It’s true to say that enterprise is a loaded word: it means a lot more to some than to others. We have enterprise content management (ECM), enterprise search, enterprise portals, enterprise resource planning… People like Nicholas Carr have been railing against these all-encompassing applications for years now, questioning how applications that cost so much to install and configure can deliver tangible business benefit, particularly compared to smaller, more targeted systems. The Gilbane Group on the other hand dislike the term enterprise because they believe it’s pure marketing spiel, particularly in the case of content management where few vendors offer the full range of content management products.

It is of course possible to go to a single supplier and get the full WCM, DM, RM, DAM, JCR and IDM gamut of acronyms. The leaders are IBM and Oracle, but Day, Vignette and Open Text all have products covering the main functionality. You have to take care of course that just because the products are owned by the same company and are labelled as a single product family, this does not mean that they can actually talk to each other. Many is the client persuaded to implement a product portfolio from off the shelf, only to spend months and hundreds of thousands on systems integration.

Leaving aside the truth that vendors relate and the more palpable realities their clients are faced with, ask yourself this: why would you need an enterprise application for content management anyway?

Enterprise means not simply across your whole organisation but unique to your organisation. Your ECM will be different to someone else’s, with different security privileges, workflow, storage and retrieval requirements.

Except it’s not.

What you’re trying to do in your organisation is being attempted in every other organisation of a similar scale or vertical. All your competitors, all your partners, all your suppliers and clients will need to control their information and distribute it to the right people. And they want to do it in similar ways, which is why all these vendors are able to sell their content management technologies to so many clients. The thing is, if your requirements aren’t unique, do you need a system that’s unique?

Of course you don’t.

People like Andrew McAfee and JP Rangaswami have been using and writing about disruptive technologies for years. Technologies like wikis, blogs and tagging are disruptive because they upset standard business models and processes where you procure a single technology and then tell everyone how to use it. Under the disruptive model, you let people use a set of tools the way they find most productive. You can add anything to a wiki without it going through workflow, you use blogs instead of email, you use tags instead of a taxonomy. Depending on where you look, these technologies have been more or less successful.

But for me the issue is that it’s not blogs and wikis that are disruptive, it’s the enterprise technologies themselves. Why do organisations feel the need to procure these tools that few people know how to implement and even fewer know how to use? Why not just pick a few technologies that are out there already? The procurement and implementation of these systems actually disrupts the things your organisation is good at, often having a greater negative impact than the business benefits the system will eventually entail. Yes, an enterprise system gives you one butt to kick, but you still have to do some butt-kicking.
For example, why set up a massive LDAP directory that a bunch of systems administrators need to maintain, when you can use OpenID? If you used this to authenticate people, they can use the same username and password for their social life as their daily business. Isn’t this simpler for everyone? Why set up project team servers? Just let each project team set up a blogger account with a new blog for each project and restrict who can view it. They can use the same email address for their email, calendar, and even documents. And those documents could be shared as a wiki. Some of these technologies will work better than others, and there are of course security implications.

Your organisation does not need to control technology, it needs to exploit it. So before you procure a new CMS ask yourself:

• Am I trying to do something that is already being done by some of my staff using existing tools?
• Why can’t I extend those tools to support my business?
• Do I really want to manage a new supplier, a new project and on-going support?

Isn’t it easier to view web technologies as a facility your enterprise makes use of, like roads or a rail system? Let your employees make their own way to work, don’t go out and buy a bus to round them all up in.