• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

Search: Moving Up the Buzzword Chain of Being

In one of my university required courses, the professor revealed the secrets of “the great chain of being”. After 45 years, my recollection of Dr. Pearce’s lecture are fuzzy, but I recall at the top of the chain was God, then angels, and then a pecking order of creatures. Down at the bottom were paramecia like me.

Search terminology works like this I concluded after giving my talk at Erik Hartmann’s conference in Utrecht. I prepared for my remarks by talking with a dozen vendors exhibiting at the conference. I also listened to various presenters for five to 15 minutes. I had to limit my listening in order to get a representative sampling of the topics and interests of the conference attendees.

What I concluded was:

1. People perceive Google as a Web search company that sells ads. In this biased sample, I noted a discomfort about Google’s growing dominance of digital information. I did not hear any one criticize Google, but I sensed a growing concern about privacy, scope, traffic, etc. I remain excited about Google and probably come across as a Google cheerleader, which annoyed some of the people with whom I spoke.
2. Vendors and consultants who once hawked content management, records management, and enterprise search have changed their tune. Instead of talking about CMS, EDM, and other smart sounding acronyms, the vendors are pulling terminology out of MBA lexicons. (More about this in a moment.)
3. The people listening to these talks, including mine, hunger–even plead–for solutions to challenges arising from their inability to find needed information, manage terabytes of digital “stuff” in their offices, and create a solution that does not require constant spoon feeding.

The result is that “old” solutions and half baked solutions are wrapped in new terminology taken from a higher level in the “great chain of buzzwords”. Here’s an example: instead of saying “enterprise search” or “behind the firewall search”, some vendors talked about “information access” and “findability” whatever that means. The lesser word is search, which most people seemed to agree was uninteresting, which is a code word for “does not work”. The words “information access” come from a loftier position on the buzzword “great chain of being”. The vendors are sounding more like McKinsey and Booz, Allen known nothings than subject matter experts.

A representation of the Great Chain of Being. Image source: http://www.kheper.net/topics/greatchainofbeing/Steps.gif

Consider this example: “business process management”. This is definitely a buzzword from a loftier position on the buzzword “great chain of being”. “BPM” is in the Heaven category, not Stone or Flame category. But I don’t know what BPM means. I think the folks using this word want to avoid precise definitions because that limits their freedom. Implying that “BPM” will solve a problem is easier than actually diagnosing the problem and solving it. “BPM” was the acronym of the conference. Presenters from publishers, consultancies, and vendors inserting this three letter token for what seemed like a pretty basic notion; that is, the steps needed to complete a task. Since search and content management are losers in the revenue generating department, folks engaged in these activities now talk about BPM. Old wine, new bottles but the labels have buzzwords from higher in the “great chain of being”.

This term shifting and increasing abstraction of quite specific technical functions strikes me as wrong headed. The reason why search, content management, and document management are disasters in many organizations centers on some missteps that my research documents. I’m not alone in pinpointing these issues. Martin White’s and my new study “Managing Enterprise Search” (forthcoming from Galatea in November 2008) report on a number of these challenges.

The upside of renaming search, CMS, DMS, etc. with consulting fuzziness is that some new sales will be possible. The fuzzier and broader the language, the less need for precision in defining exactly what a search of CMS will actually do for an organization. Another benefit is that with new lingo, everyone can announce “new and improved” products and services.

The downside is that fuzziness creates a queasiness about the benefits of a system, whatever its name. Now blue chip management consultants can swizzle around this nausea problem because MBAs can cook up return on investment analyses, cool charts, and slick PowerPoint presentations. Search and CMS vendors don’t operate with this level of sophistication because their expertise often comes from non-MBA pursuits. MBA speak from people who have their roots deep in programming or system administration is like an ill fitting suit or dress. The impression is off.

Europe is not the leader in this language one ups manship. The US is an early adopter. In fact, in my talk I presented an industry “map” from 2006 from one of the boutique consulting firms tracking the search industry. I then updated the chart to reflect the changes in the last 18 months. The result was surprising to me because 40 percent of the companies identified as being in the search and content processing business had morphed into some other type of company. Search was abandoned and a new positioning embraced.

Big organizations don’t move so quickly in most cases. As a result, customers who bought in 2006 are trying to figure out what the vendor delivers in 2008. The net effect in the US and Western Europe is:

1. Vendors are not completely certain of what they are selling
2. Customers are not sure what they are buying
3. Attendees at conferences are not certain of what they are hearing because the language is too fuzzy and buzzy.

My take on this is that everyone needs to be more diligent in defining what terms mean. For example, I want vendors to define what their product does. Creating a Web page won’t do it. Customers need to know what they mean when they say, “We need a better search system.” And journalists covering these events need to pin down speakers with tough, on point questions. Asking me my opinion of “search” is a waste of time. Search doesn’t work for two thirds of a systems users. What am I going to say beyond this obvious fact when asked a question to which there is no simple two or three word answer?

I think in 2009, these are my candidates for how search, content management, and document management vendors will be explaining their “old wine”

• Business process management. A system that lets you organize illogical and ineffective work practices so you can know what’s broken and talk about how to fix these flawed operational methods. You won’t fix the problem because that requires management activities outside the span of control of those using the BPM system.
• SharePoint. A system that does it all at a very attractive price point. The fact that the complexity of SharePoint will soon overwhelm most amateur technologists is not considered nor a concern. Microsoft is familiar to the users and, therefore, a wise choice even if it is inappropriate for some situations.
• eDiscovery. Email and regulation mean that a repository is needed. The repository will make it possible to “find” the needed email or attachment. Overlooked is that eDiscovery comes with some very hefty burdens. The search and content processing that morphs into eDiscovery might not be compliant and, therefore, will not do the job it was supposed to do.
• CMS. Ah, content management. Most organizations cannot create, repurposes, and keep track of marketing and other general purpose information. These systems are fast on their way of becoming social knowledge management systems. “Social” systems make me nervous because too much control neuters them; too little control opens the door to security challenges. “Knowledge” is a baffler. I think of epistemology and my eyes glaze over. Software cannot make people more organized in their manipulation of information. In fact, CMS masks dysfunction, not reduces it.

You get the idea. I enjoyed the Hartmann conference. I was fascinated by the products on offer and the case examples presented by the participants. However, in 2009, information hurdles will be higher than in 2008. Trying to get over these hurdles by climbing on fuzzy speak from the “great chain of buzzwords” won’t work. Narrow focus, practical requirements, and solid engineering will have even higher value next year than this year.

Agree? Disagree? Help me learn.

Stephen Arnold, September 19, 2008

Comments

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Disclaimer · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in