“The Web content management market is mature and expanding,” says Gartner’s latest MarketScope for Web Content Management (MacComascaigh, Gilbert, Bell, Shegda, Andrews). “Vendor consolidation has fallen (slowed)… functions such as workflow, ease of use and multi-site management are no longer differentiating factors; they are the norm.”

 

Findings:

 

• Open source solutions (OSS, represents only 3% of the total WCM market) are increasingly stable, robust and growing in market share
• Web 2.0 phenomenon is driving WCM innovation
• Change management and user adoption will need to be applied to both internal and external users
• The total WCM market, at $750 million per year, will grow at an annual rate of 15% through 2012 (representing 25% of the total ECM market)

 

Recommendations for implementing a new WCM system (CMS):

 

• Develop specific business goals and link these to business objectives
• Understand the cultural shift represented by Web 2.0
• Interoperability (multiple systems working together or migrating from one to another) needs to be considered, as does rationalization of multiple WCMs
• Hosted SaaS solutions are not growing as fast due to business and technical reasons
• Total cost (TCO) of OSS solutions should take into account initial price tag

 

Highest rated vendors (strong positive):

 

• Interwoven
• Ektron

 

Lowest rated vendors (caution advisories):

 

• IBM (Lotus)
• Mediasurface

 

Also of note:

 

• Vignette gets a positive rating but with caution due their financial performance (also read Vignette still in transition)
• Microsoft SharePoint (MOSS) is listed as a very average “promising” with lots of caveats and listed weaknesses (see What the experts say about SharePoint (MOSS)
• Gartner estimates a typical replace of a WCM system to be around 5 years

 

My analysis:

 

Gartner’s MarketScope is somewhat different from the average Magic Quadrant in that the qualifying vendors must have $10 million in licensing revenue to qualify, and there is no magic quadrant but rather a 5-point rating scale:

 

• Strong negative

• Caution
• Promising
• Positive
• Strong positive

 

While there are hundreds of WCM solutions (thousands, really) only 17 qualify.

 

The report is concise and solid intelligence for a representative snapshot look at the current marketplace. This report is a good starting point to understanding the market, but is not an adequate tool for helping an organization select a CMS. If you have significant experience with WCM (CMS) and have very detailed and documented requirements and plans for WCM, then a better report is the CMS Watch Web CMS Report 2009. If you don’t have a solid understanding of the market and solutions, and what to watch out for then you better consider Prescient’s CMS Blueprint service.

 

Additional notes on vendors:

 

• Interwoven – Though due for a major tech upgrade, I like how Interwoven has evolved in the past couple of years. The updated, AJAX-powered U; the campaign management functions, etc. This is a very powerful system, but overkill for an intranet… it’s sweet spot is the external, product marketing website.
• EPiServer – the Swedish-based vendor is a real up-and-comer – and it’s average contract value is below $10,000 which gives all the others a run for its money.
• IBM (Lotus) – despite its caution rating, this is still a reasonable solution… if you’re a Lotus shop and/or use WebSphere. Outside that, there are far too many good-looking alternatives.
• Microsoft – I think it’s generous to label SharePoint (MOSS) as WCM. It really is a portal / development platform that is really quite weak bang-for-the-buck for WCM. Garter cites its weaknesses particularly “ease of content reuse, multisite management, workflow and enterprise-level federation capabilities such as replication and multi-farm synchronization.” MOSS is a good enterprise portal solution in a small to medium-size organization.

 

What is absent:

 

The Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) specification or standard was ignored in this report.  CMIS defines a model or framework ensuring that content can be used by one or more Enterprise Content Management repositories or systems. Frankly, I wouldn’t buy a WCM (CMS) if the selling vendor hasn’t agreed to implement this standard.

 

ALSO SEE:

CMS Blueprint service for selecting a WCM (CMS)

 

CMS Watch Web CMS Report 2009:

• See the list of 42 vendors covered
• Scan the table of contents (pdf)
• Review a free, 67-page sample excerpt
• Buy and read the report now

 

ALSO READ:

Content Management Proves Costly Without Planning

SharePoint overview (pros & cons, MOSS)

BOOKMARK THIS:

 Digg this     Post to del.icio.us     Post to Slashdot     reddit     

Facebook     StumbleUpon    Add to Technorati Faves

(AARHUS, DENMARK: jboye08) “SharePoint is good at a number of things,” says one SharePoint expert, addressing a group of SharePoint users and followers here in Aarhus. “But it’s bad at just as many.”

 

There continues to be much discussion, debate, interest, enthusiasm, and caution about SharePoint (MOSS 2007). Such is the case here at jboye08 where I’m addressing the conference on the subject of Intranet 2.0 (today) and eHealth 2.0 (tomorrow).

 

Gartner nails the analysis in its spring report Five Best Practices for Deploying SharePoint:

 

·          “Though it covers a broad spectrum of capabilities, MOSS 2007 is not yet a full enterprise content management (ECM) system. Organizations requiring advanced content management capabilities and process-centric applications will need to augment their capabilities with partner offerings, or deploy MOSS 2007 alongside an ECM system rather than as a replacement for it.”

 

Our own Jed Cawthorne, our resident MOSS expert at Prescient Digital Media, offers his own conclusions on his blog, ECM Stuff:

 

• It might be the product for you, but how do you know unless you analyse your requirements
• A phased implementation appears to be more successful, add bells and whistles later
• Sharepoint in itself is not a 'strategy' - it can be part of ECM, Intranet or collaboration elements of your overall Information Management strategy
• Contrary to MS marketing hype, Sharepoint does not actually do everything brilliantly
• A Sharepoint deployment, like any other technology implementation will ultimately fail if not aligned with strategy, and if not properly planned with comensurate governance in place

 

I should disclose at this point that perhaps it might appear that I’m not a fan of SharePoint – or that I oppose it. Not at all; in fact, we use SharePoint for our own intranet and are upgrading to MOSS 2007. As well, we have many clients that use WSS and MOSS. However, I do think however that SharePoint is being used by too many organizations, including clients, that aren’t well served by it.

I believe there are two telling quotes, both by Shawn Shell and Alan Pelz-Sharpe, the co-authors of the CMS Watch The Sharepoint Report 2008 (TSR) (the best analysis report on MOSS that I’ve seen) that best sum-up MOSS:

 

• “SharePoint does a lot of things, but it does very few things very well.” Shawn Shell (see The pros and cons of SharePoint).

 

• “MOSS is very good in smaller, workgroup environments (it’s not traditionally very good for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users),” Alan Pelz-Sharpe (see SharePoint overview (pros & cons, MOSS).

 

Also…

 

• “Without proper architecture and governance, I can guarantee you that SharePoint will fail,” says Bob Mixon, President of Mixon Consulting, addressing the annual Enterprise 3 conference in San Diego (see SharePoint requires proper architecture & governance ).

 

A number of experts and users (owners / licensees) have weighed-in on their expert opinions and analysis of SharePoint. To avoid any controversy and to protect the individuals who were freely expressing and sharing their opinions here at jboye08 in Aarhus, here are some of the more frank quotes:

 

• “The perception is that the search engine is terrible. I’m not 100% in agreement… the engine is pretty good, but the search interface can be weak (e.g. the engine does support wild card and Boolean searches, but usually the implemented interface does not).”

 

• “Personal sites (My Site functionalilty) is both interesting and scary at the same time.”

 

• “The complexity across farms is ridiculous. Make sure your consultant (MS partner or implementer) give you a list of those things that stop working across farms.”

 

Still more advice from Information Week writer Nicolas Hoover (thanks to our own Cathy Mcknight for bringing this to my attention, Can Microsoft Keep SharePoint Rolling?)

 

“The software's Swiss Army knife approach helps companies create more useful intranets, set up document sharing, offer blogs and wikis, and build a richer online company directory. This boundary-blurring nature is part of its appeal, and can even help in budgeting: IT teams that might not get the nod for document management software have been known to slip SharePoint into the Microsoft Office budget.

But SharePoint's feature sprawl can be part of the problem. By taking what comes bundled in SharePoint, companies can end up compromising on critical functions compared with best-of-breed tools. And SharePoint deployments easily can go wrong if IT teams just turn on additional modules without considering the business case, requirements, and training needed to make them part of a business process. SharePoint's all-in-one appeal may lessen as content management standards become more prevalent, making best-of-breed approaches more viable. Still, it's undeniable that SharePoint's on a roll because of intense demand to better manage and share an expanding glut of diverse content."

 

If you have MOSS, or are thinking of buying, Gartner offers the following recommendations:

 

• To ensure that SharePoint does not become another content silo, build or update your enterprisewide content management strategy to address collaborative and basic content management.
• Build a broad inventory of existing content management applications and repositories and assess the investment levels in those before bringing in another platform such as SharePoint.
• Define business requirements and the corresponding technical and functional needs, which may span collaborative and process-centric content applications. Map your content management products to them with an eye toward minimizing the redundancy in application development, IT operational or other costs.
• Examine the integration points required between MOSS 2007 and an ECM suite and assess the availability tools and technologies to ensure interoperability.
• Establish and enforce governance policies regarding when to use and when not to use SharePoint.

 

MOSS 2007 is a wonderful solution – but its ideal for smaller companies, and can be a “massive problem” for larger ones. I like it a lot, but I’m technology neutral and am frank about its strengths and weaknesses. I’ll continue to recommend MOSS for some, but not for others.

 

ADDITIONAL READING:

Advice for SharePoint customers

Sharepoint to be the new Windows?

The pros and cons of SharePoint (MOSS)

SharePoint overview (pros & cons, MOSS)

SharePoint requires proper architecture & governance

Can Microsoft Keep SharePoint Rolling?

BOOKMARK THIS:

 Digg this     Post to del.icio.us     Post to Slashdot     reddit     

Facebook     StumbleUpon    Add to Technorati Faves

(AARHUS, DENMARK: jboye08) “MOSS is very good for very good in smaller, workgroup environments,” says Alan Pelz-Sharpe, analyst, CMS Watch and his presentation on Evaluating SharePoint. “It’s not traditionally very good for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users.”

 Content and Code's visual representation of the SharePoint Platform 

CMS Watch’s approach / focus to evaluating MOSS:

• Customers that are making a purchase today (or shortly)

• Independent, specific advice for end users and buyers

• We never work for vendors… and in fact can be (even) ‘rude’ or honest about some products

• We have a reputation of being anti-SharePoint; not true, we’re independent and in fact we’ve recommended MOSS to many

• Sometimes however MOSS has not always been accurately advertised; not they’re (MS) dishonest, but it (MOSS) not always the best fit for an organization

PROS:

• MOSS is really unusual: a lot of different dynamics

• Most people are fairly happy with SharePoint

• SharePoint is an end-user’s dream with some exceptions; users are usually very happy

• For building small collaborative environments, it’s nearly perfect (I’m exaggerating for affect)

• File sharing

• Team sites

• Well priced for small organizations

CONS:

• Those that aren’t happy with it are those that use MOSS where it’s not a good fit

• Those that aren’t typically happy are those that are in-charge of governance, legal, etc.

• Before MOSS there was chaos… now the chaos is more visible with MOSS (and its bringing more visibility to this chaos)

• Enterprise content management (ECM) which demands strict controls (compared with Documentum, Oracle, FileNet and IBM)

• Very poor at index/search of non-MOSS info

• Search results can be unexpected out of the box

• Project / task tracking

• Social networking

• Discussion & collaboration and communication

• Trouble consuming its own RSS feeds (authentication issue)

• Pricey for larger organizations

Case study example (editor’s note: SharePoint sprawl):

• There’s a bank HQ’d in the UK and they have SharePoint… started using it as a test in 2006 and immediately upgraded to MOSS in 2007… and now have 23,000 instances of MOSS… and it’s a massive problem for the bank

• The way it was deployed and structured was deplorable… that’s the bank’s fault, not Microsoft’s

• “How to bring it under control? I’m not entirely certain…”

MOSS SharePoint history:

• Initially a countermove to the success of Lotus Notes

• When SharePoint was formally launched in 2003 MS had very low expectations

• The initial success was very high… MS was stunned and very pleased

• MS managers were stunned… “Why is it such a big success?”

• The success was in users deploying it as a light-weight portal

• MOSS launched in 2007 and updated to .NET 2.0 / 3.0 as a development platform

Recurring Threats:

• Separation between underlying “free” Windows platform and richer portal product with extra services, for a fee

• If you’re an MS enterprise client, you will get most MOSS services for free

• Traditional disconnect between SharePoint and .NET (mostly resolved in 2007) (e.g. MS is very large but very much like a college campus with many different groups and departments… that don’t necessarily talk to each other… and there are times that products get ‘out-of-sync’ with each other

• Endemic confusion about what resides in SharePoint and what does not (and licensing implications)

• MOSS is very good for very good in smaller, workgroup environments (it’s not traditionally very good for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users) (e.g. Oracle on the other hand focuses on larger enterprises and are traditionally  “terrible” at the workgroup level deployments)

• MOSS has to run on a MS technology stack (.NET, Windows Server, SQL server)

• “I’m not really convinced that there really is any business intelligence (in MOSS)… though MS says there is.”

Current SharePoint Product Universe:

WSS

• Foundation components, free with Windows

• Basic collaborative features

MOSS

• Fee based server product that extends WSS

• Advanced features like CMS, personalization, forms processing and Excel services

• Some enterprise features not included

SharePoint Search

• Search engine for MOSS

• Can crawl a number of different content sources, including Exchange (email)

• MOSS Standard can only index 500,000 pages

Forms Server

• Form rendering and processing (“One of the best features of MOSS… I love this. Really good value add.”)

• Used in conjunction with InfoPath to deliver electronic forms via the Web

• Still retain interactive attributes provided via InfoPath

Key functions:

• Functional capabilities:

• Enhanced search

• Business data catalog

• Excel services

• Forms services

• Shared services: farm-level services

• User import/management

• Search engaging configuration

• Basic usage reporting

• Profile-based site for individual users

• MySite

• Both profile and personalizable home page

• Somewhat controversial

• Actually provisions entire site collection

Things that can affect pricing:

• Extent of external connectors and licenses for “Internet Site” licenses

• “Enterprise vs. Standard CALs (licensing)”

• Search

• Forms

• Implementation costs

• Customization costs

• Systems integration

ALSO READ: The SharePoint Plan (MOSS)

Technorati Profile