Search May Be Flawed, but Maybe Content Management Is Worse?
September 14, 2011
I pay some attention to search and content processing. I take a dim view of content management because it is a weird business. Unlike records management, CMS as the “real” experts label the systems, CMS has few rules. In the tidy world of records management, there are document retention policies. Even when one ventures into the murk of legal content, there is a body of information about how documents must be tattooed before the legal eagles get to add value to the results of a discovery process. And CMS? Most of it is a Wild West rodeo on broken down horses and amateurs trying to distract the wild bulls and kicking stallions of content creators. I find CMS amusing to watch, but I steer clear. The “governance” experts are swarming over the mess CMS vendors and system users create. Need an example? How about the chaos of many Lotus Notes or Microsoft SharePoint systems. Software just does not impose an editorial policy on employees with degrees in business administration and home economics engaged in writing marketing collateral, proposals, and reports.
I read “Inefficiencies in Collateral Management Cost the Financial Sector More than EUR4 Billion Annually, According to Accenture/Clearstream Survey” and reached two working hypotheses:
First, some information functions may be unmanageable unless rules are set up before the users start cranking out digital outputs. In my experience, this pristine state is tough to achieve. Consequently, most CMS implementations are not going to deliver what users and chief financial officers want. In short, the cost excess is likely to persist. How much money is blown with lousy CMS? Here’s what the article asserts:
The financial services sector could save more than EUR4 billion annually in collateral management costs by addressing operational inefficiencies, according to a survey by Accenture (NYSE: ACN) and Clearstream.
Assume the estimated cost is inflated. Then do a back of envelope calculation that says Manhattan and Tokyo are probably as inefficient. Bingo. We have a nice fat six billion euro number. Not quite like the PIIGS’ debt, but a respectable number which CMS vendors should have kept more manageable.
Second, what about XML. I thought that Extensible Markup Language and systems which whip this file type around would have reduced content costs. I am not sure that has happened. I have formulated a notion that XML has become its own worst enemy. There is not single XML and the costs of pushing verbose objects to and fro, the expense of the humans who must work with systems designed for coding rock stars, and the bewildering diversity of XML tagged content look like deal breakers.
I don’t want to name any XML search and content vendors. I don’t want to highlight vendors who talk about XML and then slap big price tags on content transformation services. I do want to mention that Exalead is XML friendly and does a good job in my opinion with XML in many different forms. To Exalead’s credit, it handles XML quietly. Tooting the XML tuba has not sunk a musical hook in the financial institutions mentioned in the survey.
I am generally suspicious when I read a giant consulting firm and a smaller consulting firm have mined their contacts for data. However, in this case, I think that CMS and XML help me understand the persistent problem which exists in certain market sectors. How do you fix the problem? My hunch is that one should hire Accenture. Given the mess that exists, Accenture may buy better lunches for clients than the “real” poobahs, the art history majors, and the self appointed experts have delivered. Wait. I want to restate this. The problem may be unmanageable. Content is increasing too rapidly and few outfits have the appetite to spend good money after bad. Just my opinion formed in a land fond of beets.
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
