Technical Decisions by Non Technical People
November 23, 2008
The article “Top Scientist Rails against Hirings” ran in the Washington Post on November 22, 2008, here. i worked in Washington, DC for many years. Going to a technical meeting at which most attendees had degress in social work, liberal arts, and political science was so much a part of the Washington gold fish bowl, I never thought about the implications of a person who could plan a well balanced meal making a decision about the software infrastrucutre for the House of Representatives. I used to say to anyone who asked about so and so’s leadership skills, “It is what it is.” But the article by Juliet Eilperin and Carol D. Leonnig stuck with me, an intellectual cracker with peanut butter in manner of speaking.
The comment that snagged me was:
“It’s ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure,” said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “You’d just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments.”
Dr. McCarthy seems to be a modern day Don Quixote, tilting at wind mills adjacent the Potomac River. I agree with him, but the practice of people with training in Andrew Marvell’s religious metaphors making decisions about technology reaches beyond the Beltway. I find the same management method in commercial and non profit organizations. Today everyone is qualified to comment about technology. More significantly, these folks decide about search, content transformation, interfaces, and server infrastructure.
Worked like a champ in the government, and it is demonstrating its impact in the commercial sector as well. In my opinion, we need more engineers, mathematicians and scientists making management decisions and fewer people who know how to organize a wedding.
Stephen Arnold, November 23, 2008
Dynamics NAV: Brilliant, Just Brilliant Says Microsoft
November 22, 2008
Microsoft has released a new version of its ERP (enterprise resource planning) on steroids product–Dynamics NAV. If you aren’t familiar with this product, it is a SharePoint for backoffice operations. Here’s what Microsoft says aboiut the product on its own Web site:
Microsoft Dynamics NAV offers growing small and midsize business a powerful yet cost-effective solution that can be tailored for your company. It can support customization and add-in software to meet industry or other specific needs. In addition, it can adapt as a growing business needs more power and functionality. Microsoft Dynamics NAV addresses the following business needs: Financial management, Manufacturing, Business intelligence, Sales and marketing, and Distribution.
These are broad and sweeping statements from a company once eager to buy SAP, another vendor of “kitchen sink” software.
But what caught my attention was a Web log post by a person who joined the Dynamics team in February 2008 and quite likes the product. You can read “Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 Ships” here. I found this a remarkable Web log post. The writer is an engineer yet his prose resonates with the Buffy-esque enthusiasm I see in the marketing collateral produced by 22 year old Brown University English majors. Consider this snippet:
There are a number of things that I simply love about this release, but I have to start with the UX (or user design). When I installed NAV 2009 when I first joined the team back in February, I knew the user experience was special.  Then, in my last blog post, I admitted that I had a crush on it. Now, I must say that it’s brilliant.
I found it difficult to believe that the prose would escalate from this lofty peak of self congratulation. The Dynamics team member shattered my skepticism. Another snippet of the Web log post:
People who love the tools they work with end up loving their work more. People who love their work more end up being more successful. They make fewer mistakes, they treat each other better, and they get to work on time. If we build a Microsoft Dynamics NAV user experience that users love, it’s a win-win-win situation. The customer wins. The customer’s employee wins. And we at Microsoft win. That’s why this user experience is brilliant.
My brief encounters with Dynamics may have been outliers. For example, these questions linger in my mind:
- How do I get this Dynamics stuff to work within SharePoint?
- How do I find a particular item in the Dynamics repository?
- How can I find security conflicts within Dynamics and across other Microsoft servers required by the system?
I am an addled goose and a bit cautious when it comes to software Microsoft acquires, changes, and converts to its magical Dot Net platform. Unfortunately our experience with Dynamics is a bit short of brilliant. Yep, we can get it to work. The integration, performance, and complexity certainly inject serious revenue into the consulting revenue line. In my opinion, I want to hear from customers that a product is brilliant. Engineers are often biased. Remember the Wow of Vista? Remember the Xbox red circle of death? Remember the purchase of Fast Search & Transfer which arrived with a police raid?
Yep, brilliant. Just brilliant.
Stephen Arnold, November 22, 2008
Yahoo Shopping Search
November 22, 2008
My mother had a black thumb. She could plant a flower, and it would die. My father, on the other hand, could grow tomatoes that would spawn softball-sized fruit without doing much more than dropping the seed on the ground. Yahoo is a bit like my mother, not with plants but with growing profitable businesses. I read in TechCrunch a story by Ouriel Ohayon here that Yahoo sold its Kelkoo property. Yahoo had a shopping search at the time of the 2004 acquisition. Yahoo still has its not too useful to me shopping site today. What it doesn’t have is the $450 million the company lost on the deal. Yahoo has a financial black thumb.
Its inability to integrate acquisitions has long been one of the company’s most glaring weaknesses. The sale of Kelkoo proves once again that Yahoo doesn’t integrate its acquisitions in the manner of Google. Yahoo can own a property for four years and sell it like I would sell one of my goslings. Not much integration evident, do you think?
And what about Yahoo’s shopping search at this pivotal time of the retail year? In my opinion, I don’t think it is very good. Someone responded to my earlier criticism of Yahoo’s shopping search by pointing me to Kelkoo. Well, that won’t work now, will it. Try this test. Navigate to Yahoo.com, click the “shopping” label above the search box, and you will see the bold face “shopping” to alert you that you are now running a shopping search. Now enter this query: “penguin bracelet”. What do you see? Well, I got this page of results:
Now navigate to Google, click products, and run the same query. Here’s what I received from the GOOG:
I know these screen shots are difficult to read due to WordPress’s helpful image compression algorithm. But the key point is that the Yahoo results includes zero nada zippo penguin bracelets. Google delivers me penguin bracelets.
Similar queries return similar results. I am not sure why the Yahoo system does not do a better job of figuring out what I want when I run a query. Maybe I am not as tuned into the Yahoo “way”? Maybe Yahoo is not as tuned into what I want when I run a query? Maybe it is just a lousy search system and method? I use Yahoo less and less because it’s search system continues to unhelpful for me. Google, despite its weird positioning of Google Products is getting better.
My hypothesis: Google has my father’s green thumb. Yahoo has my mother’s black thumb (may she rest in peace). Not only does Yahoo have the uncanny ability to muff its acquisitions, Yahoo can’t find penguin bracelets.
Frankly I am tired of Yahoo technologists telling me that Yahoo’s engineering is as good or better than Google’s. I just don’t buy that argument. I can’t relate to black thumbs, and it is a fact that I can’t buy a penguin bracelet via the Yahoo shopping search system. I can, however, buy a pink penguin bracelet, a gold penguin bracelet, and silver blue gray penguin bracelet from Google.
Stephen Arnold, November 22, 2008
A Modest Proposal: Google for Government
November 22, 2008
I am not a TV person. I flap and hop right over articles about the flaws of user generated videos and the virtues of MFA produced commercial videos. What stopped me in mid flap and hop was a story by Brian Beers on CNBC.com. I have a tough time keeping NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC straight in my mind. Too many Cs reminds me of the majority of those in my high school physics class. Mr. Beers’s “Ratigan’s View: Demand Google for Government” baffled me. I still don’t know what or who a Dylan Ratigan is. The point of the story is that Google should index the government so citizens know more about the goings on in Washington, DC. Well, Google does index the government’s content better than Yahoo, Microsoft, and Vivisimo do. But each of these services has a long way to go before I am a happy goose. You can try this Uncle Same service yourself here. Let me know if you agree with this modest proposal “that would empower citizens to keep a watchdog eye on what our elected officials are doing with (or by laws and policies to affect) our money.” Google as super information hero. I think we need to get the Google triumvirate spandex costumes each with a big “G” affixed to the chest area. Mr. Beers might find that a helpful boost to get Google for Government.
Stephen Arnold, November 22, 2008
Search Confusion: Increasing
November 22, 2008
In three separate engagements this week, I had to define some basic terms for the people paying me for my time. The baffler was the meaning of the word “search”. For the first group, search was a find-a-phone number problem. I explained that one could find a phone number by browsing a list of entries, typing a portion of the person’s name, or using a “word wheel” (a truly loathsome term) to browse the entries in the directory. I showed an example of looking for an entry with a geospatially aware mobile device. The Google service worked well. The group understood the options and was able to move forward in the discussion without cross talk about Web search, organic search, and other “types” of search that were not germane to the specific problem this outfit had.
The second conversation was about an end-to-end search situation. The idea was that at one end of an information pipeline were boxes of paper. There were archived files on tapes. At the other end of the pipeline were professionals who had to review the informiaton to determine if there was a product idea nugget that had been lost inadvertently. In the middle of the pipeline were what the group called “inputs”. These “inputs” were Web pages, third party information, and routine office electronic information. The task was to make the information available. “Search” for this group was a business process. The notion of typing a name and getting a result was assumed to be the probelm. The problem was not well defined. Yet the word “search” was used to describe scanning, transforming, indexing, classifying, and making accessible an unknown amount of information. “Search” was a glittering generality.
The third client wanted to eliminate search. The idea was that proprietary content would be blended with Web content from public sources like the state government in Ohio. The idea was to create a report, actually a mash up like a Google Map with real estate listings. The user would be able to type of word or two or just pick from a list of reports on offer. “Search” for this group was a business intelligence function. “Search” really meant, “We don’t want our users to have to search at all. We want to provide answers with a mouse click.”
I concluded that the “search industry” has a big problem. The term “search” is for practical purposes meaningless. Martin White and I in our new study Successful Enterprise Search Managment which will be releaed on November 28, 2008. (More information is here.) define search by its context. The message is that if one talks about search without getting consensus on what the group in a particular context means, the likelihood of a problem is greatly increased.
Amazon, Capgemini: Cloud Computing Needs MBAs
November 21, 2008
SharePoint in the cloud is tricky even for Microsoft. Imagine that you are a Microsoft competitor working with a company stuffed full of MBAs and egos. Your job, if you decide to accept it, is to get SharePoint working in the cloud. One of my two or three readers sent me a link to a Web log on MSDN here. That blog post pointed to this Amazon news story which I had previously overlooked. If you want even more detail, there’s a PDF with more Amazon word smithing here. After you tunnel through the links, the point is that a consulting firm will sell and integrate client IT functions with Amazon Web Services. After all the clicking and backlink reading, Amazon’s stock fell even lower. I know the financial climate is bad, and I had hopes that this significant announcement about the AWS ecosystem would have revivified the Amazon share price. I was disappointed. Amazon is working hard to make its cloud initiative return big dividends. But the company counts objects, not dollars. Now the job of using Microsoft applications to compete with Amazon will have the able assistance of MBAs. I will watch this exercise with considerable interest.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2008
IT Spending Collapse
November 21, 2008
Not long ago, a flashy consultant offered an opinion that corporate spending on information technology would slow. My recollection is that I thought this assertion was either stupid, ill advised, or crazy. The information I had been gathering suggested that corporations would take multiple actions to get information technology costs under control. The long accepted practice of “hiding” certain IT costs was drawing to a close. When a server failed, the costs of overtime, consultants, and fixes would be pigeon holed in another budget line. The enterprise applications that don’t work two thirds of the time had eroded credibility but most senior managers were reluctant to confront the tech staff. The economic downturn would, I thought, change these behaviors. No one could argue that companies had to husband their resources. Waste and careless accounting had to be rectified. When I mentioned this coming shift at a conference in October 2008, no one in the audience cared. One person wrote me and said I was, “Too negative.” Yep, right.
Take a look at ChangeWave’s Hot Wire Blog here. The author of “A Historic Collapse in US Corporate IT Spending”, Paul Carlton, wrote:
in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election, respondents do not see any immediate improvement occurring in their company’s IT spending. In fact, nearly half (48%) now believe IT spending won’t pick up for their company until the 3rd Quarter of 2009 or later – a two-fold increase since our August survey.
If anything, Mr. Carlton provides current data that provide a timely look into what will be a tough time for enterprise software vendors. In my opinion, the search sector will be hit quite hard.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2008
Europe’s Answer to Google Books Gets an F
November 21, 2008
I wrote that only a country can challenge Google. The company’s unprecedented 10 year run through online has been largely unchallenged. In the present economic climate, I don’t think the resources are available to out Google Google. The European Union, however, tried. According to Wired here, “Europe’s answer to Google Book Search officially launched Thursday after two years of prep — and promptly crashed.” First the collider suffered a multi million euro glitch and now Europeana nukes itself. The Google alternative experienced heavy traffic and choked. At some point, folks will take a look at Google’s engineering and try to replicate it. The notion that “our servers can handle the load” is time and again proven a fantasy statement. Google’s been working on its system for a decade and continues to invest in plumbing. Now I am not even sure a country can knock off Google. Google is tough to understand, hard to regulate, and now sailing serenely along without a significant competitor to one of its interesting but minor initiatives. The debate over Google as good or evil is essentially irrelevant. The focus has to shift to build businesses on what is now the computing platform for the foreseeable future.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2008
T-Mobile: Dazed and Confused
November 21, 2008
T-Mobile is my mobile telephony and data provider. I am a customer, and I can provide numerous examples of T-Mobile’s dazed and confused approach to online services. The company launched its own “interface” to Internet news and trendy subjects and labeled these “T Zones”. I still haven’t figured out what the service is doing when it tries to open information on the Reuters and ESPN Web sites. The downloads are little more than a way to ding me for files I can get free elsewhere. The account information remains as useless as it is on the T Mobile Web sites for customers, which is different from the site for general access which is different from the site which sells phones and so on.
I heard a couple of years ago that T Mobile was going to use the Fast Search mobile search technology. You can see this in action on some of the InfoSpace.com properties, or at least it was working earlier this year. I did not find the service particularly compelling and apparently neither did T Mobile.
I read in IOL Technology here that T-Mobile will use the Yahoo search system for its search system. Presumably the search system will be available to me on my BlackBerry. What was interesting about this announcement, I heard in Europe earlier this year that T-Mobile was talking to Google about using its mobile search technology. Then I heard a rumor that T-Mobile was looking at other alternatives as well.
Other developments at T-Mobile include:
- Staff consolidation (which in my opinion means layoffs). Information here
- Price increases here
- Grief about its marketing here
- Creating yet another T-Mobile “portal” called Web2Go here.
Stepping back, I think T-Mobile is floundering. With the Yahoo announcement, I asked myself, “Don’t these guys know that Yahoo may exit the search business?” Obviously T-Mobile has confidence in Yahoo search. Not surprising since the company shipped me an empty box that was to contain a replacement for my malfunctioning BlackBerry. I called and the company mailed me a replacement battery. See what I mean? Dazed and confused.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2008
InfoSphere and Sandstone Tie Up
November 20, 2008
A happy quack to the reader in Sweden who alerted me to InfoSphere’s new partnership with Sandstone SA (Luxembourg). InfoSphere AB, founded in 2001, is a commercial business intelligence and security consulting firm. Sandstone is a private (OSINT)open source intelligence service or.
The partnership will provide each company with sales, service, and consulting services. Frank Schneider, chief executive for Sandstone said:
The partnership with Infosphere is part of the Sandstone strategy to seek out the best partner organizations to compliment and extend their capability, thus building an OSINT Network of Excellence with global reach.
The Sandstone team is made up of experienced former officers from various intelligence agencies and government services. Governed by a strong code of ethics and moral values, Sandstone provides services focused on financial compliance, business intelligence, KYC, due diligence, political analysis, foreign asset location, and opportunity creation. Sandstone serves clients throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa as well as in the United States.
InfoSphere has contributed to the Silobreaker.com service which I have reviewed in this Web log. You can read an interview with the founder of InfoSphere here. In my opinion, the deal between these two open source firms will make more open source services and information available to organizations seeking ways to build revenues and competitive knowledge. InfoSphere has been growing rapidly with services ranging from OSINT to online services to high-value content. I continue to be impressed with the InfoSphere operation; it is a company on the move.
Stephen Arnold, November 20, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
