JackBe: Data Fusion
January 17, 2012
Founded in 2002 by brothers Luis and Jacob Derechin, JackBe was originally an AJAX widget company. At the demand of its customers, the company centered its product offering around an enterprise mashup server that supports the user-driven ad-hoc integration of data. The company was cited as a “Next-Gen BI” technology by Forrester Research, Inc. in its March 2011 “Trends 2011 And Beyond: Business Intelligence” report.
JackBe’s real-time business intelligence platform, Presto, allows users to combine data from any enterprise application, as well as data from the cloud to compose apps and dashboards that are publishable to portals, the web, spreadsheets, and mobile devices. The platform is organized around Presto Hub, which provides a single point of sign-on for JackBe’s mashup development editors, governance tools for administrators, and application storefront.
The company’s Presto Enterprise Mashup Server provides service virtualization that solves business problems and allows users and developers secure and consolidated access to disparate data from internal services, external services, and application databases. Presto Mashup Composers and Presto Mashup Connectors feature tools that enable business and technical users to create mashups. JackBe also offers Transparency 2.0, a solution for data feeds and data widgets for state and local government’s citizen-facing websites, and Mashup Sites for SharePoint, an intelligence solution that provides SharePoint 2007/2010 business users with real-time visual web-part-based apps and interactive dashboards.
To help users store, organize, and share mashups and apps, JackBe developed an app store framework in the third iteration of Presto. The apps are portable and can feed data into Excel and run standalone, on dashboards, on mobile devices, or in SharePoint.
Customers include the US Air Force, the US Army, NASA, Elsevier, Random House, Qualcom, GE Energy, and Accenture and illustrate the broad appeal of the platform. Competitors include Zapatec, IBM, and mashup tools provided by online service providers such as Google and Yahoo.
One observation: Our efforts to contact the company have been routinely ignored or pushed to a telemarketer. Your mileage may vary.
Rita Safranek, January 17, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
ZyLAB on Disorganization
January 2, 2012
We look at the enterprise search forum on LinkedIn.com occasionally. We have noticed that “problems” are a big part of the discussion. If you are struggling with search challenges, you may want to consider that disorganization is an issue.
The ZyLAB blog CodeZED’s new piece about “Legacy Data Clean-up for Email, SharePoint, Audio and More” is making it very clear that most organizations are ignoring records management, policy, and governance until the last minute when it is often too late. But to what end? We learned:
Exchange server mailboxes and PST repositories are not designed for, and should not be used as, document archives—but they often are. . It is very easy for users to retain their emails, resulting in e-mail archives (PSTs) that rapidly swell to GBs of information. Problems fester because the information in these PST folders is often completely unstructured. For example, potentially sensitive human resources-related e-mails (such as performance reviews or confidential financial or medical information) are frequently in the same collection (i.e. Sent Mail) as other, unrelated messages.
It’s important to create folders and subfolders and make sure that your business utilizes software that relegates where an email is to go from the start. Keep everything organized, backup is key. When using SharePoint governance and organization is the key to a healthy happy system.
The same problems email faces are prevalent elsewhere. Always archive projects and individual documents based on your companies set of policies. Don’t deviate too often or it creates a jumbled mess that is more costly to untangle than it would have been to just do it correctly the first time.
Organization is the key.
Leslie Radcliff, January 2, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Keeping Data Governance Under Control
December 16, 2011
Adopting an enterprise solution is often seen as a move towards simplifying an organization’s data organization and retrieval needs. However, if it is not handled appropriately, an organization can create an enterprise model that creates more problems than it solves. The white paper, “Create a SharePoint Data Governance Model,” discusses how an organization can prevent loss of control in regulating their SharePoint sites.
SharePoint collaboration sites grow and grow and grow… and all too often grow to a point at which they are out of control. That’s not good – not if you’re a SharePoint admin. This 12-page paper will help you create a data governance model to bring those SharePoint sites back under control. Read the paper to see a simple model for data governance based on a typical SharePoint content management process. Each section discusses one major activity related to data governance within the document management lifecycle, and how it relates to key organizational roles like IT Administrators, Corporate Risk/Compliance Officers, Content Owners and Information Workers.
Download the full text of the white paper to learn more. We also recommend exploring third party solutions to fill in some of the gaps that SharePoint has yet to close. Fabasoft Mindbreeze offers a suite of solutions that are designed with usability and uniformity in mind. Mindbreeze works in conjunction with an already existing SharePoint implementation or as an alternative to SharePoint. Read more about their Folio software:
“Fabasoft Folio is the standard software product for Enterprise Content Management, Collaboration, Compliance Management, agile Business Processes and Information Governance. The solution provides uniform, reliable and controlled management of digital content in the enterprise. Fabasoft Mindbreeze Enterprise links Fabasoft Folio for uniform enterprise-wide information access.”
The moral of this story – control your enterprise solution, do not let it control you. Best practices and other suggestions can help your organization optimize SharePoint, but other third party solutions, such as Mindbreeze, might produce better results with less effort.
Emily Rae Aldridge, December 16, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
The Solution to Email Overload? No Email
December 4, 2011
I enjoy France and the French. The country is essentially an engineering outfit with a soft spot for art, a love of intellectual discussion, and a clever approach to thorny problems. Consider email. At Atos, the senior management has found a solution to email overload, the risks of eDiscovery, and the cost of trying to manage unfindable PowerPoint attachments. (My hunch is that the news report missed some of the story, but, hey, that’s okay.
How? Here’s what I learned in “Tech Firm Implements Employee ‘Zero Email’ Policy.” Let’s assume ABC News has the facts lined up like Napoleon’s army before it did the Moscow in Autumn thing. Here’s what I learned:
The company says by 2013, more than half of all new digital content will be the result of updates to, and editing of existing information. Middle managers spend more than 25 percent of their time searching for information, according to the company. Crouch said Atos is evaluating a number of new tools to replace internal email including collaborative and social media tools. Those include the Atos Wiki, which allows all employees to communicate by contributing or modifying online content, and Office Communicator, the company’s online chat system which allows video conferencing, and file and application sharing.
So “zero” does not mean zero. Social interactions are not email. Okay, ABC News, close enough for horseshoes. I assume the cloud, Gmail, and various on premises solutions along the lines of SharePoint and Exchange would not work.
The reality is that email is going to be tough to eliminate even if one calls the outputs “collaboration” with a “social” twist of lemon. No lemonade here, however. Search vendors can rest easy. Atos is a prospect. Symantec, HP, and Recommind can make sales calls confident that non-email digital information must be searched, made findable, and discoverable by avocats which are lawyers no matter what one calls these fine professionals.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Open Text Social Framework
November 21, 2011
The dips and glides of the enterprise and content processing sectors fascinate me. I noticed that Open Text, based in Waterloo, Ontario, is on track to remain a $1.0 billion company. As I write this, the company’s stock is nosing toward $60 a share. With Hewlett Packard’s acquisition of Autonomy, Open Text inherits the title of a “billion dollar search and content processing company.”
In the 1990s, I tracked Open Text. As the company evolved into a collection of properties, I shifted to companies which were sticking closer to the “findability” sector. As you probably know, the core of Open Text today sits upon technology which I associate with Dr. Tim Bray. Dr. Bray work at Digital Equipment and worked at the University of Waterloo on the New Oxford English Dictionary project. He founded Open Text Corporation, which commercialized an XML search system which I believe was used in the dictionary. Open Text created a Web index which available as the Open Text Index and then morphed into “Tuxedo,” a Web index no longer available at the link I had on the Open Text Web site. Web search is an expensive proposition, and I understand why a company like Open Text would exit the free Web search service business.
Today’s Open Text owns the SGML search technology, and the company has acquired a number of other search and content processing systems. My view is that Open Text perceived search as a good business in which to compete. With the ready availability of open source search solutions and low cost “good enough” systems, I wonder if the company’s enthusiasm for search and retrieval has dwindled.
Open Text has a number of search technologies. For example, Open Text acquired Information Dimension in 1998. Information Dimensions’ BASIS search system was database management system. My colleague Howard Flank and I used BASIS to build the original Bellcore MARS billing system on the platform shortly after the AT&T breakup was announced. Open Text also acquired Fulcrum, a Microsoft centric search and retrieval system based in Ottawa, Ontario. I remember that one could use Fulcrum to search Siebel Systems content. Hummingbird was acquired by Open Text in 2006. Open Text used the Fulcrum technology in its Hummingbird Search Server product, now a connectivity solution. Open Text also acquired BRS Search (Bibliographic Retrieval Services) in 2001. As you know, BRS was a competitor to Dialog Information Services. BRS was a variant of IBM STAIRS technology, ran on IBM mainframe systems, and could handle sophisticated queries. I recall hearing that BRS technology was used in the Open Text LiveLink product. I think of LiveLink as an early version of SharePoint, blending content, collaboration, and search in a single system.
In 2010, Open Text purchased the Nstein content processing firm, which was based in Montréal, Québec. I think one of my team contacted Nstein to profile them for one of my reports. The firm was too busy. Then in 2009, an Nstein executive scheduled an appointment with me in London, UK, and “forgot” the meeting. Nifty.
Open Text has a basket of technologies to use to solve prospect and client problems. Is the company a model for other search and content processing firms trying to generate top line growth in a tough economic setting?
Since Dr. Bray’s departure, Open Text has been rolling up search and content processing firms. Much of the company’s growth has been fueled by acquisitions and cross selling, not raw innovation. In fact, Open Text has a bewildering array of content management technologies, including PS Software (records management), Gauss (Web content management systems), RedDot (Web content management systems with an embedded Autonomy search functionality), IXOS AG (SAP-centric archiving systems), Captaris (document capture systems which gave Open Text Brainware and ZyLAB functionality), Spicer (file viewing technology), Vizible (an interface company), StreamServe (an enterprise publishing system vendor of direct mail and other collateral), Metastorm (business process software), weComm (mobile device software developer), and Global 360 Holding Corp. (case management solutions).
Mindbreeze Demystifies Enterprise
November 16, 2011
SharePoint is supposed to be a broad-based solution to solve the enterprise needs of most users. However, there seems to be quite a bit of buzz regarding additional trainings, conferences, and webinars geared toward equipping installers and users on the ins-and-outs of the program. One such list of recommendations can be found here, at “Staffing is key to a successful SharePoint Server 2010 deployment.”
The author, Brien Posey, acknowledges that SharePoint 2010 deployment is happening at a rapid rate, but many are finding the process to be lengthier and more complicated than expected. Here is some of his advice:
“The key to assessing SharePoint staffing needs rests with determining the kind of expertise required for deployment and its long-term administration, and then mapping those requirements to staff roles. Some of those roles can likely be filled by existing members of the IT staff, but organizations might have to make additional hires.”
Posey goes on to provide a lengthy list of staff positions for consideration, architects and administrators galore. Couple this recommendation with the recent boom in SharePoint training opportunities and one has to wonder if SharePoint is not as effortless as advertised. It seems implementation and usage are both fairly complicated.
We like what we are hearing about Fabasoft Mindbreeze and its suite of solutions. Implementation is reportedly intuitive and seamless. However, if problems do arise, solutions can quickly be found via brief tutorials or online training opportunities. Don’t be trapped by SharePoint. Consult the Mindbreeze suite of solutions and see if they might be the right choice for your organization.
*Disclaimer – Mindbreeze is currently upgrading their website. Links will be checked and if problems arise they will be updated. Thanks for your patience.
Emily Rae Aldridge, November 16, 2011
Mindbreeze Satisfies Users Need for Findability
November 15, 2011
Stephen Fishman of CMS Wire discusses the problems that arise from Microsoft SharePoint’s desire for broad appeal in, “SharePoint is Crack and Microsoft is the Pusher.” Although a humorous title, Fishman makes some valid points about Microsoft’s attempt at reeling in the masses only to leave them yearning for more. Much like the touted panacea of Microsoft Access or Lotus Notes, SharePoint does not deliver on its promises.
Fishman drives home his main point after rolling out a list of smaller issues:
“But the worst thing about SharePoint by far is that it recreates the problem it was intended to solve, only on a much larger scale. What starts out as a hierarchically organized file share ends up as a hierarchically organized file share with a web interface on top of it.”
The Fabasoft Mindbreeze solution is clear in their latest update: “With the new release, Fabasoft Mindbreeze displays search results clearer and more structured. Index tabs break down search results in specific groups and topics. That way, users see immediately what documents contain the search term and in what context it is mentioned. With this structured overview, users find what they are looking for much faster.”
Fishman also finds fault with SharePoint’s disregard for sound implementation and taxonomies: “SharePoint is constantly rolled out in a slipshod manner with little thought to governance or developing scalable and maintainable taxonomies . . . The resulting organic growth inevitably results in buried content with no easy mechanisms for ambient findability.”
Mindbreeze accounts for synonyms and taxonomies in its search, features that are in place out-of-the-box, but also customizable. To solve SharePoint’s lingering issues of findability and a poor user experience, explore an efficient solution like Fabasoft Mindbreeze. Built with the user in mind.
*Disclaimer – Mindbreeze is currently upgrading their website. Links will be checked and if problems arise they will be updated. Thanks for your patience.
Emily Rae Aldridge, November 15, 2011
Mindbreeze Offers Standalone Enterprise Solution
November 14, 2011
CMS Wire follows the latest trends in enterprise CMS in “Forrester Wave Q4 2011: Bye-Bye Enterprise CMS Suites, Content-Centric Apps Are King.” Content needs are becoming more complex and organizations are turning to multiple solutions and away from a single CMS suite.
“The first dynamic that the Forrester report identifies shows that companies are no longer looking to a single enterprise CMS suite to solve all their content needs. There are a number of reasons for this, but looming over them all is the fact that changing content-types and greater use of, and need to manage, unstructured content is pushing many companies to use whatever application suits, from whatever vendors are providing those applications, to solve specific business problems. And then, of course, information workers have to be able to use all these applications.”
Relying on the variety of vendors might not be the solution to the changing enterprise landscape. Instead, choosing an agile and capable vendor like Mindbreeze seamlessly solves all of your business needs on multiple levels: mobile, web, and enterprise. When multiple vendors are utilized, information workers are forced to train on a variety of platforms and applications. Using one flexible solution like Mindbreeze saves valuable training time.
“SharePoint, and in particular the new release, Forrester argues, which provides ‘ECM for the masses’ has forced many vendors to rethink strategies and move towards more content-centric development. As a result, competing vendors have been obliged to move toward specific content sets to differentiate themselves from it. Consequently, the market is now divided into a number of different types of players.”
Instead of being forced into this trend, and choosing different vendors for different content, choose one reliable vendor like Fabasoft Mindbreeze. Applications are still content-centric, but in a smart and streamlined way, all underneath the banner of one dependable name.
*Disclaimer – Mindbreeze is currently upgrading their website. Links will be checked and if problems arise they will be updated. Thanks for your patience.
Emily Rae Aldridge, November 14, 2011
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.)
The Perils of Searching in a Hurry
November 1, 2011
I read the Computerworld story “How Google Was Tripped Up by a Bad Search.” I assume that it is pretty close to events as the “real” reporter summarized them.
Let me say that I am not too concerned about the fact that Google was caught in a search trip wire. I am concerned with a larger issue, and one that is quite important as search becomes indexing, facets, knowledge, prediction, and apps. The case reported by Computerworld applies to much of “finding” information today.
Legal matters are rich with examples of big outfits fumbling a procedure or making an error under the pressure of litigation or even contemplating litigation. The Computerworld story describes an email which may be interpreted as having a bright LED to shine on the Java in Android matter. I found this sentence fascinating:
Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it, Google explained in court filings. Only to the last draft did he add the words “Attorney Work Product,” and only on the version that was sent did he fill out the “to” field, with the names of Rubin and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.
Ah, the issue of versioning. How many content management experts have ignored this issue in the enterprise. When search systems index, does one want every version indexed or just the “real” version? Oh, what is the “real” version. A person has to investigate and then make a decision. Software and azure chip consultants, governance and content management experts, and busy MBAs and contractors are often too busy to perform this work. Grunt work, I believe, it may be described by some.
What I am considering is the confluence of people who assume “search” works, the lack of time Outlook and iCalandar “priority one” people face, and the reluctance to sit down and work through documents in a thorough manner. This is part of the “problem” with search and software is not going to resolve the problem quickly, if ever.
Source: http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0511-1010-0617-4419.html
What struck me is how people in a hurry, assumptions about search, and legal procedures underscore a number of problems in findability. But the key paragraph in the write up, in my opinion, was:
It’s unclear exactly how the email drafts slipped through the net, and Google and two of its law firms did not reply to requests for comment. In a court filing, Google’s lawyers said their “electronic scanning tools” — which basically perform a search function — failed to catch the documents before they were produced, because the “to” field was blank and Lindholm hadn’t yet added the words “attorney work product.” But documents produced for opposing counsel should normally be reviewed by a person before they go out the door, said Caitlin Murphy, a senior product manager at AccessData, which makes e-discovery tools, and a former attorney herself. It’s a time-consuming process, she said, but it was “a big mistake” for the email to have slipped through.
What did I think when I read this?
First, all the baloney—yep, the right word, folks–about search, facets, metadata, indexing, clustering, governance and analytics underscore something I have been saying for a long, long time. Search is not working as lots of people assume it does. You can substitute “eDiscovery,” “text mining,” or “metatagging” for search. The statement holds water for each.
The algorithms will work within limits but the problem with search has to do with language. Software, no matter how sophisticated, gets fooled with missing data elements, versions, and words themselves. It is high time that the people yapping about how wonderful automated systems are stop and ask themselves this question, “Do I want to go to jail because I assumed a search or content processing system was working?” I know my answer.
Second, in the Computerworld write up, the user’s system dutifully saved multiple versions of the document. Okay, SharePoint lovers, here’s a question for you? Does your search system make clear which antecedent version is which and which document is the best and final version? We know from the Computerworld write up that the Google system did not make this distinction. My point is that the nifty sounding yap about how “findable” a document is remains mostly baloney. Azure chip consultants and investment banks can convince themselves and the widows from whom money is derived that a new search system works wonderfully. I think the version issue makes clear that most search and content processing systems still have problems with multiple instances of documents. Don’t believe me. Go look for the drafts of your last PowerPoint. Now to whom did you email a copy? From whom did you get inputs? Which set of slides were the ones on the laptop you used for the briefing? What the “correct” version of the presentation? If you cannot answer the question, how will software?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
