The quick wins in document management and document collaboration

Long time since an update at the ECMSignals. I have been attending a week of accelerated learning at Capgeminis University at Les Fountaines. A trilling experience, but I’m now back to the reality of using the learning experiences in a real environment.

In this blogspot I would like to share some reflections regarding document management and document collaboration. This is a field where organisations can gain huge improvements and strong return on investments. Implementing solutions in this is segment organisations will discover a magnitude of quick wins.

The As-Is situation in document collaboration
In 90% of organisations the employees uses Microsoft Word to collaborate on documents. They use Words “powerful” :-) built-in collaboration features, and after a few edit rounds the documents become unwieldy to read. Reviewers then have to send an email explaining why they made a certain change, along with comments made inline in the document. By the end of the process you have 19 versions of the same file from 6 different people and 90 emails discussing the content. The document is then stored on a file server (the L: drive) with the file name as the only identifier. Example of such a collaborative filename is: “custproject_final_19_PCD.doc”. This is madness and the organisations need to take actions to control and improve the situation.

Together with my status description (As-Is) on document collaboration I also read a report published by the Butler Group that states that employees spend up to 25% of their working day on non-productive, document collaboration related tasks. The report goes on to say that organisations risk a great deal more that poor business performance by not managing the collaboration, production and lifecycle of documents, and time has come to move from intra-company collaboration to more sophisticated inter-company collaboration.

Business managers need to seek out new means how the most expensive of all corporate assets – the information worker - can be more efficient, effective and productive. The key enabler in this quest is the interaction between information and people, so by relating to Butler Group that knowledge workers (the most expensive one) uses up to 25% of the time at non productive activities a quick win should be to implement a document and collaboration system.

Is Document Management on the agenda?
To illustrate this I refer to a recent Forrester report that asked 1,017 software decision-makers from North American and European enterprise companies about their ECM plans, and the results are overwhelming:

• Nearly 75% of organisations will invest in document management in 2008
• Nearly 65% of organisations will invest in team collaboration software in 2008
• Microsoft leads all vendors by a large margin with nearly 25% of organizations planning to invest in Microsoft’s technology for ECM

The future
Microsoft looks set to dominate this battle with the ECM vendors in order to become the leading Document Collaboration platform provider of choice, and Microsoft will integrate all office applications into one platform - MOSS. But there are new Web-based technologies and companies (google.com and zoho.com) that will force Microsoft and other ECM vendors to re-think their strategies over the coming year. For more indepth information please read my blog post regarding My personal view on the Microsoft Yahoo acquisition

My personal view on the Microsoft Yahoo acquisition

“Acquisition at high cost with high risks”

This is a blog post that is not ECM related, but I feel that the issue is so interesting that I can’t leave it without a comment.

In the last week there has been massive media coverage on the Microsoft bid, and the last respond from Yahoo is “raise the offer and we talk”. In my opinion Microsoft objectives to merger is a strategic mistake, and I will try to explain my opinions in this blog spot.

I think one of the main reasons for Microsoft to buy Yahoo is that they want to enter and develop a global “cloud computing” platform to support distributed internet applications. Microsoft’s analyse in this matter is right – they need to build capabilities, but the way they do it (acquire Yahoo) is a mistake. Buying Yahoo is not the cheapest and smartest way for Microsoft to enter the cloud computer game. The treat from Google regarding free software is real, and need to be taken serious, but in my opinion Microsoft can gain capabilities smarter.

So why is this acquisition a strategic high risk game – ok I will give you three reasons:

1. Cash Cow will eat the Star
I believe that Steve Balmer know witch division is “butter and bread”, and so does the employees in Microsoft. Steve knows that someway down the road Google and cloud computing will threaten their Windows products, but how can he bring this enemy into the house without threatening the Cash Cow.

There are a fundamentally difference in the business models between Google and Microsoft. The offensive Google model is to use the internett to build a huge business so they can “kill” Microsoft, while Microsoft would like to use the internett to protect its already huge Windows/Office business. So if this is true what are the implications on innovation; at Google every cool application/feature that undermine Microsoft will be rushed into production, and at Microsoft every exiting new idea that undermine the Cash Cow will be killed or delayed.

So, if Microsoft acquires Yahoo there will be huge challenges in gaining synergies, because Microsoft will always support the dominant Cash Cow.

2. A new war - war on all fronts
Microsoft has a war going on all fronts, and each war requires a new battle-plan with different skills, allies, strategies and expertise. In every front Microsoft are up against strong competitors. Google is one competitor but so are Oracle, IBM, and Apple. Now Microsoft would like to enter the media advertisement (Yahoo main business) to support distributed internett applications. – I don’t think its wise to enter this battlefield?

3. Pre deal turmoil
There will be years not months before the acquisition closes. Regulators will look closely into this acquisition, especially in the EU. In this period the employees in Microsoft and Yahoo will enter a period with uncertainty. Combined with the fact that Google will bombard the Microsoft and Yahoo employees with good offers, and there is a high risk that the new entity will lose key personnel in the transition period. Another point is that innovation in both companies will be stiffened. Who want to launch new innovating products when there is a high risk that anyone associated with the new products will be eliminated by new management team. In this transition period towards a combined entity there will be uncertainty and shift of focus, while Google will be steaming full speed ahead – with perhaps new employees.

The bottom line
Google has built their business around Internet advertisement, distributed applications and cloud computing while Microsoft trying to transform business to gain capabilities in this field. In my opinion Google has the offensive strategies while Microsoft is the defensive part, trying to gain capabilities to avoid being decimated in the Internet segment.

Different strategies and different objectives! In this case, my bets are on Google

A quick look at Business Process Management (BPM)

As I see it Business Process Management will be the back-bone of every ECM project, and in this blog spot I will focus on BPM in this context. The trends show shift from information/content driven customer interaction to one-on-one customer interaction. In this paradigm shift Process Management capabilities are essential. In the last month I read several case studies that shows premium benefits for organizations that implement cross functional business self service processes such as order to cash, procurement to order, service and claim. These cross functions integrated processes are classic examples on Value Chain Integration – and as I see it the “holy grail” of Enterprise Information Portals.

To implement a holistic e-service view the organisation, culture and skill set need to change and e-service initiatives need to be backed-up by unified process management

Why is BPM essential
Many organizations have started BPM and SOA projects (I will describe SOA in later blog spot). As I se it many of these initiatives are independent and disconnected. The BPM initiatives often start in the business arena, while the SOA projects often start in the IT department with a focus on new technology (hype-masters) and easy application integration. However, there is increasingly recognition that BPM is the business side of SOA, and together PBM and SOA will accelerate the business value with coordinated implementation.

Some recommendations regarding implementation of BPM
You should start to adapt process modelling as early as possible. Look at the business side and implement holistic process architecture. Start mapping (as-is) the critical and manual processes that are customer- or partner facing and require a higher level of integration and flexibility. These processes will often enable customer satisfaction, growth and competitive advantage for your organisation. Work with your team to improve (to-be) these processes. Implement self service through web/object presentation closely linked to improved processes.

In the weekend I will be at a kick-off, and I will be a bit late with my weekly blog spot.

Next week I will give my view on Microsoft’s bid on Yahoo.

10 bullet-points for governance, planning and implementation

I my opinion some of the expected benefits of implementing intranets with Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS) are enhanced collaboration and sharing through the organisation with proven application and known user interfaces.

However, without governance your intranet will come out of control and lead to chaos. Many organisations don’t implement a holistic plan for the intranet, instead intranet project is initiated from various departments and projects, resulting in multiple, uncoordinated and separate deployments, each with its own structure and server farm. Often content grows and the user experience become inconsistent. If end-users are unable to collaborate, find and search for information due to poor implementation and lack of Information Architecture (IA) the total value of the intranet is lost.

Why implement a governance plan? You need to gain early support from key stakeholders across the organisation. A governance plan forces consensus and designates ownership, roles and responsibility. Ultimately governance is critical to avoid chaos.

My 10 bullet-points for governance, planning and implementation:

1. Business objectives (agreed upon measurable goals linked to the business strategy)
2. Information Architecture (consistent site structures and navigation)
3. Taxonomy (consistent naming conventions)
4. Search (users can find information – linked with taxonomy)
5. Provisioning (consistent site usage and user policies)
6. Branding/design (correct use of corporate profiles)
7. Testing (to ensure consistent use of sites and content)
8. Training (tools and governance plan)
9. User feedback (monitor and measure)
10. Change- and deployment plan (structural change and implementation)

In my opinion organisations will enjoy greater success with their MOSS installations if the pay attention to the listed 10 bullet points for governance, planning and implementation. Use the bullet point to write an implementation and governance plan, ensure stakeholder buy-inn, ownership of tasks and consensus of business objectives.

I know that this is just bullet points, and they need to be described further for you to be able to use them in daily work. I will describe some of the bullet points by separate Blog-spots on a later stage. – Stay tuned!

For more reading: Microsoft TechNet

Next week on ECMSignals

* 10 bullet points for MOSS governance
* Business Process Managemnet from an ECM perspective

Is Mashups entering the enterprise?

For some time the innovative web-developers has developed and build cool webs and solutions using free components that they “glue” together. I worked with some rather amazing developers that used mashup-methods – “a little bit of this and a little bit of this put this together with this and viola here is the new web-solution”

I`we been working as a consultant in the portals segment since early 2000. To bring some insight in the difference between portlets and Mashups I suggest that you reed the section on Wikipedia regarding “Mashups Versus Portals” – as an “old” portal visionary I find this quite interesting.

Will this work for the enterprise ?
In my reading I came across an article on InformationWeek that highlights the release of IBM’s Lotus Mashup Builder, which allows end-users build their own mashups on a webpage and share it with the rest of the organization. IBM is an innovator in introducing new Web 2.0 tools for the Enterprise, and I think this application show that they take this seriously. Employees can embed useful applications like a Google search bar, a Wikipedia page, or any other useful tool. I also find usefull sites that have directories of mashups, also for the enterprise. The next step in this process is getting IT to understand the business value of mashups in order to include these web-pages within a corporate profile. But this is another discussion…

I feel that governance is a missing-link, but as I see this Mashup Builder it can track vital information such as who were building, who is sharing, the services that are being used, and a lot more. It also helps that IBM is bringing this on an Enterprise level.

It looks like IBM has a head start regarding Mashup for the Enterprise, but I hope other giants will see the usefulness and follow.

Microsoft at the ECM arena part 2

In my work SharePoint 2007 is a hot topic these days. With the release of SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS), I’m trying to get a grasp on this platforms reach into the enterprise, and the issues
surrounding SharePoint implementations.

According to the latest from Osterman Research, SharePoint is becoming the de facto collaboration platform for many organizations today and study results for SharePoint are positive The Osterman study tried to determine trends in the future use of SharePoint. Results of the study indicate that in organizations that deployed Microsoft Exchange, more than half are currently using SharePoint and 12 percent plan to deploy SharePoint within the next 12 months.

”Survey points to Microsoft SharePoint becoming a de-facto collaboration platform” Michael Osterman

This is a result based on that the platform is easy to use (and parts of) the platform becoming more widely deployed and ingrained in the work habits of end-users. And if there’s anything Microsoft knows well, it’s how to ingratiate itself with the enterprise.

On the other side the recent CMSWatch "ECM Suites Report" says that SharePoint is an ECM virus with “IT departments enthusiastically promoting the platform because the end-users and departments can install and run these small repositories themselves”. – Are the IT department scared of work and responsibility?

In their research, CMSWatch found that SharePoint is often is implemented in a ad-hoc fashion with little compliance and controls on it’s use – that’s why CMSWatc uses the term “virus”.

The difference between these two opinions comes primarily in how SharePoint is used. Fully or partly used as a collaboration tool, it’s widely accepted. As an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) tool, there tends to be a long way to go. But to help there are several third-party vendors that try to bridge Microsoft ECM gap – an example is eDRM-vendor Merido and CMS-vendor EPIServer (ElectroPost)

In use-cases content is stored and managed in the same system (DB), but the designs, implementation process and governance is different. And there are also wide spread SharePoint implementation on ad-hoc basis with no root in the organisation strategy, business plan and goals - this is dangerous.

In the CMSWatch survey they report an example of a North American bank that reported more than 5,000 uncontrolled and unaudited instances of SharePoint. SCARY!

My opinion is that share Point as a technology is supposed to support an enterprise, not drive it. Technology is an enabler. That means an organization should be carefully thinking about its business strategy and how its available resources assist that strategy.

With this in mind, governance becomes the critical success factor in a SharePoint implementation plan. Whether it’s implemented at department or enterprise level, as collaboration or a content management platform implementation strategies and a governance plan must be in place to support the content stored in SharePoint.

Any opinions on this?

Blurry products and features – ECM, WCM, EIP???

Sometimes I’m struggling to se the difference between content tools, and the lines between the families are notoriously blurry.

This seems especially case among Enterprise Information Portals (EIP), Enterprise Content Management (ECM), and Web Content Management (WCM), where I see a lot of overlap in vendors, product functionality, and marketing messages. Also to add to the confusion several vendors, due to accusations, have several overlapping product lines in the market.

An example is that if you're looking to implement Intranet-based document management, you could conceivably use any of those three types of products. Some consultancies will also try to sell you all three types of solutions, with the obligatory integration project.

My recommendation is to take a business approach to the project, and describe what solves your most pressing needs before selecting content technology, tools or platform. Describe the core of your business problem or opportunity, and then build the selection process from there. The reality is that these three different types of products have their defined strengths and weaknesses, and they tend to address different problems. By understanding what you're trying to accomplish, you can better identify the types of content technology you need.

My opinion is that the WCM products support fundamentally publishing scenarios and has the focus on semi-structured content and content delivery with employee-friendly editorial interfaces. There are also ECM vendors that claim that they have publishing capabilities, but in my opinion ECM delivery become more process oriented, and vendors often focus their solution into industry verticals such as e.g. finance, public.

Vendors also add to the confusion, and to be sure they have the best fit for the market they often market the same product for different categories of problems, and sometimes that actually makes sense. The promise of e.g. MOSS 2007 is that this toolset can conceivably play in all of these three (WCM, ECM and EIP) spaces to varying degrees, but Microsoft has different ways of getting there, and one SharePoint installation still will be implemented and used in several different ways.

Of course the solutions also overlap. For example WCM sites implemented as a ”Community-oriented” site may well look quite a bit like a "Collaboration Portal," which in turn might look like a "ECM Workgroup Collaboration" site. All in all this come down to the implementation, amount of tailoring and presentation layer of each delivery. So there is possible very little difference between the products, but on the other hand you should be aware that the tools approach your problems in different ways.

So my recommendation is that you should build a good specification and business case that has a good fit with your overall business objectives, and then figure out which type of tools that provide the biggest near-term value. This mean that you should specify and describe what type of need(s) and scenario(s) you're addressing, and the key objective in the specification is that you carefully outline what you're trying to achieve with which types of content. A little analysis here can save you a lot of time and money at later stage.

Portal acquisitions - Will there be synergies or is it greed?

After several attempts by Oracle to acquire BEA, the two companies entered into a definitive agreement under which Oracle will acquire BEA. By acquiring BEA oracle will now have four portal products and I guess that the Oracle management need to make some tough decisions – they can’t bring all products to the marked. I also question the overlapping developement and engineering efforts.

Oracle has already announced that they would continue supporting BEA products after the acquisition. The situation could become quite interesting for portal customers though, as Oracle would find itself in possession of four different portal products:

• Oracle Portal
• Oracle WebCenter
• BEA WebLogic Portal
• BEA AquaLogic User Interaction (formerly Plumtree)
  

The product lines significantly overlap and I will try to give a quick description regarding overlaps:

• BEA AquaLogic and Oracle WebCenter both focus on integration and SOA, and can offer good web application development toolkits.
• BEA WebLogic Portal and Oracle Portal bring to marked strengths in role and object based portals with focus on personalization and segmentation, and can offer a platform for self-service applications
• All four portals offer only average CMS and DMS functions in comparison to other special ECM and portal vendors

Oracle aquired BEA with overlapping products, this bring Oracle into a position where they have to support 4 product lines with a oversized engineering and support team. In my oppinion Oracle should merge with a company with complementary products (WCM or ECM), this would make sense and would bring synergies.

Therefore I struggle understand Oracles acquisition strategy, and I miss to se the synergy, and as I see it – ”two plus two is still equalling...just two”.

If any se this different please bring me wisdom ☺

Microsoft at the ECM-arena part 1

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007 is Microsoft newest contribution to the ECM arena. The key Microsoft marketing message is that they now have many of the capabilities needed to offer ECM and Portal projects. Microsoft also claims that MOSS includes a "out of the box" development platform for developing rich collaborative web-applications.

Is MOSS a viable ECM alterative, or just a sales and marketing message from Redmond. Before reading further please look at CMSWatch 12 predictions for 2008, regarding MOSS (http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/172-2008-Predictions). CMSWatch claim that MOSS now enters the valley of disappointment because there is a mismatch between marketing and sales message and customer ECM-project reality. I’m currently studying the MOSS platform, trying to gain knowledge and experience for so to help organisations to implement MOSS with a high success rate.

My opinion is that the success criteria for MOSS are the same as for any ECM-projects, and organisations disappointment (claimed in CMSWatch) could well be that the project group fail to specify the project, manage level of expectations and build viable business cases. Advice: DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE BUSINESS SIDE OF AN ECM-PROJCET. How to build a ECM-business case

I would also be happy to start discussions and knowledge sharing with other ECM/MOSS professionals or communities.

In one of my next blog-spots I will try to describe MOSS from my personal ECM-point of View.

Focus on customer interaction (e-service)

I predict that increasing competitiveness and focus on innovation and revenue growth are forcing B2C and B2B organizations to align and optimize customer interaction and service delivery. Moving from Content Management (ECM) to e-service is a shift from information delivery (content delivery) to customer interaction. In this paradigm shift I see that channels need to be aligned and integrated with common underlying workflows and business rules .

Why is e-service essential
Customer service has historically been the domain of phone based contact centers and e-mail based communication. However organizations of today must treat a wider spectrum of customer contacts points with a wider palette of contact points for the customer. Organizations need to align and develop multiple communication channels to capture every potential customer (prospect) and interact with existing customers.

Typically an e-service mission statement could be: “Increase sales and customer satisfaction by serving partners and customers better by unifying enterprise applications, information and business process delivered cross the web”

I mean that E-service is essential because organizations need to:

• Improve customer intimacy and customer loyalty
• Enable cross-sales and up-sales of products
• Turn prospects into clients
• Enable customer feedback for service and product development
• Moving customer service points upstream
• Enable customer web based self-service
• Enrich and coordinate knowledge management from several customer contact points

All this leads to a more efficient flow of information through the value chain, which again should lead to an increase in revenue.

Some recommendation in the shift to e-service:
If you build a unified customer interaction experience you need to align the organization, processes and toolset. It is important not to let current structures, policies and business-as-usual thinking slow migration to a unified customer service model. With this in mind you should:

• Describe and model it's current or selected customer interaction points – this will be the basis for understanding potential challenges and the basis for the GAP-analysis
• Perform the GAP-analysis and implement changes – mind that the solution to cover the GAP may not lie in technology.
• Build a solid, single and broad technology platform to support e-service initiatives. The platform should consist of cross channel information sharing, workflow, and a unified customer model.
• Consider technology consolidation – don’t try to integrate old systems into one platform for e-service. Move the company away from single customer point solution and implement a standardised platform with a modular and standardised presentation layer, the latter to ensure future flexibility.
  

ECM Project – Building a business case

Before you start ECM-projects Return of Investments (ROI) objectives need to be in place. The ROI calculation needs to contain elements of cost savings and revenue growth. If not many decision makers (managers) will be reluctant to give approval for your ECM-project.

In this blog-post I will try to give some advice regarding ROI calculation, so that you will be able to successfully start new exiting ECM projects.

Many decision makers intuitively believe that implementing Information Management solutions bring financial growth through process efficiency, improved information management and enhanced customer interaction. Given this audience it is important that the ECM-team plan a well documented approach with realistic measurable goals presented as a business case. With the business case in place you bring to the table the right and aligned level of expectation between decision makers and your ECM-team.

Often when business cases fail there are:

• Lack of alignment with the organisations strategy and key business drivers
• Failed to identify how ECM-technologies enable processes to run more efficiently and effectively

To provide some ideas for a business analyse you should look at the following key dimensions:

• People and staffing
• Process and process management
• Culture
• and technology

You should investigate the cost drivers and benefits in each of these key dimensions. For an overview I enclose a table with highlights business case dimensions

Conclusion
All ECM projects should have measurable value propositions and business cases developed. The business case must comprehend a holistic view of the organisation, that include both internal and external analyse of the environment the organisation operate in.

Use the ECM-business case to:

• Align the level of expectation between decision makers and the ECM-team
• Alignment of goals within the ECM-team
• Measure and adjust solution after delivery
  

Implementing an ECM-business case there are two critical success factors:

• Alignment with the organisations strategic goals and business driver
• Process discovery and mapping with focus on efficiencies, reduced cycle times, quality, reduced rework, customer interaction
  

So the success criteria is to implement a holistic business case that ensures that the ECM investments contributes to the organisations strategy, goals and tactical objectives, and also provide a mechanism for evaluating and measure the ECM-initiative through its lifecycle.

ECM trends

In this blogpost I will try to collect some of the trends in ECM solutions and ECM delivery.

The new trend is that enterprises are seeking ECM solutions that:

1. Support content initiatives that drive revenue or increase customer satisfaction
2. Support the migration form information driven content to transaction driven solutions (e-service)
3. Support content initiatives that support one content engine with multiple distribution channels
4. Enable business users to own the structure, management and delivery of content
5. Support open and modular delivery standards
6. Support role based content delivery – same content source delivered in multiple channels (inter, intra or extranet)
7. Support IT consolidation and architecture needs

As enterprises continue to place greater focus on the customer experience delivered in multiple channels the enterprise should be able to build and maintain teams that take responsible for the web customer experience. The production and delivery of the web customer experience is clearly a business line function, not the responsibility of IT, but several IT organizations have been slow to get the news and adapt to new working requirements’. The optimal team is a cross functional team anchored in information technology, business development and management.

ECM a tool for enabling revenue growth

Since early days of information technology the dominant role viewed from management has been to look upon IT as a major driver of cost efficiency. This has been the case even as companies deploy advanced web based systems and applications with unprecedented levels of functionality. We are now in a paradigm shift where IT will be the basis for business development and revenue growth.

This is not to say that the mandate to improve cost efficiency will fall away. Reducing operational costs remains among the top imperatives for executives when the discussion shifts to IT investment. But for CEOs in particular, a more important technology objective is to help improve information and knowledge management, and another major imperative is to help the firm ”respond quickly to market changes”. This leads to that many managers are turning to innovation in business models - how they develop, produce, sell and deliver products and then to drive revenue growth. This leads to that IT strategy and web-capabilities become more closely aligned with the company‘s overall business objectives. It is critical to align IT more closely with companies’ business goals and overall strategy.