9 Comments on Gartner's ECM Magic Quadrant

I noticed a couple of things recently on John Mancini's ECM Industry Watch blog. The thing you'll be interested in is Gartner's latest ECM Magic Quadrant. I never understood the "magic" part but never mind. I also noticed John added The Enterprise Content Management Blog to his blogroll. For that, thank you Mr. Mancini. Now back to the Gartner boys.

A couple of very quick observations.

1. The ECM space is more wide open than ever.
   And the comment below doesn't help one of the perceived leaders - IBM/FileNET.
   
   
   
   
2. Who is Ever (Ever Team)?
   Forgive my European ECM ignorance, but are these  guys  really the leader?
   
   
3. Who is Cimage? ( And don't let engineers build your website)
   
   
4. "More vertical apps" needs to banned from analysts' comments ( hint: we know this already)
   
   
5. Oracle/Stellent combo is obviously misplaced as the report was published pre-acquisition.
   
   
6. SAP needs to buy someone, anyone.
   
   
7. Interwoven is ahead of Vignette
   
   
8. When will everyone quit saying Open Text is in a "critical juncture".
   
   
9. MOSS 2007 will help, but Microsoft is still a ways away from a true ECM backend and vertical apps(oops I said it).

Lastly, will someone please leave a comment so we'll have an even 10? Have a great weekend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source : Gartner ( ECM Magic Quadrant, October 11, 2006)

Technorati tags: gartner, gartner+magic+quadrant, ECM, ECM+vendors, enterprise+blogging, enterprise+content+managem, analysts, open+text, IBM+filenet, oracle+stellent, interwoven, vignette, microsoft+ecm

Comments

[Enterprise Content Management System India]

I totally agree with Alan Pelz-Sharpe, EMC suite is no comparison for Cimage and Formtek.

[Andy Bitterer]

George, just curious whether you have any permission from Gartner to use the ECM magic quadrant graphic and the other text on your blog. If so, never mind, but where is the appropriate text indicating just that? If you don't have any permission, I would suggest you take both pieces off immediately to avoid getting calls from some lawyer. I am not the author of the MQ, but I do understand the concept of intellectual property.

[John Newton]

Given the number is supposed to be $25M or more, how did Day with 17M Swiss Francs in 2005 make it into the list. And as Alan points out, they are more web content management rather than ECM.

http://www.day.com/site/en/index/company/press_center/press_releases/Day_Q4_2005.html

How about "10. Xerox, are you kidding me?"

[Alan Pelz-Sharpe]

Firstly, I sympathize to some degree as constructing an MQ for something
that doesn't really exist is hard. What I mean by that an ECM Suite like
Documentum/EMC is hardly something that competes with Cimage or Formtek or
whomever, there are platforms, there are applications there are vertical
applications - there are almost as many differences are there are ECM
'systems'.

In defence of EVER and Cimage - yes George you are being too US centric,
EVER are a serious player in Europe. Cimage are long established in the
Engineering sector and rightfully on the MQ. But what about Formtek, Nuxeo
etc etc?

Inclusion in the MQ is based on you having revenues over $25 Million - but
the way I see it you can be losing money hand over fist with revenues of
$100 M, and profitable and happy at $10 M. With the introduction of Open
Source vendors into ECM, is this still valid as an entry criteria? Note
Alfresco is not there, nor is Nuxeo or Knowledge Tree. But SAP (who do not
have an ECM system) are!

So my number 10 question is - Where are the Open Source players?

Best!