Archive

Archive for the ‘ECM’ Category

“Appification” Part 2 – What is the impact to ECM?

In my previous post (Part 1), we looked at the appeal of Apps, and why we grew to love them. Now, let’s look specifically at the impact that Apps have to the ECM software industry.

Impact to the ECM Industry

With over 25 years under its belt, the ECM industry (with its Document Management pre-cursor) is a relative dinosaur in enterprise software terms. It was established as an industry, about the same time as ERP, and before CRM, BPM or eCommerce.  So, as is the case with any other respectable octogenarian, we are pretty set in our ways. Yes, we may introduce new functionality or attach another technology segment under the ECM moniker every now and then, and we will endlessly debate if ECM, EIM or Process Services is the right name for it, but fundamentally we are still delivering software the same way we always did.

But change is afoot: Whether we like it or not, the “Appification” culture described in [Part1] is challenging the fundamentals of how the software market works, including ECM, and how relevant it remains to the enterprise of the future. And in Darwinian terms, we’ll have to either evolve to survive, or we will face extinction.

There are two main areas where “Appification” has profound impact to the way we operate today: The way we design products, and the way we take products to market.

Impact to ECM Product Design

“Appification” brings fundamental cultural change, to the way software is conceived, designed and delivered. Every core design element is challenged, as well as every classical development and delivery methodology.

  • The “Apple” effect: Apple’s “Design Thinking” principle, threw the rulebook away when designing the first iPods and the first iPhones. They became icons of usability where less was more: who would have envisaged an electronic device with no buttons, just a glass slab? Where ALL functionality and behaviour is software controlled? Where accelerators, proximity sensors, hand gestures and voice command, would become the interaction controls, instead of a mouse, a keyboard, switches, levers and knobs. How many enterprise, and in particular ECM, solutions offer similar UI experiences?
  • The “Singularity” principle: For years, enterprise software vendors prided themselves on the functionality breadth of their offering. The more features, the more capabilities, the better. Apps challenge that: What is the most critical element of software design? The User Interface and usability? The richness of functionality? The quality of information? Apps’ “task-oriented design” challenges that principle: “Do one thing, very well”. They are designed to remove complexity and isolate distinct elemental functions, and then deliver these in the most intuitive manner possible. What ECM functionality do you include or exclude from an App? How many Apps would you need to provide a complete “set”?
  • The “EFSS” effect: “Enterprise File Sync & Share” has been one of the most disrupting apps in the ECM field. Even though there are clear overlaps, it did not set out to challenge the traditional ECM vendors, as such, it created a completely new market of its own by addressing just four fundamental requirements that traditional ECM couldn’t: Free and backed up storage space in the cloud; content accessibility from everywhere; ability to share larger files than email could, outside the firewall; and transparent synchronization of content across multiple devices (desktop and mobile). Box, Dropbox, Evernote, OneDrive, GoogleDrive, Picasa, iCloud, etc., all became a thorn on ECM’s side, because users liked the functionality they enjoyed in their personal space, and wanted to bring the same capability to their corporate environment. Now ECM has to step up and deliver that.
  • The “Nightly Update” effect: I have about forty apps on my smart phone, and it seems that at least half of them get updated on a weekly basis. Some, more often than that. Updates just happen, without any involvement from me, without any need for IT support calls, without scheduled downtime, without any need for training. App users are not only looking for the same experience from their Enterprise software, but they are looking for the tools to offer this experience to their own customers. The days of the 18-month deployment cycles are truly over. ECM needs to support similarly fast, agile development cycles and continuous improvement, as apps do.
  • The “Device” conundrum: Vendors can no longer dictate the device that their software will run on. Apps have completely transformed user expectations around being device agnostic: They expect the same App to behave appropriately, whether they are using it on a smart phone, a tablet, a desktop browser, or their hotel room TV. The name of the game is “Responsive Design”, where apps understand what device they are deployed on and adjust according to the operating system, the device format, the interaction capabilities, the connectivity bandwidth, security, etc. Enterprise software has a long way to go before it’s truly device agnostic, and introducing device independence in large suites of functionality, like ECM, does not come cheap.

Impact to ECM Go-to-Market Strategy

Whilst the ECM Engineering teams are grappling with the product design changes forced above, Sales and Marketing also need to completely re-think their approach to the market, in order to move into the Apps market space. Here are some of the key decisions they will need to make:

  • Who is our “App” customer? ECM vendors have to consider two distinct App target audiences. One audience consists of the internal Enterprise users, for whom the ECM vendor will have to provide specific apps and UIs, in order to access the repository and its services. The second audience relates to their client organisations’ own customers. The ECM vendor will either have to supply App development SDKs and tooling for the organization to create their own customer-facing apps, or work with channel partners and integrators to deliver specific vertical line-of-business apps on top of their platform.
  • Who is our buyer? IT is no longer the default target buyer for ECM platforms. The Apps culture has created a whole new set of buyers who are empowered to make purchasing decisions, outside the constraints of IT procurement. Human Resources, Marketing, Operations, Risk Officers, Compliance, etc., all have an expectation to choose their own tools, just as they choose to download a new app on their smart phone. Talking to these new buyers involves learning a whole new set of vocabularies, and a business outcome focused dialogue that does not rely on feature and function details. Few ECM vendors today have the capacity and the vertical domain expertise to carry these business conversations in a credible way. As a result, developing partner ecosystems with the relevant granular domain expertise, has to be a key component of the new go-to-market strategy.
  • How do we license apps? Most ECM vendors, have grown in the era of perpetual, inflexible, buy-once licensing. App users are expecting significantly more flexible licensing terms, which are mostly subscription based. And, while it’s relatively simple to come up with a subscription-based licensing structure, it will still require fundamental changes around invoicing, revenue recognition, renewals, compensation strategy, etc. On top of that, Apps are not designed for the high-value low-volume models that Enterprise software was established on. That model will need to turn on its head, to keep ECM components relatively inexpensive, and finance the product through volume sales.
  • Try-before-you-buy? App users are spoilt for choice: They are used to downloading an app, trying it out, testing it, and if it is perceived as adding value they may decide to license it. ECM vendors need to start offering wider choices, if they are going to compete: Free trial downloads (the Open Source market has a distinct advantage here); more Proof-of-concepts to get users to explore the value and complexity in business terms, Real live pilots that continue into production or can be safely scrapped; Agile development cycles that allow customers to fail often and fail fast.
  • How do we scale down? Traditional ECM markets are all about scalability: ever increasing content, ever increasing user bases, ever increasing processing capacity. Of course you can buy more capacity, more storage, more throughput. Music to our ears. But that is a one-way street, they were never designed to support flexible scaling. The new market models, primarily established by the Cloud providers but also evidenced in Apps, expect the ability to scale up or down on demand. In ECM terms, it’s very unlikely that the content volumes will scale up and down (except in the case of major ROT clean-ups, or periodic Records Management dispositions). But scaling the processing capacity to accommodate seasonal fluctuations, scaling user numbers to accommodate temporary workers and 3rd parties, scaling infrastructure to accommodate migrations, testing and consolidations, are all unpredictable usage-models. How will ECM vendors split their monolithic “All-in-One” pricing, to allow for “Pay-As-You-Use” revenue models? And how will they reconcile traditional investment and R&D budgeting, with unpredictable and varying revenue streams?

Adopting an “Appification” strategy

ECM vendors have some tough decisions to make, if they decide to play in the App economy. They need to decide, strategically, what their end-goal is and decide if this is a viable market model for them.

  • Just because you can, does not mean you should! That’s the first step: Will vendors really commit to moving into the App market, or will they chose to remain a more “traditional” ECM vendor? There is certainly enough market scope for both, at least for the next few years, but the gap will get bigger and the window of opportunity smaller. To borrow a phrase from a colleague of mine: “You cannot be a little bit pregnant”, when it comes to “Appification”. It’s either all-in or all-out.
  • If vendors choose to follow the “Appification” path, which App game do they want to be in? There are three fundamental variants, and they will have to decide which combination they will invest in: App Interfaces, requires them as a vendor to deliver their products to the end-users through apps. That typically means providing access to the ECM platform and functionality through a set of native “App” user interfaces. A lot of ECM vendors already have mobile interfaces to complement their standard desktop UIs. App Solutions, fits vendors that want to target specific with line-of-business apps. Few ECM vendors have been able to play that game successfully. It requires deep investment in vertical or horizontal domain expertise, it creates a very complex maintenance model since they have to keep a large portfolio of Apps in sync with changes to the core platforms, and they are in constant competition with System Integrators and customers’ own IT groups, who think they should have ultimate control of the business users. The final App space is App Tooling. Giving the market the services, development environments, integration capabilities and necessary tooling, to develop their own Apps on top of a core platform. This targets a more modern, microservices-based, component-based, architecture which supports agile development models, but it also creates a whole new ecosystem of buyers, mainly architects and mobile app developers, which does not represent the traditional sales market, or support infrastructure, of ECM vendors.
  • Whichever App game they choose to play, ECM vendors will need to build an ecosystem of App expertise: User Experience designers, solution domain experts, agile developers and project managers, distribution partners, DevOps support, Cloud-first architects, digital marketers, SaaS finance experts, etc. Every segment in the business will need a set of new or complementary skills, and they are not skills that can be learned easily. They will need to be acquired.
  • And the final strategy point is relatively unique to ECM vendors: The information we keep is hardly ever transient. It’s volume driven, regulatory controlled, security-sensitive and persistence-critical. None of these characteristics are native to the world of Apps. Which makes the separation of functional strategy and Information management strategy critical. – Any level of functional innovation provided at the App level, has to remain cognisant of the Information architectures it needs to access, reference and maintain.

Bottom line

There is no doubt that “Appification” is affecting not just ECM vendors but the whole of the Enterprise software market. ECM vendors have a choice: Either they will adopt an App strategy that fits their profile, or they will languish in the ever-decreasing pool of “legacy vendors”.

“Appification” is not a project, it’s a fundamentally different way of software life. The problem however for all of us in the ECM market, is that it’s a new, scary life, and it requires fundamental changes across the whole of the organization: Cultural, financial, and operational. Every department from product design to sales and marketing, to HR, to support, need to take a leap head-first into a massive transformational exercise. How many ECM vendors have the capacity, the investment capital, and are committed to undertake that transformation?

Why is voting so archaic? 

votingThis morning I went to my local polling station to put a cross with a pencil on a piece of paper which I folded and put in a plastic bin, for someone to open and unfold later in the day and count one (1). I didn’t even need to show any ID.

This is 2016, the age of mobile apps and digital transformation. This process baffles me! I have a National Insurance number and a unique on-line government ID, through which they accept my tax returns, my benefits requests, my passport application, even my driver’s license renewal. Why isn’t that good enough to vote with?

Just consider the costs involved with current voting process: sending out voting cards (card+printing+envelope+postage), the hiring of the polling station, the people manning it throughout the day and counting the votes at the end, my time wasted going there and back, the time to open and count votes, the cost of managing postal votes for people who can’t vote in person (more cards, special printing,several envelopes,postage X2), etc. etc. And then the plethora of people involved in communicating (drip-feeding) the results throughout the night. And God only knows what other hidden back-office costs that I’m not even aware of.

If this isn’t a solid business case for replacing a paper process with electronic, I don’t know what is! It would have been so simple to have another gov.uk page for voting. I would log in from any browser with my government gateway ID (they already know who I am) tick a box, and press submit. That’s it, instant voting results! And on top of everything else, it is a lot more secure and auditable as a process. And it would encourage more people to vote.

C’mon UK government, can we move voting to the 21st century and save some of my taxpayer money in the process? Pretty please?

IOS – A comet of Jurassic proportions

Every so often, an idea comes along that stops you in your tracks.

Innovation is happening at the speed of light all around us but most of of the time it consists only of incremental, evolutionary thinking, which takes us a little bit further in the same direction we were going all along. We have become fairly blazé about innovation.

And then you spot something that makes you sit up, pay attention, change direction, and re-think everything. I had one of these moments a few weeks back.

The name “EpyDoc” will probably mean nothing to most of you. Even looking at their existing website I would have dismissed it as a second or third-rate Document Management wannabe. Yet, EpyDoc is launching a new concept in April, that potentially re-defines the whole Data / Content / Information / Process Management industry, as we know it today. You know what happens when you mix comets and dinosaurs? It is that revolutionary.

I have lost track of the number of times over the years that I’ve moaned about the constraints that our current infrastructure is imposing on us:

  • The arbitrary segregation of structured and unstructured information [here]
  • The inherent synergy of Content and Process management [here]
  • The content granularity that stops at the file level [here]
  • The security models that protect the container rather than the information [here]
  • The lack of governance and lifecycle management of all information, not just records [here]
  • The impossibility of defining and predicting information value [here]

…etc. The list goes on. EpyDoc’s “Information Operating System” (a grand, but totally appropriate title), seeks to remove all of these barriers by re-thinking the way we manage information today. Not in small incremental steps, but in a giant leap.

Their approach is so fundamentally different, that I would not do it credit by trying to summarise it here. And if I’m honest, I am still discovering more details behind it. But if you are interested in having a taste on what the future of information management might look like in 5-10 years, I would urge you to read this 10-segment blog set which sets the scene, and let me know your thoughts.

And if, while you are reading through, you are, like me, sceptical about the applicability or commercial viability of this approach, I will leave you with a quote that I saw this morning on the tube:

“The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad”
(President of the Michigan Savings Bank, 1903)

 

P.S. Before my pedant friends start correcting me: I know that dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic… 😉

CIP – The amazing power of Social Media

December 20, 2015 3 comments

Just in case you have not followed the recent saga of the demise and reinstatement of AIIM’s CIP certification, read Mark Owen’s blog here, which has a good summary of events.

I am not going to dwell on the ins and outs of AIIM’s decision, which has been analysed enough. However, there is an underlying story to the events which is significant: In case anyone had any doubts, this is one of the best showcases of the power of Social Media that I’ve seen so far: From the original decision announcement, through the members’ rebellion, to the final reversal decision, took just 7 days, and that included a weekend.

Think about this process: Within hours of the original decision announcement, the twitter feeds were buzzing! (well, the ECM twitter feeds at least, let’s not get over excited…). Amazement, scold, sarcasm, and a genuine discussion on the relative merits of CIP vs. IGP and vs. other AIIM certifications such as ECMm. A great amount of very good content. Over the next couple of days, the blogs started appearing. Most of the vocal people in our community were up in arms and made their voice heard. Even more twitter traffic, while these blogs were disseminated. People at AIIM saw and heard the response, loud and clear. A few more discussions later, a new announcement of the reinstatement of CIP (through a blog and twitter) and a lot more twitter traffic and a lot more blogs. For the most part, congratulating AIIM for being active, listening, responsive and doing the right thing.

AIIM is a community of several thousand people. There is a core of a few dozen people that have been actively involved with AIIM for a long time and, by default, they are the biggest advocates the most ferocious critics. They also happen to be prolific Social Media users, particularly on Twitter and blogs. You could argue that the statistical sample of the people that complained about CIP is not significant, compared to the overall number of AIIM members, but that would be a very short-sighted view. When you consider who these people were, the communities that they themselves represent, and the influence they exhort into the ECM community (again through the power of Social Media…), it would have been very difficult for AIIM to ignore.

On top of that, when your best advocates become critics, you tend to pay attention…

Kudos to AIIM for recognising the issue and doing something about it. Even bigger kudos to Social Media, as a platform for change. I don’t think that this kind of dramatic unfolding of events, immediate and overwhelming public response to an unpopular decision,  and finally the winning over of the disgruntled masses to a successful outcome, all in the space of one week, would have been possible in any other era or medium.

Finally, a quote from a tweet by Lisa Hoover McGreevy (@Lisah), who summed it up beautifully: “Well done, #AIIM members. And, uh, remind me to never piss you off. ;)”

Categories: ECM Tags: , , , ,

The rise and fall of CIP – by AIIM

December 14, 2015 8 comments

I like AIIM. I’ve been a member since 1995, and I have enjoyed watching it grow from a semi-obscure huddle of microfilm archivists, to a substantial, international, Information Management industry body. I’ve also witnessed its transformation from an introvert “from the vendors, for the vendors” organisation to one that offers significant value to IM practitioners and end-users through education, webinars, market studies, etc. But AIIM has just irritated a lot of its advocates.

When AIIM introduced the Certified Information Practitioner (CIP) certification back in 2012, I found it a very astute strategic move. Unlike the ECMp, ECMs, ECMm style certifications that preceded it, which were little more than a verification that that you have attended the relevant AIIM course, the CIP certification carried a much more significant value: It demonstrated that its bearers had a good grasp of most technologies in the larger IM scope, and had a sufficient understanding of the value and the issues of ECM-related projects not to embarrass themselves. It wasn’t a trivial exam – even for some of us veterans of ECM – and it was sought after: A badge of honour.

Unfortunately it wasn’t sought after enough, so AIIM has just decided to terminate the CIP program. Apparently, some 1,000 people have achieved CIP certification in the last 4 years, which by any accreditation measure is a significant success. Any measure apart from AIIM’s, that is.

Laurence Hart (aka Word-of-Pie) wrote an excellent article today on the unfulfilled potential of the CIP program (“The CIP, A lost opportunity“), which I totally agree with and I will not repeat here. He hints however to a key problem that plagued CIP from the beginning, the same way it plagued MoReq 2010 and numerous other standards and certifications. Laurence writes: “the CIP needed to be marketed inside and outside the profession“.

To the best of my knowledge, there are only two ways that a standard or an accreditation can succeed: (1) It is mandated by a government, law, or regulatory body, or (2) there is sufficient demand generated for it, to make it a de-facto standard. Otherwise it whithers and dies. There was no plan to ever mandate CIP, so the only way to it would ever be successful would be to generate sufficient demand for it. I am assuming that AIIM used the number of practitioners requesting to be certified as a measure of demand, against its success criteria, before pulling the plug on the project. We can argue whether issuing 1,000 CIP certifications in 4 years should be considered a success of a failure, but that would completely miss the point. That metric is entirely wrong.

Requests for receiving the CIP accreditation is not a measure of demand. It is a consequence of the value (actual or perceived) that CIP practitioners saw in achieving the certification. And that value in turn is a result of two other drivers: The real demand in the market for CIP certified practitioners, and peer recognition. The first one of these is tangible and measurable: How many projects, RFIs, job specifications or Statements of Work, explicitly request CIP certified candidates. I am not aware that there have been many. The latter is harder to measure and I suspect the one that drove most of the 1,000+ CIP certifications issued todate.

AIIM did little to promote either.

I fished out of my archives an email that I wrote to AIIM back in March 2012, soon after I successfully passed the CIP exam:

I believe that, until such time as CIP is a widely accepted (and requested) accreditation, I think we can create marketing drive based on its exclusivity… At the moment it’s a bit of an “elite” club, so let’s make membership to the club desirable! Some ideas:

1) Look at BCS Chartered statuses. I think this extends significantly beyond just the UK: http://www.bcs.org/content/conWebDoc/18215.
If we could somehow get the CIP Certification accredited through BCS (something like “Recognised/Accredited by BCS”) or as a certification that is somehow contributing to achieving higher membership, you will have CIP advertised to a much larger IT community than AIIM can reach.

2) Are there other similar organisations around the world that we could engage with?

3) Add it to LinkedIn as a formal “Skill” – See http://www.linkedin.com/skills/skill/Certified_Internal_Auditor?trk=tyah. Not sure what’s involved in this.

4) Create a LinkedIn “exclusive” group for people who have passed CIP. This could be “by invitation only”. Not only it gives kudos, exclusivity and a community to the members, but it’s a great hunting ground for headhunters and HR people.

5) Negotiate discounts for CIPs for conferences, events, publications, training, etc. Not only with AIIM but with external groups and other communities.

The idea behind all of these, is obviously to create incentives for people to want to become CIPs, because they are getting something back for it.

That was just a starting point and I’m sure there were many other ideas to generate demand. We know that the “build it and they’ll come” principle does not work. Like any other product, CIP needed consistent and persistent marketing to generate visibility and create demand. It needed Case Studies on the value it delivered to practitioners and their clients. It needed nurturing and it needed time to grow. It needed word-of-mouth endorsement and it needed public recognition. It needed an opportunity to mature.

Alas, it received none of that and, by all accounts, it shall remain another great idea, poorly executed.

R.I.P C.I.P

P.S. The ambiguity in the title is not coincidental…

 

 

When, not if, the EFSS market dies

Wrong WayUnless you have spent the last couple of years under a rock, you will have come across EFSS as the latest and greatest fad to hit the ECM and collaboration market. Discussions on EFSS abound, amongst the ECM and Social Collaboration blogs.

Analysts legitimised EFSS as a separate technology marketspace: Forrester published its The Forrester Wave™: File Sync And Share Platforms at the end of 2013, followed by Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Enterprise File Synchronisation and Sharing (EFSS) in July 2014. They define EFSS as products that allow secure file Synchronisation, Access and Sharing across diverse devices, and positions with vendors like Box, Citrix, EMC, IBM and Accellion as leaders, adding Microsoft, Dropbox, Google, Apple and others as challengers.

The EFSS market is already a dying market

Alas! All is not well in the state of Denmark: The EFSS market is not going to be with us for long, as a separate market segment. Don’t get me wrong, EFSS functionality has been around for years and will continue to be around for many more years to come. But its product transition from niche, to mainstream, to commodity will be very fast.

Secure sharing of files, small and large, has been around for ages in the form of the mature MFT (Managed File Transfer) market, which is used extensively by large financial organisations, Engineering firms, etc. On the flip side, on-line/off-line synchronisation of files across devices has also been around for a long time, used in both ECM and Collaboration platforms. What has changed, which brought EFSS to the fore, is that (a) SaaS and cloud have added an additional layer of accessibility and (b) companies like Box and Dropbox stepped in to fill a gap in the market by providing easily consumable, standalone products that consumers can buy without involving IT. Adopting a Freemium licensing model helped too.

Move forward a couple of years to today and numerous major vendors, across multiple technology sectors, offer EFSS products: IBM ECM, OpenText, VMware, Oracle, Microsoft, Salesforce.com, etc.  IBM alone, markets at least four different EFSS products, that I’m aware of:

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are even more, disguised and embedded into other platforms such as Asset Management.

And therein lies the problem. If all of these vendors, from different disciplines, are offering either embedded or explicit EFSS capabilities within their core product licensing, it means that the EFSS market is already commoditised. Enterprises will not invest in dedicated EFSS products or licenses, when they can have comparable functionality for free within their existing investments.

Interestingly Gartner’s own Hype Cycle for Digital Workplace Software, which was published in the same month as their MQ paper, positions EFSS already in the “Trough of Disillusionment” which creates an interesting contradiction. IDC in their Worldwide File Synchronization and Sharing 2014–2018 Forecast and 2013 Vendor Shares report also agree that EFSS is a rapidly commoditising market, although they predict that the market will continue to grow in revenue.

There’s another, perhaps even more important, reason why EFSS is not a sustainable market: As BYOD and platform-agnostic applications develop, the core principle behind EFSS – the need to share and move content transparently and securely – becomes too core and too essential to many different business functions. Companies cannot afford to have multiple and conflicting EFSS tools. EFSS does not lend itself to multiplicity – sooner or later CIOs will need to converge on a single common EFSS platform shared by all employees, otherwise it serves very little purpose, the relative cost of ownership becomes extravagant, and the security risk unmanageable. And that means that unified standards and common protocols for EFSS will prevail. I don’t know yet whose standards – that battle is yet to be fought – but a fearsome battle it will be.

Where next for EFSS?

My prediction is that within 2-3 years, the EFSS market will be completely subsumed into one or more other technology segments. If I was a gambling man (I’m not), my money would be on the Collaboration (aka Digital Workplace) platform becoming the natural “home” for EFSS functionality. At the end of the day, EFSS is primarily a catalyst for exchanging information within the organisation and with third parties. In other words, collaborating.

In an ideal world however, I personally would like to see EFSS become (together with most other collaboration platform features) a native feature of the Operating System’s file system, unified across different O/S platforms. But maybe that’s just wishful thinking!

What does that mean for independent EFSS vendors? They have a very short window of opportunity in which they will have to either transform into a bigger platform (e.g. become ECM or Collaboration vendors), get acquired and assimilated (into a bigger platform vendor, perhaps CRM) or get out (i.e. change technology focus). EFSS vendors without a 3-year exit strategy will just disappear. Today, pure play EFSS vendors enjoy an undeniably large marketshare. That’s because the product marketing teams of established B2B Enterprise Software vendors have been asleep and missed the consumer calling. These vendors are now paying attention, and the time is ticking. Watch this space…

It’s Knowledge Management, Jim, but not as you know it

March 19, 2015 1 comment

LibraryA recent conversation with a colleague sent me searching back to my archives for a conference presentation I did nearly 16 years ago. The subject of the conference was on the impact of Document Management as an enabler for Knowledge sharing in the enterprise.

Driven by three different technology sectors at the time, Document Management, Search and Portals, Knowledge Management was all the rage back then. No good deed goes unpunished, however, and after several massive project failures and even more non-starter projects, Knowledge Management lost its shine and became a dirty phrase that no self-respecting consultant wanted to be associated with.

Why did Knowledge Management fail in the ‘90s?

They say 20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing… Reading again through my slides and my notes, made me realise how different this market has become since the late ‘90s. There were a number of factors at the time that made sure that Knowledge Management never took off as a viable approach but, in my view, two were the most dominant:

The first one was the much used phrase of “Knowledge is power”. Leaving aside the fact that knowledge in and by itself very rarely has intrinsic value – it’s the application of knowledge that creates the power – the phrase was quickly misconstrued by the users to mean: “I have knowledge, therefore I have power”. Guess what? Who wants to dilute their power by selflessly sharing out knowledge? Not many users felt altruistic enough to share their prized knowledge possessions, their crown jewels, for the greater good of the organisation. “As long as I hold onto the knowledge, I hold on to the power and therefore I am important, valuable and irreplaceable”. Nobody said so, of course, but everyone was thinking it.

The second one was the incessant focus on the information itself as the knowledge asset. Technology was focused almost exclusively on extracting tacit knowledge from individuals, encapsulating it in explicit documents, categorising it, classifying it, archiving it and making it available to anyone who could possibly need it. There were two problems with this approach: The moment tacit information became explicit, it lost its owner and curator; it also started aging and becoming obsolete. Quite often, it also lost its context too, making it not only irrelevant but often dangerous.

Why are we talking again about Knowledge Management in 2015?

The last decade has brought a silent cultural revolution on knowledge sharing. We have all learned to actively share! Not only did we become a lot less paranoid about sharing our “crown jewels”, but we are all actively enjoying doing so, inside and outside the work environment: Wikipedia, blogs, Twitter, self-publishing, Facebook, Pinterest, LinkedIn, SlideShare, Open-source, crowdsourcing, etc., all technologies that the millennium (and the millennials) have brought to the fore. All these technologies are platforms for sharing information and knowledge. The stigma and the paranoia of “Knowledge is Power” has actually transformed into “Sharing is Power”. The more we share the more are valued by our networks, and the bigger the network grows the more power we yield as individuals. And, surprise-surprise, it’s reciprocal! The bigger the network we create the bigger the pool of knowledge we can draw upon.

What couldn’t have been envisioned in the late ‘90s, or early ‘00s, is that by 2015 the knowledge power would be contained in the relationships and the connections, not in the information assets. Not just connections between knowledge gurus inside an enterprise, but amongst individuals in a social environment, between companies and consumers and amongst professional organisations.

Social Media and Collaboration environments have proven to us that the value of sharing knowledge is significantly higher than the value of holding on to it. We may or may not see the term “Knowledge Management” resurrected as an IT concept, but the reality is that knowledge sharing has now become an integral part of our daily life, professional and personal, and it’s not likely to change any time soon.

%d bloggers like this: