Information required to make sound business decisions rarely lives in one place. Join Lynda Moulton, Gilbane’s senior analyst for enterprise search, and Brian Dirking, principal product director at Oracle, as they discuss the challenges involved in integrating and aggregating structured and unstructured content from disparate sources–all while ensuring security that protects high-value information.
Wednesday, October 10, 12:00 nn to 1:00 pm ET. Registration is open.
Page 307 of 918
BEA Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: BEAS) and Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq: ADBE) announced they have signed an agreement across four products. The companies will work together to provide customers with a design environment for rich Internet application (RIA) development. Separately, they will bring together application server technology to help enterprises develop customer engagement applications. BEA will bundle Adobe Flex Builder 2 software with BEA Workshop Studio, allowing developers to build cross-platform RIAs that integrate with SOA and Web 2.0 infrastructure for enterprise mash-ups. Further, every Workshop Studio developer will now have access to Flex technology for building RIAs. The agreement also calls for Adobe to distribute evaluation licenses of BEA’s application server, WebLogic Server, with Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Suite (ES) software. The new Workshop Studio bundle includes Flex Builder 2, Adobe’s Eclipse-based IDE, and the Adobe Flex SDK, which is planned to be released under the open source Mozilla Public License. These RIAs can then be integrated with other BEA products, such as those from the company’s WebLogic and AquaLogic product families. Organizations also will be able to deploy these applications using Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR), a new cross-operating system application runtime that allows developers to extend RIAs to the desktop. http://bea.com, http://www.adobe.com
I spent two days last week at the Office 2.0 conference organized by Ismael Ghalimi. The first thing to say about it is that it is truly amazing what Ismael can put together in 6 weeks. As someone who has organized 60-70 conferences, my amazement and respect for what Ismael accomplished, while not unique, is probably more pronounced than others’.
What is “Office 2.0”? As far as I could tell the consensus in the opening panel “The Future of Work” (and in other sessions) was that it referred to any office-in-the-cloud tools, including but not limited to replications of Microsoft Office.
I would say “Office 2.0” is differentiated from “Web 2.0” by having mainly a business focus, and is differentiated from “Enterprise 2.0”, at least in terms of this event, by being more about the technology than the effects of its deployment on enterprise practices. There was some gentle push and pull between Microsoft and Google on the relative importance IT/workflow/regulations versus end-user/real-time-collaboration. When pushed on what they would be adding to future work environments, both Microsoft and SAP stressed the importance of business social networks.
Though not a business social network, in spite of a growing number of professionals using it that way, Facebook was discussed throughout the event. There was much hand-wringing and disagreement over whether people would combine their personal and professional activities, contacts, and information for the world to see. I find it hard to fathom, but it is clear that there are a number of people who are happy and eager to do this. However, just as we’ve said about enterprise blogging, it is important to separate the technology from the way it is used, and there is a big difference between using a tool with social computing-like functionality inside a firewall, and the way people use Facebook. I don’t think there is any doubt that social-computing technology has a large and important role to play in enterprises. Note however that the Facebook generation does not necessarily agree!
Ismael gave an in-depth presentation on his exclusive use of “Office 2.0” tools for organizing and producing the conference. This was a fascinating case study. I have to say that after hearing about Ismael’s experience I don’t think we are quite ready to try this at home, mainly because of the integration issues. We will look at some of the individual tools though. In fact, as Ismael warns, integration is in general the main gotcha for enterprise use of Office 2.0 technology, both between the new tools and between Office 2.0 tools and existing enterprise applications. Ismael describes the event and its organization as an experiment, given what was learned, it was surely a successful experiment.
(See some the the announcements from Office 2.0 at:
Comparing relational vs. object-oriented database use in content management is highly subjective, and can’t be generalized. That would be like saying that the movie is always better than the book it is based on. Take the Harry Potter series. While the books have been phenomenally successful, the movies are doing equally well at the box office.
There’s not a one-size fits all approach for technology either. Comparing relational and object-oriented databases needs to be done from several perspectives – notably business rationale for the end user as well as technological advantage – not just one.
On the business end, documentation is mission critical, and must be available 24×7. Relational databases like Oracle support application clustering and high availability out of the box. Customers can count on Oracle always being available, and in a global working environment, everyone can get their job done.
Many businesses need to migrate from some form of binary documentation to XML, but it doesn’t happen instantly. Using a relational database, these businesses can store their binary documentation and take full advantage of a CMS while they undertake the process of converting to XML. A relational database can also act as a single repository that stores both XML and binary content, eliminating the need for a separate file system and creates a more homogenous environment for IT.
When business demands and technology realities meet, an argument can be made that a mission critical database application like Oracle requires an amount of care and feeding to be properly maintained. There is, however, also a misunderstanding that with an XML database, an end user can simply let it run and everything is fine.
In reality, many companies like to have control over their “family jewels,” and may want the option of feeding other applications that have canned integrations to relational databases. XQuery may be great, but businesses need to search for content that can be in many forms, XML, PDF, Word, etc. Using a relational database and other technologies, it is possible to support a very robust search mechanism across over 295 different formats.
In both cases, scalability is always a concern. The user must be able to scale and manage both vertically (larger machines) and horizontally (additional machines) while maintaining the integrity of the data and 24×7 access to the system.
Relational databases provide out-of-the-box horizontal scalability, as well as the ability to acutely control how system resources are used. This is crucial in serious business applications. Relational databases can stuff entire areas of XML into a single row (such as a … with hundreds of sub tags). This can be a real advantage, especially if is the users’ only needs are to work with and repurpose that section.
In the native XML database model, the users would end up with hundreds of rows in their database because each tag is stored separately. Even if all the users wanted to do is repurpose a section, they would need to handle every single row.
The proof lies in customer deployments. Many companies have replaced object oriented databases in large part because they didn’t scale. Consequently they’ve been able to grow into very large solutions using a relational database. In fact, one global customer expects to manage a terabyte of data in their (Contenta) CMS by year’s end. Now that’s scalable.
Just as there are many business and technology needs, there are many viable alternatives, including relational and object-oriented databases. To dismiss an entire technology because of one company’s recent acquisition is a blatant sales pitch at best, and technological ignorance at its worst.
Drew Robb has written an excellent article that reflects new thinking about the convergence of older and emerging technologies. In Search Converging with Business Intelligence for CRM Daily.com on August 28, 2007 I see similarities to my own way of viewing what is possible with newer search tools. Be sure to read it.
In addition to enterprise search, I actively follow enterprise knowledge management. It has been much debated because of confusion about its links to inappropriate technologies and well-intentioned but costly and failed initiatives in many organizations. But, in spite of rumors about its death, KM will remain a boundless frontier of opportunity. At its best, it leverages collaborative and sharing practices to maximize the value of organizations’ discoveries, developments and learning using innovative and often simple practices that work because they suit a particular culture’s way of operating.
Popular writings about business and technology innovation, plus tools and techniques for collaboration and sharing abound. 2007 is surely the year when search has come to dominate the technology landscape as vendors in BI, text mining and text analytics, data management, and countless semantic and Web 2.0 entrants vie to add refinements, and conversely search integrates features from those technologies.
In August I commented on search offerings that have made a point of highlighting their “Sharepoint” connectivity. Similarly, many products are adding claims for exploiting emails. I have long assumed that email should be part of the search engine crawling and indexing mix for any intranet. Given email structure, it seems to have more useful and usable metadata than a lot of other content. Social network analysis tools have been terrific at revealing fascinating relationships and internal communications within organizations, especially in the discovery area as emails have been a source for exploring questionable business practices in legal proceedings.
More sophisticated analytic and semantic techniques for exploiting concepts in content give hints about how technologies can integrate content by mapping experts to the expertise they contribute, even when it is scattered throughout their work, including emails where so many nuggets may reside. An area for development would correlate nuggets of knowledge in emails to reveal hidden and latent expertise, pointing to other content an individual has produced using search with BI and analytics algorithms.
Maybe I’m overreaching but I suspect that a lot of experts may not be sufficiently motivated, disciplined or expected to aggregate their small but useful contributions into more valuable knowledge. Regardless of the reasons for that failure, much could be revealed with the right blending of search, indexing, analytics and business intelligence technologies. The components already exist but implementation to get desired results are not necessarily easy to deploy. A truly innovative expertise exploitation engine would be a knowledge engine of note, able to synthesize new knowledge in unique and interesting ways. Historically, much has been made about the role of serendipity in the “search for truth” and “quest for knowledge.” With the aid of enhanced search technologies to blend any or many expert nuggets, a lot more serendipity might happen.
Crimson Life Sciences, a division of TransPerfect, Inc., recently announced that it has been certified by Underwriters Laboratories as compliant with ISO 14971, the “only international standard for risk management for medical devices.” According to UL, “ISO 14971 has become an integral element for satisfying regulatory requirements in most major markets.” Crimson’s certification relates to risk management processes for translating medical device labeling and documentation.
The announcement caught our attention because medical device manufacturing is one of the verticals on the Gilbane globalization practice radar. It’s a huge market in which significant opportunity is spread across the globe. Just one proof point: according to RIC International, “25% of medical devices produced in the US are exported, with diagnostics comprising the largest export sector.” As such, this vertical is generating a significant amount of the demand for solutions that integrate content management and translation process management in a global content life cycle. Which is why it’s of particular interest to us in Gilbane’s globalization practice.
Medical device manufacturers face some of the most rigorous challenges associated with content translation. They must create, translate and publish product support content that describes medical devices, documents proper procedures, complies with global regulations, and enables best practices. The risks associated with poorly translated content are particularly onerous for these companies. Crimson Life Sciences recognized this and went the extra mile have its risk management methodologies for translation validated by an international certification authority.
An important sub-theme here is quality of translated content and translation processes. Today, quality measurement is a mix of science and art (science in the case of industries with established standards such as SAE J2450 in automotive). Crimson’s UL certification is another step towards taking some the mystery out of quality verification.
The issues of multi-lingual content, translation processes, quality, and brand management come together in a case study on GE Healthcare that Gilbane will publish this fall. We’re also working on a white paper that identifies opportunities to insert quality improvements into the global content life cycle. For insight into content-related business issues in medical device manufacturing in the meantime, see our case study on Siemens Medical, and check out the archived webinar we did earlier this summer with Medtronic. We’ll also be covering quality and the global customer experience as the theme of the globalization sessions and keynote at Gilbane Boston 2007.
IBM released Notes 8 and Domino 8 earlier this month — two years in development and “the industry’s first enterprise collaboration solution largely designed with input from its customers.” IBM has devoted a lot of its efforts towards creating an integrated user experience — messages, calendar entries, file folders, and queries to business applications can all appear within a single, tiled window. With customized sidebars and tool bars, application developers can add “peripheral vision” to the user experience, and integrate a variety of plug-ins. While this user interface style is hardly revolutionary, it does cut down on window-clutter and will go a long way towards improving the usability of complex application environments.
IBM has also introduced “message conversations” into Notes email. Rather than messages being displayed as discrete items, they are concatinated into their discussion threads — with the root message and all the replies captured in a single list. This reduces Inbox clutter — 150 messages (the average daily total for a “typical” Notes user) can be reduced to eight or ten threads.
For organizations that made the Notes investment some years ago, there’s no need to consider alternatives or doubt IBM’s commitment to it’s core collaboration platform. Like the mainframes of an earlier computing era, Notes remains a solid messaging platform with integrated calendaring and contacts. It continues to serve as a development environment for ad hoc (workgroup-level) applications.
But I wonder about the growth opportunities for Notes. Many of us are quite comfortable with the “traditional” business activities engendered by this latest version — sending and receiviing messages, scheduling and attending meetings, contacting people. Yet when we have so much information readily accessable at our fingertips, we are continually looking for new metaphors for doing work — bringing people together over the network, restructuring business processes, improving decision making. More is at stake than simply “reducing clutter.” We need to focus as much on the “collaboration services” accessible within the network as on the quality of the user experience itself.
It was inevitable that the search market would rapidly expand into the mobile device market and the number of new and established vendors with options for your cell phone or PDA is a daily feast of reading. Combined with other new search options promising voice-enabled search, semantic search, search federating internal with Web and deep Web content, the possibilities for having search served up to suit anyone seem endless.
Tracking over 70 vendors with enterprise search offerings is plenty for me to focus on at the moment. However, as I read the publicity releases and descriptions inviting me to be briefed, in the back of my mind I know that business travelers need access to all kinds of enterprise content regardless of their locale. I worry that my skepticism about mobile search for enterprise content says more about my age than the technology. I might be thinking about struggling with tiny screens and buttons in less than optimal viewing conditions. But I am open to the possibilities and know it will become pervasive, as will all the other flavors of search.
Caution: before jumping into hot new offerings for enterprise search or any other technology, take a deep breath and think about some consequences of being that early adopter.
Security models for enterprise search in which content is being aggregated or federated from across numerous structured and unstructured content repositories is a very big issue, takes lots of planning, mapping, and time to deploy and test. Add the considerations of a start-up vendor dealing with your precious knowledge assets in a wireless world and you might think twice.
Recent CIO Research, CIO Vendor Report Card results for 52 top IT vendors broke out statistics in several areas. The responding audience ranked as their highest priorities two that would be very hard to judge for a new offering:
- (Vendor) Delivers on Promises
- Ongoing Support after the Sale and Implementation
Another statistic that was reported in the CIO Vendor Report Card was a measure of the likelihood that the respondent would be willing to recommend the vendor. This reminds us of a critical issue that early adopters of new products and technologies can’t easily resolve, finding recommenders or product case studies.
I don’t want to pick on mobile search especially; there is so much hot stuff coming down the pipeline that it is easy to get carried away. But a sign to take it slowly is when your own enterprise is struggling to keep up with new releases of products from known companies, and lags behind in fully exploiting technology you already have. The hottest “must haves” won’t even make it through initial deployment in this environment. Making certain that enterprise search is working well within the organization is a necessary and critical first step. Having a vendor with a track record and happy customers is a close second.
Subscribe to the Gilbane Advisor
