CMS Watch Objective Feed

Oracle redresses WebLogic Portal

info@jboye.dk(Janus Boye) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:32:00 -0500

As indicated in its new portal strategy back in late June, Oracle is continuing to develop and support WebLogic Portal. Last week Oracle released WebLogic Portal 10.3, as a follow up to BEA's last release of WebLogic Portal back in March.

According to the 10.3 release notes, Oracle WebLogic Portal 10.3 is really a very minor release. Support for WebLogic Server 10.3 and Java version 6 has been added. Oracle product naming and branding has been implemented and developers can now work with a new version of the Workshop IDE.

This may not sound like much and I doubt that it is enough evidence to comfort those worried buyers that have invested deeply in WebLogic Portal. To be fair, some other large vendors -- e.g., Microsoft and SAP -- have also done very little to their portal products during 2008.

While Oracle may have its own reasons for slowing down the pace on product improvements to WebLogic Portal, change is certainly still happening in the marketplace. Both from the open source vendors in the space, but also from vendors that don't call themselves portal vendors, e.g., Google with iGoogle and gadgets, Netvibes with widgets, Facebook and LinkedIn apps, and those hyped enterprise social software vendors. 2009 promises to be another interesting year in the portal market!

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.

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.

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.

Plenty of choice for buyers in ECM's mid-market

aps@cmswatch.com(Alan Pelz-Sharpe) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:52:00 -0400

Laserfiche is an ECM vendor we have been watching and writing about for a while, and our coverage of them in The ECM Suites Report is set to extend this year as we evaluate their new Rio offering. To some it may seem crazy for a mid-tier vendor like Laserfiche to expand their offerings in the wake of SharePoint, as there is a popular myth that SharePoint has all but finished off the ECM mid-tier. But a close look at the Rio offering shows us that there is thankfully no lack of innovation or useful products to compare, contrast, and chose among.

The new release from Laserfiche builds on its long history of records management and imaging, but adds deep integration with SharePoint. More importantly, with its set of connectors, Laserfiche now provides (relatively) out-of-the-box integration, along with an elegantly distributed architecture for capture and document management. Though these strengths might not seem as sexy as the name Rio suggests, these are product features that distinguish Laserfiche from many of their competitors, and add real value to many larger SharePoint environments.

We urge you to investigate the mid-tier of the ECM market for reasons such as these. As a buyer, you should never simply default to the big 4 or 5 'top right' vendors. ECM mid-tier vendors such as Laserfiche, Nuxeo, EVER and Objective often provide a better technical and cultural fit for you and your organization. They are also often the least turbulent of vendors, with healthy revenues, large (over 25,000 in Laserfiche's case) well-established and supportive customers, and a settled corporate culture - all important strengths in difficult economic times.

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?