Download Presentation Title - University of Waterloo

Content Management System
Web Advisory Committee
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project members
Project goal
CMS definition
Benefits and risks of CMSs
Project objectives and findings
Project deliverable
Recommendations
Proposed project charter for future project
Project Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mary Lynn Benninger (Registrar's Office)
Guillermo Fuentes (Arts Computing Office)
Eva Grabinski, chair (Office of Research)
Chris Gray (Library)
Pat Lafranier (Information Systems and Technology)
Megan McDermott (Communications and Public Affairs)
Gary Ridley (Mathematics Faculty Computing Facility)
Paul Snyder (Information Systems and Technology)
Terry Stewart (Faculty of Applied Health Sciences)
Project Goal
To study CMSs and make recommendations about the
potential implementation and use of a CMS in the
context of UW’s requirements
CMS Definition
Static website
Originally, a website was simply a collection of web pages; elements of content,
visual design, and web technology were intertwined on each web page; as the
web advanced in complexity, touching any single web page required a broad
expertise on the part of the web-page author or editor; as websites grow in size,
the handcrafted approach to content management can become unmanageable.
CMS
A content management system provides the tools for these elements to be
managed separately by relevant experts and to be automatically combined into
pages viewed on the website; the people responsible for what is said on a web
page can edit it without knowing HTML and attendant languages and
technologies; the people responsible for the visual design of pages can change
that in one place and have it propagated to the rest of the website.
Static Website vs. Website in a CMS
Static Website
Hard coded into each web page:
• Navigation
• Structure
• Presentation
• Content
Website in a CMS
Separate elements of the website:
• Navigation
• Structure
• Presentation
• Content
Some Benefits of CMSs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Separation of presentation from content
Easier to implement site-wide changes
Specialization of roles (area experts can do their thing)
Technical knowledge not required to update content
Permission to access and update only relevant site areas
Content-change tracking and version roll-back
Facilitates a CLF, branding, and a consistent user experience
Implementation and sharing enhanced/extended functionality
Reusability of content (content located at a single source)
Workflow definition for web content management
Some Risks of CMS Implementation
1. Significant financial undertaking
–
–
–
financial & human resources
training costs
long-term maintenance costs
2. Insufficient internal resources & senior support
–
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
technological infrastructure & human resources
Reluctance to adopt a CMS
Difficulties migrating content
Technical limitations of the CMS (e.g. complex user interface)
Relative immaturity of the CMS marketplace
Vendor/product lock-in
Project Objectives
Objective 1: Principles for web content management
Objective 2: Existing web maintenance at UW
Objective 3: How CMSs generally work
Objective 4: Maturity of the CMS marketplace
Objective 5: UW contexts for CMS use
Objective 1 – Principles for Web Content
Management
Identify principles for the future management of web
content within the UW web space
Principles for Web Content Management
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Separation of presentation and navigation from content
Ease of maintenance
Response to changes in UW’s business environment
Distributed web content management
Response to changing technology environments and
requirements
6. Ability to achieve an integrated web presence for UW
7. Enhanced and extended functionality
8. Optimized reusability of content
Objective 2 – Existing Web Maintenance
at UW
Identify the different types of web maintenance that
exist at UW to help assess UW’s ability to achieve
the principles
Current Web Maintenance at UW
1. Dreamweaver templates with Dreamweaver and
Contribute web-maintenance tools
2. Web server directives with a variety of web-contentmanagement tools
• SSI with Dreamweaver-Contribute
• SSI with custom CMSs
3. CMSs
Current Ability to Achieve the Principles
Dreamweaver and Contribute adequately achieve the
principles for web content management
Objective 3 – How CMSs Generally Work
Learn about CMSs and how they generally work, and
whether CMSs could help UW better achieve the
principles
How CMSs Generally Work
Considered
How website maintenance works with DreamweaverContribute versus with a CMS
Appendix E – Diagrams of Dreamweaver-Contribute and
CMS website maintenance models
Dreamweaver-Contribute Maintenance
Model
CMS Maintenance Model
Ability to Achieve the Principles with a
CMS
A CMS could help UW better achieve the principles for
web content management
Objective 4 – Maturity of CMS
Marketplace
Assess the maturity of the CMS marketplace, and the
acceptance of CMSs and their successful uses
especially within academic institutions
Maturity of CMS Marketplace
• Fairly immature marketplace
• Recent trends indicate increasing maturity
• Commercial CMS marketplace is becoming more
mature and is expanding
• Open source CMSs are representing a larger portion
of the marketplace with businesses emerging to
support implementation and use
Weighing the Marketplace Maturity
Conclusion
Consideration of UW’s principles and needs for web
content management should inform whether the
implementation of a CMS will be beneficial to UW in
light of the possible risks tied to the fairly immature
CMS marketplace
CMS Use at Other Canadian Universities
Many universities in Canada have implemented a CMS
to varying extents of use across their websites
Prior to CMS implementation, most of these universities
were using Dreamweaver and Contribute to manage
their websites
Appendix D – Website management technologies at
Canadian universities
Website Management Technologies at
Canadian Universities
Institution
CMS
Concordia University
---
Dalhousie University
Laval University
McGill University
McMaster University
Ontario College of Art & Design
Queen’s University
Collage
----Ektron
IronPoint v7
WebPublish
Ryerson University
University of Alberta
University of British Columbia
Collage
--Active Content Manager
University of Calgary
University of Manitoba
University of Montreal
University of New Brunswick
University of Ottawa
Drupal
Red Dot
--Cascade Server
---
Most/all sites
---------
University of P.E.I.
University of Saskatchewan
University of Toronto
University of Victoria
University of Western Ontario
Drupal
Cascade Server
--Luminis
Joomla!
-----------
University of Winnipeg
Sitellite
---
University
Wide
--Most/all sites
------Most/all sites
No
More than half
--Most/all sites
Notes
Dreamweaver; the business
school is using Joomla!
----Custom in-house
-----Webpublish is custom inhouse solution (largely
based on Lenya); the
business school is using
Cascade Server
--Custom in-house
Active Network acquired
IronPoint
--------Dreamweaver and
Contribute
--------Exploring campus-wide
implementation of a CMS
---
Why Universities Moved to a CMS
Universities moved to a CMS
• To improve workflow in website management
• To more effectively reuse information/content
• To help ensure consistency of look and feel
• As part of a (re-)branding exercise
Most universities using a CMS indicated that they
would “do it all over again”
Why Universities Didn’t Move to a CMS
Universities didn’t move to a CMS because of
• Cost
• Complexity
• Immaturity of the marketplace
Some of the universities that have not moved to a CMS
are currently considering CMS implementation
Objective 5 – UW Contexts for CMS Use
Identify the different contexts at UW where CMSs might
best be used and where CMSs would not be
applicable
UW Contexts for CMS Use
A CMS would be well suited to websites in
• Academic areas
• Academic support areas
CMS Inapplicability at UW
Areas that would not be affected by a CMS are
dynamic web applications
• Learning management systems (Angel)
• Corporate applications (Peoplesoft HR)
• The DMS for managing administrative documents
• Other large-scale custom applications (JobMine)
Project Deliverable
Report that
1. Recommends whether or not UW proceed with the
selection and implementation of a CMS
2. Outlines options for migrating current web content
to a CMS
3. Includes a list of technical criteria to guide the
selection of an appropriate CMS
4. Provides scenarios for implementing a CMS within
the UW environment
5. Summarizes the current CMS marketplace,
including CMS uses at other academic institutions
Scenarios for CMS Implementation
Scenario A: Enterprise Installation
Scenario B: Central Installation and Installations for
Major Organizational Units
Scenario C: Mixed Environment of CMSs and Current
Dreamweaver-CSS Templates
Scenario A: Enterprise Installation
• Migration to a common enterprise environment
would require major technical and organizational
changes
• It presents the greatest difficulty to implement and
the greatest risks
• It would potentially offer the greatest benefits in
terms of capitalizing on CMS technology, but it would
be difficult to realize the benefits in a shorter
timeframe and without major organizational changes
• May make it easier to achieve a unified web
presence
Scenario B: Central Installation and
Installations for Major Organizational
Units
• Would introduce CMS technology without disruptions to the
current distributed management structure
• Easier to implement and has fewer risks than an enterprise
installation
• Can still capitalize on the benefits from a CMS to a reasonable
extent
• Would allow areas to run websites via a central installation
• May increase software licensing costs depending on the CMS
• May make it more difficult to achieve a unified web presence
compared to an enterprise installation
Scenario C: Mixed Environment of CMSs
and Current Dreamweaver-CSS
Templates
This is really the current situation
• Least disruptive because it reflects current web management
practices at UW
• Poses difficulty in achieving a unified web presence
• Centralized technical training and support is more challenging
with the diversity
• Harder for web staff to be mobile in the university - which is
also tied to greater training times when staff moves to areas
using different technologies
• UW, or areas within UW, may not realize the potential benefits
associated with CMS technology
Recommended Scenario for CMS
Implementation
If UW moves forward with the implementation of a
CMS, the recommended scenario is …
Scenario B: Central Installation and Installations for
Major Organizational Units
Criteria to Guide CMS Assessments
List of proposed technical criteria that can be used as a guide for
the assessment of CMSs
Appendix G – CMS Assessment Criteria
Note that these criteria are only a guide since requirements for
selecting a CMS should stem from an assessment of UW’s
web-content-management needs together with technology
assessments of a few CMSs
Note it is important not to get hung up on extra features or
capabilities that are not required as part of a CMS to meet
UW’s web-content-management needs and principles
Options for Migrating Content to a CMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hiring co-op students
Creating or obtaining export-import plug-ins to automate migration
Providing technical support for the migration of dynamic content
Developing new websites within the CMS on test servers with the
original websites remaining live until the CMS-based websites are
ready for launch
Encouraging areas to perform housekeeping of their current web
content to reduce the amount of web content that requires migration
Establishing training courses to assist areas with refining their
website architectures and web content to help reduce the amount of
web content that requires migration
Should UW proceed with a CMS?
The BIG question is …
Should UW proceed with the selection of a
CMS for widespread use across UW?
Recommendation 1 – Selection of a CMS
UW should move forward with the selection of a CMS
for widespread use across UW
Recommendation 2 – Reviewing and
Testing CMSs
A few CMSs should be reviewed and tested based on
the marketplace findings summarized in the CMS
report and on current uses of CMSs at Canadian
universities, including UW
Recommendation 3 – Open Source and
Commercial CMSs
Open source and commercial CMSs should be
considered recognizing the benefits, risks, and
financial and human resource requirements of each
Recommendation 4 – Needs Assessment
An assessment of UW areas’ web-contentmanagement needs should be conducted to select a
CMS that best meets UW’s needs as well as the
principles for web content management identified in
the CMS report
Recommendation 5 – Requirements
Definition
A requirements definition should be developed to
select, acquire and implement a CMS that best
meets UW’s needs
Recommendation 6 – Pilot Deployment
Prior to starting implementations of the CMS across
UW, there should be a pilot deployment of the CMS
within an area at UW
Recommendation 7 – Technical Training
and Support
Centralized technical training and support should be
established for the CMS
Recommendation 8 – Separate
Installations
Given the diverse organizational structure of UW,
implementations of the CMS across UW should fall
within the existing dispersed web-contentmanagement model allowing for separate
installations of the CMS where desirable
Recommendation 9 – Centralized
Installation
A centralized installation supported by UW should also
be available to allow areas at UW to run their
websites on this centralized installation
Recommendation 10 – DreamweaverContribute Support
Recognizing the time required to implement a CMS,
continue centralized support for the current
Dreamweaver-Contribute web-maintenance
practices for a period of time to facilitate the
transition to the CMS
Recommendation 11 – Financial and
Human Resources
UW should establish that the financial and human
resources are available to successfully implement
and maintain the CMS based on the defined
implementation model
Proposed Project Charter
Maintaining momentum via a proposed project charter for a future
project to select and implement a CMS
Appendix B – Proposed Project Charter
Proposed Goal
To complete a UW web-content-management needs assessment
and a technology assessment of CMSs leading to the selection
and implementation of a UW supported CMS in accordance
with the content management principles and recommendations
of the CMS report
The End
Or just the beginning!
Questions???
Comments!!!