Protected: New SharePoint Outlook Function
March 21, 2011
Consultant Asserts the Obvious
March 20, 2011
Years ago, I worked at the former blue chip consulting firm Booz, Allen & Hamilton. At that time, the firm was generating studies of world economic change, updates to the definitive discussion of new product development, and ground breaking studies in technical innovation methods. Now we learn that executives are distracted. Okay.
I learned about this obvious statement in “Executives Say They’re Pulled in Too Many Directions, According to Booz & Co. Survey.” According to the write up:
“The survey results tell us that deciding on priorities is a huge issue for companies – and that actually linking priorities to decisions is a hurdle that few companies get past. We see this ‘incoherent’ operating environment across industries and geographies, among all types of companies. It’s draining – and forcing companies to pay a significant penalty. We call it the incoherence penalty,” said Paul Leinwand, co-author of the just-released book “The Essential Advantage: How to Win with a Capabilities-Driven Strategy” (Harvard Business Review Press, December 2010).
When I read this, I thought about the type of research and marketing that consulting firms are forced to do to maintain their revenues. Some firms have become more like boutique marketing shops. Others are emulating PageRank and looking for topics that generate clicks. Booz seems to be blazing a path by putting numbers behind what most business professionals know. In a meeting, no one pays much attention. Distractions are the name of the game. People come and go, and most don’t know anything about Michelangelo.
I relate almost every thing I read to search and information access. I wonder how distracted executives can make good decisions. I thought about consulting firms trying to sell obvious generalizations to procurement teams more interested in fiddling with iPhones than figuring out whether the technical explanations were on point or even accurate.
The Booz study offers some evidence that we live in a PageRank world. No wonder it is hard to find valid, useful, substantive, actionable information.
Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2011
Google and Its Alleged Trojan
March 18, 2011
The H Security reports “Google’s Security Tool Infected with Trojan.” Wow. Just. . . wow. Google’s Android Market Security Tool, intended to delete contaminated apps, has itself been contaminated by a trojan the H Security article alleges:
As users have been told to expect to see the application running on their phones clearing up the damage the Droiddream trojan did, there’s a good chance they won’t be suspicious of it. According to reports though, at present, the trojan-infested version of the tool is only in circulation on an “un-regulated third-party Chinese marketplace” and appears to only affect users of a particular Chinese mobile network.
Okay, so we in the States don’t have to worry about this. For now. The program, known as BGServ, sends texts containing user data to a control server. Think twice about any app that asks for permission to send text messages. If this allegation is accurate, will it have an impact on Google’s enterprise efforts? I surmise that my colleagues and I would think twice, assuming this shocker is true.
Cynthia Murrell March 18, 2011
Freebie
Database Tussles: MapReduce and Parallel DBMSs
March 10, 2011
We don’t want to take sides in this fight. The points raised in “MapReduce and Parallel DMBSs: Friends or Foes?” will find plenty of experts who want to support their favorite. The authors of this paper are well known among the database elite. Not surprisingly, the article does a very good job of reviewing the strengths of each approach. The information in the discussion of each approach is quite useful, but for me, the most interesting segment of the write up was the discussion of “Architectural Differences”. I made sure I had a copy of this segment of the analysis because clear explanations of complex data management architectures are tough to locate.
For me, I found the conclusion somewhat obvious but reassuring to both sides in this battle which occupies some:
Most of the architectural differences discussed here are the result of the different focuses of the two classes of system. Parallel DBMSs excel at efficient querying of large data sets; MR-style systems excel at complex analytics and ETL tasks. Neither is good at what the other does well. Hence, the two technologies are complementary, and we expect MR-style systems performing ETL to live directly upstream from DBMSs. Many complex analytical problems require the capabilities provided by both systems. This requirement motivates the need for interfaces between MR systems and DBMSs that allow each system to do what it is good at. The result is a much more efficient overall system than if one tries to do the entire application in either system. That is, “smart software” is always a good idea.
Very useful write up.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2011
Freebie
Recommind and End to End eDiscovery
March 9, 2011
“Recommind Advances End-to-End eDiscovery” explores the value of an eDiscovery implementation that relies on a single vendor’s solution. The idea is that an organization like Cisco can standardize on Recommind’s solution and reduce costs and get a boost in efficiency.
This is an interesting idea and one that has fueled many enterprise software vendors over the years. The key point of the write up, in my opinion, was:
eDiscovery…is a term that I have seen used both narrowly and broadly. Craig [Carpenter, Recommind executive] said it was initially used in a more narrow sense to refer to the process of preserving, collecting, reviewing, analyzing and producing relevant documents after a legal process has begun. Now, it generally extends to include information management in anticipation of possible legal issues, as well as during them, while also addressing regulatory needs. This reflects a more proactive approach that is being adopted by many Recommind customers. This broader approach means that content collection is not an isolated activity but one that is integrated into an enterprise’s total information management system on an ongoing basis.
This point was followed by this passage:
Cisco is using Axcelerate to take a more proactive, strategic approach to eDiscovery. One of the drivers of increased eDiscovery costs is the explosion of enterprise content, which ironically Cisco is helping facilitate with its technology that simplifies the creation and transfer of large files, such as videos. Cisco wanted to have its own enormous stores of enterprise data easily accessible ahead of any legal issues that might arise. They also wanted greater cost containment and predictability so that legal costs do not dictate when they settle and when they fight a legal challenge. Axcelerate offers customers like Cisco a comprehensive, end-to-end platform for eDiscovery management…This greatly reduces the amount of expensive manual labor by legal experts as they decide which documents are relevant and/or privileged in a case.
We think this is a good idea and a solid example. However, in many firms there are numerous legal matters underway at any one time. Not all firms operate from a single geographical location or rely on a single law firm. As a result, some organizations have no choice but use a variety of eDiscovery systems. Costs are important but there are other considerations as well, including the time available to the legal team and the preferences of outside counsel.
One other point is that there is often more to eDiscovery than processing digital content. Companies like Brainware and ZyLAB have gained traction with their ability to manipulate hard copy documents. Both of these companies assert an end to end capability as well. To be fair, Recommind may be focusing more on a narrower definition of the work flows in a legal matter.
We find the positioning of the firm’s technology interesting and will continue to monitor the firm’s description of its technical and marketing approach to a big and growing market.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2011
Freebie
Lucid Imagination and a German Open Source Summit
March 9, 2011
In case you weren’t able to make it to Lucid Imagination’s recent 2011 Solr meet-up in Germany, the company has posted a couple of presentations here. We think you will want to download these. Our favorite is Marc Krellenstein’s but you should make your own determination based on your information needs.
The offerings include a piece on search trends by Marc Krellenstein, one of Lucid’s founders. He looks at such factors as evolving challenges, best practices, and the “current competitive landscape.” He also takes a look at Google as compared to enterprise search, and weighs the strengths and weaknesses of his company’s own Lucene/Solr.
We also liked Thomas Kwiatkowski’s and Oliver Schönherr’s discussion of the online real estate site Immobilien Scout. They detailed their methodical transfer from their legacy search and data infrastructure to Solr.
You will want to check the Lucid download location. When we tried to snag the presentation form Olaf Zschiedrich, head of German-language eBay, (eBay Kleinanzeigen), it was unavailable.
Lucene/Solr continue to gain traction in the Web and enterprise search market. For more information about Lucid Imagination, navigate to www.lucidimagination.com.
Cynthia Murrell, March 9, 2011
Protected: Microsoft Fast Context Properties
March 9, 2011
IBM, OmniFind, Yahoo: What Is Next in Search?
March 8, 2011
I was pointed to this link from IBM’s website, stating that effective September 22, 2010 the Yahoo! Edition of OmniFind was withdrawn from marketing. Further, after June 30, 2011 the product support line will be nullified as well. Why the cancellation? There is an announcement letter attached, though it offers no insight. It does, however, indicate that no replacements will be made available. I tried tracking down some additional information on this free version of OmniFind and its demise, to no avail. So what happened? Was it not popular enough, too limited? Was it Lucene? Does anyone care? We do find IBM quite fascinating for a $100 billion company on Jeopardy, fighting crime in New York, and cracking medical problems with Nuance. Diverse for sure.
Our view is that with Microsoft getting cozy or at least semi-cozy with Yahoo, IBM’s OmniFind unit saw the writing on the wall. The result is that the “free” and severely limited IBM Yahoo search solution was pulled. What will take its place? Our first thought was Watson. Then we realized that Watson may be more appropriate for limited domain searching like medical information. The Jeopardy public relations stunt was a marketing play. Configuring Watson to replace Lucene based OmniFind is probably not a practical solution at this time. As a result, IBM will have to either create a new demo of its enterprise search software or just roll out the full system with some limit on its use.
In short, IBM like other big outfits seems to have some challenges in the enterprise search department just as Google, Microsoft, and Oracle do. No wonder the third party solutions are probing the enterprise for licensing deals. Stay tuned.
Sarah Rogers, March 8, 2011
Freebie
Fresh Spin on SMS
March 7, 2011
One of the PhDs who help out ArnoldIT.com sent me a link to a blog post. I read “Texting Power”. Worth a look. The Tiger Text product caught the attention of the Wall Street Journal.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2011
Freebie
Protected: SharePoint User Experience Survey
March 4, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
