Web Advisory Committee Content Management System

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.Separation of presentation from content 2.Easier to implement site-wide changes 3.Specialization of roles (area experts can do their thing) 4.Technical knowledge not required to update content 5.Permission to access and update only relevant site areas 6.Content-change tracking and version roll-back 7.Facilitates a CLF, branding, and a consistent user experience 8.Implementation and sharing enhanced/extended functionality 9.Reusability of content (content located at a single source) 10.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 –technological infrastructure & human resources 3.Reluctance to adopt a CMS 4.Difficulties migrating content 5.Technical limitations of the CMS (e.g. complex user interface) 6.Relative immaturity of the CMS marketplace 7.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.Separation of presentation and navigation from content 2.Ease of maintenance 3.Response to changes in UW’s business environment 4.Distributed web content management 5.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-content- management 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 Dreamweaver- Contribute 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

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.Hiring co-op students 2.Creating or obtaining export-import plug-ins to automate migration 3.Providing technical support for the migration of dynamic content 4.Developing new websites within the CMS on test servers with the original websites remaining live until the CMS-based websites are ready for launch 5.Encouraging areas to perform housekeeping of their current web content to reduce the amount of web content that requires migration 6.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-content- management 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-content- management 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 – Dreamweaver- Contribute 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!!!