Bill English, MVP, MCSE, MCSA, MCT CEO, English, Bleeker and Associates, Inc.

transcript

Putability and Findability: How SharePoint’s Managed Metadata Service Solves the Taxonomization of Information

Bill English, MVP, MCSE, MCSA, MCTCEO, English, Bleeker and Associates, Inc.Mindsharp, Summit 7 and the Best Practices Conference

English, Bleeker and Associates, Inc.

Leaders and Experts In SharePoint: AUTHORSBill English has authored or co-authored 13 books since 2000 on SharePoint and Exchange products.

Todd Bleeker has authored or co-authored 3 books on Microsoft's integrated suite of products including three SharePoint books.

Ben Curry is the author or co-author on 3 books on SharePoint products and technologies

Other Authors on staff or Alliance:Marylin WhitePenny CoventryDaniel GalantDaniel WebsterMark SchneiderPaul StorkSteve SmithCraig CarpenterCorro'll Driskell And more

Agenda Understanding Putability and Findability Outlining the problems with Putability

and Findability in most organizations Understanding how the Managed

Metadata Service resolves many of these problems

What is Putability Definition:

The quality of putting content in the correct location with the correct metadata

The degree to which we put quality information into our information management system

Truths: What goes in, must come out: garbage in,

garbage out Our users will resist taking the time to put

quality information into the system Findability is directly impacted by our Putability

practices

What is Findability? Definition:

The quality of being locatable or navigable The degree to which objects are easy to discover or

locate Truths:

You can’t use what you can’t find Information that can’t be found is worthless Our customer’s can’t purchase what they can’t find Information that is hard to find is hardly used Authority, trust and findability are interwoven Key to success when working with information is

findability

Putability, Findability & Technology Most are clueless when it comes to

thinking about how information should go into SharePoint This wasn’t encouraged by the product

team Collaboration has been the focus

Most equate Findability with an application: buy a search application and you’ve solved findability

PLUG IT IN, TURN IT ON AND FIND IT!

Google’s Promise

A robust Information Architecture solution will:1. save your company significant monies through increased efficiencies2. while simultaneously giving your organization a greater ROI on its’ Microsoft Technology Investments3. that contributes to a competitive advantage4. by making information “faster” in your organization

Inefficient ECM Systems Over 30 billion original documents are

created and consumed each year Cost of documents is estimated to be as

much as 15% of annual revenues 85% of documents are never retrieved 50% of documents are duplicate in some

way 60% of stored documents are obsolete For every $1 spent to create the

document, $10 are spent to manage it

Excuses for not having ECM If we need it, we can usually find it…

Just send an email – someone will find it for me No one will ever sue us

If we do get sued, we’ll find what we need to defend ourselves

We’ve got to pick our battles $20/file a document, $120/find a misfiled

document & $220 to re-produce a lost document Green/Schmeen

NMP if a document is copied 19 times

Lack of ECM Excuses

Information security isn’t at the top of our list of things to do – I trust my employees If people want to take home work, that’s

a good thing! ECM is too expensive and there’s

little ROI, so why invest in it? Reality: you’re already paying for a bad

ECM – a good ECM will save you money through better efficiencies

Is Findability Understood? When asked “How well is findability understood in

your organization”, the following answers were given: It is well understood and addressed: 17% It is vaguely understood: 31% Not sure how search and findability are different: 30% No clear understanding of findability at all: 22%

Over half (55%) of organizations today either don’t know what findability is or they are not able to differentiate findability from search technologies

Many believe that if they have a stand-alone search tool, then findability is being adequately addressed

Findability vs. Search Search is too-often viewed as an application-specific

solution for findability Search focuses on trying to ask the right question Search focuses on “matching” keywords with content

under the assumption that if I find the right word, I’ve found the right content

Findability is not a technology: It is a way of managing information that is baked into the organization It is a well-defined and well-executed strategic

model of consistent practices and actions Technologies contribute to an overall Findability solution,

but a robust findability solution is much more than the implementation of a few technologies or applications

The Paradox of Findability as a Corporate Strategy When asked the degree to which Findability is critical

to their overall business goals and success, 62% of respondents indicated that it is imperative or significant. Only 5% felt it had minimal or no impact on business success.

Yet, 49% responded that even though Findability is strategically essential, they have no formal plan or set of goals for Findability in their organization.

Of the other 51% who claimed to have a strategy, 26% reported that their strategy was ad hoc, meaning that they have no strategy at all.

So: 75% have no Findability strategy, even though many believe it is strategically essential

The Cost of Information WorkTask Avg Hours per

Worker Per Week

Cost per Worker per Week

Cost Per Worker Per Year

Email: Read & Answer

14.5 418.3 21,752

Create Documents

13.3 333.7 19,952

Search 9.5 274.1 14,251Analyze Information

9.6 277.0 14, 401

Edit/Review 8.8 253.9 13,201

Hours Wasted Per WeekTask Avg Hours Cost Per

WorkerCost Per Year

Search but not find

3.5 101 5,251

Recreating Content

3.0 87 4,501

Acquiring documents with little or not automation

2.3 66 3,450

Version Control Issues

2.2 63 3,300

The Cost of Poor Findability Avg number of queries per day: 20 Avg number of hours/week spent finding

info: 6.5 3.5 hours spent trying to find information but

not finding it 3.0 hours recreating information that you

know exists, but you cannot find 6.5 hours/week = $9,750 cost/worker/year

10K workers: $97,500,000/year Too high? OK – Cut it by 90%:

$9.75M/year

What keeps us from Finding Information?

Poor search functionality: 71% Inconsistency in how we tag/describe data: 59% Lack of adequate tags/descriptors: 55% Information not available electronically: 49% Poor navigation: 48% Don’t know where to look: 48% Constant information change: 37% Can’t access the system that hosts the info: 30% Don’t know what I’m looking for: 22% Lack the skills to find the information: 22%

Who is responsible for tagging? Authors: 40% Records Managers: 29% SME’s: 25% Anyone: 23% Don’t know: 12% No one: 16% This means that 76% don’t know who is responsible

for tagging information to make it more findable. Result of not having information governance Can’t have SharePoint governance without IG

Findability and ECM

29% - Sharepoint is working in conflict with other ECM systems

16% - Sharepoint is integrated with existing ECM suites

12% - It’s the only ECM suite 43% - SharePoint is used to “fill in

some functions”

Findability and ECM

36% - IT rolls out SharePoint with no input from Record Managers or ECM teams

14% - admit that no one is in charge and that SharePoint + ECM is out of control

SMS/text messages, blogs, wikis and other web 2.0 technologies lack inclusion in the ECM solution in 75% of organizations This represents a major risk to

companies

Research Summary: We spend a lot of time looking for and re-

creating information that already exists Most organizations don’t have a coherent

findability solution Most organizations have not aligned

SharePoint with their larger ECM needs Many organizations confuse search with

findability Yet, most organizations believe that

Findability is strategically important to their success

Other Putability/Findability Problems Information Overload Databreaches eDiscovery

Information Overload False Premise: More information is better. True Premise: We need the right

information at the right time Information overload reduces findability The number of sources of information is

bewildering: Books, magazines, newspapers, billboards,

blogs, wikis, web sites, telephone, television, video, email, text messages, instant messages, music, social networks, conversations, etc….

Information Overload

$900 Billion cost to the economy in 2008 (WSJ)

54% of us report feeling a “high” when we find information that we’re looking for

80% of us feel “driven to gather as much information as possible to keep up with customers and competitors”

Information Overload Research Study at Kings College in London:

Information overload harms concentration more than smoking marijuana

IQ dropped by 10 points during information overload while smoking pot dropped IQ’s by 5 points

Information Overload Over half of us report experiencing email

fatigue Spend 1.5 hours/day processing emails.

20% spend over 3 hours/day processing emails

67% process emails outside of work hours

“Sheer overload” is reported to be the biggest problem with email

Findability is harmed

Information Overload Psychiatrist Ed Hallowell: Attention

Deficit Trait (ADT) Have too much input – more than you can

possibly manage Make decisions quickly – without reflection Push the “close door” button repeatedly in

the elevator Can’t manage as well as you’d like Try harder and harder to keep up Addicted to speed

Regulatory Breaches

35 states have laws requiring that individuals be notified if their confidential or personal data has been lost, stolen or compromised.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has identified more than 215 million records of U.S. Residents that have been exposed due to security breaches since 2005

2007 Study by Ponemon Institute Avg cost of a data breach is

$197/record 43% increase from 2005 Avg total cost per reporting company:

$6.3M Cost of lost business accelerates:

Increased from 2005 at 30%, avg $4.1M/company and $128/record compromised.

Lost business now accounts for 65% of data breach costs compared to 56% in 2006 study.

2007 Study Continued

Third-party breaches (contractors, consultants, partners & vendors) Accounted for 40% of the data breaches

– up from 29% in 2006 & 21% in 2005 Most costly: $231/record

CheckPoint Study 2009

#1 threat to company’s network security: employees who inadvertently expose confidential information Hackers were #5 Mobile devices were #12 Competitor espionage #14

E-Discovery and FindabilityAmendments to the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure Amended December

1, 2006 – adds electronic files

Significant departure from paper-based discovery rules

Complicates findability, data storage and exposure to liability

What is E-Discovery? Electronic discovery (e-Discovery) refers to

“any process in which electronic data is sought, located, secured, and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case”.

This includes but is not limited to computer forensics, email archiving, online review, and proactive management.

The emergent e-Discovery field augments legal, constitutional, political, security, and personal privacy issues.

When does eDiscovery happen?

Dispute

CustomerEmployeePartner

Company

File Civil Claim

Discovery Trial or Settlement

Discovery is the exchange of evidence between the parties.On Dec. 1, 2006, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure guide discovery in the US federal court system have been amended to include electronic documents.

Electronic Discovery IT and security teams are expected to help with

the management of such information Processes: creation, storage, archival, and destruction Security objectives: availability, confidentiality, and

integrity Organizations will need closer ties between legal

and IT groups to create improved policies and infrastructure

Sometimes you might be a third party to the case but still may have important information Banks are often in this situation

If you have reasonable expectation to be involved in a case, then you have a duty to preserve evidence

E-Discovery Risks are Real There are many horror stories about

adverse judgments when ESI isn’t preserved•Past rulings have resulted in millions/billions in penalties• Philip Morris (emails not saved: $2.75M fines, witnesses barred)

• Bank of America Securities (slow to produce emails and records; inaccurate statements about ESI: $10M fine to SEC)

• Morgan Stanley (backup tapes not disclosed: judge allowed jury to infer fraud; $1.5B judgment – in review)

•28% of organizations will take more than a month to produce documents for e-discovery

Copyright English, Bleeker & Associates, Inc. 44

Almost two years after the FRCP Amendments:

57% of Law Firms surveyed say their clients are not ready to find and produce information relevant to litigation.

39% of In-House Counsel surveyed say their companies are not prepared for e-discovery.

Solution ValidationeDiscovery is (still) mission critical

Information Week: Companies Not Ready For E-Discovery, September 23, 2008

Early Disclosure Discussions

Outline preservation steps undertaken Difficulty to locate and preserve is not an

excuse Preservation Policies ≠ Retention

Policies Retention: winnow out unneeded info Preservation: retain info pertinent to the

proceedings Lack of agreement on Preservation

methods and scope often results in court orders Difficulty to locate and preserve is not an

excuse

E-Discovery and SharePoint

Check with legal dept about what information should be findable and by whom in a legal proceeding.

Take their results as part of the business requirements for your SharePoint farm

Develop technical & governance req’s

Implement and monitor Legal should use Search to help

discover non-compliance

MMS – in a Nutshell

Content type distribution system Enables enterprise-wide CT usage Retains local control and extensibility Pull technology

Enterprise taxonomy development Allows global taxonomy to be enforced Allows local growth of the taxonomy Allows taxonomy to be developed over

time Flexible, extensible, “smart”

MMS Impact

Department Solution

• Enterprise Solution

Collaboration Focus

• Information Focus

People Focus

• Business Focus

Problem Putability Findability MMS Feature

Users don’t want to take the time to tag information Force metadata

assignments via closed lists and DIP

Users don’t know what metadata to select Users can select

from a set of choices in a choice list – MMS will make suggestions

Users need to add their own metadata Users can add

terms to an open list. Admin can merge words in a term set later on

Need to use same metadata constructs in the Enterprise

Content Types can be distributed across the enterprise

Need to enforce global metadata with local additions

Content types can be extended at the site level

THE MMS IS ABOUT PUTABILITY, NOT FINDABILITY