TakingAIIM

ECM Means Business

More than once I have blogged on the emergence of ECM as a specialized obscure practice within techno-geeks into the limelight of critical business applications. In my last blog post ("ECM It was the Best of Times, it Was the Worst of Times) I discussed how according to popular news sources, ECM was responsible for radically redefining entire industries such as newspaper publishing, leaving a wake of unemployed people and extinct businesses, but also at the same time promoting innovation and giving rise to new industries and burgeoning business models.

Today, in perusing The New York Times Business Section, I was again pleasantly impressed with the degree to which ECM makes business news. On page one (continued on pages 3 and 7) for example, the Times reports that Google is getting into the e-books business with a mission to take on Amazon and Kindle.

On page 4, The Times covers Google Wave, a "latest" Enterprise 2.0 application. (OK the Times may over state the value of Google Wave (see commentary on Dan Keldsen's blog), but ECM is nonetheless being covered in this reputable high profile business periodical. On the same page, Plastic Logic, a Kindle rival is also introduced, and e-heath records are positioned as a clear technology winner in the government's economic stimulus package.

Page 5, covers the Hearst Magazine's strategy for successfully balancing paper-based and web-based magazine publishing.

Page 6 includes an article about an author who used Twitter to test works in progress. Based on collaborative feed back the very first sentence of a novel was changed - amongst other edits. The eventual publication, was then specifically formatted for publishing on Kindle.

WOW - that's a lot of ink in one Business section devoted to ECM.  OK, maybe the articles do not directly draw the correlation to ECM, but the topics they discuss: e-publishing, dynamic content delivery, e-ink, digital paper, online collaboration - are topics ECM veterans such as myself are well familiar with, and have been heralding the power of for many years. With the broader business community now catching up, this should spell a bright future for ECM practitioners. Business executives hopefully will now better understand these concepts, and want to further explore the powers and capabilities of ECM technologies within their domain, to drive new business models, increase innovation, streamline costs and processes, increase effective communication ...

As I said in the last blog post, "this glimpse into what ECM can/will be is nothing short of amazing. I dare anyone to view this and tell me that we are not experiencing "the best of times." Indeed, to further quote Dickens, "we had everything before us..." 

But only those that "get it" will be able to leverage these capabilities before they morph from competitive advantage to simply a cost of doing business. Building such strategies is what we at Information Architected do with a passion - simply because it is so powerful and fun.

ECM - "It Was The Best of Times, It Was The Worst of Times"

Those that know me, as well as loyal readers of this blog, know that I am an ECM zealot – some say a nerd. So perhaps this post is just another ranting – but I felt compelled to reiterate myself because of certain current events.

I entitle this post with a familiar quote from Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, in which he describes the state-of-the-world at the time of the French Revolution:  “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  Turbulent, but ripe with opportunity.  That is exactly where we are today in the world of ECM.

Over the last few weeks I was struck by the degree to which ECM is being talked discussed within the context of   the best of times/worst of times.

Consider content publishing. It continues to undergo major, some might say revolutionary redefinition. The future of newspapers is a primary example.  In the past week, The Boston Globe, my own hometown newspaper, was threatened with extinction. Are we in danger of losing high quality press coverage and editorial?

Modes of communication are rapidly morphing. In an earlier post I referenced a New York Times article that reported paper consumption in the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Canada and Finland actually went down (between 2000 and 2005), for the first time in history. In a more recent article, Ruport Murdoch and Arianna Huffington debated the future of online news  and whether readers of the electronic news will be willing to pay for access. Are we redefining the meaning of the word “free’ in the phrase “the free press”?

Recently, a group of architects have started a project  collecting "unwanted" wrist watches, in an effort to preserve them in the Smithsonian Museum. Apparently, the advent of cellular communication devices is also changing the way we tell time.

But these same cellular devices and new approaches to communication, networking and publishing are fueling and facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship. It is truly the best of times as well. Another recent article reported that the effort and cost associated with starting a new company has never been lower. The entrepreneurial and innovative spirit is fueled by ECM.  Apparently over 100 million companies have signed up for free web-based tools, such as Google Apps to serve as their technical foundation. Networking and collaborating have never been easier, or more accessible. (I will confess that my company, Information Architected, is a subscriber to several Google apps.) In yet another recent article  the question, "Is working from home the next gold rush?" is asked. New business models made possible through online content may be eliminating some jobs and industries, but also serve as the genesis of countless others. 

I have to say that, I for one am most happy and excited to be part of this revolutionary time.  It is the worst of times;  layoffs and the possible demise of entire industries is scary and unfortunate. But on the other hand, the amazingly fertile potential for new businesses, new industries and new business models seems virtually infinite.  I stare at the future with wide-open eyes, amazed at the possibilities.

If you do not agree, or simply want to further fuel you own enthusiasm, then view this presentation and demonstration at this year's TED.  This glimpse into what ECM can/will be is nothing short of amazing. I dare anyone to view this and tell me that we are not experiencing "the best of times." Indeed, to further quote Dickens, "we had everything before us..."

Enterprise 2.0 - The Other Side of Governance

The intersection of Enterprise 2.0 and governance is not a new topic to this blog. Typically, however, I focus on the need to impose some control (i.e. security, records management, publishing controls) on the otherwise open approach to Enterprise 2.0-based communication (e.g. micro-blogging, wikis, blogs).  Governance and Enterprise 2.0 go hand-in-hand, in my opinion, for the responsible business practitioner. (For example, comments to this blog, while "open" are monitored by yours truly.  All comments are posted - if after my review they are deemed as not offensive in language or message.)

Recently, I had the pleasure of sharing lunch and experiences with a bunch of very clever people from VOXmarketing, a firm whose core competency is branding campaigns. It did not take long for our conversation to come to a common interest.  You guessed it - the governance of Enterprise 2.0 content. I have always been aware, and indeed have written and spoken about the need to control branding of wikis and blogs, but it was nonetheless powerful to hear similar opinion coming from the mirror perspective; i.e. from marketing/branding to content management. We shared stories of respective clients who had minimized the impact of Enterprise 2.0 tools by failing to brand them and thus align them into an overall enterprise communication strategy.  We also shared stories regarding the potential power of Enterprise 2.0 tools, when they are governed holistically, and diligently.

It was reassuring to hear this message from someone outside of the records management and content security worlds. We agreed, one of the most powerful strengths of Enterprise 2.0 tools is their openess and ease of use, but that this is also potentially one of its shortcomings.  A little bit of structure (governance) can go a long way - not only in minimizing risk, but also accelerating adoption and increasing the effectivness of communication.

Intelligent Content Delivery will Take more "Time"

Last month I blogged on the fact that I had subscribed to Mine Magazine - a dynamic personalized online periodical. I promised in the previous blog to keep readers posted on my experience with Mine.

Well, today I received the following e-mail:

Dear Carl,

Thank you for subscribing to mine magazine. We want to let you know that a computer error may have affected the first issue you received this week. It's possible that this issue did not contain the combination of magazine content you selected. Please know that the problem has been resolved, and that each of your subsequent issues will reflect the exact content you originally requested.

In appreciation of your support, we have extended your five-issue subscription to include a sixth free issue of mine. You can also access real-time mine content through your smartphone device at http://mine.mwap.at.

We apologize for the inconvenience and, again, thank you for being among the very first to experience mine.

Best regards,

Wayne Powers
President, Time Inc. Media Group

So - my somewhat dubious  tone in the previous blog appears to be warranted.  I am, however, still curious and excited enough to let me subscription stand and see what I get.  But my doubts grow.  In the e-mail message it states that I should have received my first issue already (flawed though it may be).   I have not received an issue of Mine.  Apparently the software has more than just problems gathering the right content. Stay tuned...

E-medical records: Follow Prescription to Avoid Potential Side Effects

Earlier this week in the Boston Globe, there was a front-page article that focused on a subset of ECM, electronic medical records. As I read the article I wondered if its author knew how much was being said "between the lines"?  While the focus was on e-records, it spoke volumes beyond that to me.

OK - lets start with the focus of the article.  Apparently, a Mr. Dave deBronkart, a "tech-savvy kidney cancer survivor", accessed his online medical records from Beth Israel Hospital, and transferred them to Google Health.  This Google App, allows users to centrally store their e- medical records to facilitate  sharing.  The  Google App also provides related services, and in the case of Mr. deBronkart, it went perhaps one step too far.  It provided an automated diagnosis, informing Mr. deBronkart that his cancer had spread to either his brain or spine.  WRONG.

The article critiques the accuracy and viability of e-medical records. WRONG. Once again technology is being blamed for poorly thought out processes, lack of a complete strategy and misappropriation of technology. Yes, I am a bigot - I am a firm believer in e-medical records (just about e- anything actually), but only with the caveat that implementation needs to be preceded with a well thought out strategy, careful roll out and governance.  

If you want to better understand how Google Health did what it did, read the article. Whether you read the article for details or not, realize that what went wrong here was Google taking technology too far, without a strategy or governance, and boldly going where Google has never gone before - and perhaps is not qualified to - dispensing medical advise - which is a far cry from collecting and making available medical records. Sure, the two services are related/complementary, but the credentials and skills to do one do not directly map to the other.  This isn't the first time Google has overstepped its core competencies - see my earlier post. In their enthusiasm and rush to provide SaaS-based/Web 2.0 business apps, many providers, in this case Google, often step too far. The article, in my opinion does not point to the shortcomings of e-medical records, but rather the mistake Google made in trying to mashup medical billing data with automated diagnosis. Google is NOT a medical expert, and thus should not be dispensing medical diagnosis or advice, not without the proper partnerships/expertise, governance and testing. Although the risk of what Google has done in Google Health is more profound,the cause and effect is the same as the company that allows "any user" to mashup billing data and customer support databases, automates processes without taking a deep look into how the current process really works (as opposed to is supposed to work), or enables the use of blogs and twitter without "aligning" the usage with marketing, branding, records management, security and other related business practices.  As technology such as mashups make it easier for "lay people" to create applications and create or expose content, the tendency is to think that strategy, vetting, testing and alignment are no longer necessary. Build it (its easy) - they will come - and if it breaks - fix it.  In some cases, as this article illustrates, this "new" approach to real-time beta testing can be far more costly in the long run.

That said, I also believe that some blame lies with the consumer.  I recall debating with colleagues during the advent of the Web, the risk that was posed by enabling virtually anyone to be a "published authority".  A common topic, interestingly enough related to the Globe article, was, "What if a web site dispensed medical advice (from an undisclosed 10 year old),  which proved wrong and detrimental to the user.  Who, if anyone is liable of "malpractice?"  Web users need to be more diligent in verifying the source and credentials of web content.  Some of my readers may recall a blog post I made 2 years ago entitled "Are You for Real?", that explored this issue in greater detail, and used as an example a website that appeared to be an authoritative source on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but upon diligent investigation was uncovered as providing content originally created by a white supremacy group. 

Is Google really the place to go for medical advice?  A place to store records - maybe (if they can get the security right, an issue also under debate),  a pointer (i.e. query tool) to potential medical advice yes, but "the source" of medical advice - no - not yet.

Lastly, I should mention, in case you missed it, that last week I blogged about a debate between Dr. Jonathan Oberlander and Dr. John Halamka , the latter an e-records practitioner and the CIO of Beth Israel Hospital ( the original source of the patient's e-medical records).  Dr. Halamka is quoted in the Globe article, and he blogged on it (worth a read).  Dr. Halamka states that " I'm working with Google to evaluate the impact of sending our existing free text problem lists instead of billing codes. It will reduce the number of features available to patients, since Google's educational materials are based on billing codes, but it may be more informative to patients to see the text their clinician wrote, not the diagnosis on the bill. Showing problem lists is what we've done in Patientsite for 10 years." - Exactly - Google through ignorance of medical billing versus diagnosis, and lack of planning and strategy, is responsible for this unfortunate event, not e-medical records created at Beth Israel.

As I stated in my last blog post, KM, Enterprise 2.0, collaboration - no matter the focus, there has to be a strategy in place or the risk of getting it wrong is too high. While the focus of the last post was on potentially getting the business model wrong and underestimating the required effort, in this post, I broaden the risk associated with poor planning and lack of strategy to include potentially rendering a most erroneous end state.

Most infrequently is technology to blame for failed KM, collabortion and ECM projects, yet it is all too often the focus of the blame.  The blame lies not with the technology but the lack of strategy, planning and misappropriation of technology.

Dynamic Content Delivery - Just in "Time"

Readers of this blog know that one of my favorite topics is content delivery.  I published a research report on it last year, and have blogged on the topic often.  Content delivery is one of the more powerful aspects of ECM, and provides for creativity and potentially some real fun with ECM.

As reported in the aforementioned marker report, the majority of organizations today have yet to embrace creative content delivery.  The only approach with any momentum is mail merge (you know those form letters that look personalized because your name is dynamically inserted in a few places). It does not get  more basic than that.

But, commercial applications are beginning to emerge. In a recent article, I learned that Time Inc. is experimenting with a potentially more radical form of content delivery, with a new magazine called "Mine". 

First, let me say I love the double entendre.   The magazine is personalized as in, "its mine."  But also, the magazine is created by extracting (i.e mining) content from other magazines and re-combining them into each personalized issue of "Mine".

I signed up for "Mine", and have to say that, while excited by the concept, I am a bit skeptical about how far they are pushing the technology.  Try it yourself. The process allows you to select up to 5 magazines of interest.  The result promises to be a "Mine Magazine" created through a selection of content from across all 5 magazines. My skepticism stems from the fact that I just described the whole process to you.  The interface did not attempt to understand why I chose those 5 magazines, or what my subject and style preferences were.  I am fearful of getting an almost random selection of content from 5 magazines, or at best a collection of articles whose individual foci span the general focus of each individual magazine.  (For example, among my selections were "Food and Wine", and "Time".  Perhaps I will get articles from the former that cross subjects currently covered in the latter.  

Again I am not sure, but I will be sure to share my reaction after I get my first edition of "Mine". In fact, I'll show you "Mine" if you show me Yours (sorry I couldn't resist).  So, stay tuned ...

Twitter Goes Green

No its not about being ecologically friendly...

I live in one of the "greenest" American cities, Boston.  Aside from Chicago, I do not know of any American city that rivals us on the "wearing of the green" on St. Patrick's Day.  Boston is also known for its citizens' enthusiasm. (There have been riots and death as a result of celebrating our city's major league teams winning.)

So this year, during Boston's St. Patrick's Day festivities, Boston police have decided to use Twitter, the burgeoning microblogging tool, as a way to manage the crowds.

So for all of you who struggle to see the business value of Twitter, or fail to provide clear example to your potential corporate sponsors - look to the Boston Police Department.  They get it.  When you need sub-second, mission critical, timely sharing of dynamic information, insight and developments - Twitter Away.

And don't forget - next Tuesday, March 17th, to be "wearing the green".

IAM ALERT: Crawford Technologies Provides Content Delivery for the Visually Impaired

Information Architected Market Alert (IAM Alert):

Crawford Technologies announced the availability of a service to provide transactional documents for visually impaired customers in alternate formats. Crawford Technologies uses existing customer communications data to produce the requisite alternative formats for its clients’ visually impaired customers.

This is a clear example of how intelligent content delivery technology can be used to re-purpose content for a variety of business purposes.

In the case of Crawford, the value of the content is increased and customer loyalty and satisfaction is increased to a targeted audience (the visually impaired), without much added effort.  Content is not re-authored, but re-purposed, published in alternate formats to meet specific business needs.  CrawfordTech’s DAS accepts most common print files, including AFP, Xerox Metacode, PCL, PostScript, PDF, EBCDIC, ASCII Text and other data types such as XML, and produces the required format, including braille (grades One and Two), large format, audio and e-text.

Said Ernie Crawford, President and founder of Crawford Technologies, “Beyond the raft of regulatory requirements to provide these alternative formats to their customers, many of our clients recognize that this significant demographic is largely underserved. They have an opportunity to not only reduce their own risk and costs, but to attract and retain the visually impaired as loyal customers by promoting independence.”

Mr. Crawford is right on, and his logic and proposition is easily expanded to fit any number of other targeted communication paradigms.  And yet, as a recent study showed, most organizations are not leveraging content delivery functionality to any significant manner, despite the availability of many technology options.  This is an issue I have blogged on many times. What Crawford Technologies provides is an excellent example of one approach to intelligent content delivery - but it is just that - one example.  The ECM industry has done a poor job in educating the market on the value associated with intelligent content delivery. Intellignet content delivery technologies and services potentially represent the next big movement in ECM.

Intelligent Content Delivery- Commercial Web Shows the Way

Over the last month or so I made several posts regarding content delivery, leading up to the publishing of the Market IQ on Content Delivery.  In that post I commented on how I was not shocked, but nonetheless disappointed to learn that the overwhelming majority of organizations still do not fully comprehend the value of intelligent delivery.  Most stop at the embryonic step of merging names and addresses into form letters (YAWN.)  

As I have stated several times before, there is virtually unlimited possibilities, each tied to amazing value propositions, when rich media and/or "chunked" or semi-structured text content are recombined and republished to meet very targeted audiences, in some cases audiences of 1. 

As discussed in my earlier post regarding the OpenText Bloom strategy, part of the burgeoning  publishing paradigm is the ability to also tailor content for particular reader devices, from paper to Kindles, from laptops to iPhones.  Opentext took a noble but somewhat rudimentary stab at this during the demo I saw - providing  access to a collaborative ECM applications on an iPhone - screens were tailored to leverage the powers of the phone, and compensate for its limitations.

Very cool - but again - unfortunately most business organizations are still mastering merged mail lists. 

But as commercial web sites such as Wikipedia, FaceBook and Amazon ushered in and demonstrated for the business world the impact that Web 2.0 could have in the form of Enterprise 2.0, it appears it will do the same with content delivery.

According to an NPR story,music video producers have realized that a large percentage of their audience is now watching on smaller screens, and that viewing habits on these devices are very different. (Ask yourself now, are your work/viewing habits different when holding your PDA on the morning commute versus sitting at your desk in front of a 21" monitor?)  These music producers are deploying new approaches to display, delivery, use of visuals, close-ups, and a technique known as "center framing", to better utilize and leverage the small screen.

Music video producer Joseph Kahn, commented on this technique: "It's very effective because it doesn't rely on any format whatsoever. "  YES - THAT'S IT!  That is the very essence of content delivery techniques in ECM, to separate the content from the format - and thus provide content that can be dynamically formatted - recombined, manipulated, shaped to specifically leverage or maximize its value at each instance of consumption - whether dictated by physical device, preference of user, or current business process.

Ask yourself if that user manual designed for the English-speaking trained technician is the most effective approach to communication for a Spanish-speaking end user.  And how would you format a financial report that will be consumed on 8 1/2x11 paper as well as on hand-helds?  You need not create two separate versions - but rather dynamically reformat to meet separate instances of consumption.

Rethinking content creation to exploit content delivery requires discipline, strategy, and a fair deal of effort.  But, as the entertainment industry is showing us - it certainly has its payback.

IAM Alert: ECM Blooms Amidst New England Ice Storm

Information Architected Market Alert (IAM Alert):

Last Thursday, amidst freezing temperatures and a New England ice storm, OpenText held its annual analyst briefing in Boston – and ECM was “In Bloom” – I’ll explain.

The session began with the expected, chest pounding regarding OpenText’s financial strength and impressive string of acquisitions.

Tom Jenkins, Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Chairman, gave an overview of the ECM industry, overlaying on it the history and accomplishments of OpenText. He wrapped up his presentation on the point that mobile access was here and now, and ECM needs to be available on the Smart Phone.  OK- preaching to the choir – and more importantly I felt, he missed the issue.  It is not that ECM is available on the Smart Phone, but that ECM tailors and leverages content specifically for the mobile device user.  There is a misnomer here – it isn’t the phone that is smart – it is the content.

And this is where the remainder of the day was spent, focusing on smart content – under the label of Bloom. OpenText uses Bloom to describe its 2.0 initiative.

Under Bloom, ECM is positioned as a resource that needs to be viewed enterprise wide, within a single (albeit perhaps virtual) platform, fully integrated with office and ERP environments, balanced between compliance and access and enabled through content centric processes.  WOW – that is a mouthful, but it fell on my most receptive ears.

Under Bloom OpenText positions ECM initiatives as “journeys” – on-ramps if you will, or initial projects undertaken that centrally involve ECM. These journeys are:

1. Establishment of a centralized (potentially) virtual enterprise library (typically associated with explicit knowledge capture and or e-discovery)
2. Enhancing the desktop user experience (e.g. portals, Office integration, enhanced findability)
3. Expanding the ERP and CRM ecosystem (Using a taxonomy and metatags to bridge the world of transactional structured content and related unstructured content)
4. To establish social collaboration (leveraging Web 2.0 in the Enterprise – See Market IQ for more detail)

Under Bloom, OpenText works with the client on a journey – to broaden their horizons and embark on related pathways with the ultimate goal of establishing a Social Workplace and a Social Marketplace.

What was a bit confusing is that Bloom is NOT a product or a methodology.  In fact Bloom does not stand for anything.  It is not an acronym. It is strictly a vision.  While I am not sure I like or get the idea of labeling a vision with no more structure around it – giving it a name that means little (and yes I get the obvious – "Bloom to your full potential") – I nonetheless was drawn to the concept.

With Bloom, OpenText is introducing a line of service, but again that service is not called Bloom (?). OpenText provides Content Architects equipped with methodology and a maturity model that can help identify an organization’s  current ECM journey and develop it further with a strategy for evolving the ECM investment to a full fledged Social Workplace and a Social Marketplace.  Where I think there is a gap in this is the lack of focus on readiness assessment and cultural implications and forces.  Additionally, they are (rightfully so) focused on OpenText customers.  I am not sure if a FileNet or Documentum "journeyman", would be told if their strategy required a migration to OpenText. That said, I applaud Opentext for developing this vision, putting advisory resources behind it and having a suite of functionality to substantially support it.

Overall I am enamored by the concept, but clearly I was an easy target in the aduience. This is the vision of ECM I have been touting for years, the advent of a Content Resources Department (CR) – my phrase not theirs - a centralized enterprise resource much like the Human Resources Department.

What HR does for the single greatest corporate asset, personnel, CR does for the second greatest corporate asset, content.  The CR department does not own the content or interact with it on a daily basis, but provides the means to

• on-ramp or capture it,
• manage it from an administrative perspective,
• increase its value (place it on a growth strategy and put deliver it at the right place at the right time),
• and off-ramp

Through a centralized model, it ensures consistency,  leverages best practices and provides cost and process efficiency all while maintaining compliance.

CR is not about technology. It is an enterprise centralized resource, a core competency and a strategy for maximizing the value derived from content individually and collectively (from tacit to explicit), while minimizing associated risk.  Of course in the end, that strategy needs to be supported with an infrastructure, and here OpenText did demonstrate technical competency as well.  I witnessed OpenText-powered applications that made the smart phone "smarter" through the intelligent integration of smart content.

I’ll end this post by sharing a somewhat comical yet poignant view of this perspective on ECM.  This video was shared with me by an OpenText employee in response to my explanation of a "Content Resources Department."