CMS Watch Records Management Feed

Who loves the incumbent vendor?

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:02:00 -0500

One of my favorite little phrases is "double edged sword" and I found a perfect application for it recently, the discussion of "incumbent vendors" -- those whose product(s) you're already using.

Imagine you have been using a particular vendor's technology for the past 5 or 10 years. It could be EMC|Documentum or Open Text or any one of the 197 other products we evaluate. I'll just call them Vendor X. But now it's time for an upgrade, or even a replacement of that technology. It did what it was supposed to do at the time, but now technology has moved on and it's time for a refresh. So you're kicking off a major project and starting up the RFP and shortlisting process.

On the one hand, being the incumbent, Vendor X is at a real advantage to supply this new technology over anyone else. They have an existing relationship with the IT group, procurement department, and at least some business users. So they know you and they know your business to some degree. Equally important they know your IT expectations and limitations. Of any vendor they are the ones to beat, and should be able to not only pitch, but price at a point that will make you smile.

On the other hand, they are now the "old" supplier and as the Eagles once so perfectly put it, "wooo-hooo... everybody's talking 'bout the new kid in town." Whereas by default the incumbent comes with baggage. For nothing is ever perfect, and the last few years will have had its ups and downs, and of course it's only human to focus on the downs. Put it this way: if you think its time to upgrade or replace, then you likely think of the incumbent as dated.

Another twist in that two-way relationship is that you know a lot of dirt about Vendor X -- dirt you don't know about their competitors. The maintenance calls that were never properly closed, the bugs, the eventual fixes, and the license fee hikes. In that situation, who would want to be the incumbent?

Sometimes incumbents are going to win regardless, but it's not always an advantage. The key here for you the buyer is that incumbents require a particular type consideration. So, when automatically adding Vendor X to your shortlist, or conversely when deciding not to add them, make sure you come to the decision in a balanced manner, that you have looked at both sides of that double edged sword.

Capture software to the fore

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:46:00 -0500

As we start to look back on the past year, one of the key trends we have seen is the resurgence of interest in capture software. It's early days for sure, but just as there is clearly increased interest in multi-channel publishing and CCM (component content management), so too at the entry point of the content lifecycle, is there an increased recognition by buyers that efficient capture delivers big dividends. Be it forms, paper, xml, pdf, or whatever -- making sense of the incoming information as early as possible in a process is one of the biggest productivity boosters your organization can attain.

Where there remains a disconnect between buyers and vendors - is in just how expensive and difficult good capture technology can be to acquire. For it seems that now OCR (optical character recognition) is commonplace, that buyers still imagine that dealing with the issues of distributed capture, multi-paged documents, multi-languages, in multi formats is somehow easy, and by default should also be cheap.

In fact the difference between the high end capture vendors (such as Abbyy, ReadSoft and Kofax) and low-end OCR is the difference between a bottle of wine vinegar and a bottle of vintage Krug. For at the high end, capture systems not only recognize multipage documents, but also relationships between pages and the context and content on them. They can recognize and capture a paragraph that is written in English, and just as accurately capture the native language Chinese footnotes related to that paragraph. They can capture at a staggeringly fast and accurate clip -- and once configured and running are typically far more accurate and faster than humans keying the same information in to a system manually. And of course, they cost more.

Key advice to buyers: don't underestimate the value of good clean captured data at the start of your process. Remember the maxim, rubbish in = rubbish out. At the same time don't underestimate the capabilities of what are genuinely some of the most technically advanced products in the ECM stack -- as it is likely that just for once, the right vendor may be able to do more for you than you think.

Interwoven in a bullish mood

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:39:00 -0500

Yesterday I attended the Interwoven annual Analyst Day in New York. It was an interesting day in many respects, and one which showed a very different Interwoven than the one of circa 2006. For just a few short years back such events for the firm were painful experiences, as they were forced to trot out a series of lame excuses for missing targets and falling short of expectations. To their credit they have been working hard to turn things around, and with new leadership at the top, financially at least, 2008 has been a year of success. Despite a slowing economy Interwoven has become the comeback kid.

In New York they were not just in a confident mood, they were overtly bullish, bordering at times on the arrogant. And they laid out a simple, but potentially effective strategy to continue their upward path.

This strategy hangs on three things.

First, the recognition that Interwoven is in fact two separate companies, with two very different sets of customers - Web (read TeamSite) and Document (read WorkSite). This basic recognition that there are and always have been two quite separate worlds (that's why we have separate CMS and ECM services) is a breakthrough, and one that some of its competitors might want to follow.

Second, a continued focus on customer satisfaction. As readers of our CMS and ECM services will know this has not always been a strong point for Interwoven, but to give credit where it is due, I have observed and had further confirmation this week that they have worked hard to improve on this - and partners at least (who account for nearly 3/4 of Interwovens revenue now) have come to both like and rely on Interwoven - whilst souring on other relationships.

Third, is to target in on, and to take market share away from, vulnerable competitors. In this regard Interwoven execs were clear cut about exactly who they are gunning for. Vignette customers on the Web side of things, and disaffected Hummingbird (now Open Text ) customers on the Document side of the business, and as of today that approach appears to be working for them.

Overall this appears to be an effective if simple strategy - but it does not tell the whole story of Interwoven. For example, I have long thought that the WorkSite side of Interwoven was the stronger of the two, despite the fact that Interwoven's roots are in the web - and I saw little this week to change that opinion. For like it or not TeamSite is due a major overhaul, some might say long overdue - as the core system is over ten years old. And knowing what we know in 2008, nobody would build a CMS system the same way they did in 1998. How the newly invigorated Interwoven handles this overhaul will be key. They do have the luxury of being able to learn from and avoid many of the mistakes from Vignettes truly disastrous move to V7 that left many customers both stranded and angry. Then again change is always painful, and surely the best they can hope for is to manage the transition in as humane a way as possible. One thing they could (and arguably should) do, would be to lay out a very visible road map for TeamSite change - but they didn't do that in New York. There was tacit recognition from the executive team that change was due and would be coming, but specifics were non-existent.

This has been a constant theme over recent years, and just as Interwoven is gunning for Vignette, they are also losing Web CMS deals to smaller competitors with more contemporary architectures.

With a new VP of Engineering in place Interwoven needs to get public quickly regarding what is on the horizon, again to be clear, we all know that nobody would design a CMS product today the same as they would have in 1998 - hence tinkering with the system will not do the trick, it will need much more than that.

Yet it's not our job at CMS Watch to advise vendors - and my cautionary here is not for the benefit of Interwoven - but for you the buyer to be aware and to start asking tough questions of Interwoven. Where exactly is TeamSite going? How will future changes impact my existing deployment? When and how can I expect these changes to occur? If you don't there is a real danger that the next 18 months could good for Interwoven, but might leave you the buyer with a headache once the party is over.

But let's try and end on a positive note. I really don't want to rain on Interwovens party, they have a strong story, strong management (which they haven't always had), cash in the bank, a supportive channel and are experiencing sustained and profitable growth. And for what it is worth I have some faith that Interwoven will manage future change well, whether it involves acquisitions, mergers or just some new products. Nevertheless for buyers (and the channel) a bit more openesss around where things are going would help to put a lot of minds at rest.

In the interest of full disclosure - CMS Watch paid for all our own travel and accomodation to the event, along with my delicious veggie burger from Big Daddy's Diner on Wednesday evening. We do not accept travel and expenses from vendors, just as we do not consult to or work for vendors, period.

When the project honeymoon ends

tbyrne@cmswatch.com(Tony Byrne) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:39:00 -0400

I've been advising a large enterprise in the midst of a somewhat complex Web CMS and Component Content Management implementation, and recently participated in a mid-project check-point where the lead systems integrator laid out progress to date. It was interesting how the atmospherics of the project had changed over the course of the year. After an earlier phase that featured a mutual exploration of creative solutions by all the various parties (client, SI, vendor, consultants, etc.), the project now appears to have evolved into an effort by the SI to tightly control their obligations and, at some level, reduce expectations.

Of course, it's the job of the SI to keep scope under control, if they are going to finish on time and under budget. But the tenor of the project has changed. To continue the marriage metaphor that I frequently roll out to describe vendor selection best practices, the honeymoon is long over, baby.

I leave it to real experts (like Graham Oakes) to explain the various ways to keep projects running smoothly and meeting business objectives. It's been my experience, though, that even with the best project controls (and there are some good ones in place here), there comes a time in a systems project where the conversation turns subtlely but fatefully towards what the software package can and can't do, rather than what the business needs to accomplish. It usually starts with the implementation team and soon carries over to everyone else. Some of that attitude is really just being practical, and doubtless some of it reflects exhaustion with the process. A savvy project leader on the customer side recognizes this as a marathon, and keeps reserves of energy to advocate on behalf of original objectives.

To me, this also reinforces the primacy of due diligence and broad testing before you sign on to a solution. In a large project, you are going to encounter surprises and disappointments. The question is, how big...and how often?

Autonomy, centralizing control of MOSS

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Every day I am assaulted by a barrage of press releases, almost all of which contain nothing of interest. So it was a pleasant surprise to be hit early on a Monday morning by this one from Autonomy, "ControlPoint unveiled for Microsoft SharePoint information governance."

In short the firm is releasing an updated system that they claim will provide wide records management capabilities across disparate and federated SharePoint environments. It is a system that builds on Autonomy's acquisition of Meridio technology in 2007. A closer look at this announcement reveals more in the way of federated records management than governance as such, providing a centralized RM policy hub to manage classification, preservation, and disposition of content assets. Governance is of course far more than this....but that's PR for you.

Nevertheless, the Meridio technology was good technology. It seems to be getting some decent R&D invested in it, and overall I am happy to see it remain a solid option, particularly for those looking for more centralized control of broad MOSS environments.

As subscribers to CMS Watch services know, we have long believed that SharePoint's Achilles heel for the enterprise is governance -- or lack of. Many of the complaints we hear of regarding MOSS relate in one way or another to buyers and users failing to apply appropriate governance practices at an early stage, resulting in many cases in MOSS sprawl and non-compliance. This has at times had us labeled as "SharePoint bashers" by some who have clearly not read our reports, or taken our online education courses. If they had they would know that we remain enthusiastic about MOSS, but urge all buyers to apply the brakes before unleashing it throughout the enterprise.

Just like any other ECM system or content development platform, SharePoint requires the same vigorous procurement and technical vetting process, you would apply to the likes of EMC Documentum or Objective. It also requires the same pre-planning, business analysis, and governance work in advance to ensure success.

In praise of user group meetings

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:58:00 -0400

I have decided that I love user group meetings, and I want to go to more, so please invite me to yours...

Last week Dave Giordano of TSG invited me to attend and speak at the Documentum Mid West User Group meeting in Chicago, and a fine time was had by all. In fact I have been to quite a few user group meetings over the years both here in the US and in Europe -- and they are quite simply invaluable. For those of you using or contemplating using software from one of the larger vendors out there I would advise you to check these local groups out. If you are on a limited budget, make sure you prioritize such groups over the yearly vendor fests that are typically held (at great expense) in warm and glamorous locations.

At user group meetings you get the Real Story, you talk to your peers. Whereas at the vendor's own annual event, you endure hours of sales pitches, and ecstatic announcements of new bells and whistles to come in the next release. Of course few people really care that much about the next release; they care about getting value from the release they currently use, typically some version well behind the latest.

In this regard the meeting last Friday in Chicago was typical - the talk was mainly about EDMS, DQL and WebTop, with nary a mention of Web 2.0 and REST. Sobering and valuable stuff. And where else than a User Group meeting would you get a quote like this one? "We are mainly paper-based, except for the Word files the users have to create the paper with"... a classic!

A new (and wearable) Content Technologies Subway Map

tbyrne@cmswatch.com(Tony Byrne) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:55:00 -0400

A new season brings an updated vendor map:

We added a Yellow Line -- for XML & Component Content Management vendors, and reflected some other station changes.

And now, if you like what you see, you and your wall can wear it. Our new store at Cafe Press offers t-shirt and posters of various sizes, along with other CMS Watch tchotchkes.

Regarding the latter, perhaps you already own your fill of mugs and mousepads, but can you ever have enough beer steins? Bring it to the next event where we're speaking and we'll fill it up with the closest available brew. ;-)

Narrowcasting to your feed aggregator

tbyrne@cmswatch.com(Tony Byrne) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:39:00 -0400

We're pleased that CMS Watch now covers ten different technologies, but I suspect that many of you take an interest in only one or two families of tools. If that's you, here's a list of technology-specific RSS feeds that will just send relevant postings to your reader or aggregator.

Digital Asset Management: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/DAM

ECM Suites: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/ECM

E-mail Archiving & Management: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/E-mail

Enterprise Portals: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/Portal

Enterprise Search: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/Search

SharePoint: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/SharePoint

Social Software: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/Social

Web Analytics: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/Analytics

Web CMS / WCM: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/CMS

XML & Component Content Management: http://www.cmswatch.com/RSS/cmswatch.channel.xml/CCM

CMS Watch Competition Winner

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:45:00 -0400

You may remember a while back we launched our little competition to come up with a new name for our vendor positioning chart. We had some great (and varied) responses from all over the world. And it took quite an internal debate to decide on the eventual winner, but decide we did. And the winner is...Laurence Hart who offered us the name "Cross Check." Laurence, a bottle of champagne is yours.

Over the next month we will continue working with our designer to revamp the chart, and of course to rename it -- so look out for the Cross Check in all our report updates this year.

Dining at the intersection of Search and Retention

kthomas@cmswatch.com(Kas Thomas) — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:41:00 -0400

Lawyers were well represented (you might say) at this year's Enterprise Search Summit in New York. At times, ESS felt more like an e-discovery conference with analytics and social-computing side-tracks rather than a search conference featuring a few e-discovery sessions.

Based on what I saw at the Search Summit, there seems to be a renewed awareness, at ever-higher levels in the corporate responsibility chain, that in a litigious business environment "enterprise search" is not just a knowledge-management tactic or a productivity aid, but a survival imperative. You will be sued some day. (It's not a matter of "if," but when.) During the discovery phase of the suit, you're going to provide (and also receive from the other side) bewilderingly immense amounts of data. Without good search technology, sifting through the data isn't just tedious but nightmarishly expensive.

I didn't get a chance to attend any e-discovery sessions at the Search Summit. It didn't matter. At lunch, I happened to sit down next to litigation technology consultant (and ESS presenter) Jeff Flax. We had an illuminating chat about search and discovery in the context of records retention.

Flax noted that many companies that have records retention policies aren't following them. He sees a "pack rat" syndrome: a tendency to let expired records remain in the morgue past the "save-till" date. The problem with this is that files that have been declared obsolete or marked for disposition, but have not yet been physically destroyed, are still subject to subpoena. "A good lawyer will ask for expired documents during discovery," Flax notes.

Lawyers are also demanding data in its "native state": Not text dumps or PDFs or other derivative forms of the data, but the data as it actually exists. "If I'm a lawyer and I'm requesting someone's e-mails on a certain subject," says Flax, "I don't want the e-mails as text files, I want the original e-mail archive in binary form so I can pick apart the bits and get at all the header and footer and other information in context."

Sometimes physical media must be handed over in discovery so that deleted files can be detected and recovered. "I've seen cases where browser search queries from many years back, supposedly no longer on disk, have been recovered forensically," Flax told me. "And then certain keyword clumps are detected, and those query patterns can become admissible in court."

It turns out that the data in a search index (the index built by a search engine) can often be used to reconstruct a document even after the document itself has been irretrievably lost. Takeaway: A document can't be considered fully destroyed until you've destroyed its search-index data as well. (I wonder how many retention policies take this into account? Doubtless very few.)

If you're concerned about e-mail retention (and if you're not, you should be), you might want to look into our latest offering: The E-mail Archiving & Management Report 2008.You'll find that the report divides vendors (roughly) along three lines: policy-centric, archive-centric, and SaaS-based. (You can see a free sample here.)

My advice? Never pass up a chance to have lunch with a litigation technology expert. You'll be inundated with food for thought.

Vendor criticism of CMS Watch

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:43:00 -0400

As you know at CMS Watch we write critical product evaluations to help you avoid expensive procurement and deployment mistakes. We write reports that detail both the warts and merits of big vendors like EMC, Oracle, Xerox and IBM -- through to smaller specialist vendors like Hyland, Autonomy and Nuxeo. Readers of our reports often ask me "what did vendor x say when they read that!" The assumption, sometimes correct, is that vendors freak out on reading such criticism.

In an industry whereby most of the "independent analysts" are heavily dependent on revenues from the very firms they claim to be "independent" of, it's unusual to see truly critical research get published. So it becomes a surprise to both buyers and sellers when they read such criticism. In our reports we widely distribute the compliments and brickbats -- if something is truly terrible we will tell you.

But most of the time it is not a case of bad technology versus good technology. Rather it is a case of good fit versus bad fit: a product that could become an outstanding performer in a larger legal firm may make a terrible fit in a mid-sized manufacturing and ERP-centric environment. Hence we urge you the reader to study all the alternatives and balance them out, rather than look at one preferred vendor in isolation.

Speaking of isolation, the marketing groups of some vendors seem to operate in in a kind of vacuum. I guess it's part of the job for them to drink their own Kool Aid, but some of them seem to think it's part of their job to attack and stop any criticism of their product or company. At CMS Watch we're often on the receiving end of that wrath; that stinks sometimes, but so be it. Just as it is the vendor's job to wax lyrical about the joys of their product, so too is it ours to unearth the reality. If you want to get an insight into this particular dynamic, whether you're a curious end user or a vendor AR (Analyst Relations) person, check out the article I published today.

HP expands archiving, e-discovery, and compliance portfolio with acquisition of Tower Software

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:17:00 -0400

So HP finally made a move into the world of ECM by acquiring Tower Software of Australia. On the surface it's an unusual match for HP, as many had expected them to buy one of the top tier players such as Interwoven, Vignette or even Open Text, but on closer consideration it's a move that makes sense. Revealingly, HP does not call this an "ECM" deal and focuses on the e-discovery and compliance benefits from Tower's addition, so it's possible HP has further moves to make if it wants to get serious about offering broader ECM services à la IBM.

Tower does have a long tradition in ECM (and has carved out a niche for themselves particularly in the Government sector globally), but primarily in Records Management-centric ECM. That's a focus that ties in nicely with HP's emphasis on archiving and storage-centric information management. Plus, Tower costs only a fraction of what other leading ECM firms would have set HP back. And of course HP has the footprint to manage an Australian-based division well. So those are the positives for HP. But what about Tower's existing customer base? Well in all likelihood there should be no major disruption, since HP does not have the ECM skills or competing technology in-house to disrupt this base, rather simply to continue to support it and help it to grow over time.

What is likely to change in the Tower offering is deeper integration with HP's Information Management archiving and storage offerings - and consolidation of the sales efforts in joint accounts. Tower will be absorbed into the Information Management division and the transaction should close in Q2. One slight change will be HP's focus on the Records Management (read Legal and Compliance) elements of Tower (where they are strongest) rather than the broader Tower ECM portfolio. Tower's deep integration with and architecture based upon Microsoft technologies -- and in particular their Gold Partner level status for SharePoint -- makes Tower a particularly appealing acquisition. But it does mean that areas Tower was hoping to grow may well get neglected in the short term, areas such as imaging, collaboration and traditional document management services.

HP has made it clear that they want to build a full Compliance and E-discovery solution, and that Tower will be integrated in with the HP Integrated Archive Platform along side e-mail archiving, ultimately as a single offering. But HP is still missing some elements, most notably a top notch search/discovery offering -- something that Tower cannot bring to the table -- so it's reasonable to expect more acquisitions in this area to come.

We cover Tower technology in-depth in our ECM Suites Report. We'll expand our coverage further as the the deal closes and HP begins the work of integrating both Tower's technology and their remaining staff into the HP machine. As acquisitions go this one is not particularly brutal or surprising; Tower was likely to get acquired by somebody, and HP was likely to acquire somebody.

But acquisitions of small firms by behemoths like HP cannot occur without some upheaval. Most likely for Tower's existing customers that upheaval will come in the form of dealing with HP sales and support staff who will in time want to be involved in the deals, whether they know anything about ECM or not. Things will settle but it will take time, and for now new buyers are urged to tread with caution.

Independence and Industry Analysts

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:38:00 -0500

Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes wrote an interesting piece about industry analyst firm The Aberdeen Group. Gomes first wrote about Aberdeen in 2002, and that article contributed to the firm's collapse and eventual acquisition by Harte-Hanks. At the time, Gomes took issue with what he considered to be "pay-for-praise" analysis.

In this latest piece he revisits the issue and looks at Aberdeen's new "sponsored research" model. The full article and subsequent discussion is well worth a read, particularly if you are a buyer or consumer of analyst research. The fact of the matter is that the majority of industry analyst firms from the largest to the smallest are heavily dependent on vendor support to operate. They may claim to be independent, but we beg to differ on their interpretation of the word independent.

Why am I pointing this out to you? Simple, at CMS Watch we don't do "sponsored research" of any description. We do not consult to vendors. We do not write papers for them. We do not speak at their events. We don't even accept hotel and flights from them -- most large vendors cover analysts' costs to bring them to their user conferences -- we pay our own way.

This may not always make us popular with the vendors we write about, since many are used to having financial leverage over the "independent" analysts who write about them (though over the years we have seen more vendors come to value our neutrality -- once they come to understand it). Incredibly, much if not most of the research that you as a buyer of technology will pay for has already been funded fully or in part by the vendors. When you see a section in any evaluation labeled "challenges" instead of "weaknesses," you know something more than semantics is going on.

We think there's a better way. We write for you the buyer and user of technology, and only you, because in our experience, that's the only way to get the real story.

Welcome, Barbara...

tregli@cmswatch.com(Theresa Regli) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:12:00 -0500

We'd like to welcome Barbara Feldman, our new Customer Relationship Manager, who joined us on January 2nd. If you have a question about any of our reports, subscription packages, or services, don't hesitate to e-mail her, or give her a call at +1 617 763 5336 (800 325 6190 in North America). Barbara has more than 20 years of experience in customer service for software companies, and thus is familiar with the types of situations you, the buyer of content technology, might find yourself in.

You can also our meet her at our booth (along with many CMS Watch analysts, who'll be dropping in and out) at the upcoming AIIM Expo, so please swing by and introduce yourself!

When cops won't use their ECM system

tbyrne@cmswatch.com(Tony Byrne) — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:07:00 -0500

The bigger the IT project, the lower the chance of success. Witness the Hampshire (UK) Constabulary, who spent £11m over 2 years customizing a records management system from the eponymous Canadian software vendor Niche Technologies. The final Phase III of the project has been cancelled amid recriminations of poor training and usability. An after-action report (MS Word) by the program manager notes,

The programme was structured to significantly re-engineer and develop business process and to then map these onto the RMS software. The scale of this development process and Niche's ability to respond within our own project timescales led to the late re-prioritisation of functional change requests and a slippage in training and support material delivery in both Phases I and II....Communications to all stakeholders has proved to be very challenging and there is a real issue for the force about how it communicates with its staff.

To be fair, this project does not appear to have failed, as so many do. Rather it just came up short, but that was enough to receive the dreaded "bad rap" among rank-and-file officers, making future adoption all that much harder.

New subscription package for CMS Watch reports

tbyrne@cmswatch.com(Tony Byrne) — Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:31:00 -0500

We've recently received inquiries from emerging technology teams at different enterprises asking for long-term access to all CMS Watch reports. So we've rolled out a year-long subscription package that provides a site license to all our products and each update, at a discount. Find details here. Of course, you can still purchase our evaluations on a one-off basis as well.