Enterprise Search Revisionism: Can One Change What Happened
March 9, 2016
I read “The Search Continues: A History of Search’s Unsatisfactory Progress.” I noted some points which, in my opinion, underscore why enterprise search has been problematic and why the menagerie of experts and marketers have put search and retrieval on the path to enterprise irrelevance. The word that came to mind when I read the article was “revisionism” for the millennials among us.
The write up ignores the fact that enterprise search dates back to the early 1970s. One can argue that IBM’s Storage and Information Retrieval System (STAIRS) was the first significant enterprise search system. The point is that enterprise search as a productized service has a history of over promising and under delivering of more than 40 years.
Enterprise search with a touch of Stalinist revisionism.
Customers said they wanted to “find” information. What those individuals meant was have access to information that provided the relevant facts, documents, and data needed to deal with a problem.
Because providing on point information was and remains a very, very difficult problem, the vendors interpreted “find” to mean a list of indexed documents that contained the users’ search terms. But there was a problem. Users were not skilled in crafting queries which were essentially computer instructions between words the index actually contained.
After STAIRS came other systems, many other systems which have been documented reasonably well in Bourne and Bellardo-Hahn’s A History of Online information Services 1963-1976. (The period prior to 1970 describes for-fee research centric online systems. STAIRS was among the most well known early enterprise information retrieval system.) I provided some history in the first three editions of the Enterprise Search Report, published from 2003 to 2007. I have continued to document enterprise search in the Xenky profiles and in this blog.
The history makes painful reading for those who invested in many search and retrieval companies and for the executives who experienced the crushing of their dreams and sometimes career under the buzz saw of reality.
In a nutshell, enterprise search vendors heard what prospects, workers overwhelmed with digital and print information, and unhappy users of those early systems were saying.
The disconnect was that enterprise search vendors parroted back marketing pitches that assured enterprise procurement teams of these functions:
- Easy to use
- “All” information instantly available
- Answers to business questions
- Faster decision making
- Access to the organization’s knowledge.
The result was a steady stream of enterprise search product launches. Some of these were funded by US government money like Verity. Sure, the company struggled with the cost of infrastructure the Verity system required. The work arounds were okay as long as the infrastructure could keep pace with the new and changed word-centric documents. Toss in other types of digital information, make the system perform ever faster indexing, and keep the Verity system responding quickly was another kettle of fish.
Research oriented information retrieval experts looked at the Verity type system and concluded, “We can do more. We can use better algorithms. We can use smart software to eliminate some of the costs and indexing delays. We can [ fill in the blank ].
The cycle of describing what an enterprise search system could actually deliver was disconnected from the promises the vendors made. As one moves through the decades from 1973 to the present, the failures of search vendors made it clear that:
- Companies and government agencies would buy a system, discover it did not do the job users needed, and buy another system.
- New search vendors picked up the methods taught at Cornell, Stanford, and other search-centric research centers and wrap on additional functions like semantics. The core of most modern enterprise search systems is unchanged from what STAIRS implemented.
- Search vendors came like Convera, failed, and went away. Some hit revenue ceilings and sold to larger companies looking for a search utility. The acquisitions hit a high water mark with the sale of Autonomy (a 1990s system) to HP for $11 billion.
What about Oracle, as a representative outfit. Oracle database has included search as a core system function since the day Larry Ellison envisioned becoming a big dog in enterprise software. The search language was Oracle’s version of the structured query language. But people found that difficult to use. Oracle purchased Artificial Linguistics in order to make finding information more intuitive. Oracle continued to try to crack the find information problem through the acquisitions of Triple Hop, its in-house Secure Enterprise Search, and some other odds and ends until it bought in rapid succession InQuira (a company formed from the failure of two search vendors), RightNow (technology from a Dutch outfit RightNow acquired), and Endeca. Where is search at Oracle today? Essentially search is a utility and it is available in Oracle applications: customer support, ecommerce, and business intelligence. In short, search has shifted from the “solution” to a component used to get started with an application that allows the user to find the answer to business questions.
I mention the Oracle story because it illustrates the consistent pattern of companies which are actually trying to deliver information that the u9ser of a search system needs to answer a business or technical question.
I don’t want to highlight the inaccuracies of “The Search Continues.” Instead I want to point out the problem buzzwords create when trying to understand why search has consistently been a problem and why today’s most promising solutions may relegate search to a permanent role of necessary evil.
In the write up, the notion of answering questions, analytics, federation (that is, running a single query across multiple collections of content and file types), the cloud, and system performance are the conclusion of the write up.
Wrong.
The use of open source search systems means that good enough is the foundation of many modern systems. Palantir-type outfits, essential an enterprise search vendors describing themselves as “intelligence” providing systems,, uses open source technology in order to reduce costs, shift bug chasing to a community, The good enough core is wrapped with subsystems that deal with the pesky problems of video, audio, data streams from sensors or similar sources. Attivio, formed by professionals who worked at the infamous Fast Search & Transfer company, delivers active intelligence but uses open source to handle the STAIRS-type functions. These companies have figured out that open source search is a good foundation. Available resources can be invested in visualizations, generating reports instead of results lists, and graphical interfaces which involve the user in performing tasks smart software at this time cannot perform.
For a low cost enterprise search system, one can download Lucene, Solr, SphinxSearch, or any one of a number of open source systems. There are low cost (keep in mind that costs of search can be tricky to nail down) appliances from vendors like Maxxcat and Thunderstone. One can make do with the craziness of the search included with Microsoft SharePoint.
For a serious application, enterprises have many choices. Some of these are highly specialized like BAE NetReveal and Palantir Metropolitan. Others are more generic like the Elastic offering. Some are free like the Effective File Search system.
The point is that enterprise search is not what users wanted in the 1970s when IBM pitched the mainframe centric STAIRS system, in the 1980s when Verity pitched its system, in the 1990s when Excalibur (later Convera) sold its system, in the 2000s when Fast Search shifted from Web search to enterprise search and put the company on the road to improper financial behavior, and in the efflorescence of search sell offs (Dassault bought Exalead, IBM bought iPhrase and other search vendors), and Lexmark bought Brainware and ISYS Search Software.
Where are we today?
Users still want on point information. The solutions on offer today are application and use case centric, not the silly one-size-fits-all approach of the period from 2001 to 2011 when Autonomy sold to HP.
Open source search has helped create an opportunity for vendors to deliver information access in interesting ways. There are cloud solutions. There are open source solutions. There are small company solutions. There are more ways to find information than at any other time in the history of search as I know it.
Unfortunately, the same problems remain. These are:
- As the volume of digital information goes up, so does the cost of indexing and accessing the sources in the corpus
- Multimedia remains a significant challenge for which there is no particularly good solution
- Federation of content requires considerable investment in data grooming and normalizing
- Multi-lingual corpuses require humans to deal with certain synonyms and entity names
- Graphical interfaces still are stupid and need more intelligence behind the icons and links
- Visualizations have to be “accurate” because a bad decision can have significant real world consequences
- Intelligent systems are creeping forward but crazy Watson-like marketing raises expectations and exacerbates the credibility of enterprise search’s capabilities.
I am okay with history. I am not okay with analyses that ignore some very real and painful lessons. I sure would like some of the experts today to know a bit more about the facts behind the implosions of Convera, Delphis, Entopia, and many other companies.
I also would like investors in search start ups to know a bit more about the risks associated with search and content processing.
In short, for a history of search, one needs more than 900 words mixing up what happened with what is.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2016
Attivio: Dines on Data Dexterity
March 7, 2016
Attivio was founded by some former Fast Search & Transfer executives. Attivio also had a brush with a board member who found himself in a sticky wicket. Quite a pedigree.
I read “Enterprise Search Takes Its Place at the Big Data Table.” The write up is built upon an interview with the chief executive officer of Attivio. Nice looking fellow who had a degree in music and marketing and an MBA from Wharton, the institution which helped educate Donald Trump.
What caught my attention were these points in the write up. My observations are in italics:
- Enterprise search has been around for two decades. [Nah, enterprise search is closing in on 50 years of fun and delight.]
- Enterprise search “finds unstructured content housed in file shares like SharePoint and other content management systems, in email archives, and in the content repositories of applications like customer relationship management. [Yep, and that is part of the problem with enterprise search. The bulk of the systems I have examined do not handle video, audio, binaries, and odd ball file types like those in ANB format very well or not at all. Plus users expect comprehensive results updated in near real time presented in a form which allows instant use.]
- Enterprise search does analytics and accelerated data discovery. [Yep, if the customer licenses a system like BAE NetReveal, the Palantir platform, or another industrial-strength fusion vendor.]
What I found interesting was the phrase “reducing the time to insight.” There is a suggestion from Attivio and from other vendors that their systems process digital content in a super fast mode.
In our testing, we have found that throughput for new content can require considerable investment in engineering and processing capability. Furthermore, dealing with flows from intercepts or other high volume content sources, most enterprise search systems cannot handle:
- Processing large flows of content in a matter of minutes. Hours or days is a more suitable time unit
- Updating the index or indexes
- Integrating real time data into search results, reports, and visualizations in a dynamic manner.
That’s why outfits who are emulating Palantir-style information access use open source search and then invest hundreds of millions in specialized engineering, interfaces, and fusion technologies.
Enterprise search vendors chasing Palantir-type systems are delivering what marketers find quite easy to describe. Here’s an example:
Not only that, but many enterprises can only “see” 10 percent of their data. The other ninety percent remains hidden—dark data. Data is often locked in silos, and it’s just too time-consuming to get it out. And making connections across structured, semi-structured, and unstructured information to serve to a BI tool is a completely manual, slow process – although highly valuable for developing strategic insights. Organizations that can cross this chasm will be poised to transform productivity, mitigate risks, and seize market opportunities.
The only hitch in the git along is that systems which handle “dark data” are available now. There are outfits able to handle “dark” data today. True, these are not based on enterprise search concepts because the core of a utility function is not a solid foundation for next generation information access. There are platforms which deliver actionable outputs. Even more interesting is that the US government is funding research to develop next generation systems designed to leap frog Palantir, i2, DCGS-A, and many other solutions.
Why?
Marketing is one thing. Delivering a system which works reliably, exhibits consistency, and integrates with work flows is a work in progress.
The notion that a Fast-type system can deliver what a Palantir-type system does is something I believe is wordsmithing. Watson does wordsmithing; others deliver next generation information access. Has Attivio hit a home run with its new positioning? Is the Attivio solution a starter for the Hickory Crawdads? My hunch the folks investing $70 million in Attivio want to start for the Boston Red Sox this year. Play ball.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2016
Venture Backed Search Vendors Face Exciting 2016
February 12, 2016
I read “The State of Venture Capital.” I thought, “Oh, ho, here comes the tightening of the thumbscrews. The idea is simple. Insert fingers and turn the crank. My hunch is that the device will focus the attention of person whose fingers are in the business end of the gizmo.
In the write up, I learned that in the next two years, folks should expect:
- Increased loss ratios
- Most flat rounds
- More down rounds
- More structured rounds
- Relatively harder to raise capital
- VCs marking-to-market showing some movements south
I like the reference to the movement south.
How does this relate to the search and content processing outfits which have sucked in tens of millions in venture funding? Three items for which I will be watching:
- More market repositioning. Think predictive analytics, data lakes, cloud solutions, and artificial intelligence. Talk is cheap. If talk generates a license deal, that’s the upside.
- Downsizing. I know that growth is all the rage, but I think that some vendors will have no choice except cutting back on expenses. Full time hires become contract workers. Trade show participation becomes a webinar which is archived and the promoted as a resource.
- Dance card shuffling. In an effort to generate leads and from the leads some real license deals, companies will join up. Others will departner and find another entity with which to dance.
Which search vendors will survive? The last big shake out winnowed the likes of Convera, Delphes, Entopia, and Siderean. The acquisition boomlet moved Autonomy, Exalead, ISYS Search, and Vivisimo into the safe havens of larger organization. Who will buy today’s market leaders? Other vendors will have no choice but go quiet. The last time I checked Dieselpoint it was still in business. Sophia Search? Intrafind? X1?
Which company is the next Autonomy? Elastic, Recommind, IBM Watson?
My view is that 2016 will be exciting for some folks.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2016
Google Search Appliance: Like Glass It Broke
February 8, 2016
I read “So Long Google Search Appliance.” Farewell, happy yellow and blue boxes. So long integrators who have been supporting these wildebeests for a decade. Au revoir easy-as-pie search.
According to the write up:
The tech giant told its reseller and consulting partners the news via email on Thursday, noting that they can continue to sell one-year license renewals for existing hardware customers through 2017, but that they will be unable to sell new hardware. Renewals will end in 2018.
I recall writing about the Google Search Appliance when I was reporting about enterprise search for specialist publications. I was the first or one of the first to run down the pricing for the wonky boxes. I pointed out that a redundant multi million document system would ring the Google cash register in the high six figures with seven figures not out of sight. I thought I mentioned that the number of engineeers supporting the GSA had dwindled to a couple of folks. I thought I pointed out that the assumption a Web search system would work like a champ on corporate content was a wild and crazy notion.l
Like so many others who assumed enterprise search was not a tough problem, the Alphabet Google thing has bailed. Google essentially failed to revolutionize enterprise search. Cheaper and more usable appliances are available, including products from Maxxcat and Thunderstone. There are reasonable cloud solutions. And there is a cornucopia of outfits offering repackaged open source systems. Heck, if one pokes around long enough, a bold enterprise can license a system from companies with proprietary information access systems; 3RDi, Fabasoft, Lexmark, etc.
What will organizations do without the Google Search Appliance? Yard sale, Goodwill?
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2016
3RDi for Enterprise Search
February 5, 2016
Health and medical search need an upgrade? T/DG 3RDi might be just what the doctor ordered. You search blues will disappear when you have natural language processing, semantic search, search relevancy, search analytics, research tools, and data integration. Very comprehensive it seems.
T/DG offers 3RDi. Now try to search for these entities. To locate the services firm offering the 3RDi system, one has to figure out how to make Bing, Google, and Yandex point to the correct entities.
Naming products and companies is tricky. Let me save you the hassle of wading through false drops.
- T/DG means “The Digital Group,” an outfit founded in 1999 and operating from New Jersey.
- 3RDi means “relevant, deep insights.” (I don’t know what the 3 means.)
The search system appears to be a “platform” based on open source technology. Here’s a block diagram of 3RDi:
Source: The Digital Group, 2015
The company’s most recent push is health care. The search system performs the type of functions which I associate with a system like the ones Autonomy and Fast Search & Transfer described in the late 1990s. There is also a hefty dose of “platformitis.” The idea is that a licensee can use the system to meet the needs of users. The support for controlled vocabularies is helpful in domain specific deployments, but these have to be maintained, which can be a financial and resource burden for some licensees.
3RDi embraces the semantic marketing jargon enthusiastically; for example, this diagram shows how “knowledge” and “semantics” make the “experience” work for licensees:
Source: The Digital Group, 2015
Users of the system do not have to deal with results lists. The system presents information in a visual manner; for example:
Source: The Digital Group, 2015
In short, 3RDi appears to deliver the type of utility I associate with systems from outfits like BAE Systems and Palantir.
If your organization wants an open source system with the bells and whistles found in seven figure platforms, you may want to explore 3RDi.
The urls you need are:
I assume that the company will make the “3” clearer going forward. There is a live demo available. You will need to register. The system balks at non commercial domains like my Yahoo account.
The recent marketing push given 3RDi signals that the enterprise search sector is alive and well. As the company says, “Start experiencing.” I wonder what the “3” means.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2016
Proprietary Enterprise Search: False Hopes and Brutal Costs
December 21, 2015
At lunch the other day, the goslings and I engaged in what I thought was a routine discussion: The sad state of the enterprise search market.
I pointed out that the “Enterprise Search Daily” set up by Edwin Stauthamer was almost exclusively a compilation of Big Data articles. Enterprise search, although the title of the daily, was not the focal point of the content.
Enterprise search is a cost black hole. R&D, support, customization, and bug fixes gorge on money and engineers. Instead of adding value to an enterprise system, search becomes the reason the CFO has a migraine and why sales professionals struggle to close deals.
I said, “Enterprise search has disappeared.”
One of the goslings asked, “What’s happened to the proprietary search systems acquired by some big companies?”
We were off an running.
The goslings mentioned that Dassault Systèmes bought Exalead and the brand has disappeared from the US market. IBM bought Vivisimo, and the purchase was explained as a Big Data buy, but the company and its technology have disappeared into the Great Blue Hole, which is today’s IBM. Hummingbird bought Fulcrum, and then OpenText bought Hummingbird. Open Text owns Information Dimension’s BASIS, BRS Search, and its own home brew search system. Oracle snapped up Endeca, InQuira, and RightNow in a barrage of search binge shopping. Lexmark—formerly a unit of Big Blue—bought ISYS Search Software and Brainware. Then there was the famous purchase of Fast Search & Transfer by Microsoft and the subsequent police investigation and the charges filed against a former executive for fancy dancing with the revenue numbers. And who can forget the $11 billion purchase of Autonomy by IBM. There have been other deals, and the goslings enjoyed commenting on this.
I called a halt to the lunch time stand up comedy routine. The executives of these companies were trying to do what they thought was best for their [a] financial future and [b] for their stakeholders. Some of these stakeholders had suffered through revenue droughts and were looking for a way out of the sea of red ink enterprise search vendors generate with aplomb.
The point I raised was, “Does the purchase of a proprietary enterprise search system?” make a substantive contribution to the financial health of the purchasing company.
Canada Based Coveo Predicts the Future of Enterprise Search
December 17, 2015
Coveo, an enterprise search vendor once closely focused on Microsoft SharePoint, offered some predictions about 2016 and search.
What does the Québec City based search vendor presage? The answer appears in “Coveo Releases 2016 Enterprise Search Predictions.” Here you go:
- Machine learning. IBM will definitely support this prediction or their public relations advisors will.
- Cybersecurity. Yep. This is a hot area. Some of the companies pushing new boundaries in search are outfits like Diffeo, Tiberian, and Recorded Future (backed by the Alphabet Google outfit). Key word search does not sleep in the same king sized bed as these outfits in my opinion.
- Real time engagement and learning for digital transformation. I thought of Yahoo. The company has several thousand people working on search. How is that working out for the Xoogler running Yahoo?
- Proactive recommendations. Okay, this is the selective dissemination or SDI thing. SDIs are useful but these cannot be annoying. Does anyone remember Desktop Data? I do.
- Search makes systems more intelligent. Well, maybe. search is a utility. The more successful of the intelligence automation outfits uses subcomponents of search; for example, entity extraction, metadata generated on the fly, and relationship maps. These are, in my opinion, more important than old school search.
The write up includes a remarkable quote. I have placed this gem in my folder for future reference. Here is the statement I highlighted in bold red marker ink:
2016 will be a pivotal year for enterprise search. Organizations now recognize the strategic value of using intelligent search-based applications to drive more customer and employee engagement.
Based on the information available to me as we complete The Dark Web Dilemma, 2016 is going to be a bit different from 2015 when venture money flowed like water to outfits in the content processing game. My thought about the future is that companies which have ingested oodles of cash have to generate revenue growth, demonstrate a path to profitability, or face a Convera, Delphes, Entopia, or Siderean Software type future.
What’s that type of future?
A sell out or a shut down. My hunch is that the stakeholders in the Coveo play are looking for a buyer just like Lexmark.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2015
Big Data and Enterprise Search: The Caution Lights Are Flashing
December 15, 2015
I read “How You Should Explain Big Data to Your CEO.” The write up included a link which triggered thoughts of how enterprise search dug itself a hole and climbed. Unable to extricate itself from a problem enterprise search vendors created, the entire sector has been marginalized. In some circles, enterprise search is essentially a joke. “Did you hear about the three enterprise search vendors who walked into a bar?” The bartender says, “What is this? Some kind of joke?”
The link pointed me to a Slideshare (owned by the email and job hunting champion LinkedIn). That presentation, “5 Signs Your Big Data Project is Doomed to Fail,” could have been borrowed from one of my talks about enterprise search in 2001. It was not, but the basic message was identical: Big Data has created a situation in which there are some challenges here and now.
The presentation was prepared by Qubole (maybe pronounced cue ball?). Qubole is a click to query outfit. This means that reports from Big Data are easy to generate.
Here are the problems Big Data faces:
- Failed implementations. Qubole asserts that 87 percent of the Big Data implementations are flops
- 73 percent of executive describe the Big Data project as flop
- 45 percent of Big Data projects are completed
These data are similar to the results of “satisfaction” with enterprise search solutions.
Why? Qubole asserts:
- Inaccurate project scope
- Inadequate management support
- No business case
- Lack of talent (in search the talent may be present but overestimates its ability to deal with enterprise search technologies and processes)
- “Challenging tools.” I think this means that in the Big Data world there are lots of complexities.
What can one charged with either search or Big Data tasks do with this information?
My view is, “Ignore it.”
The “can do” spirit carries professionals forward. Hiring a consultant provides some job protection but does little to reverse the failure and disappointment rate.
My view is that the willingness of executives to grab at a magic solution presented by a showman marketer overrides failure date. The arrogance of those involved create a “that won’t happen to us” belief.
Who is to blame? The company for believing in baloney? The marketer for painting a picture and showing a Hollywood style demo? The developers who created the Big Data solution, knowing that chunks were not complete or just did not work before the ship date? The in house engineers who lacked self knowledge to understand their own limitations?
Everyone is in the hole with the enterprise software vendors. The hole is deep. Magic solutions are difficult to pin down. The future of Big Data is likely to parallel to some degree the dismal track record of enterprise search. Fascinating. I can hear the mid tier consultants and the handful of remaining enterprise search vendors asserting that Qubole’s points are not applicable to their specific situation.
Yep, and I believe in the tooth fairy and Santa.
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2015
Paper.Li Enterprise Search Daily Not Updating
December 11, 2015
Update December 12, 2015–The Enterprise Search Paper.li is updating again. The content is primarily about Big Data.
The Enterprise Search Daily, which shifted from enterprise search to Big Data, is not updating. Is it a Paper.li problem or a lack of suitable information about search?
The archives are available from this link. If the page resolves, click on the Archives and you can view a Search Daily by clicking on a calendar. My hunch is that the flow of information about enterprise search slowed in 2015. Marketers have embraced Big Data even if their systems do not really handle lots of information without developing indigestion. Earlier this year, I heard that a real publisher was going to introduce a newsletter about enterprise search. I am not sure if anyone will notice.
If the Enterprise Search Daily turns up in my Overflight system again, I will note the date. For now, fans of enterprise search will have to entertain themselves by running queries on the topics related to search. Big Data is not a useful search phrase. Everybody does Big Data according to the marketers and the venture firms funding search and retrieval. What about the conference organizers who run for fee shindigs to discuss enterprise search? Yikes. I am delighted to be beyond search.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2015
Enterprise Software Survey: ZDNet Content Marketing
December 8, 2015
“Research: Enterprise Software Rising with 69 Percent Usage” caught my attention. I like numbers which suggest two thirds adoption of software which seems ubiquitous to me. So the write looks like news. It sounds like news. Sort of news I think.
The write up is a marketing pitch for a new study by ZDNet and its for fee research arm Tech Pro Research. “Enterprise Software: Advantages, Opportunities, Challenges” studies enterprise software. I am not exactly sure what “enterprise” means in the ZDNet world. My hunch is that the term embraces commercial enterprises which buy products from the ZDNet advertisers. I could be wrong, of course, because enterprise may mean, the local dry launderette entrepreneur.
The article discloses some interesting factoids, which I assume ZDNet and a host of enterprise software sales people believe are solid gold. None of the gold foam stuff.
I noted these points:
Enterprise software has a definition I found surprising. I learned:
Enterprise software encompasses a variety of functions, including asset management, business intelligence, CRM utilities, data processing, databases, financial applications, identity management, retail software, process management and resource planning. It can run on either individual machines or on centralized servers, whether in-house, located in the cloud or a hybrid combination.
No, enterprise search, no analytics, no Big Data, and no enterprise cyber security. Yikes. The mid tier consultants are probably perspiring in their home offices due to these omissions.
I found this factoid interesting: nine percent of the sample do not currently use an enterprise software solution but are considering one in the next year and 22 percent do not use enterprise software and are not planning on changing their stripes next year. That works out to 31 percent of the sample not doing the enterprise software thing even though, I assume, the companies in the sample were enterprises. I said, “Huh. Imagine that.”
Even more puzzling was the list of enterprise software deployed in the last 12 months by the sample.
- Human resources
- Storage
- Databases, note the plural
- Big Data
- Mobile
Now the paragraph I quote about the functions of enterprise software did not include Big Data. What’s the scoop, ZDNet. Is Big Data an enterprise application or not? My view is that Big Data is for the folks who understand analytic-type stuff. Most enterprises have precious few of these types of people. Another fascinating point.
The preferred vendors identified in the write up came at me from left field. I admit I am not in the know like the real journalists at ZDNet. Here’s that listing:
- Adobe Systems
- Dropbox
- LinkedIn (my goodness)
- Microsoft
But the un-preferred vendors is more intriguing. This group includes:
- CA Technologies
- Oracle
- Red Hat
- SAP
I assume that each of these companies will be really thrilled to meet with the ZDNet ad sales professionals.
If you want more, you will be able to explore the opportunities by diving into the for fee version of the study.
Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
