Comments on: The Problem With “E” in ECM – Part I http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/ Opinions and discussions on content management by two of the biggest guys in the business.(measured by weight not volume) Wed, 23 May 2012 04:05:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: That’s Not Technically an Omelet « Doculabs http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/#comment-1027 Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:36:21 +0000 http://bigmenoncontent.com/?p=857#comment-1027 [...] a technology; it is a strategy. While in another camp, Peter Monks has argued for the death of ECM. Lee Dallas and Jon Marks have interesting takes on the “E” in ECM as [...]

]]> By: Marko Sillanpää http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/#comment-365 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:51:27 +0000 http://bigmenoncontent.com/?p=857#comment-365 CMIS is just the latest iteration of the same concept (ODMA, WebDAV, VeniceBridge). The problem as I see it adoption. What’s weird is that companies, and ultimately developers, ignore these wrapper technologies. What’s really bad is that some “hard-core” developers actually ignore them and build their own wrapper technologies. In all the cases where I’ve seen in house wrappers, I’ve never seen one reused.

Developers need to look back historically at ODBC. Once people started developing to ODBC, database became much easier to work with both in code and in business.

For CMIS to really take hold developer, both in the ISV community and corporate world, need to make the first step and start working with it. The problem I see it is that we have lots of Documentum, SharePoint, Alfresco, and FileNet developers and very few content management developers.

]]> By: Marko Sillanpää http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/#comment-364 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:37:06 +0000 http://bigmenoncontent.com/?p=857#comment-364 At 5:30 Eastern on Friday, February 12, 2010, I claim to be the first person to use the term CCM (Cloud Content Management). Sorry Lee you had your chance.

]]> By: Lee Dallas http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/#comment-362 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:10:54 +0000 http://bigmenoncontent.com/?p=857#comment-362 Thanks for the comment Ian (that was my favorite line too ;)

CMIS is a great concept and has the potential for changing how we architect systems and it actually contributes to the demise more than slows it. CMIS is a leveler. It reduces competitive advantage and I agree it further commoditizes the underlying infrastructure and encourages designers to think in terms of “enough” ECM rather than “as much as I can use” ECM. The idea of something other than library services being the core of ECM is not itself new.

Autonomy with IDOL and others have tried to cast search as content management before. I do think BPM can be more successful in achieving some of the goals of ECM than monolithic architectures were. What is the dominant gene then? BPM spans structured and non-structured so in theory its more process than content. The shift certainly supports the value of recent acquisitions of Lombardi and Savvion.

]]> By: iantruscott http://bigmenoncontent.com/2010/02/10/the-problem-with-e-in-ecm-part-i/#comment-361 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:12:06 +0000 http://bigmenoncontent.com/?p=857#comment-361 Excellent article Lee, I really like “The problem with ECM is that it is too big to buy but too small to dream about” – I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head and I look forward to the SharePoint follow up.

One thing, I’ve been pondering is CMIS. Is there something between your short and long views – the thinking that we’ll find glue for those “commodotized sub components” and that the ECM ideal could become interconnected content repositories based on business process – rather than just all in one bigness?

Cheers,

Ian

]]>