I work at a governmental institution. Currently, I'm researching whether we can replace Micro Focus Content Manager (for CMS) with Microsoft Sharepoint?
What's your opinion about it? Please also elaborate on "why".
Director and Senior Consultant at PowerMark Solutions
06 October 21
Not if you are managing physical records in CM. You would need an add-in for M365 such as AvePoint Cloud Records or RecordPoint Records365.
Both help another important issue - M365 Compliance and SharePoint Online are complex user interfaces.
In a lot of organizations, records management staff don't have direct access to RM functions, with IT doing the administration based on service requests from IM. Both add-ins hand usability and RM functions back to the IM team.
What in your opinion is the primary reason why Enterprise Content Management implementations are struggling to survive past the ECM project phase? Please share your own experience. If you are able to point me to credible resources in this regard, it would also be much appreciated.
Buy in from the general worker population is really the key. The capability must be attractive, easy to use, and support their business requirements. There must be a perceived need and the ECM as the perceived answer.
The primary reason ECM implementations struggle to survive past the ECM project phase is that they are not supported in an iterative fashion. It's like entropy - if you don't constantly shape and put effort into improving re-use and the organization of your organizations IP (in this case enterprise content) then over time the structures, and effort expended no longer are enough to sustain the shared taxonomy, language, and understanding that comes with effective ECM implementations.
One of the biggest offenders here is when a project involves a technology upgrade. Effort is expended in great amounts, but energy on *sustained* adoption is less of a priority. What's more often the 'technology' is where the ownership lines end. When you think of the costs for these kinds of typical ECM projects - if you isolate the cost of 'getting more out of the content in your enterprise' from the technology projects that enable this - you realize the projects that go over on budget, are difficult to scope, and that need buy in and investment from many areas of the business - are the ones that 'get more' out of the IP and content in the organization - which really should be seen more of a knowledge tax that you pay continually - than in single investment projects.
Hopefully that makes sense - there is wonderful research on this subject, and I can assure you the issue really is just investment, sustainment, and continual engagement related for most projects. It's why many organizations now are moving into models where adoption (beyond activation), and consumption is something that can be easily measured and managed - think of SaaS ECM providers where the 'promise of value' is much closer in line with the 'realization of value' since at any time a user, department or organization can simply stop paying those subscription based licenses - the good thing is that both technology vendors and consultancies are shifting to models where there needs to be constant diligence to ensure the organization is getting the most out of their ECM investments. :)