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.

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.

Enterprise 2.0 Report and Webinar go LIVE

Well, as I have been promising on the blog for several weeks, the AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0 is now available. (download report)

On March 27, 2008 Dan Keldsen and I delivered an overview of the report and survey findings in a webinar.  The webinar is available for re-play.  If you prefer, the slides used in the webinar are available in Slideshare, and I have posted them below:

| View | Upload your own

We had over 500 people register for the webinar.  As usual, the time ran over and we were not able to answer all of the questions asked.  Stay tuned ... over the next few weeks, Dan Keldsen and I will be posting the unanswered questions complete with responses on our respective blogs.

Pulling a Double-edged Sword Out of Enterprise 2.0

Next Monday, 3/24/08, we release the AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0. The analysis and content development is complete, awaiting the final proofing and layout.  The report is full of unprecedented insights and market statistics regarding Enterprise 2.0, with over 70 charts and 60 pages of commentary. 

There are a handful of findings in the report that I found especially insightful.  Many of these come in the form of conflicting perspectives.  I want to share a just a few of them here, as a preview to the report.

Blind Criticality?

Conflict 1

Most of the organizations we surveyed strongly position Enterprise 2.0 as a technology and practice that is critical to their business goals and objectives.  Yet although Enterprise 2.0 is generally considered strategically important, most organizations (74%) claim to have, at best, only a vague familiarity with it. (41% stated there was no clear understanding.)

Conflict 2

Most survey respondents claimed to have high awareness concerning individual Enterprise 2.0 technologies.   Yet, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there was no clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 among survey respondents. 

Therein may lie the answer to the puzzle posed in conflict 1.
 
Perhaps knowledge of and experience with Enterprise 2.0 technologies (i.e. via simple, ad hoc usage due to their low barrier and transparent nature), is enough to give insight into how fundamental this level of integration and collaboration is to business challenges. Few companies, however, have taken the time or effort to rationalize Enterprise 2.0 holistically and strategically. Thus, there is an appreciation for how it will (tactically) be critical to success, but little understanding of how it fits (strategically) across an organization.

The ease with which Enterprise 2.0 technologies can be deployed is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is a major strength, a component of its value proposition. While collaboration in and of itself is not new, the ability to create online collaborative platforms with little to no effort or technical know-how is driving adoption and familiarity with the technology. On the other hand, this agility and speed of deployment allows many to embark on implementations without fully understanding the more strategic nature of these technologies.  Indeed, most organizations that attempted to justify an investment in Enterprise 2.0 could not do so.

This issue and many others are discussed in greater detail in the upcoming report,  available for download off of the Market Intelligence home page on Monday, 3/24/08, and we will be holding a webinar on the findings on 3/27/08 (register now).

To that end I must thank organizations such as CoreMedia, Day Software, EMC, Open Text, Socialtext,and SpringCM, who have underwritten this market research on Enterprise 2.0.  They too share our excitement and vision for Enterprise 2.0.  Because of their generosity and support we can make this research available to the market at no cost, to help educate and grow that market.

Enterprise 2.0 - Thanks for Noticing

Readers of this blog know that this week we spent a fair amount of time at the AIIM show.  You also realize that AIIM Market Intelligence has been spending much effort lately on the subject of Enterprise 2.0 (blogging, a recent webinar, training program, market survey, upcoming Market IQ, and associated Market IQ webinar.) At the show I delivered a one hour presentation on the intersection of Enterprise 2.0 and ECM (download slides used).  Dan Keldsen and I also rolled out the just completed Enterprise 2.0 practitioner training. 

Things went real well.  But don't take my word for it.  An attendee, Ron Miller, recently posted a commentary on the AIIM show.  To paraphrase Ron, ECM is relevant (again), and one reason is the focus on Enterprise 2.0 this year.  I agree Ron.  Thanks for noticing. 

As I stated in my inaugural post, I joined AIIM in order to broaden the direction of ECM, quote: "Please join me in TakingAIIM, in placing different technologies, applications, solution providers and industry trends into the cross hairs of TakingAIIM."

It is most rewarding to see that individuals, such as Ron also share this exciting new horizon for ECM.  To that end I must thank organizations such as SpringCM, Socialtext and EMC who have underwritten our market research on Enterprise 2.0.  They too share our excitement and vision for Enterprise 2.0.  Because of their generosity we can make this research available to the market at no cost.

The upcoming report, available for download on the AIIM site on March 24th, promises to be a groundbreaking educational resource to the market.  It contains the results of months of research, including the results of an 80+ question survey, completed by 414 users and evaluators of Enterprise 2.0.  I encourage those who are excited by the recent coverage of ECM and Enterprise 2.0 to be sure and join us for the March 27th webinar in which we discuss the survey findings.

But this is just the beginning.  Is ECM still relevant?  Well as long as there are enterprises and they have content, ECM is relevant, and AIIM Market Intelligence will chronicle the latest points of relevancy.  Over the course of the next year, in addition to the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0, we will be developing other Market IQs on topics such as ECM and managing business processes, the criticality of findability, the state of the art in content creation and content distribution and ECM and innovation management.

If there are other compelling business areas that you think are impacted by ECM, let me know, by commenting here.

KM: It's Good for Enterprise 2.0

Over the past weeks I have posted several times  to this blog regarding the market research Dan Keldsen and I have been conducting on Enterprise 2.0.  The survey component was completed by 400+ individuals.  We have been poring over the data and we are finding some great pearls of insight, on everything from what works (what doesn't), to how age effects  perception (or not).   

For me personally, one of the more interesting findings is the fact that organizations that have embraced Knowledge Management are far ahead of the rest of the industry in adopting Enterprise 2.0 and leveraging its benefits.  Those of you who follow my musings know that I am proponent of Knowledge Management.  Unlike many consultants and analysts who turned tail when the vibrations from the buzz when silent, I have continued to pontificate on the virtues of this business model.   Knowledge Management continues to thrive in many organizations, manifesting under many other names such as portals, collaboration, innovation management, and now Enterprise 2.0. Our survey findings indicate that adoption and realization of benefits from Enterprise 2.0 is greater in organizations that have embraced Knowledge Management.

How do I know this?  Among the  80+ questions in our Enterprise 2.0 survey,  we inserted 12 questions from the Knowledge Assessment methodology I have used in my consulting practice.  These questions were used in the survey to profile the culture of the respondents’ respective organizations. The profiling identified a sub-group of respondents that worked in a Knowledge Management embracing environment.  The responses provided by this group to other questions, substantially differed from the other respondents,  in many instances.

The data shows that organizations that can be characterized as Knowledge Management-oriented are further along in their adoption cycle of Enterprise 2.0 technology, perceive fewer barriers and are more aware of the potential benefits that Enterprise 2.0 can provide.  Behind this rift likely lies the criticality of corporate culture as a component to a successful deployment of Enterprise 2.0.  Knowledge Management-oriented companies typically have a collaborative, inquisitive and transparent culture, an environment in which Enterprise 2.0 thrives.  Those who have yet to embrace Knowledge Management will find themselves perhaps unimpressed with Enterprise 2.0, and/or scrambling to affect the requisite change in culture in order to maximize the benefits these emerging technologies can provide.

Its just the tip of the iceberg.  We are waist deep in data at the moment (which is why I have been so silent of late), but still on track to release the report at the end of next month.  If interested, you can register for the respective webinar we are holding on March 27th, now.  We are also providing Enterprise 2.0 training, which includes much of the survey findings.

In any case, stay tuned - there is more to come. 

Tony Soprano Meets Web 2.0

The AIIM Market Intelligence office is abuzz with Enterprise 2.0.  Dan Keldsen and I are in the thick of our survey (you can still take it), and research on the topic.  Perhaps that is why an article in today’s paper particularly caught my attention.  I wanted to share it with you, because it pushes the envelope on the topic of social network computing and the power it potentially wields.

Social network computing spotlights and magnifies the power numbers, what can be accomplished when masses of individuals  collaborate in real time.  In our upcoming Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0, we will be sure to talk about the wisdom of crowds, the intelligence that can emanate through social tagging, filters and the like. But today’s article highlights another potential benefit (or risk depending on your perspective), of the ability to collaborate in masses, bridging time and space, in an ad hoc real-time manner.  A group of Sicilian business owners are using a web site to share their experiences with the local Mafia, finding safety in numbers and banning together to refuse to pay “pizzo” or protection money. 

What is most interesting about this movement, as reported in the article, is “…their movement has helped to chip away at the Mafia's psychological hold on Sicilians… “.  Early findings of our market research are, not surprisingly, showing that Enterprise 2.0 is as much about culture as it is technology.  At the front end, culture needs to support and reward openness, and collaboration.  But, as this group in Sicily are showing, access to such functionality can also have an impact on underlying culture.  While organizations (communities) that approach Enterprise 2.0 with a top-down strategy, and embrace, or at least support open collaboration may more readily reap benefits from Enterprise 2.0,  there is evidence to suggest that rogue-based ad hoc  usage of Enterprise 2.0 can  also succeed, initially perhaps changing counter-cultures if nothing else.

Stay tuned, more on this and other aspects of Enterprise 2.0 will be forthcoming in our Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0.  In the interim, if you would like to weigh in on the topic, there is still time to take our survey.