Get the real story via our monthly newsletter

Search

    2
    0

rss

Send to a colleague

Home > Web Content Management > The Ideal CMS -- Circa 2004

Get a Free Sample

Wondering about CMS Watch research? Sign up to receive free samples of any of our products.

Report Excerpt

The Web CMS Report 2009 looks at... Webmaster Bottleneck

"This led to new phrase entering the common vernacular: "webmaster bottleneck." CMSWatch thinks this label is a little unfair. If only one person or a small team can place content on a large corporate website, publishing schedules will surely suffer, but it is typically symptomatic of broader deficits within a company concerning inadequate tools, knowledge, and authority."

(p. 5)

More about The Web CMS Report 2009

Our customers say

"The Web CMS Report is excellent! Very well written, and you've done a masterful job explaining the business case for WCM.
- - Peter Morville,
Consultant, Author, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web

NEW at CMS Watch

The Web CMS Report 2009 The Web CMS Report 2009: In its 15th edition, this report evaluates 42 web content management systems and vendors... Read more
The ECM Suites Report 2009 The ECM Suites Report 2009: This report evaluates 30 ECM offerings... Read more
Technology Transfer in Rome Join us in Rome: On November 6-7 in Rome, CMS Watch's Theresa Regli will teach a tutorial on "Enterprise Search Technology and How to Optimize It"... Read more

Glossary

Application Server

Caching

Indexing

Java

Localization

Metadata

Open Source

Personalization

Syndication

Taxonomies

Version Control

Workflow



 

2nd Annual Supergroup

The Ideal CMS -- Circa 2004

by Tony Byrne
12-Dec-2003


At CMS Watch our quest for the perfect Web CMS continues. This remains something of a quixotic venture, because choosing a web content management product forces buyers to face real trade-offs. This is almost inevitable in an environment where enterprises have extremely divergent -- and sometimes conflicting -- business reasons for implementing a content management system. Achieving greater automation will almost always reduce content re-use opportunities, and vice-versa. The more flexible technical platforms usually take the longest to implement and have fewer editorial features "out of the box."

Naturally, then, vendors make choices about where to focus their products, often driven by the requirements of their major clients (or industry focus). A vendor may market its product (or "suite") as a universal tool, but most CMS packages are beginning to fall into identifiable niches.

So herewith is the 2nd Annual "Ideal CMS," based on package versions in production as of November, 2003. (History buffs may wish to check out last year's list.)

What Features from Which Product?

In the sections below, we use the CMS lifecycle taken from The CMSWatch Report to identify which package we would want to employ for each individual step. Note that we only judge products on features available "of the box" in a core product, ignoring optional product modules. Moreover, there are no concrete specifications here -- always a risky place to start when selecting technologies.

Also, you'll see a mingling of products across a variety of price points and target markets. To even things out a bit, we tried to judge competencies relative to competition from within the same tier of packages. In any case, some lower-cost products simply do certain things better than their enterprise-level competitors. For a complete list of the products under review, check out our CMS Products page.

OK, let's take a look at the products that, somehow magically grafted together, would form an ideal CMS. This year, our list also singles out products that we believe are seriously "lagging" the field within a certain functional area.

Content Production Phase

In this phase, content is managed from conception to going live, what I call "from thought to click." There are nine key features to examine here.

  • Role/User Management. Kudos to: MediaSurface.
     Honorable mention: Ingeniux, Vignette, Zope.
     Lagging: Interwoven.
  • Authoring & Transformation. Kudos to: Tridion.
     Honorable mentions: Day, RedDot, CrownPeak, Ektron.
     Lagging: Gauss, Documentum.
  • Aggregation. Kudos to: Vignette.
     Honorable mention: Day.
     Lagging: Microsoft, Broadvision.
  • Library Services. Kudos to: Interwoven.
     Honorable mentions: Microsoft, CrownPeak.
     Lagging: Vignette, FileNet, Merant, Ingeniux.
  • Metadata/Taxonomy Management.
     Honorable mentions: FatWire, Stellent.
     The vendor community as a whole is actually really hurting here.
  • Templating. Kudos to: Day.
     Honorable mention: Stellent, PaperThin, OpenCMS.
     Lagging: Documentum, Percussion, Interwoven.
  • Workflow. Kudos to: Documentum.
     Honorable mention: Stellent.
     Lagging: Microsoft, Tridion.
  • Localization. Kudos to: RedDot.
     Honorable mentions: Tridion, Documentum, FileNet, Day.
     Lagging: Clickability.
  • Promotion Path. Kudos to: Gauss.
     Honorable mentions: Percussion, FileNet.
     Lagging: Stellent, Ektron.
Content Delivery Phase

In this phase, content is delivered to end-users. Although this phase could be measured in the microseconds it takes your server to spool off and send an HTML stream to the requestor, there are still significant content management issues to address. Of course, it's important to ask yourself whether your CMS should be undertaking content delivery, as opposed to an application server, portal, or good old webserver.

  • Page Assembly & Renditioning. Kudos to: Bricolage.
     Honorable mention: Microsoft, Percussion, Midgard.
     Lagging: Vignette.
  • Index & Site Search. Kudos to: Atomz.
     Honorable mentions: Clickability, Zope.
     But do you really want your CMS to provide your search facilities?
  • Personalization. Kudos to: Broadvision.
     Honorable mention: FatWire.
  • Caching & Replication. Kudos to: FatWire.
     Honorable mention: MediaSurface.
     Lagging: PaperThin
  • Syndication. Kudos to: Ingeniux.
     Honorable mentions: Ektron, Vignette.
  • Output to Alternate Formats. Kudos to: Documentum.
     Honorable mentions: Tridion, Ingeniux, Apache Lenya.
     Lagging: PaperThin.
Other Intangibles

Of course, there is more to a complete Web content management system than lifecycle feature sets. So the list below shows additional intangible attributes I would draw from specific products or companies.

  • Active User Group. Kudos to: Interwoven.
     Honorable mentions: Documentum, Microsoft.
  • User-friendly Interface. Kudos to: CrownPeak.
     Honorable mentions: Tridion, Interwoven.
     Lagging: Zope, Gauss.
  • Accessibility/508 Compliance. Kudos to: PaperThin.
     Honorable mention: Merant.
  • CMS Activity Reporting. Kudos to: CrownPeak.
     Honorable mention: Percussion
     Lagging: Vignette.
  • Good Value: Kudos to: Ektron.
     Honorable mentions: Zope, Fatwire, PaperThin, CrownPeak.
     Lagging: Microsoft.
  • Experienced Professional Services Organization. Kudos to: Documentum.
     Honorable mention: Stellent.
  • Strong Reseller or Integrator Channel. Kudos to: Paperthin.
     Honorable mention: Microsoft
  • Knowledgeable Sales Staff: Kudos to: Zope.
     Honorable mentions: FileNET, Documentum, Clickability.
Some Parting Thoughts

So, like last year, assembling an ideal Web content management package would require integrating components or attributes from no less than 16 different companies. Note in particular the preponderance of enterprise-tier solutions among the leaders and laggards; there is a lot of turbulence at that level right now. To the extent the enterprise players have become especially good at some things, so have their products become rather dreadful at meeting certain other requirements.

If you are seeking out a CMS package, however, you shouldn't read too much into these lists. Don't discount a package because we find it lagging in a particular functional area. Nor should you act based solely on our laurels. We don't rank products, give out awards, or chart magic quadrants. We just want you to get smarter and more informed about all this.

This is because content management remains highly situational. Your content is unique, and your management requirements will vary. A deeper exploration of the attributes and products above can be found in The CMSWatch Report -- and you can find a lot of other independent product information online, too. Do your homework and test out different solutions before you select a package.


Next:

Send Feedback

See all Web Content Management Channel feature articles.

Need to select a technology vendor, but confused about your choices? See our vendor-neutral technology reports.

Join the conversation

Digg This! Search Technorati Tag it on Del.icio.us



About the Author

Tony Byrne

Tony is Founder of CMS Watch, a vendor-neutral analyst firm that evaluates content technologies and publishes reports comparing different solutions head-to-head. Tony serves as executive editor of all CMS Watch evaluation reports, each available for sale on this site.



Get a Free Sample

Wondering about CMS Watch research? Sign up to receive free samples of any of our products.



What we do

CMS Watch™ evaluates content-oriented technologies, publishing head-to-head comparative reviews of leading solutions. What makes us special?

  • Our critical analysis exposes product weaknesses as well as strengths
  • We deliver unrivaled technical depth and comprehensive project advice
  • Our research is led by international topic experts
  • We only work for buyers -- never for vendors

Contact us

CMS Watch

info@cmswatch.com

18113 Town Center Drive, Ste 217

Olney, MD USA 20832

1 800 325 6190 (customer service)

+1 617 763 5336 (int'l customer service)

Fax: +1 214 242 3048