Guest post by Robert Rose
I just spent a few days at two different clients. One is a $4 Billion enterprise that has global divisions and uses a myriad of enterprise software products--including more than their fair share of content management systems (and by the way I’m referring only to web CMSs from this point forward). The other is a small non-profit, running mostly open source software, most notably to manage the content on their website.
What did they have in common? Well, other than excellent Peet’s coffee (which seemed oddly coincidental), both had CMS implementations that failed, and both were looking to re-examine their options.
You’ve all seen the statistics: 85 percent of all CMS implementations fail. Or, is it 65 percent? Or only 40 percent? Gack--let’s get Gartner on the phone. We can actually settle the debate once and for all: 100 percent of all CMSs fail at some point after implementation.
So, the question isn't: "Is the CMS going to fail?" The question is: "How big will the failure be?" And, once you acknowledge that--feel free to go through the entire Kubler-Ross grief cycle [1]--you can address the core issues, get tremendous value out of whatever solution you deploy and mitigate the challenge of the new process you’ll ultimately put in place.
First, why do they all fail?
Wikipedia defines content management [2] as "a collection of procedures used to manage workflow in a collaborative environment." Put simply, a CMS is a process meant to grease the workflow skids for managing web content. It doesn’t matter if it is a million dollar software tool or some dude named Sergei FTPing files from Dreamweaver, every organization that updates a website has a CMS.
So no matter who handles the implementation of the CMS, the only thing that's possible is to capture that workflow process as a singular moment in time.
Now, of course, some initial implementations go well; and some don't. And there have been excellent implementation best-practices posted by practitioners such as Jeff Cram [3], Seth Gottlieb [4], and Lisa Welchman [5] and her crew [6].
But regardless of how good your initial implementation is, your CMS is only as good as its ability to change. I can tell you that almost all of the clients I’ve had the pleasure to work with over the last 10 years in web content management have answered the initial “Why are you changing your CMS” question with some variant of the following:
But I can also tell you that many times, once you dig a little further, you also find:
Now, I do realize that sometimes a failure is just a failure. Products fail. Implementations really do go haywire. Software companies go bust or merge, and requirements sometimes really do radically change to a point where a new tool is needed.
But that’s also the point: Whether you have a great implementation or a horrible one; or whether you chose an excellent product or a poor one; your CMS process will change. The key to how big that change will be is how much attention you paid while the change was happening.
In short, all CMSs fail and boil down to a situation where, “We’ve changed and our CMS hasn’t.”
Change you really can believe in…
Ideally the choice to purchase a new tool to manage your CMS process should be to take advantage of new opportunities--and grow into new challenges--not solve old problems.
How do we make sure that your impending CMS failure is only a small speed bump and doesn’t necessarily mean you have to switch solutions wholesale? Here are three things to keep in mind:
And, look at what’s happening on the consulting and vendor landscape. This is where an experienced practitioner can help you. The reason it’s so confusing is because CMS tools typically support some processes much better than others (see the fit criteria mentioned earlier).
Taking an iterative approach to your content management process is the best way to ensure that when you fail, you fail fast, small, gracefully and with insight on how to make it better in the future.
Robert Rose is the Founder and Chief Troublemaker at Big Blue Moose [9], a consulting firm that develops marketing strategy, demand generation programs, web technology selection, social media and content strategy. For the last eight years Rose served as VP, Marketing & Strategy for CrownPeak [10]; a SaaS company focused on web content solutions for marketers.
Related Articles:
Finding the right web CMS fit in 2010 [11]
J Boye creates a recommended list of Web CMSs [12]
New survey says 60 percent aren't confident in web metrics [13]
Links:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system
[3] http://www.isitedesign.com/about/our-fearless-leaders
[4] http://www.contenthere.net/
[5] http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/one-one-lisa-welchman-welchmanpierpont/2009-10-13
[6] http://welchmanpierpoint.com/
[7] http://www.contenthere.net/2010/02/the-myth-of-the-occasional-cms-user.html
[8] http://www.cmsmyth.com/2009/05/does-your-cms-fit/
[9] http://bigbluemoose.net/
[10] http://www.crownpeak.com/
[11] http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/finding-right-web-cms-fit-2010/2010-01-20
[12] http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/j-boye-creates-recommended-list-web-cmss/2009-08-19
[13] http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/new-survey-says-60-percent-arent-confident-metrics/2010-02-02