I recently read a question on LinkedIN that got me to thinking:

Why is it that over 85% of companies do not have a plan for managing documents and information?

Setting a lack of source for that statistic aside I think the question is a great basis for a meaningful conversation.  As I reviewed the answers I became more and more intrigued.  And what really got my attention was a counter-question posed that asked, “Given that only 15% of companies have a well defined information management plan, what factors influenced these companies to establish their information management plan?"

What are the factors that influence the management of information?  In my experience I would propose the following questions as a great place to start:

• How are documents created within your organization?
• How are documents, and the information they contain, used within processes within your organization?
• Which processes use which documents? This question is central to an Information Architecture in my opinion.
• What actual data and objective evidence have you collected, validated and analyzed to prove that there is a problem, where the problem is occurring, when it started occurring, and how much of a problem is it?  This sort of thinking to structure a problem is all too often the exception rather than the norm.
• What is the right balance between a short term win for a DMS versus over complicating our world?
• How will your organization manage the conflicting energies of impatience for a solution now and the natural tendency to resist anything that changes or challenges my comfort zone?
• Is there an opportunity to move from the (relatively) unstructured world of documents to a more structured world of searchable, usable and relevant lists of information?
• Which technologies are involved in the creation and management of documents within your organization?
• What is the (true) cost of creating a Document Management System (DMS) and Information Management plan?
• If you did answer all of the above questions, how clear and SMART is the objective statement driving the project to deliver a solution?  That is, was the objective statement Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely?

As a part of our continued evolution in the world of collaboration with our clients we make a point of helping them understand and asking these questions.  Our experience with SharePoint rarely seems to match up with that of others we read about.  SharePoint may not be the best-in-class DMS solution.  But it was never meant to be. 

In our opinion, SharePoint is a foundation upon which to build your house.  And like any house if you do not take the time to plan for how the plumbing, wiring, air flow, and the like will work your house will suffer, rot, decay and maybe even fall down about your ears.  Your experience of turning on a tap is a simple one.  Yet the work that went into making that experience simple followed years of thinking around how the plumbing system needed to work. 

We believe that all the questions above begin to lay a foundation for addressing the business challenge of understanding why some organizations are successfully defining and managing an information plan.  And while picking a favourite is tricky we would suggest that understanding which processes use which documents is essential.  Yet we are generally engaged by clients because they have failed to understand how they work, let alone how they might manage the information they need to do their jobs. 

Before forming my own company I had the fortune to work at a number of organizations ranging from 150 employees to over 35,000.  And to my mind one thing is for certain, that in every business challenge I have ever supported, throwing money or agenda at a problem will never make up for a failure to structure the problem, set a smart objective, to build a plan based on a meaningful understanding of what led to the problem in the first place, and to hold that plan and objective accountable to results.

I recently read a question on LinkedIN that got me to thinking:

Why is it that over 85% of companies do not have a plan for managing documents and information?

Setting a lack of source for that statistic aside I think the question is a great basis for a meaningful conversation.  As I reviewed the answers I became more and more intrigued.  And what really got my attention was a counter-question posed that asked, “Given that only 15% of companies have a well defined information management plan, what factors influenced these companies to establish their information management plan?"

What are the factors that influence the management of information?  In my experience I would propose the following questions as a great place to start:

• How are documents created within your organization?
• How are documents, and the information they contain, used within processes within your organization?
• Which processes use which documents? This question is central to an Information Architecture in my opinion.
• What actual data and objective evidence have you collected, validated and analyzed to prove that there is a problem, where the problem is occurring, when it started occurring, and how much of a problem is it?  This sort of thinking to structure a problem is all too often the exception rather than the norm.
• What is the right balance between a short term win for a DMS versus over complicating our world?
• How will your organization manage the conflicting energies of impatience for a solution now and the natural tendency to resist anything that changes or challenges my comfort zone?
• Is there an opportunity to move from the (relatively) unstructured world of documents to a more structured world of searchable, usable and relevant lists of information?
• Which technologies are involved in the creation and management of documents within your organization?
• What is the (true) cost of creating a Document Management System (DMS) and Information Management plan?
• If you did answer all of the above questions, how clear and SMART is the objective statement driving the project to deliver a solution?  That is, was the objective statement Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely?

As a part of our continued evolution in the world of collaboration with our clients we make a point of helping them understand and asking these questions.  Our experience with SharePoint rarely seems to match up with that of others we read about.  SharePoint may not be the best-in-class DMS solution.  But it was never meant to be. 

In our opinion, SharePoint is a foundation upon which to build your house.  And like any house if you do not take the time to plan for how the plumbing, wiring, air flow, and the like will work your house will suffer, rot, decay and maybe even fall down about your ears.  Your experience of turning on a tap is a simple one.  Yet the work that went into making that experience simple followed years of thinking around how the plumbing system needed to work. 

We believe that all the questions above begin to lay a foundation for addressing the business challenge of understanding why some organizations are successfully defining and managing an information plan.  And while picking a favourite is tricky we would suggest that understanding which processes use which documents is essential.  Yet we are generally engaged by clients because they have failed to understand how they work, let alone how they might manage the information they need to do their jobs. 

Before forming my own company I had the fortune to work at a number of organizations ranging from 150 employees to over 35,000.  And to my mind one thing is for certain, that in every business challenge I have ever supported, throwing money or agenda at a problem will never make up for a failure to structure the problem, set a smart objective, to build a plan based on a meaningful understanding of what led to the problem in the first place, and to hold that plan and objective accountable to results.