RF6 Connector - SharePoint Online Integration

by Frank 1. December 2021 19:30

 

Now easily integrate RF6 to SharePoint Online using our new RF6 Connector

This new product utilizes the very latest Microsoft Power Automate, Power Apps and Power BI to provide the most powerful, most seamless and most flexible integration to PowerPoint Online.

Note that you can use the RF6 Connector to connect to any system via the MS Power Platform, not just SharePoint Online.

The RF6 Connector replaces our legacy product the SharePoint Integration Module. It provides a superset of the old functionality.

WebTWAINSDK - Version 2.0.0

by Frank 1. September 2021 01:00

 

   

"The absolute best tool for adding TWAIN Document Scanning support to your Web applications."

Improvements in version 2.0.0

Component:

*Added scannerInterface to the configuration.

  • None: hides both UI elements. Allows for scanning and document creating with a single click.
  • Web: hides the desktop UI. Allows for specifying the scan parameters in the scanning modal.
  • Visible: displays both the desktop UI and the scanning modal.
  • Desktop: hides the web modal. Displays the desktop UI to set the scan parameters.

Removed version from the configuration.

Added scanButton to the configuration to bind an onclick event to the specified HtmlElement to display the modal.

Added K1WebTwain namespace object. Provides methods to interact with the service via JavaScript.

*Note: scannerInterface selection is limited to [Visible] on macOS. This will be addressed in a future release.

Windows Service:

  • Updated to Tesseract4.
  • Updated PDF/A generation.
  • Added ServiceAvailable HttpGet.
  • Updated StartScan to have additional validation.
  • Updated AttachDocument to have additional validation.

The easiest way for Developers to add TWAIN Document Scanning to applications

If you have questions about the new functionality, please contact us

Existing pricing, $USD3,000, will be valid until 30th September 2021.

 

“We continue to invest in our products to save you time and money”

 

We do more than Records & Document Management

by Frank 19. March 2021 12:22

 

Whereas customers all over the world use RecFind 6 to automate records management, document management and workflow, many also use it to satisfy other application requirements. Here are a few examples:

  • Vaccination Register
  • Mortgage Application Processing
  • Contract Management
  • Securities and Vault Management
  • Integration to Membership Systems
  • Integration to Member Portals
  • Asset Management
  • HR Management
  • Contractor Management
  • Cultural Artifact Management
  • Client Relationship Management
  • Software Development Management
  • Software Licensing Management

And many more…

The big advantage?

Utilize a single software application and a single investment to satisfy multiple application requirements. Significantly increase your Return on Investment by utilizing RecFind 6 in other areas of your business. You have already paid for the product, why not get extra value in return?

Please talk to us if you have another application you think we may be able to address with RecFind 6. The discussion is free as is an obligation free quotation. You have everything to gain.

We look forward to being of service.

A Web Twain Scanning SDK for browser applications

by Frank 2. June 2020 14:45

 

Cross-browser TWAIN Document Scanner Software Development Kit

Programmers understand, why web, ‘thin’ or browser app cannot easily connect to resources on your local PC or network like a TWAIN compliant document scanner

The main reason is that it is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to program while also addressing all of the technical and security issues. Many developers just do not have the money, resources or expertise. We, however, have made the investment and produced a SDK for developers who want to connect to a local TWAIN document scanner from a browser-based app to capture paper documents and convert them to digital documents.

There are several other solutions out there, but they are very, very expensive and come with awful licensing and maintenance conditions and costs.

We solved this problem with newly developed technology, a much lower cost and no awful licensing and maintenance conditions. Our new technology solution is disruptive in that it is low cost, easy to use and distribute to your customers and simple to license; totally different to what is currently available.

Our solution is a Web Twain Software Development Kit (SDK) that comes with all the code you will need plus a sample app plus twelve months of free support and updates. Only the developer is licensed, not the end users and there are no restrictions on the distribution of the runtime (built using our SDK). There is a single upfront fee (not an annual license that needs to be renewed each year) and a maintenance agreement (after the initial twelve months) is entirely optional. Compare this to the main opposition’s offerings.

The SDK includes the ability to scan, capture, modify images, OCR images, convert to PDF format and upload to the developer’s application on the server. In short, everything you need when working from a browser to convert paper to digital and to capture and store the final document.

Please link to our website to run our demo program.

https://webtwainsdk.com/

The Enterprise Content Management (ECM) challenges of managing ‘Records-in-Place’

by Frank 18. February 2020 01:01

 

The Challenge

An interesting challenge for Records Managers, Knowledge Managers and CIOs is the newer document management paradigm of being asked to manage all content according to the ‘Records-In-Place’ paradigm, without a single central repository. That is, to be responsible for all content across a myriad of locations controlled by a myriad of applications and a myriad of departments/organizations and people.

We all realize that Enterprise Content Management, or Content Services as it is now called by Gartner, is a moving target, constantly evolving with new challenges and new paradigms.

For example:  

  • How do we filter out only relevant information from social media?
  • How do we avoid capturing personal data and being culpable under privacy laws?
  • How do we capture all emails containing sexism, racism and bullying without being guilty of an invasion of privacy of the individual?
  • How do we meet all of our compliance obligations when our staff are spread across multiple states/counties/provinces and multiple countries with different legislation and compliance requirements?

All weighty challenges for the modern Records Manager, Knowledge Manager or CIO. Now we have a new challenge, how to manage multiple silos of information without a central repository.

Multi-Repository (multi-Silo) Systems

In multiple-repository systems we find multiple document stores or silos, local files, network file shares, local data bases, multiple file servers, multiple copies of SharePoint and multiple Cloud repositories like Dropbox, Box, iCloud, Google Cloud Storage and other hosted document storage. The CIO may proudly claim to manage multiple information silos but what he or she really has is a laissez faire document management ecosystem that may well be centrally monitored (hopefully) but is most certainly not centrally managed.

In the multiple silo model, the documents in our multiple locations are ‘managed’ by multiple people and multiple and independent applications (e.g., SharePoint, Google Docs, Office 365, etc.). We may have implemented another layer of software above all these diverse applications trying to keep up with what is happening but If I am just ‘watching’ then I don’t have an inviolate copy and I don’t have any control over what happens to the document. I am unable to enforce any standards. There is no ‘standard’ central control over versioning or retention and no control over the document life cycle or chain of evidence.

For example, you wouldn’t know if the document had since been moved to a different location that you are not monitoring. You wouldn’t know if it had been deleted. You wouldn’t know its relationship to other documents and processes in other silos. You wouldn’t know its context in your enterprise and therefore you wouldn’t know how relevant this document was. The important distinction is that under the multiple silo model you are ‘watching’ not managing; other multiple pieces of software are managing the life cycles and dispositions of the documents independently.

All you really know is that at a certain point in time a document existed and what its properties were at that time (e.g., historical ‘natural’ Metadata such as original filename, author, date created, etc.). However, you have no contextual Metadata, no transactional Metadata, no common indexing and no common Business Classification System. In this case, you don’t have a document management system, you have a laissez faire document management ecosystem, an assortment of independently ‘managed’ information silos. Most importantly, you are not able to link documents to business processes that transcend organizational structures and silos.

What are the issues?

Sure, SharePoint and Cloud silos make collaboration easier but at what cost? What can’t we do with this multi-silo ecosystem? Why doesn’t this solution meet the best-practice objectives of an enterprise Document Management System? What are the major areas where it falls short? How does the proliferation of multiple silos and content repositories affect us? What are our risks? Here is my assessment of the major shortfalls of this ‘Records-In-Place’ paradigm.

We are unable to: 

  1. extract the critical insights that enterprise information should provide
  2. define all the relationships that link documents to enterprise business processes
  3. find the right information at the right time
  4. provide a single access point for all content
  5. Implement an effective, consistent enterprise-wide document security system
  6. effectively protect against natural or man-made disasters
  7. produce evidence-standard documents
  8. minimize document handling costs
  9. guarantee the integrity of a document
  10. guarantee that a document is in fact the most recent version
  11. guarantee that a document is not an older copy
  12. minimize duplicate and redundant information
  13. meet critical compliance targets like Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and the HIPAA
  14. create secure, searchable archives for digital content
  15. effectively secure all documents against loss
  16. implement common enterprise version control
  17. facilitate enterprise collaboration
  18. Improve timeliness
  19. manage enterprise document security and control
  20. manage smaller and more reliable backups
  21. achieve the lowest possible document management and archiving costs
  22. deliver the best possible knowledge management access and search
  23. guarantee consistent content
  24. optimize management and executive time
  25. standardize the types of documents and other content can be created within an organization.
  26. define common use template to use for each type of document
  27. standardize the Metadata required for each type of document
  28. standardize where to store a document at each stage of its life cycle
  29. control access to a document at each stage of its life cycle
  30. move documents within the organization as team members contribute to the documents' creation, review, approval, publication, and disposition
  31. implement a common set of policies that apply to documents so that document-related actions are audited, documents are retained or disposed of properly, and content that is important to the organization is protected
  32. manage when and if a document has to be converted from one format to another as it moves through the stages of its life cycle
  33. guarantee that all documents are treated as corporate records, that common retention policies are applied determining which documents must be retained according to legal requirements and corporate guidelines
  34. guarantee enterprise-wide Regulatory compliance
  35. produce an enterprise-wide audit trail
  36. share information across departmental and/or silo boundaries
  37. centrally manage the security access to documents/information across different areas of the organization
  38. consistently classify documents as each repository may be used by a different department and be classified differently  
  39. identify duplicates based on document name
  40. easily find things based on metadata, as it wouldn’t be common across repositories
  41. control access via AD single sign on
  42. access all enterprise documents using a single license
  43. centrally audit access and changes to metadata

What are your risks?  

Your risks are huge!

 

The use of Business Process Management, BPO, BPM

by Frank 9. February 2020 06:00

 

 I am sure that you have been inundated with ads, articles, white papers, phone calls, seminars and proposals for Business Process Management, Business Process Outsourcing and Business Process Optimization.

What is it?

BPM certainly isn’t new, there have been many companies offering innovative and often cutting-edge technology solutions for many years. The pioneering days were probably the early 1980’s. One early innovator I recall was Tower Technology because their office was just across from our office.

In the early days BPM was all about imaging and workflow and forms. Vendors like Tower Technology used early versions of workflow products like Staffware and a whole assortment of different imaging and forms products to solve customer processing problems. That is, to turn a manual, paper-based business process into an automated digital process. In those days, it involved a lot of inventing and a lot of creative genius to make all those disparate products work together and actually do what the salesperson promised. More often than not, the final solution didn’t quite work as promised and it always seemed to cost a lot more than quoted but that was ‘normal’ then.

As with all new technologies, everyone had to go through a learning process, usually at the customer’s expense and for many years the promises were far ahead of what was actually delivered with a lot of expensive failures along the way.

Today?

So, is it any different today? Is BPM a proven, reliable, feature-rich and mature technology?

The answer dear friends, is yes and no; just as it was thirty or more years ago.

Caveat Emptor

The Latin phrase ‘Caveat Emptor’ means ‘Let the buyer beware’. Caveat Emptor applies just as much today as it did in the early days because despite enormous technological progress, we are still pushing the envelope (as we always do in this industry). We are still being asked to do things the current software and hardware can’t quite yet handle. The behind the scenes technicians are still trying to make the product do what the salesperson promised in good faith (we hope) because he didn’t really understand his product set and/or the customer’s requirements and processes.

Caveat Emptor means it is up to the buyer to evaluate the offering and decide if it can do the job. Of course, if the vendor lies or makes blatant false claims then Caveat Emptor no longer applies, and you can hit the vendor with a lawsuit based on the products and services being ‘Not Fit For Purpose’.  However, in reality it is rarely as black and white as that. The technology was complex, is complex and will always be complex and the proposals and explanations are full of proprietary terminology, ambiguities, acronyms and weaselly words because at the time of the proposal, no one (vendor or customer) really understands all the requirements. The real requirements develop over the course of the project.

Do you fully understand your requirements and the vendor proposal?

As with all legal agreements, you shouldn’t enter into a BPM contract unless you know exactly what you are getting into. This is especially true with BPM because you are talking about handing over part of your core business processes to someone else to ‘improve’. If you don’t understand what is being proposed, then please hire someone who does; I guarantee it will be worth the investment. This is especially true if you are outsourcing customer or supplier facing processes like accounts payable and accounts receivable. Better to spend a little more up front than suffer cost overruns, failed processes and an inbox full of complaints. In the worst case, a failed business process conversion can lead to a business failure.

Advice

My advice is to always begin with some form of a consultancy to ‘examine’ your business processes and produce a report containing detailed maps, conclusions and recommendations. The vendor may offer this service as part of its sales process and it may be free, or it may be chargeable.  However, I believe in the old adage that you get what you pay for so I would prefer to pay to have a qualified, experienced professional and independent (not employed by the vendor) consultant do the study. The advantage of paying for the study is that you then ‘own’ the report and can then legally provide it to other vendors to obtain competitive quotes. Three competitive quotes should be a mandatory requirement. The vendors will always sharpen their pencils when they know there is competition.

What are your costs now?

You should also have a pretty good idea of what the current processing is costing you in both direct and indirect costs (e.g., lost sales, dissatisfied customers, unhappy staff, etc.) before beginning the evaluation exercise. Otherwise, how are you going to be able to judge the added value of the vendor’s proposal? If the new digital process won’t add value, then why do it?

In my experience, the most common set of processes to be ‘outsourced’ are those to do with accounts payable (AP) processing. This is the automation of all AP processes beginning with your purchase order (and its line items), the delivery docket (proof of receipt), invoices (and line items) and statements. The automation should reconcile invoices to delivery dockets and purchase orders and should throw up any discrepancies such as items invoiced but not delivered, variations in price, etc. Vendors will usually propose what is commonly called an automatic matching engine; the software that captures, reads and ‘matches’ all the documents in the AP process and then does its best to make sure you only pay for delivered goods that are exactly as ordered.

What is the Return On Investment (ROI)?

If the vendor’s proposal is to be attractive and add value to your organization, it must replace your manual processing with an automated model that is both faster and more accurate. Ideally, it would also be more cost-effective but even if it is more costly in the short term than your manual direct cost, it should still solve most of your indirect cost problems like overpayments, unhappy suppliers and late payment fees. Project your costs and savings over five years to see the real ROI.

Basically, the vendor has to offer a ‘Value Proposition’; if it doesn’t provide value, why do it?

Before you begin

In essence, there is nothing magical about BPM; it is all about replacing inefficient manual processes with much more efficient automated ones using clever computer software. The magic, if that is the word to use, is about getting it right.  

  • You need to clearly and completely define the processes you want automated;
  • You need to know what the current manual processing is costing you;
  • You need to be absolutely sure that you fully understand the vendor’s proposal and;
  • You need to build in metrics so you can accurately evaluate the finished product and clearly determine if it is meeting its stated objectives.

Please don’t enter into negotiations thinking that if it doesn’t work you can just blame the vendor. That would be akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Remember Caveat Emptor; success or failure really depends upon how well you do your job as the customer. Failed projects are always the fault of both parties; minimize risk by doing your job well.

 

 

Frank’s secrets for increased productivity and a longer life

by Frank 31. January 2020 14:19

 

Sequencing & Overlapping

By nature I am and have always been a sequencer and an overlapper. It comes naturally to me. It is how I process everyday events. For example, in the morning when making a pot of tea I first fill up the jug and turn it on to boil before emptying and cleaning the teapot. This is because I want the two tasks to overlap for maximum efficiency and minimum duration. It takes less time to empty and clean the teapot that it does to boil the jug.

Two Simple Examples

If I emptied and cleaned the teapot first before filling up the jug and turning it on, the elapsed time required to make a pot of tea would be longer and therefore inefficient. Too many mistakes like this and I would be late for work. With my approach I save time because the total elapsed time to make a pot of tea is how long it takes to fill the jug and get it to boil. I correctly sequence and overlap the two events to be more productive.

Here is another simple example. Have you ever been in a restaurant and watched with frustration as the waiter brought out meals and then returned to the kitchen without picking up your dirty dishes? Then watch in frustration again as the waiter comes out to pick up dirty dishes but leaves someone’s lunch at the kitchen counter getting cold. Why doesn’t the waiter pick up dirty dishes, or take your order, on the way back to the kitchen? Life, business and government is full of such everyday examples of non-overlapping, poorly sequenced processes all resulting in lower productivity and higher costs for everyone.

The Computer example

Many years ago, when I was a trainee programmer, I learnt all about overlap while being trained at IBM. The instructor made the point that computers only seem to do multiple things at the same time. In fact, the architecture of computer processing at that time meant a computer could only process one task at a time but in making use of overlap and time-sharing, it appeared as if it was doing many things at once. For example, the IBM 360 processor would issue an I/O command to a channel to go off and read a record from a disk drive. Relatively speaking, this took an enormity of time because disks were so slow compared to the CPU. So instead of waiting for the channel to complete the I/O request the processor would process other work all the time waiting for the channel to interrupt it and say “I am finished, here is the data you asked for”. So, the computer appeared to be doing multiple tasks at once because it correctly sequenced the tasks it had to perform and took full advantage of overlap. Therein lies a lesson for all of us.

How to Begin?

When faced with a list of tasks to perform first think about the opportunities for overlap. Then sequence the tasks to take maximum advantage of overlap.  

All it requires is the desire to work smarter, a little thought and a sense of pleasure in making best use of the limited time life allows us all.

Asynchronous Events & Multi-Threading

In my role as a designer of computer software I always try to take advantage of sequencing and overlap. In my business, the two terms most used when implementing this approach are asynchronous events and multi-threading. These two techniques should always be applied when a number of tasks to be performed are not sequential. That is, they don’t have to be completed one after the other in a strict sequence.

We take advantage of the fact that some tasks are independent or ‘discrete’ and therefore can be processed at the same time we process other tasks. We do this in various ways but usually by defining them as asynchronous events and by utilizing a form of multi-tasking or multi-threading (starting two or more asynchronous events at the same time). Computers aren’t smart (at least not yet but AI is coming) and they rely totally on human programmers to make them behave in an efficient and ‘smart’ way.

Computer programmers who don’t understand sequencing and overlap can write very bad and very slow programs even to the extent of making very fast computers look very slow. Human beings who don’t make use of sequencing and overlap drastically reduce the time they have to live and enjoy life.

Why Sequencing and Overlap can extend your life

There is an enormous amount of money being invested today in the science of longevity; in trying to find ways to make it possible for people to live longer lives. When the solution becomes available, it probably won’t be cheap, and it probably won’t be available to ordinary people like you and me. It will initially only be available to the elite and to the very rich. However, don’t despair; there is a low-cost way to double the amount of time you have to enjoy life. An easy and available now way to effectively double your life span.

All you have to do, is be aware of the possibilities of sequencing and overlap in your life and then work to take advantage of them. If you reduce the amount of time you take to do ‘work’ every day by fifty, forty, thirty or even twenty percent you are adding years to the time you have left to live and enjoy life. It is the easiest and lowest cost way to increase your effective life span. Decrease your work time and increase your leisure time.

Work to live, don’t live to work

For example, don’t try to impress your boss by working longer hours; arriving first and leaving last (as my generation did). Instead, impress your boss with a proposal whereby you do more work in fewer hours. You will of course, need to quantify your proposal and add in some metrics so your increased productivity can be measured and proven so the boss is sold.

Don’t avoid work, outsmart it

Please also don’t waste your time and your effective life span, by pondering ways to avoid work; instead, utilize those same cognitive processes to work out how to complete your assigned work in the fastest way possible. Approach every project looking for ways to better sequence tasks and take advantage of overlap. Make it a game; enjoy it because success will extend your effective life span; the time you have to live and enjoy life.

I was once told that the average pattern of a human life is eight-hours work, eight-hours sleep, and eight-hours play. Of course, with the burden of modern-day commuting, it is really now more like six-hours sleep, twelve-hours work, and six-hours play. Your objective should be to double those play hours; to double the time you have to live and enjoy life.

As I am fond of saying, it isn’t rocket science. It is just common sense, a very simple and achievable way to significantly increase your effective life span; the time available to you to really live and enjoy life. Work smart and give yourself twice as much time to enjoy life and in doing so, live twice as long. 

Increased productivity doesn’t just provide benefits to the economy; it can also provide very substantial personal benefits. Why don’t you give it a try?

 

The Significant Benefits of Document Imaging

by Frank 20. January 2020 12:24

 

 

We have all known for at least 30 years of the significant benefits of Document Imaging.

Document imaging or the scanning of paper documents to convert them to digital images, along with workflow, was the real beginning of office automation.

The advent of Document Imaging in the early 1980s did for office automation what barcodetechnology did for physical records management and asset management. It allowed manual processes to be automated and improved; it provided tangible and measurable productivity improvements and as well as demonstrably better access to information for the then fledgling knowledge worker.

However, over 30 years later, we have a paradox where we all take document imaging for granted but, we still don’t utilize it to anything like its full capabilities. Most organizations use document scanners of one kind or another, usually on multi-function-devices, but we still don’t appear to use document scanning nearly enough to automate time-consuming and often critical business processes.

I don’t really know why we are not utilizing document scanning more widely because it obviously isn’t a matter of lacking the tools; we have every type of document scanner imaginable and every type of document scanning software conceivable.  The struggling knowledge workers of 30 years ago would be ecstatic with the options available today.

We just seem to be stuck in first gear or, maybe we just are not applying enough thought to analyzing our day to day business processes.

Business Processes Management based on the circulation of paper documents in 2020 is archaic, wasteful, inefficient and highly prone to error. Yet, many organizations I deal with still have critical business processes based on the circulation of paper. How incredibly careless and dangerous is that?

Let’s look at the benefits at the most basic level: 

  • How many people can read a paper document at any one point in time? The answer is one and one only.
  • How many people can look at a digital image of a document at any one point in time? The answer is as many as need to.
  • How hard is it to lose or damage a paper document? The answer is it is really, really easy to lose of damage or deface a paper document.
  • How hard is it to lose or damage or deface or even change a secure digital copy of a document? The answer is it is almost impossible in a well-managed document management system.

So why are we still circulating paper documents to support critical business processes? Why aren’t we simply digitizing these important paper documents and making the business process infinitely faster and more secure? For the life of me, I can’t think of a single valid reason for not digitizing important paper documents. The technology is readily available with oodles of choice and it isn’t difficult to use, it isn’t expensive. In fact, digitizing paper will always save you time and money.

So why do I still see so many organizations large and small still relying on the circulation of paper documents to support important business processes? Is it a lack of thought or a lack of imagination or a lack of education? Can it really be true that more than thirty-years after the beginning of the office automation revolution we still have tens of thousands or even millions of knowledge workers with little knowledge of or access to, basic office automation?

In a world awash in technology like computers, laptops, iPhones and iPads how can we be so terribly ignorant of the application and benefits of such a basic and proven technology as document imaging?

In my experience, some of the worst example can be found in large financial organizations like banks and insurance companies. The public perception is that banks are right up there with the latest technology and most people look at examples like banking and payment systems on smartphones as examples of that. But, go behind the front office to the back office and you will usually see a very different world; a world of paper and manual processes, many on the IT department’s ‘backlog’ of things to attend to, eventually.

The message is a simple one. If you have business processes based on the circulation of paper, you are inefficient and are wasting money and the time of your staff and customers. You are also taking risks with the integrity of your data and your customer’s data.

Please do everyone a favor and look carefully at the application of document imaging, a well-proven, affordable, easy to implement and easy to manage business process automation tool.

 

Why aren’t you managing your emails?

by Frank 16. January 2020 15:08

  

Emails long ago evolved to be around about eighty-percent plus of business correspondence. Most records managers also realize that most of us aren’t managing emails well and that this has left a potentially lethal compliance and legal hole to plug.

I have written numerous papers and posts on the need to manage emails, such as:

The need to manage emails differently to paper;

Managing Emails, how hard can it be?;

I am willing to bet you are still not managing your emails effectively;

How to simplify Electronic Document & Email Management;

Why are your staff still manually capturing & classifying electronic documents & emails?

The need to manage Emails?;

Six reasons why organizations do not manage Emails effectively;

When I review them today, they are just as relevant as they were years ago. That is to say, despite the plethora of email management tools now available, many organizations still do not manage their emails effectively or completely.

The Manual Model

As an recent example we had an inquiry from the records manager at a US law firm who said she needed an email management solution but it had to be a ‘manual’ one where each worker would decide if and when and how to capture and save important emails into the records management system.  She went on to state emphatically that under no circumstances would she consider any kind of automatic email management solution.

We have to provide multiple options, such as GEM and the Button, because that is what the market demands but it is common sense that any manual system cannot be a complete or consistent solution. If you leave it up to the discretion of the end user to decide which emails to capture and how to capture them, then you will inevitably have an incomplete and inconsistent store of emails.  Worse still, you will have no safeguards against fraudulent or dishonest behavior.

Human beings are, by definition, ‘human’ and not perfect. We are by nature inconsistent in our behavior on a day to day basis; we forget things and sometimes we make mistakes. We are not robots or cyborgs and consistent, perfect behavior is beyond us.

As humans, we cannot be trusted to always analyze, capture and classify emails in a one-hundred percent consistent manner.

The problem is exacerbated manifold when we have hundreds or even thousands of inconsistent humans (your staff) all being relied upon to behave in an entirely uniform and consistent manner. It is ludicrous to expect entirely uniform and consistent behavior from your staff and it is bad practice and just plain foolish to roll out an email management system based on this false premise. It will never meet expectations. It will never plug all the compliance and legal holes and you will remain exposed no matter how much money you throw at the problem (e.g., training, training and re-training).

The Automatic Model

The only complete solution is one based on a fully-automatic rules or AI driven model whereby all incoming and outgoing emails are analyzed at the email server level according to a set of business rules tailored to your specific needs. This is the only way to ensure that nothing gets missed. It is the only way to ensure that you are in fact plugging all the compliance and legal holes and removing exposure and risk.

The fully automatic option is also the most cost-effective by a huge margin.

The manual approach requires each and every staff member to spend (waste?) valuable time every single day trying to decide which emails to capture and then actually going through the process time and time again. It also requires some form of a license per employee or per desktop. This license has a cost and it also has to be maintained, again at a cost.

The automatic approach doesn’t require the employee to do anything except know how to search for emails in your EDRMS. It also doesn’t require a license per employee or desktop because the software runs in the background talking directly to your email server. It is a low cost, low impact and asynchronous solution.

The automatic model increases productivity and lowers costs. It also provides a complete and entirely consistent email management solution and at a significantly lower cost than any ‘manual’ model. So, why is it so hard to convince some records managers and /or business owners to go with the fully automatic solution?

Who Decides?

This is not a decision that should be left up to the records manager. Emails are the business of all parts of any organization; they don’t just ‘belong’ to the records management department. Emails are an important part of most business processes particularly those involving clients and suppliers and regulators. That is, the most sensitive parts of your business. The duty to manage emails transects all vertical boundaries within any organization. The need is there in accounts and marketing and engineering and in support and in every department.

The decision on how to manage emails should be taken by the CEO or at the very least, the CIO with full cognizance of the risks to the enterprise of not managing emails in a one-hundred percent consistent and complete manner.

Its Risk Management

In the end email management isn’t in fact about email management, it is about risk management. If you don’t understand that and if you don’t make the necessary decisions at the top of your organization, you are bound to suffer the consequences in the future.

Are you going to wait for the first lawsuit or punitive fine before taking action?

Records Management System or Information Management System?

by Frank 7. January 2020 14:02

How to manage the process via Natural Language

We have a large number of customers using our product RecFind 6 as a Records Management System and with new customers, the question always arises about how to best organize information in the RecFind 6 database to make it as easy as possible to manage and access. As the Metadata, Data Model and Business Processes in RecFind 6 are 100% configurable, every customer ends up with a unique configuration. As well as managing records, the end result also needs to be an Information Management System.

There is no one-solution that suits all. Some records managers want the shared drives structure replicated in the database. Some want everything filed under a strict hierarchical classification system or Taxonomy. Some IT Managers want the whole process simplified so end users clearly know where to file stuff and where to find stuff. Different managers in a single customer site will often disagree about how the information should be managed. It is usually up to us to come up with an agreed and workable compromise. There is no “one size fits all” paradigm here.

Whereas I fully support the principles behind most EDRMS standards (like ISO 15489) I also find myself agreeing with most end users who just want the whole process simplified and expressed in natural language, not as an arcane, complex, inconsistent and difficult to navigate hierarchical classification system.

The way you classify information should not dictate how you store, manage and retrieve information.

I have written a paper of this exact subject and although now somewhat old, it is still 100% relevant. You don’t need to agree with me, but please try to understand the message. End users want easy, fast access, not time-consuming complexity.

Let me tell you we solve the problem at Knowledgeone Corporation and manage our emails, electronic documents and shared drives with a hybrid system. We utilize a combination of RecFind 6 and shared drives. This is also a model we regularly recommend to our customers as an acceptable compromise; one that is simple to implement and one that always works.

I am a big fan of making information as easy as possible to capture and as easy as possible to retrieve (eDiscovery). This is especially important to the long-suffering end-user class who have no interest in becoming part-time records managers and who simply won’t use a system if it is too difficult to use and too time-consuming.

The biggest problem with complex, hierarchical classification systems is that no two people file the same way and even a single user will often file things differently over time. This in itself makes the act of finding something by browsing through a classification hierarchy a hit and miss affair.

At Knowledgeone Corporation, we implemented a hybrid model that uses a simply structured shared drive resource plus automated tools to ensure everything that should be captured is captured. This approach is also all about separating the functionality of the Authoring packages (e.g., Word, Excel, Outlook, etc.) from the functionality of the EDRMS. They have different roles to play.

We use our product GEM to automatically capture all work related emails and we use our product RecCapture to automatically capture all work-related electronic documents from our shared drives. We all use a common shared drive structure to write and store our original electronic documents.

We don’t use what you would call a formal taxonomy, we use what I call a ‘natural’ classification system. For us this means a classification system that perfectly reflects our business practices, processes and vocabulary. In our case, we are customer-centric so everything (apart from a little administrative and supplier stuff) is organized in customer or prospect folders and the lower levels are minimal, being things like Correspondence, Quotes and Orders.

The structure of our RecFind 6 database is mostly based on customer and prospect files; our Records Management System is also our CRM. Customers and prospective customers are our core business just as members and cases are the core business of unions. Every industry has a core business and, in my mind, this should always be reflected in the classification system used so that it perfectly aligns with the work practices, processes and ‘language’ of most staff. Whenever I consult with a new customer, I always try to first determine its core business and its natural language and then design the system around these.

Because we are customer centric, I need to be able to see everything about any customer or prospect in one place. For us this means focusing on the Entity record (the Entity table is where we store the basic information on each customer or prospect organization). As RecFind 6 is a relational database, we then store all related information in linked tables, all linked to and accessible from the Entity record with a single click.

Ease of Access for eDiscovery

In our RecFind 6 system, every piece of information I need to refer to is just one-click away once I view the customer’s entity record. Once I select the customer record, everything thing else I need to know is just one-click away and all links are viewable in a single screen.

We have configured our RecFind 6 security system around our management structure and that works fine for us. As a Director for example, most of the stuff I save (e.g., a letter, email or quote to a customer) is with a basic security code because everyone needs to be able to see it. However, as a Director I also have the right to save things with higher levels of security, e.g., Manager Director, with appropriate restricted access. Like all good security systems, it is simple but effective.

Our searching is also structured the same way. We have configured RecFind 6 to add the objects we need to search on as menu items in the search function just as we would do for any customer. We therefore have a Metadata search menu of Attachments (electronic documents, emails and images), Entities (Customers, Prospects, Partners and Suppliers), People, Incidents, Bugs, Quotes, Invoices, Timesheets, Support agreements, etc. We repeat this with Boolean searches. We make it as easy as possible and as logical as possible so our staff can find anything as fast as possible.

Most importantly, we provide multiple entry-points for searches. I can for example search directly for emails with a Metadata search, searching by a combination of Sender, Recipient, Date, Subject, Content, etc. Alternatively, I can search for customer emails from within the Entity record just by clicking on a single link for all emails and electronic documents for that customer.

You can search on any field and different classes of users can have different Metadata to both view and search on. The security system determines what each class of user (Security Group) can both see and then do with the information they can see. The members of each Security Group see only what they need to see and have only the functionality they need to get the job done

Following the above hybrid approach also means that you can still implement and manage all the recordkeeping principles such as retention and disposal schedules, location tracking, auditing, etc.

My point is that it is possible to meet the needs of all groups of users without frustrating any single group.  It just requires a hybrid approach and the configuration of the system to suit each class of user.

Making everyone happy is a lot better than making some people happy and some people unhappy. Why would you make users unhappy if you had a choice? Any Records Management System should also be an easy to use Information Management System.

 

Month List