Slashdot Mirror
Content Management Nightmares
bildstorm writes "I've recently been looking into content management systems for my company and have found that there are all kinds of systems out there. I've found that most Americans consider web content management to be the catch all for content management (like Interwoven). In Europe, I've noticed that what's referred to as digital asset management is what is usually meant by content management (like Artesia).
Has anyone used any of these systems well? For more than just web content? Has anyone tried any open source systems and used them well? I know there is a conference in Zurich next month for open source content management, but I don't know much about the products."
Fast forward to 2002. Most of the document managment vendors from 1996 are gone. Now we have "content management", which seems fine as far as it goes but also seems (IMHO) to make the basic assumption that everything is, or will soon be, a web page. Management of plain old documents on plain old file servers (SANs now I guess) has been forgotten.
Hello! Not everything is content! Not everything will eventually become a web page!! Would the "content management" vendors please remember plain old business documents?
Thanks.
sPh
Content Management Systems are golf-course-ware. It gets sold to senior executives by smooth-talking sales executives who claim their products solve every conceivable business problem, is a doddle to install, standards compliant, holographic user interfaces, everything.
The reality is that this is an inherently complex field, which requires a huge amount of business-thinking before the technical solution even becomes relevant - how do you want to manage your content ? Do you have a requirement for workflow-style solutions ? Is revision control important ? Do you need collaborative features allowing several people to work on a document at the same time ? Do you have a knowledge management infrastructure so you can re-use an accepted taxonomy ? What are your security requirements ? Where does your content reside - is it largely "document" based, or is it mainly database-driven ? How technically sophisticated are your content generators ?
Only after you have worked out what you want to do with your precious content should you consider what the technology can do for you - I suggest using any one of the myriad requirements gathering techniques used in software engineering and specify your "ideal" content management system, then drawing up a list of candidate technologies.
If you start with "what can the technology do for me", you almost certainly will end up spending a lot of time and effort (and money !) and getting very little in return....
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
Web content management is one thing, but it doesn't go far enough for what I am working on. I have been looking into XML aware content management systems that chunk XML documents, and allow reuse of those chunks. For publishing to html, pdf, paper, and whatever might come out in the future. This is so documents created by multiple departments can be accessed by other departments, and reused by documentation groups for customer delivery. And, maintain consistency accross reused information.
Some features I am looking for:
1) XML based documentation.
2) Multiple authoring tool compatibility.
3) Standards compatibility
4) Check-in/Check-out with release versioning a la CVS.
One of the interesting points I have seen is that content management alone won't cut it. You have to have the leadership in the company to push through the cultural changes to get a real return on the investment. A big point of content management is to enable all groups in a company to share information and build on the knowledge of others. The term coined in the article I read is knowledge management. Contenet management is the tool to free up kowledge in the company from departmental web server and file servers and make it available to anyone who needs it.
Dastardly
The best definition I can come up with is that a CMS is anything that offers, in some form, with a reasonable level of integration, several of: content (especially file and data record) control (revision control, access control, triggers, backup), content entry, searching, workflow, templating, deployment, delivery (including personalization), and commerce support. Each of these is a category (perhaps a buzzword) in itself, and you'll have to research what they are and how useful they are to you. While all the vendors will say their products do it all (or--the next version will do it all!), each is stronger in some of these areas, weaker in others. They also vary greatly in the amount of out-of-box functionality, versus how much you need to build, and they differ in ease of extension.
Frankly, it's really hard to make a good decision about these products without putting a lot of time into evaluating them against your needs. If you don't have a good idea of what you want from a system, you'll probably end up buying a lot that never gets used (happens all the time!), and missing out on a lot that could have been useful. So I'd work at defining your needs (talk to everyone who will use the system to see what they think a CMS does), then ask specific questions of the vendors, and try to demo the systems before making a decision.
Also, learn the lingo. You actually can get information out of the marketing material, once you learn the code.
Good luck.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I'm from Curtin University and after extensive evaluation of other content management solutions we ended up doing it ourselves.
The main reason ?
It reduces the money and time needed to customise the off the shelf product to the specific needs of the organisation.
We ended up using Apple's WebObjects which is actually a fantastic product. So now, we have a CMS tailored specifically for the university that meets only the universities needs.
Total cost ? 15000 US for hiring someone (im in Australia) + 100 US for WebObjects.
Considerably cheaper than something which may not necessarily do what we want.
HTH,
Naden.
Funtage Factor: Purple
I get cold calls at least once a month from headhunters wanting me to do Livelink. I don't list a phone number, email address, or physical address on my online resume; they call information to get to my company and then work their way in from the front desk.
The product is a web based document management system, like Documentum in theory, but much easier to work with in practice. I've been using it since September 01, and it has grown on me.
Users interact via a web site or WebDAV (supposedly works on Linux) to view, add, check in, check out, or delete documents; to interact with workflows; to engage in discussions, and to do whatever else you have your server configured to do.
The web interface allows for use with any operating system, and the java widgets seem to run on our Linux, Sun, OSX, and Irix boxes. (and of course on Windows!) I can't speak for WebDAV, as I haven't used it. I spend a lot of time using their Office integration widgets, which allow me to interact with the repository directly from Windows or MS Office. (More menus appear in your apps.)
I like it because it exports XML over HTTP. I send it a URL and object number, and it sends back a pile of XML that I transform into a web page. It means that I rarely have to update web pages, as I just say a web page is made of objects of type Y, and those objects show up on the web page when a user checks them into the repository.
What's strange is that in the US, it is not too popular. Livelink consultants are impossible to find, and generally bill at around $100/hour. From my colleagues in the UK I understand that the billing is about the same, but that consultants are easier to come by.
It's strange that the product doesn't have much of a name because OpenText has been around since 1991. They're a Canadian company who do about 100 million in sales a year, so they're not small or new.
Anyway, I wasn't impressed up front, but have turned into a fan. And the user response, always important in IT projects, has been extremely positive. Just around 60% of the site's users have requested to participate in training sessions. (Which aren't cheap: Opentext bills $3000/day for onsite training!) And almost every user has been interacting with it daily, with almost no complaints.
So, it's definitely worth considering, especially if you have the money!
Wiki.