TakingAIIM

Lest We Forget

In the days leading to the 10th anniversary of what is now simply known as "9/11", it is difficult not to encounter media reliving that moment and/or looking back on its aftermath. The focus of this blog has never been political, and I will not start now. But, in today's Metro, I read an article that, while focused on 9/11 had a ECM undertone to it, perhaps only picked up by enterprise content management (ECM) geeks such as myself.  The article, "The US Lexicon: New Words for a Changed World", provides an interesting overview of the effects of 9/11 on the American vocabulary. 9/11: now not just a date or series of numbers, but a label that evokes a day in history; a turning point. "War on Terror" a phrase and concept that did not exist prior. "Ground Zero", no longer the area closest to a bomb explosion, but a specific place in lower Manhattan.

Some three to four decades ago when I spent much time enlightening business and technical audiences on the capabilities of search engines (then full-text retrieval; yes even ECM has an evolving lexicon), the ability for an engine to keep pace with a language over time, or to adapt to a lexicon belonging to a specific "Community of practice", was a critical concept to appreciate and leverage.

Text retrieval grew from simple word-based queries into various intelligent approaches to understanding the meaning contained in words and phrases, to not just search on exact text strings, but to intelligently process the written word, the language and expand retrieval to intelligent adaptive concept-based retrieval. Foundation to this is customizable and/or adaptive lexicon management.

Search technology has come a long long way. But still retrieval tools, especially some of the more powerful were acquired and bundled into larger ECM platforms - e.g. FAST acquisition by Microsoft. For the most part lexical capabilities, or intelligent adaptive search technology is only available inside of large ECM platforms. Six months ago I blogged about my experience with small-medium ECM platfomrs that bundle retrieval, but typically in the form of more simple tools, e.g., Lucene. These tools do not adapt, comprehend, morph or expand a search into its various permutations, to treat retrieval conceptually, and/or support customized lexicons.

For those who have never experienced an "intelligent search tool", it is easy to  be led to believe that simpler search engines such as Lucene are the state of the industry.  But, standalone search tools, such as Vivisimo, Coveo and Endeca still do exist, and it is prudent that every ECM manager or knowledge manager, who finds themselves using a ECM platform or KM platform that does not provide an "intelligent search engine"  to ask themslevs what value would be achieved by integrating such a tool.

In one of the last gigs I had as a knowledge management/ECM, we brought in just such a search tool, (Vivisimo) - in this case to a very large corporation, for whom "intellignet" search, for a variety of reasons had escaped them. In one demonstration of "effective" search, they were literally blown away. Prior to this, they had undertaken a handful of attempts, some costing in the millions of dollars to develop and train a search engine to provide concept clusters, heuristic taxonomies and conceptual searching. Here it was - "Out out ofthe box".  More importantly, seeing "it work", they readily appreciated the power od conpet-based, heuristic clustering as a way to effectivley mine intelligence from contyent - not just locate words and phrases in text.

In my current position, as I previously blogged about, we began with a simple search tool, embedded in an ECM platform.  But our plan is very much focused on expanding this to include high end search. Size of a community and corpus of content somewhat effects the need for "intelligent search", but more improtantly, in virtually every situation you will need it becasue, as the article in today's Metro that insppired this post pointed out, langauge is always changing, across communities, industries and subject matter.

ECM and Web 2.0 Impact Social Impact

I stand at an intersting point of intersection. Web 2.0 technology progresses, providing more and more flexible and impactful ways to collaborate. Social impact approaches are emerging that focus on being collaborative, innovative and taking a systems approach to the definition, strategy and delivery of social change.

Whether by chance or deliberate action, instances of social computing positivley impacting the execution of philanthropic causes continue to surface, shedding light on the potential power of each, and more importantly, the heightened effectivness realized. A recently published report, commissioned by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Foundation, and Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership, appropriately titled, Disaster Relief 2.0, examines both the current and potential future impact of Web 2.0 technology on humanitarian disaster response. The challenge facing those working for social cuases is not unlike that facing virtually anyone sle, determining how best to leverage social computing. As one of the authors of the aforementioned  report, John Crowley, research coordinator for crisis dynamics for the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative stated, “We have the opportunity here to take advantage of the situation [new social computing tools]… If we do it, we can adapt faster, respond faster, and respond more efficiently.” 

Read on to learn more about recent advances in the use of technology and social impact.

E-Books Cross the Chasm; Embrace the Possibilities

As I tweeted last week, Amazon reported that sales of its Kindle books surpassed paper back sales for the first time. I delighted in hearing the message but was not surprised. This has been within the site of expectation for a year or so now. E-books are quickly catching on for a variety of reasons, among them, perhaps some of the more popularly stated but, IMHO least powerful, convenience and portability.   I was, however, a bit surprised by some of the commentary from author, librarian and Morning Edition commentator, Nancy Pearl. I (Listen to/read the interview).  

Pearl stated, “Most of the things that we’ve done to make life more convenient for people has come at a price, whether it’s having face-to-face interactions with your bookseller or your librarian, or wandering into the store to browse.”

Pearl is taking a very pessimistic, dare I say traditional librarian view to what is happening. We need not only focus on what we are giving up – but what we are gaining.  Consider that several blogs and stories have shared a far more upbeat take on the impact the e-books are having, including an ability to assist in teaching learning disabled children. They are not only convenient and portable, but also flexible.  While I still very much enjoy book clubs, browsing in book stores and occasionally going to the library, - I also completely see and embrace the value of e-books – above and beyond “convenience and portability”.  So I do not always talk to my librarian or book salesperson, but in online stores I have the ability to “collaborate” (i.e. see what readers like me are reading, and what they are saying about books), and have a personal librarian providing me with suggested reading lists.  

The important thing for us to remember is it is not about the device – the e-reader, but the underling technology that makes this possible – the e-publishing software that creates content that is highly flexible and adaptive and tehrefore more effective.  As I stated in an article written last year, “From my ECM-er perspective, the reason the iPad is so important is because it marks the beginning of the end of the old generation of publishing, and the popularization of e-publishing.”  I encourage those who want to better appreciate the issues involved and potential associated with e-publishing to read that article.

Do not get me wrong I am not advocating that libraries, bookstores and one-on-one social interaction should go the way of the dinosaur.  We need to embrace the new media and really appreciate all that it offers, and use it as a complement to alternatives.

EMC Writers Summit: Third Time is a Charm

For those that followed the Twitter stream (#EMCSummit), you know that last Friday I had the honor of emceeing the third annual EMC Documentum writers summit. This was my third time (see blogs from 2009 and 2008).  Once again, a great group of fellow ECMers assembled to enjoy a thought provoking day of discussion and shared vision.  This year I was joined by return participants: Ralph Losey, Bryant Duhon, Gabe Acevedo, Virginia Backaitis; and welcomed first-timers: Laurence Hart, Melissa Webster Johnny Gee, Susan Nunziata,  Joab Jackson, Mike Vizard,and Bob Boeri.

Additionally,the group was rounded out by several EMC Documentum people including Whitney Tidmarsh,  Marko Sillanpaa,  Andrew Chapman, Chris Preston, Natalie Aijluni, Andrea Alfonso, and Dave De Jear.

The topics we focused on this year seem to reflect the "next generation" of the topics we focused on last year - showing that the ECM Market has indeed progressed, although, rather slowly in the past year.

In fact, a focus on the state of the market is how we kicked off the day, with a presentation from Melissa Webster, who provided the latest research from IDC.  Discussion immediately ensued when Melissa proposed that there is no ECM market, per se, but rather a compound market comprised of multiple individual technology markets such as enterprise search, workflow, BPM, social platforms, document management, records management, etc..   Like many IT departments, Melissa conceded that IDC is heavily siloed in the way it approaches ECM. Perhaps while not a big problem for IDC, this can be a big issue for IT shops and their respective organizations, who do not appreciate that the silos need to be torn down, figuratively, and integrated to work as a single system, in order to achieve maximum benefit. That "end result", a few of us proposed, is "ECM". This of course led to a sub-topic near and dear to my heart, and a handful of other participants, "Should the industry look for a term beyond ECM?". Readers of this blog know what I have to say about that. Similarly Laurence Hart shared his often stated opinion on the matter - in favor of keeping the term, lest he have to re-educate his market on a new term - and for what value?

Melissa, with encouragement from EMC, brought up the phrase "case management" as a way to describe application specific instances of ECM, a term currently in use within EMC. The term does not seem to offer any more clarity on labeling ECM ... We moved on ...

Melissa shared that SharePoint users as a subgroup of the survey population emerged as the most vocal concerning the lack of content management in the organization. SharePoint was characterized not so much as a content management tool, as a content creation and sharing tool - often leading to proliferation of unmanaged content.

Interestingly enough, despite technology advances in the ECM world, the business drivers behind investments in ECM have not changed for years: securing intellectual property, creating a repository of record and compliance. Despite the many forward thinking benefits that are possible with a robust ECM system, business investments stay mired in mundane security issues.  Despite the efforts of many analysts (including yours truly) the norm in the market is to invest in these technologies when content security and compliance are at issue, as opposed to a way to radically change publishing models and the value derived from enterprise content.

There was a glimmer of hope. Mobility of the workforce and ECM-sharing devices are creating an impetus to re-examine the value and potential of ECM. (Another issue I have blogged about many times.)

This was a great segueway into Andrew Chapman's presentation, which was really more of a discussion on "If all the obstacles to ECM adoption - e.g., user/culture acceptance, networks bandwidth, cost, security, etc.- were to go away, what would you do with ECM?" 

Some discussion ensued around the possibilities of providing ECM as a consumer-oriented commodity. Most of us believed that there was a market potential for a personal ECM platform dor "everyday users" of the web who face fragmented functionality and repositories such as FliCkr, FaceBook, SlideShare, etc.  Mike Vizard even offered a product name - "MyCrap.com".  Beyond this however, the discussion fell back on issues regarding SharePoint and other "real word/mundane" issues, despite ongoing encouragement from Andrew to ignore these. I guess that similar to many business managers, it is difficult to think of ECM in a vision for the future when there are so many immediate issues and problems to deal with.

This provided the perfect segueway to Ralph's presentation on eDiscovery (talk  about real and present issues). Ralph's presentation was the most repetitive from the year before - but that was very telling in and of itself. Talk about not applying ECM in new ways. Despite the importance of the issue, most organizations have yet to really effectively address eDiscovery, especially applying advanced search technology to the situation. As Ralph shared, the situation is only getting worse as business users (and their personal life alter egos) find more and more ways to create and save content online. The picture that Ralph paints is frightening, as he explains that without proper management, the sheer cost of discovery can undermine the administration of justice. I encourage those of you who would like to better understand this issue to view his excellent video.

Whitney however, offered a ray of sunshine. Not all organizations are under-utilizing ECM. EMC Documentum has assembled a Leadership Council for Information Advantage, an advisory group made up of global information leaders from brand-name enterprises. These individuals are visionaries and have taken ECM in their respective organizations beyond "the usual."  They have already published a report, available for download in which they share lessons learned, best practices, and expert guidance on how to transform information into business value. One finding that jumped out of Whitney's overview was that Cloud was a game changer that cannot be ignored.

We concluded our day with a presentation from Bryant Duhon, in which he painted a "realistic" picture of social media. Bryant started by agreeing with comments made by Ralph earlier, that social media and social computing are very real and increasingly popular. But, as an early practitioner, he felt there were no real best practices to speak of. There are no  "experts" in Bryant's opinion as the technology and its application is nascent.

Ah yes, and so the growth and impact of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 from a business, legal challenge and technology perspective is very likely to be a focal point for next year's summit.  Stay tuned...

Facebook & Privacy - Still Off Balance

Only two months ago I blogged about another confrontation between Facebook and users' rights to privacy. At that time I quoted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as stating, “The company [Facebook] treads a delicate balance between protecting privacy rights and promoting social networking." 

Well apparently he still is off balance. Over 100 million Facbook user ids, including passwords, were published. The person responsible, a 3rd party security specialist, Mr,. Ron Bowes, may have had the right intention - but to subsequently publish the information on BitTorrent - I am not sure what that was all about. 

The related issues of privacy, security and records management in this 2.0 world are in the spot light more and more. As I have blogged and presented before, the interplay between access and transparency, and security and privacy is the ultimate design decision of E2.0, knowledge management and ECM systems alike. Earlier today I blogged on e-mail management violations in Boston City Hall. At last month's Enterprise 2.0 Conference, I presented research on how private enterprise are dealing with privacy in a 2.0 world. 

It is clearly one of the hotter topics - and one that this industry has got to get right - hopefully soon, less there be a sacraficial lamb that finally forces the issue to the limit.

ECM: Sometimes You Can't Fight City Hall

Nearly a year ago, I reported on an ECM story, close to home, and of a high profile. Last September, a top aide to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was cited for deleting hundreds of e-mails - subject to legal discovery - in violation of laws regulating public records.  At the time Menino explained - whoops it was caused by a "glitch".  As I reported back in September 2009, thanks to ECM technology (i.e. forensics), the e-mails were recovered.

Well, Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley has dropped any and all charges against the aide, stating that he did not willfully destroy the hundreds of records.  Apparently Coakley - like Menino believes the "glitch" theory. 

No back-ups?  No automated records management and e-mail management system? No legal hold technology?  It is amazing that in this day and age, our governments can still go without mainstream ECM technology. It was found that City Hall protocol instructs employees to delete their e-mails daily - no matter the content and context?  Hmmm? I am sorry your honor but our company's protocol requires us to delete all of our records daily. We thought there was a back-up - guess not?  Really? No one in city hall understood that chief Michael Kineavy's emails are supposed to be saved as public record?

Maybe, given the fundamental nature and criticality of electronic content to government and society at large, we should require our civil servants to have at least a high level working knowledge of ECM. The city claims to have subsequently invested in new technology, but are they using it properly?  I know where my city could get some good education and advice :).  Hey Martha and Mayor Menino - we are right next door.

Flipping Over Content Delivery

 
Readers of my work know that one of my more favorite aspects of ECM is content delivery. Along with mobility, the ability to re-purpose modular "chunks" of content in a variety of formats and contexts significantly enhances the value derived from ECM, increases the effectiveness of communication and quite frankly is just plain fun.

I have blogged about the concept often over the last few years, and originally began writing about it more than 15 years ago.  Many never seemed to quite get it - but slowly over the last few years more and more apps have emerged that clearly demonstrate the value of dynamic content delivery.  The latest is a free app known as Flipboard.

Flipboard  is a personalized digital magazine, created by culling social media and content pertinent to the reader.  This is the future of publishing, and it will take off - of that I am sure.  But do not just take my word for it.  Flipboard has received many great reviews, and commentary , that like this post, positions Flipboard not just as an iPad app, but another step forward in dynamic content delivery.  Initial reaction has been so positive that the provider had to ask for patience with potential early "blips in service."

- My point, I am not enamored with Flipboard per se - but am very excited to see yet another well done app come to the market that helps all of us experience the power of dynamic content delivery. Merge this with DAM and multimedia and the possibilities for new more effective ways to communicate are endless and the boundaries of ECM are stretched once again. 

Oh yeah, the ECM nerd in me is again having a very good day.

Do You Need to Pick Through Garbage to Find Valuable Content?

It has been weeks since I blogged, or even Tweeted on a regular basis. Where have I been? Dan and I are on the road, consulting on a very complex, grand and most interesting ECM project. A Fortune 100 company that remains successful and growing in spite of the economy, has managed to achieve such greatness without benefit of a formal Information Architecture and ECM strategy. This project has been the focus of our time and attention of late. The challenge is great and the potential opportunity huge. We are dealing with a large and diverse collection of content in various stages of maturity, quality, accuracy and accessibility. The organization readily realizes that years of ad hoc, manual and individual approaches to content management have resulted in a nearly chaotic collection of content and processes. Many issues exist, from a need for enterprise search and a centralized taxonomy, to strategies for content distribution. But a fundamental issue is the state of the collection of content itself. Among the many repositories, valuable content resides amongst dated, ambiguous, unapproved and at times contradictory content. A critical decision has been made to clean up the content repositories before addressing findability. The merit of beginning with the establishment of search and taxonomy, under a series of UIs, and using these to expedite the discovery of dated and inaccurate content and subsequently deleting it was debated, but a fundamental decision was made not to expose users to the “garbage”, but rather, first authenticate and clean up the content and subsequently use the findability tools to expose an “official body of quality content.” But I am not blogging today simply to relay this experience. While deep in thought about this situation, I heard a news story that brought this decision point to mind, and ignited in me a chance to blog about the BP oil “spill”. (Hey its not a spill - it’s an underwater gusher. Let’s call it what it is.) Despite many strong opinions about this disaster, I have refrained from blogging about it because the charter of my blog is ECM. Last week’s news, however, gave me my excuse to express opinion about this disaster, ala ECM. BP is using a form of ECM and Web 2.0 to control public opinion. They have hired “reporters” to write about the “spill” from a “more positive” perspective. These “reporters” are using phrases to describe their experience watching the clean up effort such as: “...enjoyed the spectacular ballet at sea… dolphins swimming around us. Even a shark came along to watch the show.” (Watch the show? Try struggle to survive, in disgust? And what's with "ballet?"). They have also reported that “... hotels have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams.” According to other independent, i.e non-BP owned sources, this is simply not true and the local tourist trade is seriously hurting. I keep my outrage and disgust about this entire situation in check – the point I want to raise here is this, if left unchecked and un-managed, garbage such as this could potentially be retrieved as “fact.” Content authentication and source identification are critical to a comprehensive ECM strategy. Internet and intranet sites alike have the potential to provide access to a wealth of content, but can contain “garbage” among the “jewels”, garbage as rank and lethal as the oil “spill” itself. (OK I snuck that in.) Consumers of content need to be diligent in filtering garbage from “fact”, or be assured, as is the case with our client going forward, that systems are in place to control publication. I am not advocating censorship, but ECM systems need to provide some approach to quality control, tailored to the scope and needs of individual situations. Fact checking, authority and credentials of authors, and/or providing clear and blatant identification of authorship are all steps that can be taken to at least let the reader decide what is content and what is “garbage”. In an earlier blog post, I directly addressed the need to authenticate content – of all types. As an issue fundamentally critical to any and all collections of content – especially those that are “findable.” In another earlier post I commented on the irony of bloggers who were “unhappy” with a regulation that compelled them to disclose any affiliations or gifts they received in connection with their blog writing. I have to say that at least in the case of BP, authors are identified as “BP Reporters”. So at least the potential is there for the reader to use a garbage filter on the consumption of content. – In the absence of content quality controls, such as those being implemented by my client, readers must beware.

2.0 is a Balancing Act, "Oh Really"

It's likely you have been following the pressure Facebook has been getting concerning its privacy policies. The pressure seems to be working, as Facebook recently announced it will change its approach to privacy and make it easier for users to protect their personal data. This has been an on going battle. I first commented on the need for better controls in Facebook 3 years ago, prompted by the then reaction of Facebook to privacy violations related to its Beacon advirtisements. At that time I commented that “mature” uses of 2.0 (especially those that take the form of Enterprise 2.0) have to address the issue of privacy and learn from established corporate practices concerning responsible content management. Here it is three years later and Facebook is in a similar situation, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is still resisting the demand to do the “right thing.” While the ability to set privacy controls within Facebook has “been made simpler,” defaults are still set to "open." The ability to disable the mining/access of personal profiling by marketers is still “not that simple.” Sure, Zuckerman is moving in the right direction, but he is going kicking and screaming, one small step at a time. But enough critisism on that issue. You can read the many articles and commentary out there, and determine for yourself if Zuckerman and Facebook are doing enough. In this post, I want to focus on one of Zuckerman’s recent quotes in particular. In commenting on the struggle between social computing and privacy, Zuckerman stated, “The company [Facebook] treads a delicate balance between protecting privacy rights and promoting social networking." When I read this quote – I could not help but think of Seth Meyer and Amy Pohler on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update: “Oh Really.” I have stated for years that as the adolescent we know as "2.0" matures, it will become a bit more cognizant of the realities of the real world – for many reason. The issue of balancing access and security is not new, nor unique to 2.0. I have been describing ECM as such a balancing act for over a decade. I first developed the graphic above over 10 years, as a way to explain how to approach an ECM strategy. At the top a grayscale bar represents a continuum between control/secure and collaborate/innovate. This is framed under the competing business practices of risk management and knowledge management. This is the highest level design decision you must grapple with when controlling any and all forms of content - social content included. Depending on the context and the point in the content's lifecycle, the balance between security/privacy and access/collaboration need to be treated perhaps differently, but always proactively. So, come 2.0 GROW UP. Social computing – open, transparent emergent platforms – sure they are powerful and should be exploited, but you cannot throw caution to the wind. It's time for social platforms to take responsibility for what they create - whether inside or outside the firewall. Inside the firewall, there really is no excuse, not to address this issue head on. The concept of balancing access to content against security is the focus of the IAI Primer: "Enabling Collaboration While Managing Risk." (Free download) The issue is also addressed from many angles in a series of IAI Primers on Enterprise 2.0. (Free download) I also recently authored a study on behalf of The 2.0 Adoption Council, sponsored by NewsGator, entitled, "Implementing Enterprise 2.0 Within the European Union: Transparency and Emergence vs. Privacy and Compliance." I will also be addressing this very issue head on at the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston, on June 17, in a presentation entitled Implementing Enterprise 2.0 in a Controlled Environment: Lessons Learned. Want to hear more, and/or debate this point with me? I hope you can attend the talk, (Thursday at 9:30 AM). If you cannot make it, stay tuned, I will be posting my slides and the reaction I get from the audience in an upcoming post - promise.

Innovation: Perspective Matters, But Many Simply Lack Vision

Recently both BusinessWeek and Fast Company published their respective 50 most innovative companies list. I have “mashedup” both lists in the chart below and edited the lists a bit. (Where there is overlap I indicate the difference in ranking order between lists.) There was much to garner from these lists, beyond the corporate rankings individually. What struck me first about these two lists was the degree of difference. Only 15 companies made each list; meaning each list had 35 different named companies. How could that be? Well its perspective, and I call this out because it is analogous to what we teach as the importance of corporate culture to an innovation practice. How does your company view innovation? What is considered innovative? What “gets the bosses attention?” These issues dramatically effect the way innovation is executed and valued. In the case of Fast there seems to be greater emphasis (though not exclusively) on disruptive innovation. There is a bit more focus on entrepreneurial start-ups, smaller companies doing new and different things in a market. This list uniquely includes companies such as First Solar, Spotify, Alidi Sud, Glam Media and Quantcast. BusinessWeek appears to be (again not exclusively) more focused on established larger corporations that are doing incremental innovation to strengthen market dominance. This list uniquely includes companies such as Toyota, Nintendo, Sony, Nokia, Coca-Cola, AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan Chase and Ford. What struck me second were the 15 companies that made both lists (i.e., Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Walmart, Amazon, GE, BMW, Disney, Cisco, Intel, Facebook and Nike). Of these, all but 2 are US-based firms. Even amongst the companies that did not make both lists, there is a respectable percentage of US-based firms. Despite much press of late to the contrary, the US, at least short-term, based on these two lists, is not lagging in innovation. The third thing that struck me was the degree to which many of these companies appear year after year. There were several other articles in each of these magazines that I encourage you to read, as well as others, including this one that discusses a study conducted by Bringham Young University on why innovation happens. These articles point out that while most companies readily state that innovation is critical to success, few, in reality, do anything proactive about it. Few companies have a specific focus on innovation: a team, do training, and practices etc. IAI’s survey on innovation in 180+ companies supports this observation. Our study found that While 68% stated their organization believed that innovation should be managed as a corporate asset and process, only 49% have put in place any formal process to manage innovation. Similarly, only 49% have any form of executive management presiding over innovation. More shockingly, perhaps is the fact that 46% of the organizations do not specifically reward innovation. Too many business leaders believe that creative problem solving and innovation skills are inherent, either you have it or you don’t, but research seems to suggest otherwise. Jeff Dyer the conductor of the research at Bringham Young University stated “"I always thought creativity was genetic -- that some people have it, some people don't, and there's not much you can do to get better at it," But after conducting the study, Dyer thinks differently. We at Information Architected agree. In fact we dedicate a major part of our practice to dispelling that idea, and dare you to prove us wrong. We can show you how to change your corporate culture (and how to determine if it needs to be) and how to instill a proactive innovation practice, complete with tools that hone each individual’s innovation skills and establish innovation as a corporate competency. We will take on any organization’s challenge and guarantee results. Come on – I dare ya. Learn more . And here is a link to that chart I referred to: InnovationTop50