Comments on: What ECM Needs to be Today

By: Max J. Pucher

Max J. Pucher — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:30:50 +0000

What businesses need is a lot more than just content management. They need a fully integrated user-focused platform that combines ECM, CRM, BPM, BRM, case management and integration facilities.

On top of that the business must be able to create those processes with content in an ADAPTIVE mannner, meaning without long flowchart design work. Business users must be able to customize their GUI without the need for programming. To make all that work the right way they need business rules integrated with their content and case work.

As it happens Papyrus supplies all of that TODAY! Why wait for Documentum to get there?

Regards, Max

By: Pie

Pie — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:21:41 +0000

The problem is that the context is provided by the application, not the platform. The applications have been the weak point. As the apps evolve, independent of the platform, the context around the content will grow. That context will start being stored in the platform infrastructure.

Basically, I feel context should be a part of both ECM and OCM. ECM was “created” when different content apps (WCM, RM, DM, Imaging…) where all thrown under one umbrella. Well, there is more to it than having them share the same repository. With the shared repository, the context needs to now be saved. It wasn’t before and hasn’t really been added yet.

That all being said, I overlooked context in my post and I appreciate you bringing it to the forefront.

-Pie

By: Pie

Pie — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:17:09 +0000

I still think that the term ECM holds. It is a concept, not a technology. As such, how it is implemented within the limits of today’s technology should not limit how it is implemented in the future. Collaboration systems have evolved greatly, both in the interface and architecture, over the last ten years, but they are still called Collaboration systems.

I just don’t think we need more terms. Time will tell though.

-Pie

By: Stephane Croisier

Stephane Croisier — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:01:01 +0000

I think my definition of the CCII is more close to the Gartner's one for "Information-Centric Infrastructures" (cf: p. 7: Hype cycle for application development). This is about a transformational paradigm with a 5 to 10 years timeline. I think their definition is also quite nice in order to define what should be the ECM system of tomorrow (and not today). For the rest we both agree: Information-Centric Infrastructures need to be more transparantly decoupled from CEVA applications ontop and it will probably take years to standardize and scope such a standardized ECM++ Information backbone. Stephane

By: Sascha Ohler @saschaohler

Sascha Ohler @saschaohler — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:00:51 +0000

I agree with your vision of OCM, especially when it comes to the challenges of effective Identifty Management, but I believe that another important differentiation needs to be pointed out. Todays ECM solutions are mainly context unaware, meaning they serve up information, data, documents based on user or system initiated triggers. The big promise of OCM I see is the context awareness of these systems. The ability to serve up completely different sets of metadata based on the data/document context.