a general purpose application. Significant work is necessary to make it possible for employees to find information in what are silos or in oddball lingo. Furthermore important people like lawyers, product researchers, and big wheels like to keep their information secret. An enterprise search system has failure baked in unless it is tailored to a quite specific problem. But at that point why not buy an eDiscovery system, a lab notebook system, or a niche solution for the eager beavers in marketing?
Maybe I am too harsh on the grease management angle. That may be closer to the truth than Reports Monitor realizes.
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2019
Lucidworks: The Future of Search Which Has Already Arrived
August 24, 2017
I am pushing 74, but I am interested in the future of search. The reason is that with each passing day I find it more and more difficult to locate the information I need as my routine research for my books and other work. I was anticipating a juicy read when I requested a copy of “Enterprise Search in 2025.” The “book” is a nine page PDF. After two years of effort and much research, my team and I were able to squeeze the basics of Dark Web investigative techniques into about 200 pages. I assumed that a nine-page book would deliver a high-impact payload comparable to one of the chapters in one of my books like CyberOSINT or Dark Web Notebook.
I was surprised that a nine-page document was described as a “book.” I was quite surprised by the Lucidworks’ description of the future. For me, Lucidworks is describing information access already available to me and most companies from established vendors.
The book’s main idea in my opinion is as understandable as this unlabeled, data-free graphic which introduces the text content assembled by Lucidworks.
However, the pamphlet’s text does not make this diagram understandable to me. I noted these points as I worked through the basic argument that client server search is on the downturn. Okay. I think I understand, but the assertion “Solr killed the client-server stars” was interesting. I read this statement and highlighted it:
Other solutions developed, but the Solr ecosystem became the unmatched winner of the search market. Search 1.0 was over and Solr won.
In the world of open source search, Lucene and Solr have gained adherents. Based on the information my team gathered when we were working on an IDC open source search project, the dominant open source search system was Lucene. If our data were accurate when we did the research, Elastic’s Elasticsearch had emerged as the go-to open source search system. The alternatives like Solr and Flaxsearch have their users and supporters, but Elastic, founded by Shay Branon, was a definite step up from his earlier search service called Compass.
In the span of two and a half years, Elastic had garnered more than a $100 million in funding by 2014and expanded into a number adjacent information access market sectors. Reports I have received from those attending Elastic meetings was that Elastic was putting considerable pressure on proprietary search systems and a bit of a squeeze on Lucidworks. Google’s withdrawing its odd duck Google Search Appliance may have been, in small part, due to the rise of Elasticsearch and the changes made by organizations trying to figure out how to make sense of the digital information to which their staff had access.
But enough about the Lucene-Solr and open source versus proprietary search yin and yang tension.
New Enterprise Search Market Study
August 1, 2017
Don Quixote and Solving Death: No Problem, Amigo
I read “Global Enterprise Search Market 2017-2022.” I was surprised that a consulting firms would invest time and energy in writing about a market sector which has not been thriving. Now don’t start sending me email about my lack of cheerfulness about enterprise search. The sector is thriving, but it is doing so with approaches that are disguised as applications which deliver something other than inflated expectations, business closures, and lawsuits.
I will slay the beast that is enterprise search. “Hold still, you knave!”
First, let’s look at what the report covers, then I will tackle some of the issues about which I think as the author of the Enterprise Search Report and a number of search-related articles and analyses. (The articles are available from the estimable Information Today Web site, and the free analyses may be located at www.xenky.com/vendor-profiles.
The write up told me that enterprise search boils down to these companies:
Coveo Corp
Dassault Systemes
IBM Corp
Microsoft
Oracle
SAP AG
Coveo is a fork of Copernic. Yep, it’s a proprietary system which originally was focused on providing search for Microsoft. Now the company has spread its wings to include a raft of functions which range from the cloud to customer support / help desk services.
Dassault Systèmes is the owner of Exalead. Since the acquisition, Exalead as a brand has faded. The desktop search system was killed, and its proprietary technology lives on mostly as a replacement for Dassault’s internal search system which was based on Autonomy. Most of the search wizards have left, but the Exalead technology was good before Dassault learned that selling search was indeed a challenge.
IBM offers a number of products which include open source Lucene, acquired technology like Vivisimo’s clustering engine, and home brew code from its IBM wizards. (Did you know that the precursor of PageRank was an IBM “invention”?) The key is that IBM uses search to sell services which have a higher margins than providing a free version of brute force information access.
Study of Search: Weird Results Plus Bonus Errors
December 30, 2016
I was able to snag a copy of “Indexing and Search: A Peek into What Real Users Think.” The study appeared in October 2016, and it appears to be the work of IT Central Station, which is an outfit described as a source of “unbiased reviews from the tech community.” I thought, “Oh, oh, “real users.” A survey. An IDC type or Gartner type sample which although suspicious to me seems to convey some useful information when the moon is huge. Nope. Nope.Unbiased. Nope.
Note that the report is free. One can argue that free does not translate to accurate, high value, somewhat useful information. I support this argument.
The report, like many of the “real” reports I have reviewed over the decades is relatively harmless. In terms of today’s content payloads, the study fires blanks. Let’s take a look at some of the results, and you can work through the 16 pages to double check my critique.
First, who are the “top” vendors? This list reads quite a bit about the basic flaw in the “peek.” The table below presents the list of “top” vendors along with my comment about each vendor. Companies with open source Lucene/Solr based systems are in dark red. Companies or brands which have retired from the playing field in professional search are in bold gray.
| Vendor | Comment |
| Apache | This is not a search system. It is an open source umbrella for projects of which Lucene and Solr are two projects among many. |
| Attivio | Based on Lucene/Solr open source search software; positioned as a business intelligence vendor |
| Copernic | A desktop search and research system based on proprietary technology from the outfit known as Coveo |
| Coveo | A vendor of proprietary search technology now chasing Big Data and customer support |
| Dassault Systèmes | Owns Exalead which is now downgraded to a utility with Dassault’s PLM software |
| Data Design, now Ryft.com | Pitches search without indexing via propriety “circuit module” method |
| Data Gravity | Search is a utility in a storage centric system |
| DieselPoint | Company has been “quiet” for a number of years |
| Expert System | Publicly traded and revenue challenged vendor of a metadata utility, not a search system |
| Fabasoft | Mindbreeze is a proprietary replacement for SharePoint search |
| Discontinued the Google Search Appliance and exited enterprise search | |
| Hewlett Packard Enterprise | Sold its search technology to Micro Focus; legal dispute in progress over alleged fraud |
| IBM Ominifind | Lucene and proprietary scripts plus acquired technology |
| IBM StoredIQ | Like DB2 search, a proprietary utility |
| ISYS Search Software | Now owned by Lexmark and marginalized due to alleged revenue shortfalls |
| Lookeen | Lucene based desktop and Outlook search |
| Lucidworks | Solr add ons with floundering to be more than enterprise search |
| MAANA | Proprietary search optimized for Big Data |
| Microsoft | Offers multiple search solutions. The most notorious are Bing and Fast Search & Transfer proprietary solutions |
| Oracle | Full text search is a utility for Oracle licenses; owns Artificial Linguistics, Triple Hop, Endeca, RightNow, InQuira, and the marginalized Secure Enterprise Search. Oh, don’t forget command line querying via PL/SQL |
| Polyspot, now CustomerMatrix | Now a customer service vendor |
| Siderean Software | Went out of business in 2008; a semantic search outfit |
| Sinequa | Now a Big Data outfit with hopes of becoming the “next big thing” in whatever sells |
| X1 Search | An eternal start up pitching eDiscovery and desktop search with a wild and crazy interface |
What’s the table tell us about “top” systems? First, the list includes vendors not directly in the search and retrieval business. There is no differentiation among the vendors repackaging and reselling open source Lucene/Solr solutions. The listing is a fruit cake of desktop, database, and unstructured search systems. In short, the word “top” does not do the trick for me. I prefer “a list of eclectic and mostly unknown systems which include a search function.”
The report presents 10 bar charts which tell me absolutely nothing about search and retrieval. The bars appear to be a popularity content based on visits to the author’s Web site. Only two of the search systems listed in the bar chart have “reviews.” Autonomy IDOL garnered three reviews and Lookeen one review. The other eight vendors’ products were not reviewed. Autonomy and Lookeen could not be more different in purpose, design, and features.
The report then tackles the “top five” search systems in terms of clicks on the author’s Web site. Yep, clicks. That’s a heck of a yardstick because what percentage of clicks were humans and what percentage was bot driven? No answer, of course.
The most popular “solutions” illustrate the weirdness of the sample. The number one solution is DataGravity, which is a data management system with various features and utilities. The next four “top” solutions are:
- Oracle Endeca – eCommerce and business intelligence and whatever Oracle can use the ageing system for
- The Google Search Appliance – discontinued with a cloud solution coming down the pike, sort of
- Lucene – open source, the engine behind Elasticsearch, which is quite remarkably not on the list of vendors
- Microsoft Fast Search – included in SharePoint to the delight of the integrators who charge to make the dog heel once in a while.
I find it fascinating that DataGravity (1,273) garnered almost 4X the “votes” as Microsoft Fast Search (404). I think there are more than 200 million plus SharePoint licensees. Many of these outfits have many questions about Fast Search. I would hazard a guess that DataGravity has a tiny fraction of the SharePoint installed base and its brand identity and company name recognition are a fraction of Microsoft’s. Weird data or meaningless.
The bulk of the report are comparison of various search engines. I could not figure out the logic of the comparisons. What, for example, do Lookeen and IBM StoredIQ have in common? Answer: Zero.
The search report strikes me as a bit of silliness. The report may be an anti sales document. But your mileage will differ. If it does, good luck to you.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2016
MC+A Is Again Independent: Search, Discovery, and Engineering Services
December 7, 2016
Beyond Search learned that MC+A has added a turbo-charger to its impressive search, content processing, and content management credentials. The company, based in Chicago, earned a gold star from Google for MC+A’s support and integration services for the now-discontinued Google Search Appliance. After working with the Yippy implementation of Watson Explorer, MC+A retains its search and retrieval capabilities, but expanded its scope. Michael Cizmar, the company’s president told Beyond Search, “Search is incredibly important, but customers require more multi-faceted solutions.” MC+A provides the engineering and technical capabilities to cope with Big Data, disparate content, cloud and mixed-environment platforms, and the type of information processing needed to generate actionable reports. [For more information about Cizmar’s views about search and retrieval, see “An Interview with Michael Cizmar.”
Cizmar added:
We solve organizational problems rooted in the lack of insight and accessibility to data that promotes operational inefficiency. Think of a support rep who has to look through five systems to find an answer for a customer on the phone. We are changing the way these users get to answers by providing them better insights from existing data securely. At a higher level we provide strategy support for executives looking for guidance on organizational change.
Alphabet Google’s decision to withdraw the Google Search Appliance has left more than 60,000 licensees looking for an alternative. Since the début of the GSA in 2002, Google trimmed the product line and did not move the search system to the cloud. Cizmar’s view of the GSA’s 12 year journey reveals that:
The Google Search Appliance was definitely not a failure. The idea that organizations wanted an easy-to-use, reliable Google-style search system was ahead of its time. Current GSA customers need some guidance on planning and recommendations on available options. Our point of view is that it’s not the time to simply swap out one piece of metal for another even if vendors claim “OEM” equivalency. The options available for data processing and search today all provide tremendous capabilities, including cognitive solutions which provide amazing capabilities to assist users beyond the keyword search use case.
Cizmar sees an opportunity to provide GSA customers with guidance on planning and recommendations on available options. MC+A understands the options available for data processing and information access today. The company is deeply involved in solutions which tap “smart software” to deliver actionable information.
Cizmar said:
Keyword search is a commodity at this point, and we helping our customers put search where the user is without breaking an established workflow. Answers, not laundry lists of documents to read, is paramount today. Customers want to solve specific problems; for example, reducing average call time customer support using smart software or adaptive, self service solutions. This is where MC+A’s capabilities deliver value.
MC+A is cloud savvy. The company realized that cloud and hybrid or cloud-on premises solutions were ways to reduce costs and improve system payoff. Cizmar was one of the technologists recognized by Google for innovation in cloud applications of the GSA. MC+A builds on that engineering expertise. Today, MC+A supports Google, Amazon, and other cloud infrastructures.
Cizmar revealed:
Amazon Elastic Cloud Search is probably doing as much business as Google did with the GSA but in a much different way. Many of these cloud-based offerings are generally solving the problem with the deployment complexities that go into standing up Elasticsearch, the open source version of Elastic’s information access system.
MC+A does not offer a one size fits all solution. He said:
The problem still remains of what should go into the cloud, how to get a solution deployed, and how to ensure usability of the cloud-centric system. The cloud offers tremendous capabilities in running and scaling a search cluster. However, with the API consumption model that we have to operate in, getting your data out of other systems into your search clusters remains a challenge. MC+A does not make security an afterthought. Access controls and system integrity have high priority in our solutions.
MC+A takes a business approach to what many engineering firms view as a technical problem. The company’s engineers examine the business use case. Only then does MC+A determine if the cloud is an option. If so, which product or projects capabilities meet the general requirements. After that process, MC+A implements its carefully crafted, standard deployment process.
Cizmar noted:
If you are a customer with all of your data on premises or have a unique edge case, it may not make sense to use a cloud-based system. The search system needs to be near to the content most of the time.
MC+A offers its white-labeled search “Practice in a Box” to former Google partners and other integrators. High-profile specialist vendors like Onix in Ohio are be able to resell our technology backed by the MC+A engineering team.
In 2017, MC+A will roll out a search solution which is, at this time, shrouded in secrecy. This new offering will go “beyond the GSA” and offer expanded information access functionality. To support this new product, MC+A will announce a specialized search practice.
He said:
This international practice will offer depth and breadth in selling and implementing solutions around cognitive search, assist, and analytics with products other than Google throughout the Americas. I see this as beneficial to other Google and non-Google resellers because, it allows other them to utilize our award winning team, our content filters, and a wealth of social proofs on a just in time basis.
For 2017, MC+A offers a range of products and services. Based on the limited information provided by the secrecy-conscious Michael Ciznar, Beyond Search believes that the company will offer implementation and support services for Lucene and Solr, IBM Watson, and Microsoft SharePoint. The SharePoint support will embrace some vendors supplying SharePoint centric like Coveo. Plus, MC+A will continue to offer software to acquire content and perform extract-transform-load functions on premises, in the cloud, or in hybrid configurations.,
MC+A’s approach offers a business-technology approach to information access.
For more information about MC+A, contact sales@mcplusa.com 312-585-6396.
Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2016
Five Years in Enterprise Search: 2011 to 2016
October 4, 2016
Before I shifted from worker bee to Kentucky dirt farmer, I attended a presentation in which a wizard from Findwise explained enterprise search in 2011. In my notes, I jotted down the companies the maven mentioned (love that alliteration) in his remarks:
- Attivio
- Autonomy
- Coveo
- Endeca
- Exalead
- Fabasoft
- IBM
- ISYS Search
- Microsoft
- Sinequa
- Vivisimo.
There were nodding heads as the guru listed the key functions of enterprise search systems in 2011. My notes contained these items:
- Federation model
- Indexing and connectivity
- Interface flexibility
- Management and analysis
- Mobile support
- Platform readiness
- Relevance model
- Security
- Semantics and text analytics
- Social and collaborative features
I recall that I was confused about the source of the information in the analysis. Then the murky family tree seemed important. Five years later, I am less interested in who sired what child than the interesting historical nuggets in this simple list and collection of pretty fuzzy and downright crazy characteristics of search. I am not too sure what “analysis” and “analytics” mean. The notion that an index is required is okay, but the blending of indexing and “connectivity” seems a wonky way of referencing file filters or a network connection. With the Harvard Business Review pointing out that collaboration is a bit of a problem, it is an interesting footnote to acknowledge that a buzzword can grow into a time sink.
There are some notable omissions; for example, open source search options do not appear in the list. That’s interesting because Attivio was at that time I heard poking its toe into open source search. IBM was a fan of Lucene five years ago. Today the IBM marketing machine beats the Watson drum, but inside the Big Blue system resides that free and open source Lucene. I assume that the gurus and the mavens working on this list ignored open source because what consulting revenue results from free stuff? What happened to Oracle? In 2011, Oracle still believed in Secure Enterprise Search only to recant with purchases of Endeca, InQuira, and Rightnow. There are other glitches in the list, but let’s move on.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
