Hi all, my two cents on this. I believe that this post went into a different pace then the one intended by the person that created it at some. It somewhat got related to others in this list such as "[cms-list] workflow best practices". Within this understanding I would like to post some comments and to add a few according to the original poster intent in the end of this post.
A lot of experts in this list believe that process/workflow should have nothing to do with a CMS, other say no it is a must, others are even indifferent. The question I ask to the experts and other curious people in this list is the following: What does the word "Management" in the in the catching label "Content Management System" means? I would like to provide my view on this question as follows. When I first the word Management within the CMS acronym, I thought that the system is supposed mainly to help me manage content (create, ......., publish, ..... archive, .... etc). If we agree that Management in CMS means managing content, the question I ask is - What is the act of managing content besides managing the LIVECYCLE of content from creation until is destruction? I would say that is and empty set, in other words, it has no real interpretation. Now within an IT scheme - How can I easily manage the live cycle of content within a CMS without a workflow embedded in it? I believe we can't. So basically a product that does not have a workflow embedded (flexible or not) it does not help one manage the live cycle of content. In other words it can be anything but a CMS. Why not just call this products simply Content Systems (CS)? Before solution makers and vendors (Open Source or not) jump all over me, I would like to say there is a difference between a workflow, a workflow engine and a workflow definition application. Most solutions called CMS's in fact implement workflows to manage content in one way or another but the product does not implement a workflow engine neither it provides a workflow definition application (a graphical application were workflow can be modeled and changed easily using visual graphs). Some solution makers and vendors say that workflows should not be part of a CMS, this is to say that one does not need a workflow engine in a CMS. Others say that CMS is about getting rid of processes, this may mean just the same. In other words, they say manage the content live cycle in our way or get the highway. They in fact have implemented a workflow or sets of workflows within their systems, what they not provide is an easy way to modify them according to ones requirements (lot of custom development needed). This is because the act of creating a powerful workflow engine and a workflow definition application is a costly, time-consuming, and difficult exercise. This is not so bad because for most low cost/resources Web Sites the workflow for creating a content component is similar for most content types, it is possible to hard-code some of the more common workflows and allow the administrators to pick the one (or few) that matched close enough to an existing working flow practiced by the organization. For a smaller Web Site with few content component types, this may honestly well be the best way to go. A simplified workflow system often (but not always) means a lower CMS price tag. So choose wisely don't get over "excited" about the benefits of being able to freely define processes and workflows unless you really need that feature. Having said this, a CMS without at least one workflow system hand coded would simply be a storage facility with more or less advanced content entry (creation), editing (modification), and publishing facilities (render and deploy). No MANAGEMENT facilities what so ever. Some persons have asked me off list what was the role of a Workflow Engines and Workflow Definition Application in a CMS? A Workflow in a CMS can have many roles but two are of up most importance IMO. 1) Coordinating Content Development & Deployment 2) Managing Content Development & Deployment This later helps managers: 2.1) Control Development; 2.2) Planning Development; 2.3) Organizing Development; 2.4) Implementing Content (put content development into operation). Buying a CMS is a difficult task due the diversity of products in the market. Whether one needs to buy one that provides a workflow engine and a workflow definition application or not is a question of knowing what and how do you want to manage and automate. Knowing this is the first step to know what benefits and features a CMS needs to offer out of the box. Lionel wrote: >In my research, I have found that, until we define our processes, the CMS >cannot really help us. No. If you wait until processes are defined I mostly assure you that you will probably not have a CMS implementation concluded in any way satisfactory. The most skeptic managers usually join the band wagon when they start seeing something in the computer display that resemblance their current practices. Has I've stated in a previous post on this thread, process definition can be a consequence of telling the system how to behave and this is what you need to tell your managers at the most or the other way around. Which approach to choose is defined by your environment. You also need to understand that if defining processes is such a "phantom" within your organization is mostly because they feel their value is compromised if processes are automated. There is a risk when one preaches CMS starting with work automation and workflows that those managers start feeling threatened. After all with so much automation is there something left for me to do? In other words do we still need a Manager? You need to be able to explain that the only thing that a CMS does for the managers is help them handle many tedious, day to day jobs so that he/she can the more important job that is manage people and objectives towards increased productivity (that is do more in same time) apart from other benefits. Best regards, Nuno Lopes Independent Consultant. -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
