Recently, I was sent a link to this blog by Daniel Chalef on active document capture. He references an AIIM article where survey respondents rate their success or failure with quality and vendors. Both resources are well worth reading and available to the public. The blog discusses strategic ways to achieve an organizational benefit with document capture. There are a few practical examples I wanted to share.
What active documents do organizations still get in paper form? A frightening array, including contracts (from sales to loan applications), invoices and billing statements, checks, etc. Any of these document types can be electronic, and they probably all will be, all the time, sometime in the future. While we're holding our breath, it's a good idea to look at how we might treat all this paper.
Scan those contracts and make them part of whatever project, real estate deal, or program they relate to. While you might limit access to management, your intranet should be the place to hold those documents. Someone has to ensure the appropriate terms of service, and that's pretty easy to do with a searchable scanned file. Invoices can be scanned and presented directly in your accounting system, especially if your organization receives a number of the same invoices from the same contractors. You can even set up a field recognition feature to present the dollar amount right in the system, with the scan attached to the contractor record for reference. Checks should also be scanned and added to your accounts payable records.
So what do you do with the paper? Get rid of it... sometime. There are federal, state, municipal, industry, and organizational rules about that, and not every stakeholder treats scans as an approved substitute. That being said, as a rule of thumb, I would suggest that your paper documents have no practical use after the following fiscal year. In other words, paper files you received and scanned in 2009 can probably go away in 2011 without much fuss. Just make sure you take good care of your scans.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Failure Has Some Options
Everyone fails at one time or another. Every organization can point to a program or project that jsut didn't go well at all. One of the big steps is admitting the problem in the first place. Another big step is figuring out what to do about it. There are three main options: do nothing; add resources; scrap the project. For many years, the federal government has only take the first two tacks; now it's going to try the third. According to an article in 'nextgov' magazine, the White House will review and post the health of all government IT projects. You can find that link at
http://it.usaspending.gov/.
http://it.usaspending.gov/.
While some of us might enjoy the handy pie chart and deep red color of these stats, there is so much more to know. By what measure is a particular project failing? Will this project succeed given more time and other resources? Is it worth it? Are there particular people to blame? Yes, I know it's popular to say that no one is at fault, or everyone is, which means the same thing for accountability. Starting with the project requirements, it's useful to look at the history of the whole effort. It's entirely possible that the project in question was never going to meet the organizational goals in the first place, especially if there are no goals.
What's nice about adding accountability to these IT projects is that contractors who don't meet the timeline or requirements will no longer be rewarded with more money, at least the really bad ones won't. Those bad projects are a huge time and resource suck, and I for one can think of all sorts of valuable ways that money can be spent. Even if the project is set to continue, it can be done under another contractor. As you've read previously, I'm pretty big on accountability and consequences, and this IT health monitor is set to deliver plenty of both. I'll be watching to see what happens.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Snail Mail < Email < Web 2.0
When I was a kid, I loved getting mail. I got holiday and birthday cards, packages, letters from friends and family. As I got older, the quality of my mail shifted lower and lower until I receive only bills and junk mail, with the occasional Netflix disc thrown in. The same thing happened with email, but instead of bills, I get "tasks" (and no Netflix). Postal mail and email have another similarity: they are both passive media. They get sent to you whether you like it or not, and your participation is minimal until you want to send a return message. For the past few years, I have been engaged in "Web 2.0," which is a much more active, engaging medium. Through FaceBook and LinkedIn, I can reconnect with friends and colleagues at many different levels, from reading status updates to email, chat, and even a phone call or two. In daily work, SharePoint fills the same need, but it can take some getting used to.
One of the first things I had to learn about SharePoint was balancing quality and quantity. It is so easy to be inundated with alerts for announcements, file updates, status changes, etc. If I'm actively managing a project, I might want immediate or daily alerts from the system. If not, weekly alerts or none at all are just fine. Another new idea was "pulling" information I wanted. I was so used to being "told" by email, phone calls, meetings, etc, I had to learn what was actually important for me to know and then find it. When I figured it out, I saved all kinds of time. The next big thing was collaboration. Once I started to upload draft documents and work on them with a group, I started to feel the power of Web 2.0. No more emailing endless drafts around in a circle and having to consolidate all the changes. In addition, I began using discussion groups for different aspects of a project. No endless emails and conference calls, no emails. Once I got my clients used to it, they wanted a discussion group for everything.
There are some down sides to the Web 2.0 experience, but most of them can be fixed by training. For example, security: someone needs to be the gatekeeper for the site, library, or list. That person should have the authority to grant read or edit access at will. People do rotate among projects, there are new hires, and upper management may want to look at the team's progress. Another down side is access: SharePoint, LinkedIn, and FaceBook are all designed for access outside the firewall. Users should be able to get to SharePoint from anywhere. Often, unfortunately, organizations prevent outside access, even though they allow outside email access. Strange but true.
For those of you who are dealing with SharePoint, keep in mind that you have a deeper individual responsibility for SharePoint compared to a network share, but that's a good thing. You also have more control and much greater flexibility. I invite anyone with specific questions to put them in the comments. I promise I won't answer like a typical IT guy, because I'm not one. I reserve belittling people for my private life.
One of the first things I had to learn about SharePoint was balancing quality and quantity. It is so easy to be inundated with alerts for announcements, file updates, status changes, etc. If I'm actively managing a project, I might want immediate or daily alerts from the system. If not, weekly alerts or none at all are just fine. Another new idea was "pulling" information I wanted. I was so used to being "told" by email, phone calls, meetings, etc, I had to learn what was actually important for me to know and then find it. When I figured it out, I saved all kinds of time. The next big thing was collaboration. Once I started to upload draft documents and work on them with a group, I started to feel the power of Web 2.0. No more emailing endless drafts around in a circle and having to consolidate all the changes. In addition, I began using discussion groups for different aspects of a project. No endless emails and conference calls, no emails. Once I got my clients used to it, they wanted a discussion group for everything.
There are some down sides to the Web 2.0 experience, but most of them can be fixed by training. For example, security: someone needs to be the gatekeeper for the site, library, or list. That person should have the authority to grant read or edit access at will. People do rotate among projects, there are new hires, and upper management may want to look at the team's progress. Another down side is access: SharePoint, LinkedIn, and FaceBook are all designed for access outside the firewall. Users should be able to get to SharePoint from anywhere. Often, unfortunately, organizations prevent outside access, even though they allow outside email access. Strange but true.
For those of you who are dealing with SharePoint, keep in mind that you have a deeper individual responsibility for SharePoint compared to a network share, but that's a good thing. You also have more control and much greater flexibility. I invite anyone with specific questions to put them in the comments. I promise I won't answer like a typical IT guy, because I'm not one. I reserve belittling people for my private life.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
How To Lose A Week In Ten Days
Warning: the following blog entry contains math!
I have come to realize that I only enjoy snow in the abstract. The idea of it is fun and enchanting from the living room window, but the cold hard reality of snow from the driveway is all blood, sweat, and tears. If you live in the DC area and don't have a flying car, you were probably stuck at home for much of the "Snowpocalypse last year." If you were prepared, you had food and activities. If you were lucky, you had uninterrupted electricity, cable, Internet, and you got paid.
With 300,000 federal government employees in the DC metro area according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and an average salary of about $71,000 according to USA Today, every lost hour of work costs the taxpayer about $10.5 million. The government was basically closed for an entire week, but some workers had access to email or brought some work home with them. Some others may have teleworked. Let's figure 30 hours lost over the snow emergency, which therefore cost a whopping $315 million. Keep in mind, that's only a direct cost, which doesn't count lost productivity by people working out of the area who couldn't communicate with DC people.
Now, I know what you're thinking: the number sounds big, but it's a drop in the federal bucket. Fair enough, but we received zero for it. Nada, zilch, niente. And the government will never make up that productivity over the fiscal year. Is this situation preventable somehow?
Well of course it is, with telework. According to telework.gov's 2009 Annual Report, 102,900 federal employees are teleworking out of 2 million total, which is about 5 percent. The problem is that about half of agencies have not put telework into their Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning in a meaningful way. According to the report, the biggest stumbling blocks aren't IT or security, they are "office coverage" and management resistance.
In a snowstorm, there's no need for office coverage, because nobody's there anyway. For the managers, they should ask whether it's better to encourage telework and put a real plan in place or to watch their human capital budget go down the storm drain. Thanks to technologies like Microsoft SharePoint, any worker with Internet access can work on documents, engage in discussion groups, and schedule meetings much more efficiently than with Outlook. Best of all, documents can stay on a server managed by IT rather than being saved on a home computer. Even if teleworking isn't practical for everyone on a regular basis, it's a great way to ensure that the people's business gets done.
I have come to realize that I only enjoy snow in the abstract. The idea of it is fun and enchanting from the living room window, but the cold hard reality of snow from the driveway is all blood, sweat, and tears. If you live in the DC area and don't have a flying car, you were probably stuck at home for much of the "Snowpocalypse last year." If you were prepared, you had food and activities. If you were lucky, you had uninterrupted electricity, cable, Internet, and you got paid.
With 300,000 federal government employees in the DC metro area according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and an average salary of about $71,000 according to USA Today, every lost hour of work costs the taxpayer about $10.5 million. The government was basically closed for an entire week, but some workers had access to email or brought some work home with them. Some others may have teleworked. Let's figure 30 hours lost over the snow emergency, which therefore cost a whopping $315 million. Keep in mind, that's only a direct cost, which doesn't count lost productivity by people working out of the area who couldn't communicate with DC people.
Now, I know what you're thinking: the number sounds big, but it's a drop in the federal bucket. Fair enough, but we received zero for it. Nada, zilch, niente. And the government will never make up that productivity over the fiscal year. Is this situation preventable somehow?
Well of course it is, with telework. According to telework.gov's 2009 Annual Report, 102,900 federal employees are teleworking out of 2 million total, which is about 5 percent. The problem is that about half of agencies have not put telework into their Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning in a meaningful way. According to the report, the biggest stumbling blocks aren't IT or security, they are "office coverage" and management resistance.
In a snowstorm, there's no need for office coverage, because nobody's there anyway. For the managers, they should ask whether it's better to encourage telework and put a real plan in place or to watch their human capital budget go down the storm drain. Thanks to technologies like Microsoft SharePoint, any worker with Internet access can work on documents, engage in discussion groups, and schedule meetings much more efficiently than with Outlook. Best of all, documents can stay on a server managed by IT rather than being saved on a home computer. Even if teleworking isn't practical for everyone on a regular basis, it's a great way to ensure that the people's business gets done.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
OGI DIY OMG
I try to be handy around the house. I can do some of the smaller projects like faucet replacement, running electrical circuits, and the like. I had limited success with room renovation, so I started hiring experts. OK, I really messed up one project, and I had to get outside help. Despite my setbacks, I found that my experience with small projects helped me evaluate contractors and help with planning and technical decisions. I could understand the need for prep work, and I usually knew why things were done in a certain order.
Why am I spending valuable pixels talking about home projects? My experience as a homeowner seems very similar to what some high-level IT folks in the federal government are discovering with document management. In last week's entry, I mentioned how one department was clearly taking on a monumental conversion project with untrained staff and inadequate equipment. Instead of meeting the demands of the administration, the department has implemented a solution that's a couple orders of magnitude below what's needed. In the mighty triad of money, quality, and time, they have chosen low money, no quality, and infinite time.
What this department will find, as I did, is that doing it once the right way is a lot cheaper, faster, and better than doing it twice. It's even better than doing it once and being totally unsatisfied. Once again, putting the benefit ahead of the means can save a lot of headache. I'm a big fan of experts. I can't always take their advice, but I have modified my plans many times based on the knowledge that comes from their profession. I hope this department, and others like it, will solicit advice on document management from experts like, well, me. It's not rocket science, and if it is, that's what rocket scientists are for.
Why am I spending valuable pixels talking about home projects? My experience as a homeowner seems very similar to what some high-level IT folks in the federal government are discovering with document management. In last week's entry, I mentioned how one department was clearly taking on a monumental conversion project with untrained staff and inadequate equipment. Instead of meeting the demands of the administration, the department has implemented a solution that's a couple orders of magnitude below what's needed. In the mighty triad of money, quality, and time, they have chosen low money, no quality, and infinite time.
What this department will find, as I did, is that doing it once the right way is a lot cheaper, faster, and better than doing it twice. It's even better than doing it once and being totally unsatisfied. Once again, putting the benefit ahead of the means can save a lot of headache. I'm a big fan of experts. I can't always take their advice, but I have modified my plans many times based on the knowledge that comes from their profession. I hope this department, and others like it, will solicit advice on document management from experts like, well, me. It's not rocket science, and if it is, that's what rocket scientists are for.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Transparency Overhead
The federal government's Open Government Initiative is actually moving along, which surprises me. A lot of people who have tried to get government information know the runaround: endless phone calls, letters, and emails if you're lucky. At last, the threat of a FOIA request was usually enough to shake a document loose months later. Some agencies have been proactive in publishing their plan to meet the initiative, and a few are behind. The Sunlight Labs Open Watcher page at http://sunlightlabs.com/open/ is an easy way to track some of the bigger departments and how well they have complied with OMB's directive. As you can see, most of the departments on the list haven't published three high-value datasets or created the "Open" page on their department website. For those departments in compliance, I have a followup question: what do you have besides datasets?
There are millions of pages of documents that do not exist in electronic format in the federal government, and the Open Government Initiative needs to address them. I was at a government trade show this week, and one of the attendees explained how her agency was trying to get college kids to sit in a room and scan paper all summer. That doesn't sound like a serious commitment to me; it sounds like a recipe for failure. As outlined in the OMB document, departments and independent agencies must first identify documents with high value to the public. Next comes the conversion, which can be handled many ways. My recommendation is to find a contractor who can take those documents away, scan and OCR them, then destroy the documents if appropriate. Specialists with high-speed scanners can do ten times the work and cost less compared to a 19-year-old with an old hand-feed scanner, and specialists have their own office offsite. In addition, a professional document management company can provide quality assurance and help with taxonomy.
There are other good reasons to scan. Agencies have whole rooms full of old paper, creating wasteful spending on real estate plus a fire hazard and a huge information risk to manage. In addition, with many civilian baby boomers leaving government over the next few years, no one will know what's in those file cabinets anymore. The paper may as well be blank when those boomers retire.
Will the Open Government Initiative help people understand and participate in the federal government better? Information is not knowledge, but you can't gain knowledge without it. It should be easier to find waste and ineffective programs, and the press can help spotlight problem areas.
How committed is the government to this? The biggest indicator will be what happens when some of these agencies don't meet the deadline. It's coming up very soon, and there should be consequences for failure. Watch this blog for an update.
Feel free to comment on this blog. Please note that comments are moderated, and inappropriate posts like sales pitches, unprofessional language, and flames won't be up for long.
There are millions of pages of documents that do not exist in electronic format in the federal government, and the Open Government Initiative needs to address them. I was at a government trade show this week, and one of the attendees explained how her agency was trying to get college kids to sit in a room and scan paper all summer. That doesn't sound like a serious commitment to me; it sounds like a recipe for failure. As outlined in the OMB document, departments and independent agencies must first identify documents with high value to the public. Next comes the conversion, which can be handled many ways. My recommendation is to find a contractor who can take those documents away, scan and OCR them, then destroy the documents if appropriate. Specialists with high-speed scanners can do ten times the work and cost less compared to a 19-year-old with an old hand-feed scanner, and specialists have their own office offsite. In addition, a professional document management company can provide quality assurance and help with taxonomy.
There are other good reasons to scan. Agencies have whole rooms full of old paper, creating wasteful spending on real estate plus a fire hazard and a huge information risk to manage. In addition, with many civilian baby boomers leaving government over the next few years, no one will know what's in those file cabinets anymore. The paper may as well be blank when those boomers retire.
Will the Open Government Initiative help people understand and participate in the federal government better? Information is not knowledge, but you can't gain knowledge without it. It should be easier to find waste and ineffective programs, and the press can help spotlight problem areas.
How committed is the government to this? The biggest indicator will be what happens when some of these agencies don't meet the deadline. It's coming up very soon, and there should be consequences for failure. Watch this blog for an update.
Feel free to comment on this blog. Please note that comments are moderated, and inappropriate posts like sales pitches, unprofessional language, and flames won't be up for long.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
So What?
Chances are good that your team knows what it's doing. Your team is working on a project, and that project has a specific outcome. That outcome is tied to specific objectives. Those objectives meet a particular goal, and the goal is clearly defined. Hooray, you are way ahead of the game. Most organizations aren't where you are, but you're not quite where you should be.
What's missing? The "so what" factor. What are you getting out of it? What is your organization getting out of it? Often the answer is obvious, but not always. Goals should mean something -- provide a benefit. It's pretty easy to think of reasons to do something, but those are usually objectives, not goals. A goal is the overall "thing to be accomplished." The benefit is what you get out of it. In an organization, goalsetting is a little easier because most workplaces have an overall goal, only they call it a mission to give it more urgency. In the achievement hierarchy, the goal is subordinate to the benefit. Achieving the benefit is possible without achieving the goal, which is still success. Achieving the goal and not getting the benefit is still failure.
Once you have determined a goal to achieve the desired benefit, it's time to plan objectives. Any goal worth achieving takes a certain amount of time and effort. These smaller goals you achieve on the way to the larger one can be a real goal-killer, especially if they're not really aligned with the goal. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the objectives we don't even care about the goal anymore. Care about the objectives, but reserve your real passion for the goal and its benefit. Besides, your objectives may change along the way as circumstances change. They're supposed to have agility, just like the goal needs stamina. Don't change the goal to fit the objectives. Along the way, measure how much closer you are to the goal and benefit, just as you are measuring the objectives. If you do these simple things, people with think you're brilliant, which is a popular goal. Now you just have to figure out the benefit....
What's missing? The "so what" factor. What are you getting out of it? What is your organization getting out of it? Often the answer is obvious, but not always. Goals should mean something -- provide a benefit. It's pretty easy to think of reasons to do something, but those are usually objectives, not goals. A goal is the overall "thing to be accomplished." The benefit is what you get out of it. In an organization, goalsetting is a little easier because most workplaces have an overall goal, only they call it a mission to give it more urgency. In the achievement hierarchy, the goal is subordinate to the benefit. Achieving the benefit is possible without achieving the goal, which is still success. Achieving the goal and not getting the benefit is still failure.
Once you have determined a goal to achieve the desired benefit, it's time to plan objectives. Any goal worth achieving takes a certain amount of time and effort. These smaller goals you achieve on the way to the larger one can be a real goal-killer, especially if they're not really aligned with the goal. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the objectives we don't even care about the goal anymore. Care about the objectives, but reserve your real passion for the goal and its benefit. Besides, your objectives may change along the way as circumstances change. They're supposed to have agility, just like the goal needs stamina. Don't change the goal to fit the objectives. Along the way, measure how much closer you are to the goal and benefit, just as you are measuring the objectives. If you do these simple things, people with think you're brilliant, which is a popular goal. Now you just have to figure out the benefit....
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Chasing the Competency Gap
What happens when people don't have the skills to do their jobs? In the old century, they would probably be fired, and new talent would take over. Now, the new talent isn't any more likely to do a better job than the old hand. It seems that shifting organizational strategies and new technology have combined to create a permanent competency gap. Workers are constantly trying to catch up but haven't been able to attain all the necessary skills. Even new graduates are struggling to master the "working world" skills that aren't being taught in academia. The hiring organization has to pick up the slack, or fail in its mission. That situation has been status quo for a while, but things are about to get much worse.
The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) just released their new "Bridging the Competency Gap" white paper, and it painted a grim picture. The report says that, in the next few years, the Baby Boom generation will begin to exit the workforce in large numbers, and over a quarter of all organizations in America haven't prepared for the loss in workers. Two-thirds of all employers have no strategy to keep these late-career employees, who are usually the keepers of institutional knowledge. Half of the hiring organizations must train new hires before putting them to work, especially in leadership and basic business skills.
So if we have to train people, how can we train the greatest number of people in the least amount of time for the least cost? You guessed it: e-learning to the rescue! Once created, courses can be used over and over for new hires and poor performers alike. A talent assessment will help determine where the greatest training needs are, and good metrics will show where the improvements are. Coupled with follow-up live training and mentoring programs, organizations can push productivity and quality out of the red and back into the green.
E-learning is especially crucial to government agencies. It's famously difficult to fire government workers, therefore they must be trained, because they get paid regardless of their value. Otherwise the cube farm will be full of weeds, sucking up valuable resources while providing no benefits.
The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) just released their new "Bridging the Competency Gap" white paper, and it painted a grim picture. The report says that, in the next few years, the Baby Boom generation will begin to exit the workforce in large numbers, and over a quarter of all organizations in America haven't prepared for the loss in workers. Two-thirds of all employers have no strategy to keep these late-career employees, who are usually the keepers of institutional knowledge. Half of the hiring organizations must train new hires before putting them to work, especially in leadership and basic business skills.
So if we have to train people, how can we train the greatest number of people in the least amount of time for the least cost? You guessed it: e-learning to the rescue! Once created, courses can be used over and over for new hires and poor performers alike. A talent assessment will help determine where the greatest training needs are, and good metrics will show where the improvements are. Coupled with follow-up live training and mentoring programs, organizations can push productivity and quality out of the red and back into the green.
E-learning is especially crucial to government agencies. It's famously difficult to fire government workers, therefore they must be trained, because they get paid regardless of their value. Otherwise the cube farm will be full of weeds, sucking up valuable resources while providing no benefits.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
If Results Don't Matter, Neither Do You
I am always envious of the failed CEOs, general managers, and chairs of the big corporations. Over the past ten years, I watched the dot-com guys turn to vapor, real estate magnets go under water, and profitable banks turn on a dime. My wish is always the same, "Please give me that job! I could ruin your company for 10% of what the last guy made!" At the highest levels, it might be OK to pay a bloated salary for terrible performance, but for the rest of us, results matter.
So when I look at SharePoint, I see something similar. Some big-name company is getting paid huge amounts of cash to do a SharePoint implementation. That part I don't mind; what gets me is how poorly SharePoint performs for its user base. Somebody got a big paycheck, but where are the results? I could do a terrible job on that implementation for a fraction of the cost.
The biggest challenge is goals. SharePoint is designed to do certain things very well, but it has no purpose of its own. The organization has to give it a purpose. The goal is not to use SharePoint; the goal should be to increase productivity, decrease costs, improve quality, that sort of thing. Then it's time to explain how SharePoint can help the organization get there -- those are the strategic objectives. Every site, every feature, every web part needs to align with those objectives in some way. Otherwise, the launch will be a mess of frustration and fingerpointing.
The other big challenge is metrics. They should be concrete and actually measureable. Want to reduce the average size of email? Measure it before the implementation and set a goal number, like 20% less. Reduce production time for a document? Find out how long it takes now; set a goal number. Whatever the improvement is, compare before and after, and three months out, and six months out, etc. Not everyone will jump into SharePoint at once, and it's a good idea to check metrics over time, anyway.
An unrelated point about implementations. Don't let IT circumvent the core functionality of SharePoint. If you have security or policy that bars some core functions, please use something else. It is very frustrating to be denied a basic feature that comes out of the box, like multiple file upload to a library.
So when I look at SharePoint, I see something similar. Some big-name company is getting paid huge amounts of cash to do a SharePoint implementation. That part I don't mind; what gets me is how poorly SharePoint performs for its user base. Somebody got a big paycheck, but where are the results? I could do a terrible job on that implementation for a fraction of the cost.
The biggest challenge is goals. SharePoint is designed to do certain things very well, but it has no purpose of its own. The organization has to give it a purpose. The goal is not to use SharePoint; the goal should be to increase productivity, decrease costs, improve quality, that sort of thing. Then it's time to explain how SharePoint can help the organization get there -- those are the strategic objectives. Every site, every feature, every web part needs to align with those objectives in some way. Otherwise, the launch will be a mess of frustration and fingerpointing.
The other big challenge is metrics. They should be concrete and actually measureable. Want to reduce the average size of email? Measure it before the implementation and set a goal number, like 20% less. Reduce production time for a document? Find out how long it takes now; set a goal number. Whatever the improvement is, compare before and after, and three months out, and six months out, etc. Not everyone will jump into SharePoint at once, and it's a good idea to check metrics over time, anyway.
An unrelated point about implementations. Don't let IT circumvent the core functionality of SharePoint. If you have security or policy that bars some core functions, please use something else. It is very frustrating to be denied a basic feature that comes out of the box, like multiple file upload to a library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)