×
NetEffect Joins Taazaa to Expand Enterprise AI, Platform Integration, and Modernization Services. Learn more
Categories
AEM

What It Actually Takes to Move a Live AEM Site to Edge Delivery

Key Takeaways 

  • AEM Sites and Edge Delivery Services now coexist on the same domain and CDN, enabling incremental migration rather than a big-bang cutover. 
  • There’s no direct migration path from the Page Editor to the Universal Editor: the move is only recommended for projects transitioning to Edge Delivery Services. 
  • The refactoring work is real: component dialogs, front-end code and editable fields all need rebuilding for the EDS architecture. 
  • The Experience Modernization Agent automates a significant share of migration work, compressing timelines from months to weeks or days for qualifying sites. 
  • A 100 Lighthouse score is the expected EDS baseline, not an optimization target, and it makes the performance case for migration concrete. 

Moving a live AEM site to Edge Delivery Services means rebuilding the front end and rethinking the content architecture at the same time, on a site that’s still serving real traffic. Since Adobe Summit 2026, AEM Sites and Edge Delivery Services pages coexist on the same domain and the same CDN, so migration can happen incrementally. That removes the all-or-nothing objection that stopped most EDS conversations. 

The Objection That Stopped Most EDS Conversations 

Until recently, EDS looked like an all-or-nothing decision. Teams had to replatform the entire site, rebuild every component and cut over on a fixed date. For live, business-critical sites, that risk profile was hard to justify. 

That objection is now structurally resolved. According to Adobe’s Cloud Manager documentation, organizations can deliver experiences using EDS while continuing to use AEM Author. AEM Sites pages and EDS pages coexist on the same domain. Traffic routes to different origins by path through the same Adobe-managed CDN. 

A team can migrate one high-traffic section to EDS first, validate the performance gains in production and expand from there. That shifts the conversation from “should we migrate” to “where do we start.” 

What Actually Changes in the Architecture 

Understanding what needs to change technically separates realistic migration plans from ones that discover their scope mid-project. 

The Front-End Rebuild 

According to Adobe’s EDS overview, EDS replaces AEM Publish and Dispatcher with a front-end approach built for the network edge. Front-end code built with Core Components, HTL templates and clientlibs doesn’t transfer to EDS. The EDS model is plain CSS and JavaScript managed through GitHub with no build pipeline required. 

For most enterprise AEM Sites implementations, this means component dialogs move from the Page Editor model to the Universal Editor’s properties rail, and front-end code rebuilds as EDS blocks in plain JavaScript and CSS. Editable fields map to the Universal Editor’s data attribute model, and teams need to rearchitect any custom JavaScript inside component dialogs entirely. 

Teams should scope this refactoring work honestly before planning begins. Volume depends on how many custom components exist and how complex their dialog structures are. This piece on why IT and marketing misalignment is the biggest risk in Adobe implementations explains why scoping decisions made without cross-functional agreement create the most expensive mid-project surprises. 

The Universal Editor Transition 

According to Adobe, there’s no direct migration path from the Page Editor to the Universal Editor, because the two technologies are fundamentally different. The Universal Editor doesn’t support the Template Editor, Style System or Responsive Grid. Those use cases move to lean CSS and JavaScript in EDS. 

The authoring experience changes for content authors. Authors tend to adapt quickly, since the interface is simpler than the Page Editor’s. But teams need to factor author training into the migration timeline before go-live, not after. 

The Content Model 

EDS organizes content as blocks, the building units of EDS pages. Each block is defined by markup and JavaScript rather than Sling models or HTL templates. Authors create pages by assembling blocks through the Universal Editor or document-based authoring in Word or Google Docs. 

The existing content architecture needs mapping to EDS blocks before migration begins. Pages relying heavily on AEM’s Responsive Grid or nested components require the most redesign work. Simpler content patterns migrate faster. For teams thinking through how content architecture decisions affect long-term platform performance, our post on why the content supply chain, not the content team, is usually the real bottleneck covers the upstream decisions that matter most. 

The Incremental Migration Model 

Adobe’s Cloud Manager offers two EDS deployment types. For live AEM Sites migrations, an HTTP proxy routes specific URL paths to an EDS origin while the rest of the domain stays on AEM Sites. 

A practical migration sequence looks like this: 

Stage What Moves to EDS What Stays on AEM Sites 
Stage 1 High-traffic content-heavy pages: news, blog, campaign landing pages Transactional, form-heavy and deeply integrated pages 
Stage 2 Marketing and brand pages after Stage 1 validated Pages requiring complex integrations 
Stage 3 Remaining pages as EDS blocks are built and validated Legacy pages with complex custom component structures 
Full cutover Entire site on EDS AEM Author retained for content creation and governance 

Performance gains from the first migrated paths are visible in production before the broader migration commits. The 100 Lighthouse score EDS delivers by default becomes a live proof point rather than a slide in a business case. This article on how AEM hits a 100 Lighthouse score with Edge Delivery Services covers the architecture behind it and what threatens it after go-live. 

Where the Experience Modernization Agent Changes the Equation 

The front-end refactoring work has historically been the primary cost driver in EDS migrations. The Experience Modernization Agent changes that for qualifying sites. 

According to Adobe’s Modernization Agent overview, it supports migrations from a wide range of CMS platforms, legacy AEM and design systems into production-capable EDS projects. It accelerates migrations from months to weeks or days. Skills include page migration, bulk import, design extraction, navigation setup and web scraping. 

There are important constraints to understand before building a migration timeline around the agent. Source content needs to be publicly accessible: the scraping skill can’t reach intranet sites or anything behind authentication, a VPN or a firewall, though it does handle dynamic, client-side-rendered content as long as it’s reachable at a URL. The agent targets EDS only and doesn’t produce output for traditional AEM Sites architectures. Developers keep full authority over what goes live through GitHub review workflows. 

For sites that meet the accessibility requirement, the agent reduces front-end rebuild from the most expensive migration phase to a review-and-refine activity. For teams thinking through how the agent fits the broader AEM agentic layer, this post on what Adobe’s AI agents actually change about your day covers each agent’s role in content operations. 

Pre-Migration Assessment: What to Confirm Before Committing 

Run these four checks before building a timeline or budget. 

Assessment Area What to Check Why It Matters 
Component inventory Count custom components and rate dialog complexity Each Page Editor dialog needs rebuilding for Universal Editor 
Content accessibility Confirm source pages are publicly accessible without authentication Determines whether the Experience Modernization Agent can be used 
Integration landscape Audit third-party scripts, analytics tags and personalization tools Scripts outside EDS phased rendering sequence degrade Lighthouse scores 
Author change management Define training plan and feedback period before go-live Authors discovering a changed interface on launch day create internal resistance 

For a structured framework covering these and other pre-migration decisions, this guide on replatforming to AEM maps the readiness assessment, taxonomy and governance decisions that shape the rest of the timeline. 

What a Realistic Migration Timeline Looks Like 

No two migrations are identical, but a handful of variables drive most timelines. How many custom components need refactoring, whether the Experience Modernization Agent can handle bulk content migration and how many paths migrate incrementally versus all at once all factor in. So does the complexity of the integrations, the scope of third-party script review and the scale of author change management. 

Sites with simple component structures and publicly accessible content can compress a historically six-to-nine month project into weeks for the first paths. Complex enterprise sites with many custom components drive timelines toward three to six months for the first meaningful migrated set. 

The incremental model means the business case doesn’t require waiting for full migration to validate. Real performance data from the first migrated paths, compared against the same paths on AEM Sites, is the most credible evidence a DX leader can present for expanding scope. For a full picture of post-migration activation sequencing, our whitepaper on AEM optimization for enterprise covers each activation phase with its business case. 

Starting the Right Conversation 

An EDS migration is an architecture decision before it’s a project. A 30-minute conversation with the NetEffect team maps your current AEM architecture against EDS migration requirements, identifies where the Experience Modernization Agent can accelerate the work and outlines what an incremental plan looks like for your environment. 

Book a Focus Area Audit 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can AEM Sites and EDS pages coexist on the same domain? 

Yes. Adobe’s Cloud Manager documentation confirms specific URL paths can route to an EDS origin while the rest of the domain stays on AEM Sites through the same CDN. This is the technical foundation for incremental migration. 

2. Do content authors need retraining for EDS? 

Yes, but the change is typically well received. The Universal Editor offers simpler WYSIWYG in-context editing. Document-based authoring via Word or Google Docs is also available. Teams should plan author training before go-live, not after. 

3. Can the Experience Modernization Agent migrate any AEM site? 

Not all sites qualify. Source content needs to be publicly accessible, and anything behind authentication, a VPN or a firewall can’t be processed by the scraping skill. For qualifying sites, the agent significantly reduces the front-end rebuild timeline. 

4. Is there a direct path from Page Editor to Universal Editor? 

No. Adobe confirms no direct migration path exists, due to fundamental technology differences. Moving to Universal Editor is only recommended alongside an EDS transition. 

5. How does EDS migration affect existing AEM governance workflows? 

AEM Author remains the content creation and governance layer after migration. Existing workflows, permissions and approval configurations continue to apply. The delivery layer changes. The governance layer doesn’t. For regulated environments, this article on enforcing content governance with AEM workflows covers how controls carry through an EDS migration.

Categories
AEM

Replatforming to AEM: A Guide for Teams Leaving Another CMS

Key Takeaways

  • Replatforming to AEM isn’t a lift-and-shift exercise. Content architecture and governance decisions made during migration determine how much of AEM’s capability your team can use after go-live.
  • Adobe provides a phased migration framework including the Best Practices Analyzer, the Content Transfer Tool and the Experience Modernization Agent, each with a specific role in reducing migration risk.
  • The most expensive migration mistakes happen before any content moves: skipping readiness assessment, carrying forward broken taxonomy and under-resourcing governance design.
  • AEM as a Cloud Service is the only deployment model that supports the full AI agent layer, Edge Delivery Services and continuous governance.
  • Content migration and code migration are separate workstreams with different timelines and risk profiles, and treating them as one project is a leading cause of go-live delays.

Why Teams Leave Their Current CMS

The decision to replatform rarely starts with a technology preference. It starts with a business problem the current platform can no longer solve.

The patterns are consistent. Content teams are producing more output with the same headcount, and the platform wasn’t built for that volume. Personalization is on the roadmap, but connecting audience data to content delivery requires custom development the current CMS was never designed to support. Governance breaks down under deadline pressure because it depends on manual steps rather than system controls. And AI tools end up living around the platform, not inside it.

AEM as a Cloud Service addresses each of these, but only when the team treats the migration as a strategic program rather than a technical one. NetEffect’s case study on unifying 180 websites with AEM shows what that business case looks like in practice across a large-scale, multi-site environment.

What Makes AEM Migration Different

Most CMS migrations involve moving content from one structured system to another. AEM migration involves that plus several dimensions that need separate planning.

Content architecture isn’t portable. AEM organizes content as pages, content fragments, experience fragments and components. That structure is fundamentally different from most other CMSs. Migrating raw content without redesigning the architecture for AEM’s model creates a rework backlog that surfaces after go-live, not before.

Integrations require rearchitecting. Custom integrations with DAMs, CRMs, analytics platforms and marketing automation tools rarely port directly to AEM. Each one needs evaluation against AEM’s API-driven architecture and independent testing.

Teams need to redesign governance, not replicate it. Carrying forward the governance model from the old CMS misses the opportunity to build compliance controls into the platform from the start. Migration is the right moment to define metadata standards, permission structures and approval workflows correctly, before content populates the new environment.

Deployment model choice affects everything downstream. AEM as a Cloud Service is the only deployment model that supports the full AI agent layer, Edge Delivery Services, continuous governance and HIPAA readiness. For teams weighing this decision, this guide on AEM cloud versus on-premise deployment covers what that choice means for long-term capability.

Adobe’s Migration Framework: Four Phases That Determine Outcomes

Phase 1: Readiness Assessment

The readiness phase determines what the migration will actually involve before any content moves.

Adobe’s Best Practices Analyzer scans an existing AEM environment and flags what needs to change before a move to Cloud Service, cutting out a lot of the manual assessment work teams would otherwise have to do by hand. For teams migrating from a non-Adobe CMS, the equivalent work involves a content audit of the source platform, an integration inventory and a governance gap analysis.

In our experience, the teams that skip this phase and move directly to execution consistently encounter mid-migration scope changes that cost more to resolve than the readiness work would have. The output isn’t a project plan. It’s a realistic picture of complexity that informs one.

Phase 2: Content Architecture Design

This phase decides how the team will structure content in AEM before migration begins. Content model design determines how pages, content fragments and experience fragments fit together. Taxonomy and metadata schema decisions determine which fields you require, how you tag assets and how you classify content. URL structure and redirect mapping determine how you preserve or redirect existing URLs. And the governance model, meaning permissions, approval workflows and rights management, needs to be locked in before content arrives.

The taxonomy and metadata decisions made here have the longest-lasting impact on post-go-live capability. A clean, consistently enforced taxonomy is what makes personalization, AI-assisted authoring and DAM discoverability work. For teams building that foundation, our piece on why content architecture determines AI readiness covers the structural prerequisites that migration teams should treat as design requirements, not post-migration optimizations.

Phase 3: Content Migration Execution

Adobe’s Content Transfer Tool handles the mechanics of moving content from an existing AEM instance into the new Cloud Service environment. For teams migrating from a non-Adobe CMS, the equivalent is a bulk import process that maps source content into AEM’s content model.

Adobe recommends a phased approach to the actual move. Turn off asset processing workflows before ingestion starts, since running them during ingestion tends to degrade performance. Ingest the assets first and run processing workflows afterward in batches. Run the ingestion in wipe mode on the target environment so the team starts from a clean state, and validate content rendering after each batch before moving to the next one.

We consistently see content migration and code migration work best as parallel but separate workstreams. Combining them creates dependencies that slow both down and make issues harder to isolate when they surface.

Phase 4: The Experience Modernization Agent

For teams migrating from another CMS into AEM with Edge Delivery Services, Adobe’s Experience Modernization Agent is a significant accelerator. Per Adobe’s own documentation, it works across a wide range of source CMS platforms and can turn a migration that would normally take months into a matter of weeks or even days. Its capabilities cover the heavy lifting: importing pages in bulk, pulling design systems from an existing site, rebuilding navigation and pulling content through web scraping where needed.

Every change still runs through a GitHub-based review workflow before it goes live, so developers keep full authority over what ships. Speed doesn’t come at the cost of governance.

The CMS Migration Checklist

Before migration begins. Document the business case with specific capability gaps in the current CMS, and confirm the deployment model as AEM as a Cloud Service. Complete a content audit covering volume, types, age and quality, along with an integration inventory that assesses every connected system. Identify governance gaps across metadata, permissions and approval workflows.

During architecture design. Design the content model for AEM’s fragment and component architecture, with a metadata schema that enforces required fields at the system level. Complete and validate the URL mapping and redirect strategy, and document permission structures and approval workflows.

During content migration. Disable asset processing workflows before bulk ingestion begins. Migrate content in batches and validate rendering after each one, test and verify redirect mapping, and validate search and metadata accuracy.

Before go-live. Test every integration at production data volumes, and test permission structures for every user group. Validate performance with production-representative content, document and test the rollback plan, and resource and schedule the stabilization period.

For the implementation sequence behind this checklist, this phase-based AEM implementation roadmap maps each decision to the correct point in the program timeline.

What to Expect After Go-Live

A well-executed AEM migration doesn’t deliver its full return at go-live. It delivers a platform capable of that return as the team activates capabilities in sequence.

Phase

Timeframe

Focus

Stabilization

Weeks 1-4

Monitor, resolve issues, validate performance

Content operations

Months 2-3

AI-assisted authoring, DAM discoverability, workflow optimization

Personalization

Months 3-6

AEP connectivity, audience-content matching

AI agent layer

Months 6-12

Governance Agent, Experience Production Agent

Full optimization

Ongoing

Performance tuning, content supply chain refinement

Teams that sequence activation deliberately outperform those that try to activate everything at once. The migration creates the foundation. Each phase builds on it.

Starting the Conversation

A 30-minute conversation with the NetEffect team can map your current CMS limitations against AEM’s capability set, identify the migration complexity specific to your environment and outline what a realistic program looks like from readiness assessment to stabilization.

Book a Focus Area Audit

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How long does an AEM migration typically take?

Simple migrations with limited integrations and a clean content structure typically complete in three to four months. Complex enterprise migrations with many integrations and multi-site requirements typically run 6 to 12 months. The readiness assessment produces a realistic timeline for your specific environment before the program begins.

Q2. Can we migrate from any CMS to AEM?

Yes. Adobe’s Experience Modernization Agent supports migrations from a wide range of CMS platforms into production-capable Edge Delivery Services projects. The migration path varies by source platform complexity, but no CMS is categorically incompatible with AEM.

Q3. Should we migrate all content or start with a subset?

Starting with your highest-traffic or most business-critical pages allows you to validate the content architecture, integration connections and governance model before committing to full migration. Adobe’s Content Transfer Tool supports phased migration with batch ingestion and validation.

Q4. What happens to our SEO during migration?

Every URL that changes needs a validated redirect to preserve SEO equity and prevent 404 errors. Redirect mapping is consistently underestimated in migration planning and is one of the most common causes of post-launch performance degradation. Complete and test it before go-live, not after.

Q5. How does AEM migration connect to AI readiness?

The content architecture, taxonomy and governance decisions made during migration directly determine AI readiness after go-live. Our piece on why content architecture determines AI readiness covers the specific prerequisites that migration teams should treat as design requirements.

Categories
AEM

AEM for Regulated Industries: When Governance Isn’t Optiona 

Key Takeaways 

  • In regulated industries, governance works as a control embedded at every stage of content production, not a review step tacked onto the end. 
  • AEM’s content governance system covers permissions, metadata enforcement, digital rights management, approval workflows and continuous AI governance, all within a single platform. 
  • The most common governance gap in regulated Adobe environments is capability that already exists but isn’t configured to enforce compliance automatically. 
  • HIPAA readiness and digital sovereignty options are available for AEM as a Cloud Service, though healthcare and government configurations require additional licensing and, for PHI, a signed BAA. 
  • When AI enters the content production workflow, governance has to sit upstream of production, not get applied as a filter after the fact. 

What Governance Failure Actually Looks Like 

It rarely happens in a single dramatic moment. A disclosure goes live with outdated regulatory language. A licensed asset appears in a market where its rights have expired. A regional team publishes a product claim that legal flagged three weeks earlier, but the flag never reached the author. 

None of these require negligence. They only require treating governance as a review step at the end of the process instead of a control built into it. 

For organizations in financial services, healthcare, enterprise retail and the public sector, that distinction carries real consequences. Enforcement has to be built into the activation workflow, so compliance doesn’t depend on someone remembering the rules. When it isn’t, content becomes a liability before it becomes an asset. 

In financial services specifically, content is a compliance asset, not just documentation. Disclosures, regulatory notices, product documentation and agent support content underpin how financial institutions operate, serve customers and manage risk. As regulatory demands intensify and AI enters the picture, many organizations are discovering their content systems can’t keep up, creating quiet failures that slow reviews, introduce inconsistency and erode trust. 

What AEM’s Content Governance System Covers 

Permissions and Access Control 

In regulated environments, role-based access control is a compliance control, not just an implementation convenience. A content author on a regional marketing team shouldn’t have access to approved regulatory language templates unless they’re publishing within a defined, audited workflow. AEM’s permissions enforce those boundaries at the asset and page level, not just at the system level. 

Permissions need testing for every user group, with clearly defined limits around what each group can and can’t do. In practice, permission configurations set at implementation and never revisited are one of the most consistent sources of governance exposure we find in mature Adobe environments. Teams grow, roles change and access levels that made sense at launch become compliance risks within 18 months. 

Metadata and Taxonomy as Compliance Infrastructure 

A DAM without governance quickly becomes hard to use. The real value of AEM Assets shows up when metadata, permissions and taxonomy work together to make content instantly usable and reusable. 

For regulated organizations, metadata does more than support discoverability. It’s the mechanism that tells the system what a piece of content is approved for, which markets it applies to, what its rights status is and when it expires. Without structured, consistently applied metadata, compliance controls can’t function reliably at scale. Which fields are required versus optional should be a governance decision the system enforces, not something left to individual authors. 

Digital Rights Management 

Digital Rights Management in AEM protects the organization from legal, financial and reputational risk by ensuring licensed assets are used only within approved terms, while letting teams move quickly and confidently in a self-service environment. 

The goal is proactive risk management rather than reactive: standardized rights metadata, clear visual indicators at the point of asset use and controls that block non-compliant use automatically instead of auditing for it afterward. For organizations managing licensed imagery, third-party data, regulated financial content or patient-related material, this is where compliance programs succeed or fail. 

Continuous Governance with the AEM Governance Agent 

The Governance Agent enforces security, regulatory and brand policies on all content interactions and activations inside AEM. Key capabilities include automated brand governance for consistency and permissions and DRM controls for secure, compliant use of digital assets. 

Governance that runs quarterly catches problems that are already public. Governance embedded continuously in the content workflow catches them before they publish. In our experience, this is the capability that generates the strongest response from legal and compliance stakeholders once they understand how it works, because it reframes compliance from a cost center function into an operational control. 

For teams thinking through how the Governance Agent fits into a broader Adobe AI activation strategy, this post on what Adobe’s AI agents actually do covers how the agent layer connects to content operations in practice. 

HIPAA, Digital Sovereignty and Regulated Infrastructure 

For healthcare organizations and government entities, compliance extends beyond content governance into infrastructure. This is an area where we see significant underestimation during AEM planning. Organizations focus on workflow governance and overlook the infrastructure layer until a procurement or legal review surfaces it. 

Adobe documents HIPAA readiness for AEM as a Cloud Service. Extended Security for Healthcare can be applied to eligible services, and processing Protected Health Information still requires a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with Adobe on top of that configuration. HIPAA readiness applies to production environments only. It doesn’t extend to development, staging or rapid development environments. 

For government and sovereignty-sensitive organizations, Adobe Experience Manager Managed Services offers sovereign cloud options, including the AWS European Sovereign Cloud and Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty, giving customers more control over data residency and jurisdictional requirements. 

The practical implication is that infrastructure compliance gets significantly more expensive to address after the platform is live than during initial deployment planning. For teams evaluating deployment decisions, #LINK-TBD covers what those decisions mean for compliance readiness specifically. 

The Governance Configuration Most Teams Skip 

AEM’s presence doesn’t guarantee a functioning content governance system. The platform provides the capability. Configuration, taxonomy decisions, permission structures and workflow design determine whether that capability turns into actual compliance control. 

We see the same governance gaps recur across regulated Adobe environments. Metadata standards get defined but not enforced, so fields exist without becoming mandatory and compliant tagging ends up depending on individual authors instead of system requirements. Permissions get configured at launch and never reviewed again, so access levels drift as roles change and teams expand. Approval workflows exist in documentation but not in the system itself, so review steps get followed inconsistently because they aren’t embedded in AEM. And rights management gets treated as housekeeping rather than a legal control, so asset expiry dates and usage restrictions sit in metadata without ever connecting to automated use restrictions. 

Each gap represents a point where compliant behavior depends on human consistency rather than system enforcement. Organizations typically discover these gaps during external audits rather than internal reviews, which means the cost of finding them outpaces the cost of preventing them. 

For teams assessing where their current AEM implementation stands, this breakdown of enforcing content governance with AEM workflows covers the configuration decisions that determine whether the platform functions as a compliance system or just a content system. 

Governance and the AI Question 

The arrival of AI-assisted content generation raises a governance question compliance leaders in regulated industries are actively working through: how do you maintain compliance control over content produced faster than manual review can evaluate? 

The answer is to embed governance upstream of production, not slow down AI adoption by applying it as a downstream filter. 

The content governance system becomes the context layer AI operates within. Permissions determine what the AI can access. Metadata standards determine how AI-generated content gets tagged. Workflow controls determine where it routes for review. The Governance Agent determines whether it meets compliance requirements before it publishes. When that layer is well configured, AI accelerates compliant content production. When it isn’t, it accelerates the production of unreviewed content at a volume that creates audit exposure. 

For organizations thinking about how governance connects to broader content operations, this breakdown of why the content supply chain, not the content team, is the real bottleneck covers how governance decisions upstream affect content velocity downstream. 

Before the Next Audit 

The relevant question for digital and compliance leaders isn’t whether AEM can support a functioning content governance system. The capabilities are well established. The real question is whether your current configuration uses those capabilities as compliance controls, or whether governance still depends on people following guidelines rather than a system enforcing them. 

That distinction is what separates a content governance system from a content governance intention. In a regulated industry, only one of those is sufficient. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Does AEM support HIPAA compliance for healthcare organizations? 

Adobe documents HIPAA readiness for AEM as a Cloud Service, and Extended Security for Healthcare can be applied to keep Protected Health Information within a compliant environment. Processing PHI still requires a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with Adobe. HIPAA readiness applies to production environments only. Your Adobe Customer Success Manager can confirm provisioning requirements for your specific setup. 

How does AEM enforce governance without creating a compliance bottleneck? 

AEM enforces controls at the point of authoring, tagging and publishing rather than as a final review gate. That’s the difference between a compliance guardrail built into the workflow and a compliance gate that sits outside it. Guardrails are harder to bypass and don’t require a separate review step, which means compliant content moves faster, not slower. 

Is AEM’s full governance capability available for on-premise deployments? 

Core governance features, including permissions, metadata enforcement and DRM, are available across AEM deployment models. The Governance Agent and continuous AI governance capabilities require AEM as a Cloud Service. #LINK-TBD covers the decision factors in more detail.

How do we know if our current AEM governance configuration is actually working? 

The most reliable signal is whether compliance depends on people following a process or the system enforcing one. If governance relies on authors remembering to apply metadata, reviewers being manually notified or access permissions that haven’t been reviewed since implementation, the configuration is likely creating audit exposure. This phase-based AEM implementation roadmap covers what a well-configured governance layer looks like in practice.

What is the first step for a regulated organization that wants to audit its current governance setup? 

Start by mapping how content actually moves through your environment today: who has access to what, which metadata fields are required versus optional, where approval workflows live in the system versus in a process document and when permissions were last reviewed. That map surfaces the gaps faster than any tool-based audit. This breakdown of enforcing content governance with AEM workflows provides a structured framework for running that exercise.