This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Content management and media asset management are two different diciplines under the heading of "Digital Asset Management. The definition is too broad. (drvannie(
If i may suggest,
So Media Asset Management should be a subset of Asset including only digitally encoded photos, video, and audio
So I suggest that Content Management is not a subset of Digital Asset Management but is rather the superset of it.
I am taking a look at the pages related to this to all this with a view to rationalizing them all.
— vulcan_ ( talk contrib) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely revised and expanded article on ECM based on this source:
http://www.project-consult.de/files/ECM_Handout_english_SER.pdf [[ 85.182.128.2 ( talk) 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)]]
Sorry for the "bad English" - I am not a native speaker - corrections welcome.
Published on wikipedia under GNU by the author. The author has been member of the Board of Directors of AIIM international when AIIM launched their new mission and focus on ECM.
Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Additional Source added:
For the section on History - based entirely on the new article sourced at the bottom of this entry.
Evolving Electronic Document Management Solutions: The Doculabs Report, Third Edition. Chicago: Doculabs, 2002.
maglish 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I need some help to integrate the images as thumbs without uploading them again. The references to the images in the German wikipedia are at the appropriate positions in the article text. Thanks.
Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The information is quite good and surprisingly relevent considering the original publication dates.
I suppose that this supports the idea that the basics remain constant inspite of technology's changes.
My thought upon reading this article was; Now that you've accumulated the information, what do you do about utilizing it for decision support and trend analysis?
Specifically, as I see things like wikis and ad hoc BPM systems gain traction in the enterprise, the reality of the Operations Dashboard becomes much more of a reality. The ability to show important business metrics in a fashion akin to the dashboard of ones vehicle is enticing for management. If you design information capture processes and store the information into a uniform repository, this real-time or near real time analysis is now possible.
Shouldn't the 'later stage' application of the collected information be discussed? Is it already discussed? If so, then it should get linked to the article...
me-g33k 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
AIIM international has changed the definition of ECM twice this year. A history of the definitions can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:ECM-Definition This list is regurlarly updated. Kff 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that AIIM changed the definition does not make the definition correct. ECM and CM are not restricted to unstructured data. ECM systems and CM systems manage all data in an enterprise regardless of its type. ( Bobbear43 ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
Reading through this article leads me to the belief that there is a Neutral Point of View issue, likely due to the fact that only one or two people have contributed the vast majority of the content. It's a good article, with lots of good information, and it presents certain views about the present and future which are clearly the author's opinion rather than absolute fact.
I'm here to learn about ECM, so I wouldn't want to be the one to try and clean it up. Holding off on putting the NPOV flag onto it for now.
Removed. The article was released by the original author. 213.39.198.87 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I wikify tagged this article because it is poorly formatted, horribly long and jargon-ish Paul 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
this needs a major rewrite, its so bad i think anyone who spends a few hours reading the articles on Content management, content management systems, document management, digital assest managment, etc etc will be able to hack something better together. as it stands today the article is so full of sales speak that its essentially useless. its like some trying to sell coca-cola but never mentioning the name of the product! Catfoo 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms of style and POV aside, this is a very respectable paper, Kff. I don't think there are very many like it, for breadth and detail. It's nice to see, for example, that you have not written only about what "ECM" might mean in large companies and agencies (over 1000 employees - where the market is mostly focused, as reflected in much of the jargon and the trends); you have included in the description technologies and strategies that are used by smaller or older organizations; so that for example, so-called "ECM-Lite" will not fall outside of your definition, as it does in some papers that are written by vendors.
For a general encyclopedia, the article has the problem of being too technical. I don't think that it's possible to avoid all technical terminology, in an article about technology; but many ideas should be expressed more simply - in the voice of information for the uninformed, rather than so much like a presentation for professionals. It's in that spirit that I made my edits to the opening paragraphs. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 0032, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I found this article has grown into something a little difficult to read. This is probably due to the hodge podge nature of what ECM is. However I think it may be worth breaking it down into ECM has these parts and they have the parts defined in other articles. Happyfish 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I do belong to the ECM industry and also think that this is an amazing piece of contribution! Problem is that ECM is not an easy thing to understand without being able to, not seeing it, but experiencing and working with it. That is maybe why I stay interested throughout the whole article. I do agree that, as part of a general encyclopedia, there should be a simpler definition of the term. It's a definitely GREAT article for anyone at least familiar with ECM, but I also believe that it would be quite difficult for anyone else to even understand what all this is about, which is probably the most important thing here IMHO
The article, blurry as it was, has become more blurry over time. What people mean by ECM is sometimes unclear to me anyway, but I've never thought that people meant by ECM only the management of unstructured data, as the lead now claims (which is contradicted by the remainder of the article). — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article commits so many crimes against reason, good writing, and wp standards that it boggles my mind. It gleefully uses terms that it never defines ("groupware" for one), puts discussions in sections having nothing to do with the discussion and strews generalizations around like rice at a wedding. Gak! I've taken several whacks at it, reducing the word count from 4450 to 3169, but feel that it is still so awful that I'm embarrassed to have had anything to do with it. We should delete this and start over. Its stupidity, vapidity and error rate are stunning. Lfstevens ( talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this page a podium for AIIM, or an explanation of Enterprise Content Management? Just because an organization decides to change definitions does not mean that the article should follow suit (an explanation of changes would provide sufficient insight). And to be fair, ECM is child of KM, which is a child of EDM, which is a child of text retrieval, so ECM should be a fairly easy concept to explain, once the reader has understood the definition of structured and unstructured data (rather than try to avoid technical terms, why not, atleast provide definitions). The functions of any system on the market are similar, and the technologies are as well - files (located on a designated area on the file system, in a defined 'vault', in a database, or dispersed across the system), a database (perhaps relational), an index (for text retrieval, although newer indexing systems can provide retrieval of a wider range of file types and data types), an interface (usually forms) for entering descriptive data and for querying the repository. The article suffers from reference to AIIM, and not to too many entries regarding product and software companies that offer solutions in this market niche. Cut out the clips of articles (maintain references as references). StevenBirnam 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and needs to become more accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Link to AIIM in the section external links was deleted several times as Linkspam! AIIM is an international association, which defined the term ECM in 2000, runs market studies and publishes on ECM, and is source of the definition. This Link is no Linkspam. If Wikipedia administrators regard the link as Linkspam, I propose to replace as well every mentioning and every text from AIIM by the term "the association, which defined ECM, but should not be mentioned or linked on Wikipedia" (remember TAFKAP) ... AIIM by the way has about 9000 members. Probably one of these will have an interest that the source of the Wikipedia article is mentioned as link. Happy New Year 80.171.34.194 ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The link to Gartner, in the references, has expired. I'm not an expert in ECM, can't provide a new link, but replacing the link with a similar link would be useful - although imho, in general, Gartner is more marketing bla-bla than real information. X10 ( talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enterprise_content_management&diff=next&oldid=284960169
These are changes in a direct citation ... The section about Master Data has to be placed somewhere else ...!! 85.182.128.2 ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What does 'content' mean? The word occurs in the article title, but is simply repeated without explanation in the opening sentence of the article, and in the 'Definition' section. A definition of this term is required. 119.142.152.236 ( talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am interested in doing a piece on ECM on another Wiki page (another language) After rading the Wiki guidelines I just wanted to make sure that I was not infringing on any copyright or anything, if I choose to translate some of the text directly? (I will not be translating the whole thing, I think it is a bit messy and needs a cleanup before this can be done).
Thanks in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Thorstensen ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've completed a copy edit of the page. I think it's a bit less confusing now, or at least, as non-confusing as the topic can get for the lay reader... It's an inherently jargon-filled topic. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
While copy editing, I noticed two outstanding copyright issues.
// ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article is largely taken from a 2009 Gartner report that seems to have dated information, as it makes predictions about 2008. Also, it has a plethora of name-dropped companies. I was sorely tempted to remove most of them; many of them are likely to fail the notability test. Each company should have a reference attesting to its notability; that reference should be from a reliable trade publication, or better yet, mass media outlet—not a press release or company website. In order to be included, the company should be generally notable in the field, and this is the best way to prove it. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
About Autonomy, mentioned in this sentence: Vendors recognized by the 2009 Gartner ECM Magic Quadrant include Alfresco, Autonomy, Day Software, EMC, Ever Team, Fabasoft, HP, Hyland Software, IBM, Laserfiche, Microsoft, Newgen Software Technologies, Objective Corporation, Open Text, Oracle, Perceptive Software, SAP, Saperion, Siav, SpringCM, SunGard, Systemware, Xerox and Xythos Software.[6] Is it this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy_Corporation If I am right, then link in previous sentence must be corrected.-- Palapa ( talk) 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"There are only few examples of successful implementations whereby a shared repository for documents and web content are managed together.[citation needed]." Well, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a successful implementation of a shared repository for documents. ----~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.117.96 ( talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I think ECM has evolved during the last years, and mainly the Workflow / BPM aspects: both support the creation of content (typically the workflows supporting scanning) and the use of the content (use the right documents in a process, present all the related documents to support decision taking etc). Advanced Case Management brings additional ideas for making sure that a 360 degree view is possible, not just on a document, but on the complete file/case. It also emphasis the need for flexibility in defining the processes/flows and the need for incorporating additional media (email, chats, phone and voice recordings).
huysmansa@advalvas.be 94.224.204.253 ( talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the divergent content in the article reflects a bit the industry, and it reflects that ECM by itself is an umbrella Terms created by Contractors and Vendors, segmentation is Key across the market to foster sales.
I was triggered by these marketese B2E, B2G, G2B and so on so forth, which reflects that everything is Enterprise oriented, within that WCM is even a separate planet. Reality is that huge parts of ECM is actually B2E.
This ever enlarging definition from AIIM has the same prob of over-reaching new areas of conquest and reflects the same prob of contractors and vendors.
Sadly Most current active new technology developments such as extensive (e.g. petabyte scale) B2C, C2C requirements have never been taken care by average ECM implementations (i.e. wikipedia is not representative of average ECM, not even WCM).
NoSQL Document Databases reflects the incapacity of scaling of vendors, and managing "unstructured content" which has always been out of reach (see IR and NLP).
If you go in the opposite corner of OCR, it rarely try to be content aware (e.g. to integrate across different ECM fields), i.e. an OCR for a form is quite a different thing than an OCR for a graph of numbers, same fragmentation pattern appears (see license scheme of one of those nifty commercial tools ..).
This stress on Workflow, process and documents reflects a generation of applications created around these technologies. For example Currently the distinction between document, html, xml, metadata and data is blurring. New trends reflects more API, virtualization, SAAS, which are little mentioned across this article, and to the extent of here are just adding extra marketese.
There are a lot of Fat Old Vendors slowly dying off, standards never achieved (like the read and write web), and pathetic compatibility across, but the same was there some 15 years ago ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enterprise content management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Content management and media asset management are two different diciplines under the heading of "Digital Asset Management. The definition is too broad. (drvannie(
If i may suggest,
So Media Asset Management should be a subset of Asset including only digitally encoded photos, video, and audio
So I suggest that Content Management is not a subset of Digital Asset Management but is rather the superset of it.
I am taking a look at the pages related to this to all this with a view to rationalizing them all.
— vulcan_ ( talk contrib) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely revised and expanded article on ECM based on this source:
http://www.project-consult.de/files/ECM_Handout_english_SER.pdf [[ 85.182.128.2 ( talk) 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)]]
Sorry for the "bad English" - I am not a native speaker - corrections welcome.
Published on wikipedia under GNU by the author. The author has been member of the Board of Directors of AIIM international when AIIM launched their new mission and focus on ECM.
Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Additional Source added:
For the section on History - based entirely on the new article sourced at the bottom of this entry.
Evolving Electronic Document Management Solutions: The Doculabs Report, Third Edition. Chicago: Doculabs, 2002.
maglish 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I need some help to integrate the images as thumbs without uploading them again. The references to the images in the German wikipedia are at the appropriate positions in the article text. Thanks.
Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The information is quite good and surprisingly relevent considering the original publication dates.
I suppose that this supports the idea that the basics remain constant inspite of technology's changes.
My thought upon reading this article was; Now that you've accumulated the information, what do you do about utilizing it for decision support and trend analysis?
Specifically, as I see things like wikis and ad hoc BPM systems gain traction in the enterprise, the reality of the Operations Dashboard becomes much more of a reality. The ability to show important business metrics in a fashion akin to the dashboard of ones vehicle is enticing for management. If you design information capture processes and store the information into a uniform repository, this real-time or near real time analysis is now possible.
Shouldn't the 'later stage' application of the collected information be discussed? Is it already discussed? If so, then it should get linked to the article...
me-g33k 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
AIIM international has changed the definition of ECM twice this year. A history of the definitions can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:ECM-Definition This list is regurlarly updated. Kff 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that AIIM changed the definition does not make the definition correct. ECM and CM are not restricted to unstructured data. ECM systems and CM systems manage all data in an enterprise regardless of its type. ( Bobbear43 ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
Reading through this article leads me to the belief that there is a Neutral Point of View issue, likely due to the fact that only one or two people have contributed the vast majority of the content. It's a good article, with lots of good information, and it presents certain views about the present and future which are clearly the author's opinion rather than absolute fact.
I'm here to learn about ECM, so I wouldn't want to be the one to try and clean it up. Holding off on putting the NPOV flag onto it for now.
Removed. The article was released by the original author. 213.39.198.87 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I wikify tagged this article because it is poorly formatted, horribly long and jargon-ish Paul 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
this needs a major rewrite, its so bad i think anyone who spends a few hours reading the articles on Content management, content management systems, document management, digital assest managment, etc etc will be able to hack something better together. as it stands today the article is so full of sales speak that its essentially useless. its like some trying to sell coca-cola but never mentioning the name of the product! Catfoo 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms of style and POV aside, this is a very respectable paper, Kff. I don't think there are very many like it, for breadth and detail. It's nice to see, for example, that you have not written only about what "ECM" might mean in large companies and agencies (over 1000 employees - where the market is mostly focused, as reflected in much of the jargon and the trends); you have included in the description technologies and strategies that are used by smaller or older organizations; so that for example, so-called "ECM-Lite" will not fall outside of your definition, as it does in some papers that are written by vendors.
For a general encyclopedia, the article has the problem of being too technical. I don't think that it's possible to avoid all technical terminology, in an article about technology; but many ideas should be expressed more simply - in the voice of information for the uninformed, rather than so much like a presentation for professionals. It's in that spirit that I made my edits to the opening paragraphs. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 0032, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I found this article has grown into something a little difficult to read. This is probably due to the hodge podge nature of what ECM is. However I think it may be worth breaking it down into ECM has these parts and they have the parts defined in other articles. Happyfish 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I do belong to the ECM industry and also think that this is an amazing piece of contribution! Problem is that ECM is not an easy thing to understand without being able to, not seeing it, but experiencing and working with it. That is maybe why I stay interested throughout the whole article. I do agree that, as part of a general encyclopedia, there should be a simpler definition of the term. It's a definitely GREAT article for anyone at least familiar with ECM, but I also believe that it would be quite difficult for anyone else to even understand what all this is about, which is probably the most important thing here IMHO
The article, blurry as it was, has become more blurry over time. What people mean by ECM is sometimes unclear to me anyway, but I've never thought that people meant by ECM only the management of unstructured data, as the lead now claims (which is contradicted by the remainder of the article). — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article commits so many crimes against reason, good writing, and wp standards that it boggles my mind. It gleefully uses terms that it never defines ("groupware" for one), puts discussions in sections having nothing to do with the discussion and strews generalizations around like rice at a wedding. Gak! I've taken several whacks at it, reducing the word count from 4450 to 3169, but feel that it is still so awful that I'm embarrassed to have had anything to do with it. We should delete this and start over. Its stupidity, vapidity and error rate are stunning. Lfstevens ( talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this page a podium for AIIM, or an explanation of Enterprise Content Management? Just because an organization decides to change definitions does not mean that the article should follow suit (an explanation of changes would provide sufficient insight). And to be fair, ECM is child of KM, which is a child of EDM, which is a child of text retrieval, so ECM should be a fairly easy concept to explain, once the reader has understood the definition of structured and unstructured data (rather than try to avoid technical terms, why not, atleast provide definitions). The functions of any system on the market are similar, and the technologies are as well - files (located on a designated area on the file system, in a defined 'vault', in a database, or dispersed across the system), a database (perhaps relational), an index (for text retrieval, although newer indexing systems can provide retrieval of a wider range of file types and data types), an interface (usually forms) for entering descriptive data and for querying the repository. The article suffers from reference to AIIM, and not to too many entries regarding product and software companies that offer solutions in this market niche. Cut out the clips of articles (maintain references as references). StevenBirnam 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and needs to become more accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Link to AIIM in the section external links was deleted several times as Linkspam! AIIM is an international association, which defined the term ECM in 2000, runs market studies and publishes on ECM, and is source of the definition. This Link is no Linkspam. If Wikipedia administrators regard the link as Linkspam, I propose to replace as well every mentioning and every text from AIIM by the term "the association, which defined ECM, but should not be mentioned or linked on Wikipedia" (remember TAFKAP) ... AIIM by the way has about 9000 members. Probably one of these will have an interest that the source of the Wikipedia article is mentioned as link. Happy New Year 80.171.34.194 ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The link to Gartner, in the references, has expired. I'm not an expert in ECM, can't provide a new link, but replacing the link with a similar link would be useful - although imho, in general, Gartner is more marketing bla-bla than real information. X10 ( talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enterprise_content_management&diff=next&oldid=284960169
These are changes in a direct citation ... The section about Master Data has to be placed somewhere else ...!! 85.182.128.2 ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What does 'content' mean? The word occurs in the article title, but is simply repeated without explanation in the opening sentence of the article, and in the 'Definition' section. A definition of this term is required. 119.142.152.236 ( talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am interested in doing a piece on ECM on another Wiki page (another language) After rading the Wiki guidelines I just wanted to make sure that I was not infringing on any copyright or anything, if I choose to translate some of the text directly? (I will not be translating the whole thing, I think it is a bit messy and needs a cleanup before this can be done).
Thanks in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Thorstensen ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've completed a copy edit of the page. I think it's a bit less confusing now, or at least, as non-confusing as the topic can get for the lay reader... It's an inherently jargon-filled topic. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
While copy editing, I noticed two outstanding copyright issues.
// ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article is largely taken from a 2009 Gartner report that seems to have dated information, as it makes predictions about 2008. Also, it has a plethora of name-dropped companies. I was sorely tempted to remove most of them; many of them are likely to fail the notability test. Each company should have a reference attesting to its notability; that reference should be from a reliable trade publication, or better yet, mass media outlet—not a press release or company website. In order to be included, the company should be generally notable in the field, and this is the best way to prove it. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
About Autonomy, mentioned in this sentence: Vendors recognized by the 2009 Gartner ECM Magic Quadrant include Alfresco, Autonomy, Day Software, EMC, Ever Team, Fabasoft, HP, Hyland Software, IBM, Laserfiche, Microsoft, Newgen Software Technologies, Objective Corporation, Open Text, Oracle, Perceptive Software, SAP, Saperion, Siav, SpringCM, SunGard, Systemware, Xerox and Xythos Software.[6] Is it this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy_Corporation If I am right, then link in previous sentence must be corrected.-- Palapa ( talk) 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"There are only few examples of successful implementations whereby a shared repository for documents and web content are managed together.[citation needed]." Well, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a successful implementation of a shared repository for documents. ----~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.117.96 ( talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I think ECM has evolved during the last years, and mainly the Workflow / BPM aspects: both support the creation of content (typically the workflows supporting scanning) and the use of the content (use the right documents in a process, present all the related documents to support decision taking etc). Advanced Case Management brings additional ideas for making sure that a 360 degree view is possible, not just on a document, but on the complete file/case. It also emphasis the need for flexibility in defining the processes/flows and the need for incorporating additional media (email, chats, phone and voice recordings).
huysmansa@advalvas.be 94.224.204.253 ( talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the divergent content in the article reflects a bit the industry, and it reflects that ECM by itself is an umbrella Terms created by Contractors and Vendors, segmentation is Key across the market to foster sales.
I was triggered by these marketese B2E, B2G, G2B and so on so forth, which reflects that everything is Enterprise oriented, within that WCM is even a separate planet. Reality is that huge parts of ECM is actually B2E.
This ever enlarging definition from AIIM has the same prob of over-reaching new areas of conquest and reflects the same prob of contractors and vendors.
Sadly Most current active new technology developments such as extensive (e.g. petabyte scale) B2C, C2C requirements have never been taken care by average ECM implementations (i.e. wikipedia is not representative of average ECM, not even WCM).
NoSQL Document Databases reflects the incapacity of scaling of vendors, and managing "unstructured content" which has always been out of reach (see IR and NLP).
If you go in the opposite corner of OCR, it rarely try to be content aware (e.g. to integrate across different ECM fields), i.e. an OCR for a form is quite a different thing than an OCR for a graph of numbers, same fragmentation pattern appears (see license scheme of one of those nifty commercial tools ..).
This stress on Workflow, process and documents reflects a generation of applications created around these technologies. For example Currently the distinction between document, html, xml, metadata and data is blurring. New trends reflects more API, virtualization, SAAS, which are little mentioned across this article, and to the extent of here are just adding extra marketese.
There are a lot of Fat Old Vendors slowly dying off, standards never achieved (like the read and write web), and pathetic compatibility across, but the same was there some 15 years ago ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enterprise content management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)