Enron Mail

From:marie.hejka@enron.com
To:steven.kean@enron.com
Subject:Your thoughts required by 3 :00 p.m. 1/17 meeting.
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:32:00 -0800 (PST)

----- Forwarded by Marie Hejka/Corp/Enron on 01/16/2001 05:32 PM -----

Marie Hejka
01/16/2001 12:05 PM

To: Melissa Becker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Anthony Mends/Enron Communications,
Andrea Yowman/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe Wong/enron@enronXgate@enronXgate, Debbie
R Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pegi Newhouse/HOU/EES@EES, John
Gillespie/Enron@EnronXGate, Kathleen Pope-Sance/HOU/EES@EES, Steve
Woods/EPSC/HOU/ECT@ECT, Georgeanna Hoiseth/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Judith
Schlesinger/HOU/ECT@ECT, Allan Sommer/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Beth Perlman/enron@EnronXgate, George Wasaff/Enron@EnronXGate, Kent
Morrison/NA/Enron@ENRON, John Simmons/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Timberlake/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Allen Elliott/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Your thoughts required by 3 :00 p.m. 1/17 meeting.

Please read and be prepared to discuss at tomorrow's task force meeting.
(Paul is scheduled to speak to us to help us make a decision. FYI - I plan
to circulate the agenda before the meeting.)

Below are Paul Timberlake's notes from Friday morning's Software Selection
Team meeting.

You may remember in the beginning of this project we discussed piloting
Autonomy or an unstructured data management tool in order to reach
qualitative and quantitative information.

Some discussion was lent to finding a product perhaps which would search
email to identify experts.
Further, we discussed the value in finding a product which could help us
identify experts within Enron.

Since these discussions, we hired a Business Analyst who interviewed some 29
people and surveyed 30 additional people who concurred finding experts in
Enron would be useful.

However, only 50% of those interviewed suggested they would tag email for
others to search regardless if it could help identify experts.
But, over 90% of those surveyed agreed an Enterprise Search Engine would be
useful.

Based on what we now know, the Software Selection Team will be evaluating
three Enterprise Search Engine vendors (Inktomi, Autonomy, and Verity).
These vendors DO NOT search email like the vendor TACIT. Autonomy provides
some feature/functionality to search email (the full extent of which will be
evaluated by the SST).

Are we prepared to invest in a much more expensive search engine with
categorization feature/functionality which may provide a more robust search
platform of the future or should we decide to invest in the best value for
our current needs? Categorization is the classification of information
sources, such as documents or Web pages into a taxonomy. With some products,
the taxonomy must be determined beforehand and rules specified (both manual
operations) to tell the product how to classify information sources it
encounters. Other tools claim they create the taxonomy using a proprietary
method. See Paul's "Issue" section below.

----- Forwarded by Marie Hejka/Corp/Enron on 01/12/2001 05:52 PM -----

Paul Timberlake
01/12/2001 04:16 PM

To: Marie Hejka/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kent Morrison/NA/Enron@ENRON, Allen
Elliott/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: John Simmons/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: KM/IM Meeting Notes 1/12/2001

Meeting Notes
From the 1/05 weekly meeting, it was decided that the tool being sought was
best classified as an Enterprise Search Engine (ESE) solution. This
distinction was arrived at after reviewing the characteristics described in
the charter and associated survey as to what was meant by an unstructured
data management tool.
Three leading vendors in this market are Inktomi, Autonomy, and Verity. To
stay within the time frame of the overall project, the scope of the search
tool evaluation will focus on these three vendors. Evaluation criteria
have been developed to compare the tools. This criteria focuses on the
tools' indexing and search functionality
At present the criteria excludes categorization functionality. The reason
for this is categorization is expected to involve manual effort from various
groups who own content that will be categorized. This characteristic is at
odds with the project charter requirement that the tool be unobtrusive to
current processes and culture.
Because indexing and search functionality is becoming similar among ESE
tools, it is expected that the ESE evaluation will boil down to a price
decision with Inktomi being the winner.
The three ESE vendors are being lined up to visit Enron and present their
products beginning next week through the week of January 22nd. All
interested parties are encouraged to attend.

Issue
At issue is whether categorization functionality should be included in the
ESE evaluation - or continue to focus only on indexing and search
functionality. All three vendors being evaluated include a categorization
component.
By not including categorization, we run the risk of selecting a vendor whose
categorization capabilities may not be as robust as another's. Integrating
another vendor's solution later on may prove difficult and costly.
By including categorization functionality, the evaluation criteria become
ambiguous. This is because the requirements around categorization are not
well defined at present. Consequently, we run the risk of selecting an
over-enginneered and most costly product whose perceived benefits may never
be realized.
We need more direction from the project sponsors as to what priority to place
on categorization functionality. If it is considered a priority then we also
need end user groups with specific problems identified that, if solved, could
effectively evaluate the tool and justify any additional costs.