Slashdot Mirror
Managing Enterprise Content
The authors, Ann Rockley, Pamela Kostur, and Steve Manning, make the case for their "Unified Content Strategy" -- a practical and logical way of researching, planning, preparing, testing, implementing and selling content management across an enterprise. The lessons contained in this easy-to-read volume are not lost on smaller organizations, however; departments, small work groups, even individuals, will also benefit from learning innovative ways to effectively create, use and manage content.
The author's main message is that a well-planned "unified content strategy" can provide a dramatic improvement in the way content is created in an organization. A "Unified Content Strategy" is defined as "a repeatable method of identifying all content requirements up front, creating consistently structured content for reuse, managing that content in a definitive source, and assembling content on demand to meet your customers' needs." According to the authors, improvements that result from implementing such a strategy include "increased quality and consistency and long-term reduced time and costs for development and maintenance. In addition, reuse provides support for rapid re-configuration of your content to meet changing needs."
Of particular importance, the authors provide guidance on selecting a strategy before you get started; they explain their Unified Content Strategy, the importance of single sourcing (write it once, use it often), and how a properly planned content management initiative can help your organization deliver the right content to the right people at the right time in the format they desire. The authors also cover topics including: information modeling (the key to content reuse), content analysis, usability, IT and Business partnerships, metadata strategies, the importance of XML, tool selection, change management, training and more.
Section one of the book includes three chapters that address content creation, content reuse, and the return on investment a Unified Content Strategy can provide content-laden organizations. The authors set the stage for the introduction of their methods in Chapter One, "The Basis of a Unified Content Strategy," by illustrating the demons involved in what they call, "The Content Silo Trap" -- a common situation in which content is created by authors working in isolation from one anther, oftentimes re-creating the same types of content over and over again for different purposes (e.g. print, web, online help, marketing collateral, call center/help desk, computer-based training, etc.) The authors say content silos negatively impact the bottom line of any organization because they don't promote collaboration, leverage existing content creation activities, nor do they support the overall goals of the enterprise. Far too often, according to the book, silos create inconsistency, inaccuracy, and costly, unnecessary content re-creation expense. By adopting a Unified Content Strategy, organizations can enjoy faster time to market, reduced costs, improved quality and usability of content, improved workplace and customer satisfaction, as well as unique opportunities to innovate. Each of these topics is explored in the chapter with examples sprinkled throughout the book.
Chapter 2 describes, in detail, the "Fundamental Concepts of Reuse." It's an excellent chapter for those attempting to better understand the content their organizations create and how content re-use can help streamline the content creation process. The authors explore why you should re-use content, who's been doing it and why, as well as the two types of content reuse -- opportunistic and systematic -- and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Examples are provided for these methods in addition to a description of circumstances where reuse may not be appropriate. The entire chapter is available for download.
Chapter three, "Assessing a Return on Investment," helps readers determine the anticipated savings realized by adopting a Unified Content Strategy. A discussion of how to quantify and qualify the goals of such an effort are discussed, and information is provided to help you start assessing your actual costs (training, technology, consulting, lost productivity, etc). If you've got to sell your project to upper management and demonstrate potential ROI, this chapter is an excellent starting point. Don't overlook the section on developing metrics -- it's extremely useful.
Section two, "Performing a Substantive Audit: Determining Business Requirements," is a four-chapter compendium of information designed to help you establish where the content pains are in your organization and how you can address them. Chapter four and five help readers identify and understand their "content lifecycle" (to determine where improvements can be made to your existing processes) and chapter six, "Performing a Content Audit," seeks to help readers gain an "intimate understanding" of the nature and structure of the content to be managed. The authors describe how to perform a content audit, and provide several excellent examples of the process using scenarios that many readers will understand (medical devices, consumer electronics, banking institutions, learning materials). Instructions for building a reuse map -- a tool that identifies which content elements are reusable, where reuse would be beneficial, and whether the content would be reused "as is" (identical reuse) or with modification (derivative reuse) -- are provided. This section will not be lost on IT pros who have been using object-oriented programming reuse strategies for years. However, managing content is not the same as managing code. Content appropriate for public consumption has some unique considerations that the authors discuss in detail. Practical examples will help you think through content issues you may not have considered before.
Chapter 7, "Envisioning the Content Lifecycle," examines requirements gathering by using two fictitious companies as examples. A series of tables and explanatory text is provided to help readers better understand how to tie requirements to a return on investment. Readers are encouraged to use the exercise as the basis for designing improvements to your business processes and tool selection. In many organizations, IT departments are ill-equipped to develop solutions that address content lifecycle issues because IT staffers don't fully understand issues affecting content creation, management, publishing, archiving and translation. The authors attempt to shine light on this issue by exploring the importance of involving a team of subject matters experts, users, clients, etc. to help ensure the requirements gathered will help create new and improved business processes. The lesson: There's no sense automating a bad business process.
Section three tackles the issue of design by introducing the concepts of information modeling, metadata, dynamic content, workflow and implementation. Each chapter is jam-packed with real-world information and examples that simplify the concepts presented. Of particular interest is Chapter 8, "Information Modeling," which helps readers understand the significance an information model plays in the formalizing of content structure, and the subsequent creation of DTDs and schemas. As well, Chapter 9, "Designing Metadata," does an excellent job of exploring the role metadata play in labeling, categorizing and describing content, thereby enabling organizations to provide dynamic content to users on demand. This chapter is also available online. Visit "A Metadata Primer" at CMSWatch.
The remainder of the book discusses objectively the tools and technologies you can use to support a Unified Content Strategy. Such familiar topics as Extensible Markup Language, selecting tools, and evaluating vendors are discussed, as well as various authoring, workflow, and delivery systems -- necessary parts of any content management initiative. The book gives equal coverage to collaborative authoring, change management, implementation challenges and transition planning, although the authors admit they aren't able to cover each topic in as much detail as some readers might desire. Readers will need to seek out additional resources for such information. A useful glossary of terms, an extensive bibliography, and several appendices are also provided. Appendix A is a "Checklist for Implementing a Unified Content Strategy"; Appendix B explores the issues affiliated with "Writing for Multiple Media"; Appendix C examines vendors and their products; Appendix D includes a "Tools Checklist"; and Appendix E explores "Content Relationships."
The book could be improved by lengthening some examples, and by providing a few more case studies (although they are admittedly hard to obtain in such a new arena). As well, the book publisher should have abandoned their table structure for one that would better accommodate the information provided. However, providing access to a companion web site is a great idea that will allow the authors to provide additional information to readers when issues arise that are not discussed fully in the book.
Regardless of your particular situation, if you've got an interest in content management, I highly recommend Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy as well as the book's companion web site. The site provides a solid overview of the strategy, a free chapter from the book, a Return on Investment (ROI) calculator, glossary, white papers and more. The content on this site is extremely useful and is indicative of the quality content found in the book.
Scott Abel is a content management strategist who assists his clients in planning and preparing for content management initiatives. Scott is a frequent presenter at industry and professional service seminars, an instructor at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis Community Learning Network, and vice president of the Society for Technical Communication (STC), Hoosier Chapter. You can purchase Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
I wish I had an important enough job to require my reading of this book.
><));>
Fundamentally, managing a web site is going into the publishing business. Not something you should do unless you actually have something to say, and people interested in hearing it.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
I would like to know where the authors are pulling this stuff. Most of the content management software out there is complete crap. My advice is to keep files in CVS and use simple tools (make, perl scripts, simple web UIs) to manage authoring and distribution. XML is nice but the reality is that very few of your users know how to use it correctly. For better or for worse it is probably more expedient to store HTML or text files until the tools mature and XML becomes better understood by the rank and file.
A failure left with a question mark...
One of the best ways to increase the odds of success on a project is to use prototyping. For me, the biggest argument for prototyping is that you really don't know what you need to build until the users can look at something that allows them to visualize how they are going to use it and tell you, "That's exactly what I need" or more likely "No, it won't work that way, it needs to do this." There is a belief within many organizations that through focus groups and the development of use cases and detailed requirements specifications, you can determine exactly what you need to build, built it, and roll out the perfect system. I've not seen it happen and, frankly, I don't think it's possible. I've seen this type of implementation labeled as a success. However, that's usually not the opinion of the people who have to live with and use the application every day. They have to change how they do their work because when they finally "saw" how the new system worked they had signed off on the design. Through their acceptance they now have to live with what was built. I'm not against focus groups, use cases, or detailed specs. They are key components of building systems right, but if we don't add the piece that provides true validation of those components, we devalue their use. People think in images. If we don't help them see the future with a prototype, they may not see it. Actually doing the work with a prototype enables people who will be doing the work to actually see their future. It is in this process where the greatest discoveries are often made. This can draw out ideas that will make your process sing - isn't that what you were looking to do in the first place? Here are some important reasons why I see prototyping as a necessary component for project success.
1. Creativity. Prototyping encourages creative development by both the developers and the users. Like brainstorming, once team members begin traveling down a path, the possibilities of what they can come up with are practically limitless. Creativity is an area of a person's work that can make that person's job much more satisfying. 2. True evaluation by system users. Watching the application in action is the only way that most people can truly evaluate it. Due to the limit of items the human mind can hold in their conscious mind, people cannot see all the components of the complex systems we are documenting. People only see the potential problems when they see the entire process and they are only going to exert a limited amount of effort in reading about a system being considered. 3. Find problems and possibilities early on. As we've learn through the years, the most costly problems are those that go undetected the longest. The earliest we find something, the less our cost. That's a core component of TQM-Total Quality Management: find the costliest errors early. A prototype allows you to develop an application with only the resources (cost) that make it verifiable so that it can be reviewed by those with the right domain knowledge to either correct errors that are identified or uncover additional opportunities that were previously not considered. Successfully blend solid strategic thinking and tactics- spend the correct amount of effort up front to ensure you are building the right solution before you spend the big dollars to build it right.
Yes, folks do raise some valid concerns about prototyping so let me take a crack at responding to the three that I have heard the most often.
1. "Is it done yet?" (Raised expectations). When users see something that looks real, there is a belief that it must be just about ready to use. The best way to handle this is to make sure that everyone is aware of the process so that when you remind them that there is still plenty to do, they are not totally shocked and are somewhat accepting of that idea. If they are told up front how things will progress and the benefits of doing things this way, they tend to be all for it. Keep them aware of all progress -- even the parts that they can't see -- with regular sta
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
otherwise known as Doze-mentum.
I dont think one book can teach how to implement your content management system :)
Implementing a CMS is an art and can not be learned by reading one book.
you learn by practice and understanding your user needs. Not by enforcing what the books say on your users.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Does anyone know which specific products the book discusses?
In a parting gesture, the Web publisher you fired replaced photos of board members with sheep.
So what is content management? At the smaller scope, it would just include the text from your webpage. At its largest scope, it would include your entire intranet, and the policys regarding its use.
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at
In soviet russia, all your us are belong to base!
Karma: Redundant
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Most books/discussions involving content management these days are too focused on the technical details of particular CMS solutions, and of course everybody has their own opinion. The fact is, most CMS products (open source or not) only have value if it's done along with educating users and evaluating the specific ways people are using content. Most people think of dynamic websites when they think of content management, but there are MANY organizations that use/need solutions that can't just be solved with your runofthemill PHP/MySql/Apache. it's just not as simple as that. How about daily newspapers ? Weekly magazines ? Technical journals ? Catalog producers, Creative departments in ad agencies, stock photography libraries....the list can go on and on. One of the largest mistake of implementing a CMS is a perspective problem. You can't allow the flow of content in an organization to be dictated by the software only. There needs to be an understanding of how content flows in order for a CMS to work correctly. Otherwise, you might as well not even have a CMS.
I am currently the operations manager for an enterprise content management system for a large financial institution. My IT department is currently participating in an assessment, initiated by our business partners, of throwing out our version controlled dynamic webservices portal IN FAVOUR OF HTML. This boggles my mind, and seems completely idiotic, but they're in charge of the $, and they insist that they're not getting 'value' for their content presentation. The problem, as i see it, is that HTML creation is a relatively simple skillset which is easy to predict and easy for the business to understand...you want x # of pages, that takes y amount of time. Arguments like "what about version control?", expotential increase of manual maintenance effort over time, etc are hard to quantify, and my concerns are rejected as "just theory" or "technology trying to make themselves sound important, its not that complicated."
Granted, this situation is partly the result of internal politics at my corporation, but i think that if the ground work for ROI was done more thoroughly up front during the delivery of this CMS this would not be much of an issue. I for one will buy this book if only to get some insight into industry standard ways of how to caluclate ROI for things like content reuse, publication between channels of delivery, content maintenance costs, etc.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to manage this situation, or how you've dealt with similar concerns, i'd be open to your thoughts.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Managing Enterprise content is simple. Just set the Tivo to record UPN at the right time, then rip the episodes and use a good naming scheme...
I dunno, it seems like Kirk/Picard/Archer seemed to have a good enough handle on this subject all ready.
gave me the impression that this book was meant to help Rick Berman and Brannon Braga with their screenwriting.
It's the market leader for a reason.
In our company, we have a terrible problem with content management - most of it caused by a reliance on you-know-who's office suite for documents. I have proosed several times that we migrate to XML (preferably docbook) but the reality is there are no tools for the no-technical types to create documents.
What we need a warm-fuzzy WYSIaWYG editor that can looks like a word processor but uses XML as it's native format so that documents can be diffed and transformed easily. There are lots of word processors, and lots of XML editors, but no word processors for XML. (and please, before you mention OpenOffice.org, bear in mind that it's DOC format it zipped XML, and therefore not diffable.)
The tools are close - you can almost use OpenOffice.org for docbook, or someone could develop the tools to diff and transfrom their current format, but until then we are stuck with proprietary formats (making books like the above necessary, i guess).
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
But what does this have to do with Star Trek?
php is only good for a place that produces WEB content.
php isn't gonna help anyone at a daily newspaper, or an audio/video production house, or a catalog company...these are places that need and use CMS solutions. the common mistake here is to assume that "content management" only applies to websites.
Zope (http:/www.zope.org) is object oriented webserver written in Python. It has a lot of content management features right out of the box and for those who want more, there are quite a lot of plug ins (products) that extend this functionality. It is open source, available for all major operating systems and completely configurable from the browser. Recommended for most content management jobs.
you know somethings wrong when... the first piece on slashdot is on enterprise-level content management. whatever happened to the days when they reported on students hiding nuclear reactors under their bed for gadsakes????
i, too, wish i had a job that required reading this.
I work in the product support department of a pretty big company. In all, we support 100+ applications/systems, developed by a host of other business units. Each business unit creates it's own documentation and come up with their own storage mechanism (custom web site, shared windows folder, etc.) Some of these are in Microsoft word, pdf, and html format. Finding documentation for a particular system when it goes down can be a real nightmare sometimes.
In short, content management is huge. CVS with a web-based front end would be good start (and much better than what we have), but even that doesn't come close to solving all the associated problems. There's issues like implementing approval processes and format conversion, but the number one issue is searching. When you get to a point to where you have thousands of documents to manage, there is no fixed organizational structure that will ensure that everyone will be able to find the particular document they need. You could write a perl script to string search a text file or even an html file, but what about word, or pdf, or (better yet) image-based content?
This book may be off base (I haven't read it yet), but content management is a bigger problem than can be solved by CVS alone. And anyone who's found a good system can feel more than welcome to drop me a line.
I think the first thing you'd have to do is arrange the episodes by ship. I'd probably start with NCC-1701 (no bloody A, B, C, or D) and work my way forward. Then you'd either go by episode, or maybe by how much of a factor ths ship played in the show. Like, it was really important in space battles and what not, or when it had to seperate, but sometimes it was more about the crew. Then I'd take the ones that stunk, like the ones that focued on that little bastard CleverNickN... err, Wesley Crusher and toss them, cause they mostly sucked.
I suppose you could probably catalouge the series based on when the ship blew up, because that happened quite a bit.
(btw, if you're reading this Clever, I don't really think your episodes sucked, except for maybe the last one you were in... I had always kinda hoped you'd come back, but NOOO, you had to go and do some stupid shuttle manuever and kill your bud, and then blame it on his dead body, blowing a WHOLE YEAR at the Academy! And why didnt they ever let you shack up with that hot engineer chick?! Huh?! Huh?!?))
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
I think most people who are responding do not get the scope of the problem in the interprise.
I work for a rather large (unnamed company) which has one of the largest data centers in California (nope not that company, you would be suprised who we are).
In any event our intranet consists of over 150,000 flat HTML pages. We have over 2000 web servers running anything from NT4 to Unix to our Mainfraims hosting web services to get data out of them.
Now look at the problem of having a couple dozen physical locations where employees work. We also have 2 physical mirrors of all our data in 2 different locations.
Now here is the problem. The guy who works in the company cafateria wants to update his webpage which has the menu for what they are selling at the cafateria in building X.
He has no idea on how to use any technical tools, but the man cooks like there is no tomorrow. So don't ask him to wack away at HTML. Do not ask him to use CVS. Do not ask him to start a script. He wants something like a word processor to go in and edit his webpage.
Now this presents another whole new problem. How do the systems administrators know Mr. Chef is allowed in. How do we do rights management accross all our servers. We have everything from Mainframes to desktops, to NT to Windows 2003 to several flavors of *nix.
Now how does the system get back ahold of Mr. Chef when he doesn't update his webpage? There is no use in having information about a cafateria menu which is 2 weeks old? How does the system know that the data is stale, and how do we get Mr. Chef to come back and update his website. There needs to be some type of self governing mechinism.
So I don't think CVS or whatever will solve this problem. Interprise CMS problems are of the non-trivial type. Our company has spent the last year or so studying the problem, and will problably spend another year or so before we actually choose the direction we are going. And to be honest we are probably looking at a $50+ million investment to roll out our CMS system. How's that for non-trivial?
Ted Tschopp
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
Buyer: All the old logos will need to be identified and changed.
Guy from our company (on a competing team): We'll have to examine every page on every site to make sure we get them all. I estimate 3 weeks.
Guy from my team: Or we could go to the Compliance cabinet where those things are kept, find the Logo.gif file, and change it there. I estimate 3 minutes.
Guy #1: What if not all of the logos came from that cabinet?
Guy #2: So your people haven't been following the branding guidelines? The ones that are in place for exactly situations like this?
Guy #1: No, we've been following them.
Guy #2: Ok then. Next.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
But no one wants to die.
(sigh). Yet another book that shows us the Promised Land, but without a guide to get there. If I had a buck for every time I have cursed the lameware cobbled together to manage content on development projects...
Managers are all in favor of content management, but in my experience they don't have any idea of what that means. They would prefer to pay far more for a system developed in house instead of buying COTS components or systems developed for the very purpose.
Not that it's all their fault: IT vendors oversold their products' capabilities and ease of use & customization, so many organizations are rightly skeptical.
Still, books like this perhaps should have a chapter discussing how to motivate the managers to understand the importance of an effective system, and how to close the credibility gap.
These guys are a bunch of $cientologists!
It sucks to have a unique last name when tools like Google exist.
I'm in the middle of a content management nightmare. Seems to me the biggest problem with CMS is that once you've simplified something to the level where a target user in your company can use it, another target user is utterly confused. So you try to simplify, simplify more, until you want to strangle them.
e " one more time, I'm going to freak out. And in response to that, if I hear "where do I enter that again?" one more time, I'll kill myself.
CMS is hard when users have been using FrontPage for 5 years and still can't make pages look the way they want. CMS is hard when users create a 375 page document, complete with images and tables, and ask "how can I publish this to our clients via the website? By the way, it's a Word Doc." CMS is hard when, after 5 years, your users don't understand that "save the file to servername sharename" means "file > save as > \\servername\sharename\filename.ext".
How can you create a CMS when all people know how to do is save files into "My Documents", and still manage to lose them?
If I have to say, "that means backslash-backslash-servername-backslash-sharenam
This is the heart of CMS, as I see it. CMS is stringing networking, websites/intranets/extranets, and the ol' File Manager (Explorer) together in a way that is understandable by people who refuse to learn or try to comprehend anything new.
As I've begun using Linux, I've started to see how using symbolic links could simplify things more. I could smbmount, ln -s, and say "if you want to publish that *here*, save it to siteB/filename". The only clarification I'd have to make is "no, you don't have to type anything else, just siteB/filename". Unfortuantely, we're using Windows on the clients and Web Folders and Mapped Drives just don't do the trick.
My advice to anyone who embarks on a CMS project: Don't. In fact, better advice: Kill yourself.
... I saw it as "Mangling Enterprise Content", which given the state of a lot of intranets I've seen, would probably do just as much good.
What exactly does this have to do with content management?
Driving backwards on the highway of life
Now all I can think about is that damn game that made everyone crazy... No, not Pokemon Super Orange Deluxe Mega version 2.6, the game that you Wesley and that Engineer chick were hitting it off... Damn she was hot... it wasnt every week that the "hot chick" was closer to your age (as a pre-teen) ya know?
Slips on headset. Imagines putting disk in whirlwind. Has slight Reloaded Orgasm.
Ahh, weren't mid 90's "State of the Art" Special Effects great?
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Vignette's software is a giant, expensive mess that doesn't actually do much of anything. The only working part is the database cache, and that's not exactly rocket science. The rest is all marketing, and unfortunately marketing and engineering don't talk much. The biggest thing Vignette has going for them is the $300m or so in the bank, which has been pretty much the only thing keeping their head above water for the past few years.
signed,
a former Vignette employee (quit, not laid off/fired)
I work for a law firm, and we originally had a fantastic content management system: an attorney would have a case and an issue would arise that had been addressed before, and he would go grab the old file (perhaps from a different client) and reuse the forms or follow the procedures from a prior case.
Since that point, we've evolved it to more of an "electronic" filing cabinet. A networked box holds sanitized example documents by category of law (divorce, custody, personal injury, business formation, wills and probate, etc.). It is more useful than things were before, but it is not ideal. If you do something that is unusual or especially good, you are encouraged to submit it to the file.
In addition, "how to" documents are created for new or unusual practice areas as guidelines or checklists for various procedures (how to handle a basic will, checklists for complaints, client interview checklists for various types of cases, etc.). None of this eliminates the use of sound judgment or experience, but the documents serve as tools to assist the attorneys -- it is sometimes hard to stay on track or get everything in a client interview that can last for over an hour. The checklists help with that.
Not everybody contributes to the file repository and there is nobody in charge of vetting the documents to ensure that they are "best of breed" type documents. It does prevent the "reinventing the wheel" problem to some extent, however.
When I worked for Ernst & Young, they were really pushing to make information retention and reuse a priority. Contributions to the document repository were considered in performance evaluations. The resources were aggressively managed (vetted, categorized, reviewed documents to prevent "staleness") by knowledgable individuals for each practice area and there were a number of groups which were extremely focused on reselling knowledge.
IT people who can provide this sort of service are going to do well. Service businesses cannot improve margins without making use of technology to improve efficiencies, and content management is a fantastic way to help them get there. Very very few small to medium sized businesses really make use of content management to increase their margins, and this is one area where, even in a bad economy, IT can really help to make a positive contribution to the bottom line.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
As the moderation proved, it was a very insightful post.
If you weren't so dumb that you'd actually PAY for slashdot, you'd see that.
After just having returned from two content management conferences in Paris and Leon, I would just like to make a few statements to put a few things in context.
1. Content management is NOT making web sites. Sure web sites can be built off the back of a content repository (Vignette + Documentum for example). Enterprise Content Management is a blanket term for the storage, management, collaboration, publishing of many forms of content. This content could be, for example in Life Sciences, highly regulated documents outlining manufacturing principles of drugs. Or it could be "How to use the water cooler". One of the many challenges that enterprises face today is how to extract business content from employees brains and make it accessible as such that you don't lose intellectual property when you lose staff.
2. The XML thing. This is the tricky one. The majority of content today is authored in MS Office. Users of all walks of life author content. Many attempts at WYSIWYG XML editors have failed pretty dismally. The reason being is that users do no like to change the way they work. Two years ago, at the same set of conferences, everyone was talking about authoring in XML. It hasn't happened and it won't. Just plain old Microsoft Word styles are a pain in the butt to use - and thats just marking up style, not context or meta. Try asking a user to describe every paragraph within some form of taxonomy tree. You get blank faces or grimaces.
Anyway, just some food for thought from, dare I say, the real world!
Yes, I have. It substantial pay-offs
in enterprise technical support.
We found this at Sun, when we improved re-use
among our enterprise call center tech support
our QA, and our marketing release notes.
For example, we improved consistency among
what our marketing website claims as features,
what our customers actually try to do with it,
what QA finds as potential issues or bug fixes,
and what tech support can tell the customer.
This is *enormously* important in the enterprise,
because it gives everyone consistent understanding.
We made our support calls easier,
gave our customers better feedback,
found deployment issues much faster,
and made our marketing more realistic.
Cheers, Joel
http://www.intranetjournal.com/
i j_ 05_21_03a.html
i j_ 05_15_03a.html
http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200305/
http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200305/
Its clear and obvious you have never used any of these tools or you would be flying off your chair to assail them, not defend them. Its univerally understood that this industry has not produced one decent solution.
"Enterprise" sets off my PHB warning signal. Enterprise means that a lot of money is going to be charged for "it", and not much else.
Is this an appropriate definition? But then there's also mention of XML content management, which doesn't seem to fit my def. Can somebody explain what this is or how/if this technology can be leveraged by the average web developer? Does Apache's Cocoon fit into this in any way?
Oh, wait...
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
If they want HTML, and you want version control, why not use CVS to manage changes to HTML documents? If you need search, use htdig.
Dynamic is a word that is thrown around an awful lot. How is your content system dynamic. Does it change based on who is viewing it? Or do you mean by dynamic someone updates the content via some interface and then it changes. That's not really that different than editing a file. It's not really all that dynamic.
Without more information, I'm leaning towards HTML. Why don't you tell us why this content management system is so great so we know why it's worth saving?
But it doesn't really sound like the problem is your managers don't understand the value of the ROI of this dynamic content system. It sounds like your managers are unhappy. Like any other client, you need to make them happy, or they will look for another solution (even a really bad one) beceause they just don't like the current solution. Don't tell them they're wrong, find out what makes them unhappy, and tell them how you're going to fix it. If you can't make them happy, you won't be able to convince them you have the right solution.
---
I support spreading santorum
I never though about it that way. Mod parent up!
Looks like the content went out the window with their webserver.
.sig error: carrier signal lost.
Try Postnuke!! Coupled with Content Express it allows users to create their content using MS word and post it to the site where CSS takes over to provide formatting!
This allows non-technical users to manage the content.
We (www.gmmsolutions.com) make a living providing this to companies that don't have the technical expertise to maintain their own sites! Give it a try!
Check out Content Express.. it's exactly what you want! http://pn.arising.net
It's a module for Postnuke CMS!
GMM Solutions
[http://www.gmmsolutions.com]
CMS Solution Providers.
PHP? You've gotta be kidding.
PHP is the epitome of mixing content and presentation. Sure you can separate it but it just doesn't seem to be aimed at doing so. Mason seems to be better at it -- it at least tries to enforce separation.
No, I don't have a good replacement -- but PHP as a good web content generator is not a good idea IMO.
It read as something directly from a text book and it was off topic. And we all know that moderation doesn't always work as planned. I personally think it was a well done troll.
Driving backwards on the highway of life
the URL is www.masonhq.com, and yes, it's excellent for a base on which to build a pretty customized CMS that can handle a standard/traditional publishing paradigm, like in a dual print/web organization. again, the book review above seems to take the right approach...describing content management from a general organizational perspective, and not one where a specific tool dictates how CMS is done.
That's one of the reasons I use Enhydra
That and a few other tools makes my job easier.
I love how there are some fundamental assumptions made about an "acceptable" form for creating and delivering content. These assumptions control the type of "enterprise content management system" that content management experts think you should buy. Here are some "must have" features that make the problem of content management unacceptably hard.
I can't just email other people to see what they think of a document I created. The creation and approval process has to be enforced by a rigid workflow.
It has got to mimic file system style storage structures although it is precisely a file system's inability to multiply classify (example -- classify content by type, purpose, importance, geography and create views of the content oriented towards any one of these independent classification choices -- very difficult to do with file systems) content that contributed to a desire to acquire an expensive content management system in the first place.
Security must be on a document by document basis with contributors dictating precisely who can view or edit the document.
Relationships between documents must be actively managed. A broken link would be truly horrifying and unacceptable.
There is a horrible truth about content that creators of web sites cannot seem to grasp. The value of the site is the actual content, not in its presentation. A well written informative blog is far more useful than a "formulaic" pretty business web site. Not all content created by a company is destined as website "adware". Some of it may actually be intended to help employees do their jobs more efficiently. If that content is not fully polished so be it.
If I were looking for a content management system, I would look for one that does the basics. Version control, metadata classification, multi repository search, simple security classifications, archiving/retrieval, and some automated notification procedures. If you know who authored a content item, when it was authored, and the title the author chose to gave it, you already have a lot of useful information with which to do a search. It is the basics that give you the most ROI.
That's what I thought the title of the article said at first glance. (Though it describes what I experienced in the past with a poorly-implemented content management system that ended up becoming a glorified file server for sales proposals because most of the employees forgot it was there, didn't trust the technology behind it, or just didn't care.)
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
since that show needs a better storyline.
Wednesday's season finale is a good start!
Consider the following level zero problem. You have a server full of files people in your group have produced over the past few years. You want to find out what's in each file.
Not only is this one of those problems everybody has, but I think it can be shown that if you can't solve this problem, you're out of luck generating any kind of content structure without reinventing your company's knowledge from the ground up.
As soon as the person who created the file saves it on the server, the "what is this file?" metadata is irretrievably lost, except to the extent that the creator named the file something meaningful and put it in a directory whose path was meaningful -- and to the extent that you and the creator have enough common experience that what's meaningful to her is meaningful to you.
But even in that all too rare exceptional case, *some* metadata is lost. Further, every day that goes by makes the overt content of the document less relevant to today's experience and shared knowledge. Any little metaphors I threw into the document about CP/M, for example, are pretty much Greek to modern readers. And it doesn't matter how un-clever you are and how careful you are to avoid metaphors: language is metaphor!
Information is lost through entropy. Explaining how to reverse entropy in the sunny manner the authors of this book use in the sample chapter is nothing short of deceptive.
Btw, I've published on systematic software reuse, and these authors aren't even close to kindergarten level in that difficult field. So the book is doubly worthless.
I personally think it was a well done troll.
:)
Apparently not as well done as mine
I haven't read the book, but from what I can tell it seems to be missing an important topic: management of global (multilingual, multicultural, etc.) content, which has many unique considerations. Of course not every company has a need to manage content for more than one language, but it would seem that the target audience for this book would include people who are helping to define a content management strategy for companies with an international presence, companies that often have a lot of content to manage.
sig != null
Sometimes you just have to feed the trolls :)
Driving backwards on the highway of life
First the cheap shot :) mason.org is some guy's homepage and has nothing to do with Mason.
More substantially, however, your comparison is ridiculous. Mason is not a programming language. I could say "Perl? You've got to be kidding! BinaryCloud (or ezContentManager or Roadsend Sitemanager etc) is a better solution." That, however, is comparing apples to oranges: perl is a language, the application server/CMS/apis that I mentioned happen to be implemented in php, but they are not languages...
Even if I take your comparison at face value though, it immediately falls down. PHP, you tell me, is the epitome of mixing content and presentation while Mason is the way to truth and light. Yet when i go to the Mason home page the first thing I see trumpeted is that Mason allows you to (drumroll please) EMBED Perl CODE IN YOUR HTML!!!
Pardon my Irony, but this is too much. I write php code for a living and use templates religiously so as to keep the presentation seperated from the content as much as possible. PHP, like most web-oriented languages out there, allows for a quick and dirty code-and-html-all-mixed-together style. But nobody is forcing you to use it. If you want to be a language bigot, at least be cool and learn Lisp. But don't compare my language of choice to your application framework and say that's a valid comparison. And don't stereotype my code based on the way you may choose to use the language...
-regards
Simeon
http://metapundit.net
Distributed Content Management - Try Aptrix.
Because he dreams about Wesley?
The acronym pretty much sums it up: CMS is a system for managing content. Not necessarily web content, and not necessarily XML. CMSs can be used to store lots of different kinds of content.
MANAGEMENT
A content management system is about managing content in a systematic way. If you examine the premise, it implies a set of procedures for handling content (create, edit, view, delete, and more complex procedures built from these basics) in a systematic, structured way. From these advanced procedures arises the concept of workflow and roles: a writer creates content, an editor edits it, and a publisher decides whether to publish or not.
STRUCTURE
Content is not very usable if it is unstructured. A CMS needs to be able to handle metadata regarding the content. Since XML is a thin wrapper of structure around text, which is one of the most common forms of content, a lot of CMS revolves around XML. Cocoon, though, is not a fully-fledged CMS. It is a very useful tool for taking an XML document and transforming it into a web-viewable format and serving it on the web, and thus can be used as a component of a CMS.
SIZE AND COMPLEXITY
Content management systems are not terribly profitable if they require users to have technical skills in order to manipulate the content. If a system does require a great deal of technical skill to use, then the market for such a system becomes much smaller than the market for a system that allows the average secretary to manipulate content easily. A system easy enough for a secretary also needs to be robust enough to prevent said secretary from damaging the system or performing unauthorized actions. From the CMS developer's point of view, it also needs to scale so that the company is willing to purchase licenses for every secretary, and every other person, in the company.
Making easy-to-use, secure user interfaces to a scalable system that requires structure that is custom-defined for each client company and allows creation of client-defined workflows is generally considered non-trivial. Therefore, most content management systems are developed by companies which hope to sell their system to as many large companies as possible. That's why CMSs are generally large, complex and costly. They involve a high degree of business process re-engineering, similar to ERP or CRM systems.
Exceptions (to the generalization that CMSs are closed-source and high-cost) abound, of course. Zope is perhaps one of the best known open source CMS offerings, and it is scalable, can be made secure, and can have easy-to-use UIs. Making it usable for an organization is still a non-trivial task, though, as a lot of customization goes into it. Which, of course, is how Zope Corp. makes its money -- customization and deployment services.
WEB DEVELOPMENT
You ask "how/if this technology can be leveraged by the average web devloper?" The answer to if is, "Certainly." And here's how: webloggers, for instance, typically use a minimal CMS to make their life easier. Check out Movable Type as an example. For another variation, put together a system with, say, Xindice as the back-end and Cocoon as the presentation service, and add in some easy-to-use XML editor and you have a basic CMS.
"TECHNOLOGY"
In short, there isn't "technology" per se. Instead, there's a problem domain: capturing knowledge, structuring it, subjecting it to validation and other workflows, and then making it easy to retrieve and reuse. Any CMS is just an attempt at an answer to this problem. Certain technologies do tend to fit into the problem domain better than others -- there's a VERY large impedance mismatch between RDBMSs and "documents", though XML and documents go together like ham and cheese. Since XML fits fairly easily into the world of the web, presenting content views as HTML is a common technique.
On the other hand, image
Somehow I don't believe in this, even though it's the usual theory that people have about improving things. In theory it might be fine, but as it's usually impossible to grasp all emerging problems beforehand, wouldn't it be better to strive for a system that can adapt and evolve?
Great explanation!
Without mentioning any names, There are actually a TON of solutions out there. And about 1999 lbs. of Garbage. The problem is, many of the systems require a TON of customization work, which when you figure out the costs, in reality, you end up spending about as much as rolling your own would cost. (which is a VERY strong argument for an Open Source solution).
Just don't get stuck with a bad one. m'kay?
Do your homework - because every time someone spends money on a bad solution, a bad company stays in business that much longer - you're doing a gross disservice to the rest of the market. (I currently have experience with two document management systems which are BOTH COMPLETE CRAP).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
send a newbie to real.com, tell them to find the appropriate *free* player. You need GPS, a treasure map, leet url guessing skills, and social engineering to find it.
When I first saw "Managing Enterprise Content" I thought it was a story about T'Pols new catsuit! Bummer..
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
--first, scour your records for the fattest, hungriest IT geek in the whole place, OR, just see who is always first down the cafeteria line. Either will do, and you might luck out and it's the same person. You give THAT person the job-nay,the duty I say-to keep the chefs menu page updated-or *no chow*. They also get an exclusive lunch discount and double desserts, gratis. See? Management = carrot/stick.
It gets us new members on a regular basis. And it saves us money on printing and postage.