Received an interesting update from the Real Story Group regarding their observed split of the document management and ECM market. Real Story is a Boston-based analyst firm, formerly known as CMS Watch. It’s contention is that the “ECM)technology marketplace has split into two distinct and separate segments:
1. ECM Infrastructure Vendors, that position their platforms as a set of lower-level technology services to manage high-volume, process-centric needs, such as processing insurance claims
2. Document Management Application Vendors, that configure their products to accommodate specific needs
I’m not sure I agree 100% with definition, as I think processing insurance claims is a document management funtion, but I get the gist of what they are tyring to say. It’s the enterprise platform vs. line-of-business positioning. I think I would say that document management applications like insurance claims processing can be built on top of ECM platforms.
Here’s the vendor positioning chart that Real Story came up with. Here’s the text they included along with it:
“ECM infrastructure deals are large, but less common, as complexity and cost limit their appeal and usefulness. ECM infrastructure vendors Autonomy, Oracle, OpenText, IBM, and EMC have been acquisitive and are likely to remain so in 2011. As a result, these vendors often represent a relatively higher risk to buyers.
“In contrast, the marketplace for departmental and process-specific Document Management products is a blend of a diverse set of players, ranging from vertical and horizontal options (e.g., patient billing in healthcare), to broader, open source and low-cost cloud offerings. Example vendors include Hyland in the US….and Fabasoft in Germany. With mature product and service offerings and strong vertical expertise, these vendors often represent a relatively lower risk for buyers.”