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