From the MER Conference 2012 Speaker: Bruce Miller The first Electronic Recordkeeping software emerged in 1991. The US DoD 5015.2 standard has been in place since 1997, and is now undergoing its third major revision. Some 60+ product certifications against the standard have been granted to date. Today approximately 20 different products remain certified. These products continue to be sold around the world. Yet successful deployment is nowhere near expectations. Hear Bruce's unique perspective as he reviews the successes and frustrations of the very technology he invented and has evangelized for two decades. In this session, learn: - Why we have failed to realize the promise of ERM software, - What went wrong, - What have we achieved, - Where have we failed to meet expectations, - Why do we still seem unable to make it work, and - Where we are now. Bruce will make the case that in order to achieve the adoption rates we expect, change will have to come from all four stakeholder groups: - RIM practitioners, - Software vendors, - IT managers, and - Business leadership. Hear Bruce's compelling vision for a way-forward roadmap for a more successful electronic recordkeeping future.

1. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
ERM Software
Historic Timeline, Lessons
Learned, Current Issues,
Future Focus
The End Goal of EDRMS
In Order for Disposition to Work
1. We organize our
company into
business activities.
2. We assign official
retention policies Corporate Repository
p p y
to business activities. Business Activities
3. We must somehow match Admin Operations
documents to business
activities correctly.
HR Accounting Mfg
Delete Delete Delete
after after after
8 years 5 years 15 years
1991 – The Beginning
 ForeMost and PS Software from Canada
 The Very first ERM Software
 Focus on electronic
 ERM Repository
 Principle of Declaration
 Electronic Classification
 TRIM from Australia
 Paper-Based
 Later to adopt electronic capability
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.1

2. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
1997 – US DoD 5015.2 Emerges
 US Gulf War Syndrome
 Legal and reputation loss for DoD
 Strong impetus for electronic recordkeeping
 A New Standard
 ECM Vendors HAD to comply py
 DOD obligation, industry-wide de Facto
 Certification Testing Program
 Wide Adoption
 ECM Players had to play ball
5015.2 Certifications
 There are only 15 unique vendors
 (6) are Monster ECM Vendors
 ECM
 HP
 TRIM, Autonomy (Being Purchased by HP)
 IBM
 Content Manager
 FileNET
 OpenText
 Oracle
 Microsoft (With GimmalSoft Compliance Suite Plug-in)
 (4) are plug-in one-time “Special Projects”
 Northrup Grumman (Documentum)
 SAP (NetWeaver)
 IIUI (Lotus)
 Iron Mountain (Accutrac)
 (5) Remainder are boutique (small) ECM/RM products
 Feith
 Wareitis
 Infolinx
 Alfresco
 SystemWare
2002 – the Breakout
 Major Players make their move
 IBM (Tarian)
 OpenText (PS Software)
 Documentum (ForeMost/TrueArc)
 TRIM goes it alone
 Adapts to become a RM-oriented ECM Vendor
 FileNet goes it alone
 Nobody left to acquire
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.2

3. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
2005 – ERM Software Disappears
 ERM now a Feature Set of ECM
 Plug in module
 New set of features
 The end of “awkward Integrations”
 Big Players all have it
 IBM
 FileNET
 Documentum
 OpenText
 TRIM keeps going
EDRMS = ECM + RM
ECM RM
 Repository  Retention Schedule
 Place to store records  What to delete, when?
 Search/Retrieval  Apply retention rules to all documents
 Security Control  Legal Holds
 Who sees what?  Apply holds as required
 Version Management  Declaration
 Tracking document production/versions  “Lock Down” document to prevent
deletion
 Collaboration
 Delete only via retention process
 Who does what to the document?
 Classification
 Workflow
 Right Retention rule applied to
 Defined Process for document
documents
creation/approval
 Disposition
 Delete records per approved retention
schedule
 Maintain supporting Audit trail
2005 – Where are we?
 Choice of RM software goes away
 Buyers “inherit” ERM not Choose it
 RM comes along with ECM Platform
 The buyer changes
 From RM to IT
 Unwitting buyer = IT
 Vendors now have standard “recipe” for RM
 RM component = extra-$$ add-on
 RM practitioners become “passengers” of ECM!
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.3

4. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Suddenly….
 “LOTS” of ERM “success”
 Definition of success
 ECM Sold & Installed with RM function
 Big assumption
 Sold = deployed and (presumably) adopted
 RM Practitioners not happy
 Could not deploy RM Capabilities
 Could not understand the software
 Focused on the Retention Schedule
 ECM Usage without RM usage
 The new reality
2005  What We Accomplished
 All major ECM platforms have RIM
capability
 Even Oracle and HP, and boutique
players
 The end of “Awkward Integrations”
 Sea ess
Seamless RM within ECM platforms
t C p at o s
 Email Integration
 The most important source of e-records!
 Thanks to 5015.2
 Standard capabilities in all products
 Per 5015.2
 We learned what and how to measure
 Do we use it? Another story…
2005-2011  Questionable “Success”
 Fuzzy definition of “success”
 Better retrieval
 Reduced Risk of litigation
 Lower document storage cost
 No way to measure success
y
 People Using ECM, but not Achieving RIM goals
 Points of failure
 No Change to user attitudes to RIM
 No means of measurement
 Classification accuracy too low for disposition to take place
 RIM Practitioners cannot wrestle control of the software
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.4

5. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Barriers  The “Big Four”
1. Organizational/Cultural Change
 Need to achieve a change in business practice
2. Classification Accuracy
 Need to maintain 85% or better
3.
3 RIM Admin Proficiency
 RIM Practitioners need to understand and
control the software
4. Measurement
 No way to measure project success or failure
Beware…..
User Reluctance is extreme… Beyond Anything You Can Imagine
 It’s MY document
 This is too much
work
Declare that Document!
 It s
It’s not my job
 It takes too long
 I have a better
way
 I Don’t need this
“Filing a document into a records repository is an unnatural act”
R. Medina, 2000
Declaration = Q + C + M
Qualify/Classify/Metadata (QCM)
Field 1
A
Field 2
A1 A2
Field 3
A11 A11
Field 4
Field5
WIP
Classify
y
Qualify Record
Metadata
Reference
Copyright RIMtech 2012
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.5

6. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Classification Errors
 Errors Rapidly Accumulate!
 No way to correct
 MUST maintain accuracy above acceptable threshold
Cumulative Effect of Classification Errors
Declared Accuracy Classifications
Day
Records % Right Wrong
Mon 5,000 70% 3,500 1,500
Tue 5,000 80% 4,000 1,000
Wed 5,000 60% 3,000 2,000
Thu 5,000 70% 3,500 1,500
Fri 5,000 75% 3,750 1,250
Cumulative Total 17,750 7,250
Effect of Classification Accuracy
Disposition
Confidence
120
100 Confidence
% Confidence in Disposition
Range
80
60 Disposition
Confidence
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Classification Accuracy (%)
2007- 2012  Microsoft Goes for RM
 2007 – Big Miss
 10% of minimum needed
 2010 – Near Miss
 72% of minimum needed
 What was Missed?
 Disposition
 Case File Handling
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.6

7. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
SharePoint vs F1000 vs 5015.2
US DoD 5015.2
(168)
Fortune 1000
(105)
SharePoint Out Of Box
(72)
Copyright RIMtech 2012
Case Vs Subject
Delete
02/06 02/07 02/08 02/09 02/10 02/11
Subject File
Travel Requests
Delete After 4 years
Delete
02/03 02/04 02/05 02/06 02/07 02/08
Case File
Contract / Safe -Tee
Delete 2 years after contract end
Copyright RIMtech 2012
Deletion vs Disposition
Deletion Disposition
 Machine-Driven  Process-Driven
 Everything assumed to  Human Oversight Assumed
be perfect  Authoritative Source =
 No Authoritative Source Retention Schedule
 Delete when 2 years old  What is approved by Whom
 Initiation by machine  Initiation by People
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.7

8. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
SharePoint gets Rescued
 3rd-Party Plug-ins
 Canada X 2
 Collabware
 Orangutech
 USA X 1
 GimmalSoft 5015.2 certified!
 Australia X 2
 RecordPoint
 I5
 Will SharePoint 2014 Get there?
 5015.2 – Not Likely
 Minimum Requirements - Likely
ERM  Our Achilles Heel
 Classification Accuracy
 Need to hit 85%+
 Little Progress to date
 Major point of failure
Understanding RIM
(Records & Information Management)
 (5) Huge Changes
1. New Place to store documents
 No More File Servers!
2. How we Store documents
 Fill out a form – every time!
3. How we Find documents
4 Documents get Deleted
4.
5. Things are Organized
 Names, Places Rules are enforced
 Disruption
 More time/work to store a document
 Documents Disappear!
 New rules
 What to store, where to store
 New Software to learn
 ECM
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.8

9. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Barrier 1  Organizational/Cultural Change
 Accomplished to Date
 Greater Awareness
 IM and RM Linking
 What We Need to Achieve
 Management Engagement
 More than just passive “Support”
 70%+ of project $$/Resources dedicated to organizational/Cultural change
 RM and IM as a seamless unit
We are Need to be
Here Here
Transform Users Perception of RIM
Typical Attitude Target Attitude
 Recordkeeping is not important  Recordkeeping is very important
 This does not involve me to us
 This is just (another) ignored  I will do my part
policy  The organization is serious about
 It does not matter if I ignore this this
 Nobody else cares, why should I?  There are consequences if I
ignore this
 Others seem to care about this!
Changing the Perception
4 Contributors
1. Raise RIM Visibility
 Permanent – Not going away!
2. Management Participation
 Active, participative engagement
3. Marketing Program
 Education
 This is what EDRMS Means…
 Messaging
 Our New Way of doing Business!
4. Policy Backstop
 Non-Negotiable. These are our business
rules
 We have to do this. Not an option.
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.9

10. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Barrier 2  Classification Accuracy
 Accomplished to Date
 Retention Schedule Simplification/Consolidation
 SAC Software gaining traction
 What We Need to Achieve
 Lean Mean Retention Schedules
 Commercial Adoption of SAC
We are Need to be
Here Here
File Plan Retention Schedule
Classification Retention Rule 1
Safety
Safety
Retention Rule 2
Doc 1
Inspections
Rule Inspections
1 Retention Rule 3
Safety Doc 2 Retention Rule 4
Policy Incidents
Rule
3
Retention Rule 5
Safety Finance
Doc 3
Inspections
p Retention Rule 6
Rule
1
Budgets Retention Rule 7
Budgets Doc 4
Rule Retention Rule 8
5 Audits
Travel Retention Rule 9
Reports Doc 5
Travel
Rule
8 Retention Rule 10
Travel Doc 6
Policy
Requests Retention Rule 11
Rule
8
Retention Rule 12
Reports
Classification Accuracy
How to Measure
 Statistical Sampling
 Delegate to departments
 Aggregate organizational total
Classification Accuracy Sample Sizing
Sample Size
Declared
2% 5% 10% 15%
100 2 5 10 15
500 10 25 50 75
1,000 20 50 100 150
5,000 100 250 500 750
10,000 200 500 1,000 1,500
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.10

11. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
(SAC)
System Assisted Classification
 Content Analysis
 Based on Sophisticated Content Search
technology
 Goal  Zero User Input
 Faceted Taxonomies
 Based on sophisticated data mapping and
analysis technology
 Goal  Minimum User Input
Substantial Pre-Implementation
Configuration/Setup is Required!
Content Analysis
SAC
 How it Works
 Compute what document is about
 Seek file plan match
 Suggest category
 Two Examples
 OpenText Auto-Classification
 Integro IEM
 Requires EXTREME setup
 10-20 docs/category
 Does not handle case files OpenText Auto-Classification
0
Copyright RIMtech 2012
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.11

12. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
OpenText
Automatic Classification
Faceted Taxonomy
SAC
 How it works
 Name + Role + Content Type +
metadata
 Uses thesaurus
 Adds content and context “facets” to
docs as metadata
 Derived from pre-defined rules of
business activities
 Facet = metadata elements
describing the document. Opposite of
hierarchical taxonomy
 Search and navigate the facets with
Thesaurus assist
 Used to assign best-fit classification
for RM
 Requires EXTREME Setup
Barrier 3  RIM Administrator Proficiency
 Accomplished to Date
 Nothing!
 What We Need to Achieve
 Better Vendor Training
 3rd-Party Training
 Software access for RIM Practitioners
 Books/Seminars/Courses
We are Need to be
Here Here
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.12

13. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
RIM Administration
Someone has to Fly This Plane…
 Who’s in Charge?
 Two pilots (ECM, RIM)
 IT flies the ECM, RM flies the RIM
 Some common control…
 RIM Responsibilities
 Key decisions on Declare/Classify
Two Control Columns
 Load in File Plan
 Configure all aspects of Recordkeeping RIM ECM
capabilities
 Ongoing measurement of (3) measures
 Carry out Disposition
 Go-To resource for all things RIM
Product related
 Deep product RIM know-how
Mastering the RIM Capabilities
168+ capabilities
 TWO types of training
 What buttons to push – not helpful
 How to apply – helpful!
 Can you handle it?
 There is a LOT to learn for “master” level
 5 days training for RM admin
 10 days trial-by-fire
 Cannot rely on software vendors
 Few true RM specialists
 This is secondary learning only!
 There are no books!
 Rely on outside help to supplement internal deficiencies
 Only a live implementation will make you proficient
 Plan/budget for training + Learning time
 You also have to learn the ECM as well (although not as deep)
Learn by doing
The RIM Learning RoadMap
1. Elements of file plan/Retention Schedule
2. Import/Export
3. Declare/Classify methods and
capabilities
4. Security and Configuration
5. Metadata configuration and setup
6.
6 Auditing
7. Lifecycle Management, Codes, Phases
8. Search Queries
9. Legal Holds
10. Disposition
11. Physical Records Management (PRM)
12. Reporting
Invest in Learning
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.13

14. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
RIM Effort/Contribution
Do You Have Sufficient Time?
RIM Effort (Days/Week)
Stage # Step
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Project Governance 1
2 Corporate Policies 1 2 1 1 0.5
Organization
3 Perception Transformation 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
4 Plan/strategy 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
5 Records Foundation 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
6 RIM Administration 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 1
Procedures
7 Business procedures 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
8 Repository Governance 0.5 0.1
9 Sandbox 1 2 2 2
10 Declaration 1 1 1 1
Technology
11 End User Training 1 1
12 Pilot 0.5 0.5
TOTAL 4.7 4.7 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.3 5 5 5 4.5 4.5
Copyright RIMtech 2012
Changing the RIM Job Role
 New Skills
 Evangelize the Project. Be out front and highly visible
 Project Management contribution
 Be the EDRMS RIM Software “Ninja”. Be the expert.
 How best to Declare/Classify
 New Responsibilities
 Manage the critical numbers (Qualification, Declaration
rate, Classification Accuracy)
 Set the acceptable standard
 Measure and Publish them
 Influence Auto-Delete Decisions
 Motivate end users
 Keep executive team motivated and updated.
 New Tasks
 Keep the (3) critical numbers healthy
 Regular status reporting
 Conduct Disposition of electronic records
 Divest
 Divest all aspects of prior responsibilities that cannot be
carried any longer
Barrier 4  Measurement
 Accomplished to Date
 We know the (3) measures
 Qualification Rate, Declaration Rate, Classification Accuracy Rate
 We’re not using them!
 What We Need to Achieve
 Software Measurement Tools
 Relentless Daily Measurement
 Standards Adoption (5015.2, ISO….)
We are Need to be
Here Here
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.14

15. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Measurement Metrics
Critical to Project Success
1. Qualification Rate
 Are users selecting the right documents to manage as records?
 Are we seeing an appropriate quantity?
2. Declaration Rate
 Once qualified, are users storing them as managed records?
3.
3 Classification Rate
 What % of declared records have the correct retention rule assigned?
 We MUST achieve all 3 metrics!
 We need to measure all three!
 Entire project “rolls up” to these three metrics!
Managing the Metrics
Finance
Actual
Classification
target
Actual
Declaration
target
Actual
Qualification
target
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Department Corporate
Metric
Finance HR Engineering Legal Average
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
Qualification 5% 4.0% 5% 4.1% 10% 11.4% 50% 36.2% 15%
Declaration 90% 88.0% 95% 85.0% 80% 74.0% 90% 91.0% 86%
Classification 95% 88.0% 75% 66.0% 80% 72.0% 95% 97.0% 83%
Copyright RIMtech 2012
Where to From Here?
 Need progress on the Big Four
 Start with Measurement
 ARMA is contributing
 Book
 Webinars
 RM and IT Need to come closer together
 Microsoft SharePoint
 Getting Better
 Could be significant game changer
 3rd Party Plug-ins are kingmakers right now
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.15

16. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Reaching Our Goals
Disposition
This cannot be done unless the
Disposition – The End Game Goal bottom (3) layers happen!
Classify Them (correctly) Third
How do we make sure classification
accuracy rate > 95%?
How are we going to get 1,000 users
Declare the Records Second to do this, reliably and consistently?
Qualify First Which Documents are Records?
Three Stage Strategy
Te c h n o lo g y Third Implement the new
procedures in the EDRMS
B u s in e s s Change our Business
P ro c e d u re s Second
Procedures to fit the new
rules
C o r p o r a t e P o lic y First Change the rules of our
Business
Mandates / Regulations
A New Approach to ERM Implementation
11. User Training 12. Pilot
Stage 3 - Technology
9. Sandbox 10. Declaration
7. Business Processes 8. Repository Governance
Stage 2 – Procedures
5. Records Foundation 6. RIM Administration
3. Perception Transformation 4. Plan/Strategy
Stage 1 - Organization
1. Project Governance 2. Corporate Policies
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.16

17. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Stakeholder Role – RIM Practitioner
 Achieve Product Proficiency
 Uphill Struggle Presently
 Pressure the Vendors
 Get the software!
 Need More Training
 Grab the Stick!
 RIM must drive…
 Work more closely with IT
 Define roles clearly
 EDRMS = a New Job
 New roles, responsibilities, tasks
Stakeholder Role – Vendors
 SAC
 Bring to commercial viability
 Administrator Training
 Substantial development needed
 Become better trainers
 Development metric measurement
tools
 Make the software available to
RIM Practitioners
 Simple Installation
 Full capability
 Pre-Purchase
Stakeholder Role – Sr. Management
 Measurement Metrics must
guide Projects
 Combine RIM and IT
 Embrace
organizational/Cultural
Change
 A permanent Change, NOT a
project!
 RIM Personnel need more
resources, not less
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.17

18. Cohasset Associates, Inc.
NOTES
Stakeholder Role – IT Managers
 Recognize – RIM Controls the
“Stick”
 IT keeps it in the air
 Recognize – Out of Box does not
work!
 Embrace measurement metrics
 Then work backward to develop
tools to support the measures
 Get the software to the RIM
practitioners
 They need to learn!
 A permanent change – not a
Project!
 Build effective declaration
techniques
 To support metrics
We will get there!
 Accomplished to Date
1. Software has everything we need
2. SAC coming along
3. Greater awareness
4. Leaner Retention Schedules
 What We Need to Achieve
1.
1 RIM Admin Proficiency
Proficienc
2. Application of measurement metrics
3. Organizational/Cultural Change
4. 85%+ Classification accuracy
We are Need to be
Here Here
Bruce Miller
bruce.miller@rimtech.ca
www.rimtech.ca
613-226-8468
2012 Managing Electronic Records Conference 2.18