APOLOGIES for this long posting. Read on only if you are interested in MoReq2
and other “standards” for electronic records management. I’m responding
specifically to questions raised by Peter and Gordy. I’m replying in my
personal capacity as I designed MoReq2 and led the MoReq2 development
project (and MoReq1 before it).
1. MoReq2 compliance
====================
There is indeed only one product that has been certified as MoReq2 compliant
so far – Fabasoft Folio 2009 (http://www.fabasoft.com/folio/products).
Much as Forrester has reported, other vendors (just about all of them) have
now, or recently had, some sort of compliance developments. And EMC
announced at its conference last year its intention to seek certification for
Documentum (see http://moreq2.eu/press-a-web/emc). But recent news
about MoReq has effectively put them on hold – see “IMPORTANT NEWS:
MoReq2010” below.
One exception is the Maarch open source project, which is continuing its
efforts to develop an open source MoReq2-compliant product
(http://moreq2.maarch.org/Accueil).
2. Is MoReq2-compliance tough?
==============================
Yes. When we wrote it, we intentionally made it challenging, partly to “raise
the bar” of quality available. In retrospect, it is clearly too tough. See the
DLM Forum’s response, summarised at “IMPORTANT NEWS: MoReq2010” below.
3. What does “Not Testable” mean?
=================================
Peter, I very often agree with what you write, but not this time. There is an
important reason for “non-testable”, and “partially testable”, requirements. If
you don’t appreciate that, you are missing something important about MoReq.
Here’s why.
One objective for MoReq2 is to provide a benchmark for software compliance
testing. For such tests, only the “Testable” requirements are used, unless
during the test something is spotted that relates to a “partially testable
requirement”. In this context, Peter’s implied comment about the
pointlessness of “not testable” requirements is correct. But ONLY in this
context; MoReq2 is intended for other contexts...
MoReq2 is NOT a standard (though everyone, myself included) calls it a
standard). It is a set of MODEL Requirements. It is intended to be
customised by user organisations for procurement purposes (among other
uses). To quote directly from section 1.9, “The requirements in this
specification are intended to serve only as a model [...] As a result, this
specification must be customised before use for procurement purposes.” In
this regard, it is fundamentally different to, say, 5015.2, which is a standard
that is not meant to be modified (and is designed in a way that makes
customisation tricky). In this context (and others), partially-testable and non-
testable requirements make a lot of sense. Here are two examples:
Example 1 - Non-functional requirements: as MoReq2 points out in section
1.3 “While the specification focuses on functional requirements, it recognises
that non-functional attributes are central to the success of an ERMS” [ERMS
in British English = RMA in US DOD-speak]. Our experience (I might say our
bitter experience) with our clients has proved how important non-functional
requirements are to success. Things like speed, ease of use and so on. Now,
these are not testable IN THE GENERAL CASE. So they are included, but not
marked as fully testable. They are included so that users can customise
them, if they want to, or delete them if they don’t. As soon as they are
customised for a particular situation, they become testable and/or capable of
being assessed during a procurement – both very valuable.
Example 2 – Integrity: the internal integrity of the document repository is
obviously an important requirement. But it cannot be tested. The best we
could think of is to state it as a “partially testable” requirement (requirement
3.1.2) then to suggest (in section 1.11) that if, during testing, an integrity
breach is noticed the product does not comply.
All this goes way beyond the 5015.2-like “this is a take-it-or-leave-it
standard” – intentionally.
4. IMPORTANT NEWS: MoReq2010
=============================
The DLM Forum (those nice Archivists and Records Managers who brought you
MoReq and MoReq2) recently signed a contract for the development of a new
version of MoReq, to be called “MoReq2010”. In theory, it should be ready by
year-end, as the name suggests. More importantly, an open consultation
period is due to start within days of this posting. At that time, contributions
will be invited from anyone with an informed view.
MoReq2010 is intended to address the complexity and length of MoReq2 by re-
structuring it (and by introducing other changes). MoReq2010 will have a
much smaller “core” of mandatory requirements.
Compliance testing for MoReq2010 will be much less demanding as a result.
So most vendors have put MoReq related development “on hold”, and I’d be
surprised if any more products are tested for MoReq2 compliance, though they
still can be. Most likely, there will be a flurry of MoReq2010 compliance tests
late in 2011.
Hopefully the DLM Forum or Journal IT will publicise the consultation portal on
this list later in the month. But if you are interested in contributing, I’d advise
you to check the MoReq or MoReq Collateral websites for news, in case the
announcement for the (short-ish) consultation period misses this list.
5. For More Information: The MoReq Collateral Website
======================================================
The DLM Forum operates the MoReq website of course. That contains formal
definitive information. Inforesight Limited also runs the “MoReq Collateral”
website, at http://moreq2.eu. This contains a very wide range of supporting
information about MoReq from dozens of countries, from Kazkhstan to Mexico,
from China to Canada... The information includes videos, papers, articles, blog
posts, news and more. If you are interested in MoReq, do check it from time
to time – and do feel free to send in any contributions.
Lastly: Who Cares?
==================
I’m conscious that MoReq is a European development, and this list is USA-
centric. Nonetheless, contributions from beyond Europe are welcome. The
MoReq2 team received valuable input from the USA, and from other non-
European countries such as Russia. The reality is that MoReq2 has been
employed by user organisations around the world, including Canada and the
USA.
Marc Fresko
Inforesight Limited
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
