Web Content Management:

The Texas Experience

Glenda Sims

Outline

• University Webs• CMS models• Selecting a solution• Implementation• Goals

www.utexas.edu

• Hundreds of Web servers

• Containing thousand of Web sites

• Created and maintained (sometimes) by thousands of Web publishers

• Who produce millions of pages

Attributes of a High-Quality University Web Site

• Complete

• Current

• Coherent

• Searchable

• Accessible

• Attractive

• Robust

• Secure

• Cost Effective

• Aligned with spirit and goals of institution

Feb 2002 www.utexas.edu

UT Self Assessment on These AttributesEarly 2002

4

3

4

3

3.5

2.5

4.5

4

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Complete

Current

Coherent

Searchable

Accessible

Attractive

Robust

Secure

Cost Effective

0 = poor, 5=excellent

Some Key Questions?

• Does everyone have to be an accessibility expert?

• Does everyone have to know HTML or Dreamweaver?

• Can we free up time for highly-trained Web professionals to create and innovate?

• Can we do things more efficiently?

• Where does your content go when it dies? Does it ever die?

Progress

• UT Web redesign in 2002 improved in many of these areas– More attractive

– More consistent, better branding

– Modular templates

– More usable and accessible

– Improved division of labor• IT - infrastructure

• Public Affairs – content

– More dynamic

University’s Home Today

Progress Needed in Other Areas

• Current

• Cost effective

• Accessible

• Workflow

• Metadata

• Can a Web content management solution help?

Typical University Web Presence

Web Publisher

Web Consumer

IIS WebServer

Apache WebServer

IIS WebServer

IIS WebServer

Apache WebServer

Apache WebServer

Apache WebServer

IIS WebServer

Apache WebServer

IIS WebServer

ContentContributor

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Typical Web Content Management Model

Web Editor

Web Consumer

ContentContributor

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Content

ManagementServer

Web Editor

TemplateCreation

ContentApproval

A Point CMS Approach in Higher Ed

Web Publisher

Web Consumer

Engineering WebServer

(CMS Solution B)

Law SchoolWeb server

(CMS Solution A)

Business School Web Server

(CMS Solution C)

Departmental ApacheServer

(CMS Solution D)

ContentContributor

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Clear Differences

• Commercial content management– More highly centralized

– Greater control of content, branding, toolset

• University– Decentralized

– Less control

A Hybrid Model

Web Editor

Web Consumer

ContentContributor

Web Publisher

Web Publisher

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Consumer

Web Content

ManagementServer

Web Editor

TemplateCreation

ContentApproval

Pre-existing Apache Web

Server

Pre-existing IIS Web

Server

Advantages of Hybrid Model

• Leverages CMS solution yet is still sensitive to the distributed nature and political realities of a research University

• Can use the CMS solution selectively; rely on carrot rather than stick

• Better than typical University approach because CMS solution is shared across the enterprise

In Pursuit of a Solution

• Formed cross-campus team IT– Library

– Public Affairs

– Academic colleges

– Business units

– (http://www.utexas.edu/web/cms/steer.html)

• Developed functional specification for solution

• Evaluated possibilities– Open Source

– Building Our Own

– Commercial space

TimelineSolicit

communityinput

July

Developfunctional

specs

Jul-Aug

Reviewsolutions

Jul-Aug

Requestfor

information

August

Review responsesSelect 4

possibilities

September

Productdemos

October

Select 2finalists

October

On sitePOCs

Nov-Dec

Licensenegotiation

Feb-Mar

SoftwareInstall

(development)

April

ProductTrainingRound 1

April

2003

Productrecommendation

January

2004

Early wins

May

Metadata& Security

Models

Jul-Aug

UTOpen House

ImplementationPlanning

May-Jun Sep-Dec

ProductionHardwareSoftware

Installation

2005

Nov-Jan

Dec-May

Early AdoptersDevelop

Templates,Workflows

& Sites

Major Functionalities

• Integration with campus infrastructure (databases, Web servers, authentication)

• Content creation; knowledge of HTML or Dreamweaver not required

• Templates for attractive, consistent presentation

• Workflow

• Metadata

• Versioning

• Deployment to other Web servers

• Support for standards (accessibility, XML, Web services, WebDAV)

Selection Process

• Selected 4 vendors for 1 day demo– Stellent– Interwoven– Merant Collage– Rhythymx Percussion

• Narrowed list to 2 vendors– Stellent– Merant Collage

• Each of 2 final candidates conducted 10 day proof of concept on site

• Stellent Content server selected.

Why Stellent?

• Excellent content conversion

• Solid, flexible workflow

• But no solution was a perfect fit

• Success would depend upon both product and partnership with vendor

• Commitment from Stellent to the University

CMS ScorecardRequirement/Vendor Merant Stellent

Integration w/ Campus Infrastructure

Content Creation +Templates

Workflow +Metadata

Versioning

Deployment to other Web Servers

--

Support for Standards

Macintosh Support + --

Main Content Management Server

(Solaris)

Stellent Architecture at UT

Web Editor

ContentContributor

Web Publisher

ContentContributor

ContentContributor

Web Consumer

Existing Apache Web Server

Existing IIS WebServer

ActiveDirectory

Oracle

StellentContentServer

Instance

WindowsPDF Converter

Server

Netapp Filer

Authentication

PDFConversion

MetadataStore

Disk forContent Server

Web Consumer

(possibly)

Implementation Stages

• Integration with existing campus Web servers and authentication

• Development of common metadata/document models

• Quick early wins to provide carrots for campus;

• Must demonstrate value of learning new way of doing things for Webmasters and contributors

Quick Win Examples

Around Austin Handbook of Operating Procedures

Around Austin

• Developed using Stellent SiteStudio

• Enables very easy editing of existing site

• Developer sets up site with editable regions

• Contributor navigates to site, presses key sequence, and switches to edit mode to update site

• Edits can enter workflow if desired, or go live immediately

• Example (http://wwwtest.utexas.edu/work/stellent/austin/)

• Note: Windows-only solution (for developers/contributors)

1) alt + space (open system menu)/2) R (to restore)3) alt + space M (for move)4) Arrows (to bring her over)

Handbook of Operating Procedures

• President’s Office, VP Offices and HR currently create polices in MS Word and use email to edit

• Easy to get the wrong version published

• Create site with Stellent Site Studio

• Users drop current MS Word documents in WebDAV folder

• Automatically checked in to CMS

• Metadata automatically applied

• Presentation template automatically applied

• HOP Table of Contents automatically updated with links

• Example ( http://wwwtest.utexas.edu/work/stellent/hop/ )

2004 Accomplishments

• Purchased Product

• Development environment

• Training for early adopters - Web developers

• Template creation

• Production environment

• Active Directory integration

• Security model

• Metadata model

• Show the way by walking there first and let people choose the approach that works best for them

• Campus product advisory board

2005 Goals

• Baseline measurement for web quality attributes:– Complete, Current, Coherent, Searchable, Accessible, Attractive, Robust,

Secure, Cost Effective, Aligned with spirit and goals of institution

• Second round of Stellent Training– Site Studio– Customizing Stellent Content Server

• 4 prod sites deployed using Stellent by June 2005• Begin Training the Masses – Summer 2005• 10-15 prod sites deployed using Stellent by December 2005

“I wanna play!” “Wow, I’m glad I use Stellent!”

How Will We Know if it Works?

• Campus research opportunities (i.e. School of Information)

• Measurement of campus Web– Frequency of content updates, less stale content

– Number of contributors

– Less time spent on routine maintenance

– Fewer Web servers on campus

– Improved consistency for usability and branding

– More accessible

– More secure

– Improved content discovery via metadata

• How to measure?– WatchFire

– Urchin

Additional Info

• http://www.utexas.edu/web/cms/

• gsims@mail.utexas.edu