TakingAIIM

Beating a Dead Horse into the Ground - Web 2.0 is Coming Back to Reality

Perhaps I have belabored this topic, but I just cannot help myself.  Once again, the world of Web 2.0 is getting a dose of reality.  The second largest social networking site, Facebook, has agreed to implement another round of security mechanisms, this time aimed at better protecting minors and excluding certain adults from participation.    As I have said time and again, the open, free form, low barrier spirit of Web 2.0 (and by implication Enterprise 2.0), is great in theory, but in reality content and forum governance is a necessary addition, not simply to "protect" participants but simply to provide a framework and structure to what otherwise can get out of hand - in the worse case lead to serious criminal implications.

For those who still do not understand and appreciate how and why a little old fashioned governance and security should be a part of any Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 setting, I again direct you to the Market IQ on Content Security, the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0, and previous posts.  Again, the purpose of such efforts is not to suppress serendipity or collaboration, but to ensure that laws, policies, or just common courtesies are not overlooked or violated, whether attempted deliberately or by accident.

aiimQ&A: Findability Webinar

This is my second and final post answering questions that were posed but  not answered during the AIIM webinar on Findability. (See earlier post for additional Q&A).

(Findability: the quality of being locatable or navigable, includes technologies and concepts such as Search, Taxonomies, Information Architecture, Auto-Classification, Agents, Discovery, Ontologies, and the Semantic Web.)

The webinar is available for download. I have also posted my slides to Slideshare, available below.

| View | Upload your own

Q: Does Google's product replace the need for a document management product?

A:  Let me answer this question not just as it relates to the Google product,  but any and all findability tools – NO.  Remember these tools provide access to content – any content that is posted online.  These products typically do not make any guarantee regarding the validity or quality of that content.  That is the domain of complementary technologies such as content security, document management and web content management.   (Some solution providers do bundle these technologies together.)

Q:  When searches show lots of dirty results, how should you handle or cleanup metadata?

A:  This is a function of the underlying database in the document management or tagging system being used.  The functionality you are seeking is founded in traditional database processing, namely  field updates in batch mode.

Q:  How does universal search relate to OpenSearch API implemented by some Open Source products?

A:  Universal search, similar to federated search is the ability for a single search tool to search across multiple repositories and provide a single ranked listing of retrieved content.  It eliminates the need to issue individual queries in each repository.  Universal search.  The OpenSearch standard is a collection of simple formats for the sharing of search results. In other words, it is an approach to federate searches. My understanding of Universal Search, (brought up by Google in the webinar, and a term they use often to describe and differentiate their approach to searching across multiple repostories), is that it does not collect or share the search results (thus it would not be using the OpenSearch API), but rather directly accesses and indexes files in multiple repositories.  Universal search uses a connector framework. The connectors, are available under open source licenses but as far as I know, these connectors are not OpenSearch APIs.

Finally - the following comment was not posed during the webinar, but was sent to me shortly thereafter.  It is relevant and interesting enough that I chose to share it here.

Q:  Carl, your comment on the Finding Content webinar this afternoon about “aligning content to business strategy” could have been taken as a reference to Strategy Markup Language (StratML).

I hope Google is factoring the potential of StratML into their own strategy.  Whether each piece of “content” (which I prefer to call a “record”) has been associated with an organization’s strategic objectives or not might be considered to be a pretty important factor as to its relevancy ranking in enterprise search services.  It might also be a pretty good indicator to report to stakeholders with regard to how well an organization is managing itself.

A:  My point was that by designing specific approaches to retrieving and displaying content that are aligned to business goals and objectives, an organization can actually steer behavior or response from users of content. (A simple example of a commercial application is the "people who bought this product also buy these other products" type messages and links that emanate from searches in some online stores. These prompts are add-on features of the search engine that help to drive additional sales.)  The StratML standard is a very literal approach to the point I was making when I said findability could be used to align content to business strategy, i.e. StratML is an XML schema for strategic plans, which includes an approach to directly lining content to any or all facets of a strategy plan.  Its a bit of a different spin then what I had in mind, but I do like the comment made that if an organization was using this standard to tag content, the tags could be used as input to relevancy ranking algorithms.  Clever - food for thought.

aiimQ&A: Findability Webinar

Yesterday I had the privilege to present a webinar on topic of Findability as part of the  AIIM Wednesday webinar series.  (Findability: the quality of being locatable or navigable, includes technologies and concepts such as Search, Taxonomies, Information Architecture, Auto-Classification, Agents, Discovery, Ontologies, and the Semantic Web.)

I say privilege for two reasons.  First, Findability it is one of my most favorite topics (2nd only to knowledge management).  Second, the webinar gave me a chance to share some of the latest results from the survey we are running to support the upcoming AIIM Market IQ on Findability. – (BTW - if you haven't already, you can take the survey.)

The webinar is available for download. I have also posted my slides to Slideshare, available below.

| View | Upload your own

The webinar was sponsored by Google, Baynote, Attivio and Systemware. As usual, the AIIM webinar attracted a lively crowd.  Approximately  250 attended attended, and also as usual we could not answer all of the questions that were posed during the presentation.  Following tradition, I am addressing the outstanding questions here in my blog.

Q:  I beg to differ that "in the consumer world, findability is not an issue". There are many daily searches I do, outside of Google (and some in) that are incredibly frustrating. I have no question here, but thought you should know...

A: (First let me explain for those who did not attend, this comment was made in reaction to a statement I made in my presentation to the effect that Findability is less of a issue on the commercial web, that most sites on the commercial web have strategically looked at this issue and strategically built findability into the site.) Sorry, my statement may have been misleading.  I was not proposing that all web-based experiences are "effective".  I was drawing attention to some web-sites, mostly those that are commercial in nature (e.g. amazon.com, itunes store, e-bay), that rely heavily on user interfaces to drive their business.  I made this statement to reinforce the survey finding that currently, web-based experiences with findability are driving increased demand for better findability within the enterprise/intranet. Many (not all) commercial website owners have taken time to fine-tune a findabilty strategy because, it many cases, the findability is absolutely vital to their existence.  (Imagine not being able to find the music you want in iTunes – you would abandon the site very quickly, resulting in lost revenue to Apple.)

That said, yes you are right, there are still many commercial web sites that do not provide a good findability experience.   (See earlier post in which I discuss this further).  And, clearly tehre are many internet sites (i.e. non-commercial/consumer-oriented)) whose findability rivals some of the worst  intranet/enterprise sites.  Findability is tricky and demands careful and targeted development of strategy and solution design.  Its an effort that some organizations have not yet appreciated teh value of - they will, in my opinion, especially as we can point to the effectiveness of the state-of-the-art found in some commercial web sites.

Q: Are there any other findability solutions apart from Google?

A:  Oh lord yes.  Google was the only sponsor that paid for a speaking role in the webinar, but there are many other  solution providers that address findability - some can complement a tool such as Google, some directly compete with a tool such as Google.   In fact, three other solution providers, Baynote, Attivio and Systemware also sponsored this webinar.  But the list of solution providers goes far beyond even these companies.  Rather than list them all here, I direct you to an exhaustive list posted on Dan Keldsen's blog, a list we used to vet the list of technology providers we query about in our survey.

Q:  Who typically owns the taxonomy in an organization?

A:  In many organizations, no one, which is part of the challenge in maintaining an information architecture or findability strategy.  According to a study I did nearly 3 years ago, when the taxonomy is an online resource, as part of a findability strategy, the taxonomy is usually (57% of those surveyed) owned by IT.  (The other 43% of responses were scattered across records managers, corporate librarians, LOB managers, end users and management.)  No matter who own it, recommended practice is to have a mix of disciplines involved in the process of developing it. While one might argue that IT should "own" the online taxonomy as a tool, in most cases IT should not be tasked with the definition and development of a taxonomy on business content, as they are likely not SMEs of the business content or its usage by the business community, which is the focus or value statement of a taxonomy within a findability strategy.

Stay tuned, there are three more questions that I will cover in the next post.

What Does Bill Gates Know that You Don't?

Microsoft recently purchased FAST for $1.2 Billion (USD), and is now attempting an acquisition of Yahoo. Google is now the number one most recognized brand in the world, for the second year in a row. The search market is HOT – and for good reason.

Content is useless if no one can FIND it. 

OK, to readers of my blog, this is not new (see earlier posts).  This is a shameless request for a favor. 

AIIM Market Intelligence is embarking on a market study on the state-of-the-art on Findability (the quality of being locatable or navigable, includes technologies and concepts such as Search, Taxonomies, Information Architecture, Auto-Classification, Agents, Discovery, Ontologies, and the Semantic Web),

and I would very much appreciate it if you can take a survey on the topic.  (You can find the survey at
http://aiimMarketIntelligence.questionpro.com/.

It should only take you about 20 minutes to take.

If you participate you will receive:
* An early FREE copy of the findings
* An invitation to a FREE live web briefing on the results
* A chance to win one of 25 gift certificates worth $25 USD for Amazon.com.

In either case, stay tuned, the Market IQ on Findability will be available the last week of June 2008, as will a webinar on the findings. Of course, I am sure to be blogging on the results before then as well.

Thank you.

Collaboration vs. Control - a pithy explanation

Earlier today I posted a commentary on the ECM market, spurred by my experience at the AIIM ECM roadshow in Los Angeles.  It was a long post, so I figured I would follow it with a pithy one. 

The roadshow is titled "Collaboration versus Control:  The Sharepoint effect."  I kicked off the day with a presentation derived from the the AIIM Market IQ on Content Security and AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0.)  I explained the delicate balance between the ability to easily collaborate and share, and the need to control and manage enterprise content.

At the break an attendee came up to me and said, "When I registered for his I was unsure what you all meant by The Sharepoint Effect, but now I get it.  You are telling us to not be the fool in 'powerfool'."

I told him that I would share his comment.  It is brilliant. It sums up the challenge that we in ECM face today - Don't be the fool in powerful.

ECM - From Here to Eternity

I just returned from an AIIM road show in Los Angeles on the Sharepoint effect – (there are 3 more cities - San Fransisco, Seattle and Dallas -  if interested you can still register).

The road show looks at Enterprise Content Management (ECM) – and positions Microsoft Sharepoint as illustrative of a current market phenomena:  the ability to more easily embrace online content creation sharing/collaboration, but simultaneously creating a control and command issue, one that if not managed can lead to chaos, unused resources and potential great risk.  This is a subject that is discussed in detail in the AIIM Market IQ on Content Security, and Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0.

The subject of collaboration versus control is not only interesting, but at the fulcrum of most ECM strategies today.  No guessing as to why over 220 people attended this event in LA, with similar numbers signed up for the upcoming cities.  The enthusiasm of the audience, the questions and comments made rekindled my own enthusiasm for the ECM. 

Over the 20+ years in which I have been a part of the ECM market place,  much has changed but much has also remained the same.  The physical characteristics of the document, the approaches to "document-based" communication and the platform have changed, but the need to manage documents, no matter the format or platform, and the criticality of an ECM strategy remain constant.  Viewed slightly differently: the potential value derived from enterprise content has significantly increased, but so too has the potential risk associated with poorly managed content.

I recently read an article entitled "IT Hiring Defies Broader Job Picture."  The article points out that in Massachusetts, IT related jobs are actually on the rise.  Among the technologies behind this is ECM.  While the perspective of the article is one of pleasant surprise, I was not surprised.  ECM is burgeoning.  New opportunities and challenges exist.  Technology alternatives and  opportunities emerge on a regular basis. The ECM component of the organization is likely to stay active and grow in importance as business migrates more to e-based communication and business models. 

In deed, while I often like to discuss the cutting edge issues surrounding ECM, the LA road show activity reminded me that the vibrant nature of ECM is found not just in the cutting edge, but in the ongoing adoption of technologies and capabilities that are well established components of the ECM platform.

Among the 18 technology providers that were exhibiting at the road show, 7 represented scanning and imaging products.  These are technologies that have been part of ECM longer than I have.  Those in the industry, like myself, sometimes take them for granted - like picking up the phone.   The road show activity caused me to step back and re-assess the vibrancy of this sector of the ECM market.  While imaging and scanning are by no means new, there is still a large market associated with them.  While more and more content is created online, paper (that needs to be scanned) is still prevalent  in many organizations, both in the form of legacy content, and new content. 

In an earlier post,I introduced a New York Times article in which it was reported that for the first time, paper consumption in the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Canada and Finland actually went down, between 2000 and 2005.  Such statistics cause people (including myself) to sometimes  lapse into thinking scanning and paper are less relevant.  Ah, but in doing research for a whitepaper he is writing, my colleague, Dan Keldsen uncovered an equally telling statistic of a different nature.  The advent of electronic filing (e-filing) of taxes began in 1992.  This year the IRS expected about 60% of tax returns to be filed electronically. (ah yes, less paper consumption in the U.S.) Nonetheless that meant that for the 2008 Filing Season, the IRS was still expecting approximately 52 million paper returns (Source: “Interim Results of the 2008 Filing Season” TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION,Reference Number: 2008-40-100).  In a word - WOW.  Sure we are embracing new technologies and migrating to online communities and content, but in the process we are still creating a fair amount of paper that still needs to be dealt with.  While more Americans are now submitting tax returns electronically, the 52 million that continue to use paper represent a very real and large scanning application.

Now keeping that in mind, also consider the fact that electronic-based content grows exponentially.  While the legacy keeps ECMers busy, so too does the emerging electronic content.  With it come myriad issues - many unprecedented.  In an earlier post, I discussed the ongoing concern of migrating business content so that is  accessible and readable  years from now.  This issue also surfaced in a recent article in the Business & Innovation section of the Boston Globe. Its worth a read and is referenced here to call attention to a real and present issue (yet another) that ECMers need to manage.

But access and readability over time is just one issue.  If we make content accessible and readible over time we also have to worry about copyright.  Electronic content is easily proliferated. ECMers must  contend with the impact their domain has on copyright. After three years of hearings, studies and deliberation, the Section 108 Study Group, a committee of copyright experts charged with updating for the digital world the Copyright Act, has posted its final report on how to bring the U.S. Copyright Act regarding libraries and archives into the digital age. The results are somethingthat every ECMer need to be concerned with legally and technically.

A few weeks back I listened to an NPR "Marketplace" broadcast,  in which the issue of obituaries was discussed.  Apparently, obituaries are one of the last things to go the digital age.  In their own way they are keeping paper newspapers alive (of the irony).  But Web-based alternatives are emerging and will likely pose a formidable challenge.  Newspapers, like many business, find themselves caught with one foot in the paper age, and one foot in the digital age, forced for the time being, with straddling the two to meet various market demands. Nearly every organziation must deal with issue of ECM - media migration, legality, readability, storage, process efficiency, effective communication, generational differences, the list is nearly infinite. 

Perhaps this post is a bit long, but perhaps it needed to be.  The point is despite its age, ECM is an issue that is still growing - perhaps an eternal issue. Old issues linger, while new issues arise.  The talents and competencies  required of an ECMer grow.  But one thing is for sure there is great job security for those that do it well.

aiimQ&A: Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0

This is my second and final post answering questions that were posed but were not answered during our webinar in which we over viewed The AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0.  (See earlier post for additional Q&A). 

Q:  How much can/will technology DRIVE culture? Your survey showed that "KM Inclined" organizations adopt more quickly and in mass. But will the less "KM inclined" adopt Enterprise 2.0 as point solutions and perhaps the point/tactical adoptions move the culture needle?

A:  Technology can drive culture, but as the study showed, culture can drive technology (adoption) far more quickly.  That said, the low barrier nature of Enterprise 2.0 has allowed many organizations to experience the effects of the technology. As shown in Section 3 of the Market IQ,  46% of the organizations we polled indicated that Enterprise 2.0 technologies were being used in an exclusively or predominately ad hoc manner. This is a phenomenon that was highly unlikely or impractical in former collaborative or knowledge sharing technologies. (The complexity of implementation and cost typically kept experiments from occurring.)  This allows groups within in the organization to develop solutions that can serve as proof of concept, real-life in context examples of how the technology can foster or facilitate real benefit and impact on the organization.  These ad hoc implementations can provide a level of education or introduction to the organization that may very well invoke a change in attitude and thus drive a culture change. As the Market IQ also indicated, attitudes regarding Enterprise 2.0 are radically different than those regarding Web 2.0.  Where adoption and opinions regarding Web 2.0 differ amongst age groups, attitudes and adoption of Enterprise 2.0 predominately does not.  Where the bottom line benefit(s) to business are understood, adoption of Enterprise 2.0 seems to follow.  Again, ad hoc point/tactical implementations of Enterprise 2.0 can provide the insight or education that will drive wider adoption and foster on going cultural change towards more openness and collaboration. It should be appreciated however (based on my 10+ experience as a Knowledge Management consultant), that in the severest of conditions, this may not be the case.  A strong and pervasive culture that rejects openness and collaboration, especially one that emanates from the CxO level down, can be insurmountable, in spite of any rogue attempts and demonstrable benefit.   

Q:  When you say that market pressure is a driver, do you mean competitors driving business or the competition to keep employees happy?

A:  There are several market pressures that are pushing the adoption of Enterprise 2.0, among these competition and employee morale. Competitive pressures come in many forms.  The need to work leaner, to establish nimble extended enterprises that leverage the core competencies or talents of a community of partners (including the customer), across multiple geographic locations is a reality for today’s enterprise.  Enterprise 2.0 technologies support and facilitate this approach to work. (An entire section of the AIIM Practitioner training on Enterprise 2.0 focuses on these business models and how Enterprise 2.0 supports them.) Similarly, leaner, more nimble and cost effective approaches to IT are in demanded, and supported by Enterprise 2.0. Lastly, for several years, the state of functionality on the Web has driven employee demand for functionality and interfaces within the firewall. These combined pressures or demands are behind the adoption of Enterprise 2.0.  It is important to appreciate that these trends were not caused or instigated by Enterprise 2.0, but precede it.  This is not a case of emerging technologies creating a new opportunity to drive business change, but vice versa.

Q: Section 4 of the Market IQ is titled “The State of the Market”. Do you see a market CATEGORY in the sense of Collaboration, ECM, etc.? Or is E2 more 'just' embedded in many different market categories?

A:  Actually both.  You are correct in stating that from a business perspective, the market is not an Enterprise 2.0 market, per se, but rather a market comprised of many initiatives or movements.  (Your question correctly identifies two, collaboration and ECM.)  The Enterprise 2.0 technologies do not embody these movements, but support them.  On the other hand, there is an identifiable and measurable Enterprise 2.0 technology market, comprised of multiple technologies, structured in the SLATES and FLATNESSES frameworks.  These are defined in Section 2 of the Market IQ.

Q:  To what extent will Enterprise 2.0 strategies be led by IT managers and CIOs vs. line of business managers or even senior management?

A:  The market data we collected, and present in Section 4 of the Market IQ, indicates that Enterprise 2.0 strategies will predominately be led by users and senior (non-IT) management. Each group garnered 24% of the surveyed community, as the PRIMARY driver behind Enterprise 2.0 adoption in the organization.  That said, IT managers and IT Senior managers collectively were identified by 37% of the survey respondents as the PRIMARY drivers behind Enterprise 2.0.   But, when asked to identify not just the PRIMARY driver behind the Enterprise 2.0 strategy, but all active forces, the survey respondents indicated an almost balanced mix of users (51%), Sr. business management (41%), IT managers (39%), Sr. IT managers (38%), and LOB managers (35%). As indicated in my last Q&A post, a hybrid team approach to Enterprise 2.0 strategy development is a best practice approach.  Interestingly enough, our study also showed that budget authority over Enterprise 2.0 is nearly equally split between Sr. business management and IT.  The latter is likely linked to a culture that predominately views Enterprise 2.0 as a technology play, which is OK, as long as business has a strong voice in dictating requirements, goals and objectives.

Q:  (Note:  The question posed here is representative of several that were asked.  Rather than repeat each with an identical answer, the questions have rolled up into one and collectively answered.) Do you have any suggestions on how to get past the cultural hurdles that exist for companies where collaboration/sharing isn't the norm?

A:  In a word, education.  In two words, education and business alignment (OK that’s three words.) Our survey data indicated that when business benefit is understood, organizations begin to adopt and promote Enterprise 2.0.  Where the culture is not yet there, rogue usage can provide that level of insight (see the first Q&A in this post.) Case studies from other organizations can also be beneficial in this regard.  But, the important thing to remember is that the message needs to be tailored.  Assess the current culture of the organization, looking for strengths or inclinations and build on these.  Identify the overarching tenets of the organization and demonstrate how Enterprise 2.0 can specifically support and accelerate accomplishment of these goals.  In this regard, Enterprise 2.0 is not unlike Knowledge Management.  (As such I refer you to my book on the subject, and Section 6 of the Market IQ, for more detail.)

Q:  It would be interesting to see how enterprise cultures have benefited positively after Enterprise 2.0. If it can be measured, even better. The positive benefit to enterprise culture should be part of ROI. It could also be possible driver.

A:  I like this question because it sheds more light on the answer that precedes it.  Yes, it would be very interesting to see how organizations have specifically benefited from the adoption of Enterprise 2.0. As discussed in Section 3 of the Market IQ, we were unable to define an effective way to capture this in the survey. Instead, as a starting point, we asked if the individual’s approach to measuring the value of Enterprise 2.0 was aligned to the organization’s approach.  (54% indicated that the two were not aligned.) This led to 77% of those who were required to perform an ROI, unable to demonstrate an acceptable return on investment. The dilemma is likely due to the fact that there is no straightforward approach to demonstrating the “worth” of an application whose primary objective is “to increase collaboration.” The problem of measuring the impact of Enterprise 2.0 applications within an organization defies a simple answer. The potential benefits associated with an Enterprise 2.0 application are not only vast, but situational. They are likely tied to specific goals and objectives of the sponsor.  Strategically, Enterprise 2.0 could be linked to the rate of product sales, product innovation/new product production, customer satisfaction and value derived from intellectual property, for example, but only if specifically targeted at that and in a way that could demonstrate the specific cause and effect.  Instances in which the benefits are directly aligned with Knowledge Management goals and objectives also represent a vast array of possibilities.  For example, “success” could be measured in the volume of content/knowledge captured over time, the rate of commentary, the volume of participants, the speed of developing new ideas/teams, the level of participants (roles), the level of participation and diversity of community.  Such calibrations, however, typically do not have a hard dollar value associated with them.  Associating a value with these metrics requires an agreement on their worth, or establishing a connection between these and a subsequent event (e.g. the strategic goals listed above).

We will be developing a series of case studies on this issue to help shed more light on this matter.  We agree with the individual who posed this question, “It would be interesting to see how enterprise cultures have benefited positively after Enterprise 2.0.”

Thought Leaders Meet at ECM Writers Summit

What a great week for ECM, Enterprise 2.0, SaaS and me.

Looking back on the past week, I have to say the ECM techno-geek side of me is smiling.  As I posted earlier, the week stated off with participating in a AIIM New England chapter event that included a panel of users that have adopted a SaaS model to ECM.  As if that wasn’t enough fun and education, the week ended with my moderating and participating in a thought leadership writer’s summit on SaaS & cloud computing, SOA & BPM, Social Computing & ECM, and Text Analytics.

The event was sponsored by EMC.  I again thank them for inviting me to co-host this summit. Some of the brightest strategists and technologists from EMC were there including Howard Shao, Mark Lewis, Whitney Tidmarsh, Razmik Abnous, Michael Hackney, Matt Coblentz,   and Lubor Ptacek.  More importantly, we were joined by a variety of ECM industry thought leaders including Nathaniel Palmer, Barclay Blair, David DeLong, Margie Semilof, Mary Cohodas, Geoff Bock, Bill Trippe, Vincent Berdot, Stephen Cameron, Christian Daems, Christos Varelas, Ron Miller and Beth Pariseau (see her post on this event).  (I apologize for he inevitable omission of others who were there, whose name I fail to recall at the moment.)

Well, as you can imagine, with such a crowd, the discussion of was lively and full of opinion (sometimes agreeing and sometimes differing.) The purpose of this post is to provide my recollection of the key points that came for the discussion.

Despite the variety of topics (SaaS & cloud computing, SOA & BPM, Social Computing & ECM, and Text Analytics), discussion almost always came back to a basic value proposition for ECM, striking a balance between increased access/collaboration, and content governance and security. (See the AIIM Market IQ on Content Security for more on this idea, and a post by summit participant Ron Miller.) Terms frequently uttered in discussion included mobility, social networks, collaboration, agility, flexibility, e-discovery, compliance and risk. Collectively these seem to represent the potential benefits associated with ECM.

ECM was frequently discussed not as a technology, or a single implementation, but as a platform, a competency that should be available across the entire enterprise. In this regard, the group often reiterated that solution providers and pundits of ECM all too often talk in terms of unstructured content, and that this is wrong.  ECM is about all forms of content – and therefore should provide a single integrated interface to the unstructured content (e.g. documents), as well as structured content (e.g. databases associated with ERP and payroll systems.)  Too much focus has been paid to the unstructured content separately and distinctly from the structured.

This single interface was extended to the concept of enterprise search.  We discussed that enterprise search has erroneously been discussed in the market far too often as a product.  The often touted single enterprise master taxonomy and search tool is not most effective.  In reality effective search across the enterprise will likely involve multiple search tools, taxonomies, relevancy rankings, etc., each finely tailored and tuned to specific content and use cases, but presented and managed as a single interface to the user.  The group agreed that this requires great complexity on the part of IT, but that complexity can and needs to be hidden for the user.   

We all acknowledged that the rules of publishing have changed.  On the positive side this has allowed faster and more wide scale dissemination of knowledge and experience.  On the other, this has created a demand for new approaches to demonstrate reliability and trust in “discovered” content.

Similarly, the long tail of electronic content (compared to the much shorter tail of paper content), necessitates more powerful approaches to management, retention, and findability.  Without it enterprise content can quickly become chaotic and/or grossly under utilized.

In this regard, Matt Coblentz of EMC proposed that “Content is Stupid”.  The group agreed, (or at least some did), with the addition that Content Management is intelligent.

We thought that overall culture was ahead of technology with regards to collaboration, but behind technology with regards to security and compliance.   

Some of us saw ECM in a state of evolution, progressively increasing functionality and ease of use over time.  Others argued that the advent of functionality such as SaaS and Enterprise 2.0 represents a hockey stick inflection point for the industry, that will be viewed as a revolutionary point in the market in time to come.

I for one walked away with a sense that ECM is once again a very exciting marketplace.  Ron Miller reminded us, that in his review of the AIIM 2008 show, he had indicated that the show was buzzing with excitement.

With that, the realm of ECM has become increasingly complex.  ECM is not just about technology, nor just about content.  The ECM practitioner MUST be concerned and involved in people, process and content (EMC’s words), or content, community and context (my words.) This is what keeps this market place alive and vibrant.  This is what affords careers and debates that go far beyond technology alone.

On a final note, I will share a light moment. To a large degree there was much reaffirming among this  group, as opposed to learning. There were some exceptions. Two new technologies were introduced:  “blockies and wigs.”  These terms were coined by one of the speakers in a slip of the tongue in his excitement over the power of “wikis and blogs”.  We all got a good laugh out of it. OK – maybe you had to be there, or maybe you just aren’t ECM-geeky enough.

aiimQ&A: Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0

This is the first post in which I answer questions that were submitted but not answered during our webinar on Enterprise 2.0.   (The recorded webinar and Market IQ report can be downloaded.) 

We had over 500 register for the webinar, and were very encouraged by the mix of questions submitted, spread across business, culture and technology issues (like Enterprise 2.0 itself.)

I will continue to post questions and answers here, until all outstanding questions have been answered.

Q: As a Records manager, this strikes fear in my heart! Do ERM systems have the
necessary hooks to capture and classify this content?

A: Good - it should.  As we discuss in the report, while there is great benefit associated with the ease of implementation and use that Enterprise 2.0 provides to increase collaboration, it should never be forgotten that the content created with these tools is business content.  Thus, it should be subjected to the same scrutiny and governance as all other forms of business content.  When Web 2.0 moves within the firewall to become Enterprise 2.0, you are creating corporate content - records.  If organizations do not pay attention to this from the outset, they are potentially creating another e-mail fiasco, where ad hoc informal application of the tool/media leads to an uncontrolled corporate body of content that needs to be managed reactively, which is typically a costly lesson and approach.  So to answer your question, ERM systems have hooks that would support the declaration of Enterprise 2.0 content as records (as applicable), but they are not self enacting.  A conscious decision and effort must be made to leverage this capability. 

Q:  What's the difference between Enterprise 2.0 and an enterprises that uses
Web 2.0 technologies?

A:  Basically nothing - strictly from a technology perspective.  The technologies (e.g. wikis, blogs, RSS) thats are leveraged on the commercial Web to create a Web 2.0, are the same technologies that can be used within  a corporate  intranet environment to create Enterprise 2.0.  So technically no difference, but practically a a very bug difference.  When used internally a host of procedural, cultural and compliance issues arise, that need to be viewed as part and parcel to the system.

Q: Who within an enterprise is best suited to develop an enterprise 2.0
strategy?

A:  Involve several people or roles in the development of an Enterprise 2.0 strategy. LOB managers should be involved to develop the business value statement or purpose.  Risk/compliance officers should be involved (See question 1 above).  Obviously the CTO or a direct report also needs to be involved to provide the leanest most highly leveraged technical support of the business portion of the strategy.

A SaaSy View to ECM

I literally just returned from an AIIM New England chapter event, focused on SaaS and ECM. Like many of these local chapter events, this one was small enough to allow lots of Q&A/interaction, yet big enough to create energy in the room.  When I departed at 12:30 (the official end time was 12:00), there were still 10 - 15 people in the room buzzing about.  Also characteristic of many local chapter events, this event focused around real world case studies.  In this case, we heard from Alan Pransky (user of a SaaS imaging and ECM system from Kaulkin) and Joe Graves (user of a SaaS DM system, integrated into Salesforce.com, from SpringCM).

Both users had had positive experiences with their SaaS implementations, which is to be assumed given that their respective solution providers recommended them as speakers,  were in the room and had sponsored the event.  That said, there was some candid discussion. Obviously much was talked about over the morning.  I will provide highlights here, as a means to spread the learning that went on.

Both speakers indicated that one of the biggest strengths of the SaaS implementation was the low cost and speed of deployment.,  In Alan Pransky's case this was especially valuable.  Migration to an imaging solution was not a foregone conclusion for his company.  The ability to develop a working/real proof of concept in a few weeks, and a cost that was a fraction of other solutions they were looking at made all the difference.  Without this type of approach, Alan was not so sure he would have been successful in convincing his company that this was the way to go. 

Joe's situation was a bit different.  His company was not quite so technology averse.  Nonetheless he did agree that the cost and speed of deployment had much to do with why they went the SpringCM route.  In fact he shared that in looking for a ECM solution they solicited bids.  Typical bids were coming in at about $800,000 and another $200,000 in maintenance for first year.  The SaaS approach came in at about $200,000.  He shared this in response to an interesting question for the audience concerning taxes and depreciation.

Basically, the gentleman in the audience wanted to know if the two pricing models (purchasing software versus having provided as a service) were different enough that they mattered.  From an accounting standpoint was one preferred or viewed as more advantageous.  Neither of the panelists was a CPA, but both seem to agree that for their respective companies, the financial model between SaaS was not initially positioned as more advantageous or a requisite, but that in the end, there was a positive side seen.  Joe joked - hey it was cheaper, and what CFO doesn't like that (I am paraphrasing.)

Many questions from the audience focused on issues of security, authenticity and reliability.  (This may have been due to the fact that earlier in my presentation I shared AIIM market data that indicated security was the biggest concern in considering SaaS models, and encouraged questions in this regard.)  Alan and  Joe agreed that  issues of security have to be addressed and handled from the outset.   Both stated that their respective solution providers had to demonstrate an ability to protect their content or they would not have been able to go forward.  Alan shared that the provider's offering of storing the content on three separate sites was an improvement to existing practices and provided a needed approach to business continuity.

In selling the security component  of SaaS (actually any technology), Joe recommended doing so by speaking as techno-nerdy as possible.  In this regard Alan agreed and they both  offered that here the solution provider should be able to help. This is the time, they suggested, to toss around acronyms, standards, technical terms, and by all means provide the names of companies that have already adopted the SaaS solution, if they are perceived leaders in a field or in need of secure content.

As for risks, the main one  talked about was in going with the wrong provider - one who cannot provide an adequate level of support,  reliability and security.  They also stated - more to the solution providers in the room - that they are not selling technology, but business solutions.  As such, they suggested that technical terms should be avoided.  That providers should listen carefully to explanation of the targeted business processes, and then sell business applications.

With a bit of help from Dan Carmel, CEO of SpringCM, the speakers reminded the audience that their SaaS implementations were not just hosted implementations. While hosting was a key component, the services  and configurability of the system (versus customization - which in Joe's case included integration into SalesForce.com)  were also key to the value statement for their SaaS implementations.

Lastly, when asked which business applications are most likely to be solved via a SaaS model, Joe offered its the ones that your management does not think of as a service.  His point was SaaS by definition may confuse or frighten some folks, but that if you do not position it as SaaS (a service) - but a cost-effective solution it is easier to get in the door.