Mid Tier Consultant Evokes a Small Search Chuckle
December 22, 2010
Short honk: Mark Harrison’s blog has an interesting post about the “Gartner MarketScope for Enterprise Search.” Take a look at the search ranking charts. Does it appear funny to anyone else? Harrison makes an interesting observation that Gartner claims Microsoft has “surged to a leadership position by offering both effective basic search and more sophisticated search for inward- and outward-facing applications.” We think the rankings are amusing, but even more interesting is the fact that procurement teams believe the rankings.
Whitney Grace, December 22, 2010
Freebie
Search Analyst Evaluation
December 21, 2010
“Analytics, Schmanalytics! How to Evaluate an Analyst” reminds us that analysts, unlike lawyers or accountants, are not professionally licensed and gives advice on how to know you are getting your money’s worth. The conclusion: “If you need analytics help, make the effort to assure yourself that the analyst is technically competent, understands your business and has the communications skills that you need.” Some things to look for are formal education or experience in the specific area to be analyzed, familiarity with businesses similar to yours, and a communication style that will suit the situation in which the presentation will be made, whether it be to your boss or in court. Then again, if a search consultant promises to get you sales leads or sales, you might want to ignore this advice all together.
Alice Wasielewski, December 21, 2010
Freebie
Enterprise Search: Baloney Six Ways, like Herring
December 21, 2010
When my team and I discussed my write up about the shift of some vendors from search to business intelligence, quite a bit of discussion ensued.
The idea that a struggling vendor of search—most often an outfit with older technology—“reinvents” itself as a purveyor of business intelligence systems—is common evoked some strong reactions.
One side of the argument was that an established set of methods for indexing unstructured content could be extended. The words used to describe this digital alchemy were Web services, connectors, widgets, and federated content. Now these are or were useful terms. But what happens is that the synthetic nature of English makes it easy to use familiar sounding words in a way to perform an end run around the casual listener’s mental filters. It is just not polite to ask a vendor to define a phrase like business intelligence. The way people react is to nod in a knowing manner and say “for sure” or “I’ve got it.”
Have you taken steps to see through the baloney passed off as enterprise search, business intelligence, and knowledge management?
The other side of the argument was that companies are no longer will to pay big money for key word retrieval. The information challenge requires a rethink of what information is available within and to an organization. Then a system developed to “unlock the nuggets” in that treasure trove is needed. This side of the argument points to the use of systems developed for certain government agencies. The idea is that a person wanting to know which supplier delivers the components with the fewest defects needs an entirely different type of system. I understand this side of the argument. I am not sure that I agree but I have heard this case so often, the USB with the MP3 of the business intelligence sound file just runs.
As we approach 2011, I think a different way to look at the information access options is needed. To that end, I have created a tabular representation of information access. I call the table and its content “The Baloney Scorecard, 2011.”
Yahoo and a Not So Merry Holiday
December 15, 2010
I am burned out on Yahoo. I did my first Yahoo analysis in 2002, and the company bored me then. I found the Semel and Yang escapades amusing. I even perked up when the Yahooligans made a commitment to search and then generated results for my test queries that left me baffled. Even the new US Department of Treasury search system looks good when compared to Yahoo’s results. For a test, open a new browser window, click on the shopping tab, and do a search for “Angel perfume.” You don’t need the quotes. Here are the first two results. Remember. I want to buy a bottle of perfume.
The hit under the pictures has this headline: “Angel Perfume Is Dangerous.” Click on the link. I get a weird animated page with the title “Clarins and Thierry Mugler Acknowledges that Angel Perfume Is Dangerous.” Great information if I were doing this search on a general Web index: “’Angel perfume danger.” I am not. I want to buy perfume.
This is an example of Yahoo’s search. I hope the Yahoo ad sales people don’t pitch the Angel perfume account. This query is not what I expected. I want to buy the perfume, not learn that it, like any similar substance, will burn or kill me if I drink it. Buy is the operative concept. Run the query on Google Shopping and you get links to buy perfume. The Math Club gets it right. The Yahooligans do not.
“Yahoo Still Silent On Today’s Layoffs, But Employees Vent” did not amuse me. In fact, it forced me think about the trajectory of online services companies. When money is flowing, there is no investment in managing the business. When times get tough, management becomes a tough problem. In fact, some online companies may be unmanageable. Google’s solution is to manage by controlled chaos. After more than a decade of “controlled chaos,” Google is starting to show some signs of strain. I mean two operating systems plus the Google infrastructure, the Buzz thing, the Wave thing, the hassle with every offended Street View weak sister, et al.
Here’s the killer quote from the TechCrunch article cited above:
The atmosphere here has never been worse.
That will keep the blue chip folks busy. Will Yahoo survive? Will a white knight ride to rescue the Yahooligans? Will AOL cut a deal that makes 1 + 1 = 3?
Not sure. What is clear to me is that first AOL lost its way, now Yahoo. The question is, “Which big online outfit is next?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2010
Freebie
A 21st Century Great Chain of Being?
September 4, 2010
As social technologies take hold and challenge the relationships between data, information, knowledge and wisdom within enterprise organizations, a new hierarchy becomes relevant. The Web site cmswire.com explores this interesting theory in a recent article titled, “Social Media Is Challenging Notions of the Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) Hierarchy.” According to the article, social media networks are challenging the historical DIKW model, as described by Jonathan Hey and many before him.
The traditional DIKW model begins with data as unprocessed information, then processed information. Next comes knowledge, then wisdom. The article says that “Social media can speed the capture and dissemination of knowledge. And therefore, the lines between information and knowledge begin to blur. Certainly, the further you move up the hierarchy, the less structured information becomes and the harder it is to capture.”
Interesting points. Some recent DIKW versions are downplaying or omitting wisdom. Knowledge is one thing, but knowing when to use that knowledge requires wisdom. Just a thought. Middle Ages. Great chain of being. Formal social hierarchy. Horses trampling peasants.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Consultants Face the Lash and Backlash
September 4, 2010
Okay, a person gets RIF’ed. Or one gets nuked. Or one gets rationalized. What does one do? One can mail résumés, work on your LinkedIn postings, make phone calls, or become a consultant. Not much is required except printing a business card, creating a free Web page on Weebly.com, and posting to social sites.
Fortunately, as an addled goose, I am unqualified for modern day consulting. Geese in general and this goose in particular is suited to paddling around the pond or making like Jackson Pollock with a car hood as my canvas. However, lots of folks are hanging up their shingle and chasing billable hours.
There are quite a few prospects out there in the present business jungle. A charity’s supporters don’t stuff money in envelopes. Government bean counters kill a program. A company’s profits crater. So, wise managers, accustomed to getting a pay check every two weeks, hire a management consultant to access the situation and recommend solutions.
Here’s a news flash. Instead of growing the company, the consultant’s recommendations backfire, and the outfit the consultant advises enters a death spiral, maybe declaring bankruptcy or selling at a bargain price like mismatched shoes at Carnival Shoe Store, the buy one, get a pair free outfit down the hollow.
Sound familiar? In an article titled “Management Consultancy Scam” the news site nation.com expounds on a fascinating study conducted by the Cranfield School of Management. The article says that “just 36 percent” were happy with the consultant’s results. The strategies pushed by these consultancies are in fact disastrous and hasten the collapse of a company or service.
When folks who depend on a paycheck lose their exoskeleton, what are they supposed to do? Mow grass? Install electric fences? Paint houses? Nope, consult. A feedback loop of sort emerges, don’t you think? Everyone knows how to search. How tough can it be to be a search expert? Trivial for sure. I am “real” certain.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Freebie
Azurini Lock In Analysis Baffles the Goose
August 3, 2010
I know, I know. Consulting firms have to be “real” and “objective” and “mavenesque.” I accept that. But the write up “Burton Group: Avoid Office 2010 Lock-In, Stick with Office 2007” wowed me. Microsoft buys lots of consulting, research, and advice. As a result, those who want to get jobs with the Redmond fun lovers often find a way to put a honey colored light on almost any product, service, or initiative. How many raves did I read about Vista? How many times have I heard about the wonders of MSN, now Live something? How many times have I heard experts explain the impact of Microsoft’s mobile strategy, its search strategy, its social strategy, its cloud strategy, and other strategies. The addled goose sure does not generate $70 billion a year in revenue and Microsoft does. So, guess who is really smart? Time’s up. Microsoft.
But a consulting firm criticizing Microsoft albeit somewhat indirectly? That is amazing, and it means to me that maybe the fondness Microsoft once felt for Burton has faded. Maybe Burton no longer loves Microsoft? Maybe there are other forces in play? Who knows.
What is clear is that Burton suggests an organization that embraces Office 2010 may be a candidate for lock in. Lock in means that a vendor calls the shots, not the client. The only way to get free is to break out. In fact, that’s one of the appeals of open source software. An organization using open source software believes it has more freedom than when chained to a giant SharePoint installation, an even bigger Microsoft Exchange construct, and the 40 other servers that Microsoft has on offer.
My view is that Microsoft is not the only enterprise software vendor looking to get shelf space and then become a monoculture in a client organization. Does IBM seek to monopolize hardware, software, and services? In my experience, you better understand the way Big Blue operates before your local IBM vice president gets a temporary office down the hall from your company’s president. Same with the Google.
So what strikes me as interesting is not the lock in angle. That’s old news. The criticism of a big outfit like Microsoft has caught my attention. Is one of the azurini changing colors?
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
