Comments on: There Is No “Best” CMS:  Selecting The “Right” CMS Means Considering The Needs Of Content Managers http://thecontentwrangler.com/2006/12/05/there_is_no_best_cms_selecting_the_right_cms_means_considering_the_needs_of/ Content is a business asset worthy of being managed Fri, 18 May 2012 01:51:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: WebAPP http://thecontentwrangler.com/2006/12/05/there_is_no_best_cms_selecting_the_right_cms_means_considering_the_needs_of/comment-page-1/#comment-80 WebAPP Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:13:26 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=604#comment-80 <p>I disagree, there are CMS and there are also “Best CMS”. To start with I would strongly recommend you to use flat db CMS system in a programing language which is both safe and has been long enough out there. Perl (CGI) is such a language. </p> <p> Why is that? <br /> Having flat db will make your CMS flexible and compatible according to your desires, and having an “ancient” language such as CGI Perl will assure that you could easily find addons and hacks, again according to your needs and desires. </p> <p> I would therefore strongly recommend you trying WebAPP from <a href="http://www.web-app.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.web-app.net</a> which has it all and most important it is an Open Source Script, which means you are actually allowed to hack it and add your needs and desires to the CMS script backbone. </p> <p> What ever you choose, I wish you best luck! </p> <p> WebAPP <br /> <a href="http://www.web-app.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.web-app.net</a> </p> I disagree, there are CMS and there are also “Best CMS”. To start with I would strongly recommend you to use flat db CMS system in a programing language which is both safe and has been long enough out there. Perl (CGI) is such a language.

Why is that?

Having flat db will make your CMS flexible and compatible according to your desires, and having an “ancient” language such as CGI Perl will assure that you could easily find addons and hacks, again according to your needs and desires.

I would therefore strongly recommend you trying WebAPP from http://www.web-app.net which has it all and most important it is an Open Source Script, which means you are actually allowed to hack it and add your needs and desires to the CMS script backbone.

What ever you choose, I wish you best luck!

WebAPP

http://www.web-app.net

]]> By: jeffernst http://thecontentwrangler.com/2006/12/05/there_is_no_best_cms_selecting_the_right_cms_means_considering_the_needs_of/comment-page-1/#comment-79 jeffernst Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:40:10 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=604#comment-79 <p>Great points here.  Did you ever wonder why IT so often owns the budget and the requirements list for CMS?  When it comes to buying a General Ledger, finance dictates what is needed.  The sales team drives the purchase of SFA tools.  Sure, implementing a CMS within an enterprise requires information architecture and technical skills.  But companies should really decide what problem they are trying to solve, and whether they look at content management as an “end” or a “means to an end”.  Are they considering buying a tool simply because their content has gotten out of control and is too hard to maintain?  Or are they buying a tool because they consider the Internet to be a major marketing, sales, and communication channel, around which all other traditional channels are organized. </p> <p> It kills me how many of my customers come to us because they implemented a perfectly good CMS that helps them get content under control, build sophisticated content models and workflows, and allow the Web team to go home at 5:00 every night...yet the tool does nothing to help them use the web to generate sales leads or increase revenue </p> <p> Theresa advises a smart set of things to consider.  So consider letting the business/marketing users...you know them, the ones who view the web as a major channel for conducting business rather than a utility like the phone system...start from a clean sheet of paper and define the ways in which they want to use content to engage audiences.  Then let the IT folks wrap it with architectural requirements and shop for tools. </p> Great points here.  Did you ever wonder why IT so often owns the budget and the requirements list for CMS?  When it comes to buying a General Ledger, finance dictates what is needed.  The sales team drives the purchase of SFA tools.  Sure, implementing a CMS within an enterprise requires information architecture and technical skills.  But companies should really decide what problem they are trying to solve, and whether they look at content management as an “end” or a “means to an end”.  Are they considering buying a tool simply because their content has gotten out of control and is too hard to maintain?  Or are they buying a tool because they consider the Internet to be a major marketing, sales, and communication channel, around which all other traditional channels are organized.

It kills me how many of my customers come to us because they implemented a perfectly good CMS that helps them get content under control, build sophisticated content models and workflows, and allow the Web team to go home at 5:00 every night…yet the tool does nothing to help them use the web to generate sales leads or increase revenue

Theresa advises a smart set of things to consider.  So consider letting the business/marketing users…you know them, the ones who view the web as a major channel for conducting business rather than a utility like the phone system…start from a clean sheet of paper and define the ways in which they want to use content to engage audiences.  Then let the IT folks wrap it with architectural requirements and shop for tools.

]]> By: RaB http://thecontentwrangler.com/2006/12/05/there_is_no_best_cms_selecting_the_right_cms_means_considering_the_needs_of/comment-page-1/#comment-78 RaB Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:32:33 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=604#comment-78 <p>Well said, Theresa. Last year, James Robertson said in a podcast that people would spend more care choosing the family automobile than they would choosing the company CMS, and the “checklist approach” is an illustration of that. It’s one thing to say must have four wheels (check), must have steering wheel (check), must have cruise control (check), must have power windows (check). But would you choose any one from the short list of thirty cars that meet all your criteria? Chances are not; you’d want to make sure that the car fits. You’d get in, take a test drive, figure out if you have good vision when you shoulder check, etc. (Rather than repeat myself, see my article on this topic: <a href="http://www.intentionaldesign.ca/index.php/weblog/blogcentre/a_cms_is_a_vehicle/" rel="nofollow">http://www.intentionaldesign.ca/index.php/weblog/blogcentre/a_cms_is_a_vehicle/</a>). </p> <p> The checklist approach is good as a first cut. For instance, if you need a CMS that supports translation workflow, a checklist is a good way to eliminate any tools that don’t support multiple languages at all. But once you have that out of the way, then the differences become very qualitative. Having a tool that can suit your organization’s workflow is critical, though you don’t want to bring an unwieldy workflow into a CMS, so there needs to be some offline work done, too. Shoring up your processes and your content is important beforehand, and then looking at a CMS is a good idea. </p> <p> The other piece that is worth mentioning is that if technical expertise doesn’t exist within a company, then there may not be a good understanding of what a CMS can do, and the requirements can be incomplete. So someone - internal, external, independent - needs to take a look at not just what the obvious requirements are but what the hidden ones might be. There are often overlooked opportunities that could change the CMS that gets chosen. </p> Well said, Theresa. Last year, James Robertson said in a podcast that people would spend more care choosing the family automobile than they would choosing the company CMS, and the “checklist approach” is an illustration of that. It’s one thing to say must have four wheels (check), must have steering wheel (check), must have cruise control (check), must have power windows (check). But would you choose any one from the short list of thirty cars that meet all your criteria? Chances are not; you’d want to make sure that the car fits. You’d get in, take a test drive, figure out if you have good vision when you shoulder check, etc. (Rather than repeat myself, see my article on this topic: http://www.intentionaldesign.ca/index.php/weblog/blogcentre/a_cms_is_a_vehicle/).

The checklist approach is good as a first cut. For instance, if you need a CMS that supports translation workflow, a checklist is a good way to eliminate any tools that don’t support multiple languages at all. But once you have that out of the way, then the differences become very qualitative. Having a tool that can suit your organization’s workflow is critical, though you don’t want to bring an unwieldy workflow into a CMS, so there needs to be some offline work done, too. Shoring up your processes and your content is important beforehand, and then looking at a CMS is a good idea.

The other piece that is worth mentioning is that if technical expertise doesn’t exist within a company, then there may not be a good understanding of what a CMS can do, and the requirements can be incomplete. So someone – internal, external, independent – needs to take a look at not just what the obvious requirements are but what the hidden ones might be. There are often overlooked opportunities that could change the CMS that gets chosen.

]]> By: welsley http://thecontentwrangler.com/2006/12/05/there_is_no_best_cms_selecting_the_right_cms_means_considering_the_needs_of/comment-page-1/#comment-77 welsley Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:00:51 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=604#comment-77 <p>Theresa’s comments are certainly dead-on.  In our experience, a solid ‘Discovery’ process at the beginning of any CMS project best ensures an appropriate and proper customized solution.  </p> <p> A Discovery should include all the players who must put their cards on the table early on. By doing so, the true business ‘needs’ as opposed to departmental ‘wants’ are uncovered. </p> <p> A Discovery should guage the effect of the CMS on the CEO, Accounting, Shipping, Receiving, Sales, Legal, Marketing, Customers and yes...IT.  Everything flows from there.  </p> <p> The result of a thorough Discovery in our experience: a flexible solution that works on time and on budget. Every time. </p> Theresa’s comments are certainly dead-on.  In our experience, a solid ‘Discovery’ process at the beginning of any CMS project best ensures an appropriate and proper customized solution. 

A Discovery should include all the players who must put their cards on the table early on. By doing so, the true business ‘needs’ as opposed to departmental ‘wants’ are uncovered.

A Discovery should guage the effect of the CMS on the CEO, Accounting, Shipping, Receiving, Sales, Legal, Marketing, Customers and yes…IT.  Everything flows from there. 

The result of a thorough Discovery in our experience: a flexible solution that works on time and on budget. Every time.

]]>