Both Pie and Marko have blogged about content-enabled applications, or what Gartner calls CEVAs (content-enabled vertical applications).
As it so happens, I’ll be presenting there will be a session on this subject next month at EMC World 2009.
Based on my research of what folks label a content-enabled application, two things rise to the top: process (surrounding content) and subject matter expertise (individual or group surrounding process), and context. OK, three things.
For example, Forrester defines content-centric applications as “solutions that put the business’ content to use, and add context along the way–to support line-of-business needs.” Example solutions include customer self-service, claims processing, proposal management, contract management, and case management.
Other CEVA vendors argue that content-enabled applications are process-oriented, not content-centric. I tend to prefer this viewpoint. A claim is valueless in itself. Only once is claim is processed is value realized, including taking a future liability off the books.
Content-enabled applications should facilitate the convergence of content, collaboration, interaction, and process.
Before you leverage your content in an application to generate value, ask yourself few questions:
- Who uses the content? Why? How?
- What processes does the content support?
- If I’m not a subject matter expert for this type of content, who can I involve to design a better application experience?
- What processes does it support?
- What context is involved, either centrally or peripherally?
Start with something familiar to just about anyone these days: email (or IM, micro-blogging, etc.). Answer the questions. See how applications, for example, around email have evolved. Think about where current email applications may have untapped potential. Etc.
So, where have all the CEVAs gone (as Marko asks)?
- I think that we in the content management business do ourselves a disservice by overly complicating concepts (e.g. behind TLAs or FLAs). Although fine as a conceptual catalyst, CEVA is self-defeating, IMHO, as a rallying label.
- I agree that CMIS has great potential to increase the availability of content-enabled applications, if for no other reason, because application development that consumes the proposed standard should have a greater return on investment by being applicable to multiple content repositories. (ECM vendor partners are you listening?)
- In the end, it’s the application, not the content or the process or the people. That is, if you’re just adding a document and perhaps a workflow to some code, you may have an app…but it won’t be used. Focus on user experience (i.e. the meaningful, intuitive presentation of content, context and process together).
Back to EMC World… 
I’ll miss interacting with ‘Zilla at the conference. It was at EMC World in 2007 (also held in Orlando, FL) that I first met Mark in person.
If you are able to make the conference and consider yourself to be a “2.0 type,” you may be interested in Len’s advert. Looks like there is even a LinkedIn event established for the conference.
I plan to tweet the conference and otherwise engage with the community. In the meantime, if you plan to attend my session (as presented by others), please feel free to comment (here or ECN) on your thoughts about content-enabled applications and what you’d like discussed or demoed. Thanks in advance.
-Craighttp://craigrandall.net/
@craigsmusings

Hi Craig,
Can I ask you a quick question…
I have some legacy vb applications..
Can I call the DFS services from my vb application ?
Thanks a lot…
That depends on what “legacy” means to you.
The current shorthand “VB” tends to imply VB.NET. In this case, all of my DFS + WCF samples (e.g. direct-to-WSDL consumers) apply to any CLS-compliant language, including VB.NET–not just to C#, which happens to be my language preference. Additionally, if you leverage the .NET assemblies from the DFS SDK that form the so-called productivity layer, you can reference these in VB.NET projects, regardless of their implementation in C#, since the assemblies are CLS-compliant. To repeat, CLS compliance means that a developer can leverage DFS equally well from C#, VB .NET, Managed C++ or any other CLS-compliant .NET language (e.g. Delphi, IronPython, IronRuby, etc.).
However, VB can also refer to what some now call “classic VB” (i.e. VB before .NET). “Classic VB” is only COM-based; DFS .NET assemblies don’t expose themselves to COM (i.e. don’t appear as COM components). Furthermore, Microsoft has stopped its (extended) support of both Visual Basic 6.0 and has long since deprecated its SOAP Toolkit 3.0 (i.e. back in April 2005).
If you have VB-as-in-VB6 apps that you want to augment with DFS services, you will need to migrate your VB6 code to VB.NET via the Visual Studio conversion assistant. Once you’ve fixed all the reported VB.NET issues and can build your new project without DFS, you’ll be able to integration DFS services into your project–either via WCF-based Add Service Reference… actions (i.e. direct-to-WSDL consumer approach) or via Add Reference… actions (i.e. DFS .NET assembly-based consumer approach).
Guess my walking boot scared off the EMC World powers that be…
Apparently those wearing Klingon attire are not welcome…
[...] by Pie on 28 April 2009 Craig Randall recently posted how he was presenting on Building Content-Enabled Applications at EMC World, at least until he was downed by injury. Regardless of his injury, this is a [...]
[...] Laurence Hart was kind enough to pick-up my previous post on content-enabled applications and add his thoughts to the subject, especially concerning the role CMIS can [...]
[...] So, what does this developer edition include? We believe it includes a lot of goodness for the development of content-enabled applications. [...]
[...] Mosaic should be a boon for user-centric, content-enabled applications [...]