CMS Debate: Challenging the Consensus
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•468 views
Delivered at Institutional Web Management Workshop 2006 at the University of Bath, 14th - 16th June 2006
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to CMS Debate: Challenging the Consensus
Similar to CMS Debate: Challenging the Consensus (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
CMS Debate: Challenging the Consensus
- 1. The CMS honey trap
- 2. • Diversion • CM or CMS? • Mythology • Management • Monolith
- 3. Myth 1: The ‘IT Solution’
- 4. Myth 1: The ‘IT Solution’ • psychological diversion: we can ‘solve’ the web site! • lure of the project: CMS becomes the reason, rather than the means • ill-defined goals: “process” becomes secondary to the “project” - the implementation of the CMS • myth of ‘the end’ – it’s done! project finishes – management lose interest
- 5. Myth 2: ‘Enabling content owners’
- 6. Myth 2: ‘Enabling content owners’ • inexpert authors: they will break it! fonts, grammar, images, links, writing for the web • inexpert editors: not usability experts, information architects or marketing specialists • devolved = not joined up: approval/editorial processes aren’t effectively applied in devolved environs • lack of vision: content owners do not see or understand ‘the big picture’
- 7. Myth 3: global changes
- 8. Myth 3: global changes • architecture: CMS monolith ill-suited to institutional/external changing needs and practices • flexibility: web is driven by immediacy: needs, opportunities, challenges to which a CMS is ill-suited • standards and accessibility: today’s standard is tomorrow’s deprecated tag; one man’s accessibility guideline is another’s barrier
- 9. Myth 4: saving money CMS
- 10. Myth 4: saving money • setup costs: specification; acquisition; configuration; integration • staffing costs: technical, managerial, support, authors, editors • ongoing costs: changes, training support, in bed with the enemy (vendor) • no end in sight: where’s the exit strategy?
- 11. So what’s the solution? I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.
- 12. Huge paradigm shift! • new ‘things’: procedures, roles, tools • web über alles: changing the institutional practices of (hundreds?) of years • change management: disruption, distraction during setup; learning; resentment, rejection: it was fun when I could use Dreamweaver
- 13. What is Content Management? Identifying: • clients’ needs • organisation’s needs • content - information audit • content owners/ stakeholders • the ‘big picture’ Organising • reallocation of duties: writers and publishers • training in writing for the web • quality assurance /editorial controls • review processes - cyclical
- 14. Conclusion • CMS does not itself deliver many of the purported benefits • DEFINE your solution – Solution involves people, processes & (last & least) technology – A CMS is just one possible technology CMS can be an expensive distraction - is it really necessary? • You’d better know what you want it to do • You’d better know what it will take to do it • You’d better be happy with the end result
- 15. Mike McConnell – m.mcconnell at abdn.ac.uk Iain Middleton – iain at imiddleton.com
Editor's Notes
- I’m not sure who came up with the title for this session, ‘Challenging the Consensus’ - I’m not there is a consensus that CMS are a good thing. However, if such a consensus does indeed exist, then I, and my colleague Iain, are here to challenge it. It’s true that a CMS can offer many useful tools: publication tools – templates, WYSIWG editors workflows and editorial processes audit trails enforced consistency of appearance etc etc …but the one thing it won’t do is manage your site content If you have a mess and you automate it, you just end up with an automatic mess Unfortunately, this is not how management see it. As a CMS is something that can be purchased, it’s something management feel they can deal with, instead of all that horrible process of actually speaking to people and actually managing things. They say: “Buying a CMS will sort the web site for good” “we can appoint writers and editors” “a CMS will make our pages compliant/ accessible/ corporate/ findable” “a CMS will save us money” In the picture the management bear has seized upon the web site hive with enthusiasm, but alas! The editor bees have escaped! They’re not going to make any more informational honey. How has this situation come about?
- A seductive mythology surrounds content management systems, based on their perceived benefits; a mythology we will investigate further this morning. CMS are often seen as a ‘solution’ to the web site ‘problem’. The scale and cost of acquiring a CMS usually necessitate senior management involvement. Unfortunately with management driving, there is an attendant risk of putting the ‘cart before the horse’ that is, the process of content management becomes secondary to the content management system itself. The result is often that the CMS acquires monolithic status, and dictates, rather than responds to, subsequent directions. The CMS thus becomes an expensive distraction from the process of cultural change required for true content management.
- The IT Solution Myth. Hurrah! We have an IT solution to our problem! There is no such thing as an ‘IT solution’; in any situation! IT is never a solution in itself. Unfortunately, this is not how management see it. They say, “The website – that’s an IT thing isn’t it? Let us solve it with IT – a CMS – that way we can cut out all those nasty people we find so difficult to deal with.”
- Thus the IT solution in the form of a CMS becomes a huge psychological diversion for management. Rather than thinking about the cultural reasons why the site is not working as it should, they become obsessed with the CMS itself. They thus are lured into thinking of the CMS project as ‘the solution’rather than the process of content management itself. All efforts are then directed towards ‘the project’ and everything else can go to hell. Finally the CMS is delivered. Hurray! We have reached the end. The management move on to their next project,building a new library, or laying off staff
- My personal favourite of the great myths of CMS is this one – the myth that by buying a CMS you will somehow enable content owners. The idea that by buying a piece of software you will suddenly transform your organisation into a hotbed of web designers, marketing specialists, usability experts and information architects is wholly wrong-headed In our picture, the content owners are rushing to bring their lavishly prepared informational dishes up the new CMS staircase to the web site table. Alas!They are not aware that all the client wanted was a nice piece of cheese.
- A CMS does not in itself enable content owners: It is my experience time and again that if you give inexpert authors any form of access to your website they will break it – they upload giant/inappropriate/copyrighted images, they change font colours, faces and sizes, they can’t use links properly. Even if your CMS only gives them access to text, they’ll still misspell words and use bad grammar. If you don’t give them access at all, what’s the point in having it? A CMS will not create expert editors: a piece of software will not magically enable people at devolved level to make decisions that affect the whole institution A site that is wholly devolved is simply not joined up. Content owners do not see or understand ‘the big picture’
- The next myth the vendors would have us believe is that with a CMS, vast global changes to the site can be done at a flick of a switch: that by having everything in one system, management somehow becomes easier. In the happy fantasy world of the CMS vendor, illustrated on the left, the web community make changes together easily, and the web site is always sparkling and new. The reality is pictured on the left – the web manager is burdened with a gigantic monolith that is inflexible to changing factors.
- By its very nature a CMS is a monolith. It is ill-suited to changing needs and practices, both internal and external. How many times has the structure of your organisation changed in the past 5 years? The web, as well all know, is driven by immediacy – needs, opportunities and challenges to which a CMS is ill-suited. I’m can’t speak for all of you, but at my institution, we are constantly required to put things up in a hurry or unexpectedly, for example, we may be called upon to create a conference web site with a week’s notice. Not being bound by a CMS gives us the flexibility to do this. We also intentionally have a myriad of sites within sites aimed at different audiences with different designs with either short or long shelf life, sites that by their very nature could not be part of a CMS CMS vendors make a big song and dance about how their systems produce standards-compliant code and accessible pages. Well, as we are all well aware, standards are in a constant state of flux - today’s standard is tomorrow’s deprecated tag
- The biggest myth of all – the idea that a CMS is going to save you money! Where did that idea come from? A CMS is a money pit – aside from the costs, there are the hidden costs and the hidden hidden costs. And the costs are never-ending…
- Some of the costs you will face are as follows: specification for your CMS; the agony and tedium of the tendering process; the hiring of your project team; the hammering in of the CMS to fit the quirks of your IT environment; the customisation process which is never-ending because the medium just won’t stay still; the retraining of your staff to manage it; your ongoing costs for all those pesky changes. And where’s the exit strategy? There is no end in sight. You are in bed with the vendor FOR LIFE, or until you decide to throw the whole thing in the bin
- Is there a solution? Yes, but, and I’m sorry to have to tell you this - there is no quick fix. This is the point where all managers in the audience can stop listening. The process involves people, processes, blood, toil, tears and sweat
- Don’t underestimate what is involved! It is a huge paradigm shift for the institution involving all manner of new things. We’re talking about changing the institutional practices of hundreds of years, and agonising change management. The web must be put before everything!
- rewriting job descriptions; organising training constantly reviewing the whole relative to internal and external drivers
- A CMS will not itself deliver many of the purported benefits. You have to define your content management solution before your even begin to think about technologies. A CMS is just one possible technology of many, and it can be an expensive distraction - is it really necessary? If you still think so then: You’d better know what you want it to do You’d better know what it will take to do it You’d better be happy with the end result or your stuck with it for life….