Anyway, John calls out the consolidation trend, but points to a problem that consolidation doesn't solve: non-standard and proliferating repositories:
What do these acquisitions mean for the ECM industry? It means that consolidation is truly on its way, regardless of what happens to Hummingbird. FileNet was the leader in imaging, which is the area where IBM got started in ECM. IBM is now the undisputed leader in ECM and by far the dominant force in imaging and records management. OpenText potential merger with fellow Canadians Hummingbird brings a similar dominance to document management. Supposedly according to Gartner Dataquest, OpenText is the leader in ECM with a 13.2% market share. If so, they have a very poor market cap to prove it. The merger, however, should help to sustain them toward that market position.One would think that consolidation would trend toward fewer repositories, but that has yet to evidence itself. Instead, we get fewer companies with the same volume of confusion.
From a practical perspective for the companies themselves, this exacerbates an on-going problem that all the ECM companies have had -- too many repositories that don’t interoperate. OpenText already have a problem with their existing iXOS repositories and will have a bigger problem with the more overlapping capabilities of Hummingbird as well as Hummingbird’s Red Dot acquisition. OpenText’s announcement that it will incorporate Oracle’s repository can only increase the complexity. IBM also has multiple repositories, especially if you count Notes and Domino. Oracle too has said that they need to rationalize their various content repositories. EMC also has issues of multiple repositories, although they seem to be collapsing them all into the Documentum repository.
Clearly, the reason for these mergers is not for technology, but for market share and customer base. With the level of overlapping technology in these systems, the problems inherent in consolidating the repositories must be outweighed by the desire to consolidate customers. This is very similar to what happened in the late 80s and early 90s in the relational database industry when Oracle took on DEC’s RdB products and IBM purchased Informix.
Consequently, we find composites of formerly separate companies internally struggling with what was formerly just te customer's problem. Vignette is juggling with its v7 repository and its old v6 repository. Documentum has several. Hummingbird and OpenText will have to duke it out over which one wins out (with the likely answer being "neither").
This is why it's so important to adhere to industry standards like JSR-170 (which none of the companies above do). Only Alfresco, Day (Apache Jackrabbit), and some few others do. So, if you're an enterprise that doesn't want to have its content locked up and owned by a vendor, why would you ever entrust your content to a proprietary repository? It's foolish. And it's by no means necessary.
it is true that the Open source ECM players are coming in a big way..but if we consider the market share of ECM market .. it still very muchdominated by the traditional players like IBM,Oracle,Documentum etc.. on the top of that ECMP market is witnessing a consolidation in the market place.. it will be interesting to see how the opensource players are planning to compete with the big fish...
ReplyDeleteHi All,
ReplyDeleteI am quite a novice to the ECM technology and probably dont understand as much as you do..Could somebody explain what these "repositories" that you are taking about..Does it mean the "data store" for storing the content(in the form of images, records etc). Traditionally, as a customer i would think whether i can have a shared file system or a RDBMS as a repository? Am i thinking in similar lines as you do?