While most people would agree that a Content Management System (CMS) would be good to have, how best to implement and to use a CMS is still for many a topic of confusion. In this lively discussion, Don Bridges of DCL and The Content Wrangler, Scott Abel, square off on the reasons for an organization to implement a CMS and whether XML is a prerequisite to a meaningful implementation vs. launching a CMS before you're ready for XML. This spirited conversation between two of the best-informed experts on the subject may not give you all the answers, but it will give you a chance to ask yourself some important questions to help you decide.

Don Bridges

Don Bridges: There are several reasons to have a Content Management System (CMS); some, like content reuse, are directly related to XML, while others, like workflow, version control, and security, are not limited to XML only.

Therefore, while XML certainly offers tremendous value as a component of a CMS, there are still significant benefits even without XML. It therefore seems to me that even organizations not yet ready for XML should still consider a CMS as a viable approach to meeting content management needs.

"There are several reasons to have a CMS; some, like, content reuse, are directly related to XML, while others, like workflow, version control, and security, are not limited to XML only." -Don Bridges

Ten years ago the only options were 'Document' Management Systems that could only handle… you guessed it… monolithic documents. Along came SGML and XML that allowed one to work with at a finer level with smaller chunks of information called components or subdocuments. These can include text, video, images, photos, etc. So the software industry responded with 'Content' Management Systems that could manage components. These CMS's are of both the XML-enabled and native XML flavors. Between the two extremes is a middle-ground that offers a hybrid solution of being able to manage both monolithic documents and componentized XML. And these hybrid solutions may offer the best value for organizations that aren't in a position to jump to XML overnight.

Sometimes those of us who work closely with XML are blinded by the trees. But there is a bigger forest out there that doesn't necessarily require XML as the initial step to solving some key problems many organizations face with their documentation. Many organizations need a phased approach to improving their content management and this seems like a viable approach to me.

Scott Abel

Scott Abel: This "larger forest" approach is a lame excuse to continue doing business the same old way we have for centuries…one silo at a time. Most organizations still don't understand the technologies involved in content management. It's not uncommon for individuals in the same organization - even in the same department -- to have differing pre-conceived notions of what content management systems are, how they work, and what they can do for them. So, they continue to create silos to solve only their immediate - and perhaps departmental - challenges. They fail to recognize their tree's importance in the larger forest (organization).

And, they often are blinded by their past successes. They may think their knowledge of relational databases, for example, make them capable of understanding and selecting an appropriate content management system. But, that's not the kind of experience needed to solve content management challenges. Using your analogy, it's critical that people involved in selecting a content management system also understand how their "tree" impacts the "larger forest." A healthy forest is not created by solving one "tree's" problem, while ignoring the rest of the trees in a forest ecosystem. And, that's what many organizations do today. They say, "we'll just fix this one problem" and they don't realize the negative impacts they have on other trees, nor do they see the opportunities they missed that could benefit the entire forest. The document management approach continues the old school, and very inefficient creation of information silos.

"When one department or team selects a document management solution, even to solve some important challenges, they create a silo" -Scott Abel

The Content Silo Trap was coined by Ann Rockley and is well documented in her work, "Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy" (New Riders Publishing). When one department or team selects a document management solution, even to solve some important challenges, they create a silo that fails to recognize that in order to manage documents effectively the components of content also need to be managed. This missed opportunity is a strategic mistake in many cases--one that will have to be addressed later, when it will likely cost more time and money, which are almost always in short supply.

Additionally, there is a dearth of knowledge about types of content management systems and what they are designed to do. For example what is a web content management system and how does it differ from a content component management system? And, what about digital asset management, learning content management and records management? And, can an XML-enabled database do the same things that a native XML CMS can?

One of our biggest challenges is helping folks understand the differences in approaches and the tools that belong to each category. The next challenge is to get them to stop thinking they already know what tools they need and focus in on the real problem they are trying to solve. Then, once they have recognized the problems their tree has, they can ask others in the forest what problems they have. Before long, the entire forest can benefit from the ideas one tree introduced. And, that's definitely better than creating new silos.

"If an organization chooses wisely they can meet some critical business process needs … NOW; and take a XML adoption as a future step" - Don Bridges

Don: There's nothing wrong with a phased approach. If an organization chooses wisely they can meet some critical business process needs (like workflow, revision control, and security) with 'legacy' content (Word, Interleaf, RoboHelp, unstructured Frame, etc.) NOW; and take XML adoption as a future step -- using the same CMS throughout.

Any smart decision regarding which specific tool to utilize will account for this. But you're absolutely right, understanding your organization's strategic plan for technical content and how much evolution your organization can tolerate is crucial.

While a 'native XML' solution meets many typical business issues, some organizations are either not ready for XML, or don't really need it for all of their documentation; and if so why put off meeting their current needs? The typical organization may need a CMS for a variety of reasons. Three of the most common reasons are regulatory compliance, risk avoidance, and customer service. It comes down to a financial decision on the long-term value of doing a partial solution now versus waiting for a more robust solution later.

"It comes down to a financial decision on the long-term value of doing a partial solution now versus waiting for a more robust solution later." -Don Bridges

Scott: Word, RoboHelp, and FrameMaker are authoring tools, not content management solutions. These tools do not require a content management (or document management) system to provide benefits like basic workflow, content reuse, change tracking -- things that XML content component management systems are designed to do. So, yes, you can - and should - start with content creation tools when you start to examine the content lifecycle of any organization moving to XML.

One of the first steps is moving from unstructured content to structured XML. Again, you can do this step without any CMS. The steps involved in the analysis phase will uncover many issues that negatively impact the content lifecycle. Each of these obstacles (things like manual formatting of content, copy and paste reuse, jumping through various technology hoops to deliver content in various formats) can be tackled before you ever purchase a content management system. And, increasingly, authoring software packages are introducing new features designed to help control vocabulary, protect brand identity, and guide new authors to create structured, modular XML content in alignment with corporate style and writing guidelines.

In the long run, making a move to content management means acknowledging that your content is a business asset worthy of being effectively managed. Many organizations believe they already value their content as an asset, but a quick look around the "forest" and it becomes clear that the individual "trees" often have very different ideas about what the word "manage" means.

Management is about control. And, to be more specific, it's about profit, plain and simple. So, if an organization would like more profit (and show me one that doesn't) they should try examining their content lifecycle and they will soon see just how inefficient - and wasteful of organizational resources - their current process is. Once they see how many problems and inefficiencies are plaguing their "forest", they'll have a much better idea what type of solution they need.

"(But) selecting the wrong type of system - a document management system, for example -- is not a good first step toward content management. It's just a waste of money..." -Scott Abel

A CMS can help them automate manual tasks and save their organization time and money, while helping them become better organized and able to automatically create a historic record (audit trail) of the actions of all involved in the process. Increasingly, CMS tools are also useful management tools, providing managers with actionable metrics upon which they can make informed business decisions. But, selecting the wrong type of system - a document management system, for example -- is not a good first step toward content management. It's just a waste of money and will be replaced in the very near future once the system fails to deliver the value needed by all the trees in the entire "forest".

Don: The complexities involved in implementing all the features of a CMS can sometimes be a project killer - and cause one to do nothing. Yes, in a perfect world, organizations could turn on a dime, train their staff overnight, and constantly be adopting new technology that shows promise to meet business requirements. Real world experience shows us something quite different; in that change is (a) resisted, and (b) evolutionary.

"XML evangelists insist that adoption of a componentized XML strategy …should be a 'big bang' experience" - Don Bridges

Trainers will tell you that when you're learning something new, you get the best results in mastering one part, then another, then another; until you have learned it all. Yet many XML evangelists insist that adoption of a componentized XML strategy -- typically from a document based word processing system -- should be a 'big bang' experience.

If only we could have machines as writers...but we don't. We have people - people being asked to learn a new format-one that separates content from presentation. People being asked to learn new tools-tools for authoring and managing the content. People being asked to learn a new strategy-one that shifts from a "book" concept to a "topic" concept; where those topics can be reused in many places without impacting context.

The vision for the organization needs to be able to address the three aspects of the project (format, tools, and strategy) in a manageable approach.

So if they can take baby steps such as implementing a management system for content that handles legacy documentation now (in a book paradigm) and future XML-based content later (in a topic paradigm) -- why not? The organization still gets many of the key benefits of a content management system (such as workflow, revision control, and security); and is then in a position to manage the next step: XML.

Scott: Baby steps are good when moving to content management, as I noted earlier. Starting with an analysis and taking a look at the authoring process (and the tools used to create content) is a good small step. But, adopting a "baby step" CMS is not a great idea, as we know that all babies grow up - and quickly. Just ask any parent.

"The most important thing is for organizations to understand what they need and what solutions are available to meet those needs both now and in the future, and that can certainly have a great impact on the organization." -Don Bridges and Scott Abel

Additionally, without a formal analysis of the content lifecycle and the needs of those who create content as well as those who consume it, there's really no way to know whether an XML solution is the right choice or not, but there are lots of reasons why it can be. There are dozens of books available on the subject of XML to help the reader make an informed decision. The best I've read is "XML for Managers" by Kevin Dick. In it, Dick points out a fact that most software sales people ignore. XML is a strategic BUSINESS decision. It's a critical, enabling technology that can impact nearly all parts of an organization in both positive and negative ways. XML is not limited to publishing technical documentation. So, adopting it may solve some techcomm problems, but if implemented as a strategic solution, it may be able to be leveraged in many valuable ways outside of technical documentation and training materials. And, adopting XML may impact other long-term decisions elsewhere in the organization. Therefore, it's important that upper management be involved in this decision. It's not really important what I think, nor what you, nor anyone else thinks. What matters is how it can impact an organization. Agreed?

Don: Agreed, Scott. The most important thing is for organizations to understand what they need and what solutions are available to meet those needs both now and in the future, and that can certainly have a great impact on the organization.

DCLNews Editorial