The study on Global Marketing Resource Management Software Market focuses on the analysis of the present trends in the global market. The objective of MarketandResearch.biz is to provide a comprehensive view of the market to the clients and help them build growth strategies. The Marketing Resource Management Software provides a forecast for a period of 2022-2028 based on an in-depth and expert observation.
The document provides a detailed evaluation of main market players in the global Marketing Resource Management Software marketplace, consisting of product offerings, business overviews, nearby presence, business strategies, mergers & acquisitions, SWOT analysis, latest developments, and significant financial information.
DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.marketandresearch.biz/sample-request/245978
The study has thoroughly examined crucial factors which include drivers and restraints, opportunities, production, market players, and competition. Important industry trends, market size, market proportion estimates, and profiles of the top industry competitors are all discussed on this document.
The income projection is based absolutely upon the modern performance of the phase.Report emphasis on assessment of nearby phase:
Report offers a granular evaluation of the market phase of the marketplace:
The segmentation analysis includes a descriptive assessment of the segments, presentation of the market stocks constituted by each section, increase rate of every section, and attractiveness of the segment in terms of revenue.
The producers worried in the marketplace include
Report offers a granular evaluation of the market phase of the market:
ACCESS FULL REPORT: https://www.marketandresearch.biz/report/245978/global-marketing-resource-management-software-market-2022-by-company-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2028
The report delves first into the foundation of the Marketing Resource Management Software by looking at definitions, categories, and market overview. This then further helps understand the various product specifications, supply chain, manufacturing process, and the cost structure and thus provide a depth in the understanding of the building blocks of this industry and understand the major drivers of change in it.
Customization of the Report:
This report can be customized to meet the client’s requirements. Please connect with our sales team (sales@marketandresearch.biz), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs. You can also get in touch with our executives on 1-201-465-4211 to share your research requirements.
Contact Us
Mark Stone
Head of Business Development
Phone: 1-201-465-4211
Email: sales@marketandresearch.biz

source

Advertisement
BMC Public Health volume 22, Article number: 1929 (2022) Cite this article
160 Accesses
Metrics details
In Australia, the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, especially those with lived experience in mental health and suicide prevention, has become important to government policy and practice at Federal and State levels. However, little is known about how governments translate this intention into frameworks of co-creation for policy, funding programs, service improvement, and research and evaluation. We investigated the extent to which publicly available government policies refer to collaborative practice using an established translation model.
An exploratory directed and summative content analysis approach was used to analyse the contents of Federal (also known as Commonwealth), State and Territories policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention published in Australia between 2010 and 2021. The data was extracted, compared to an existing translation model, and summated to demonstrate the evidence of co-creation-related concepts between government and stakeholders.
40 policy documents (nine at the Federal and 31 at the State and Territory level) were identified and included in the analysis. Only 63% of policy documents contained references to the concept of co-design. Six of the State policies contained references to the concept of co-production. Across all policy documents, there were no references to other concepts in the model adopted for this study, such as co-creation, co-ideation, co-implementation, and co-evaluation.
Although the government at Federal, State and Territory levels appear to support collaborative practice through partnership and co-design, this study suggests a narrow approach to the theoretical model for co-creation at a policy level. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.
Peer Review reports
In Australia, mental ill health and suicide cost the community between $43 billion and $70 billion annually [1, 2], while the estimated national expenditure on mental health services in 2018–2019 amounted to $10.6 billion [3]. Meanwhile, annual deaths from suicide in Australia stand at 12.1 per 100,000 people [4], with rates of attempted suicide and suicidal ideation on the rise [5]. Suicide and suicidal behaviour remain significant economic and epidemiological burdens in Australia, leading researchers, organizations, and government agencies to seek innovative approaches and practical solutions when addressing these ongoing mental health and suicide issues. One creative strategy involves governments and researchers engaging with consumers and carers to develop mental health policy and improve how services are delivered. The promotion of user involvement or a person-centered approach comes from the “nothing about us without us” [6] and the “sit beside me, not above me” [7], both of which promote greater carer and consumer involvement in the decision-making process. Alongside the increased participation of users in the planning and delivery of mental health and suicide prevention services, multisectoral collaborations between government, researchers, service providers, and users are also becoming increasingly significant. It is argued that multisectoral collaborations may resolve complex issues such as suicide prevention more effectively than researchers alone [8]. For instance, translation frameworks such as co-creation of new knowledge are a current example of how stakeholders (researchers and other stakeholders, including those with lived experience) may collaboratively engage in program evaluation through four collaborative processes, that is, i) generating an idea (co-ideation); ii) designing the program or policy and the research methods (co-design); iii) implementing the program or policy according to the agreed research methods (co-implementation), and iv) the collection, analysis and interpretation of data (co-evaluation)” [9]. For governments, several benefits come from increased stakeholder participation in research and service delivery. For instance, engaging stakeholders in the design phase may result in mental health and suicide prevention services meeting the needs of stakeholders [10].
Additionally, involving stakeholders in the research process will increase stakeholders’ participation, particularly if the research impacts policies that directly affect them [11]. Collaborations between researchers and consumers may also improve service quality and outcome effectiveness by evaluating suicide prevention programs. In turn, this can enhance the development of sustainable research and innovation [12, 13]. Despite such promises, it is unclear whether mental health and suicide prevention policies reflect ideas on person-centered participation and multisectoral collaboration. Remarkably, there is little clarity about whether collaboration between stakeholders impacts research outcomes and funding and how it is measured. Optimising the impact of collaboration is critical, given that policy and funding remain primary drivers in the development of mental health and suicide prevention strategy and the services delivered through community organisations [14]. Identifying any gaps in policies that may limit the implementation of effective collaborative practices will improve understanding of how the existing policies and their scope for action are likely to be used.
A complete examination of Federal, State and Territory policy documents is needed to understand how collaborative processes involving stakeholders, especially those with lived experience, are represented through mental health and suicide prevention policies. The study will reference an existing peer-reviewed theoretical framework, “co-creation of new knowledge,“ to compare critical elements associated with collaborative processes within the research cycle [9]. Our knowledge indicates that no published research has previously examined mental health and suicide prevention policies in co-creation or collaborative processes.
The following aims were formulated in conjunction with the authors, who identify themselves as either a researcher, service provider, a person with lived experience, or a combination of roles. Specifically, the study has four aims: (1) identify mental health and suicide prevention policies published between 2010 and 2021; (2) capture the frequency of keywords and compare them across identified policy documents (3) describe links between mental health and suicide prevention funding and the principles of co-creation and; (4) assess how policies prioritise four co-creation related activities (co-creation of new knowledge), and other collaborative activities. This study addresses the critical debate on the gap.
The research questions were addressed using content analysis methodology. By definition, content analysis is a qualitative descriptive methodology used to make “valid inferences from verbal, visual or written data in order to describe and quantify specific phenomenon“ [15] (p.18). It is beneficial for studies where the purpose is not to collect rich descriptions of the findings but to detect patterns or outliers within qualitative data [16].
For this study, we chose a combination of directed and summative content analysis, two well-known approaches used in content analysis. This approach has been commonly used for the research of documents requiring a low level of interpretation [17], such as health guidelines [18] and policy documents [19]. Specifically, a directed content analysis involves using a set of pre-defined codes (deductive coding) created from an existing theory or framework to categorise data [20]. The application of deductive coding increases the likelihood that both manifest content (observable and direct representation of specific words) and latent content (underlying representation and interpretation of concepts) are captured [21]. Meanwhile, for summative content analysis, the frequency of specific words appearing in the text are counted and compared across coding categories, followed by further analysis to interpret the context of the frequency of words [20]. A directed content analysis was used for Aims 2 and 3, while a summative content analysis was used to address Aim 4.
We defined health policies as documents meeting the following three principles: (1) authored by a governing body ( elected to exercise authority), (2) a document that outlines the objectives, strategies, or goals, and, (3) includes the planning, organisation, delivery or improvement of services, programs or strategies [28]. In Australia, policy documents are labelled using a variety of terms, including “strategy”, “policy”, “strategic plan”, “plan”, “strategic framework”, “action plan”, “framework” and, “report”. To identify relevant mental health and suicide prevention policy, we used the following inclusion criteria: (1) satisfy the definition of a policy document where an Australian governing body authors documents at the Federal, State or Territory level, (2) policy documents had to have a primary focus on issues relating to mental health and/or suicide prevention, and (3) policy documents were limited to those published after January 2010. The period of January 2010 to October 2022 was determined following a pilot search of the literature where co-related type terms (e.g., co-design, co-production) began appearing in the academic literature alongside suicide prevention and mental health.
From 1 to 2021 to 15 October 2021, we completed three discrete rounds of searching to identify publicly available and relevant policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention. The first round targeted Australian government health websites at the Federal, State and Territory levels. The second round involved a title and abstract search of Trove, the National Library of Australia (NLA’s) [22] online library database aggregator, along with a grey literature search using Google and Google Scholar. These two searches were optimised by a third manual search of policy documents. This third process involved scanning policy documents retrieved in the first and second rounds of searching for references to additional policies. Keywords used to search the databases and websites included “mental health” and “suicide” with searches limited to those publications published after January 2010 and websites using Australian government domain names “.gov.au”.
Our quality assurance process included checking all identified policies against Mindbank, a database maintained by the World Health Organization [23], which lists health policies by country and specialty, including suicide prevention, and asking three experts to review the final list and identify any missing policies.
All identified documents retrieved from online searches were imported into Endnote X9, where a reference library had been created to allow storage and management of full-text documents. Following this step, the full-text versions of identified documents were then exported to NVivo 12 Pro QSR, a qualitative analysis software.
For the deductive analysis, we chose to analyse manifest and latent representations of terms relating to the co-creation of new knowledge framework. As briefly described in the introduction, co-creation of new knowledge is a translation model which works alongside the delivery of health interventions such as suicide prevention programs [9] and relies on the collaboration between researchers, third sector organisations, and those with lived experience to generate new knowledge. Through this process, stakeholders engage in five collaborative processes these being co-creation, co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation. Since the aim was to identify the usage of these “co” processes within policy documents, the co-creation of new knowledge framework, as presented in Table 1, guided the makeup of categories used in NVivo 12 Pro QSR.
To expedite the data analysis process, we used the text search function in NVivo 12 Pro QSR to search policy documents for the five co-related processes.
We used a manual open coding process for the inductive analysis to identify the five co-creation-related domains. This process involved the lead author becoming familiar with the data through careful reading and re-reading of the documents and manually coding text relating to the co-creation process by highlighting manifest or latent phrases or segments of data. During the manual coding process, the data was categorised into themes and subthemes, which, over time, were reviewed and refined to represent ideas and patterns of meaning. Emerging themes and sub-themes were discussed with authors KM and SW and were further refined through this discussion. Data on the coverage or frequency of terms was collated using NVivo 12 Pro QSR and converted into a heat map using Microsoft Excel. The coverage of terms indicates how often categories of co-creation and related concepts were cited across mental health and suicide prevention policy documents. Coverage data provides insight into the significance of specific terms. Therefore, the higher the level of coverage of a concept or term, the higher the rate of interest in or discussion of that term across the documents. For terms appearing in multiple policy documents published in the same year, the average of the coverage rate was reported. In addition to the coding process and the coverage data, a data extraction form was developed in Excel to capture critical information on policy characteristics, including the name of the policy, year, level of government (Federal, State or Territory), and policy focus (mental health or suicide prevention).
Trustworthiness.
The trustworthiness of the content analysis was evaluated using Lincoln and Guba’s [24] four standards (credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability) evaluation criteria. Credibility was achieved by including sufficient detail about the data analysis process and using a process of systematically comparing categories to ensure consistency of the data had been maintained. Dependability was demonstrated by maintaining clear documentation about the process used to collect data, and the development of the coding frame was reviewed by three of the co-researchers. Meanwhile, transferability was reached by ensuring all relevant Federal, State or Territory policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention were included. At the same time, the data was confirmed through feedback from several co-authors, all of whom are experts in mental health and suicide prevention. In addition, confirmability was further attained through an audit trail whereby tables and results demonstrate transparency of the data collection and analysis.
We searched the literature and identified 40 unique mental health and suicide policy documents meeting the study inclusion criteria. Nine related to Federal policies [2, 8, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31] while the remaining 31 documents represented the following Australian States and Territories: New South Wales (NSW) (n = 8) [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]; Northern Territory (NT) (n = 4) [40,41,42,43]; Queensland (QLD) (n = 4) [44,45,46,47]; Western Australia (WA) (n = 4) [48,49,50,51]; South Australia (SA) (n = 4) [52,53,54,55]; Tasmania (TAS) (n = 4) [56,57,58,59]; Victoria (VIC) (n = 2) [60, 61], and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (n = 1) [62]. The field of mental health was the focus of one Federal policy [27] and 12 State policy documents [32, 37, 39,40,41, 44, 46, 48, 52, 53, 58, 60], while four Federal [8, 25, 26, 31] and 17 State and Territory policy documents [33,34,35,36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49,50,51, 54,55,56,57, 61] were solely dedicated to suicide prevention. The remaining six policy documents (Federal n = 5; Territory n = 1) covered mental health and suicide prevention [2, 27,28,29,30, 62].
Table 2 provides the results of the deductive and inductive analysis, including the number of references for each term and exemplar quotes to demonstrate the results presented. Of the group of terms relating to the co-creation framework listed in Tables 1, only “co-design” was cited. Meanwhile, domains identified through inductive coding generated an additional six categories of terms frequently used in conjunction with co-creation of new knowledge. These included “collaboration”, “funding”, “research and evaluation”, “stakeholders (including lived experience)”, “Third Sector Organisations” and “co-production”. The most frequently cited terms were “collaboration” (n = 637) and “funding’ (n = 628). The next most frequently cited terms were “stakeholders” (including Lived Experience)” (n = 408), “research and evaluation” (n = 350) and, “Third Sector Organisations” (n = 236). Co-production was cited the least across all policy documents.
Across 25 Australian policies, six Federal [2, 25, 27, 29,30,31] and 19 State and Territory documents [32, 33, 35,36,37,38,39, 41, 45,46,47, 49,50,51, 53, 57, 60,61,62], there were 107 references to the word “co-design” (and its variants including co-designed and co-designing). Overall, nine policies [2, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35,36,37, 60] offered definitional descriptions of co-design, with one NSW policy [32] perceiving the concept as a tool for services where co-design is used: ”to work collaboratively with staff, consumers, families and carers on redesigning mental health services to prevent suicides among people under care” (p.17), and as an approach to assist “services to deliver person-centred care through considering consumer, carer, staff and other stakeholder perspectives in planning and service delivery” (p.129). The same policy also chose to describe co-design in terms of the individuals involved and benefits, for example:
“Co-design…..brings together the expertise of people with a lived experience of a suicide attempt or who have been bereaved by suicide, families and carers, service providers, key stakeholders and community groups to produce an outcome which is mutually valued across the community” [32] (p.21).
Meanwhile, the NSW Aboriginal and Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2020–2025 [37] defined co-design in the context of health services as “a collaborative approach…to improve health services. In co-design, the people who use and deliver health services are deliberately engaged to share experiences and collectively imagine and create solutions that innovate, change and improve health services” (p.13). In analysing co-design, the authors observed no discernible trend in discussions about (i) co-design in connection with policy aims; (ii) how organisations, such as TSOs, might engage in co-design; or (iii) guidance on the potential benefits or challenges of such a collaborative process. According to the documents, co-design is a best practice model for developing tailored mental health and suicide prevention services that meet the needs of individuals and their families. Meanwhile, co-production appeared in six policy documents [32, 49,50,51, 53, 60], wherein co-production was used as a synonym for co-design. For example, an extract from Victoria’s 10-year mental health plan [60] describes co-production as a collaborative process where:
“government will co-produce policy and services with people with mental illness, their families and carers, and clinicians and other mental health workers. People will have a genuine say about how the system works, how services work and how they are treated. The result will be services that work much better for the people they serve” (p6).
The concept of collaboration was the most commonly used co-creation-related term across all 40 policy documents, with 637 manifest or latent references identified. In 12 documents [29, 31, 34,35,36, 39, 41, 42, 52, 56, 60, 62], references to collaboration were made in the broader context of a “whole of government” or a “whole of community” approach. These approaches characterise the forming of strong, co-ordinated partnerships between all sectors of government, and stakeholders, including researchers, TSOs, carers and consumers, to strengthen communities and improve suicide and mental health initiatives. For instance, at a Federal level whole of government approach is seen to “unlock the potential of a whole of government delivery model by ensuring each individual agency has strong processes and accountabilities for delivering agreed suicide prevention initiatives, and linking into broader collaborative efforts across government” [31] (p24). Meanwhile, policies view “a whole of government, whole of community approach” [35] as a formal linking of activities “that places greater emphasis on integration and collaboration between all levels of government, individuals and communities, the non-government and private sector, and people with lived experience” [35] (p2). Across policies, collaboration was generally described in favourable terms espousing the benefits partnerships provide towards improving suicide and mental health outcomes. For instance, “The role of carers and consumers in supporting and informing intersectoral collaboration will be essential at all levels of policy, planning, research, service development and delivery in order to ensure the best possible health outcomes” [52] (p14) and, “growing body of evidence shows that services designed in collaboration with those who use them are more efficient and less expensive” [39] (p47). A strong emphasis was also placed on collaboration and equity by one state policy wherein: “Research shows that giving people an equal voice as active partners in healthcare improvement can lead to better experiences and outcomes for all. A key to improving outcomes is respecting the expertise of consumers, carers and staff in guiding individual recovery as well as co-design” [32] (p82). Latent examples relating to the idea of collaboration between consumers and carers used terms such as consultation and engagement to describe the collaborative process between consumers and carers “Supporting consumers and carers to effectively engage and participate will remain a key focus of the NMHC’s work. This will include consultation and engagement on a range of issues, from an individual accessing mental health services, to the contribution of consumers and carers to mental health service planning, delivery and engagement on mental health reforms” [2] (p9).
The term “stakeholders” includes references to “lived experience” (also known as consumers or peer workers), featured in 34 policy documents with 408 manifest or latent mentions. In all of the documents, the concept of stakeholders extended to include individual groups such as “those impacted by suicide, researchers, non-government service providers and State Government agencies” [47] (p3), with their role defined as working “collaboratively to ensure a comprehensive and coherent approach to legislation, policy, planning, funding and service delivery” [46] (p16). References to stakeholders were significantly focused on establishing “equal partnerships” [46] between stakeholders and mental health consumers. In this context, those with “lived experience” were seen to have “a valuable, unique and legitimate role in suicide prevention” [49] (p10) and an essential factor in creating change through research and practice “we must position lived experience knowledge at the forefront of research, policy and practice. Without it, our reforms and service improvements will fall short of what people need and what they deserve” [8] (p2). In 13 policies [25, 27, 32, 33, 35, 37,38,39, 45, 50, 51, 53, 60], the role of mental health consumers shared a strong connection with co-creation related activities such as “co-designing” programs and services, as evidenced by statements such as “the development and implementation of suicide prevention strategies must include their voices, and activities should be co-designed with people with a lived experience” [50] (p2). There were eight policies [8, 25, 26, 31, 39, 46, 50, 51] referencing the integral participation by Indigenous or cultural groups as stakeholders in the planning of programs and services “Governance must also incorporate early input from the portfolio’s priority populations to ensure approaches are relevant, respectful and effective. This includes cultural governance inclusive of Indigenous people and integrating people with lived experience into planning and advisory stages” [31] (p27) and “The insights of people with lived experience of suicide; traditional forms of knowledge, such as from Aboriginal people and unique cultural perspectives, can form part of the evidence base for effective suicide prevention. Continual development, implementation and evaluation of existing and future initiatives is crucial” [50] (p11). Meanwhile, other examples highlighted the importance of Indigenous involvement in co-design and service delivery but failed to explain how such an approach might work. For instance,
“Aboriginal people are experts in Aboriginal communities and needs, and that improvements in the coordination of services and in the quality of service delivery and planning will need to start in genuine co-design processes, led by Aboriginal people. Person centred and culturally safe services acknowledge the strength and resilience of Aboriginal people, families, and communities” [37] (p10).
The concept of “Third Sector Organisations” and related terms such as “non-government” and “non-profit” appeared in 236 references across 34 policy documents. In one suicide prevention strategy document, TSOs were identified as a type of stakeholder who worked collaboratively with other actors: “Suicide prevention is complex – and it is everyone’s business. A coordinated, well-integrated and compassionate approach is required across all levels of government and from the community, including individuals, families, schools, researchers, community groups, non-government services and the private sector” [35] (p7). While there was evidence of government support for the contribution TSOs make, for instance, “Government also recognises the significant achievements of the non government sector in suicide prevention to date, and acknowledges that building stronger partnerships between government and non government organisations is critical to supporting those at risk of and impacted by suicide” [34] (p1). There was also explicit pressure on TSOs to demonstrate effectiveness and performance measures, where it was suggested, “Tie receipt of ongoing Australian Government funding for government, NGO and privately provided services to demonstrated performance” [2] (p53). Only three policies mentioned TSOs and participation in research [26, 34, 51] with strategies proposing the development of “options for prevention research partnerships between the community sector, non-government organisations and research and training sectors to build capacity in suicide prevention” [26] (p38). Surprisingly, besides a brief mention of TSO participation in a co-design workshop [35], policies contained no explicit or implicit references connecting TSOs and engagement in co-creation-related-activities such as “co-design”.
The terms “research” or “evaluation” appeared in 39 of the 40 policy documents, generating 350 references. Notably, manifest or latent references to co-creation activities such as co-design or co-production were infrequently discussed in close proximity to concepts of research and/or evaluation (n = 14) [25, 27, 30,31,32, 37, 40, 41, 45, 47, 52, 54, 56, 61]. In these cases, co-design (or co-production) was only described in general terms and there were no explicit or implicit references on how co-design could be incorporated into research and evaluation. For instance, when referring to reforming the mental health system, one policy implicitly stated:
“Collaborative partnerships with consumers and carers are integral to successfully implementing changes that improve outcomes for people with, or at risk of, mental illness and/or suicide. Examples of supporting ongoing and active involvement of consumers and carers include collaboration on design and planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation” [27] (p49),
while a Federal policy referencing a national person-led system asserted, “The system will include capacity building and tools for modelling, need analysis, co-design, implementation and evaluation” [30] (p21).
A search of all included policy documents revealed no discernible evidence of government declarations of support for research and evaluation of co-creation-related activities. However, among the manifest references where co-design was associated with funding, we identified two references: “Funders need to ensure they are supporting the ACT mental health workforce, including they are engaged in co-design of system reform” [62] (p32), and “$1.1 million to the Black Dog Institute to work with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Lived Experience Centre, supporting the inclusion of people with lived experience in the co-design, implementation and evaluation of suicide prevention activity” [25](p19). Overall, funding-related references were associated with the funding of services [62], how funding was sourced [27], and funding models [53]. In other examples of discussions around funding, there was criticism of how the failure of evaluation and funding leads to poorly planned assessments of interventions. For instance, in a strategic plan published by the Mental Health Commission of NSW [39], it was stated: “While all funded initiatives are required to have an evaluation component, evaluation requirements are not always rigorous enough and funding is not always sufficient for meaningful evaluation, which limits their contribution to the evidence base” (p 37). References emphasising the importance of research and evaluation could be found in a list of Federal standards and quality in suicide prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities [26], where it was noted that,
“Provision for evaluation can be significantly improved in funding arrangements under state and Commonwealth contracts. There are currently very few evaluations conducted that contribute to the evidence base in any way. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community services benefit from evaluations of programs that demonstrate their effectiveness and that provide information for practice development, policy and planning” (p44).
In the same document, emphasis is put on ensuring that “suicide prevention principles are embedded in systems of quality improvement for social and emotional wellbeing and mental health care” [26] (p44) while failing to include the embedding of rigorous research methods or data collection into service delivery. Meanwhile, of all State policies, the South Australian Suicide Prevention Strategy 2012–2016 [54] was the most explicit in its approach stressing the importance of linking funding with evaluation: “State funded programs to be evaluated prior to funding renewal” and “All suicide prevention programs be properly evaluated with at least 15% of all funding allocated to suicide prevention programs being spent on evaluation.” (p44).
The density of coverage (darker shade represents greater frequency) of terms across Federal, State, and Territories (Table 3) by publication year are depicted as heat maps. Coverage of co-design, for instance, was strongest in 2020, while the use of terms relating to “collaboration” peaked in 2018. In 2012, across both Federal, State and Territory policies, the term “research” attracted the most coverage, while discussions relating to stakeholders were most prominent in 2020. While references to TSOs were highest in 2010, there was a drastic decline in discussions of TSO in suicide prevention, suggesting interest by the government in TSO-led suicide prevention services had waned over the following decade.
This study identifies a gap between publicly espoused policy directions and actual practice. Specifically, we found that the main focus for suicide prevention policy was on co-design and, to a lesser extent, co-production as a form of collaborative practice between stakeholders. The government views these two constructs as the driving factor in the collaborative planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of mental health and suicide prevention projects. The government considers co-design a tool for bringing relevant groups of people together to make the design of programs and services more efficient and effective.
However, no terms relating to co-creation were identified apart from co-design, with co-production being a term that sits outside of the co-creation model. This is an important detail as co-creation of new knowledge represents a translation model which works to ensure investment by stakeholders in the research process. Furthermore, there was no evidence of discussion around the use of robust or rigorous research methods in these collaborative activities. Perhaps this represents an assumption on behalf of the government that rigorous evaluation will be incorporated into practice without it being explicitly stated in policy. However, as evidenced by a report on the evaluation of Indigenous programs, only 6% (3/49) of programs utilised rigorous methods, and of those, none met the criteria of gold standard (Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) [63].
Second, our analysis of references to “third sector organisations or non-government organisations” shows the intent to describe the role of TSOs in mental health and suicide prevention using broad, sweeping statements. Across the 40 documents, there is no substantial evidence of a link between TSOs and the concepts of co-creation. It is clear that TSOs are essential in delivering support services and collaborating with a wide range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience, primary health networks, and government agencies. However, no description of how this collaboration will be managed or how it looks from a practical standpoint is provided. For policymakers, TSOs’ roles were defined in terms of service delivery rather than equitable participation in research. Consumers, carers, and people with lived experience, however, were seen as integral to research and evaluation. With an inherent lack of activity and broad references to collaboration, the inclusion of TSOs could be interpreted as tokenistic.
We uncovered three critical disconnects. First, besides offering definitions and characteristics of co-design, policies offered little guidance on how communities, like TSOs and those with lived experience, might implement co-design into suicide prevention initiatives. Policies presented no monetary encouragement for communities and organisations to engage with collaborative processes like co-design (even though throughout all of the policies, collaboration between carers, consumers or lived experience, TSOs, and other stakeholders, were strongly promoted). Second, there were no explicit or implicit references regarding the role of researchers when collaborating with those with lived experience or TSOs, even though keywords such as research and evaluation were frequently mentioned throughout the included policy documents. Third, the policy research gap remains an ongoing challenge. Although this paper’s findings indicate support for collaborative practice and co-design, a recent systematic review observed no discernible trends relating to multisectoral collaborations or co-creation-related activities, including co-design in suicide prevention interventions [64]. These disconnects in policy implementation arguably impact how effective and appropriate collaboration can be undertaken between researchers and other stakeholders. The benefits of multisectoral collaboration should be considered, given the high emotional, social, and economic costs of suicidal behaviours and the need to ensure that the prevention and intervention services provided can support the communities they claim to target.
In synthesising our findings, there are two key considerations for future policy development should collaborative practices continue to be espoused as important to service development funded through government avenues. First, linking funding to the co-creation activities, specifically by including people with lived experience, TSOs, and researchers throughout the cycle. For this to be fully embedded in policy, funding and reporting must be linked to these activities. Second, inconsistent terminology leads to confusion about the importance of different tasks. The issue of “conceptual ambiguity” around co-related terms makes it “difficult for service providers and policymakers to engage in co-creation activities because they are being asked to engage in a process that either lacks clarity or is highly variable across different researchers and disciplines” [9]. For planning, describing, and evaluating, it is therefore essential that universities and industry, e.g., researchers and TSOs, distinguish between co-creation and co-design.
At the time of writing, the research team is unaware of other published studies examining the presence of co-creation in policies on mental health and suicide prevention. Examining how these practices are, or are not, embedded within the policy sphere is a way of understanding the importance placed on these activities by the main funding bodies of health and human services in Australia. A further strength is using both summative and directed content analysis to collect manifest and latent data as frequency counting of keywords. This approach provided a holistic approach to interpreting the issues specific to mental health and suicide prevention policy documents [65].
Among our limitations were the eligibility criteria and the definitions of policy documents. Most of the documents included in this study represent early-stage policy documents or plans. Therefore, they are not manifestations of policy action or implementation. A further limitation is our sole reliance on policy documents, whereas we could have supplemented our understanding of policy context by introducing alternative perspectives through qualitative interviews with government representatives.
An examination of 40 mental health and suicide prevention government policies over a 10-year period have revealed continuous commitment by the Australian Federal, State and Territory governments to include concepts such as lived experience and co-design in suicide prevention. However, a detailed examination of these policies reveals that lived experience and co-design are oversimplified terms that fail to capture the complexity of implementing and evaluating these programs and what they mean in the context of suicide prevention. The importance of a comprehensive approach to the co-creation of new knowledge is yet to be realised. While the broad policy intent around collaboration is welcomed, if this is not reinforced through policy references to the range of processes and practices surrounding co-creation, there will not necessarily be the depth and range of stakeholder, lived experience, researcher and community involvement required for success. This narrow policy orientation around co-design and co-production may restrict the potential for policy, program, and service improvements in mental health and suicide prevention.
The data used to support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Australian Capital Territory.
Lived Experience.
National Library of Australia.
New South Wales.
Northern Territory.
Queensland.
South Australia.
Tasmania.
Third-Sector Organisations.
Victoria.
Western Australia.
World Health Organization.
Australian Government Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission, Mental Health, Inquiry Report. Canberra: Australian Government; 2020. Report No.: 95 Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/mental-health/report.
Government of Australia, National Mental Health Commission. Monitoring mental health and suicide prevention reform: Fifth national mental health and suicide prevention plan, 2018 progress report. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government; 2018. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/monitoring-and-reporting/fifth-plan.
Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW). Mental health services in Australia, Expenditure on mental health-related services. Canberra: Australian Government; 2021. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-services-in-australia/report-contents/expenditure-on-mental-health-related-services.
Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW). Deaths by suicide over time. Canberra; 2021. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/deaths-by-suicide-in-australia/suicide-deaths-over-time.
Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW). Australian prevalence estimates of suicidal behaviours Canberra: Australian Government; 2021. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/deaths-by-suicide-in-australia/prevalence-estimates-of-suicidal-behaviours.
Isom J, Balasuriya L. Nothing about us without us in policy creation and implementation. Psychiatric Serv. 2021;72(2):121. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.72202.
Article  Google Scholar 
National Mental Health Commission. Sit beside me, not above me: Supporting safe and effective engagement and participation of people with lived experience. Canberra: Australian Government; 2017. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/getmedia/e1baaf32-27c2-4a14-992c-d7043df9f954/Sit-beside-me,-not-above-me.
Government of Australia, National Suicide Prevention Taskforce. Compassion first: designing our national approach from the lived experience of suicidal behaviour Canberra: Australian Government; 2020. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-suicide-prevention-adviser-compassion-first-designing-our-national-approach-from-the-lived-experience-of-suicidal-behaviour.
Pearce T, Maple M, Shakeshaft A, Wayland S, McKay K. What is the co-creation of new knowledge? A content analysis and proposed definition for health interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2229. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072229
Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
Bevan Jones R, Stallard P, Agha SS, Rice S, Werner-Seidler A, Stasiak K, et al. Practitioner review: Co‐design of digital mental health technologies with children and young people. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;61(8):928–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13258.
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
Mallery C, Ganachari D, Fernandez J, Smeeding L, Robinson S, Moon M, et al Innovative methods in stakeholder engagement: An environmental scan. Rockville MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2012. Available from: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/stakeholders-engagement-others/research-2012-1.
Nyamathi A, Jackson D, Carter B, Hayter M. Creating culturally relevant and sustainable research strategies to meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Contemp Nurse. 2012;42(2):243–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2012.11002652.
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
Skerrett DM, Gibson M, Darwin L, Lewis S, Rallah R, De Leo D. Closing the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth suicide: A social–emotional wellbeing service innovation project. Australian Psychol. 2018;53(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12277.
Article  Google Scholar 
Grace FC, Meurk CS, Head BW, Hall WD, Carstensen G, Harris MG, et al. An analysis of policy levers used to implement mental health reform in Australia 1992–2012. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1142-3.
Article  Google Scholar 
Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications; 2018.
Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in nursing & health. 2000;23(4):334 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4%3C334::AID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO;2-G.
Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
Liang L, Gagliardi SJA. A. R. Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0668-7.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 
Gagliardi AR, Dunn S, Foster AM, Grace SL, Khanlou N, Stewart DE, et al. Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies. Health Res policy Syst. 2020;18(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0533-z.
Article  Google Scholar 
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Armat MR, Ebadi A, Vaismoradi M. Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. J Res Nurs. 2018;23(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667.
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
National Library of Australia. Trove 2022. Available from: http://trove.nla.gov.au.
World Health Organization (WHO). Mindbank: World Health Organization (WHO); 2022. Available from: https://www.mindbank.info/page/about_this_site.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inq. 1985;289:289–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325006070288.
Article  Google Scholar 
Government of Australia. Prevention Compassion Care National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. Canberra: Australian Government; 2021. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/05/the-australian-government-s-national-mental-health-and-suicide-prevention-plan-national-mental-health-and-suicide-prevention-plan.pdf.
Government of Australia, Australian Department of Health and Ageing. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander suicide prevention strategy. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government,; 2013. Available from: http://iaha.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MAY-2013-Final-National-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Suicide-Prevention-Strategy11.pdf.
Government of Australia, The Department of Health. Fifth National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan (Fifth Plan). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government; 2017. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/monitoring-and-reporting/fifth-plan/5th-national-mental-health-and-suicide-prevention.
Government of Australia, National Mental Health Commission. The 2016 national report on mental health and suicide prevention. Sydney, NSW. NSW Government; 2017. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/getmedia/590f0c8f-820d-4fc0-9b54-f5411eef91a0/2016-National-Report-Card-on-Mental-Health-and-Suicide-Prevention.pdf.
Government of Australia, National Mental Health Commission. Monitoring mental health and suicide prevention reform: National report 2019. Canberra, ACT; 2019. Report No.: 0646801864 Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/monitoring-and-reporting/national-reports/2019-national-report.
Government of Australia, National Mental Health Commission. Vision 2030; Blueprint for mental health and suicide prevention. Canberra, ACT: National Mental Health Commission; 2020. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/mental-health-reform/vision-2030/blueprint.
Government of Australia. Shifting the Focus Supporting a comprehensive whole of governments approach to suicide prevention. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government; 2020. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/05/national-suicide-prevention-adviser-final-advice-shifting-the-focus_0.docx.
Government of NSW, NSW Ministry of Health. NSW strategic framework and workforce plan for mental health 2018–2022: A framework and workforce plan for NSW health services. Sydney, NSW: NSW Ministry of Health; 2018. Available from: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/resources/Publications/mh-strategic-framework.pdf.
Government of NSW, NSW Ministry of Health. Towards Zero Suicides – Alternatives to Emergency Department Presentations. Sydney NSW. 2020. Available from: https://www.seslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/groups/Mental_Health/SafeHaven/Alternative_to_ED_Co-design_Summary.pdf.
Government of NSW, NSW Department of Health. NSW suicide prevention strategy 2010–2015: a whole government strategy promoting a whole of community approach. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of Health 2010. Available from: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/resources/Publications/suicide-prev-strategy.pdf.
Government of NSW. Strategic framework for suicide prevention in NSW Implementation Plan 2018-23. Sydney, NSW; 2020. Available from: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/resources/Publications/strategic-framework-implementation-plan.pdf.
Government of NSW, Mental Health Commission of NSW. Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention in NSW 2018–2023. Sydney, NSW: Mental Health Commission of NSW 2018. Available from: https://www.nswmentalhealthcommission.com.au/report/strategic-framework-suicide-prevention-nsw-2018-2023.
Government of NSW, NSW Ministry of Health. NSW Aboriginal mental health and wellbeing strategy 2020–2025. Sydney, NSW: NSW Ministry of Health; 2020. Available from: www.health.nsw.gov.au.
Government of NSW, NSW Ministry of Health. Towards Zero Suicides – Suicide prevention outreach teams. 2020. Available from: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/resources/Publications/suicide-prevention-outreach-teams.pdf.
Government of NSW, Mental Health Commission of New South Wales. Living well: A strategic plan for mental health in NSW 2014–2024. Sydney, NSW. Mental Health Commission of New South Wales; 2014. Report No.: 0992306566 Available from: https://www.nswmentalhealthcommission.com.au/report/living-well-strategic-plan-mental-health-nsw-2014-2024.
Government of Northern Territory, Department of Health. Northern Territory mental health service strategic plan 2015–2021. Northern Territory: Northern Territory Government; 2015. Available from: https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/7737/3/NT%20Mental%20health%20strategic%20Plan%202019_2025.pdf.
Government of Northern Territory, Department of Health. Northern Territory mental health strategic plan 2019–2025. Northern Territory: Department of Health; 2019. Available from: https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/7737/3/NT%20Mental%20health%20strategic%20Plan%202019_2025.pdf.
Government of Northern Territory. NT suicide prevention strategic action plan 2015–2018. Darwin NT. 2015. Available from: https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/1036/1/Northern%20Territory%20suicide%20prevention%20action%20plan%202015-2018.pdf.
Government of Northern Territory. Northern Territory suicide prevention strategic framework 2018–2023. Darwin NT. 2018. Available from: https://health.nt.gov.au/governance-strategies-committees/nt-health-strategies/suicide-prevention-strategy-review.
Government of Queensland, Queensland Health. Queensland health Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health strategy 2016–2021. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Government; 2016. Available from: www.health.qld.gov.au.
Government of Queensland, Queensland Mental Health Commission. The Queensland suicide prevention plan Every life 2019–2029. 2019. Available from: https://www.qmhc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/every_life_the_queensland_suicide_prevention_plan_2019-2029_web.pdf.
Government of Queensland, Queensland Mental Health Commission. Shifting minds: Queensland mental health, alcohol and other drugs strategic plan. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Mental Health Commission; 2018. Available from: https://www.qmhc.qld.gov.au/2018-2023-strategic-plan.
Government of Queensland, Queensland Mental Health Commission. Reducing suicide and its impact Queensland suicide prevention action plan 2015-17 Summary. Brisbane, QLD; 2015. Available from: https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2015/Sep/SuicidePrevPlan/Attachments/Summary.PDF.
Government of Western Australia, Mental Health Commission. Mental health 2020: making it personal and everybody’s business : reforming Western Australia’s mental health system Perth, Western Australia; 2012. Available from: http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au/Libraries/pdf_docs/Mental_Health_Commission_strategic_plan_2020.sflb.ashx.
Government of Western Australia. Suicide prevention 2020: Together we can save lives. Perth, WA: Western Australian Government; 2020. Available from: https://www.mhc.wa.gov.au/media/1220/suicide-prevention-2020-strategy-final.pdf.
Government of Western Australia, Mental Health Commission. Western Australian suicide prevention action plan 2021–2025: consultative draft October 2019. Perth, WA; 2019. Available from: https://www.mhc.wa.gov.au/media/2718/draft-suicide-prevention-action-plan-2021_2025.pdf.
Government of Western Australia, Mental Health Commission. Western Australian suicide prevention framework 2021–2025. Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia; 2020. Available from: https://www.mhc.wa.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/news-updates/western-australian-suicide-prevention-framework-2021-2025/.
Government of South Australia. South Australia’s mental health and wellbeing policy 2010–2015. Adelaide, SA: Government of South Australia; 2010. Available from: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/resources/policies/south+australias+mental+health+and+wellbeing+policy+2010+-+2015.
Government of South Australia. South Australian mental health strategic plan 2017–2022. Adelaide, SA: Government of South Australia 2017. Available from: https://samentalhealthcommission.com.au/wp-content/uploads/SA-Mental-Health-Strategic-Plan-2017%E2%80%932022.pdf.
Government of South Australia. South Australian Suicide Prevention Strategy 2012–2016. Adelaide SA. 2016. Available from: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/resources/south+australian+suicide+prevention+strategy+2012-2016.
Government of South Australia. South Australian suicide prevention plan 2017–2021. Adelaide SA. 2020. Available from: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/publications+and+resources/plans/south+australian+suicide+prevention+plan+2017-2021.
Government of Tasmania, Department of Health and Human Services. Tasmania’s Suicide Prevention Strategy 2010–2014. A Strategic Framework and Action Plan. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmania Department of Health and Human Services; 2010. Available from: www.dhhs.tas.gov.au.
Government of Tasmania, Department of Health and Human Services. Tasmanian suicide prevention strategy (2016–2020) Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Health and Human Services; 2016. Available from: https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/214412/151152_DHHS_Suicide_Prevention_Strategy_Final_WCAG.pdf.
Government of Tasmania. Rethink mental health. Better mental health and wellbeing: A long-term plan for mental health in Tasmania 2015–2025. Hobart, TAS: Tasmanian Government; 2014. Available from: https://www.health.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/Rethink_2020_state_plan_2020-25_DoHTasmania.pdf.
Government of Tasmania. Youth suicide prevention plan for Tasmanian (2016–2020). Hobart, Tasmania; 2020. Available from: https://www.health.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/Suicide_Prevention_Strategy_2016-20_DoHTasmania2016.pdf.
Government of Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services. Victoria’s 10-year mental health plan. Victoria: Victoria State Government; 2015. Available from: https://www.health.vic.gov.au/priorities-and-transformation/victorias-10-year-mental-health-plan.
Government of Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services. Victorian Suicide Prevention Framework 2016–25. Melbourne, VIC; 2016. Available from: https://www.health.vic.gov.au/publications/victorian-suicide-prevention-framework-2016-2025.
Australian Capital Territory. Australian Capital Territory mental health and suicide prevention plan 2019–2024 Part A The Framework. Canberra: Capital Health Network; 2019. Available from: https://www.chnact.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CHN-Mental-Health-and-Suicide-Prevention-Plan.pdf.
Hudson S. Mapping the Indigenous program and funding maze. Centre for Independent Studies Sydney; 2016. Report No.: 1922184721 Available from: https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2016/08/rr18-Full-Report.pdf.
Pearce T, Maple M, Wayland S, McKay K, Woodward A, Brooks A, et al. A mixed methods systematic review of suicide prevention interventions involving multisectoral collaborations. Health research policy and systems; 2022.
Cardno C. Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice. 2018;24(4):623–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.016.
Article  Google Scholar 
Download references
Not applicable.
This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
School of Health, University of New England, 2351, Armidale, NSW, Australia
Tania Pearce, Myfanwy Maple & Sarah Wayland
Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Kathy McKay
Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Kathy McKay
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22-32 King Street, 2031, Randwick, NSW, Australia
Anthony Shakeshaft
Centre for Mental Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Melbourne, Australia
Alan Woodward
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
TP conceptualised the design of the study andundertook the search and drafted the manuscript. KM and SW reviewed the codes used in data analysis . All authors contributed to the review of the manuscript. All authors read and reviewed the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Tania Pearce.
Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and Permissions
Pearce, T., Maple, M., Wayland, S. et al. Evidence of co-creation practices in suicide prevention in government policy: a directed and summative content analysis. BMC Public Health 22, 1929 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14313-3
Download citation
Received: 14 March 2022
Revised: 27 September 2022
Accepted: 30 September 2022
Published: 17 October 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14313-3
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Advertisement
ISSN: 1471-2458
By using this website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions, California Privacy Statement, Privacy statement and Cookies policy. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre.
© 2022 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Nature.

source

Hello. It looks like you’re using an ad blocker that may prevent our website from working properly. To receive the best experience possible, please make sure any blockers are switched off and refresh the page.
If you have any questions or need help you can email us
Firm Management
The new update enables accountants to reap the benefits of an all-in-one platform with enhanced flexibility to deploy on premise or migrate to the cloud at their own pace.
Isaac M. O’Bannon
Aug. 16, 2022
IRIS Software Group (IRIS), a leading global software provider of accountancy solutions, is today announcing the expansion of Doc.It By IRIS capabilities to include cloud-based document management. The new update enables accountants to reap the benefits of an all-in-one platform with enhanced flexibility to deploy on premise or migrate to the cloud at their own pace.
The announcement comes in response to the growing demand for automated systems offering flexibility and scalability. Doc.It provides customers with exceptional benefits for both on-premise and cloud solutions. The enhanced platform streamlines document management processes to drive efficiencies, foster growth and focus on expanding service offerings for customers. 
The new electronic signature integration with DocuSign and enhanced PDF editor capabilities allows users to streamline document processes and eliminates the need to deploy solutions from multiple providers and purchase multiple licenses. Firms can also auto file non-PDF documents and use automated email notifications to improve productivity, all while leveraging added Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) capabilities to gain full confidence their sensitive data remains secure on the platform. 
The expanded features are available for both on-premise and cloud deployments, which offers firms the same functionality and service offerings with 100% parity. All IRIS solutions are designed to give customers the flexibility to choose their deployment option and migrate to the cloud at their own pace. 
“Our team is thrilled about the latest release from a security perspective, but it also supports other long-term objectives like flexible working options,” said Matt Sharp, Office Manager at Fates Bodily and Parker. “Furthermore, the DocuSign integration saves our team two to three minutes per document by reducing upload and send times which is critical when working with large document sets.”
“Efficient document management is essential to running a successful accounting firm, and every firm has different needs based on their clients’ requirements, current technology solutions and future growth plans,” said Don Emery, general manager for Doc.It By IRIS.
“We are excited to introduce these new document management capabilities to offer firms expanded scalability through cloud software. IRIS is committed to taking the pain out of processes, and these new features will allow firms to decrease time spent on document management and increase focus on delivering valuable services to their clients to further drive growth.” 
Firm Management
Jason Bramwell
Firm Management
Firm Management
Firm Management
Subscribe for free and get unlimited access to all CPA Practice Advisor content
Subscribe
CPAPA is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors.
© 2022 Firmworks, LLC. All rights reserved

source

If you’re on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.
Credit Cards
Banks
Brokers
Crypto
Mortgages
Insurances
Loans
Small Business
Knowledge
by Justin Guinn | Updated Aug. 5, 2022 – First published on May 18, 2022
Image source: Getty Images
Document management systems have become essential tools for businesses to create, secure, and share critical documents. There’s no reason to be doing business via paper anymore.
And businesses that have adopted and implemented document management software have a clear advantage over organizations that have delayed going paperless.

Get all your documents and records into one organized location. (via Tech Radar) Image source: Author
But not all document management systems are created equally, nor are the needs of every organization the same. It’s important to understand exactly which business metrics you’ll need your document management solution to impact.
Document management systems empower you to digitally record, secure, store, organize, and share critical business documents. Documents management solutions are the modern filing system, rendering filing cabinets and drawers of paper documents costly and unnecessary.
You can access any document you need via secure login on your business website.

Your business’ document management system is a secure, organized, online repository. (via Soda PDF) Image source: Author
Document management systems offer numerous benefits to businesses of all types, regardless if you’re document light or document ladened. Here are five key benefits your document management system provides.
Imagine being able to access any document from any filing cabinet or local computer across your entire organization. That’s the power document management solutions provide. These tools empower you to create a centralized, searchable repository of all your documents.
You can find anything you need to reference in a single, easy-to-use system. And there’s no risk of losing, misplacing, or accidentally spilling coffee on the document. These systems provide full documentation retention, similar to your content and creative on your website management platform.
Centralizing all your documents into one digital location allows you to control who can access which documents. You’re not limited to one catch-all login and password.
Document management users can set up file management software to put unique protocols and access requirements on individual documents. These requirements can help you ensure employees and clients have access to everything they need to access without giving them access to everything.
Placing all your documents into a single digital repository makes it incredibly easy to share. You can search your document management systems to find and download documents and send them directly to coworkers, clients, and prospects.
But the real benefit of easy dissemination is in using your document management software to create a shared link and access code so that you can share documents without you or the recipient having to unnecessarily download anything.
This is great for large files such as lengthy legal documents or in-depth manuals. You’ll definitely want to establish some communication strategies when sharing any documents, especially sensitive ones.
Digitizing your documents empowers your company and your clients to conduct and finalize business anytime, anywhere. Most document management systems have digital signing or authentication capabilities that are just as official as signing a document in person.
Such collaboration saves you and your clients from having to print, sign, scan, and then send documents. And depending on your business budget, removing postage and other paper-based fees could be a great way to free up resources.
Document management solutions empower you to complete this authentication with just one click, which is especially great for people on the go using mobile devices.
While you can establish custom protocols to customize document access for employees and clients, you’ll also need security to protect your document library from hackers and data breaches.
Digitizing your documents does naturally expose them to the potential perils of the digital world. But using constantly updated security protocols and methodologies makes it increasingly difficult for hackers to access your files.
Most providers employ varying encryption best practices that keep your documents even more secure than the safest filing cabinet.
Here are three best practices you can employ to optimize your document management adoption and usage. Use these best practices to reap the benefits discussed above and get the most value out of your document organizer.
All the positively impactful business benefits that document management systems provide are completely dependent on the organization of documents in your new solution.
This is one of those times where you want to go overboard in your organization. Include as many tags and as much detail as possible on each document.
Tips for organizing your document management system
Here are a few tips for achieving proper document organization and optimizing the efficiency and benefits of your document management system.
This is a general business best practice that especially applies to your document management system. You can’t allow a free-for-all regarding usage and adoption on your document management system.
That would defeat the purpose and create too much inconsistency in document organization. That’s why it’s critical that you create an implementation and onboarding team to be the sole document system users during migration.
These sole users can define best practices and serve as gatekeepers dedicated to at least establishing, if not maintaining, a tidy and organized document management system.
Tips for processes and protocols
Here are a few tips to ensure the onboarding and usage of your new document management system remains consistent from the beginning.
One of the great benefits of your new document management system is boosting efficiency in working and communicating with clients.
If you’re going to incorporate this usage, then you should put together some boilerplate copy that explains to your clients what your document management system is, why you’ve adopted it, and how it benefits everyone.
Electronic signature is becoming more and more ubiquitous across all industries, so the copy may be overkill for most of your clients. But when you’re looking to finalize a deal, the last thing you want a salesperson to be worrying about is how to explain your document management system.
Tips for creating explanation copy for clients
Here are three tips for putting together a blurb that you can share with clients that explains your document management system.
Implementing and properly using a document management system has a domino effect on your overall business efficiency. You must be disciplined and consistent in your data entry to achieve this efficiency.
But once you’re on the right track and have your protocols in place, your new document organizer will add hours of time annually back to you, your employees, and your clients.
Cash back, travel rewards, 0% intro APR financing: all of these can be great credit card perks for business owners. But how do you find the right business credit card for you? There are tons of offers on the market today, and sifting through them to find the right one can be a big hassle. So we've done the hard work for you.
Get started with one of our top business credit card picks of 2022 today.
Justin Guinn is an SMB technology expert writing for The Ascent and The Motley Fool.
We’re firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent does not cover all offers on the market. Editorial content from The Ascent is separate from The Motley Fool editorial content and is created by a different analyst team.
The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters.
Copyright © 2018 – 2022 The Ascent. All rights reserved.

source

The use of computer software and system to store, manage and monitor computer files and electronic pictures of paper-based information received by means of a document scanner is known to document management, called to be document-management systems (DMS) in India. Document management is the process by which your business stores, controls, and keeps track of its electronic documents.

A document is defined to be the “detailed information or product which can be handled to be known a unit” by ISO 12651-2. Although it may seem a little complicated at first, you have been employing this process to create, share, and use it for years. The software that manages and arranges documents across a company can now be defined to be the document management.
It includes the workflow, document archives, COLD/ERM, output tools, information collecting systems, and document and content capture. Likewise, the procedures for document management, storage, and tracking.
One of the technologies that led to content management is document management, which, not too long ago, was only available on a standalone basis, like its siblings in imaging, workflow, and archiving. By imposing controls and governance capabilities onto otherwise “dumb” documents, it provides some of the fundamental functionality for content management.
This allows you to use your documents whenever you have a need for them. Among the important elements of document management are:
The need to work with the information of all kinds has increased to become the result of the mainstreaming of big sources, like the Web, memory sticks, smartphones, etc. This is true not only in terms of much more media people, like the text, images, and voice documents but in aspects of how structured everything is and how easily it can be managed.

The size and scope of document management systems nowadays range from modest standalone systems to expansive enterprise-wide installations that cater to a global audience. Many DMS provide a way to combine the standard kind of physical document filing procedures electronically. These consist of:
While still acknowledged and used on its own, document management is a typical part of an environment for enterprise content management.
An amazing way to make this process much easier is to use document management systems. The precise presentation of a process for document management is a PDF reader, which allows you to access PDF files offline, store them for later viewing, printing, and publishing, and access them from any location.

A key element of company content management, and document management systems is known to be the content management systems (ECM). It has to do with workflows, digital wealth management, and other things.
Let’s understand the top document management programs in more detail.
1.  PaperSave

A clever and highly user-friendly solution called PaperSave makes it possible for companies of all sizes to handle their documents effectively. With the tool’s cutting-edge document capture capability, you may quickly and easily capture any type of document.
The integration of PaperSave with top ERP and CRM platforms allows users to capture documents from the UI. For automatic indexing, index values are constantly taken from the ERP/CRM record. Thanks to this and the search functionality’s intuitive design, it is clear to get the documents you need anytime you need to access them.
Moreover, PaperSave places a high priority on data protection. Consequently, it allows the provision of particular roles and rights to users while allowing users to monitor and keep a record of all changes to the documents.When something goes wrong with the files, this makes it easier to hold the appropriate citizen responsible.
Features:
The makers of PaperSave are aware of the obstacles presented by even something seemingly clear in managing documents. The product provides a cutting-edge engine that effectively gathers documents, automatically indexes data, and optimizes corporate processes. All of this is done to assist companies in cutting expenditures while overcoming the challenging challenge of document management.
2. Clickup

A platform for writing projects is called ClickUp Docs. It provides both multiplayer editing and the tools necessary for effective teamwork. It allows simultaneous editing and shows who is currently viewing a document.
Features: ClickUp provides options for document sharing with anyone.
Your documents are all kept in one location with ClickUp Docs. It is a platform featuring tools for commenting and collaborating and features for rich text editing.
3. Templafy

In retrospect, Templafy is a respectable and effective document management system. It gathers all business details and keeps them organized in a library so that they are all accessible with a single click. Users can work together with members of their team from this point and follow developments in real time.
But Templafy goes one step by giving customers the option to use personalized templates to make a variety of business papers. NDAs, HR agreements, and customer service communications are just a few of the important documents the program automates preparation of.
Consequently, a major amount of time that would have been spent on creating complex business documentation is saved. It has amazing software. It uses a variety of modification processes and methods, tools, and cutting-edge technology to optimize the overall creation. Additionally, it has the ability to identify mistakes or anomalies in text and instantly fix them without requiring user input.
Features:
One tool to look at is Templafy if they wish to save time when creating important business documents. By assisting users in creating papers using templates that are pre-populated with the enterprise’s logo, data, and disclaimer information, the program personalizes the creation process.
4. M-Files

It is another user-friendly document management program that combines automation and security to provide an incredibly effective tool. The software efficiently gathers all corporate records from different departments into one reliable electronic repository. From one point, your staff may easily access the needed information they need at any time.
The program goes above and above to ensure that only the most recent versions of the files are kept, guaranteeing that there is just one realistic version of the jar files for access. Additionally, the platform supports the implementation of sophisticated encryption and authorization controls to manage who has access to these often important files.
Additionally, the software’s process automation capabilities are very advanced. It gives you the ability to interchange documents with other people, have them changed, and have them calculated for approval in accordance with corporate policies. It allows you practically to manage the workflows for papers, projects, and workers with M-Files.
Features:
M-Files is the ideal synthesis of cutting-edge automation and imposing security, which is urgently needed for effective information management today. It can easily handle all of your document management problems and is very comprehensive.
5. Bit.AI

Bit. aesthetically, AI’s pleasing UI makes the idea of document sharing and management incredibly seamless and alluring. The software majorly gathers important papers from your entire company and makes them accessible to everyone from one location.
Although Bit. Document AI’s management functionality is amazing, and its sophisticated collaboration feature ultimately distinguishes it from the competition. It allows real-time collaboration in groups, pupils, customers, and members on a file.
The 90+ templates you can use to produce documents are the only thing that enhances the feature. With the help of the tool, you can personalize and automate the development of complex documents using a variety of widgets, colors, themes, and integrations.
Features include:
More than any other product on this list, Bit.AI highlights its collaboration function. Users are given all the resources they require to create, update, and track changes made in real time to important business documents. We advise using this DMS software if you want the best possible online team collaboration capabilities.
6. Alfresco

Users can manage both their material and documents with Alfresco. It is a tool that places a stronger emphasis on the efficiency and streamlining of the process. Alfresco includes many crucial document management tools that operate without a hitch, including document scanning, storage, and sharing.
Alfresco’s potent AI is what actually propels it to the top of this ranking. Alfresco provides insightful data and analysis on the papers it maintains whenever you need it with the aid of its cutting-edge AI. Its sophisticated search capabilities make it very simple to retrieve documents.
The application is clever enough to place files of a similar nature in a single folder for quick access. Additionally, the solution allows seamless interaction with other programs like Salesforce, Google Docs, and Office Software to improve the document management system’s usability majorly.
Open-source document control software is included with Alfresco and can manage fewer important documents for your company.
The following features are available:
Powerful content and a system for document management with a tonne of awesome features are available from Alfresco. This product is perfect for large companies because it has several integrations and a variety of critical capabilities.
7. DocuWare

DocuWare is an amazing cloud-based document management tool with several uses outside of its main role. It is a tool that may be used for handling invoices, managing employees, marketing, and sales, among other things.
It can assist you in capturing and digitizing paper documents in any format to be the standalone DMS. Later, the files might be kept in private electronic archives. In addition to the benefits listed above, the software does a fantastic job of automating workflows and simplifying laborious management procedures.
DocuWare is another solution that advances document collaboration and sharing. To communicate with employees who work remotely, use DocuWare. Consequently, your staff can access the material anywhere in the world for additional information.
Features:
 DocuWare’s intelligent automation and cloud-based collaborative capabilities make it effective. It is a solution we can suggest to companies of all sizes, particularly if they require software that allows remote document collaboration to be more practical.
8. XaitPorter

It is presenting a fully optimized cloud-based tool that focuses its strengths on enhancing your publications’ caliber while providing a clever collaboration function. The software is very user-friendly and adaptable.
Using its robust cloud-based feature, you can concurrently work on a file and remotely collaborate with your coworkers. Sharing feedback, fixing mistakes, and real-time formatting and layout changes are all very simple.
Additionally, it is a tool for automating the creation of important business documents. It has different tools available to draught a paper that looks professional and increases efficiency for your business.
Features:
One cannot but become infatuated with XaitPorter’s vast, well-thought-out document-producing system. XaitPorter is undoubtedly one of the best document production programs because it combines a complete fog engine with a smooth workflow automation procedure.
9. OnlyOffice

It establishes secure repositories for commercial enterprises to save, share, and work on documents, spreadsheets, and PowerPoint presentations in the cloud. This tool’s editing capabilities are precisely why it is on this list because of how thorough and flexible it is to utilize.
You have complete control over your material’s layout, font, and content. It even highlights specific text and instantly shares team input. Anything you could have done can be done on a conventional Word, Excel, or PowerPoint document. By doing this, you can be confident that your documents are always of the highest caliber and that the information they contain is up to date.
The governance and collaboration of papers are made easier by OnlyOffice’s support for a variety of document formats.
Features:
To put it simply, OnlyOffice transforms your MS Office editing experience for the Web, allowing you to save, share, and collaborate with peers to improve the quality of your work. It is a process that makes it clear to make several major changes to a particular file.
10. Google Drive

Without discussing one of the amazing free tools available today, a list of the top document software solutions cannot be considered comprehensive. Because it is thorough and practical, Google Drive is of the most popular document management systems.
Anyone can use this tool right immediately and without any kind of learning curve. Since the beginning of its existence, Google Drive was used to produce, store, and distribute a wide range of files in different formats on the cloud.
You can quickly produce documents, spreadsheets, and more with just one click. Additionally, you can simply make files, share them through Gmail with your coworkers and friends, and modify the papers in real-time using a variety of tools.
Features:
Google Drive is one of the Micorsoft Office kinds of free document management programs available for Windows and Android, especially if you have a limited budget. It functions with a high degree of dependability, comprehensiveness.  A modest standalone application or an extensive, enterprise-wide configuration with standard document fill features are both options for document management today.
These characteristics include:
Systems for Managing Documents
Electronic document management and access are known to be document management systems. Systems for managing and controlling company content include CAD, Microsoft Office Suite, and other accounting software.

To be effective, an electronic document management system should include the elements listed below:
Using a document management system has many benefits.
The system should generally be straightforward to use, enable you to manage your business more successfully, and simplify your life as a company owner.
Time saved: By employing a document-management system, you can use that time to focus on more critical aspects of your business rather than organizing and maintaining documents.
Scalability: The storage and functionalities available for document management may expand with your company. The capacity of document software solutions to grow up and down to match your business’s fluctuating needs is one of its key benefits.

 Security: It’s more crucial than ever to protect your data online. You can save sensitive company data and protocols by backing up your papers in an encrypted cloud or on a secure server on-site.
Simple document management: You may quickly and easily access crucial information for your business by using keyword searches. The days of finding through file cabinets for the needed data are gone. You may retrieve any text more quickly with the use of document management tools.
Cooperation: The foundation of any flourishing enterprise is teamwork. By allowing many users to work with the same file simultaneously, recording who makes what changes, and preserving your access to earlier versions of documents, the document software suite can increase workplace collaboration.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Δdocument.getElementById( “ak_js_1” ).setAttribute( “value”, ( new Date() ).getTime() );
inventiva_300x600

source

Today, there’s a CLM software for almost every business, whether it’s small or an enterprise. It’s no surprise since contract management software increases productivity, saves time, automates tasks, improves contract management efficiency, and cuts costs.
Manual contract management requires a lot of time and effort. Research shows that companies lose 9.2% of their annual revenue due to ineffective document management. The average cost of a contract varies from $6,900 for simple contracts to $49,000 for complex ones. And as the number of documents rises almost everyday, so do management costs. Consequently, switching to a contract lifecycle management system is no longer an option, but rather a necessity.
The Problem
Choosing a solution is a big deal as there are many things to consider. It may be a hard undertaking since the CLM software market has become enormous with lots and lots of vendors. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of solutions to choose from that offer different functions, services, and prices.
However, a wide variety of options is not the only challenge. The other is finding out how much it will cost. If you google solutions, you’ll see a wide range of prices with the cheapest at less than $1/month. That seems pretty nice, but…
…the reasonable question regarding what you’ll get arises. Will it cover all your needs, or perhaps the price shown is only for some basic features like centralized storage? Most likely, you’ll need more than that.
Price is one of the most important aspects when you’re choosing the right CLM system and pitching this software to your stakeholders. Without knowing what it’s based on, you won’t be able to calculate the ROI.
The problem is that prices aren’t really visible. Quite often, when visiting a provider’s website, you have to book a demo to discover what their pricing is. This starts an endless sales cycle that you might not be ready for. The research process becomes multifold, often leading to an understanding that while the software might be great, you just spent hours on calls only to discover that it’s way out of your budget.
Revealing the Truth About What Exactly Shapes CLM Prices
Most of the factors that determine the price for a contract lifecycle management solution are related to the company’s size. This is reasonable considering that big enterprises usually have more complex workflows and customizations than small businesses. Below, we highlight 9 various aspects that influence the price of CLM software:
Knowing what the price of CLM software is based on will help you make a more informed decision when choosing one. These are the main factors that impact the price, but there are still other things you should be aware of. If you’re not, you may be in for a shock when you receive the final bill.
· Number of users. Some software pricing structures are based on the quantity of users. For particular solutions, these costs may impact the cost per month. That’s why enterprises usually pay significantly more for contract management software than smaller companies.
· Features. The simplest CLM solutions cover only one stage of the contract lifecycle. More complex platforms offer a wide variety of features, such as automation, reporting, analytics, template libraries, notifications, collaboration, and much more. But don’t fall for a million features. It’s better if the solution is scalable, so you can get additional features when your business needs them.
· Integrations. Some operational processes may need third-party integrations, such as. CRMs, eSign, and messaging apps. Some vendors charge for such integrations. That means the more integrations there are, the higher the price is.
· Storage. The amount of documents stored impacts the price. But besides size, additional capabilities like smart search may be charged separately.
· Security. Keeping data safe is a top priority for any business. Breaches may cost businesses millions of dollars and reputational losses. So while security may not affect the price of plans, companies that provide better, more reliable, and more robust security measures may be naturally a bit more expensive. But considering the potential losses from a security breach, it may be well worth the investment.
· Volume of documents. Generally speaking, the more documents you process, the higher the price. Some companies allow you to pick a plan that covers a certain number of documents, and if you exceed that number, you pay a bit more. This permits some degree of flexibility as you can start small and see what you need before scaling up.
· Number of workflows. Similar to volume, the greater the number of workflows or templates that need to be supported, the more you should expect to pay.
· Advanced tech. This could be the implementation of artificial intelligence, machine learning, or some other technology that provides a hand in completing work. But before you fork over the cash for AI, you’ll want to have a discussion about whether or not you really need it, as well as what are the costs and benefits for you.
· “A la carte”. By this, we mean the ability to mix, match, and combine any or all of the previously mentioned price factors. Companies usually price their services as a set, Combination of all or any of the above and less obvious costs, described below.
Hidden costs
The cost of CLMs consist of the essentials above. You can calculate it and the sum may seem acceptable. But that doesn’t mean it’s the final cost. It can be much higher because of additional fees you weren’t informed about.
The most common additional fees are charged for the following services:
Implementation. Configuring user accounts, setting up workflows, and automating contract templates may cost additional money. There are three standard approaches for implementation: 1) An implementation fee paid in addition to the software cost; 2) Implementation is included in the software cost; and 3) Implementation on your own (which is likely free, but may lead to unnecessary headache and stress).
Customization. Vendors often charge additional fees to customize a CLM to your needs. So, if you want to get something more than basic features, or if you simply need particular features for your existing workflow, you’ll have to pay more.
Team training. Most likely, your employees do not know how to use the new software. It takes time and effort to learn before they can start fully using it. CLM providers will help you with that, but some of them charge extra for educational meetups.
Customer support. If you don’t clarify the terms of this service, it may cost you an arm and a leg. Technical assistance can be provided completely for free, for a fee, or with conditions (i.e. only during business hours on weekdays).
Add-ons. Many vendors may offer essential business add-ons such as e-Sign for additional fees. Such details can make the invoice much bigger than what you expected.
Legacy data migration. If you want to avoid being forced to manage multiple storage systems, you’ll want to migrate your legacy contracts and data to the new system. However, this takes time and a bit of effort, and that usually means an extra fee.
When choosing and negotiating with a vendor, make sure to cover all the basics and find out if it’s included in the final price or not.
Starting Point
And once you do have the space in your budget, don’t rush for the cheapest, the most feature-heavy, or the most famous solution. You first need to understand your business’ CLM software requirements. Start by assessing how your company will use the software so that you know what needs it should cover.
To determine your requirements for a contract lifecycle management system, you should analyze your existing document workflow. There are some points you should consider first and foremost:
· The number of ‘everyday’ users. Think about all employees from different departments that will need access to the platform: sales, procurement, finance, and legal. Each one plays an important role in contract lifecycles.
· The number of documents. Conscientiously evaluate the current volume of contract flow in your organization and how many contracts you process. And don’t forget your legacy contracts, because some vendors charge for the amount of documents stored. This number will change, so consider what growth plan you may need. The good news is that some providers offer upgrades to a larger storage size if there’s a demand.
· Types of documents. This is important since it makes it easier for you to choose the features and solution’s necessary capabilities. For example, if you frequently work with large documents and need to quickly process them, it’s unlikely you’ll want a CLM that needs 30 minutes to do it.
· Cross-department collaboration. Usually, there are at least two departments involved in document creation. Analyze how your employees collaborate on contracts, how the redlining process goes, and what would you like to improve.
· Third-party collaboration. Frequently, contracts are negotiated with third parties. Consider how documents are being shared, how access is granted, and how the negotiation process proceeds. Documents may contain sensitive information, so it’s not only about collaboration, but also about security.
· Approvals. Analyze your approval process. It’s one of the longest stages of the contract lifecycle, and usually it involves many people and opinions, making it a real mess. If this sounds familiar, you’ll want a CLM that will allow you to check if all parties have completed their reviews and whose approval is still needed.
· Esignatures. Esignature software allows you to sign documents no matter where the approver is. If you need to add attachments to the contract, such as status information, recipient/sender information, delivery tracking, or signature progress, this service will prove useful.
· Metadata storage. Metadata usually refers to the basic information about a contract so that it’s easier to find and retrieve data. It may be the company name, creation date, document type, governing law, counterparty name, etc. If you work with a wide array of contract types, consider a solution that has the possibility of adding necessary metadata and advanced search.
These are the main things to consider when you decide to switch to a CLM platform. Without knowing a business’ essential needs, you run the risk of ending up with the wrong solution, which won’t make your professional life easier, but harder instead.
Wrapping Up
Every organization’s situation is unique to them, so some of the factors above will play a larger role than others. That’s why when you’re in the process of choosing a CLM solution, you should pay close attention to what’s essential for you.
AXDRAFT strives to respect not only the time of their clients, but also the time of potential clients. The team at AXDRAFT will always be available for consultation and help regarding whether or not certain software is a good fit for your organization. And, no holds barred, we’ll tell you if we’re not the right fit, so that you don’t waste time having conversations that lead to a dead end. But, should circumstances change, our door is always open.
Contract lifecycle management is designed to make your professional life easier, and finding the optimal solution shouldn’t be a hard task. To simplify matters, AXDRAFT will work towards coming up with the best pricing option that works for you. As we can accommodate the needs of any company, we always recommend starting small and scaling later. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out whenever is best for you.
View original text here.
See more »
Refine your interests »
This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Back to Top
Explore 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “); JD Supra, LLC

source

Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam

896 Views by Legal Desire September 16, 2022, 11:06 am inRead to Know
Are you running a legal firm? If so, then you probably know how hard it is to manage paper and digital documents here and there. And not to mention, you sometimes get lost while finding the information you need, significantly wasting your time. 
It’s due to a lack of proper legal document management. Without it, you’re putting your legal firm at risk, negatively affecting its efficiency when handling multiple tasks at the same time. It’s why it’s important to understand what legal document management is. 
In this guide, you’ll discover everything you need to know about legal document management. That includes its basic definition, key features, and importance in legal firms. So, feel free to scroll your buttons and read below to learn more.
 
What Is Legal Document Management?
As the name implies, legal document management is the practice of handling and storing legal documents. These may include letters, emails, reports, notices, licenses, and contracts.  
As you know, law firms deal with a vast ocean of paper-based and digital documents. So, they need an efficient system to help keep, secure, manage and track their files and documents.  

What Are The Features Of Legal Document Management?
An effective legal document management system consists of features to track the status of every document, from its creation to its storage and retrieval. Here are some of them you might want to consider when establishing a compelling legal document management system:
Legal document storage is a place where you can store your documents in an effective and organized manner. It can be on-premise or off-site, depending on the needs of a legal firm. On-premise document storage includes hard drives and file cabinets for digital and paper-intensive documents within the business property. And off-site document storage stores documents in a facility outside your premises—hence the name, including physical storage facilities and cloud-based storage solutions. 
Regardless, storage solutions should be protected from natural disasters (fire, flood, etc.) and cybersecurity issues (data breaches, threats, etc.).
Legal document management should comply with multiple agencies and government policies. It’s a must to promote data privacy and protection, regardless of on-site or off-site storage solutions. Thus, failure to do so may result in legal consequences.
Legal document management should allow you to search and retrieve documents without a fuss. With this, you’ll be more productive and efficient when working and dealing with multiple documents at the same time. And it can be achieved through a robust file organization or logical file naming system.
It’s a crucial feature of an effective legal document system. With this, you’ll be able to keep track of multiple versions of a specific document, as well as determine those responsible for editing that particular document.
Integration is the process of using multiple software solutions under one roof. It’s like a bridge between different tools, allowing you to be more time-wise and productive. Ensure your document management software can fully integrate with the tools you often use in your day-to-day operations.  
A legal document management system that doesn’t allow file sharing and collaboration is nothing but useless. You know how important it is for a file to be easily shared between multiple users and departments. So, make sure that your legal document management system uses tools that promote efficient file sharing and collaboration.

Is Document Management Different From Document Storage?
Many people are often confused with document management and document storage. But to clarify any confusion, is there any difference between the two? Well, there is. Document management is much more compared to document storage, and here’s why:
It’s a place where you can store your files for later use. In short, it’s all but a cabinet filled with documents and files—no more, no less. Some examples of document storage are cloud drives, hard drives, and physical file organizers.  
Furthermore, document storage is passive. And there’s nothing you can do while your files are stored under their system aside from saving, retrieving, viewing, and editing them.
If document storage is a passive way to handle your files, then document management is its active counterpart. It uses a wide array of tools to make, manage, and organize multiple documents at the touch of a button. In short, it can execute the tasks document storage could not.
Here are the things you can do with document management:
 
Why Is Legal Document Management Important?
Handling a wide range of files and documents is crucial to all lawyers, regardless of specialization. That’s why an efficient legal document management system is important. With this, lawyers like you will be able to work productively, efficiently, and securely. 
Without a legal document management system in place, such unfortunate situations are bound to happen:

Final Words
Legal document management helps lawyers and law firms handle their files and documents effectively and efficiently. Without it, they won’t be able to work as productively as possible. And they’re bound to cause errors that would put their careers at risk. Therefore, be sure to have a compelling legal document management system before you start your journey to the legal realm.

 
Want more stuff like this?
Get the latest stories straight into your inbox!
Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam
See more
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings
Get the latest stories straight into your inbox!
Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam
Don’t miss out on new posts
Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam
© Legal Desire Media and Insights 2022
Username or Email Address
Password
Remember Me

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
Username or Email Address

To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. %privacy_policy%

Public collection title
Private collection title
Here you'll find all collections you've created before.
WordPress SEO
Sağlık Makaleleri
Get the latest legal insights and updates straight into your inbox before everyone else!
Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam
Don't miss out on new posts!
Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.
Don't worry, we don't spam

source

Searching for your content…
In-Language News
Contact Us
888-776-0942
from 8 AM – 10 PM ET
News provided by
Sep 19, 2022, 12:00 ET
Share this article
BONITA SPRINGS, Fla., Sept. 19, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — SmartAdvocate, the powerful, fully integrated legal case management system, is excited to announce that it has been named The New York Law Journal’s Best of 2022 Winner in five categories this year. SmartAdvocate wishes to thank all those who voted, helping to name them Number One in Case Management Software, Document Management Solution, Entity Management System/Company, Matter Management System and Practice Management Software for the seventh year in a row. SmartAdvocate also remained in the top three in the category of Docketing & Calendaring Software.

Initially designed by and for personal injury and mass tort lawyers, SmartAdvocate is now used by a wide range of law firms throughout the United States, Canada and beyond. SmartAdvocate’s fully browser-based system allows law firms to select between Cloud and Server versions, a feature not available in many other case management systems. SmartAdvocate’s Client Portal allows clients to view their case updates and upload important information, and its Mobile App allows users to access their cases from virtually anywhere. SmartAdvocate increases the efficiency and accuracy of handling cases and operational details. Customizing the system is made easier with SmartAdvocate’s 125+ integration partners, so that firms can set ups exactly what they need, all in a simple, user-friendly format.
SmartAdvocate continually offers new releases and software updates. Igor Selizhuk, Chief Technology Officer at SmartAdvocate, was recently interviewed on The Legal Mastermind Podcast as an expert in “Finding The Right Case Management System For Your Firm.” When asked about SmartAdvocate’s well-known annual new release, Selizhuk explained that his team takes feedback from their clients very seriously, saying that SmartAdvocate has remained dedicated to using client testimonials, reviews, and requests as their main guide in software development. Regarding popular trends, he replied, “There are two broad directions: Client Communications/satisfaction and Automation.” Selizhuk gave an example of a request which involved both trends, and the request has evolved into one of SmartAdvocate’s most popular new release features. The user asked “What can we do to keep the client engaged? Can we make sure that we talk to a client every 30 days?” SmartAdvocate’s CTO continued, “Fast-forward to the new annual release and now, SmartAdvocate has a Dashboard and a Report which pulls cases whereby a firm has not communicated with a client for a predefined period of time!”
SmartAdvocate is proud to continue to include the brand message that they are an award-winning legal case management system that will increase a firm’s efficiency and profitability.
Contact: Allison Rampolla, VP Sales & Marketing, SmartAdvocate LLC, 516-723-4636 (Direct), 516-205-5875 (Mobile), [email protected]
Related Links: Smart Advocate Website
SOURCE SmartAdvocate
Cision Distribution 888-776-0942
from 8 AM – 9 PM ET

source