A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about Box.net.  In case you missed it, I basically called their term for their solution, which I refuse to use again, “market speak” and hype while implying much worse.

A week later, Aaron Levie, the CEO and cofounder of Box.net, was interviewed on Fierce Content Management.  Here he espoused a solid vision for Box’s hosted version of Content Management, though that term was heavily featured, again.

During all this, a very surprising thing thing happened, Aaron contacted me and asked if we could setup a time to chat so that I might better understand their vision.  I accepted his offer.  Our scheduled meshed today and I thought I would share.

Kudos to Box

I just want to send Kudos to Aaron for reaching out.  I wasn’t kind to their term, and to reach out like that, knowing that a second post would likely follow, takes a certain amount of gumption.  For it not to be someone in marketing and be the CEO himself, even more.  The only pre-determination was if the conversation was public or private. He choose public.

That said, character will only get you so far.  You have to deliver and have a direction.  They have a good vision.  They are trying to achieve Omnipresent Content Management now.  They are starting down that road towards realization of that vision.

Oh, they have some rather large hurdles in front of them.  Identity Management is a big massive humongous one, but they, at best, can only be part of the solution as the world at-large needs to have a solution.  They are trying to have the content live in the right places, so that is a start.

Okay, funny part.  I think I sold him on CMIS more than he sold me on Box.net.  My biggest, and probably only, real issue entering the conversation was their marketing term.  Like many, they hadn’t fully grasped the potential of CMIS and how it could actually drive business for them.  The fact that he seemed to “get it” will help them in the future.

Taking it to the Business

It is one thing to enable the populace to share documents with each other.  They’ve already passed Google Docs on that front in my opinion.  It is another thing to support business.  Let’s face it, that is where the real money needed to create a true platform is long-term.

They are trying to establish trust.  They aren’t hiding behind pay-to-play for individual users.  They are also being audited for SAS 70 statement.  That takes a little faith, and a commitment to achieve sound operating standards.  Maintaining that over time, and not letting it be a one-time thing, is important.

Aaron told me that they are seeing solid traction in smaller to medium sized businesses (SMBs), which is think is their current core market.  From experience, non-profits would also benefit.  He also said that they are seeing departmental use in larger organizations.  I suspect that some of those efforts are born out of frustration  from trying to get things done in a bureaucracy (which is itself a solid market niche that can lead to larger footprints).

Is Box.net ready to tackle ECM solutions head-on? No. Are they on the path to get there? Yes.  Will people go with them now because it is simple? Yes.

I wrote a basic ECM checklist back in December.  They are well on their way overall and have basic routing already.  While they are seeking to be broader than ECM and move beyond the Enterprise, and corporate firewalls, they still need to provide the same core technology to serve the broader audience.

That Pesky Term

I did concede one thing to Aaron.  I said that I understood why they used the offending term and why it is a good marketing term.  They are a cloud-based application residing in the SaaS layer.  There is no denying that or the current fashionable use of the word cloud.  They provide Content Management functionality.  I’ll give them that, though it is more Document Management at this point (I think CMS Watch might agree) than Content Management.

I can only hope that the winds of change will force the evolution to a new term in the next couple of years so we can all be spared.  If the term sticks, I will have to get out of Information Management.

Besides, CCM already means Component Content Management.  OCM is cool, but as I said, nobody is ready to offer that yet.

The correct term will be obvious one day.  It just isn’t now.

Disclaimer

Just so it is crystal clear, to you and the FTC, Box.net has given and promised me nothing aside from time.  Aaron did say that he was considering what it will take for me to type or utter their marketing term outside of my nightmares, but that hasn’t happened and it was in jest.

Besides, EMC is a partner of my company and their reps will buy me the occasional beverage.  It doesn’t stop me from issuing a regular dose of brutal honesty to them.

I smiled at this the other day -”Software Developers: The New Rock Stars of Marketing” - it comes from the article  ’Out of the Box’ published a few weeks ago in the UK Financial Times, that talks about the role of technology in marketing in the new media age. The smile is because this is pinned up [...]

Every now and then, I read a post/article/tweet that makes me slam my head against the nearest hard surface.  The culprit this time was an article titled Cloud Content Management to Challenge ECM?

I saw the title and was intrigued.  I then read it and realized that the author had started falling for some market speak.  I quickly determined that the fault was not completely with the author.  Yes, they had fallen under the spell of some marketing and should have been strong enough to resist.  The real villian here? Box.

Remove the Cloud

Okay, lets think this through, logically.  First, let’s look at Box’s definition of Cloud Content Management.  When you look at it, you see them describing a SaaS offering.  More importantly, you are seeing them talk about the advantages of hosting it on the internet as opposed to your server room.

What we are seeing is a change in platform, not actually a change in the solution.  (Well, they talk about that some, but hold on a second.)  When we talk about ECM, we talk about solving problems and making content available throughout the organization.  The Enterprise signifies that we are dealing with all of our content, not just images or the content from the finance department.

When you go to the cloud, you remove the firewall headaches and the scaling headaches and make them someone else’s problem.  You are still solving the same problem of managing your content.  You still have to manage security by creating accounts.

When we started consolidating servers and placing them into server rooms instead of in people’s offices back in the 90s, we didn’t rename anything.  The applications and the problems they were solving were exactly the same.

What is changing is the delivery model.  SpringCM calls it right when they say they provide a SaaS ECM Platform.  PERFECT!  A Cloud ECM Platform would also work as a title, though a little less specific than SaaS.  You are qualifying ECM, not “Content” or the “Content Management”.

The platform should not be in the description.  When was the last time you saw Windows Content Management or UNIX Content Management?  How about LAN Content Management or WAN Content Management?

Note that Box is pitching themselves more like Google Docs than SpringCM, but you will notice that Google Docs doesn’t throw hype terms around. (Aside from “Google”)  Box’s pitch actually describes Omnipresent Content Management to some degree, though it is a stepping stone due to constraints imposed by technology.

That said, the article itself cared less about the “Cloud” and focused on the interface.

The Cloud Doesn’t Make the Interface

This is where I blame the author of the article.  He does makes a very good point about the standard ECM interfaces:

arcane user interfaces and culture of exclusion that’s associated with older software. ECM has this tendency to lock everything away in its place, and the Web is opening up news ways of working with content that allows us to view and interact with it in a collaborative, constantly refreshed context.

The solution isn’t the cloud.  The solution is creating new interfaces.  It is leveraging Enterprise 2.0 solutions.  It is being created by independent vendors that hope to leverage CMIS to create new, powerful, universal clients for ECM systems.

The web is a great proving ground for the interface technology, but it can live outside of the Internet.  Just because you have only seen a feature on the web doesn’t mean it can’t be part of a non-Internet solution.  That is one thing the ECM industry has to work on.  Separate the applications from the platform and allow the interfaces to evolve more rapidly in response to the changing environment.

The interface may be sweet, but it is actually not a feature of cloud computing.  It is a result of clever developers and product managers that have either figured-out what users want, or got lucky.

Let’s keep one thing in mind, many organizations like their firewalls right now because security in the wilds of the Internet has too many unknowns.  Check-out this summary of some of the current trends on ECM in the Cloud over at CMS Wire.

To Sum Up

I’ll put it simply.  Anyone that buys into the term “Cloud Content Management” probably doesn’t know the space.  I understand vendors want to create the next catchy term and make a mark. We don’t have to play along.

If you try and use the term in a conversation with me, be prepared for a million questions.  You will have to defend that term to the death.  I will spare employees of Box that have no choice, but anyone else is fair game.

Box’s offering looks neat.  They have a good vision.  Just don’t call it Cloud Content Management.