Tag: • Telecommunications

Can the Enterprise Strike Back?

Submitted by Martin Sumner-Smith on Fri, 10/12/2012 – 16:17

Most people have written-off Research in Motion (RIM) and their Blackberry platform. But then most people take a consumer’s perspective in making that assessment.

RIM is making a play to its traditional strength – security. But it is considering security for both enterprises and consumers. Security is a powerful draw for enterprises, but not for consumers in my experience.

I got to think about this when I attended a RIM Blackberry event in Toronto yesterday – the BlackBerry Enterprise Forum 2012. Clearly aimed to the enterprise, as you’d expect, at least half of the attendees were from IT departments. And I estimate 95% were male! This is interesting because the day before I attended a webinar on electronic signatures and all of the questions came from women. In my experience women dominate the business side of records and document management efforts in enterprises. The under-representation of women should have set off alarms.

Toronto-20121011-00110

RIM is responding to the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) trend in many organizations. First they provide tools under the BlackBerry Mobile Fusion banner to help IT departments register and manage Android and iOS (Apple) devices, in addition to RIM devices. This approach recognizes that staff, and most significantly, senior executives, are bringing such devices to work and demanding that they be connected to enterprise resources, starting with email. But it will do nothing to reverse the trend of people investing in Android and iOS devices personally.

“Blackberry Enterprise Server improvements will mean enterprises will have one unified view of their complete mobile infrastructure so IT managers can have control of every mobile device in their company.” – Thorsten Heins quoted

RIM hopes that BlackBerry Balance (video), a key feature that is further built-out in the forthcoming BB10 release, might encourage staff to pick a BlackBerry as their personal device. There is a complete separation of personal and work information on a device into two workspaces. In BB10 users get a unified interface, but are unable to copy information from work to personal areas. Certainly IT departments will like the added security, and this might let them push back on the deployment of non-Blackberry devices, but there is less ‘in it’ for staff. Perhaps the best feature is that IT can delete all work information on a device without touching personal information. I could have benefited from a better separation between work and personal information on my devices earlier this year (blog post). But in the end, for most people, look for the shiniest, coolest, most fashionable device of the moment, and don’t consider their possible future dismissal.

RIM knows this and acknowledged it by highlighting the hot features of the new camera in BB10 devices and the new intelligent keyboard. But I doubt it will be enough.

I was left with the feeling that RIM is trying to do too much in too many arenas. The breadth of their effort was presented as strength: “No other company has as comprehensive a platform as BlackBerry,” said Andrew McLeod, RIM’s managing director of Canada operations and event chair. RIM offers operating systems, enterprise security and device management, cloud services, and handheld devices, while trying to appeal to consumers and enterprises, and also feeding a developer and partner network across all of these. Apple, Microsoft and Google each only do some of this, and they are able to devote far more resources than a diminished RIM. For me, in a fast-paced market, you can only win when you focus sharply. A fully integrated offering wins when there is enough time to complete it, which requires competitors make few changes and that there are no disruptive market entries. That is not the current climate in the mobile device world.

For me the enterprise and cloud security story was the most compelling, and perhaps it will be the ultimate, surviving asset.

The excitement and enthusiasm of the RIM staff at the event was palpable. They are believers and are being tested in ‘the fire.’ I tried to be supportive – I took my BlackBerry and had my Kindle in my pocket (to read on the subway), but refrained from taking my iPad. But even at such an event for hard-core supporters, I saw a number of iPhones in use.

 

As the pendulum swings – Users vs. the Enterprise

There have been two traditional enemies of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) adoption:

  1. Email
  2. Shared network folders/drives

For most users in an enterprise (i.e. staff), it is simply easier to send a file to a colleague through email than it is to first deposit the file and then send a link instead.In the early 2000’s, progress was made to close the usability gap so that it was nearly as easy to deposit and send a link as it was to send directly. Enterprises were motivated to encourage or even require this user behavior by compliance requirements (e.g. SOX), especially in some industrial (e.g. 21 CFR Part 11 in the life sciences sector) and government sectors. The effort was made feasible by the fact that in the majority of cases, the files were in either Microsoft Office or PDF formats, and that each enterprise typically had standardized email system, often MS Exchange or Lotus Notes. ECM systems provided easy approaches that tied the two together. Similarly, with shared network folders, users found it very easy to just create a folder that they needed, then share it with a few colleagues as required. But this is highly non-scalable, even for individual users, who quickly have access to hundreds of poorly named and unmaintained folders and files. The benefits of bringing some standardization to the naming and maintenance of folders and files, with audit trails and version control, became an ECM adoption driver that even many users supported. Enterprises saw the efficiency benefits of making current and relevant information more readily available to staff in support of their work.

Pendulum

But in recent year the pendulum has very much swung back in favor of the end user with the consumerization of enterprise IT.On the email front, most staff have ready access to Cloud email services such as Gmail, even if their enterprise-sanctioned email service goes down. And increasingly staff are creating content in other formats (i.e. not Office or PDF) that are supported by these email services, or other services that provide new types of content such as blogs, microblogs, wikis, videos, etc. And they are often doing this on devices that they personally supply (e.g. smart phones and tablets).And on the shared folder front, dedicated Cloud services such as Dropbox and Box.net are making very significant in-roads into enterprises, even if they are not sanctioned. Users simply take the easier and arguably the best way (from a personal efficiency perspective) to get their jobs done. They gain ready access to ‘their’ files wherever they are and on whatever device they use.Clearly the ‘pendulum’ has swung very much towards the needs of end users in recent years. But the return swing is inevitable. It will likely be driven by:

  1. Disclosure disasters to come (think Wikileaks ‘on steroids’), that will force enterprises to be enforce processes,
  2. Growing process confusion and inefficiencies as the number of consumer-oriented services used by staff continue to grow, and by
  3. Enterprise software vendors moving to adopt the best features of consumer software to the needs of enterprises.

Engaging Content. Whether to Embed or Link?

Showing a collection of PowerPoint slides pulled from an OpenText Content Server was the subject of a recent post. At that time, I used presentations from our Content World Users’ conference of a year ago to show how a collection of related materials from a secure enterprise repository could be embedded in the post using OpenText Widget Services (OTWS).Last week was the latest Content World 2011 conference, which provided me with a rich set of new materials to show Widget Services’ capabilities. Note: All of these presentations are already available individually from OpenText Online Communities (login required)Full screen collection – In my previous post the collection was embedded within the post. You could expand it if you chose. But there are times when you want to show full-screen off-the-bat. So here are a collection of presentations related to our eDOCS offering:

  • Just click on this link to view the collection
  • Select one, get details, view it in a player, download it, or get the embed code to use elsewhere.

Collection embedded – Frankly I find the full screen version above more compelling, but there are times when you need to embed in context, much as you might embed a video from OpenText Video Services. So here is the same collection embedded here to illustrate that: A single presentation in a player – In contrast, here is a single presentation, this time about Widget Services, opened in a viewer when you click this link.

Engaging, Syndicated Content Collections

Sometimes providing someone with a simple list of choices is not effective because they’ll find it boring. Users may have been spoiled by the newer, more immersive online experiences. You need to create a more engaging experience.At other times you want to package up content you have in source or original repository and provide it to users through some other website, wiki or blog.These two scenarios are common ones that the OpenText Widget Services (OTWS) solution was designed to address. It also gives control of where the content is used, and more importantly, you don’t have to renounce ownership rights based on an agreement with service provider.A small code snippet is created to be embedded anywhere – much as users have learned for videos with YouTube (and Open Text Video Services) and  presentations with SlideShare. But OTWS supports many formats of content, even in one collection assembled from more than one repository if required. In some ways it is like a dynamic, immersive portal.There’s nothing like an example, so here is a collection of four keynote presentations given at last year’s Content World 2010 – the OpenText global users’ conference. The original files happen to be in PDF converted from PowerPoint, but a wide variety of formats are supported by OTWS as I mentioned. There are a number of different style widget templates – I picked a simple one here.If you’ve never seen this before, here are a few instructions:For the Player

  1. Scroll through the presentation collection using the arrow tabs on the left and right of the player frame
  2. You can go to full screen mode in the widget through the icon on the lower right of the player. Frankly it’s much better when you do that as I only put a small player here
  3. Also on the lower right is a share icon (two heads) to download the embed code to be used elsewhere

For a Presentation in the Player

  1. If you click on a presentation you can open it in your browser
    • There are then controls on the bottom to advance slides/pages, as well as to change the size and fit on your screen
  2. You can download a specific presentation by clicking on the ‘down-arrow’ icon
  3. You can see metadata of that presentation by clicking on the ‘circling arrow’ icon at the top left of the initial view

Next week there will be another Content World event. I’ll be providing presentations from that event through widgets to supplement the traditional channel OpenText has provided. I’ll use another widget template as well as a thumbnail feature to provide more easily read slide titles.The player here is based on Flash, but HTML5 is supported in the OTWS version to be released in a few weeks.

Fuzzy Content for Fuzzy People

Suppose you asked someone to classify some objects such as an ashtray, a painting and a sink, as either “furniture” or “home furnishing”. That would seem to be a straightforward task.

If you also asked them whether the same objects belong in a single group comprised of both “furniture and home furnishings,” you would expect that any object that they classified as either one or the other would belong in the combined or parent group. A logical disjunction. Such assignment tasks are very much like those that we require of enterprise content management system (ECM) users to assign metadata about a content (i.e. digital files) they are adding. Such metadata helps subsequent retrieval through searching and browsing, and potentially supporting dependent business processes (e.g. a triggered workflow).

There’s a problem though. Often people will not make the classification you expect. They may place an object in one of the original categories, but not the larger or parent one if it is the only choice they have! There is a tendency for people to delay making a decision if there might be an outcome they don’t know. Apparently this phenomenon has been documented over two decades by psychologists and is referred to as the ‘disjunction effect’.

I learned about this in a New Scientist article posted yesterday (5 September 2011): Quantum minds: Why we think like quarks.  The article describes one of the first observations of the disjunction effect: “In the early 1990s, for example, psychologists Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir of Princeton University tested the idea in a simple gambling experiment. Players were told they had an even chance of winning $200 or losing $100, and were then asked to choose whether or not to play the same gamble a second time. When told they had won the first gamble (situation A), 69 per cent of the participants chose to play again. If told they had lost (situation B), only 59 per cent wanted to play again. That’s not surprising. But when they were not told the outcome of the first gamble (situation A or B), only 36 per cent wanted to play again.”

Traditionally in ECM we have held that it is difficult to get users to add metadata to describe the content they are adding; in essence that users are lazy. We have not considered that the choices presented to users, and any concurrent information presented, will actually change whether they provide the necessary data, when they provide the data, or indeed the actual values they choose. ECM taxonomies are built on the assumption that users can make logical decisions to correctly describe content. Typically we present mutually exclusive choices, often organized in hierarchical (parent-child) fashion. But as the New Scientist article notes, people employ a kind of quantum logic that allows for something to be a bit of two exclusive alternatives, and for the context of the classification (the measurement in quantum terms) to affect the outcome. As a result their content classifications are fuzzier then we expect or perhaps need.

Content is often described as unstructured information. Metadata schemes are commonly applied to impart a structured framework to manage that unstructured content, but the fuzziness of human logic may make this doomed to failure.

Making Connections in an Enterprise

The value of social media to an enterprise is still being proven in many organizations. Since most such 2.0 technologies employ a ‘pull’ or ‘opt-in model’, getting staff engaged can be a challenge at first.I recently developed a 10-step approach to effective enterprise social networking specifically to use within OpenText.

  • The first step is to add a picture of yourself, not an avatar or the default icon.
  • The second step is to add information to your profile.

In support of these two steps I developed the following two-minute video which we have deployed on the login page of our Intranet systems.

  • It isn’t supposed to be super-professional as we are also encouraging staff to make more videos – if they think they need professional production for every video they’ll never get started.

Anyway, here’s the video. It shows screen shots of our internal Content Server system called Ollie, and specifically some of the features of the Pulse social networking offering.Pulse combines the style of microblogging or status posts made famous by twitter, together with Content Updates. Comments associated with newly added content (digital files) are shown in a ‘stream’ and other users can add additional comments or ‘like’ the item.

Where is the concept of Employee-to-Employee (E2E)?

Organizations are struggling to understand the relevance of social networking tools internally. You can see the lack of maturity in this field by looking up E2E on Wikipedia; of the several interpretations of E2E, none refer to Employee-to-Employee. Other X2X concepts are better documented:

  1. B2B – Business-to-Business
  2. B2C – Business-to-Consumer
  3. B2G – Business-to-Government

These three all have aspects of commerce for the provision of products or services between different parties. A more recent, fourth X2X entry is B2E – Business-to-Employee, recognizing what goes on within a given organization rather than its external interactions. As the Wikipedia entry notes (2011-04-20):”Business-to-employee (B2E) electronic commerce uses an intrabusiness network which allows companies to provide products and/or services to their employees. Typically, companies use B2E networks to automate employee-related corporate processes.Examples of B2E applications include:

  • Online insurance policy management
  • Corporate announcement dissemination
  • Online supply requests
  • Special employee offers
  • Employee benefits reporting
  • 401(k) Management”

The traditional 1.0-style of Intranet is one of the tools used by businesses to provide information to their employees, so it can be regarded as a B2E platform. Typically the provision of information is controlled in a top-down manner.With the newer 2.0-style of Intranets, employees are able to contribute, either by adding documents and other forms of content, or by participating socially. But B2E tools are ineffective at supporting social interactions. It isn’t about what a business tells its employees, but rather what the employees tell each other.Social interactions within an organization typically enable the execution of a wide range of critical business processes that aid commerce. Workers requesting input on a task, or notifying the next performer that they are finished, engage in social interactions that increasingly use mediating technologies such as email, instant messaging, telephone, fax, workflow, online discussion, videoconferencing, online web meeting, etc. Seen in that light the more recently available social tools such as wikis, blogs, microblogs, communities, ideation sites, expertise location, etc. just provide more choices to increase the effectiveness and timeliness of those critical, internal social interactions in support of commerce. E2E seems overdue for recognition.Syndicated at http://conversations.opentext.com/

The Myth of Real-time Collaborative Authoring

In the document management field there has been a succession of products designed to support users working on a document at the same time, even if they are in different locations. These products have failed. They have failed because people don’t work on documents together very often.

I wonder where the belief in concurrent creation of documents came from. In the physical world you seldom see people saying, “Come to my office and we’ll write a document together,” so why expect users to want to do it virtually?

Documents may well be created to summarize a brainstorming session or record the minutes of a general meeting, but the designated author usually ‘goes away’ to somewhere quiet to write the first draft.

Even in the review phase, reviewers independently make comments, suggestions and edits at different times. The author then pulls these together to make a revised version. Email is no different, especially since emails of any length are essentially documents.

Sure the stepwise, asynchronous approach to content authoring and review takes place over a longer period, but it actually makes best use of each participant’s time, and is therefore more efficient overall.

I started to think about this again with yesterday’s announcement that Google Wave will not be further developed (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-google-wave.html). As the blog post says, Google Wave was, “…a web app for real time communication and collaboration”. For the purposes of this discussion let’s consider both collaboration and communication independently.

Collaboration in Authoring

A technical tour-de-force, Wave enabled users to see others changing content as they themselves changed it. Very cool, but actually disconcerting. I wouldn’t have wanted you to have watched me author this blog post, for several reasons:

  • I’m easily distracted and need to concentrate to develop some cohesive thoughts
  • While writing I jump around adding sections, changing others, moving text blocks – it would be hard to follow and I’d have to explain what I was doing which would further slow me down and distract me
  • I’m the World’s worst typist

I’m probably no different than most people, at least regarding the first two points. And perhaps more lethal to the concept of concurrent authoring:

  • You’d get bored – it takes far longer to author a document than read it, and you’d probably want to be doing something else while I work, preferring to comment on my finished work

And that’s the crux of the matter – most people are busy, with many demands on their time, and collaborative authoring is just too inefficient.

Communication Delays are Good

While Wave was designed for collaboration, it was also intended for communication (see quotation above). Essentially email and instant messaging rolled into one. But I think there is a problem there too – most people actually don’t want to use real-time communication!!

Many commentators have remarked on the tendency for young people to use their mobile phones for text messaging far more than as telephones. You’d think it would be easier to engage in a conversation by talk rather than typing, so why is texting preferred?

I think people prefer texting because it allows them to be engaged in many, independent conversations with different people. For this to work they need to be able to send and receive messages in real time, but also need an agreed expectation that replies may take several minutes. Awkward silences of several minutes on a phone aren’t agreeable, and since voice isn’t cached locally like a text message you have to listen to each voice channel concurrently – which isn’t practical.

Interestingly while they are short, both mobile text messages and instant messages (IM) are generally only sent when they are completed. It is usually enough to see that the recipient is typing (i.e. with Instant Messaging) or to just assume that they are (i.e. with texting). All stumbles, pauses, and corrections are not sent – but they were with Google Wave.

Summary

With small pieces of content: true real-time communication is often undesirable, with near real-time being better.

With larger pieces of content: collaborative authoring is best done asynchronously.

Collaborative authoring seems to be something that IT professionals believe will lead to greater efficiencies, while end users don’t have the time for it!

Considering the Cost & Value of Digital Content for an Enterprise

The way that the value of digital content changes over time, and how an enterprise content management (ECM) system might help to realize and/or retain greater value was the subject of my last post (http://martin-fulcrum.blogspot.com/2010/06/calculating-value-of-content-in-ecm.html). Lee Dallas retweeted that post, but also referenced a very interesting earlier blog post (2008) by fellow member of ‘Big Men on Content‘ Marko Sillanpääon the cost of content (link). Sillanpää considered content lifecycle costs as follows:Cost of Content = (Annual Authoring Costs + Annual Review Costs) / New Objects per AuthorContent authoring and review are not the only activities that incur cost – there are costs associated with each step in its lifecycle, notably including the costs of distribution, storage and ultimate destruction. Effective content distribution is becoming increasingly important to the realization of value.Cost and value are of course different concepts. The cost of an item does not necessarily reflect its value, as anyone who has watched the TV show “Antiques Roadshow” knows!In business, where there is an emphasis on the bottom line, the value of content ought on average to exceed its cost, or it should not have been created. But for a given piece of content, its cost is generally related to size and complexity, not what it enables. On the other hand, value is tied to enablement and varies over time – often declining gradually or precipitously, but sometimes increasing!It can be hard to explain to people how managing content benefits a business. However, I have found that identifying its ‘enterprise value’ is powerful. A good top-down approach is to reference the value chain of a business, using Michael Porter’s original simple model.People understand that enterprises take input from suppliers and partners and, through a series of steps, add value that can be realized in a final sale to customers. Clearly the effective execution of those steps adds to efficiency. When challenged, most people can identify content that contributes or is even essential to the completion of each of those value steps and their constituent processes. For example, an Engineering Department must create, review and approve engineering drawings, and then pass them on to the Manufacturing Department (see E, C & O value chain).In my experience, taking a value perspective is generally more attractive, especially in growth industries, than a cost and cost avoidance perspective – which has classically been the basis for return-on-investment (R.O.I.) approaches to software justification.  Syndicated at http://conversations.opentext.com/

The ‘Second Coming’ of Renditions – Video

Long time ECM veterans will remember the concept of document rendition – a transformed alternative. I think we’ll see renditions again.A rendition is essentially another form of a specific version of a document. There are two common types of renditions based on format and content:

  1. The same information content as the original document, but a different file format
  • For example, a spreadsheet file can be renditioned as a PDF
  1. The same file format as the original document, but different content
  • For example, a MS PowerPoint Document written in English can have a rendition that is also a PowerPoint file, but whose content has been translated into French

Renditions for limited bandwidth in the 90’sIn the 1990’s, one of the common use cases was to deal with the limited bandwidth available at the time. It often took a long time to download and open a document just to see if it contained what you were looking for. Accordingly, Open Text Livelink automatically made HTML renditions of many common formats such as MS Word that were much smaller files and so could be downloaded much faster for quick review.I remember presenting the use case to customers: “If you want to look quickly at a file without opening the full thing…” Back then bandwidth was so limited it made sense. Now it seldom does, although there are specific use-cases like renditions that contain added content like secured signatures that still have value.Bandwidth issues are backBandwidth is becoming limiting again – not for ‘simple’ text documents, but for rich media files such as videos. In fact bandwidth issues are so acute that the shape of the Internet has changed radically in the last few years. The explosive growth of video sharing has lead to the rise of Content Delivery or Distribution Networks (CDN) such as Akamai Technologies, Limelight Networks, CDNetworks and Amazon CloudFront to enable effective distribution.Akamai recently claimed they handle around 20% or the Internet traffic by volume – most of this traffic is rich media which must be delivered very quickly as users expect pages to load extremely quickly even if they contain a video. A recent Forrester report says the expected threshold to load has become two seconds.For video files to be useful to end users they have to start to play almost instantly. This is usually achieved by:

  • Locating a copy in close network proximity to the end user
    • CDNs use many distributed sites around the ‘edge of the Cloud’ to ensure that is at least one site close to an end user preloaded with files that are expected to be required
  • Reducing the size of the video through transcoding and compression
  • Streaming – starting to play before all of the content is received

The increasing use of mobile devices with narrow and unstable bandwidth connections, and different format requirements creates further hurdles to serving users rapidly.Enterprise needsSo what about the enterprise or corporate user? Trained by the web, he/she expects to click on a link and have a video start playing within two seconds. But most internal ECM systems (e.g. for document management) are designed to download a complete file before it is available to the end user.A story – Here’s a scenario I experienced recently. A Finance department prepared a new expense form. To show staff how to use it they prepared a five minute video. The trouble was that their WMV format video was over 300MB. For most staff in a global company, especially remote staff, downloading a 300MB file to view it is just not practical. What Finance needed was to be able to upload the video, and have the system take care of making a rendition that was transcoded and compressed, made stream-able and hosted on a CDN.There are just too many manual steps and too many options for most newcomers to video creation. Systems should take care of most of those steps. And one excellent way to execute several steps is to have the ECM system create a rendition of a deposited video that contains embed code to start a player and stream video from a CDN. The consumer users can then simply click on the object name in their ECM system and a streamed video starts to play almost instantly – as they have come to expect with sites such as YouTube.So renditions have a place in the new enterprise again to deal with bandwidth limitations!Syndicated at http://conversations.opentext.com/

The biggest changes sneak up on you

Content management (ECM) systems can track everything that a user does. Usually this capability is seen in the context of compliance – you can answer the ‘who did what’ and ‘when did they do it’ questions. You can also track changes in what users did over time. And so it is that a colleague was able to track how my behaviour has been changing without me noticing it by reporting on how many documents I deposit.

  • A bit of background: I use a number of Open Text Content Server systems. One of these, nicknamed Ollie, is used to support to support content-centric business processes within Open Text. I have authored many documents, mostly in MS Office formats over the course of my nine years with the company.

The ‘aha’ moment: So when my colleague made a social networking post that he had found that I had deposited almost 700 documents in Ollie, I wasn’t surprise. I was surprised though when he pointed out that I hadn’t added any documents in the last month! Zero! None!This of course got me to think: “What had I been doing?”He asked if I’d mostly moved to social networking-style tools. But no, I’ve been using collaborative tools of one form or another fairly consistently, and indeed heavily, over the last decade. What I realized as that I have almost entirely shifted to using wikis in place of documents.

  • A bit more explanation is in order. Content Server (formerly Livelink) is a full-featured ECM system. You can add documents of any type, including of course MS Office files. You can also directly author in wikis. On the collaborative/social networking side you can also post to a range of collaborative tools such as forums, discussions, news channels, blogs, etc., and with more recent additions instant messages, status posts, etc. So a user has a range of content and social tools in the same system to use – they can select whatever they feel most suited to the business task at hand. Given these choices you can then track user preference changes over time by analyzing audited events.

On further reflection it shouldn’t have been surprising. Once I used to have the Word and PowerPoint applications open all the time. I would typically send documents to colleagues as email attachments or via links to copies in Ollie.Now I create wiki pages and then rely on automated notifications and RSS for others to learn about them, and of course push awareness by targeted emails. I very seldom open Word to author content, and when I do I get frustrated because all of the embedded code makes it hard for me to reuse the content (unless I force Word to the blog posting mode as I’m doing now).That’s another thing – I repurpose content to multiple channels much more than I used to. I don’t simply author ‘free-standing’ documents and then deposit and email them. I often use the same content in several blogs and/or wikis.And now I’m starting to create short videos where once I’d have authored a document… None of this is surprising in an abstract sense. Pundits have been saying that there are huge changes underway and as someone who works in a company at the forefront of how content is managed in organizations, I’ve been aware of it and promoted it. I just hadn’t realized how much my own behaviour has changed; otherwise I wouldn’t have been surprised that I didn’t deposit a single document in Ollie last month!Syndicated at http://conversations.opentext.com/