Many companies may have enterprise data warehouses and the latest
analytical technologies, but the capabilities are not employed to their
full potential. Often, a change in organizational culture and governance
is required to make the most of these solutions.

Such was the challenge for Gap, Inc. At the recent National Retail
Federation show in New York, Mike Jones, Senior VP for Gap, Inc., discussed how the
retailer re-aligned its corporate data framework to meet the challenges
posed by the recent rough-and-tumble economy. Economic recovery won’t
offer much respite, either – for retailers, things will only get more
competitive.

The company didn’t have a single enterprise view of its data. The
challenge was to bring together data from its five brands – The Gap, Old
Navy, Banana Republic, Athleta, and Piperline – often managed with
separate tools, Jones explained. In addition, the retailer has partners
in 25 countries that need actionable data. “Our challenge was to provide
timely information across the entire enterprise, while at the same time
maintain that brand distinction,” he said. “We needed to be able to
update the data and information where we could measure the results of
business initiatives.”

Key in this model has been the transition from independent data marts to
an integrated logical data model. Corporate data has been systematically
incorporated into a Teradata enterprise data warehouse which facilitates
business intelligence across the enterprise. “We used projects for
specific lines of business to drive what went into our data warehouse,”
Jones explained. “We didn’t have an enterprise view. We had separate
data marts, and had to go back many times to our operational systems for
data, which was a burden.”

The shift for Gap has been to move away from the use of analytical cubes
throughout the enterprise for decision-making, and instead, rely on one
source of the data. Initially, Jones said, there was resistance from
heads of business units who had grown comfortable with doing their own
analysis. “A centralized data model is a key tenet we needed to get our
executives comfortable with.”

Plus, building and generating reports had become a burden to the
company, Jones said. “We didn’t want to be in the business of building
reports, we’re not a report-building organization. We were a little bit
coin-operated. When people needed reports they would come to us.” Now,
with an enterprise data environment, he said, “users across the
different brands are now able to build their own reports and queries.”

In addition, he reported, economies of scale have kicked in as the data
warehouse has grown. “As our enterprise warehouse grew, we needed
incrementally less data and required less effort to enable new
applications and business value,” he said. “The value to effort ratio
increased significantly, and the amount of effort required went down
substantially.”

Key selling points for this centralized approach included the ability to
ask more questions of the data once it was integrated from various
functional areas. For example, Jones illustrated, about 15 questions
could be answered from the sales-related data systems, and 25 from the
inventory systems. When combined as enterprise data within the
warehouse, there were 96 questions that could be answered from the data.

“We’ve shifted to where we’re providing an enterprise view,” Jones said.
“Last year, we spent a lot of time thinking about promotions. The
biggest challenge for us was engaging more with the business and talking
about data, not technology.”

Gap even now has a “data czar” who reports back to the steering
committee, which in turn answers to the CEO. “They meet every quarter
with our CEO and CFO, who make the final decisions.”

Google drew a line today – delineating just how far it will not go in compromising privacy and in supporting censorship. Whether this is simply a public relations ploy for today’s “news cycle” or a genuine delineation of the limits of American-Sino economic development will be determined in the weeks and months ahead.

Will the Chinese government back down over issues of “human rights” censorship and open access to content globally? Highly unlikely from a political regime that has broken new ground in purges following the “Great Leap Forward” to the “Cultural Revolution”. Highly unlikely from a government that continues to brutally suppress Tibet, uniquely enforces a draconian “one child” policy that is unprecedented in human history and that orchestrates cyber attacks on email accounts to spy on its own people. And you think we have “big government” issues in the US?

Will Google really pull the plug on China? Certainly, its not the preferred option for Google, particularly given their duration in the Chinese market and previous commitment to censor searchable content for the Chinese government . In this light, if Google does pull out of China it probably says more about doing business in China than it does about Google’s ethics or morality. A cynic might say that it’s a lot easier to do the right thing when the cost of making that decision doesn’t break the corporate treasury. But it is probably more a case of simply not being able to execute your business plan and gain a competitive advantage that will make Google’s decision to pull out stick.

The Chinese government is not going to release control on content and communications to Google, or to anyone else. That kind of control is fundamental to enabling government control, and government control is the “prime directive” in Beijing. So, when Google pulls out of China, after all the ballyhoo when it entered, every business person will pause for just a moment to reconsider China – is it promise, or is it wishful thinking? Some will stick with their China strategy, but it says here that the Chinese gold rush has reached its high water mark.

The Wild West era of the Internet has been slowly winding down in recent years. The seminal event may have been the beat-down the music industry played on Napster. But the past several weeks have been even more interesting. It turns out that Murdoch and Microsoft are planning something quite innovative – that frankly represents a classic disruptive approach to the Internet. As pretty much everyone has learned, the plan is to limit access to Murdoch’s news content to searches conducted through Microsoft’s Bing search engine. We assume Microsoft will pay Murdoch an unspecified royalty for that content, or for the number of users accessing it, or employ another similar usage-based payment schedule. What does that mean?

Well, it potentially redefines the search engine market. It suggests that content-flavored brands of search engines are a business opportunity for existing and new search engine market entrants. It means that the hegemony of Google as a universal search engine is being challenged in a fundamental way. It changes the Internet user’s decision on search. That decision today is simply “Google it.”  With the balkanization of the Internet via content exclusivity deals, the user may be compelled to make a decision on which search engine is the preferred one, or to choose the right search engine for that particular search. What’s setting up is another era of innovation on the web. The “free for all” is getting reined in, and the web is about to become a real, broadly-based business platform. For media companies and search engine entrepreneurs, this is where the rubber meets the road.

If you think I’m going overboard, consider this: For the first time in memory Google has responded defensively to a Microsoft initiative by announcing this week that it would begin to offer newspapers the ability to limit the amount of their content available through Google – perhaps setting up a pay-for-access model where more thorough or more complete information from the newspaper site requires an online purchase or subscription. In my view, this will prove to be a lame band-aid from the get-go. The appeal of the Microsoft-Murdoch alliance is that the content will be fully available within Bing to users at no fee, which Microsoft will monetize via advertising revenue reinvested in the purchase of quality content from Murdoch. At least that is the way I understand the arrangement. If that is the case, Google has a compelling reason to re-think its model … now. Microsoft is sitting on a ton of cash and has the unique ability to buy market share in the search market through this approach. Much of the money that was made in the desktop market over the past 20 years is sitting at the ready to build Microsoft 2.0 – Microsoft, the disrupter. It’s enough to make you wax sentimental about a nerdy young Bill Gates and the incredible company he built while the IT titans dithered.

You have to love this stuff. We’re living in really interesting times that offer incredible new opportunities. For my peers on the content side of the business, the media side, it’s time to drop the Prozac prescription ,get busy aligning your content with the right search engine and go back to creating the kind of content that really draws interest. As for Google – we are going to find out just how agile this company really is now. The initial shot back at Microsoft was quick, but shallow and defensive in a telling way. Remember: the best defense is a good offense, and Redmond is on the offense again with this move.

P.S. – With the budget deficits looming at the state and federal level, tax-free Internet shopping may well be a casualty in the wake of the incredible surge in Internet buying taking place this holiday season. Happy holidays.

Thomas J. Wilson, President, Unisphere Media