Doug Schultz had some interesting thoughts on the recently released AIIM "State of the ECM Industry 2010" and in penning my comments to his blog I realized I really ought to make this into my own blog post as it is a bit much for a comment. 

I've never really put much weight into answers for surveys conducted by self-serving organizations, I'm not suggesting any dishonesty involved but I don't think the results are ever as illuminating as they indicate. First off there is an inherent bias built into the respondents ... they are all members of the organization in some way and so skew results towards a certain way of thinking. I think many people respond with the most recent field thinking but really don't speak well for their corporation/organization or put any real thought into their answers beyond their own organizational roles. When you strip away all the jargon and look at ECM from a grand corporate view, it is like everything else within a corporation, it is either a positive or negative expense (it either costs money or saves money). If it costs money then it is being forced upon the corporation somehow, if it saves money then the corporation will use it ... the difficulty is in finding the ROI. While governments and some NGOs may find the expense worthwhile to meet non-monetary goals, it is difficult to fund an industry on the backs of these folks.

ECM has to save money for most corporations or they will have none of it ... risk avoidance and mitigation is simply cost savings using different words. The real problem Records Managers have is the extreme difficulty in quantifying the "before ECM" costs and so the "after ECM" costs will almost always seem to be higher. If you focus the language around "risk avoidance" then you safely avoid the question and in good times that might work (though I'm not sure I have actually seen such a case, the successful RM programmes I'm familiar with go forward because some of the costs are known and justify the expense), but today I think everybody understands "show me the money".

Compliance is really only a legitimate driver when laws or regulations are actually in play and despite all that has occurred in the world, and even our own desires, I've yet to see any real sign that there is to be a manjor increase in laws and regulations for real accountability of the sort that demands proper RM. Perhaps some verticals will feel a pinch (eg: financial sector) but I suspect SOX is likely as good as it is going to get in general. (but perhaps I'm just too cynical). AIIM and many of AIIM's members have a vested interest and desire for more regulation but I think the political realities will see that as unlikely to occur.

The problem with Enterprise RM that all ECM vendors face is that no matter how inexpensive the software is (not that it is typically inexpensive), the full solution is crazy expensive in terms of deployment, change management and human interaction. In a "time is money" mindset, even using RM (filling in the appropriate fields) is time many will resent and avoid. Automation is the only hope for Enterprise RM but that remains little more than a dream.

I think that most information costs are looked at today (and historically) with IT glasses, focusing on the capital costs because that is the only real measurable values ... RM and its complex disposition decisions can't compete with the ever-lowering costs of storage ... just keep everything remains the most viable, least expensive answer for any truly honest corporation (or even one that thinks it is honest). Eventually the problem is overwhelming and ECM becomes necessary (at least the mathematics of the problem suggest that) but the economic realities of most corporations means that it will be a reaction not a proactive solution.  I wonder if any ECM vendor has an Enterprise-wide RM programme in place? I'd bet not. 

My prediction is that RM and ECM (not Content Management but true Enterprise Content Management) will remain an important niche market until and unless it can be shown to offer significant savings to ordinary corporations and to do that it will have to succeed at automatic classification ... the HARD part of semantic analysis not just the relatively easy plumbing that is currently in place. Until and unless this works 99.99% of the time or more the HR and potential legal cost in managing the failures makes it difficult to justify. It is important to realize that the bad guys would love such a system for, like the SPAM artists of today, they'll look for ways for the system to fail so they can cash in on the failure. If you can hide behind a veil of compliance then your bad deeds can remain hidden, perhaps forever.

When it comes to SharePoint I think the there is a serious nomenclature problem ... sure SPS provides RM and SPS has >$1B in sales but that does NOT mean that there is $1B worth of RM deployments using SPS. SharePoint is a Content Management solution, it can be used within an overall ECM solution as well but I doubt that it is at all. I suspect (and I think AIIMs results support) that most are using it in ad hoc fashion to solve typical CM problems much like the Drupal system both Doug and I use to talk about ECM. I think the promise of RM has yet to be realized and I'm not at all certain it will ever be.  Any ECM programme that doesn't include RM has a serious disconnect and is misusing the term, yet I'd bet big that most ECM programmes do not include RM.

So, does that AIIM report provide Industry Trends? Perhaps but I'm not sure there is really any new information revealed and I for one got the feeling while reading it that AIIM was trying to create trends rather than report on them ... but perhaps my cynicism is getting the better of me.