Tuesday, 22 April 2008

EDRMS: The case against

I've just finished playing my part in the mock trial at the RMS Conference: 'Has EDRMS been a success?' with me playing the part of the prosecution and David Bowen from Audata Ltd acting for the defense. My opening statement pointing out the failings of EDRMS are now available via GoogleDocs (its a 10 minute read).

I should, of course, point out that this is not intended to be a balanced, reasoned piece, but as forceful and convincing an argument as possible (after all, this was my Rumpole of the Bailey moment) - though that's not to say that I wouldn't stand by these comments....

7 comments:

RSJ said...

Was this conference in 2007 or 2008?

Dean said...

Well said! Your opening statement is an excellent summary of all the reasons why I left an EDRM vendor for a Web 2.0 startup. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. :)

Steve Bailey said...

2008 (earlier today in fact!). Thanks for spotting the mistake in the text, I've corrected it now!

Steve

ataylor said...

You have articulated some provocative and probing comments. Can you post Mr. Bowen's defence, please?

Steve Bailey said...

Hi ATaylor,

Unfortunately I can't post David's defence as I don't have it in a publishable form. David's defence was a combination of an 'off the cuff' response to my points, plus some other pre-preparated thoughts. So far as I am aware he had no written script and it wouldn't be fair (or possible) for me to try to summarise all of his argument.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting your comments on the negatives of and eDRMS implementation. I am currently writing a strategy for a solution to the records morass my organisation has developed. Your comments have helped me identify risks that I need to cover in the solution.

Miche

Document Management Systems said...

Think about it: Reduced risk, greater convenience, improved organization and operations, significant cost savings, less distraction and fewer headaches. For all of these reasons, offsite document storage makes dollars and sense.