But first, a caveat. The roles as well as the org structures I will discuss next time are intended to be a starting point. We don't live in a perfect world (at least I don't, not so sure about you…) and we can't always count on creating the ideal organizational structure. Existing structures, HR policies, sponsorship issues and other organizational dynamics can get in the way.  My goal is to give you a guideline based on my experience with what works.

And one final point. Although many of the roles listed below are called "teams" this can often be one person or multiple roles can be performed by a single person, depending on the scale of your organization, your budget and your ECM program.  Again, this is a guideline to help you develop a structure that works best for you and your organization.

Steering Committee

The role of the steering committee is akin to that of the Board of Directors of a company; they provide high-level direction for the activities of the ECM program and sign off on major program deliverables.   The steering committee should be made up of senior executives (ideally C-level executives or, if that isn't feasible in your organization, their direct reports).

Your project sponsor should be a member of your steering committee and should be your go-to person when you need to escalate issues or if you need business guidance. You should have regular meetings with your steering committee. Ideally once a month but no less than quarterly.

Program Manager

The Program Manager  runs the ECM program and is responsible for the initiatives conducted under the ECM banner. This person is ultimately responsible for all deliverables, budgets, timelines and program objectives. Some specific tasks of the program manager include:

• - Drive the creation and execution of the ECM strategy
• - Liaison to the steering committee
• - Manage vendor relationships
• - Hire and manage the ECM team
• - Contribute to or lead the development of an appropriate information architecture
• - Identify, track and act upon key metrics for the ECM program

Project Team

The project team leads the implementation and design of discrete ECM initiatives. This can include document imaging rollouts, shared drive migrations, team site deployments, the creation of new workflows, system upgrades and many other projects.

The core skills on your project team should be a combination of strong project managers and ECM-savvy business analysts. I have often seen these roles combined and this is my preferred structure. Only in very large projects will you require a standalone project manager

Information Governance Team

The information governance team is responsible for the creation and implementation of your ECM governance framework . This includes aligning ECM activities with the relevant corporate policies by creating guidelines, standards and procedures related to ECM.

The information governance team also works closely with the project team to develop and implement metadata standards, taxonomy standards and the overall information architecture for your ECM solution.  They are the "go-to" team for questions about content disposition or exceptions to your ECM principles (for example, when is it okay to copy content rather than link a single document in multiple locations).

And yes, the information governance group also includes the more traditional records management roles. This includes the creation and application of a corporate retention and disposition schedule and can also include the management of a records centre or corporate library.

Change Management Team

This role is responsible for ensuring that your end user community is ready, willing and able to adopt ECM. While this  activity is often rolled into the accountabilities of the projects team, in my experience it is best to have a person or a team dedicated to ensuring the significant changes that can come from an ECM implementation are accounted for. This is often the single biggest cause of ECM project failure. When we consider that the change required to succeed with many core use-cases for ECM (for example, moving from a "File / Save As…" world to the need to add metadata to a simple MS Office document), there is little wonder end users will often rebel.

The change management team works actively with the project teams and the program office to ensure they incorporate good change management practice as part of each project plan.  The information gathered as part of this process is incorporated an overall change management strategy, which identifies the change impact of each ECM activity and ensures that communication, training and support plans  are in place to ease the end user transition to your ECM solution.

Training Team

The training team's role is relatively straightforward; ensure that your user community knows how to use the ECM toolset.  This is often more of an art than a science. My advice is to focus on providing your end users with "one best way" for performing a particular task. Even though the tool likely supports a variety of methods for achieving the same thing, there's nothing more confusing than giving someone three ways to save a document.

The training team should be ECM experts in their own right. Although it can be tempting to repurpose existing trainers to also provide ECM training, the complexities and subtleties of ECM are often lost on people who are not experts. Where this isn't possible, use the ECM experts from your other teams to implement a "train the trainer" approach.

Support Team

Your support team is often made up of members of your projects team, change team or training team (or all the above).  The role of the support team is to provide second-level support to your end user community. They must be ECM experts and should know the nuances of your ECM toolset very well. They will work closely with your help desk and technical team to identify and trend issues, and will help prioritize system fixes or enhancements.

Technical Team

Your technical team is tasked with keeping your ECM system up and running. Despite the complexities of ECM applications, you know this team is successful when it looks easy.  Technical teams generally have development groups, operational / system administration groups and may also have their own infrastructure groups.

It is critical that your technical team have a close working relationship with your all other teams. Although your projects, change, training, governance and support teams should be ECM experts, the best solutions come from open conversations with the technical team.  This will ensure that the implications of any proposed customizations, new modules or other system changes are well understood and communicated to your user community.

Other Roles

We can't forget end users, of course. They're the reason we are doing all of this in the first place. Ensure that you have a good feedback loop through each of your teams so the end user experience is  understood and incorporated into the continuous improvement of your ECM program.

It is also common to have a close relationship between the ECM team and the communications and / or portal team. There groups are often a separate entity, but there is significant overlap in areas like governance and information architecture.

The Role of Consultants

It is important to recognize that consultants or vendor professional services teams can and should play a role in your ECM program. They have the expertise that comes from having implemented ECM in a variety of different organizations and you should be able to take advantage of their knowledge and experience.

However, when working with consultants it is critical to have an employee assigned to shadow the consultant and ultimately take over their role. Although it can be valuable to engage consultants to establish or revamp your ECM program, it can be risky to become too reliant on them.  If your consultants don't want to mentor your employees to eventually replace them, find different consultants. 

I hope this has been a useful guide. Next time I will share some sample ECM organizational structures. In the meantime, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Cross-posted to my AIIM ECM Expert Blog.

And my stand is this: I believe we shouldn’t give up on the information lifecycle.

Although it is tempting to think that by using separate systems, one for “collaboration” and one for “records” we can remove the burden on end users from worrying about how to classify a document, I believe this is false economy.

The risks of separating collaborative and records content can be high. Having a formal records platform for only final records leaves the very good question of what becomes of all the drafts and versions that led to the document becoming final. I’m no lawyer, but I can tell you that in any discovery process you will be asked for the draft and work in progress documents even if you have legitimately disposed of your “record” copy.

I agree with those who commented that we can’t always achieve perfection. My post from last month speaks to this and I definitely stand by the fact that we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I believe we can have “good” even while not losing sight of the information lifecycle. Although those words may scare some people, information lifecycle management doesn’t necessarily equate to a lot of overhead. In fact, proper information lifecycle management should mean LESS overhead.

The term I’ve used in the past is “subversive” RM. By this I mean end users don’t know (and probably don’t care) about when something is declared a record or what the classification is. This can be achieved relatively easily by using simple metadata inheritance at the container level.

I advocate a big bucket approach instead of a big budget approach. Wherever possible consider creating a retention schedule based on retention period instead of content type. This means that users likely won’t be able to use retention as a search item but let’s face it, most users don’t use records classifications as search terms anyway.

At the end of the day it comes down to business value and risk. Every ECM project should focus on maximizing business value while minimizing risk. Clearly it can be a challenge to rationalize these two things but in my next post I will address strategies for creating an ECM organization structure that can help resolve these questions and help you achieve your content management goals.

But a funny thing happened on the way to ECM nirvana. Both organizations decided to pursue a “parallel” strategy; one system for collaboration and work-in-progress documents and one for “official records” or final versions (often copies) of documents that have completed the collaboration cycle (and yes, the rise of SharePoint plays a part in this decision, but that’s a discussion for another day).

I will freely admit my first reaction was “are you nuts?” After all, as a red-blooded ECM professional my mission in life is to reduce duplication and promote information lifecycle management. But I’m always willing to listen to both sides of any story (and they’re my clients so they’re always right, right?).

On the positive side, establishing a process to manage only final copies of records mirrors the paper world; if an organization has a well-established physical file management system why not try to replicate that in the electronic world? The other benefits are that final versions of documents are more likely to have a natural structure which leads to more intuitive metadata and greater discoverability (at least in theory), and content disposition is simplified because the retention schedule for “official” copies is often easier to determine.

On the other hand, isn’t the point of ECM to manage information through it’s lifecycle? If we are never going to achieve true ECM why do it at all? You also have the problem of costs; the cost to train people to know when to move a document to its final state and to know where to put it can be high; this is especially true if those people don’t attend training or if they do, still choose not to move final copies to the approved location. The alternative is to assume that any documents that need to be moved to an official repository will be managed by administrative personnel. Again, this increases costs and impacts efficiency, both areas ECM is intended to improve. And there are always the potential risks (and risks always translate into costs one way or the other) from duplicate content in multiple systems. This is gravy for lawyers in an eDiscovery process because it creates the possibility of confusion about which version was used to make a decision.

At the end of the day it is difficult to say definitively which is the best approach. Every organization is unique and has its own history, business drivers, processes and rationale for certain courses of action. General ECM best practice would dictate that information is managed through its lifecycle using a single system or at least seamlessly integrated systems, but this isn’t always possible. What I will say is that minimizing duplication and streamlining business processes through good information management usually means managing the information lifecycle. This should be the approach wherever possible and I suspect in most cases this will be the most cost effective approach in the long term.

Ensuring you have a good understanding of the capabilities of your current platform will also help; in many cases the traditional ECM tool may be perceived to have “failed” but in fact meets all of your functional requirements. The other alternative is to look into the possibility of integrating a collaboration platform with a system of record. Even if the truth is both of these platforms are technically capable of managing the information lifecycle, if users perceive that one is better than the other for a particular task you will have more success managing more content, and that’s really what we are trying to achieve.

The participants were a diverse group but there were many records managers in attendance. The session itself was very interactive and we had a great discussion about Microsoft SharePoint and the future of ECM.

One of the most interesting aspects of the discussion was an attitude shift from many, if not all of the records professionals in attendance. In the past I have observed that many RM-led ECM initiatives have focused on the records management aspects of the content to be managed. Often this meant that end users were trained to file their documents into a structure that mirrored the corporate records retention schedule. While this might make perfect sense to records managers, unfortunately most users in your organization are probably not records managers. As a result, many implementations failed to meet user adoption targets because users didn’t feel the structures they were being asked to use fit the context of their regular business day.

I call this the 20/80 approach; 20% of your content is managed perfectly while 80% is scattered across partially-deployed ECM systems, email inboxes and shared drives.

Amongst the records professionals at the AIIM event, however, there was a clear shift in attitude and approach over what I have experienced with similar groups in the past. They strongly believed that building business-focused structures and small-but-mighty metadata models tailored to core business processes was preferable, even at the expense of “perfect” records management. This is the manifestation of what I have long believed; it is better to have 80% of your content under some form of management even if this isn’t perfectly aligned with the retentions schedule. Yes, you still need tighter management of a small portion of critical or high-risk content, but you should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The first question to ask is whether it really matters. Shouldn’t a first class Records and Information Management (IM) program succeed by virtue of its own momentum and the value it creates irrespective of what the boxes on the org chart say? In a perfect world that would be true, but unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world (if you need proof see my earlier post about the Calgary Flames missing the playoffs).

So where should the Records and Information Management function live? Not in IT, at least not in most cases.

Notwithstanding the fact that the “I” in “IT” stands for “Information”, the mandate of most IT organizations is to keep servers running and to manage vendor relationships. I know that many, if not most IT professionals are truly dedicated to helping their customers manage their business more efficiently, but at the end of the day the great majority of IT organizations are not set up to accommodate the challenges of managing information well.

And these challenges are many. Perhaps the most important comes from the fact that Information Management implementations do not have a natural beginning, middle and end. Information Management is an ongoing process that evolves and changes over time to support changing business requirements and the needs of their user community. Information Management is not a project and it certainly is not a technology deployment.

IT groups on the other hand generally operate a project management office tasked with standing up servers, upgrading software and rolling out new technologies. Each of these tasks fit well with a traditional “waterfall” project management methodology that expects right and wrong answers along the way. Information Management on the other hand is more art than science. Yes, it is critical that IM projects are managed properly and that appropriate controls are in place to ensure the implementation stays on track, but the key aspects of IM projects are people and process rather than technology. Change management is critically important and, let’s face it, most IT organizations are not adept at the people side of change.

That leaves the question of where the Records and IM function should live within your organization. In my experience there are three good answers depending on the makeup and business challenges of your organization.

1) If you are in a heavily regulated industry or are likely to face more than your fair share of lawsuits you likely want to align your IM program closely with your corporate legal group, reporting in to chief legal counsel.

2) If your objectives are to enhance operational efficiency or improve the bottom line of your business by managing your information better, align your IM program with an operational support area or even a strategic marketing or R&D group.

3) Finally, if you are in a situation where the only logical spot is within IT, try to ensure that you carve out the IM function from the other core teams in the IT group. One of my clients appointed a Director of Information Management a s a direct report of the CIO, which made her a peer of the more traditional IT roles of Infrastructure and Application support and gave her a seat at the table to advocate for IM.

In the end, when push comes to shove the core mandate of each part of your organization will ultimately prevail. In the case of IT, generally speaking their mandate is to keep the servers running and as a result the processes and political power tends to support this objective. Many IT groups can walk and chew gum at the same time but if they start to stumble they’ll spit out the gum before they fall over. Placing IM in a part of your organization where it can fulfil its mandate is one of the first steps on the road to success.

Cross-posted to the AIIM ERM Community blog.

In an earlier post I listed Eight Things SharePoint 2010 Needs to be a True ECM System, and, at first glance the new version looks very encouraging from an ECM perspective. As I’ve said before, I get excited by anything that can help my clients better manage their information and SharePoint has the potential to be a transformative platform bridging structured content, unstructured content and social computing in one flexible package. SharePoint 2007 does a decent job of this but it has some deficiencies when it comes to managing all content in the enterprise.

I’ll also give you the same caveat I gave last time; While this post focuses on SharePoint as a technology, technology is about the very last thing that should be considered when an organization sets out to manage its content more efficiently. Information management should start with a good business case, appropriate sponsorship, choosing the right areas of focus then building capacity within the organization to truly succeed. Technology is only the last piece of this puzzle. All of that said, there has been an incredible amount of interest in SharePoint (as illustrated by the 7,500 people who attended the SharePoint conference from October 19 to 22, 2009) and many of my clients have questions about where (or whether) this tool should fit into their ECM strategy.

Finally, the updates below are based on my attendance at the SharePoint conference where I went to as many breakout sessions as possible and chased down beleaguered Microsoft staffers to ask questions in what must have felt like a trip to the old Roman Coliseum (with the lions, not with Caesar). I tried to focus on attending ECM-specific sessions and have done as much reading as I can but as a vendor-neutral consultant Microsoft hasn’t seen fit to furnish C3 Associates with a pre-beta version of SharePoint 2010, so I haven’t actually used the system myself. As always we will continue to learn as much as we can about all of the ECM tools and technologies that are of interest to our clients but in the absence of actually working with SharePoint some of our understanding will be incomplete or possibly incorrect. I will provide updates in future posts as I learn more.

I have used a five point scale to evaluate the how well I think SharePoint 2010 meets my “Eight Things” criteria for inclusion into the ECM club. Remember that these are based on only my first look at the tool and are subject to revision as I learn more about how the new features and functions actually work.

Initial Ranking Scale

With all of that out of the way here are the eight reasons I think Microsoft has moved towards a more complete ECM solution.

1. Persistent links – The single biggest shortcoming of SharePoint 2007 is the inability to link directly to a unique object ID. One of the greatest benefits of ECM systems is the ability to send content via a link rather than relying on email attachments. In traditional ECM applications this isn’t a problem; each content object has its own unique ID that doesn’t change regardless of where it lives in the repository. In SharePoint 2007, links break if you rename or move a file. The other benefit of persistent linking is that it enables the management of compound documents (a container that stores multiple documents like the chapters of a book) and the ability to link directly to an older version of a document.

2. Store once, use many – SharePoint 2007 had a nasty habit of copying content throughout the system rather than using pointers to a single source of the truth (because content links might break as noted above). Perhaps the best example of the misguided use of “copy” capabilities in SharePoint is the “Send to…Records Center” feature where a copy of a document is sent to the Records Center while leaving the original in place rather than either moving the document and leaving a pointer or changing the state of the document to indicate its changed status (see point 3 for more on the RM capabilities of SharePoint).

3. Honest-to-goodness Records Management – I recognize that that SharePoint 2007 is DoD 5015.2 certified but the statement from the product development team that the DoD 5015.2 components are “not intended for customers…who would like to enhance the records management functionality of MOSS 2007 with particular 5015.2 oriented features but are not required to run their system in a certified configuration” doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Add to this the fact that SharePoint doesn’t allow users to efficiently manage physical objects out of the box and it is clear that Microsoft needs to decide if they are really serious about the records management space or if they will leave it to partners.

4. Better metadata management – Metadata in SharePoint 2007 took a quantum leap forward with the introduction of Content Types. However, managing metadata in SharePoint 2007 can be difficult especially when dealing with multiple site collections.

5. Reusable search templates and stored search results – There is no question that search is a focus for Microsoft based on their acquisition of FAST and their push into public internet search with the recent launch of Bing. Search in SharePoint 2007 is reasonably good but the tool does not have the ability to either store a “snapshot” of search results for future reference nor does SharePoint 2007 allow users to create reusable search templates. This feature would save users time by allowing them to create a search query then either re-execute that query in the future or add new criteria without having to rebuild the entire search.

6. More granular security – This is one area where SharePoint was already reasonably strong but truly deep ECM systems include advanced security features like the ability to deny permission to certain objects on an as-needed basis. The current process for managing security is a bit cumbersome but I expect this is something Microsoft is working on. It will be interesting to see if what changes, if any, make it into the final release of the product.

7. Surface the audit trail – One of the things I like the best about established ECM applications is the ability to see who has opened my documents. I find this particularly handy on status report day when I inevitably discover that I’ve made a mistake in the document I’ve just sent out (as an unbreakable persistent link of course). I can check the audit trail to see if anyone has opened the document and if not, make my changes without anyone knowing I’d messed up in the first place. While SharePoint tracks most major audit events, the list of events is not as extensive as in a traditional ECM application nor is this information surfaced through the function menu of the content object.

8. More and more mature line-of-business integrations – This should be a strength of SharePoint given the sizeable .NET developer community as well as the extensive Microsoft partner ecosystem, but SharePoint still has a lot of catching up to do in this area. Organizations deploying SharePoint won’t be able to hold a single vendor to account for a series of modules (or Content Enabled Vertical Applications, as Gartner likes to call them). This may or may not be a bad thing depending on your perspective but established ECM vendors have offerings that satisfy a variety of industry verticals and business functions. To achieve the same thing with SharePoint customers will need to research, purchase and deploy modules from a variety of Microsoft partners. CMS Watch offers a good summary of the issues associated with third party add-ons for SharePoint.

To sum up, it is clear that SharePoint will continue to have a significant impact on the ECM landscape. The question is whether the functional improvements evident in SharePoint 2010 mean that organizations with significant commitments to other ECM platforms have to start all over again with SharePoint? In the short term, I think the answer is no. In many cases, the true benefit from the investments made in traditional ECM can be realized by surfacing some of this content though SharePoint interfaces; done well this can significantly enhance the user experience while still ensuring that the strong compliance engine in your existing ECM system keeps your content safe and your CEO out of jail.

I suspect that any changes in the ECM world will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. SharePoint is a disruptive technology to be sure, but given it’s breadth, relative lack of maturity and a widely varied partner community Microsoft will help the overall ECM market grow and likely take established ECM vendors with it. As they (used to) say on Wall Street, a rising tide floats all boats.

This is not to say that things will be easy for the makes of FileNet, Documentum, Livelink and others; they have a significant challenge ahead in trying to position their products not relative to one another, but relative to SharePoint (whether they like it or not). The vendors that do this well will continue to thrive and any that choose to ignore SharePoint or do not recognize the significance of the changes in SharePoint 2010 could be in trouble.

As always I appreciate your feedback on anything you read here. Feel free to leave a comment here or drop me a note via my Twitter account at GregClarkC3.

I’m working on an update to my SharePoint 2010 post based on what I’ve learned since it was released in beta this fall. Look for that post early in new year. Until then, I wish all of my readers the best of the season and a fantastic 2010!

ECM is about managing information rather than just storing it. Done properly, it helps your organization take advantage of the vast amounts of information created every day by placing content in an appropriate context for your user community. This can mean pushing content out through a web portal or providing intuitive tools to allow users to create, browse or search for content when needed. The end result is that your organization will be both more efficient and more compliant with the rules that govern your industry because you will be able to retain information for as long as needed but no longer.

That strays a bit from the traditional definitions of ECM but I think that is kind of the point. It got me thinking about what I like about my job and why I got started on this crazy adventure in the first place. First off, I like ECM because I like people. The successful ECM implementations I have seen have not been implementations of a technology but have instead focused on efficiency, compliance, sharing and know-how; all of these things are influenced by the human beings in the mix and the technology is only a supporting player. Conversely, the ECM implementations I have seen that have not been as successful have been seen as technology rollouts.

The other thing I enjoy about ECM is that it allows me to work in a variety of different business areas. Although the focus of C3 Associates is on the energy, oil and gas industry there is an incredible diversity amongst the various business units in each of our clients. The opportunity to work with engineers in the morning, lawyers at lunch (because they’re busy the rest of the time) and accountants in the afternoon doesn’t come along very often. Each has their own unique perspective on the business of their organization and I see ECM as an opportunity to unite all of them to achieve more than they would have otherwise.

If helping people take their work to another level doesn’t get you out of bed in the morning, I don’t know what does.

You can download both slide decks in the Presentations section of our site.