By Karyn Scherer – NZ Herald

[ Extract from article ]

Paul Trotter likes to joke that he has “two lives, one wife”. He means that he spends up to a third of each year overseas, and two-thirds in Auckland, where his long-suffering family have become used to his frequent absences.

It’s a sacrifice he’s prepared to make for a bit longer yet, to allow him to focus on a crucial growth phase for the software company he founded 14 years ago in a spare room at home.

What began as a single product to make desktop publishing easier to manage has evolved into a sophisticated solution for content management which is used by some of the world’s biggest companies, such as Coca-Cola, Computer Associates, and HP.

Trotter knew right from the beginning that he would have to target overseas markets, as New Zealand was simply too small.

Read full story >>

I came across a question today on LinkedIn asking “What’s stopping the wider use of DITA within your company?”.

Some of the responses that were given included reasons like

• I don’t have time right now to do this
• I did this at my last job, and it cost me my job
• Too hard to migrate content to DITA
• Too expensive to buy the tools

What really surprised me was that I don’t think most people really understood the question. I believe the question was asking, what is stopping other departments using DITA, not what is stopping more technical writers on more projects using DITA.

In my experience, which is very broad, the key factor that is “stopping the wider use of DITA within organizations” is that DITA is a content model designed to meet the needs of producing technical product documentation, more specifically software documentation and is not applicable, or even easily adapted outside that use case. DITA was after all designed by IBM to meet their internal requirements and has not changed much since entering the public domain.

The other major factor is that outside professional writers, like technical communicators, users lack the skills, discipline, and desire to be able to understand or use the complex set of technologies and tools required to make DITA work. It’s simply too hard.

To make matters worse, even professional writers struggle with DITA and many organizations are abandoning their DITA (and other XML) implementations in favor of less complex and more user-friendly solutions that can be easily adopted across the organization by users of all skill levels.

Last year we replaced dozens of DITA and XML based implementations with Author-it, in large and small companies alike. I remember meeting with one particular group that had been working with DITA for about a year and was very adamant that it was the only way to do it. During the presentation of Author it we showed them how easily they could migrate their DITA content, do everything they were doing with their XML based tool set, and much more, while continuing to use the DITA content model and validation within Author-it. Needless to say they are now happy Author-it users.

Paul Trotter
Founder and CEO
Author-it Software Corporation

I had a conversation today where I was discussing strategies for content architecture with a Fortune 100 high tech company. The person I was speaking with stated that they wanted to create a strategy where the content was completely independent of the tool set used to create and process it.

I believe his premise was that by making the content tool agnostic, that it enables independence from tools, and allows different parts of the organization to choose different tool sets independently to meet their specific requirements. Provided all the tools can magically inter-operate and just load and save the content in the same model everything will be wonderful.

So my question is. Is this really feasible, or is it just a flight of fancy?

My opinion is that if you are focused on satisfying the actual business requirements of users who are authoring, managing, translating, and publishing that content you cannot practically separate the tools from the content because the requirements themselves are not satisfied by either the content model or the tools, but the combination of both.

This is why you never see this type of separation in other software categories like CRM, Financials, or ERP.

If your organization was looking for a new CRM, would they design an independent data model and strategy around managing client information, then find tools that will use the model? I doubt it.

Instead they would most likely gather their business requirements, which by definition need to be independent of implementation, then go to the market with an RFI or RFP. This enables them to consider all the possible ways and technologies available to solve their problems.

I would love to hear your opinions and feedback on this subject.

Paul Trotter
Founder and CEO
Author-it Software Corporation

For several years now we have been selling our powerful web based authoring, management, and publishing solution, Author-it Live. It is extremely popular, and part of almost every enterprise solution we sell.

The challenge for our small to mid-sized clients has been that Author-it Live has been targeted and priced for our larger enterprise clients. However, everyone I have shown Author-it Live to wants it and are very disappointed when they find out it is outside their budget.

So… in response to your feedback we are launching, Author-it Live Small Business Server – a package specifically tailored for small to medium sized users of Author-it.

So why do you need Author-it Live Small Business Server?

• Want to increase your team’s productivity and collaboration workflow?
• Want greater freedom working remotely?
• Need an easier option for contribution by Subject Matter Experts and Reviewers?

In times where productivity and efficiency gains are of primary importance; anytime, anywhere access to Author-it offers substantial benefits.

What is Author-it Live Small Business Server?

Author-it Live Small Business Server enables authoring, reviewing, content management, and publishing tasks via your web browser. Now you can invest in an affordable solution that enables secure anytime, anywhere access to your single source content.

• Works in your web browser.
• No client software to install.
• Rapid, easy deployment.
• Create, modify, and publish content anywhere there is internet connection.
• Easily collaborate across multiple teams and environments via the web.
• Easy to use Web 2.0 technology.
• Supports up to 10 concurrent users. User licenses purchased separately.

Take a look at a short video I put together discussing web authoring, or for more information visit our website.

To make it even more affoardable and as a release special, we are offering to provide the first year of maintenance for free if we receive your order by Dec-31, 2009.

So don’t wait, contact our sales team today.

Paul Trotter
Founder and CEO
Author-it Software Corporation

Posted by Paul Trotter, Founder and CEO, Author-it Software Corporation

A couple of weeks ago Author-it announced a new partnership with Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIOX) the world’s leading translation and localization service provider.

The same week I attended the Localization World conference in Santa Clara, CA and had the opportunity to speak with many clients, partners, and analysts about the partnership. The feedback so far has been overwhelmingly positive.

While many can see the huge advantages in Author-it working together with Lionbridge to optimize the localization process for common clients, it was less clear what value this partnership would bring to the market at large.

For those of you familiar with the localization marketplace and technology, it has been clear for some time that the efficiencies realized by Translation Memory technologies, which were considerable, are now reaching their limits. In these lean times, organizations are now looking for the next leap in efficiency.

Some think this will come from managing and automating the localization workflow. I am convinced that while this may provide some improvements, they will not be significant, and will be largely due to the inefficient way in which people currently create and manage the source content.

I believe real efficiencies come from looking upstream to the point of content creation. The objective here should be to improve the consistency and reuse of content. This focus reduces the number of words requiring translation with obvious downstream savings in localization costs. The Nirvana in this process is achieved by fully integrating the authoring and translation process into a seamless end-to-end solution. By doing this, we eliminate the need for a separate localization workflow and automate the publishing process, thereby eliminating costly post translation Desktop Publishing.

We regularly see our clients exceed 70% content reuse across their publications, which corresponds directly to the word count needing translation. Just last week I read a presentation from HP where they have achieved 82-90% reuse on their various User Guides for Enterprise Servers using Author-it. Not only do they get the reduction on translation cost, but similar reductions in internal review cycles, and the virtual elimination of DTP, which in many cases represent 30-40% of the entire localization budget. These are significant savings!
So you may be asking now, why would Lionbridge want to partner with Author-it if doing so will reduce the cost of localization so significantly?

Firstly, localization is a competitive market as I am sure you all know – driven by positioning from SDL, organizations are being bombarded with ‘competitive opportunities’ to significantly reduce their overall expenditure.  Players like Moravia and TDC are jumping on the pursuit with strategic partnerships and acquisitions of efficiency producing technology.  Localization is changing fast for better or worse.  Creating intelligent long term alliances with ‘best practice’ solutions like Author-it allows Lionbridge to re-establish market leadership and better compete against the combined solutions of the top 10 localization vendors.

Secondly, the larger reality is that even with significant process efficiency, companies generally do not reduce their spend on localization. Instead, they get more value and more content at the same cost. This means expansion into new markets or localization of more products.  Indeed the localization industry has seen almost 50% growth over the last five years in spite of productivity tools like XML, Translation Memory and Machine Translation technologies reducing bottomline costs.  The business reality is there is just too much content to translate – finding more efficient ways to address this problem opens the translation flood gates.  While a ‘type of work’ shift occurs, it seldomly results in a net loss of revenue.

What the partnership does create for both companies is the visible thought and solution leadership that separates us from the competition, which shows our joint clients that we are innovative and can produce an industry beating efficiency for the complete end-to-end global content cycle.

I am extremely excited about taking our partnership forward, about out-performing our joint competition and about engaging our clients together with a solution offering such significant and compelling ROI.
Feel free to leave me your comments or questions.

Paul Trotter
Founder and CEO
Author-it Software Corporation

Posted by Paul Trotter, Founder and CEO, Author-it Software Corporation

The term ‘double-edged sword’ may have been created with content management systems (CMS) in mind. On one edge, they hold great promise for organisations in terms of their ability to create and manage content that is more accurate, less costly to produce, and more consistent in appearance. On the other, they can present a myriad of challenges in their implementation and acceptance by the people using them – and purchasing them. Let’s examine the challenges that a CMS presents, along with ways those challenges can be overcome…

Challenge #5: Fear of Obsolescence
Another people challenge is personality problems with individuals who’ve played crucial roles because of their expertise. The one person everyone comes to when they have a problem, for example.

Once a CMS has been implemented, that person is generally not relied upon so much anymore because work isn’t performed in the same fashion.  So there can be issues from people who feel a growing obsolescence as their power base erodes.

How is this obstacle overcome? The fact is, many times it’s not.  Often, these people must be left behind in order for a better system to take hold.  Other times, however, it is possible to make the person ‘indispensable’ in a different area.

Posted by Paul Trotter, CEO, Author-it Software Corporation

The term ‘double-edged sword’ may have been created with content management systems (CMS) in mind. On one edge, they hold great promise for organizations in terms of their ability to create and manage content that is more accurate, less costly to produce, and more consistent in appearance. On the other, they can present a myriad of challenges in their implementation and acceptance by the people using them – and purchasing them. Let’s examine the challenges that a CMS presents, along with ways those challenges can be overcome…

Challenge #4: The People Factor
In our experience, the main competitor for a CMS is not really another vendor, it’s apathy.   Often, people who use MS Word to create their documents are comfortable using it and don’t care enough to try anything else – even if another program is more suitable for managing content.

The only areas of the company for which change is desirable are those where the pain of creating and managing content is particularly strong, such as product documentation – driven by deadlines, quality and other factors which typically don’t affect many other departments. Sometimes the opposite is true.

Executives frequently ask how the CMS can help on a more companywide basis, while writers wonder how it can help them specifically.  Often the true benefits of a CMS are realised downstream from the actual writing (workers from different departments drawing on each other’s work, greater consistency and efficiency).  Getting writers to alter the way they work purely for the sake of others can be a hard road to hoe.  In the end, the CMS is a two-part sell: the CMS vendor must demonstrate value to the organisation at large and to the individual as well.  It’s critical that every person in the process sees some improvement in the way they work.

Posted by Paul Trotter, CEO, Author-it Software Corporation

The term ‘double-edged sword’ may have been created with content management systems (CMS) in mind. On one edge, they hold great promise for organisations in terms of their ability to create and manage content that is more accurate, less costly to produce, and more consistent in appearance. On the other, they can present a myriad of challenges in their implementation and acceptance by the people using them – and purchasing them. Let’s examine the challenges that a CMS presents, along with ways those challenges can be overcome…

Challenge #3: Gaining Approval
The approval process for a CMS is an all-too-familiar barrier. While budget concerns might be raised the real obstacle is convincing people that there’s a good business case for a CMS.

Often it’s a generational issue: many older executives simply don’t see the value of managing information and the only types of arguments that are considered involve hard ROI.

Sometimes this is readily evident (where there is a high volume of customer-facing content), but if the issue is just making life easier, gaining internal approval can be difficult.

The answer?  Obviously, where there is a good deal of customer facing content or translation, the case can be made easily. But where neither item is a factor, the case should be made through the value of producing content that is consistent, graphically uniform, and ultimately quicker to create.

Posted by Paul Trotter, CEO, Author-it Software Corporation

The term ‘double-edged sword’ may have been created with content management systems (CMS) in mind. On one edge, they hold great promise for organisations in terms of their ability to create and manage content that is more accurate, less costly to produce, and more consistent in appearance. On the other, they can present a myriad of challenges in their implementation and acceptance by the people using them – and purchasing them. Let’s examine the challenges that a CMS presents, along with ways those challenges can be overcome…

Challenge #2: Migration
Migrating an enterprise’s existing information into this new format, requires a big investment in time and labour as the sheer volume of content is overwhelming in comparison to what it would have been 20 years ago at the time financial information was being converted.

And as this content represents 80% of an organisation’s data, the importance of the migration phase cannot be overestimated. In the end, migration requires a technology solution with some CMS’s more adept at allowing people to import content quickly, and in popular formats. Unfortunately, successful migration involves other factors, specifically the formatting of the original document. The less structured a document, the more difficult it is to import it into the CMS.For example, a manual created by a writer in the technical publications department will be relatively straightforward, since most technical writers are meticulous about style and formatting. But a manual written by a different department may present a different set of issues. We’ve seen documents created by HR, for instance, in which the writer came to the end of a line, hit the Return key, and then used the spacebar to line up the next paragraph.

Importing a manual with this lack of style involves much more labour and effort. CMS vendors without advanced migration capabilities may well propose that a company simply create all new content. But having already invested millions of dollars in their content, organisations cannot be expected to give it up lightly.

Of course, many of the same vendors are willing to provide migration assistance at a substantial cost – sometimes as much as $15 a page. One way around this is to migrate only the content that is absolutely necessary. Ie: don’t migrate manuals for products that are no longer manufactured or for procedures that have been discarded. The amount of content that can be left on the side of the road is often quite voluminous.

Posted by Paul Trotter, CEO, Author-it Software Corporation.

The term ‘double-edged sword’ may have been created with content management systems (CMS) in mind. On one edge, they hold great promise for organisations in terms of their ability to create and manage content that is more accurate, less costly to produce, and more consistent in appearance. On the other, they can present a myriad of challenges in their implementation and acceptance by the people using them – and purchasing them. Let’s examine the challenges that a CMS presents, along with ways those challenges can be overcome…

Challenge #1: Control & Management
Perhaps the primary challenge with managing content (which, for the purposes of this article, is defined as an organisation’s ‘human readable’ information, representing about 80% of a company’s total information base), is that there’s little or no control around creating it in the first place. Content is produced by a range of people at every level of an organisation, with usually no control mechanisms over it.

Another issue is the way content has been managed over the years. A good example is financial information. Years ago people wrote their financials longhand on paper, then in ledgers. This was followed by spreadsheet software, which simulated the written ledger in the way it looked.

Soon thereafter, the 2nd generation of software arrived which allowed users to manipulate the information more creatively, followed by sophisticated financial management software. This evolution of systems for financial information, which took place some 15-20 years ago, has not taken place for other content. In fact the majority of common tools to create content (e.g., Word, Frame, etc.) have never moved from the paper simulation stage.

Word processors essentially replicated the function of typewriters, and while they have become more visual and feature-rich they’re fundamentally still doing the same thing: storing information as linear documents. CMS’s have been instrumental in moving content creation out of the paper simulation phase into the database stage, which can’t be duplicated in a paper format. Basically, it’s a revolution in the way content is managed and mirrors the evolution of financial software.

Posted by Paul Trotter, CEO, Author-it Software Corporation