Der CMS Watch ECM Report 2009 befasst sich im ersten Teil „The Business Case for Enterprise Content Management“ mit den Schlüsselkonzepten des Content Management und der Implementierung einer ECM-Plattform.
Im zweiten Teil „Business Scenarios for ECM Suites“ gibt der Report neun universelle Szenarien wieder, die einem dabei helfen seine eigenen Bedürfnisse auf dem Markt zu „positionieren“. Zu den Szenarien gehören Enterprise Content Platform, High Volume Imaging , Engineering Document Management, Forms Processing, Regulatory Compliance, Case Management, Workgroup Collaboration, Marketing Information Management, Technical Documentation und Enterprise Web Publishing, die nahezu alle aktuellen speziellen Anwendungsbereiche von ECM abdecken.
Im dritten Teil „ECM Dissected“ der ECM Produktfunktionsumfang untersucht, wobei Schlüsselmerkmale genau definiert und demonstriert werden. CMS Watch liefert hier eine eigenständige Definition von ECM und ECM-Suiten.
Im nächsten Abschnitt „ECM Market Overview 2009“, sozusagen dem Hauptabschnitt, werden dann die Anbieter in drei verschiedene Kategorien aufgeschlüsselt und dann in einer vergleichenden Analyse für jedes Produkt individuell herangezogen. Die untersuchten Anbieter und Produkte sind:
Major Suite Vendors
| | | |
| | · | Alfresco: Alfresco ECM |
| | · | Documentum (EMC): Documentum D6 |
| | · | Hyland Software: OnBase 7.2 |
| | · | IBM: FileNet P8 Platform |
| | · | Interwoven: ECM Solutions |
| | · | Microsoft: Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 |
| | · | Nuxeo: Nuxeo Enterprise Platform 5 |
| | · | Open Text: LiveLink ECM Suite |
| | · | Oracle: Enterprise Content Management Suite 10gR3 |
| | | |
| | · | Vignette: V7 ECM Suite |
| | · | Xerox: DocuShare 6.1 |
Mid-range ECM
| | | |
| | · | EVER: EverSuite |
| | · | FormTek: Orion |
| | · | HP: TRIM Context 6 R2 |
| | · | Laserfiche: Information Access Platform |
| | · | Newgen Software: Omni Suite |
| | · | Objective Corporation: Objective 7 |
| | · | Pitney Bowes: OpenEDMS |
| | · | Saperion AG: Saperion ECM |
| | · | SpringCM: SpringCM 4.4 |
| | · | Xythos: Xythos Enterprise Document Management Suite 7.0 |
Specialty Vendors
| | | |
| | · | ABBYY: FineReader 9.0 |
| | · | Adobe: LiveCycle ES |
| | · | Autonomy: Meridio 5.1 |
| | · | Brainware: IDC-Distiller |
| | · | CA: MDY CA Records Manager |
| | · | Captaris: Document Management |
| | · | Enterprise Informatics: eB |
| | · | Geong: PortalAge |
| | · | Infogrid Pacific: ECMS One |
| | · | ISIS: ISIS Papyrus |
| | · | KnowledgeTree: KnowledgeTree |
| | · | Kofax: Ascent 8.0 |
| | · | ReadSoft: DOCUMENTS |
| | · | Salesforce.com: Salesforce Content |
| | · | Sword Group: Fusion |
| | · | Vitova: VitalDoc 4.1 |
| | | |
| | · | ZyLAB: Information Access Platform |
Der nächste Teil „Advice, Pitfalls, and Best Practices“ unterbreitet dem Leser einen Vorschlag wie man einen Anbieter aussuchen sollte und ein passendes Budget festlegt.
Im letzten Teil folgt dann noch ein kurzes Glossar mit einem Guide für relevante ECM Standards. (CaM/Kff)
| | |
|
| PROJECT CONSULT Kommentar:
|
Vorab, natürlich kostet die Studie mit mehr als 800 Seiten einiges an Geld (zwischen 985 US$ und 2450 US$), aber immerhin gibt es einen aussagekräftigen Auszug nach Anmeldung auf der CMS Watch Webseite (http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Report/). Mit unserem obigen Beitrag haben wir versucht, zumindest eine kleine Entscheidungshilfe für oder gegen den Kauf der Studie zu liefern, die wir aus anderen Quellen noch ergänzen wollen. Auf den Segmentierungskriterien basiert auch eine neue Form der Darstellung der Positionierung von Anbietern.
Die Zusammenstellung der Anbieter gibt zumindest einen guten Überblick, welche Unternehmen und Produkte in den USA für relevant gehalten werden. Viele spielen in Europa keine Rolle. Aber auch hier ist Saperion als deutscher Anbieter wieder dabei. Interessant ist auch, dass SaaS-Angebote wie Salesforce.com zunehmend wichtiger genommen werden. Im Internet finden sich dann doch noch einige wesentliche Aussagen aus der Studie (www.cmswire.com): “Highlights of the 2009 Web CMS Report Findings
| | | |
| | · | .NET-based CMS suppliers are thriving. In addition to Sitecore, Ektron, GOSS and others, CMS Watch has begun coverage of Telerik and the open source DotNetNuke platform. |
| | | |
| | · | More CMS vendors focus on interactivity management and dynamic page delivery, while customers still report challenges deploying SEO-friendly URLs and accessible code. CMS end-users also want a better search experience to keep productivity high. This doesn’t, however, mean, that all vendors offer the up-to-par, search-friendly solutions. But, seriously, SEO-support should be and already is a de rigueur thing. |
| | · | Some CMS vendors are renewing their emphasis on vertical industry solutions. Especially, large ECM vendors, who “frequently cannot compete effectively on their Web CMS technology alone,” commented CMS Watch Analyst, Kas Thomas. A good example here would be Vignette Media — a solution designed specifically for the TME verticals. Ingeniux and PaperThin focus on the education industry. |
| | · | A few vendors have managed to break free from the pack and establish themselves in new markets by offering a combination of product features and marketing strategy that happens to hit (the ever so elusive) sweet spot. |
| | · | The Web 2.0 rush to add social micro-applications and AJAX-driven interfaces has, for many, destroyed their R&D cycles. |
| | · | All CMS tools seem to be selling well, even though some vendors have not had any product releases or upgrades at all this year. |
| | · | The search piece of CMS is rapidly evolving. Personalization and profiling is at its heights, with more and more customers asking for this feature. |
Crisis-Mode CMS Vendors
As we have mentioned several times throughout the year, many CMS vendors are struggling, trying to figure out how to be different in the over-crowded market.
Kasman Thomas, a CMS Watch analyst, gives a bit of an insight into the making if the 2009 report, as well as on the WCM vendors’ “identity-crisis mode.”
Some of those vendors — like FatWire, Percussion and Interwoven — managed to figure out a strategy to achieve differentiation with more focus on personalization, user-driven content and Web analytics.
For a short while, there was a rush to cram community-oriented or “social software” functionality (wikis, blogs, ratings, tagging, etc.) into Web CMS products. But the race seems to be pretty much over. That makes sense. Some vendors didn’t even bother getting involved into the Web 2.0 rush. At the same time, to stay trendy, they did seminars and while papers on how to be social and Web 2.0-ready.
Large ECM-oriented vendors seem to be at risk. Some of these players are putting renewed effort into selling domain-specific solutions packages. Open Text works hard to come up with as many SharePoint solutions as humanely possible.
What Will the Future Bring?
SaaS-based CMS models are the red-hot, next new thing. Or not… The next year should tell us which vendors can really deliver on the promises of SaaS, as CMSWatch’s Thomas points out.
It will also be interesting to see how smaller vendors make it through the next year — especially, in the U.S. with its economy in the dumps. European vendors like EPiServer may not have the same challenges though.
Feature-wise, many vendors don’t seem to know what to do next — now, that we’re over the Web 2.0 revolution. New and “improved” interfaces seem to be “the thing” for now.” (CMSwire/Kff)
Metadata
