An example of what’s wrong with big vendors’ approaches to BI (SAP in this case)

I just found Chris Kanaracus’ article about SAP’s rollout last month of its “clear enterprises” strategy. The money quote comes from Sara Lee, the user SAP seems to have trotted out:

But Sara Lee has not yet decided to purchase the software, and there are substantial underlying tasks to perform as well, he added.

“This is giving us the horsepower [to analyze data] but we need to have harmonized and structured data underneath it.”

This is from the leading test user of the product?

Business intelligence and the associated data management processes need to be reimagined, and I’m increasingly coming to suspect that the big BI conglomerates aren’t up to the task.

Reinventing business intelligence

I’ve felt for quite a while that business intelligence tools are due for a revolution. But I’ve found the subject daunting to write about because — well, because it’s so multifaceted and big. So to break that logjam, here are some thoughts on the reinvention of business intelligence technology, with no pretense of being in any way comprehensive.

Natural language and classic science fiction

Actually, there’s a pretty well-known example of BI near-perfection — the Star Trek computers, usually voiced by the late Majel Barrett Roddenberry. They didn’t have a big role in the recent movie, which was so fast-paced nobody had time to analyze very much, but were a big part of the Star Trek universe overall. Star Trek’s computers integrated analytics, operations, and authentication, all with a great natural language/voice interface and visual displays. That example is at the heart of a 1998 article on natural language recognition I just re-posted.

As for reality: For decades, dating back at least to Artificial Intelligence Corporation’s Intellect, there have been offerings that provided “natural language” command, control, and query against otherwise fairly ordinary analytic tools. Such efforts have generally fizzled, for reasons outlined at the link above. Wolfram Alpha is the latest try; fortunately for its prospects, natural language is really only a small part of the Wolfram Alpha story.

A second theme has more recently emerged — using text indexing to get at data more flexibly than a relational schema would normally allow, either by searching on data values themselves (stressed by Attivio) or more by searching on the definitions of pre-built reports (the Google OneBox story). SAP’s Explorer is the latest such view, but I find Doug Henschen’s skepticism about SAP Explorer more persuasive than Cindi Howson’s cautiously favorable view. Partly that’s because I know SAP (and Business Objects); partly it’s because of difficulties such as those I already noted.

Flexibility and data exploration

It’s a truism that each generation of dashboard-like technology fails because it’s too inflexible. Users are shown the information that will provide them with the most insight. They appreciate it at first. But eventually it’s old hat, and when they want to do something new, the baked-in data model doesn’t support it.

The latest attempts to overcome this problem lie in two overlapping trends — cool data exploration/visualization tools, and in-memory analytics.

Read more

The SAP/Teradata deal explained

When I first saw the press release about the latest SAP/Teradata deal, I thought it sounded very Barney. But it turns out there’s a little bit of substance, as well. Amazingly, SAP BW doesn’t really run on Teradata right now. This deal will fix that. The time frame seems to be that SAP-BW-on-Teradata will ship with SAP BW 7.2 whenever that goes out. (First half of 2010?) Early adopters may be able to get their hands on it as early as Q3 2009.

Note: It surely would be more precise to insert “NetWeaver” a few times into that paragraph.

Just to be clear — I still don’t see this as a big deal. It doesn’t portend any grand SAP/Teradata joint mission to smite Oracle, IBM, and/or Microsoft. Nor is it a telling first step toward an SAP/Teradata merger. It just removes a particular competitive disadvantage Teradata had vs. Oracle et al., from which Teradata’s smaller specialist competitors still suffer. And it offers SAP BW customers another high-quality DBMS option.

Somebody is spreading Teradata acquisition rumors again

An mass email from Tom Coffing was forwarded to me today that starts:

I have heard from reliable sources that both HP and SAP have purchased more than 5% of Teradata stock.  My sources tell me that both companies appear to be positioning themselves for a bid.

I got my version of the same email from Coffing yesterday with a different introduction but otherwise the same substance (he’s pushing a new product of his). It also had a different From address.

Possible explanations include but are not limited to:

• Coffing knows something (seems unlikely, but I haven’t actually checked www.sec.gov to confirm or disconfirm)
• Coffing thinks he knows something
• Coffing just made this up (I hope not)
• There’s an April Fool’s Day prank going on (not by me — after my bizarre March, I’m recusing myself from April Fool’s pranks this year)

More Oracle notes

When I went to Oracle in October, the main purpose of the visit was to discuss Exadata. And so my initial post based on the visit was focused accordingly. But there were a number of other interesting points I’ve never gotten around to writing up. Let me now remedy that, at least in part.

Read more

SAP slashed 1000 VP-level employees?

The late Art Buchwald, when giving talks at conventions, used to start by expressing his pleasure at the opportunity to see “thousands and thousands of vice presidents.”  Well, according to a Seeking Alpha blog post,

SAP cut 1,000 VP-level employees in North America in 2008, and has plenty of room for additional cuts.

As Dave Kellogg points out, that would be 2% of SAP’s entire work force, all in laid-off VPs or VP-equivalents. That doesn’t seem right to me. At least in the parts of SAP’s organization I used to deal with, SAP didn’t seem particularly VP-heavy.  Even with the grade inflation commonly represented on salespeople’s business cards, I’d be surprised to learn SAP had 1,000 VPs total, let alone 1,000 spare ones to lay off.

Patrick Walravens’ SAP/Teradata speculation doesn’t make much sense

A persistent analyst named Patrick Walravens keeps speculating about an SAP acquisition of Teradata. So far as I can tell, Walravens is the sole source of this rumor, evidently because he actually thinks the combination would make some kind of business sense.

An example of the “logic” behind this theory is:

Mr. Walravens’s latest evidence pointing to such a move stems from the expected departure of a SAP executive who had been running the company’s NetWeaver software line, which includes a data warehouse package.

At a guess, Walravens is saying that Teradata’s products and SAP’s BI Accelerator somehow substitute for each other in the marketplace. If you believe that comparison, I’d like to sell you a railroad locomotive made by Jaguar. Read more

What leading DBMS vendors don’t want you to realize

For very high-end applications, the list of viable database management systems is short. Scalability can be a problem. (The rankings of most scalable alternatives differ in the OLTP and data warehouse realms.) Extreme levels of security can be had from only a few DBMS. (Oracle would have you believe there’s only one choice.) And if you truly need 99.99% uptime, there only are a few DBMS you even should consider.

But for most applications at any enterprise – and for all applications at most enterprises – super high-end DBMS aren’t required. There are relatively few applications that wouldn’t run perfectly well on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB today. Ingres and Progress OpenEdge aren’t far behind (they’re a little lacking in datatype support). Ditto Intersystems Cache’, although the nonrelational architecture will be off-putting to many. And to varying degrees, you can also do fine with MySQL, Pervasive PSQL, MaxDB, or a variety of other products – or for that matter with the cheap or free crippled versions of Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, and Informix.

What’s more, these mid-range database management systems can have significant advantages over their high-end brethren. Read more

The other shoe finally drops for Oracle and BEA

As previously noted, I’ve been writing about an Oracle/BEA merger since 2002. So like many observers, I find I have little more to say on the subject. Let’s go straight to the bullet points: Read more

Intelligent Enterprise’s list of 12/36/48 vendors

I’m getting a flood of press releases today, because many of the companies I write about were selected to Intelligent Enterprise’s list of 12 most influential vendors plus 36 more to watch in the areas Intelligent Enterprise covers (which seems to be pretty much the analytics-related parts of what I write about here and on Text Technologies). It looks like a pretty reasonable list, although I think they forced the issue in some of the small analytics vendors they selected, and of course anybody can quibble with some of the omissions.

Among the companies they cited, you can find topical categories here for IBM (and Cognos), Informatica, Microsoft, Netezza, Oracle, SAP/Business Objects (both), SAS, and Teradata; QlikTech; Cast Iron, Coral8, DATAllegro, HP, ParAccel, and StreamBase; and Software AG. On Text Technologies you’ll find categories for some of the same vendors, plus Attensity, Clarabridge, and Google. There also are categories for some of these vendors on the Monash Report.

An interesting claim regarding BI openness

Analyst conference calls about merger announcements are generally pretty boring. Indeed, the companies involved tend to feel they are legally barred from saying anything interesting, by mandate of both the antitrust regulators and the SEC.

Still, such calls are joyful events, full of strategic happy talk. If one is really lucky, there may a virtuouso tap dancing exhibition as well. On today’s IBM/Cognos call, Cognos CEO Rob Ashe was asked whether he thought Cognos’ independence or lack thereof was as important today as he said it was after SAP announced its BOBJ takeover. Without missing a beat, he responded that there were two kinds of openness:

1. Database openness (not important)
2. ERP/business process openness (indeed important)

Hmm. I’m not so sure I agree. To begin with, there aren’t just two major points of potential integration. There’s also a whole lot of middleware: obviously data integration, but also app servers, portals, and query execution acceleration as well. Read more

SAP is losing crucial managerial talent

In the past month or so, both Dennis Moore and Nimish Mehta have left SAP. Their reasons are well-known among Oracle alumni to be — at least in large part — discomfort with SAP’s direction. (My unnamed sources on that are highly reliable.) And of course Shai Agassi left earlier this year. It now looks as if my contrarian viewpoint pooh-poohing the importance of Shai’s departure was probably wrong.

Based on all that, I don’t think there’s much reason for optimism about SAP’s system software futures, except perhaps for those that are placed wholly under the control of the Business Objects division. NetWeaver? Already a creaking omnibus. MaxDB? They didn’t get it right the first time around; what will be different now? BI Accelerator? That one actually could do well under Business Objects. The dream of other kinds of appliances? Not likely to achieve take-off. TREX? They weren’t really enhancing that much anyway. The rest of the search-related vision Dennis outlined for me? That’s another one that actually could thrive under Business Objects, but I expect a considerable number of false starts at best before they work out a coherent new strategy.

The high-end app business, the new SaaS business, the new Business Objects subsidiary — any and all of those could do well. But the attempts to become a broad-based system software player rivaling Oracle, Microsoft, and/or IBM are looking a lot less healthy than they used to.

Keep getting great research about enterprise applications, analytics and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS or email!

Technorati Tags: SAP, NetWeaver, Business Objects, TREX, BI Accelerator

More on the Oracle-BEA deal

Jeff Nolan has a great post on the Oracle/BEA deal. Yeah, he still has some of his old SAP good/Oracle evil reflexes, but he can be forgiven those and the tinfoilhattishness associated with them. His analysis of sellers’ and buyers’ deal habits is revealing and sound. Ditto the start of his remarks on Oracle product delays and internal politics, and SAP/Oracle competition. Even better, nothing in his analysis seems to disagree with mine.

What Oracle now needs to do is make Oracle Application Server be a seamless “upgrade” from Weblogic. Then they can integrate in whatever kitchen-sink stuff they want from Oracle data caching (already there), app and/or dev tool run times, TimesTen, Tangosol, and so on, creating an app server stack that’s a worthy counterpart to the Oracle database in how it meets high-end OLTP needs. Meanwhile, Weblogic should remain as a not-bloated app-server-for-the-rest-of-us. Read more

The era of memory-centric BI may have finally started

SAP is acquiring Business Objects. There’s nothing inherent in BI Accelerator’s design that ties it to NetWeaver, SAP star schema InfoCubes, or any other particular current implementation detail. So BI Accelerator could become a lot more than an afterthought.

Combine that with Cognos’s acquisition of Applix and the continued success of upstart QlikView, and we could finally see a general memory-centric BI boom.

Maybe. There have been a lot of false alarms before.

SAP takes back MaxDB from MySQL

Way back in January, 2006, I wrote that MaxDB was not getting merged into MySQL. Given that, it makes sense for SAP to take back control of the product. As The Reg reports, that’s exactly what’s happening.

The bigger question is — how’s MySQL’s SAP certification coming along? Whether or not MySQL gets SAP-certified and included in the SAP product catalog will be a huge indicator of whether it’s ready for OLTP prime time.

Anybody want to place bets on which midrange OLTP DBMS gets certified for SAP first, MySQL or EnterpriseDB? MySQL has a large head start, but if my friends and clients and EnterpriseDB have their priorities straight, they might wind up lapping MySQL even so.

Oracle and SAP outline different market strategies

I’ve written extensively in the past about the differences between Oracle and SAP’s technical paradigms. (In a nutshell, Oracle is first and foremost about data, while SAP is about business process.) Last week, the respective companies’ CEOs outlined very different business strategies as well. Specifically, SAP’s Henning Kagermann called SAP’s new ByDemand SaaS offering “most important announcement I’ve made in my career,” while Oracle’s Larry Ellison outlined a continued high-end strategy as follows (excerpted from Oracle’s September 20 conference call transcript):

Our strategy for growth is to find a way to add more value to the same customers we already serve, which are the large end of the mid-market and large companies. What we’re doing here is moving beyond ERP to industry specific software. So in the telecommunications industry that would be billing systems and network provisioning systems and network inventory systems; core applications to run their business, to run telco. Core applications to run a bank. Core applications to run a retail chain of stores. Core applications to run a utility. That’s our focus, and that allows us to leverage the existing relationships that we have because we already sell databases to these companies, we sell middleware to these companies. We sell ERP and CRM to these companies, and now we want to sell this industry-specific software.

Now, when a CEO says that something is a company’s “most important announcement ever,” it’s time to check your hyperbole meter. (E.g., I recall Larry saying that about, of all things, a release of Oracle’s application development tools.) Still, there are at least three strong reasons to take last week’s statements more or less seriously: Read more

Will database compression change the hardware game?

I’ve recently made a lot of posts about database compression. 3X or more compression is rapidly becoming standard; 5X+ is coming soon as processor power increases; 10X or more is not unrealistic. True, this applies mainly to data warehouses, but that’s where the big database growth is happening. And new kinds of data — geospatial, telemetry, document, video, whatever — are highly compressible as well.

This trend suggests a few interesting possibilities for hardware, semiconductors, and storage.

1. The growth in demand for storage might actually slow. That said, I frankly think it’s more likely that Parkinson’s Law of Data will continue to hold: Data expands to fill the space available. E.g., video and other media have near-infinite potential to consume storage; it’s just a question of resolution and fidelity.
2. Solid-state (aka semiconductor or flash) persistent storage might become practical sooner than we think. If you really can fit a terabyte of data onto 100 gigs of flash, that’s a pretty affordable alternative. And by the way — if that happens, a lot of what I’ve been saying about random vs. sequential reads might be irrelevant.
3. Similarly, memory-centric data management is more affordable when compression is aggressive. That’s a key point of schemes such as SAP’s or QlikTech’s. Who needs flash? Just put it in RAM, persisting it to disk just for backup.
4. There’s a use for faster processors. Compression isn’t free. What you save on disk space and I/O you pay for at the CPU level. Those 5X+ compression levels do depend on faster processors, at least for the row store vendors.

Word of the day: “Compression”

IBM sent over a bunch of success stories recently, with DB2’s new aggressive compression prominently mentioned. Mike Stonebraker made a big point of Vertica’s compression when last we talked; other column-oriented data warehouse/mart software vendors (e.g. Kognitio, SAP, Sybase) get strong compression benefits as well. Other data warehouse/mart specialists are doing a lot with compression too, although some of that is governed by please-don’t-say-anything-good-about-us NDA agreements.

Compression is important for at least three reasons:

• It saves disk space, which is a major cost issue in data warehousing.
• It saves I/O, which is the major performance issue in data warehousing.
• In well-designed systems, it can actually make on-chip execution faster, because the gains in memory speed and movement can exceed the cost of actually packing/unpacking the data. (Or so I’m told; I haven’t aggressively investigated that claim.)

When evaluating data warehouse/mart software, take a look at the vendor’s compression story. It’s important stuff.

EDIT: DATAllegro claims in a note to me that they get 3-4x storage savings via compression. They also make the observation that fewer disks ==> fewer disk failures, and spin that — as it were — into a claim of greater reliability.

QlikTech – flexible, memory-centric, columnar BI

QlikTech has a pretty interesting story, and a number of customers seem to agree. Their flagship product QlikView is a BI suite that runs off an in-memory copy of the data. Specifically, that copy is logically relational and physically columnar. In an important feature, QlikView is happy to import data from multiple sources at once, such as a warehouse plus an operational data store.

So the QlikTech pitch is essentially “Buy our stuff, and you can start doing BI immediately, running any queries and reports you want to. No reason to limit your queries to any kind of dimensional model. No need to prepare the data.” More precisely, QlikTech claims to do away with some kinds of data preparation; obviously, cleaning and so on might still be necessary. Indeed, they describe their classic use case as being the combination of data partly from an operational store and partly from a pre-existing warehouse.

Read more

Who’s who in columnar relational database management systems

The best known columnar RDBMS is surely Sybase’s IQ Accelerator, evolved from a product acquired in the mid-1990s. Problem – it doesn’t have a shared-nothing architecture of the sort needed to exploit grid/blade technology. Whoops. The other recognized player is SAND, but I don’t know a lot about them. Based on their website, it would seem that grids and compression play a big part in their story. Less established but pretty interesting is Kognitio, who are just beginning to make marketing noise outside the UK. SAP’s BI Accelerator is also a compressed columnar system, but operates entirely in-memory and hence is limited in possible database size. Mike Stonebraker’s startup Vertica is of course the new kid on the block, and there are other columnar startups as well whose names currently escape me.

Read more

Competitive issues in data warehouse ease of administration

The last person I spoke with at the Netezza conference on Tuesday was a customer/presenter that the company had picked out for me. One thing he said baffled me — he claimed that Netezza was a real appliance vendor, but DATallegro wasn’t, presumably due to administrability issues. Now, it wasn’t clear to me that he’d ever evaluated DATallegro, so I didn’t take this too seriously, but still the exchange brought into focus the great differences between data warehouse products in the area of administration. For example:

• Netezza has no indices at all. And no caches. And the hardware is preconfigured. This all makes administration pretty simple.
• DATallegro has almost no indices, and also has preconfigured hardware. But it has some partitioning, optionally.
• Teradata also has preconfigured hardware. It does have indices, but rather simple ones. Plus it has join indices. And it has a few more configuration options in other areas (e.g., block size) than the other appliance vendors. (Yes, I count Teradata among the appliances.)
• If you go through all the fuss of installing SAP’s applications and BI technology anyway, the incremental administration of just SAP BI Accelerator is pretty light.
• Oracle and IBM have mammothly complex indexing options, but have put large amounts of work into tools to lessen the resulting administrative burden.
• IBM offers preconfigured hardware units to simplify some installation issues.
• Come to think of it, I don’t really know how hard it is to administer columnar systems (e.g., Sybase IQ).

SAP’s BI Accelerator

I wrote about SAP’s BI Accelerator quite a bit in my white paper on memory-centric data management, but otherwise I seem not to have posted much about it here. In essence, it’s a product that’s all RAM-based, and generally geared for multi-hundred-gigabyte data marts. The basic design is a compression-heavy column-based architecture, evolved from SAP’s text-indexing technology TREX. Like data warehouse appliances, it eschews indexing, relying instead on blazingly fast table scans.

I asked Lothar Schubert of SAP how BIA was doing in the market in its early going. This was his response:

Read more

Is data warehousing now all about sequential access?

A lot of evidence is pointing to a major paradigm shift in data warehouse RDBMS, along the lines of:

Old way: Assume I/O is random; lower total execution time by improving selectivity and thus lowering the amount of I/O.

New way: Drive the amount of random I/O to near zero, and do as much sequential I/O as necessary to achieve this goal.

Examples include:

• Data warehouse appliances (see especially this discussion of DATallegro’s architecture)
• Columnar systems (see Nathan Myer’s first comment in this discussion of the much-hyped Required Technologies prototype)
• Memory-centric systems, notably SAP’s BI Accelerator

Read more

QlikView – a leader in memory-centric BI

QlikTech — the vendor of QlikView — contacted me to tell their memory-centric BI story. A Swedish company with >$23 million in estimated license revenue last year and a 100%ish growth rate, they claim to be the leader in that space, pulling ahead of Applix. But for now, I’ll call them “a” leader, and say that their story sounds like a hybrid between those of Applix (TM1 product) and SAP (BI Accelerator).

Read more

ANTs’ memory-centric characteristics to the fore?

An eWeek article suggests that ANTs is repositioning with a strong emphasis on memory-centricity. ANTs’ website, frankly, doesn’t support this theory, giving a more balanced tech overview in line with how they pitched me in a briefing last November. Still, it’s an interesting possibility to watch.

The main focus of the article actually wasn’t ANTs, but rather SAP’s wildest dreams in expanding the scope of its BI Accelerator technology. But the new-to-me part was the positioning of ANTs.

Next Page →

Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:

Login

Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

• DBMS2 covers database management, analytics, and related technologies.
• Text Technologies covers text mining, search, and social software.
• Strategic Messaging analyzes marketing and messaging strategy.
• The Monash Report examines technology and public policy issues.
• Software Memories recounts the history of the software industry.

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

Learn about white papers, webcasts, and blog highlights, by RSS or email.

• Recent posts

  • User data vs. raw disk space as a marketing metric
  • The TPC-H schema
  • Notes on columnar/TPC-H compression
  • Storage humor
  • NoSQL?

• Categories

  • About this blog
  • Analytic technologies
    • Business intelligence
    • Data mart outsourcing
    • Data warehousing
    • MOLAP
  • Application areas
    • Games and virtual worlds
    • Investment research and trading
    • Scientific research
    • Telecommunications
    • Web analytics
  • Buying processes
    • Benchmarks and POCs
  • Companies and products
    • 1010data
    • Ab Initio Software
    • Aleri and Coral8
    • Alpha Five
    • Amazon and its cloud
    • ANTs Software
    • Aster Data
    • Business Objects
    • Calpont
    • Cast Iron Systems
    • Clearpace
    • Cloudera
    • Cogito and 7 Degrees
    • Cognos
    • CouchDB
    • DATAllegro
    • Dataupia
    • Elastra
    • EMC
    • EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus
    • Exasol
    • Expressor
    • FileMaker
    • Google
    • Greenplum
    • Hadoop
    • HP and Neoview
    • IBM and DB2
      • pureXML
    • illuminate Solutions
    • Infobright
    • Informatica
    • Information Builders
    • Inforsense
    • Ingres
    • Intel
    • Intersystems and Cache'
    • Jaspersoft
    • Kalido
    • Kickfire
    • Kognitio
    • Mark Logic
    • McObject
    • Microsoft and SQL*Server
    • MySQL
    • Netezza
    • Oracle
      • Exadata
    • Oracle TimesTen
    • ParAccel
    • Pentaho
    • Pervasive Software
    • PostgreSQL
    • Progress, Apama, and DataDirect
    • QlikTech and QlikView
    • SAND Technology
    • SAP AG
    • SAS Institute
    • ScaleDB
    • Software AG
    • solidDB
    • StreamBase
    • Sybase
    • Tableau Software
    • Talend
    • Teradata
    • Tokutek
    • Truviso
    • Vertica Systems
    • VoltDB and H-Store
  • Data integration and middleware
    • Application servers
    • EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT
  • Data types
    • GIS and geospatial
    • Native XML
    • Object
    • RDF and graphs
    • Text
  • DBMS product categories
    • Archiving and information preservation
    • Data warehouse appliances
    • Mid-range
    • OLTP
    • Open source
  • Emulation, transparency, portability
  • Fun stuff
    • Humor
  • Market share
  • Memory-centric data management
    • Cache
    • Complex event processing (CEP)
    • In-memory DBMS
  • Michael Stonebraker
  • Parallelization
    • MapReduce
  • Presentations
  • Pricing
  • Software as a Service (SaaS)
    • Cloud computing
  • Specific users
    • eBay
    • Facebook and Cassandra
    • Fox and MySpace
    • TEOCO
    • Yahoo
  • Storage
    • Solid-state memory
  • Theory and architecture
    • Columnar database management
    • Data models and architecture
    • Database compression
    • Database diversity
    • Petabyte-scale data management
  • TransRelational
  • Uncategorized

• Date archives

  Select Month July 2009  (6) June 2009  (25) May 2009  (19) April 2009  (30) March 2009  (23) February 2009  (29) January 2009  (18) December 2008  (10) November 2008  (13) October 2008  (29) September 2008  (60) August 2008  (28) July 2008  (23) June 2008  (7) May 2008  (16) April 2008  (18) March 2008  (22) February 2008  (25) January 2008  (35) December 2007  (18) November 2007  (12) October 2007  (31) September 2007  (16) August 2007  (11) July 2007  (9) June 2007  (16) May 2007  (6) April 2007  (18) March 2007  (17) February 2007  (8) January 2007  (13) December 2006  (1) November 2006  (1) October 2006  (7) September 2006  (17) August 2006  (6) July 2006  (12) June 2006  (1) May 2006  (7) April 2006  (7) March 2006  (2) February 2006  (4) January 2006  (13) December 2005  (9) November 2005  (9) October 2005  (10) September 2005  (1) August 2005  (6)

• Links

  • Monash Research
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers

• Admin

  • Log in

• Home
• About
• Contact
• Feeds