Please visit the all new GovTwit at GovTwit.com to get to the directory directly, and you can follow GovTwit on Twitter, where Steve Lunceford will tweet directory updates.
Join BearingPoint Managing Director Chris Estes and Manager Eileen Perrin in understanding the UDAP Legislation. In May 2008, the Federal Reserve, OTC and NCUA proposed a regulation under section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, affectionately known as UDAP (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices). The proposed regulation addresses overdraft processing and credit card activities.
This regulation will ultimately create pressure on financial institution profitability, resulting in lost fee and interest revenue and increased risk management challenges. UDAP will also require costly modifications to systems and processes throughout the account lifecycle. The financial impact on each institution depends on existing policies & practices. If a financial institution has not yet calculated the financial impact of this regulatory change on their income statement, BearingPoint has created a proprietary model to perform a high level calculation that is directionally accurate.
BearingPoint has created an organizational impact assessment tool to assists our clients in identifying the processes that impact them specifically. Organizations need to align their budgets and their resources to be prepared to support UDAP compliance efforts in 2009. Every institution should start investigating revenue enhancement opportunities and BearingPoint is here to ensure you’re fully equipped when this regulation becomes law.
Reposted from E2.OH – Investigations into Enterprise 2.0. Original post can be found here
For those (3) of you just tuning in to our blog, it is probably important to note that the stone in our tranparency soup recipe has long been the BearingPoint Enterprise Wiki deployment. Following an extended pilot, we are about 6 months into a full-on, production level deployment of Atlassian’s Confluence, JIRA, and Crowd stack for the complete firm. I suppose I have always perceived the effort as being successful, but I am willing to admit that my perspective might be a little skewed. (My baby is most certainly not ugly, kind sir!)
In response to an internal communciations query, I was recently asked to take a look at usage stats since GoLive. Initially I was pretty impressed but then it occured to me that I really have no basis by which to judge either way. As such, I thought I would post the facts and see what the prevaling wisdom is.
- GoLive Date = May 5, 2008
- Possible Users = ~16,000 (The wiki is only accessible by employees. This number is roughly current headcount, but people have come and gone over the months.)
We’ll start with basic wiki pages first:
- Current Wiki Pages = 11,720
- Versions of Current Wiki Pages = 87,280
- Pages with Comments = 2,039
- Number of Comments = 6,661
- Unique Page Authors = 1,858
Secondly, Confluence has built-in blogging capabilties through its News Item feature. Here are the numbers for that:
- Current News Items (Blog Entries) = 1,503
- Versions of Current News Items = 2,991
- Comments on News Items = 1,065
- Unique News Item Authors = 210
Finally, here is some typical web analytics data to round out the picture:
- Visits = 68,168
- Pageviews = 620,329
- Pages/Visit = 9.10
- Bounce Rate = 25.81%
- Average Time on Wiki = 09:59
- Unique Visitors = 15,443
- Originating Countries = 62
- % Traffic from Referring Sites = 43% (mostly from Intranet, the rest is Direct traffic)
So what do you think? How does this compare to other stats you have seen?