This is my second post in which I answer questions that were posed but not answered during the AIIM Market Intelligence webinar on its Market IQ on Findability.

Readers may still listen to the recorded webinar during which many other questions were answered and issues discussed. Previous posts also provide additional Q&A on Findability.

Q: Is there an application which can fulfill the scheduling and classification needs of a records management system plus advanced querying using complex Boolean searching (multiple keywords, thesauri, nested queries, etc.)? It seems that library software developers need to speak to records software developers to integrate both functions.

A: There are several applications in the market today that provide integrated sophisticated records management capabilities and advanced Findability capabilities.  Two of these providers, Vignette and  OpenText, underwrote this report.  These “solutions” have typically been developed though the integration of “standalone” content management and search tools with records management tools.  In the case of OpenText for example, the OpenText search and Findability product was integrated with the records management software from PSSoftware, and Vignette acquired Tower Technology. Open Text was actually the first of the ECM vendors to integrate with records management products by acquisition. However, many ECM vendors have now also done so.

Q: Does findability collide with records management or does it enable RM to be successful?

A:  Obviously this question is related to the one above.  There is great synergy between RM and Findability technology, which led to the acquisition of many RM products by many ECM/Findability vendors.  Advanced Findability techniques can be used as a front-end to RM, providing automated approaches to classification and declaration.  Findability can also be used as a back-end providing enhanced and varied approaches to retrieving records.

Q:  (This is actually two separate questions that have been merged) Why do you think that organizations lack a champion for Findability? Is there a lack of ownership for intranet initiatives, metrics and accountability?

A:  One of the fundamental obstacles to developing and deploying an enterprise Findability strategy is the lack of a champion and owner.  There is no ownership of a Findability strategy because no one is held accountable for Findability.  It is a feature of many IT strategies that slips through the accountability cracks.  The lack stems from the fact that Findability is not, in most organizations, viewed as a centralized capability.  It is too often viewed as a function of the content – each repository and content-related application has its own approach to Findability.  These embedded approaches are usually after thoughts, or features tacked onto an underlying tool. Most organizations have yet to realize the benefits that can be achieved trough a centralized managed approach to Findability.  This of course is related to the fact that metrics for measuring the impact and benefits of Findability  can be difficult to define and measure. What is the bottom-line value of faster, more effective, and accurate retrieval of content in your organization?  They exist, but are most often associated with soft benefits – not directly tied to hard-dollar gains or savings.   

Q:  Can you define "Parametric search"?

A: Parametric search is search based on meta-tags. If content is associated with one or more tags (i.e. data values associated with a body of content but not necessarily stored within the content itself such as a date, author name, or contract number), parametric search enables the query and retrieval of the content based on user specific values within the meta-tags. For example, “Retrieve all documents published between January 2007 and January 2008,” is a parametric search leveraging a published date tag.

Q:  Please comment on the pros/cons of a faceted taxonomy of metadata to organize unstructured information.

A:  Faceted taxonomies can be very valuable facets of a Findability strategy.  Based on metadata values, or tags, content can be associated with various categories.  These tags can be leveraged by a user interface to display content in a taxonomy, which aids understanding of the collection of content and enables navigation through the content.  The faceted taxonomies can be used as both a precursor to search (enabling a user to identify categories of interest and limit the search to those categories), and/or as a back-end to search, used as a way to display retrieved content via categories.  Faceted taxonomies are particularly flexible and dynamic.  They can be used to arrange or dipaly content in many different ways, based on user preferences and/or business objectives.

As for cons, I cannot think of many, except for the fact that these taxonomies must be designed manually, and subsequently, content added to the repository must be tagged, which is also a manual process, or in some cases a semi-automated process.

Q:  Is it your contention that a Search Appliance/tool should be part of an organization's overall technology infrastructure with hooks into all deployed applications?

A:  I do believe that this is a Findability best practice, yes.  In most situations, it would behoove an organization to develop a Findability platform, and then integrate that platform/capability across all applications and content repositories.

Q: Would following the aforementioned strategy does this lessen the necessity of ERP and ECM applications have robust search engines?

A:  Yes.  In fact this approach to Findability potentially removes the need to seek, integrate and support separate search tools in individual business applications.  Not only does this provide the users with a common user interface (reducing training), but can also eliminate the costs associated with supporting and maintaining multiple search tools.

Q: So how do we get a Google like functions into the business organization?

A:  Interestingly enough, this is not simply a matter of buying a search appliance.  To achieve a level of effectiveness similar to Google on the internet, within your firewall, you need to do a needs assessment and develop a Findability strategy specifically for the enterprise (inside the fire wall) and then implement the appropriate Findability tools.  Section 5 of the AIIM Market IQ on Findability provides more detail on this process.

Q: (This is two questions merged together.) Can you expand on Enterprise Taxonomy? How do we get enterprises to devote time & thought to library sciences for taxonomy?

A: Taxonomies are a hierarchical or poly-hierarchical listing of topics or subject categories. A taxonomy may not contain a definition of the topics it covers, but only the hierarchical relationship of the topics to one another. An enterprise taxonomy is a taxonomy that is developed specifically for the content within the firewall.  It provides a centralized singular view or organization of the enterprise content. As discussed in the webinar and the Market IQ on Findability, an Enterprise taxonomy can be a fundamental component of a Findability strategy, providing a navigational aid to content and a precision enhancing (front and back end) complement to search. 
Getting enterprises to devote time and thought to library science and taxonomy construction is not necessarily a simple lask.  If there is no pre-disposition or appreciation for the value of library science  and taxonomies, you may have to start with some fundamental education and enlightenment.  You might start by using examples of taxonomies on the commercial web as examples of how such approaches to library science can enhance the interaction with content.  It is also sometimes easier to make the case for outward facing web sites, and then using their success to drive adoption of taxonomies inside the firewall as well.

Q:  What is the best business case basis that works to secure funding for Findability?

A: Unfortunately there is no one best business case.  Each organization and situation warrants its own business case.  Start by looking at the existing business situation, and look for areas where ineffective or inconsistent means to access content is impacting the business bottom line.  Some examples are: Loss of customers/decreased customer satisfaction, non-compliance with industry and/or government regulations, non-compliance with internal best practices/governance, inconsistency in communication between functional areas, increased costs associated with duplication of efforts, poor decision making and decrease in competitive standing/delayed market responsiveness.  Then demonstrate how a proposed Findability strategy would positively impact these issues.

Q:  How does purposing the content and/or proactively providing the content through applications fit in this approach?

A:  This is a great question because it helps to highlight the fact that a Findability strategy is more than just effective search.  A thorough Findability strategy not only looks at how users will search for content, but business scenarios in which the content should search out the user (or application).  Thus if processes in which tasks involve the retrieval of content based on certain dynamic criteria exist, the  Findability tools can be integrated into the workflow/BPM tools to automate the retrieval of the content, in the context of the process.  Search agents can also be used to proactively provide content to a user.  Findability also can be used a means to monitor and “pluck” content in applications such as e-mail security/monitoring, eDiscovery and trends analysis.  These are all examples of proactive use of Findability within a given business application.

Stay tuned - thereare several more questions, and answers to come...

Source: TakingAIIM