web content management - marius · metaspectrum 10.0 wcm 1 market definition the web content...

metagroup.com/metaspectrum

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Perf

orm

ance

Presence

FOLLOWERFOLLOWER

LEADER LEADER

31 March 2002

BroadVision6.0AC

BroadVision6.0AC

Day 3.0.0Day 3.0.0

divine PS 4.0divine PS 4.0

divine CSEE 4.0divine CSEE 4.0

Documentum4.3

Documentum4.3

FatWire 6.0FatWire 6.0

Gauss 8.0Gauss 8.0

HyperWave 6.0HyperWave 6.0

Interwoven 5.5.0

Interwoven 5.5.0

Mediasurface 4.0 Mediasurface 4.0

Merant 2.0.2Merant 2.0.2

MicrosoftV4

MicrosoftV4

Openpages 3.0Openpages 3.0

Percussion 4.0Percussion 4.0Polopoly 8.1Polopoly 8.1

PresenceOnline 3.3.0Presence

Online 3.3.0

Reef 2.3.2Reef 2.3.2

Serena 3.1Serena 3.1

StarbaseV2.5

StarbaseV2.5

Stellent5.1.1

Stellent5.1.1

Tridion 4.4Tridion 4.4

Vignette V6 / Rational v2002Vignette V6 /

Rational v2002

eGrail5.0

eGrail5.0

CHALLENGERCHALLENGER

31 March 2002 File: 10.0 Electronic Business Strategies Author: Andrew Warzecha

Web Content Management

METAspectrumSM Evaluation

Market Overview

208 Harbor Drive � Stamford, CT 06912-0061 � (203) 973-6700 � Fax (203) 359-8066 � metagroup.com

Copyright © 2002 META Group, Inc. All rights reserved. METAspectrum 10.0 WCM 1

Market Definition The Web content management (WCM) market is composed of vendors that supply software to drive Web sites, with a core focus on empowering business users to create Web site content, approve it, and manage its life cycle. WCM systems are generally considered a discretionary investment for B2E and B2B use, and non-discretionary for B2C e-commerce sites. Market Forecast The WCM market will reach $10 billion by 2004 ($5B for B2B, $4B for B2C, and $1B for B2E). We expect many vendors to embrace the overarching enterprise content management (ECM) theme during the next 12 months, leaving a small group of pure-play WCM providers and a significantly larger enterprise content management-oriented segment. Although this is a growing market, vendors will continue to consolidate through 2003. We estimate that at the end of 1Q02, approximately 60% of G2000 organizations had purchased a WCM package, but less than 5% of those were being used for more than one Web site or considered strategic. We expect more than 95% of G2000 organizations to purchase a package by 2004, with a trend toward strategic deployments. Key Findings While technology is a still critical selection driver, gaps among WCM products have closed significantly. Ease of business-user content creation via native authoring tools, robust administration tools, and product architecture have become as important as pricing and vendor viability. Indeed, with organizations seeking more strategic solutions, the ability of WCM software to fully leverage underlying application server functions is emerging as critical. For B2C e-commerce sites, prebuilt integration with personalization and commerce engines is key. Portal integration is also growing in importance as organizations recognize the need for a robust content infrastructure to support portal initiatives. Given the current and anticipated further consolidation of this market, organizational assets, strategy, differentiation, and customer base (to facilitate sales of additional licenses and cross/up-sell opportunities) are key criteria in assessing vendors� long-term viability. These assets will also be key for any of the WCM pure-plays seeking to deepen and broaden their offerings for the larger ECM or application markets. While the WCM METAspectrum is weighted more toward performance criteria, excellence in the evaluation was clearly skewed on the presence axis, with leaders and leading challengers dominating in installed clients and global presence. We expect this trend to continue as the market shakes out through 2003. Notes: ! eGrail has been acquired by FileNET, but the timing of the acquisition precluded our re-rating of eGrail prior to

publication. However, FileNET�s ownership will have a significant positive impact on many of eGrail�s current ratings. ! Reef has shut its doors and is no longer taking calls.

Leaders Leaders in the WCM market possess global presence, significant installed bases, advanced technology, deep integration capabilities, robust channels/partners, and the ability to support high-volume, strategic, and multisite global deployments. Long-term vendor viability is playing an increasingly important role, because users are seeking more strategic long-term solutions and evaluating this area closely. Challengers Challengers in the WCM market often exhibit a strong focus on technology or vertical expertise. Few have a global reach or a stable of top-tier channel partners. However, this segment of the WCM METAspectrum contains the only significantly growing and profitable vendors, a key to determining which ones will survive in this segment. Followers Followers trailed either technologically or in overall market presence. Typically, these vendors have a stronger focus in other markets (e.g., SCM) and view the WCM market as secondary to their core target market. META Group advises a cautious approach to procuring WCM products and services from these vendors, because they lack market leadership.

Market Overview (cont.)



Bottom Line

Organizations should establish appropriate weightings for various vendor evaluation criteria, to tailor the selection process to their specific needs. Due to accelerating consolidation in the WCM market through 2003, users should aggressively evaluate a vendor�s long-term viability and strategy.

Business Impact: Global 2000 organizations will be driven to make technology investments just to stay on par with current levels, because of the continuing acceleration of business and the exponential growth of business content.

Web Content Management Presence Evaluation



Our market presence evaluation includes a review of each vendor�s product and service attributes � representing vendors� ability to deliver value to customers. The following eight criteria areas provide a summary of our presence analysis. For complete details on how vendors fared with each criterion in our evaluation, visit METAgroup.com.

Vision/Strategy

Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Excellent Stellent 5.1.1 Excellent Day 3.0.0 Very Good/Excellent Documentum 4.3 Very Good/Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good/Excellent FatWire 6.0 Very Good Openpages 3.0 Very Good Percussion 4.0 Very Good Tridion 4.4 Very Good Microsoft V4 Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Very Good eGrail 5.0 Good/Very Good BroadVision 6.0AC Good/Very Good divine PS 4.0 Good/Very Good HyperWave 6.0 Good/Very Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good/Very Good Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good/Very Good Serena 3.1 Good Reef 2.3.2 Fair/Good Starbase V2.5 Fair

What We Evaluated Positioning/Segmentation � Ability to differentiate and/or segment versus competition. Dedication to Market � Commitment to WCM market as shown by percentage of organizational focus. Future Vision � Perceived/actual position within the market as a trendsetter, definer of direction, and catalyst of market direction and change. Analyst Commentary A vendor�s ability to articulate a clear vision, strategy, and commitment regarding the evolution of its product and services offering is critical in maintaining customer confidence. How vendors accomplish this will become increasingly important as customers exhibit greater diligence when seeking more strategic WCM solutions. Web services will play a key role during the next 12-24 months in the WCM market, with early adopters like Documentum, Vignette, and Interwoven leading the way.

Channels/Partners Documentum 4.3 Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Excellent Microsoft V4 Excellent BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good/Excellent Gauss 8.0 Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Very Good Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Very Good divine PS 4.0 Good/Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Good/Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good divine CSEE 4.0 Good FatWire 6.0 Good Reef 2.3.2 Good Starbase V2.5 Good Tridion 4.4 Good Day 3.0.0 Fair/Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good Mediasurface 4.0 Fair/Good Openpages 3.0 Fair/Good Percussion 4.0 Fair/Good Serena 3.1 Fair/Good HyperWave 6.0 Fair Polopoly 8.1 Fair

What We Evaluated Sales Channel Strength � Strength of channel/partner sales. Integration Partners � Strength of integration partners viewed by large shops and quantity. Analyst Commentary The full spectrum of direct and channel models are embraced by the WCM vendors rated. However, with more than 60% of G2000 WCM deals being influenced by partners, this is a key element in evaluating both vendor viability and deployment risk. Systems integrator and technology relationship leaders like Interwoven, Documentum, and Microsoft have benefited from these relationships in terms of pull-through business.




Business Drivers Documentum 4.3 Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Excellent FatWire 6.0 Very Good/Excellent Openpages 3.0 Very Good/Excellent BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Tridion 4.4 Very Good Day 3.0.0 Good/Very Good Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Good/Very Good Percussion 4.0 Good/Very Good Reef 2.3.2 Good/Very Good Starbase V2.5 Good/Very Good Microsoft V4 Good HyperWave 6.0 Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good Polopoly 8.1 Good Serena 3.1 Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good divine PS 4.0 Fair

What We Evaluated Key Differentiators � Differentiators in the existing product that enable unique targeted sales. Intellectual Property � Owned and protected patents, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, or trade secrets that reflect unique ideas, methods, technologies, or processes, and that offer tangible competitive advantage. Analyst Commentary While a vendor�s focus on its core competencies and internal expertise is important to continued success, enterprise customers ultimately view the product in terms of key differentiators. Furthermore, while a vendor may have intellectual property, it rarely has a major role in winning customers. However, we believe this is key in developing future differentiation. In this criteria area, Vignette leverages its suite approach, Interwoven its partnerships, Day its ContentBus, and Stellent its publishing and ease of use.

Industry Focus Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good/Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Very Good/Excellent Documentum 4.3 Very Good BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good/Very Good Tridion 4.4 Good/Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good/Very Good Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Good/Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good HyperWave 6.0 Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good Percussion 4.0 Good Microsoft V4 Good Starbase V2.5 Good divine PS 4.0 Good Day 3.0.0 Good Reef 2.3.2 Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good Merant 2.0.2 Fair/Good FatWire 6.0 Fair/Good Serena 3.1 Fair

What We Evaluated B2C � Ability to meet business-to-consumer/e-commerce site requirements. B2B � Ability to meet business-to-business site requirements. B2E � Ability to meet business-to-employee site requirements. Vertical � Ability to meet vertical industry site requirements. Analyst Commentary With most WCM installations being tactical, but becoming strategic, it is important to understand where various products have succeeded across the various deployment sectors (i.e., B2C e-commerce, B2C informational, B2B, B2E). This is also true in evaluating vertical penetration, given similar vertical market requirements and some vendors� emphasis on specific verticals (e.g., Openpages in the publishing market). We look for more balanced scoring in these subcriteria during our next review as vendors continue to broaden their capabilities across these sectors.




Investments Documentum 4.3 Excellent Microsoft V4 Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Very Good/Excellent Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good Tridion 4.4 Good FatWire 6.0 Good Percussion 4.0 Good Day 3.0.0 Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good divine PS 4.0 Fair/Good divine CSEE 4.0 Fair/Good Reef 2.3.2 Fair/Good Interwoven 5.5.0 Fair Mediasurface 4.0 Fair Merant 2.0.2 Fair HyperWave 6.0 Fair Polopoly 8.1 Fair Presence Online 3.3.0 Fair Stellent 5.1.1 Fair BroadVision 6.0AC Poor/Fair Starbase V2.5 Poor/Fair Serena 3.1 Poor/Fair

What We Evaluated External Investments � Ownership investments or relationships tied to business areas that are horizontally or vertically complementary to the core market business. R&D Investment � Planned and active investment in R&D for further product development. Patents � Ownership of unique related patents or pending patents. Analyst Commentary Investments are key to an organization�s survival and provide a window into what an organization deems important related to ancillary technologies, future development, and creation of a culture based on rewarding/protecting its unique technology. This, in turn, differentiates a vendor from others. Of particular note is that the average R&D investment by WCM vendors � which is essential to creating technical differentiation � was about 25%. However, this ranged from a low of around 15% to a high of over 40%.

Share Interwoven 5.5.0 Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Excellent Documentum 4.3 Very Good/Excellent divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Microsoft V4 Good BroadVision 6.0AC Good divine PS 4.0 Fair/Good Gauss 8.0 Fair/Good Mediasurface 4.0 Fair/Good Percussion 4.0 Fair HyperWave 6.0 Fair Day 3.0.0 Fair Reef 2.3.2 Fair Presence Online 3.3.0 Fair eGrail 5.0 Poor/Fair Merant 2.0.2 Poor/Fair Tridion 4.4 Poor/Fair FatWire 6.0 Poor Openpages 3.0 Poor Starbase V2.5 Poor Polopoly 8.1 Poor Serena 3.1 Poor

What We Evaluated Market Share � Share of market relative to competitors. Mind Share � Relative market awareness versus competitors. Wallet Share � Percentage of IT budget relative to competitors and alternative technologies. Analyst Commentary Most organizations do not closely monitor a vendor�s market share in this space, but it is an important factor in evaluating long-term viability, because vendors with a solid client base can drive revenue by cross/up-selling other related offerings. Indeed, we have seen Documentum, Stellent, and Interwoven use this technique effectively. Mind share will continue to play as a dual-edged sword � well-recognized vendors (e.g., Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, Stellent) are often the first on client WCM potential vendor lists, but they are much more quickly impacted when they report bad news than those that are not watched as closely. Wallet share is important because vendors can drive license revenues through volume or higher pricing, though current client pricing preferences have declined into the $150K range from above $200K 12-18 months ago.

Web Content Management Performance Evaluation



Our market performance evaluation includes a review of each vendor�s product and service attributes � representing vendors� ability to provide value to customers. The following seven criteria areas provide a summary of our performance analysis. For complete details on how vendors fared with each criterion in our evaluation, visit METAgroup.com.

Technology/Products Documentum 4.3 Excellent divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good/Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good/Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Very Good/Excellent Tridion 4.4 Very Good BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good Day 3.0.0 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Percussion 4.0 Good/Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good/Very Good eGrail 5.0 Good/Very Good FatWire 6.0 Good/Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good/Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Good Starbase V2.5 Good HyperWave 6.0 Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good divine PS 4.0 Good Microsoft V4 Good Openpages 3.0 Fair/Good Reef 2.3.2 Fair/Good Serena 3.1 Fair

What We Evaluated SHARP � Scalability, high availability, reliability, and performance; this is also a reflection of the product�s architecture. Openness � How difficult the product is to exit if the need arises, based on openness as well as adherence to standards and standard environments. Integration Capabilities � Functional capabilities to interoperate with related, interdependent, or complementary technologies and robustness of API. Authoring Tool Support � Templating and native authoring tool support, collaborative markup, and ease of use. Workflow � Ability of workflow to handle complex approval/rejection cycles, allowing for business user modifications; graphical builders expected and ability to extend into other offerings a plus. Repository Services � Capabilities for supporting multiple repositories, replication, archiving, and records management (library services assumed).

Site Management and Security � Administrative functionality for keeping system up, reporting, and deploying content. Web Publishing � Ability to support native file promotion, batch loading of content, and renditioning capabilities. Standards Support � Specific to WCM standards: ICE, WebDAV, XSL. Globalization � Ability to support localization capabilities directly or through partnerships. Partner Integration � Strength and volume of key prebuilt integration hooks into line-of-business and related technologies. Analyst Commentary Despite the strong focus on vendor viability, the foremost user evaluation criterion is vendor technology. While the technology gap between the WCM market leaders and challengers has closed significantly during the last 12 months, key differentiation exists in native authoring tool support, site management/security, standards support, and partner integration. We also note that underlying support of native application server services, integration, and Web services will play a key role in future WCM developments as these systems become more strategic to organizations. Drilling into the technology/product subcriteria, we find that SHARP has become almost a commodity item, but how vendors achieve this varies widely. Ideally, an offering leverages the underlying application server services versus providing its own native solution. Offerings like divine�s CSEE, Vignette, and Presence Online are close to embracing this and likely will in their next versions. Openness provides for a degree of flexibility and risk minimization, with offerings like BroadVision, Day, and Interwoven showing well in that area. Because all WCM installations require some integration, a vendor�s capabilities in that regard can be key; standouts include Documentum, eGrail, and Vignette. For authoring tool support, integration with Word and standard development tools are never tight enough. As expected, the publishing-oriented vendors have an edge, with divine PS, FatWire, Stellent, Vignette, Polopoly, and Openpages all showing well. Workflow is important for both content approval and the ability to extend processes beyond the enterprise; Documentum, Day, and Percussion lead the pack. Repository services are required for any WCM system, but those that are able to extend this to other content and exploit the relational database vendors� evolution to storing




unstructured content are best positioned long term (e.g., Day, Documentum, Interwoven, Vignette). Site management is a subcriterion that all vendors must work on, though Interwoven and Vignette provide the best capabilities currently. The ability to render native content into HTML and/or PDF is critical for many organizations, and is an area in which divine CSEE, Documentum, Gauss, Polopoly, and Stellent shine. divine CSEE, Documentum, Stellent, and Polopoly provided the best standards support, which is a growing issue with vendors as other products leverage these capabilities. The clear leaders in terms of globalization � provided through a combination of built-in functionality and third-party integration � were international vendors such as Day, Gauss, Tridion, and Polopoly. Partner integration was dominated by the larger vendors, including divine CSEE, Documentum, Gauss, Interwoven, and Vignette.

Services divine PS 4.0 Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good Documentum 4.3 Very Good Microsoft V4 Very Good Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Very Good Day 3.0.0 Very Good FatWire 6.0 Very Good HyperWave 6.0 Very Good Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good Mediasurface 4.0 Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good/Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good/Very Good Reef 2.3.2 Good/Very Good Tridion 4.4 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good/Very Good Percussion 4.0 Good/Very Good Starbase V2.5 Good/Very Good BroadVision 6.0AC Good Gauss 8.0 Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good Serena 3.1 Fair/Good

What We Evaluated Quality � Service-level performance as measured by service metrics and field feedback. Breadth � Ability to address complete installations should client request this from the vendor, including related technologies for a turnkey solution. Analyst Commentary Most deployments of WCM systems are installed and integrated via partners. However, for organizations that want the vendor to provide the services or for situations where the integration partner fails to meet anticipated goals, the vendor�s professional services organization becomes critical, as is ongoing vendor support. No vendor rated excellent in this area.




Pricing divine PS 4.0 Excellent Presence Online 3.3.0 Excellent eGrail 5.0 Very Good/Excellent FatWire 6.0 Very Good/Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good/Excellent Merant 2.0.2 Very Good/Excellent Microsoft V4 Very Good/Excellent Percussion 4.0 Very Good/Excellent Reef 2.3.2 Very Good/Excellent Starbase V2.5 Very Good/Excellent Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good/Excellent BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Very Good HyperWave 6.0 Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Very Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good/Very Good Serena 3.1 Good/Very Good Day 3.0.0 Good/Very Good Documentum 4.3 Good/Very Good Gauss 8.0 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good/Very Good Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Good/Very Good Tridion 4.4 Good/Very Good

What We Evaluated Software � Cost to obtain product relative to value it can provide. Services Multiple � Ratio of required services costs to software costs to get a system operational (lower ratio is better due to faster ROI). Analyst Commentary A critical �affordability� consideration is license fees, but most organizations fail to evaluate the total cost of ownership of WCM systems, which is heavily skewed to the services side. Indeed, we found service multiples ranging from 1x to 5x, with numerous vendors significantly under-representing what our reference checks showed in terms of these multiples. We also note the decline of high-end solution pricing: average initial deal sizes have fallen to about $150K, versus $200K in 2001. This is one reason why vendors like Stellent, Percussion, Tridion, and Microsoft are all increasing their market share.

Execution Polopoly 8.1 Very Good/Excellent Percussion 4.0 Very Good Microsoft V4 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Tridion 4.4 Very Good Documentum 4.3 Good/Very Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good/Very Good Reef 2.3.2 Good/Very Good HyperWave 6.0 Good Interwoven 5.5.0 Good Openpages 3.0 Good FatWire 6.0 Fair/Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good Merant 2.0.2 Fair/Good Day 3.0.0 Fair/Good Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Fair/Good BroadVision 6.0AC Fair/Good Gauss 8.0 Fair/Good Mediasurface 4.0 Fair/Good Serena 3.1 Fair Starbase V2.5 Fair divine CSEE 4.0 Fair divine PS 4.0 Poor

What We Evaluated Velocity � Trend of recent deal activities (e.g., closing new business over competition, selling additional seats, losing deals) versus what we are seeing in the market as a whole. Sales Execution � Ability of sales force to sell product. Ability to Meet $ Targets � Ability of organization to meet revenue goals. Renewal of Clients � Client renewal rates based on maintenance renewals. Analyst Commentary As a key indicator of an organization�s long-term viability, execution is second only to financials, with Microsoft, Tridion, Stellent, and Percussion dominating on this front. A vendor�s ability to execute on its sales plan and meet its target is key. However, we believe a vendor�s velocity and client renewal rates are even more telling and should therefore be looked at closely. Indeed, it was the smaller vendors that shined in these areas, including Polopoly, Percussion, Stellent, and Tridion, along with giant Microsoft.




Agility

Documentum 4.3 Excellent Interwoven 5.5.0 Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Excellent Day 3.0.0 Very Good/Excellent FatWire 6.0 Very Good/Excellent Merant 2.0.2 Very Good/Excellent Polopoly 8.1 Very Good/Excellent Presence Online 3.3.0 Very Good/Excellent BroadVision 6.0AC Very Good Gauss 8.0 Very Good Percussion 4.0 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Tridion 4.4 Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Good/Very Good HyperWave 6.0 Good/Very Good Starbase V2.5 Good/Very Good eGrail 5.0 Good/Very Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good/Very Good Microsoft V4 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good/Very Good Serena 3.1 Good/Very Good divine PS 4.0 Fair/Good Reef 2.3.2 Fair

What We Evaluated Development Responsiveness � Ability to identify and modify product functionality based on user requirements. Product Flexibility � Ability to adapt the base product to meet new requirements (e.g., XML, standards, Web services). Analyst Commentary The degree to which a vendor has changed its product to meet market demands and the ability of its product to help facilitate such changes are important criteria. Indeed, a vendor�s track record in changing its product to support the desires of its customer base and market is key to the critical client-renewal number and its associated maintenance revenue stream, as has been demonstrated by Documentum, Interwoven, and Vignette.

Personnel

Microsoft V4 Excellent Documentum 4.3 Excellent Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Excellent Gauss 8.0 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Very Good Day 3.0.0 Very Good Interwoven 5.5.0 Very Good BroadVision 6.0AC Good/Very Good Mediasurface 4.0 Good/Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Good/Very Good Openpages 3.0 Good/Very Good divine PS 4.0 Good/Very Good divine CSEE 4.0 Good/Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good/Very Good Tridion 4.4 Good/Very Good FatWire 6.0 Good Percussion 4.0 Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good Reef 2.3.2 Good Serena 3.1 Good Starbase V2.5 Good HyperWave 6.0 Good eGrail 5.0 Fair/Good

What We Evaluated Experience � Practical, time- and situation-based expertise gained from work in related businesses with similar customers. Skills � Training, certification, and knowledge about specific technologies, verticals, services, processes, and methods that are transferred into higher-value technologies and solutions, with improved results for the customer. Expertise � Depth of understanding about particular topics relevant to the technology and services offered as well as the needs of customers. Volume � Quantity of staff that can be leveraged. Analyst Commentary Ultimately, people determine the caliber of any organization. Therefore, vendors must retain quality personnel to continue driving innovation in the market. While leadership is important, users give more consideration to the downstream effects of quality employees, such as a vendor�s market reputation and awareness. Not surprisingly, larger vendors such as Microsoft, Documentum, and Vignette dominated this category.




Financials Microsoft V4 Excellent Documentum 4.3 Very Good/Excellent Serena 3.1 Very Good Stellent 5.1.1 Good/Very Good Tridion 4.4 Good/Very Good Merant 2.0.2 Good/Very Good Vignette V6/Rational v2002 Good/Very Good Percussion 4.0 Good/Very Good Polopoly 8.1 Good Interwoven 5.5.0 Good HyperWave 6.0 Good Presence Online 3.3.0 Good Openpages 3.0 Fair/Good Day 3.0.0 Fair/Good Gauss 8.0 Fair/Good Reef 2.3.2 Fair/Good Mediasurface 4.0 Fair/Good divine PS 4.0 Fair divine CSEE 4.0 Fair BroadVision 6.0AC Fair Starbase V2.5 Fair FatWire 6.0 Fair eGrail 5.0 Fair

What We Evaluated Access to Capital � Sources of funding for growth, operations, or investments. Profitability � Track record of business results as measured by EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes). Revenue � Revenue generated from products and services relative to competitors. Viability � Financial viability of the organization as a measure of client risk. Analyst Commentary Users are increasingly exploring vendors� financial strength when considering a viable, strategic partnership. While share price is often taken as a sign of the company�s overall health, a detailed financial analysis would serve clients far better. Because many of the challenger organizations are not public, more scrutiny should be applied given the current market dynamics; financial information is not readily available, but is an important consideration. We expect company financials to remain a key selection criterion for the foreseeable future as those with weak financials (e.g., eGrail, FatWire, Mediasurface) are likely acquisition targets or, worse, go out of business entirely.

META Group is a trademark, and METAspectrum is a service mark, of META Group, Inc. Copyright © 2002 META Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution of this research in any form without prior written approval is prohibited. METAspectrum is META Group�s independent evaluation of a technology market, representing marketplace characteristics at a given time, and is subject to change without notice. META Group�s permission to reproduce this evaluation should not be deemed an endorsement of any company or product. META Group research is intended to be one of many information sources; decision makers should not rely solely on the METAspectrum evaluation for making solution choices. META Group expressly disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to fitness of this research for a particular purpose or merchantability.

About METAspectrumSM

METAspectrumSM evaluations from META Group (Nasdaq: METG) provide IT professionals with a view into critical market success factors and vendor positioning. METAspectrum, in combination with META Group�s SPEX modules � which provide detailed technical analysis of product features and capabilities � delivers comprehensive evaluations of both technology markets and vendor product offerings. There are multiple market evaluations planned for release in 2002. METAspectrum evaluations are a standard component of a META Group retainer service subscription and are updated quarterly, biannually, or annually, depending on the characteristics of individual markets. To view completed market evaluations, or learn more about the METAspectrum methodology, visit metagroup.com/metaspectrum. For more information on META Group�s SPEX offerings, visit checkspex.com.

About META Group

META Group is a leading research and consulting firm, focusing on information technology and business transformation strategies. Delivering objective, consistent, and actionable guidance, META Group enables organizations to innovate more rapidly and effectively. Our unique collaborative models help clients succeed by building speed, agility, and value into their IT and business systems and processes. Connect with metagroup.com for more details.

web content management - marius · metaspectrum 10.0 wcm 1 market definition the web content...

Documents