Apparently, some people don’t want to talk about the “E” in Enterprise Content Management any more, having exhausted themselves tying to convince others of their viewpoint, some do and some wax nostalgic. This is what happens when noobs get on Twitter and don’t have the history others do. 
That being said, opinions, the Internet, ^ssholes and all, I offer the following thoughts. First, some examples from my own checkered past to provide context:
- An eighteen month (yes, yes, I know) architectural strategy for accommodating 180M docs/year accessed by a 16,000 user base nationwide, major points of the strategy being:
This 117 page monster I can honestly say was succinct given the scope of items it addressed. There was a prescribed methodology I was mandated to use for its format and content both, it took me six months to research and author, there were multiple reviews with the client, including getting a “laying on of the hands” from a robust and a rigorous architecture review board process. Why did I do it?
- The client asked me to. It was my first deliverable upon arriving at this client, the primary reason coming out of the gate they interviewed and retained me for. They were after my expertise and practical experience on the FileNet platform.
- I was (and still am) very much interested in enterprise architecture as applied to the ECM and BPM domain, had read and studied a lot on the EA space and wanted to take a crack at such a large initiative.
- A comparable artifact to the first, but with an emphasis on forms processing and integrating a new FileNet P8 application to be developed with the existing FileNet Image Services legacy imaging system and its content. This one was only 68 pages in length (learning my lesson) and was met with blasé reviews, but that’s maybe a more in-depth case study for another day as to why.
That project went on without me and took three years to complete, but later on down the road the project manager e-mailed me and said “We wouldn’t have made it without you.”
- Still another ECM strategy that focused on the BPM side of things with the heavy lifting going to be the A2A integration to the client’s legacy systems which is where all the good stuff, in terms of data, was. Down to 59 pages on this one, they took my word for it and said “Okey-doke, let’s do it.”
Now, ask me what became of these strategies. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. That’s not to say they weren’t worthwhile exercises and the sponsors didn’t have good intentions and some solution(s) were delivered in some period of time, but it’s been my experience that the Fortune 500 suffers from corporate ADHD and whatever the “flavor of the month” is – technologies, methodologies, initiatives – changes from year to year, as do senior VPs and CXOs.
So what’s my point you ask? It is this – from departmental solutions to LOB verticals to large, enterprise-wide initiatives (and that’s where, for the record, I draw the line on “enterprise;” there has to be scale) what invariably constitutes ECM is a successfully delivered solution that solves a business problem. That’s not an ECM or a BPM problem, it’s a business and IT focus and perseverance problem. And, practically speaking, the difference is usually a really good team, both on the business and technical side, working hand in hand, side by side. You gotta love those clients and I do.
So what’s the moral of our story Mr. Peabody? ”Enterprise” is whatever you and the client say it is and agree to. Make sure they understand it, that’s what they want and they are an engaged partner, not client (that’s just an economic relationship), who are in it with you for the long haul.
One of my (many) axioms – “Know what you know, and know what you don’t know.”
