CMS Watch HPQ Feed

Scalable ECM?

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:18:00 -0400

One of the words that makes me most cringe when I hear or see it in vendor marketing is the word scalable. It's no less annoying when buyers ask us "is EMC/FileNet/Hyland/Nuxeo/HP/Etc. scalable?"

Here's why.....ECM systems can be scalable or they can fail to scale well. They can have modular architectures that allow you to simply add more elements as required, rather than multiply the entire system as things expand. They can be scalable in that they have built in high availability, automatic failover support, run on enterprise grade application servers and databases. They can be scalable because they have been tested and proven to handle very high volumes (hundreds of millions of documents) in the repository and/or tested and proven to handle very high throughput rates (tens of thousands per hour or minute). There are many ways in which an ECM system can scale or not. But the biggest element determining whether the system can scale is your usage of it.

Consider that some users have many files (images/CAD files etc) that are a GB or larger in size, by contrast another may have an average file size in the small kb's (xml fragments for example). One user may handle a very small number of highly complex, large, ever-changing virtual documents, while another one a very large volume of static transactional images. Some firms want to centralize their ECM system and allow access to remote users via the web, others will distribute the architecture widely to combat latency issues.

In other words.....there are as many ways to scale an ECM system as there are to use an ECM system -- and no vendor out there has a monopoly on scalability. For where a SharePoint would be a good fit, a Documentum 6.5 may not, and vice-versa. Where an Alfresco may scale perfectly a better fit in another instance may be an Objective. Additionally it's always worth remembering that the ECM system is only as good as the operating system, database, application server, storage hardware, and the network that it runs on

The key of course as always is to fully understand your needs first, then match those needs against the capabilities of the products currently available, alongside your own architectural environment. And though it can be argued that some systems are more scalable than others, remember that every vendor will claim their product is scalable, you have to ask yourself "what does scalable mean to me?" And then test their claims accordingly.

The ECM Suites Report 2009 released today

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:07:00 -0400

Today I'm proud to announce the release of the 2009 edition of The ECM Suites Report. Expanded out to over 400 pages, I believe this constitutes the most comprehensive ECM product evaluation report of its kind. In this edition we have added some new vendors, dropped some old, and revised all 30 product reviews.

This churn reflects a vibrant and extremely healthy global ECM market. As we note in today's press release, there probably has never been a better time for buyers, with a wide range of strong products to chose from, especially in the mid market.

If there is one thing in particular this latest research has shown us, it is that SharePoint did not (as many predicted) kill the ECM market, but rather the ECM market has embraced SharePoint -- and we are all the better for it.

Of course there are some stinkers out there, and as buyer you need to exercise caution, but we hope the advice, critiques, and "insider" detail we provide in this report will help mitigate your risks.

As always, if you're a subscription customer, you'll automatically receive your copy shortly.

Open Text - acquire or be acquired?

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 4 Jul 2008 03:09:00 -0400

Open Text is back on the acquisition trail. The company announced Thursday that they had bought Spicer for $12m. Spicer is a document/file viewing tool vendor that markets "Imagenation," software that competes against the likes of Snowbound.

It's a logical enough addition to the panoply of content applications within the Open Text portfolio, and appears to have been bought at a bargain price. It's not exactly a game changer, but it does resurrect the question of Open Text's own future.

Acquire to grow and compete, or be acquired -- those are the current options. It seems likely that if Open Text itself does not get bought by HP, SAP, or Microsoft in the near future (the most likely bidders), then they will themselves acquire again, probably on a more ambitious basis. Now that they find themselves competing against giants like EMC, Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft it seems the only route to survive. Most likely in their sights is Interwoven, an acquisition that would bring near complete dominance in the Legal and Services sectors, along with some interesting new technologies in the bargain. I'll predict that one of these options -- big acquisition or get acquired -- is highly likely to occur in the next year.

But is Open Text really able to absorb so many counter-cultures and technology stacks? The firm has swallowed up rivals at a pace only Oracle could match -- but Open Text is not Oracle, and they simply do not have the resources to handle this kind of acquisition rate. Indeed many Open Text customers that we have interviewed for the ECM Suites Report regularly complain about disjointed and uneven support, confusing product roadmaps, and long-term concern about the future direction of the company. At the same time it's fair to also report that Open Text customers generally like the company and don't regret choosing them, but goodwill can only go so far.

With this small acquisition, Open Text has put itself back under the spotlight. The industry is again abuzz with rumors -- some of which may be true some of which may not. This remains a very uncertain time for buyers and partners alike.

Legal ruling shakes up E-mail Archiving and Management Sector

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:49:00 -0400

The whole issue of (E-mail Archiving and Management) EAM has come under the spotlight recently - triggered by a ruling by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco - a ruling that touches on the Fourth Amendment "Protection from unreasonable search and seizure." In this particular case, plaintiffs argued that when employers read the content of text messages sent by their employees, text messages that were held by a hosted vendor (Arch Wireless), that the employees' fourth amendment privileges were breached. In other words that even though the employees were using company-paid messaging systems, that the employer should still respect their privacy and the confidential nature of personal message exchanges.

It's a ruling that could have a huge impact on the EAM market and in particular on vendors like Fortiva, Dell MessageOne and Google Postini, that all offer hosted SaaS EAM solutions. Why SaaS options in particular? Well the ruling states that employers (when using "outside" third-party text or e-mail services) cannot get access to employees' content without their permission first. The ruling is a bit hazy -- and may or may not apply if the mail and text servers are located on-premise. But regardless of whether this just applies to SaaS or both on and off premise solutions, just think the implications through for a moment -- the impact is potentially huge.

Since the ruling, the story has been picked up widely in the press - and as a result the popular verdict is clear - workplace mail is (for the time being at least) confidential. So how does this impact firms that are using EAM software to check up (snoop and breach confidentiality) on what employees are saying to one another? Where does it leave any employer when it comes to accessing employee messages in potentially legitimate business situations? Currently it leaves them between a rock and a hard place. There will likely be some exceptions to this for example those subject to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), i.e., potential terrorists. But for the average employee without murderous intent for now at least the law seems to be quite clear: in the United States your employer cannot assume access to your messages without your permission. And for EAM vendors they are in an even more invidious position -- rather like those shops at the mall that sell drug paraphernalia -- perfectly legal to possess, but use them as designed and you are in big trouble

It's clearly an area that will be debated ad-nauseum over the coming months. But regardless of the ultimate outcome, this ruling is a reminder to us all that technology and vendors do not set law, and are not exempt from it. EAM vendors cannot sell you a compliant system; there is no such thing. It's you the employer and buyer who either is or is not compliant with laws and regulations. And just because technology appears to have run ahead of itself here does not mean that the law will have to run to catch up. Rather it will be you the user and buyer who will have to control and adjust your usage of the technologies.

The basics of selecting an E-mail Archiving and Management system

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:51:00 -0400

In our most recent report, E-mail Archiving & Management (EAM), we struggled early on in the research process to differentiate in a meaningful way among the vendors in this sector. It was a good struggle to have, as it turned out that through our research we found few buyers or even other analyst sources had tried to categorize this sector either.

Like all markets, EAM can be sliced and diced in various ways, but as a starting point to buyers I tend to suggest first subdividing the vendors between those that are Policy-centric and those that are Archiving-centric. And of course figure out which particular category has more appeal and fit for your particular organization.

The Policy-centric vendors we evaluate in the report are those that offer the most advanced and sophisticated functions to provide records management-style capabilities to e-mail. Most typically these vendors sell into larger enterprises and government departments. As such you'll find them at the higher end in terms of cost and complexity to deploy, configure, and run. This higher cost and complexity is justified for customers in heavily regulated environments or any enterprise that needs to closely monitor e-mail content. It is also justified for those trying to filter out non-business related mails, archiving only true records. Vendors we consider to be in this category include CA, Open Text, and Symantec.

Archiving-centric vendors, just like their policy-centric competitors, sell mainly into larger enterprise or government markets. Though most of them provide some kind of policy management capabilities, their real appeal lies in their approach to archive optimization. These vendors tend to market more to the IT buyer than the business buyer, as their approach centers on backing up and actively archiving mail servers to maximize server and storage optimization.

In some cases vendors accomplish this through novel and unique hardware and storage arrangements (Mimosa, ZL, and HP); others approach it through a deep and long understanding of broad archiving requirements (AXS-One and EMC).

Of all the technologies we evaluate EAM is arguably the most difficult for a buyer to compare options side by side. But sometimes just some simple slicing and dicing can help the process.

Announcing the E-mail Archiving and Management Report

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:29:00 -0400

This may well go down as the busiest period in CMS Watch's history as this month we launch yet another new technology evaluation report, The E-mail Archiving & Management Report 2008. From our release:

EAM technology has become critical to both commercial and government enterprises -- but for a variety of different and sometimes conflicting reasons. This has led to a similarly diverse set of approaches from EAM suppliers...

It's somewhat surprising that this report -- which provides comprehensive comparative evaluations of 14 leading EAM vendors -- is one of the first of its kind anywhere.

Subscribers, you will be getting your copy very shortly. Others can order a copy or download a free sample here.

The report loosely groups EAM vendors into three categories:

Policy-Centric: Autonomy, CA, Open Text, IBM, and Symantec

Archive-Centric: AXS-One, EMC, HP, Mimosa, and ZL Technologies

SaaS: Dell, Fortiva, Google, and Microsoft

The research has taken more than six months to complete, and in the process we have talked to many customers and users of EAM systems. The conversations were illuminating and we look forward very much to continue those discussions moving forward.

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.

Subjective about the future of Objective

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:46:00 -0400

In a recent interview for Computerworld in New Zealand, Objective CEO Tony Walls says "....we will never sell off." This reminded me of a conversation I had with Dave DeWalt at the time of the EMC acquisition of Documentum, when he told me he was with EMC for the long haul. He left EMC this week to become CEO of McAfee. I didn't believe Dave DeWalt at the time, but what else was he supposed to say? Likewise what can Wallis freely say? Yet as soon as somebody makes such definitive statements you do start to wonder what the opposite take might be.

Australia has produced some outstanding records and document management technologies, the last two of substance still free-standing are Objective and TOWER Software, both selling heavily into Australian and New Zealand governments. Yet there is only so much government to be serviced in those 2 countries. TOWER is starting to see some success in the USA and outside of its core markets; at the same time Objective's share price has fallen.....so one has to wonder if a merger weren't in the cards at some point?

Specifications, Certifications, and Compliance: There is a Difference

pemery@e-nterpriseadvisors.com(Priscilla Emery) — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:36:00 -0500

If records management software is "certified," does that mean it will work well for you? CMS Watch contributing analyst Priscilla Emery offers a tour of various certifications efforts around the world and concludes firmly: specifications, certifications, and compliance are different things...

RM Certification Announcements - Aren't They Special?

RM-analyst@cmswatch.com(Priscilla Emery) — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:56:00 -0400

IBM recently announced that it was the first records management vendor to receive the TNA certification in the UK. The more I looked into it the more I've realized there isn't anything that special about the "new" TNA certification --just a different name that reflects the merger of two UK government agencies into one. The certification is still based on the same UK PRO certification -- which the government agencies are still looking to update. One thing that does look interesting is that the IBM DB2 Records Management platform (i.e. the Tarian Engine) has been on a tear in the DoD 5015.2 certification area. In addition to certifications (Chapter 2 and 4 for the Records Manager itself) within IBM's own product line and the integration with Xerox DocuShare, it recently re-certified Infolinx Systems Solution's InfolinxWeb and CACI Highview Records Manager (formerly the Vredenburg product) with the new version of the product. Of course, they are not alone. The Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) -- the guys that certify software for the DoD specification -- have been very busy. Other recent recertifications include Tower Software TRIM Context (Chapter 2 and 4), Mobius Management Systems' ViewDirect, EMC's Documentum Records Manager, and Hummingbird's 2005 DM/RM to name a few. Certifications are important but not necessarily product differentiators.