<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.cmswatch.com" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
   <channel>
      <title>CMS Watch Cimage Feed</title>
      <link>http://www.cmswatch.com</link>
      <description>CMS Watch headlines about Cimage</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon,  8 Sep 2008 07:09:04 -0400</lastBuildDate>
      <dc:creator>editor@cmswatch.com (Tony Byrne)</dc:creator>
      <dc:rights>Copyright 2005, CMS Watch</dc:rights>
      <dc:publisher>CMS Watch</dc:publisher>
      
      <item>
         <title>Considering smaller ECM vendors</title>
         <description>Currently on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intelligententerprise.com&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Intelligent 
  Enterprise&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; you can read my recent review of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intelligententerprise.com/print_article.jhtml?articleID=198100018&quot;&gt;Xythos 
  Document Manager Version 6&lt;/a&gt;. Though I have a short fuse with those who say 
  that &amp;quot;basic content services&amp;quot; (BCS) are all that any enterprise needs 
  for their ECM requirements, I remain nonetheless supportive of &amp;quot;lite&amp;quot; 
  offerings. ECM is such an overblown and overused term (&lt;em&gt;but it's the only 
  one we have&lt;/em&gt;) that encompasses everything from huge imaging and case management 
  deployments to simple document collaboration projects. There is room for all 
  the vendors who want to deliver value; the problem comes for the buyer to make 
  sense of apparently similar, but actually widely divergent ECM products in this 
  confused market. Many niche vendors such as as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/Xythos&quot;&gt;Xythos&lt;/a&gt;, 
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/Saperion&quot;&gt;Saperion&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/FormTek&quot;&gt;FormTek&lt;/a&gt; 
  or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/Cimage&quot;&gt;Cimage&lt;/a&gt; can tend 
  to be overlooked as a result, and that's a shame, because under the right circumstances 
  they may offer a better fit for your needs than the likes of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/IBM&quot;&gt;IBM&lt;/a&gt;, 
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/Interwoven&quot;&gt;Interwoven&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cmswatch.com/ECM/Vendors/OpenText&quot;&gt;Open 
  Text&lt;/a&gt;...</description>
         <link>http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/870-Considering-smaller-ECM-vendors?source=RSS</link>
         <category>ECM Suites</category>
         <author>aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe)</author>
         <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:16:00 -0400</pubDate>
      </item>

   </channel>
</rss>

