Digital Landfill

is a consultant with Performance Improvement. He has been in the document management and business process management field for over 25 years.   Jim utilizes a holistic, process centric approach to assist companies in understanding the strategic values that can be achieved from implementing an ECM system. Jim can be reached at . 

[Note: The first e-book in our 8 things series will be released September 30.  To get on the advanced distribution list, CLICK HERE.]

8 Steps to Avoid Process and Organizational Problems when Implementing an ECM System

In a recent study conducted by AIIM the participants were asked “Which 3 of these typical problems have affected your organization’s document or records management implementation? “ 

The top response was “Underestimated process and organizational issues” (40+%). This indicates that these users did not follow a “process centric” approach in order to understand how end-users utilized the documents in the process. Following is an eight step methodology to minimize this problem.  

1 -- Identify the business problem.

This is a key component that is often overlooked. The business problem not only must be identified, the project sponsor must agree that this is the problem that he/she wants to be rectified.   

2 -- Select and train your team.

It is extremely important to have key members of the process to participate in the rectifying the business problem. The most important member of the team is the end-user, without their participation in the analysis and design the possibility of failure is greatly increased.  This does not minimize the need for technical advisors to be on the team as well (e.g., analyst, development, project manager, infrastructure, etc.). Once the team is selected they must be trained and educated on the project approach, the methodology that will be used and the capabilities of ECM technology so they can participate in the analysis.

3 -- Document the current process.

Each task of the current process must be documented in detail from the moment the process is initiated until it is completed. Gathering this much detail is often played down by some groups; they will argue that detailed information is not necessary and documenting the process at a high level will suffice. They seem to overlook the fact that each step in the process is important or they would not be being performed by the end-use – if the documentation of the process seems to contain a large amount of detail it is probably because the process is detailed. Capturing what may seem like a trivial step in the process when it is being documented by an analyst can avoid hours/days of rework if it is identified in the initial documentation. 

The initial documentation can be accomplished in multiple ways (e.g., narrative, graphical process maps, post-it notes, etc., or a combination of several of these methods can be used, depending on the complexity of the process). 

The key items are the documentation must detail every step in the process and it must be simple enough that everyone on the team understands it. 

It should also be noted that end-users, as well intended as they are, have difficulty detailing each task they perform in a conference room. In order to attain accurate information each task in the entire process must be observed as they are being performed at the workstation.   

4 -- Verify the process.

The process must be reviewed by the end-users to verify each task and exception is documented.  This accomplishes two things: 1) it assures that the process is documented accurately and 2) it involves the end-users in the analysis.

5 -- Conduct a process analysis.

Once the current process is accurately documented a process analysis should be performed.  Each tasked is valuated in order to identify the non-value added task. This step can either be performed by the system analyst(s) or in a session with the end-users. If the analyst(s) identify the non-valued added task there should be a session with the end-users to explain reasoning behind their logic and to obtain end-user feedback. 

6 -- Define the new process utilizing the ECM system.

The new process can now be defined. This is a group session that is normally conducted by the system analyst. The key participants will be the end-users of ALL of the departments that participate in the process. It was noted in step #4 that it is difficult for the end-user to describe everything they do to complete a task, it is also unusual for end-user to understand that how they perform their task affects the person(s) that are performing subsequent tasks. The project manager and technical personnel should also attend to assure they understand the new process and can meet the requirements. This session requires that the leader of the session to understand the capabilities of an ECM system and assist the end-users with the design of the new process.   

Having the end-users participate in the design of the new process helps insure the success of the ECM system installation. 

7 -- Define the taxonomy.

By detailing each task of the process the process documentation should contain an accurate description of which role performs each task and what information they require to perform each task (i.e., data and documents). The process documentation should have also detailed the origin of each document. This information should provide a basis for determining a list of the document types, how they should be captured – scanned or electronically, and who requires access to them (i.e., security). It is also recommended that the existing document repositories be inventoried to confirm/deny that all of the forms and documents were identified. 

Once this information is identified a session can be conducted with the end-users to determine what indices will be required to retrieve these documents in a timely manner. 

The final step is for the Records Manager to assign the record retention rules.

8 -- Create the final design document.

The system analyst now has all of the information that he/she requires to create the final design document. The entire new process has been documented which details each task in the process, which role performs each task and what information they require to complete each task.  

A document taxonomy has been developed that defined the metadata, security and record retention policies for each document. 

This information can be used to select an ECM system or implement an existing ECM solution in a new application. At the conclusion of these eight steps all of the “process and organizational issues” and ECM software requirements will have been defined.  

------

Some recent titles in the 8 things series...

• 8 steps to getting started with Twitter  
• 8 things to consider in selecting the right scanner  
• 8 things SharePoint 2010 needs to be a true ECM system  
• 8 things that changed the history of document management 
• 8 things you can do with an enterprise wiki 
• 8 perspectives in ECM projects that can make me see double  
• 8 things you need to know about developing an ECM information architecture 
• 8 more things you need to know about SharePoint 
• 8 things you need to know about preservation of e-documents for litigation and regulatory investigations 

A note:  we'll be publishing the 1st e-book in our "8 things" series on September 30. 

The focus will be the title of this post -- 8 reasons you need a strategy for managing information – before it’s too late.  This will be followed by additional e-books, with the second one focused on e-mail management.

To get on the advance PR list for the first e-book (if you're a blogger or a Twitter person or you just like to get cool stuff before everyone else), go to the 8 things link on our web site.  We won't do anything with the email except send you the advance copy.  I promise.

8 reasons you need a strategy for managing information – before it’s too late

1.  A tidal wave of information.

A study by IDC a few years back concluded that there are currently 281 billion exabytes of information in the Digital Universe.  So how much is this?  Well…an exabyte is a million million megabytes.  Thanks a lot.

To put it in a bit of perspective, a small novel contains about a megabyte of information.  So in other words, the Digital Universe is equal to 12 stacks of novels (fewer if the chosen novel is a big fat one like Harry Potter 6 or one of those Ken Follett Pillars of the Earth deals) stretching from the earth to the sun. So it’s a big number, whatever it is.

But I think the way to think about this is to note that IDC concludes that 30% of this information is business related.  And it concludes that the overall quantity of information will grow by a factor of 10 between 2006 and 2011.  

The point here is that it is not unrealistic to think that your employees – who currently say they are overwhelmed by the volume of information they must manage and who currently say they spend hours each day just dealing with email – will need to manage 10X as much information in the near future.  

How will they handle this tidal wave?  Simply extrapolating the current tools and approaches to deal with this tidal wave will not solve the problem.  A new approach is needed.  And yet many organizations are frankly in a state of “they don’t know what they don’t know” at best and a state of denial at worst.

89% of organizations believe that effective information management is strategically important to their future.   Over 60% believe that they could demonstrate that their electronic information is accurate, accessible, and trustworthy.   We know from close examination of thousands of organizations that the latter can’t possibly be the case.

2.  Ubiquitous computing.

In his recent book Free, Chris Anderson quotes a French economist from the 1700s, Jean Baptiste Say – “Supply creates its own demand.”

Anderson’s point in the context of information management is that the inexorable march of Moore’s law relative to computing, storage, and bandwidth technologies is rapidly driving marginal costs of these capabilities to zero, which is driving them to be incorporated into every facet of the economy.  

We are rapidly reaching the point, whether it is through the streamlining of PCs into truly mobile network devices (think netbook) or the enhancing of cellular devices into mini computing devices (think iPhone),where computing capabilities are truly ubiquitous.  Clay Shirky makes the point that technologies don’t truly become interesting and mainstream until they become boring, and we are rapidly approaching that point.  In many ways, the “fashion statement” of network and cellular devices (I think of particularly of the discussion with my daughter during our last phone upgrade) has become just as important (if not more so) than their technical capabilities.

The implications of this for organizations are profound.  Your people are constantly connected.  Your people expect instant connectivity.  They expect to work the same way sitting on a beach as they do in the office.  Ask them what their most important applications are and they are likely to say things like Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn and Google Docs and Flickr and a feed reader.  Even if they have absolutely no malice in their hearts, they are likely to have organizational documents and information on their phones and on their laptops and on their home computers.  How will you exert some element of control over all this?

At the same time, the customers of all this ubiquitous computing power are likely YOUR customers.  And if not YOUR customers, then definitely the customers of your customers.  Do you have a strategy to capitalize on this potential?  Nationwide Insurance is currently showcasing an application for the iPhone in which customers can instantly report accidents and receive payment on the spot.  What is the equivalent in your industry?  Or are you just waiting for the phone to ring – and likely have an automated response system in place anyway.

The point is that the strategy that organizations use to put this ubiquitous computing infrastructure to use will increasingly determine winners and losers.  And if you haven’t made this strategy a priority, how can you hope to come out on top?

3.  Social everything.

I confess.  There is much that is stupid on-line.  A few minutes on YouTube can leave you shaking your head about the future of humanity.

But to deny that there is something important going on is crazy.  I remember in the early days of e-mail I had a boss who didn’t like it and couldn’t master the “reply” concept and used to just blindly respond to questions on email with answers like, “DAMN IT, NO” or “HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?”  There would be no reference to the original question, which obviously left many of us in some degree of career uncertainty.

My point is that many executives have a similar “hands over their ears and eyes” denial posture now when it comes to social media.  "No, of course we can’t allow employees to access Facebook on work computers."  "No, of course, we can’t allow employees to connect on Linked In."  "No, you can’t have a blog; it will be a time waster at best and a source of competitor espionage at worse."

At the same time, consider a few data points:

• In a sign that yesterday’s edge is tomorrow’s yawn, in 2009 Boston University stopped issuing email addresses for incoming freshmen.  The reason?  Most Gen X and Gen Y types consider email irrelevant (Socialnomics).
• According to Nielsen, visiting social sites is now the 4th most popular activity on-line, ahead of personal email.
• 34% of bloggers offer opinions about products and services – YOUR products and services (Socialnomics).
• 78% of consumers trust peer recommendations (Socialnomics).
• 57% of social media users feel better served by companies that connect with them on social media (2008 Cone Business in Social Media Study).

Developing a more strategic approach to social networks and computing is not easy.  One needs to have a thick skin.  But if it is not part of your information management strategy you will increasingly be left behind.

4.  Collaboration without governance is a disaster.

The New York Times recently ran an article about the wave of SharePoint implementations that are sweeping across corporate America.  Most articles about Microsoft Office SharePoint Services (MOSS) point out that its $1 billion in first year sales make it one of the most successful software launches in history.

Of course, SharePoint is only part of the drive to place corporate-hardened collaboration and social media tools on the desktop.  In addition to SharePoint, other products like IBM’s Quickr and EMC’s CenterStage and Open Text’s LiveLink and soon the Google Wave are sweeping through organizations, placing extraordinarily powerful collaboration and content creation tools in the hands of individual knowledge workers and project teams.  

Often, all this deployment is without a heck of a lot of governance or planning.  According to an AIIM survey, 57% of organizations lack an executive-endorsed plan for where SharePoint will be used and where it will not.  And I’m sure the same % would likely apply to deployment of the other tools listed above.

Let’s see.  This all sounds somewhat familiar.  What does it remind me of?  Oh yeah, 15 years ago we all deployed the most powerful document creation tools the world has ever seen to every desktop, without any thought whatsoever about what we wanted to come out the other end.  The end product for most organizations is a mess of whacky shared drives and nonexistent file structures and taxonomies and in essence a digital landfill.

So a key part of creating an information management strategy for the next decade is thinking through what you are trying to do with all this collaborative capability, how it will fit together with the other information systems in your organization, how you will find stuff across these systems, and how you will eventually get rid of everything that you don’t need to keep.

5.  The era of simplicity.

We have a toaster at home that purports to do many things.  It boasts that it is not merely a toaster -- it aspires to being a toaster oven.  It can bake things at various temperatures.  It can broil.  It has a timer that can go off at a pre-defined time.  It even has a little booklet to tell you how to use it.

Unfortunately, it also fails in its core mission – to toast.  When you put bread in it, there is no way to pop it up early if it appears done like you used to be able to do with a regular toaster.  If you put anything unusual in the toaster slot, it tends to slide down into the oven part, get caught on the coils, and start burning.  The only way to resolve this is to unplug it and rummage around with a fork in the toaster oven’s internal organs.

My point of this story is that the revolution in computing, bandwidth and storage is pushing us in two conflicting directions in terms of our information management priorities.  

One is in the direction of ever-increasing capabilities and enhancements and versions, many of which we fail to digest before the next version comes rolling out.  And which likely will ultimately require unplugging and rummaging around in the software’s internal organs.

The other direction is toward simplicity.  The best example – I admit I am biased – is the iPhone.  Who would have predicted that a phone with an entirely new operating system would have a chance as a mobile computing device?  Who could have predicted the thousands and thousands of new applications built upon this operating system?  Who could have predicted this enormous success?

Well, frankly, anyone who used the device and compared it to the alternatives at the time.  Even from the start, the iPhone was a pleasure to use.  

“A pleasure to use” is not the phrase that many of our knowledge workers would use to describe the information management systems that we give them.  It is also not the phrase that many of our customers would use to describe the experience of interacting with our externally facing web systems.

In Work 2.0 – Rewriting the Contract, Bill Jensen describes a sort of Bill of Rights for the information management systems of the future:

1. Clarity: My manager organizes and shares information in ways that help me work smarter and faster.
2. Navigation: In my workplace, it is easy for me to find whomever or whatever I need to work smart enough, fast enough.
3. Fulfillment of Basics: In my workplace, it is easy to get what I need to get my work done—right information, right way, in the right amount.
4. Usability: In my workplace, corporate-built stuff (like IT, training, and support) is easy to use.
5. Speed: In my workplace, that same corporate-built stuff gets me what I need, as fast as I need it.
6. Time: My company is respectful of my time and attention, and is focused on using it wisely and effectively.

6.  The Tree-Hugger’s Time Has Come.

According to Gartner, corporate social responsibility will soon be a higher board- and executive-level priority than regulatory compliance.  And key to this credibility will be the environmental footprint of an organization.

To put the information management part of this challenge into perspective, consider this:  If the U.S. cut its office paper use by roughly 10 percent or 540,000 tons, greenhouse gas emissions would fall by 1.6 million tons — equivalent to taking 280,000 cars off the road for a year.  There are over 4 trillion paper documents in the U.S., growing at a rate of 22% per year.

Key to cutting paper use is viewing it in the broader context of information management.  For 56% of organizations, the volume of paper records is increasing.  The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of copy paper each year and wastes about 1,410 of these pages.  With the average cost of each wasted page being about six cents, a company with 500 employees could be spending $42,000 per year on wasted prints.  

There is a very compelling environmental case that can be made for reducing paper use through the digitization of key business processes.  But a key element for organizations to consider is that the economic case for reducing paper use is just as compelling.  Among the benefits:

• Direct and immediate cost savings on paper and shipping.
• Increased process effectiveness and efficiency.
• The potential to fully integrate field staff and offices into the information capabilities of the organization rather than relying on daily overnight mail.
• Reduced real estate costs through the elimination of filing.
• Improved morale as an integrated information infrastructure allows for greater flexibility in working arrangements.
• Reduced off-site storage as the sheer volume of what needs to be physically preserved declines.

7.  You can no longer do this manually.

Many organizations have survived the first wave of the information revolution by assembling a patchwork quilt of technology and manual systems: 

• It costs $20 to file a document, $120 to find a misfiled document, and $220 to reproduce a lost document.
• 7.5 percent of all documents get lost; 3 percent of the remainder get misfiled.
• The average document is photocopied 19 times.
• Professionals spend 5-15% of their time reading information, but up to 50% of their time looking for the right information.

The viability of this strategy will increasingly be in question as the volume of information that must be managed increases.  We are rapidly approaching the point at which only additional technology to automate information ingestion and digestion can solve the problem.  

Very soon, organizations that rely on individual employees to smooth out the gaps and white spaces in their information management strategy will be at a distinct disadvantage.

8.   Mismanagement risks are rising.

As the complexity of the information management problem increases, so too do the risks of making mistakes.

Often these risks are viewing purely in terms of the risk of non-compliance or the risks of being caught unprepared for an e-discovery request.  While these are important and are often an important driver of action because the costs can be easily quantified, they under-estimate the risk exposure of failing to manage information properly.  

There are a host of information management risks beyond those usually associated with “compliance” that are described later in this volume by George Parapadakis of IBM.  “We didn’t keep it.”  “It was on the disk that crashed.” “Hey, that’s not my signature!” “Where is it?”  

It is only by adopting a risk management mindset to information management (similar to the one you might take with managing finances) that you can fully appreciate the risks of mismanaging information. 

----- 

So what does this all mean?

There is a commercial for car repair where the mechanic says, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.  But you will pay me.”  

The information management landscape is changing quickly and dramatically and the stakes of getting it wrong are rising.  Now is the time to finally create and implement a strategy to treat your organization’s information as a critical business asset.  

Before it’s too late.

-----

All of our 8 things lists and the 8 things e-book are published under a Creative Commons license.  

8 reasons you need a strategy for managing information--before it's too late by AIIM is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger - but recognize the opportunity.

John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), Speech in Indianapolis, April 12, 1959

Wikipedia has two definitions of a tipping point:

1.     The point at which a slow, reversible change becomes irreversible, often with dramatic consequences.

2.     The point in time at which some new technology becomes mainstream.

In terms of managing information, both definitions have implications for end users. 

Let’s start with the first definition.  For many years, organizations have survived by winging it when it comes to information management. 

“Yes, we need a strategy for managing the financial assets of the organization, so we’ll invest in an accounting system.”

“Yes, we need a strategy for managing the physical assets and their associated data, so we’ll put in place an ERP system.” 

“Yes, our human assets are important, so we’ll spend money on an HR system.”

But a strategy for managing information?  Treat our information assets with the same rigor and discipline as we do our money, inventories, and people?  OK, maybe we’ll automate a specific process.  But in terms of getting our arms around the legendary “80% of the information in our organization that is unstructured,” we’ll get to that sometime, someday, thank you very much.

The sheer quantity of information that is descending upon our organizations is rapidly creating a set of circumstances in which we will not longer be able to just wing it.  The strategic imperative to manage information effectively will soon become irreversible – with devastating consequences for those who assume it is otherwise.

In terms of the second definition, we are in the middle of the exponential increase in the quantity of unconventional information. 

As our employees reach outside the firewall to access critical expertise, networks, content, and markets – and as we simultaneously require 365/7/24 availability – the lines between what is “organizational” and “personal” become somewhat mindless. 

Inside the firewall, there is a growing frustration with email as the primary tool that we use for collaboration.  Many organizations are in the process of deploying an entirely new set of extraordinarily powerful collaboration and content creation tools – often with no thought to how all this eventually add up. 

Social media both inside and outside the organization is becoming mainstream, creating an entirely new set of tipping point imperatives.

So my first thesis is that we are collectively approaching an information management tipping point.  And my second thesis:  Organizations better get their S**T together before it’s too late.

How did we get here?  How did all of this creep up on us?

I came across a blog post by Jeff Haynie recently about a Newsweek article from 20 years ago.  It was a technology forecast from 1988.  Now for those my kids’ age, 1988 seems like it was a million years ago – maybe shortly after the Jurassic period.  But for most of us in the business world, 1988 seems like it was just a few moments ago.

The technology forecast talked about all sorts of cool things we could expect in the next 20 years:

Desktop computers will replace pens and paper.

Buildings full of books will be stored on optical disks.

Flexible software will allow students to write their own programs.

Machines will take calls, write memos, and organize the busiest of executive schedules.

Using groupware, machines will talk to each other.

And so on and so on...

Lots of the coming revolutions could be viewed as the result of the logical extension of Moore’s Law (that the density of transistors on a chip doubles every two years) and its impact on processing and storage capabilities.  But as I read on, it dawned on me that there was something missing in the vision of the future.  Four things actually.

Care to hazard a guess?

Number one – no internet. 

Number two – no fiber optics.

Number three – no cellular technology.

Number four – no 30G of songs in your pocket.

Wow.

Chris Anderson in Free notes that these are the final ingredients to the Moore’s law stew that change everything.  These are the final ingredients that have created the amazing technological convergence in which we currently find ourselves.  

This is a convergence that eventually must and will require a revolution in that way organizations approach the management of information and content.  Getting started NOW is not too late.

--------

Some articles in the 8 things series that may be of interest...

• 8 steps you can take to better manage your inbox
• 8 things you need to know about Twitter and business
• 8 things vendors need to know about selling document management to small businesses 
• 8 things you need to know to build an ECM strategy 
• 8 things you need to know about SharePoint governance 
• 8 things you need to know about using ECM for regulatory compliance  
• 8 things you need to know about information risk 
• 8 things small businesses need to know about document management 
• 8 things you need to know to manage the explosion of information  
• 8 things you need to know about content classification and ECM  
• 8 ways to increase user adoption in an ECM project  
• 8 reasons why information governance makes sense   
• 8 steps to the ISO 15489 Records Management methodology   
• 8 steps to consider when starting an ECM project    
• 8 things you need to know about workflow and business process engineering   
• 8 document management practices that are cost-effective and eco-friendly
• 8 key e-mail trends 
• 8 things you need to know about mergers and acquisitions in the ECM, BPM & BPO technology sector
  
• 8 fast facts about the state of the document management industry 
• 8 things to look for in a document management service provider 
• 8 ways to reduce your storage and bandwidth costs for document imaging solutions  
• 8 things to consider when looking for ECM consultants  
• 8 things you need to know when using ECM technologies to go green  
• 8 reasons to take advantage of AIIM Certificate programs 
• 8 steps to getting started with Twitter  
• 8 things to consider in selecting the right scanner  
• 8 things SharePoint 2010 needs to be a true ECM system  
• 8 things that changed the history of document management 
• 8 things you can do with an enterprise wiki 
• 8 perspectives in ECM projects that can make me see double  
• 8 things you need to know about developing an ECM information architecture 
• 8 more things you need to know about SharePoint 
• 8 things you need to know about preservation of e-documents for litigation and regulatory investigations 
• 
  

Since joining Vamosa in 2001, Nic Archer has helped transform the company into a sector-defining software and solutions company specializing in the emerging area of Enterprise Content Governance (ECoG). Nic has had involvement with all of Vamosa’s major customers helping to identify solutions for challenging problems. He’s enabled major investment and insurance companies to move content away from legacy applications using his in-depth understanding of the way enterprise applications work behind the scenes. 

8 Reasons Why You Blame Your Web CMS Vendor, But Shouldn’t

When faced with web content management problems, companies tend to immediately blame the vendor. Essentially it comes down to being easier to point the finger at a supplier rather than considering if it’s something the business is causing. But actually looking internally might save you time, money and a headache. Here are 8 reasons why you shouldn’t be too quick to blame your CMS vendor: 

1.  Poor Execution of Metadata Standards.

You may have mandated that 29 complex, metadata fields need to be completed for published content, but it doesn’t mean it’s actually getting done. Look at the essential metadata you require to identify ways to automatically generate it; because people are people and your web authors will do the bare minimum to get by! You should also ensure all your content is tagged to make all your content more searchable and accessible. 

2.  Bottlenecks in your Publication Process.

You most likely will have bottlenecks in your publication process for your content and if your CMS doesn’t support your manual subject approval framework, you’ll have problems. Before you implement your CMS, you should identify the bottlenecks to ensure your approval framework will work.

3.  Lack of Governance of your Web Content.

Think of accessibility, web standards, incorrect use of style sheets, web records management. Just because you think that your CMS ‘should’ do it doesn’t mean that it miraculously will.

4.  Make Sure What You Publish is What You Store.

You may have chosen a dynamic publishing system and now find that you have lost control; or you’ve chosen a non-dynamic publishing system, and now you find you cannot get things published to any reasonable timescale. When analyzing content in a discovery exercise, make sure that what you are publishing is the same as what is stored inside the CMS. Not all CMSs dynamically publish changes; in some instances you can make changes to the content, but you have to perform a deploy process to actually get those changes published on the website. 

5.  Another CMS Vendor, Another Dollar.

A CMS vendor wants all your business, not just a small portion. If your organization has eight different CMS vendors, chosen by different functions, departments or business units to achieve distinct objectives, you’ll likely have difficulties with interoperability, common skill sets or even with sharing content. Plus you’ll have the cost associated with eight maintenance bills every year! Migrating all your content to one CMS vendor will let you check and fix all your content, but also simplify your content management process. 

6.  Corporate Standards Compliance.

Managing web content across different geographies with language and culture barriers can be difficult, but your CMS vendor is not at fault. Ensuring all your web authors are complying with corporate standards when they may have a different view from you, presents a challenge to the company and your job. After setting clear corporate standards, you need to find a means of maintaining them: there are now solutions for monitoring AND maintaining Web content.

7.  Clear Messaging.

Your website is one important gatekeeper to communicate with your stakeholders. If your websites are so dynamic that you don’t know exactly what you are saying to your stakeholders at all times, you’ll most likely be exposed. Rather than turning to your CMS vendor, you need to clearly define your messaging and then either work it into the website or check your existing content against the message to your audience. By doing this, you’ll be able to fix any irregularities and consistently communicate with your stakeholders. 

8.  Buy-in from the Boss to the Board.

Your boss (and their boss, all the way up to the top floor) may not understand the value, time and effort put into the website. At present, there is not enough buy-in from the board down and as such, not enough allocated resources to governance as a concept. The business needs to change to encompass a web governance model because nickel and diming reflected in poor implementations, lack of control and therefore overall dissatisfaction with the Web project in general. The board may believe believe it’s impossible to create real business value and differentiation; so they resource the web presence in accordance with that view, but this shouldn’t be the case. Allocate the right resource to govern your content and you’ll be in a better position to demonstrate the value to the business.  

-----

Are you coming to the AIIM ECM Seminar? -- starts next week -- From Collaboration to Processes to Control: 7 ECM Strategy Secrets -- Schedule of Events