Jump to content

Talk:Document management system: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 167: Line 167:
List of document management systems seems to be coloured.
List of document management systems seems to be coloured.
Look at the list Gartner, Forrester and others present as markted leaders, these suppiers are not listed!
Look at the list Gartner, Forrester and others present as markted leaders, these suppiers are not listed!
Example: OpenText LiveLink is not in the list; used by Unilever, Shell, Philips and other large companies and main document storage, share, find and retreval system.
Example: OpenText LiveLink is not in the list; used by Unilever, Shell, Philips and other large companies as main document storage, share, find and retreval system. [[Special:Contributions/145.7.182.163|145.7.182.163]] ([[User talk:145.7.182.163|talk]]) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:39, 2 November 2009

Removing the "Document_Management_and_Communication" section

As it stands currently, 29 May, 2008, this section reads like an excerpt from someone's academic research paper. And yet, it says so little. At least as far as an informative encyclopaedia article for wikipedia is concerned. I really have a sense that when finish reading that section, I wonder "what did I just learn?" And the answer, sadly, is very little. I am tempted to be bold and remove this section. But I thought I'd throw it up here on the discussion board, to see what the consensus is. Maybe useful nuggets can be salvaged? --Docmgmt (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment, but it will leave the article rather empty. New content is required. Pramensky (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps removing that section will provide incentive for new content to be created... --Docmgmt (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Document Management

Document Management (also known as Electronic Document Management - EDM) is an information technology that has evolved over the past two decades from a basic "electronic filing cabinet" which is stored scanned documents and images in electronic form on a server that could capture, index, and retrieve for future use. Today, Document Management is part of the Enterprise Content Management and is a subset of Knowledge or Information Management.
Document management have matured from a basic archival and retrieval system to a complete information management solution. With technological advances, we have available to us the tools to properly manage paper documents and electronic files. You can store and index voice recordings, faxes, videos, pictures, drawings, computer output, and many other types of paper and electronic files. Workflow is now handeled electronically rather than manually. Information can also be extracted from word processing software to populated fields in databases. You can store, catalog, and redistribute information via fax, email, internet or print it to paper or CD to share with one individual or the masses at a fraction of the cost.
Document management is a way to easily manage your paper files electronically and create more office space as well as saving time instead of spending precious minutes trying to find that paper document. Paper documents are scanned in and made into an image file (such as .tif) and filed electronically onto a computer storage hardware. You can easily retrieve, annotate, index and archive these files.

This should be integrated in the main text.

— David Remahl 23:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Integrated Document Management

The 'Integrated Document Management' section is hardly NPOV! I have bumped it out the first section since it breaks up the article to have it there and added the NPOV tag. I will try and make some NPOV changes too. akaDruid 11:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on July 3 User "S.K." made some changes to "remove arbitrary examples of companies - Spam" But after those changes were made, it still retained arbitrary examples of companies. PC Docs, Filenet, etc. While the list of early pioneer type companies that S.K. removed probably should go through some sort of verification process to determine actual pioneering, the companies that remained after S.K.'s edit seem rather arbitrary as well. So I went and "undid" S.K.'s removal, and hopefully someone can sort out who's historical or not. (Not me, I'm biased.) --Docmgmt 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the diff based on S.K.'s edits to see what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Document_management_system&diff=61870640&oldid=61853343
Hi Docmgmt, I've removed the list again, since there is no clear criterion to decide if a company belongs in that list or not. So noone can verify, if a company really belongs into that list or not, and people will continue adding their own company like here or here. The way the sentence is worded like now I'd consider it a spam magnet. If this can be thightend to for example "In 1988, the following vendors started developing LAN-based IDM systems" or something similar, someone could at least try to verify such a claim. --S.K. 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S.K. You make an excellent point. Actually, having sentences such as "In 1986, FileNET developed the first ____ (citation). In 1987, Laserfiche developed the first ___ (citation) In 1988 PC DOCS developed the first ____ (citation)" would help keep it Verifiable and encyclopedic. --Docmgmt 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some resources for helping to make the article better. I really like the explanation of the overall technologies in this article: ERM 102 by Maj Dale Long, USAF. It ties everything down to real-world relevance. I also noticed that Google does a Define: document management thing. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, it could be a useful resource. --Docmgmt 16:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more resources to help the rewrite. Obviously these are copyrighted. I still think the ERM 102 article above gives the best overview. --Docmgmt 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition from AIIM Document Management -Software that controls and organizes documents throughout an enterprise. Incorporates document and content capture, workflow, document repositories, COLD/ERM and output systems, and information retrieval systems. Document Imaging -Process of capturing, storing, and retrieving documents regardless of original format, using micrographics and/or electronic imaging (scanning, OCR, ICR, etc.). Records Management -Enables an enterprise to assign a specific life cycle to individual pieces of corporate information from creation, receipt, maintenance, and use to the ultimate disposition of records. A record is not necessarily the same as a document. All documents are potential records, but not vice versa. A record is essential for the business; documents are containers of "working information." Records are documents with evidentiary value.

I went through the external links one by one and ended up removing them all after reviewing WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Sorry if I removed ones of value. --Ronz 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-Electronic linkages

I question whether Document Management is necessarily tied to computers. After all, what were we doing in libraries (especially those with journals) when we had to create index cards (title, author, main subject classifications, know the publisher, know which shelf (consider Dewey classification system), know who/when/when-due-back for borrowers, etc.

I'd recommend a general discussion of Document Management issues WITHOUT mentioning electronic computing.

Library_science and Records_Management are also worth looking at for linkages.

References

I have removed the following links "external references" as they appear to be advertisements and not references. If somebody wants to create a list of DMS vendors please go ahead, but stop putting up randomly chosen vendors.
www.imaginedocs.com
www.hoatechvn.com.vn

It would be great to have a list of providers who implemented the "Document management system", especially if there are some under the GNU license as well. I just posted this note, so that you know that there is indeed interest for it. :) Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far I think I found FileNet. --HappyInGeneral 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about including only vendors who rank highly enough to have their own pages in Wikipedia?LCP 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think that is a good idea, since perhaps the whole subject is not very main stream. So collecting these would be far more beneficial, then removing them on site, like here: [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, good job with this (Document_management_system#Document_management_systems) section, however I still think that it could be more complete. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very helpful to see a Vendors section at the end. This is a maturing field and, as such, most companies are choosing among existing vendors rather than reinventing the wheel. As a result, it will get increasingly difficult to have a conversation about Document Management without discussing how people are doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.223.8 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ref 2 the latest...?

The reason that I ask this is I found two versions

http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/bimo/ffinalcct.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/7359fnl.pdf

--222.67.215.110 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standardization section has got errors......

Have a look at the orginal version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Document_management_system&diff=225732511&oldid=225730748 --222.67.200.216 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Content Management System

I believe that the concept of a document management system is a sister concept to content management system, yet is still a distinct concept, therefore requires its own page (see http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite3/journal/List%20of%20document%20management%20software.htm http://www.atrove.com/ and http://sdms.cafuego.net/what.html for places where the term DMS is used in a way significantly distinct from CMS). When a customer of providers of such software is looking for solutions, they will specifically seek a *document* management system.

Rather than merging, it would seem that there needs to be some work put into better separating the concepts (see Talk:Content_management_system) --Hohlram (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer software and chamelionsLike most computer systems the definition of terms in a document management system is determined by who you are talking to. Each manufacturer identifies his/her products by certain names that are often adopted by other manufacturers, however the underlying concepts behind those names are usually not adopted. Consequently although names such as Document Management System (DMS) Content Management System (CMS) and Document Control Systems (DSC) are often used to describe similar systems, it is extremely unlikely that a single (tight) definition of any of these terms will describe software from more than one manufacturer.

I have seen software houses bidding in government tenders, where the definition of terms was fairly well understood but the implementation of the underlying assumptions was so widely varying that tenders were submitted that nearly led to bankruptcy!

It is a nonsense to attempt to define this sort of term too closely. It is much more sensible to define each term (DMS, DCS etc...) in a vague manner and refer to other similar terms by cross-references and by references to individual products.

Any such product (DMS, DCS, etc...) can only be defined specifically by reference to a single manufactured software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.218.42 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, Content <> Document. And Content Management System <> Document Management System. I'm tempted to define the terms, but I doubt it's necessary. Sure, I've seen some definitions that say that Documents are simply a subset of Content. But even then, just because A is a subset of B, doesn't mean that an article for A should be merged with an article for B. I don't want to get metaphysical here, so let's just say that the terms are distinct enough to warrant separate entries. --Docmgmt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of talking points would help clarify this page -- the threads are getting hard to follow. Perhaps an Information Management spectrum could be approached -- for example, Data Management, Enterprise Content Management,Information Architecture, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Organization and so on are already linked together. --Jabled (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the concept of Document Management and Content Management are similar, they target entirely different end content. Content Management Systems focus on web content such as giving the ability to store an entire website and push it into a dev, qa, or production environment 'with click button ease'. Document Management Systems focus on storing actual documents: design specs, drawings, graphics for publications, manuals, etc. These are entirely different systems in their end results though the core concept can be the same. From my experience with these forms of software (it's my job) a DMS will store entire documents as-is; you put in a Word document, you take out a Word document. A CMS focuses on storing the content of a webpage sort of like manipulating data fields in a database albeit cast through a user interface; though some do actually store the entire webpage. I would never try to market a CMS to a prospective client who needed a DMS -- it would not do the job at all, in any way shape or form. Nor would I market a DMS to someone who really needed a CMS -- typically a DMS needs add-ons to perform the functionality of a CMS. Jw2tt (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Document management systems embedded list falls foul of WP:DIRECTORY?

The embedded list of what amounts to a complete catalogue of 'see also' links would be better as a category. It has become an extensive commercial directory of products which is not suitable for an article about DMS. Would anyone care to justify retaining it in this form or should it just be turned into a category in its own right?—Ash (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section as it fails WP:DIRECTORY by becoming a dumping ground for an endless list of systems. I have copied the text here in case anyone feels strong enough about it to create a special category for these systems.—Ash (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Document management systems


Proprietary document management systems
Open Source document management systems

list seems very incomplete

List of document management systems seems to be coloured. Look at the list Gartner, Forrester and others present as markted leaders, these suppiers are not listed! Example: OpenText LiveLink is not in the list; used by Unilever, Shell, Philips and other large companies as main document storage, share, find and retreval system. 145.7.182.163 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Document_management_system&oldid=323439641"