Coveo Jumps to Version 6.1
March 4, 2010
As March begins, enterprise search giant has released its Enterprise Search Platform Version 6.1. As announced by Coveo, the updated version features new interfaces, better integration with your existing infrastructure, and complete indexing of desktop and e-mail (including attachments). Coveo’s “connectors” in this version are important, as they now allow searching of existing social network platforms like Jive and Confluence, and full search options along Enterprise 2.0 systems. In addition, the platform can be integrated into Outlook via the Coveo Outlook Sidebar, allowing users to search e-mails, attachments, and contacts all without leaving Outlook.
The Coveo Floating Desktop Searchbar hovers magically over any Windows application, allowing users to “search where they work.” Search results can now be mulled over in Coveo Search Analytics, giving users insight into the who-what-where of searches being performed within an organization. The most relevant information, if not showing up, can be promoted directly in search results. Information can also be grouped into dynamic mash-ups and dashboards allowing “composite views of key metrics” and a more efficient display of data.
Sam Hartman, March 4, 2010
ArnoldIT.com paid Sam Hartman to write this article.
Microsoft SharePoint MOSS Update
March 3, 2010
Short honk: In case you missed the update. Links appear in “WSS and MOSS February 2010 CU”. Here’s the explicit link: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;978395
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because it is a Microsoft story, I report non payment to the Microsoft friendly Department of Defense.
Recommind and Predictive Coding
March 2, 2010
I received a flood of “news” from vendors chasing the legal market. Now law firms have fallen on hard times. One quip making the rounds in Kentucky is that a law degree is as valuable as a degree in Harry Potter studies from Frostburg State. I did not know one could get a degree in Harry Potter, so this may be some cheap jibe at the expense of attorneys.
The real action for legal licensing is in the enterprise. In the lousy financial climate, its seems that lawyering should be done in doors and back at the ranch. The demand for software and services that can chop discovery down to a management hunk of work have been selling. I prepared a legal market briefing for a couple of clients last year, and I was surprised at how much churn was underway in the segment. Even storage vendor Seagate poked its nose into the eDiscovery market.
I was delighted to receive a file from a reader that had the title “An Interview with Craig Carpenter of Recommind: A Discussion on Predictive Coding.” My recollection was that Recommind’s Mr. Carpenter, a polymath and attorney, was working on Recommind marketing. He is also a vice president of Recommind and teaches at the University of San Francisco. His focus in his class work is high technology marketing, content management, and digital rights management. Heady stuff.
You can get a copy of this document from JD Supra, whose tag line is “Give Content. Get Noticed.” I had not heard of this service previously.
Several points in the interview struck me as interesting. Let me highlight these and offer some of the ideas flapping around my goose brain.
First, Recommind won an award as the best product in the Knowledge Management Systems category. I think that is a good marketing angle, but I do not know what “knowledge management” means. Mr. Carpenter explained Recommind’s “knowledge management” product this way:
MindServer Search is our flagship enterprise search product. It provides highly accurate and relevant search results through a simple, intuitive interface. It uses proprietary, machine learning technology to automatically create concept models based on the information within the enterprise. That gives it the unique ability to accurately identify and rank relevant information for each user without the need for additional input from the user. For our legal customers, we also offer a popular Matters and Expertise module for MindServer Search, which enables them to find all relevant matter information and expertise within the firm. The module’s Expertise Location feature automatically updates areas of expertise based on work product, projects, clients, etc., which makes it simple to find attorneys with relevant experience on a particular topic, as well as the documents and matters associated with them.
Well and good, but I think this is search, retrieval, and social graph functions. That means that I understand Recommind’s definition of “knowledge management.”
Second, Recommind offers a description of its “knowledge management” system. The elements are CORE (context optimized relevance engine), which I believe is a probability based method somewhat akin to Autonomy’s approach. But the interesting statement, in my opinion, was:
There’s no doubt Predictive Coding is accurate enough – this has been proven in many cases. A number of AmLaw 30 firms have proven it by using Predictive Coding and comparing it to the results from contract attorney review (and partner review as well) on the same data. The results in every case were that they achieved better accuracy with Predictive Coding, and in the process saved 50-80% of what they would have spent on traditional review because contract attorneys were either not needed or were able to work far more efficiently (or both). This is what we mean when we talk about revolutionizing the economics of eDiscovery; no one else is doing this.
Third, this system’s automated methods can be used in legal matters. I found this statement interesting:
Judges care about getting to a just result as efficiently as possible; they care far less about the means used to get to that result – so long as the means do not undermine the pursuit of justice. So judges are not in the business of ?validating? any particular technology or process. That said, given the broken economics of today’s eDiscovery judges have definitely been expressing a fervent desire for a better approach to document review, and prominent judges like Judge Facciola, Grimm and Peck have indicated that technology can and should be brought to bear on the problem, because it can really help. It’s important to look at how the top litigation firms have responded now that they have a mandate from judges to change the economics of eDiscovery. And if you look at the top firms in the world — WilmerHale, Morgan Lewis and Fulbright & Jaworski, just to name three — they have made a commitment to Predictive Coding as the future. That’s a very, very strong endorsement.
Endorsements are good marketing, but in my limited experience with the legal system, what’s okay and what’s not okay can be variable.
Fourth, the role of humans remains important. I found this statement interesting:
There will always be a need for human review in eDiscovery. But bear in mind that the traditional eDiscovery process relies on an outdated, paper-based model that requires attorneys to sit in a room and review terabytes of ESI, one at a time. That’s a textbook example of work that should be assisted by intelligent automation. With the continuing rise of eDiscovery, there will always be plenty of work for attorneys. Some firms, and some clients, will always want to have an attorney’s eye on every document – which does not at all preclude the use of Predictive Coding. Even in such a case, they can perform that task much faster and more consistently using Predictive Coding.
Fifth, this comment about the cost of the system was instructive. This is the relevant passage:
We have certainly added more choices to our price list to accommodate the overwhelming demand we’ve seen, but if you are asking if we have had to lower our prices the answer is not at all. It’s definitely the case that much of the eDiscovery process, including culling, processing, hosting and forensic imaging, has been commoditized; older vendors trying to maintain market share and the rather simplistic appliance offerings and vendors have pushed this trend. But where we play and what our products are capable of doing for clients – Predictive Coding being perhaps the best example – is nowhere near becoming commoditized. The basic problem with eDiscovery is that it still uses the paper-based, linear review model, even though 99% of information these days is digital. Most EDD products try to alleviate the symptoms of that problem rather than address the problem itself, e.g. ?better linear review, a simple culling appliance, etc. Those technologies are commoditized now or will soon be. But we attack the fundamental problems of eDiscovery, the illness rather than its symptoms. Predictive Coding doesn’t just streamline document review for human reviewers-though it delivers that too-it actually automates the majority of the process using intelligent technology and defensible workflow. That’s something no other company or technology can deliver – period. And because it truly is game-changing technology, law firms and clients alike are more than willing to pay a premium. After all, it will save them a tremendous amount of time and money so the investment is easy to justify. Because this is so unique and such a difficult problem, in spite of a noisy market there’s no danger those capabilities will be commoditized any time soon.
If true, it suggests that the statistical methods used by other vendors such as Autonomy and Google, for example, should perform in a similar manner.
My view on this automation and prediction angle is that Recommind’s approach works well. If we accept that statement, what will happen if Autonomy or Google offers a lower-cost service. Might that shift some customers toward the lower-cost service. Numbers are numbers.
In a price war, Google—if it decides to push into the legal sector—might have an advantage over Autonomy with nearly $800 million in annual revenues. Recommind’s argument sets the stage for an interesting dynamic if larger firms go after this sector offering more value per dollar.
Excitement ahead in the fiercely contested and tumultuous legal market I “predict”.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Since I mentioned legal activity, I will report a no fee write up to the DOJ, an organization which cares about the law.
The Brainware Dolphin Combo
March 1, 2010
I was clicking around for information about the killer whale who killed. One of the links shot me to a page about dolphins and on that page was a link to “a top provider of business process optimization and information lifecycle management for customers using SAP.” A few more clicks and I landed on the Brianware Web site with this item: “Dolphin and Brainware Delivery SAP Invoice Automation Solution to Global Manufacturer.” Brainware backlinked to Dolphin, a company with the tagline “Smart Adaptable Proven.”
I scanned the story and the main point struck me as embedded in this passage:
The [Brainware-Dolphin] solution will automate the processing of several hundred thousand invoices per year for the customer’s European Operations. Dolphin, which helps companies with SAP environments run business processes and information lifecycle management solutions better and smarter, will provide the customer with its unique SAP-certified invoice ingestion and process tracking platform along with implementation and ongoing support services.
SAP is one of my tracking companies. I think its actions provide some indication of how other large, IBM-inspired software companies will be coping with the global economic slow down. This deal may be part of SAP’s effort to get back on the growth track by creating more affordable offerings. See “SAP Ecosystem: Going Direct for SMBs.” My question is, “Which outfit is the killer whale?”
Flash back five or six years, and I think SAP would have built this type of system. Today, SAP may not have the time, money, or market opportunity. Companies like Brainware and Dolphin are able to fill the gap. Brainware has a search engine, and I thought there was a search vendor called Dolphin at one time. Lost track of who does what with the repositioning underway in the enterprise software sector.
Interesting how a search for a killer whale provided some insight into how companies with quite unusual names can surface unexpected insights in the opportunities created by leviathans who may be losing vigor. By the way queries for “dolphin” and “Brainware” turn up some very unusual hits in both Bing.com and Google.com. Naming companies is a difficult task I have found.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2010
Nope, no one paid me to write about dolphins, brains, or whales. I think I report non payment to the directory of the National Zoo, a fine institution despite some glitches in animal care.
Centric Enterprise Search
February 28, 2010
Centric Software has a new enterprise search system.
According to the firm’s whitepaper, Centric 8, the search product is called Centric 8. With this product I can “discover the undiscoverable.” The system can be “rapidly deployed.” Information is automatically classified. The system features a search profile which displays text, attributes, and dimensions. In addition to search, Centric 8 permits discovery and investigation.
I tripped on the phrase “discover the undiscoverable” which strikes me an assertion similar to “perfect circle”.
The news release “Centric Software Posts Impressive Growth in Fiscal 2010” asserts:
Centric posted over 40% annual increase in sales in fiscal 2010 over last year’s record performance… New Centric Enterprise Search – provides dynamic classification of search results, and extends search and discovery to information outside of the Centric 8 suite so users can easily find data housed in other systems, bring that information into Centric 8, and make better, more informed decisions.
Here’s what Centric says about itself:
Centric Software is a leading provider of product lifecycle management (PLM) solutions for makers of hard-lines, soft-lines, or both in the fashion and consumer goods industries. Centric 8 delivers easy-to-use functionality to manage critical, inseparable business processes – product development, sourcing, and line planning and profitability management – all through a modularized system that implements and delivers value rapidly. With Centric 8, companies cut costs and inefficiency, speed new products to market, drive margin improvement, and improve global collaboration and compliance. Global enterprises including INTERSPORT France, The Coleman Companies, Klim USA, BassPro Shops, Bravo Sports, and United Stationers use Centric solutions to achieve revenue growth, reduce costs, and deliver trend-right products to their customers.
Wikipedia provided this information:
Founded as Coryphaeus Software in 1989 by former NASA electronics engineer, Steve Lakowske,[3] it originally provided real-time simulation software. In 1998, Chris Groves joined as CEO and changed the company name to Centric Software.[4] In late 2004, Centric acquired Framework Technologies for its project collaboration, product innovation and portfolio management solutions.[5] Two years later the company acquired Product Sight Corporation of Bellevue, WA,[6] a developer of product data and enterprise search technology.
The information in my Overflight file pegged the company as a vendor of software and services for the fashion industry. I noted that I needed to avoid confusing this fashion-centric company with the cow-centric company called Centric Software Inc.
I will reopen the Overflight file but the two Centrics underscore the need for a unique name today.
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2010
Is IBM Annoyed with EMC? Seems So
February 27, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to the article “NetApp Slammed over Tiering Is Dead Comments, EMC Savaged by IBM and Pillar, Named in Disclosure Scandal.”
IBM is hopping from search engine optimization to analysis of competitors. Here’s the passage in the write up from URL4.eu that was fascinating:
IBM’s Tony Pearson finds little to like in EMC’s enhanced Atmos. Storagebod also takes issue with the company on several issues.
What issues” A quick look at Mr. Pearson’s comments was enlightening. First, I noted this passage:
Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior IT Storage Consultant for the IBM System Storage product line at the IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona…
Okay, poobah.
Next I noted this statement by Mr. Pearson:
Is EMC positioning ATMOS as “Storage for Terrorists”? I can certainly appreciate the value of being able to protect 6PB of data with only 9PB of storage capacity, instead of keeping two copies of 6PB each, the trade-off means that you will be accessing the majority of your data across your intranet, which could impact performance. But, if you are in an illicit or illegal business that could have a third of your facilities “seized by the government”, then perhaps you shouldn’t house your data centers there in the first place. Having two copies of 6PB each, in two “friendly nations”, might make more sense.
The word choice is definitely interesting. The “T” word which will light up some filters in my opinion.
What’s with the contentiousness? EMC is in storage, has the fine Documentum system that IBM once supported, and some eDiscovery tools. IBM has everything, including consulting services and search engine optimization.
My hunch? IBM is feeling the pressure of companies like EMC in some key clients.
Remind me not to sell anything to an IBM client. EMC can withstand the alleged criticism. The addled goose has difficulty spelling words like maroon and its variants.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report non payment to the IBM Federal Systems folks who are reinventing the GSA’s computer infrastructure. IBM will pass the statement of non payment along I assume.
Is Content Management a Digital Titanic?
February 25, 2010
Content management is a moving target. Unlike search, CMS is supposed to generate a Web page or some other type of content product. The “leaders” in content management systems or CMS seem to disappearing into larger organizations. Surprising. If CMS were healthy, why aren’t these technology outfits growing like crazy and spinning off tons of cash?
I am no expert in CMS. In fact, I am not an expert in anything unlike the azure chip consultants, poobahs, and pundits who profess deep knowing at the press of a mouse button. In my experience, CMS emerged from people not having an easy way to produce HTML pages that could be displayed in a browser.
If HTML was too tough for some people, imagine the pickle barrel in which these folks find themselves today. In order to create a Web site, more than HTML is required. The crowd who relied on Microsoft’s Front Page find themselves struggling with the need to make Web pages work as applications or bundles of applications with some static brochureware thrown in for good measure.
To make a Web site today, technical know how is an absolute must. Even the very good point-and-click services from SquareSpace.com and Weebly.com can baffle some people.
The azure chip consultants, the mavens, and the poobahs want to be in the lifeboats. Women and children to the rear. Source: http://www.ronnestam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/lifeboat_change_advertising_sinking.jpg
Move the need for a dynamic Web site into a big organization that is not good at technology, and you have a recipe for disaster. In fact, the wreckage created by some content management vendors, pundits, and integrators is of significant magnitude. There’s the big hassle in Australia over a blue chip CMS implementation that does not work. The US Senate went after the bluest of the blue chip integrators because a CMS could not generate a single Web page. Sigh.
More Converas Ahead due to Weak IT Management?
February 25, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to a story that I thought was off topic. The title of the write up is “Global CIO: There’s No Money Left.” Gee, I thought I heard that the economy was rebounding. My own experience is that the economy is doing lots of things, but rebounding is not one of them. The write up is an interview between an Information Week person and a fellow named Stu Laura, a CIO, whom Information Week has interviewed before. I poked around for “Stu Laura” on Cluuz.com but found little to illuminate his tie ups. I wonder if he is “real”, but why would a “real” news outfit resort to a fictional trope? Anyway, Information Week pegs him as a poobah’s maven, so let’s see what the angle is.
The first point that jumps out is that Mr. Laura’s budget has been “frozen for two years.” Okay, I buy that. No extra money for the IT crowd.
The second point is that vendors are boosting their licensing and other service fees. Okay, I buy that. This is the SAP model or the approach to tuition taken by some flashy universities in Boston.
The third point is that Mr. Laura is running out of options. He said:
Don’t think I haven’t tried [to consolidate applications]! It used to be that, excluding internal programming and people costs, hardware was 50% of our budget and software 50%. Now it’s 20% hardware and 80% software … and maintenance expenses on that software are 80% to 90% of that budget. In short, there’s nothing left.
Information Week suggests that Mr. Laura is not such a hot shot manager. Mr. Laura responds:
You still don’t understand. Imagine that you’re still paying rent on every house you ever lived in. Imagine your relatives are now living in those houses: How could you throw them out? That’s what we are faced with. Our divisions are still using that software, so we have to keep up our maintenance expenses — what might seem “tactical” to us is “strategic” to them. Sometimes there even may be a better software solution, but then it’s a Big Number to buy … and that division may not want to pay for it. They would rather keep what we have.
Okay, Information Week does not understand. I really buy that.
But the capstone point is this exchange which is a golden moment in “real” journalism about the challenges of finance, information technology, and technical options.
Information Week: So get a bigger budget!
Laura: You really do have your head up your rear, don’t you. This is NOT the year for bigger budgets. I have to show that we are “team players,” and team players suck it up. You see, the other line officers have this thing called “depreciation,” which means they can take a factory, assume a certain useful life, depreciate it, and then show an asset that has almost zero value. Then they can go build a new one. We do not depreciate our software, but maybe we should — then we could show that we’re paying 18% maintenance on something that has next to no value — and move on.
Manager giving guidance to his minions prior to the Charge of the Light Brigade. I wonder if this is the unit’s technology officer? Source: http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5893-766931.jpg
I think I understand that managers have to work with what is available. With less available, managers have to solve problems. That is, I believe, what managers are supposed to do—manage effectively which means finding workable solutions that keeps companies in business.
When I transpose this interview to enterprise search and content processing, I have some different questions:
- Are we sure the vendors are at fault? Is it possible that the management of information technology is a larger problem? Advising is one thing; doing is another. A bit like a university professor?
- With scarce resources, will organizations be able to avoid the “free” software that comes with certain types of vendor bundles? When “free” does not deliver, what happens? Maybe more Convera, Delphes, and Entopia-type situations. (I quite like the alphabetical line up of search systems that were.)
- Why not provide more detail about Mr. Laura? He is a frisky lad, but I am not sure how to judge his comments without context.
Mr. Anderson, of course, is the founder of the Yankee Group and a professor at MIT. But who is Mr. Laura? Anyone know? Mr. Anderson’s secret source, alter ego, Dickensian character? Help!
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2010
The tin cup is empty. No one paid me to point out that Information Week assumes I know a lot more about its poobahs than I do. I believe that when assumptions are made I must report that I wrote this piece and looked up a picture for free to the War College.
Search Vendors! FAST-en Your Seatbelts
February 25, 2010
The Microsoft Fast ESP road show is going to come to a US city near you. The road show has entertained thousands in Frankfurt, Melbourne, London, and Paris. Next up is the US. The topics in Europe ranged from collaboration to social search to enterprise content management to SharePoint Web sites. Well, you get the idea. After flipping through the presentations available online if you register, the main idea is that Fast ESP “becomes the foundation” for “all enterprise search products”.
I love those categorical affirmatives. I also like to find black swans, even though I am an old goose. The description of the new system is chock full of superlatives such as “best”. With 300 companies offering search and content processing, I am hard pressed to identify one system as the “best”. Most vendors have some core competencies because “best” is one of the missteps that created the unhappy circumstances for Fast Search & Transfer prior to its sale to Microsoft. Anyone remember the October 2008 police action at the Fast Search offices in Oslo? No, I did not think so.
The idea is to focus on user experience and “go beyond the search box.” I quite like the “beyond” word as in “beyond search”. Here’s an example of the interface:
Copyright Microsoft 2010. Source is the Microsoft Web site reachable from this page http://www.fastsearch.com/l3a.aspx?m=1166&amid=15582
I don’t have many nitty-gritty technical details, but instead of burying the Fast ESP pitch in a SharePoint conference, there are these marketing-oriented traveling programs. The first US event is in Chicago on March 9; the second, in the Big Apple on March 11; and the third, San Francisco on March 16. Microsoft has invited certified partners, resellers, and those with Bill Gates tattoos to attend. What is on tap? You will learn about the new and improved Fast ESP system for SharePoint mostly. You will hear from happy, happy Fast ESP customers. You will get briefed by Microsoft’s own engineers and some invited guests.
As you know, Microsoft purchased Fast Search & Transfer in April 2008 for about $1.2 billion and change. In the 22 month interval, Fast ESP has been trimmed and slimmed to do battle with open source solutions such as Lucene, Lemur Consulting’s FLAX, and Solr. The new Microsoft Fast ESP will do battle with vendors who have moved “beyond search”, so I anticipate some references to the weaknesses of Exalead, MarkLogic, and other companies who have industrial strength solutions. There will be some happiness for Autonomy and Fabasoft Mindbreeze, two firms with solutions that carry the Microsoft seal of approval. My hunch is that those with Windows certification, a paycheck hooked to keeping Microsoft systems alive and well, and partners will be joined by the systems folks who want to get a first hand look at a $1.2 billion search system.
The addled goose is in San Francisco the week of the event, but he returns to the goose pond before the road show pitches the left coast faithful. He will have to report on the event via second hand reports. In the meantime, he will be using his bill to root for information on these topics:
- How has set up, optimization, and customization been simplified?
- How can the system keep metadata synchronized?
- What is the time required to update the index on a 10 minute basis in an organization with 10,000 active users out of an employee pool of 150,000 and a document flow of 1,000 new or changed documents every 24 hours (excluding emails and attachments)?
- What is the method for scaling Microsoft Fast?
- What is the method for restoring / rebuilding indexes in the event of a system fault? What is the time required in a typical organizational setting with 10,000 active users and the document flow of 1,000 new or changed documents every 24 hours (excluding email and attachments)?
- What is the total cost for a system for 10,000 active users?
I think I know the license fee, based on the rumors floating in the aether. I can’t reveal the deal, but the price tag will make life tough for vendors up and down the line. If Microsoft hits a home run, my question is, “What tricks does Google have ready to roll?”
You can get the full scoop at http://www.fastsearch.com/l3a.aspx?m=1166&amid=15582.
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report writing about Microsoft to the Department of Defense. Not only was I doing work for free, the DoD people understand, love, and appreciate the Microsoft technology. Free is good I think.
Iron Mountain Snags Mimosa
February 24, 2010
I read in the Microsoft centric publication “Iron Mountain Acquires Mimosa.” Iron Mountain began to grow when records management took off. The company has been riding high on the digital data glut. According to the write up:
Mimosa is the rapidly growing provider of premises-based e-mail and file-based content archival solutions called NearPoint. The Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, popular among Exchange and SharePoint shops, last month announced its 1,000th customer. Though it was founded in 2003, more than 300 of its NearPoint systems were sold last year. By acquiring Mimosa, Iron Mountain can offer premises-based archival and e-discovery it has not been able to offer before.
More information about Mimosa is at http://www.mimosasystems.com.
Iron Mountain also owns Stratify, formerly Purple Yogi. Now with all that digital data, how will Iron Mountain customers search, retrieve, process, and manipulate those information objects? When I know the answer, I will let you know. My recollection is that Mimosa has a basic search system, but it is not the fire-breathing dragon that some vendors have in their menagerie.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because I reference a mineral, iron, I think I have to report free work to the USGS.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
