For some time the innovative web-developers has developed and build cool webs and solutions using free components that they “glue” together. I worked with some rather amazing developers that used mashup-methods – “a little bit of this and a little bit of this put this together with this and viola here is the new web-solution”
I`we been working as a consultant in the portals segment since early 2000. To bring some insight in the difference between portlets and Mashups I suggest that you reed the section on Wikipedia regarding “Mashups Versus Portals” – as an “old” portal visionary I find this quite interesting.
Will this work for the enterprise ?
In my reading I came across an article on InformationWeek that highlights the release of IBM’s Lotus Mashup Builder, which allows end-users build their own mashups on a webpage and share it with the rest of the organization. IBM is an innovator in introducing new Web 2.0 tools for the Enterprise, and I think this application show that they take this seriously. Employees can embed useful applications like a Google search bar, a Wikipedia page, or any other useful tool. I also find usefull sites that have directories of mashups, also for the enterprise. The next step in this process is getting IT to understand the business value of mashups in order to include these web-pages within a corporate profile. But this is another discussion…
I feel that governance is a missing-link, but as I see this Mashup Builder it can track vital information such as who were building, who is sharing, the services that are being used, and a lot more. It also helps that IBM is bringing this on an Enterprise level.
It looks like IBM has a head start regarding Mashup for the Enterprise, but I hope other giants will see the usefulness and follow.
Showing posts with label Portals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Portals. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Microsoft at the ECM arena part 2
In my work SharePoint 2007 is a hot topic these days. With the release of SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS), I’m trying to get a grasp on this platforms reach into the enterprise, and the issues
surrounding SharePoint implementations.
According to the latest from Osterman Research, SharePoint is becoming the de facto collaboration platform for many organizations today and study results for SharePoint are positive The Osterman study tried to determine trends in the future use of SharePoint. Results of the study indicate that in organizations that deployed Microsoft Exchange, more than half are currently using SharePoint and 12 percent plan to deploy SharePoint within the next 12 months.
”Survey points to Microsoft SharePoint becoming a de-facto collaboration platform” Michael Osterman
This is a result based on that the platform is easy to use (and parts of) the platform becoming more widely deployed and ingrained in the work habits of end-users. And if there’s anything Microsoft knows well, it’s how to ingratiate itself with the enterprise.
On the other side the recent CMSWatch "ECM Suites Report" says that SharePoint is an ECM virus with “IT departments enthusiastically promoting the platform because the end-users and departments can install and run these small repositories themselves”. – Are the IT department scared of work and responsibility?
In their research, CMSWatch found that SharePoint is often is implemented in a ad-hoc fashion with little compliance and controls on it’s use – that’s why CMSWatc uses the term “virus”.
The difference between these two opinions comes primarily in how SharePoint is used. Fully or partly used as a collaboration tool, it’s widely accepted. As an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) tool, there tends to be a long way to go. But to help there are several third-party vendors that try to bridge Microsoft ECM gap – an example is eDRM-vendor Merido and CMS-vendor EPIServer (ElectroPost)
In use-cases content is stored and managed in the same system (DB), but the designs, implementation process and governance is different. And there are also wide spread SharePoint implementation on ad-hoc basis with no root in the organisation strategy, business plan and goals - this is dangerous.
In the CMSWatch survey they report an example of a North American bank that reported more than 5,000 uncontrolled and unaudited instances of SharePoint. SCARY!
My opinion is that share Point as a technology is supposed to support an enterprise, not drive it. Technology is an enabler. That means an organization should be carefully thinking about its business strategy and how its available resources assist that strategy.
With this in mind, governance becomes the critical success factor in a SharePoint implementation plan. Whether it’s implemented at department or enterprise level, as collaboration or a content management platform implementation strategies and a governance plan must be in place to support the content stored in SharePoint.
Any opinions on this?
surrounding SharePoint implementations.
According to the latest from Osterman Research, SharePoint is becoming the de facto collaboration platform for many organizations today and study results for SharePoint are positive The Osterman study tried to determine trends in the future use of SharePoint. Results of the study indicate that in organizations that deployed Microsoft Exchange, more than half are currently using SharePoint and 12 percent plan to deploy SharePoint within the next 12 months.
”Survey points to Microsoft SharePoint becoming a de-facto collaboration platform” Michael Osterman
This is a result based on that the platform is easy to use (and parts of) the platform becoming more widely deployed and ingrained in the work habits of end-users. And if there’s anything Microsoft knows well, it’s how to ingratiate itself with the enterprise.
On the other side the recent CMSWatch "ECM Suites Report" says that SharePoint is an ECM virus with “IT departments enthusiastically promoting the platform because the end-users and departments can install and run these small repositories themselves”. – Are the IT department scared of work and responsibility?
In their research, CMSWatch found that SharePoint is often is implemented in a ad-hoc fashion with little compliance and controls on it’s use – that’s why CMSWatc uses the term “virus”.
The difference between these two opinions comes primarily in how SharePoint is used. Fully or partly used as a collaboration tool, it’s widely accepted. As an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) tool, there tends to be a long way to go. But to help there are several third-party vendors that try to bridge Microsoft ECM gap – an example is eDRM-vendor Merido and CMS-vendor EPIServer (ElectroPost)
In use-cases content is stored and managed in the same system (DB), but the designs, implementation process and governance is different. And there are also wide spread SharePoint implementation on ad-hoc basis with no root in the organisation strategy, business plan and goals - this is dangerous.
In the CMSWatch survey they report an example of a North American bank that reported more than 5,000 uncontrolled and unaudited instances of SharePoint. SCARY!
My opinion is that share Point as a technology is supposed to support an enterprise, not drive it. Technology is an enabler. That means an organization should be carefully thinking about its business strategy and how its available resources assist that strategy.
With this in mind, governance becomes the critical success factor in a SharePoint implementation plan. Whether it’s implemented at department or enterprise level, as collaboration or a content management platform implementation strategies and a governance plan must be in place to support the content stored in SharePoint.
Any opinions on this?
Blurry products and features – ECM, WCM, EIP???
Sometimes I’m struggling to se the difference between content tools, and the lines between the families are notoriously blurry.
This seems especially case among Enterprise Information Portals (EIP), Enterprise Content Management (ECM), and Web Content Management (WCM), where I see a lot of overlap in vendors, product functionality, and marketing messages. Also to add to the confusion several vendors, due to accusations, have several overlapping product lines in the market.
An example is that if you're looking to implement Intranet-based document management, you could conceivably use any of those three types of products. Some consultancies will also try to sell you all three types of solutions, with the obligatory integration project.
My recommendation is to take a business approach to the project, and describe what solves your most pressing needs before selecting content technology, tools or platform. Describe the core of your business problem or opportunity, and then build the selection process from there. The reality is that these three different types of products have their defined strengths and weaknesses, and they tend to address different problems. By understanding what you're trying to accomplish, you can better identify the types of content technology you need.
My opinion is that the WCM products support fundamentally publishing scenarios and has the focus on semi-structured content and content delivery with employee-friendly editorial interfaces. There are also ECM vendors that claim that they have publishing capabilities, but in my opinion ECM delivery become more process oriented, and vendors often focus their solution into industry verticals such as e.g. finance, public.
Vendors also add to the confusion, and to be sure they have the best fit for the market they often market the same product for different categories of problems, and sometimes that actually makes sense. The promise of e.g. MOSS 2007 is that this toolset can conceivably play in all of these three (WCM, ECM and EIP) spaces to varying degrees, but Microsoft has different ways of getting there, and one SharePoint installation still will be implemented and used in several different ways.
Of course the solutions also overlap. For example WCM sites implemented as a ”Community-oriented” site may well look quite a bit like a "Collaboration Portal," which in turn might look like a "ECM Workgroup Collaboration" site. All in all this come down to the implementation, amount of tailoring and presentation layer of each delivery. So there is possible very little difference between the products, but on the other hand you should be aware that the tools approach your problems in different ways.
So my recommendation is that you should build a good specification and business case that has a good fit with your overall business objectives, and then figure out which type of tools that provide the biggest near-term value. This mean that you should specify and describe what type of need(s) and scenario(s) you're addressing, and the key objective in the specification is that you carefully outline what you're trying to achieve with which types of content. A little analysis here can save you a lot of time and money at later stage.
This seems especially case among Enterprise Information Portals (EIP), Enterprise Content Management (ECM), and Web Content Management (WCM), where I see a lot of overlap in vendors, product functionality, and marketing messages. Also to add to the confusion several vendors, due to accusations, have several overlapping product lines in the market.
An example is that if you're looking to implement Intranet-based document management, you could conceivably use any of those three types of products. Some consultancies will also try to sell you all three types of solutions, with the obligatory integration project.
My recommendation is to take a business approach to the project, and describe what solves your most pressing needs before selecting content technology, tools or platform. Describe the core of your business problem or opportunity, and then build the selection process from there. The reality is that these three different types of products have their defined strengths and weaknesses, and they tend to address different problems. By understanding what you're trying to accomplish, you can better identify the types of content technology you need.
My opinion is that the WCM products support fundamentally publishing scenarios and has the focus on semi-structured content and content delivery with employee-friendly editorial interfaces. There are also ECM vendors that claim that they have publishing capabilities, but in my opinion ECM delivery become more process oriented, and vendors often focus their solution into industry verticals such as e.g. finance, public.
Vendors also add to the confusion, and to be sure they have the best fit for the market they often market the same product for different categories of problems, and sometimes that actually makes sense. The promise of e.g. MOSS 2007 is that this toolset can conceivably play in all of these three (WCM, ECM and EIP) spaces to varying degrees, but Microsoft has different ways of getting there, and one SharePoint installation still will be implemented and used in several different ways.
Of course the solutions also overlap. For example WCM sites implemented as a ”Community-oriented” site may well look quite a bit like a "Collaboration Portal," which in turn might look like a "ECM Workgroup Collaboration" site. All in all this come down to the implementation, amount of tailoring and presentation layer of each delivery. So there is possible very little difference between the products, but on the other hand you should be aware that the tools approach your problems in different ways.
So my recommendation is that you should build a good specification and business case that has a good fit with your overall business objectives, and then figure out which type of tools that provide the biggest near-term value. This mean that you should specify and describe what type of need(s) and scenario(s) you're addressing, and the key objective in the specification is that you carefully outline what you're trying to achieve with which types of content. A little analysis here can save you a lot of time and money at later stage.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Portal acquisitions - Will there be synergies or is it greed?
After several attempts by Oracle to acquire BEA, the two companies entered into a definitive agreement under which Oracle will acquire BEA. By acquiring BEA oracle will now have four portal products and I guess that the Oracle management need to make some tough decisions – they can’t bring all products to the marked. I also question the overlapping developement and engineering efforts.
Oracle has already announced that they would continue supporting BEA products after the acquisition. The situation could become quite interesting for portal customers though, as Oracle would find itself in possession of four different portal products:
Therefore I struggle understand Oracles acquisition strategy, and I miss to se the synergy, and as I see it – ”two plus two is still equalling...just two”.
If any se this different please bring me wisdom ☺
Oracle has already announced that they would continue supporting BEA products after the acquisition. The situation could become quite interesting for portal customers though, as Oracle would find itself in possession of four different portal products:
- Oracle Portal
- Oracle WebCenter
- BEA WebLogic Portal
- BEA AquaLogic User Interaction (formerly Plumtree)
- BEA AquaLogic and Oracle WebCenter both focus on integration and SOA, and can offer good web application development toolkits.
- BEA WebLogic Portal and Oracle Portal bring to marked strengths in role and object based portals with focus on personalization and segmentation, and can offer a platform for self-service applications
- All four portals offer only average CMS and DMS functions in comparison to other special ECM and portal vendors
Therefore I struggle understand Oracles acquisition strategy, and I miss to se the synergy, and as I see it – ”two plus two is still equalling...just two”.
If any se this different please bring me wisdom ☺
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
