Metalogix increases its extension of SharePoint capabilities with the acquisition of Axceler’s SharePoint governance products. As I pointed out in my research document, Putting Together The SharePoint ECM Puzzle, SharePoint’s ECM holes have created opportunity for partners to fill in the missing functionality required by organizations looking to implement an ECM solution. Metalogix focuses its efforts on archiving and storage, and with the Axceler acquisition, it ventures into the administration and governance areas that provide key capabilities to streamline the processes for migration, user administration, and policy compliance.
Our recent ECM survey showed that 46% of respondents indicated that the lack of governance was the single biggest challenge to their ECM implementation. My interactions with Forrester clients indicate that SharePoint implementations may actually suffer a higher percentage of failures due to the lack of governance. Organizations struggle to gain control over their SharePoint implementations, caused by the “SharePoint sprawl,” resulting in the explosion of sites that don’t follow any standards. The combination of Metalogix’s archiving products with Axceler’s governance and policy management products has the potential of providing organizations with a foundation that will help facilitate the implementation of a sustainable governance program. The merging of these two organizations and products will help address three key aspects of governance: archiving of sites, document libraries, and documents; the implementation governance policies; and the enforcement of site level quotas and security access.
Earlier this year, I published a blog and report outlining five predictions for EA practices in 2013 based on trends I analyzed in Forrester's annual state of EA survey. This year's state of EA survey is now accepting responses for 2014, for those who would like to participate. But I have a feeling this year's data will be less optimistic than last year's.
The data for 2013 showed an EA practice roaring to help their business set their business technology strategy, become more agile, and achieve their transformations successfully. And anecdotally, this is where our EA clients felt they were ready to go. Furthermore, their bosses were giving them full support, and the business was willing to give it a try. It all sounded perfect, and I was optimistic.
But I'm starting to see a disturbing trend in my calls and engagements. Yes -- EA went out there, did the job, engaged the business, got a project, drew some pictures, maybe made a proposal for enterprise investment. But many will not be coming back a second time to welcoming arms. And here's why:
I read this somewhere recently – I think it was the CIO of Intel, Kim Stevenson (quoting IT folklore). But it stuck in my mind, long after the link that I harvested it from had evaporated. I like it since it gets to the heart of the discussion . . . what’s the business problem you are trying to solve. So often I find myself fielding queries where the people on the other end of the phone have decided on a technological solution (a hammer), and are now looking for a problem (the right nail).
The business doesn’t want a hammer or a nail; they want something of value – the house. It’s not important that your solution has this product or that techno buzzword. They don’t care for how cute your big data credentials are, or whether your mobile mojo has trumped your social ace in the hole. These sorts of trends – big data, mobile, social – are just like, well, like the context within which the house sits.
Of course, we need that application delivered to our customers on a digital device nearby to them. Of course, we want that engagement to leverage the history of what we’ve done with that customer in the past – their wants and preferences taken into account. Of course, we want to leverage what we know others in the same context considered the right choice. But we also expect the customer to channel-hop to the Web, and then perhaps wander into a branch or store, and ring up about it to see where things are at (WISMO – what is the status of my order).
Big data gurus have said that data quality isn’t important for big data. Good enough is good enough. However, business stakeholders still complain about poor data quality. In fact, when Forrester surveyed customer intelligence professionals, the ability to integrate data and manage data quality are the top two factors holding customer intelligence back.
So, do big data gurus have it wrong? Sort of . . .
I had the chance to attend and present at a marketing event put on by MITX last week in Boston that focused on data science for marketing and customer experience. I recommend all data and big data professionals do this. Here is why. How marketers and agencies talk about big data and data science is different than how IT talks about it. This isn’t just a language barrier, it’s a philosophy barrier. Let’s look at this closer:
Data is totals. When IT talks about data, it’s talking of the physical elements stored in systems. When marketing talks about data, it’s referring to the totals and calculation outputs from analysis.
Quality is completeness. At the MITX event, Panera Bread was asked, how do they understand customers that pay cash? This lack of data didn’t hinder analysis. Panera looked at customers in their loyalty program and promotions that paid cash to make assumptions about this segment and their behavior. Analytics was the data quality tool that completed the customer picture.
Data rules are algorithms. When rules are applied to data, these are more aligned to segmentation and status that would be input into personalized customer interaction. Data rules are not about transformation to marketers.