Content Development Charge Backs
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Suz Bednarz - Kish
Apr 25, 2012, 10:44:44 AM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Do any of you work in an organization where you are charged for the content you put on your portals or sites? If so, can you share your process/model, etc?
Let me explain.
My organization has several portals and I am the Content Strategist and Site Search Product lead responsible for all. I also manage a team of editors who write new copy/content and edit existing. W
Our portals follow centralized and hybrid content management models. In the centralized version all edits, copy decks, are submitted to the CMS team ("owned" by IT) and they charged us for all changes. The minimum charge is $500 regardless of scope (say, changing a typo).
My management and I are curious how our process/cost model compares with others.
Has anyone got anything good to share? Experiences? Research? War stories?
Suz Bednarz
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Let me explain.
My organization has several portals and I am the Content Strategist and Site Search Product lead responsible for all. I also manage a team of editors who write new copy/content and edit existing. W
Our portals follow centralized and hybrid content management models. In the centralized version all edits, copy decks, are submitted to the CMS team ("owned" by IT) and they charged us for all changes. The minimum charge is $500 regardless of scope (say, changing a typo).
My management and I are curious how our process/cost model compares with others.
Has anyone got anything good to share? Experiences? Research? War stories?
Suz Bednarz
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
michael o'neill
Apr 25, 2012, 11:14:31 AM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
That's a fascinating, Suz!
I'm curious, who owns Quality in this model, regardless of ability to pay? If there's a typo on the site, and you can't find a cost center willing to pay the $500 to fix it, does it get fixed regardless or does it just hang out?
I've never worked in an environment that had a model like yours (which seems arbitrary and punitive in nature). I'm assuming it's an attempt at cost recovery? (Is that the rationale behind it?) Regardless, I'd be tempted to say that such a system would incent people to not make changes and doesn't recognize content as an entity that needs continual care.
I've worked at small shops and large. At the larger organization (a BIG hardware, software and services company) we could get copy changed and typos fixed just by submitting new text to the group responsible for getting it on the website. If there was any type of chargeback associated with that, I was not aware of it.
Again, fascinating question (and model). Looking to hear other experiences as well.
-Michael
I'm curious, who owns Quality in this model, regardless of ability to pay? If there's a typo on the site, and you can't find a cost center willing to pay the $500 to fix it, does it get fixed regardless or does it just hang out?
I've never worked in an environment that had a model like yours (which seems arbitrary and punitive in nature). I'm assuming it's an attempt at cost recovery? (Is that the rationale behind it?) Regardless, I'd be tempted to say that such a system would incent people to not make changes and doesn't recognize content as an entity that needs continual care.
I've worked at small shops and large. At the larger organization (a BIG hardware, software and services company) we could get copy changed and typos fixed just by submitting new text to the group responsible for getting it on the website. If there was any type of chargeback associated with that, I was not aware of it.
Again, fascinating question (and model). Looking to hear other experiences as well.
-Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group.
To post to this group, send email to content...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrate...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
--
Michael J. O'Neill
I'll admit to evidence of my presence at the following locations:
Suz Bednarz - Kish
Apr 25, 2012, 11:26:02 AM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Fascinating? You are being too kind. I call it frustrating. : )
Quality is technically "owned" by IT but content owners/business are part of production check out and responsible for it as well. QA from IT is built into that $500 charge.
A budget code needs to be provided (someone has to pay) for every change. I am often scrambling for codes, dollars, etc. to get even the most minor changes addressed. I completely agree with your statements on punitive and demotivating content owners from updating their content (let alone budget for those updates on an annual basis).
In other orgs I have worked in we had a baseline budget allocated for such things. This does not currently exist in my org but it is being considered. Additionally, we are evaluating costs for decentralizing some portions. If I get my editors trained in CMS (most of them are already), will the IT org allow us to get in there, do the edits and have them QA and deploy? Will that reduce costs?
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Quality is technically "owned" by IT but content owners/business are part of production check out and responsible for it as well. QA from IT is built into that $500 charge.
A budget code needs to be provided (someone has to pay) for every change. I am often scrambling for codes, dollars, etc. to get even the most minor changes addressed. I completely agree with your statements on punitive and demotivating content owners from updating their content (let alone budget for those updates on an annual basis).
In other orgs I have worked in we had a baseline budget allocated for such things. This does not currently exist in my org but it is being considered. Additionally, we are evaluating costs for decentralizing some portions. If I get my editors trained in CMS (most of them are already), will the IT org allow us to get in there, do the edits and have them QA and deploy? Will that reduce costs?
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Melanie Seibert
Apr 25, 2012, 11:30:16 AM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
That DOES sound frustrating! Michael makes a great point... keeping content up to date is enough work without adding a layer of red tape.
Also, the point of a CMS (well, one of them) is to separate content from code and design, so content specialists don't NEED to be developers to make updates. Implementing one should make things more efficient and allow your content folks more ownership and agility in performing maintenance tasks. At the same time, it frees IT from having to fix typos on the site, so they can focus on what they do best.
Melanie
Suz Bednarz - Kish
Apr 25, 2012, 11:34:30 AM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Agreed. In fact, I worked for this same org about ten years ago and we had everything "templatized". I have since come back and the new portals are so complex (so they say) that they could not or would not template them for decentralization. (We dont even have automated workflows)
There is a small army of people who are on CMS that do the work generated by my team of editors OR the business owners.
I am attempting to poke at a few of the less complex content assets (static content) to determine if we can update those on our own or utilize templates (of course, there will be an investment to do this which will cost me up front but I hope pay off in the long run?).
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
There is a small army of people who are on CMS that do the work generated by my team of editors OR the business owners.
I am attempting to poke at a few of the less complex content assets (static content) to determine if we can update those on our own or utilize templates (of course, there will be an investment to do this which will cost me up front but I hope pay off in the long run?).
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Bill Swallow
Apr 25, 2012, 12:27:08 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Closed CMS deployment? There's a workflow issue right there. Likely
designed with current cost models in mind, but really it feeds the
problem and not the solution. If the CMS was open, with role
assignments, then they could avoid a layer of administration and thus
eliminate one cost center interaction. Using workflow, content could
then be channeled back and forth between author and same-center editor
before hitting the IT "gatekeeper" and their own checks and balances.
Add in an additional layer of software such as Acrolinx would ensure a
final check against approved terminology, style, and reuse segments to
catch anything that might have escaped an editing eye. That would work
for both static and living content.
But the real question is around the nature and purpose of the content.
Are they controlling everything, or just the formal content that comes
out of the company? Web only? Any social elements (blogs, etc.)?
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Suz Bednarz - Kish
<bluest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. In fact, I worked for this same org about ten years ago and we had
> everything "templatized". I have since come back and the new portals are so
> complex (so they say) that they could not or would not template them for
> decentralization. (We dont even have automated workflows)
>
> There is a small army of people who are on CMS that do the work generated by
> my team of editors OR the business owners.
>
> I am attempting to poke at a few of the less complex content assets (static
> content) to determine if we can update those on our own or utilize templates
> (of course, there will be an investment to do this which will cost me up
> front but I hope pay off in the long run?).
--
Bill Swallow
Content Solutions Manager
GlobalScript, a division of LinguaLinx
http://globalscript.com
http://lingualinx.com
designed with current cost models in mind, but really it feeds the
problem and not the solution. If the CMS was open, with role
assignments, then they could avoid a layer of administration and thus
eliminate one cost center interaction. Using workflow, content could
then be channeled back and forth between author and same-center editor
before hitting the IT "gatekeeper" and their own checks and balances.
Add in an additional layer of software such as Acrolinx would ensure a
final check against approved terminology, style, and reuse segments to
catch anything that might have escaped an editing eye. That would work
for both static and living content.
But the real question is around the nature and purpose of the content.
Are they controlling everything, or just the formal content that comes
out of the company? Web only? Any social elements (blogs, etc.)?
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Suz Bednarz - Kish
<bluest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. In fact, I worked for this same org about ten years ago and we had
> everything "templatized". I have since come back and the new portals are so
> complex (so they say) that they could not or would not template them for
> decentralization. (We dont even have automated workflows)
>
> There is a small army of people who are on CMS that do the work generated by
> my team of editors OR the business owners.
>
> I am attempting to poke at a few of the less complex content assets (static
> content) to determine if we can update those on our own or utilize templates
> (of course, there will be an investment to do this which will cost me up
> front but I hope pay off in the long run?).
Bill Swallow
Content Solutions Manager
GlobalScript, a division of LinguaLinx
http://globalscript.com
http://lingualinx.com
Paola Roccuzzo
Apr 25, 2012, 12:37:21 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Melanie Seibert <melanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, the point of a CMS (well, one of them) is to separate content from code and design, so content specialists don't NEED to be developers to make updates.
It used to be. Yes.
Now that front-ends are shifting from pages rendering "simple" objects (words, assets) to real applications, CMSs are often called to do a very dirty and heavy job, requiring developers in order to not break the code.
That is the original sin of CMSs, IMHO: they do two jobs in one, repository for content and publishing tool, and often perform badly in both functions.
--
Paola
Jon Lebkowsky
Apr 25, 2012, 12:40:35 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I'm not clear why content couldn't in general be abstracted out and accessible to direct intervention by editors, regardless what else the mutated CMS is handling. It sounds like a badly contructed system to me.
Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl)
Polycot Associates: Advanced Internet Solutions Twitter | Facebook
Weblogsky.com: Smart Thinking About Culture, Media, and the Internet
Jon at Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Wikipedia | EFF-Austin | Society for Participatory Medicine
michael o'neill
Apr 25, 2012, 1:16:05 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
> I'm not clear why content couldn't in general be abstracted out and
> accessible to direct intervention by editors, regardless what else the
> mutated CMS is handling. It sounds like a badly contructed system to me.
> accessible to direct intervention by editors, regardless what else the
> mutated CMS is handling. It sounds like a badly contructed system to me.
There are actually standards designed to separate the repository from the publishing app. I believe even WordPress can function as a publishing application for any compliant CMIS repository.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Management_Interoperability_Services
http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/os/cmis-spec-v1.0.html
Obviously not a perfect solution, but getting the right tool (application) in the hands of the editors and content owners/publishers is paramount if we're ever going to move beyond the "they can't touch the content they manage because our systems are too complicated and cumbersome" approach that justifies a $500 bill to fix a typo.
-Michael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Management_Interoperability_Services
http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/os/cmis-spec-v1.0.html
Obviously not a perfect solution, but getting the right tool (application) in the hands of the editors and content owners/publishers is paramount if we're ever going to move beyond the "they can't touch the content they manage because our systems are too complicated and cumbersome" approach that justifies a $500 bill to fix a typo.
-Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group.
To post to this group, send email to content...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrate...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Suz Bednarz - Kish
Apr 25, 2012, 1:54:56 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Wow. Had no idea my woes could be so interesting! Thank you all for the dialogue.
The system is indeed very complex - the site is highly customized per client, many data feeds to back end systems delivering member statements (I am in the financial services/insurance industry) and personal information. The business rules to define who a piece of content should be displayed too is a wiry mess of confusing information.
Regardless,I am of the thinking that (as others here are) we should be able to separate the content components in such a way that editors - not CMS developers - could update the content pieces (and thereby decrease/avoid charge backs). It is likely interesting to note that when this system was developed - there was not a single person representing content strategy or even the editorial side. It was all done by the vendor and the IT organization. Now I am on the scene and questioning why things are done the way they are and how we might do them better.
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
The system is indeed very complex - the site is highly customized per client, many data feeds to back end systems delivering member statements (I am in the financial services/insurance industry) and personal information. The business rules to define who a piece of content should be displayed too is a wiry mess of confusing information.
Regardless,I am of the thinking that (as others here are) we should be able to separate the content components in such a way that editors - not CMS developers - could update the content pieces (and thereby decrease/avoid charge backs). It is likely interesting to note that when this system was developed - there was not a single person representing content strategy or even the editorial side. It was all done by the vendor and the IT organization. Now I am on the scene and questioning why things are done the way they are and how we might do them better.
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Rick Yagodich
Apr 25, 2012, 3:15:09 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Suz
Having read through most of the discussion on this topic, I do have memories of something similar… from a past millennium. The whole charge thing is an effort by the IT department to justify its own existence, by turning itself into a profitable business unit; that it generates the profit at the expense of the rest of the business is an irrelevancy to the small-minded manager who sits atop that fiefdom.
It sounds to me like there is no real CMS - there is a manual publication process, and by owning it IT manage to hold onto their jobs. And at $500 a pop, what is to stop IT inserting a typo, so they can charge you again to fix it? If their charge includes QA, there must - in a rational environment - be a qualified editor within IT who is checking all content submitted for consistency, structure, grammar and spelling. So any typo that slips through is actually their own responsibility to fix.
On a more basic note, if the cross-charging model is part of the corporate culture… you would be better off getting out of there. An organisation where departments are picking over each others bones, trying to squeeze out every cent of virtual profit from a shared pot is just too screwed up to survive.
- R
Having read through most of the discussion on this topic, I do have memories of something similar… from a past millennium. The whole charge thing is an effort by the IT department to justify its own existence, by turning itself into a profitable business unit; that it generates the profit at the expense of the rest of the business is an irrelevancy to the small-minded manager who sits atop that fiefdom.
It sounds to me like there is no real CMS - there is a manual publication process, and by owning it IT manage to hold onto their jobs. And at $500 a pop, what is to stop IT inserting a typo, so they can charge you again to fix it? If their charge includes QA, there must - in a rational environment - be a qualified editor within IT who is checking all content submitted for consistency, structure, grammar and spelling. So any typo that slips through is actually their own responsibility to fix.
On a more basic note, if the cross-charging model is part of the corporate culture… you would be better off getting out of there. An organisation where departments are picking over each others bones, trying to squeeze out every cent of virtual profit from a shared pot is just too screwed up to survive.
- R
Suz Bednarz - Kish
Apr 25, 2012, 3:30:09 PM4/25/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
There is a CMS (at least a product and a vendor) not an implementation as some of you may have it. The CMS was formally known as Interwoven Teamsite/ later Autonomy and various additional products (Livesite). Auitonomy was recently sold to HP
The qualified editors you reference are "owned" by me. Four of them. They pass their work (via WORD copy decks) to the CMS team who does the entry/markup and then deploys to stage. My editors then review and approve in Stage and then it is queued for deployment and again checked out in production by my editors.
As for getting out, ha, I just returned to them after a six year stint at a company I definitely spent too much time at. : ). I am here for now and committed to doing what I can for my teams, company and most importantly the customers we serve.
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
The qualified editors you reference are "owned" by me. Four of them. They pass their work (via WORD copy decks) to the CMS team who does the entry/markup and then deploys to stage. My editors then review and approve in Stage and then it is queued for deployment and again checked out in production by my editors.
As for getting out, ha, I just returned to them after a six year stint at a company I definitely spent too much time at. : ). I am here for now and committed to doing what I can for my teams, company and most importantly the customers we serve.
=============
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
Ian Waugh
Apr 26, 2012, 4:27:54 AM4/26/12
to Content Strategy
The situation sounds terrifying Suz, it seems set up to actually
prevent the organisation from developing a quality web presence. The
idea of paying a third party for minor content updates, when you
already have a team of skilled editors, seems insane.
It seems like you essentially have a CMS that isn't worth anything
because it doesn't serve the purpose that CMS are designed for.
Allowing non-technical people (like your editors) to flexibily update
their own content is the CMS's reason for being. Without that you
might as well have a team of coders who create pages for you on
demand. For $500 a day you could get a pretty good one I imagine!
Is there any way you could work to change this charging model? Perhaps
your department could pay IT an ongoing fee for CMS 'maintenance' and
take over the editing/upload component of the work? That way IT get
some money but they don't have to do content updates (which they
probably hate anyway) and your team gets the ability to respond more
quickly and cheaply to the need for content changes.
In the meantime, maybe you could arrange to find out more about the
content changes are actually made? It might turn out that the CMS
implementation is actually quite close to the norm, but IT are just
preventing anyone else using it. If that's the case then you can think
about your plan to loosen their grip.
I've never come across a setup like yours, but good luck with it! You
seem dedicated to making it work, respect for that.
Ian
Ian Waugh
Freelance Content Person
twitter.com/ianrobertwaugh
abitsimple.com
prevent the organisation from developing a quality web presence. The
idea of paying a third party for minor content updates, when you
already have a team of skilled editors, seems insane.
It seems like you essentially have a CMS that isn't worth anything
because it doesn't serve the purpose that CMS are designed for.
Allowing non-technical people (like your editors) to flexibily update
their own content is the CMS's reason for being. Without that you
might as well have a team of coders who create pages for you on
demand. For $500 a day you could get a pretty good one I imagine!
Is there any way you could work to change this charging model? Perhaps
your department could pay IT an ongoing fee for CMS 'maintenance' and
take over the editing/upload component of the work? That way IT get
some money but they don't have to do content updates (which they
probably hate anyway) and your team gets the ability to respond more
quickly and cheaply to the need for content changes.
In the meantime, maybe you could arrange to find out more about the
content changes are actually made? It might turn out that the CMS
implementation is actually quite close to the norm, but IT are just
preventing anyone else using it. If that's the case then you can think
about your plan to loosen their grip.
I've never come across a setup like yours, but good luck with it! You
seem dedicated to making it work, respect for that.
Ian
Ian Waugh
Freelance Content Person
twitter.com/ianrobertwaugh
abitsimple.com
Paola Roccuzzo
Apr 26, 2012, 5:18:33 AM4/26/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jon Lebkowsky <jon.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not clear why content couldn't in general be abstracted out and accessible to direct intervention by editors, regardless what else the mutated CMS is handling. It sounds like a badly contructed system to me.
It is a badly constructed system indeed.
Good news, Suz, is that it looks you could build a business caase to get your content re-engineered.
You seem to have
a) a budget and
b) figures
and make sure you count in also the man-hours spent by Devs--usually more expensive resources.
Unless this cost center was set up this way for a particular reason, you might be able to make a very good argument.
--
Paola
Bill Swallow
Apr 26, 2012, 11:46:42 AM4/26/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Just an aside, given all the shock at the cost center situation...
The model is fairly common in large corporations with many different
divisions. What you need to look out for is conforming to the cost
center model in spite of more efficient workflows and increased
quality/value. Internal cost/charge centers were created to combat
rampant "busy work" requests from department to department (or
division to division). Somehow along the way they became models for
sustaining department budgets (I blame the "use it or lose it next
year" funding model). Look for ways to have rational conversations
with stakeholders from each affected center. If they can see that
there's a shared win with greater total rewards, they may entertain
the notion of change.
The model is fairly common in large corporations with many different
divisions. What you need to look out for is conforming to the cost
center model in spite of more efficient workflows and increased
quality/value. Internal cost/charge centers were created to combat
rampant "busy work" requests from department to department (or
division to division). Somehow along the way they became models for
sustaining department budgets (I blame the "use it or lose it next
year" funding model). Look for ways to have rational conversations
with stakeholders from each affected center. If they can see that
there's a shared win with greater total rewards, they may entertain
the notion of change.
James Callan
Apr 26, 2012, 12:22:10 PM4/26/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Over Thanksgiving weekend, my father-in-law, mid-gripe, asked "How
hard can it be to fix a typo on a website?" He thought the question
was rhetorical, but it sparked a twenty-minute explanation of just how
hard it could be. (Not has to be. But it's often not as trivial as the
layperson would expect.)
This is a whole new level. I'll have to let him know it could be even
harder than I thought.
James
hard can it be to fix a typo on a website?" He thought the question
was rhetorical, but it sparked a twenty-minute explanation of just how
hard it could be. (Not has to be. But it's often not as trivial as the
layperson would expect.)
This is a whole new level. I'll have to let him know it could be even
harder than I thought.
James
Suz Bednarz
Apr 26, 2012, 3:16:35 PM4/26/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Spot on with your statement Bill.
My company has 30 k employees across 29 countries. Large corp with many divisions.
Sent from my iPhone
My company has 30 k employees across 29 countries. Large corp with many divisions.
Sent from my iPhone
Hilary Marsh
Apr 26, 2012, 3:31:32 PM4/26/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
Sorry to weigh in so late, but I wanted to share my story.
Until December, I ran the website for the largest trade association in the U.S. We had about 80 contributors from multiple siloed departments, many who would have preferred to have their own websites rather than put their content on the association's member site. We also struggled with governance issues such as ownership, process, and standards.
Over the years, we explored the idea of chargebacks to departments for design, IA, and content efforts, but we didn't do it because if a department was paying for the effort, they would feel even more entitled to decide what we published. We felt that the only way to ensure that the web team remained centrally involved in the site was to not charge back.
The other thing we did was institute centralized production, having a team of temps do all the content entry in the CMS -- which was WebSphere WCM, not the easiest CMS to learn, to say the least. This achieved two goals: it ensured that the web team was always involved in getting information on the site and also removed department staff members from having to use the CMS -- since they were not always professional communicators and not frequent users of the CMS, and also because the CMS often crashed their computers.
The association has just changed platforms to Drupal (although I think there is still some legacy content in Lotus Notes!). That might change the dynamics over time -- it remains to be seen.
Best,
Hilary
--
Hilary Marsh
312-806-7854
hil...@hilarymarsh.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarymarsh
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hilarymarsh
Blog: http://online-content.blogspot.com/
Pinterest: http://www.pinterest.com/hilarymarsh
Sorry to weigh in so late, but I wanted to share my story.
Until December, I ran the website for the largest trade association in the U.S. We had about 80 contributors from multiple siloed departments, many who would have preferred to have their own websites rather than put their content on the association's member site. We also struggled with governance issues such as ownership, process, and standards.
Over the years, we explored the idea of chargebacks to departments for design, IA, and content efforts, but we didn't do it because if a department was paying for the effort, they would feel even more entitled to decide what we published. We felt that the only way to ensure that the web team remained centrally involved in the site was to not charge back.
The other thing we did was institute centralized production, having a team of temps do all the content entry in the CMS -- which was WebSphere WCM, not the easiest CMS to learn, to say the least. This achieved two goals: it ensured that the web team was always involved in getting information on the site and also removed department staff members from having to use the CMS -- since they were not always professional communicators and not frequent users of the CMS, and also because the CMS often crashed their computers.
The association has just changed platforms to Drupal (although I think there is still some legacy content in Lotus Notes!). That might change the dynamics over time -- it remains to be seen.
Best,
Hilary
--
Hilary Marsh
312-806-7854
hil...@hilarymarsh.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarymarsh
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hilarymarsh
Blog: http://online-content.blogspot.com/
Pinterest: http://www.pinterest.com/hilarymarsh
Rahel Anne Bailie
Apr 27, 2012, 4:14:27 AM4/27/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I'd like to unpack a couple of the issues and see if it helps at all ...
There isn't anything wrong with charging back a department for professional services rendered. there *is* a problem with the logistics of how the charges get made. There should be a charge code for every business unit set up, and an end-of-month charge-out done, rather than having to get pre-approvals.
Having a CMS serves many purposes, and one of those may be to have amateur writers contribute content to the website, but that may not be one of the business drivers at all. Knowing how to use a CMS does not ensure quality content on a website. Having non-professional writers contribute to the CMS often means polluting the content pool. You see this in the ebb and flow of decentralized authoring, which leads to bloat and chaos, and then there is a project to centralize authoring and do some clean-up, and then the cycle repeats.
There doesn't seem to have been an analysis of what the business goals are and how to set up a system that will work for departments and for the web team. You need an executive sponsor to facilitate this - they have the clout to get such a project underway, so that seems a good place to start.
Rahel Anne
Bailie (@rahelab)
Content Strategist / Content Management / Information Architecture
Intentional Design Inc. www.intentionaldesign.ca
Content strategies for business impact
http://about.me/rahel.bailie
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages