Thinking Records

James Lappin’s records management blog

Talking records – podcast discussion with Christian Walker

Posted on January 29, 2012

In this podcast, Christian Walker and I discuss whether records management is compatible with enterprise 2.0.  We talk about the problems of capturing records into a records systems such as an EDRMS.  We ponder on whether anyone could or should integrate their EDRM with a web service such as Twitter or Facebook.

I express mixed feelings about the concept of asking users to declare things as a record. (Chris wrote a blogpost ‘records matter, declaration doesn’t‘ last year, with a more recent follow up).

We discuss whether text analytics could be used to automatically select which e-mails should be saved as a record. We conclude that you probably could in isolated areas of your business, that you studied in depth and trained the analytic engine in, but that it would be difficult if not impossible to scale it up over all the activities of an organisation.

We discuss the challenges of using the word ‘record’ given that when anyone uses it you don’t know whether they mean one document or a collection (large or small) of documents. Chris wonders whether it is viable to carry on using the word ‘records’ but neither he nor I could come up with an alternatiive.

We end up talking about the proposed (but postponed) SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). Chris opposes the idea that a platform such as a filesharing site should be closed down if some of its users contribute content that infringes intellectual property rights.  He says it is up to content owners to protect their content online. He calls the media backers of SOPA ‘dinosaurs’.  I recall that we records managers get called dinosaurs too and I try to draw parallels.  The new media companies of Silicon valley (Facebook, Google, Twitter) are interested in the platform rather than the content.  The old media companies (Disney, News International) and records managers are interested in the content rather than the platform. The thing that records managers and old media have in common is that sometimes we seem to be swimming against the times.

Chris blogs at http://christianpwalker.wordpress.com/   and tweets as @chris_p_walker

Click here to play the podcast:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/talkingrecords/RecordsManagement_and_E2.0.mp3

Categories: Uncategorized

MoReq2010 update

Posted on January 5, 2012

The DLM Forum held their triannual conference in Brussels last month.  The conference brought together archivists and records managers from across Europe.  The DLM forum had earlier in the year published the MoReq2010 electronic records management system specification, and there was much talk of the specification at the conference.

The DLM forum released the first sets of test scripts to vendors immediately prior to the conference. This is a significant point in the life of an electronic records management system specification. It means that vendors get to see exactly how their products will be judged by test centres.  This gives them a solid basis for deciding whether or not it will be worth their while modifying their products to comply with the specification.  It means they can get down in ernest to the work of preparing products to comply with the specification.

I have two predictions to make about MoReq2010.  Firstly that it will be a slow burner, secondly that it will end up being the most influential of the world’s electronic records management specifications.

It will take some time before the exact nature of MoReq2010 compliant products becomes apparent.   It is likely that MoReq2010 will lead to a very heterogenous set of products, ranging from products that simply manage records held in one type of application (products that simply manage records held in SharePoint, products that simply manage records held in an e-mail system) to products that can manage records held in any application that the organisation uses.  This is in contrast to the previous generation of electronic records management specifications (from DoD 5015.2 to MoReq2) that led to a very homogenous set of products – namely those products dubbed ‘electronic records management systems’ (EDRMS).

It was interesting to hear Jon Garde say at the conference that he hoped that the acronym that comes to be applied to systems that comply with MoReq2010 is ‘MCRS’ (MoReq2010 compliant record system) rather than ‘EDRMS’.

The second reason why MoReq2010 will be a slow burner is that it is the first specification which has been designed to be added to as it goes along.  One of the key learnings from the last seven years has been the realisation that the digital world is constantly creating new formats. Although we as records managers are primarily interested in the content and context of records rather than their format, we have to acknowledge that different formats have different management requirements.  The old paradigm of documents being aggregated into files is hard enough to apply to e-mail, let alone blogposts, status updates, discussion board posts and wiki pages.  E-mails tend naturally to aggregate themselves into e-mail accounts, blogposts aggregate themselves into blogs, status updates aggregate themselves into streams, wiki pages aggregate themselves into wikis.

MoReq 2010 takes a more generic approach. In the core requirements (the requirements that any MCRS has to adhere to) it talks in a rather abstract fashion of the system being able to manage ‘records’ that are grouped into ‘aggregations’ and which receive their retention rule from a records classification.   This begs the questions – what formats of records can any specific MCRS manage? How will it aggregate them?

The core requirements of MoReq2010 will be supplemented by extension modules.  At the DLM forum conference it was announced that extension modules were being written for specific types of record formats (for example e-mails), and for particular types of aggregation (for example the traditional ‘file’).  Buyers will be able to see what record formats and what types of aggregations a particular MCRS will be able to manage by looking at which extension modules the particular MCRS complies with.

In theory extension modules could be written for any and every format that came along and that had specific management requirements.  In practice this is likely to depend on the  capacity of the DLM forum to produce such extension modules.  Whereas the core requirements of MoReq2010 were substantially the work of one man (Jon Garde, with help from colleagues such as Richard Blake) it is hoped that a much wider base of people will contribute to the writing of extension modules. At the conference Jon appealed to those assembled to step forward and volunteer to help in the writing of these modules.

Jon Garde predicted an explosion in MoReq2010 over the next 12 months, as both MoReq2010 compliant products, and MoReq2010 extension modules started to appear.

As I write this post the most influential electronic records management specification in the world is the US DoD 5015.2.   That specification is looking increasingly jaded and outdated.  It was last revised in 2007, and the latest version does not reflect the changed nature of the digital landscape in organisations since the rise of both social computing and of SharePoint.   Over the medium term MoReq 2010 will overtake DoD 5015.2 in importance provided only that vendors find it feasible and profitable to develop products that comply with it.

Categories: Uncategorized

What is SharePoint good for?

Posted on November 13, 2011

SharePoint is unique amongst information management systems in that it is rarely purchased with any specific purpose in mind. It is most often bought bundled in with other products when an IT department negotiates an enterprise agreement with Microsoft.

Microsoft enterprise agreement

This creates a challenge for such organisations. What should they use it for? What shouldn’t they use it for?

Giving people out of the box SharePoint team sites and hoping that they do something useful with them produces very variable results. Some teams will make their site work. Many others will either decline to put the effort in to tailor the site to their needs, or will tailor the site but make a bad job of it and the result will be unpopular with their colleagues. SharePoint team sites are most effective when they are targeted at (and restricted to) those areas of the business whose importance justifies the configuration of a template team site targeted specifically at their work.

The SharePoint Symposium in Washington DC that I attended last week brought together analysts such as Tony Byrne, Alan Pelz-Sharpe, Rop Koplowitz and Mark Gilbert; together with SharePoint implementers such as Shawn Shell and Richard Harbridge

SharePoint is a platform, not an application
Tony Byrne said SharePoint was best described as a platform rather than as an application. It had a great many features which provided organisations with the potential to build applications.

An application is a set of features that have been combined together to provide an organisation with a useful capability (a contracts management capability, a social computing capability etc.). SharePoint is feature-rich, but in most areas these features have not been knitted together in a way that provides an organisation with a useful capability.

For example in social computing SharePoint has every feature that you might ask for – blogs, wikis, microblogging, discussion boards etc.  The features may be variable in quality (Tony said that the microblogging ‘sucks’), but they are all there. However you could not roll out vanilla SharePoint blogs, wikis, discussion boards, activity streams etc. and expect any significant uptake of these features.  If you wanted a social computing capability that people would actually find useable, interesting and lively then you would either have to build a customised user interface on top of those features, extend SharePoint with a third party tool, or use a separate application entirely.

A member of the audience asked whether SharePoint could be used for business process management.  Tony said that SharePoint had good routing features, and if all the work in a particular process was to be done within SharePoint itself then it could fit the bill. But a business process management capability implies that a system is orchestrating a complex process across several different applications and SharePoint lacks the ability to do that.

The SharePoint ecosystem

Tony told us that consultants, ISVs and developers liked SharePoint because it ‘meant never having to say no to a client’. Given enough time and resource SharePoint could be made to do almost anything. SharePoint extends the .Net framework (Microsoft’s answer to Java, which is in itself a platform). It offers an object model and services on top of .Net that developers can make use of.  It is better documented than most other enterprise applications, and it’s codebase is remarkably stable considering the scale of the product. It also has an enormous ecosystem, and Microsoft themselves estimate that for every €1 spent on SharePoint licences €6 are spent with the SharePoint ecosystem.

Tony warned organisations against trying to use SharePoint to meet every technological need. Most organisations have SharePoint licences, and when a technology need arose someone, somewhere will ask the question ‘why not use SharePoint for that?’. Tony advised organisations to turn this question on its head and ask ‘why SharePoint?, ‘Why would customising and/or extending SharePoint be more effective than getting a tool that is already optimised to fulfil that purpose?’

Mark Gilbert said that organisations were getting frustrated at having to implement third party tools in order to do things that they expected SharePoint to be able to do natively.

Alan Pelz-Sharpe described the SharePoint ecosystem as being a very crowded market, full of small companies. There are lots of start-ups and many companies are operating on venture capital funding. Some of the companies will last but many won’t. Some will go-under, some will get acquired. When buying a third party product to extend SharePoint, organisations should consider the financial stability of the company and their road map for the future. Will they still be around to update their product every time a service pack is issued or a new version of SharePoint is released?

Using SharePoint to provide a user interface to data held elsewhere
Shawn Shell described some powerful uses of SharePoint’s Business Connectivity Services (BCS).  Organisations often have databases that contain valuable data (for example cusomer data in a customer database) that is not available to all staff because the organisation is reluctant to pay for extra user licences.  SharePoint’s BCS allows you to set up a connector to the database, and to surface the customer data as a SharePoint list.   This data can then be used to improve the findability of customer data in SharePoint. A column from the list such as ‘Customer ID’ could be used as a controlled vocabulary within the SharePoint environment, to be added as metadata to documents held in document libraries within the SharePoint implementation.

Office 365
Tony Byrne said that Microsoft seemed to have settled on a three year release cycle for SharePoint.  This three year wait was fine for steady areas like document management, but in quicker moving areas like social computing it put SharePoint at a disadvantage compared to more agile competitors.

Shawn Shell said SharePoint Online (a component of Microsoft ‘s cloud based Office 365) could give Microsoft the opportunity to introduce new features on a rolling basis rather than waiting for the next product release.   Shawn described SharePoint Online as a ‘weird mixture’ of the core SharePoint features (lists, libraries, sites etc.) available in SharePoint Foundation, together with some, but not all, of the features of the paid-for SharePoint 2007.

Rob Koplowitz said that early adopters are having a really hard time with SharePoint Online,  but he thought that over the long term it would be the way that most SharePoint clients will go.

Mark Gilbert said that at the moment Office 365 was geared to small and medium sized organisations.  At the Office 365 product launch Microsoft used the example of a dog grooming company.

SharePoint versus Box.net
Alan Pelz-Sharpe said that SharePoint is huge business and it is not going to go away any time soon, but cloud based file share services such as box.net, Huddle and others are the first to start to firing arrows across SharePoint’s bow. The reason why they are a threat is that filesharing is the core of SharePoint’s capabilities.  Filesharing is the one thing SharePoint does really well out of the box.

Alan said that  SharePoint Online would  find it hard to compete with born-in-the-cloud competitors.  Companies like Box.net  were cloud based from the start. They have optimised their product architecture for the cloud, all of their development effort goes into their cloud offering, and their partner channel is geared for the cloud.  In contrast SharePoint ‘s history is as an on-premise product.  Its architecture is geared to on-premise, the vendors in its ecosystem were mostly geared around on-premise.

Mark Gilbert said that SharePoint is an environment that organisations are used to tweaking and fine tuning, but you cannot do that to anything like the same extent with SharePoint Online.

Rob Koplowitz said that SharePoint was a Swiss army knife of a product that had a huge array of different features.  A service like Box.net was like a screwdriver – it did one job (filesharing).  But if you only want a screwdriver, why buy a Swiss army knife? The threat to SharePoint from Box.net and others would come if organisations decided that they wanted a way to tackle the fileshare problem without engaging with the complexity of SharePoint.

The analysts noted a trend in attempts to tackle the filesharing problem.  Early attempts to get away from shared drives came from powerful systems like Documentum that imposed rigid disciplines on users and gave strong central controls.  SharePoint upstaged these products by providing  a product that was simpler for end-users (at the expense of weaker central control and a more sprawling, less coherent repository).  Now Box.net comes along and offers a solution that is even more simple for end-users, and has even less central controls.

Rob Koplowitz pondered whether organisations were doomed to forever repeat the shared drive scenario on different products (SharePoint, Box.net etc.) with content sprawling on systems that are always beyond the organisation’s control.

Categories: Uncategorized

Is SharePoint a records management system? – podcast

Posted on October 19, 2011

Last Friday Brad Teed (CTO of GimmalSoft) and I discussed whether or not SharePoint could be regarded as a records management system. We recorded the discussion for the ECM Talk podcast series.

Click on the play button below to hear the podcast. If the play button is not showing in your browser (it needs Flash) then you can get the podcast from here or from i-Tunes (search on ‘ECM Talk’). The podcast is around 45 minutes minutes long.

Brad said that SharePoint 2010 could be regarded as a records management system with the caveat that it did not do things in the way that traditional records management systems did them.

I conceded that SharePoint 2010 had records management features (such as holding and applying retention rules, holding a hierarchical classification, locking documents down as records) but I did not think that these features were brought together in a coherent enough way to justify calling SharePoint a records management ‘system’.

SharePoint 2010 offered organisations two different approaches to records management – the in-place approach and the records centre approach. Brad and I described and critiqued these two different approaches . I said it was a choice between ‘a rock and a hard place’ because both approaches had serious drawbacks:

  • The in-place approach left records scattered around team sites under the control of local site owners without providing any reporting capability to give a records manager visibility over them all
  • The records centre approach had the advantage of bringing records together into one place that the records manager could control. However it brought with it the complexity of managing the routing rules necessary to get documents from SharePoint team sites to the record centre

Brad and I will be debating the issue of records management in SharePoint live at the SharePoint Symposium in Washington DC on 2 November 2011.

Categories: Uncategorized

Musing Over MoReq2010- podcast series with Jon Garde

Posted on October 12, 2011

There are many differences between MoReq2010 and previous electronic records management certification regimes (including DoD in the US, TNA in the UK, the previous version of MoReq in Europe etc.)

MoReq2010 is different in:

  • its fundamental assumptions (it assumes that records are captured in many different systems within an organisation, rather than in one records system)
  • what it is fundamentally trying to do (specify the minimum set of things that any application needs to do to manage its records, rather than specify a general records system that does everything any organisation would want its record system to do)
  • the concepts it uses  (most notably the concept of an ‘aggregation’ replacing the concept of a ‘file’ )
  • the way it is structured (with the functionality grouped into ten services)
  • the fact that it will develop over time (with new modules being added to meet to meet specific needs)

I spoke to Jon Garde (the lead author of MoReq 2010) before his talk to the 2011 IRMS conference.  He said that it was impossible to do justice to all those changes within the confines of a 30 presentation speech.  I suggested a podcast series in which we could discuss in detail the different areas of MoReq2010, and the thinking behind them. We have called the podcast series MusingOverMoReq2010.

We have recorded three epsiodes so far – episode 1 discusses the general philosophy behind MoReq 2010. Episode 2 looks at the classification service, and the role of a classfication within a MoReq2010 compliant system.   Episode 3 looks at the disposal service and how retention rules are applied within a MoReq2010 compliant system

As well as discussing an aspect of MoReq2010, each episode also contains news of recent developements around MoReq2010. This is to allow for the fact that MoReq2010 will continue to develop as extension modules are written, and as the testing centres get set up and certification gets underway. The third section of the show is a ‘postbag’ section where we will discuss any questions you send us.

You can listen to it on the Musing Over MoReq2010 website.   You can subscribe to it from the i-tunes store (search on Musing over MoReq2010) or by getting your podcatcher to subscribe to this feed: http://musingovermoreq2010.com/MusingOverMoReq2010_feed.atom

Categories: Uncategorized

10 questions on the current state of the ECM market

Posted on October 8, 2011

On Wednesday I recorded an ECM talk podcast in which I put  10 questions  about the current state of the enterprise content management market to Alan Pelz-Sharpe.

Click on the play button below to hear the podcast. If you don’t see the play button (it needs Flash) then you can get the podcast from here. The podcast is just over 50 minutes long.

The ten questions, and a flavour of some of Alan’s answers are given below – there is a lot more detail in the actual podcast itself

Why have HP bought Autonomy?

Alan said that most analysts were surprised at how much HP paid for Autonomy.  The best guess at what HP (a hardware company) wants to do with Autonomy (a software company) is that they may wish to create some kind of appliance which has Autonomy’s IDOL search engine already loaded onto it (a bit like the Google search appliance).  One thing that HP and Autonomy have in common is that they have both bought well-regarded electronic records management vendors (Tower and Meridio respectively), and done very little with them.

How hard have the ECM vendors been hit by the rise of SharePoint?

Alan said that the ECM vendors haven’t bit hit as hard as you might think. Their revenues are still rising, and most of them enjoy good relations with Microsoft.

How does EMC and Open Text compare with the bigger ECM vendors (Oracle and IBM)

Alan said that Oracle and IBM are so big because they do a huge variety of stuff as well as ECM.  But at the end of the day if you are buying FileNet from IBM you are dealing with the FileNet division, not the whole massive company. So for buyers of ECM systems company size doesn’t matter that much.  Open Text is the largest company that focuses exclusively on ECM.   EMC’s business is mainly about storage.  They bought Documentum, but Documentum is very different from the rest of the EMC group and there has not been many synergies.

What is happening in the CRM (Customer relationship management) arena and how does it relate to ECM?

Essentially ECM and CRM are seperate worlds without much overlap.  CRM is a vital tool for many organisations.  As yet there is not a great deal of tie-ins with ECM.  Oracle has both a CRM and an ECM suite, which work together reasonably well.  SAP signed a large deal with Open Text but there doesn’t seem to be a huge number of organisations using SAP together with Open Text products.  Many of the CRM tools will do a little bit of document management of customer related documents, but for the most part organisations will have CRMs that don’t talk to whatever ECM product(s) they have

The Europeans have just revised their electronic records management specification (MoReq2010).  When will the US records management standard DoD 5015 be revised (it was issued back in 2007)

Alan said he didn’t know of any plans to revise DoD 5015.  SharePoint drove a horse and cart through DoD 5015 because Microsoft made the decision to release a document management product that did not comply with it but had huge market success.  Alan said he didn’t see the point in revising it –  it was specifically tailored to US Government (DoD stands for Department of Defense) so some of the requirements are overkill for organisations in other sectors.

After the podcast it occured to me that there was no need for DoD 5015 to be revised.  MoReq2010 is the first of the electronic records management specifications to be extensible. Rather than revise DoD5015, if there were requirements specific to the US  (or to particular sectors in the US) that were not covered in the core requirements of MoReq2010 then a seperate module could be written to cover those requirements for vendors wishing to target their products to the US market.

What is happening in the intranet arena?

Alan said that nothing dramatic is happening in the intranet arena.  Some intranet makeover projects will have been hit by the economic downturn.  Alan can’t understand why some organisations want to use the same product to manage there external web-site and their intranet – to him they are fundamentally different things with different requirements.

Do you know any organisation that manages their e-mail well?

Alan said that of all the ECM implementations that he sees, the type that gives the quickest and most reliable return on investment is an e-mail archiving tool brought in to take stored e-mails off the mail servers.  I said I would like to see some of the e-mail archiving vendors apply for certification for their products under MoReq2010, so that buyers could be more confident of their ability to export e-mails out of their e-mail archive if they neeeded to.

What do you think of PAS 89?

PAS 89 will be a UK standard on enterprise content management, with a view to becoming an international standard.  Alan said PAS 89 was a good attempt to define the scope of enterprise content management, although it was hard to think of what an organisation would specifically use it for.

How does Alfresco compare with the proprietary ECM products 

Alan said that if we were talking about open source ECM products Nuxeo should be mentioned alongside Alfresco. Both of them are established, mainstream enterprise content management systems.  The main difference between them and the proprietary ECM products is the licensing model.

How does Google Apps compare with the established ECM products 

In terms of impact on the ECM market Alan is more interested in Box.Net than Google Apps.  Alan and James discussed the prospect of new start ups deciding not to set up shared drives and instead using services like Box.Net in the cloud to provide a relatively simple place for colleagues to store and share documents.

After the podcast it occured to me that for a good 15 years we have been wondering what would replace shared drives. Shared drives have survived so long because anything that could have replaced them for general document storage (EDRMS, SharePoint) has proved more complex than shared drives, and so shared drives retained their role as an uncomplicated, quick place to store documents.  From a users perspective something like Box.net is as simple to use as a shared drive, and has the advantage that folders and documents can be shared with people outside the team, and with people outside the organisation.   From an organisation’s information management point of view box.net is currently little better than a shared drive in terms of being able to apply retention rules and a records classification (though maybe if an ecosystem grows around Box.net someone could come up with a MoReq2010 compliant plug in for it- that would be interesting!)


Categories: Uncategorized

The implications of MoReq2010 for records management practice

Posted on October 8, 2011

The DLM forum is having its triennial conference in Brussels this coming December.  I responded to the call for speakers with the following submission:

MoReq2010 can be seen as an attempt to ensure that the records management baby is not chucked out with the EDRMS bathwater.

The EDRM idea was solidly based in records management theory, but lost its market viability after 2008 thanks to the global economic downturn, the rise of SharePoint, and perceived problems with usability and user acceptability of EDRM systems and their attendant corporate fileplans.

SharePoint 2007 and 2010 both offer records management features, but neither offers a well-thought through records management model.  Most organisations with SharePoint implementations have not attempted to use records management features such as the SharePoint records centre.  Of those that are trying to use those features only a relatively small number will be able to impose sufficient governance to enable them to viably manage records in SharePoint.

For most organisations SharePoint will be a records management problem rather than a records management solution.  In a few years time more organisations will be saying ‘we need help managing the records that are scattered around our SharePoint implementation’ than will be saying ‘thanks to SharePoint content types we can now apply retention rules to records across our organisation’.

MoReq2010 doesn’t kill off the EDRM model (you can  use a MoReq2010 compliant system as an EDRM provided it complies with the plug-in modules for a user interface and a hierarchical classification), but it does not attempt to revive it either.

The fact that MoReq2010 is offering two alternative to EDRM, rather than just one, whilst continuing to support the EDRM model itself, indicates that the profession is not yet ready to commit its weight behind one single approach.  It also means that we are in a transition period, during which many records managers and consultants will be uncertain as to what approach to advise their organisations to take.

The two new approaches offered by MoReq2010 are ways of dealing with the ‘multiple repository problem’ – the fact that every organisation deploys numerous different applications to create, capture and store content and records.   EDRM systems rarely tackled that problem.  They typically relied on colleagues voluntarily declaring material into the EDRM as records, and there was rarely any incentive for colleagues to move documents out of a line of business application into an EDRM.

The back-end repository approach

The first of the two approaches is what I would call the back-end repository approach (I would like to call it repository-as-a-service but I fear you may mistake it for a cloud offering).  In this approach a MoReq2010 compliant system governs content captured in the multiple different applications of the organisation.  It governs either by taking that content out of those applications and storing it in the MoReq2010 compliant system, or by protecting and governing that content whilst it stays within those applications themselves.

This is an approach that vendors have been working on over the past five years – both EDRM/ECM vendors looking for ways to continue selling to customers who have chosen SharePoint instead of an EDRM, and e-mail archiving vendors looking to expand the scope of their archiving systems.  It is also compatible with service orientated architecture of IT departments, but no-one knows yet how it will play with moves to the cloud. MoReq2010 for the first time offers a certification regime for vendors taking this approach, giving the approach more gravitas and credibility, and offering buyers reassurance that their back end repository/archive will not in itself become a black hole from which it is hard to migrate records.

The back-end repository approach significantly changes the role of the records manager.  In EDRM implementations the records manager was interacting with users, training them, cajoling them, tackling change management challenges, and designing classifications that end-users would directly interact with   In the  back-end repository model the records manager has a different role – connecting legacy applications to the back end repository, and trying to ensure that no new application is deployed into the organisation unless it hooks into the back-end repository from day one.  The interaction with, and impact on, end-users will inevitably be reduced, but it is to be hoped it won’t be eliminated entirely.   It will still be important for end-users to be aware of whether or not a piece of content that they have contributed to a particular application has been captured by the back-end repository.

The in-application approach

The second of the two approaches is the addition of records management functionality to each  application deployed in the organisation so that these applications can manage their own records.

This is the approach that I sense the authors of MoReq2010 would like to see prevail in the world. They are well aware that every time a record moves from system to system it loses context, and that ideally records management metadata would be captured from the moment a record was first captured into an application.

This approach is beyond the capabilities of any single organisation – no organisation could customise all their applications for them to become MoReq2010 compliant.  It becomes viable only when the vendors of line of business systems, make their products MoReq2010 compliant – whether they be sector specific applications like social care systems for local authorities, or line of business applications like HR systems.  Its a battle worth taking on for the profession, and worth fighting, but success is likely to be patchy.  The hope is that a tipping point could be reached when everybody expected every application to be MoReq2010 compliant, and felt that something is wrong if it was not compliant.

Categories: Uncategorized
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers