Getting Empowered at the 2010 Laserfiche Institute Conference

I recently attended the Laserfiche Institute annual conference in Los Angeles, and I wouldn’t be exaggerating to say that it blew my mind! Intellera is a relatively new Laserfiche partner, so it was my first experience attending this conference and I didn’t know what to expect.

My first surprise was that over 1,200 Laserfiche users, administrators, IT professionals, developers, resellers, engineers and staff were in attendance – a huge group indeed. Laserfiche Founder and President, Nien-Ling Wacker noted in her keynote address that user attendance was up 54% from last year, and when you consider how tough 2009 was economically, that is a real achievement and a vote of confidence from the Laserfiche community.

Another observation I had was how pumped up and positive the attendees were about Laserfiche. While I expected that from the staff and partners in attendance, the users were also very excited and enthusiastic about the value that Laserfiche brought to their organizations. Users from all types of organizations, from municipalities to healthcare to financial institutions, were very eager to share their success stories and experiences with other Laserfiche customers. The overall feeling of community was very powerful. And considering the theme of this year’s conference was “Empower 2010” that was very fitting.

Be that as it may, there are always some negative comments that arise when you get a diverse group of people together to discuss software products. We all have heard horror stories about year-long implementations that were supposed to take weeks, or how the product was supposed to solve problem X and it only made it worse, etc. The “mind blowing” part of my experience was seeing how open everybody at Laserfiche was towards any negativity. There were no sweeping things under the rug – any comments that came up during sessions were discussed openly, ideas were shared, and solutions were offered and followed up on. Laserfiche developers and engineers were available everywhere to address technical concerns and give answers, options and share best practices. That was very cool.

All in all, being a part of this conference reinforced the fact that our decision to partner with Laserfiche was a smart one. They clearly share our philosophy that getting and keeping customers takes hard work, dedication, honesty, and respect. I feel secure that our clients will not only get the best possible solution to their Enterprise Content and Document Management needs, but one that is supported by a company that shares the same values as we do.

The Laserfiche Institute conference was also written up in “Document Imaging Report” – to read more about the conference highlights, click here.

Jonathan Maldoff is Co-Founder and CEO of Intellera.

 

The process is the function

In a previous post I discussed how BPM was “ERP 2.0” – I was alluding to the fact that the biggest problem with ERP in my view, is that it has become a monolithic, one-size-fits-none, nearly hard-coded vertical application.  Harsh judgment maybe, but after over 20 years in the ERP business I’ll give myself at least some right to criticize.

Countless failed ERP implementations, cost overruns, and infamous inflexibility – these problems either point to a badly flawed project management approach to ERP or (more likely) to a flawed attempt at developing and selling re-useable menu-driven functions. These functions have little else to support them, such as an awareness of where a function fits in to the organization based on standard operating procedures and strategic goals. I mean, can software or the people using it expect the ERP to know this? Yes, and I think that we should expect no less.

ERP is a loose collection of functions based on processes. Its strength – and its downfall – is how it focuses on very specific functions in the process, for example the order entry screen and how a user enters units and products and how these are validated against uncommitted inventory. This program will not likely adapt well to exceptions and it will not tell you how to report to your manager with your daily order status – if you’re lucky, this procedure will be documented somewhere in a binder somewhere. The order entry function on that screen seems to be but a small feature of the overall process of order entry.

But in a similar way that Marshall McLuhan said so famously in 1964 how “the medium is the message”, from the ERP function’s standpoint could we not go further and state how in fact the process is the function? The function that seems to be a part of a process is really one and the same, as the two become intertwined in the delivery of ultimate strategic goals.

By turning our heads sideways and viewing software development from this perspective we can move away from the constant focus on “vertical” functional requirements (those functions that on the surface appear to make our business unique) as compared to others and group us together with other organizations. Functions are the actual buttons and routines that make up applications – they tell us that what you are using is an order entry screen, or an MP3 player, or a document scanning program.

But these functions, as important as they are, are holistically part of an environment that requires organizational awareness, task awareness, collaboration, security, accountability and compliance, accessibility, performance, workflow, technological openness and, most especially, a focus on driving strategic results through a system’s built-in knowledge of organizational processes and standard operating procedures. For me, all these parts are 80% of the game in the delivery of a modern software system. Nevertheless this is exactly the 80% that ERP (and many smaller pre-package applications) fail at due to their insistence on focusing their efforts strictly on process-disconnected, menu-driven vertical functions that, in the end, organizations will wind up customizing anyway to really fit their needs. And be left without the 80% still.

In the end, functions are where the rubber meets the road but the best rubber on the hottest wheels doesn’t do much when your steering wheel is pointing you over the cliff.

If the process is the function, the “process-izing” of functions becomes the foundation upon which we can build systems which are process-aware in process-centric organizations.

 

Another blog that helps you do more with less

I have just discovered lifehacker.com, and it has changed my life. Chock full of tips that run the gamut from gadget and gear deals of the day, to creating filing cabinet workflows, to making freezer jam (really!), it has become my go-to source for valuable information and downloads. Everything is organized into neat categories like “Dealhacker” (featuring newsworthy deals), “Workspaces” (ways to unclutter and get more productive), “News” and “Weekend Project”. There are also great Reader Polls – a recent one asked what drink was best to get you going in the morning, or how do you end off your emails. The emphasis is all about improving your life and getting the most out of what you already have, or what you can get for very little! Perfect reading in these recessionary times, check it out: www.lifehacker.com

 

Forms in organizations: Part 3 – Complexity is in the eye of the beholder

Forms Circa 1923

In my previous post I reviewed the Form Functionality Value Curve and hinted that certain functionality in BPM forms don’t provide enough benefit to justify their implementation – at least for short term ROI.

FORM TYPES

Let me take you through a real life example by looking at a core process found in most consumer goods companies: New Product Development (or the equivalent “Engineering Change” in a manufacturing firm). Here is a very important process at the heart of the business that is generally not well automated because of its complexity resulting from the multitude of participants and systems involved. This is a sweet spot for BPM and it involves the creation of a workflow and its associated form(s).

We all dread this more recent form

Jane wants to create a new form that will navigate through the workflow. This form could be an InfoPath form, a web form based on Microsoft .NET, a PDF form, a Word form – it doesn’t matter. Jane analyzes the needs of the business and begins to create the form by adding “objects” to the empty form, like text boxes, drop downs, buttons. She quickly sees that not all objects are created equal, and upon consideration she realizes that form content can be roughly classified into three groups: logic-free content; simple logic-based content; and complex logic-based content. In layman’s terms I name these “Type 1: Logic-free”, “Type 2: Power User”, and “Type 3: Programmers-on-speed-dial”.

Type 1, Logic-free form content requires minimal work in their design and includes:

• Free-form text boxes
• Hard-coded (keyed-in) drop downs and lists
• Check boxes
• Images, tables, lines
• Basic formatting
• Hard-coded links

Type 2, Power User logic-based content require some level of linking between objects  and include:

• A drop down or check box which controls behavior of any other control (e.g. I check a box and another appears)
• A button that triggers a simple pre-defined event like submitting a form
• Style sheets (Language/resource files Control of read-only, required, or hiding and showing of objects and information on the screen based on conditions from within the form
• Advanced formatting requiring simple scripts
• A basic validation at input such as numeric formats, checksums, conditional verifications, etc.
• Simple database connectivity built using wizards

If you see where I am heading with this, you will note that the Power User logic-based content above is already beyond the ability of most people to handle. Now check out Type 3 below.

Type 3, “Programmers-on-speed-dial”, complex logic-based content requires advanced scripting or programming and include:

• Intermediate or advanced integration to a database to pull or push data
• Connecting and consuming web services
• Adding complex controls like multi-column grids with add/remove/edit, sorting and pagination logic
• Significantly altering the behavior of the form content when an event occurs (e.g. I select an item and an entire section of the form expands to display various new fields in a new tab)  Complex data validations including database or form content lookups
• Managing complex content on the form (e.g. XML parsing)
• Parent-child data structures
• AJAX or jScript functions (or similar) to provide a more streamlined look and feel and user interface – and if you don’t know what these acronyms stand for, you are already beyond your capacities…!

After reading the above, at what point did you stop understanding what Type 2 and Type 3 means? Do they sound the same to you? The fact is that the average business user can only manage to create Type 1 forms, and a few “power users” can do some of the Type 2 stuff with training and assistance.

In my example, Jane understands her area of work, but not entirely the technology that supports it to the degree required to create Type 2 or 3 forms. She knows functionally what should occur. She can design the flow. She can talk through all the “use cases” (all the eventualities of the logic). But getting that logic to function optimally in the appropriate form and workflow engine environment with the best available methods can become a challenge fairly quickly.

In my next and concluding post I will discuss suggestions for getting past these hurdles and building a successful BPM project no matter what type of forms you encounter.

---

 

The Case of Broken Telephone in our New Communication Solution

So I was sitting in the lobby at a client’s head office when two of their employees walked in and looked across the hall to a glass-enclosed conference room filling up with a large group. One of the employees asked the other “What’s the event?” and they responded, “Oh, it’s that Intellera meeting.”

“I don’t need to be there, do I?”, she asked, a bit panicked.

“No”, came the response.

“Thank goodness”, she sighed, “I really didn’t want to have to deal with that Intellera stuff!”

She obviously didn’t recognize me or realize that I was waiting to present the new collaboration solution, along with an executive VP and two key project managers. This was the official kick off of that “Intellera stuff”!

Needless to say I was a bit irked, but mostly I was intrigued as to the reasons for her disdain. Following a well received presentation with some positive end-user comments, I got my Sherlock Holmes hat on and investigated…

I spoke to a couple of people up the chain of command and it turns out that “the usual suspects” have been complaining like this…but why?

Well, it happens that one of the new VPs had been trying to address the bubbling inquires that were rising up regarding the new collaboration solution in the best way he knew how. When some of his staff asked if they were going to be involved with the “new system” that was being talked about in the rumor mill – his answer was “No, it’s not a priority right now.” And so began the game of broken telephone – you know that childhood game where you sit in a circle and the first person whispers something to their neighbor (for example, “You hear the ringing bells”) and as the message passes from person to person it transforms, so that the last person reveals the message as “Your fat sister smells”.

This is a classic change management problem that I suspect arose from an imprecise message to the staff as the collaboration system was being implemented. The larger an organization grows, the more difficult it becomes to align everyone in the face of change, especially those change-challenged people (“the usual suspects”).

The collaboration solution is quite revolutionary in the way people communicate around how they deliver their customer orders. To manage risk, we therefore made great efforts to incrementally build it up and to involve only a handful of key people at first. Initially, it was a single beta user and this grew to a full corporate division over a six-month period. As expected, we hit some bumps and redesigned some components as we better understood the needs, so it made sense to limit the involvement at the client to just a few people.

The intention of the VP’s statement that “No, it’s not a priority right now,” was really meant as “Yes, it is important, we are testing it, and as soon as possible – probably within three to six months – you will be introduced to it and it will become a useful and integral part of your daily routine, and we’ll provide documention on it soon.” A mouthful indeed!

What was understood instead to someone who is not very interested in changing their routine, was “It has nothing to do with you, now or ever, so don’t worry about it.”

What this means to us at Intellera, is that we have a bit of an uphill battle to make those people understand the importance of the collaboration solution to the business and to their role within it. I am not too worried, as the message is being delivered clearly now by high-ranking management as the rollout begins, and the feedback from even change-resistant diehards shows they have started to enjoy and value the change.

A lesson learned again about the importance of change management: All parties involved in an implementation must strive to communicate clearly about new developments at the appropriate times. It is just a bit ironic that a solution put in place to dramatically improve collaboration and communication suffered from a case of broken telephone!