IBM and Its Federated Search Camelot
July 25, 2015
Short honk: I scanned my Twitter feed this morning. What did I see? An impossible assertion from the marketing crazed folks at IBM Watson. Let me tell you, IBM Watson and its minions output a hefty flow of tweets. A year or so ago, IBM relied on mid tier consulting firms experts like Dave Schubmehl (yep, the fellow who sold my research on Amazon without my permission). Now there are other voices.
But the message, not just the medium, are important. IBM’s assertion is that there will be no more “data silos in enterprise search.” You can learn about IBM’s “reality” in a webcast.
Now, I am not planning on sitting through a webcast. I would, however, like to enumerate several learnings from my decades of enterprise information access work. You can use this list as a jump start for your questions to the IBM wizards. Here goes:
- In an enterprise, what happens when an indexing system makes available in a federated search system information to a legal matter which is not supposed to be available to anyone except the attorneys involved in the matter?
- In an enterprise, what happens if information pertinent to a classified government project is made available in a federated search system which has not be audited for access control compliance?
- What happens when personnel information containing data about a medical issue is indexed and made available in an enterprise search system when email attachments are automatically indexed?
- How does the federated system deal with content in servers located in a research facility engaged in new product research?
- What happens when sales and pricing data shared among key account executives is indexed and made available to a contractor advising the company?
- What is the process for removing pointers to data which are not supposed to be in the enterprise search system?
- What security measures are in place to ensure that a lost or stolen mobile device does not have access to an enterprise search system?
- How much manual work is required before an organization turns on the Watson indexing system?
These will get you started on the cross silo issues?
Oh, the answer to these questions is that the person identified as responsible for making the data available may get to find a future elsewhere. Amazon warehouses are hiring in southern Indiana.
Alternatively one can saddle up a white stallion, snag a lance, and head for the nearest windmill.
Stephen E Arnold, July 25, 2015
Holy Cow. More Information Technology Disruptors in the Second Machine Age!
July 11, 2015
I read a very odd write up called “The Five Other Disruptors about to Define IT in the Second Machine Age.”
Whoa, Nellie. The second machine age. I thought we were in the information age. Dorky machines are going to be given an IQ injection with smart software. The era is defined by software, not machines. You know. Mobile phones are pretty much a commodity with the machine part defined by fashion and brand and, of course, software.
So a second machine age. News to me. I am living in the second machine age. Interesting. I thought we had the Industrial Revolution, then the boring seventh grade mantra of manufacturing, the nuclear age, the information age, etc. Now we are doing the software thing.
My hunch is that the author of this strange article is channeling Shoshana Zuboff’s In the Age of the Smart Machine. That’s okay, but I am not convinced that the one, two thing is working for me.
Let’s look at the disruptors which the article asserts are just as common as the wonky key fob I have for my 2011 Kia Soul. A gray Kia soul. Call me exciting.
Here are the four disruptors that, I assume, are about to remake current information technology models. Note that these four disruptors are “about to define IT.” These are like rocks balanced above Alexander the Great’s troops as they marched through the valleys in what is now Afghanistan. A 12 year old child could push the rock from its perch and crush a handful of Macedonians. Potential and scary enough to help Alexander to decide to march in a different direction. Hello, India.
These disruptors are the rocks about to plummet into my information technology department. The department, I wish to point out, works from their hovels and automobiles, dialing in when the spirit moves them.
Here we go:
- Big Data
- Cloud
- Mobile
- Social
I am not confident that these four disruptors have done much to alter my information technology life, but if one is young, I assume that these disruptors are just part of the everyday experience. I see grade school children poking their smart phones when I take my dogs for their morning constitutional.
But the points which grabbed my attention were the “five other disruptors.” I had to calm down because I assumed i had a reasonable grasp on disruptors important in my line of work. But, no. These disruptors are not my disruptors.
Let’s look at each:
The Trend to NoOps
What the heck does this mean? In my experience, experienced operations professionals are needed even as some of the smart outfits I used to work with.
Agility Becomes a First Class Citizen
I did not know that the ability to respond to issues and innovations was not essential for a successful information technology professional.
Identity without Barriers
What the heck does this mean? The innovations in security are focused on ensuring that barriers exist and are not improperly gone through. The methods have little to do with an individual’s preferences. The notion of federation is an interesting one. In some cases, federation is one of the unresolved challenges in information technology. Mixing up security, “passwords,” and disparate content from heterogeneous systems is a very untidy serving of fruit salad.
Thinking about information technology after reading Rush’s book of farmer flummoxing poetry. Is this required reading for a mid tier consultant? I wonder if Dave Schubmehl has read it? I wonder if some Gartner or Forrester consultants have dipped into its meaty pages. (No pun intended.)
IT Goes Bi Modal?
What the heck does this mean again? Referencing Gartner is a sure fire way to raise grave concerns about the validity of the assertion. But bi-modal. Two modes. Like zero and one. Organizations have to figure out how to use available technology to meet that organization’s specific requirements. The problem of legacy and next generation systems defines the information landscape. Information technology has to cope with a fuzzy technology environment. Bi modal? Baloney.
The Second Machine Age
Okay, I think I understand the idea of a machine age. The problem is that we are in a software and information datasphere. The machine thing is important, but it is software that allows legacy systems to coexist with more with it approaches. This silly number of ages makes zero sense and is essentially a subjective, fictional, metaphorical view of the present information technology environment.
Maybe that’s why Gartner hires poets and high profile publications employ folks who might find an hour discussing the metaphorical implications of “bare ruined choirs.”
None of these five disruptions makes much sense to me.
My hunch is that you, gentle reader, may be flummoxed as well.
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2015
Publishers Want to Dejuice Apple, Squash It
June 22, 2015
I read “Publishers Slam Apple over Presumptuous News App Conditions.” Publishers presumptuous? I know of one publisher who used my research and marketed it on Amazon without my permission. Was that presumptuous of IDC and its wizard Dave Schubmehl?
According to the write up:
Publishers are up in arms following an email from Apple about inclusion in the firm’s upcoming News application and the kind of conditions that will be imposed. The email said that participants are presumed to have accepted Apple’s terms unless they explicitly opt out. It’s the old opt-out over opt-in thing.
Yes, up in arms. I can see the publishers at the New York Athletic Club wielding their squash rackets with malice. My goodness, what a chilling thought. What if those white clad clubsters were to descend on the Apple store in Manhattan and threaten the geniuses?
My fears subsided when I read:
The service will draw content from publicly available RSS feeds, and it is possible that Apple will be challenged, according to one expert, but not in any really meaningful way.
My concern for a Squash Assault receded. Publishers may have to retire to the Yacht Club to find another option.
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2015
Amazon, Pages, and Research
June 21, 2015
I read “What If Authors Were Paid Every Time Someone Turned a Page.” As you may know, I have complained directly and through my attorney because IDC and its wizard Dave Schubmehl sold a report containing my information on Amazon. The mid tier consulting firm pegged a $3,500 price tag on an eight page report based on my work. Well, as Jack Benny used to say. Well.
The publisher / consultant behavior annoyed me, but I do not sell my content via Amazon. I would prefer to give away a report than get tangled in the Bezos buzz saw. Sure, I buy talcum powder from the Zon, but that’s because the grocery in Harrod’s Creek does not sell any talcum powder. The Zon gets the product to me in a few days. Sometimes.
My thoughts about Amazon ramped up a notch when I read this passage in the article from The Atlantic:
Soon, the maker of the Kindle is going to flip the formula used for reimbursing some of the authors who depend on it for sales. Instead of paying these authors by the book, Amazon will soon start paying authors based on how many pages are read—not how many pages are downloaded, but how many pages are displayed on the screen long enough to be parsed. So much for the old publishing-industry cliché that it doesn’t matter how many people read your book, only how many buy it. For the many authors who publish directly through Amazon, the new model could warp the priorities of writing: A system with per-page payouts is a system that rewards cliffhangers and mysteries across all genres. It rewards anything that keeps people hooked, even if that means putting less of an emphasis on nuance and complexity.
Several observations:
- I often buy digital and hard copy books because I need access to a specific passage. I recently ordered a book about law enforcement and the Web. I was interested in two chapters and the bibliographies for this chapter. The notion of paying the author, a police professional, for only those pages I examined rubs me the wrong way. I have the book and I may need to access other chapters at a different point in time. But I want the author to be paid for this very good work. If I understand the write up, Amazon wants to move in a different direction.
- When I get a book via Amazon for my Kindle, I thought I could use the book as long as I had the device. Well. (There’s the Benny word again) I have experienced disappearing content. My wife asked me where a title was, I said, “In the archive.” Nope. The title was disappeared. Nifty. I contacted Amazon via a form and heard nothing back. Who got paid? Amazon but I no longer have the digital book. Nifty, but I probably made a mistake or at least that’s what outfits operating like Time Warner-type companies tell me. My fault.
- Amazon, like the Google, is faced with cost projections that are likely to give accountants headaches and sleepless nights. Amazon, a digital Wal-Mart type operation, is going to squeezing revenue any way possible. Someone has to pay for the Amazon phone and other Amazon adventures. Same day groceries, anyone?
Net net: No wonder the second hand book stores in Louisville, Kentucky are crowded. Physical books work the way they have for centuries, thank you. You will be able to buy my new study from the electronic store we have set up. The book will even be available in hard copy if a person wants a tangible instance. Maybe I will sell fewer copies. That’s okay. I prefer to avoid being clever and making my work available to anyone who wants to access it. None of that IDC like behavior either. $3,500 for eight pages. Crazy, right?
I often purchase fiction books, read a few pages, and then decide the book is not in my wheel house. I want the author to get paid whether I read every page or not. I think the author wants to get paid as well. The only outfit who doesn’t want to pay may be the Zon.
Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2015
Watson and Coffee Shops. Smart Software Needs k\More Than a Latte
June 19, 2015
I read “IBM Watson Analytics Helps Grind Big Data in Unmanned Coffee Shops.” I promised myself I would not call attention to the wild and wonderful Watson public relations efforts. But coffee shops?
The main idea is that:
IBM has worked with Revive Vending to create systems for unmanned coffee shops that tap into the cognitive computing technology of Watson Analytics for data analysis.
Note the verb: past tense. I would have preferred “is working” but presumably Watson is not longer sipping its latte at Revive.
According to the article:
IBM’s cloud-powered analytics service is used to crunch the vending machine data and form a picture of customers. Summerill [a Revive executive] explained that Watson Analytics allows Honest Café to understand which customers sit and have a drink with friends, and which ones dash in to grab a quick coffee while on the move. Transactional data is analyzed to see how people pay for their food and drinks at certain times of the day so that Honest Café can automatically offer relevant promotions and products to individual customers.
The write up also includes a balling statement from my pals at IDC, the outfit which sold my content without my permission on Amazon courtesy of the wizard Dave Schubmehl:
Miya Knights, senior research analyst at IDC, said that the mass of data generated by retailers through networked systems that cover retail activity can be used to support increasingly complex and sophisticated customer interactions.
Okay, but don’t point of sale systems (whether manual or automated) track these data? With a small operation, why not use what’s provided by the POS vendor?
The answer to the question is that IBM is chasing demo customers even to small coffee shops. IDC, ever quick to offer obvious comments without facts to substantiate the assertion, is right there. Why? Maybe IDC sells professional services to IBM?
Where are the revenue reports which substantiate Watson’s market success? Where are substantive case examples from major firms? Where is a public demonstration of Watson using Wikipedia information?
Think about these questions as you sip your cheap 7-11 coffee, gentle reader.
Ponder that there may be nothing substantive to report, so I learn about unmanned coffee shops unable to figure out who bought what without IBM Watson. Overkill? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2015
IDC: Knowledge Managemment and Knowledge Quotients
June 2, 2015
IDC tried to sell some of my work on Amazon without my permission. Much lawyering ensued, and IDC removed the $3,500 eight page heavily edited report about Attivio. I suppose that is a form of my knowledge management expertise: But $3,500 for eight pages without my caveats about Attivio? Goodness gracious. $3,500 for eight pages on Amazon, a company I describe as a digital WalMart..
I then wrote a humorous (to me) analysis of an IDC report about something called a knowledge quotient. You can read that Swiftian write up at this link: http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/honk/ . I write a column about knowledge management, and I found the notion of the KQ intellectually one of the lighter, almost diaphonous, IDC information molecules.
An I too harsh? No because now there is more evidence for my tough love approach to IDC and its KQ content marketing jingoism.
Navigate to “Where to for Knowledge Management in 2015: IDM Reader Survey.” The survey may or may not be spot on. Some of the data undermine the IDC KQ argument and raise important questions about those who would “manage knowledge.” Also, I had to read the title a couple of times to figure out what IDC’s expert was trying to communicate. The where to for is particularly clumsy to me.
I noted this passage:
“The challenge is for staff being able to find the time to contribute and leverage the knowledge/information repositories and having technology systems that are intuitive putting the right information that their fingertips, instead of having to wade through the sea of information spam.”
Ah, ha. KM is about search.
Wait. Not so fast. I highlighted this statement:
Technology is making it easier to integrate systems and connect across traditional boundaries, and social media has boosted people’s expectations for interaction and feedback. The result is that collaboration across the extended value chain is becoming the new normal.
Yikes. A revelation. KM is about social collaboration.
No, no. Another speed bump. I marked this insight too:
“There is also a fair gap between knowledge of the theoretical and knowledge of how things actually work. It is easy to say we should assign metadata to information to increase its discovery but if that metadata should really be more of a folksonomy, some systems and approaches are far too restrictive to enable this. Semantics is also a big issue.”
Finally. KM is about indexing and semantics. Yes, the info I needed.
Wrong again. I circled this brilliant gem:
“Knowledge management has probably lost it momentum as the so-called measurement tools are really measuring best practice which in turn is an average. Perhaps the approach should be along the lines of “Communities of Process” where there is a common objective but various degrees and level of participation but collectively provide a knowledge pool,” he [survey participant]observed.
The write continues along this rocky road of generalizations and buzzwords.
The survey data make three things clear to me:
- The knowledge quotient jargon is essentially a scoop of sales Jello, Jack Benny’s long suffering sponsor
- Knowledge is so broad IDC’s attempt to clarify gave me the giggles
- Workers know that knowledge has value, so workers protect it with silos.
I assume that experts cooked up the knowledge quotient notion. The pros running the survey reported data which suggests that knowledge management is a bit of a challenge.
Perhaps IDC experts will coordinate their messaging in the future? In my opinion, two slabs of spam do not transmogrify into prime rib.
Little wonder IDC contracts is unable to function, one of its officers (Dave Schubmehl) resells my research on Amazon without my permission at $3,500 per eight pages edited to remove the considerations Attivio warranted from my team. Then an IDC research unit provides data which strike me as turning the silly KQ thing into search engine optimization corn husks.
Is IDC able to manage its own knowledge processes using its own theories and data? Perhaps IDC should drop down a level and focus on basic business processes? Yet IDC’s silos appear before me, gentle reader. and the silos are built from hefty portions of a mystery substance. Could it be consulting spam, to use IDC’s own terminology?
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2015
Enterprise Search and Marketers: Think Endpoint Computing
April 9, 2015
I have to hand it to the mid tier consultants. Just when I thought the baloney about enterprise search had begun to recede, I learned I was wrong. That puts me in my place.
Search is now “endpoint computing.” I know this because I received an email from the incubator-spawned X1 search company. I have tested X1 over the years, and I have come to think neutral thoughts about the company’s administrative options and its interface.
The method of communicating with me was a somewhat dry email that began with the salutation, “Hello.”
The email offered me a report by the ever fascinating Gartner Group. The point of the email is that X1 is a cool vendor. That’s nice. Curious I clicked on the link and was redirected to this page:
Okay, a lead generating system. I filled out the information and then I received another email. This one was a bit more serious.
The author, an earnest person named “Janice” wanted to speak with me to discuss my search requirement. Furthermore the person looks forward to speaking with me about “unified search and discovery for virtual, cloud, and hybrid environments.” X1 was founded in 2003and has experienced several management changes, which is common in the “unified search and discovery for virtual, cloud, and hybrid environments” market.
What makes X1 cool? To answer the question I had to read the Gartner Report, a task which I know is a chore.
The idea is that search is now endpoint computing. Okay. I guess. The report reassures me that the information in the report is not an “exhaustive list of vendors.” That’s good because in the report there are five companies mentioned:
- Login Consultants, a workspace consultant, but I don’t know what this term means
- Tanium, a company offering endpoint security and systems management, which strikes me as a consulting outfit
- X1, a search and retrieval vendor offering desktop search, eDiscovery, and enterprise search
- Kaviza (a where are they now company which puzzles me) a virtualized desktop outfit now owned by Citrix
- Framehawk (another where are they outfit), a company in the high definition user experience business (I have no idea what this means). Apparently Citrix does because Citrix also acquired Framehawk.
Quite an eclectic list. I remember when I worked at Ziff Communications in Manhattan. I listened to a group of editors working up a list of top trends over lunch. So much for methodology. The approach produced a somewhat eclectic list which was, in my opinion, of little value. The list was silly. But these were professionals. Who was I?
So the Gartner list is neither exhaustive nor coherent from my point of view.
What’s cool about X1 search as endpoint computing?
According to the mid tier consulting firms’ authors, X1 is cool because:
“Implementing VDI that provides a user experience that’s equal or superior to a distributed PC environment has been a huge challenge for organizations. While much of the innovation in the VDI space over the past few years has been focused on reducing cost and complexity, some vendors, like X1, have concentrated on removing barriers or exceptions that make VDI a compromise rather than a business enabler.” (page 3)
In the context of the firms profiled by Gartner’s “expert, the explanation of the X1 cool factor baffles me. I am not confused. I just don’t know what Gartner is trying to communicate.
I have several thoughts running through my head:
First, Gartner obviously has a financial model in place that makes it possible for the mid tier consulting firm to crank out analyses that seem to be authoritative. On closer inspection, the terminology and the information provided are not particularly useful. Does Gartner write these for free and allow the “cool” vendors to distribute these analyses for free? Why do I get a copy for free? Hmmm.
Second, there are obviously companies which value the Gartner endorsement even if it is not exactly clear what the message is. These companies—specifically X1—have seized upon the Gartner report as a way to generate leads and sales. I have no problem with that, but sending information that makes sense would appeal to me more than what I perceive as “information free” commentary.
Third, I continue to worry about the chance for meaningful discourse about the relative merits of information retrieval systems. The presentation of vendors in the context of buzzwords does little to convince me of the merits of X1 or the credibility of Gartner Group. I suppose that is why there are blue chip consulting firms and mid tier (azure chip) consulting firms. One good point: Unlike IDC’s Dave Schubmehl, the report was not $3,500 available on Amazon with my name slapped on as the “author.”
Score one for Gartner’s merrie band.
Stephen E Arnold, April 9, 2015
Hidden Value Oxymoron: Another Me Too Webinar?
April 2, 2015
Look what I received in my email on April Fool’s Day.
I know zero about direct marketing. It did cross my mind that when sending out content marketing spam, one should make sure the message does not appear as a spoof. “Hidden value.” Okay.
I also wondered why IDC and BA Insight would want me to attend a webinar when I have been an outspoken critic of webinars and mid tier consulting companies recycle my content without bothering to issue a contract, pay for rights, or make sure I am okay with the pricing and the method of selling. I don’t want my content on Amazon, a company focused on offering one button ordering of laundry detergent, thank you.
Mid tier consultancies and their experts are another kettle of fish from an unregistered trawler operating near Samut Sakhon, Thailand.
This buzzword filled marketing spam is an invitation to yet another advertising webinar. The company footing the bill is BA Insight, which is one of the SharePoint centric search vendors working to generate sufficient revenue to keep its stakeholders calm and carrying on. The best way to achieve sales, it appears, is to pay IDC’s “search expert” to explain the value of hidden information. Oh, yes. The value of hidden information. There is gold in them thar hills.
If you are not familiar with IDC and information, may I point you to this item about IDC’s Dave Schubmehl. You may also find this article mildly amusing: Meme of the Moment.
Keep in mind when you listen to this infomercial that IDC and Mr. Schubmehl sold my content on Amazon without my permission. I buy from Amazon. I don’t sell via Amazon. My legal eagle managed to get the $3,500 eight page document out of the Amazon store. I make my information somewhat more affordable. CyberOSINT is only $99 with the offer code LEA99. That’s a good price for an original chunk of work. The Amazon $3,500 eight page item is, even with my name on it, a pretty crazy play for cash. Maybe an adventuresome five year old might fall for the $3,500 price tag. I would not.
How much of the information in this BA Insight infomercial will be recycled? How much of the information will be of “value”? Well, sign up and drink deep of the Pierian spring.
Remember: If products are not advertised, products may not sell. If products do not sell, there is no money to pay back investors keeping outfits in business. Without business, the mid tier consultants will get fired. Money is what’s important.
Value? Hmm. Good question when experts who use other individuals’ information are the “talent” on a Web infused late night infomercial. Why not hire Guthy Renker and get the job done in a manner that can be measured. Talk about value is not value. Remember. Eight pages of stuff with my name on it was only $3,500.
Such a deal. Ah, the power of presumptive management and challenged search vendors. Why not invite me. I just love this content marketing, webinar, value, best practice fluff.
Note: I almost wrote, “Don’t fail to miss it.” I did not.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2015
HP Vertica and IDOL: Just Three Short Plus Years in the Making
March 31, 2015
I read an article from the outfit that relies on folks like Dave Schubmehl for expertise. The write up is “HP Links Vertica and IDOL Seeking Better Unstructured Data Analysis.” But I quite like the subtitle because it provides a timeline; to wit:
The company built a connector server for the products, which it acquired separately in 2011.
Let’s see that is just about three years plus a few months. The story reminded me of Rip Van Winkle who woke to a different world when he emerged from his slumber. The Sleepy Hollow could be a large technology company in the act of performing mitosis in order to generate [a] excitement, [b] money, and [c] the appearance of progress. I wonder if the digital Sleepy Hollow is located near Hanover Street? I will have to investigate that parallel.
What’s a few years of intellectual effort in a research “cave” when you are integrating software that is expected to generate billions of dollars in sales. Existing Vertica and Autonomy licensees are probably dancing in the streets.
The write up states:
Promising more thorough and timelier data analysis, Hewlett-Packard has released a software package that combines the company’s Vertica database with its IDOL data analysis platform. The HP Haven Connector Framework Server may allow organizations to study data sets that were too large or unwieldy to analyze before. The package provides “a mixture of statistical and contextual understanding,” of data, said Jeff Veis, HP vice president of marketing for big data. “You can pull in any form of data, and then do real-time high performance analysis.”
Hmm. “Promising” and “may allow” are interesting words and phrases. It seems as if the employer of Mr. Schubmehl is hedging on the HP assertions. I wonder, “Why?”
Are You Ready for EAPAASW?
March 31, 2015
I saw a tweet about a new report from a mid tier consulting firm. I was interested because a former employee suggested that the company was “virtual.” None of the McKinsey/Booz Allen walnut paneling or assistants with cool accents. Folks work from Starbucks, home, or a tomb silent Barnes & Noble I assume.
The write up is “Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Application Platform as a Service Worldwide.” I am into magic. I believe in the tooth fairy. I know that there are pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.
But I was surprised to learn about EAPAASW. I think the idea is that cloud computing makes it possible to use Amazon, Google, or Salesforce instead of on premises implementations of hardware and software. I think that the idea is reasonably well accepted.
According to the report I saw, the mid tier consulting firm sees the world from a different perspective. I suppose I would too if I had to pay a mortgage, save for a child’s college fund, and make it through the day as a high powered technology expert. The segment I marked was:
Application infrastructure functionality, enriched with cloud characteristics and offered as a service, is platform as a service (PaaS). Gartner refers to it more precisely as cloud application infrastructure services. Application platform as a service (aPaaS) is a form of PaaS that provides a platform to support application development, deployment and execution in the cloud. It is a suite of cloud services designed to meet the prevailing application design requirements of the time, and, in 2015, includes mobile, cloud, the Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics innovations.
This paragraph is chock full of buzzwords. And it sounds almost important with the Internet of Things, design requirements, and the hook “application infrastructure services.”
Now who are the big dogs in this kennel? Salesforce and Microsoft are the leaders. I find this interesting. Poor old Google is relegated to challenge status. Really? A challenger. Hmm.
The niche players are interesting because I recognized only one company in this group: Zoho. The others are essentially new to me. How many of these do your recognize as the niche players in this EAPAASW space? Engine Yard? OutSystems? CloudControl? NTT Communications? OrangeScape? Quite a mixed bag. I wonder if NTT Communications knows that it is a niche player against the likes of OrangeScape?
But who are the visionaries? This is a fascinating list because it mixes some large and confused outfits who are not in the Marco Polo category from my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek. check out these firms: IBM and SAP are visionaries?
But there are some others who can define the future; for example, Indra gnubila? Okay. Indra gnubila. Interesting. I wonder if IBM and SAP know much about that outfit or Mendex or MIOsoft for that matter? RedHat makes the list as does the ever sharp eyed Software AG. And what about Progress Software? Yep, still around. Still low profile. I think that outfit made a run at search and content processing and fell on its sword.
There is an interesting omission. Where is the modest outfit Amazon? Where is the giant and somewhat confused Hewlett Packard?
If you need to know about EAPAASW, check out this report. If the link goes bad, well, that’s life. On the other hand, if you find a report that makes Google a challenger and IBM a visionary, you may want this document now. If you are interested in the next big thing, Gartner has identified outfits which are likely to make your really wealth when you invest in them. I wonder if I can invest in Indra gnubila, which may not be exactly like Google. (See Gnubila.)
Quite a remarkable document from a mid tier consulting firm. Dave Schubmehl’s recycling of my research under his name on Amazon now faces a challenge in work from another mid tier firm. What’s next, experts?
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
