October 31, 2007

What's a document management system?

An idea which keeps popping up when I talk to my colleagues both within ITS and also within academic and administrative departments is that lots of people want a Document Management System (DMS for short from now on) to support their work. So I’ve agreed to try and pull together some kind of summary about what it is that people actually mean when they say DMS – do they all mean the same thing? – and thus what kind of system we might be looking for.

As luck would have it, I know nothing about what a DMS is or does, nor am I very aware of what products there are in this space. This is either a gross disadvantage or a refreshing lack of preconceptions allowing for open-minded consideration of the issues. However, some of the problem domains are pretty easy to understand: archiving of documents we need to keep around for legal or business reasons; users who want to work together on authoring documents; users who want a record of the history of a document. So my discussions and reading so far lead me to believe that a DMS might encompass some, all, none or fewer of the following:-

Document creation and editing

A DMS should support the creation and editing of documents using the same desktop applications which people already use. So you should be able to create and edit your Word documents, your Photoshop images, your Autocad drawings, etc. just as you do at the moment, but storing them in the DMS instead of on your local hard drive or a networked hard drive. An implication of this is that there would have to be some way to connect to the DMS directly from your desktop; it would add too much friction if you had to use a web app to download the document, edit it, save it to your hard disk, then re-upload it. You’d need to be able to open the document directly from the DMS. This would suggest that you’d need SMB or CIFS or webDAV and possibly sFTP support, especially if access in this way was also supposed to work off-campus (for when you’re at home, or when you’re collaborating with someone at another university) as well as on.

And in order to properly support editing in this way, you’d also need to be able to lock documents for editing so that while I’m editing it, you can’t. And you might want different sorts of locks; a lock which says “I have this document open for editing right now” is one sort, but you might also want to be able to say “I’m going to be working on this document, on and off, for the next week. Nobody else should be able to change it until a pre-defined time comes around, or until I explicitly signal that I’m done with it.” And implicit in this idea is the idea that you should be able to set permissions on your files and folders to control who can see them, edit them, comment on them, allow others to edit them, etc.

Another feature you’d want over and above what you get from a normal file system is version history. As changes are made to a document in the DMS, metadata about the changes should be stored so that it’s possible to see a history showing who changed the document and when, and you might also want to store all the previous versions of the document if you had disk space to burn.

Archiving and lifecycle management

Once you’re done editing your document, a feature which several people have mentioned is the ability to archive it – a place to store your documents which is secure and stable and allows for long-term storage of a “frozen” unchangeable version of a document. There are lots of documents which make the transition into this state – committee agendas, minutes and papers, annual reports, blueprints, etc. There’s also an interesting question about the lifecycle of archived documents: some documents, notably those which contain personal data, may not be stored for longer than is required to perform the work of the institution. So documents like that may have archiving rules such as “Keep for five years, then delete”. Others may be “Keep indefinitely” – but that raises challenges of its own, since it implies that your storage requirements for your DMS are going to rise every year. And how long is it reasonable to assume that “indefinitely” means? Our Estates office have paper documents going back forty years. Is it reasonable to try and design a DMS to store documents for that kind of period? What’s the lifespan of a given document format (eg. Word or Autocad)? Five years? Ten?

Sharing, publishing and retrieval

Once you’ve put a document into your DMS, you’re likely to want to share it with some people, and you need to be able to find it again later. So you need the same kind of permissions system that you need for editing purposes, but for viewing purposes. And, equally importantly, you need to be able to find your document, and possibly you need other people to be able to find it too. Web sites tend to allow browsing through a hierarchical structure, but a DMS may or may not work in that way, so good indexing, searching and metadata become important. The metadata is particularly relevant because not every file type contains content which can be indexed and searched; if the file I’ve uploaded is an image, then it’s effectively unsearchable unless I also supply a description or some keywords alongside it. (This is particularly important if what you plan to do is scan lots of paper documents and add them to your DMS; unless you intend to do OCR – a slow and expensive proposition – then what you’ll have is effectively just an image, so it’ll only be discoverable if its metadata is good enough.)

Collaborative working

An interesting extra wrinkle which some people have mentioned is that once you’ve got the ability to share documents and edit them collaboratively, then you might want other tools to help your collaboration too. So if you and I are working on a research paper, or a design for a new Library, then as well as the documents we’re creating, perhaps we’d also like to-do lists for the participants; maybe a calendar to show due dates, or gantt charts, or ways of leaving message for each other like a mini discussion forum. By this point, I think, you’ve moved beyond pure DMS into a different space. But I can see how, in peoples’ minds, the two spaces might be logically linked, and if you’re doing one, you might well want to do the other around it.

Some things which I think are probably out of scope for our purposes are:-

  1. Real-time collaborative editing; two or more people working on a document at the same time, able to see each others’ changes live on their respective screens. GoogleDocs lets you do this for word processed documents and spreadsheets, but short of building our own web apps to do the same, I don’t think this is something you could easily get from a DMS; it would need your editing applications – your word processor, your spreadsheet tool, etc. – to support this kind of editing explicitly, and I don’t think many, if any of them, do. Users who want this feature should probably be directed towards GoogleDocs or Zoho or whatever.
  2. Workflow. Some papers I’ve read have suggested that a DMS could be the tool by which you define and enforce your workflow for certain types of document. So if I create an invoice within the DMS, the system knows that because it’s an invoice, and it’s for more than £5K, it should go first to my head of department for approval, and then to the finance office for processing, and a record should be created in SAP, and so on, and so on. I can see how this could be useful, but I don’t think there’s any realistic chance of implementing this in our very diverse and decentralised environment. So perhaps workflow support is out of scope.
  3. Document scanning. At least some of the people who want a DMS want to scan lots of paper documents and put them into it. My presumption at the moment is that the scanning and possible OCR work would be a separate project to the creation of a DMS, and the DMS engine wouldn’t particularly distinguish, or have additional support for, scanned documents as opposed to documents which were fully digital.
  4. Records management. I’m not as sure about this as I am about the other exclusions, but it seems to me that records management, where you have a set of documents which are all in the same, highly structured format like, er, records (in a database), is a niche of its own within document management, and the general purpose nature of a system which allows you to edit and store any kind of file may not be sufficient for more highly structured data.

Phew. So, one of the first questions which occurs to me is, are all these activities really the same in the sense that a single application could or should support them? Or is long-term archiving conceptually and technically different from shared editing? I guess that’s something which might become clearer once we start to consider possible products in this space, though again, I don’t know much about what products there are or what their individual strengths and weaknesses are; several people I’ve spoken to so far have explicitly suggested Microsoft SharePoint as being what they’re thinking of when they say ‘DMS’; other products I’ve heard mentioned include Alfresco as a sort of open source SharePoint, FormScape (which I believe may already be in use within the Finance Office), and Documentum as the sort of heavy-weight market leader in this space. One thing we’d need to watch out for with most off-the-shelf systems is that they generally claim to do a lot more than just document management; SharePoint in particular is like a sort of swiss army knife of a server, claiming to do document management, web content management, portal management, project management and for all I know moon landing management. We’d need to be sure that we could wall the application off so that it doesn’t offer features which would compete with tools which we already use.

Another possibility is to consider whether we could build something for the job, or adapt one of our existing applications. Files.Warwick is probably the closest to what would be required, though it lacks version history, check-in/out, the idea of a “locked” archive, and most challengingly of all, it lacks a way to connect to it directly from your desktop (other than FTP). But it does have some of what’s needed; granular permissions, easy sharing, notifications and so on. But then I also wonder if the name recognition which SharePoint, in particular, seems to enjoy, would be important in that anything which isn’t SharePoint runs the risk of being rejected on that basis alone.

Anyway, we’re a long way from package selection. But it does seem as if some sense of what we might be looking for is starting to emerge from the mist.

- 25 comments by 9 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. Simon Harper

    Hi Jon,

    We’re working on such a system over at the Business School at the moment. The intention is that this will underpin the next major version of my.wbs. We’d be very happy to share it with you if that would be desirable.


    31 Oct 2007, 15:27

  2. Chris May

    So perhaps workflow support is out of scope.

    I don’t think you could do a very widely-useable DMS without some kind of workflow. At the very least, you’ll need edit->review->approve->publish->revise cycles, and probably a variety of multi-person approval processes (serial, parallel, unanimous, quorum…). By the time you’ve got that, and some kind of inbox-based alert system, is it really that much of a stretch to add in arbitrary metadata and process? Most commercial DMSes seem to either have their own workflow component (if they’re domain specific) or integration hooks into a more general-purpose workflow/BPM package.

    31 Oct 2007, 16:41

  3. Robert O'Toole

    Another consideration: how many of our users have any cognitive space left within which to comprehend and apply yet another big publishing and collaboration application? It might be that Sitebuilder is at the limit for most people already. Is it then better to extend the framework within which they are already working to include some of these features?

    Or perhaps the DMS would replace and rationalise enough of what people already do, in an efficient and user-friendly way – for example, replacing and simplifying all of the different document storage options that people regularly use (network file stores, files.warwick, email, Sitebuilder, local disk, usb drive etc). Then it would not be a matter of adding more to their mental load. But it would have to be really good to do that. Perhaps quite a risk.

    Personally, i’m already almost overwhelmed!

    31 Oct 2007, 16:46

  4. Matthew

    Don’t get sharepoint, it is hopeless. We use it in my dept at Nottingham, and I am aware of no one (other than the head of IT) who thinks it is of any use whatsoever. You need IE to make it work properly, and it doesn’t function with the university’s proxy settings: weirdly, to access it I have to disconnect my laptop from the physical network and reconnect it to the wireless network.

    Personally, I quite like the Je-S research grants submission system, which I suppose is a document management system of sorts. If it allowed you to upload more file types (e.g. graphic files, tex source files) than just pdf/docs, it’d do most of what you are asking for I think.

    31 Oct 2007, 17:17

  5. John,

    I conducted an involved study of this for Rolls-Royce in the last six months. With reference to the packages you mention I’d be happy to discuss some aspects in private as the work was company related but not company funded if you see what I mean. Drop me an email and I’ll give you some more information. As Matthew says though, if you hope to support anything beyond IE6 as a browser avoid Sharepoint.

    31 Oct 2007, 19:29

  6. Lawrence Medina

    A document management system can be as simple as a file cabinet supported by an index (file guide) or as complex as a million dollar application supported by a farm of servers, and miles of communications cabling and other technology.

    You’ve named a few of the main players in this environment, and I’d have to second the recommendation that you stay away from MOSS as a viable alternative, suffice to say, if you know what the “M” stands for, you know you’re in for a world of patches, upgrades, and mediocre (at best) support. I’d also suggest staying away from the concept of “build your own solution”... while it may be cool if you have a lot of tech geeks around, you’ll also need to ensure they’ll be around as long as you intend to run this system to support it, or that they clearly document the software so it can be given food and care by others once they’re gone.

    It seems as if a successfully detailed job of analyzing the needs and intended uses of a DMS (also known as an EDMS, or if you take it a level further, a CMS or ECMS) and that includes the interfaces the end user population will need to search. locate and retrieve information from the system. You may want to spend some time developing requirements for UI (User Interface) and determine if you have any special needs to be met in this area, liek apotenial need for voice interface or other ADA (Disability access) issues.

    Once you’ve clearly identified all of your needs, develop an RFQ and ask the various vendors to come in and show their wares and demonstrate how their product OOTB (out of the box) can meet your needs… they will ALL tell you “yes, our product CAN do that”, but what they won’t tell you is if it can do it natively or if it requires the purchase of additional “modules” and/or third party software and support. It’s amazing how many of these COTS (commercial off the shelf) products don’t even have reports generation capabilities in their native systems!

    And while you’re specifically speaking of DMS, you may want to look a generation forward at RMS. Many DMS have additional modules you can purchase that support RECORDS MANAGEMENT, which would include the ability to implement disposition scheduling and audit trail level file tracking, but almost ALL RMS/ERMS systems are capable of every requirement in a DMS as well.

    If you’ll need it eventually, it’s like the FRAM oil filter commercial… “You can pay a little more now, or you can pay a lot more later”

    01 Nov 2007, 15:39

  7. Mark Gould


    As it happens, I am in the middle of a project to refresh our DMS (Interwoven Worksite, for what it’s worth). I can see how this makes sense in the closed and controlled environment of commerce, but my memory of universities is such that I would be surprised to see it working effectively at an organisational level.

    I’d be happy to discuss our experience further if you want to e-mail or call.


    05 Nov 2007, 20:53

  8. Dave

    Build your own – it’s the only way to get a system that truly meets your needs, and, more importantly, gives you far greater control over the interface, which is invariably overwhelming in any of-the-shelf system. Keep it simple, and iterate often.

    07 Nov 2007, 13:08

  9. Malcolm Days

    I think the key function of a DMS is to act as an authoritative source for documents and your summary of potential features is good. Some workflow to support an approval process is essential. Any collaborative working functionality beyond that is ‘nice to have’ as a DMS will tend to hold a lots of documents which people are collaborating on! So most DMS products offer collaboration. It is also useful to have some metadata visible about each document. Sharepoint tends to only extend the idea of files and folders very slightly. When I see a document called projectproposal.doc I immediately want to know which project?, is this the latest version?, who wrote it?, when was it last updated?, what other documents does it refer to?, etc. If I have to open the document to find or search for this information then the DMS has not helped me much.

    09 Nov 2007, 14:38

  10. James Mears


    I don’t know if Lotus notes / domino was evaluated as well as outlook/exchange at Warwick. I spent the last 8 years working in a Domino server environment. We had huge document archives and Notes databases/ document indexes etc all sorts of stuff all running inside of the domino server environment. All accessible from the Lotus notes application for users. Individual documents had version control and usual permissions on who could edit etc and no need for network shares or FTP/ Web access, everything was seen to be inside of the Notes application. ( I think there was lots of custom work done inside many of the nsf databases though)

    In this situation Notes was used as a total email and document management system for the whole company (very very big company, hundreds of sites in the UK, about 70,000 desktop PC’s I think in total).

    12 Nov 2007, 22:02

  11. Sara Lever

    Committee Secretarying seems to be something that could benefit from document management big time. Thought this might be of use to you as a real case hope it’s helpful, obviously very specific to committee secretarying but that is quite a large part of university business I suppose.

    1. Having a permanent archive of documents, which is shared with IPSC members, University Secretariat, existing Archiving bodies. (Hey maybe this could even replace the paper copies that I have to send – 5 extra paper copies get sent to various bodies for the ‘record’.)

    2. When a meeting is coming up or just after a meeting the ability to work together on a document (agenda, minutes, senate report) with other members of IPSC or University Secretary who are physically remote would be very useful, along with tracking changes that each has made. I would also need the ability to make read only documents, when we have agreed a completed state. This then becomes the archived publically visible copy – So I don’t then have to publish to a web page.

    3. As you know I use files.warwick.ac.uk to share my documents with a committee, and this is great, but it would be better still if I could, somehow indicate and alert IPSC members when a document changes and what that change was.

    Oft times stuff comes up even after I thought it was all ‘locked down’ for example last minute referrals from other committees that have to be taken, or a term is lost! It is oft the case that agenda and minutes are very fluid, and we don’t want to ask people to be continuously re-downloading papers only to be aware of small changes.

    Then the ability to say to members hey yes this really is the last time this stuff is going to change so if you need hard copy take it now. Then the user prints (double-sided of course) the papers themselves or just takes electronic copy only to the meeting (I wish). There is no way to do this with files currently as subsequent uploads don’t change the file modified date, unless I remove and re-add and there is no commenting as far as I am aware.

    The ability to check that each member has accessed the system and has everything they need would be useful. Looking back through history/activity is helpful but it would be nice to see it by each member too.

    4. Collating papers for an upcoming meeting would be great. If the DMS could prompt IPSC members and other sub committees to upload there papers in the correct timeframe. In fact to broadcast to all other Secretaries, a message hey this is the last time to add anything into the IPSC committee, or indeed any committee. This might be particularly useful for the University Secretaries office to broadcast when they want Senate Reports in and to allow them to check they have everything.

    5. Having an interactive calendaring which showed all the major committees meeting dates and dates they are last accepting referrals ability to view upcoming agenda’s.

    6. The ability to refer to another Secretary an Agenda item and supporting paper ready for an upcoming committee meeting, which they can accept or reject (with ability to suggest for another committee), or store for a future committee.

    7. Facilitation of notifying members of upcoming meetings and taking apologies would also be useful, then you don’t spam members with IPSC news that they may no longer be interested in. So the system itself manages membership contact lists and can send messages (links to email somehow?).

    19 Nov 2007, 11:38

  12. Jed Cawthorne

    Check out AIIM.org for some good definitions, and if your seriously going to go down this road some good training courses too.

    The Open University has decided to go for a full “Enteprise Content Management” strategy, of which document (and Records) management is one strand. Its totaly semantics, but often if you talk about ‘document’ management the “industry” will be refering to MS Office, text, xml, eps files etc where you mention Photoshop and images, they will often term this ‘digital asset management’.

    JISC do an excellent toolkit on selecting an “Electronic Document and Records Management System” (EDRMS) at: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/edrm

    I will add one cautionary note I always mention when presenting on ECM – document management (or ECM) is not about shiny new software, its about hardwork sorting out ‘business classification schema’s’ (folder structures) metadata, how it fits with your intranet and your search tools etc On the products you have mentioned I will say this:
    1. MS Office Sharepoint 2007 – “jack of all trades, and master of non” – notoriously difficult to manage, more like a portal with add on basic document management
    2. Documentum – its what we are using for broad scoped, “full on” ECM – I would characterise as “more pain for more gain”.
    3. Alfresco – open source version of Documentum, more standards based and probably easier to implement.

    Have fun :-)

    28 Nov 2007, 14:31

  13. Nigel Wright

    We have recently started distributing a DMS software range from a company called Xythos. It is big in academia in the states. We have a few Universities looking at it in the UK. It certainly ticks most of the boxes. eg. it is WebDav based, it has the Xythos Drive which allows users to open documents from within the DMS system without moving them. There is also a records management module and version control for collaboration. Details are on www.xythos.co.uk if you are interested. If anyone has any experience of the product, I would be interested – positive or negative.

    14 Dec 2007, 16:56

  14. Paul Chimicz

    My best guess is that it all depends upon where you choose to draw the line and how pragmatic you are prepared to be. A DMS can be whatever you want. If you want to include collaborative working or workflow then these are great but at its heart what we are talking about is a globally accessible place to put important documents with a view to accessing them again later. The phrase ‘important documents’ is worthy of note because in a number of cases it is going to be electronic copies of what traditionally would have been filed in a cabinet: supplier invoices, application forms, copies of birth certificates, proposals for committee, meeting minutes and so on. Very much a filing system and not dissimilar to a file share. Hence the Sharepoint product which does pretty much just that. I’m not a fan but it does what it says on the tin. In its favour is that the purpose and scope are readily understood by the average clerical user.

    Personally I might draw the line at this point and have some system into which I could upload docs of any type, have them converted to pdf on the fly and stored for later retrieval. It would be nice to add some meta information to each and be able to upload a new version (with the history of versions available in the background). It would be nice to select which groups of people I’m prepared to share my document with but, pretty much, I’m talking about a storage facility for final versions. I also take Robert’s point that a system like this fits so much better into the existing cognitive space than a system with fancy document synchronisation or internal cross referencing.

    If you wanted to bring the line forward and include the editing space in a DMS or add features like collaborative working then I’m hardly going to object but you have to question the cost versus the benefit. I suspect the 80% benefit can be achieved with the simplest system for 20% of the cost. Extracting the extra 20% functionality is going to cost much more and it will not be easy to pin down the precise requirement given the range of views expressed here. IMHO start small and build up as the real needs surface.

    Out of interest I have used Sharepoint and Documentum recently and Documentum is good. I found 6 documents from 2000 that contained a particular phrase in seconds but the effort that went into cataloguing those documents was massive. Unless document uploaders use consistent cataloguing methods most of the power of the product is lost. For me it just reinforced the idea that once you rise above the simple ‘file and share’ approach then every product starts to become niche.

    08 Feb 2008, 11:35

  15. John Dale

    Personally I might draw the line at this point and have some system into which I could upload docs of any type, have them converted to pdf on the fly and stored for later retrieval.

    SiteBuilder? Files.Warwick? What don’t they do which one would need for this definition of a DMS? You can upload documents into them, they’ll be indexed and made searchable, and you can control who sees them via lists of individuals or web groups. Perhaps we’ve already got a sufficient DMS and we just haven’t realised it yet! (Storing all the historic versions of a file would be very easy to add to either of those applications if we wanted to.)

    08 Feb 2008, 11:58

  16. Steve Rumsby

    The DMS systems I’ve used, or seen, at least allow the association of meta-data with the stored documents to make searching easier. Or sometimes you can search only by metadata and not document content so metadata is a necessity. I guess that’s easy to add to files.warwick, as is document versioning.

    How do you search for files in files.warwick? Can you search file content?

    08 Feb 2008, 12:07

  17. John Dale

    Files.Warwick doesn’t have metadata right now, but SiteBuilder does; when you upload a file into SiteBuilder you can add both keywords and a description, and then both of those fields are indexed by the search engine.

    You can’t search in Files.Warwick right now, but since we’ve done the work to index file types and metadata already in SiteBuilder, it wouldn’t be difficult to port it across.

    So to make Files.Warwick do this simple version of a DMS, we’d need to add metadata, search and version history. To make SiteBuilder do it, we’d just need to add version history.

    08 Feb 2008, 12:26

  18. Steve Rumsby

    Files.Warwick doesn’t have metadata right now, but SiteBuilder does;

    It does, but it is maybe not as structured as it needs to be, and maybe not as controlled. For example, if I was to use it as a DMS to store minutes of committee meetings, I might want a separate field for the committee name, rather than just stuffing that in the keywords or description. It makes it easier to search for all the minutes for that committee without finding anything else by accident. I might want the field to be mandatory – so I can’t store minutes without saying which committee they were for. I might want to be able to say, separately, whether or not minutes have been approved. Obviously, different sets of fields will be appropriate for different uses, so they need to be user-definable.

    Does Sitebuilder index the content of uploaded files? I’ve just tried some searches that suggest not. How difficult would it be to add it?

    I see the process of getting files into sitebuilder cumbersome enough to put people off using it. Files.warwick is less so, because it is obviously designed for it from the beginning. I’d rather see this work done to files.warwick than sitebuilder.

    I suspect you’ll want more sophisticated access control too. If this system is used to store important documents, you’ll probably want more fine-grained control over deletion, for example.

    08 Feb 2008, 13:10

  19. John Dale

    Ah, but now you’re undercutting Paul’s idea that a very simple container would be a useful starting point. Mandatory named user-definable fields pretty much blows Paul’s model out of the water!

    I’m curious about what you perceive as the difference between uploading files into Files.Warwick and into SiteBuilder. They’re nearly identical as far as I can see; click “Browse”, find a file, click “Upload”. If it’s a ZIP file, say whether you want to unpack it. What is it about Files that seems quicker to you?

    (And yes, SiteBuilder indexes file content; here’s a search for all the Word documents which contain the word “banana”. If you’re not seeing the results you expect, it could be because files aren’t indexed immediately on upload; you have to wait a couple of hours.)

    08 Feb 2008, 13:23

  20. Steve Rumsby

    Ah, but now you’re undercutting Paul’s idea

    Indeed. Which is why getting a specification for a DMS is such a difficult thing! Everybody agrees on the fundamentals – storing documents, versioning, access control, searching – but different uses of a DMS have slightly different requirements when you look at the details. It isn’t easy…

    The difference in the upload process between sitebuilder and files.warwick is not in the upload process but in how to get to the point of uploading. In files.warwick you browse a folder hierarchy to get to the right place, and then upload. In sitebuilder, you browse web pages in some user defined structure where you can’t necessarily see the files unless the pages are structured to show them. Then you have to “Edit”, and go to the files tab before you can upload the files. It is the getting there, not the upload itself, where I see the difference.

    08 Feb 2008, 13:36

  21. Steve Rumsby

    SiteBuilder indexes file content

    Presumably not all file types? Is there a list of file types it does index?

    08 Feb 2008, 15:40

  22. John Dale

    PDF, Word, PowerPoint and Excel.

    08 Feb 2008, 16:16

  23. Paul Chimicz

    I was suggesting something simple but not as simple as sitebuilder or files.warwick. IMHO any system would have to include versioning and meta data to be of any real use as a DMS. I suspect the allocation of view and edit rights would need some thought as well: even if based on the excellent webgroups then it should be an explicit decision against each document collection and so on. As John says not fundamentally difficult to achieve given the building blocks available but it absolutely needs a different interface.

    Not least in the list of problems with DMS is the issue of consistent coding and allied to that an agreement on the use/type of metadata. What I would propose is a series of logical document stores technically similar to web groups to which you could add users etc but to which also belonged a specific metadata schema. Therefore each collection was held in a distinct form and with its own searchable tags. Whether you expose the creation of those schemas as a user operation or as an admin function is a moot point but each collection should have an owner and therefore a distributed set of collection moderators who implement their own conventions and control as is best suited to the collection.

    13 Feb 2008, 21:00

  24. Aliya Ubigaliyeva

    Have you ever heard about ProArc or Evoco?

    21 Feb 2008, 06:04

  25. Kiran Parbhoo

    Has anybody looked at the the products ‘Livelink’ or ‘eDocs’.

    They are both supplied by a company called Open Text are are extremely good when it comes to Document Managements. Core to the Livelink application, you will find Workflow and Collaboration. Functionality can be extended to include Records Management and Archiving if required. Their website address is http://www.opentext.com .

    04 Apr 2008, 12:15

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Search this blog


Blog archive


Most recent comments

  • I'm looking for two authors/books from the 1970s or early 80s. The first was set in England. All I r… by Leo on this entry
  • I'm looking for two authors/books from the 1970s or early 80s. The first was set in England. All I r… by Leo on this entry
  • I am trying to find a book about a grandfather who tells his grandson that if he imagines hard enoug… by hilary woolf on this entry
  • Hi Looking for a series of books in which the main character was a knight. The knight was either a f… by Ely McKenna on this entry
  • I'm trying to track down my favourite children's book from the early 1970s (pub. 1970 – 1973?) about… by Ally Holloway on this entry
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder