I can see both sides of this, but without knowing the underlying purpose for the DAM its a little hard to figure out which side to come down on.
Is there concern about maintaining problematic file formats? that rich media takes up space? concerns about maintenance backup?
This is also a problem that institutional repositories are struggling with, particularly from a long-term preservation standpoint. Perhaps some of the literature/policies developing over there would be useful?
If we take the M part of DAMS seriously, then any digital file that has value to the institution — even if it’s somewhat fleeting — should be managed there. It’s not a Digital Preservation System, after all, though we may want that to be part of the asset lifecycle. I’ve been thinking for a while that I’d like our DAMS (when we get there) to have some “records retention” functions — “this file is active for X months by the department that loaded it, then goes to archives for evaluation for long term retention.”
So PPT files >should < be included in the DAMS, where they can be managed effectively. Otherwise they’ll be scattered all over the network, duplicated, and will be unfindable when they’re needed.
I think that it is very easy for folks, IT folks included, to get very hung up on externalities. You see it even in the first comments here where the first commenter was happy to see PPT excluded because “pretty horrendous file format to deal with.” So, that puts this in the category of “we don’t like your file format, so we don’t want it sullying our shiny digital asset management system.”
To the contrary, I would say that the museum’s digital assets–all of them for which there is a reason not to throw them away–belong in a single system. If there are good reasons not to use PPT (I can think of some, myself), that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere–not at the DAM level.