Certification and Compliance · Determine test location and dates. Submit 1st payment of intent to certify Questions on the requirements are fielded by testers Submit completed test

Rev 1.1 02092009 Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved.Slide 1

Certification and ComplianceOpen Text and MoReq2

Open Text Corporation

Tracy CaughellDirector, Product Management

November 14, 2009

Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved.Slide 2

The Open Text Mission

Copyright © Open Text Corporation 2008 - 2009. All rights reserved.Slide 3Slide 3

A Trusted Repository of Content

Our Vision

Open Text envisions a world where our customersorchestrate their People, Processes, and Contentto achieve strategic success.

Slide 4


Where Are We Today?

More than 3000 staff globally

Publicly Traded: NASDAQ, TSX

FY2008: Revenue $725.5 million

Market Share: Enterprise Content Management Software,Worldwide, 2006-2008, Tom Eid and Bianca Granetto5 June 2009. Gartner Inc.*Gartner reported 15.3% for Open Text and 2.4% for Vignette,yielding 18% market share for Open Text as a combined entity.

Others46%

EMC/Documentum

14%

IBM22%

Open Text18%

The safe choice for your ECM strategy andinvestments

18% Global Market Share*

Largest Independent ECM Vendor

Consistent ECM market visionary


Open Text Business Solutions

Open Text delivers ECM business solutions that are …

Industry Specific Solutions

Departmental Solution for many industries

LegalGovernment Energy Life Sciences more…Manufacturing

Copyright © Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved.Slide 7

Leveraging CriticalBusiness Content

Difficult

Inability to discover critical businesscontent across multiple, disparatesystems

Inability to access and act on criticalbusiness content across multiple,disparate systems

For the…

Business User / Business Manager

LEGAL / COMPLIANCE

High CorporateExposure to Litigation

and Regulations

Challenges to effectively and efficientlyrespond to the increasing risk oflitigation

Serious business consequences fornon-compliance to regulations

For the…

Chief Compliance Officer / General Counsel

IT Costs &Complexity Rising

Storage costs associated with anexplosion of unmanaged,unstructured content

Inability for organizations to achievecentralized- IT management visionwithin complex technicalenvironment

For the…

Chief Information Officer

Why customers look to Open Text and ECM

Core BusinessProcesses

ContentAvailability

BusinessApplications Storage Media

IT

PreventativeReactive


A Trusted Source in ECM

Open Text Supports Industry Standards


DoD 5105.2 (U.S)

Legislations and Standards


VERS

Some are specific vertical markets, others are generic, others servespecific purposes*Source:Gartner

DOMEA

15489

RDIMS

DocumentManagement

EmailManagement

ContentReporting

BusinessProcessManagement

Capture andDelivery Archiving

Web ContentManagement

Collaboration& CommunityManagement

Digital AssetManagement

Enterprise Content

User Experience

Open Text ECM Suite

Slide 11Copyright © 2008 Open Text Corporation. All rights reserved.

RecordsManagement

Business Applications

ContractsManagementContractsManagement

AccountsPayableAccountsPayable

ContentMigrationContentMigration

eDiscoveryeDiscovery

CaseManagementCaseManagement

MarketingAssetManagement

MarketingAssetManagement

Focus on standards with certifications

To date, the successful RM Software certification programs are withinareas with jurisdictional authority

Successful programs also have mandates to organizations in thosejurisdictions to use the certified solutions

The standards without certification, such as ISO 15489 complementeach certifiable specification.

Let’s take a look at the RM standards with certifications and theexperience of Open Text with them… US DoD 5015.02 UK PRO/TNA Australia’s VERS Germany’s DOMEA Canada’s RDIMS Looking forward to MoReq2 and beyond…


11 years of DoD 5015.02 Certification history


Version 1

Date Product name and version Pairing?

October 1998 iRIMS 7.1July 1999 iRIMS 7.1.4 FilenetJuly 1999 iRIMS 7.1.5 Livelink 8.1May 2000 iRIMS 7.1.7 DocupactOctober 2000 iRIMS 20012000 eDOCS RM 3.5June 2001 iRIMS 9.0.2 Livelink 92001 eDOCS RM 4.0

Baseline requirements in a military environment,specifically Department of Defense


Added a chapter for ManagingClassified Records as optional


Version 2

Date Product + version Pairing? Chapters certifiedNovember 2002 iRIMS 9.0.5 Ch2 + Ch4

November 2002 LLRM 2.5 Ch2 + Ch4December 2003 LLRM 2.7 Ch2 + Ch42003 eDOCS RM 5.1.1 Ch2 + Ch4October 2004 LLRM 2.9 Ch2 + Ch42005 eDOCS RM 6 Ch2 + Ch4November 2006 LLRM 3.8 Ch2 + Ch4November 2006 LLRM 3.8 mySAP 2005 Ch2November 2006 LLRM 3.8 SPS 2003, MOSS 2007 Ch2August 2007 eDOCS 6 Ch2


Updated requirements

Added a mandatory chapter for interoperability

Certification extended to 3 years of validity


Version 3

Date Product nameand version

Pairing? Chapters Certified

October 2008 OTRM 4.2 Ch2,Ch3, Ch5

October 2008 OTRM 4.2 mySAP ERP6 Ch2,Ch5October 2008 OTRM 4.2 MOSS2007 Ch2,Ch5June 2009 OTRM 4.2 eDOCS 5.2 Ch2,Ch5

Open Text and DoD 5015.2 testing

One of the first through original testing

One of the first through paired testing (DM system with RM system)

First to certify on SPS2007

First and only to certify with SAP

Continually test multiple platforms (Windows, Unix, MSExchange, Notes,multiple desk top O/S)

5015.02 spec has been updated throughout the years twice

It is anticipated to go through another revision in 2012 (typically every 5years)

There are test cases incorporated to ensure “backward compatibility”with the standard, or essentially upgradeability.


Process to Certify for DoD 5015.02

Initiate contact with JITC, fill out CTE forms (intent to certify)

Enter into contractual agreement with JITC itemizing terms andconditions of certification.

Determine test location and dates.

Submit 1st payment of intent to certify

Questions on the requirements are fielded by testers

Submit completed test cases (in our case +200 pages with screen shotsand step by step instructions).

JITC testers Perform each test case, work through any issues

Pass/fail notification

Web site updated.


JITC Website


PRO/TNA Certifications

Date Product nameand version

Pairing? Specificationand Version

June 2000 iRIMS 7.1 PRO v1

March 2001 iRIMS 2001 PRO v1

September 2001 iRIMS 2001 Livelink 9 TNA 2002

October 2004 Livelink 9.5 TNA 2002

April 2005 R/KYV TNA 2002

September 2006 eDOCS RM 6 TNA 2002


Version 1 Version 2

VERS (PROS 99/007) certifications

Date Product name Specification certifications

March 2006 Livelink RM 3.0.1(LL9.5 SP1)

Specifications 1 & 2

January 2008 eDOCS RM 6 Specifications 1-5

October 2009 OTRM 4.2 Specifications 1-5


Version 1 Version 2 v2 more specific preservationrequirements

Provides several optionalextensions to Version 1

More explanatory material

DOMEA Certifications


Date Product name Specification and version

October 2002 DOMEA® 3.1 DOMEA Version 1.2October 2003 Livelink für

eGovernment 9.1.3DOMEA Version 1.2

October 2005 Open TextDOMEA®WinDesk 4.0

DOMEA Version 2.0

Version 1.2 Version2.0

Last but not least…RDIMS


A Short History of RDIMS RDIMS = Records / Document / Information Management System TBS initiative in the late 1990s to establish a common ECM platform Contract awarded to CGI (an Systems Integrator) as the provider Technology was a blend of components from multiple vendors Agencies can buy from approved list of software

Contract renewed 2008; Open Text is Provider

Procurement is done via PWGSC

RDIMSrequirements

Approvedvendors list

Contract reviewedand renewed

Canadian and Ontario Government involvement


Certification justification

Having industry standards sets a baseline for capabilities

The standards representing more of a niche market, or specific verticalrequire business justification in order to put $ into the initiative at anypotential vendor. To put in perspective… It is estimated (not officially) that each new version of DoD 5015.02 spec

costs approximately $1 Million CAD to certify Costs associated with

– Time of team involved– $ for hardware– $ for testing each configuration– $ for testing travel and living for test analysts.– Soft costs of using R&D money for testing and compliance vs other competing

business opportunities.


How MoReq2 is different…

Some standards are closed and only key stakeholders have input, orthose within the jurisdiction affected.

MoReq2 attempts to transcend the limitations of niche markets, to takethe benefits of the best practises, and at the same time hopes to be openregarding input for future.

MoReq2 is not mandated for use (it’s too big in current state)

Initial growing pains – who is the authoritative body/person in questionsof requirements?

Ownership of translations – only RDIMS is translated into multiplelanguages


Open Text’s Journey with MoReq2

July 2006 Open Text invited to participate in suggestions for MoReq2and provide feedback.

2007 participated in feedback for chapters, publicly commits to MoReq2in product development

2008 spec finalized, companies write in MoReq2 requirements in RFPs, OT inquires regarding test regime (still being finalized) OT begins earnest development on gaps

2009 OT submits questions on interpretations of requirements MGB responds to many, while others await further discussion Discussions of a revised specification based on feedback not only from OT,

and still some unclear requirements Fabasoft announces certification, OT requests details on outstanding items


Examples of items for clarifying

(4.1.23) System configuration options available to provide varying levelsof information about objects to users that don’t have any accesspermissions to them

(9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4) Deleting records during a re-classification

(4.3.1) Partial backup / restore

(6.3.3, 6.3.4) Automatically prompt user to capture sent\received emails.Will a subtle cue be acceptable? (resistance in user base to too manyprompts)

(4.1.19) Level of granularity to functional access –what is ‘maintain othersystem parameters’? When would anyone ever want to ‘change audittrail data’?

And more…


Where do we go together next?

Some suggestions for improvement… Make the specification more modular Less specific reporting requirements

– Instead of specifying long list of particular reports allow for a generic reportingrequirement.

Set up an authoritative person/body to answer specific questions– And make the decision makers accountable

Instead of mandating support for many different file plan methods, allowoptions to choose one method.

Allow options for email management instead of full mandatories– Stripping the attachment from an email as it’s added isn’t a normal request from our

customer base– What is rationale to add multiple emails in as a single record? How is metadata

affected Allow for the concept of pairing with different applications of record creation.


Where do we go together next? (continued)

Have the specification wording less application specific, there may bemore than one way to accomplish the goal 4.1.19 (paraphrased) – User access to ERMS functions must allow to be

setup with at least level of granularity shown in the illustrative access rightstable in section 13.4.

– Instead of trying to define a specific list of functions the specification should addressonly what business use scenarios must be satisfied (i.e. user is granted or deniedthe ability to edit\delete a record) and not specify what specific functions list theERMS must support.

9.3.3 - If an administrative role “re-locates” a record (as in 3.4.1), the ERMSmust behave exactly as for a deletion but with the addition that a copy (or apointer, depending on the storage method used) must be insertedautomatically at the new location.

– This requirement forces the application to perform a deletion however another viableoption is simply to update its metadata with the new location without specificallyperforming a deletion. The specification should more generically address the ERMScapabilities to re-locate a record without mandating what exactly must happenbehind the scenes.


In Closing…

Open Text supports the initiatives of the DLM Forum for MoReq2

Our history and experiences both in customer implementations andcertifications can help bring a practical view to further MoReq2developments.

The current state of requirements forces too many options (such as fileplans, emails, partial backup and recovery), and some that don’t seem toenhance our software, but rather add complexity.

Open Text will support requirements that enhance offerings, provide realvalue to customers, allow for multiple means to implement and plan forfuture content types and future means of information governance



Open Text

History of Innovation

Well-earned reputation forexcellence

The broadest ECM solutionportfolio

Global professional services team

Extensive partner ecosystem


Thank You

Tracy [email protected]: Tracy_Caughell

[email protected]

Documents

Certification and Compliance · Determine test location and dates. Submit 1st payment of intent to certify Questions on the requirements are fielded by testers Submit completed test