It’s Back to the Future, Not Crossing the Chasm When it Comes to AIIM’s “Systems of Record” and “Systems of Engagement”

Pardon the interruption from the recent Information Lifecycle Governance theme of my postings but I felt the need to comment on this topic.  I even had to break out my flux capacitor for this posting to remind me as I was certain I had seen this before.

Recently at the ARMA Conference and currently in the AIIM Community at large, there is a flood of panels, webinars, blog postings and tweets on a “new” idea from Geoffrey Moore (noted author and futurist) differentiating “Systems of Record” from “Systems of Engagement.” This idea results from a project at AIIM where Geoffrey Moore was hired as a consultant to give the ECM industry a new identity among other things. One of the drivers of the project has been the emergence and impact of social media on ECM. The new viewpoint being advocated is that there is a new and revolutionary wave of spending emerging on “Systems of Engagement” – a wave focused directly on knowledge worker effectiveness and productivity.

Let me start by saying that I am in full agreement with the premise behind the idea that there are separate “Systems of Record” and “Systems of Engagement.” I am also a big fan of Geoffrey Moore. I’ve read most of his books and have drank the Chasm, Bowling Alley, Tornado and Gorilla flavors of his Kool-Aid. In fact, Crossing the Chasm is mandatory reading on my staff.

Most of the work from the AIIM project involving Moore has been forward thinking, logical and on target. However, this particular outcome does not sit well with me. My issue isn’t whether Moore and AIIM are right or wrong (they are right). My issue is that this concept isn’t a new idea. At best, Geoffrey has come up with a clever new label. The concept of “System of Record” is nothing new and a “System of Engagement” is a catchy way of referring to those social media systems that make it easier to create, use, and interact with content.

Here is where AIIM and Moore are missing the point. Social Media is just the most recent, not the first “System of Engagement.” Like those before it, these previous engagement systems were not capable of also being “Systems of Record” … so we need both … we’ve always needed both. It’s been this way for years. Apparently though, we needed a new label as everyone seems to have jumped on the bandwagon except me.

Let me point out some of the other “Systems of Engagement” over the years. For years, we’ve all been using something called Lotus Notes and/or Microsoft Exchange as a primary system to engage with our inner and outer worlds. This engagement format is called email … you may have heard of it. Kidding aside, we use email socially and always have. We use email to engage with others. We use email as a substitute for content management. Ever send an email confirming a lunch date? Ever communicate project details in the body of an email? Ever keep your documents in your email system as attachments so you know where they are? You get the idea. Email is not exactly a newfangled idea and no one can claim these same email systems also serve any legitimate record keeping purpose. There is enough case law and standards to fill a warehouse on that point (pardon the paper pun). More recently, instant messaging has even supplanted email for some of those same purposes especially as a way to quickly engage and collaborate to resolve issues. No one is confused about the purpose of instant messaging systems. It can even be argued that certain structured business systems like SAP are used in the same model when coupled with ECM to manage key business processes such as accounts payable. The point being, you engage in one place and keep records or content in another place. Use the tool best suited to the purpose.

Using technology like email and instant messaging to engage with, collaborate and communicate on content related topics with people is not a new idea. Social media is just the next thing in the same model. On one hand, giving social media and collaboration systems a proper label is a good thing. On the other hand, give me a break … any Records Manager doing electronic records embraced the concept of “record making applications” and “record keeping systems” a long time ago. It’s a long standing proven model for managing information. Let’s call it what it is.

I applaud AIIM and Moore for putting this idea out there but I also think they have both missed the mark. “Systems of Engagement” is a bigger, different and proven idea than how both currently talking about it. Maybe I am Luddite, but this seems to me like this simply a proven idea that got a fresh coat of paint.

As AIIM and Moore use words like “revolution” and “profound implications” in their promotional materials I think I’ll break out my Back to the Future DVD and stay a little more grounded.  Like a beloved old movie, I am still a fan of both Moore and AIIM.  However, I recommend you see this particular movie for yourself and try to separate the hype from the idea itself.  If you do, let me know whether you agree … is this an original idea or a simply a movie sequel?

Why Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) Failed But Needs an Updated Look

If you know me, you know I advocate something called Information Lifecycle Governance (ILG) as the proper model for managing information over its’ lifespan.  I was reminded recently (at IOD) during a conversation with Sheila Childs, who is a top Gartner analyst in this subject area, of a running dialogue we have on the differences between governance at the storage layer and using records management and retention models as an alternative approach.  This got me thinking about the origins of the ILG model and I decided to take a trip in the “way-back” machine for this posting.

 

Accordingly to Wikipedia as of this writing, Information Lifecycle Management refers to a wide-ranging set of strategies for administering storage systems on computing devices.  Searchstorage.com (an online storage magazine) offers the following explanation:  Information life cycle management (ILM) is a comprehensive approach to managing the flow of an information system’s data and associated metadata from creation and initial storage to the time when it becomes obsolete and is deleted. Unlike earlier approaches to data storage management, ILM involves all aspects of dealing with data, starting with user practices, rather than just automating storage procedures, as for example, hierarchical storage management (HSM) does. Also in contrast to older systems, ILM enables more complex criteria for storage management than data age and frequency if access. ILM products automate the processes involved, typically organizing data into separate tiers according to specified policies, and automating data migration from one tier to another based on those criteria. As a rule, newer data, and data that must be accessed more frequently, is stored on faster, but more expensive storage media, while less critical data is stored on cheaper, but slower media. However, the ILM approach recognizes that the importance of any data does not rely solely on its age or how often it’s accessed. Users can specify different policies for data that declines in value at different rates or that retains its value throughout its life span. A path management application, either as a component of ILM software or working in conjunction with it, makes it possible to retrieve any data stored by keeping track of where everything is in the storage cycle.

If you were able to get all the way through that (I had to read it 3 times) you probably concluded that (1) it was way too complicated (2) was very storage centric and likely too costly (3) was incomplete.  These are all reasons why this concept never took hold and is widely considered a failed concept.

But hold on … let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water quite yet.  The underlying idea is sound but needs modification.  In my opinion, here is what was wrong with the notion of ILM when it came to prominence in 2002 or so:

It’s incomplete:  Frequency of access does not determine the usefulness of information.  Any set of policies need to include the value of the information to the business itself and the legal and regulatory obligations.  Only calculating how recently files were accessed and used is an incomplete approach.  Wouldn’t it make sense to understand all of the relevant facets of information value (and obligations) along with frequency of access? 

It’s inefficient and leads to error:  Managing policies at the device level is a bad idea.  As an example, many storage devices require setting the retention policy at the device itself.  This seems crazy to me as a general principle.  Laws and obligations change, policies changes, humans make errors … all of which leads to a very manual time-consuming and error prone policy administration process.  Wouldn’t a centrally managed policy layer make more sense?

It’s not well understood and can be too costly:  This model has led to the overbuying of storage.  Many organizations have purchased protected storage when it was not necessary.  These devices are referred to as NENR (Non Erasable, Non Rewritable) or WORM (Write Once, Read Many).  These devices come in multiple flavors:  WORM Optical, WORM Tape and Magnetic Disk WORM (Subystem) and can include multiple disks with tiered tape support.  Sample vendors include: EMC Centera, Hitachi HCAP, IBM DR550, NetApp Snaplock and IBM Information Archive.  This class of storage costs more then other forms of storage primarily because of the perception of safety.  Certain storage vendors (who will remain nameless) have latched onto this market confusion and even today try to “oversell” storage devices as a substitute for good governance.  This is often to uninformed or ill-advised buyers.  The fact is, only the SEC 17a-4 regulation requires WORM storage.  Using WORM for applications other then SEC 17a-4 usually means you are paying too much for storage and creating retention conflicts (more on this in a future posting).  The point is … only buy protected storage when appropriate to your requirements or obligations.

If we could just fix those issues, is the ILM concept worth re-visiting?  It’s really not that hard of a concept.  When information is born, over 90% is born digital.  Over 95% expires and needs to be disposed of.  Here is a simple concept to consider:

A simple model for governing information over its' lifespan

I will go deeper in this very concept (and model) in my next posting.  In the mean time, leave me your thoughts on the topic. 

I am also curious to know if you have been approached by an overly zealous vendor trying to sell you WORM based storage as a replacement for good governance or records management.  I will publish the results.