"The significant
problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when
we created them" -Einstein
On first reading of this, I thought it meant we need to
think outside the box to solve future problems. However, after reading a few
more times, I realized that he is also implying that solutions now are problems
in the future, in other words, the effectiveness of the solution is directly
related to the level of forethought given to it.
How does this relate to ECM issues? Take for example, storage.
Why is it assumed that storage will always need to be expanded to accommodate new
content? What if a better compression algorithm reduced the total size of the
files by 100%? Or, a retention policy actually kicked in after many years of
waiting and disposed of files? Thus, plan for 10 years of expansion, 10 years
of Moore’s Law lowering storage costs, 10 years of fluctuating goals, and
finally after 10 years, storage will shrink for retention policy content.
How about workflow? If you have a complex process which was “automated”
in a workflow a few years ago and is now very expensive and time consuming to
update, what do you do? You could simplify it by stripping out the parts that
are not worth the hassle of updating. The “parts” are usually exceptions to the
main purpose of the workflow. The exception will change, so a little change
management forethought could save a lot of money in the long run.
So, what happens with ECM implementations when problems
occur and the folks charged with fixing them were the ones who designed it? It
depends of course on the issue, however the larger the issue, the more it makes
sense to have an outside party analyze it to provide different logic on how it occurred
and possible remedies. The nature of contracting is to get the next phase of
work, so that is up to you. Given the analysis and options of fixing the problems,
the in-house resources are usually the best folks to work on them, given the
negative effects of not engaging them.
No comments:
Post a Comment