Using DAM Vendor Selection Consultants – Advice For Purchasing Managers

Having recently published a report for purchasing managers that explains some best practice recommendations for reviewing digital asset management systems, we decided to devote a separate article on the role of vendor selection consultants and how external advisory service providers can be used in the vendor selection process.

There has been a fair amount of discussion about this topic in the software industry and beyond. While we cannot offer a definitive answer as to whether using an external vendor selection consultancy is worthwhile or not, we can share some experiences and thoughts, as well as outline a methodology that we believe encourages selection consultants in the DAM industry to offer a more ‘outcomes oriented’ approach to choosing vendors that aligns their goals more with those of end users.

As with any discussion of this nature, you need to form your own view about the relevancy and accuracy of the points raised by researching the subject closely yourself. As such, this article is more of an opinion post rather than a best practice guide.

What Is Vendor Selection?

Vendor selection means identifying a service provider to fulfil a project or implementation requirement you might have. Like any other business activity, it can be done in-house or contracted out. Outsourced vendor selection is most commonly used when the end user believes they could benefit from hiring a third party to help them choose a suitable service provider. The role itself has an unusual position that is part recruitment/hiring agency and part critic/review panel.

Why Use A Vendor Selection Consultant?

The textbook business case for using a vendor selection consultant is the ability to leverage their expertise, contacts and knowledge of the industry you are trying to purchase products or services in. Depending on their previous dealings with you and your sector, they might also cite their knowledge of your industry and company culture as additional benefits.

A good vendor selection consultancy will thoroughly research the market for your specific DAM needs. They should have a more in-depth research methodology than typing a few choice phrases into an internet search engine and making follow-up phone calls to arrange meetings (as you can do that in-house). The method used for selecting vendors should be clear, transparent and they should have an authoritative grasp of the majority of products on offer and a deep knowledge of key suppliers: their specialisms, sectors, key strengths etc

Change For The Better

Although vendor selection services can be invaluable for some organisations, the wider practices of these consultancies require industry-wide revision. It seems unsatisfactory that a single external entity can potentially impact the course of the implementation without necessarily remaining for the duration of a project or having any further stake in it. Therefore, in this article we aim to demonstrate a range of potential issues with using third parties to choose technology vendors and illustrate some solutions that may benefit everyone involved.

What Exactly Is The Problem?

Below are a number of areas where poor or biased selection consultant decisions can impact negatively for their clients.

1. Charging Vendors To Participate

Some analysts charge clients a fee for a report with existing evaluations of vendor products (based on a previous analysis or a dedicated review). If the document is independent and vendor neutral, then this is a reasonable option and allows cost conscious purchasing managers to get feedback without the expense of hiring the consultancy for a full engagement. In some cases however, the analysts will contact vendors and ask them to pay to participate or ‘sponsor’ the report on the understanding that they will be offered the opportunity to feedback on their own product. It is difficult to see how buyers can get a reasonable and fair evaluation from a report where the participants are required to ‘pay to play’. Either vendors will refuse to participate or will request some control over content.

If you are considering using these reports, find out how vendors are chosen for inclusion and why. You might not be able to glean this directly from speaking to an account manager, but perusal of their website should tell you if the marketing is as much to the sellers as it is the buyers. One further point with these reports is, even if they are impartial and objective, they may not cover a number of the vendors your own research has revealed, so that point needs to be verified also.

2. Lacking Deeper Knowledge

One benefit of vendor selection consultancies is their deeper knowledge of both the technology and how it can best serve your organisation and business sector. An intimate understanding of both the technical and business environment is required to match a suitable vendor to each client’s unique requirements. Such specific knowledge is not gleaned quickly, however. Even if a consultancy team has been involved in several DAM implementations, they may still lack the critical experience in the specific problems the DAM system must address. When sourcing vendor selection consultants, clients need to be assured that the team has some experience of the usage scenario proposed. Experience of the vertical market is a bonus, but with DAM it’s more about the nature of the task at hand and the business case, as these can vary widely across different firms – even those who operate in the same market sector.

Check who will be evaluating vendors and ask them about their personal experience in DAM, previous projects, etc. How long have they actually worked in this market and for who? Don’t just go on the credentials of the consulting company – it must be the people who you will work with directly who must be assessed. Also worth checking is how long the principle consultants will remain assigned to the project and in what capacity. If personnel changes to the consulting team are proposed later in the project, similar scrutiny of these individuals may also be required.

3. Value For Money Or Buying The Cheapest?

Understandably there are considerable cost pressures at the present time and procurement teams will be motivated to ensure that maximum return-on-investment is achieved. However, be careful how the vendor selection consultancy is incentivised. If the vendor selector has some management control over your budget or gets remunerated based on ‘best value obtained’ they can potentially be motivated to place too much emphasis on price at the sake of other key criteria. Ultra-cheap vendors may indeed represent great value for money or there may other less favourable reasons behind their pricing strategy (for example, underestimating the project scope). Always ensure you understand how any discount has been achieved and any potential concessions that may conflict with overall objectives for the solution (for example, long-term contractual commitments).

4. Financial Conflicts of Interest

This is less common with DAM because most vendors are not big enough to be publicly quoted, but just as financial analysts are required to declare an interest when issuing comments about market participants, it’s not unreasonable to request similar information from vendor selection consultancies as standard practice. If the project is significant and the award of it highly lucrative for the vendor then there is a potential risk of impropriety and that has to be minimised. The situation can become more complicated if the consultancy employs individuals who used to work for a vendor (‘poacher turned gamekeeper’). However, if all vendor selection consultancies are required to declare their interests, purchasing managers can at least make an informed decision about the potential risks and decide how to proceed.

5. Too Risk Adverse: Reliance on ‘Safe Lists’

Of course, all good vendor selection consultancies will only want to recommend those vendors who can provide reliable services to their clients. A common tactic amongst hiring agencies is to retain a ‘safe list’ of individuals or service providers with whom the organisation has worked successfully in the past and to refer back to this list to reduce selection risks. However, the use of safe lists does reduce the value of the selection consultancy to the client as rather than evaluating the entire market, only a small percentage of potential vendors are ever reviewed. In a market that is changing so rapidly, this strategic approach can be detrimental, as new or improved solutions are bypassed in favour of those ‘tried and trusted’ options. Remember, the role of the selection consultancy is to find the best vendor match for your problem, an objective that is impacted if only a sub-section of potential vendors is ever considered. Avoiding this problem is not easy. Some methods include asking the selection consultancy to declare how many times they have selected a vendor over a given period and for what implementations. Even if an NDA prevents them from naming specific clients, it should be possible to provide the business sectors involved and the numbers alone may speak volumes.

How Can Clients And Vendor Selection Consultancies Collaborate Better?

Analysis of the potential issues above indicates that some changes to practice are required. As outlined above, one methodology is to better align the goals of both client and consultancy throughout the duration of the engagement. Essentially, this requires that consultants have a stake in the overall outcome of the DAM project in common with the other participants in the process.

What Methods Can Be Used?

First consider the two most difficult tasks with Digital Asset Management system implementation:

  • Building DAM products
  • Realising the potential ROI from DAM

Software engineering is difficult. The implementation of a DAM system involves complex planning, coding, testing and refinement by a highly skilled team of people across many disciplines. Further, ensuring that an organisation is able to exploit the full potential of their DAM system once implemented is an equally complex task. Often this activity is labelled ‘change management’ and sidelined as ‘stuff that happens afterwards’ rather than being at the forefront of the procurement process when the system is initially considered.

This is where the DAM vendor selection industry is well positioned to provide high quality, results-orientated services to their clients. By working with clients to design strategies for full service delivery, rather than simply selecting a vendor at the starting line, consultants would be able to support those critical initial decisions made over the longer term, and clients would be able to benefit from a similar ‘results-orientated’ service as they do from vendors.

Instead of paying someone x days at y consulting rate for choosing a vendor to build the solution and then going away, the vendor selector should have responsibility for getting it into active use and be at least partly remunerated based on how well they achieve that goal (on project outcomes). This would ensure there is a correlation between the vendor consultants choose and how effectively that vendor/consultant team meet the Digital Asset Management needs of the business.

All the potential risks described could be avoided if the consultant, vendor and client all shared a common commercial objective. It would enable those consultants who really understand what makes a successful DAM to gain a proven advantage over their less diligent counterparts.

Conclusion

Our contention is that this ‘results-orientated’ approach may become commercial reality sooner rather than later. At the time of writing this article, the economic outlook remains poor outside the tech industry and although the DAM market has boomed over the last few years, the issue of long-term usage and adoption is becoming critical as the relative cost of replacing a DAM increases and access to capital investment is constrained. Companies simply cannot afford under-utilised systems that cost substantial amounts, both in terms of direct expenditure and staff productivity.

It is difficult to conceive of buyers in any software market being willing or able to retain consultancy services unless consultants step up to the challenge and demonstrate how they can add value to the delivery process beyond their current approach. More experienced consultants in both the Digital Asset Management and general Content Management markets have identified this issue and are likely to lead the way in a more client-centric, outcomes-lead service offer.

DAM System Reviews: A Guide For Buyers

Today we added to our growing range of Digital Asset Management Whitepapers a new report aimed at purchasing managers who have to review DAM systems as part of a corporate purchasing exercise.   “DAM System Reviews: A Buyer’s Guide To Procurement Best Practices” describes a framework we have used in our consulting work that helps businesses to focus on the business case for a DAM system and rationalise down many of the vast number of DAM product options now on the market.

Being in the somewhat rare position of having both helped clients to buy products and also acted as vendors of DAM implementation services ourselves, we been able to observe the process from both sides and this has informed our report and enabled us to see more clearly what works and what does not.

We have structured the paper around providing answers to a number of common questions about reviewing DAM system to decide what one to buy:

  • Who are the end users?
  • What do they really want?
  • What is the business case?
  • What will the impact on the business be?
  • Who are the candidate vendors?
  • How should we manage the selection process?
  • Once we have decided on a vendor, how should we proceed?

Although the questions seem simple enough, the answers (especially to the first four) are anything but.  I don’t think it has gone unnoticed in the DAM industry that there appears to be an excess of choice for buyers in the form of increased number of vendors and divergence in what different people mean when they refer to something as a “DAM System”.

Many prospective buyers are confused about what they should expect and how to narrow down the options to help them choose between different products that may be radically different from each other but share the same Digital Asset Management description. Despite the more specific terminology, the situation is only marginally better in related disciplines like Brand Asset Management, Marketing Resource Management, Enterprise Content Management or Media Asset Management (the quantity of examples itself speaks volumes).

We at Daydream think it is in the interests of the whole industry that buyers are able to concentrate more easily on products that directly answer their specific business needs.  Education is vitally important to help end users understand how to relate features and product choices back to their own circumstances and we hope this paper will go some way towards enabling them to achieve that objective.

Managing and Costing DAM Projects: 8 Steps To Success

Today we released a new white paper about managing and costing DAM projects.

We have written the report partly in response to the narrow focus of many of the RFPs we have to review (either in a consultative capacity or when responding to them ourselves).  So often we see RFPs that are merely wish-lists of technical features presented as a ‘scorecard’ style quantative evaluation that consists of either highly specific feature requests or glibly summarised, close-ended questions such as “Easy to use: yes/no?   Although this approach may suffice for ‘phase one’ or simple DAM systems, it is a blunt instrument if the requirements are more specialist or involve larger enterprise solutions. We often find insufficient consideration is given to the overall DAM delivery and implementation process and managers can be unprepared as a result.

It’s easy to see why these situations occur with RFPs; many of the prospective buyers are asked to prepare them by procurement departments as part of the due diligence process that they have to carry out to obtain funds and commence implementation.  The need for a DAM solution is usually fairly well advanced by this point and there is pressure from the business to get a solution into operation quickly, so a list of requirements is hastily brainstormed by some of the stakeholders without full consideration of how the DAM solution will be used across its entire lifespan.

Our aim with this report is to arm project managers charged with more demanding DAM projects with the information they need to bring their projects to a successful conclusion.  The report describes 8 steps within a phased implementation plan that managers can use as a framework for organising DAM projects and, most importantly, costing them accurately also.  The paper is available on request via the DAM reports area on our website.

New Partnership With US Video Specialists: Video Transfer

We are pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Boston (US )based firm, Video Transfer. As media conversion and video specialists, the team at Video Transfer will be working with us to provide top notch video asset management solutions and services to businesses worldwide. Video Transfer will be able to work closely with our technical team here in the UK to design and engineer features specifically for digital video asset management. With their considerable experience and our technical know-how, we’re looking forward to an exciting and productive relationship.

For more information on partner opportunities with us, please contact us.

Digital Asset Management Hosting For Marketing Managers

We have released a report today entitled In-Source or Outsourcing Digital Asset Management Hosting: A Guide For Marketing Managers that aims to guide marketing managers engaged in DAM projects through the often difficult process of deciding whether or not to run their DAM system in-house, on their organisation’s own hosting facilities, or whether they should out-source application hosting to their DAM vendor (or vendor’s preferred hosting supplier).

The report presents the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches to DAM hosting in clear, non technical language that is intended to help marketing and brand managers make an informed decision on which approach is best for their media library and unique business circumstances.  The paper also provides readers with a comprehensive checklist that can be used to determine the best approach.  The main points covered include:

  • Asset sensitivity
  • Business impact of asset unavailability
  • Proportion of internal verses external users
  • Typical asset sizes
  • Scalability and availability of internal hosting facilities
  • Capabilities of the DAM vendor
  • Ease of access
  • Licensing restrictions and software requirements
  • Integration with internal business systems
  • Network capacity and IT constraints
  • IT policy and security considerations
  • Budget and cost

This whitepaper can be requested from our digital asset management reports area along with many other DAM reports and articles.

A Business Case For Open Source DAM

UK cabinet office minister, Francis Maude, hit the nail on the head in a statement released last week where he identified that ‘for too long, Government has wasted vast amounts on ineffective and duplicate IT systems‘.  While not everyone may agree with his politics, it is an observation that will no doubt resonate not only through the public sector but with many private organisations also.  In this new era of austerity, businesses must find new ways of cutting costs but not at the detriment of the new and innovative technologies that drive enterprise forward.  The question is, how?

In the UK, Government has proposed a two-tier approach to applying the brakes to heavy expenditure on unsuccessful ‘monolithic IT projects’, namely the adoption of open source and standards, coupled with a move to a cloud based infrastructure.  Via these steps, they are confident that they will be able to consolidate and streamline its sprawling IT estates, delivering better public services in the longer term.  The business case for open source software is not just confined to Government initiatives, however.  Numerous benefits can be reaped by businesses who switch away from proprietary models to newer open systems and standards.

A Business Case For Open Source: Greater Reliability, Quality and Freedom

Contrary to the fading misconception that open source software is forged by the sweaty palms of anarchists and adolescents, open source is fast becoming the next serious business model for software development and distribution.

The advantages that the open source approach can bring businesses are profound.  First, better security and reliability are afforded via the power of mass peer review.  The more diverse the product community, the broader the product use, and the sturdier the technology as a consequence.  But we’ve also found that fresh and innovative approaches to open source system engineering and communal engagement can generate even greater value.  With the right platform appeal, an open source project can draw in engineers, analysis and consultants with high-level skills and expertise, who are willing to contribute to a system that is not only robust, but endlessly innovative.  Qualified peer review can therefore lead to software that is both reliable and highly suited for large-scale enterprise use.

Last, the crucial advantage for businesses is open access to the source code.  This fundamental difference in the business relationship means organisations can leverage existing resources to support and develop their software, without vendor constraint, should they choose to.  Open source licensing therefore lowers risk and can reduce ongoing costs for users, whilst also fostering a more mature relationship between vendors and their clients that inevitably leads to closer collaboration and greater frequency of new projects.  Open source is therefore open for business in our book.

Wikileaks & The Financial Crisis: Lessons For Managing Risk With Cloud Hosted DAM

Recently, I was a having a conversation with a partner in a professional services business Daydream has dealings with (although they are not a client of ours).  We discussed the Wikileaks disclosures where diplomatic cables were copied and released to embarrassment of various governments.  My associate explained that currently, they ran the backup for their practice overnight to tape and he or another partner took the cartridge from the previous night home with them to ensure they had an off-site backup.  This is a fairly common technique and I have encountered a number of SMEs who do the same.

Not long ago, my associate had a conversation with an IT consultant who had recommended they switch to a Cloud based backup facility which would automatically transfer the files off-site every night, avoiding the need for tapes and the need to physically transport them off-site.

They had quite seriously contemplated taking out the service, but after hearing about the Wikileaks disclosures, they decided to abandon this idea and stick to the tapes.  Why?  He and his colleagues determined that if a group of hackers were able to get around high security defences used to protect diplomatic cables then it would have to be quite easy for someone to break into a commodity Cloud service of the type they were being pushed to recommend.  Since their backups contain gigabytes of extremely sensitive client data and they had no way of telling how well protected the service really was apart from the vendor’s own claims, the perceived risk was unacceptably high for them.

There are some mitigating circumstances that weaken the validity of this as an argument to avoid using a Cloud service provider.  For a start, the Wikileaks diplomatic cables appear to have been leaked by an insider using some simple techniques that owe more to social engineering rather than advanced hacking.  Also, if you store tapes in your own home, unless they are held in a safe, there is still a risk of the data being stolen and sold on by an opportunistic house burglar – albeit one who would have to understand the potential value of a backup tape how to get the data off it.


Trust and Control Issues With Cloud Service Providers

For Daydream, Cloud hosting certainly has appeal and we do make use of it for client digital asset management implementations.  The Cloud offers seemingly limitless scalability, built-in redundancy (usually designed from the ground up so it works properly) and a charging model which is usage based and therefore highly cost efficient.  For Digital Asset Management it appears the perfect delivery platform.  Furthermore, being able to avoid all the hardware issues with hosting your own kit such as holding inventories of parts, redundant servers and constant monitoring for potential faults are massive benefits in themselves.

Like my associate, however, my enthusiasm is tempered with some doubts about whether a wholesale move completely into the Cloud is advisable.  The key issues are trust and control: trust because the Cloud requires you to put near absolute faith in the provider; control because you implicitly cede management of the security and integrity of the data to the Cloud provider and more or less have to just hope they won’t be compromised.

The description ‘Cloud’ is unusually apt for an IT concept as it does hint at the nebulous and opaque nature of the service offer – which is both its strength and weakness. As I write, there has been no serious business failure of a significant Cloud provider that I am aware of.  This has to be question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ though.  While it seems unlikely that any of the major players are in imminent danger any time soon (quite the opposite), the recent financial crisis has also demonstrated how rapidly apparently wealthy corporations can be reduced to bankruptcy because of some poor senior management decision making that was covered up until it was far too late to rectify.  So (in my mind at least) size and highly recognisable branding are not necessarily any reliable indicators of stability or propriety.

As well as the possibility of business failure, there is the ongoing risk they may merge or be sold to other providers.  They may decide to hike their prices and remove smaller or less profitable accounts.  Most importantly, what do they actually do with your data and how can they protect it in practical terms?

All of the Cloud vendors will pinpoint their best practice guidelines and possibly even IT audits that prove their stability and cross-border compliance with data protection legislation in a variety of jurisdictions, however, the financial crisis has demonstrated that it is unwise to base your risk analysis solely on the findings of a third party agency or auditor alone.

Balancing Technology, Risk and Cost When Considering Cloud Services

I would stress I do not want to write a FUD piece about how risky Cloud hosting is and that we should all invest in mass redundant storage devices and private data centres etc, I do believe the Cloud is a great concept with a lot of worthwhile benefits that make it highly suited to Digital Asset Management requirements, however, like any kind of IT investment, risk management and a critical evaluation of the pitfalls and how to avoid them is absolutely crucial.

When assessing with clients about how best to handle their DAM hosting needs, we consider three main factors: available technology, risk and cost.  These each have to be balanced to ensure the provision is appropriate, safe and affordable.  The Cloud offers a highly cost effective method to bypass some of the scalability problems associated with conventional hosting and also help reduce risks from equipment failure – but only if used in conjunction with other techniques and you take some direct personal responsibility for managing the risks inherent in each of your choices.

Conclusion

IT (and Digital Asset Management by association) is often characterised as being a ‘fashion’ oriented business where bursts of hype and over-exuberance for a new fad or technology mask some inherent limitations that have yet to be fully revealed.  It strikes me that DAM consultants and vendors who strongly associate themselves with a Cloud based hosting delivery platform as the definitive answer to redundancy, data security and scalability problems are setting themselves up for a fall and a potential PR disaster when the inevitable happens and one of these services is badly compromised or becomes a commercial failure.

The ‘eggs in one basket’ argument is logical, however, the benefits of migrating everything to the Cloud are highly compelling and appear to offer their own form of common sense, i.e. that they offer simplicity and low maintenance.  However, they come with a fairly significant premium in the form of higher risk if you rely upon them exclusively.  While I won’t be asking my colleagues to take tapes home with them like my associate who I referred to at the top of the article, we will be mitigating our risks by not relying on a single vendor, retaining existing conventionally hosted external servers and arranging our own methods of protecting data.

Digital Asset Micromanagement

We published a new article today entitled: The Seven Deadly Sins of Digital Asset Micromanagement which is all about the use and abuse of permissions (and to a lesser extent workflow) in DAM systems.  This is a follow up to our earlier article on the Four Cornerstones of Digital Asset Management.

This is a distillation of the experiences we’ve had over the years dealing with developing DAM solutions for larger clients where the preferred method of risk management is often to throw the permissions “kitchen sink” at the problem and essentially render it very difficult for many users to access assets.  While this tactic can sometimes help reduce the risk of damaging outcomes (e.g. litigation) our experience is that it just keeps legitimate users off the system and harms ROI as a result.

I think the key point is the final one: that it’s essential for both managers and DAM vendors to listen to what users are saying and try to find methods of keeping the legal and IT departments happy while still keeping the focus on why the system was built to begin with.  The full article is here.

Updated Video DAM Report

Since we first started offering Video DAM to our “regular” (i.e. enterprise) clients about 5 years ago, online video has taken off in a big way – in no small part thanks to YouTube and other consumer oriented video platforms.  However, there have been a number of seismic shifts in the video technology landscape, most notably, the ongoing transition from SD to HD, the challenge to Flash’s dominance by HTML5 and the ascendancy of H.264.

So, we have made some significant alterations to our existing whitepaper Video Digital Asset Management: 12 Crucial Points to try and cover some of this.  I must say, however, that while the formats and technologies move around, the general principles about needing to be realistic and pragmatic about what is actually (rather than theoretically) possible on your typical corporate network still remain and this part of the paper didn’t require a lot of updating.

The report is free of charge, you can place a request to get it sent to you from our reports area.

The Inconvenient Truths of Enterprise Digital Asset Management

Last month, an article on CMSWatch.com by Theresa Regli discussed the difficulty of assessing how a DAM system will perform on a typical corporate laptop as compared with what the vendor uses to demonstrate their product at a sales pitch.  In particular the thorny subject of older browsers and devices that don’t support Flash (e.g. iPads and iPhones) was raised.

This prompted me to think about a few more of the inconvenient truths (to borrow a phrase) of delivering web based enterprise DAM systems and the extent to which a typical corporate IT environment can thwart and constrain the scope of what is feasible.  Below I outline six examples that the project implementation team here at Daydream run up against on almost every job we are involved in.  I also explain why I believe that if the DAM software industry does not come to terms with them that they could have a negative impact on demand across the whole sector.

Truth #1: Work with the client’s IT environment or don’t work at all

In larger businesses with centralised corporate IT divisions, making minor changes to a typical browser or desktop setup for significant groups of users involves an epic voyage of change request forms, risk management meetings, deployment and back-out plans before they even get close to implementation.  The IT department’s priority is keeping email coming in, viruses out and achieving a general level of “just don’t touch it” stability.  We have learned that it is best to build DAM solutions that will work with no internal changes required for either administrators or regular users – otherwise expect a long, arduous and frustrating wait to get any kind of solution deployed and into active use.

Truth #2:  Lots of people will still be using IE6

The subject of IE6 causes considerable anguish for designers, developers and vendor sales reps that have to deliver demos on one of their prospective client’s PCs.  Despite the numerous protests about IE6, it’s not going away.  Microsoft are offering support for it until 2014 because they know that while the web development community might hate it, the corporate IT departments who constitute their largest customer base regard upgrading it as a lower priority job that can be deferred until they finally migrate away from Windows XP.  Despite serious security flaws in IE6, the pain of upgrading thousands of desktops is still not sufficient to convince IT departments to bring forward technology refresh programmes.  Add in a recession with a squeeze on IT budgets and the wider picture of why we’re still supporting a browser from 2001 become clearer.

Truth #3: IT will want to host it

Around 10 years ago when we first started installing web based DAM systems, most corporate IT departments did not like the idea of hosting any kind of web application and were more than happy to let us take care of that for them.  As far as they were concerned, they were merely ‘websites’ and not even core business ones at that.  Fast forward to 2010, apply some bad press about ‘Application Service Providers’ (what people now call SaaS), data protection concerns, stories about vendor mega-mergers leaving customers in the lurch, and add in the fact that many IT departments have sunk small fortunes into their own data centres and you have the current scenario.  If the IT department is involved, they often want to host the DAM system internally on their kit and using technologies they can support if the supplier bites the dust.  Where this can get tricky is if the vendor has developed using non-corporate friendly toolset like Ruby, PHP, Plone, Python, ColdFusion etc.  Although we at Daydream don’t have any objection to these technologies (we use many of them for internal systems ourselves), we have learned to use widely accepted enterprise technologies for enterprise DAM to avoid problems when the time comes to deploy to the client’s hosting infrastructure.  As people used to say about IBM, “no one got fired for buying Microsoft” and that is another inconvenient truth of enterprise applications.  Exempted from this are those vendors who chose to implement using that other enterprise stalwart: Java, however, they just have to get used to the inconveniently high cost of hiring anyone half-decent enough to code using it.

Truth #4: Corporate networks are not ready to handle HD content

Time was when people would do any serious internet surfing at work because their home internet connection would be a painfully slow 56k modem.  These days, enterprise connectivity has not kept pace with demand for web and internet services with the result that available bandwidth on many corporate LANs has decreased significantly to the extent that ‘traffic shaping’ and all kinds of other clever devices designed to throttle usage are all too common.  Meanwhile, most user’s home connections are DSL services offering megabits of bandwidth for a monthly cost equivalent to the price of a couple of cinema tickets.

In demanding scenarios such as delivering video, large print media etc. many corporate connections will struggle to cope.  Those slick HD videos of the client’s latest TV commercial being smoothly streamed from the sales guy’s laptop can often translate into a jerky Dadaist farce when viewed on a corporate network.  The inconvenient truth of many enterprise DAM scenarios is that their corporate network doesn’t live up to the performance employees may have grown used to  – especially with bandwidth heavy content like video or large print files.  Before promising to provide these facilities for corporate clients, Daydream consult with IT department to find out about the bandwidth situation and we try to manage the expectations of what can realistically be achieved.

Truth #5: Enterprise IT security products hate AJAX and Flash

IT departments are often keen on a plethora of firewalls, proxy servers, hardware security appliances, packet inspectors and a range of other security paraphernalia (possibly to help deal with all those IE6 security holes).  Whether the DAM system is hosted internally or externally, these devices can frequently cause Flash and AJAX to fail mysteriously and under obscure combinations of circumstances that are difficult to reproduce.

We have learned that it’s advisable to keep the clever client-side scripting or Flash/Flex to a safe minimum and test it very early to avoid the next inconvenient truth that proxy servers, firewalls and other security devices will frequently disable client-side functionality and leave the users with interfaces that are less functional than basic HTML.  I’m not saying that AJAX or Flash should never be used, at Daydream we have taken advantage of both technologies to help with a range of requirements which would have been very difficult to deliver in any other way.  However, we have drawn up a laundry list of tests that anything we implement in them has to survive before we risk using AJAX/Flash in a production environment.  We also try to avoid gratuitous use of them where they do not add anything that cannot be achieved via conventional techniques.

The Final Truth: It’s one thing to build applications, it’s quite another to deploy them

A former senior colleague often used to remind myself and my fellow developers that it’s one thing to build applications, it’s quite another to deploy them.  Over the intervening years I have come to more fully appreciate the significance of this inconvenient truth and what it means when it comes to delivering robust software that will work properly in enterprise IT scenarios.

There is a danger currently that DAM vendors are getting into a features arms race to provide points of differentiation and a wow factor that will help swing attention their way in an increasingly crowded market.  All too many are throwing ill-conceived AJAX or Flash based interfaces into environments where they may fail spectacularly.  The problems often seem to be glossed over by keeping quiet about the potential pitfalls of pushing the envelope and using technologies or techniques that have not been properly tested outside the developer’s lab.

Currently, the DAM market is riding something of a wave of high demand that has bucked the recessionary trend despite an era of declining budgets.  Most vendors with a serviceable product and visible presence have seen their customer acquisition rates rise as a result.  To sustain interest and obtain a foothold as an integral enterprise solution (in the same manner as say HR or Accounts/Finance applications), the DAM software industry needs to get more realistic and honest about how our technologies are going to be used by a typical enterprise customer and engineer for greater robustness and reliability.

If this does not happen we collectively run the risk of our class of applications developing a reputation for hype, riskiness, low reliability and high rates of user abandonment.  This will encourage prospective clients think twice about whether our products can offer long-term ROI and if a better strategy may be to consolidate requirements into do a bit of everything – but none of it very well systems which are perceived as safe, reliable and corporate friendly.  This will be the ultimate inconvenient truth and one I hope we do not have to experience.