I am humbled by your historical facts on the current AIIM definition, and stand corrected on the strategy issue !

I am destined to get no more work done this morning while I mull over alternatives to “empowerment”…… a sucky sucky word….

As I told Jed, I am willing to replace empowerment, not a fan of the word, but I want a word that conveys a similar concept.

Strategy was a minor word two years ago. The definition then was, “Enterprise Content Management (ECM) is the technologies used to capture, manage, store, preserve, and deliver content and documents related to organizational processes. ECM tools and strategies allow the management of an organization’s unstructured information, wherever that information exists.” It is minor. The first sentence is a definition statement. The second sentence addressed what ECM tools and strategies allow, not what it is. It is a moot point since strategy is now more central to their definition.

One more comment Jed…Don’t be a hater.

“Empowerment” ? Puh-lease…… A definition should not need to spawn multiple sub-definition threads, so while I think I understand what your getting at with the “empowerment of all content within an organization” – some VP who has just been given ECM as a new part of her empire is gonna read that and think WTF ?

Also when was the last time you read the AIIM statement ? When you joined ? You have been working in the ECM space much longer than I, but unless my memory is failing me (possible, too much beer consumed in my youth…) the AIIM definition has always had the ‘strategy’ aspect in it since I have been a member, and I think I joined in 2003 / 4.

Personally I like the AIIM definition – no, its not perfect, but no definition of a broad subject area ever can be. At least it mentions strategy twice, and ‘unstructured information’. I do however like your “business context” in place of the AIIM “organizational processes”. Bottom line, I think your definition befits your ECM ‘guru’ status;

You understand it and your pretty sure we understand it (we as in “the industry’) but as Dwayne noted, I don’t think any “outsiders” would understand it.

Also should not a definition (by definition…) be cold and analytical ? It should not require soul or passion. You might build a vision statement for your particular ECM effort / information management strategy, that has plenty of passion and even ‘soul’ – but its certainly not required to get in the way as part of a definition.

Also please put warnings in your posts in future. I thought I had a good handle on your sense of humor, but after spraying my keyboard with Coke at the “empowerment” moment, I then did it again for the final “dare to dream”…!

I hope this was negative enough for you – don’t hate me man…….

Keep churning this great stuff out, it gives us all something to think about and discuss.

I think we (ECM industry folks) know that content is everywhere, but, I constantly get that the definitions are too broad and are not truly understood by those outside the industry, or those that just don’t think in those terms. Those comments are typically followed be “that could mean anything is content” Well, um, yeah. Content plus relevancy equals value. In the end, the definition needs to be applied to the situation at hand, and what it means to the organization.