Recently in WCM Category

Well, actually the report was published by the author, Seth Gottlieb, a few months ago, but it is now available at the Gilbane store. Seth has worked with open source content management systems for years and for this report personally installed all the products he evaluated. Seth has written a really excellent report that is a must-read for anyone considering investing in and open source web content management system, or for anyone inclined to dismiss them out of hand.

Report Description
Open Source Web Content Management in Java provides an in depth analysis of seven of the leading open source Java web content management platforms. Written for technical decision makers, the report breaks down the open source marketplace and describes various categories of open source software and where they are most effectively used. The report also provides a framework for understanding the cost and risk implications of selecting an open source platform over commercial software.

Each 15+ page product evaluation explains the technical architecture and functional capabilities of the platform and provides insight into how the project is organized and the community behind it. There is enough technical detail to provide a foundation for ruling out incompatible technologies and prototyping the likely candidates. There is also useful information for content contributors and site managers to help them understand how the tool would support their responsibilities of today and their vision for tomorrow.

Products Evaluated:

• Alfresco Enterprise
• Apache Lenya
• Daisy CMS
• Hippo CMS
• Jahia Enterprise
• Magnolia Enterprise
• OpenCms

Buy Open Source Web Content Management in Java, by Seth Gottlieb.
NOTE: This is a downloadable PDF file. Acrobat version 6 or higher required.

Mary Laplante will be moderating a webinar at noon eastern time today, Web Experience Management: Essentials for Engaging Customers and Winning Loyalty. The sponsor is Fatwire, and the speakers will be Yogesh Gupta, President and CEO of FatWire; Sovan Shatpathy, Manager of Web Infrastructure at Linksys; and Erik Kulvinskas, Web Coordinator for the Colorado Department of Transportation. We are seeing a lot of activity in Web Experience Management, and Mary offers the following definition:

Web experience management is a business practice that formalizes an organization's approach to relating to its audiences through web-based channels. WEM is based on the premise that engagement that delivers high value to all participants does not happen by accident, but rather, by design. Only when experience is deliberately managed does it become repeatable, predictable, and capable of being improved and optimized. WEM, as a business practice, is enabled by a range of technologies, including web content management, personalization, dynamic content delivery, analytics and optimization, and emerging tools for social computing. As such, WEM calls for integrated marketing and IT processes.

Registration for the webinar is still open.

As many of you know, we will be publishing a new report by Stephen Arnold in the next few weeks. The title, Beyond Search: What to do When Your Enterprise Search System Doesn't Work, begs the question of whether there is such a thing as "enterprise search". The title of Lynda's consulting practice blog "Enterprise Search Practice Blog", begs the same question. In the case of content management, a similar question is begged by AIIM - "The Enterprise Content Management Association" (ECM) and the recent AIIM conference.

The debate about whether "enterprise fill-in-your-favorite-software-application" makes any sense at all is not new. The terms "Enterprise Document Management" (EDM) and "Enterprise Resource Planning" (ERP) were first used in the 80s, and, at least in the case of EDM, were just as controversial. We have Documentum to thank for both EDM and ECM. Documentum's original mission was to be the Oracle of documents, so EDM probably seemed like an appropriate term to use. Quickly however, the term was appropriated by marketing pros from many vendors, as well as analysts looking for a new category of reports and research to sell, and conference organizers keeping current with the latest buzzwords (I don't exclude us from this kind of activity!). It was also naively misused by many enterprise IT (as opposed to "personal IT" I suppose) professionals, and business managers who were excited by such a possibility.

ECM evolved when the competition between the established EDM vendors and the fast growing web content management vendors reached a point where both saw they couldn't avoid each other (for market cap as well as user requirement reasons). Soon, any vendor with a product to manage any kind of information that existed outside of (or even sometimes even in) a relational database, was an "ECM" vendor. This was what led AIIM to adopt and try to define and lay claim to the term - it would cover all of the records management and scanner vendors who were their existing constituents, and allow them to appeal to the newer web content management vendors and practitioners as well.

We used to cover the question "Is there any such thing as ECM?" in our analyst panels at our conferences, and usually there would be some disagreement among the analysts participating, but our mainly enterprise IT audience largely became savvy enough to realize it was a non-issue.

Why is it a non-issue?
Mainly because the term has almost no useful meaning. Nobody puts all their enterprise content in a single ECM repository. It doesn't even make sense to use the same vendors' products across all departments even in small organizations. - that is why there is such a large variety of vendors with wildly different functionality at ECM events such as AIIM. The most that you can assume when you hear "ECM vendor" is that they probably support more than one type of content management application, and that they might scale to some degree.

There are many who think it not unreasonable to have a single "enterprise search" application for all enterprise content. If you are new to search technology this is understandable, since you may think simple word or phrase search should be able to work across repositories. But, of course, it is not at all that simple, and if you want to know why see Stephen's blog or Lynda's blog, among others. Both Steve and Lynda are uncomfortable with "enterprise search". Steve prefers the term "behind the firewall search". Lynda sticks with the term but with a slightly different definition, although I don't think they disagree at all on how the term is misused and misinterpreted.

Why use "Enterprise ... Whatever" terms at all?
There is only one reason, and that is that buyers and users of technology use these terms as a shortcut, sometime naively, but also sometimes with full understanding. There is just no getting around the barrier of actual language use. Clearly, using the shortcut is only the first step in communicating - more dialog is required for meaningful understanding.

The deadline for proposals for panel participation or presentations for:
Gilbane San Francisco 2008 at the Westin Market Hotel, San Francisco, June 17 - 19, 2008 is January 15.

Visit http://gilbanesf.com/ to see the topic areas we are focusing and then see how to submit a proposal.

If you've never been to one of our events and want see what we have been covering in our conference programs you can view the programs from Gilbane Boston 2007 and Gilbane San Francisco 2007.

If you have additional questions about speaking, send them to speaking@gilbane.com.

In the Global Information Age, mere information availability no longer suffices. Today's customer expectations demand relevant information that is culturally acceptable, appealing, and most important, understood. Delivering contextual, multilingual information – communications that make sense in the customer’s language of choice – is fundamental. Translation is a corporate requirement.

However, any company with a multinational revenue profile knows that fusing quality and translation is a significant challenge. Our take? Quality translation within the global content lifecycle can be elusive, but it is achievable. To learn more, download our latest whitepaper, "Quality In, Quality Out: The Value of Technology in the Global Content Lifecycle" and listen to the recording from the companion webinar hosted by Sajan.

We'll also continue the quality discussion throughout Gilbane Boston's Globalization track, particularly in the session, "Quality at the Source: Creating Global Customer Experience."

It's that time of year again. Not only for our Boston conference, and the co-located Content Management Professionals Association (CM Pros) Summit, but for CM Pros members to nominate candidates for soon-to-be-open board seats. It is also a great time to join CM Pros, or at least to come to the Summit and find out what they are all about. The association is also looking for a new Executive Director. Here is the announcement from CM Pros:

Call for nominations
CM Pros is pleased to announce the call for nominations for election of the expanded board will be made at the Fall Summit on November 26, 2007. Nominations open on the day of the Summit and close on December 21, 2007. More information about the time line is available on the website.

The board is seeking enthusiastic candidates to run for four seats, bringing the board to 7 members. To qualify as a candidate, you must be a member 'in good standing' of CM Pros. This is an opportunity for anyone who is passionate about content management in its many forms to contribute to the continued growth of the organization.

In the words of one of the departing board members:
Ever wonder what it would be like to have weekly discussions with really smart people, about issues that you're passionate about? What if those discussions helped shape the future of your professional organization? What if you could contribute your voice, your ideas, your creativity to those discussions and really make a difference? With the Board expanding to 7 members, there are opportunities for you to contribute and make a difference. It's been a great adventure so far, and we've made tremendous progress, with more ideas and projects in the pipeline. We need good people to volunteer their time and talent to advance the profession and grow the organization. Think about it. Do it!

To nominate yourself or someone else who you believe would make a great candidate, contact the Elections Oversight Committee at elections@cmprofessionals.org before November 26th or just use the website after nominations open.

Search for a new Executive Director
In addition to board elections, there is another exciting opportunity-the next CM Pros' Executive Director. The current ED, Scott Abel, will not be continuing in this role. As the organization matures, the board will refocus the tasks and responsibilities of the Executive Director to running a non-profit volunteer association and bringing stability to the organization as it grows. The board is seeking candidates who will initially work part time and can grow into a 'Chief Administrative Officer'.

A search committee for the ED position has been formed, and a job description is being defined. The job posting will be available no later than November 12th. If you are interested in the position or know someone you'd like to recommend, please contact the search committee lead, Joan Lasselle, at secretary@cmprofessionals.org.

The board, on behalf of themselves and all CM Pros members, wants to thank Scott for his considerable contributions to CM Pros' success in 2007.

CM Pros Board of Directors
email: board@cmprofessionals.org
web: http://www.cmprofessionals.org

Cross-posted from the Web Content Management Blog...

On a recent phone call with a Gilbane Group client, we were asked about the defining differences between WCM applications and portal applications. This question has two answers – a theoretical one and a practical one. In theory, portals provide a doorway (portal < Latin porta, gate) that, when opened, allows content consumers to view a particular set of content. The exact set of content to which consumers are exposed is (a) dynamic, and (b) controllable either by the application administrator or by the consumers themselves. Because the function of the portal essentially rests in this “doorway” or “frame” function, some customers see portal software as an empty shell or framework, with a set of underlying services, to which content-connected portlets can be added. WCM applications, on the other hand, theoretically provide all of the features and functions required to create, manage, expire, and archive content. This feature set typically includes authoring and editing tools for multiple content types, automated workflow, versioning, audit control, channel management, metadata management, library services, templating, access controls, personalization etc.

In practice, however, the feature sets of WCM and portal applications often overlap. One vendor’s portal product might provide the same feature as another vendor’s WCM application. Because portals are composite applications that expose component applications, this phenomenon also extends to products or modules such as ERP, CRM, search, collaboration, campaign management, etc. For this reason, depending on how vendors group features and functions in their product offerings, any given set of WCM or portal requirements may be satisfied by a variety of product combinations. One vendor’s WCM application may suffice. Another vendor’s portal product may also be a good fit. And a third vendor’s solution may include WCM, portal, and collaboration modules.

Because of this variation in vendors’ grouping and naming conventions, Gilbane clients should, during the technology selection process, seek solutions to their set of content management problems without becoming distracted by the exact names or number of modules or products required to provide the solution. Let vendors include whatever products they wish in their RFP responses, but hold them responsible for (a) satisfying every requirement, (b) identifying the modules that satisfy each requirement, and (c) giving a total price for all of the modules included in the response. In the end, “WCM and portal” by any other name is still “WCM and portal.”

While WCM needs-analysis and generation of a master requirements document (MRD) usually prove to be quite in-depth undertakings for most clients, the RFP submitted to vendors should aim to be as simple and concise as possible. Here’s why.

When vendors receive a very long, nuanced description of a functional requirement, it becomes easier for them to craft a response that technically satisfies the requirement and simultaneously to withhold other relevant and more meaningful detail. On the other hand, when vendors receive a brief description of a functional requirement or category, along with specific instructions to provide as much detail as possible (at risk of not receiving credit if enough detail is not provided), they often feel compelled to write as much they can. The abundance of information found in such responses usually allows the customer to discern just how well a vendor’s products or solutions match line items in the MRD.

Recommendation to Gilbane clients: After detailed needs analysis and creation of an MRD, pare the language for each functional criterion in the RFP to a somewhat general level. For example, rather than inquiring specifically about content locking models (along with the other 20-30 minute components within library services) ask instead for a complete description of what the vendor’s solution provides in the library services category. It is essential to state that more detail in the response is better than less, and that if a vendor omits relevant information, they may not receive full marks for that category. Following this suggestion, you will be surprised at how much more insight you gain from vendors RFP responses.

Activity for our 4th Gilbane Boston conference at the Westin Copley November 27 -29 is ramping up quickly. The conference schedule and session descriptions have been posted. The early list of exhibitors and sponsors is also available. And, online registration is open. We'll be updating the site on a regular basis from now on, usually daily, so bookmark the pages that interest you to keep up-to-date.

The recording from our June 26th webinar, "Utilizing Web CMS as an eMarketing Platform to Deliver Tangible ROI" is now available here.

During the webinar, my co-presenters from Hot Banana Software and I talked about how the Web is a critical component of marketing and sales strategies for organizations large and small. We noted that more and more marketing dollars are moving to online activities, in billions. Not many would argue with that. But we also reminded our audience that "the other side of the coin" in having more money to spend is the parallel rise in corporate expectations for ROI on that spend. Not many can argue with that.

The heat is on. Organizations want eMarketing to drive sales, period. Proving that it can – and quantifying that it does – remains the conundrum for many. As we discussed how to prove marketing ROI, we asked the audience to tell us about their eMarketing goals. Their responses clearly have accountability (read: measurement!) in mind:

We also talked about the fact that eMarketing is a dizzying challenge, given an array of emerging approaches, techniques, and technologies. Selecting the most lucrative methods is as far from a one-dimensional process as you can get. Here's a snapshot of the methods our webinar audience is using today:

It can be interesting for both analysts and technology vendors to understand the rate of technology adoption within the field -- as opposed to within the market forecast. Here's a case in point, where "2.0"-driven techniques such as social media advertising and RSS content distribution lag begin more traditional "e" methods, focused squarely around email and search.

Want to read more on Web CMS and eMarketing? Download here.