Recently Braden Kelley moderated the first Innovation Excellence tweetjam.
For a look at the raw #ixchat stream (along with a few interesting statistics about the tweetjam) click here.
Recently Braden Kelley moderated the first Innovation Excellence tweetjam.
For a look at the raw #ixchat stream (along with a few interesting statistics about the tweetjam) click here.
Yesterday, the third #ECMJam was held. A lot of people were involved and it was a very interesting discussion about
the place of SharePoint in the world of ECM.
Bryant Duhon was the Jam facilitator. Check out his “Introductory” post here (http://www.aiim.org/community/blogs/expert/ECMjam-SharePoint-and-ECM).
There were a number of Questions that formed the basis of the discussion. These were:
Each question raised some interesting responses.
With regards Question 1, there was a feeling that SharePoint was not quite an ECM application:
Others pointed out that the problem isn’t with what the product, itself, can do, but with the “misunderstanding” of what SharePoint actually is.
Question 2 (SharePoint and Governance) was met with a unaimous response – PLANNING & CONTROL
But someone pointed out:
Question 4 discussed what SharePoint did well, and what it did not do well.
While this question didn’t generate the same discussion as others, there were some interesting comments.
The “does well” comments included:
Whereas, the “does not do well” included:
Question 5 asked “Can SharePoint solve collaboration and DM problems for larger companies as well as for smaller?“
Generally it seemed that while SharePoint was useful for a small company, the administration, and maintenance requirements were too high to make it practical.
For a read of the actual tweet stream, click here (http://www.hashtracking.com/fast-report/?hashtag=ecmjam)
“Life is social.” … “Business is social. People buy from people they like and they like people who know them. When we meet someone in their office we look at pictures on their wall so we can share something in common. We want to build intimacy and trust. Social media is just an electronic way to listen and engage…extending the old school way of going to someone’s office.”
The above is a quote from a Forbes article (by Gene Marks) that I recently read. The article was discussing the adoption of social media in business.
While it seems that there is certainly a lot of interest in using social media in a business sense, there just hasn’t been that “compelling reason” to adopt it without question.
However there are still those that seem to see a real benefit (as seen in the quote above”, there are still a lot of people who don’t.
From what I’ve seen, business is still being run by a generation that hasn’t grown up with the web2.0 “idea”. And…there still isn’t a real business use that makes “C” level staff decide to implement it, without trying to work out first what they are going to use it for. (For some ideas on this, check out one of my earlier posts “ESS (Enterprise Social Software) – user adoption“)
Here’s the link to Gene’s post: Am I Wasting My Time On Social Media?
In Part 1 of the FDUG 2011 series, I described the location of the meeting, and gave an overview of CSC’s plan and strategies. In Part 2, I’ll talk about the rest of the conference.
After the break, two of the Pharma companies gave a presentation on a project that they were each involved with to upgrade their document management system.
I’m not at liberty to discuss the details, but it is obvious that the drivers in the pharmaceutical world are the same as in any other business. Namely,
The business cases presented described how CSC technology was being used to allow these goals to be met. Always interesting to see, as this is a common theme.
In the session CSC described their “Partner Program” plans.
CSC’s goal here is to “put more effort into Partnerships to increase their usefulness.” That is, with a good network of “CSC Partners”, CSC can meet client requirements, be able to offer more, and be more responsive (i.e. have more resources available) .
Companies that partner with CSC will fall into of three areas: Technology; Sales; Solution. Each area has its own “model” and KPIs that need to be met to be able to retain their status. “Customer Satisfaction” being the most important.
The message was that CSC want to seriously lift their game here. This will include certification, KPIs, working with the Partners to bring over a “unified” message.
As mentioned, CSC will be offering a certification program.
This will be made up of 4-tiered capabilities (Installation, Configuration, Customization, and Architecture). CSC are looking at some type of “boot camp” experience where individuals attend a week long course for each capability. This will be followed by several weeks of “shadowing” on client projects.
The fact that CSC mention this, signals that they want to set a standard that people that partner with them will meet. Which is encouraging. The “certification” is for the individual (that is, it’s not transferable to other people at the Partnersite).
Curious to see how this one will pan out.
In the keynote presentation, there was mention of CSC’s “Total Regulatory Solution”.
Jennifer Wemstrom (who flew over to this year’s European FDUG) presented CSC’s overview of their “Total Regulatory Solution”.
Underpinning this is CSC’s aim to provide the “Total Business Solution” that supports the creation, management and consumption of regulatory documentation in the Life Sciences industry.
In simple words, CSC have got all the tools (especially since their acquisition of ISI and their Publishing tools) to achieve this, but the tools are still disparate applications. CSC’s goal is that all these disparate systems will be unified. They will have a common interface, and a use a shared data model.
This is definitely the right move. In my years as a ECM specialist I have seen companies grow through the acquisition of other companies that offer a solution that compliments, or even enhances, the parent companies offerings. The next logical step is to integrate the applications that make up the suite so that the user is presented with a seamless “solution”.
At the same time CSC seem to be actively investigating offering more than just a suite of technical products. They have realised that they have a lot of skill and knowledge in this area, and are talking about Business Process Outsourcing, and offering their Total Regulatory Solution as a managed service. (This ties in with CSC’s goal to dive into the cloud.)
CSC realise that there are still a few “gaps” in their offering. They are busy with three new products. These are all to do with the submission end of the process. It looks like CSC are really listening to their customers.
In this area CSC have three offerings:
As mentioned above, CSC definitely want to make good use of the skills & experience they have built up, and want to expand into offering services rather than just technology.
To back this up, CSC described how they will be tackling staff training (resource development). They have three levels which includes a sort of “orientation/induction” level, “core training” for regulatory activities, and then, “client specific training” which addresses the activities that a client has outsourced to CSC.
CSC have a series of Managed Service Models. These include the traditional models of “on premise” or “hosted” through to “As a service” which includes “Dedicated”, “Private Cloud”, and “Public Cloud”. A flavor to suit all requirements.
Bill Meier spent some time discussing the CSC’s latest version of FirstDoc (version 6.3) which include a large number of enhancements.
A few of the high points include the fact that this version will be certified on Linux.
…continued in Part 3
Previous Post: FDUG – Europe – Review of the Agenda
In this post I discuss the recently held 2011 FirstDoc User Group conference. Because there was so much content I am doing this in multiple posts.
As described in my earlier post, this year’s FDUG was held in Vienna. At the end of each FDUG Conference , the organizers ask the attendees where they would like the next one to be held. Vienna came up on the list two years ago as a favourite, and clearly made its way to the top of the list. Not a bad choice.
The conference was held at the Marriott Hotel. The conference rooms were great, and the catering was superb. The breakfast available at the beginning of each day was an excellent idea!
There was a lot of people at this years user group. There were 53 attendees, representing 21 of CSC’s 47 Pharma customers.
In my last FDUG post I talked about the proposed agenda. Fortunately there weren’t many changes.
You can view the agenda here.
After a warm welcome by Bill Meier, the Conference kicked off with the KeyNote.
Marty Magazzolo, the Global Practice Director, took to the stage and gave an update on CSC’s strategy, as well as describing a little bit of the original goal of their purchase of FCG. Namely, it was to “be more inline with their customers’ business needs than rather being a pure IT vendor” (Even though in quotes, the previous statement is, most likely not exact, but gets the same message across.)
Business – CSC nows considers itself a “Global Technology and Business Services Company”, and operates in three lines of business:
Software Strategy – With it’s recent acquisition of ISI, CSC now has a range of products that allow it to offer “Total Business Solutions”.
In fact their Mission Statement is:
Provide end to end business solutions for processes involving the creation, review, approval, consumption & exchange of regulated and mission critical documents and content within a Life Sciences organization
To achieve this, CSC have created several “Total” solutions – These include one for Regulatory, one for Clinical, and one for Quality. These played a large role in this year’s conference.
At the same time, CSC admitted that the solutions are still made up of disparate systems. The goals for the future are to streamline them so that they use a common interface, a common database structure, and work together seamlessly.
Business Process Outsourcing – CSC feel that they can offer the expertise necessary to handle customer’s regulatory, and other, requirements. A benefit of this outsourcing model is that “skills are sharpened and rotated” allowing their (CSC’s) staff to gain skills in a wide area, and these resources can then be called upon, when necessary, for specific tasks. The cost savings, CSC claim, are seen when you compare to having specialist skills in-house full-time.
Cloud – Paul Attridge said “Everyone’s got a cloud”, and CSC are also “clouding up” and are looking at offering both private and public cloud service models.
System Integration – CSC’s message was that they intend to create better integration with other products. The goal is to be able to offer solutions to their customers that match the “real world” situation. Even if the solution requires integrating with other ECM related products (and is achieved through partnerships).
CSC are also trying to keeping an eye on the progress of the SAFE-BioPharma® Digital Identity and Signature Standard, to determine whether they will need to offer suitable integration capabilities.
User Interface – CSC add FirstDoc functionality to EMC’s “fat” client for Documentum – WebTop. EMC have announced WebTop is being phased out after Version 7 of Documentum. CSC are working to ensure that their SharePoint web part technology (SPX) will have the same features as offered by WebTop. At the same time CSC will be investing in creating an interface using EMC’s rapid application development technology, xCP. (In fact, EMC have asked CSC to help ensure that version 2.1 of xCP will provide complete content management capabilities.)
This brought us to the end of the Keynote and Strategy session. Before the coffee break Bill Meier shared with us an interesting article he had read over the effects of coffee – caffeine increase alertness in woman, but, in men, there is a drop in performance and confidence. (This link describes a little of what Bill was talking about).
I will cover the other sessions in a later post.
The following is an article that was originally posted on PharmaIQ.
The author is Cristina Falcão.
The world’s most highly regulated industry seems doomed to “forward retreat” tiptoeing into social media. Why? The reason lies on social media’s gist – user generated content (UGC) is the raison d’être but also the main drawback, since the lack of rules on the accuracy of online content (written by the users of websites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn) makes pharma accountable.
Effective guidance, equally issued by the EU and US drug agencies, is urgently needed, before pharma companies can use social media’s valuable contribution in areas such as pharma-vigilance, clinical trials, R&D, and employee- recruitment.
What is the current guidance situation?
Unlike in the US, the European Directive 2001/83 (Community Code) forbids public advertising of “prescription-only medicines”. On the other hand, EU offers little specific guidance on social media (apart from some EFPIA -guidelines on websites, and the PMCPA’s (UK) “Brief guideline on blogs”), and waits for the US approach; however, FDA rules on pharma, internet and social media, which draft was due at the end of 2010, still have not been issued.
Pharma companies are responsible for the contents of a sponsored website (sponsorship can simply be advertising); yet, it is virtually impossible for the industry to control a website’s UGC without undermining the dynamic nature of social media. Adverse events reporting (AER) is a nightmare: the law states pharma companies must report all those events to the respective regulatory agencies, where they are stored in databases to monitor drug safety. It is impossible for the industry to monitor all AER’s, and marketers fear that user-generated content will include complaints about their drugs’ side effects; what makes it even worse, is the fact that FDA’s databases are regularly searched by lawyers for potential class-action suits.
Nevertheless, there are many pharma companies using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media tools; the only way out, is to monitor activity on any social media platform where they are present, using disclaimers, reserving the right to remove unwanted comments and redirecting drug questions to the company’s website.
Patient-recruiting for clinical trials through social media, grants decreased R&D costs to the industry. However, clinical trials have several types, designs, and sample groups; social media, alone, is not the universal source. It can prove to be a double-edge sword, if patients interact and exchange information before the whole trial is completed; also it does not ensure evaluable data in the end. Patient- recruiting outside the physician’s own pool of patients has high dropout rates; tweeting about a clinical trial may build awareness of the opportunity, but does not guarantee an engaged PI, who will lead the patient through the clinical trial, thus assuring collection of meaningful data.
Although ‘social media’ is the overhyped buzzword of our time, for pharmaceuticals it will be a treacherous route: regulations will undoubtedly limit (further) interaction with the public, but increase accountability – it not being worth the effort or risk.
All we know for sure is that the debate has only started.
Seth Godin was asked about the value of social media in business.
In response to this Seth discussed the “value” of having so many “friends” on Facebook, or “followers” on Twitter.
He goes on to say question whether these people would go out of their way to help you. One interesting example he gives is that he knows people in NZ that, if he needed it, would give him a place to stay. He’s never met these people, but a strong relationship has been built up online because they have helped each other at some stage. They have taken the time to do something for the other.
Seth’s comment really resonate with my thoughts on relationships in Social Media. I don’t want to have hundreds of “Friends”, or thousands of “Followers”. I don’t want to be a LION (LinkedIn Open Networker).
I want to have a solid connection with someone that is based on more than just the effort it takes to click on a button.
Discovered Tom Fishburne’s website the other night. (I now see that he has been drawing since 2002!)
Tom is a cartoonist who draws cartoons that focus on business, and marketing. What first caught my attention was this cartoon:
If you don’t know about Tom Fishburne, you can read about him here.
He did a presentation called “Innovation: Lessons from Cartooning“. Really good to watch (although the camera work is a bit shaky).
If you haven’t seen it already – check out his site: http://www.tomfishburne.com/tomfishburne/.
(I wish I had discovered him earlier! This guy really captures Business!)
Originally from “Enterprise Collaboration – What’s Your Problem?“
Ha! I was impressed by this article:
They could have also called it “A Guy in a T-shirt with a Good idea”.
John Newton has written a blog called Irrational Exuberance on CMIS? In it he describes how how he “believes CMIS can transform the ECM industry, allow for significant growth and spawn whole new companies and markets.“
John was on the CMIS panel at AIIM, and relates how others on the panel didn’t have quite the same enthusiasm for CMIS as he did.
(Before I go any further – Fo those scratching their heads and mumbling “What the heck is CMIS?”, I recommend you click on this link and read what Wikipedia have to say about it.)
I’ll be upfront about this. I agree with John. CMIS isn’t going to expose all the functionality of the various ECM systems, but it will improve interoperability, and this will be BIG.
A document management’s repository will now be accessible. Not only through the client for the specific enterprise content management system, but also from other enterprise content management systems.
This is great news! I am really stocked about this. I think that it has great advantages. However, the cynical part of me looks at this, and thinks “Hmm..”. Why?, because the cynical part of me understands that Microsoft was one of the first companies involved in the CMIS initiative. And if you were trying to sell a wonderful new system such as SharePoint, one of the biggest hurdles for companies will be the fact that a lot of companies will have many, many document stored in costly, established ECMS.
Fact is – SharePoint is a great application. It provides a wonderfully customisable, familiar user interface, and is great for collaboration. It is also quite good at being an ECM system (with SharePoint 2010 starting to show some real teeth), but companies are unable to just dump their existing ECMS (which usually meets the particular requirements of the business grandly) and switch to a new Microsoft product. There is usually too much tied up in licence costs, as well as processes, and the cost of a migration is something that cannot be taken on without a great deal of planning, and soul-searching.
However, if there was a way that SharePoint could “easily” talk with the existing ECM in a friendly way, it suddenly becomes a lot more attractive. A SharePoint interface could be created that allows users to work in a way that is familiar, while connecting to content stored in the existing, built-for-purpose ECM system. The value of Microsoft’s application has increased.
And further to this, with CMIS there is the opportunity for new applications that can take advantage of the ability to interoperate with multiple disparate Enterprise Content Management system.
This means that the repository will no longer be the silo.