From bwmetz at gmail.com Wed Jun 18 20:33:56 2008 From: bwmetz at gmail.com (Bobby Metz) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:33:56 -0700 Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net> <20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net> <47A25EA3.60100@earthlink.net> <47A265F4.7090106@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <030e01c8d1bd$4ec051f0$3c00a8c0@mulder> Doug, Been away from the list for quite awhile. Curious as to what your company went with. Also, if they haven't decided, I would suggest you avoid Exponent. That's the only CMS I have any experience with and I found it terrible. It's based on MySQL and Perl/PHP but I found the documentation so lacking that it was just too difficult to learn how to customize IMO. Bobby ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas E. Miles To: Michael Friedman Cc: phoenix-pm at pm.org Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems I left out a "to". Place wherever is most entertaining. :) I need to quit returning email when I'm in a hurry. Douglas E. Miles wrote: Hey Michael! How's it going? This will be used support and serve up our corporate website, so static content definitely won't cut it. I'm still in the requirements/early evaluation stage here, but I thought I'd see if I can learn from the collective wisdom of the list. :) Michael Friedman wrote: Back when I used to work with FileNet we competed against Documentum. Now I think they bought them, but that was many years ago. Anyway, at that point, Documentum specialized in read-only documents. You'd put things into the system and then could easily change metadata about them, but not the documents themselves. Changing the documents themselves was a pain. I would hope they've moved on from there, but I admit I haven't looked recently. However, building on Scott's point, you should do a serious requirements analysis before picking even the category of "large content management systems". It could be you only need something for web-based content or could use a wiki with a proper set of roles/authorization groups or something like Subversion. (Or, my favorite, Trac, which combines a wiki, web access to a SVN repository, and a request tracking system. It's written in Python, but for development groups it's way cool.) If what you really need instead is workflow management, there are also other products out there for that market. Reviews and approvals, that sort of thing. Heck, PDF has those capabilities built-in these days. Anyway, good luck! I'd like to know what you end up with, because I'm probably going to try again to get my company to get a better documentation repository within the next few months. (It's an annual thing. I keep losing, but I am persistent.) -- Mike On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Scott Walters wrote: Hey Doug, I didn't have to work with any of these directly, but I worked with people who did, at Mot*rola. My take on it is they're all like aspirin... by the time you really need them to the point where you'll go get one and use it, it's past the point where it's strong enough to do any good. If you need a content management system, you have a lot of data, a lot of people accessing it, a lot of revisions, interdependencies, etc. And then you need more than what a CMS has to offer. If you start on it before you need it, you might have a chance. A lot of people (and myself only second hand) are of the opinion that they basically aren't worth the bother. I wonder if you could do something completely custom and minimal and wind up with more flexibility and utility... work operations tend to be strongly tied to the org chat. If the org chat, including work flow (who reports to who on what, including ad hoc but long running relationships), and each person had documents just throw out there (essentially ugo+r documents in their file share), if a browser for those relationships wouldn't would better. If it's a call center, something else. Or manufacturing, something else again. Oh well. Just a thought. Good luck. -scott On 0, "Douglas E. Miles" wrote: All, This is somewhat off topic. Does anybody out there have any experience with so-called Enterprise content management systems? I'm talking about systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc. I'd like to hear about any recommendations or good/bad experiences. To make this more on topic: I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite still uses Perl. The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago. If it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a case for it. :) Thanks! _______________________________________________ Phoenix-pm mailing list Phoenix-pm at pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm _______________________________________________ Phoenix-pm mailing list Phoenix-pm at pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Friedman HighWire Press Phone: 650-725-1974 Stanford University FAX: 270-721-8034 --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Phoenix-pm mailing list Phoenix-pm at pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Phoenix-pm mailing list Phoenix-pm at pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/phoenix-pm/attachments/20080618/6ba9db7b/attachment.html From doug at veritablesoftware.com Fri Jun 20 10:31:42 2008 From: doug at veritablesoftware.com (Douglas E. Miles) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:31:42 -0700 Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems In-Reply-To: <030e01c8d1bd$4ec051f0$3c00a8c0@mulder> References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net> <20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net> <47A25EA3.60100@earthlink.net> <47A265F4.7090106@earthlink.net> <030e01c8d1bd$4ec051f0$3c00a8c0@mulder> Message-ID: <485BE97E.1080507@veritablesoftware.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/phoenix-pm/attachments/20080620/852253af/attachment.html