Certification and Compliance Open Text and MoReq2 Tracy Caughell Director, Product Management Open Text Corporation November 14, 2009 Rev 1.1 02092009 Slide 1
The Open Text Mission Slide 2
A Trusted Repository of Content Slide 3 Slide 3
Our Vision Open Text envisions a world where our customers orchestrate their People, Processes, and Content to achieve strategic success. Slide 4
Where Are We Today? More than 3000 staff globally Publicly Traded: NASDAQ, TSX FY2008: Revenue $725.5 million EMC/ Documentum 14% Others 46% Open Text 18% IBM 22% The safe choice for your ECM strategy and investments 18% Global Market Share* 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. Largest Independent ECM Vendor Consistent ECM market visionary Slide 5
Open Text Business Solutions Open Text delivers ECM business solutions that are Industry Specific Solutions Departmental Solution for many industries Manufacturing Government Energy Legal Life Sciences more Slide 6
Why customers look to Open Text and ECM High Corporate Exposure to Litigation and Regulations Reactive Preventative IT Costs & Complexity Rising IT Business Applications Storage Media Leveraging Critical Business Content Difficult Core Business Processes Content Availability LEGAL / COMPLIANCE Challenges to effectively and efficiently respond to the increasing risk of litigation Serious business consequences for non-compliance to regulations For the 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 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 Chief Compliance Officer / General Counsel Chief Information Officer Business User / Business Manager Slide 7 Copyright Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved.
A Trusted Source in ECM Slide 8
Open Text Supports Industry Standards Slide 9
Legislations and Standards DoD 5105.2 (U.S) RDIMS VERS 15489 DOME A Some are specific vertical markets, others are generic, others serve specific purposes *Source:Gartner Slide 10
Open Text ECM Suite Case Management User Experience Business Applications Content Migration Contracts Management Accounts Payable Marketing Asset Management ediscovery Document Management Collaboration & Community Management Web Content Management Records Management Email Management Capture and Delivery Business Process Management Digital Asset Management Archiving Content Reporting Enterprise Content Slide 11 Copyright 2008 Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved.
Focus 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 Looking forward to MoReq2 and beyond Slide 12
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history Version 1 Baseline requirements in a military environment, specifically Department of Defense 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 Slide 13
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history Version 2 Added a chapter for Managing Classified Records as optional 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 Slide 14
11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history Updated requirements Added a mandatory chapter for interoperability Version 3 Certification extended to 3 years of validity Date Product name Pairing? Chapters Certified and version 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 June 2009 OTRM 4.2 edocs 5.2 Ch2,Ch5 Slide 15
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. Slide 16
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 1 st 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. Slide 17
JITC Website Slide 18
PRO/TNA Certifications Version 1 Version 2 Date Product name Pairing? Specification and version 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 Slide 19
VERS (PROS 99/007) certifications Version 1 Version 2 v2 more specific preservation requirements Provides several optional extensions to Version 1 More explanatory material Date Product name Specification certifications March 2006 Livelink RM 3.0.1 Specifications 1 & 2 (LL9.5 SP1) January 2008 edocs RM 6 Specifications 1-5 October 2009 OTRM 4.2 Specifications 1-5 Slide 20
DOMEA Certifications Version 1.2 Version 2.0 Date Product name Specification and version October 2002 DOMEA 3.1 DOMEA Version 1.2 October 2003 Livelink für DOMEA Version 1.2 egovernment 9.1.3 October 2005 Open Text DOMEA WinDesk 4.0 DOMEA Version 2.0 Slide 21
Last but not least RDIMS RDIMS requirements Approved vendors list Contract reviewed and renewed 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 Slide 22
Canadian and Ontario Government involvement 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. Slide 24
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 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 Fabasoft announces certification, OT requests details on outstanding items Slide 26
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 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 Allow for the concept of pairing with different applications of record creation. Slide 28
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. 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 Slide 30
Open Text History of Innovation Well-earned reputation for excellence The broadest ECM solution portfolio Global professional services team Extensive partner ecosystem Slide 31
Thank You Tracy Caughell tcaughel@opentext.com Twitter: Tracy_Caughell info@opentext.com Slide 32