This article (much like another article by the same author on the same topic) merely reiterates the same questions we are all already asking. The link to a $1550 report on "DAMs" does not help me. As someone who is constantly researching these types of solutions for a mid-sized publishing company, I came into the article excited for answers and left feeling my time was wasted. We want to see real-world comparisons of what is currently working in asset managment today.
From where I sit, there are content originators (corporate design departments, agencies, for example), and producers (prepress and print, for example). The producers gave up on most asset management packages long ago, with the exception being products that were based on the Macintosh Finder. Xinet FullPress and WebNative allowed those with experience in naming conventions and basic file system organization to use their file systems as a database. The largest of the prepress facilities and many printers had this degree of organization, and could make use of the file system which everyone could understand. Because such a large percentage of these organizations had to embrace expensive imaging technology early in the process, their systems administrators came from production and understood the issues from the Macintosh user's perspective. The asset management systems that relied on databases forced the user into an unfamiliar database interface and were often ultimately dumped in favor of simpler, more elegant means of managing jobs such as what Xinet's engineering has to offer.
In the case of the content creators at the corporations, the IT influence has more of an effect and tends to allow asset management systems to be considered:
file size is relatively small(perhaps mostly FPO, until recently at least) and numerous versions exist(multiple language versions of logos for example)
key individuals with actual buying power (often IT) favor systems based on consolidation of resources and control, hence server systems and databases, and the average designer takes what they get.
I know of several such initiatives underway. The interesting thing is that the value placed on this asset management is high, but the understanding of the day-to-day work of the designer is often completely lost in the process.
Your point is well taken, and I think there will be a number of very interesting stories of great expectations, grandiose investments, and meager results.
I hope that the corporations that are embarking on this process learn from the folks that have handled their prepress and print. Keep it simple, and don't forget the file system.
John Sanders, Jr.
Account Manager, NAPC, Inc.
www.napc.com
Submitted by jsandersjr on Tue, 11/14/2000 - 11:34.
We know the questions....
This article (much like another article by the same author on the same topic) merely reiterates the same questions we are all already asking. The link to a $1550 report on "DAMs" does not help me. As someone who is constantly researching these types of solutions for a mid-sized publishing company, I came into the article excited for answers and left feeling my time was wasted. We want to see real-world comparisons of what is currently working in asset managment today.
The finder is the key
Anita,
From where I sit, there are content originators (corporate design departments, agencies, for example), and producers (prepress and print, for example). The producers gave up on most asset management packages long ago, with the exception being products that were based on the Macintosh Finder. Xinet FullPress and WebNative allowed those with experience in naming conventions and basic file system organization to use their file systems as a database. The largest of the prepress facilities and many printers had this degree of organization, and could make use of the file system which everyone could understand. Because such a large percentage of these organizations had to embrace expensive imaging technology early in the process, their systems administrators came from production and understood the issues from the Macintosh user's perspective. The asset management systems that relied on databases forced the user into an unfamiliar database interface and were often ultimately dumped in favor of simpler, more elegant means of managing jobs such as what Xinet's engineering has to offer.
In the case of the content creators at the corporations, the IT influence has more of an effect and tends to allow asset management systems to be considered:
file size is relatively small(perhaps mostly FPO, until recently at least) and numerous versions exist(multiple language versions of logos for example)
key individuals with actual buying power (often IT) favor systems based on consolidation of resources and control, hence server systems and databases, and the average designer takes what they get.
I know of several such initiatives underway. The interesting thing is that the value placed on this asset management is high, but the understanding of the day-to-day work of the designer is often completely lost in the process.
Your point is well taken, and I think there will be a number of very interesting stories of great expectations, grandiose investments, and meager results.
I hope that the corporations that are embarking on this process learn from the folks that have handled their prepress and print. Keep it simple, and don't forget the file system.
John Sanders, Jr.
Account Manager, NAPC, Inc.
www.napc.com