Content Management Systems: Who Makes the Rules?

1
Content Management Systems Who Makes the Rules?

• Jill Katte, Duke University
• David Mitchell, Wyeth Vaccines
• NHPRC Electronic Records Research Fellowship
• October 2006

2

• Why this idea?
• Managing the Digital University Desktop data
• Websites as containers of archival content
• (see Pearce-Moses presentation, 2004)
• Duke University CMS initiatives

3

• Assumptions and parameters
• Assumption webmasters and archivists may be
  missing opportunities to collaborate
• Parameter focus on website content management,
  not learning management

4

• Research questions
• How are our peer institutions using website CMS?
• How will a CMS affect information management at
  Duke and elsewhere?
• Do content managers follow official policies for
  archiving expired web records?
• Is long-term preservation a concern for CMS
  administrators?
• What CMS tools could be used to identify archival
  content and transfer it to an archival repository?

5

• Project Goals
• Identify opportunities/obstacles in collaboration
  between archivists web content managers
• Conduct small pilot program in preserving CMS
  content in archival repository
• Raise awareness of archives/preservation concerns
  to CMS administrators

6

• Scope and methodology
• Dukes peer institutions doctoral/research
  universities, extensive
• Brief initial survey of archivists and webmasters
  to identify web CMS users, ER policies, interview
  volunteers
• In-depth telephone interviews

7

• Initial Survey Questions
• Does your institution use a content management
  system (CMS) to manage its Web site(s)?
• Which CMS does your institution use (or plan to
  use) to manage website content? (Please list all,
  including home-grown systems)  
• Does your institution have a policy for
  preserving website content?
• Would you be willing to discuss the use of CMS in
  greater detail as part of this research project?
  (if yes, enter email address)

8

• Initial web-based survey
• 95 total respondents
• 65 webmasters
• 30 archivists

9

• Q1. Does your institution use a content
  management system (CMS) to manage its Web
  site(s)?
• 39 Yes
• 28 No, but we plan to use
• 14 No, do not use, do not plan to
• 0 Previously used, but abandoned
• 19 Dont know

10

• Q2. Which CMS does your institution use (or plan
  to use) to manage website content?
• Top three responses
• Home-grown systems
• CommonSpot
• Collage, RedDot, Stellent

11
  Home-grown CommonSpot Collage RedDot CMS Stellent
Approximate Cost ? Starts at19,000 Starts at 10,000 Starts at 55,000 ?
Audit Trail ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Content Approval ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Granular Privileges ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Versioning ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zip Archives ? No ? ? Yes
Static Content Export ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Content Scheduling ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Content Staging ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Workflow Engine ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Metadata ? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Document Management ? Yes No Costs Extra Yes
Data from CMSmatrix.org
12

• Q3. Does your institution have a policy for
  preserving website content?
• 18 Yes
• 61 No
• 21 Dont know

13

• Initial Survey Summary
• Web CMS becoming more widely adopted
• Home-grown systems prevalent
• Most products advertise versioning, metadata,
  workflow management, of some kind
• Web records policies either dont exist, or are
  not well-known

14

• In-depth phone interviews
• Five sections
• Planning and decision-making
• Implementation and workflow
• Web electronic records policies
• Archiving website content
• Collaboration

15

• Interview Results and Conclusions

16

• Sections 1-2 Planning Implementation
• Most web CMS
• In use for less than 1 year implementation
  phase varies
• Offers workflow management tools, but not being
  fully implemented
• Collects metadata about content, but not much
  beyond standard file maintenance info

17

• Section 3 Web Electronic Records Policies
• Most interviewed do consider at least part of
  website to be an official university record
• About half interviewed had electronic records
  management policy
• Most said web content was not included in those
  policies
• Most had no metadata guidelines for electronic
  records

18

• Section 4 Archiving
• Do content managers follow official policies for
  archiving expired web records?
• No formal policies
• Content owners decide
• Not saving versions
• Decision making is widely distributed

19

• Section 4 Archiving
• Preparedness
• 10 of 15 are totally unprepared or unprepared to
  archive website content
• 7 are totally unprepared or unprepared to
  retrieve and reconstruct archived website content

20

• Section 5 Collaboration
• Collaboration on policy setting
• 11 of 15 experienced no or very little
  collaboration between webmasters and
  archivists/records managers

21

• Section 5 Collaboration
• Collaboration with other campus units regarding
  guidelines for archiving or setting expiration
  dates
• 8 of 15 said no (but 5 of 15 said yes)

22

• Sections 4-5 Archiving Collaboration
• Hindrances?
• No direction/communication about policy
• Lack of interest
• No perceived need
• Resource issues

23

• Content Management Systems
• Who Makes the Rules?
• No one makes the rules
• and
• Everyone makes the rules

24

• Project website
• Content Management Systems
• Who Makes the Rules?
• http//www.duke.edu/web/CMSproject

25

• Questions?