Web Content Management Mike McConnell Iain Middleton

Who we are Mike McConnell Web Team Manager University of Aberdeen Iain Middleton Learning Technologist University of Aberdeen (formerly Web Editor, The Robert Gordon University)

Motion “Content Management software that enforces centrally defined styles and standards should be the only means by which content is added and maintained on your web site” Vote: YES NO or ABSTAIN

Who are you? Name, job, organisation Does your organisation have CM software? How happy are you with you web site on a scale 1-5? (1 = very unhappy, 5 = very happy) What bugs you about your organisation’s web site? 45 seconds or less

Groupwork 1: Managing Content List the top 3 reasons why you need content management 10 minutes

Groupwork 2: Software Implications 3 most important implications/issues to consider if you introduce software to manage content (CMS) 9 minutes

Groupwork 3: Shortfall The 3 most important things you can (or must) do that CMS software won’t do for you 8 minutes

Perspectives to consider Impact on, and implications for: The organisation Management Content providers Providers of web services Users What do they want? What do they need?

Case studies 1. The Robert Gordon University In-house developed CMS: –major project –compulsory / uniformity –product-centred approach

Case studies 2. University of Aberdeen CM facilitated by range of solutions: –emphasis on support –opt-in culture, managed growth –process-centred approach

Case study 1: RGU Major project - driven from the top In conjunction with major BPR Complete redevelopment: –full representation through easy publication –consistency –to be perceived as “best in class” Key personnel required to take part Big budget, tight timescale

Case study 1: RGU Initiation: –Project team assembled –“Compass” defined (purpose, standards, requirements) –Systems procurement Key personnel identified to: –build detail, agree(!) priorities and manage content collection –take responsibility! CMS & templates developed in-house pre & post launch monitoring

Case study 1: RGU Resources and broad participation –made it possible Authority –made the participation happen Defined goals and techniques for achieving these –built the site A CMS tool, training and monitoring –made it sustainable

Case study 2: U of Aberdeen Process focus approach Devolved, highly active extant authoring community Improve what’s there, encourage and facilitate partcipation Realisation of budget (and other) constraints Objective thus to provide a sustainable community for future development

Case study 2: U of Aberdeen Central body with management authority to oversee policy: ‘ assess core needs, evaluate competing interests and have the authority to sanction or preclude Web activity’ Central support team to advise, assist and monitor; develop corporate style Charged service provision Support mechanisms: tools/training/ communities of interest

Case study 2: U of Aberdeen Participation –sustains and supports existing authoring community and users; involves management –doesn’t impose: changes by persuasion and best practice; policy where necessary Support –free support and training; cost effective service Communication –greater, two way communication between management and departments

Vote again “Content Management software that enforces centrally defined styles and standards should be the only means by which content is added and maintained on your web site” Vote: YES NO or ABSTAIN

A meaningless question? Need to define what we mean by / want from content management The mechanics of implementing solutions will differ from organisation to organisation Software may be a part of the solution; on its own it is not the solution We all have our own understanding of the issues, meanings and terminology

Further Information Iain Middleton - Mike McConnell - The Robert Gordon University University of Aberdeen