C3 Associates Inc.

This is the second of a two-part series that summarizes the main points in the ongoing debate about the impact of Microsoft SharePoint on the ECM community.  Last week I reviewed several reasons why traditional Enterprise Content Management vendors will continue to thrive despite Microsoft's push into the ECM space.  This week, it's Microsoft's turn.  As before, my goal is to summarize the key points in the discussion about the impact of SharePoint and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

Please leave your feedback or comments below, drop me a note on Twitter or feel free to contact me directly at greg.clark@c3associates.com.

Here are a few reasons SharePoint may become the dominant force in the Enterprise Content Management space. 

1. SharePoint 2010 is more than just basic ECM.  Where SharePoint 2007 could still be considered "basic content services", SharePoint 2010 has addressed most of the shortcomings that prevented this platform from competing head-to-head with traditional ECM tools.  A couple of months ago I summarized the eight reasons SharePoint 2010 is a true ECM system and based on the feedback I have heard from several of my clients, most feel that SharePoint has reached the tipping point where they will start to seriously consider shifting their ECM platforms over to SharePoint.  For most organizations considering a net-new ECM implementation, SharePoint is often the only candidate, especially where the organization is already committed to the Microsoft stack.  Microsoft has invested heavily in building out key ECM functionality like records management and has significantly improved SharePoint's ability to handle metadata and very large lists, among many other improvements.  The list of functional differences between SharePoint and traditional ECM systems has become so small that traditional ECM vendors will have an increasingly difficult time differentiating their products from SharePoint.  
2. SharePoint is the silver bullet of user adoption.  User adoption is a challenge that has dogged the ECM industry from the very beginning.  Many organizations feel the only thing preventing ECM from becoming truly successful is a poor user interface that limited user uptake (for an excellent summary of this question, read the wisdom shared by experienced ECM practitioner Mike Alsup, who reminds us that user adoption is about far more than a slick user interface), it seems that everyone wants to believe that SharePoint 2010 is the answer to all of their prayers.  Whether it is or not seems almost beside the point; perception is reality and that poses a big problem for traditional ECM vendors.  The fact remains that SharePoint offers an excellent user experience. To Microsoft's credit, SharePoint has been designed with the information worker in mind.  The tool "thinks the way the worker thinks" and user uptake of SharePoint tends to be quick and requires minimal training. This can pose a problem where the implementation is unplanned, leading to a rapid  proliferation of SharePoint sites and some would argue simply replicating the shared drive mess in SharePoint. However, as integrators and Microsoft partners learn how to plan and govern SharePoint deployments, the intuitive user interface will help SharePoint dominate the ECM space in the same way that MS Office has dominated the desktop.  
3. Size matters. The sheer scale of Microsoft poses a big problem for traditional ECM vendors.  They clearly can't outspend Microsoft on marketing and Microsoft's partner ecosystem is unmatched anywhere.  In the first part of this two-part series I said that one key advantage for traditional ECM platforms is their strong vertical story. This could be quickly eroded by many of the partners who have built and continue to build tightly integrated solutions suited to nearly any industry you can think of.  Yes, traditional ECM vendors have a head start in this area but Microsoft and their partner are hot on their heels.  Further, there is a wealth of SharePoint information freely available from MSDN, Codeplex and the many thousands of SharePoint MVP and partner blogs and websites.  It seems that if it can be known about SharePoint, it will be available somewhere for free and this will lead to rapid innovation and an improved product.  
4. SharePoint has a strong social story.  SharePoint started life as a collaboration platform and has evolved from this into a social computing platform. As the demands grow to provide Facebook-like tools in an enterprise context, SharePoint is very well positioned to meet this need. SharePoint may not be best of breed but many enterprises seem comfortable collaborating using a platform from a know n quantity such as Microsoft. To date, the efforts of traditional ECM vendors to "socialize" their platforms have not received widespread adoption and there are questions about their continued desire to play in this space in light of stiff competition from Microsoft.  
5. SharePoint is much more than just ECM.  SharePoint is a portal, a document management system, a business intelligence tool, a records management system, a social networking platform, a web content management system, development platform and an enterprise search tool.  Many established ECM vendors can say many of these same things, but the Microsoft story is especially compelling for organizations already committed to the Microsoft stack.
6. Microsoft will win because they're Microsoft.  The intangible advantage that Microsoft has is based on their history. Whenever Microsoft sets their mind to do something, very little will get in their way.  Remember the early days of the relational database wars?  Ask yourself when the last time was that you came across a Sybase database and you have some idea what that might mean for some traditional ECM vendors.   And if you don't think Microsoft is targeting traditional ECM vendors with SharePoint 2010, think again.  With SharePoint 2007, Microsoft started the process of embedding SharePoint into their core Office suite but was clear that most organizations still needed a traditional ECM system for the higher ECM functions. For more on this, see my blog post outlining some of the functional gaps between SharePoint and traditional ECM. With SharePoint 2010, Microsoft has changed their focus from partnering with traditional ECM to trying to out-compete them (of course they won't say this officially but their all-out marketing push at the 2010 AIIM show is a clear indicator).

I hope this short series has been useful. I'm sure there are other reasons why SharePoint may or may not dominate the ECM space and I am keen to hear your perspective. 

Please leave your comments below and I will reply as best I can.

After death and taxes, there are two other things in this world that seem to be a certainty;

1. If you want to start a debate in the enterprise content management (ECM) community mention SharePoint, and;
2. I’m really bad at predictions.

Evidence for point #1 is all over ECM blogs, countless conversations at conferences like AIIM and ARMA, and countless sleepless nights for traditional ECM vendors as they try to think of ways to fend off Microsoft. As for the second point, let’s just say that after I picked my Calgary Flames to win the Stanley Cup they missed the playoffs entirely. Nice call on that one.

The purpose of this post is to list some of the reasons why traditional ECM tools might survive (or even thrive) in the face of Microsoft’s full-court-press into the ECM space. I will leave it up to you, my colleagues in the Electronic Records Management (ERM) community, to expand on this list, tell me where you disagree and have a good discussion about the future of Enterprise Content Management. Next week I will make the case why SharePoint might be the future of ECM.

So, here goes.

1. Records Management is not optional. Many organizations wish it was, but it isn’t. Although SharePoint 2007 introduced some records management capabilities and SharePoint 2010 seems to take this to the next level, the critical role records management plays within an organization means it is not something that can or should be done half way. Traditional ECM tools like EMC Documentum, Open Text Content Server (formerly Livelink), Open Text eDocs (formerly Hummingbird), IBM FileNet and open source tools like Alfresco have a several-year head start on Microsoft. This means there is a significant body of best practice built up within the vendor and partner channels associated with each tool. There is a very good chance the issue your organization is dealing with has been seen somewhere else and that you can call on these resources to help get you where you need to go. Can you say that about SharePoint RM? The tool and best practices may eventually develop, but do you want to go first?
2. The vertical is steeper than you think. Whenever a client or colleague would ask whether I thought SharePoint 2007 was a viable replacement for their existing ECM system, it was relatively straightforward to explain why most organizations needed to continue leveraging their existing investments in traditional ECM suites. I summarized some the shortcomings of SharePoint 2007 last year, and have found these points to be a very useful “elevator pitch” when discussing the differences between SharePoint 2007 and traditional ECM suites. Admittedly, this discussion gets as lot more muddled with SharePoint 2010. Many if not all of these points have been addressed in one form or another, except for one very important area; solid, mature solutions in industry verticals. ECM vendors have spent the better part of the past two decades developing, deploying, supporting and improving their solutions for specific industries. Will the life sciences industry trust their complex regulatory approval process to SharePoint any time soon? Will the architecture, engineering and construction industry be able to manage multi-billion dollar projects that generate millions of AutoCAD files and tens of millions of facility tags in SharePoint? Speaking in strictly technical terms it is possible that SharePoint can handle the volumes, but for these use cases and others like them, ECM suites offer mature tools that support complex business processes and as above, the vendor professional services and partner networks have extensive experience in implementing these tools in a variety of industry verticals. Although there is a perception that ECM should primarily focus on replacing shared drives, my suspicion is that most ECM is targeted at solving business problems in core operating areas, and it is in these areas that traditional ECM players hold a significant advantage.
3. A suite of tools from one vendor increases accountability. Whenever someone questions the ability of SharePoint to meet a particular business need using the product as-is out of the box (as is often the case when discussing the vertical business requirements noted above), the response is usually that a Microsoft partner either has or will provide a module that meets this need. While that may be true in many cases, most organizations end up with many different modules from many different vendors. There are a couple of downsides to this; the testing required each time you need to upgrade goes up exponentially and, if and when things do go wrong you will not be able to hold a single vendor to account. This is often referred to as the “one throat to choke” argument (although my friends in the vendor community prefer to call it the “one back to pat” argument). Although the “suite” approach taken by traditional ECM vendors usually means that some of the individual components are not best of breed, the ability to hold a single vendor to account for their product is a significant benefit, and one that SharePoint cannot offer.
4. If Microsoft CRM didn’t kill SAP, why would SharePoint kill traditional ECM? Although there has been a lot of talk about SharePoint overtaking traditional ECM players, why has Microsoft not overtaken SAP in the CRM space? Is there is a case to be made that SharePoint is akin to Microsoft’s CRM offering; a tool targeted at the mid-market, mass-market space but not really suitable for true enterprise deployment?

I hope these questions provide a good starting point for a good discussion about the future of ECM. Next Thursday I will make the case for SharePoint to live up to the hype and change the ECM landscape as we know it.

Until then look forward to your comments.

Cross-posted from my blog on the AIIM ERM Expert User Community.

For this week’s blog post I was going to provide my perspective on the recently completed AIIM show but there are already so many excellent summaries out there I’m not sure what more I could add. I thought Barclay Blair’s observations were particularly astute, especially as it related to Google’s perspective on ECM. Mike Alsup provided a solid list of nine observations (just to go one better than John Mancini I’m sure), Russ Stalters highlighted the big push by Microsoft to promote SharePoint to the ECM community and also commented on the evolution of cloud-based ECM offerings. Finally, the Big Men on Content gave their considered opinions on the impact and evolution of CMIS. Once you’ve read through these articles it will feel like you were there.

My big “aha” moment at AIIM came in the speakers ready room. I got to talking with fellow Canadian Lewis Eisen about how to truly measure success when implementing information management. We discussed whether traditional measures of success like the number of documents loaded to the system, number of users, number of searches, etc. are really all that valuable. The short answer for both of us was a resounding no. These measures are peripheral at best, sort of like saying “It always rains when I go to Philadelphia for the AIIM conference, therefore I make it rain in Philadelphia”.

So what metrics and measures are valuable? The answer to that question is another question; what is the mission for your organization? The main point of my AIIM presentation this year (”What Success Looks Like – The Anatomy of a Successful ECM Implementation“) was that there is nothing inherently valuable about an ECM implementation (at this point you’re wondering why I’m blogging about ECM…bear with me, there’s a point here).

There is little doubt most organizations are dealing serious information overload problems and these problems are impacting their ability to succeed, but setting out simply to fix an information management problem without considering the broader objectives of your organization is a recipe for failure. Many (or perhaps most) ECM projects started out as IT-driven initiatives. Measuring the success of a project by the amount of content loaded to the system in the first year, or counting the number of users who have been trained, or even counting the number of new versions added by users will not tell you whether the system is a success or not.

To truly measure success you first must establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for ECM. While that hardly ranks as the most earth-shattering bit of news you are likely to hear this week, it is amazing how often this basic principle is missed when implementing ECM. KPIs must measure outcomes that are important to the bottom line of your entire organization, not just your IT department.

For example, if you are a sales-focused organization develop metrics within your ECM program that measure the impact on sales. The impact on the sales cycle from implementing good information management practices within the sales group is a good KPI (note: the amount of time it takes to find current sales collateral is not a valid measure; the amount of time it takes to convert prospects into clients is). This is obviously not a simple task and requires very close alignment with leadership in this part of the organization, and that’s really the point. If your ECM team is close enough to identify and measure KPIs within a business unit, your ability to design information architectures and work practices that support business objectives will increase exponentially.

The last, and possibly most critical point is that you need to be committed to continually monitoring, reporting and evolving your KPIs. This continual improvement review should be formalized to be at least an annual process or perhaps even more often if you have met your objectives and need to set new targets (or equally important if you have not met your objectives).

I am certainly interested in hearing about your experiences creating and measuring KPIs for ECM so please feel free to share your comments below.

Cross-posted from my blog on the AIIM ERM Expert User Community.

I want to make the world safe for records management.

Scratch that. I want to make the world safe for records managers. Why? Because they don’t seem to get the respect they deserve and in most cases, neither does the information they help manage.

Based on the fact that you’re reading this blog I’m sure you agree organizations should work hard to manage information well. Certainly most have taken a crack at it with varying degrees of success but regardless of their efforts we can usually predict which parts of our organizations will succeed or fail based on their organizational mission in life. For example:

• If I’m in accounting I can usually dig up an invoice from a few years back if I really need to
• If I’m in legal I can usually find a contract (or at least sheepishly call the company we contracted with to get a copy)
• If I’m in marketing I usually wonder where the he*l that file went

I’m generalizing to make the point that many organizations have failed to realize the full benefits of their enterprise information management programs because their efforts to date haven’t been truly enterprise. Information management within many (if not most) organizations has emerged from a series of point solutions deployed to individual departments, often on different platforms.

So what are successful organizations doing right? How do they manage the ever-present tug of war between efficiency and process? How do they get buy-in from senior executives and how do they sustain the momentum of ECM initiatives to ensure they stay relevant?

The answer is deceptively simple; they evolve. They move beyond managing records as valuable in their own right to governing information as a true asset of their organization. Easy to say, hard to do. Organizations that successfully navigate this transition usually do so because they establish strong information governance practices.

What’s the difference between records management and information governance? In my opinion:

• Records management is static where information governance is dynamic
• Records management is reactive where information governance is proactive
• Records management is focused on the retention schedule where information governance is focused on enabling the business to get their work done

I am most definitely not saying that records management is not important (some of my best friends are records managers…). Organizations that successfully manage information across the enterprise (and this information includes records) realize that information is only valuable if it helps advance the cause of your organization. In the case of highly regulated industries or those with a high litigation risk there will be a strong focus on creating hard-and-fast rules for information retention and disposition. The challenge that most organizations face is that this is where enterprise information management begins and ends.

Organizations with a focus on information governance realize the importance of creating a living model that puts appropriate structures in place to enable users to manage information appropriately. This means a risk-based approach to records retention, but frankly there’s nothing especially new or unique about that. What is unique are those organizations that establish mechanisms to efficiently support the changing information management needs of their users. According to IDC individuals (rather than transactional systems) create 70% of the information in organizations; this means organizations that provide simple, intuitive and, most importantly, flexible information management structures will be the ones that succeed.

Information management structures (a folder hierarchy, metadata model, line-of-business integration, or custom interface) must make sense to the end users and fit easily into the flow of their work. This is no easy task and is only made more difficult when there is an overemphasis on command-and-control governance structures.

My advice to records managers and information management practitioners everywhere is to focus on a thin layer of standardization, then provide “guidelines” and “principles” for managing information rather than hard and fast “must do” policies. Users are much more likely to follow good practices for managing information if they feel they have some flexibility to do it on their own terms. Yes, there is still a need for certain information to be managed with more rigour, but my challenge to the records managers of the world is to find ways to empower your users to manage information rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. A little freedom might just be what your information, and your users, need.

I’m back from Vancouver and my presentation to Project World. It was a good event and well-attended by people from throughout Western Canada and the Pacific North West.

My presentation stimulated a lot of interesting discussion (well, interesting if you’re a PM or ECM enthusiast). Here’s a link to the presentation. Questions or comments are welcome.