The Content Management Gap – Part II
As follow up to the discussion on CMS that originated on www.churbuck.com, it seems more and more obvious to me that the gap we speak of is larger than I had originally described. In fact, that gap seems more like a chasm. Google for CMS and you’ll find hundreds of open-source applications, free to download and install on your LAMP server. You’ll also find only a handful of major players like Vignette and Documentum.
The discussion also should include what type of business you are and what you’re looking for your CMS to do. A small graphic design business should be able to get along pretty well with an open-source solution for the standard web features you would expect: home, contact, about us, support, and a catalog of images featuring their finer work. A small publishing company on the other hand will have vastly different needs and requirements, but still may be able to find an open-source app to suit their needs. Neither could hope to afford or support one of the bigger players offerings.
I recently downloaded and installed Joomla, one of the more robust open-source systems, on my server. I was indeed impressed with the interface and the features it boasts. Making it do what I wanted, however, was another issue. Joomla provides an impressive design for building pages using modules and components, as they call them, which the user can manipulate in a variety of ways to tweak the pages. It could indeed be used to develop a web-based store front or a small publishing enterprise. Simply by adding plugins (store transaction, blogs, galleries) and assigning them to pages and placement I can create and modify the site to my liking.
I found Joomla very frustrating though. I installed the dummy template site that comes with the distribution, a site about soccer teams. I wanted to remove the frames in the site, change the background images and colors, and otherwise set up a small publishing site with news and blogs. I was unable to do a lot of this without digging in directly to the css, which is of course far too much to ask a common user. I spent several hours with this, learning how the interface work and making backend changes, and mostly gave up out of frustration and lack of time to devote.
I also installed Drupal. I like this tool. It has great admin support; I can download new modules into a directory, they show up on the admin panel, and then I can configure through the tool. It also was easy to changes themes. I had trouble with things like TinyMCE to provide more text controls, but overall I like this tool for blogging and can see how it might be used for a news site. It is different from Joomla’s more pedestrian interface and certainly requires scripting and css programming support. And with both of these tools, I can see how valuable they can be for creating and distributing content, but neither seems particularly suitable in the niche of a Documentum-type document repository.
I evaluated these two mostly out of curiosity of the state of the open-source CMS. At the end of the day, I personally only need this type of tool for blogging, and for that I always prefer good old WordPress.
One question to ask Documentum or Vignette is whether a market exists for a $25,000 or $10,000 or $5,000 lite version, which could also be attached to installation and support revenue. The absense of such products in their arensal leads me to assume they are not interested in the smaller, volume-based business model.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
I still maintain for the vast majority of users, a blog tool will suffice, especially as more developer attention gets paid to the static page side as opposed to dynamic posts.
You must check out Jeffrey Veen’s 2004 essay about CMS’s and the wrongheaded approach and good intentions that most corporate CMSs are subjected too.
I think the reality is there is not only a “lite” gap as you point out, but an ASP gap. Why isn’t there a utility service bureau model for CMSs? Does every newspaper site need a CMS, search, metrics, database marketing, etc. etc.? Why doesn’t IBM Global Services or some whup-ass consultancy host this crap, and extend seats to a big Interwoven, Stellent or Documentum whatever install to their clients?
I’m predicting someone will do a web service for content management. Big global publisher should and will consider CMS to be table stakes for staying in business and leave it to a central outsourced provider.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
[...] Blogs
cmurray.org » The Content Management Gap – Part II
cmurray.org » The Content Management Gap – Part II Chris Murray throws down the challenge — why isn’t t [...]
March 8th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
You are correct. And my esteemed colleague Chris Lindquist and I were discussing this just this afternoon. Perhaps that gap has been gobbled up by consultants: I don’t want to install an open-source app and have to support it, and I can’t afford and don’t want one of the big dogs. So perhaps that market is being served by consultants who build the site, host it on some ISP, and make changes for which they bill you. We did not consider what you are suggesting, which I think is right on, the idea of someone offering seat to an Interwoven installation, as an alternative to me using a blogging tool. Seems like the right approach.
I did read Veen’s article and it did indeed resonate. I liked especially his focus on process rather than tools. Too often companies look to tools and apps to solve problems, where the problems themselves lie in process and business discipline. I especially liked his approach to consultants: here’s my process that fails … don’t sell me tools, tell me where and why my process points fail. Brilliant.
I also admit I am new to the WordPress and blogging environment. I need to explore its abilities to make pages, and I assume, more interesting web sites. I am also in the process of shedding a lot of CMS baggage in the form of Documentum in the enterprise and heavy ISO9000 and TL9000 requirements. I have to say though, I am greatly enjoying this exploration into self-publishing, rich media, and the community spawned of me (or anyone else) writing a simple blog. This is powerful stuff … and just the tip of the looming iceberg.
March 9th, 2006 at 12:02 am
like the blogging, fascinating exchanging of perspectives. here’s a good link:
http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/
March 9th, 2006 at 10:09 am
The ASP approach will be, in my opinion, the eventual solution. I have faith in AJAX, and can see a future where the entire design/build/maintain process is done online. Imagine a combination of database service providors, hosting providors, application providors, content providors, and even CSS saavy graphic designers, and yes, even your company’s own services, available on a single online menu. Infinite possibilities for the mid-size enterprise. If you don’t build it, I just might.