I think the key statement is this: "But do you need such software? Most companies don't."

News.com, Knight-Ridder and Amazon.com probably "need such software" but I also think that many organizations don't.

It probably depends on a number of factors, including the number of writers in the field, # of customers, website options/features, etc.

Posted by: Chi Lambda on March 6, 2003 01:32 AM

---

 

I read that quote several times, and it didn't strike me that Gerry was talking about reporters, writers, and editors in the traditional journalistic sense. Most companies aren't news companies.

But why not? Content submissions, workflow, and editing could all be done via email. A production person could cut and paste the final versions into templates setup in FrontPage. This is Gerry's point, I think - that a CMA doesn't have to encompass the whole process.

The limitations of FrontPage would come sooner from the size and scale of the site.

But, any good discussions around this notion will quickly be killed by the ubiquitous FrontPage bashers...

Posted by: on March 6, 2003 08:57 AM

---

 

To add to Chi Lamda's supposition, many small and medium sized companies find that it's less expensive to employ a person to act as a CMS than it is to purchase, install, customize, configure and support a full-blown CMS package.

Posted by: Shane on March 6, 2003 08:58 AM

---

 

The technology sector needs a serious reality check. Managers and executives have a chronic optimism around what software can do.

I've worked at 3 companies in the last 10 years. Each one of them tried to implement ERP and failed (multiple times, usually).
Each one of them tried to implement an enterprise CMS and failed (or descoped it 80%). Finally, each one of them tried to implement an eCommerce or CRM solution and failed. Most of these companies are still at it, on their 3rd or 4th go-around at implementing these technologies.

We're talking a LOT of money being pissed away folks; shareholders should be outraged.

I may seem hard to believe, but I think that these failure rates are by far the NORM rather than the exception. My take-aways:

* Whenever possible, avoid implementing software solutions that require customized config/coding, i.e. professional services vendors. (Sadly, this drives everyone toward out-of-the-box packages, which means that MS will probably win with Great Plains down the road). You think your company should be afraid of custom home-grown solutions? At least there your staff usually has a decent handle on the flaws and shortcomings. With customized software implemented by outside vendors, your staff won't have a clue of how to maintain it.

* Don't believe that conceptual crap that you have a 3-legged stool consisting of people, processes and technology. As if each of these is equivalent. It would be more accurate to say that you have a 6-legged stool and 3 legs are people, 2 are process, and 1 is technology.

* The progression to enterprise software hell is:
in-house staff --> contractors/vendors --> vendors --> foreign workers.
This is just shifting the problem. If you can't implement & maintain a software system in-house, you have a more fundamental problem at your company. If you think you can export/abdicate the responsibility of fixing that problem, your company is already a captive.

Gerry McGovern did a decent job pointing out some of the problems. The shame is that there is so little awareness of the problems that his article actually seems radical.

Posted by: Satchel on March 6, 2003 09:46 AM

---

 

CMS software helps organisations solve some fundamental problems around consistency and accessibility. By automating the content development and management process, organisations have the ability to ensure that every page is accessible, consistent etc - and allows restrictions that are not possible within FP and other such software.

Posted by: vbull on March 6, 2003 06:18 PM

---

 

I have seen a lot of the same things Satchel talked about. Part of the problem is that management gets so excited about what the software could potentially do that they turn a blind eye to the fact that it will only do that if everything, including the human element, works together perfectly, which just can't happen in the real world.

And, perhaps due to the same excitement, they implement EVERYTHING at once, instead of integrating and introducing in stages with some beta/load testing first to identify the most obvious weak spots. So, employees have to learn everything virtually overnight )while still performing their usual job-related tasks) on a system that probably has a poor user interface and runs slowly because it wasn't configured right.

Then they have to call in the consultants, and that's where the real money hemmoraging begins.

I think a CMS works very well for companies that employ a lot of freelance talent or have a lot of home-based workers, where ownership becomes a critical issue to job satisfaction. Even if the person isn't terribly web-savvy, they can learn how to use a single application and deploy their information on their own schedule.

Posted by: Lydia on March 6, 2003 08:38 PM

---

 

Satchel hits several nails squarely on the head. I've worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, and the only large-scale project I've worked on which could be counted a success was the very first one, back in 1982. Since then, I've worked on a number of ambitious projects, mainly in the financial sector. Every one of them has either failed completely, or ended up compromising their original intentions so thoroughly that the user probably wouldn't have started on the project in the first place if they'd known what they were going to get. As Satchel says, we waste huge amounts of money on software projects which never deliver. And yes, I do mean WE - it's partly our fault.

One of the things which has depressed me in recent years is that we now have a whole new generation of software developers and technologies, and they are repeating the same fundemental mistakes in running projects which we had in the 80s and early 90s. As an industry, we seem to believe that since the technology has moved on so much, the experience of previous technology 'generations' isn't relevant. But the fundementals of running a good project don't change with technology changes.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 7, 2003 04:37 AM

---

 

"One of the things which has depressed me in recent years is that we now have a whole new generation of software developers and technologies, and they are repeating the same fundemental mistakes in running projects which we had in the 80s and early 90s."

This doesn't really put the knowledge work industry in a good light, either. CMS is basically workflow management. The content doesn't really get measured or managed, now does it? It doesn't improve or unify writing styles around a certain viewpoint, suggest the real story is something other than what it being written, or anything else which would fall under "content management."

Posted by: on March 7, 2003 07:11 AM

---

 

The most interesting point Gerry does, I think, is not the fact that CMS fails (sometimes). We all knew that. It is that he gives an alternative - or, more realistic, that he says what every publishing process needs no matter what technology it rests on: writers, editors...
The interesting discussion is not FrontPage or CMS. It is who we think should publish? And even though the "modern" technology promises that everyone can do that, all my experience shows that administrators, salespeople, middle management needs unrealistic amounts of training to do what one or two professional publishers can achieve.

Posted by: A Swedish comment on March 7, 2003 09:30 AM

---

 

"CMS software helps organisations solve some fundamental problems around consistency and accessibility. By automating the content development and management process, organisations have the ability to ensure that every page is accessible, consistent etc - and allows restrictions that are not possible within FP and other such software."

Malarkey. Vendor speak. Marketing Babble.

Restrictions are easy in FrontPage. You simply buy one copy give it to one person who enforces the restrictions and produces the web content. That's what an "editor" is, and this is Gerry's point - you don't need a CMS to have a content management process, you don't need a CMS to have consistency, and you don't need a CMS to have accessibility.

All you *really* need are people for whom those things are important.

Posted by: on March 7, 2003 12:56 PM

---

 

Alan Fisher says: "But the fundementals of running a good project don't change with technology changes."

Totally agree!

Posted by: daniel szuc on March 7, 2003 07:21 PM

---

 

Additionally, if companies would consider speaking to their users first or looking at the existing systems that exist, they may re-think whether the NEW technology purchase is really required. Very often its a case of wanting a new and perhaps unnecessary layer of technological toys.

Posted by: daniel szuc on March 7, 2003 07:26 PM

---

 

John, consider that the BBC news site (at least until recently) didn't have a CMS at all - just a bunch of talented sysadmins to keep the system going. Think about it.

Posted by: Peter on March 9, 2003 05:16 PM

---

 

Alan writes above: "I've worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, and the only large-scale project I've worked on which could be counted a success was the very first one... [every other one] has either failed completely, or ended up compromising their original intentions...."

Alan, you're literally one of the first experienced people I've ever heard state this publicly. It's become clear to me in the relatively short time that I've been in the field that you're completely right: almost all big projects fail. I've never been lucky enough to work on a project that I thought really succeeded on its original terms.

My theory is simple and brutal: most companies actually hate their customers. Whether those customers are internal staff or external users, looking to them is usually seen as weakness, as an inability to "get the job done."

I think this is the attitude: customers cause trouble, they force us to reconsider assumptions that might turn out to have been embarassingly wrong, and who wants that? Customers might demand features or services we're incapable of providing, or they might expose my department as inept or useless, and that can't be allowed to happen.

Besides, no one wants to be the guy who goes into the meeting and says "I've worked on these kinds of problems for 20 years, and I know this will fail just like all the rest."

Big projects like CMS systems are ways that people try to push change, difficult decisions, and hard boring work off on technology. They're large-scale instances of the small-scale software-lust that we've all felt at some point: "Man, I rilly rilly want the new version of Photoshop because of feature xzy."

Posted by: Andrew on March 11, 2003 02:41 PM

---