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."
Favorite things about Zope:
this is getting old and so are you
blog
This is becoming a larger and larger issue among companies. I know of one company that is spending close to $3 Million US to get their content organized. In addition, I think there is also a movement to integrate Content Management Systems with Learning Management Systems. I guess this is a good idea.
Kris
...to set up and configure, especially (gack) on Windows, but once it is running it is an incredibly powerful tool. Currently running on Solaris, has Linux and HP-UX variant as well. Eminent customization and power comes with a price though. A very high one at that. Have looked at a promising app by eGrail that seemed to be competitive and at a fraction of the cost, but wasn't quite ready for prime-time (this was a year or so ago, things might have changed since...)
Brain: Promise me something, Pinky. Never breed.
There are heaps of these bloated systems. For a while, Vignette's system (formerly called Story Server) was a leader. Many outfits build their own, for example, based on Oracle. A colleague has recently installing Microsoft Content Management Server for a large government client, and he has been remarkably impressed.
weeell.. the first thing you need to understand is that some of these content management systems are really toolkits, some are more out-of-the box experiences... its kinda a spectrum.
my opinion - beware the hell of out of box stuff, (like red dot), you wanna budget about 50/50 buy vs build (or, better still save half your budget and use an open source system)
the open source alternatives, arsdigita, midgard, Zope Content Framework, are really every bit as good as the mid range CMS systems, but if the bureacracy is gonna wanna spend 400,000 dollars on a CMS systems like Vignette (bleech!) then nobody's gonna stop them.
<not a troll, no really>everybody, of course, is keeping a damn close eye on Microsoft, and their systyem is really shaping up, i gotta say, (if you like that sort of thing </not a troll>
if you want more, good info, check out cmswatch.com and *the*, definitive cms-list
is what we use here. And I'm actually the one in charge of it.
A few things to make note of:
1) it's a good product, AS LONG AS SOMEONE QUALIFIED INSTALLS IT. Our installation job was completely botched by the company that did it, and it ended up being practically unusable. We had to hire contractors to fix it. Whatever software you end up choosing, make sure someone certified by the company installs it. It's more expensive up front, but will save you endless hassles and cost much less in the long run. For god's sake whatever you do, don't assume it's just like installing any other software and any bonehead can do it. It's just too complex for that.
2) For whoever will be managing the software: either hire someone certified by the company, or send the person who'll be managing it on as many training courses provided by the company as possible. The more they know, the better. For interwoven, a knowledge of PERL, XML, DTDs, and some sysadmin type capabilities are a must. Familiarity with JAVA is a definate asset.
3) TeamSite is a great product for straight ahead, content management, but if you want any bulk functionality, you'll need to do extensive customization. It's meant for one-at-a-time changes. A good PERL programmer will save you a lot of headaches in this area.
4) $$$$$. Any good content management software is going to cost you through the nose in training, installation, and the software itself. Expect it, deal with it. Make sure the marketing pinheads know it.
5) Get the tech support, you'll need it.
6) TRAINING TRAINING AND MORE TRAINING. Make sure the editors take at least a basic training course in using the TS GUI, or your manager will spend 95% of his/her time fielding calls from frustrated content editors who don't understand what a DCR (Data Content Record) is, and don't know how to unlock a file.
7) Last, and most importantly, install it on solaris. Do not, under any circumstances, install it on WINNT. Gah.
There are a lot of good resources out there for TS. It's a popular product, and I'm on a few mailing lists that are quite helpful.
If you have any questions about TS, you can email me privately and I'll do my best to answer them.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
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
Most people have a problem defining 'content', or even 'information'. When I see an organisation struggling with their enormous pile of word documents full of sometimes vital information, I know there is something basicly wrong: the start of the storage of a bit of information (or better: a bit of data which can be interpret as 'information') is wrong in a lot of organisations, therefor the usability of this information is limited at best: to use it in expert systems, in general documents for print, in websites and f.e. in general database applications, it has to be extracted from the worddocument by external tools, which is not that easy in most situations.
Some organisations try to use a 'content management system' (CMS) to transfer their pile of worddocs into data inside the CMS, which is then usable as 'content' for websites. However, this process is difficult and error-prone, and the end-result is not what most people want to have but another collided form of the data which was once stored into a huge pile of worddocs.
Here in Europe you have a lot of different CMS's. Some large ones try to grab a lot of external data and 'publish' that on websites, mostly by offering worddoc/office document importers, others are build around 'data' and stick viewers on pieces of data, which can then be used in websites or anywhere else. How I see it is that there should be a general base of data-elements which make up the core base of data-elements for an organisation, which is used in all kinds of systems that use that data, including viewer applications for websites. My CMS (CESys) does this, also others like the Open Source CMS MMBase follow this approach. I think that's the way to go: it forces organisations to think about HOW to store data and how which data is used, instead of keeping organisations at the level of "when you want to store information, open word and start typing". Because: webpublishing is just connecting a viewer and a piece of data to get viewed by that viewer and with the proper storage of data it's an easy job to do.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
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.
by getting my work done on time (which means I should probably read slashdot less).
The MS CM version today is a souped up NCompass version, since MS bought NCompass and changed the name into MS Content Management Server. It's ok, but page-focussed (not good IMHO, since a page is a collection of data-elements that are VIEWED by the page but are not part of it), and quite expensive ($35,000.- per CPU)
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
sPh
Correct, Zope is more of an app server. CMF (Content Management Framework) is a plug-in for Zope. Considering it's all free for the taking, anyone interested in content management would be foolish to pass up the chance to evaluate the Zope + CMF option.
CityDesk by our beloved Joel Spolsky seems like it may be powerful enough and quite easy to use (if it lives up to Joel's standards as he claims it does). I haven't tried it myself but you might want to look into it as it seems *much* cheaper than other content management software.
I have seen with multiple content management applications is as follows:
... where it falls flat is when it comes to dynamic pages that rely on database queries and criteria for the content (.cfm, .php, .asp, etc.) At least on the "web side" of our content management process -- this is causing all sorts of issues when trying to add dynamic pages as objects into the various products. (We already have the source control issue handled with mks -- but since 90% of our pages are dynamic -- most of the benefits of traditional "content management" have yet to be realized in areas where the content gets created on the fly --- turns search engines to mush.)
Most content managers create an AutoIndex feature that works similar "in theory" of a web search engine such as google. When adding static html files as objects into the system --- this works great because it is able to index the content of the HTML pages with pretty good "searchability"
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Here is an overview of the various flavors of content management:
1. Content Management. A generic term for managing various types of content. It includes a system for managing digital content files (and perhaps offline content as well) along with metadata that describes the content. Usually workflow and security are included.
2. Document Management. Content management focused on text documents, office automation documents, and scanned images. These tend to be very workflow oriented.
3. Web Content Management. Obviously web focused content management that is oriented towards the web publishing process. Includes some workflow and usually publishing templates and perhaps a mechanism for actually publishing the content to the web server.
4. Digital Asset Management. Focused on being an archive or digital library that other systems such as web content management can draw on. The focus is on re-purposing of content. Often these system are rich media focused and include facilities for transcoding content from one format to another dynamically.
Hope this helps.
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.
ActiveWeb, a German company, has a great content management system that covers digital assets as well as content management. Its granular workflow and security features allow you to fully customize who sees what, and templates, preferences, and other features let you dynamically change how they see it. A great product for the money.
Got Rhinos?
I wouldn't use Citydesk for a major project requring an RDBMS, but for small websites it's the best. Most people using Frontpage or Fusion would be *much* happier with Citydesk.
You could rescue an old Pentium clone from the dumpster and install Linux + Zope + Squishdot, all at a cost of $0. Not exactly a production environment, but more than enough for "proof of concept" and a smoke & mirrors demo.
I had a similar lack of funding problem. My organization has a capital spending authorization procedure that rivals that of the Pentagon. I installed Linux, Zope & Squishdot on a piece of Pentium-100 junkware, and customized some of the Squishdot screens so as to make it look like series of customized portals to deliver reports as PDF file attachments. The powers that be couldn't wait to spend $7K on a Dell Poweredge server. There is so much more I would like to say about Zope + Squishdot, but I have to avoid needlessly educating my competitors. I can't mention where I work, my employer's line of business, the clients we serve, or any of the specifics, but I can say with authority that Linux, Zope & Squishdot can be turned into a "wonder weapon" against larger competitors who have more money to spend.
That's pretty much the case for most general purpose CMS (rather than something site-type specific like Slashcode, PHPWebsite or whatever). Whether you're talking about Zope or Vignette, you're still essentially getting a high-level toolkit, with some nice APIs to handle stuff at the level of user authentication, workflow capability and so on.
You're still going to have to put something on top to run your site, whether it's a higher-level still toolkit like CMF (Content Management Framework, note) for Zope, or Multisite Content Manager (previously known as Enterprise Application Portal) for Vignette.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Zope seems like the real deal when it comes to Open Source companies. They release for free and then do commercial add-on and support. Cool stuff.
Zope has two sites: Zope.com and Zope.org. Send your developers to Zope.org and your boss to Zope.com.
.org is their community development site (which also runs on Zope). It is a very active very homey collaborative environment.
.com is the suit-friendly corporate face of Zope. This is where you send your boss to assure him that you can get commercial support / training. Zope certification will begin soon. This is one of the few certification programs that I'm ever likely to even consider.
All in all, Zope is a really solid piece of software. The new CMF does a great job of separating roles. Don't forget to visit the Demos (very informative).
Good luck with Zope. You will not ever regret using it.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
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!
I'm in the WEB CMS business, so I resign from moderating though possible in this discussion.
:0)
:) is not supported.
Should anyone want some Danish jibberish, the direct URL to a CMS is Sophistic CMS and it contain a few screenshot cuts and some explanations. Go fish translate it, yeah right, no Danish support
The advantages of a CMS, are that deploying a full featured website is incredible fast assuming the right tool is available. If this is so, you can concider it as a toolbox. You may have plenty of ideas of what your website should do for you, but developing everything from bottom-up can be an expensive task, with a CMS with selectable components, you design as you please and can implement components as required, and it is up running in a heart beat. Furthermore you have a CMS development crew as your backing to ensure that the components are matching the needs of tomorrows tasks. To finish it off a thorough CMS also provides you with the tool to maintain and develop your deployed site even further, with ease, with proper access management to distribute specific tasks.
A sample is BLUNT a website for a new rockband featured on Danish TV3 through 10 shows generating lots of interest. Universal, their record company, had sponsored a small amount to support the band and their online promotion (We are currently preparing negotions with Universal to allow mp3 sales). The general photoshop/gimp+html design was provided by the design crew(among it were one of the band members)Monday, March 25th at around 13pm and was up and running less than 6 hours thereafter, supporting both IE and Mozilla/Netscape, Opera, etc.. I hope. Please dump me a mail at the address below if your browser (besides lynx, sorry
A CMS is a broad topic I give you all that. What matters is that it is about managing content, whether it be an intranet(office documents and tools for the daily business..e-business..), an extranet (marketing, product, pricing material, etc..), or a website with promotion, store, discussion forums, information spreader, its all about content, and thats what a CMS can cover as a tool.
Basically its reusing code and sharing the development code of an tailored administration system, where a professional CMS consist of a lot of different components from which the integrators can implement and configure according to their needs and be up running in less time and with less waste of money. One of the benefits for non-techies is that the editing tool works just as a word processor and it can be delivered to support just about all platforms thanks to use of java or activex, depending of what is best for the users.
Basically its a tool.
Sophistic CMS, to which one of the above links is directed to, is pretty inexpensive and could be what you need, Danish Design, what do I know, IT IS YOUR CHOICE.
The pages are only available in Danish, but you can reach our Danish office at +45 86 13 73 15 between 9am - 17pm CET og by email contact at sophistic dot com
This may be concidered an advertizement, but it is still free content, so if it suits you, it is free for you to use.
Best regards,
Casper