There were several interesting things happening at The Gilbane Conference this year and for me, these mostly came up during the analyst panel I sat on yesterday afternoon with Melissa Webster from IDC, Stephen Powers from Forrester and Guy Creese from Burton Group.
Frank Gilbane moderated and asked us first to identify a couple of key trends we see for the year ahead and then what we had heard at the conference that we disagreed with. Here are my responses:
Open source and SaaS have a bigger impact
I was the last panelist to answer the trends question and of course generally agreed with comments made by the other analysts about IT spending cuts and the impact of SharePoint on most segments of this market. For my bit, I called attention to SaaS and open source and the increasing presence they have in various parts of content management.
Open source was particularly prevalent this year at Gilbane. I met with folks from Acquia, Hippo, Magnolia, and eZ Systems, and noted that Alfresco, Mindtouch and Jahia were also there (there may have been others as well). Hippo, Magnolia and eZ are notable as European open source providers that are starting or expanding US offices. Based on the reported success of these and other vendors, it seems open source is an increasingly viable option in content management and one that may see increased adoption when IT budgets are tight. This is something I hope to explore more with my CAOS colleagues next year.
SaaS also had a showing though a smaller one in terms of core content management. Clickability and Crownpeak were there, the usual WCM SaaS suspects, and both report record growth so far in 2008. But SaaS also shows up in many areas related to content management; web analytics has been a SaaS market for years and SaaS is the dominant model in areas like personalization and A/B or multivariate testing. Social software is also largely SaaS, particularly in customer-facing environments. I noted the panelists at the social media panel yesterday represented two SaaS (Awareness and WetPaint) and two open source vendors (Acquia and MindTouch).
Which brings me to my other point…
Social media is too broadly defined
I didn’t disagree with anything specifically that was said during the social media panel that occurred just before our analyst panel but noted (as did others) that lumping all kinds of social technologies under a “social media” banner causes too much confusion for everyone involved. This panel really highlighted this as the conversation veered widely between internal collaboration goals, issues and technologies, and using social technologies to market to and serve customers online. The panelists got confused at times about which thing was being discussed and it was clear from the questions being asked that there were some in the audience were confused as well.
I harped on about this in the presentation I gave at our client event last month. The uses for social software internally are generally pretty different from what companies are trying to accomplish in customer-facing initiatives. As a result, the requirements of the tools are different as well. I think it is difficult for vendors to serve both markets (internal and external) well and I expect we’ll see more specialization along these lines in the year ahead.
Someone in the audience during the social media panel asked “don’t we have to be social internally before we can use these technologies with our customers?” That’s a good question and I think the panel generally gave her an affirmative answer. Not sure that I agree. I think it certainly helps if an organization culturally gets social technologies and uses them for internal communication before embarking on some sort of external initiative. But it’s still primarily about finding the right tool for XYZ job. Ensuring that everyone internally is using Twitter doesn’t seem a pre-requisite before you get started on some other project, unless of course it really is a pre-requisite for that particular project.
One of my general points, and I saw a lot of nodding heads in the audience when I said this during the analyst panel, is that I generally remain unimpressed with the “newness” of all this, particularly for internal use. I noted on the analyst panel yesterday that when I was a product manager at Sun in 2002, we used the team collaboration product from Intraspect (ultimately bought by Vignette) for a lot of stuff. It had shared workspaces, discussion forums, comments etc. Is that really all that different from what we’re talking about with social software internally? There are differences, I’m not saying there aren’t. But it is an evolution, not a revolution. That is less true, I think, when using social technologies to interact with customers where there are really fundamentally new models. Which again gets to my point that these are different markets with different antecedents, different integration requirements, different cultural changes required…
In any event, lots of talk about social technologies at what has always been a content management conference. There’s no apparent slow down in the collision of these two sectors. I noted on the panel that this makes sense in the enterprise environment where social networking without a tie to content creation, sharing and access is, as Aaron Fulkerson put it during the social media panel “kind of boring.”