Bill English, MVP, MCSE, MCSA, MCT
CEO, English, Bleeker and Associates, Inc.
Mindsharp, Summit 7 and the Best Practices Conference
English, Bleeker and Associates, Inc.
Leaders and Experts In SharePoint: AUTHORS
Bill English has authored or co-authored 13 books since
2000 on SharePoint and Exchange products.
Todd Bleeker has authored or co-authored 3 books on
Microsoft's integrated suite of products including three
SharePoint books.
Ben Curry is the author or co-author on 3 books on
SharePoint products and technologies
Other Authors on staff or Alliance:
Marylin White
Penny Coventry
Daniel Galant
Daniel Webster
Mark Schneider
Paul Stork
Steve Smith
Craig Carpenter
Corro'll Driskell
And more
3
Agenda
 Understanding Putability and Findability
 Outlining the problems with Putability and
Findability in most organizations
 Understanding how the Managed Metadata
Service resolves many of these problems
What is Putability
 Definition:
 The quality of putting content in the correct
location with the correct metadata
 The degree to which we put quality information
into our information management system
 Truths:
 What goes in, must come out: garbage in,
garbage out
 Our users will resist taking the time to put quality
information into the system
 Findability is directly impacted by our Putability
practices
What is Findability?
 Definition:
 The quality of being locatable or navigable
 The degree to which objects are easy to discover or locate
 Truths:
 You can’t use what you can’t find
 Information that can’t be found is worthless
 Our customer’s can’t purchase what they can’t find
 Information that is hard to find is hardly used
 Authority, trust and findability are interwoven
 Key to success when working with information is findability
Putability, Findability & Technology
 Most are clueless when it comes to thinking
about how information should go into
SharePoint
 This wasn’t encouraged by the product team
 Collaboration has been the focus
 Most equate Findability with an application:
buy a search application and you’ve solved
findability
Google’s Promise
PLUG IT IN, TURN IT ON AND FIND IT!
A robust Information Architecture
solution will:
1. save your company significant
monies through increased efficiencies
2. while simultaneously giving your
organization a greater ROI on its’
Microsoft Technology Investments
3. that contributes to a competitive
advantage
4. by making information “faster” in
your organization
Agenda
 Understanding Putability and Findability
 Outlining the problems with Putability and
Findability in most organizations
 Understanding how the Managed Metadata
Service resolves many of these problems
Agenda
 Understanding Putability and Findability
 Outlining the problems with Putability and
Findability in most organizations
 Understanding how the Managed Metadata
Service resolves many of these problems
Inefficient ECM Systems
 Over 30 billion original documents are created





and consumed each year
Cost of documents is estimated to be as
much as 15% of annual revenues
85% of documents are never retrieved
50% of documents are duplicate in some way
60% of stored documents are obsolete
For every $1 spent to create the document,
$10 are spent to manage it
Excuses for not having ECM
 If we need it, we can usually find it…
 Just send an email – someone will find it for me
 No one will ever sue us
 If we do get sued, we’ll find what we need to
defend ourselves
 We’ve got to pick our battles
 $20/file a document, $120/find a misfiled
document & $220 to re-produce a lost document
 Green/Schmeen
 NMP if a document is copied 19 times
Lack of ECM Excuses
 Information security isn’t at the top of our list
of things to do – I trust my employees
 If people want to take home work, that’s a good
thing!
 ECM is too expensive and there’s little ROI, so
why invest in it?
 Reality: you’re already paying for a bad ECM – a
good ECM will save you money through better
efficiencies
Is Findability Understood?
 When asked “How well is findability understood in your
organization”, the following answers were given:




It is well understood and addressed: 17%
It is vaguely understood: 31%
Not sure how search and findability are different: 30%
No clear understanding of findability at all: 22%
 Over half (55%) of organizations today either don’t
know what findability is or they are not able to
differentiate findability from search technologies
 Many believe that if they have a stand-alone search
tool, then findability is being adequately addressed
Findability vs. Search
 Search is too-often viewed as an application-specific
solution for findability
 Search focuses on trying to ask the right question
 Search focuses on “matching” keywords with content
under the assumption that if I find the right word, I’ve
found the right content
 Findability is not a technology: It is a way of
managing information that is baked into the
organization
 It is a well-defined and well-executed strategic model of
consistent practices and actions
 Technologies contribute to an overall Findability solution,
but a robust findability solution is much more than the
implementation of a few technologies or applications
The Paradox of Findability as a
Corporate Strategy
 When asked the degree to which Findability is
critical to their overall business goals and success,
62% of respondents indicated that it is imperative or
significant. Only 5% felt it had minimal or no impact
on business success.
 Yet, 49% responded that even though Findability is
strategically essential, they have no formal plan or
set of goals for Findability in their organization.
 Of the other 51% who claimed to have a strategy,
26% reported that their strategy was ad hoc,
meaning that they have no strategy at all.
 So: 75% have no Findability strategy, even though
many believe it is strategically essential
The Cost of Information Work
Task
Avg Hours per
Worker Per Week
Cost per Worker
per Week
Cost Per Worker
Per Year
Email: Read &
Answer
14.5
418.3
21,752
Create Documents
13.3
333.7
19,952
Search
9.5
274.1
14,251
Analyze
Information
9.6
277.0
14, 401
Edit/Review
8.8
253.9
13,201
Hours Wasted Per Week
Task
Avg Hours
Cost Per Worker
Cost Per Year
Search but not
find
3.5
101
5,251
Recreating
Content
3.0
87
4,501
Acquiring
documents with
little or not
automation
2.3
66
3,450
Version Control
Issues
2.2
63
3,300
The Cost of Poor Findability
 Avg number of queries per day: 20
 Avg number of hours/week spent finding info:
6.5
 3.5 hours spent trying to find information but not
finding it
 3.0 hours recreating information that you know
exists, but you cannot find
 6.5 hours/week = $9,750 cost/worker/year
 10K workers: $97,500,000/year
 Too high? OK – Cut it by 90%: $9.75M/year
What keeps us from Finding
Information?










Poor search functionality: 71%
Inconsistency in how we tag/describe data: 59%
Lack of adequate tags/descriptors: 55%
Information not available electronically: 49%
Poor navigation: 48%
Don’t know where to look: 48%
Constant information change: 37%
Can’t access the system that hosts the info: 30%
Don’t know what I’m looking for: 22%
Lack the skills to find the information: 22%
Who is responsible for tagging?







Authors: 40%
Records Managers: 29%
SME’s: 25%
Anyone: 23%
Don’t know: 12%
No one: 16%
This means that 76% don’t know who is responsible
for tagging information to make it more findable.
 Result of not having information governance
 Can’t have SharePoint governance without IG
Findability and ECM
 29% - Sharepoint is working in conflict with
other ECM systems
 16% - Sharepoint is integrated with existing
ECM suites
 12% - It’s the only ECM suite
 43% - SharePoint is used to “fill in some
functions”
Findability and ECM
 36% - IT rolls out SharePoint with no input
from Record Managers or ECM teams
 14% - admit that no one is in charge and that
SharePoint + ECM is out of control
 SMS/text messages, blogs, wikis and other
web 2.0 technologies lack inclusion in the
ECM solution in 75% of organizations
 This represents a major risk to companies
Research Summary:
 We spend a lot of time looking for and recreating information that already exists
 Most organizations don’t have a coherent
findability solution
 Most organizations have not aligned SharePoint
with their larger ECM needs
 Many organizations confuse search with
findability
 Yet, most organizations believe that Findability
is strategically important to their success
Other Putability/Findability
Problems
 Information Overload
 Databreaches
 eDiscovery
Information Overload
 False Premise: More information is better.
 True Premise: We need the right information at
the right time
 Information overload reduces findability
 The number of sources of information is
bewildering:
 Books, magazines, newspapers, billboards, blogs,
wikis, web sites, telephone, television, video, email,
text messages, instant messages, music, social
networks, conversations, etc….
Information Overload
 $900 Billion cost to the economy in 2008
(WSJ)
 54% of us report feeling a “high” when we
find information that we’re looking for
 80% of us feel “driven to gather as much
information as possible to keep up with
customers and competitors”
Information Overload Research
 Study at Kings College in London:
 Information overload harms concentration more than
smoking marijuana
 IQ dropped by 10 points during information overload
while smoking pot dropped IQ’s by 5 points
Information Overload
 Over half of us report experiencing email




fatigue
Spend 1.5 hours/day processing emails. 20%
spend over 3 hours/day processing emails
67% process emails outside of work hours
“Sheer overload” is reported to be the biggest
problem with email
Findability is harmed
Information Overload
 Psychiatrist Ed Hallowell: Attention Deficit
Trait (ADT)
 Have too much input – more than you can possibly





manage
Make decisions quickly – without reflection
Push the “close door” button repeatedly in the
elevator
Can’t manage as well as you’d like
Try harder and harder to keep up
Addicted to speed
Regulatory Breaches
 35 states have laws requiring that individuals
be notified if their confidential or personal
data has been lost, stolen or compromised.
 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has identified
more than 215 million records of U.S.
Residents that have been exposed due to
security breaches since 2005
2007 Study by Ponemon Institute
 Avg cost of a data breach is $197/record
 43% increase from 2005
 Avg total cost per reporting company: $6.3M
 Cost of lost business accelerates:
 Increased from 2005 at 30%, avg $4.1M/company
and $128/record compromised.
 Lost business now accounts for 65% of data
breach costs compared to 56% in 2006 study.
2007 Study Continued
 Third-party breaches (contractors,
consultants, partners & vendors)
 Accounted for 40% of the data breaches – up from
29% in 2006 & 21% in 2005
 Most costly: $231/record
CheckPoint Study 2009
 #1 threat to company’s network security:
employees who inadvertently expose
confidential information
 Hackers were #5
 Mobile devices were #12
 Competitor espionage #14
E-Discovery and Findability
Amendments to the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure
 Amended December 1,
2006 – adds electronic
files
 Significant departure
from paper-based
discovery rules
 Complicates
findability, data
storage and exposure
to liability
What is E-Discovery?
 Electronic discovery (e-Discovery) refers to “any
process in which electronic data is sought,
located, secured, and searched with the intent of
using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal
case”.
 This includes but is not limited to computer
forensics, email archiving, online review, and
proactive management.
 The emergent e-Discovery field augments legal,
constitutional, political, security, and personal
privacy issues.
When does eDiscovery happen?
Company
Customer
Employee
Partner
Discovery is the exchange of evidence between the parties.
On Dec. 1, 2006, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure guide discovery in the US federal court system
have been amended to include electronic documents.
Electronic Discovery
 IT and security teams are expected to help with the
management of such information
 Processes: creation, storage, archival, and destruction
 Security objectives: availability, confidentiality, and
integrity
 Organizations will need closer ties between legal
and IT groups to create improved policies and
infrastructure
 Sometimes you might be a third party to the case
but still may have important information
 Banks are often in this situation
 If you have reasonable expectation to be involved
in a case, then you have a duty to preserve evidence
42
E-Discovery Risks are Real
 There are many horror stories about adverse
judgments when ESI isn’t preserved
• Past rulings have resulted in millions/billions in
penalties
• Philip Morris (emails not saved: $2.75M fines, witnesses
barred)
• Bank of America Securities (slow to produce emails and
records; inaccurate statements about ESI: $10M fine to SEC)
• Morgan Stanley (backup tapes not disclosed: judge allowed
jury to infer fraud; $1.5B judgment – in review)
• 28% of organizations will take more than a
month to produce documents for e-discovery
43
Solution Validation
eDiscovery is (still) mission critical
Almost two years after the FRCP Amendments:
57% of Law Firms surveyed say their clients are not ready to
find and produce information relevant to litigation.
39% of In-House Counsel surveyed say their companies
are not prepared for e-discovery.
Information Week: Companies Not Ready For E-Discovery, September 23, 2008
44
Copyright  English, Bleeker & Associates, Inc.
Early Disclosure Discussions
 Outline preservation steps undertaken
 Difficulty to locate and preserve is not an excuse
 Preservation Policies ≠ Retention Policies
 Retention: winnow out unneeded info
 Preservation: retain info pertinent to the
proceedings
 Lack of agreement on Preservation methods
and scope often results in court orders
 Difficulty to locate and preserve is not an excuse
E-Discovery and SharePoint
 Check with legal dept about what




information should be findable and by whom
in a legal proceeding.
Take their results as part of the business
requirements for your SharePoint farm
Develop technical & governance req’s
Implement and monitor
Legal should use Search to help discover noncompliance
Agenda
 Understanding Putability and Findability
 Outlining the problems with Putability and
Findability in most organizations
 Understanding how the Managed Metadata
Service resolves many of these problems
MMS – in a Nutshell
 Content type distribution system
 Enables enterprise-wide CT usage
 Retains local control and extensibility
 Pull technology
 Enterprise taxonomy development
 Allows global taxonomy to be enforced
 Allows local growth of the taxonomy
 Allows taxonomy to be developed over time
 Flexible, extensible, “smart”
MMS Impact
Department
Solution
• Enterprise
Solution
Collaboration
Focus
• Information
Focus
People Focus
• Business
Focus
Problem
Users don’t want to
take the time to tag
information
Users don’t know
what metadata to
select
Users need to add
their own metadata
Need to use same
metadata constructs
in the Enterprise
Need to enforce
global metadata with
local additions
Putability





Findability
MMS Feature
Force metadata
assignments via
closed lists and DIP
Users can select from
a set of choices in a
choice list – MMS will
make suggestions
Users can add terms
to an open list. Admin
can merge words in a
term set later on
Content Types can be
distributed across the
enterprise
Content types can be
extended at the site
level
THE MMS IS ABOUT PUTABILITY, NOT
FINDABILITY