Semantic technology addresses the data-explosion problem by providing more intelligent ways to search, sort, and filter data based on  business and user relevance. So, what is Semantic Technology? Here is what Tim Berners-Lee stated as a vision back in 1999: "I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize." Semantic Technology is often referred to as "Web 3.0".  At it's core, Semantic technology is a new and more innovative way data is created, stored, and exchanged.  Instead of the classic relational approach, where data is used in a software application based on its relative position in a tabular framework, semantic data is created with embedded meaning. This meaning is assured by creating the data using a pair of standards called the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the Web Ontology Language (OWL). RDF creates flexible data, free of the tabular constraints of the relational approach. OWL defines ontologies, which are domains of described data relationships. Semantic technology mates RDF's flexible data with OWL's intelligent descriptions, which results in “smart data”. With smart data, the user can experience data’s utility within context. With data in a semantic format, a variety of new IT capabilities become possible.  Because the data is self-describing (has meaning) there is much greater flexibility in designing, modifying, and changing semantic applications. This will help address several major challenges facing IT today.

• Developing applications that support event-based processes
• Capturing data "in flight" and acting on its content in the context of the current business environment
• Discovering, adapting, composing, and automating the services scattered both inside and outside of an organization
• Extending the potential of SOA and driving down the costs of application maintenance
• Designing and implement solutions without relying on IT

Advanced semantic middleware frameworks are being created by software leaders like Cambridge Semantics (Sean Martin and Lee Feigenbam ) and architected by colleagues at CrossTech Partners including Colin Britton, John Saber, and TJ O'Connor. Cambridge Semantics has also developed a powerful set of solutions to unleash data from the 1,000s of spreadsheets being used across enterprise clients and dramatically enable data collaboration. Best practices and development models are becoming increasingly available, making semantic technologies more accessible to a broader group of developers.  As these technologies move from the "third circle" (bleeding edge) to the "second circle" (today's innovative technology)  we can fully implement compelling new solutions for advanced search and relevance engines for information access. We can integrate these new applications with social software and deliver compelling new experiences for big brands and their audiences. Lee Feigenbam is a contributing author to this article.

I am working with a global financial services company that needs to overhaul its portfolio of communications technology. These include  their public/customer facing web sites to intranets and broadband communication services serving their internal associates across functional areas. To add further complexity, this is a global organization across time zones embodying different cultural norms and styles of communication along with different languages. Typical of many organizations, the communications technology portfolio has grown out of different business organizations that have changed and been re-aligned over the years. While IT has been working hard all along to deliver and manage a set of solutions that align with business needs, the changes in business structure and focus has increased the "value gap" over time and resulted in a highly disparate systems portfolio that can no longer support the business. Multiple email systems, disparate intranet channels and internal web sites, experimental broadband video services, third party communication platforms, and multiple public facing or customer-specific web sites have been deployed across the businesses have created a complex communication portfolio making it impossible to deliver a consistent and timely brand message to either the internal and external audiences. What's the solution?  They need a rational communications technology portfolio and the governance structures to manage it well over time. A rational communications technology portfolio is characterized by a number of elements:

• Aligned with audience - communication channels respond to the needs and consumption patterns of the target audience
• Consistent and rationalized - where possible, platforms are based on common standards and shared globally
• Embracing new media - methods and mediums stay consistent with current new media practices and technologies
• Appropriately governed  - portfolio and policies are monitored and adjusted for performance

To help them define a strategy, we are pursuing a five step process:

1. Understand audiences and messaging strategies along with new media and "web native" delivery opportunities
2. Inventory and assess the existing portfolio with characteristics about the user audience, technologies being used, costs and commercial arrangements, business importance and functional quality
3. Build a case for change and align support from top management
4. Define an achievable road map that embraces common architecture standards and appropriate technology solutions and services
5. Implement governance structures including sourcing models, policies and procedures that mitigate technical diversity

The benefits of a rational communications technology portfolio come from both cost reductions and communications impact. We have seen cost reduction from 15% to 35%+ through the elimination of duplicate systems and related support costs while dramatically simplifying and unifying communications. By embedding a portfolio governance process, they will have a common language to explore and resolve issues around application rationalization planning. Maintaining an application inventory will  support future planning and decision-making and provide a consistent framework to analyze performance, effectiveness and progress

I wrote a few weeks ago about strategic outsourcing and technology rationalization. Today, I am sharing some further views on successful technology portfolio assessment and a transformation strategy to Second Circle Technology ™. As the economic downturn continues we are seeing and increasing number of companies looking at cost reduction through application portfolio transformation. Application transformation with Second Circle Technology drives more flexible and lower cost while legacy systems constrain IT's ability to meet business needs. We have seen reductions in cost that range from 15% to 30% of IT spend.  At the same time, legacy application portfolios constrain the ability to meet business needs. Some of the typical constraints are:

• applying systems and processes consistently throughout the company
• adapting quickly enough to address changing business needs
• ensuring the skills needed to make critical changes to systems

There are also inhibitors that make changing the application portfolio a challenge:

• Users have grown up with ‘their’ application (often built in-house) and are very protective over them
• Users perceive risks from the fear of unknown while others dislike possible loss of exclusive ownership/control
• Change may appear to be more manually intensive to the users than the existing applications
• Technologists push new technology based on personal interests and to develop their own skills and market value
• Organizations lack an effective approach to maintaining an effective portfolio and demonstrating how all the pieces fit together.

We see many instances where companies fail in their efforts to transform their application portfolio. Often, there is insufficient up front focus  securing business sponsorship and commitment. Transformation to a new or updated application portfolio is complex and there is an insufficient focus on the culture changes and buy-in needed to support the new approach. If you are trying to assess your application portfolio, you must ensure the transformation is driven by the business strategy - establish the business vision, leadership and sponsorship required to drive the program. When evaluating each application in the portfolio, you can use a structured analysis to select the most appropriate transformation approach. Begin with an inventory of applications and an overall mapping of how systems all fit together. From that point, you can assess each component of your architecture for the right strategies. Once the overall view is in place, you can make decisions at the application level. Options include:

• No change to current systems - leave current situation apart from routine support and maintenance
• Incremental enhancement or “bolting on” extensions to existing systems/architecture or “ring-fencing” legacy applications
• Replacement with a Software Package - use best of breed commercial off the shelf package or combination of packages to replace existing systems
• Replacement with a Custom Developed Application - replacement of existing systems with new, purpose-built applications
• Outsource with an on demand service provider- pass applications, infrastructure or development to a 3rd party. This is particularly popular with the advent of cloud computing and service provider expertise.

To ensure success, make sure you treat your initiative as a business change program – put in place the required capabilities, skills and resources to deliver the transformation, define and communicate your approach.

I thought about some of the interesting work we are doing with innovators and decided to dust off and update this article that I originally wrote in 2003. Not surprisingly, basic opportunities and concepts have not changed too much so I decided to re-publish it with a few updates. What HAS changed? Certainly the jargon has. I am sure you have heard these: "Inboxing" is now when a relationship of Facebook has progressed from the Wall to 1:1 communications to direct “inbox communications”!.... "We're inboxing" - cool.. "Friending" and "Unfriending" even "Facebook Stalking" ouch... From an enterprise user audience perspective, when we think about the information we access and seek, let's imagine the future. We experience a single intuitive interface to the content and services that we need and want in our daily lives. We access personalized entertainment, news, information, services and messages easily using the right medium. Our personalized network understands our preferences and the available knowledgebase while maintaining our privacy.

Perhaps this feels like a utopian vision - too far into the future to be actionable on today’s agenda. However, new technologies in the social web and information management within corporations now allow us to deliver against this vision. Content and services can be filtered for relevance and personalized so that your audience; readers, employees, customers, and partners can experience a focused set of multi-media content. Effective information management delivers significant business value by increasing productivity of the knowledge worker and engaging target audiences. Also companies realize strategic advantage by leveraging intellectual assets and being up-to-date on relevant industry knowledge. As Metcalfe's Law states, "The power of the network increases exponentially by the number of computers connected to it. This law is often cited as a key driver for the explosive growth of the Internet. The more users on Facebook, the more conversations and connections we have. The more readers of a blog post, the more social sharing, syndication and value. However, Metcalf’s law also contributes to diminishing productivity within an enterprise.

Why?

We have limited ability as humans to deal with the spiraling number of information choices and the myriad of channels all vying for our attention. The mountain of information available to us is vast and growing. Google indexes around billions of web pages. The deep web is estimated to be 500 times larger. Daily e-mail traffic is measured in multi-billions of messages per day. The web gets searched over a billion times every day. Add telemarketers, spam, radio, TV and newspapers to these channels and the amount of information we see is stifling. Information overload is a daily trial. While information is a critical asset and source of competitive advantage, most companies have not deployed systems to deliver content and knowledge to their target user audience. Only a small fraction of information is fully relevant to the user. RSS feeds and content syndication help, but the problem still exists:

• 1000s of irrelevant e-mails
• Intranets that are hard to use
• Feeds with irrelevant content
• Wasted internet searches

I estimate the cost to productivity ranges from a 5% loss in dealing with spam, to as much as a 20% loss in research and analysis. However, new technologies are delivering compelling new ways of information access – ranging from social relevance and voting (e.g. Digg) to more advanced (big “S”) Semantic Technologies where information resources can be pre-filtered with specific Ontologies. What are some issues preventing companies from successfully deploying an effective information network?

The first obstacle is the lack of vision and commitment. Companies have failed to recognize and communicate the priority of a unified information management model preferring instead to allow disparate initiatives and systems to emerge across the enterprise. While there is value in deploying solutions close within business areas, when looked upon as a whole, these disparate systems compound the information management problem and fragment the corporate culture.

A second challenge is a lack of focus on user-centered design. Companies have had mixed success in truly understanding what will make a user truly engage in a new information service. Too often information is organized without an eye toward user intent and information architecture. Search is typically broad and text based, rather than data-driven. RSS is also not fully filtered and based on both relevant ontology and social / peer ratings. Advanced content management and web services technology are critical enablers to a personalized user experience and should be adopted as enterprise standards. These need to be taken to another level with advanced semantic search and relevance engines.

Finally, companies are failing to recognize that technology solutions only address the visible information management challenge. A successful information network within an enterprise or community requires an operating model to organize the publishing process and encourage semantically-aware user generated content and an effective ingestion of external content relevant to the community. What are the steps you should take?

1. Begin with a top-down information strategy
2. Design around the user audience experience
3. Define a sustainable business operating model
4. Use Second Circle technologies (like Semantic Technology and Social Relevance)  for innovative information acquisition, access and display

Feel free to comment, and contact me if you would like to discuss your information and audience content strategies.