As we have seen, we can more closely describe a company and how they operate by using four different hierarchical trees to categorize their clientele, their methodologies, their solutions and their channels. This faceted taxonomy definitely gives us a better view of any particular business, but at what cost. Our team has definitely found using this taxonomy has been challenging to categorize a given company. The taxonomist must research thoroughly a given business, and then be able to abstract that understanding into the four different dimensions. Another challenge we found in our first search tool, was that the user using the search tool needed to understand how to abstract the kinds of businesses they were looking for into the four different dimensions. These two issues makes us wonder whether it is worth it. (Currently, we are working on software algorithms to make the search more user friendly and to make suggestions from web scraping to help the categorization.)
We find it is worth it. The reason why is that, unlike NAICS codes, our taxonomy allows us to dig into micro-market views. NAICS is good for broad markets, but not for close views of a given market segment. Looking back to the 2004 Presidential Election, we see that President Bush's team was able to efficiently direct resources by using Microtargeting. The impetus of our taxonomy is Mergers & Acquisitions, and an important part of that process is valuation. To find the potential target company of an acquisition, investment bankers search for recent comparable deals. A task that is impossible using NAICS codes. With our taxonomy, we can do this. The reason is because we have moved away from the traditional way of viewing "Business" which is in terms of a vocabulary. Instead, we now can view "Business" as a multi-dimensional space where we can define "Spheres of Competition" to determine "comparables". Stay tuned for more.
No comments:
Post a Comment