There are two companies to choose between: HealthcareX and ServiceY. HealthcareX has experienced rapid growth in both the size of patients as they transition from a paper-based organiz

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Reviewing Enterprise Content Management:

a functional framework

Knut R. Grahlmann1, Remko W. Helms2, Cokky Hilhorst3, Sjaak Brinkkemper2 and Sander van Amerongen4

1Ernst & Young Advisory, The Netherlands; 2Department of Information and Computing

Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; 3Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; 4PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory N.V., The

Netherlands

Correspondence: Knut R. Grahlmann, Ernst & Young Advisory, P.O. Box 7883, 1008 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: þ31 6 2908 3401; E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 22 October 2009 Revised: 5 September 2011 Accepted: 16 September 2011

Abstract Enterprise Content Management (ECM) focuses on managing all types of

content being used in organizations. It is a convergence of previous approaches

that focus on managing only particular types of content, as for example documents or web pages. In this paper, we present an overview of previous

research by categorizing the existing literature. We show that scientific

literature on ECM is limited and there is no consensus on the definition of ECM. Therefore, the literature review surfaced several ECM definitions that

we merge into a more consistent and comprehensive definition of ECM.

The Functional ECM Framework (FEF) provides an overview of the potential functionalities of ECM systems (ECMSs). We apply the FEF in three case studies.

The FEF can serve to communicate about ECMSs, to understand them and to

direct future research. It can also be the basis for a more formal reference

architecture and it can be used as an assessment tool by practitioners for comparing the functionalities provided by existing ECMSs.

European Journal of Information Systems (2012) 21, 268–286. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.41;

published online 25 October 2011

Keywords: enterprise systems; Enterprise Content Management (ECM); Functional ECM Framework; literature study

Introduction Organizations constantly produce various forms of content, for example text documents, spread sheets, web pages or e-mails. Even though organizations are highly dependent on the accessibility and integrity of their content (Dourish et al, 2000), the increase in the amount of content to be managed and its scatteredness throughout organizations have resulted in a situation where the professional management of content has become close to impossible (Grudin, 2006). Files are often just stored locally, making the localization, accessibility, consistency and publication control (e.g. through authorization) of content difficult (Vidgen et al, 2001; Scott et al, 2004). At the same time, external pressures, such as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, force companies to manage (e.g. archive) their content in an organized manner (Engel et al, 2007). Furthermore, the trend towards working in virtual teams and telework requires easy digital access to content to enable work and collaboration from a distance (Strader et al, 1998; Bentley & Yoong, 2000), a prerequisite for working in ‘the next generation workplace’ (Van Heck, 2009).

The domain that studies the above-mentioned problems is referred to as Enterprise Content Management (ECM). It involves an ‘integrated approach to managing all of an organization’s information including paper documents, data, reports, web pages and digital assets [y and all y] the strategies, tools, processes, and skills an organization needs to manage all its information assets (regardless of type) over their lifecycle’

European Journal of Information Systems (2012) 21, 268–286

& 2012 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/12

www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/

(Smith & McKeen, 2003, pp. 647–648). ECM Systems (ECMSs) are positioned as (technical) solutions for the organization-wide management of all types of content (Tyrväinen et al, 2006). Researchers consider ECMSs as a new class of Information Systems (ISs) and have therefore positioned ECM as a new field of IS research, including research on diverse subjects ranging from how to present information to users, over algorithms for infor- mation retrieval to processes for implementing ECMSs (Tyrväinen et al, 2006).

Although ECMSs offer large potential benefits for orga- nizations to manage their content, research on ECM is scarce and in its infancy (Nordheim & Päivärinta, 2006). According to Smith & McKeen (2003), there is a lack of consensus about the term ECM. In addition, Andersen (2008) has observed that the discourse about ECM mainly occurs in practitioners’ literature. As Päivärinta & Munkvold (2005) indicate: ‘Whereas practitioners are already facing [y] challenges, researchers still have provided few aids to manage them from the viewpoint of the enterprise’ (ibid, p. 9).

The intention of this paper is to review and summarize the insights into ECM that academics have provided so far. In particular, we have two research aims. First, by conducting an extensive literature review we want to provide a clear definition of ECM. Second, we aim at providing a Functional ECM Framework (FEF) that describes the functionalities that, according to literature, can potentially be offered by an ECMS. Both the definition and the FEF can serve as a basis for further research and discussion in the field. In addition, the FEF can guide organizations in formulating their ECMS requirements and can be used to compare the function- alities offered by different ECMS vendors (Grefen & De Vries, 1998).

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, our research method and an overview of ECM research is provided, followed by our definition of ECM. The FEF is presented in the subsequent section. In the following section, we shortly present two case studies that provide indications about the completeness, accuracy and usefulness of the FEF. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results, highlighting the con- tributions and providing recommendations for further research.

A literature review of ECM Since ECM is a relatively new concept within the field of IS, the existing body of literature is small and a common definition of ECM has not yet been developed. In this section, we shortly present the position of ECM as an IS research field, specifically in relation to knowledge management. Then, we analyse the current ECM litera- ture. Finally, we review the definitions of ECM in the currently available literature and propose a more con- sistent and comprehensive definition.

The position of ECM as an IS research field Tyrväinen et al (2006) position ECM as a field of IS research, aggregating research results of diverging sub- jects such as retrieval algorithms, usability issues or implementation methods. Nordheim & Päivärinta (2006) and Päivärinta & Munkvold (2005) regard ECM as a subfield of knowledge management, since ECMSs can be used to capture and utilize content that contains explicit knowledge in repositories or to manage organiza- tional knowledge resources. However, even Munkvold et al (2006) and Päivärinta & Munkvold (2005) them- selves argue that ECM incorporates fields that are distinctly different from knowledge management, such as the long-term storage of content or managing scanned invoices. By definition, this kind of content is not organizational knowledge that only exists in the heads of humans. Although ECMSs can be used for supporting knowledge management, it seems likely that ECM and knowledge management are in fact different fields of research that partly overlap (Herschel & Jones, 2005; Dilnutt, 2006; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2006), but which should not be subordinated to each other.

Literature filter criteria We conducted a systematic literature review using the methods described by Webster & Watson (2002), who focus on the structure of a literature review paper, and Okoli & Schabram (2010), who focus on the process of conducting a systematic literature review. For identifying academic papers on ECM, we searched for papers in the following databases: ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest and Worldcat. Addition- ally, we searched the databases of a number of well- respected conferences in the Information Systems field, including AMCIS, ECIS and ICIS.

We conducted full-text searches up until 2009 using ‘Enterprise Content Management’ and the combination of these terms, that is ‘Enterprise’ AND ‘Content’ AND ‘Management’, as our search keys. Furthermore, we followed the practice described by Webster & Watson (2002) to look for citations in the found papers to check for earlier appropriate papers (‘going backward’). Where possible, the databases were also used to look for papers that cite the found papers (‘going forward’). This search process resulted in a collection of several hundred academic papers.

During the collection of the academic papers, we applied a practical screen to determine which papers should be kept for further study (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). Applying the screen has been alternated with the literature search in order to limit the amount of work for ‘going backward and forward’. A rather tolerant screen was used since obtaining a broad overview of papers published in this domain was the goal. For example, limiting the selection to top outlets only would poten- tially exclude ECMS functionalities. This is particularly applicable for emerging research fields like ECM, where the discussion is likely to occur in many different outlets.

Reviewing Enterprise Content Management Knut R. Grahlmann et al 269

European Journal of Information Systems

Screening the papers consisted of checking whether they just accidentally contained the words ‘enterprise’, ‘content’ and ‘management’ and whether they really addressed the topic of ECM. During screening, we developed a more elaborate understanding, resulting in continuous iterations while going through the literature. After screening our database of identified literature, 32 academic papers remained (see Table 1). The papers range from theoretical explorations of the ECM concept to empirical studies and summaries of practitioner case studies. We also decided to exclude Tyrväinen et al (2003) as well as Salminen et al (2005) because they are only one- page-long introductions to the ECM-minitracks at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2003 and 2005.

We used two different methods for data extraction. To address the first research aim, all papers were scanned for definitions or descriptions of ECM. To address the second research aim, a more comprehensive method for data

extraction was followed based on coding techniques from grounded theory research. The technique that was used is very similar to open coding. This is an analytical technique in which phenomena are named and categor- ized through close examination of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This is also known as ‘labelling’: taking a sentence, conceptualizing the general idea of this part of text and giving it a name. Labels that pertain to similar types of phenomena can then be grouped into categories, which can then be re-grouped by comparing them semantically. As described in more detail below, this coding finally resulted in the FEF.

When we analysed these academic papers during the creation of the FEF, we felt that the studied papers did not cover the full range of ECMS functionalities. Therefore, we also added practitioner papers to our database and included them in the data extraction. Including non- scientific literature represents the ‘clinical perspective’ described by Schein (1987), who states that there often is

Table 1 Categorized overview of reviewed articles

Paper Content Technology Enterprise Process Research field

Information User System

1 Kittl & Zeidler (2007) X

2 Aleksy & Schwind (2006) X X

3 Reimer (2002) X X

4 Cheung & Chiu (2003) X X

5 Kwok & Chiu (2004) X X

6 Chiu & Hung (2005) X X

7 Dilnutt (2006) X X

8 Becker et al (2007) X X

9 Böhm (2007) X X X X

10 De Carvalho (2008) X X X X

11 Scott et al (2004) X X X X X

12 Päivärinta & Munkvold (2005) X X X X X X

13 Smith & McKeen (2003) X X X X X

14 Munkvold et al (2003) X X X X X X

15 Andersen (2008) X X X X

16 Nordheim & Päivärinta (2004) X X X X X

17 Iverson & Burkart (2007) X X X X

18 Scheepers (2006) X X X

19 O’Callaghan & Smits (2005) X X X

20 Erickson & Brickey (2008) X X X

21 Nordheim & Päivärinta (2006) X X X

22 Munkvold et al (2006) X X X X X

23 vom Brocke & Simons (2008) X X

24 vom Brocke et al (2008a) X X

25 Rückel et al (2007) X X

26 vom Brocke et al (2008b, 2009) X X X

27 Reich & Behrendt (2007) X X X

28 Usman et al (2009) X X

29 Smolnik (2007) X X X

30 Sprehe (2005) X

31 Osl & Otto (2007) X

32 Tyrväinen et al (2006) X

Total (32) 11 6 19 14 17 16 12

Reviewing Enterprise Content Management Knut R. Grahlmann et al270

European Journal of Information Systems

a difference between what is being described in scientific literature and what practitioners believe to ‘really be going on’ (Schein, 1987, p. 13). We included practi- tioners’ papers from a broad range of sources to limit bias, for example by including only a single vendor. Even though we could find a large number of sources, we chose those papers that we considered to have a certain quality. This resulted in the inclusion of nine practitioner papers for creating the FEF. They are from an often-referenced industry association (the Association for Information and Image Management, AIIM) and two major ECMS vendors who had provided more detailed descriptions of their ECMSs. We also included the observations of an ECM- consultant and descriptions from market researchers. As can be seen from Table A1 in the Appendix, the inclusion of the clinical perspective proved to be useful since several functionalities were either exclusively mentioned in practitioners’ literature or are mainly derived from it.

Structuring the literature To structure our literature research, we used a framework for research on ECM defined by Tyrväinen et al (2006), which has also been adopted by other researchers (cf. vom Brocke & Simons, 2008). Using this framework, we categorized the identified papers according to the four perspectives used in the framework:

1. The content perspective is composed of three views:

1.1. the information view is concerned with the semantics of the content and how it can be represented for different purposes;

1.2. the user view, which elaborates on how content should be presented in order to be interpreted correctly and fit the specific needs of the users; and

1.3. the systems view focuses on systems as containers of the content, which are accessed by the users.

2. The technology perspective addresses the basic technol- ogies used for ECMSs including, for example, hard- ware, software and standards.

3. The enterprise perspective ‘considers organizational, social, and business issues’ (Tyrväinen et al, 2006, p. 630).

4. The process perspective subsumes research about both the development and the deployment of ECMSs.

We added ‘Research Field’ as the seventh category for structuring the literature review, which denotes papers that also comment on ECM as an IS research field, for example by providing a definition of ECM or by categorizing ECM research. This paper for example can be categorized into the systems view and as commenting on ECM as a research field.

The papers in our research database are depicted in Table 1. They are clustered with respect to the perspec- tives they cover (i.e. excluding the column ‘research field’). For simplifying the clustering, we collapsed the three content views into one column by using an OR

function. Hence, the content column contains an ‘X’ in case either the information, user or system column contains an ‘X’. In the next step, the papers are clustered based on similarity. Hence, papers that have the highest similarity, considering the number of perspectives they ‘share’, are positioned next to each other. Simply stated, this clustering process aims at creating the longest possible uninterrupted chains of ‘X’s within a column and across columns. Within the clusters, the papers are sorted based on their year of publication.

Focusing on the individual perspectives, the following observations can be made. First, it becomes apparent that nearly all papers (27) evaluate the content perspective. This largely confirms the claim from Tyrväinen et al (2006) that ‘any piece of ECM research should include the content perspective’ (Tyrväinen et al, 2006, p. 631). However, it should be noted that within the content perspective, the user view has received much less research attention than the other two views. This does not mean that there has not been much attention for this topic in general, but that the topic has not often been related to ECM (our main search key). Second, the other perspec- tives have not been studied as extensively as the content one: 14 papers include the technology perspective, 17 evaluate ECM from an enterprise perspective and 16 from the process perspective. Only 12 papers comment on ECM as an IS research field. Therefore, all perspectives are addressed, but the number of contributions in each perspective is still relatively modest and is far from an integrated body of knowledge on ECM. When focussing on the combinations of several perspectives, it can be noted that there are only five papers that focus on all four perspectives, namely paper 11 till 15. Besides these papers, mainly two other categories can be distin- guished. One category focuses on the content and technology perspectives and mainly addresses techno- logical issues of ECM (i.e. papers 2 till 8). The other category focuses on the content perspective and the enterprise and/or process perspective (i.e. papers 16 till 29) and hence the focus is more on the application of ECM within an organizational context. Finally, it is worth mentioning that we also tried to sort the papers based on their year of publication. However, this did not result in a clear pattern.

Defining ECM In the identified papers, several definitions of the contemporary perception of ECM can be found. The definitions can broadly be divided into two different groups. The first group of papers (papers 2 till 8) concentrate on the content and technology perspectives, focusing ‘on the premise that all forms of content or unstructured data should be managed in a repository, independent of the applications utilizing the informa- tion. These concepts parallel first principals [sic] of structured data management and database systems’ (Reimer, 2002, p. 18). These papers describe general functional requirements and the technologies needed for

Reviewing Enterprise Content Management Knut R. Grahlmann et al 271

European Journal of Information Systems

integrating content. Reimer (2002) clearly separates ECMSs from structured data management systems such as relational databases. We also found this perception in the evaluated practitioners’ literature. For example, the AIIM (AIIM, 2005), an international industry association focusing on ECM, perceives ECM from a content and technical perspective, but already broadens its definition to include related methods and adds a strategic notion, by defining ECM as ‘the technologies used to capture, manage, store, preserve, and deliver content and docu- ments related to organizational processes. ECM tools and strategies allow the management of an organization’s unstructured information, wherever that information exists. [y] Content must be managed so that it is used to achieve business goals. Central to this strategy are the tools and technologies of ECM, which manage the complete lifecycle of content, birth to death’ (ibid).

The second group of identified articles define ECM from an enterprise or process perspective (papers 16 till 28). Tyrväinen et al (2003) describe ECM as focusing ‘on the management of textual and multimedia content across and between enterprises, emphasizing the coex- istence of technical and social aspects within the content management. Methods and techniques applicable for managing textual and multimedia information with all sizes of content units, ranging from XML and database structures through web pages and documents to docu- ment collections, are studied as well as approaches focusing on specific content structures’ (ibid, p. 2). Smith & McKeen (2003, pp. 647–648) similarly define ECM as an ‘integrated approach to managing all of an organization’s information including paper documents, data, reports, web pages and digital assets’ and ‘the stra- tegies, tools, processes, and skills an organization needs to manage all its information assets (regardless of type) over their lifecycle’. This definition is also used by Reich & Behrendt (2007) and Rückel et al (2007). The process perspective has gained considerable attention from several researchers. Nordheim & Päivärinta (2006) define ECM as representing ‘a modern concept of Information Resource Management in general, addres- sing the integration of semi- and unstructured data with the management of formal databases’ (ibid, p. 649). Tyrväinen et al (2006) further specify the content lifecycle to include ‘activities such as content creation and capture, content editing, review, approval, content indexing, classifying and linking, content distribution, publication and use, update, preservation, format transformation for long-term archival, and retention’ (ibid, p. 631).

A notable difference in definitions is related to the use of structured data on the one hand and unstructured or semi-structured data and/or information on the other. The AIIM limits ECM to the management of ‘unstruc- tured information’ (AIIM Europe, n.d.). The view of limiting ECM to unstructured or semi-structured data is not only shared in the practitioners’ literature. Scientific literature such as Reimer (2002), O’Callaghan & Smits

(2005) and Andersen (2008) also limit ECM to unstructured information. However, there are numerous academic papers that also consider structured data as content that can be managed by ECMSs. We decided to follow this perception, since it emphasizes that the scope of ECM covers all the ‘information assets (regardless of type)’ of an organization (Smith & McKeen, 2003, p. 648).

The broad range of subjects covered by ECM shows that it is more than ‘the latest buzzword’ (Mescan, 2004, p. 55). However, previous definitions vary and are at times contradictory. Therefore, we propose a more consistent and comprehensive definition of ECM:

Enterprise Content Management comprises the strategies,

processes, methods, systems, and technologies that are

necessary for capturing, creating, managing, using, publish-

ing, storing, preserving, and disposing content within and

between organizations.

The proposed definition summarizes all relevant perspec- tives of ECM that have been mentioned in the first seven years of research on this topic and provides a common conceptual basis for further research in this field. It points out that ECM is not limited to technologies, but rather covers a wide range of subjects so that this definition is aligned well with the notion of ECM being its own field of IS research. Finally, the definition also includes a specification of the content lifecycle mentioned in previous definitions and therefore further illustrates the breadth of this concept.

A Functional ECM Framework To our knowledge, there is no overview available in literature that summarizes the functionalities that an ECMS can provide. If contributions can be found, for example Grossniklaus & Norrie (2002), they do not have a focus on ECM, but a more narrow focus, such as (web) content management. The reviewed articles listed in the previous section mostly have a more informational or technological focus on content management. Developing an overview of ECMS functionalities addresses several scientific and practical purposes. First of all, a consensus about ECMS functionalities will serve to understand and communicate about ECMSs. Second, an overview of ECMS functionalities can direct future research concern- ing specific functionalities or concerning ECMSs in general. It can for example be used as a reference in case study research to describe which ECMS functionalities are used by a particular organization. Third, it can be the basis for a more formal reference architecture that lays the foundation for designing and building ECMSs. Finally, the FEF can be used as an assessment tool by practitioners for comparing the functionalities provided by existing ECMSs.

We refer to the ECMS functionalities overview as the FEF. The term ‘functional framework’ has been carefully selected. We prefer it over other terms such as taxonomy, reference architecture or reference model, because these terms have specific connotations in related research

Reviewing Enterprise Content Management Knut R. Grahlmann et al272

European Journal of Information Systems

domains. A taxonomy is by definition characterized by a strict hierarchical decomposition of elements (cf. Nagra et al, 2002). As will be shown later, the FEF is based on a number of guidelines derived from literature that only partially suggest a hierarchical decomposition. The terms reference architecture and reference model are estab- lished concepts in the field of software architecture and software development. While a reference model shows the functional requirements of an ECMS (Software Engineering Institute, n.d.), a reference architecture rather presents a technical implementation of function- alities in software components (Bordegoni et al, 1997; Grefen & De Vries, 1998; Angelov, 2006; Mellish et al, 2006; Software Engineering Institute, n.d.). As one of our foremost aims is to support the understanding of and the communication about ECMSs, we present a functional framework that leaves out the details of implementation. These details are mainly of interest for developers of an ECMS rather than, for example, for managers in an organization who need to make decisions about required ECMS functionalities. To summarize, the FEF is a representative of Orlikowski & Iacono’s (2001) ‘tool’ view, that is, we aim at describing what an ECMS is and what it is intended to do.

Defining functionality The terms ‘functionality’ and ‘function’ (which we perceive as synonyms in the context of information systems) are often used when describing information systems, but their definition is left implicit most of the time. However, we need a definition for labelling particular pieces of text as ECM functionality while scanning the literature.

Definitions for the term function can be found in general IS literature as well as in the Enterprise Modelling (cf. ARIS, DEM, Zachman Framework) literature. Gener- ally speaking, a function transforms inputs into outputs (Zachman, 1987; Davis, 2001). In the information systems literature, a function is typically referred to as a capability of an information system (Rolland & Prakash, 2001). This means that certain information inputs are transformed into information outputs (Stair & Reynolds, 2006), for example customer-order data that is being transformed into a customer invoice by the invoice function. In the enterprise modelling literature, a (busi- ness) function typically relates to a particular business process or a cluster of business processes that can be broken down into activities and tasks (Zachman, 1987; Davis, 2001; Turban et al, 2005). Functions of informa- tion systems and business functions are directly related since an information system function should execute or support specific business functions (activities or tasks) for intended users (Nickerson, 2000). Summarizing the above for this research, we define functionality as a capability of an information system referring to a particular business function(s) that needs to be executed by the ECMS.

Creation guidelines Considering the previously described aims of an FEF, we formulated design guidelines to guide the development of the FEF that are inspired by literature on reference architectures. Authors in this research field have been explicit about such guidelines, which is not the case for the (also less abundant) literature on functional taxo- nomies or frameworks.

The first and most important guideline is that the FEF is comprehensible and usable. The FEF needs to be ‘under- standable and usable by the communities targeted’ (Bernus & Nemes, 1996, p. 180), which is in line with our main aim. In this case, the targeted communities are the ECM research and practitioner communities as they should be able to understand and use the FEF. Second, the FEF needs to be complete, that is, it has to include all possible functionalities currently described and has

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.