Plentiful, Presaging Prognostications
December 19, 2015
I read a roll up type article. “Industry Speaks: Top 33 Big Data Predictions for 2016” presents a fulsome suite of forecasts about 2016’s technology trends. If you are a fan of the race track tout approach to winners, you will want to print out this article and keep it with you.
I would love to comment on each prediction, but that, gentle reader, is a lot of work. I would prefer to return to my analysis of Palantir.
I did circle three of the predictions which I found somewhat intriguing. My hope is that you will want to dig deeply into the other 30 future forward conjectures. Here we go:
- Big Data will die. My hunch is that one would have to kill off the PR spouting spawn of marketing and sales departments before the monster of Big Data is tamed. Nice effort, bold prediction. My view is that it is pretty loco given the present environment.
- Companies will hire chief insight officers. Wow. My view is that folks struggling to deliver revenues will change their titles. I am not sure that human resources will work hand in glove with senior executives to hire a new person to be in charge of “insight.” I thought business intelligence software delivered this insight stuff.
- Spark will kill Hadoop. Interesting. I assume I was incorrect in thinking that Hadoop could be thought of as a variant of Google’s really old MapReduce technology. Hadoop is a bit of a challenge, but “killing” seems a bit of a stretch.
For the other 30 previsons, check out the original. Amazing stuff. Most of the horoscopes are like newspaper horoscopes; that is, data free.
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2015
Has Enterprise Search Drowned in a Data Lake?
December 6, 2015
I had a phone conversation with a person who unluckily resides in a suburb of New York City. Apparently the long commute allows my contact to think big thoughts and formulate even bigger questions. He asked me, “What’s going to happen to enterprise search?”
I thought this was a C minus questions, but New Yorkers only formulate A plus questions. I changed the subject to the new Chick Fil-A on Sixth. After the call, I jotted down some thoughts about enterprise search.
Here for your contemplation are five of my three comments which consumed three legal pad sheets. I also write small.
Enterprise Search Is Week Old Celery
In the late 1990s when the Verity hype machine was rolling and the Alphabet boys were formulating big thoughts about search, enterprise search was the hot ticket. For some techno cravers, enterprise search was the Alpha and Omega. If information is digital, finding an item of information was the thrill ride ending in a fluffy pile of money. A few folks made some money, but the majority of the outfits jumping into search either sold out or ended up turning off the lights. Today, enterprise search is a utility and the best approach is to use an open source solution. There are some proprietary systems out there, but the appeal of open source is tough to resist. Remember. Search is a utility, not a game changer for many organizations. Good enough tramples over precision, recall, and relevance.
New Buzzwords and the Same Old Tune
Hot companies today do not pound their electric guitar with the chords in findability. Take an outfit like Palantir. It is a search and information access outfit, but the company avoids the spotlight, positions its technology packages as super stealthy magic insight machines. Palantir likes analytics, visualizations, and similar next generation streamlined tangerine colored outputs. Many of the companies profiled in my monograph Cyberosint are, at their core, search systems. But “search” is tucked into a corner, and the amplified functions like fancy math, real time processing, and smart software dominate. From my point of view, these systems are search repackaged and enhanced for today’s procurement professionals. That’s okay. But search is still search no matter what the “visionaries” suggest. Many systems are enterprise search wrapped in new sheet music. The notes are the same.
Big Data
I find the Big Data theme interesting. The idea of processing petabytes of data in a blink is future forward. The problem is that the way statistical procedures operate is to sidestep analyzing every single item. I can examine a grocery list of 10 items, but I struggle when presented with a real time updating of that list with trillions of data points a second. The reality of Big Data is that it has been around. A monk faced with copying two books in a couple of days has an intractable Big Data problem. The love of Hadoop and its extended family of data management tools does not bring the black sheep of the information family into the party room. Big Data requires pesky folks who have degrees in statistics or who have spent their youth absorbed in Mathematica, MatLab, SPSS, or SAS. Bummer. Enterprise search systems can choke on modest data. Big Data kills some systems dead like a wasp sprayed with Raid.
Real Time
For a client in the UK, I had to dig into the notion of real time. Guess what the goslings found. There was not one type of real time information system. I believe there were seven distinct types of real time information. Each type has separate cost and complexity challenges. The most expensive systems were the ones charged with processing financial transactions in milliseconds. Real time for a Web site might mean anything from every 10 second or every week or so. Real time is tough because no matter what technologies are used to speed up computer activities, the dark shadow of latency falls. When data arrive which are malformed, the real time system returns incomplete outputs. Yikes. Incomplete? Yep, missing info. Real time is easy to say, but tough to deliver at a price an average Fortune 1000 company can afford or one of the essential US or UK government agencies can afford. Speed means lots of money. Enterprise search systems usually struggle with the real time thing.
Automatic, Smart Indexing, Outputs, Whatever
I know the artificial intelligence, cognitive approach to information is a mini megatrend. Unfortunately when folks look closely at these systems, there remains a need for slug like humans to maintain dictionaries, inspect outputs and tune algorithms, and “add value” when a pesky third party cooks up a new term, phrase, or code. Talk about smart software does not implement useful smart software. The idea is as appealing today as it was when Fulcrum in Ottawa pitched its indexing approach or when iPhrase talked about its smart system. I am okay with talk as long as the speakers acknowledge perpetual and include in the budget the humans who have to keep these motion Rube Goldberg confections on point. Humans are not very good indexers. Automated indexing systems are not very good indexers. The idea is, of course, that good enough is good enough. Sorry. Work remains for the programmers. The marketers just talk about the magic of smart systems. Licensees expect the systems to work, which is an annoying characteristic of some licensees and users.
Wrap Up
Poor enterprise search. Relegated to utility status. Wrapped up in marketing salami. Celebrated by marketers who want to binge watch Parks and Recreation.
Enterprise search. You are still around, just demoted. The future? Good enough. Invest in hyper marketing and seek markets which do not have a firm grasp of search and retrieval. Soldier on. There are many streaming videos to watch if you hit the right combination on the digital slot machine.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6. 2015
Another Categorical Affirmative: Nobody Wants to Invest in Search
October 8, 2015
Gentle readers, I read “Autonomy Poisoned the Well for Businesses Seeking VC Cash.” Keep in mind that I am capturing information which appeared in a UK publication. I find this type of essay interesting and entertaining. Will you? Beats me. One thing is certain. This topic will not be fodder for the LinkedIn discussion groups, the marketers hawking search and retrieval at conferences to several dozen fellow travelers, or in consultant reports promoting the almost unknown laborers in the information access vineyards.
Why not?
The problem with search reaches back a few years, but I will add a bit of historical commentary after I highlight what strikes me as the main point of the write up:
Nobody wants to invest in enterprise search, says startup head. Patrick White, Synata
Many enterprise search systems are a bit like the USS United States, once the slickest ocean liner in the world. The ship looks like a ship, but the effort involved in making it seaworthy is going to be project with a hefty price tag. Implementing enterprise search solutions are similar to this type of ocean-going effort.
There you go. “Nobody.” A categorical in the “category” of logic like “All men are mortal.” Remarkable because outfits like Attivio, Coveo, and Digital Reasoning, among others have received hefty injections of venture capital in recent memory.
The write up makes this interesting point:
“I think Autonomy really messed up [the space]”, and when investors hear ‘enterprise search for the cloud’ it “scares the crap out of them”, he added. “Autonomy has poisoned the well for search companies.” However, White added that Autonomy was just the most high profile example of cases that have scared off investors. “It is unfair just to blame Autonomy. Most VCs have at least one enterprise search in their portfolio. So VCs tend to be skittish about it,” he [added.
I am not sure I agree. Before there was Autonomy, there was Fulcrum Technologies. The company’s marketing literature is a fresh today as it was in the 1990s. The company was up, down, bought, and merged. The story of Fulcrum, at least up to 2009 or so is available at this link.
The hot and cold nature of search and content processing may be traced through the adventures of Convera (formerly Excalibur Technologies) and its relationships with Intel and the NBA, Delphes (a Canadian flame out), Entopia (a we can do it all), and, of course, Fast Search & Transfer.
Now Fast Search, like most old school search technology, is very much with us. For a dose of excitement one can have Search Technologies (founded by some Convera wizards) implement Fast Search (now owned by Microsoft).
Where Are the Former Big Six in Enterprise Search Vendors: 2004 and 2015
Autonomy, now owned by HP and mired in litigation over allegations of financial fraud
Convera, after struggles with Intel and NBA engagements, portions of the company were sold off. Essentially out of business. Alums are consultants.
Endeca, owned by Oracle and sold as an eCommerce and business intelligence service. Oracle gives away its own enterprise search system.
Exalead, owned by Dassault Systèmes and now marketed as a product component system. No visibility in the US.
Fast Search, owned by Microsoft and still available as a utility for SharePoint. The technology dates from the late 1990s. Brand is essentially low profiled at this time.
Verity, Autonomy purchased Verity and used its customer list for upsales and used the K2 technology as part of the sprawling IDOL suite.
Fast Search reported revenues which after an investigation and court procedure were found to be a bit enthusiastic. The founder of Fast Search was the subject of the Norwegian authorities’ attention. You can check out the news reports about the prohibition on work and the sentence handed down for the issues the authorities concluded warranted a slap on the wrist and a tap on the head.
The story of enterprise search has been efforts—sometimes Herculean—to sell information access companies. When a company sells like Vivisimo for about one year’s revenues or an estimated $20 million, there is a sense of getting that mythic task accomplished. IBM, like most of the other acquirers of search technology, try valiantly to convert a utility into something with revenue lift. As I watch the evolution of the lucky exits, my overall impression is that the purchasers realize that search is a utility function. Search can generate consulting and engineering fees, but the customers want more.
That realization leads to the wild and crazy hyper marketing for products like Hewlett Packard’s cloud version of Autonomy’s IDOL and DRE technology or IBM’s embrace of open source search and the wisdom of wrapping that core with functions.
Enterprise search, therefore, is alive and well within applications or solutions that are more directly related to something that speaks to senior managers; namely, making sales and reducing costs.
What’s the cost of making sure the controls for an enterprise search system are working and doing the job the licensee wants done?
The problem is the credit card debt load which Googlers explained quite clearly. Technology outfits, particularly information access players, need more money than it is possible for most firms to generate. This contributes to the crazy flips from search to police analysis, from looking up an entry in a data base to an assertion that customer support is enabled, hunting for an article in this blog is now real time, active business intelligence, or indexing by proper noun like White House morphs into natural language understanding of unstructured text.
Investments are flowing to firms which could be easily positioned as old school search and retrieval operations. Consider Lexmark, a former unit of IBM, and an employer of note not far from my pond filled with mine run off in Kentucky. The company, like Hewlett Packard, wants to find a way to replace its traditional business which was not working as planned as a unit of IBM. Lexmark bought Brainware, a company with patents on trigram methods and a good business for processing content related to legal matters. Lexmark is doing its best to make that into a Trump scale back office content processing business. Lexmark then bought a technology dating from the 1980s (ISYS Search Software once officed in Crow’s Nest I believe) and has made search a cornerstone of the Lexmark next generation health care money spinning machine. Oracle has a number of search properties. Most of these are unknown to Oracle DBAs; for example, Artificial Linguistics, TripleHop, InQuira’s shotgun NLP technology, etc. The point is that the “brands” have not had enough magnetism to pull revenues on a stand alone basis.
Successes measured in investment dollars is not revenue. Palantir is, in effect, a search and retrieval outfit packaged as a super stealthy smart intelligence system. Recorded Future, funded by Google and In-Q-Tel, is doing a bang up job with specialized content processing. There are, remember, search and retrieval companies.
The money in search appears to be made in these plays:
- The Fast Search model. Short cuts until an investigator puts a stop to the activities.
- Creating a company and then selling it to a larger firm with a firm conviction that it can turn search into a big time money machine
- Buying a search vendor to get its customers and opportunities to sell other enterprise software to those customers
- Creating a super technology play and going after venture funding until a convenient time arrives to cash out
- Pursue a dream for intelligent software and survive on research grants.
This list does not exhaust what is possible. There are me-too plays. There are mobile niche plays. There are apps which are thinly disguised selective dissemination of information services.
The point is that Autonomy is a member of the search and retrieval club. The company’s revenues came from two principal sources:
- Autonomy bought companies like Verity and video indexing and management vendor Virage and then sold other products to these firm’s clients and incorporated some of the acquired technology into products and services which allowed Autonomy to enter a new market. Remember Autonomy and enhanced video ads?
- Autonomy managed well. If one takes the time to speak with former Autonomy sales professionals, the message is that life was demanding. Sales professionals including partners had to produce revenue or some face time with the delightful Dr. Michael Lynch or other senior Autonomy executives was arranged.
That’s it. Upselling and intense management for revenues. Hewlett Packard was surprised at the simplicity of the Autonomy model and apparently uncomfortable with the management policies and procedures that Autonomy had been using in highly visible activities for more than a decade as a publicly traded company.
Perhaps some sources of funding will disagree with my view of Autonomy. That is definitely okay. I am retired. My house is paid for. I have no charming children in a private school or university.
The focus should be on what the method for generating revenue is. The technology is of secondary importance. When IBM uses “good enough” open source search, there is a message there, gentle reader. Why reinvent the wheel?
The trick is to ask the right questions. If one does not ask the right questions, the person doing the querying is likely to draw incorrect conclusions and make mistakes. Where does the responsibility rest? When one makes a bad decision?
The other point of interest should be making sales. Stated in different terms, the key question for a search vendor, regardless of camouflage, what problem are you solving? Then ask, “Will people pay money for this solution?”
If the search vendor cannot or will not answer these questions and provide data to be verified, the questioner runs the risk of taking the USS United States for a cruise as soon as you have refurbed the ship, made it seaworthy, and hired a crew.
The enterprise search sector is guilty of making a utility function appear to be a solution to business uncertainty. Why? To make sales. Caveat emptor.
Stephen E Arnold, October 8, 2015
A New Wave of Old School BI Outfits Are Agile, Maybe Juicy
September 27, 2015
The mid tier outfit Forrester has released another report about enterprise business intelligence platforms” for the third quarter of 2015. These reports cost about $2,500, so you know the information is red hot, spot in, and objective. Always objective. in the write up “The Forrester Wave: Agile Business Intelligence Platforms 2015”, the report is described as “juicy.” Imagine. Juicy applied to IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle. Let me refresh your memory of juicy’s official definition:
1: having much juice : succulent
2: rewarding or profitable especially financially : fat <juicy contract> <a juicy dramatic role>
3a : rich in interest : colorful <juicy details>
b : sensational, racy <a juicy scandal>
c : full of vitality : lusty
I am not sure mid tier consulting firms’ reports are “rewarding or profitable especially financially” for the reader. At a couple of thousand per authorized copy of the report, the mid tier firms are likely to be drenched in juiciness. Will this report be lusty, sensational, colorful, and succulent? Nah. This is marketing pulp, gentle reader.
Which are the companies which make the cut? According to this write up, there are a baker’s dozen of agile, BI vendors:
- Birst
- GoodData
- IBM
- Information Builders
- Microsoft
- MicroStrategy
- Oracle
- Panorama Software
- Qlik
- SAP
- SAS
- Tableau Software
- TIBCO Software.
Scanning this list, I wonder how “agile” IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and SAS really are. I know that TIBCO acquired some nifty technology for its analytics functions, and that the founders of Spotfire have moved on to even more interesting analytics at their new company, funded in part by Google and In-Q-Tel. The other firms are ones which have run around the BI bases for years and may have a touch of arthritis; for instance, Information Builders which kicked off its career 1975. Qlik was founded in 1993. MicroStrategy flipped on its lights in 1989 and spawned at least one outfit (Clarabridge) which strikes me as slightly more agile than the mother ship. Tableau, now a publicly traded outfit, hung out its shingle in 2003.
GoodData may be the most spry among this group, not because it was founded in 2007, but because the firm landed another $25 million in funding in 2014.
According to the blurb about the report, each of these companies are agile because of several special features each of these vendors offer their customers. These characteristics are:
First, these 13 vendors’ products allow their business users to be self sufficient. I am not sure I agree, that SAS stuff requires a person to be SAS-sy, which means able to navigate the companies’ programming methods with some skill. IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle provide many different ways to skin the business intelligence cat. In my opinion, these companies’ business intelligence technology require that the business user have the equivalent of a fighter jet maintenance crew to assist them on the flights into analysis and visualization.
Second, each company generates knock out visualizations. My thought is that for zippy visualizations, more specialized tools are required. The companies highlighted in this report can deliver slides and graphs which are niftier than those in Excel, but far short of the Hollywood style outputs which come from Palantir and Recorded Future, among other firms not included in the agile list.
Third, each of the 13 companies offers its licensees and customers options and additional features. This is definitely a must have function. Most of the firms in the list of agile BI companies sells services. Some have partners, lots of partners. The business model may be less to be agile and more to sell billable work, but that’s okay. I am not sure inking a six figure services contract delivers agility.
I assume the complete $2,500 report will become available from the companies listed in the report. For now, think agility. Think IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle, along with the 10 other companies.
Remember, these are 13 juicy and agile outfits. Remarkable. Juicy.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2015
Quote to Note: Confluent
August 20, 2015
I read “Meet Confluent, The Big-Data Startup That Has Silicon Valley Buzzing.” Confluent can keep “he data flowing at some of the biggest and most information-rich firms in Silicon Valley.” The company’s Web site is http://www.confluent.io/. The company uses Apache Kafka to deliver its value to customers.
Here’s the passage i noted:
Experts suggest Confluent’s revenue could approach $10 million next year and pass $50 million in 2017. The company could echo the recent success of another open-source darling, Docker, which has turned record adoption of its computing tools called “containers” into a growing enterprise suite and a $1 billion valuation. Confluent is likely worth about one-sixth that today but not for long. “Every person we hire uncovers millions of dollars in sales,” says early investor Eric Vishria of Benchmark. “There’s real potential [for Confluent] to be an enterprise phenomenon.”
I noted the congruence of Docker and Confluence. I enjoyed the word “every”. Categorical affirmatives are thrilling. I liked also “phenomenon.” The article’s omission of a reference to Palantir surprised me.
Nevertheless, I have a question: “Has another baby unicorn been birthed?” According to Crunchbase, the company has raised more than $50 million. With 17 full time employees, Confluent may be hiring. Perhaps some lucid engineers will see the light?
Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2015
Poor IBM i2: 15 Year Old Company Makes Headlines in Fraud Detection and Big Blue Is Not Mentioned
August 3, 2015
Before IBM purchased i2 Ltd from an investment outfit, I did some work for Mike Hunter, one of the founders of i2 Ltd. i2 is not a household name. The fault lies not with i2’s technology; the fault lies at the feet of IBM.
A bit of history. Back in the 1990s, Hunter was working on an advanced degree in physics at Cambridge University. HIs undergraduate degree was from Manchester University. At about the same time, Michael Lynch, founder of Autonomy and DarkTrace, was a graduate of Cambridge and an early proponent of guided machine learning implemented in the Digital Reasoning Engine or DRE, an influential invention from Lynch’s pre Autonomy student research. Interesting product name: Digital Reasoning Engine. Lynch’s work was influential and triggered some me too approaches in the world of information access and content processing. Examples can be found in the original Fast Search & Transfer enterprise systems and in Recommind’s probabilistic approach, among others.
By 2001, i2 had placed its content processing and analytics systems in most of the NATO alliance countries. There were enough i2 Analyst Workbenches in Washington, DC to cause the Cambridge-based i2 to open an office in Arlington, Virginia.
i2 delivered in the mid 1990s, tools which allowed an analyst to identify people of interest, display relationships among these individuals, and drill down into underlying data to examine surveillance footage or look at text from documents (public and privileged).
IBM has i2 technology, and it also owns the Cybertap technology. The combination allows IBM to deploy for financial institutions a remarkable range of field proven, powerful tools. These tools are mature.
Due to the marketing expertise of IBM, a number of firms looked at what Hunter “invented” and concluded that there were whizzier ways to deliver certain functions. Palantir, for example, focused on Hollywood style visualization, Digital Reasoning emphasized entity extraction, and Haystax stressed insider threat functions. Today there are more than two dozen companies involved in what I call the Hunter-i2 market space.
Some of these have pushed in important new directions. Three examples of important innovators are: Diffeo, Recorded Future, and Terbium Labs. There are others which I can name, but I will not. You will have to wait until my new Dark Web study becomes available. (If you want to reserve a copy, send an email to benkent2020 at yahoo dot com. The book will run about 250 pages and cost about $100 when available as a PDF.)
The reason I mention i2 is because a recent Wall Street Journal article called “”Spy Tools Come to Wall Street” Print edition for August 3, 2015) and “Spy Software Gets a Second Life on Wall Street” did not. That’s not a surprise because the Murdoch property defines “news” in an interesting way.
The write up profiles a company called Digital Reasoning, which was founded in 2000 by a clever lad from the University of Virginia. I am confident of the academic excellence of the university because my son graduated from this fine institution too.
Digital Reasoning is one of the firms engaged in cognitive computing. I am not sure what this means, but I know IBM is pushing the concept for its fascinating Watson technology, which can create recipes and cure cancer. I am not sure about generating a profit, but that’s another issue associated with the cognitive computing “revolution.”
I learned:
In pitching prospective clients, Digital Reasoning often shows a demonstration of how its system respo9nded when it was fed 500,000 emails related to the Enron scandal made available by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. After being “taught” some key concepts about compliance, the Synthesys program identified dozens of suspicious emails in which participants were using language that suggested attempts to conceal or destroy information.
Interesting. I would suggest that the Digital Reasoning approach is 15 years old; that is, only marginally newer than the i2 system. Digital Reasoning lacks the functionality of Cybertap. Furthermore, companies like Diffeo, Recorded Future, and Terbium incorporate sophisticated predictive methods which operate in an environment of real time information flows. The idea is that looking at an archive is interesting and useful to an attorney or investigator looking backwards. However, the focus for many financial firms is on what is happening “now.”
The Wall Street Journal story reminds me of the third party descriptions of Autonomy’s mid 1990s technology. Those who fail to understand the quantity of content preparation and manual, subject matter expert effort required to obtain high value outputs are watching smoke, not investigating the fire.
For organizations looking for next generation technology which is and has been working for several years, one must push beyond the Palantir valuation and look to the value of innovative systems and methods.
For a starter, check out Diffeo, Recorded Future, and Terbium Labs. Please, push IBM to exert some effort to explain the i2-Cybertap capabilities. I tip my hat to the PR firm which may have synthesized some information for a story that is likely to make the investors’ hearts race this fine day.
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2015
Enterprise Search and the Mythical Five Year Replacement Cycle
July 9, 2015
I have been around enterprise search for a number of years. In the research we did in 2002 and 2003 for the Enterprise Search Report, my subsequent analyses of enterprise search both proprietary and open source, and the ad hoc work we have done related to enterprise search, we obviously missed something.
Ah, the addled goose and my hapless goslings. The degrees, the experience, the books, and the knowledge had a giant lacuna, a goose egg, a zero, a void. You get the idea.
We did not know that an enterprise licensing an open source or proprietary enterprise search system replaced that system every 60 months. We did document the following enterprise search behaviors:
- Users express dissatisfaction about any installed enterprise search system. Regardless of vendor, anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of users find the system a source of dissatisfaction. That suggests that enterprise search is not pulling the hay wagon for quite a few users.
- Organizations, particularly the Fortune 500 firms we polled in 2003, had more than five enterprise search systems installed and in use. The reason for the grandfathering is that each system had its ardent supporters. Companies just grandfathered the system and looked for another system in the hopes of finding one that improved information access. No one replaced anything was our conclusion.
- Enterprise search systems did not change much from year to year. In fact, the fancy buzzwords used today to describe open source and proprietary systems were in use since the early 1980s. Dig out some of Fulcrum’s marketing collateral or the explanation of ISYS Search Software from 1986 and look for words like clustering, automatic indexing, semantics, etc. A short cut is to read some of the free profiles of enterprise search vendors on my Xenky.com Web site.
I learned about a white paper, which is 21st century jargon for a marketing essay, titled “Best Practices for Enterprise Search: Breaking the Five-Year Replacement Cycle.” The write up comes from a company called Knowledgent. The company describes itself this way on its Who We Are Web page:
Knowledgent [is] a precision-focused data and analytics firm with consistent, field-proven results across industries.
The essay begins with a reference to Lexis, which along with Don Wilson (may he rest in peace) and a couple of colleagues founded. The problem with the reference is that the Lexis search engine was not an enterprise search and retrieval system. The Lexis OBAR system (Ohio State Bar Association) was tailored to the needs of legal researchers, not general employees. Note that Lexis’ marketing in 1973 suggested that anyone could use the command line interface. The OBAR system required content in quite specific formats for the OBAR system to index it. The mainframe roots of OBAR influenced the subsequent iterations of the LexisNexis text retrieval system: Think mainframes, folks. The point is that OBAR was not a system that was replaced in five years. The dog was in the kennel for many years. (For more about the history of Lexis search, see Bourne and Hahn, A History of Online information Services, 1963-1976. By 2010, LexisNexis had migrated to XML and moved from mainframes to lower cost architectures. But the OBAR system’s methods can still be seen in today’s system. Five years. What are the supporting data?
The white paper leaps from the five year “assertion” to an explanation of the “cycle.” In my experience, what organizations do is react to an information access problem and then begin a procurement cycle. Increasingly, as the research for our CyberOSINT study shows, savvy organizations are looking for systems that deliver more than keyword and taxonomy-centric access. Words just won’t work for many organizations today. More content is available in videos, images, and real time almost ephemeral “documents” which can difficult to capture, parse, and make findable. Organizations need systems which provide usable information, not more work for already overextended employees.
The white paper addresses the subject of the value of search. In our research, search is a commodity. The high value information access systems go “beyond search.” One can get okay search in an open source solution or whatever is baked in to a must have enterprise application. Search vendors have a problem because after decades of selling search as a high value system, the licensees know that search is a cost sinkhole and not what is needed to deal with real world information challenges.
What “wisdom” does the white paper impart about the “value” of search. Here’s a representative passage:
There are also important qualitative measures you can use to determine the value and ROI of search in your organization. Surveys can quickly help identify fundamental gaps in content or capability. (Be sure to collect enterprise demographics, too. It is important to understand the needs of specific teams.) An even better approach is to ask users to rate the results produced by the search engine. Simply capturing a basic “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” rating can quickly identify weak spots. Ultimately, some combination of qualitative and quantitative methods will yield an estimate of search, and the value it has to the company.
I have zero clue how this set of comments can be used to justify the direct and indirect costs of implementing a keyword enterprise search system. The advice is essentially irrelevant to the acquisition of a more advanced system from an leading edge next generation information access vendor like BAE Systems (NetReveal), IBM (not the Watson stuff, however), or Palantir. The fact underscored by our research over the last decade is tough to dispute: Connecting an enterprise search system to demonstrable value is a darned difficult thing to accomplish.
It is far easier to focus on a niche like legal search and eDiscovery or the retrieval of scientific and research data for the firm’s engineering units than to boil the ocean. The idea of “boil the ocean” is that a vendor presents a text centric system (essentially a one trick pony) as an animal with the best of stallions, dogs, tigers, and grubs. The spam about enterprise search value is less satisfying than the steak of showing that an eDiscovery system helped the legal eagles win a case. That, gentle reader, is value. No court judgment. No fine. No PR hit. A grumpy marketer who cannot find a Web article is not value no matter how one spins the story.
Washington Post Wants PowerPoint Banned
May 26, 2015
Poor Microsoft. Now Jeff Bezos’ newspaper is demanding that PowerPoint be banned. Microsoft did not write PowerPoint. Microsoft bought what is now reviled in 1987. The current PowerPoint emerged from spaghetti code created by Forethought, Inc. I recall hearing at a Microsoft meeting that the code jockey on this puppy was the work of a Berkeley grad. Microsoft took the product and the rest is history.
The Washington Post presents its viewpoint in “PowerPoint Should Be Banned. This PowerPoint Presentation Explains Why.” I don’t think Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon will be adding the author of the article to their writing teams. I was hoping for a bit of Swiftian humor. What I got was a write up that would have benefited from a PowerPoint with zip.
I noted a couple of interesting points:
- I loved this quote: “PowerPoint makes us stupid.” The statement is attributed to General James Mattis. What makes this interesting is that it is tough to command attention in some military circles without a nifty presentation with Hollywood graphics. Palantir exists for a reason, folks.
- Amazon does not permit PowerPoint presentations. I wonder if Amazon’s hostility to PowerPoint influenced the Washington Post article. Perhaps the Amazon phone would have been a success if some PowerPoint effort had been made before paying an offshore outfit to make the gizmos.
- I found the Afghan strategy slide quite easy to understand. Here it is to spark your thinking. I concluded I don’t want to head in that direction again.
- I enjoyed the assertion that DoD briefings would be improved. “officers would no longer be able to duck behind mu mo jumbo slides to bury facts or their lack of understanding of the issues. Ah, the naïveté of youth. The briefings would feature foam core or poster board with artist drawings of the very same information. Instead of bits, the message would be delivered with a pointer tapping the cardboard.
The rather parental statement “Go without any presentation” is going to make it pretty dull for the law enforcement and intelligence professionals in my Dark Web briefing. I have to show screen shots of the bad actors’ Dark Web sites. I cannot describe CP, hit men, weapons for sale, stolen credit cards, false passports, and the other charming points of interest to my audience. Going online is a good idea, but in central Europe underground the Internet connections are often problematic.
In short, Washington Post:
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2015
Maana from Heaven: Sustaining Big Data Search
May 23, 2015
Need to search Big Data in Hadoop? Other data management systems? Maana is now ready to assist you. Fresh from stealth mode, the company received an infusion of venture capital which now totals $14.2 million. (You may have to pay to access the details of this cash injection.) Maana garnered only a fraction of the money pumped into search vendors Attivio ($71 million), Coveo ($34 million) or Palantir (hundreds of millions). But Maana has some big name backers; for example, GE Ventures and Intel Capital, among others.
Maana’s manna looks a lot like legal tender.
According to the company:
Maana is pioneering new search technology for big data. It helps corporations drive significant improvements in productivity, efficiency, safety, and security in the operations of their core assets.
This value proposition strikes me as familiar.
Maana is ready to enable customers to perform knowledge modeling, evaluation, data understanding, data shaping, and orchestration. Differentiation is likely to be a challenge. The company offers this diagram to assist prospects in understanding why Maana is different from other Big Data search solutions:
Image from www.maana.com
A key differentiator is that the company says:
Maana is not based on open source Solr/Lucene.
That should chop out the LuceneWorks (Really?) and other open source Big Data options in a competitive fray.
Will Manna’s positioning tactic thwart other proprietary Big Data information access solutions? Hewlett Packard, are you ready to rumble? Oracle. Wait. Oracle is always ready to rumble. Google and In-Q-Tel backed Recorded Future? Oops. Recorded Future is jammed with work and inquiries as I understand it. Whatever. Let the proprietary Big Data search Copa de Data off begin.
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2015
HP Autonomy Dust Up: Details, Details
May 11, 2015
I read belatedly yet another analysis of the HP lawsuit against Autonomy. “Details of HP Lawsuit against Autonomy Executives” The write up reports that HP is taking “direct legal action against Lynch.” There is nothing like a personal legal action to keep the legal eagles circling in search of money.
The HP position is that Lynch (the founder of Autonomy) and Sushovan Hussain (former Autonomy CFO) overstated Autonomy’s growth and profits. My reaction is “Yeah, but didn’t you guys review the numbers before you wrote a check for $7 or $8 billion?”
Details, details.
The article states:
The acquisition has been seen as a disaster for HP since the tech giant was forced to write down $8.8 billion from the deal in 2012. The $5.1 billion legal claim is one of the largest ever brought against an individual in Britain. HP bases the claim on a $4.6 billion charge linked to the alleged financial misconduct, roughly $400 million connected to shares given to Lynch and Hussain and a further $100 million loss associated with Autonomy that was suspected of being caused by the former executives’ activities, according to the British court documents.
HP may not be a tech leader or even a C student in acquisition analyses, but it is the leader in the magnitude of the claim it is making against Dr. Lynch. If he is found guilty of selling something to HP who analyzed the deal and then decided to buy the company, he will have to pay $5.1 billion.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that HP reviewed Qatalyst Partners’ financial presentation about Autonomy. Then HP analyzed the numbers. Then HP involved third parties in the review of the numbers. Then HP decided to buy Autonomy. Then HP bought the company. Then HP found that Autonomy is not exactly a product like a tube of Colgate Total toothpaste. Then HP fired, forced, or tasered Lynch and others out of the HP carpet land. Then HP tried to convert the technology into some sort of cloud based toolkit. And finally HP decided to go after Dr. Lynch. You don’t have to like him, but he is a bit of a celebrity in the Silicon Fen, holds an Order of the British Empire, and he is quite intelligent, maybe brilliant, and in my experience, not into dorks, fools, goof balls, losers, or dopey managers. Your mileage may vary, of course.
I am sufficiently experienced to know that when a buyer wants a product, service, or company, craving—nay, lust and craziness—kick in. “Yo, we’re 17 years old again. Let’s do it” scream the adrenaline charged experts. This is a slam dunk. We can take Autonomy waaaay beyond the place it is today. Rah, rah, rah. Get ‘em, team.”
Autonomy’s management and its advisors knows that PowerPoint dust can close deals. The blend of blood frenzy and the feeling of power one gets when taking ownership of a new La Ferrari is what business is about, dog. Smiles and PowerPointing from Autonomy played a part, but HP made the decision and wrote the check. Caveat emptor is good advice.
Frankly I see HP as the ideal candidate for a marvelous business school case. The HP Autonomy story is better than the Yahoo track record of blunders and blind luck. The management of HP believed something that has never ever ever been done: Generate billions of dollars in new revenue quickly. Google generates billions from advertising. Autonomy generated hundreds of millions in revenues from the licensing of dozens of products. HP got its wires crossed in reasoning which does not line up with the history of the search and content processing industry.
Billions do not flow from content processing and search technology. Investors can pump big money into a content processing company like Palantir. Will these investors get their money back? Don’t know. But to spend billions for a search and content processing company and then project that a $600 million or $800 million per year outfit would produce a gusher of billions is a big, but quite incorrect, thought.
Never has happened. Never will. It took Autonomy 15 years, good management, intelligent acquisitions, and lots of adaptation to hit the $600-$700 million plus in annual revenue it generated. Only energy drinking MBAs with Excel fever can convert 15 years and multiple revenue streams from dozens of quite different products into one giant multi billion dollar business in a couple of years. The scale is out of whack. When I visited the store in Manhattan with the big crazy pencil and the other giant products I could see the difference between my pencil and the big pencil. HP, I assume, would see the two pencils as identical. HP, if it purchased a big pencil, would sue the shop in Manhattan because the big pencil would not fit into a Panasonic desktop pencil sharpener. Scale of thinking, accuracy of perception—They matter to me. HP? Hmm.
This is not bad business on HP’s part. This is not flawed acquisition analysis on HP’s part. This is not HP’s inability to ask the right questions. This is medieval lunacy with managers dancing on the grass under a full moon. Isn’t HP that company which has floundered, investigated its own Board of Directors, chased good managers from one office in Silicon Valley into the arms of a competitor based on the old Sea World property? Maybe. Maybe HP is a fully stocked fishing pond, not a water deficient stream in Palo Alto?
My personal view is that HP has itself, its Board of Directors, and its advisors to blame. I find it very difficult to believe that as talented as Dr. Lynch is that he could spoof HP’s Board, HP’s financial professionals, HP’s advisors, HP’s lawyer, and HP’s Meg Whitman. Hey, the guy is talented, but he is not Houdini.
Well, we have a show, gentle reader. We have a really big show. Where is Ed Sullivan when we need an announcer?
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
