ECM Decisions

32 Pages·2015·2.52 MB·English

AIIM Market Intelligence
Delivering the priorities and opinions of AIIM’s 80,000 community
Industry
Watch

ECM Decisions -
strategic options for managing, accessing
and preserving content
Underwritten in part by:
aiim.org l 301.587.8202
About the Research
As the non-profit association dedicated to nurturing, growing and supporting the information management
community, AIIM is proud to provide this research at no charge. In this way, the entire community can
leverage the education, thought leadership and direction provided by our work. We would like these
research findings to be as widely distributed as possible. Feel free to use individual elements of this
I
n
research in presentations and publications with the attribution – “© AIIM 2015, www.aiim.org” d
Wu
Rather than redistribute a copy of this report to your colleagues or clients, we would prefer that you direct s
t
them to www.aiim.org/research for a download of their own. Permission is not given for other aggregators ary

to host this report on their own website, in their own content library, or as paid-for promotion from one of t
c
the sponsors.
h
Our ability to deliver such high-quality research is partially made possible by our underwriting companies,
without whom we would have to return to a paid subscription model. For that, we hope you will join us in
thanking our underwriters, who are:
aE
cC
c
eM
s
sD
Hyland – Global Headquarters ine
28500 Clemens Road gc
Westlake, Ohio 44145 ais
Tel: [phone] nio
Fax: [phone] dn
Email: [email protected] s
p
Webl: www.onbase.com re- s
st
era
rvte
ing
gic
c o
op
nt
teio
Process Used and Survey Demographics ntns

f
o
While we appreciate the support of these sponsors, we also greatly value our objectivity and r

m
independence as a non-profit industry association. The results of the survey and the market
a
commentary made in this report are independent of any bias from the vendor community. However, the n
a
recommendations should not form the sole basis of any business decisions. g
in
The survey was taken using a web-based tool by 434 individual members of the AIIM community between g
,
Feb 13, 2015, and Mar 06, 2015. Invitations to take the survey were sent via e-mail to a selection of the
80,000 AIIM community members.
Survey demographics can be found in Appendix 1. Graphs throughout the report exclude responses
from organizations with less than 10 employees and suppliers of ECM products and services, taking the
number of respondents to 375.
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 1
About AIIM
AIIM has been an advocate and supporter of information professionals for 70 years. The association
mission is to ensure that information professionals understand the current and future challenges of
managing information assets in an era of social, mobile, cloud and big data. AIIM builds on a strong
heritage of research and member service. Today, AIIM is a global, non-profit organization that provides
I
n
independent research, education and certification programs to information professionals. AIIM represents d
Wu
the entire information management community: practitioners, technology suppliers, integrators and
s
consultants. atry

t
c
h
About the Author

Doug Miles is AIIM’s Chief Analyst. He has over 30 years’ experience of working with users and vendors
across a broad spectrum of IT applications. He was an early pioneer of document management systems
for business and engineering applications, and has produced many AIIM survey reports on issues and
drivers for Capture, ECM, Information Governance, SharePoint, Mobile, Cloud, Content Analytics and
Social Business. Doug has also worked closely with other enterprise-level IT systems such as ERP, BI
aE
and CRM. Doug has an MSc in Communications Engineering and is a member of the IET in the UK. cC
c
eM
s
sD
ine
gc
ais
nio
dn
s
p
re- s
st
era
© 2015 rvte
ing
AIIM The Global Community of Information Professionals gic
c o
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 op
Silver Spring, MD 20910 ntetio
+1.301.587.8202 nn
ts
www.aiim.org f
o
r

m
a
n
a
g
in
g
,

©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 2
Table of Contents
About the Research Opinions and Spend
About the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Opinions and Spend.....................22
Process Used and Survey Demographics ......1 Spend.................................22 I
n
About AIIM ..............................2 d
Wu
About the Author..........................2 Conclusion and Recommendations s
t
Conclusion and Recommendations........24 ary
Introduction Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 t
c
Introduction.............................4 References.............................25
h
Key Findings.............................4

Appendix 1: Survey Demographics
Drivers and Adoption Appendix 1: Survey Demographics .......26
Drivers and Adoption.....................5 Survey Background ......................26
Adoption................................6 Organizational Size ......................26
Geography .............................26
Alternatives to ECM Industry Sector..........................27 aE
Alternatives to ECM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Job Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ccC
eM
Cloud-Based File Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 s
sD
Appendix 2: General Comments ine
ECM Systems Appendix 2: General Comments...........28 g acis
ECM Systems ...........................8 nio
dn
ECM Strategies ..........................9 UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY s
p
Business Critical......................... 11 UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY.............29 re- s
Consolidating Content ....................12 About OnBase by Hyland..................29 setra
About AIIM .............................31 rvte
Process ing
gic
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 c o
Multi-Channel Inbound Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 onpt
teio
nn
IG and Records Management ts

f
IG and Records Management .............15 o
r
Managing Emails as Records...............16 m
a
n
Workplace Social Platforms a
g
Workplace Social Platforms ..............16 in
g
,

Cloud and Mobile
Cloud and Mobile .......................17
Private vs. Public Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mobile Access...........................18
ECM Issues and Plans
ECM Issues and Plans...................20
Plans for ECM Sub-Systems ...............20
Functionality for the Future.................21
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 3
Introduction
The ECM (Enterprise Content Management) concept has been with us now for nearly 15 years, and
many of the products stretch back many years before that. Some of these original ECM suites grew from
imaging and workflow products, others started with basic electronic document management, adding
capture and records management along the way. SharePoint grew from project collaboration and content-
I
n
sharing intranets to encompass a wide range of active-content management capabilities. Faced with the d
Wu
demands for process management, enterprise search, access beyond the firewall, mobile device support,
s
social interaction, and cloud deployment, the suite providers have moved to add modules and product atry
integrations to enable wall-to-wall content management across the enterprise and beyond.
t
c
We will find in our survey results that more than half of organizations still have a vision to achieve a single
h
enterprise-wide system to manage all of their content, but the current reality is that multiple systems and

multiple content silos exist across most businesses. The much derided server file-share refuses to go
away, and multiple cloud file-sync-and-share systems, often working outside of the information governance
regime, are creating even more loosely-coupled information silos. Meanwhile, multi-channel inbound
communications and document-centric workflows add another dimension, as they are linked to capture,
case management, records management and compliance.
aE
So how do we set a strategy for the future, and do we accommodate, consolidate or federate our
cC
existing content systems? How do we align our information governance policies with this varied content ceM
landscape, and how do we support our users and business partners for remote and mobile access to both ss D
collaborative content and the corporate knowledge base. ine
gc
In this report we look at how ECM systems have become mission-critical alongside the other pillars of anisio
enterprise IT, and how they need to be integrated with these other systems. We also look at how cloud and dn
s
mobile strategies are playing out. Above all, we look at how all of these factors are influencing the choices p
for consolidation, enhancement or replacement. re- s
st
era
Key Findings rvinteg
gic
Drivers and Adoption c o
op
n Lowering costs and improving efficiency is the main driver for ECM (40%), with compliance and nt
teio
risk second, dropping slightly since 2013 (33%). Collaboration (18%), and customer service (9%) vie nn
year-on-year for third place. ts
f
o
n More than half of responding organizations (52%) are working towards a company-wide ECM r
m
capability, but only 14% have completed it. 16% are integrating across departments and 22% are still a
in departmental mode. n
a
g
n 10% are looking to replace existing system(s) with a new one. 10% of the largest organizations, in
13% of mid-sized and 5% of the smallest. g
,

n 62% are still strongly reliant on their file-share. 1% have turned it off, and 15% have “largely
replaced it”.
ECM Systems and Strategies
n 52% have three or more ECM/DM/RM systems. 22% have five or more (38% of the largest). These
numbers are a few percentage points up on the 2013 survey, so no evidence of consolidation as yet.
n For 67% of organizations, ECM/DM is mission-critical, 54% for RM and 40% for capture and
workflow. A third would suffer serious disruption after an outage of just 1 hour, 58% would struggle
after half a day of downtime
n 54% are converging on a single-vendor ECM suite, including 21% who may well buy a new one
(6% as their first ECM system). 24% are building on best-of-breed or departmental systems, and 8%
are looking at a 2-tier structure.
n 88% see plenty of scope for ECM enhancement, although focus has moved on in 30% of user
organizations. 75% agree that ECM/RM is a fundamental part of their information security regime.
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 4
Integration and Process
n To consolidate content silos, 20% intend to migrate content to ECM, 44% will integrate ECM with
other enterprise systems. 15% will rely on enterprise search or content portals and 16% will continue
with separate silos.
n Currently, 61% have no connection between ECM and ERP. 24% have a one-way content link, 8% a I
n
two-way link and 7% have an AP/AR transaction link. d
Wu
n 30% have some degree of integrated multi-channel inbound communications, but only 5% are st
auto-routing to multiple processes. 22% handle paper and electronic inbound separately. ary

t
n 37% prefer their workplace social platform to be an extension or module of their ECM system, c
rather than a separate best-of-breed product. Half prefer an on-prem social platform rather than cloud- h

based.
Cloud and Mobile
n From a personal view, our respondents are largely in favor of moving ECM content to the cloud
(71%), mostly as a small on-prem/large cloud hybrid. Their organizations are less positive, with
aE
48% in favor of cloud, 28% resolutely against, and 28% with no decision made as yet. The dominant cC
c
preference is for “private cloud” (71%). eM
s
n 39% have some degree of mobile access, but only 5% have widespread access for staff and sinDe
project partners. Less than 20% have comment, edit and process interaction capability that is app- gc
based. anisio
dn
s
p
Issues res- st
era
n The biggest current issues are improving user adoption (45%) and consolidating multiple rvte
repositories (42%). Raising the level of training and expertise figures strongly (30%), as does dealing ing
gic
with emails as records (32%). c o
op
n The definition of ECM is becoming blurred, with 52% agreeing that in 5 years’ time, ECM systems nt
teio
will be an undifferentiated part of the IT infrastructure. Most (63%) currently see their ECM system to nn
be “a compliant home for information” and “a platform for company-wide sharing”. ts
f
o
r

m
Spend a
n
a
n Spend intentions are strong, particularly in cloud/SaaS services, and in storage. Outsourced g
bureau services, and independent consultancy services show little net growth. in
g
,
n Workflow, content analytics and enterprise search have a strong net demand. Email management,
auto-classification/data remediation, and case management also show very positive spend intentions.
Drivers and Adoption
AIIM has been tracking the primary driver for ECM investments since 2004, around the time that the imaging
systems were giving way to full-blown content management. At that time, the main driver was cost savings
and efficiency, and so it is today. But in the meantime, compliance and risk has challenged as a driver,
particularly in the post-crash period of 2012/2013. We can also see from Figure 1 that customer service as a
driver has given way to collaboration, despite the current challenges of multi-channel input and the demand
for fast response.
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 5
Figure 1: When you consider your document and records management projects, what is the most
significant business driver for your organization? (N=373)
60%
50% In
d
Wu
s
40% t
Cost/Efficiency ary

t
30% Compliance/Risk c
h
Customer Service
20%
Collabora(cid:30)on
60%
10%
50%
0%
aE
40%2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ccC
Cost/Efficiency eM
s
sD
Adoption 30% Compliance/Risk ine
gc
Wmeem hbaevres aolsf oth ceh AaIr2ItM0e%d c aodmomptuionnit yo vteenr dm taon bye y tehaorsse, awnhdo haerree p wlaen nneinegd o tro imsopulenmd ean ntiontge EofC wMa rrCnauitnhstgeo.rm Athecart inSve etrh voicsee anisio
dn
who have a successful implementation behind them, and are likely to have moved on. TherCeofollareb othrae(cid:30) foanct s
that the number re1p0o%rtinLgo aok cinogm tpol eted compNaopn slyay-nswtsei,d m3e%, EnoC M capability Nhaos s yhsotevmer,e bdu at round 14% or 15% over pre - s
tethhaeec rhpe afnoserte w5 a pyniee EacrCes M omf pav0rye%o nwrrjEeeediCpctflohMtlera iac cstse te ny uc tseehnhtwxeilnsiim sk.oo(cid:30) eT(lnnoslehy)gg , e ytor ec e oavmreeer sab leos ond etswetrome aoemtdh ,e“ cor orf amac pntoleerwtse. ”cF.o iSrnspett1elclay2non -tnt1s ht d8iyen l8pmy %ts,eh ocw eenoe ntpnh teehesx a,ro tsv f etEh oCen Mwly o birnrko ptahladece pena,s sa atn stdw o servintrateg
yNeoat rusn aedxdpeedc ttehCdeo imonp patli eomtnea d“t L2ua0or 0e1o4 0km%i2na0g0rk 5teo2t ,r0 e0bp6ulta2 ac00les7”o ( 2Fr0ei0gfl8uerc2e0ti 0v29e) 2wo0fh1 si0coh2m 0te1h1 iso 2fy 0teh1a2er 2ihs0sa1us3De MjO2us0n/ m1wRe4pM eoe 2r wdp0 m1r ilto5loo jcre 1eoc 0vtse% r ifnro tmhi s5 %re pino r2t.0 131. g coic op
company-wide nt
ECM capability, at the teio
Figure 2: How would you best characterize your organization’s edxeppaerrtimenecntea lw ith document nn
management (DM14),% records management (RM) and Enterprise Content lMevaenl, a2g2e%ment (ECM)? (N=375) ts f
o
r

m
No system, no a
Implemen(cid:30)Lonog kai ng to plans, 3% IntegNrao(cid:30) snygs tem, but n
replace exis(cid:30)ng plans in the next a
company-wide DM/RM projects g
ECM capEaCbMili tsyy,s tem(s) acr1o2s-s1 8 months, in
28w%ith a new one, departments8,% g
10% 16% ,
One or more
Completed a
DM/RM projects
company-wide
at the
ECM capability,
departmental
14%
level, 22%
Implemen(cid:30)ng a0 % 10% 20% 3In0t%egra(cid:30)ng 40%
company-wide DM/RM projects
ECM capability, across
No system, n2o8 %plans 1d0e-5p0a0r temmepnsts,
16%
No system, but plans in the next 500-5,000 emps
12-18 months
When we look at the adoption rates by size of organization, we see tha5t, 0a0lt0h+o eumghp ssmaller organizations have
sOonme eo rc matocrhei nDgM u/pR Mto pdroo jreecgtsa ardt itnhge enterprise-wide roll-out, most have plans under way. More interesting
is the fact that 13d%ep aorft mmeidn-tsailz leedve olrganizations are looking to replace, and this may be consolidation of
numerous DM systems, or moving on from a stalled SharePoint project2.
Integra(cid:31)ng DM/RM projects across
departments
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Implemen(cid:31)ng a company-wide ECM
capability
No system, no plans 10-500 emps
©20C15o mAIpIMle -t eThde a G cloobmapl Caonmy-mwuindiety EoCf MInformation Professionals 6
capability
No system, but plans in the next 500-5,000 emps
12-18 months
Looking to replace exis(cid:31)ng ECM 5,000+ emps
system(s) with a new one
One or more DM/RM projects at the
departmental level
Integra(cid:31)ng DM/RM projects across
departments
Implemen(cid:31)ng a company-wide ECM
capability
Completed a company-wide ECM
capability
Looking to replace exis(cid:31)ng ECM
system(s) with a new one
We have turned
it off, 1%
We encourage/
sanc(cid:31)on the use
of cloud file-
We have largely
shares instead,
replaced it with
1%
our ECM/
SharePoint
It is the most system(s), 15%
dominant
content store we
have, 25%
It works
alongside our
We have turned ECM system(s)
it off, 1% for working files,
We encourage/
It is s(cid:31)ll one ofs anc(cid:31)on the use 20%
our main
of cloud file-
repositories, 37% We have largely
shares instead,
replaced it with
1%
our ECM/
SharePoint
It is the most system(s), 15%
dominant
content store we
have, 25%
It works
alongside our
ECM system(s)
for working files,
It is s(cid:31)ll one of 20%
our main
repositories, 37%
60%
50%
40%
Cost/Efficiency
30% Compliance/Risk
Customer Service
60%
20%
Collabora(cid:30)on
50%
10%
40%
0%
Cost/Efficiency
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
30% Compliance/Risk
Customer Service
20%
Collabora(cid:30)on
10%
No system, no
Looking to No system, but
plans, 3%
0% replace exis(cid:30)ng plans in the next
ECM system(s) 12-18 months,
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
with a new one, 8%
10%
One or more
Completed a
DM/RM projects
company-wide
at the
ECM capability,
departmental
14%
level, 22%
No system, no
Looking to No system, but
plans, 3%
replace exis(cid:30)ng plans in the next
ECM system(s) 12-18 months,
Implemen(cid:30)ng a Integra(cid:30)ng
with a new one, 8%
company-wide DM/RM projects
10%
ECM capability, across
Complet2e8d% a departmeOnntes, o r more
16D%M/RM projects
company-wide
at the
ECM capability,
departmental
14%
level, 22%
Figure 3: How would you best characterize your organization’s experience with
DM, RM and ECM? (N=375)
Implemen(cid:30)ng a Integra(cid:30)ng
company-wide DM/RM projects
ECM capability, 0% 10% 20% 3a0cr%oss 40%
28% departments,
16%
I
No system, no plans 10-500 emps n
d
Wu
No system, but plans in the next 500-5,000 emps s
t
12-18 months ary
5,000+ emps
t
One or more DM/RM projects at the c
departmental level
h

Integra(cid:31)ng DM/RM projects across 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
departments
Implemen(cid:31)ng a coNmo psaysntye-mwi,d neo E pClMans 10-500 emps
capability
No system, but plans in the next 500-5,000 emps
Completed a compan1y2-w-1i8d em EoCnMths
capability 5,000+ emps aE
cC
OneL ooor kminogr eto D rMep/lRaMce perxoisje(cid:31)cntgs EaCt Mthe ceM
departmental level s
system(s) with a new one sD
Integra(cid:31)ng DM/RM projects across ine
gc
departments ais
nio
Implemen(cid:31)ng a company-wide ECM dn
s
Alternatives to ECMcapability pre - s
Wweh acta dni ds ewee i nCdo oFm ibgpeulefroeter e4d ,aE d CceoMsmp?pit aeWn mye-lowlc,as iwpdtlaeyeb EhriCelaitMlviyeindg o EnC thMe sfiyles-tsehmasr,e w, teh es tsilhl maraek-der ihveeasv, yth ues Xe :oDfr tivhee ofirle G-s:hDarirvee. .6 A2s% servtrate
ing
of organizationLso oakrien gs ttioll rsetprolancgel ye xdise(cid:31)pnegn EdCeMnt on the file share as a key repository, including 25% where it is gic
still the most dominasnyst tceomn(tse) nwt itshto ar en.e Iwn osnoeme organizations, the file-share is rigorously managed for both c o
op
structure and access rights, but in many cases it is simply a dumping ground for content, with no discipline nt
and a vast quantity of content that is ROT – redundWaen ht,a ovbe stoulrenteed a nd trivial. tenion
Only 1% have actually turned it oWffe, wenitcho u1r5a%ge /re portingit tohffa,t 1t%hey have largely replaced it with ECM or ts f
sanc(cid:31)on the use o
SharePoint. In many organizationosf, cthloeu dE CfilMe- system is considered the place for finished or published r
We have largely m
documents, whereas the share-dsrhivaree sis i nussteeadd f,o r work-in-progress. It is worth bearing in mind all the
replaced it with a
shortcomings of the server-based file 1s%hare as it is all too easy for this situatioonu rt oE CbMe /r eplicated in the cloud. n
a
SharePoint g
Figure 4: How wouldIt yiso tuh eb mesots td escribe the current status of your nesytwstoemrk( sfi),l e1-5s%hare “repository” in
dominant g
content stor(eX :wDer ive, G:Drive, Share drives)? (N=372) ,
have, 25%
We have turned
It works
it off, 1%
We encourage/ alongside our
sanc(cid:31)on the use ECM system(s)
of cloud file- for working files,
We have largely
It is s(cid:31)ll one sohf ares instead, 20%
replaced it with
our main 1%
repositories, 37% our ECM/
SharePoint
It is the most system(s), 15%
dominant
content store we
have, 25%
It works
alongside our
ECM system(s)
for working files,
It is s(cid:31)ll one of 20%
our main
repositories, 37%
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 7
Cloud-Based File Shares
File-share-and-sync services (FSS), whether consumer or business-grade, satisfy a need users have to
share and exchange documents both between their own multiple devices, and with other persons who
mostly live outside the firewall. We could probably live with this external sharing, especially if we enforced
or authorized the use of specific, business-grade FSS services. The problem arises when creating, revising
and storing these documents in the cloud takes place in parallel with the on-premise ECM system, by- In
passing all of the governance rules that have been set around classification, security and retention. d
Wu
s
t
Figure 5: What is your official policy on employees using “consumer” cloud-based file-shares and ary
collaboration systems? (N=364)
t
c
We provide an We restrict h
approved
access to the
“business-grade”
most likely
We expect them system, applica(cid:15)ons,
to use “business- 13% 26%
grade” systems,
4%
They are
aE
encouraged to
cC
do so if it c
benefits the We enforce a esM
project or task, policy of sD
3% compliance, ine
gc
We don’t 11% ais
actually have nio
policies to say We have dn
s
they shouldn’t, policies but they p
27% are being re- s
circum17v%ented, servtrate
ing
gic
Placing restrictions on consumer FSS systems is fine, but only if you provide an approved “business- co op
grade” system (which only 13% do). You t0h%en h5a%ve1 s0o%me1 5h%op2e0 o%f a2l5ig%nin3g0 %go3v5e%rnance between your on- ntetio
premise content management and your cloud “shares”, but it will always be a tough battle to fight. nn
ts

We like the roadmap and will keep up fo
as fast as we can r

m
ECM Systems
a
We like the roadmap, but it is way
n
Despite the souahgehat-da oftfe wr hgeorael wofe aa rsei nngolwe enterprise-wide content management system, most organizations a
Non-SP Users g
have several: 52% have 3 or more systems and 22% have five or more, rising to 38% of the largest in
We’re not so happy with some
organizations. Tahspeescet sm, bauyt iwnec’lull dgeo wa icthla istsic suite-based system tied to process appSliPc aUtsieornss, one or more g,
SharePoint deployments, a dedicated imaging system, and a stand-alone records management system.
DespOiteu rt hsuep cpalilel rf oisrn c’to mnsoovliindga atiso fna,s tth aes wnuem ber seems to be rising compared to previous years – 19%
would like them to
reported having five or more in 2013 compared with 22% today. SharePoint is the strongest player, with
58% of our survey considering it to be one of their primary ECM/DM/RM systems – up from 53% in 2013.
Our needs are diverging from the
The next fourd pirreocd(cid:15)uocnt so/usru spupplpieliresr rias nggoein gfrom a 22% to a 13% share, followed by a long tail of over twenty
suppliers with a 1% or more share of the installed base.
Current product is being
At thicso sntsaoglied ainte md/asurkbestu mmeadtu/ rditiys,c omna(cid:12)nnyu eudsers can feel trapped with their current system, so we asked how
they felt about their supplier’s roadmap for product improvement (Figure 6).
We don’t know what their roadmap is
Splitting out the SharePoinfto ur soeurrs p, rwodeu ccatn see that Microsoft is moving ahead faster than most users can
keep up with, and there are some aspects that users are not happy with (most likely the perceived lack of
support for on-prem usage2). Other suppliers would seem to be moving at about the right pace, although
for a tenth of users, progress is slower than they would like.
0% 10% 20% 30%
Build a new, first (cid:12)me, enterprise-wide ECM
plaƒorm from a single-vendor ECM suite
Con(cid:12)nue to invest in our exis(cid:12)ng enterprise-wide
single-vendor suite
Migrate and replace exis(cid:12)ng content systems with
a new, enterprise-wide, single-vendor ECM suite
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 8
Migrate exis(cid:12)ng content mgmnt systems to an
exis(cid:12)ng, enterprise-wide, single-vendor ECM suite
Con(cid:12)nue to build a best-of-breed mul(cid:12)-vendor
solu(cid:12)on
Selec(cid:12)vely update/replace/migrate exis(cid:12)ng
mul(cid:12)ple departmental/local systems as needed
Move to a two-(cid:12)er structure with enterprise ECM +
dedicated/specialist departmental systems
Build/extend our own custom solu(cid:12)on
We don’t have a strategy
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Enterprise search
Records management
BPM and workflow
Metadata management
Inbound capture plaƒorm
Email management/archive
Internal/workplace social plaƒorm
Mobile access plaƒorm
Case management
Auto-classifica(cid:12)on
E-discovery
Cloud collabora(cid:12)on
Output management
Content analy(cid:12)cs/big data
ECM Suite Module Add-On (Integrated) Stand-alone
We provide an We restrict
approved
access to the
“business-grade”
most likely
We expect them system, applica(cid:15)ons,
to use “business- 13% 26%
grade” systems,
4%
They are
encouraged to
do so if it
benefits the We enforce a
project or task, policy of
3% compliance,
We don’t 11%
actually have
policies to say We have
they shouldn’t, policies but they
27% are being
circumvented,
17%
Figure 6: How well aligned is the roadmap of your ECM supplier with your own needs and plans?
(N=259 excl. 87 Don’t Know or N/A)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
We like the roadmap and will keep up
as fast as we can I
n
d
We like the roadmap, but it is way Wu
s
ahead of where we are now t
Non-SP Users ary

We’re not so happy with some t
SP Users c
aspects, but we’ll go with it
h
Our supplier isn’t moving as fast as we
would like them to
Our needs are diverging from the
direc(cid:15)on our supplier is going
Current product is being
consolidated/subsumed/ discon(cid:12)nued aE
cC
c
We don’t know what their roadmap is eM
s
for our product sD
ine
gc
ais
nio
dn
0% 10% 20% 30% s
p
Most organizations (76%) have more than one ECM/DM/RM system or supplier, with 22% having 5 or more. re- s
SharePoBiunitl dis a t nheew d,o fimrsitn (cid:12)amnte p, erensteernpcreis ein-w thidee iEnCsMtalled base, with 58% considering it to be one of their primary setra
ECM/DM/RpMla sƒyosrtmem frso,m b ua ts itnhgelree-v iesn cdoonr sEiCdMer asubiltee overlap with other suppliers. rvinteg
Con(cid:12)nue to invest in our exis(cid:12)ng enterprise-wide gic
single-vendor suite c o
op
EMCaig nMraetwe , aSenndtte rrrepaprliatsceee-w geixdiiese(cid:12), nssign gcolen-vteenntd soyrs EteCmMs s wuiitteh ntetio
nn
DespiMtei gthraet eo bexviiso(cid:12)unsg dcioffincteunlttie msg omf ndte spylsotyeimngs tao sainngle, enterprise wide ECM suite, 54% of our responding ts f
orgeaxins(cid:12)iznagt,i oennste hrparviese s-weti dteh,a sti nagsl eth-veeinr dsotrra EteCgMy ,s uriisteing to 62% of those who actually have a strategy. Of these, or

7% would be investing for the first time, and 18% would be looking to replace an existing system with a new m
one. (CTohni(cid:12)s nnuuem tob ebru iisld hai gbheestr- othf-abnre tehde m10u%l(cid:12)- vceitneddo irn Figure 2, but here we are talking of future strategy rather a
solu(cid:12)on n
than immediate plans). These numbers are very similar to those of our 2013 survey1, although the number a
g
looking tSoe mlecig(cid:12)rvaetley utop daa ntee/wre EplCacMe/ smuiigtera htea esx riiss(cid:12)enng from 13% to 18%. in
mul(cid:12)ple departmental/local systems as needed g
15% have a clear plan to build on best-of-breed products, whereas 9% are taking a more ad hoc approach ,
Move to a two-(cid:12)er structure with enterprise ECM +
in upgrading or replacing departmental systems as the need arises. There is a recent development of so-
dedicated/specialist departmental systems
called “two-tier ECM” where an overall enterprise-wide system provides a parent portal into more diverse
departmental or specialist systems.
Build/extend our own custom solu(cid:12)on
We don’t have a strategy
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Enterprise search
Records management
BPM and workflow
Metadata management
Inbound capture plaƒorm
Email management/archive
Internal/workplace social plaƒorm
©2015 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 9
Mobile access plaƒorm
Case management
Auto-classifica(cid:12)on
E-discovery
Cloud collabora(cid:12)on
Output management
Content analy(cid:12)cs/big data
ECM Suite Module Add-On (Integrated) Stand-alone