portals and content management - ross school of business...company’s research and analyst teams...

www.emarketer.com

Prepared Expressly for the SLA Conference – June 2003

Portals and ContentManagement Solutions:A Market Overview

This report is the property of eMarketer, Inc. and is protected under both the United States Copyright Act and by contract.Section 106 of the Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication,performance and display of protected works.

Accordingly, any use, copying, distribution, modification, or republishing of this report beyond that expressly permitted byyour license agreement is prohibited. Violations of the Copyright Act can be both civilly and criminally prosecuted andeMarketer will take all steps necessary to protect its rights under both the Copyright Act and your contract.

If you are outside of the United States: copyrighted United States works, including the attached report, are protected underinternational treaties. Additionally, by contract, you have agreed to be bound by United States law.

©2003 eMarketer, Inc. Reproduction of information sourced as eMarketer is prohibited without prior, written permission.Note: all data in this report (other than that sourced as eMarketer) was obtained from published, publicly available information.

3

The Elephant in the Room:The Online At-Work Audience

Table of Contents 3

Methodology 7

The eMarketer Difference 8

The Benefits of eMarketer’s Aggregation Approach 9

“Benchmarking” and Projections 9

I Portals and Enterprise Content Management 11

A. Portals 12

Market Estimates 12

Spending and Usage Surveys 15

B. Enterprise Content Management 22

Market Estimates 22

Spending and Usage Surveys 24

Index of Charts 31

Welcome to eMarketer

New York-based eMarketer is the leading source for statistics and original

analysis on e-business, Internet and emerging technology trends. Unlike other

research firms, which present only their own proprietary research findings,

eMarketer aggregates e-business data from over 1,400 sources worldwide.The

company’s research and analyst teams filter and organize this information, and

provide concise analysis around it, to help executives make better, more

informed business decisions.

eMarketer information can be accessed in a variety of ways:

■ eMarketer Reports: comprehensive reports (average cost $795), covering

a wide range of e-business topics.They combine statistics from all

leading researchers with analysis by the eMarketer team.A full

schedule of available reports is published on the

eMarketer website.

A Few of the 1,400Sources from WhicheMarketer AggregatesInformation

Adams Media Research

Advertising Age

Arbitron

BIGresearch

Boston Consulting Group(BCG)

Cyber Dialogue

DoubleClick

Forrester Research

Gartner Dataquest

GartnerG2

Greenfield Online Inc.

Harris Interactive

Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)

International DataCorporation (IDC)

Jupiter Media Metrix, Inc.

Jupiter Research

Kagan World Media

Lehman Brothers

MORI Research

Myers Group

Newspaper Association of America

Nielsen//NetRatings

Online Publishers Association (OPA)

Opt-In News

PricewaterhouseCoopers(PwC)

Progress & FreedomFoundation

Prudential Financial

Quris

Salomon Smith Barney

Shop.org

Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS)

Thomas Register

Universal McCann

Veronis Suhler Stevenson

Yankee Group

Yankelovich

Yesmail

Zenith Media

Of course, for e-mail to take off as an advertising medium, advertisers are going to have to become much more subtle and sophisticated in their use of the medium or they’ll risk alienating their audience with SPAM. As Seth Godin of Yoyodyne (now part of Yahoo) has long opined, web-marketers need to develop relationships with customers overtime and make certain they have “permission” to send messages.

For comparative source data, the Internet Advertising Bureau provides historical figures on web ad format trends.

IAB: Historical Web Ad Spending, by Type of Advertising

*Other includes rich media and e-mail advertising Source: IAB, 1999

Examining the trends in sponsorship dollars as a percent of total web ad expenditures, the up and down swings seen here likely have more to do with the vagaries of measurement than with the actual spending patterns of advertisers.

IAB: Growth of Sponsorship Dollars vs. Total Online Spending

Source: IAB, 1999

A Yankee Group study of

2,000 PC households

found that 34% of online

households say they are

bothered by SPAM.

e ADVERTISING REPORT

Methodology

Defining “eAdvertising”

Market Dollar Size and Growth Trends

Where Web Ad Dollars Are Going

Banners, Rich Media & Other Message Vehicles

Measuring the Effectiveness of Web Advertising

The Role of Offline Media

The eConsumer

New Tools of the Trade

THE

60%

40%

20%

FY 1997 1Q 1998 2Q 1998 3Q 1998

Banners Sponsorships Interstitials Other

58%

2% 3%

55%

40%

4%

1%

58%

3% 2%

53%

30%

11%

37%

37%

37%

6% 6%6%

37%

37%

37%

500 Million

300

100

Sponsorships Total Web Ad Dollars

Q1 ’97 Q2 ’97 Q3 ’97 Q4 ’97 Q1 ’98 Q2 ’98 Q3 ’98

$129

$227

$336

$423

$215

$31

$31

(24%

)(2

4%)

$93

(41%

)$9

3 (4

1%)

$121

(36

%)

$121

(36

%)

$141

(40

%)

$141

(40

%)

$157

(37

%)

$157

(37

%)

$147

(30

%)

$147

(30

%)

$31

(24%

)

$93

(41%

)

$121

(36

%)

$141

(40

%)

$157

(37

%)

$147

(30

%)

$491

$88

(41%

)$8

8 (4

1%)

$88

(41%

)

©1999 e-land, inc. Reproduction of information sourced as eStats is prohibited without prior, written permissionNote: all data in this report (other than that sourced as eStats) was obtained from published, publicly available information.

34 eStats.Transforming information into intelligence.

$352

$352

$352

4 www.emarketer.com • 1-877-eStats1 ©2003 eMarketer, Inc.All rights reserved.

■ eStat Database: The most comprehensive database of

e-business statistics, with more than 22,000 charts and tables – and hundreds

more added each week.The search, advanced search and browse functions

make it easy to find exactly the stat you need. Subscriptions are $2,500 per year,

or $500 per month.

■ Corporate Subscriptions: The most cost-effective solution for corporations

that want to efficiently access and share vital e-business information among

their employees; eMarketer will work with you to create customized extranets,

intranets or other information access solutions.

For more information, or to order any of eMarketer’s products,

visit http://www.emarketer.com.

You can also e-mail us at [email protected],

or call Nick Lovett at 212.763.6031

5©2003 eMarketer, Inc.All rights reserved. www.emarketer.com • 1-877-eStats1

Contact eMarketer

37%

6%

37%

$31

(24%

)

$93

(41%

)

$121

(36

%)

$141

(40

%)

$157

(37

%)

$147

(30

%)

$88

(41%

)

©1999 e-land, inc. Reproduction of information sourced as eStats is prohibited without prior, written permissionNote: all data in this report (other than that sourced as eStats) was obtained from published, publicly available information.

35 eStats.Transforming information into intelligence.

$352

Sponsorships27%

Other4%Interstitials

8%

Banners61%

No: 2%

Yes: 98%

WHERE WEB AD $ GO

Jupiter Communications estimates that banners take 61% of all web ad dollars, while sponsorships account for only 27%. However, by the year 2003, Jupiter expects ad banners will drop 21 percentage points to only 40%.

Jupiter: Where Web Ad Dollars Go, 1998

Source: Jupiter Communications, 1998

What About Promotions?On the web, distinguishing promotion from advertising is nearly impossible given that most online ads incorporate some form of promotional element. Nevertheless, eMarketer sees an increasing emphasis on promotional endeavors online as web-marketers seek to develop interactive relationships with their target consumers. Forrester Research estimates that over the next five years, between 50% and 70% of internet marketing budgets will be spent on promotional activities. Given that promotions online can take on a myriad of forms and approaches, it is not surprising that virtually all web-marketers have used promotions in the past.

% of Online Marketers Who Have Used Web Promotions

Source: Forrester Research, 1999

Among the most popular forms of promotions are sweepstakes and contests, yet a variety of price promotions have also been widely employed.


6

Portals and Content Management Solutions

June 2003

Dear SLA Attendee:

“People are drowning in information, they just don’t know theimportant points of information they should be focusing on.”— Tim Meadows, (formerly) VP, Nielsen//NetRatings

To the statement above, we could add, “and most organizations still haven’t figured out how toconsistently ensure that the right people get access to the right information at the right time.”

Certainly the Internet has added to the overall quantity of available information, but it is alsotransforming how information is stored, shared, accessed and distributed within and betweenorganizations, both large and small, in every vertical industry.

So we’re pleased to present SLA members with this special report brief, Portals and ContentManagement Solutions: A Market Overview, an excerpt of eMarketer’s upcoming E-Business Software report. Like all eMarketer reports, it presents statistical information aggregated from a broad range of authoritative research sources, along with original analysis from eMarketer’s team of researchers and analysts.

If you have any questions or comments concerning eMarketer or any of the material in this report,please call, fax or e-mail us.

Geoffrey Ramsey

Chief Executive OfficereMarketer, Inc.

P.S. This report represents the proverbial tip of the iceberg in terms of what eMarketer covers. If youwish to know more about this topic, or indeed any subject related to the Internet, e-business oremerging technologies and their applications, you may wish to explore eMarketer’s focused reports,30 of which are published each year. You can also consult eMarketer’s eStat Database, which containsthousands of additional statistics on virtually every aspect of the global e-business market.

Geoff RamseyCEO, [email protected]

eMarketer, inc.821 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003T: 212.677.6300F: 212.777.1172

Reuse of information in this document, without prior authorization,is prohibited. If you would like to license this report for yourorganization, please contact David Iankelevich [email protected], or 212.763.6037.

Written by Steve Butler

Also contributing to this report:Yael Marmon, director of researchCerelle Centeno, senior editorAllison Smith, senior editorKwanza Osajyefo Johnson, data entry associateDana Hill, production artist

Methodology


7



8


Methodology

Portals and EnterpriseContent Management

Index of Charts

eMarketer’s approach to market research is founded on a philosophy ofaggregating data from as many different sources as possible. Why? Becausethere is no such thing as a perfect research study and no single researchsource can have all the answers. Moreover, a careful evaluation andweighting of multiple sources will inevitably yield a more accurate picturethan any single source could possibly provide.

The eMarketer DifferenceeMarketer does not conduct primary research, it therefore has no testingtechnique to defend, no research bias and no client contracts to protect.

eMarketer prepares each market report using a four-step process ofaggregating, filtering, organizing and analyzing data from leading researchsources worldwide.

Using the Internet and accessing a library of electronically-filed researchreports and studies, the eMarketer research team first aggregates publiclyavailable e-business data from hundreds of global research and consultancyfirms. This comparative source information is then filtered and organizedinto tables, charts and graphs. Finally, eMarketer analysts provide conciseand insightful analysis of the facts and figures along with their ownestimates and projections. As a result, each set of findings reflects thecollected wisdom of numerous research firms and industry analysts.

“I think eMarketer reports are extremely useful andset the highest standards for high quality,objective compilation of often wildly disparatesources of data. I rely on eMarketer’s researchreports as a solid and trusted source.”— Professor Donna L. Hoffman, Co-Director, eLab, Vanderbilt University

www.eMarketer.com©2001 eMarketer, Inc.

Analyze

Aggregate

Filter

Organize


9


Methodology


Index of Charts

The Benefits of eMarketer’s AggregationApproachObjective: information is more objective than that provided by any singleresearch sourceComprehensive: gathered from the world’s leading research firms,consultancies and news organizationsAuthoritative: quoted in leading news publications, academic studies andgovernment reportsAll in one place: easy to locate, evaluate and compareReadily accessible: so you can make quick, better-informed businessdecisionsAbove the hype: accurate projections that business people can use withconfidenceTime saving: there’s no faster way to find Internet and e-business stats,online or offMoney saving: more information, for less, than any other source in theworld

“Benchmarking” and ProjectionsUntil recently, anyone trying to determine which researcher was mostaccurate in predicting the future of any particular aspect of the Internet didnot have a definitive source with which to do this. For instance, over 10firms predicted e-commerce revenues for the fourth quarter 1998 onlineholiday shopping season, and yet no single source could be identified afterthe fact as having the “correct” number. In the Spring of 1999, however, theUS Commerce Department finally began measuring e-commerce B2Cactivity so business people and others could have a benchmark with whichthey could compare and evaluate projections.

eMarketer has adapted its methodology to recognize that certaingovernment and other respected, impartial sources are beginning toprovide reliable numbers that can be consistently tracked over time. Mostof these established sources, however, only measure past results; typically,they do not make predictions.


10


Methodology


Index of Charts

Today, eMarketer formulates its essential e-business numbers by firstidentifying the most established, reputable source for a given sector beingmeasured and then adopting that organization’s figures as benchmarks forthe historical/current period. For instance, eMarketer’s US Internet userfigures will be based on a combination of the most recent data from the USCensus Bureau and the International Telecommunication Union. Using thisdata as the benchmark for 2000 and 2001, eMarketer will make projectionsfor subsequent years based on the following factors:

■ a comparative analysis of user growth rates compiled from otherresearch firms

■ additional benchmark data from Internet rating firms, e.g.,Nielsen//NetRatings, comScore Media Metrix, which use panels tomeasure Internet user activity on a weekly and monthly basis

■ an analysis of broader economic, cultural and technological trends inthe US

Similarly, US e-commerce revenues are being “benchmarked” usinghistorical data from the US Department of Commerce, and broadbandhousehold and penetration rate forecasts are being built off baseline datafrom the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Through this benchmarking process, eMarketer will be holding itself –and its projections – accountable.

“When I need the latest trends and stats on e-business, I turn to eMarketer. eMarketer cutsthrough the hype and turns an overabundance ofdata into concise information that is sound anddependable.”— Mark Selleck, Business Unit Executive, DISU e-business Solutions, IBM

I I Portals and Enterprise Content Management


11



12


Methodology


Index of Charts

A. Portals

Market EstimatesAccording to Giga Information Group, the market for portal software andservices began to take off two years ago, when it doubled from $400million in revenues in 2000 to $800 million by the end of 2001.

Sales of portal software licenses alone totaled $600 million in 2001, withlicense sales increasing by a 35% compound annual growth rate (CAGR)through 2005, according to Giga Information Group.

Among the leading portal solutions vendors, Giga lists Plumtree andVignette’s Epicentric as key specialist vendors in the portal market.Enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendors such as SAP, Oracle andPeopleSoft have also added portal offerings to their enterprise applicationsuites, while application platform vendors such as IBM, BEA Systems andMicrosoft have developed portal solutions as well. The growing presence oflarge, established technology vendors in the portal market is expected toadd a further boost to sales over the mid- to long-term.

Giga Information Group has found that one of the other leading driversof portal software sales is the growing desire of many companies toconsolidate multiple information systems solutions onto one portalinterface, be they for internal employee portals, or for external customer-or supplier-facing Web sites.

Giga predicts that over the next few years, portals will play anincreasingly important role in helping large companies organize access toenterprise content and business applications.

Worldwide Enterprise Portal Software and ServicesRevenues, 1999-2001 (in billions)

1999 $0.20

2000 $0.40

2001 $0.80

Source: Giga Information Group, March 2002

049186 ©2003 eMarketer, Inc. www.eMarketer.com

Worldwide Enterprise Portal Software LicenseRevenues, 1999-2001 (in billions)

1999 $0.15

2000 $0.30

2001 $0.60




13


Methodology


Index of Charts

In its look ahead at the current year’s portal market, Delphi Group estimatesthat worldwide portal software sales will increase from $787 million in2002 to $957 million by the end of 2003, before climbing to $1.13 billionin 2004. Integration projects connecting portal platforms with variousenterprise applications are expected to contribute significantly to thegrowth in spending over the next few years.

The manufacturing industry is projected to lead portal sales, accountingfor 29.7% of market revenues in 2003, followed by governmentorganizations at 22.2% of revenues, and then the financial servicesindustry at 19.0% of revenues, according to Delphi Group.

Delphi Group also predicts that over the next few years, enterprises will begin to spend more on bringing their multiple portals together onto a single platform, rather than continuing to develop separatecustomer- or employee-facing portals that so far have often been builtusing different platforms.

This means that by 2004, portal platforms will account for 45% of portalmarket sales, according to Delphi Group.

Worldwide Enterprise Portal Software* Revenues,2002-2004 (in billions)

2002 $0.79

2003 $0.96

2004 $1.13

Note: *includes collaborationSource: Delphi Group, 2003


2001 2004

Portalplatforms

15%

Portalapplications40%

Portalinfra-structure45%

Portalplatforms

45%

Portalapplications24%

Portalinfra-structure31%

Breakdown of the Worldwide Portal Market, byTechnology, 2001 & 2004 (as a % of total revenues)

Source: Delphi Group, 2002; CIO Magazine, July 2002



14


Methodology


Index of Charts

A third comparative estimate from IDC puts what it calls the “enterpriseinformation portal” market at $3.10 billion by 2006, while Gartner Groupestimates that portal license revenues will increase from $709 billion in2001 to $2 billion in 2006.

As part of its forecast, IDC predicts that portal software sales willincrease by a CAGR of 41% between 2001 and 2006, compared withGartner’s forecast CAGR of 24%. Between 2002 and 2004, Delphi Groupforecasts that portal software sales will grow by a CAGR of 20%.

Divided by world region, The Radicati Group estimates that the UnitedStates is the biggest market for portal software, accounting for 68% ofworldwide revenues in 2002. Sales in Europe are a distant second at 24% ofrevenues, while the Asia-Pacific market remains largely untapped,accounting for less than 6% of global portal software sales.

Broken down by vendor, early data indicates that the portal solutionsmarket was still highly fragmented in 2001, with no vendor taking morethan 7% of all revenues. Furthermore, those companies outside of the topfive vendors held a substantial 68% of the market.

Enterprise Information Portal (EIP) Software MarketWorldwide, 2001 & 2006 (in billions)

2001 $0.55

2006 $3.10

Source: International Data Corporation (IDC), June 2002


Rest of World2%

Asia-Pacific6%

Europe24%

US68%

Enterprise Portal Software Revenues Worldwide, byRegion, 2002

Source: Radicati Group, June 2002



15


Methodology


Index of Charts

However, as the market began to take off in 2001, both IBM and Plumtreesaw their revenues jump over the previous year, with increases of 233%and 125%, respectively, over 2000.

In a more recent study that was published in December 2002, Delphi Groupsurveyed 200 organizations that had implemented a portal of some kind,finding that Plumtree’s portal solution was installed at 15% of thecompanies it surveyed, compared with a 10% market share held byMicrosoft’s SharePoint solution and a 9% market share for Oracle. IBM’sWebSphere portal solution had been installed at 8% of respondents.

When comparing portal market share, it is worthwhile to note that due tovariations in price, some vendors will have a lower share of marketrevenues because their solutions sell at a lower price. On the other hand,these companies are more likely to have a better market share when theirinstalled base of customers is compared with those vendors offering moreexpensive solutions.

For instance, licenses for Microsoft’s SharePoint portal software are lessexpensive than those of other solutions, which partly explains its betterplacement in the Delphi Group survey.

Spending and Usage SurveysIn an October 2002 study of the enterprise portal market, Meta Groupestimates that 20% of Global 2000 companies had deployed a portalplatform as of the third quarter of last year. Anticipating strong growthover the coming months, the Meta Group estimates that portal solutionswill achieve an 85% penetration rate among Global 2000 companies by theend of 2004.

According to a December 2002 Delphi Group survey of enterprise portalimplementations, approximately three-quarters of respondents indicatedthat their current portal solution had only been deployed within the past 15months, while a further 16% of respondents said that they had been usingan enterprise portal of some kind for more than 20 months.

Portal Vendors’ Market Share Worldwide, 2000 & 2001

Plumtree

SAP

IBM

Sun Microsystems

Broadvision

Others

Total

2000 marketshare

5%

–

3%

7%

–

85%

100%

2001 marketshare

7%

7%

7%

6%

5%

68%

100%

Revenuegrowth

125%

–

233%

29%

–

26%

59%

Source: Gartner Dataquest, June 2002



16


Methodology


Index of Charts

In total, 200 Global 2000 companies that had deployed an enterprise portalwere interviewed for the study.

When asked about the number of orientations, or primary userconstituencies that their portals addressed, Delphi Group found that 37% ofrespondents to its survey had at least two primary portals in use, while afurther 25% of enterprises had as many as three portal orientations in use.

Most companies were found to have started with an employee-facingportal, with 51% of enterprises indicating that they were currentlyoperating a portal that serves payroll or HR-related functions.

Once an enterprise becomes comfortable with its internal portal use, thestudy found that many then move on to develop a business-to-businessportal, which typically includes some kind of collaborative solution.Customer-facing portals were discovered to be the least common portalorientations among respondents to the Delphi Group survey.

Primary Orientation of Global 2000 Company Portals,2002 (as a % of respondents)

Business to employee 51%

Business to business 26%

Source: Delphi Group, 2002; CIO Magazine, January 2003


Number of Portal Orientations Used by Global 2000Companies, 2002 (as a % of respondents)

One orientation 28%

Two orientations 37%

Three orientations 25%

Source: Delphi Group, 2002; CIO Magazine, January 2003



17


Methodology


Index of Charts

These results were similar to those of Jupiter Research, which found inearly 2003 that nearly two-thirds of enterprise portals were targeted atemployees, while a further 54% of enterprise portals had been establishedfor business-to-business channel partners or suppliers.

However, a substantial 49% of respondents to the Jupiter surveyindicated that they had deployed a customer portal as well.

As for the amount of time required for a portal implementation, in aseparate survey of 110 of its own customers, Plumtree found that mostcompanies had been able to deploy its portal software within six months,with 32% of respondents having completed their portal deployments withintwo to three months.

Just under two-thirds of Plumtree’s customers, at 64% of respondents,said that they considered their portal deployment to have been a success,while a further 32% said that it was still too early to determine how theirdeployment had gone.

Deployment of Enterprise Portals among Companiesin the US, by Portal Type, 2002 (as a % of respondents)

Employee portals 64%

Customer portals 49%

Portals for channel partners 29%

Portals for suppliers 25%

Source: Jupiter Research, February 2003


12+8%10 to 12

7%7 to 97%

4 to 642%

2 to 332%

14%

Number of Months Required by Plumtree Customersto Deploy Its Portal Software, 2002 (as a % ofrespondents)

Note: n=110 Plumtree customersSource: Plumtree, March 2003



18


Methodology


Index of Charts

By comparison, Meta Group estimated in October 2002 that as many as30% of portal deployments had been described as failures, largely due to a lack of user participation. In some cases, portal deployments were found to have remained the domain of one business unit or division, mostoften the IT department, and had therefore not been adopted throughoutthe enterprise.

As a means of avoiding the development of so-called “empty portals,”Meta Group recommends that companies encourage different businessgroups to submit content to their company’s enterprise portal so that itbecomes a central place for exchanging information.

Meta Group also recommends that companies establish collaborativeforums on their enterprise portals, where separate groups within acompany may work together on a single project. Enterprises are urged tointegrate existing applications with their central portal as well.

According to Plumtree’s experience, the most successful portaldeployments begin as a central place for the dissemination of generalinformation. Over time, different work groups build departmental resourcecenters or collaboration sites within the portal. Eventually, selectcommercial and proprietary applications are integrated with the enterpriseportal, providing users with a single access point to enterprise applications.

Among Plumtree’s customer base, the HR and IT departments weretypically the first lines of business to deploy applications within a portal,followed by the sales & marketing and finance departments.

When it comes to employees’ use of enterprise portals, Agency.comfound in late 2001 that 36% of the US workers it surveyed said that theircompanies’ portals helped them to work more productively.

A further 30% said that their corporate intranets helped them to providegood customer service, while 28% said that their company portals let themcollaborate with fellow employees.


19


Methodology


Index of Charts

Employee directories, statements of company benefits and policies, andonline training were among the most popular portal features thatparticipants in the Agency.com survey cited as being most helpful.Company news was also listed as one of the more useful features.

Respondents to Agency.com’s study estimated that they were saving anaverage 2.84 hours per week, thanks to the use of their companies’corporate intranets. Based upon a 40-hour workweek, this represents about7% of workers’ time.

Assuming that an employee earns an average $55,000 per year,Agency.com calculates that enterprises can save an average $3,908 per employee, while for heavier portal users, this savings can go as high as $7,178.

US Employees’ Opinions Regarding the Benefits ofIntranets/Corporate Portals, 2001 (as a % ofrespondents)

Can work more productively

36%

Can provide good customer service

30%

Can collaborate effectively with other employees

28%

Can make good business decisions

22%

Can collaborate effectively with customers and partners

19%

Note: n=543Source: Agency.com, November 2001


Impact of Intranets and Corporate Portals on USEmployee Productivity, 2001 (as a % of respondents)

Average Heavy usage (8 hours+)

Medium usage(2-8 hours)

Light usage(0-2 hours)

Hours saved perweek

2.84 5.22 2.32 0.63

Productivityimpact*

7.1% 13.1% 5.8% 1.6%

Savings peremployee** (in thousands)

$3,908 $7,178 $3,196 $867

Note: n=543; *based on 40 hours/week; **based on fully loaded cost of$55,000 per employee per yearSource: Agency.com, November 2001



20


Methodology


Index of Charts

Due to the high variability among different kinds of portal deploymentsand their complexity, Meta Group estimates that the cost of a portalsolution can vary from $200 to $2,000 per user seat, per year. Softwarelicensing, according to Meta Group, accounts for just 10% to 20% of thetotal project cost.

As part of its December 2002 portal study, Delphi Group surveyed 500companies that were either current or potential portal solutions buyers.Among the study’s findings, it was discovered that by far, collaborativecapabilities were among the leading functions that enterprises want to beincluded in portal software.

Other key functions include enterprise search capabilities, a single sign-on feature, and content management capabilities.

When it comes to deploying their companies’ Web-based portal solutions,the vast majority of IT executives would like to be able to implement suchsolutions as quickly as possible, finds Line56 Research.

Leading Functions that Enterprises Want to BeIncluded in Portal Software, 2002 (as a % ofrespondents)

Collaboration 74%

Enterprise search 73%

Single sign-on 73%

Content management 72%

Taxonomy management 63%

Directory services 55%

Instant messaging 40%

Business process management 39%

Note: n=500 enterprise software buyersSource: Delphi Group, December 2002



21


Methodology


Index of Charts

However, for 85.9% of respondents, it is also important to have an effectivestrategy for their portal deployment that aims to provide integrated accessto existing applications via a single platform. By taking the time to workout such a strategy, businesses believe that they can reduce integrationcosts over the longer term.

Most respondents to the Line56 Research study also want to consolidateInternet-based access to enterprise applications through a single portal,rather than provide unique interfaces to each application.

Among its own customers, Plumtree has found that most companies haveintegrated between one and five commercial applications within theirenterprise portals. Groupware, content management solutions, ERP and aportlet framework for Microsoft Excel were the most common applicationsthat users had integrated with Plumtree’s solution as of early 2003.

In terms of the number of documents that Plumtree customers have madeavailable through their enterprise portals, the median number ofdocuments ranges from 1,000 to 10,000, although just under 20% of itscustomers have made more than 50,000 documents available through theirportal solutions.

Global IT Executives' Primary Strategy for DeployingPortal and Web Applications, 2003 (as a % ofrespondents)

Priority is to deploy portal and Web applications quickly, withlong term portfolio management costs to be considered in future

14.1%

Quick portal deployment is a priority, but consolidation ofexisting applications and information is critical to decrease longterm costs

85.9%

Note: n= 397 IT executivesSource: Line56 Research, March 2003


How Global IT Executives Describe Their Company'sEnterprise Portal, 2003 (as a % of respondents)

Online access to information and functionality of each enterpriseapplication provided through a unique interface

15.8%

Online access to information and functionality of each enterpriseapplication provided through a consolidated interface

84.2%

Note: n= 397 IT executivesSource: Line56 Research, March 2003



22


Methodology


Index of Charts

Access to so many documents is made possible through the integration ofPlumtree’s portal solution with other systems, which requires a complexsynchronization of data as it moves between Plumtree’s Web-basedenvironment and other systems.

B. Enterprise Content Management

Market EstimatesGiga Information Group describes the market for enterprise contentmanagement solutions as one that is in transition, as documentmanagement applications sales are in decline, while Web contentmanagement (WCM) solutions are seeing rapid growth.

In 2001, for example, sales of document management solutions andservices fell by 8% from $1.80 billion in 2000 to $1.65 billion in 2001. Onthe other hand, sales of Web content management solutions grew by asubstantial 29%, from $890 million in revenues in 2000, to $1.15 billion inrevenues in 2001.

When services and maintenance fees revenues are deducted, overallcontent management software license sales fell slightly, from $1.61 billionin 2000 to $1.49 billion in 2001.

Once again, however, document management software sales pulled thebroader category down, falling by 23%, while Web content managementsoftware saw 18% growth. Furthermore, this 18% growth came on top of224% growth in Web content software license sales in 2000.

Breakdown of Worldwide Enterprise ContentManagement Software and Services Revenues,1999-2001 (in billions)

1999 2000 2001

Document management $1.41 $1.80 $1.65

Web content management $0.27 $0.89 $1.15

Total enterprise content management $1.67 $2.70 $2.80



Breakdown of Worldwide Enterprise ContentManagement Software License Revenues, 1999-2001(in billions)

1999 2000 2001

Document management $0.73 $1.01 $0.78

Web content management $0.18 $0.60 $0.71

Total enterprise content management $0.91 $1.61 $1.49




23


Methodology


Index of Charts

According to Giga Information Group, the growing importance ofcorporate Web sites in the late 1990s led to the explosion in Web contentmanagement software sales in 2000 and 2001, with vendors such asVignette, Interwoven, Documentum and Stellent benefiting from theirspecialist expertise.

Meanwhile, software vendors such as FileNet, IBM and OpenText sawtheir document management software revenues decline, as fewerbusinesses purchased their solutions in 2001.

Looking ahead to 2005, Giga predicts that sales of Web contentmanagement solutions will increase by a healthy CAGR of 19%, whiledocument management solutions will see slower growth of about 3% peryear. Overall, the content management market is shifting from its pastfocus on document management, to one that includes Web and digitalcontent as well.

Indeed, as of early 2002, industry analysts such as Meta Group havebegun to refer to what is now called the “enterprise content management”(ECM) market, a term that includes both traditional document and Webcontent management solutions, along with the emerging market for digitalasset management solutions.

“The era of solely focusing on WCM is coming to a close. Competitive vendors are integrating WCM, document management, digital assetmanagement, report management, collaboration,and other features to create flexible ECM solutionsthat can be implemented and standardized acrossan entire organization.”— Jarad Carleton, Frost & Sullivan

This re-ordering of the content management market has been touched offby the recent acquisition activity of solutions vendors such asDocumentum, FileNET, and Open Text, which are aiming to assemble wholesuites of content management solutions under their own umbrella.

As a subset of the ECM market, Meta Group predicts that sales of Webcontent management software and services will grow to $10 billion by theend of 2004. IDC estimates that sales of ECM software totaled $2.5 billionat the end of 2002, and will increase by a CAGR of 53% through 2007.


24


Methodology


Index of Charts

According to IDC, the related content and document services market isexpected to grow from $4.8 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion by 2006.

In its breakdown of the content management market, the Meta Groupestimates that by 2004, one-half of the market’s $10 billion in revenues willbe spent on the management of business-to-business data. Just $1 billion isforecast to be spent on employee-facing solutions, while $4 billion will bespent on consumer-related solutions.

Spending and Usage SurveysWith business data continuing to grow at an almost exponential rate, businesses have necessarily turned to content management solutions to better organize and filter the vast amount of information that they are generating.

Among the forces driving the adoption of content management solutionshas been the growth of Web-based communication and relateddocumentation, along with significant improvement in contentmanagement technology.

Content and Document Management ServicesSpending Worldwide, 2001-2006 (in billions)

2001 $4.8

2002 $6.1

2003 $8.0

2004 $12.0

2005 $17.0

2006 $24.4

Source: International Data Corporation (IDC), March 2002; BoardwatchMagazine, May 2002


Content Management Market, by Segment, 2004 (inbillions)

B2E $1.0

B2C $4.0

B2B $5.0

Source: META Group, March 2002; ZDNet, May 2002



25


Methodology


Index of Charts

Changes in regulatory rules for businesses in the financial services andpharmaceuticals industries have also forced companies to find ways tobetter store, organize and retrieve information. This has fostered aresurgence in sales of document management solutions sales since early2002, while Web content management (WCM) software sales have recentlyfallen behind.

As for those packaged solutions that businesses are using to managetheir content, Yankee Group found in October 2002 that 76% of the 600medium-size and large businesses that it surveyed were using traditionalWeb content management software from vendors such as Documentum,FileNET and Interwoven, among others.

Other packaged content management solutions were less commonlyused, with just 11% of respondents using brand asset management softwareand 7% using digital asset management applications.

A significant 9% of firms were found to be using integrated contentmanagement suites – a percentage that is expected to grow over the nextseveral years.

Forrester Research discovered in a June 2002 study that more than one-halfof the Global 3500 companies it surveyed used their own internallydeveloped tools to manage content.

Type of Content Management Software Used byBusinesses Worldwide, 2002 (as a % of respondents)

Traditional Web content management (i.e., Documentum, FileNET,Interwoven, Stellent and/or Vignette)

76%

Brand asset management (BAM)

11%

Integrated content management suites

9%

Digital asset management (DAM)

7%

Video asset management software

6%

Source: Yankee Group, October 2002



26


Methodology


Index of Charts

Among the leading commercial applications, 22% of respondents said theyused Lotus Domino, followed by 16% that use Oracle’s Internet File Systemand 13% that use Documentum 4i.

Within the narrower Web content management market, Meta Groupestimates that as of the first quarter of 2002, 60% of Global 2000organizations had purchased a WCM package from a solutions vendor.Meta Group projects that by 2005, 95% of Global 2000 firms will havepurchased a packaged WCM solution.

By contrast, Yankee Group found in October 2002 that 60% of thebusinesses it surveyed used homegrown WCM tools and applications,which typically had “rudimentary workflow, security and access control.” Itis worthwhile to note that Yankee Group included medium-size and largebusinesses in its study, while Meta Group’s survey focused on larger, Global2000 firms.

Tools Used by Global 3,500 Companies to ManageContent, 2002 (as a % of respondents)

Homegrown/developed internally

54%

Lotus Domino

22%

Oracle Internet File system

16%

Documentum 4i

13%

Broadvision One-to-One Content

10%

Microsoft Content Management Server

10%

Rational Suite ContentStudio

8%

Interwoven TeamSite

7%

Microsoft SharePoint Server

7%

Vignette V5 or V6

4%

Source: Forrester Research, June 2002



27


Methodology


Index of Charts

Among those industries that are most likely to be using a homegrownsolution, 56% of firms from the financial services industry were using suchapplications, compared with 49% of manufacturing sector firms and 48%of government organizations.

Yankee Group found that Web content management software was widelyused by more than 80% of businesses with more than $10 million in annualrevenues. A significant 73% of companies with less than $10 million inrevenues also used Web content management software.

Businesses Worldwide that Use HomegrownApplications to Manage Their Web Content, by Sector,2002 (as a % of respondents)

Financial services 56%

Manufacturing 49%

Government 48%



Businesses Worldwide that Use Web ContentMangement Software, by Annual Revenues, 2002 (as a% of respondents)

Under $10 million 73%

$10 million to $99.9 million 81%

$100 million to $499.9 million 86%

$500 million to $1 billion 86%

More than $1 billion 84%

Total 78%




28


Methodology


Index of Charts

As for the greatest challenges that companies have with implementingcontent management tools, 42% of respondents to Forrester’s survey saidthat customization was difficult. A further 36% said that integration withthird party applications was another challenge, while just under one-thirdof respondents said that they found content management tools difficult tolearn, administer and implement.

These findings bode well for the content management services market,which IDC sees as the larger opportunity within the overall ECM space,with installation, customization and training representing a significantopportunity for full-service solutions vendors.

Indeed, Frost & Sullivan notes that some leading software vendors havebeen selling content management solutions at a heavy discount, as a lossleader for more lucrative services contracts.

In order to keep up with the growth of both Web content and digitizedpaper content, businesses have necessarily had to turn to enterprise searchsolutions as part of their overall content management strategies.

Greatest Challenges with Content Management ToolsFaced by IT Executives at Global 3,500 Companies,2002 (as a % of respondents)

Hard to customize 42%

Third-party integration 36%

Hard to learn 31%

Hard to administer 31%

Hard to implement 30%

Poor vendor support 18%

Hard to use 16%

Other 12%

Note: n=134Source: Forrester Research, June 2002



29


Methodology


Index of Charts

Not surprisingly, when it comes to integrating Web content managementsolutions with other enterprise applications, 55% of respondents to theYankee Group study said that their Web content management solutions hadbeen integrated with a search solution.

“Portal integration is growing in importance asorganizations recognize the need for a robustcontent infrastructure to support portal initiatives.”— Andrew Warzecha, Meta Group

Indeed, a further 37% of respondents to the Yankee Group survey said thattheir WCM solution had been integrated with their corporate portal.

Another step towards portal integration includes the implementation oftaxonomies and metadata. As content management applications integratewith e-business applications such as CRM, ERP, and others, the need for anenterprise search solution is evident. A successful system demands bothsearch and navigation and typically employs a taxonomy. A taxonomy is acollection of topics and subtopics arranged in a hierarchical or networkedstructure as a means to organize content. Not unlike a library catalog, ataxonomy must be continually updated in order to insure accuracy ininformation retrieval.

Businesses Worldwide that Integrate Web ContentManagement with Other Enterprise InformationManagement Applications, 2002 (as a % ofrespondents)

Search solutions 55%

Corporate portals 37%

Collaboration tools 28%

CRM 21%




30


Methodology


Index of Charts

Giga Information Group outlined the 10 best practices for creating ataxonomy. These practices are presented in the following chart:

Automated software applications to tag documents are increasingly usedfor large volumes of content. Leading vendors offering automated taggingsolutions include Autonomy, Inktomi, Convera, Verity, and Stratify. Gigafinds that maintaining taxonomy quality over time requires an automatedsolution, established policies, and the participation of informationprofessionals and knowledge workers.

For more on portals and content management solutions, stay tuned to http://www.emarketer.com for the E-Business Softwarereport — coming in June 2003.

Giga’s 10 Best Practices for Creating a Taxonomy, 20031. Pick a business objective; limit the scope of the taxonomy to this

2. Perform a knowledge audit to map how information is generated, located and used across business processes

3. Draft high-level taxonomy architecture

4. Develop a proof-of-concept taxonomy

5. Bring together stakeholders and build consensus

6. Keep a history of decisions made about changes to the overall taxonomy design

7. Add detail to the taxonomy and examine logical relationships to make sure all items are at the same level of abstraction

8. Know when to quit

9. Establish maintenance and governance processes

10. Evaluate technology and assess vendors at the end of planning

Source: Giga Information Group, January 2003


Index of Charts


31



32


Index of Charts


33


Index of Charts


34


Index of Charts


35


Index of Charts


36


Index of Charts

portals and content management - ross school of business...company’s research and analyst teams...

Documents