Last month I blogged about finding your Journey to the Cloud showcasing
ORC International’s Part 1 report about what’s driving public Cloud in Life Sciences content management. This month, I had a Q&A session with Kenny Blumenfeld, Research Director at ORC, to give us some insights on Part 2 of this report:
Dave: Part 1 of your analysis showcased the industry forces driving Cloud adoption, what does Part 2 delve into?
Kenny: This report dives a level deeper into the business needs of both large and mid-size life sciences companies for regulated content management. From there we analyzed the landscape of current day solution options.
Dave: What did you uncover in terms of needs?
Kenny: We found a couple of themes: First, whether you’re a big or small organization, compliance is king for content management. Secondly, smaller organizations typically have fewer IT resources, they require more flexibility in Cloud deployment options, and are more likely to utilize outsourced IT alternatives to lower their overall costs.
Dave: What solution options do organizations have?
Kenny: We analyzed two categories of content management solutions: multi-vendor and single vendor. Multi-vendor options are applications built on top of enterprise content platforms by third parties. These are solutions such as CSC FirstDoc, built on top of EMC Documentum, or NextDocs on Microsoft Sharepoint. Single vendor options combine the content management platform with life sciences process expertise, so in essence the content engine together with the application from one vendor. Examples of these would be EMC Documentum for Life Sciences Solution Suite or Veeva Vault.
Dave: Are there advantages of one option versus another?
Kenny: Of course, it always comes down to business needs, and how well a given solution meets those needs. Our research indicated that the multi-vendor approach sometimes creates additional complexity in implementation and support, and this tends to be especially acute when problems arise and it is unclear where fault lies in the overall system. The “hot potato” effect is probably all too familiar to a lot of your readers. It is not a new issue, and it certainly is not unique to content management in the life sciences.
In this research, the single-vendor solutions mitigated that issue, while also offering the benefits of being tightly integrated with the underlying platform. Companies we talked to said there was significant value in having a ‘single throat to choke’.
Dave: Ouch…sounds painful! So what are the key takeaways from your analysis, and how can folks get a copy of the reports?
Kenny: Between the two-part analyses I would summarize with three key points:
- Life sciences organizations are slower to adopt cloud, especially when it comes to regulated content in the public cloud.
- Compliance and security is king, but the mid-market has a greater need for deployment flexibility, more IT outsourcing and lower cost
- A single vendor approach delivers a clear owner for support, as well as timely updates in coordination with platform enhancements.
You can read the details from both reports from our website:
So there you have it – flexibility in Cloud, lower costs and single vendor solutions are strong characteristics of content management solutions in Life Sciences. What are your thoughts on ORC’s research? Does your organization view Cloud similarly?