Home Community Blogs Expert Blogs

Enterprise "Content" Management - is that the right word?

Community Topic(s):

Keywords: ECM RM

By Mark Mandel, RM Practice Manager at Open Text Corporation

May 13, 2011 - 9:12 AM

Many folks in the ECM and RM industries use the term "Content" to describe what is being managed by our automated systems. The term "Enterprise Content Management" or ECM originated from the desire to assimilate Web Content Management (WCM) into the AIIM umbrella. At the time WCM was mainstream and the AIIM community wanted to expand to become more mainstream.

In the context of managing web sites the term "Content" makes sense. Web sites have content that must be managed and controlled. WCM products provide authoring tools, templates, approval workflow, and publishing tools to make the process of creating and managing web site content easier and more controlled.

Web site content is a mix of static and dynamic information, and it sometimes needs governance. The toolset for managing web sites to some extent overlaps typical document management product tools - workflow, repositories, approval steps and so on.

The problem with taking this paradigm and applying it to the context of traditional document and records management systems is that users of these system do not think in terms of "Content." Users think in terms of business process, specific pain points, regulatory constraints, litigation risk, and cost controls. In this context the term "Content" has no relevance.

The only people I hear using this term are vendors. Perhaps my personal experiences are limited, but I have never heard the term used by an end user except in the context of web content management.

Therefore I recommend that we all focus our marketing message and discussion around what end users feel are their business drivers. Simplify the message to "managing business records" to reduce risk, save money, and to be more responsive to customers and organizational oversight.

What do you think?

Follow this Blog Post

Report

Rate Post

You need to log in to rate blog posts. Click here to login.

Add a Comment

You need to log in to post messages. Click here to login.

Comments

Now is the Winter of our Dis-Content?

Submitted by Steve Weissman May 13, 2011 - 1:17 PM

Couldn't agree with you more, Mark, and even wrote something nominally similar back in January (http://bit.ly/lfhtUr). Couch your issues in business terms and remove the clouds from the vernacular!

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Content by any other name would smell as sweet.

Submitted by Neal O'Kelly May 16, 2011 - 12:03 PM

Personally, I don't see a problem with the word "Content" when it is used within the professional community.

'The term "Enterprise Content Management" or ECM originated from the desire to assimilate Web Content Management (WCM) into the AIIM umbrella.'

I think it more to do with the idea of convergence than assimilation. Thus far, WCM & ECM have stayed fairly seperate. But I don't think that means the two technologies will remain seperate forever. Indeed, the technoligies rapidly becoming closer and closer. Could it be that the term is no MORE relevant that ever before?

P.S. Personally, I tend to avoid talking to users about "managing business records" in case they fall asleep. The real trick is to get them to do it without knowing that they are doing it!

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Content by any other name would smell as sweet.

Submitted by Mark Mandel May 16, 2011 - 3:06 PM

Neal,

The issue is not within the professional community. What I am talking about is ECM pitches to end users - talking about the whole ECM suite including document and records management - that use the term "Content" to describe the traditional create, store, manage and distribute paradigm.

Those folks that are doing WCM are fine. Everyone gets it.

Those who are doing records management simply do not relate to "Content".

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

They need to be educated ...

Submitted by Chris Walker May 16, 2011 - 3:38 PM

Sorry, but users do not manage business records. Users develop budgets, they create plans, they develop presentations, they use spreadsheets, they write emails... I.e.: users execute business activities and tasks to achieve business objectives (do stuff that generates profit).

Talking to users about content is perfectly fine if we do a little bit of education up front (and this includes educating the RM's). The RM function needs to understand that they are there to serve the business, not the other way around. Face it, if the business (core business) users weren't there, RM would be out looking for a job.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Just explain!

Submitted by Neal O'Kelly May 17, 2011 - 9:27 AM

Mark, I'm pretty sure I understood perfectly well what you were driving at. And, yes, you're obviously not going to illuminate the understanding of end users by simply bandying about industry jargon!

As Julie and Chris allude to, whichever term you use you need to take a moment to clarify what it is you are talking about. Personally, I prefer "information" over "content" but it doesn't really matter either way.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

I'm content with Content

Submitted by Julie Colgan May 16, 2011 - 4:33 PM

I don't see any problem with the word "content" being used with end users. As Chris so rightly said, end users don't "manage business records" either, they get their job done.

"Content" is a nicely ambiguous word that represents all of the information an individual needs to get their job done and takes about five seconds to explain to the majority of end users. I usually say something like "content is all of the information you create, receive, use and store to do what you do". If they ask about Records, I explain that records are included in "content" but it is highly likely that not everything they touch is a Record so we use the word "content" to represent all information, Record or not. I can't recall ever getting the "deer in headlights" stare as a result of that conversation.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's a lot of "content" needed to get a job done that doesn't rise to the level of a Record ... so are we going to ignore that "content" or are we going to help them manage it as well? Or are you implying that all "content" ends up a Record and needs to be managed as such? (I certainly hope that's not what you're implying!)

To me, by using a term like "content" or "information", you automatically simplify the conversation because you are placing the onus of knowing the difference between a Record and a Non Record on the shoulders of someone who's job it is to know the difference - the RM, not the end user (and as Neal stated, preferrably Records are managed without the end user even knowing).

And as Neal implied, bringing the word Record into it is often more stressful and confusing than using a word like "content" because Records have special characteristics and requirements that other "content" doesn't, and end users know that (and also know they often aren't equipped to manage records).

Whether or not the term ECM was invented to leverage the WCM craze and/or if it was AIIM or anyone else jumping on a buzzword bandwagon doesn't matter. Call it ECM, call it RIM, call EIM, whatever ... the point is that as information management professionals, we have an obligation to manage all "content" (including those pesky websites!) in order to ensure business gets done and our obligations are met, not just the 10% or so of "content" that rises to the level of a record and is included on a retention schedule.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Also Content

Submitted by Daniel Antion May 19, 2011 - 12:31 PM

“Content” is also a good term because it allows for the inclusion of other types of content, now and in the future, without modifying the term. I don’t need to tell my coworkers that “content is now meant to also include video snippets” or anything else.

I’m going to align myself with Julie on this.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

On a related note

Submitted by Bryant Duhon May 17, 2011 - 4:19 PM

Last month, Laurence Hart on his Word of Pie blog wrote a good post along the same lines, dealing the limitations/confusions of the language we use in this industry. Worth reading on its on and for the comments as well: http://wordofpie.com/2011/04/25/preaching-to-the-content-management-choir/#more-1342

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Information is better

Submitted by Emad Sarhan May 22, 2011 - 3:19 PM

I am with mark, content is not a good word for end users, you need lot of time describing the meaning of content to most of users, information is better word, it is more clear and gives the same meaning of content

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Good comments!

Submitted by Mark Mandel May 23, 2011 - 2:00 PM

All, I tried to be a bit provocative with this post, and it looks like it was successful. Good comments!

The scenario I am talking about is a sales or marketing type speaking to a group of potential customers. It is a "sales 101" concept that you should use a customer's language and terminology, as well as examples from that customer's line of business, to get across the value of your solution, whatever it may be.

Along those lines, you would not use terminology or examples from the pharma industry when selling to a life insurance group. It just does not "connect" to make it sound like you know their business.

It's the same concept here - "content" is too generic. In certain situations, after explaning what types of business documents are key to the business for compliance, ediscovery, etc. and letting them know that's what you are calling "content" then fine. But to use it as a generic term only is not compelling or relevant.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

It's Still a Rose by any Other Name

Submitted by D Nicholson May 24, 2011 - 11:57 AM

I think Julie said it very well. Certainly, when face to face with your prospective customer, employ your pre-meeting research and by all means use their terminology for the 'content' in their organization to express your views about how best to manage it. But, it is still 'content' and this is a term that will stay indefinitely because of the very fact it is generic and also relative.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

alphabet soup of products

Submitted by melody giacomino May 24, 2011 - 12:02 PM

Mark,

I totally agree. The industry is filled with acronyms (MAM, DAM, ECM, CMS, etc.) that don't have specific criteria so customers are completely confused about what will help them solve their needs. Ultimately it has to be about what business need is the company trying to solve and how a solution will provide the flexibility to address the current need and ability to evolve as the company changes in the future.

If it can do that, that it doesn't really matter the label of the category. A rose by any other name...

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

It's all in the eye of the beholder

Submitted by Silke Dannemann, ECMm BPMp May 25, 2011 - 10:10 AM

Perhaps content is not the right term, but I believe the term records is too limiting. Too much content, which now comes from more and more diverse sources, does not consist of what I would call records. Take email, for example, many would immediately be concerned if you were to consider all email as records versus content to be archived.

In the end, it all hinges in what framework the customers see these terms.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

It's all Content to me

Submitted by Kevin Parker May 26, 2011 - 7:50 PM

I'm glad to see this discussion, and I believe such dialog is helpful.

I vote for keeping "content" as a parent term that encompasses all of the various types of meaningful data, information, and other assets. "Content Management" as a term (and a concept) does not replace all of the various domains of information and asset management (e.g., Web content management, document management, records management, digital asset management). Rather, it is a parent category that should and must unite all of these more specific disciplines for businesses to get the most value out of all their "content." So when we approach our H.R. Departments, for example, we certainly should talk about records management—as a subset of ECM.

Having one "meta" term on which we can unite allows organizations to simplify and standardize these assets by employing an Enterprise Information Architecture with a true Information Governance. Ditching "content management" in deference to using the ancillary terms alone perpetuates information and department silos and short-circuits any real hope of integration.

And if it is the end user we really care about, then standardizing, simplifying, and unifying enterprise content is absolutely essential. It is up to us to be precise with our terms, both to end users and to vendors. And evidently, we are doing a decent job of it—just look at the difference in quality and usefulness between SharePoint 2010 as an ECM platform and MOSS 2007, for example. It's not perfect, but it's a great step in the right direction.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Heirarchies of meaning

Submitted by David Dion September 27, 2011 - 8:20 AM

I believe that “content” is a very appropriate term for what ECM is addressing. I would not go along with using “records” as that is far too restrictive. I would refrain from using “information” for a similar if opposite reason; it is too all-encompassing. “Information” also covers structured data, which ECM is not meant to deal with – as well as many other things. To my way of thinking, “content” can be usefully employed to refer to the plethora of unstructured text-based information which flows through an enterprise at all levels. This “content” may come in many forms (email, documents, newsletters, web pages, blog posts, diagrams, etc.) and may also go through various processes of mutation or transformation (editing, revision, translation, mark-up, tagging, coding, etc.) as it moves from one domain to another within the enterprise. I think what we need to focus on is what is preserved throughout - and that, to me, is the content. In structured or transactional systems, it is the data.
Of course, we are clearly in a period of development and expansion - and this is when new vocabularies are established and defined. This process will continue along with the development of systems which deal with content and information in its innumerable forms. At the same time, boundaries are shifting and the scope of different systems and classes of systems changes, overlaps, merges. Eventually we may have to deal with a movement to consolidate and unify structured data systems and content-based systems, different as they seem today. In fact, it could be argued that the field of Business Intelligence (BI) systems is already doing this (though the underlying systems remain segregated).
In summary, for where we are now and what we are trying to achieve, I think “content” serves the purpose as well as any term. If this necessitates some explanation, so much the better. A lot of explaining will need to be done as we continue the transition from a paper to a digital world, from a material economy to an information economy.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

This post and comment(s) reflect the personal perspectives of community members, and not necessarily those of their employers or of AIIM International

The Global Community of Information Professionals

Community

Enterprise "Content" Management - is that the right word?

Rate Post

Add a Comment

Comments

Blog Search

ERM Automation with SharePoint

Records Management Best Practices

ERM Training

Latest Comments

Get The Research

Grow Your Expertise

Expand Your Network