InfoCognito

ECRM Software vs ECRM Solutions

2010-11-30T11:42:00.000-06:00

The end of the year is looming, and many people tend to reflect on topics large and small - good things that have happened to them, usually, but also those "tics" large and small that seem to stick in one's mind. A recurring theme that seems to sound like fingernails scratching a blackboard to me is the tendency to term ECRM software as a "solution". You know the mantra: "Our Acme All-In-One magical software solution will answer all your needs and desires to implement an information and records management program." To believe the sales hype is to believe that all you need to do is purchase the magical software and your RIM problems are solved.

Now, I certainly understand the need for catchy phrases and terminology in the sales and marketing realm for any product; perception is important, your product must stand out by having a sense of strength or dominance in its given industry. What concerns me is the tendency of even impartial commentators to use this term - even the well-respected Gartner Group has been known to use "solutions" when referring to various software applications, albeit in general terms and not to specifically call out an individual product. To me, this only heightens the perception given to those intrepid records managers, IT and compliance managers and others who are ardently searching for a true solution to managing their information. There has been a tendency over the past few years to perceive software as the answer; I believe this approach was strengthened with the advent of ECM/ERM/ECRM software development that was considered as quite advanced and complex - and complexity often seems to imply "heaven-sent" resolution to all life's ills, as in "I don't understand what I need so will take this as my solution - it must do everything I need." There seems to be a tendency to believe that the software application provides all the pieces to the solution puzzle, rather than being just a piece of the solution.

There are certainly many excellent ECRM products available, with tremendous capabilities. But, at least to me, are tools, not solutions. In order to develop a successful RIM program, one needs strategy, buy-in, policies and procedures, plans, AND the tools to implement and deploy the program. Software is one of those tools, of course very likely an expensive, central and powerful tool. I will concede that the term "tool" is not very attractive on its face - not a marketable term. But even when I try to rationalize the term "solution" with some sort of clarifying statement, it still rings a bit hollow or at worst weakens the entire comment about the product.

But education and knowledge about developing a RIM program in general should alleviate some mis-perceptions and re-weight significance back to the need for developing all aspects of proper records management. If only a true "solution" to a company's RIM needs could come in a package, holiday shopping would be much simpler.

In A Rage Over Information

2010-11-03T10:06:00.001-05:00

Craig Roth from Gartner posted interesting comments about Information Rage, a term cooked up by editorialists in New Zealand regarding the stress felt by knowledge workers over what used to be called "information overload". Mr. Roth correctly called out the writers of the opinion piece for dramatizing the issue and seemingly mis-interpreting comments made by interviewees. While many of the individuals interviewed mentioned "giving up", it is highly unlikely we will see a mass walk-off of employees who will prefer not working and no paycheck to dealing with their information management issues. This is wonderful fodder for some media folk to feast on, especially as the US mid-term election hoopla recedes, but as Mr. Roth ably points out there's a lot of noise here with poor substance.

My thought is that knowledge workers aren't frustrated so much by too much information, often aptly and comically referred to as TMI; rather, I tend to think the frustration is finding the right information when the users need it - maybe they are suffering more from "search overload" than information overload. I do know that I am happy when I stumble across, or am rewarded with an abundance of hits when searching for information on a topic - when the results are accurate and applicable. It's the lack of results, or irrelevant information returns that really bug me...having to sort through 10 pages of stuff to find one or two applicable bits of information, for instance. I relish the fantastic reservoir of information we have available, literally at our fingertips; and I often look forward to embarking on a quest to discover information about a new topic, or more information than I thought existed about something I am familiar with. But there are times when I am also frustrated by the surfeit of incorrect or irrelevant "stuff" that can pour onto my screen, seemingly mocking my attempts to just "get the facts".

Maybe this is just another way to talk about, and implement, appropriate information management practices - learning how to find what we want when we want it, but also learning how to shrug off or shut out the noise that comes with such instant and comprehensive access to information.

2D Barcode Technology Still Needs Facetime

2010-10-26T09:38:00.000-05:00

New technologies and technological capabilities seem to have two lives, or perhaps more - initial excitement, dormancy and finally acceptance or oblivion. The lucky ones have that quality or moment that their creators crave - the tipping point as Malcolm Gladwell so described, when the technology, program or especially now the cellphone-directed app takes off and becomes the latest "must have".

2D barcode technology appears to be in a sort of "dormant but pulling out to acceptance" phase. There was a burst of media attention followed by what seemed to be silence, or a settling in as the technology searched for its place. Now, the advertising world is ramping up to find more and more innovative ways to use this app to direct potential customers to their sites, products and events. The NYTimes reports in a Science section article that the barcodes are appearing as part of an ad campaign at the Albany, NY rail station. The barcodes ads are attractive and eye-catching, but as one person who actually scanned a barcode noted, she appeared to be the only person doing so.

I had a similar experience at the recent Bayou City Arts Festival held in Houston, TX - exhibitors were provided with an 8x11 sheet of paper with a 2D barcode that would allow festival attendees access to the individual exhibitor's website by scanning the barcode with their smartphones. However, I had viewed almost all of the exhibits before I noticed a barcode posted at a booth. Once I was aware of the fact that most, if not all of the exhibitors were given barcodes, I went back through the festival to see if I had just missed the postings. However, my very unsophisticated search found perhaps less than 10% of the exhibits that had posted the barcodes. When I asked some exhibitors at random why they had not used the barcode, they responded with complete surprise - if they had been told about the barcodes and what they were, they had missed the point or had not understood how to use them at all.

This is a technology that certainly seems, at least to me, on the cusp of becoming a standard - perhaps an evolution of hyperlinking, especially due to the fact that the barcode itself can contain so much more information; instead of just a "flat" link to another site, the 2D barcode is already being used to gather statistics in new ways for the implementor; direct users to a store or even to locations and products within a store; provide instant discounts on products, provide pricing benchmarks and many other innovative and new ways to market products and ideas. Now the challenge is to make it "tip", when consumers and users embrace this technology as their doorway to products and ideas.

Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks

2010-10-08T13:51:00.000-05:00

One of the mantras often stated in the RIM industry is the need to gain "user buy-in"; this is a great concept, quite necessary for the success of any RIM endeavor. Obviously, if the user doesn't use it - whatever it is, software, policies, processes, whatever - it won't fly. So we often hear that it should be designed around user needs, but often those needs are defined quite narrowly. Steps may be initiated to conduct interviews, utilize questionnaires and so forth, but there are basic preliminary questions that need to be addressed as well, outside of "What do you do?", or "What types of information do you handle?", capabilities that need to be in place to ensure that users can and will use whatever you have developed or implemented. Some of the information that I think needs to be gathered up-front include:

Can all users gain access to it?
This is User Buy-In 101 - if they can't get to it, they ain't gonna use it. And all of your hard work defining metadata, identifying information types, building taxonomy/folksonomy structures, are for nothing. If you are using SharePoint as a collaboration tool or for other activities, do all users have the capability to access the intranet site? Same with documents posted to your website - are you certain all employees have easy access to the web? This is not a frivolous question, especially when you consider security walls at client sites, employees at remote locations, etc.

Can you adequately identify necessary and understandable metadata?
Metadata has to adequately identify content, but it also must do so in a way that users understand and relate to. Both the metadata label and metadata content must be stated in terms that are understandable and sensible to the users. Closely related to this is....

Have you developed robust standardization of terms?
Although the next question, regarding synonyms, removes much of the agony over this process, standardization is still a necessary component of naming process. Employees are now very mobile, both due to the ability and willingness to relocate, and due to more extensive cross-training within companies. So users need to have the comfort of seeing similarity in not just processes, but also terminology as they migrate from one geographical location to another, or from one discipline to another. Standardization calls for comformity driven by accepted business use, established user terms developed over a significant period of time, and other drivers of commonality. Colloquialisms should be relegated to the synonym function whenever possible.

Are you able to allow for the use of synonyms?
I grew up calling all soft drink beverages "pop", common in the northern part of the country at least. When I settled in Houston, and used that term, all I got for a response was a blank stare, if not giggles and head-shaking, until I learned to use the term "soda". Similarily, the ability to implement synonyms are almost mandatory in new applications, metadata and especially search capabilities. An additional benefit is the avoidance of extended struggles over standardization of terms, and bad feelings for those whose terms are rejected in that process.

Have you allowed for adequate/multiple access?
Again, the users must be able to access whatever it is they need when they need to. There must be sufficient bandwidth, adequate numbers of licenses, availability over multiple time zones - many accessibility considerations to be resolved.

There are many other, more detailed considerations to be addressed - these are just some of the things that must be in place to ensure that initial user buy-in. The goal at this point is to allow them to get where they need to go, when they need to do so, and begin the process of accessing and utilizing their information. And, to state once more my mantra - nothing will work without user acceptance, and cooperation among all involved. One of the only actions I know of that is highly effective from a top-down aspect with no user input is the firing squad - probably not a good option.

Getting the Horse to Drink: How to Obtain Policy Buy-In

2010-10-07T10:13:00.000-05:00

I just read an interesting blog written by Craig Roth of Gartner, regarding strategy for gaining buy-in for SharePoint impementation. Mr. Roth gave compelling arguments for using the "outside-in" approach, which is basically going out and ascertaining what the customer or user needs and then developing strategy, as opposed to the (obvious) "inside-out" technique of developing strategy and then pushing it out to the user. Mr. Roth's view was based on an earlier article and book by George Day that fully outlines the outside-in approach for customer value.

This approach is valuable on so many levels, beyond software implementation or customer service; it seems to be a great fit as a core strategy for business development, internal and external, on all levels. Naturally, there are reasons for top-down strategy implementations when needed, especially to address critical or immediate issues - mandatory changes in security access during a critical event, for example. And even less-dramatic instances as well, possibly an update or change in some HR-related policy. But for many, if not most user-activity processes, input from the "outside" - from the users or target audience, is critical to the success of the policy implementation and compliance. If a policy, process, tool or what-have-you, does not fit the criteria established by the users' needs, the implementation will languish, be overly costly, or just plain fail. Strategists and planners - the insiders - can possess the knowledge in information related to feasibility, cost and so forth, but they do not necessarily have a clue as to whether what "looks good" is right for their needs. SharePoint, as an example, is feature rich, especially in the 2010 model; but which features are right for, or needed by the end users - what is applicable to the user's needs, and what is a waste of time and energy? A policy that states all users will share documents through links in an email message as opposed to attachments is great - it saves email space, reduces document redundancy and copies, lessens the false dependency on email as a records management tool, etc. But what if some of your users are in an environment where they cannot access the linked repository - for instance, in a client setting that blocks access, or a 3rd party partner in a remote location with limited web access? Then the policy is unenforceable, and the procedures are unworkable. However...if the "outside-in" approach is followed, the planners will become aware of these obstacles and (hopefully) adjust accordingly.

The old, well-worn adage about being able to lead a horse to water, but not being able to make him drink is applicable. Perhaps one should think of this in new terms: If a horse is thirsty, you don't need to lead her to water - she'll go, and she'll drink. In the same manner, if a policy, tool, process, whatever is applicable and of value to the user, that person will use it - the manager, strategist, policy-maker or whomever has an obligation to talk to that user and find out what works...explain the situation, then ask what will work from the user standpoint, and ultimately incorporate that viewpoint or need into the final decision. The business community is hopefully in an age of more openness, transparency and interactive communication; everyone should optimize those traits to engage the users as well as the planners.

RIM Policies in Context

2010-09-13T11:17:00.000-05:00

Tom Davenport had an interesting post about context recently, in which he shared the importance of understanding how we might better understand the manner in which recent political leaders arrived at global decisions, when we probe into the context around them - who was consulted or not consulted, what disparate views were presented, etc. This type of analysis can be applied to RIM policy development as well; are the policy writers and decision-makers considering all of the context around the development of their policy statement, or are they blinkered by specific activities within the company that they want to address or rectify? Who are the participants when asking for perspective or review of the statement...are they representative of only one specific thought-process, seen as supporters of a pre-defined direction for the policy, or are there disparate voices being heard?

I am most likely thinking at the moment in terms of policy that attempts to address some of the more current RIM issues, especially regarding the use of the cloud to store documents - where users are downloading app's onto their business computers, smartphones and possibly home computers to allow access to documents. The intent here can be completely straightforward and honest; perhaps the employee is a road warrior, and has had too many instances of needing to quickly collaborate with a co-worker on a document but cannot rapidly or easily power up their laptop - how great to be able to view and edit the document in synch with the co-worker right from their phone. Or, another logical argument is to utilize the capabilities of these app's to minimize the need for overloading the company's email system with attachments. The arguments for usage go on...as do the obvious concerns for records managers, attorneys, compliance and so forth.

My thought as stimulated by Mr. Davenport's excellent blog, however, is whether a company will tend to construct a policy with a pre-ordained slant towards addressing only the risk posed here, and not thoroughly review the context surrounding the use of this technology. For instance, if the company decides to ban the use of the cloud-sharing technology, have they given an honest appraisal to whether this practice is actually in use today by their employees? Is it a technical process that has already gained value for their work? Will they simply drive their employees "underground", where the technology is secretly used, with documents going totally outside the realm and reach of compliance? Practices that work for employees seem to not disappear...there will always be ways to work around a policy that might not be in the company's best business interest. Of course, risk and possibility of highly damaging loss to the company must be a major consideration when establishing policies. But well-thought-out and constructed policies can ensure that practices are in line with requirements, and can provide stronger management of information. For instance, a policy can provide the direction for the development of extremely thorough procedures for identifying what app's are allowed within the company, who uses them and where to go to find the information when necessary - litigation activities, employee termination, etc. The policy can ensure that data maps are complete, that employees are acutely aware of their responsibilities as well as the repercussions for neglectful, improper or illegal use of the technology. Sometimes a policy must be in place to restrict activity, but perhaps a healthier and more successful approach is to know when to work with new ideas and processes, not shun them through lack of contextual knowledge.

Maintaining Records Destruction Logs

2010-08-04T16:04:00.001-05:00

At one point in my career, I participated as a records manager in a project for a major automaker, and enjoyed many stimulating conversations with the Corporate Legal Counsel. The attorney, a very competent individual who was well-tempered in the litigation arena, had very definite opinions that of course were relevant to the company and position he served and not intended as generic guidelines. And he was very self-confident in his ability to support his position with the backing of a global corporate presence. One of those conversations centered on records disposition, and how best to maintain destruction logs. The attorney's position was that the company was not to create a records disposition log of any sort; his reasoning was very simple and straightforward - the company's records retention schedule was the official documentation of what records were maintained by the company, as well as the map of when documents would be destroyed. He felt that, in the event of discovery, the company could reliably state that any requested records that would qualify as having been destroyed BEFORE any litigation hold would have applied, were in fact destroyed according to the retention schedule.

Over time, I have concluded that his position, while admirable in its "strength", may not be the best road to follow. However, I do endorse his thinking in terms of what to document - as an attorney of long standing and great experience, he was a master of the philosophy of "give no more than necessary, and no sooner than necessary". In this case, he felt that most destruction logs contain too much information, and is just another door left ajar for others to peer into the company's realm. So I do think it is perhaps best for a company to maintain a destruction log, but one that is concise and precise while of course serving as a valuable tool as proof of proper RIM activities.

Mike Alsop has a very informative PPT presentation that includes a slide pertaining to this. He also believes in the "minimalist" approach of including only information such as a document ID, significant document lifecycle dates, and system-generated metadata for the destroyed documents. A properly maintained destruction log can then serve as supporting documentation to the litigation hold process as well, by at the least verifying that no relevant documents were recorded as destroyed once the litigation hold was initiated. Of course, no single document or process can completely ensure that rogue activities will not be performed, but tools such as this destruction log can establish a level of trust in the consistency of the RIM program and the operations around it.

Location Identification App's Destroying Privacy?

2010-07-23T13:41:00.000-05:00

The power of GPS linked up with other app's on smartphones is pretty amazing. How cool to be standing in downtown and just punch in an address to have your phone almost instantly give you directions to that great restaurant, nightclub or wherever. Perhaps it's that "wherever" that gives me pause. A rather startling article in The Guardian discusses the invasive potential of one such location app, Foursquare. The author, a journalist for the newspaper, was able to accumulate a distressingly large amount of intimate information about a complete stranger by starting with friending her on Foursquare and then adding information from her Twitter and Facebook accounts. The "target" had chosen to link her Foursquare account to these other social net sites, with no idea that she was opening a huge door to her private life. When he ultimately met with the young lady, she of course was somewhat taken aback by what had occurred, but did not seem so concerned that she would stop using the app, just would make some adjustments.

What implications these app's have, the potential useful power and negative possibilities! Of course, commercial businesses are already on this, offering free products or special "titles" for those who frequent the establishment often and broadcast their location. And just think of the personalized advertising potential where you will get ads from all the places you frequent, whether you want them or not. But then...when, not if, will the time come when your phone app information is discoverable in court? You may testify that you were or were not at a certain location at a certain time, but your app will provide substantiation if the judicial system decides that it is allowable or discoverable information. Some companies are using GPS app's now to track delivery drivers, sales rep's and others who travel for business. And of course, Mom and Dad are watching... But the obvious major concern revolves around stalkers and on personal relationships. The app's gives a stalker an unbelievably powerful tool to identify, track and interact with complete strangers as well as acquaintances. And a jealous spouse can accummulate almost a complete picture of their partner's activities, and draw justified or unjustified conclusions based on that information. In a sense, the app becomes a virtual private eye, only this PI is for hire by everyone.

What does this portend for business? Perhaps there will be new rules limiting the ability of a company to access information about employees through these tools; but how can that be accomplished, when the app developers depend on as much openness as possible to make their product viable? And how can the individual be assured that the employer isn't tracking their off-work activities? How can the user enjoy the potential of the app and its openness to the world, which is what younger people especially are so ok with, and still find ways to curb unwanted attention? With such great potential comes the opposite, destructive potential. Then again, perhaps capabilities that open doors to our private world are just the "leading indicators" what our world is becoming, a social competition.

Social Networking - Just an Email Substitute?

2010-07-23T11:00:00.000-05:00

A recent post by Steve Rubel contains some great graphics regarding changes in social networking usage over the past year. The article also seems to clarify that social networking activities fall into the personal realm far more than for business, even (or especially?) when Twitter is not part of the mix. One question that seems to keep popping up is whether social networking is a new way of interacting, or is it just a replacement for email. So I wonder...is social networking popular because it is "new and hot", while email is identified with an outdated and older generation? Is Steve's use of the term "addiction" accurate - just because usage is increasing in terms of the number of occurrences/day by users, are they addicted or are they exchanging information at a faster pace? After all, people are known to check email constantly, with notifications turned on that interrupt workflow so that they can instantly see the latest email.

Or is social networking truly a new and improved way to share information? What does SN truly do that is much more efficient for the user? One of the first benefits that pop into my head is the capability to read what someone has posted without the message being intrusively sent to me - I see the message as virtual conversation, not as a "message" or some sort of letter. But perhaps the main difference is availability to a larger audience, the weak link application. I can find information that strangers have posted, or share my information on a far wider stage in the social networking world - emails are silo'd, dependent on the recipient to share with extended viewers whom the sender would not know or include.

The price for this wide open audience is of course the intrusion of an increasing amount of noise; and second is the possibility of an addiction of sorts - knowing that one has the capability of exploring the world of information may create a feeling of needing to constantly be connected. It is almost ironically like in olden times, constantly checking the mailbox to see if the postman delivered that long-awaited letter, except that this time you know there will always be something there - whether it is of value to you is another issue entirely.

Bottom line for me is that I do feel that social networking, both for business and for personal use, is a definite improvement over email. It is far more robust, and the openness just adds a tremendous amount of value to almost any communication. The use, or intrusion as some might say, of social networks has also driven organizations to re-evaluate how they manage their information, and especially how employees can more readily access information, all to the good. There is a ton of change involved, of course...but that keeps life interesting.

The power of clarity in creating change

2010-07-13T09:54:00.002-05:00

A blog post from the Heath Brothers:

Dan and Chip Heath, authors of the excellent books "Made to Stick" and "Switch", have an amazing talent for getting to the point, sometimes stating the obvious for us when we are oblivious. This blog post - The power of clarity in creating change - aptly addresses the fact that, too often, we want to "train" or "educate" people but insist on results without providing a foundation or path to get those results.

In the RIM industry, especially as consultants, that omission translates to providing a tool or so-called solution - software or processes, usually - without adequately addressing the underlying factor of what the client or user needs or, perhaps more importantly, is prepared to utilize. A person cannot be trained in something they don't know - so obvious, and so often overlooked. And so similar to the dilemma of being in this position - "How can I ask the question when I don't know what we're talking about?" As this blog points out, kids can't change their study habits when they don't know where to start; users also cannot change their work processes when they don't know what they are doing wrong, or where to begin analyzing what they are doing now.

Change isn't just about adjusting habits or attitudes, it begins with having assistance in recognizing what can be changed, and how to begin the change process. Change management after the fact is nothing more than damage control...if change management is not included at the start of a new business process, the process is doomed to failure.

Medical Records Dilemma

2010-04-09T09:50:00.001-05:00

The exponentially increasing amount of information being generated in the medical industry is matched by the demands placed on doctors to make sense of this deluge. An alarming result is the inability to effectively bring together the patient's entire medical story, due in large part to the sheer volume of information generated, but also due to the disparate and disconnected methods of creating and maintaining that information. Technical "tools" are not the end-all solution - there must be a dedicated effort to develop wide-ranging records management processes to effectively utilize this information in a safe and productive manner. The tools are just that, mechanisms to assist in the process.

in reference to: Doctor and Patient - Doctors and Patients, Lost in Paperwork - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Who Are Your Friends?

2009-09-09T09:40:00.000-05:00

Social networking has become a ubiquitous feature of our personal lives, and is becoming more common on the business landscape daily - whether some companies, leaders and workers care to admit so or not. The whole meaning of "friends" is being upended, from meaning someone with whom you interact closely and personally, to a name on a screen who may or may not be the person they represent themselves as being. The following statistics from an article by knowledge@wharton are a sobering indication of the unbelievable growth of this phenomenon:

"Social networking sites drew 139.8 million visitors in April, a 12% increase from 124.4 million in March, according to comScore, a service that measures web traffic. The April survey found that MySpace led the category with 71 million visitors, while Facebook attracted 67.5 million, and Twitter drew 17 million -- an 83% increase."

And people, especially younger people, who are signing onto these services in droves are providing very detailed pieces of information about their lives, which can be made into a composite that outlines more about them as individuals than imagined. We should be concerned, of course, about identity theft - people with nefarious intentions can accumulate what the wharton article called "friendprints", an accumulation of information about an individual that ultimately draws a quite complete picture of that person's personal statistics. The individual might try to be circumspect in providing a whole set of information on one site, but may add other information on other sites which lead to this composite picture. Then add to that the conversations that become public among friends, and more details are revealed - hometown, school names, addresses, relatives, parents' names - the list goes on and on.

But aside from the devastating loss to identity thieves is another aspect - the huge amount of information given to marketing data miners. You now are being actively targeted for individual, identity- or activity-specific ads whether you know it or not. Airlines track where you fly, online stores such as Amazon offer you suggestions of books you might be interested in based on purchase history, and on and on. This information is already being shared in the global commercial sphere; just imagine how simple it is for an accomplished (and probably not so accomplished) hacker to get access to that mined information. But the sad fact is, they don't have to hack, when all they need to do is become your "friend". You may be careful about who you allow as a friend, but what about as that "friendweb" expands...are your friends, or friends of friends, as careful as you are? And business sites on social media are becoming more savvy by the minute - their pages are quickly resembling personal pages so that you may think a friend invite is from an individual when in fact it is a probe from a business site; once "inside the web" of friends, the company has an ever-expanding list of information to mine, utilize and share.

The coming storm to combat this loss of privacy is just beginning. Individuals will need to become more informed about the consequences of sharing personal information; and companies will need to seriously weigh the potential costs of opening up their social networks - outwards-facing socializing will have huge potential risks, IT and RIM experts will need to tread very carefully in this realm.

Knowledge Retention in Education

2009-08-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

I had a very interesting conversation with a retired schoolteacher yesterday, a gentleman who taught for over 30 years and has been retired for about 3 years. He had many interesting stories about events in his career, and obviously was someone who loved his work. In fact, he mentioned that he felt a bit lost in retirement, and mentioned missing the classroom. As our talk meandered through many topics, my ears definitely perked up when he mentioned feeling that younger teachers who struggle do not "connect" with their students. In fact, he said that a successful teacher is one who not only knows the subject, but has the ability to engage the student - that the connection is what builds trust and interest in the students' minds, so that they will listen, accept the autheticity and validity of what the teacher is saying. Of course, this led to his comment about how the knowledge to do that is something that is "inside the person", and not easy to share - now he had me, tacit knowledge just sitting there waiting to be capitalized on!

I asked if he ever considered mentoring; he replied that it had crossed his mind, and naturally he was aware of it being done within school systems, but expressed strong reservations. Basically, he felt that school administrators would be very reluctant to take retired teachers on as mentors for the following reasons:

1) Fear that it would appear that current teaching staff was inadequate, not capable of doing their jobs. They would be hard pressed to understand that the mentoring process was not an adverse comment on the teachers' capabilities, but a way to strengthen what they do by sharing proven ways to inter-act with students, thus enhancing their success.

2) School systems, being the political systems that they are, include people who do not take on "outsiders" easily - and even retired teachers can be viewed in that sense. So, resistance from teaching staff who might regard these older mentors as out of the loop, passed by or even "old school" - no pun or irony intended.

Doesn't this all sound familiar? You could remove the word "teacher", "school", etc. and insert "workers", "business", "government", whatever and it still applies. The hurdles of resistance are very real, even when the benefits, positive costs are so apparent. Short-sighted administrators and employees in any industry lower the productivity bar for their company; quality workers/leaders will always look for ways to improve - themselves, their work, their company - that's why they are quality. Those of us in the information or knowledge business need to recognize the barriers, identify those hurdles and pro-actively address them, whether through business cases, informational seminars that are flexible so that they can address specific audiences (no-one in the medical industry wants to sit through a presentation obviously geared for the oil industry, for example), and public promotion directed at executive level leaders that verbalize knowledge sharing or retention processes that will help their organization be more successful. Knowledge is disappearing everywhere, pro-active measures are the most cost-effective and efficient ways to retain it, manage it and utilize it; knowledge recovery later is never pretty.

Knowledge Retention - Stopping the Bleeding

2009-08-26T09:53:00.007-05:00

By now, almost all companies (other than perhaps start-ups in emerging industries) have recognized the problem of the "brain drain" or knowledge loss, especially of tacit knowledge, due to the aging workforce as well as the expanding trend of employee migration - tendency of employees to not have that deep sense of loyalty combined with a willingness to move to greener pastures. In addition to all the articles, blogs, etc. out on this subject, I recently caught up to a fine book, Lost Knowledge: "Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce", by David DeLong. Although, published in 2004, it is a bit dated, especially by today's standards, the issues, examples and solutions put forth still ring true. In addition to the expected scenarios and descriptions of the problems companies face, Mr. DeLong also draws attention to the conflict between generations in recognizing the value of one another's knowledge and aptitudes; he also discusses in length methods to bring back departed employees, especially retirees, in order to regain their knowledge and know-how. However, I finished the book wondering if the emphasis is a bit misplaced in too many organizations - that more effort should be centered on comprehensive methods to capture existing tacit and implicit knowledge before the crisis of losing it appears on a company's doorstep through employee attrition. Not that Mr. DeLong ignores this at all; I think that in the intervening years since he was researching and writing his book, social networking has evolved and grown to the point where we can more easily document and retain knowledge than ever before.

Trying to regain knowledge reminds me too much of the well-worn cliche of "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped". Perhaps just changing one word in what we are attempting to do - from regain to retain - modifies the whole process in a positive manner. It seems that establishing strong Lessons Learned and After Action Report processes will contribute greatly to the retention of knowledge, especially the knowledge anchored in the experiences of seasoned workers...their tacit and implicit knowledge. Mr. DeLong's book does bring these concepts out, I just feel they could use re-iteration and emphasis.

These processes do not have to be associated strictly with project-oriented work; almost any business endeavor is a project of some sort or another. It may not be strictly aligned with set processes, but almost always has similar, if undefined, structure. A company would do well to insert periods of review, discussion, modification and re-start within all of their defined work activities. And, most importantly, they must retain those lessons learned or actions taken, along with the rationale for them. There are many excellent business process tools to assist with this - which leads to one of my soapbox rants: The tools are just that - tools, not solutions. The solution lies in the strategy, recognition and planning that will avoid negative results, in this case avoiding the drain of knowledge rather than having to regain it. The challenge was well-stated by Michael Polanyi in "The Tacit Dimension" when he stated that "We can know more than we can tell." Perhaps by routinely extracting as much of that tacit information as possible through lessons learned, etc., a company can effectively retain and capitalize on the great knowledge they have helped their employees develop.

After all, as an unknown wit (at least unfortunately unknown to me) said, "Knowledge is information applied and re-used, not just collected." How true....

Managing Knowledge

2009-05-19T09:25:00.005-05:00

With the profusion of tools and methodologies available to capture, retain and find information, it seems that we would be much further along in our quest to keep our gained knowledge in one place that is accessible on demand. But experience with my consulting clients seems to suggest otherwise - I am continually hearing comments from people "in the trenches", especially project-oriented workers, that their main headache when starting up a new project is in gathering best practices/lessons learned or just guidelines and standard documents that would help them avoid re-inventing the wheel.

One interesting approach I recently ran across regarded the use of the OneNote software application in conjunction with SharePoint to create a gathering point for just those types of documents - a place that is easily accessible and includes collaboration capabilities, is quick to use and reliable. However, the article describing this sharingsolution at Scott Glavin's blogsite did not go into great detail as far as how to set up the collaboration, or methodology and feedback. The idea seems sound, just would like to have more follow-up info.

Documentum Reviews

2009-05-13T09:01:00.004-05:00

After a bit of a hiatus, I have returned to my blogsite and am lookinf forward to re-establishing contacts here with acquaintences in the Information Management world.

ECRM software products have evolved greatly over the past 10 years or so, in terms of robustness, ease of use, applicability and so forth. From a technical standpoint, the similarities and differences among the many available products tend to blur; however, from the users' perspective, one product can differentiate greatly from the others. I am currently researching changes and updates in the use of EMC's Documentum ECRM software product, and would like to gather feedback from exactly that user point of view. At one time, Documentum seemed geared, at least from my perspective, toward the pharmaceutical industry, as a very detailed information gathering tool. I would be interested in hearing from users both within the pharma industry as well as other businesses, especially the energy (oil and gas) industry on the usability of Documentum based on their experiences or perspectives.

Please feel free to comment with your insight and experiences; I will gladly share findings.

Email in Government

2008-06-30T11:22:00.003-05:00

Another government email issue hit the newstands last week, regarding destruction of email in the Hawiaii Governor's office. At issue was the basic policy to delete emails after 2 months (presumably 60 days), regardless of content. Amazingly, the State Controller made the comment that "e-mails that rise to the level of a record are supposed to be kept for the same amount of time as the same type of record in another format", these "guidelines" are not enforced by law. One wonders who wrote the guidelines, and whether this guideline a part of the state's email policy. If so, it would serve to underscore my thought that an entity does not write a policy statement it either cannot, or chooses not to enforce.

There is much ambiguity in the responses from various government and archivist officials; the state archivist mentions that there may not be an existing law governing retention, which seems to fly in the face of retention requirements for records - which should also apply to emails that rise to that definition of being a record, at least in terms of being supporting documentation. The underlying theme at the end of the article was that, ultimately, the individual agencies must perform proper retention, and that if they choose not to, the email record will be lost. There seems to be a feeling of helplessness in that viewpoint - perhaps the State Controllers office needs to re-read its function as a compliance organization, and become knowledgeable of proper retention procedures as well as the tools that can accommodate required procedures.

Social Networking - Connection or Competition

2008-06-20T14:50:00.004-05:00

Some interesting points were discussed in an article regarding social networking in the Houston Business Journal technology department by Terry Brock and on his webpage. The article talks about the banality of trying to conduct meaningful business relationships on many social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, etc. I agree, and feel that the poor reputation that these sites have in the minds of many business managers is a cause for some of the resistance to accepting E2.0 tools in the business environment. Information managers and consultants as well as interested power users can combat these perceptions by actively promoting the more useful and productive sites such as InformationZen, LinkedIn, and even Ning. Perhaps by producing results through example, rather than just promoting concepts, E2.0 can gain the respect to match the ground-surge in its use within the business community.

Policies Matrix

2008-06-18T15:21:00.004-05:00

A records management policy matrix seems like a good thing to have. Something that outlines standard RM policy types with corresponding elements that would be expected to be a part of these policies in a matrix grid that would allow identification of element "pieces" for each policy type.

I'm taking a stab at developing one, but have not seen any reference material that would help to fill in the gaps I'm sure to have. Any input from IM professionals would be greatly appreciated; I would enjoy sharing results.

Retention Schedule Changes

2008-06-17T14:05:00.003-05:00

I recently posted a question to colleagues through my LinkedIn site regarding best practices to follow when one changes the retention period for a record series in their company's retention schedule. Basically, the question was:

"Occasionally, the retention period for a record series may be changed through a retention schedule update process - for instance, a decision may be made to change the total retention for record series ABC from 7Y to 5Y. Should the change be implemented retro-actively? That is, should the company revisit the records affected by this record series and now dispose of all records that are older than 5 years? Or does the change in retention apply only going forward from the time that the change was implemented in the retention schedule?"

While I had some fairly settled views on the subject, I was very aware that circumstances and conditions weigh heavily on any individual decision. And the question was not quite specific enough, in that I should have mentioned that the scenario change in retention could be either longer (from 5 to 7 years) or shorter (from 7 to 5 years).

This question has certainly been with us for a long time, but my interest was renewed while reviewing the "latest and greatest" features of document management software applications. I noticed in at least some app's addressed this scenario directly, but not in the same way - some applied changes to all doc's, others only to go-forward. What bothered me most was the simple fact that the software product was making that policy decision, not the business group that purchased the software. So, in addition to that concern, I thought this was an excellent opportunity to see how others in the IM industry felt.

My extremely informal poll resulted in basically a "split - decision"; half of the respondents favored adjusting the retention period for all existing records, and half thought that some sort of go-forward strategy was most appropriate. More interestingly, their supporting situation and concerns were quite revealing. Responses included:

Above all, be consistent
No known formal guidelines in the industry
Do one or the other, not both (consistency again)
Current software is doing this for some respondents - applying to all

The last comment was very telling, especially when one respondent noted that the software could apply changes to all easier than it could maintain multiple retention schedules.

Now, for my thoughts, first with some caveats:
I do not believe record series retention periods change very often, nor should they if the legal and regulatory research was properly done in the first place.
Retention periods that are lengthened obviously can't be applied to records that were destroyed based on the shorter retention.
It appears that current doc management software cannot handle retention changes well for existing documents (those already in the system when the change is made). For that reason alone, it may well be true that the software is going to dictate retention practices unless there is a decision to manually over-ride disposition notices for records that fall in the "before" category.

I will admit to having a foot in both camps here...I thought there was a ruling at one time quite awhile ago that addressed a change in a regulatory requirement, and stated that all records before a specified date would fall within the older retention while those created after that date were to have the newer retention. But I could not find it, hopefully was not a figment of my imagination. And I felt that software app's should be able to handle changes in retention when the app populated and assigned a disposition date to a record. But then, I realize that is possibly a coded formula that would change when the retention information is changed in the app.

A major concern (other than policy being driven by software or other tools) for me concerns the occurrence of changes...from a legal standpoint, eyebrows would certainly be raised if a company seemed to be "adjusting" their retention schedule promiscuously, especially too closely to any litigation activity. And if records suddenly are lost due to the changes, they are gone forever and the damage is done...but not necessarily the problems. Consistency in how changes are handled is one thing - constancy in the retention schedule itself is paramount.

So I will go with the "change-all" side argument- it would seem to be the most "error-free" especially when software-enabled, and is the simplest to document with policy. Whether it is best for an individual management situation has to be decided by the circumstances of those involved. However, retention changes MUST be fully documented, and that documentation vetted by all interested legal, compliance and executive parties and maintained as long as affected records are maintained (which probably means forever). And those changes must be implemented consistently and continuously, just as the overall retention program is diligently adhered to. Lastly, or firstly perhaps, a policy must be drafted that states your company will always apply retention period changes to all documents, with only very limited (and expressed) exceptions.

Website History

2008-06-17T08:52:00.000-05:00

There was an interesting article in the Tuesday, June 17 NYTimes about an early visionary who attempted to implement processes to categorize all the printed information in the world, decades before computers and the inter-connectedness of the Web were ever conceived. Although the attempt, in the 1930's, was doomed simply due to the scope and manual approach, the inventor's glimpse into what was to be was remarkable.