Innovative organizations rely on content to make informed decisions about their customers, products, and go-to-market plans. Accurate information needs to get to the right prospect, partner or client at the right time. Large companies often have multiple content management systems, particularly in industries that grow via acquisitions. Busy information workers need to make decisions, and this can get complicated if multiple systems from multiple vendors are in place.
Standards have the potential to help organizations stay agile and responsive to change. Good standards help companies streamline routine requirements and avoid re-inventing the wheel. Bad standards get ignored, fall out of date and become barriers to innovation.
CMIS (Content Management Interoperability Services) has been a much-discussed standard in the ECM world, even before its formal ratification in 2010. In our 2013 ECM survey, just 13% of content management decision-makers put CMIS front and center as part of their strategy. What I wanted to understand:
Who is using CMIS in the real world?
How are architects using it to deliver valuable content to their busy front line workers?
How are software vendors using it to respond to their customer demands to bring content into a bigger information ecosystem?
In this Age of the Customer (AoC), many traditional businesses are under threat and need to change. Organizations often have the need to rethink their business strategy and operating model – but they often don't know how to approach the problem. Today, they tend to ask others to do it for them, when in reality; they need to do this for, and to, themselves.
We’ve been helping our clients rethink how they deliver value to their customers – thinking about how to industrialize their approach by working “Outside-in” – bypassing the political challenges of individual silos. The central part of an engagement is normally focused around a “big-tent” workshop format (with 20-80 people in a room); where cross-functional teams are facilitated and guided to elucidate a set of “service propositions” that together form the core of a future-state – a new way of working, or a new way of engaging each other to solve their own problems, even a new operating model. Along the way, they will use a number of core Forrester techniques– from persona design, through customer journey mapping … before getting down to processes and metrics design.
The last Forrester Wave for MDM was released in 2008 and focused on the Customer Hub. Well, things have certainly changed since then. Organizations need enterprise scale to break down data silos. Data Governance is quickly becoming part of an organization's operating model. And, don't forget, the big elephant in the room, Big Data.
From 2008 to now there have been multiple analyst firm evaluations of MDM vendors. Vendors come, go or are acquired. But, the leaders are almost always the same. We also see inquiries and implementations tracking to the leaders. Our market overview report helped to identify the distinct segments of MDM vendors and found that MDM leaders were going big, leveraging a strategic perspective of data management, a suite of products, and pushing to support and create modern data management environments. What needed to be addressed, how do you make a decision between these vendors?
The Forrester Wave for the Multi-Platform MDM market segment gets to the heart of this question by pushing top vendors to differentiate amongst themselves and evaluating them at the highest levels of MDM strategy. There were things we learned that surprised us as well as where the line was drawn between marketing messaging and positioning and real capabilities. This was done by positioning the Wave process the way our clients would evaluate vendors, rigorously questioning and fact checking responses and demos.
My wife would say that the cold weather has me watching too many "waste of time" sporting events. She is correct of course, but sports and life have many paralells and here's my current favorite. I am believing more and more in the importance of Karma where good intent and deeds contribute to future happiness, and bad intent deeds contribute to future suffering. Hence, there is only one explanation for the dismal Denver performance yesterday. Denver had simply way too much bad Karma. And here's why. They denied Patriot fans the opportunity for any tickets (not one) to the AFC championship game in Denver. This was a selfish, low class, and just down right mean. It created a tremendous reserve of negative Karma that could not be overcome Sunday. As a Pats fan, I was thrilled to see not just a loss but a record setting devastation.