At 06:09 PM 11/16/2002 -0500, Lionel Laratte wrote:
I have to make a presentation about how implementation of our CMS will help us. All is well and I have just about finished. The problem I am running into, though, is that our department has no defined processes. In my research, I have found that, until we define our processes, the CMS cannot really help us.The lack of common processes doesn't mean there aren't any processes at all. It will, as Roger says, take more leg work to document them all in terms of CMS workflow. Different processes for different content, I say.
Also, as discussed here on the list recently, remember that the entire process does not have to be controlled by the CMS. Lesss is more. The minimum, "OK To Go" workflow is a good starting point. Add more steps only when and where needed. Sometimes, it is also good to at least annotate who reviewed it and when (Audit likes this). There are exceptions, but anything more is usually too much.
Does anyone have any experience in explaining this to management? Or maybe I am off base here and it can be implemented so that we just create a new workflow for every project? The latter doesn't seem like a good idea to me but, on the other hand, I was just asked to oversee the implementation...not to structure our processes and restructure the department. What do you think?Again, I would reduce the CMS workflow impact to the minimum needed for audit purposes. I.e. make audit the scapegoat. Audit is used to it and folks generally understand the need for it. Unless you are an OD person, anything more should come from the folks using the process. Over time, they are likely to identify improvements (notifications come to mind), some of which may leverage the CMS.
We're a very hierarchical company and managers generally don't take kindly to being told how to run their businesses.
take it easy,
Charles Reitzel
--
http://cms-list.org/
trim your replies for good karma.
