Web Content Management: A New Pathway for 'Customer Experience Management'

For businesses to flourish, they need to have a strong customer base and solutions to serve the end-user queries. And for this purpose, companies exploit various possible ways to attract customers using mediums such as advertising.

CIO Review

For businesses to flourish, they need to have a strong customer base and solutions to serve the end-user queries. And for this purpose, companies exploit various possible ways to attract customers using mediums such as advertising, media, door-to-door selling, and many others. Lately, the new era of IT has intruded in almost every aspect of human life and made people to be engaged in digital eon. Even the ‘Customer Experience Management (CEM)’ could not desist itself from being digitized with the evolvement of new technologies available for CEM. It has witnessed transformational where human interactions are replaced by websites, digital contents, and online applications.

Internet has made it easy to catch eyes of customers from all directions by providing info-graphic data using adequate contents. Surprisingly, the internet and contents together opened a new window for CEM called ‘Web Content Management (WCM)’. IT professionals have already predicted the importance of WCM and they have suggested organizations to reconsider their approach to retrieve customers and keep them engaged using WCM. For every forward-thinking organization, WCM and CEM go hand in hand, becoming an inevitable virtue than just customer-optimized websites. In addition, IT experts have realized that WCM can be a cornerstone for broader CEM initiatives in future.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

CEM mainly deals with personalized customer experiences that tangentially buff up business of organizations. Whereas, WCM allows users to get a step further by including highly interactive and personalized experiences for the end-users. And the amalgamation of both solutions can increase the customer engagement to a whole new level for a longer time, according to IT experts. Consequently, the marriage of CEM and WCM becomes a natural match for every organization.

"The key to a well-planned Web content management deployment for a rich customer experience and engagement is to stop thinking of it as a standalone Web content management deployment. It requires an organizational shift and very few have accomplished the shift,” said, Tim Walters, Analyst, Digital Clarity Group, a Content Management Research and Consulting firm.

Rules To Follow For Successful CEM Using WCM

“Creating an ideal customer experience should be the goal of any WCM initiative. The ideal experience will vary from one organization to the next. For example, a banking customer has vastly different expectations than someone shopping for electronics,” said Scott Liewehr, Principal Analyst, Digital Clarity Group. He further furnishes that irrespective of industry of an organization, there are three rules to follow to initiate with WCM solution and they are,

• Systems used by organizations need to gather information about visitors which includes how they navigate through websites, capturing IP address, or comprehending their real-time searching actions on websites. After gathering information, it should be coupled with exact customer reports.

• WCM systems should be able to flag contents with tags to make it identifiable and store. Such practices can be put into reality by following nomenclature put forth by content managers for better content management.

• Systems should also cache and track visitors whenever they visit website and portray exact content automatically to what visitors want to view. This can be accomplished by combined efforts of content managers and marketing department together by using customized CEM tools and organization’s business rules.

Digital Clarity Group's Walters further adds his own piece of advice, “Launching and maintaining a CEM initiative can be an arduous and lengthy process. But trying to retrofit a CEM strategy to an existing website can be even more difficult.”

As a part of solution he further suggest that, “The best way to go about CEM is to first identify the specific kinds of customer experiences an organization wants to deliver in the short term as well as the new experiences the organization hopes to unveil in the future. That informs how you want to optimize and deploy your Web presence and not the other way around.”

Few CEM Companies: Dimelo, Kare, Vivocha

How MLB.Com Benefited From WCM!

WCM has already paved the way for the New York based public-faced website ‘Major League Baseball’. MLB.com integrated WCM with its technology, which not only helped it to broaden and improve individual customer experience but business customers as well. MLB.com assists Women's NCAA softball, the Glenn Beck television program, the NCAA college basketball championships, and others requiring constant endowment of sport highlights. Organizations fetch news from MLB’s portal equipped with WCM system and air on their programs and websites.

The portal of MLB incorporates digital asset management system with cloud applications for seamless communication processing. “MLB.com now boasts the ability to deliver sports highlights just minutes after they occur to visitors to its 30 team sites. It's all part of a CEM initiative that aims to put sports fans at the center of the content universe, and the company is taking similar approach with business customers,” said Rob Boysko, Manager, Multimedia Publishing, MLB Advanced Media enthusiastically.

WCM: Then and Now

“Around 15 or so years ago, WCM was all about helping organizations create websites that could be updated with static content without having the webmaster to do everything. But now the key is to create a more dynamic website and try to understand who's on the website right now,” said Mark R. Gilbert, Analyst, Stamford, Conn., IT research group Gartner Inc.

WCM is very beneficial for retailers and service providers who use cookies to determine nature of visitor’s actions and habits. It ensures visitors buy products online before they log out. “But that type of ‘mass customization’ is not the same as the truly personalized experience that CEM tries to establish,” Gilbert added.

“You're talking about a WCM system, personalization engine, web analytics or some other type of customer engagement engine, so it gets expensive, but it is sort of the hot evolution of WCM,” Gilbert further advised. Organizations are even saving penny by saving from service calls and other phone calls, which they used to neglect while using CEM.

As a token of advice, Gilbert added that, “It's about creating a stickier more valuable user experience and then making that value obvious to the site visitor who is always on the lookout for fresh and relevant content.”

But it is also to be noted that CEM strategy not only benefits with mobility perspective but it also allows sharing contents on various devices. Mediums used to share contents can include social networks as well as call centers. For companies trailing behind the CEM adoption, Walter said, “As for organizations that haven't yet begun the work of real CEM, it's getting kind of late, so they better get moving. The WCM platform should serve not only a rich and optimized Web presence but also a broader customer engagement strategy."

More in News

Architecture Fit Before AI Analytics Investment

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project. Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate. Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage. Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source. “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection. CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice. ...Read more

Contact Governance without Lost Reach

Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more

Orchestrating Data Delivery from Definition to Deployment

Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more

Unlocking the Challenges of AI Code Attribution Challenges

As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more