Welcome to Kraft Kennedy

I recently performed an upgrade from iManage 8.2 to iManage 8.5 Update 4.    Update 4 was released on January 14th and resolves several issues regarding service stability and wildcard searching.  It adds support for the new WorkSite FileShare, iManage Workflow Manager, and iManage Digital Safe.  I plan on blogging about these modules soon, so keep an eye out for that.

But the real reason for this post is that Update 4 sets the database schema version as 8.51 (all previous releases of 8.5 had set the schema version as 8.50).  This value is listed as the MHVERNUM column in the MHGROUP.VERINFO table of the WorkSite database.   For those of you looking to migrate from an environment with WorkSite Indexer 8.2 SP1 P2 (Verity), there is a compatibility problem with this change.   Although Indexer 8.2 SP1 P2 was released in order to support iManage 8.5 servers for a transitional period, the 8.2 Indexer services fail to start when the database has been upgraded to the 8.5 Update 4 schema.   Autonomy’s workaround for now is to modify the MHVERNUM value and set it to 8.50.  This can be done by executing the following SQL query:

Continue reading…

One of the most overlooked pieces of technology in law firms is PDF creation.    Yet it’s also one of the most important to an end user.  It needs to be simple, stable, and usually needs to integrate well with a DMS system.

With iManage, you have three main choices.  Do you A) use the built-in “Convert to PDF/Send as PDF” utility function, B) find a third-party tool with full integration, or C) use the native Save As PDF option available in the Word 2007 Office Button.

Continue reading…

Autonomy iManage and OpenText eDocs both have protocol handlers for SharePoint, which enable the SharePoint Enterprise Search engine to index documents stored in the DMS, while keeping the documents in the DMS.  Many people haven’t been aware of this and thought you had to migrate all of the documents into SharePoint to search them, or to use an enterprise search engine provided by the DMS vendor.  However, these protocol handlers can provide the best of both worlds by allowing you to continue managing documents in the current DMS, while taking advantage of Microsoft’s FAST enterprise search indexer to index the DMS content, SharePoint content, file shares, web sites, Exchange public folders, and other enterprise systems.  Security trimming is preserved by the protocol handler, so users will never see documents in the DMS that they don’t have access to.  The protocol handlers both support Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007.

More information on the OpenText eDocs SharePoint integration and protocol handler can be found here:

http://www.opentext.com/download/livelinkdownload.html?path=product/microsoft/ot-clmsp-edocs-po.pdf

More information on the iManage SharePoint protocol handler can be found in their partner portal, by filtering the list of products to “SharePointProtocol Handler.”  Note that you need a partner login account to download the documentation and release notes.

http://worksitesupport.interwoven.com/WorkSite/scripts/portal.aspx

Both vendors also offer a comprehensive set of web parts to drop into a SharePoint environment to view and manage their documents from within a SharePoint site.

Recently, Kraft Kennedy became one of the first integrators in the industry to complete an implementation of iManage 8.5 GA in production at a law firm.   This particular firm is taking advantage of the predictive Email Filing and Email Management capabilities of FileSite 8.5 GA and the WorkSite Communication Server 8.5 GA, complete with OffSite for offline access and the iManage 8.5 IDOL Indexer handling search requests.

After the initial roll-out of the GA release, there were several issues that appeared, and were confirmed with Autonomy iManage technical support.  The first issue involved security inheritance, and manifested itself when saving documents into folders with specific users or groups added to the permission ACLs.   In these instances, the document would simply inherit the default security of the folder (Public, View, Private), ignoring any additional ACLs.  The second issue regarded Outlook stability, where toggling between a WDS-integrated Outlook search and the Inbox would result in a crash of Outlook.  This crash was fairly common, since users tend to search their mail items daily.   The third issue was more cosmetic, but annoying nonetheless.  When disregarding a draft email, the message remained in the Drafts folder of Outlook.  Again, not earth-shattering, but annoying to have to see Drafts (15) in your mailbox after a few days.

In the past couple weeks, Autonomy has released WorkSite Server 8.5 Update 2, along with the FileSite/DeskSite/OffSite/EMM 8.5 All Languages release  (you will know if you are running the All Languages release of the iManage client software because the build number will be 8.5.200.x).     We are happy to report that this back-end and client update neatly addresses and resolves all three of these issues, in addition to several others.    Outlook is more stable, and there is no longer any issues with security inheritance.   If anyone is hesitant about moving to iManage 8.5, rest assured that the latest release appears to be stable and functions as advertised.

For those with access, more information on these updates can be found in the WorkSite 8.5 Resource Center at the iManage technical support web site.

In my previous post, I discussed ways of bringing the legal user community into the matter centric design process. That’s only the first battle. Once attorneys are able to visualize the concept behind the organizational folders of a matter centric WorkSpace, they may want the structures to mimic what they are used to — especially if they’ve never used a DMS before. They may want to stay within their comfort zone. And these may be the most powerful voices in the Firm.

Usually, what they are used to is an inconsistent, multi-level directory structure with custom folders containing perhaps a handful of specifically categorized documents each. This kind of structure makes sense when the only way of finding a document is by knowing which folder it’s in — as is the case without a DMS. In this scenario, you wouldn’t want to scroll through hundreds or thousands of documents in a folder. Rather, if you can limit the number of documents in a folder to a handful, then it is easier to find the document you need. This is what leads to the numerous directory levels and (in my humble opinion) overly specific classifications.

In the DMS world, there are much better ways of finding documents. The obvious option is the full-text search, which will provide efficient results (given the user properly knows how to perform a full-text search). In addition to the search, folder lists can be sorted and filtered based on any metadata column, and the WorkSite Miner is a nice utility to carve up the contents of a folder into more manageable groups.

iManage offers two levels of classification for documents — the Class (which generally corresponds to a WorkSpace folder) and it’s child Subclass. As the designer of the WorkSpace structure and metadata, you may get requests for numerous Subclasses. There are two main disadvantages of using Subclasses. First, requiring the Subclass adds dreaded extra clicks and keystrokes to each save action. If the Firm decides on using Subclasses, it is a best practice to make them required. If they are optional, they lose all value. There’d be no guarantee that searching for the “Loan Agreement” Subclass will return all loan agreements. This leads to the second key disadvantage — it will prevent the proper update of metadata when dragging-and-dropping documents from one WorkSpace folder to another, since it is up to the user to select a Subclass when saving into a folder.

So how do we get attorneys to accept not using Subclasses? Make sure they grasp all the different ways documents can be identified, sorted, filtered, and found in the system. Perhaps bring up the idea of a naming convention for the description of documents. Or perhaps make a deal — try it without Subclasses for six months, and then the issue can be re-evaluated. Chances are they will appreciate the ease of simply saving into a WorkSpace folder, and agree that there is no need for Subclasses. After all, less is more.

So you’ve decided to implement Matter Centricity at your firm.  Whether you are using Autonomy iManage (formerly Interwoven), Open Text eDOCS (formerly Hummingbird), or another Document Management System (DMS), the basic idea behind Matter Centricity is the same — to present virtual Redwelds for each matter, with folders to categorize and classify documents within.  Couldn’t be simplier!

But in order to design these virtual Redweld structures (iManage calls these “WorkSpaces”), input is needed from each Practice Area or department of the firm.  Since many of the users have no idea what Matter Centricity is, and some may not have any idea what a DMS is to begin with, it can be difficult to obtain the information needed to design a structure.

Here are a few tips to get the message across:

• Give a high-level 20-minute presentation prior to your WorkSpace design discussions with a user group.  Provide some screen captures to display a sample structure.  Briefly discuss how they would interact with the structure on their desktop environment. Even with this presentation, it is hard for some people to grasp the concepts and visualize the structure
• Take notes during the presentation and the following design discussion.  Try to identify those users who are having a more difficult time.  Notes are also very helpful when following up with certain attorneys or administrative assistants.  The user will appreciate that you remembered their comment from the discussion.
• Create some sample structures in a lab environment, based on the initial input of the user groups.  Invite some of the people who had a hard time understanding the concept and demonstrate how to save and access documents from the structure.  Hopefully this will help them along and their ideas can be included as well.

Using these tips, the hope is not only that the users better understand the concept in general, but also have a better idea of how their input for the design will be translated into technology and their daily work process.

In future posts, I’ll discuss how to interpret all this input and combine it with iManage and Kraft Kennedy’s best practices.