HP Autonomy Dust Up: Details, Details
May 11, 2015
I read belatedly yet another analysis of the HP lawsuit against Autonomy. “Details of HP Lawsuit against Autonomy Executives” The write up reports that HP is taking “direct legal action against Lynch.” There is nothing like a personal legal action to keep the legal eagles circling in search of money.
The HP position is that Lynch (the founder of Autonomy) and Sushovan Hussain (former Autonomy CFO) overstated Autonomy’s growth and profits. My reaction is “Yeah, but didn’t you guys review the numbers before you wrote a check for $7 or $8 billion?”
Details, details.
The article states:
The acquisition has been seen as a disaster for HP since the tech giant was forced to write down $8.8 billion from the deal in 2012. The $5.1 billion legal claim is one of the largest ever brought against an individual in Britain. HP bases the claim on a $4.6 billion charge linked to the alleged financial misconduct, roughly $400 million connected to shares given to Lynch and Hussain and a further $100 million loss associated with Autonomy that was suspected of being caused by the former executives’ activities, according to the British court documents.
HP may not be a tech leader or even a C student in acquisition analyses, but it is the leader in the magnitude of the claim it is making against Dr. Lynch. If he is found guilty of selling something to HP who analyzed the deal and then decided to buy the company, he will have to pay $5.1 billion.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that HP reviewed Qatalyst Partners’ financial presentation about Autonomy. Then HP analyzed the numbers. Then HP involved third parties in the review of the numbers. Then HP decided to buy Autonomy. Then HP bought the company. Then HP found that Autonomy is not exactly a product like a tube of Colgate Total toothpaste. Then HP fired, forced, or tasered Lynch and others out of the HP carpet land. Then HP tried to convert the technology into some sort of cloud based toolkit. And finally HP decided to go after Dr. Lynch. You don’t have to like him, but he is a bit of a celebrity in the Silicon Fen, holds an Order of the British Empire, and he is quite intelligent, maybe brilliant, and in my experience, not into dorks, fools, goof balls, losers, or dopey managers. Your mileage may vary, of course.
I am sufficiently experienced to know that when a buyer wants a product, service, or company, craving—nay, lust and craziness—kick in. “Yo, we’re 17 years old again. Let’s do it” scream the adrenaline charged experts. This is a slam dunk. We can take Autonomy waaaay beyond the place it is today. Rah, rah, rah. Get ‘em, team.”
Autonomy’s management and its advisors knows that PowerPoint dust can close deals. The blend of blood frenzy and the feeling of power one gets when taking ownership of a new La Ferrari is what business is about, dog. Smiles and PowerPointing from Autonomy played a part, but HP made the decision and wrote the check. Caveat emptor is good advice.
Frankly I see HP as the ideal candidate for a marvelous business school case. The HP Autonomy story is better than the Yahoo track record of blunders and blind luck. The management of HP believed something that has never ever ever been done: Generate billions of dollars in new revenue quickly. Google generates billions from advertising. Autonomy generated hundreds of millions in revenues from the licensing of dozens of products. HP got its wires crossed in reasoning which does not line up with the history of the search and content processing industry.
Billions do not flow from content processing and search technology. Investors can pump big money into a content processing company like Palantir. Will these investors get their money back? Don’t know. But to spend billions for a search and content processing company and then project that a $600 million or $800 million per year outfit would produce a gusher of billions is a big, but quite incorrect, thought.
Never has happened. Never will. It took Autonomy 15 years, good management, intelligent acquisitions, and lots of adaptation to hit the $600-$700 million plus in annual revenue it generated. Only energy drinking MBAs with Excel fever can convert 15 years and multiple revenue streams from dozens of quite different products into one giant multi billion dollar business in a couple of years. The scale is out of whack. When I visited the store in Manhattan with the big crazy pencil and the other giant products I could see the difference between my pencil and the big pencil. HP, I assume, would see the two pencils as identical. HP, if it purchased a big pencil, would sue the shop in Manhattan because the big pencil would not fit into a Panasonic desktop pencil sharpener. Scale of thinking, accuracy of perception—They matter to me. HP? Hmm.
This is not bad business on HP’s part. This is not flawed acquisition analysis on HP’s part. This is not HP’s inability to ask the right questions. This is medieval lunacy with managers dancing on the grass under a full moon. Isn’t HP that company which has floundered, investigated its own Board of Directors, chased good managers from one office in Silicon Valley into the arms of a competitor based on the old Sea World property? Maybe. Maybe HP is a fully stocked fishing pond, not a water deficient stream in Palo Alto?
My personal view is that HP has itself, its Board of Directors, and its advisors to blame. I find it very difficult to believe that as talented as Dr. Lynch is that he could spoof HP’s Board, HP’s financial professionals, HP’s advisors, HP’s lawyer, and HP’s Meg Whitman. Hey, the guy is talented, but he is not Houdini.
Well, we have a show, gentle reader. We have a really big show. Where is Ed Sullivan when we need an announcer?
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2015
Show Business and Enterprise Search
May 11, 2015
Short Honk: I read “In Our Increasingly Automated and Global Economy, Every Business Is Becoming Just a Little Bit Like Show Business.” Quite a Google-ized string of words. The write up asserts that work will be skilled contractors coming together when there is a project, money, and a need for specialists. This is—wait for it—the Hollywood model.
I think the author is sort of right. For certain types of work, hiring specialists makes sense. When an employee needs a hip replacement, few companies want to have the requisite specialists on staff.
The article asserts:
Our economy is in the midst of a grand shift toward the Hollywood model.
The author adds:
It’s a surprisingly good system for many workers too, in particular those with highly sought after skills.
The future will be
a new era of the human-robot partnership, in which robots can be told what to do without the use of difficult programming languages.
Sounds fantastic as long as one has in demand skills and can market her or his skills to generate awareness of an individual’s capabilities. (Too bad for those without skills and lacking in visibility. Tough luck.)
My interest is search.
If there is a tech sector where the Hollywood model should be visible, it is enterprise search. The experts come together, implement a system, and users become really happy with their new information retrieval system.
Unfortunately the data I have gathered suggests that anywhere from 55 to 75 percent of a search system’s users are unhappy. The folks in information technology departments have become gun shy when it comes to search. The folks who manage enterprise search solutions live a life of quiet desperation. It is not whether the person managing search will be RIFed; it is when in many search intolerant organizations.
The generalizations about the outputs of a Hollywood style approach to staffing don’t make much sense to me on a practical level for television and motion pictures. I find the outputs’ quality and value at odds with the products themselves.
The fact that a handful of specialists contribute their skills to a product via services that look good, appeal to the young in mind, and tap into the rich repository of comic book literature is evidence that the Hollywood model does not work for me.
Enterprise search has embraced the Hollywood model and tossed in superstars like the Google Search Appliance as well. How is that working? From my experience, search remains a problem no matter what the experts say or do.
Maybe the Hollywood model works but only in a superficial way. But those who are unemployed can watch the TV or go to the motion pictures. That’s value.
For enterprise search, more than a buzzword and a management catchphrase are needed to deliver a usable system. I hear the song now, “Another opening, another show…”
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2015
Google Glass: A Harsh Assessment
May 8, 2015
I read “The Debacle of Google Glass.” As a 70 year old wearer of trifocal lenses, I failed to see (pun alert) the future in this wonky product. I haven’t thought too much about Google Glass, although I did a research report for one of those really stable financial outfits.
“Debacle” comes at Glass with some zest. I read:
When Google introduced their Google Glass, this was the first thing that came to mind about this project. I wondered if Google even had a clue how tech adoption cycles develop. While it is true glasses had been used in vertical markets since 1998, even after all of this time, we saw no interest by consumers. Google’s decision to aim Glass at consumers first, yet price them as if they were going to vertical markets, stumped me. Even the folks who had spent decades making glasses for use in manufacturing, government applications, and transportation were dumfounded by Google’s consumer focus with Google Glass, priced at $1500. Apparently, Google found out the hard way how tech products get adopted. They lost hundreds of millions of dollars on this project and, worse yet, they soured the consumer market for similar products. Even those with disposable income who could afford to be a Glass Explorer have to feel taken as Google used them as beta testers at their personal expense. I have seen a recent report that details the damage in consumer minds about Google Glass and, even if a competitor came to market with a cheaper product better than Glass, they would have a hard time getting anything but vertical users interested.
The idea that Google has some weak spots is not a new one. The write up includes what strikes me as a positive nod to the Apple Watch. My hunch is that the idea is that Apple is better at some things than Google.
The write up pops the “debacle” word again in this passage which I highlighted with my trusty pink marker. I reserve pink for anti Google sentiments, by the way:
Google glasses was a debacle for multiple reasons. It gave Google a black eye in the minds of consumers and cost them a lot in the way of consumer confidence when it comes to their efforts in hardware. It also tainted the market for consumer glasses for them and competitors in the future beyond how these products can be used in vertical markets. It also proved to be a debacle for a lot of partners who lost serious money on the Google Glass project. I spoke at a major customer conference of a company who was highly focused on the optical side of the glass. For years, they were very successful in vertical markets but were pulled into the consumer glasses area by Google and the media hype and tried to convince their own customers to jump into the space with competitive products. To their chagrin, most of their customers passed on this and I am sure they are glad they did.
Like most Glass analyses, this write up ignores some of the points I still find interesting; for example, the Babak Parviz (yep, the smart contact lens person with the multiple versions of his name) Microsoft-Google-Amazon adventure, the impact of the senior manager-marketer interaction on intra company inter personal processes, the fascinating sales approach, the likely re-emergence of a more fashionable and stylish Glass, and the concomitant use of the festive neologism “glasshole.” Not many products warrant a coinage like “glasshole.”
If you are interested in Glass, you will find the write up fascinating. Perhaps the full story of Glass will emerge as a Netflix original series?
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2015
Stalled SharePoint Deployments Do Not Deter Adoption
April 23, 2015
Despite SharePoint’s broad adoption, it suffers from a perceived lack of user commitment. So it becomes a paradox that it is one of the fastest growing software options ever, and shows no signs of slowing down. CMS Wire tells us more in their article, “Businesses Committed to SharePoint, Despite Stalled Deployments.”
The article begins:
“It is little surprise then, that in a recent AIIM survey of 422 organizations respondents described their SharePoint projects as stalled (26 percent) or just not meeting expectations (37 percent). Inadequate user training and a general lack of planning, investment and expertise were the main reason given for this malaise. And the recent talk about how Office365 and cloud fit in with SharePoint has further muddied the waters. And yet support for SharePoint remains strong.”
In recent news, Microsoft has pushed the general availability of SharePoint Server 2016 back. Combine these release delays with the local delays organizations face regarding customization, investment, and expertise, and most deployments face an uphill battle. For most users and managers, staying in touch with the latest news is essential. Stephen E. Arnold of ArnoldIT.com offers an efficient newsfeed regarding all things search. His SharePoint feed is an efficient way to keep an eye on news, tips, tricks, and workarounds that impact all aspects of SharePoint use.
Emily Rae Aldridge, April 23, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Yahoo News Off the Rails
April 21, 2015
The article titled Purple Reign on The Baffler tells the story of the derailment of Yahoo News. The author, Chris Lehmann, exerts all of his rhetorical powers to convey his own autobiography of having served as a Yahoo News editor after being downsized from a more reputable publication, along with any number of journalists and editors. The main draw was that Yahoo News was one of the few news organizations that were not bankrupt. In spite of being able to produce some high-caliber news, writers and editors at Yahoo were up against a massive bureaucracy that at its best didn’t understand the news and at its worst didn’t trust the news. For example, the author relays the story of one piece he posted on militia tactics of ambushing police by breaking the law,
“Before the post went live, I fielded an anxious phone call from a senior manager in Santa Monica. He was alarmed… for a simple reason: “I haven’t heard of this before.” I struggled to find a diplomatic way to explain that publishing things that readers hadn’t heard before was something that a news organization should be doing a whole lot more of: it was, in fact, the definition of “news.”
One of the saddest aspects of the corporate-controlled news outreach was the attempt to harness the power of the traffic on Yahoo’s site by making all internet users reporters. Obvious to anyone who has ever read a comment section online, web users range from the rational to the bizarrely enraged to the racist/sexist/horrifying. Not long after this Ask America initiative tanked, Lehmann’s job description was “overhauled” and he resigned.
Chelsea Kerwin, April 21, 2014
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
SharePoint Server Release Delayed by a Year
April 21, 2015
For users anxious to start working with SharePoint Server 2016, the wait just got a little longer. Microsoft just announced that the next version would not be available until the second quarter of 2016, a delay of full year from initial projections. ZD Net covers the latest news in their article, “Microsoft Pushes Back Next SharePoint Server Release to Q2 2016.”
The article breaks the news:
“When Microsoft announced the name of the next version of SharePoint Server — SharePoint Server 2016 — company officials said the product would debut in the second half of calendar 2015. But on April 16, Microsoft execs said that there’s a new delivery plan, and SharePoint Server 2016 won’t be generally available until the second calendar quarter of 2016.”
The delay doesn’t seem to be related to Windows Server, although it has also been pushed back to calendar year 2016. The new version is still very much anticipated as it promises updates to content management, team connectivity, and hybrid functionality. For users who are closely following all the news, stay tuned to ArnoldIT.com, specifically the SharePoint feed. Stephen E. Arnold maintains his site with a focus on search and all the expertise of a lifelong career.
Emily Rae Aldridge, April 21, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
Oracle is Rocking COLLABORATE
April 15, 2015
News is already sprouting about the COLLABORATE 15: Technology and Applications Forum for the Oracle Community, Oracle’s biggest conference of the year. BusinessWire tells us that Oracle CEO Mark Hurd and Chief Information Officer and Senior VP Mark Sunday will be keynote speakers, says “Oracle Applications Users Group Announces Oracle’s Key Role at COLLABORATE 15.”
Hurd and Sunday will be delivering key insights into Oracle and the industry at their scheduled talks:
“On Tuesday, Sunday discusses the need to keep a leadership edge in digital transformation, with a special focus on IT leadership in the cloud. Sunday will build upon his keynote from two years ago, giving attendees better insight into adopting a sound cloud strategy in order to ensure greater success. On Wednesday, Hurd shares his insights on how Oracle continues to drive innovation and protect customer investments with applications and technology. Oracle remains the leading organization in the cloud, and Hurd’s discussion focuses on how to modernize businesses in order to thrive in this space.”
Oracle is really amping up the offerings at this year’s conference. They will host the Oracle User Experience Usability Lab, Oracle Proactive Support Sessions, Oracle Product Roadmap Session, and more to give attendees the chance to have direct talks with Oracle experts to learn about strategies, functionality, products, and new resources to improve their experience and usage. Attendees will also be able to take accreditation tests for key product areas.
COLLABORATE, like many conferences, offers attendees the chance to network with Oracle experts, get professional feedback, and meet others in their field. Oracle is very involved in this conference and is dedicated to putting its staff and products at the service of its users.
Whitney Grace, April 15, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
Visual Data Mapper Quid Raises $39M
April 14, 2015
The article on TechCrunch titled Quid Raises $39M More to Visualize Complex Ideas explains the current direction of Quid. Quid, the business analytics company interested in the work of processing vast amounts of data to build visual maps as well as branding and search, has been developing new paths to funding. The article states,
“When we wrote about the company back in 2010, it was focused on tracking emerging technologies, but it seems to have broadened its scope since then. Quid now says it has signed up 80 clients since launching the current platform at the beginning of last year.The new funding was led by Liberty Interactive Corporation, with participation from ARTIS Ventures, Buchanan Investments, Subtraction Capital, Tiger Partners, Thomas H. Lee Limited Family Partnership II, Quid board member Michael Patsalos-Fox…”
Quid also works with such brands as Hyundai, Samsung and Microsoft, and is considered to be unique in its approach to the big picture of tech trends. The article does not provide much information as to what the money is to be used for, unless it is to do with the changes to the website, which was once called the most pretentious of startup websites for its detailed explanation of its primary and secondary typefaces and array of titular allusions.
Chelsea Kerwin, April 14, 2014
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
Google and Metapersonnel Insights
April 6, 2015
Forget Xooglers. The ranks of the former Googlers continue to swell. Focus on the new Googlers. These are the folks eager to join the online advertising, Loon balloon, and Glass is not dead parade. In this article I am going to reference two allegedly factual incidents involving Googlers in the last year or so. You may want to read:
I read “How to Get Ahead at Work: 10 Tips from Google’s Head of HR.” The write up lays out a checklist to help me advance in my career. Spoiler alert: There was not a word about legal hassles, senior management liaisons, or projects that get killed, shelved, or forgotten.
The write up is a happy thing, and it contains some advice I suppose I would follow if I were a precocious 21 year old again. Ah, those were the days. I was impressionable, and I thought that pronouncements from well paid professionals wearing blue jeans were the pinnacle of sartorial savvy.
Let’s look at these “tips.”
The first tip is that I as the callow 21 year old have to give my work meaning. Now I suppose that works like a champ when one is employed at Google. But my first job as a 21 year old was dealing with the Byzantine bureaucracy of the US nuclear establishment. I am into meaning, but what “meaning” is there when smashing atoms and avoiding contamination are daily fare? Oh, a quick question: What is “meaning”? I am baffled still, even at age 70.
The second tip is to trust people. I find this interesting. I recall that a certain senior manager at Google left his wife to interact with a more youthful Googler. Then there was the Googler who died of a controlled substance event in the presence of a person who allegedly rented herself to those with free cash. I wonder how that “trust” thing is working with the wives affected by the alleged behaviors of Googlers?
The third tip is to hire people who are better than I. Okay. I am not sure if I do that. I have a yard crew, assorted failed middle school teachers, a couple of addled 60 year olds, and the odd 20 something wizard. I am just not very good, so I am not sure how to judge if someone on the yard crew is better than I when it comes to analyzing Google’s human resource tips. Does “good” mean smarter, stronger, healthier, better sighted, or more comely? I am not sure what the angle is. In terms of work, there is a task, and I assumed one should hire an individual who can perform that task. The “better” fools me. For example, if I do not cavort with a 20 something while wearing a Google product, does that make me less “better”? I am puzzled.
The fourth tip is also confusing to me: “Don’t confuse development with managing performance?” I assume this is on the job performance, not the extra curricular stuff like the drugs on the yacht or the marketer seeking medical attention. The write up explains:
Even the most successful people fail to learn. And if they can’t learn, what hope is there for the rest of us? It’s not pleasant to confront your own weaknesses. If you marry criticism with consequence, if people feel that a miss means that they will be hurt professionally or economically, they will argue instead of being open to learning and growing. Make developmental conversations safe and productive by having them all the time. Always start with an attitude of “How can I help you be more successful?”
The assumption is that the person “guiding” me is someone who has a character and interpersonal integrity to which I can relate. When that is absent, I am sorry. I do not learn. I am an old fashioned sort tangled in notions of ethical behavior. Again, the tip is falling on my imagined 21 year old deaf ears.
The fifth tip is pretty amazing. The idea is to pay attention to the best employees and the worst employees. That works out in a normal curve to a small percentage of the total employee count. So if a manager has two employees, the tip wants me to pay attention to the two people. Okay, that makes sense. But if I have 150 employees reporting to me as I did when I was at Halliburton Nuclear, that means I ignore that majority of my employees. Hmm. I suppose that is practical, but what if one of the ignored employees has a good idea or decides to photocopy confidential documents and high tail it to another company. As a manager of people, what do I say: “Well, that person was on I ignored”? Sorry. Doesn’t make sense to my job seeking imaginary 21 year old self.
The sixth tip is one of those odd ball catch phrases that don’t make any sense to me: “Be frugal and generous.” Okay, so I don’t want to throw away a sheet of paper with writing on one side. I can use the other side for notes, assuming paper is still in use in the Google HR office. But the notion of penny pinching and being generous is the stuff of Dickens, not my life. The point is to know how to think about a financial issue and make a decision that makes sense. I suppose the largesse of the US Congress buying the Department of Defense tanks the DoD does not want is part of the frugal-generous truism. Perhaps it is the money Google spends on lobbyists in Washington? I am baffled in the way I am when someone tells me, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”
The seventh tip is fascinating: “Pay unfairly.” Let’s see. I have a small company. I have to keep the lights on, pay taxes, and pay people. The money has to be allocated in a manner which the employees perceive as fair; otherwise, the employee is likely to complain or quit. No good. So the Google HR outfit wants to further the wage gap. In my warped sense of appropriate behavior, I find the idea somewhat disconcerting. I am okay with paying an individual for contributions to the firm. I am not okay with overt discriminatory compensation. But, hey, I am not likely to be the type of candidate who wants his virtual 21 year old self involved with womanizers or drug takers and search results that are neither objective nor particularly relevant to anyone but an advertiser. Bummer.
The eighth tip is nudge. Okay, okay, finally something I understand. One can nudge a pixel in Photoshop and one can nudge a co worker to behave in a manner appropriate to the company, the customer, and the context. But the Google HR view of a nudge is interesting:
Look around you right now and discover how your environment is nudging you and those around you already. Is it easy to see other people and connect? Are the least healthy snacks in your refrigerator at eye level? When you email or text your colleagues and friends, is it to share good news or snark? We are all constantly nudged by our environment and nudging those around us. Use that fact to make yourself and your teams happier and more productive.
If we go back to the womanizing executive and the alleged drug taker with compensated companion examples, I can see how nudges work. I am unfortunately non on board with nudges that become ego satisfying and lead to what I perceive as deleterious behavior. No future for me at the GOOG I suppose.
The ninth tip is an MBAism: “Manage rising expectations.” Now if I pay attention to the losers and the winners, members of each group will perceive themselves as special. The losers will assume I care and won’t fire them. The winners will assume that I will promote them or give them my job. No so fast. I try to avoid what I call the “cliff phenomenon.” The idea is that expectations get built up, like “Starved Rock in Illinois. Then one can either leave the people to die of starvation figuratively or literally or push them off the cliff. I don’t see much support for the notion of keeping folks from getting into a dangerous spot. I am, therefore, ill equipped to manipulate employees in the manner of turning a dial on an old Hewlett Packard wave measurement device.
The last tip is just plain brilliant or incredibly stupid. I am supposed to go back to square one and begin again. I much prefer non circular activities, but, hey, why listen to me. I am not as a virtual 21 year old going to cut it with Google personnel.
Thank heavens for small favors. Did I once cash checks from Google? Nah, must have been an imaginary quirk of time. I would search for more information but I have Google information access syndrome right now.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2015
SharePoint Problems Chocked Up to Management
March 10, 2015
A large percentage of SharePoint installations are reported to have stalled or not lived up to expectations. Despite those numbers, approximately 75% of organizations report that they will stay with SharePoint, regardless. They are committed to making it work and looking for solutions. CMS Wire gives more details in their article, “Blame the C-Suite for Your Failed SharePoint Project.”
The article begins:
“About two out of three organizations complain their SharePoint projects have stalled (26 percent) or failed to live up to their expectations (37 percent). And it gets worse, according to new AIIM research. A majority of respondents blame those SharePoint failures on lack of support from senior management.”
For those organizations and users who feel stuck in an ineffective or stalled installation, outside resources are invaluable. Stephen E. Arnold offers a helpful collection of resources on his Web site ArnoldIT.com. His dedicated SharePoint feed features the latest tips, tricks, and news regarding Office 365 and SharePoint specifically.
Emily Rae Aldridge, March 10, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
