Gartner PCC Summit 2007 (part 10)

3 Comments
"So not done: Search Technology’s Strategic Future will surprise you” (by Whit Andrews from Gartner) at PCC 2007 Summit.

- what is driving the pervasiveness of information access technology?
- how will enterprises deploy the power of information access technology in unexpected ways?
- how are vendors responding to increased popularity of information access technology?

The search box bridges users and data of all kinds is built up by users, relevancy and data indices/interfaces.

In YE12, search logic in more than 75% of new installations will contain some internal user identity.

Search comprises everything on the continuum, structured to unstructured data/information.

Users have no idea that something is not searchable.

Support for extending the searched: the spider and the ant.
Spidered data is collected and the index remains iterated but static invoked addressed return current pages. (Pro: stable/known - Con: Can go stale, link rot, enormous storage need)
A query-driven ant knows the proper path to travel to collect a fresh version of what may likely be relevant data. (Pro: fresh - Con: extra application load)
Whit says the ‘spider model’ is not enough in this real-time environment.

In 2008 20% of the result data in new info access projects will be refreshed at the time of the search.

By 2008, query federation will play a key role in more than 50% of strategic new info access projects in the Global 2000.

More and more a single best way of defining relevancy is outdated. People ask for ways to tweak the relevancy based on their needs.

If you’re looking for search “pick a platform” with great breadth and establish tactical alternatives.

By 2012 no Global 2000 enterprise will standardize absolutely on a single search vendor. This gives enterprises flexibility.

The necessity remains to access structured and unstructured information from the same search platform. However, users don’t understand that this is difficult.

Query-corpus mismatches will be important too. This gives companies a way to define what impact not-finding information at a certain point for a sales deals, for instance.

Lessons from Web 2.0 sites/vendors:
- non-textual results (LivePlasma, Grokker)
- live query refinement (Clusty, Pandora, Acoona)
- user tagging (del.icio.us, NY Times!, flickr)
- Users links with each other and publish to each other (Jeteye, LinkedIn, Rollyo)
And of course there’s overlap between these.
Advice: investigate what social search could mean for your organization.

So, you have two main approaches: straight-forward search and social search. They’ll meet in the middle. But also pay attention to the niche players in search, such as business intelligence search.

Magic Quadrant for Information Access Technology, 2006
Autonomy, IBM, Fast Search & Transfer, Endeca and ZyLab are in the upper-righthand corner of the Quadrant.

5 most powerful vendors:
1. Google (ease of use)
2. Microsoft (good-enough, due to Sharepoint and Vista)
3. IBM (broad product line)
4. Adobe (will acquire Autonomy or FAST)
5. Oracle (due to their database technologies)

There is new vigor in unconventional delivery models: quality of service, agility and economics.

Recommendations:
Today:
- list what you think you’re searching
- inventory your search vendors
- learn what you can about relevancy
Next year:
- begin to make search more pervasive in your enterprise. Integrate, do not unify, search and business intelligence; search and CRM; search and multiple RDBMS and so forth
- add 50% of what you thought you were searching - but weren’t
- add 50% of what your workers wish they could search
- select your search platform
- inventory and value your relevancy strategies
The years after that:
- add the other 50% you thought you thought you were search
- add what the users wish they could search

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small ...
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an...
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as...
Read more