CMSWatch har släppt en ny lista, en reality checklist med 15 frågor om produkten, licenser etc. Den nutidsorienterade listan kallas för ”We get it” checklista för CMS-tillverkare och ska trycka på ”web2.0 värden” som ofta glöms bort i dagens upphandlings– och förfrågningsunderlag.
Kvalificerade frågor blandas med tämligen irrelevanta som är lätta att få ”rätt” på. Påstående CMS-tillverkarna besvarar är:
- Our software comes with an installer program.
- Installing or uninstalling our software does not require a reboot of your machine.
- You can choose your locale and language at install time, and never have to see English again after that.
- Eval versions of the latest edition(s) of our software are always available for download from the company website.
- Our WCM software comes with a fully templated ”sample web site” and sample workflows, which work out-of-the-box.
- We ship a tutorial.
- You can raise a support issue via a button, link, or menu command in our administrative interface.
- All help files and documentation for the product are laid down as part of the install.
- We run our entire company website using the latest version of our own WCM products.
- Our salespeople understand how our products work.
- Our software does what we say it does.
- We don’t charge extra for our SDK.
- Our licensing model is simple enough for a 5-year-old to understand.
- We have one price sheet for all customers.
- Our top executives are on Skype, Twitter, or some similar channel.
Och många CMS-företag var snabba att svara. I listan av de bäst placerade hittar vi några svenska och norska bekantskaper.
- 43/45 – Jahia
- 42/45 – Magnolia
- 42/45 – EPiServer
- 41/45 – infopark
- 41/45 – Nuxeo
- 40/45 – Day
- 40/45 – Alfresco
- 40/45 – GX
- 40/45 – CoreMedia
- 40/45 – Sitecore
- 36/45 – Escenic
- ?/45 – dotCMS
- ?/45 – Midgard
- ?/45 – Vignette
- ?/45 – OpenText
En hedrande tredjeplats för EPiServer alltså. Escenic klarade sig inte lika bra. Men det är tight i toppen.
Kommentarer
Come on!
These are numbers (1-3 score per topic, 15 topics) the vendors _give themselves_. It has NOTHING to do with the real world.
So, these vendors find an ”acceptable” number, but in the top 40’ies.
For example. Day gave themselves 44 score first, then people started to blog about the realism. So they have gradually degraded themselves to their current score, where people seem to accept it.
Also, how will a sales guy in any way be able to evaluate your own software?
There are also a matter of system classes. Have you seen InfoPark? And CoreMedia? Not talking the quality of these systems, but they are entirely different types of software, so a point score is totally waste of time.
This is exactly what kills this business. Un-serious voting systems and feature comparisons.
I strongly suggest people to use serious companies such as Gartner Group, Butler, Forrester, CMSWatch or other independent CMS selection experts who also looks at your needs (one system might fit for some customers not for other).
Come on!
These are numbers (1-3 score per topic, 15 topics) the vendors _give themselves_. It has NOTHING to do with the real world.
So, these vendors find an ”acceptable” number, but in the top 40’ies.
For example. Day gave themselves 44 score first, then people started to blog about the realism. So they have gradually degraded themselves to their current score, where people seem to accept it.
Also, how will a sales guy in any way be able to evaluate your own software?
There are also a matter of system classes. Have you seen InfoPark? And CoreMedia? Not talking the quality of these systems, but they are entirely different types of software, so a point score is totally waste of time.
This is exactly what kills this business. Un-serious voting systems and feature comparisons.
I strongly suggest people to use serious companies such as Gartner Group, Butler, Forrester, CMSWatch or other independent CMS selection experts who also looks at your needs (one system might fit for some customers not for other).
Escenic actually had to increase the score from 32 to 36, after Kas Thomas in CMSWatch commented it. I wrote Escenic’s answers, and naturally think they are quite correct ;-)
I agree with Lasse above that using only numbers for choosing/judging the CMSs is ridiculous, and as most Escenic customers spend several months choosing the best system for their requirements and strategy, this whole exercise should not be taken too seriously.
Vignette (who used Facebook for answering), has some good points in the introduction to their answers: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=62817941034
Escenic actually had to increase the score from 32 to 36, after Kas Thomas in CMSWatch commented it. I wrote Escenic’s answers, and naturally think they are quite correct ;-)
I agree with Lasse above that using only numbers for choosing/judging the CMSs is ridiculous, and as most Escenic customers spend several months choosing the best system for their requirements and strategy, this whole exercise should not be taken too seriously.
Vignette (who used Facebook for answering), has some good points in the introduction to their answers: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=62817941034
Lasse,
as the author of Day’s answer I can assure you: we have had the same score ever since we published over post. I have absolutely no idea how you could claim we changed our score over time (have you mixed us up with another vendor?)
Michael
Lasse,
as the author of Day’s answer I can assure you: we have had the same score ever since we published over post. I have absolutely no idea how you could claim we changed our score over time (have you mixed us up with another vendor?)
Michael