I just have to say that whether to embed a workflow system or not to embed a workflow system within a CM Solution/Product is a Product Management decision rather then part of the definition of a CMS acceptable by the industry.
This is due to the fact that the need for a sophisticated workflow system or for a simple and effective hack to maintain the state of content is mandated by project requirements, problem context and then the customer. Having said this I understand the point of view Andr� and David regarding a solution falling under the scope of Web Site Content Management (usually called WCMS for "public" Web Sites). Has an example of a problem needing a CMS with a more sophisticated workflow system would be for instance a system that manages content regarding the requests for construction of facilities (buildings, parks, etc etc). This, within the perspective of state agencies such is a City Hall a workflow integrating all sorts of features including electronic signatures is a must. But then again we are talking about an all different bread of CMS's other then the ones commonly addressed by this list (unfortunately). In Health Care Industry, Pharmaceuticals and other more examples can be provided of such needs. David wrote: >I have had a similar experience with one customer where the workflow >technology (WfCM model) opened up all sorts of possibilities that >sounded great -- lots of alternate paths, lots of QA, lots of review >activities -- but the solution was perceived as too much of a straight >jacket and only delayed the process the business sought to improve. >This was a case of new activities being imposed existing work >practices. This is typical. But often workflows systems are blamed wrongly concerning the "straight jacked" view. In fact workflows are supposed to map policies, so if policies are not effective then a workflow never will (both examples are of ill policies given by David and Brendan). Apart from this also workflows are badly modeled (people confuse states, tasks, activities and so on). The rule of the thumb is that workflow systems should be used only to track what needs to be tracked (whether for legal reasons or QA) not to enforce collaboration (This is what I mean by simple and stupid, not what it seamed to catch on this thread). QA is about doing what say you do, and this must be at least true on the most critical points of a process. If one follows this then the impact on process performance will be greatly positive mainly because it will allow self process improvement based on real measurable data provided by the audit trail - If a process slow at least we know why (witch point, etc). In other words, simple and stupid mean that don't track 2 steps when you actually just need to track 1. But also don't just track 1 step when you actually need to track 2. Both examples induce complex collateral tasks that harm productivity within the realm of CM (or any other discipline). Best regards, Nuno Lopes Independent Consultant. PS: If you want more information concerning the reasons why a Workflow may belong to a CMS (whether simple or complex depends on the problem being solved) please contact me off list. Don't be short sighted regarding CM by just considering the management of content put available on Web Sites as we usually know them (things are changing). -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
