Rev 1.1 02092009 Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 1
Certification and Compliance
Open Text and MoReq2
Open Text Corporation
Tracy Caughell
Director, Product Management
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 3
Slide 3
Our Vision
Open Text envisions a world where our customers
orchestrate their
People
,
Processes
, and
Content
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 5
Where Are We Today?
More than 3000 staff globally
Publicly Traded: NASDAQ, TSX
FY2008: Revenue $725.5 million
Market Share: Enterprise Content Management Software, Worldwide, 2006-2008, Tom Eid and Bianca Granetto 5 June 2009. Gartner Inc.
*Gartner reported 15.3% for Open Text and 2.4% for Vignette, yielding 18% market share for Open Text as a combined entity.
Others 46% EMC/ Documentum 14% IBM 22% Open Text 18%
The safe choice for your ECM strategy and investments
18% Global Market Share*
Largest Independent ECM Vendor
Open Text Business Solutions
Open Text delivers ECM business solutions that are …
Industry Specific Solutions
Departmental Solution for many industries
Legal
Government Energy Life Sciences more…
Copyright © Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved. Slide 7
Leveraging Critical Business Content
Difficult
Inability to discover critical business content across multiple, disparate systems
Inability to access and act on critical business content across multiple, disparate systems
For the…
Business User / Business Manager
LEGAL / COMPLIANCE
High Corporate Exposure to Litigation
and Regulations
Challenges to effectively and efficiently respond to the increasing risk of
litigation
Serious business consequences for non-compliance to regulations
For the…
Chief Compliance Officer / General Counsel
IT Costs & Complexity Rising
Storage costs associated with an explosion of unmanaged,
unstructured content
Inability for organizations to achieve centralized- IT management vision within complex technical
environment
For the…
Chief Information Officer
Why customers look to Open Text and ECM
Core Business Processes
Content Availability Business
Applications Storage Media IT
Preventative Reactive
Open Text Supports Industry Standards
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 9
DoD 5105.2 (U.S)
Legislations and Standards
VERS
Some are specific vertical markets, others are generic, others serve specific purposes *Source:Gartner DOME A 15489 RDIMS
Document
Management EmailManagement
Content Reporting Business Process Management Capture and Delivery Archiving Web Content Management Collaboration & Community Management Digital Asset Management Enterprise Content User Experience
Open Text ECM Suite
Slide 11 Copyright © 2008 Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved.
Records Management
Business Applications
Contracts Management Contracts Management Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Content Migration Content Migration eDiscovery eDiscovery Case Management Case Management Marketing Asset Management Marketing Asset ManagementFocus on standards with certifications
To date, the successful RM Software certification programs are within areas with jurisdictional authority
Successful programs also have mandates to organizations in those jurisdictions to use the certified solutions
The standards without certification, such as ISO 15489 complement each certifiable specification.
Let’s take a look at the RM standards with certifications and the experience of Open Text with them…
US DoD 5015.02
UK PRO/TNA
Australia’s VERS
Germany’s DOMEA
Canada’s RDIMS
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 13
Version 1
Date Product name and version Pairing?
October 1998 iRIMS 7.1
July 1999 iRIMS 7.1.4 Filenet
July 1999 iRIMS 7.1.5 Livelink 8.1
May 2000 iRIMS 7.1.7 Docupact
October 2000 iRIMS 2001
2000 eDOCS RM 3.5
June 2001 iRIMS 9.0.2 Livelink 9
2001 eDOCS RM 4.0
Baseline requirements in a military environment, specifically Department of Defense
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history
Added a chapter for Managing Classified Records as optional Version 2
Date Product + version Pairing? Chapters certified
November 2002 iRIMS 9.0.5 Ch2 + Ch4 November 2002 LLRM 2.5 Ch2 + Ch4 December 2003 LLRM 2.7 Ch2 + Ch4 2003 eDOCS RM 5.1.1 Ch2 + Ch4 October 2004 LLRM 2.9 Ch2 + Ch4 2005 eDOCS RM 6 Ch2 + Ch4 November 2006 LLRM 3.8 Ch2 + Ch4 November 2006 LLRM 3.8 mySAP 2005 Ch2 November 2006 LLRM 3.8 SPS 2003, MOSS 2007 Ch2 August 2007 eDOCS 6 Ch2
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history
Updated requirements
Added a mandatory chapter for interoperability
Certification extended to 3 years of validity
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 15
Version 3
Date Product name and version
Pairing? Chapters Certified
October 2008 OTRM 4.2 Ch2,Ch3, Ch5
October 2008 OTRM 4.2 mySAP ERP6 Ch2,Ch5
October 2008 OTRM 4.2 MOSS2007 Ch2,Ch5
Open Text and DoD 5015.2 testing
One of the first through original testing One of the first through paired testing (DM system with RM system)
First to certify on SPS2007
First and only to certify with SAP
Continually test multiple platforms (Windows, Unix, MSExchange, Notes, multiple desk top O/S)
5015.02 spec has been updated throughout the years twice
It is anticipated to go through another revision in 2012 (typically every 5 years)
There are test cases incorporated to ensure “backward compatibility” with the standard, or essentially upgradeability.
Process to Certify for DoD 5015.02
Initiate contact with JITC, fill out CTE forms (intent to certify)
Enter into contractual agreement with JITC itemizing terms and conditions of certification.
Determine test location and dates.
Submit 1st payment of intent to certify
Questions on the requirements are fielded by testers
Submit completed test cases (in our case +200 pages with screen shots and step by step instructions).
JITC testers Perform each test case, work through any issues
Pass/fail notification
Web site updated.
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 17
PRO/TNA Certifications
Date Product name and version
Pairing? Specification and Version
June 2000 iRIMS 7.1 PRO v1
March 2001 iRIMS 2001 PRO v1
September 2001 iRIMS 2001 Livelink 9 TNA 2002
October 2004 Livelink 9.5 TNA 2002
April 2005 R/KYV TNA 2002
September 2006 eDOCS RM 6 TNA 2002
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 19
VERS (
PROS 99/007)
certifications
Date Product name Specification certifications
March 2006 Livelink RM 3.0.1 (LL9.5 SP1)
Specifications 1 & 2 January 2008 eDOCS RM 6 Specifications 1-5 October 2009 OTRM 4.2 Specifications 1-5
Version 1 Version 2
v2 more specific preservation requirements
Provides several optional extensions to Version 1
DOMEA Certifications
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 21
Date Product name Specification and version
October 2002 DOMEA® 3.1 DOMEA Version 1.2 October 2003 Livelink für
eGovernment 9.1.3
DOMEA Version 1.2 October 2005 Open Text
DOMEA® WinDesk 4.0
DOMEA Version 2.0
Last but not least…RDIMS
A Short History of RDIMS
RDIMS = Records / Document / Information Management System
TBS initiative in the late 1990s to establish a common ECM platform
Contract awarded to CGI (an Systems Integrator) as the provider
Technology was a blend of components from multiple vendors
Agencies can buy from approved list of software
Contract renewed 2008; Open Text is Provider
Procurement is done via PWGSC
RDIMS requirements Approved vendors list Contract reviewed and renewed
Canadian and Ontario Government involvement
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 23
Certification justification
Having industry standards sets a baseline for capabilities
The standards representing more of a niche market, or specific vertical require business justification in order to put $ into the initiative at any potential vendor. To put in perspective…
It is estimated (not officially) that each new version of DoD 5015.02 spec costs approximately $1 Million CAD to certify
Costs associated with
– Time of team involved
– $ for hardware
– $ for testing each configuration
– $ for testing travel and living for test analysts.
– Soft costs of using R&D money for testing and compliance vs other competing business opportunities.
How MoReq2 is different…
Some standards are closed and only key stakeholders have input, or those within the jurisdiction affected.
MoReq2 attempts to transcend the limitations of niche markets, to take the benefits of the best practises, and at the same time hopes to be open regarding input for future.
MoReq2 is not mandated for use (it’s too big in current state)
Initial growing pains – who is the authoritative body/person in questions of requirements?
Ownership of translations – only RDIMS is translated into multiple languages
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 25
Open Text’s Journey with MoReq2
July 2006 Open Text invited to participate in suggestions for MoReq2 and provide feedback.
2007 participated in feedback for chapters, publicly commits to MoReq2 in product development
2008 spec finalized,
companies write in MoReq2 requirements in RFPs, OT inquires regarding test regime (still being finalized) OT begins earnest development on gaps
2009 OT submits questions on interpretations of requirements MGB responds to many, while others await further discussion
Discussions of a revised specification based on feedback not only from OT, and still some unclear requirements
Examples of items for clarifying
(4.1.23) System configuration options available to provide varying levels of information about objects to users that don’t have any access
permissions to them
(9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4) Deleting records during a re-classification
(4.3.1) Partial backup / restore
(6.3.3, 6.3.4) Automatically prompt user to capture sent\received emails. Will a subtle cue be acceptable? (resistance in user base to too many prompts)
(4.1.19) Level of granularity to functional access –what is ‘maintain other system parameters’? When would anyone ever want to ‘change audit trail data’?
And more…
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 27
Where do we go together next?
Some suggestions for improvement…
Make the specification more modular Less specific reporting requirements
– Instead of specifying long list of particular reports allow for a generic reporting requirement.
Set up an authoritative person/body to answer specific questions
– And make the decision makers accountable
Instead of mandating support for many different file plan methods, allow options to choose one method.
Allow options for email management instead of full mandatories
– Stripping the attachment from an email as it’s added isn’t a normal request from our customer base
– What is rationale to add multiple emails in as a single record? How is metadata affected
Where do we go together next? (continued)
Have the specification wording less application specific, there may be more than one way to accomplish the goal
4.1.19 (paraphrased) – User access to ERMS functions must allow to be setup with at least level of granularity shown in the illustrative access rights table in section 13.4.
– Instead of trying to define a specific list of functions the specification should address only what business use scenarios must be satisfied (i.e. user is granted or denied the ability to edit\delete a record) and not specify what specific functions list the ERMS must support.
9.3.3 - If an administrative role “re-locates” a record (as in 3.4.1), the ERMS must behave exactly as for a deletion but with the addition that a copy (or a pointer, depending on the storage method used) must be inserted
automatically at the new location.
– This requirement forces the application to perform a deletion however another viable option is simply to update its metadata with the new location without specifically
performing a deletion. The specification should more generically address the ERMS capabilities to re-locate a record without mandating what exactly must happen
behind the scenes.
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 29
In Closing…
Open Text supports the initiatives of the DLM Forum for MoReq2
Our history and experiences both in customer implementations and certifications can help bring a practical view to further MoReq2
developments.
The current state of requirements forces too many options (such as file plans, emails, partial backup and recovery), and some that don’t seem to enhance our software, but rather add complexity.
Open Text will support requirements that enhance offerings, provide real value to customers, allow for multiple means to implement and plan for future content types and future means of information governance
Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved. Slide 31
Open Text
History of Innovation
Well-earned reputation for excellence
The broadest ECM solution portfolio
Global professional services team
Thank You
Tracy Caughell
tcaughel@opentext.com
Twitter: Tracy_Caughell