“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) You’ve seen American Idol, and perhaps even the brutally awful version from Canada, Denmark, the UK and others… and now there’s Web Idol, for CMS vendors.

 

A fast-paced, entertaining set of competitive demos alla American Idol. Five CMS vendors present 7-minute demos showing the best features of their CMS systems. Five succinct, comparative presentations are judged by an expert panel of judges that offer pithy commentary. However, like Idol, the audience vote for the winner!
 

This year’s judges:

• Claudia Urschbach (UK)
• Erik Hartman (HOL)
• Tony Byrne (USA)

 

eZ systems is the defending champ from both Web Idol 2006 and Web Idol 2007 and faced easy competition.

 

This year’s competitor’s:

 

• e-Spirit
• eZ Systems
• Hippo
• SDL Tridion
• Sitecore

 

The presentations:

 

1. Sitecore led-off and did competently in the 7-minutes provide for the demo. I like the insite editing alla Red Dot. The ciritcs were fair, but critical.

 

2. SDLTridion followed and was… confusing. I like the on-page AJAX driven editing without having to load multiple windows. I like the Tridion folks, but the critics were harsh.

 

3. Open-source CMS Hippo was next-up. More focused, I like the drag-and-drop AJAX interface under user management. I don’t like the lack of in-site editing – it’s the 21^st century. To quote Tony Byrne, “…like a hippo it’s (the CMS) potentially fatal to humans.” Overall, the judges appear to like Hippo best… thus far.

 

4. eZ ran in 4^th. The two-time defending champ and open-source CMS led with a very smart demo site that included advertising and lots of multimedia, and even Google maps. I like the integration of commenting and Web 2.0 with the in-site (in-context) editing. The judges seem confused and uncommitted.

 

5. e-Spirit in the anchor position had a very competent, but lightning-fast confusing demo. The presenter was very quick and the system seems quite capable… but drab. The speed of the demo confused me greatly… I couldn’t follow what he was doing or why. Unlike the other vendors, e-Spirit finishes early… but I’m confused. I shall not be casting my vote for e-Spirit. The judges also seem confused.

 

Tony was a very good judge with some very good remarks, analysis, and quite funny. Erik and Claudia however looked and sounded lost… Where have all the good judges gone?

 

VOTING

 

Remember, like Idol, this is not comparative analysis of which CMS is best, it’s a popularity contest based on a lightning fast demo. The winner is voted on by the audience. I voted for eZ Systems. I like the AJAX, multimedia and Web 2.0. The demo site was nice and progressive.

 

The audience cast their votes…. And the winner is…Denmark-based Sitecore (1st time winner).

(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