The university had problems with inconsistent and outdated web content managed by various departments without guidelines. To solve this, the in-house web team developed a content management system (CMS) using an iterative approach. They created a content repository and web-based interface for non-technical users. An initial version was tested successfully. Future plans include additional features, easier usability based on feedback, integration with authentication systems, and rolling out training to more departments. Challenges include limited development resources and managing user expectations.

1. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Content Management
The develop in-house case
Gareth McAleese
Web and New Media Manager
Public Affairs
University of Ulster

2. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
CMS – Develop In-house
• The UU Environment
• Problem to be Solved
• Our approach
• Where we are at
• Where we are going
(I’ll not duplicate the rationale from what
Ricky said – it’s all similar)

3. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
The UU Environment
• Strong development team in-house – six members of
staff
• Centralised web group with responsibility for
development of corporate website
• Large amount of existing web-based systems developed
– build on/integrate with these
• Good experience of developing content/workflow based
systems
• Unix/Apache/PHP/Perl/MySQL (and Oracle)
• A mini CMS developed before
• No dedicated software budget

4. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
The Problem
• Information owner does not update page
• The site’s a mess!
• Our site is a laughing stock
• Doesn’t look corporate or consistent
• Can’t be good for business
• Can’t find information
• Patchwork of sites, inconsistent in presentation and
navigation
• Non compliance: usability; accessibility
• The bloke who did it has left
Standard web publishing problems

5. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
UU Problems
We have a good level of visual identity,
content not bad, but:
• Lack of technical knowledge in departments
• Lack of ownership/management of content
• Navigation can be problematic as you drill down
the site
• Chasing our tails updating/adding content – our
job is to develop the tools to enable content to be
produced and managed
• We don’t have enough blokes to do the job!

6. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Our Approach
• Lots of discussion/design before we even
started development work
• Development of a very extensive content
repository – much more than needed
• Development of a web content management
framework/interface - everything wizard driven
• Based on a SCRUM methodology – short
bursts/cycles – get something working, release
– get something else working release…

7. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Where we are at?
• Basic system up and running, very simple
workflow
• New improved html web editor
• Limited testing roll-out to few key/keen
departments – feedback is positive, comments
useful
• Approach proven/demonstrated to key
committees/opinion makers
• Reviewing where we are at and identifying next
phase of development

8. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Where we are going?
• Adding some required features – mainly to do
with the templates rather than core functionality
• Making things easier to use – based on
feedback
• Next set of features almost identified
• Development push over the summer months –
major release in September
• Integration with corporate LDAP/single sign-on
• Starting to roll-out and train
• Regular feedback meetings

9. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Problems
• We have one less bloke to do all the current
and expanding work – makes it hard to get
development work done
• User demand/expectation high – our own
worst enemy
• Make sure your blokes don’t leave!
• Involve users early on – they are the ones
that will have to use the system
• Make sure you thoroughly test

10. IWMW 2003 - Canterbury
Questions
Please feel free to ask Ricky ;-)