On 11/7/06, Jesse Wilkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> In the US DoD 5015.2 is it.



Even this needs to be considered carefully.  Folks need to remember what
DOD5015.2 is and is not... it was developed by the Department of Defense in
sort of a vacuum, so to cal it a "Standard" or a "certification" is a little
bit of a misnomer.  It CERTAINLY ISN'T a Standard in ISO, ANSI, AIIM or ARMA
terms... wasn't developed by a balanced body of participants across the
spectrum of industries and doesn't represent a consensus view.

And oh yeah... NOW, ALL Federal Agencies are requiring EDMS/ERMS systems
vendors products to be on the DOD 5015.2 list before they can deploy it....
but personally, I think it gives a false sense of security that you have the
best product.

And all it "Certifies" is that a vendor has submitted their product to the
testing required to ensure their software meets the requirements set forth
in DOD 5015.2.  It doesn't ensure it does it efficiently, effectively, as
well or better than another product offering, it simply meets the
requirements.  By that I mean it can take 10 steps to achieve something or 3
steps, as long as it accomplishes it.  So you don't necessarily end up with
"apples and apples".



What it DOES do is force vendors to think long and hard about rolling out
new full versions of their products instead of releases, because they don't
need to go through the full "certification" until they roll out a new
version... and because the process is so expensive and slow, vendors have to
put time in their "product to market" schedule to accommodate testing if
they want to be in the list when the version hits the street.

And now that so many vendors have gone through the process once or twice,
they are designing products specifically to obtain approval... not that this
is necessarily a BAD THING, but it's like kids being taught to take tests
rather than getting a complete body of knowledge.

There are others in other countries (DOMEA in Germany and RDIM in Canada
> come immediately to mind), and there may be some specific requirements in
> particular jurisdictions. My understanding is that TNA 2002 is deprecated
> and will ultimately be replaced by MoReq 2 which will have a certification
> aspect (but which does not currently).


Same caveat here... make sure you know what it's "certified" to do, and if
that's critical to you or not.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance