Commentary

Stephen Wellman
 

Enterprise Search Is This Year's Hot Topic For Business Intelligence

This morning I soaked in the latest updates from the world of enterprise Web technology at the packed-out Enterprise Search Summit in New York City. Based on what I heard, no one seems to know for sure what enterprise search will look like in the next few years. But everyone agrees on one thing: It's hot.

This morning I soaked in the latest updates from the world of enterprise Web technology at the packed-out Enterprise Search Summit in New York City. Based on what I heard, no one seems to know for sure what enterprise search will look like in the next few years. But everyone agrees on one thing: It's hot.Chaos & Confusion

Susan Feldman, Research VP of Content Technologies, IDC, opened the event with an aptly titled presentation, "Search in 2007: Growth, Chaos, & Confusion."


More Mobility Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Feldman opened up with the obvious: Search is growing like a weed. The search market last year grew 33%. The problem is that no one seems to know what this growth means for enterprise IT departments or even for the search market itself, with one exception: Google is still the king of the Internet-based consumer search.

In an attempt to give some thought leadership, Feldman argued that search is rapidly becoming a part of the business intelligence sector of enterprise IT. This isn't the first time I have heard this argument, and it seems to be playing out as more search vendors position their products as BI solutions and not just search platforms.

Feldman also pointed out that search is a highly political issue in many organizations, both because it's trendy and because it's still a category in flux. Everyone inside a large company wants to own something and search is up for grabs. IT has a vested interest in owning it, but so too do other departments, especially online marketing.

Trying To Make It Work With Your Current Search Engine

After the opening keynote, the discussion turned to a more practical issue: Should you dump your search engine or try to stick it out?

Jennifer Whalen, Portal Manager for Continuing Improvement, Deloitte, argued that many organizations are probably better off trying to improve and optimize their current search engines than in looking for new technology.

Whalen pointed that many search systems suffer both from slack technology as well as poor content. Over tagging -- i.e. tagging too many pieces of content with the same tags -- as well as poorly sorted content can lead to bad search. Many companies improve their search efforts by just focusing on cleaning up their content.

Another key is testing. Few organizations spend much money or effort in testing their existing systems. Instead of just dropping tons of cash on a new system, organizations can also test their systems and use these tests as ways to benchmark and improve performance.

There are many ways to make search results more relevant. It's not always wise to focus on the long tail of search results. First, make the majority of common searches work and then expand beyond that. Whalen advised IT managers to create lists of 30 or so sample queries and then to optimize around those results.

IT managers should also focus on making their existing search engines easier to use. Simple improvements in UI can also increase the relevancy of search results.

It's Time To Go Shopping

Many of the attendees at today's events, however, had little to no existing search solution. They were there to examine new technologies and spend some money. BI analyst Theresa Regli, Principal, CMS Watch, offered the attendees some advice on how to intelligently shop for a search solution.

Regli cautioned against the "all-in-one" solution, "The ultimate knowledge management machine simply does not exist. The typical enterprise search system does not contain 'all' the organization's content," Regli said.

As for what makes one search engine different from another, Regli laid out a list of differentiators:

1. Clustering Results and Related Terms -- Can the search platform organize results into broad topics?

2. Metasearch -- Can the engine allow users to search across multiple disparate databases?

3. Content Types -- Can the engine search across different types of content, such as Word documents, e-mails, database tables, and XML/HTML?

Most organizations are currently debating between three search solutions:

1. Local Install

2. Hosted

3. Appliance (search in a box)

There are distinct advantages to each solution. Regli advised against a local install if the organization doesn't have the resources to upgrade and maintain its investment.

Several themes emerged from this morning's speakers. The first was that search is now a form of enterprise BI. If this proves true, you can look for search to merge with other BI solutions, maybe even going back into content management systems themselves.

The second is that enterprises want search, but they're uncertain what they want from it besides more accurate search results. This indicates to me that many IT departments don't have a useful vision of search in their orginization. Instead they see search as a panacea that will cure all their online initiatives.

The third theme was content. From poorly managed content to bad tagging, there is a lot of bad content. Many businesses don't seem to have online content strategies, and I suspect that the lack of search strategy also stems from this.

I want to thank the speakers, as well as the orginizers of the Enterprise Search Summit, for a great set of sessions.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links