Now That Is a Diagram
February 23, 2010
Quite an interesting diagram in the ZDNet story “Ten Emerging Enterprise 2.0 Technologies to Watch.”
No work on how to find information unfortunately. Seems to be an opportunity. The list of the 10 technologies to watch is here. Care for a sample? Here are three I noted:
- Social CRM
- Social media workflow
- Next-generation unified communication
Azure chip consultants, “real” journalists from Devil whatever, and poobahs, get your spurs on!
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2010
Unpaid article. I will report this sad fact to the White House which is into 2.x technologies.
Autonomy and OpenText: Which Strategy Has Stronger Legs?
February 22, 2010
Two companies in the search and content processing space pepper me with announcements of their acquisitions. I learned today, first via my Overflight service, and then from a gentle reader who sent me a link to the TechCrunch story “Open Text Buys Up Content Analysis Startup Nstein Technologies For $34 Million” that OpenText has acquired another content processing company. OpenText has a pickup truck bed filled with search and content management properties. These range from the long-in-the-tooth BRS Search to the even more aged BASIS system. RedDot and Vignette have given OpenText quite a few content management customers. Not surprisingly, when organic growth is tough to achieve, acquisiitons make good sense.
Keep in mind that Nstein itself is a roll up. The company has a clump of technologies that it has used to build its business. I think of Nstein as a mini-LingTemcoVaught but without the financial lift that Jim Ling was able to infuse into his collection of properties.
What about Autonomy?
Autonomy has also been an aggressive buyer of companies. The firm’s most recent purchases have included Zantaz and Interwoven. Unlike OpenText, Autonomy makes an effort to explain and convert customers to the IDOL (integrated data operating layer) platform. Autonomy has been quick to exploit its acquisitions’ strengths. For example, Zantaz helped propel Autonomy into hosted services. And the Interwoven product became the foundation for Autonomy’s social functionality.
Which is the strategy with the stronger legs? My view is that Autonomy has made more strategic acquisitions and better tactical use of its acquisitions’ technical capabilities.
Will Nstein propel OpenText into the hot areas that Autonomy has tapped? Right off the top of my head, I don’t think so. Here’s why:
- OpenText has a lot of products that perform essentially similar or duplicative functions; for example, why does an OpenText engineer have to support two quite interesting code bases to deliver content management? Why not have one platform?
- The acquisitions that OpenText has made often bring some legacy issues. For example, Vignette has powered some high profile site, and Vignette has also proven to be for some customers expensive and difficult to operate. Even RedDot customers have had to wait for updates that address some performance problems. I can’t say that every Zantaz customer was a happy camper, but on the whole Autonomy has done a better job of picking companies with what strike me as fewer legacy issues.
- Autonomy’s buys have opened new markets. An example is Autonomy’s push into video indexing and its increasing presence in areas such as email archiving, fraud detection, and social media marketing services.
A couple of observations about Nstein. First, I would not call the company a start up. The company opened its doors as a search and content processing company. Then it morphed into a vertical vendor supporting traditional publishers. I was supposed to get a briefing in London in December 2009 but the Nstein people did not keep the appointment. I assume the details of this deal made it impossible to tell me that I did not have to cool my heels for one hour while the Nstein booth staff tried to find their boss. The Newssift service, as I have noted, has not been a home run for Nstein and the other vendors involved in this project. Endeca and Lexalytics contributed to the service, which when I last checked had been taken down. The Financial Times, like other traditional publishers, has found finding the winning formula for online success elusive. Finally, Nstein, according my Overflight search file, opened for business in 2000. That’s not a start up to me.
The goslings here in Harrods Creek hope the acquisition works wonders for OpenText. My hunch is that a number of companies will be gunning for OpenText’s customers. My other hunch is that the investors in Nstein are happy campers despite Canada’s loss to the US hockey team last night. Autonomy has stronger legs in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I mention Vignette, I will disclose non payment to the GSA, an outfit with some knowledge of Canadian vendors to the US government.
Quote to Note: The Future of Google Revealed
February 19, 2010
I find it interesting to learn how others interpret Googlespeak. In “CEO Eric Schmidt at World Mobile Congress: Google’s Future is in the Enterprise”, I spotted this alleged quote as a potential quote to note:
Schmidt’s reference to the enterprise is not ground shaking news. But it is noteworthy in its mention at an event as significant as the World Mobile Congress. Google may have offered an olive branch to the mobile operators but in the background are a number of issues that could have ramifications for Google’s strategy to be the king of the enterprise.
I want to hang on to this statement.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2010
No one paid me to create a note card as a blog post. I suppose I report this type of research-like action to the National Science Foundation, where the cutting edge is in the future.
Microsoft Document and Records Management
February 18, 2010
I received an email from a chipper PR type pitching me on “information governance.” After a bit of “who are you” and “why are you calling me”, I realized that “information governance is marketing talk for document management. I am fighting a losing battle as I age. I know that there are different approaches to document management. If I want to keep track of documents, I use a document management system. If I have to keep track of documents for a nuclear power plant, I use a records management system. There’s a lot of talk about “information governance,” but I don’t have a clear sense of what is under that umbrella term
To confuse me even more, I happened across a document called “Application Lifecycle Management.” The idea is that SharePoint applications have a sunrise, noon, and sunset. I will not talk about squalls, earthquakes, and landslides in this environmental metaphor for SharePoint applications. You can find this information on the MSDN.
I wanted to know how Microsoft Fast search fit into this lifecycle management. I didn’t find much information, but I did locate two documents. One was titled “Introducing Document Management in SharePoint 2010” and the other was “Introducing Records Management in SharePoint 2010”. Both flowed from the keyboards of the Microsoft Enterprise Content Management Team Blog.
Okay, now I was going to learn how Microsoft perceived Document and Records Management.
Document Management
What about document management? Since the fine management performance at Enron and Tyco, among other companies, document management has become more important. The rules are not yet at the nuclear power plant repair level of stringency, but companies have to keep track of documents. The write up affirms that SharePoint used to be a bit recalcitrant when managing documents. Here’s the passage I noted:
As we looked at how our customers were starting to use the 2007 system’s DM features, we noticed an interesting trend: These features were not just part of managed document repository deployments. Indeed, the traditional DM features were getting heavy usage in average collaborative team sites as well. Customers were using them to apply policy and structure as well as gather insights from what otherwise would have been fairly unmanaged places. SharePoint was being using to pull more and more typically unstructured silos into the ECM world.
Those pesky customers! The Document Management write up runs down features in the new product. These include more metadata functions, including metadata a a “primary navigation tool.” Here’s a screen shot. Notice that there is no search box.
So much for finding information when the metadata may not be what the user anticipated. Obviously a document management system stores documents, transformations of documents like the old iPhrase, or pointers to documents or components of documents that reside “out there” on the network. The write up shifts gears to the notion of “an enterprise wiki and a traditional enterprise document repository.”
Records Management
The Records Management write up did not tackle the nuclear power plant type of records management. The write up presented some dot points about records management; for example, retention and reports. Ah, reports. Quite useful when a cooling pipe springs a leak. One needs to know who did what when, with what materials, what did the problem look like before the repair, what did it look like after the repair, which manufacturer provided the specific material, etc.
The point of the write up struck me as “the power of metadata” or indexing. Now the hitch in the git along is that multiple information objects have to be tagged in a consistent manner. After all, when the pipe springs a leak, the lucky repair crew, dosimeters on their coveralls, need to read and see the information objects related to the problem. Yep, that means engineering drawings, photos, and sometimes lab tests, purchase orders, and handwritten notes inserted in the file.
My conclusion is that Microsoft content management, regardless of “flavor”, may be similar to Coca-Cola’s New Coke. I am not sure it will do what the company and the user expect.
Stepping Back
I know that thousands, possible millions of customers will use SharePoint for document and records management. I want to point out that using SharePoint to manage a Web site can be a tough job. My view is that until I see one of these systems up and running in client organization, I am skeptical that SharePoint has the moxie to deliver either of these functions in a stable, affordable, scalable solution.
Even more interesting will be my testing search and retrieval in both of these systems. With zero reference to search and a great dependence on the semi magic word taxonomy, I think some users won’t have a clue where a particular document is and will have to hunt, which is time consuming and frustrating for some. In my experience, lawyers billing clients really thrive on hunting. Everyday business professionals may not be into this sport.
From a practical point of view, two posts, each built on a single platform with feature differences confused me. Is not a single write up with one table with three columns another way to explain these two versions of SharePoint.
In short, more confusion exists within the mind of the addled goose. The content management “experts” have created some pretty spectacular situations in organizations with SharePoint. Now it is off to the Sarbanes Oxley and Department of Energy school of “information governance.” Will SharePoint get an A or an F? Will SharePoint shaped to the rigors of document management and records management face a high noon or a Norwegian winter’s sunset?
Stephen E Arnold, February 18, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I mentioned nuclear energy, I will report my doing work for nothing to the DOE. I prefer the building next to White Flint Mall, which is now a white elephant in some ways.
Global ETM Dives into Enterprise Search Intelligence
February 18, 2010
Stephen E Arnold has entered into an agreement with Global Enterprise Technology Management, an information and professional services company in the UK. Mr. Arnold has created a special focus page about enterprise search on the Global ETM Web site. The page is now available, and it features:
- A summary of the principal market sectors in enterprise search and content processing. More than a dozen sectors are identified. Each sector is plotted in a grid using Mr. Arnold’s Knowledge-Value Methodology. You can see at a glance which search sectors command higher and lower Knowledge Value to organizations. (Some of the Knowledge Value Methodology was described in Martin White’s and Stephen E. Arnold’s 2009 study Successful Enterprise Search Management.
- A table provides a brief description of each of the search market sectors and includes hot links to representative vendors with products and services for that respective market sector. More than 30 vendors are identified in this initial special focus page.
- The page includes a selected list of major trends in enterprise search and content processing.
Mr. Arnold will be adding content to this Web page on a weekly schedule.
Information about GlobalETM is available from the firm’s Web site.
Stuart Schram IV, February 18, 2010
I am paid by ArnoldIT.com, so this is a for-fee post.
Search Engine Convera Drifts Off
February 16, 2010
The journey was a long one, beginning with scanning marketing brochures in the 1990s has filed for a certificate of dissolution. I think this means that Convera has moved from the search engine death watch to the list which contains Delphes, Entopia, and other firms.
Convera splash page on February 15, 2010
You can read the official statement for a few more days on the PRNewswire site. The title of the announcement is / was, “Convera Corporation Files Certificate of Dissolution, Trading of Common Stock to Cease after February 8, 2010 Payment Date Set.” I am no attorney so maybe my lay understanding of “dissolution” is flawed, and Convera under another name will come roaring back. For the purposes of this round up of my thoughts, I am going to assume that Convera is comatose. I hope it bounces back with one of those miracles of search science. I am crossing my wings, even thought each has a dusting of snow this morning. Harrod’s Creek has become a mid south version of Nord Kap.
For me, the key passage in the write up was:
Convera Corporation announced today that it filed its Certificate of Dissolution with the Delaware Secretary of State on February 8, 2010, in accordance with its previously announced plan of complete dissolution and liquidation. As a result of such filing, the company has closed its stock transfer books and will discontinue recording transfers of its common stock, except by will, intestate succession or operation of law. Accordingly, and as previously announced, trading of the company’s stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market will cease after the close of business on February 8, 2010.
My Overflight search archive suggested that Excalibur Technologies was around in the 1980s. The founder was Jim Dowe, who was interested in neural networks. The notion of pattern matching was a good one. The technology has been successfully exploited by a number of vendors ranging from Autonomy to Verity. Brainware’s approach to search owes a tip of its Prince Heinrich hat to the early content snow plowing at Excalibur. Excalibur used most of the buzzwords and catchphrases that bedevil me today, including “semantic technology.”
Sample of a category search on the Retrieval Ware system. The idea is that you would click a category.
One of my former Booz, Allen & Hamilton colleagues made some dough by selling his ConQuest Software search-related technology to Excalibur Technologies. The reason was that the original Excalibur search system did not work too well. Excalibur, according to my Overflight archive, described itself as “leading provider of knowledge and media asset management solutions.”
Microsoft Fast on Linux and Unix Innovation
February 15, 2010
It’s Valentine’s Day. I feel quite a bit of affection for the system professionals who have licensed Fast Search ESP, and I hope each finds search love. I think there will be a “tough” element to this love. And like other types of love, there will be ups and downs. Microsoft practiced some “tough love” for licensees of the Linux and Unix versions of Fast Search & Transfer’s Enterprise Search Platform recently. I am in a discursive frame of mind, and I will share my opinion about the “tough love” for the Linux and Unix licensees of the 1997 technology that comprises some of Fast Search & Transfer’s system.
The not-too-surprising announcement that Microsoft would stop supporting Fast Search & Transfer’s Linux and Unix customers surprised some folks. I think a handful of resellers were delighted because customers with non-Windows versions of Fast Search cannot change horses in the middle of the Tigris River, as Alexander the Great discovered in 331 BCE. Some poobahs pointed out that open source search would become a hot ticket for Fast Search Linux and Unix licensees. Others took a more balanced view of figuring out whether to rip and replace or supplement the aging Fast Search system with one of the more specialized solutions now available; for example, Exalead’s system could be snapped in without much hassle, based on my research for Successful Enterprise Search Management, published by Galatea in the UK last year. (Martin White was my co-author.)
Source: http://www.zastavki.com/pictures/1024×768/2008/Saint_Valentines_Day_St.Valentine_004959_.jpg
What I found interesting is that the Microsoft Enterprise Search blog contained some information from Bjørn Olstad, CTO, FAST and Distinguished Engineer, Microsoft. The write up’s title is “Innovation on Linux and Unix,” and it appeared on February 4, 2010.
Mr. Olstad wrote:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
The deal was consummated in April 2008. In October 2008, the Norwegian authorities seized some company information, but there has not been much news about the investigation into the pre-acquisition Fast Search & Transfer’s activities. At any event, it is now February 2010, so Microsoft has been operating Fast Search for the period between April 2008 and February 2010. That’s not quite two years, which is a nit, but software works when details are correct. What’s clear is that Fast Search and its Enterprise Search Platform or ESP is pared down and focused on the Windows platform.
I also noted this passage:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
Semantic Search Explained
February 11, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me “Breakthrough Analysis: Tow + Nine Types of Semantic Search”. Martin White (Intranet Focus) and I tried to explain semantic search in the text and the glossary for our Successful Enterprise Search Management. Our approach was to point out that the word “semantic” is often used in many different ways. Our purpose was to put procurement teams on alert when buzzwords were used to explain the features of an enterprise search system. Our approach was focused on matching a specific requirement to a particular function. An example would be displaying results in categories. The search vendor had to have a system that performed this type of value-added processing. The particular adjectives and marketing nomenclature were secondary to the function. The practicality of our approach was underscored for me when I read the Intelligent Enterprise article about the nine types of semantic search.
Source: http://writewellcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/homonyms1.jpg
I don’t feel comfortable listing the Intelligent Enterprise list, but I urge you to take a close look at the write up. Ask yourself these questions:
- Do you understand the difference between related searches/queries, concept search, and faceted search?
- When you look for information, are you mindful of “semantic/syntactic annotations” operating under the covers or in plain view?
- Do you type queries of about three words, or do you type queries with a dozen words or more organized in a question?
Your answer underscores one of the most fragile aspects of search and content processing. A focus on the numerical recipes that different vendors use to deliver specific functions often makes little or no sense even to engineers with deep experience in search and content processing.
A quick example.
If you run a query on the Exstream (the enterprise publishing system acquired by Hewlett Packard), you can get a list of content elements. The system is designed to allow a person in charge of placing a message in a medical invoice or an auto payment invoice and other types of content assembly operations. The system is not particularly clever, but it works reasonably well. The notion of search in this enterprise environment is in my opinion quite 1980s, despite some nice features like saved projects along the lines of Quark’s palette of frequently used objects.
Now run a query on a Mark Logic based system at a major manufacturing company. The result looks a bit like a combination of a results list and a report, but if you move to another department, the output may have a different look and feel. This is a result of the underlying plumbing of the Mark Logic system. I think that describing Mark Logic as a search system and attributing more “meaningful” functions to it is possible, but the difference is the architecture.
A person describing either the Exstream or the Mark Logic system could apply one or more of the “two + nine” terms to the system. I don’t think those terms are particularly helpful either to the users or to the engineers at Exstream or Mark Logic. Here’s why:
- Systems have to solve a problem for a customer. Describing what the outputs look like are descriptive and may not reflect what is going on under the hood. Are the saved projects the equivalent of an stored Xquery for MarkLogic?
- Users need to have interfaces that allow them to get their work done. Arguably both Exstream and Mark Logic deliver for their customers. The underlying numerical recipes are essentially irrelevant if these two systems deliver for their customers.
- The terminology in use at each company comes from different domains, and it is entirely possible that professionals of Exstream and Mark Logic use exactly the same term with very different connotations.
The discourse about search, content processing, and information retrieval is fraught with words that are rarely defined across different slices of the information industry. In retrospect, Martin and I followed a useful, if pragmatic, path. We focused on requirements. Leave the crazy lingo to the marketers, the pundits, and the poobahs. I just want systems to work for their users. Words don’t do this, obviously, which makes lingo easier than implementing systems so users can locate needed information.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to put in this shameless plug for Martin White’s and my monograph, Successful Enterprise Search Management. This is a marketing write up, and I have dutifully reported this fact to you.
A Free Pass for Open Source Search?
February 11, 2010
Dateline: Harrod’s Creek, February 11, 2010
I read Gavin Clarke’s “Microsoft Drops Open Source Birthday Gift with Fast Lucidly Imaginative?” I think that the point of the story was “a free pass” to “open source search providers like Lucid Imagination” is interesting. However, I am not willing to accept “free pass”, a variant of the “free lunch” in my opinion.
Here’s my view from the pleasant clime of snowy Harrod’s Creek.
First, in my opinion, most of the Fast Search & Transfer licensees bought into the “one size fits all” approach to search: facets, reports, access to structured and unstructured data, etc. As many of these licensees discovered, the cost of making Fast’s search technology deliver on the marketing PowerPoints was high. Furthermore, some like me learned how difficult it was for certain licensees to get the moving parts in sync quickly. Fast ESP consisted, prior to the Microsoft buy out, of keyword search, semantics from a team in Germany, third-party magic from companies like Lexalytics, home brew code from Norwegian wizards, and outright acquisitions for publishing and content management functionality. Wisely, many search vendors have learned to steer clear of the path that Fast Search & Transfer chopped through the sales wilderness. This means that orphaned Fast Search licensees may be looking at procurements that narrow the scope of search and content processing systems. In fact, there are only a handful vendors who are now pitching the “kitchen sink” approach to search.
Source: http://www.graceforlife.com/uploaded_images/no_free_lunch-772769.jpg
Second, open source search solutions are not created equal. Some are tool kits; others are ready-to-run systems. Lucid Imagination has a good public relations presence in certain places; for example, San Francisco. For those who monitor the search space, there are some other open source vendors that may provide some options. I particularly like the open source version of Lucene available from Tesuji.eu. Ah, never heard of the outfit, right? I also find the FLAX system available from Lemur Consulting useful as well. I think the issues with Fast Search & Transfer are not going to be resolved by ringing up a single vendor and saying, “We’re ready to go with your open source solution.” The more prudent approach is going to be understanding what the differences among various open source search solutions are and then determining if an organization’s specific requirements match up to one of these firms’ service offerings. Open source, therefore, requires some work and I don’t think a knee jerk reaction or a sweeping statement that the Microsoft announcement will deliver a “free pass” is accurate.
Microsoft Fast Partner Update
February 11, 2010
I received from a reader at a really obscure email address an email containing some text that interested me. I don’t know if the text I received is complete or is accurate, but I wanted to document my seeing it so I can do some further checking. According to the short accompanying comments, this text is from a message made available to Microsoft partners last week. I will reproduce what I have received and invite comments. At the foot of this item, I offer several observations.
Dear________,
Today, we announced that the 2010 release of FAST Search products, Microsoft® FAST™ Search Server 2010 for Internet Sites (FSIS) and Microsoft® FAST™ Search Server 2010 for Internal Applications (FSIA), will be the last release to include a search core that runs on Linux and UNIX. By focusing on Windows we’ll be able to tap into a valuable set of competencies and assets across Microsoft and deliver better technologies more efficiently to our customers. We recognize that our future focus on Windows will be a transition for our non-Windows customers, and we’re taking steps to help.
- We’re committed to supporting ESP 5.3-our multi-OS search core-for 10 years as per our support policy. Non-Windows customers who want to remain on the ESP 5.3 core can take advantage of new Windows-only innovations by using a mixed-platform architecture.
- We remain committed to interoperability with non-Windows systems on both the front- and back-end. Our search solutions will crawl and index content stored on Windows, Linux, and Unix systems, and our UI controls will work with UI frameworks running on any operating system.
- We’re introducing a Customer Upgrade Program that will help customers evaluate our hosted solutions and/or a Windows-based deployment. The program will help customers assess level of effort, plan for the project, and implement the upgrade.
Furthermore, we are also announcing four other roadmap updates:
- Simplified licensing models: We’re simplifying the way we license our products and making pricing more transparent. In the 2010 Wave our Productivity search products will be licensed using a Server/CAL model and our Internet search products will be licensed using a Server-only model. Qualifying customers will receive license grants to our new 2010 wave products.
- SharePoint for Internet Sites, Enterprise: In the 2010 Wave we will offer two versions of SharePoint for Internet Sites-Enterprise and Standard. The Enterprise version will include rights to FAST Search for SharePoint for use outside the firewall.
- ESP Add-ons: At FAST Search for Internet Sites (FSIS) availability we will no longer sell ImPulse, Unity, Recommendations, or Featured Content as separate add-ons. Commerce, Federation, and Recommendations capabilities will still be available as a part of FSIS and are included in our product roadmap. Partners need to engage FAST Global Services to implement these capabilities for interested customers.
- AdMomentum: Effective February 2, 2010, we will no longer sell FAST AdMomentum, our search-based advertising solution.
I hope these announcements and attached <http://www.fastsearch.com/document/ESG_Roadmap_Update-FASTPartners-Feb5_2010_oyaGI.pdf.file> FAQ provide sufficient information to help you plan your engagements with FAST customers. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to write to us…
The information seems generally consistent with the news stories I read. Other observations that struck me as warranted are:
- Lots of “commitment” type words when Microsoft Fast seems to be cutting loose the Linux and Unix customers
- I like the word “wave” in the second set of bullets. Reminds me of Forrester and Google.
- Orphaned it seems are some of Fast Search & Transfer revenue generating add ons unless you get the FSIS as a bundle. FSIS means Fast Search for Internet Sites. (Why not use Google’s custom search engine? I would. It is free and works.)
- The keeper is “better technologies”.
Okay. This will be an interesting enterprise search initiative to watch.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2010
No one paid me to write this short news item. I will report this to the General Accountability Office where accountability is Job One.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
