Gartner PCC Summit 2007 (part 12)

“Web 2.0, Ajax-based High-End Publishing Tools Transforming the Enterprise Market” (by Eric Duchemin, General Manager of HAFIBA on behalf of Quasar Technologies) at PCC 2007 Summit.

Never heard of Quasar so I thought I’d visit this talk instead of the IBM one.

Quasar comes from the high-end publishing market. Enabling newspapers to publish by themselves. They supplied tools to produce printed documents.
They saw a gap between Document Management and Content Management. A lack of tools for high-end publishing support, such as workflows and process support.
They combined ECM with high-end commercial publishing tools (called ECP).

HAFIBA is a French pre-press company. HAFIBA thinks that traditional pre-pres will disappear. More will be done by users and done dispersed. So, they wanted to develop a service for their customers. They started to build some technology, but needed more. Then they found Quasar.

Security of data is important in the magazine world. They were also looking for a cheap solution. They needed a webbased application, easy-to-use, supporting workflow design (moving press material between client, printer, layout design, translation). Webbased because their customers (enterprises) don't want to install HAFIBA's software on their systems.
Quasar offered all this.

I missed the demo. How does it work in practice? And why Quasar and not Sharepoint e.g.? I'll have a look at their website...

UPDATE Sept. 7, 2007: I talked with the Quasar people at their booth. And there's more than was presented. Quasar basically offers a tool that supports multisite pre-press process using a webbrowser. All pre-press functionality is in the tool. Sharepoint can't do this, unless you would have a system integrator make it for you...

Comments

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment! Just log in using one of the formats and if you want me to get back to you. Otherwise comment anonymously.

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small ...
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an...
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as...
Read more