What sort of editorial model do you follow for your web content management? Do you try to get as many as possible hands-on, or do you run everything through a centralised editorial team?

It’s ironic that WCMS which enable you to perform more advanced content management provide tools that you probably won’t want to devolve to part-time editorial teams. Conversely, simpler WCMS are often chosen by by smaller, centralised teams who often feel constrained by the software they use.

Vignette, for example, enables you to assign content to various taxonomies through folders, projects and channels, so that content can be cross-referenced extensively across your site. Put these taxonomies in the hands of people who don’t understand them and you’ll create convoluted user journeys: the exact opposite of your content management objectives.

Alterian’s corporate offering meanwhile — once known as Immediacy — provides pretty basic content management. Most users should be able to get their head around its tools pretty easily. But if you want to create more complex content relationships or have content fragments re-used across your sites, you’re better off with Alterian’s enterprise product, known as Morello. Devolving editorial responsibilities to part-timers who don’t fully understand the consequences of updating content that’s used in lots of places in your websites is decidedly risky, however.

In larger organisations, lots of people will produce content for the web sporadically. These people will change, have variable knowledge of the software and writing style guides, and limited understanding of your website. The last thing they need is a piece of software that allows them to break stuff because they just don’t get it.

So, do you:

1. select a simple WCM for devolved teams to create pages in predefined templates; or
2. select a complex WCM that enables you to perform more advanced content management tasks, but centralise the editorial process.

The more you want to cross-reference and re-use content across your sites, the greater your need for an advanced tool and an expert team to manage it. But if you want to devolve authorship, you’ll need to keep content management tasks and software as simple as possible. Don’t try to industrialise content production by providing everyone with more machinery. For broader participation you need to provide hand tools. Leave the combined harvester in the hands of experts.

Social WCM
Of course the web is social, but WCM has traditionally made quite clear distinctions between authoritative content that’s created and approved by authenticated users, and content that’s produced by non-authoritative sources, i.e. external users. This distinction has been somewhat blurred by people recently and vendors have had to respond to blogging software like WordPress that makes it far easier to add comments and user profiles. Many WCM vendors who previously didn’t provide social features now tout their software as web 2.0 ready and this is a signficant area of product development. Moreover, if you look at the ECM sector, vendors are focussing heavily on use of these social features to improve internal business processes, aka Enterprise 2.0.

Web campaign management
Your website is a marketing channel: understanding your market and its responsiveness to campaigns is increasingly important. Many WCM vendors are heavily promoting the campaign management side of their products and developing improved campaign reporting features. The aquisition of Mediasurface by Alterian and the inclusion of content management as part of an “integrated marketing platform” is a good indication of where one branch of the industry is heading. FatWire is also developing marketing products as part of what it calls its Web Experience Management Suite.

Content quality
If you’re going to use the web to market heavily and you have a lot of content, you need to ensure that your website meets the standards you have set your organisation. There are a number of tools on the market that help editorial teams assure that quality (such as those from Vamosa and SiteImprove). We’re also seeing vendors like SDL Tridion adding these modules to their core product offering. Assuring the quality of your web content should be a key aspect of WCM and these features are particularly welcome for distributed authoring teams.

Clearly, these three trends represent a far from exhaustive list, but they do go some way to illustrate how suppliers are positioning themselves in the WCM market. Hopefully this will give clients some degree of differentiation and an awareness of possibilities that web content management can offer them now.

If you want to know more about trends in the industry, take a look at this list of feeds.

It also addresses the widespread issue of how you manage version control of documents that then need to be published directly to a website, which is why so many mid to upper tier web content management vendors provide SharePoint “connectors”: Morello and Tridion are good examples.

You need to take care before asserting that SharePoint is true ECM, however. It offers practically no document automation, no business process modelling and poor integration to other applications, particularly if they’re not Microsoft based. What you get from SharePoint is a collaborative document repository that offers you pretty limited web publishing capabilities. You wouldn’t want to use it to drive a busy transactional website.

You also need to look at your website’s publishing model before considering SharePoint in any context. The SharePoint – WCM model is best suited to a very devolved authoring group publishing what’s essentially extranet-type content. If you’re publishing marketing copy, you need a specialist team of copy writers and a centralised platform for publication.

SharePoint is undoubtedly cheaper than implementing true ECM, but you get what you pay for. Before you buy, make sure that:

• You only want to integrate with other Microsoft software packages.
• Your audience will relate to content being produced by a wide group of authors.
• You require minimal automation of business process through the website.

What does this mean for clients of the two companies?

RedDot has been the web content management offering from OpenText for the last few years. It’s a pretty basic tool compared to Vignette, but this has distinct advantages: friendly user interface, quicker to implement, generally cheaper to develop basic functionality. I expect that RedDot will continue to be sold, but that there will be minimal product development. It will probably serve as a cheaper basic WCM in the same way as Alterian market Immediacy as a cheaper alternative to Morello.

The big challenge for the new company will be how to consolidate and exploit LiveLink and Vignette’s core content management offering, VCM. The offering that OpenText should be providing is end-to-end content management from documents and business process to web, but it’s going to be a substantial task to provide this through two pieces of software that are so established. LiveLink does the trick with documents and VCM does it with complex web content. But this certainly doesn’t mean that the two fit together neatly.

A significant benefit for OpenText is the acquisition of Vignette portal (VAP). This will enable OpenText to market web applications rather than just content-driven websites. Again, there will probably have to be some significant work done on the API level to LiveLink to turn this into a fully SOA-enabled platform. Nevertheless, if you’re doing business via the web — and surely everyone is these days — then a portal offering is a necessity for any enterprise content management vendor.

OpenText will be able to offer a product suite to match any of its competitors. But it will be a suite, not an integrated platform. Indeed the company has a poor track record in integrating its product suite: Gauss and ObTree anyone? Even RedDot stands pretty much alone from LiveLink. Oracle, despite its many acquisitions, has a far smoother integration of document and web content management, as does Interwoven.

So what does this mean for you if you’re about to buy? You still need to be wary of LiveLink’s web credentials; this is unlikely to improve for some time as the company attempts to make the various products work together smoothly. And if you’re about to buy RedDot, bargain hard, because I think the prices are likely to come down.

A few other thoughts on the acquisition:

• CMS Watch
• Alterian’s Ian Truscott
• Jon Marks’ thoughts
• AIIM’s Joe Mancini’s collection of links

While content management software is designed to manage content — words and media are processed, stored and delivered in a controlled fashion — this management itself needs to be managed: workflows need to be created, users added and withdrawn, permissions changed. The most important aspect of this management is changing how content is defined. This generally takes two forms: management of a taxonomy or classification system, and management of the “content types”, or schema that defines whether you’re looking at a press release, event or personal profile. It is extremely unlikely that you’ll get all these definitions right when you first set up your CMS, so the ability to alter and extend the systems is paramount.

Tridion and Oracle both struggle in this area. As a static publishing system, if you want to update a component (content type) in Tridion, you need to republish your schema, add content definitions in each place you’ve made a schema change and then republish the content. In UCM meanwhile, if you can navigate to the relevant administration area to actually make the change and fathom out the unnecessarily ugly interface, you still need to republish the schema and all the affected content even though it’s dynamically driven! You even need to do this if you make a change to the metadata schema, because this isn’t stored in the database as an index, but as a string in a field. This is something you’d expect Oracle to correct pronto with the 11g release due Q4 2008.

You might have thought this kind of thing would be pretty high up most vendors’ agenda, but this is a problem for many CMS. Vignette works ok unless you customise the schema, which many users do. You probably need to look at Mediasurface Morello if you think your content types are likely to change. The product allows you to rename and add fields as required. You need to change the presentation template if you want to see the field you’ve added displayed on a web page, and you run into trouble if your new field needs to be mandatory since your existing content won’t include this information, but it’s considerably easier to manage the content management this way than to republish an entire site.

So caveat emptor. Updating your schema should be an essential part of any CMS product selection, irrespective of awards.

There are a number of problems with this consolidation that are well-documented, notably the maturity of product integration; just because you buy Oracle UCM (Stellent) doesn’t mean it works out of the box with Oracle WebCenter. But there’s another issue too: not all the clients are enterprise. Once you’ve sold your massive projects into big corporate clients, how do you tap into the long tail?

Increasingly we’re seeing the larger vendors buy up smaller companies not just to become more enterprise, but to reach a broader market that can’t afford enterprise licence fees. We see this in SDL’s acquisition of Tridion, very much a mid-tier WCM. It’s also been in evidence with the RedDot / Open Text product offering, with the RedDot WCM being able to offer trendier features aimed a less “enterprise” installations, such as User Generated Content plug-ins.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this non-enterprise approach is Mediasurface. Even though Mediasurface is a WCM rather than ECM offering, it has many clients who would struggle to pay for the core product licence, Morello client, database licence, and Solaris servers. Yet it has many small clients who it does well from, particularly in UK local government. To increase its stake in this market, Mediasurface has acquired both Immediacy and the SilverBullet hosted CMS offering, rebranded as Pepperio. This enables the company to dip more easily into the long tail.

So why is this important for you, the customer?

On the positive side, it means that if you’re a small customer you can still get a product from an established vendor rather than a high-risk niche supplier. If you’re a large customer, it enables the vendor to leverage the features of the products in its portfolio to provide you with a more comprehensive system, potentially in a more agile way.

On the negative side, if you do go for a small product from one of these companies, you have to ensure that you don’t turn yourself into a small fish in a big pond. If you go for a small WCM package and you need something quick, you’re more likely to get it when you represent 10% of the supplier’s revenue than if you represent less than 1%. And if you are the big fish, don’t expect the small pond to be anything other than a set of nearly joined up puddles.