Angie Cullen

When building a business case around a social Intranet, there are a few key components to consider.  Here are five suggested features that you might ask your potential vendors to demonstrate.

Forum Collaboration
By using a forum or threaded discussion  tool, you can engage your employees around specific topics and challenge them to start talking about topics that matter to them. For instance, Project Managers might discuss the project they are working on along with the status of that project, IT employees may share valuable technology updates, and HR personnel may share links to recruiting best practices.  Be sure that the tool  allows employees to create a profile and specify the topics they are interested in. This also provides a way for employees to get to know their colleagues and share information.

Social Tagging and Ranking
Although search engines are getting smarter by the minute, nothing replaces the ability for an employee to indicate whether an article or piece of content was useful to them in their job. Especially if the search engine takes that ranking into account in ordering their search results (e.g. articles they ranked higher, should be placed higher in the results). In addition, if employees are able to add their own keywords that helps influence search results, they will be able to find information that is more meaningful to them much more quickly.

Document Storage & Collaboration
With a document storage and collaboration tool, employees can find and share documents easily.  This tool will allow employees to create, open and edit documents by placing them in a centralized location that’s easy to access. Having this tool will allow multiple users to work and collaborate in real-time, based on the permissions that are set by the owner, on a document simultaneously.  A document collaboration tool can also help you cut down on storage costs. Employees will no longer need to email a status report, PowerPoint deck, or Excel spreadsheet to the entire project team (these multiple copies take up storage on the email server). Instead, they can simply email a link to the single copy stored on the Intranet and use check in/check out functionality to edit that single document.

Expertise Finder
Employees consistently rank the company directory as one of the most used functions of their Intranet. An expertise finder takes that directory one step further and allows users to identify employees that hold specific knowledge or expertise. This is paired with the ability for employees to create their social profiles and self-report their skills. Similar to tagging content, employees should also be able to tag other employees with terms that they could use in the future to find that expert again (e.g. tagging someone as “Intranet administrator”)

Knowledge Base or Wiki
Your employees have a great wealth of knowledge and given the opportunity many of them want to share it. Be sure to ask your potential Intranet vendors whether they offer a knowledge base or wiki functionality that would allow your employees to quickly, easily share nuggets of knowledge that may assist other employees. Keep in mind that it must be easy to use and be integrated with the search functionality so employees can use a single search to locate people or content.

These five key components  are just a few of the items to consider when reviewing potential software solutions for a social Intranet. Be sure to ask each of your vendors to demonstrate the functionality and consider inviting a few of your end users or members of your Intranet Governance Council to the demos to get their input, as well.

Have additional features that you think would be critical to a social Intranet? Feel free to leave a comment and let us know what you think is important or what has turned out to be a popular social feature for your employees.

Sean R. Nicholson

Continuing with my posts on great Twitter resources, this is a followup to my 99 Great Internal Comms Resources,  99 Great Intranet Resources and 99 Great ECM Resources posts. Below is a link to my list of 99+ great SharePoint Resources on Twitter. If you’re looking for the folks who tweet about SharePoint as an Intranet platform, ECM solution, and a collaboration tool…these are your folks! Pay careful attention and you may see folks who are also providing links to some valuable SharePoint alternatives, as well.

Sean’s list of 99+ Great SharePoint resources on Twitter

Know someone that I missed from the list? Definitely let me know. Shameless self-promotion is also allowed if you think you should be included, just make sure your tweets back up your request.

You can check out the list below, and feel free to leave a comment if there’s anyone else I should add.

Sean R. Nicholson

Last week was a great week for online discussions relating to Intranets. On Monday, Alex Manchester of Step Two Designs posted an article to his blog asking whether the term Intranet is dead. His thoughts were sparked by a recent presentation by Jane McConnell of NetJMC and the conversation that ensued was a healthy dialog on the future of Intranets, their relevance in a world of social media, and whether the term “intranet” was really the best way to describe an interactive workplace. The conversation continued throughout the week and I’d encourage anyone who works with Intranets to check out the threaded discussion and add their $.02.

Tuesday continued the interesting online conversations as Jarrod Gingras and Alan Pelz-Sharpe of CMS Watch made his predictions for technology in 2010. One of particular interest to me was his prediction #1 that :

1) Enterprise Content Management and Document Management will go their separate ways
ECM as a marketing and technical concept has great validity. But the idea of having a single overarching platform to manage all sources of content management only works well in those enterprises that follow a unified and services-oriented architectural approach to IT.

I agree with Jarrod and my interpretation of this prediction is that organizations that aren’t able to settle on a single vendor for all of their information systems or aren’t able to invest in a comprehensive services-oriented architecture just won’t be concerned with Enterprise Content Management (ECM) because they won’t be able to address every departmental business process problems with a single ECM tool.

To expand on Jarrod’s prediction, I’m thinking that as more and more vendors build document management functionality into their applications, organizations will be less concerned with where it is stored, as long as it is stored properly, is accessible to the end-users that need it, and can be discovered and produced in time of legal necessity. Instead of costly redevelopment of business processes to restructure where content is stored, organizations will invest in search technology that allows content to be stored in native applications and use search tools like Microsoft Enterprise Search, Autonomy, and Google appliances to ferret out information.

In other words, federated search will become crucial to organizations that choose not to implement a structured ECM architecture.

The results of this kind of shift are as follows:

1. Content and documents  will reside in their native application, allowing the information to have more context than if it were stored in a centralized ECM system.
2. Those ECM vendors who wish to provide value to the enterprise must figure out how to store the content centrally, yet serve it back to end users in a context that is meaningful to their end users.
3. ECM vendors who provide true, enterprise-scale software MUST offer a full services-oriented architecture that will allow business applications to easily access the content and surface documents in the context of the business application.

S0…this brings me to my question of the week. Is Enterprise Content Management going the way of the Intranet and becoming an outdated notion? Will better federated search technologies negate the need for a central repository? Are organizations better off investing in the functional elements of ECM like document management, records management, and business process management instead of buying the whole enchilada?

I’m curious to see what others think…looking forward to thoughts/comments.

Sean R. Nicholson

As a follow up to my 99 Great Intranet Resources post, I have also created a list of 99 great Enterprise Content Management Resources on Twitter. If you’re looking for the folks who know, speak, live, learn, and love ECM, these are your folks! Know someone that I missed from the list? Definitely let me know. Shameless self-promotion is also allowed if you think you should be included, just make sure your tweets back up your request.

You can check out the list below, and feel free to leave a comment if there’s anyone else I should add.

Sean’s ECM Twitter List

Sean R. Nicholson

Having been in the field of information management for quite a while now, I have developed a few credos that seem to prove more and more useful as the volumes of organizational information continues to grow. I used to drive one of my previous team absolutely crazy with this one:

“The only thing worse than no information is BAD information”

Think about it. When you have no information, you seek out answers, solutions, and advice. When you have bad information,  it’s likely that you don’t know it’s bad, so you react to the information. Only after you have used the information and determined that it was incorrect do you (after a few choice words) continue your search for good information.

Take an example of a call center representative who answers the phone and provides the customer on the other end with what they think to be the most current product prices from a document they printed yesterday. Little do they know that a new copy of the rate sheet was published a couple hours ago with significant rate changes that is now impacting their potential sale.

Did they have information? Yes! Was it good information? No!

The reality is that organizations are generating more and more information on an hourly basis. Take a moment and think about all the documents, spreadsheets, presentations, emails, voice mails, and sticky notes you generated on a daily basis just 3 years ago. Now, add modern day blogs, tweets, text messages, forum posts, comments, status updates, videos, podcasts, and wiki posts to your list and what do you get? More information? Definitely! But the larger problem is the fact that the information is now spread out in more places, making it harder for other employees and customers to find it.

In the past customers could simply call a 1-800 line for support and get one-stop service. In the modern day of social media, though, they can call the 800 number, tweet their problems, look for solutions in a knowledge base, email, complain in an online forum, post a video on YouTube of your product malfunctioning, or blog about it. Compound the problem with the fact that your employees are having a difficult time finding the most current methods to resolve the customer issues and you have quite an information disaster in the making. In fact, it’s a situation that could have a negative impact on both customer and employee satisfaction.

For some, the temptation might be to throw their hands up in the air and surrender to the fact that there are just too many channels out there. If you’re curious as to how confusing it really is, just take a look at all the new channels being created in the social media space alone via the Social Media Prism! Now think about what your employee-to-employee and employee-to-customer communication channels are going to look like in 5 years. Believe me…I understand the desire to just crawl back in bed and ignore social media. The reality is, however, that few business ever succeed by ignoring change. Instead, you’re going to need to stop dismissing social media (both internal and external) as a fad and start working on how to resolve the issue.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a magic product that I can sell for $19.99 to serve as the magic bullet. This one’s going to require smart people in your organization rolling up their sleeves and building a solid information management architecture. No, it’s not easy, but it’s going to be a requirement for businesses to survive in the future! A good place to being would be by looking at the following criteria:

1. How do your employees work? Are they being asked to store information in multiple locations (e.g. My Documents, file shares, document repositories, WIKIs, etc…)?
2. Do your employees know where to go for the single source of truth? (hint, hint…it should be your Intranet)
3. Where are you storing your information? In legacy applications that aren’t searchable? In repositories that require no periodic content review?
4. Does your organization offer a single search interface that allows employees to search information in multiple repositories?
5. Is your information governance killing your employees ability to share information (e.g. no blogs, wikis, microblogs, etc…)?
6. How are your customers interact with your organization? Are they seeking answers from multiple sources (e.g. Phone, website, Twitter, etc..)
7. Do your customers know where to go for a single source of the truth (hint, hint…it should be your Web site)
8. Do you have the infrastructure in place to respond to new types of interactions? Do you have corporate accounts for sites like Twitter, YouTube, Blogger, LinkedIn, and Facebook? Does someone monitor searches on your company and products?
9. Are you making it as easy as possible for your customers to get help and resolve issues?
10. Are YOU embracing internal and external information tools that will allow your employees to share information more easily and provide customers with more ways to serve themselves or seek assistance?

If you haven’t started a review of your current information architecture, it’s time to start and because I find the Social Media Prism to be so useful in explaining the external growth challenge that faces organizations, I have also put together an internal information stratification diagram that hopefully will help IT, Intranet, and ECM professionals demonstrate the internal complexities that exist inside the firewall.  Click on the image below for a larger view or feel free to print out a PDF version.

As always….this is a work in progress and all input, comments, feedback are welcome!

Internal Information Stratification Wheel

Sean R. Nicholson

In the second article in this series, we’ll focus on understanding Content Management and how it differs from Document Management and Knowledge Management. If you recall from the first article in the series, Document Management is all about how we create, manage, route, retain, and destroy the container that we refer to as a document. Content Management, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the information stored inside that container and how you can effectively add/edit/delete the information in the document.

Keep in mind that while some folks use the term “document” generically to refer to Microsoft Word documents (primarily because they use the .doc extension), a document can also be an PDF file, an HTML file, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet…really any kind of container that holds content.

Distinguishing Between Pure Content Management And Enterprise Content Management (ECM)

Note: Before we dig into the details of Content Management, we need to establish that the focus of this article is to define and discuss pure Content Management separately from Enterprise Content Management. ECM blurs the lines between Document Management, Content Management, and Knowledge Management which, when brought into the conversation,  makes it difficult to discuss each of the separate components on their own merits. So, for the duration of this article, take a step back and let’s just focus on the Content Management component, apart from ECM. In the final article in the series, I’ll bring it all back together to discuss ECM.

So What Is Content Management?

In it’s simplest term, content management is simply editing a document to add, replace, remove, or modify the content. When you open a new Microsoft Word document on your desktop and type a few lines of text, you are engaging in content management using MS Word as the content management tool. You then save the document and store it on your computer, network location, or document management system. Through this process, you have engaged in both document management (the creation and saving of the document) and content management (the adding of information inside the container). Simple, right?

Content Management becomes much more challenging for organizations when you ask many people to collaborate at the same time on the same document. Issues arise such as the following:

• How do you keep one person from overwriting the content that another has added?
• How do you keep people from corrupting documents by editing them at the same time?
• How can you control the quality of the content to ensure proper spelling and grammar?
• How do you audit when someone last edited the content?

The existence of these, and many other issues has driven the creation of tools that allow organizations to collaborate around content, aka Content Management Systems. By introducing functionality such as user accounts, authentication, check in/check out, change tracking, and rich text editors (aka “WYSIWYG”), Content Management systems have addressed many of the concerns created by mass collaboration by limiting what individual contributors are allowed to do with the content and tracking when content is being edited. By leveraging this added functionality, organizations can minimize some of the risks of mass-collaboration and can maximize of the benefits that content management tools offer.

Different Kinds Of Content Require Different Editing Tools

In their early days of distributed content management, CMS tools focused primarily on editing Web pages. These Web Content Management systems allowed non-technical users to create, edit, and publish content to corporate Web sites and Intranet portals without having to know HTML, JavaScript or any other coding languages. As a result, organizations were able to empower their business users to take ownership of the content in their Web site and Intranet portals without having to engage IT for each and every change. In addition, the use of user accounts allowed organizations to control which roles were allowed to create content, edit it, and approve for publication.

Because of the proliferation of these tools and the rapid organizational adoption of them, the term Content Management System became synonymous with Web Content Management System. But as organizations saw the value of these systems and a variety of different types of content were introduced into the enterprise, new content management tools were needed.

For instance, digital assets such as images, videos, Flash movies, and audio files presented new challenges. To maintain the quality and appropriate use of these corporate assets, Digital Asset Management Systems were created to all organizations to manage the assets in a similar fashion to managing documents, while allowing some content management functionality through plugins with popular editing software like PhotoShop and Flash.

Document Management and Content Management Come Together Through Business Process Management

As the ability to edit different types of content has grown, organizations have recognized that the content management and document management can be intertwined to improve on business processes. Business Process Management tools provide organizations with graphical workflow solutions that allow for the creation and routing of documents from one user to another. upon arrival in their workflow queue, users can edit or review the content using a content management tool and then finalize the document or route the document to another user or queue for further processing.

Business units like Accounts Payable, Human Resources, Contract Management, and Decision Support have optimized document and content management by applying automated business rules that allow the document to be management in a specific manner based on the content.For instance, in situations where an invoice has a low total amount (say under $500), an organization can auto-approve the payment of the invoice without a high level of risk. In situations where total invoice amount exceeds a threshold, the workflow can route the document appropriately for a content review to ensure proper auditing.

Bringing Content And Documents To The Users Through Knowledge Management

The process of creating documents and managing their content continues to become more difficult as the volume of information in the organization grows. Effective organizational content and document management strategies are going to have to find ways to get the right information to the right user. To do this, business process tools and content management systems are going to need to leverage knowledge management principles to evaluate content and route content appropriately.

In the next article in the series, we’ll take a look at how Knowledge Management principles can be used to ensure that content is being effectively reviewed and used in the organization.

Sean R. Nicholson

Document Management, Content Management, and Knowledge Management are three very nebulous terms that get thrown around a lot when discussing the functionality and requirements of an Intranet. Unfortunately, concrete definitions of these terms are hard to come by since the terms often mean different things to different organizations. In an effort to build a common understanding of the terms, let’s break down each of the terms and look closely at how they inter-relate. The first article in this series focuses specifically on Document Management.

Document Management – Capturing, Storing, And Routing Containers Of Information

Document management is a common term that most folks in today’s workplace are familiar with. Think of all of the Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents that you have stored on your local workstation. By simply creating, storing, and deleting those documents you are engaging in the simplest form of document management. Simple, right?

The complexity of managing documents grows significantly, however, when you have hundreds or thousands of document creators in the same organization. As the number of documents needing management grows, issues such as the following arise:

• Where do we store all these documents?
• What happens if we don’t centralize them and someone loses a workstation? Can we replace those documents?
• What security risks are presented by allowing documents to be stored on workstations?
• How do we find the documents that we need?
• How can we secure documents so that only specific individuals or groups can see them?
• How do we keep people from recreating the same document over and over?
• How do we move documents from person to person electronically?
• Is there a way to make documents go away automatically according to our retention schedules?

If you take a look at those questions, they primarily focus on how you manage the container we call a “document”, not the content inside of it. In most cases, the content tools used to create and edit the information inside the containers has been selected. ..these tools are the Content Management tools, which we’ll discuss later in this series.

Document Management Systems vs. File Shares

So when thinking about documents and the document management needs of a large group of document contributors, organizations often look for ways to store the documents centrally, pass them around the organization, secure them appropriately, and discard them when their useful life has expired. Organizations usually look to file shares (a virtual drive mapped to your computer often designated with a letter like your “F: drive”) to serve as their initial document management system, and they do serve a useful purpose…up to a point.

For small groups file shares provide a common location to save and share documents. A document creator saves it to a folder in the share and then tells others about it by either sending the link on the share via email or verbally. The difficulties with file shares present themselves as the number of users relying on the documents grow. Common issues include:

• Difficulty in applying permissions to specific documents. File shares do folder permissions well, but not file-level permissions.
• File shares do not allow for check in/check out functionality.
• Searching across file shares can be a slow process as the number of folders and documents increase.
• Documents get “stale” if the owners do not constantly update or clean up their documents
• The size of a file share can quickly get out of hand if no one monitors that number of documents that are stored there

As a result of these deficiencies, growing organizations sometimes break apart these file shares into logical clusters like an F: drive for marketing, a G: drive for Sales, and a T: drive for IT. The problem, however, is that this practice now silos documents and makes them difficult to collaborate around. When the Marketing person can’t access the Sales share, the answer is to attach documents to emails and send them, which creates a nightmare as to which version is most current, how are changes to documents merged into the parent document, and more. What happens is that growing organizations usually outgrow file shares relatively quickly and look to Document Management Systems to bring that decentralized information back together to provide a common management system.

What Do Organizations Look For In A Document Management System?

In response to the shortcomings of file shares, the requirements usually sought after in enterprise-level document management systems often look something like:

• The ability to store documents in a variety of formats captured from imaging devices, created by desktop productivity applications (e.g. MS Office), and generated by other enterprise applications.
• The ability for administrators to define and enforce a common folder structure (often referred to as a taxonomy).
• The ability for end-users to add documents and sub folders to the repository using a browser-based interface or integration with productivity applications like Microsoft Word or Excel.
• The ability to move documents from user to user using workflow capabilities.
• The ability to perform full text searches against the documents in the system.
• The ability to remind users to review documents on a periodic basis to keep documents up to date.
• The ability to delete documents from the system according to a retention period.

Again, the focus is primarily on the capture, storage, and management of the containers. With the exception of being able to search the content and sometimes route through workflow, document management usually doesn’t really focus on what’s in the document, just that the document can be stored, moved around, accessed, and managed.

When organizations start looking at the content inside the document and how to create, review, and update content the focus often shifts from document management to content management, which leads us to the next topic in the series.

COMING SOON – Document Management vs. Content Management vs. Knowledge Management  Part 2 – Understanding Content Management

Sean R. Nicholson

A few years ago, I was in charge of an RFP for a Fortune 500 company to select an Intranet portal application and portal content management system. Thinking about the requirements for that portal and how they would change in this age of social networking got me thinking about how the requirements would change if I were to conduct that same RFP today.

Portal Requirements in 2005

Back in the “olden days” of horizontal portal requirements (you know…a few years ago),  the top requirements for our enterprise portal were as follows:

1. Enterprise scalability, with current requirements at 25,000 end-users, but scaling to 100,000 with additional hardware and licenses.
2. Easy to use, graphical user interface that allows end users to view targeted content and easily navigate to pages within the portal using  either an organizational or functional page taxonomy.
3. Provide portal administrators with the ability to secure content to groups, organizations, and individuals.
4. Provide a WYSIWYG rich text editing interface that allows users to create and edit content, based on their permissions and group membership.
5. Provide a single search interface that allows users to search for content that is target to their account based on assigned permissions
6. Provide a workflow tool that allows content to be reviewed and approved prior to publication
7. Provide a customizable portlet or widget-based interface that allows end-users to customize their experience.
8. Provide portal administrators with a flexible design and administration interface that allows administrators to create page templates that standardize on some page elements (e.g. header, navigation, mandatory portlets).
9. Provide functionality to interface with an enterprise Identity Management Solution.
10. Provide analytical reporting that details usage activity, content quantity, and hyperlink status (e.g. number and location of broken links)
11. The ability to integrate with existing enterprise applications such as the document management system, time reporting system, and expense management system using a Services Oriented Architecture.

Like I said, these were the high level requirements that we looked at. We actually had more than 300 specific technical and functional requirements, but these hit the major functionality we were looking for.

As you can see, though, these portal requirements are based on an “information-push” concept, where a core group of individuals (maybe 50-75 for the entire corporation) create all of the content and push it out to the masses. While we did have requirements for collaborative items like forums, they were listed as optional and we weren’t quite sure whether we wanted to allow end-users to start creating content on their own in a forum environment. Pretty much typical information control tactics that are present (even today) in many large organizations.

Changes To The Portal Requirements In 2009

While many of these requirements would still hold true, an information portal in today’s culture would definitely focus more on collaboration and content management than the pushing information out to the masses. Based on my experiences with some of the popular social networking platforms, my top requirements for the same sized organization would probably look more like this:

1. Enterprise scalability, with current requirements at 25,000 end-users, but scaling to 100,000 with additional hardware and licenses.
2. Easy to use, graphical user interface that allows end users to view targeted content and easily navigate to pages within the portal using  either an organizational or functional page taxonomy.
3. Provide portal administrators with the ability to secure content to groups, organizations, and individuals.
4. Provide both a rich-text content management system that allows portal administrators to deliver content and a WIKI environment that allows end-user to create their own page content
5. Provide a single search interface that allows users to search for content that is target to their account based on assigned permissions
6. Provide content creators (both in the CMS and WIKI environments) the ability to review content additions and comments if they choose to enable the feature.
7. Provide a customizable portlet or widget-based interface that allows end-users to customize their experience.
8. Provide portal administrators with a flexible design and administration interface that allows administrators to create page templates that standardize on some page elements (e.g. header, navigation, mandatory portlets).
9. Provide functionality to interface with an enterprise Identity Management Solution.
10. Provide analytical reporting that details usage activity, content quantity, and hyperlink status (e.g. number and location of broken links)
11. Provide the ability to integrate with existing enterprise applications such as the document management system, time reporting system, and expense management system using a Services Oriented Architecture.
12. Provide end-users with the ability to create custom application and information widgets that can be shared across the enterprise.
13. Allow users to easily share updates with others on their work through personal status updates
14. Allow users to create and manage groups/networks that can collaborate through a WIKI interface or a discussion forum interface. Users should be able to store and review documents as attachments within these groups. Users should be able to collaborate and version these documents and the applications should maintain an audit trail.
15. Allow users to create custom events and invite users and groups to those events. Individual and group events should roll up to a common corporate calendar that displays events to users based on their permissions and group memberships.
16. Allow users to share digital media including photos, audio files, and video files. Users should be able to collaborate and version these files and the application should maintain an audit trail.

So What Just Happened? Those Don’t Sound Like Portal Requirements!

Basically, in the process of writing those new requirements, I changed my RFP from being one focused on a portal, to one focused on an Enterprise Content Management system. Not an ECM as we know it today (which are primarily focused on Web/Intranet content management, document management, and digital asset management), but to an ECM platform that requires the following:

• A customizable presentation layer (the portal)
• A flexible content management system (traditional WYSIWYG content management and collaborative WIKI)
• The ability for end-users to create application mashups
• A lightweight document management system
• Social networking capabilities through collaborative groups/networks
• A lightweight digital asset management system
• Enterprise search functionality

Previously, ECM players such as Stellent, Documentum, and OpenText have not offered a portal interface to their products. Instead, they focused on their ability to interface with portal such as WebCenter Interaction (formerly AquaLogic User Interaction (formerly Plumtree)), IBM WebSphere, Microsoft SharePoint, and Vignette portal.

As a result, some of those solutions are being gobbled up by the portal players in hopes of creating the true Enterprise Content Management System of the future. Some of the portal players, like Vignette and Microsoft have anticipated the merging of portal and CMS, and have opportunities to add social networking to their platforms. In the end, the days of offering a standalone portal are probably long gone and we’ll soon see the horizontal portal players roll into the ECM magic quadrant.

Thoughts or comments? I’m always open to additions and constructive criticism in you comments.

Sean R. Nicholson

Over the last few years, the term “Enterprise Content Management” (ECM) has become a term familiar to those working in the Intranet, Web, or Knowledge/Information Management sectors. The difficulty lies in the fact that, while the term is easy to toss around, the actual definition of what is expected to be encompassed by ECM continues to evolve. As a result, ECM to a Records Manager often means something very different than what ECM means to a Web Developer. In an attempt to more accurately define ECM, this article deconstructs the term into a variety of subcomponents that are commonly included in discussions about ECM.

Core Functionality for ECM

Recently, when conducting a search for an ECM solution for a Fortune 500 organization, the following core requirements were set forth as required elements to participate in the selection process. These core components provided a basis for what was expected to be included in an ECM offering:

• Document Management (DM) – Centralization of millions of documents was core to the functionality of this particular business and document management is probably the most consistent component in the definition of ECM. In this case, the DM system was required to have a browser-based folder view of the repository as well as check-in/check-out document collaboration, robust full-text searching, and the ability to secure documents at the organizational, folder, and document level. In addition, the solution required full auditing capabilities of each user and object within the repository. Finally, integration with the enterprise email system, while not required, was favorable.
• Web Content Management (WCM) – Although the goal of this particular RFP was to select a content management system (CMS) for an Intranet portal, the principles were the same as the selection of a Web Content Management System.  The solution had to include a “What You See Is What You Get” (WYSIWYG) rich text editor that allowed content creators and managers to easily edit and permission content. In addition, the solution had to offer the ability to schedule content for future publication.
• Records Management (RM) – To comply with the corporate retention schedules, the RFP required that the selected solution provide Records Management functionality that included the ability to schedule the review and destruction of items marked as corporate records. The ideal solution would allow for the creation of a variety of retention categories that allow for the movement of corporate records from real-time storage, to secondary, and eventually tertiary storage as the lifecycle of the record progressed.
• E-Discovery Tools – With E-Discovery weighing heavily on the minds of corporate attorneys everywhere, it was required that the selected solution provide the ability to locate content based on keyword searches or metadata and place those documents or records on legal hold for review. These documents, while in hold status, would be exempt from the records retention/destruction policies. In this case, the E-Discovery tools were only required to access content and not data. The distinction is that the ECM tools were focused on content stored in document and portal/Web content repositories and not in application databases such as customer relationship management (CRM) solutions or billing systems.
• Enteprise Search Integration – To provide a single search interface to users, the solution was required to provide search integration through an Application Programming Interface (API) using the Web Services Definition Language (WSDL) or other suitable messaging platform. The implication was that users should be able to search many sources of content using a search interface integrated into the corporate portal.

Just to participate in the selection process, each vendor was required to demonstrate that they offered the above functionality. That doesn’t mean, however, that these five elements completely defined ECM for that organization. Even after the solution was selected and implemented, the definition of ECM continued to evolve as users identified new content types and needs. Discussions of blogs, Wikis, and digital assets identified new potential content and required the reshaping of how content would be captured, stored, and governed. As this evolution progressed, several additional components were added to the organizational definition of ECM.

Secondary Functionality For ECM

• Transactional Content Management – Activities such as claims scanning and processing, invoice processing, and human resources employee packet processing all require that data be captured via scanning or electronic methods, and processed through a workflow until completed.
• Business Process Management - Activities that require documents or content to be passed through a workflow needed to be automated using a business process management tool. These tools allow the Business Process Owner to lay out the business process in a graphical manner and then create worflow rules that govern the routing of the document or content to various roles in the organization. The classic example is that of the content creator/editor/approver. The content creator creates the content and then routes the content item to the editor queue for editing and review. Once the content is edited, the editor forwards the content item to the approver for final review and publication.
• Digital Asset Management – In this age of digital media, the protection of electronic assets such as coporate logos, images, videos, and audio files is becoming of increasing concern to organizations. Digital Asset Management (DAM) systems focus on securing and protecting those assessts, restricting whether they can be used, duplicated, or altered by users and tracking when those activities occur.
• Knowledge Management – Knowledgebases, Wikis, blogs, microblogs, forums, and mashups are surfacing more frequently in the enterprise and the content created by their authors is key to capturing information once trapped inside each employees head. Using these tools, content authors can share their experiences and understanding of the organization. Each comes with its own challenge, however, as the content is often controlled by the creator and often has not review process.

Clearly, to this organization the definition of Enterprise Content Management went far beyond the ability to simply store a document in a centralized location and locate it when necessary. Just as in this example, organizations are continually being challenged to define what should be included in their Enterprise Content Management solution. As new types of content are identified, the need to store, secure, and locate them becomes more and more crucial to business operations. As a result, the definition of ECM will continue to evolve and the solutions offered to manage these content types will be required to either specialize in specific aspects of the content or grow to become all-incluse of the various content types.