Every so often we get inquiries from our RSuite enterprise clients or prospects about why there are services required to implement our RSuite software if the pre-configured environment is pretty much useful out-of-the-box?  If one digs a little deeper and analyzes exactly what types of services are required, I think a publisher will be surprised that services related to customizing or extending the content management software are actually pretty small.  Sure there will be custom forms for metadata capture or custom search forms, but these are generally a few days worth of work at the most.  On the other hand, services related to content structure and workflow re-engineering have a huge impact on the services required for a content management product implementation independent of the software package chosen.

Content Engineering

Content engineering can be simply defined as understanding the structure of your content and putting a migration plan to make it adhere to some type of standard.  In some cases very large publishers have crafted a proprietary content standard, but many adhere to industry standards such as NLM, D4P, DocBook, etc.  The amount of services required to transform the content from one format to another can vary widely depending on the amount of file formats and complexity of content.  While this effort can be categorized as part of the content management project, it is not part of the content management software.  

Content structure and organization reflects how an organization has worked over time.  If the publisher was disciplined and remained in compliance with industry standards, the amount of services to get the content into the content management system is minimal at best.  Basically, if the publisher has well structured content that adheres to a DTD, then it should just work in RSuite or other systems.  The challenge surfaces when multiple products adhere to different DTD's and then the publisher wants to consolidate under one standard.  Again, a very good idea, but this is an issue beyond the content management software. Or the publisher has no DTD and wants to migrate all of their content to a standard.  Again, an excellent idea, but the effort to complete this should not reflect on the content management software.  As one of our engineers has said, "there is no magic button to transform the content, you either have the discipline to adhere to a standard or it will take some work to transform the content so that it does comply".  There is no simple solution.

Workflow Analysis and Automation

Services related to workflow are generally consultative in nature whereby a business analyst sits with all parties to understand current "as-is" and "to-be" workflows.  In some cases publishers have done a very nice job documenting their current as-is workflows but have a difficult time envisioning the to-be workflows.  This is normal and can generally be addressed by creating some pilot workflows and showing the client how the software will help them.  In some cases though a publisher which has been doing business one way for the past 20-years can have cultural challenges to change to the to-be workflows.  This has been becoming less and less over the past 5-years as the need to embrace multi-channel publishing is critical to the sustainability of the publishing business.  In other words, optimizing workflows, creating efficiencies, and actually automating multi-channel publishing are no longer options.  It does mean in some cases that people within the publishing organization will have to be re-skilled or let go.  That is unfortunately the nature of the game right now for publishers.  Workflow equals efficiency which equals cost reductions which equals a reduction or reallocation of staff or an increase in production throughput.

A publisher that requires significant manual steps (e.g., a person needs to review and approve content) in their workflow will not realize the true benefits of implementing the workflow software.  Manual steps are still required in the editorial process, but minimizing them is key.  An automated step (e.g., content transformation) is the key to gaining the efficiencies that are sought by management.  Depending on the complexity of the automated steps, the amount of services required can vary widely.  The key is automating the highest value steps in the workflow and minimizing the manual steps.  Again, the more a publisher understands how they need to change their process, the less services will be required to implement the content management software.  The software will do whatever you configure it to do, but time spent understanding exactly what a publisher should be doing takes time and requires a visionary within your organization to think outside the box.

The Bottom Line

For both content engineering and workflow related services, the more a publisher is organized in these areas, the less services are required for a content management project independent of whether it is RSuite or not.  The painfulness of addressing years of neglect in a structured or disciplined production of content can require significant services to unwind the structure, business rules, or lack of adherence to standards.  Unfortunately this can be seen as a barrier to implementing a content management system.  

While a new content management system could offer tremendous value in content reuse, version control, and production efficiency, the new software cannot magically address the messiness of the content or undocumented workflow. If your team has been organized and have very structured content with a well documented and agreed upon workflow (even if you are using legacy technology), then services to implement a CMS should be relatively small.  

If you are embarking on a content management initiative, I would highly recommend that you have an honest assessment of your content structure and your workflow.  If these pieces are in order, then you have just increased your odds of a successful content management system implementation and reduced the required services to implement the software.

A couple years ago there was an article from wsj.com under the Cubical Culture section that struck a chord with me: “Management to IT: We don’t like you either.” As evidenced by the title, the inherent conflict between IT and management is never ending. And even though the article was published 5 years ago, we still see the conflict arise in many publishing and media organizations.

Management today at many companies expect more out of IT organizations than in previous years. It's no longer acceptable to request an 18- to 24-month project life cycle and not show a return on investment quickly. If IT continues to do these types of things, they will render themselves useless and out of a job. The old days of “we can build it better than any product on the market” is long gone.

For publishers I have seen a shift over the past 5 years related to this build-vs-buy mindset. If your IT organization is still touting that they can do it better, cheaper, faster by building a critical system (e.g., CMS) from scratch… run, run away as fast as you can. Given the wealth of tool sets available and the openness of many products on the market, why would an organization ever take the build-it-from-scratch approach? I'm genuinely interested in this and welcome your dialogue in the comments section.

I’m not biased when I make these statements. I’ve seen a renewed interest by publishers to license a product and show a return on investment quickly. This has been our mantra since day one with RSuite CMS. Our goal was to make a highly configurable CMS that can manage any content and be operational in a short period of time (under 12 weeks) to meet core requirements. Yes, there will be some organizations that require 12-month projects to migrate from one system to the next, but overall the trend has been implementing a new system, even for larger projects, in a much shorter time frame. The only way IT will be able to handle this shortened timeline is to license a software product that meets 70% of their core requirements pretty much out of the box such as RSuite CMS.

I can certainly understand why IT organizations at publishers want to build their own CMS. First, it’s fun to build software. Second, it gives more of a feeling of accomplishment than integrating third-party software. Finally, a programmer can have a job for life just making endless changes to the software (ok, that was a cheap shot).

Management today needs to understand that IT does have value and IT needs to understand that management has the right to ask questions. Reducing the stress between these organizations is critical to publishers making the right technology choices and implementing new systems on time and within budget.

Let us show you how RSuite CMS satifies management's desire to demonstrate ROI on CMS investment and IT's desire to play with cool technology.

The term "content management system" means different things to different people. Sometimes, when discussing CMS, I'll realize that the term "web" is omitted from the conversation but absolutely implied. A web CMS is quite different than a CMS like RSuite. So when selecting a CMS, getting ready for a CMS project, or implementing a CMS it's important to establish your definition and communicate that to your team.

Teams struggle because there is not always a shared vision of what they are undertaking and, depending on perspective, team members have a different focus in mind. Some folks focus on the need to store all content in a common repository, others think about workflow management, and still others may be fixated on content structure and delivery.

With these things in mind, I define a content management system as the processes, technologies, and people involved in acquiring, preparing, and delivering content. This definition ensures that all aspects of content management are considered and ultimately leads to a better understanding of necessary technology components. You may find that there are process changes or organizational changes that are equally important as implementing technology.

Technology is an enabling device. Technology won't manage your content any more than a filing system will file your documents. Be prepared to think hard about the processes that make up your content management system and how people interact with the content and that process. There's no point implementing a Content Management System if you don't intend to manage your content!

How do you define CMS?

We are often asked by publishers what they can do to get a content management initiative headed in the right direction. Following are 7 tips that all publishers can follow to ensure a successful CMS project.

1. Data conversion | Typesetting service providers. Define what role a conversion house or a typesetter will have in the project and communicate that to in-house staff and the service provider. Get them involved early and detail the business requirements to them as well.

2. Pilot content. Identify and select representative publications that you would like to use as test content. It's useful to have a range of content types from your publishing organization (eg, 1 journal, 1 textbook, 1 instructor's manual, etc). But keep the number of actual documents small so you can work out the data details. You don't want to spend too much time just massaging data and not implementing core features.

3. Business rules. Define the essential business rules that the system needs to reflect. What are the high-level business process workflows? Keep the business process as simple as possible yet still document useful tracking and management. This usually means reflecting the key development, review, and approval steps. Don't necessarily model each little thing each actor does in the process. Shoot for the 30,000-foot view.  Typical RSuite customers require

• permissions
• data validation
• approvals

4. Metadata and search. Pinpoint the key discreet pieces of metadata that need to be captured to enable searching, reporting, and general management of content objects. Think about how you'll want to be able to search and find things from various users' perspectives. Also consider what you'll need to report on from a management and tracking aspect. Typical metadata fields include

• ISBNs
• DOIs
• author names
• classifying metadata
• controlled vocabularies
• approval statuses

5. Key deliveries. Determine what the system needs to deliver and export in order to demonstrate success.  Some key deliveries RSuite customers require include

• input to page layout
• XML for aggregation
• HTML for a Web site
• EPUB

6. System integration. Consider what systems the CMS will need to interact with now and in the future. Create a thorough list of systems that your editorial and production staff use. Obvious systems include page layout systems such as Typefi or InDesign. What about peer-review systems? Will your CMS deliver content to your web site? 

7. User roles. Specify all types of users of the system and define their roles. Will users interact with the CMS on a daily basis? What are the logical job roles? Will you need to provide for "casual" users of the system?

The main idea is to get your staff thinking about content management and CMS before you embark on an actual CMS implementation. Define, document, and communicate to internal staff, decision makers, stakeholders, and service providers. Have any other tips to add? How do you measure the success of your CMS implementation?

Situation:  Publishers want a content management system to be flexible and adaptable at a low cost.

Reality:  Unlike desktop applications, enterprise content management systems change and sometimes pretty often.  Publishers are often surprised by the amount of changes a CMS requires after the initial implementation.  That is because a CMS changes to meet the way your organization wants to work, not force you down a path such as Microsoft Word.  Yes, Word can be customized, but a CMS can truly evolve as your organization evolves its processes and workflow.  In the pure definition of a system, it is one that never stops changing.  You can read between the lines here and either ignore the fact that a CMS will require a budget to make changes as your organization changes or you can budget the appropriate time and money to keep the system current and reflect user needs.  Systems don’t change by themselves and the flexibility you get with a CMS comes at a cost.  If you want a system that is inexpensive and inflexible, that is fine, but be ready for unhappy users.

Best Practice:  In our experience publishers who budgeted between 25% and 50% of the original project implementation costs for changes after the initial launch were able to respond to user change requests in a timely manner.   

Every publisher manages projects and budgets differently.  As a CMS vendor we understand that.  It is imperative for publishers to understand though that a system will require changes after it goes live and this is perfectly natural as a system is used by the staff.  Those publishers who budget for and plan out a period of time after CMS launch to complete user change requests will ultimately have higher user adoption across the organization.  Higher user adoption equals higher organizational efficiency. 

What are your experiences with system changes post-launch?

All of us have been involved at one point or another in our careers with that “death project” that just seems to lack any real conclusion and no one seems to know how or why it is in the state of limbo.  Vendors who serve the publishing industry have many reasons why a project is in jeopardy or has failed altogether including lack of proper resources, no project management discipline,  etc.   From a vendor’s perspective there are some telltale signs that were evident from the very beginning of the project but everyone overlooked them in the excitement of project kickoff.  Following are my top 5 reasons (from a vendor perspective) on why CMS projects fail at publishers:

1. Solution/Technology was not the right fit – Almost no one will admit to selecting the wrong solution or technology.  We all know that buying technology is sometimes a mystery.  Some vendors are really good at selling a vision only to have the publisher realize in the middle of the project that reaching that vision is going to cost three times more than they budgeted.  In other cases publishers already have a preferred technology or product and force that product on all groups.  On more than one occasion we were told point blank by a larger publisher that we love your RSuite technology but corporate is forcing us to use Documentum because we bought a site license.  Economically that makes sense. But functionally this may be trying to shoehorn a technology that was built to manage documents into a publishing environment that requires content management.  Different requirements, different solution required.  It is that simple.  It is no surpise when we hear back from the publisher 9 months later that the project failed or the system is not being used because the system does not meet expectations.
2. Buying a vision that is unattainable – Publishers get excited by vendor demos.  And they should!  What they are seeing in a demo is something they generally don’t have in place.  Some vendors are outstanding at selling a vision by demonstrating slick end-user applications.  The problem with this is that a publisher needs to ask the question “how much is it going to cost me to reach that vision?”  Seeing a technology vendor show really cool functionality does not mean there is a good business or production model behind it.  It is good to see demonstrations that push the envelope, but understand what it will take to implement such a vision (time, money, and business model changes).  I have seen several publishers purchase certain technology to build really cool end user applications only to have the technology sitting around because the vision was not attainable to begin with because it just cost way more than they could ever budget.  Investing in a vision is fine, just be able to break that vision down into logical, cost-effective projects.  Be realistic about what you would like to accomplish and what you can actually accomplish.
3. Poor project budgeting – Along with vague requirements goes poor budgeting.  If you went to a home builder and said "I want a two story house built, give me a quote." How much confidence would you have in the quote you would receive back when the requirements for the house were so vague?  Well, from a vendor’s perspective, we get this level of vague requirements for a CMS on a regular basis and are expected to provide a budget to implement the software.  It is generally couched with “we are only looking for a ballpark.”  OK, great, but if you are looking for a ballpark price that you would have a low level of confidence in, why are you putting that ballpark price into your next fiscal years’ budget?  Immediately you are putting the project at risk.  Again, vague requirements will lead to ballpark estimates that can be misconstrued in budgets. There can be pressure on the vendor to implement a solution based on an unrealistic budget.  Because the system does not operate according to some vague vision there is a real risk of project failure and unhappy customers.  See the chain of events?
4. Inherent conflict between IT and editorial  – My colleague, Lisa Bos, wrote several years back in one of our website newsletters that software development and editorial processes are in direct conflict with one another.  Think about it.  Software developers are used to an environment where they work up to the very last minute making changes on the fly and moving the system to production with an acceptable level of bugs.  The software is never 100%, but it is operational.  On the other hand, the editorial team has a defined process to complete edits on a deadline with the goal of 100% accuracy.  This inherent conflict between these operational approaches comes out during a CMS project implementation.  Understanding the cultural differences between the two organizations is important.
5. No definition of CMS project success – Why do publishers implement CMSs?  There are many reasons of course, but how often are the goals of the CMS project discussed: during the budget cycle, RFP stage, kickoff only, never?  If you hold a CMS project kickoff meeting and ask the group the definition of success when the system is operational and no one in the room knows the answer, you have a problem.  How can a CMS project be successful if the project team does not know the measurement of success?  Installing a CMS is not a success criteria.  Managing XML better is not a measurable goal.   Re-using X% of content in new derivative products, or reducing time-to-market by X days are real, measurable success criteria.  One exercise I like to do at the project kickoff meeting is to make the team draft a press release announcing the completion of the project.  After the team gets over the silliness of the initial request, most teams have fun with the exercise and actually contribute to the writing of the press release.  This simple exercise allows the team to verbally communicate among peers what their interpretation of success is for the project.  If you cannot articulate the definition of project success for the CMS project from the outset, you may be in trouble of ever meeting expectations of management.  Know the success criteria, communicate the success criteria, and celebrate the success with your team.

"Push-Button Publishing System” for Print, Web, and eBook Production in 70 Languages

We are pleased to announce the availability of RSuite Cloud - a complete end-to-end hosted editorial and production system for book publishers.  If you are looking to shorten your book production time to market, want to publish to multiple channels (print, HTML, eBook) at once, and publish in 70 different languages, I suggest you take a look for yourself.  Online demo here.

Here is what one of our clients said about RSuite Cloud:

“We saw the time to produce PDF proofs drop from a week to just a few minutes. This improvement in productivity allowed us to dramatically shorten our production cycle and even recognize revenue in 2010 for a book that was originally scheduled for 2011," stated Stephen Driver, vice president of production services, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. “We are excited about our ability to scale with this solution and the new scheduling flexibility that we could never have dreamed of in our old environment."

A  CMS project in most cases comprises a cross-departmental team with a varied set of personalities assigned to get the project done.  Over the past decade I've noticed some trends in the type of people who make up these teams and five specific types have come to the surface.  I thought I would have some fun and describe these team member personalities and how they interact with other team members.

Disclaimer:  The following is a characterization and does not reflect anyone in particular at any of our clients.  Any resemblance to a specific RSuite or DocZone client is purely coincidental.

In my experience the 5 people you will meet [in CMS Project] heaven include:

The Actor/Actress – For this person, everything is an issue above and beyond the comprehension of everyone in the room.  This person cannot believe the group just doesn’t "see it" and he/she will have to elevate the issue to higher authorities in order to provide yet another brilliant solution that the executive team can implement.  In general every meeting entails at least one outburst just to make sure committee members know he/she is present.

The Authority – A "seasoned professional" who has been with the company for as long as anyone can remember – probably since said publisher created content with chisel and tablet. This type provides a level-headed look at things and can recite quotes from executives who have passed through the hallowed hallways explaining why this is the exact strategy the publisher should take only to see that executive depart publisher for “other opportunities.”

The Thinker (#1) – Generally a meek and mild person sitting at the table who knows her/his stuff inside and out but does not like to be the center of attention.  Would rather be sitting in the row of chairs in the back of the conference room than sitting at the table.   Unfortunately (in their eyes) their boss made them sit at the table.

The Thinker (#2) – In general, this person thinks everyone on the project team or committee is stupid and if you would just leave them alone they would have a new system built in about a week (if an appropriate level of pizza and soda were supplied).

The Leader – This person can lead the construction of a sky scraper or CMS project, it just doesn’t matter.  They are obsessive about details, impatient, and can synthesize more information in 30 seconds than your iPad can download in an hour.  The leader is vocal but polite and can generally marginalize the Actor/Actress on the team.  He/She has the ability to manage up to executives and down to line employees.  In general this person may not always be embraced across the organization because they tend to get too much done and make other people look bad.

Each department at a publisher has its own culture and each person from these departments has their own unique personality.  Your success or failure as a CMS Project Team Leader will be dependent on how well you identify each personality type and know what makes them tick to best leverage their strengths and marginalize their weaknesses.

I often run across articles in various trade publications that provide best practices for evaluating technology and managing projects.  While I think these article are a great starting point for a company, I think they overlook the vendor side of running a project.  In other words, if you look at both the publisher's and the vendor's perspective, you're more likely to achieve a successful implementation, which is the mutual goal. 

So with that background, here are my top five best practices to implement a CMS at a publisher (from a vendor's perspective):

1. Assign one project champion to manage the CMS vendor (not a committee or group) – Content management projects touch many departments.  At publishers, this means that IT, Production, and Editorial will have a say in the project.  Publishers should assign a single project champion (not a group or committee) who has a solid understanding of the business, can manage through the political atmosphere, and is able to make decisions (technical, time, and budget) in a timely fashion.  As a vendor, it is best to have one person in charge who will be that single point of contact.
2. Whatever you budget for your CMS project, multiply it by 2 – The old saying “your eyes are bigger than your belly” rings true when publishers budget for a CMS project.  Content management is complex.  Systems are not plug and play, especially the enterprise scale systems.  Generally the CMS project is an excuse to throw everything anybody has ever wanted into the requirements specification.  Prioritize, delete, reorder, do whatever you have to do to get within your budget, but make sure you budget enough money and don’t try to beat-up the CMS vendor because your budget was too small to begin with.
3. Budget enough money for after the CMS launch – Too many times we have worked with publishers who do not think past the initial launch of the CMS.  When users begin to use the system, there will be changes.  Generally some requirements get deferred after launch because of complexity or budget reasons. Be prepared to have additional funds set aside after you accept the system and users begin to use it.  My rule of thumb has always been to budget between 25% - 50% of the original project for the follow-on phases.
4. Be organized and respect everyone's time – There is nothing worse, from a vendor's perspective, than kicking off a project and realizing the customer is disorganized and cannot fulfill their obligations in a timely manner.  When a vendor allocates resources to a project and has the green light from the publisher, the vendor is ready to start!  That means the publisher needs to be prepared to start as well.  If a publisher is disorganized, it eventually leads to poor requirements, timelines that extend, and cost impacts.  It will impact the time and energy of all parties, including the publisher's editorial and production staff. Don’t start a project unless you have your ducks lined up and are really ready to begin.
5. Tell the rest of the organization there is a CMS project – The acronym CMS in some publishing organizations is a bad, bad word.  In all honesty, we have been at some publishers where we were forbidden from using the acronym all together.  We had to disguise the CMS project as a “new production system” or “finished goods repository.”  We don’t care if you come up with a clever code name for the CMS project, but having a good internal communications plan will make the vendor's job much easier when we need to interact with other groups and derive appropriate requirements.  It is not good as a vendor to start a meeting with a publisher and get “what CMS project?” as a reply to a request for information.

I’m pretty sure you will not see this list of best practices for running a CMS project for publishers in a trade publication, but I thought I would share some of the best practices we would like to see publishers embrace to make projects run more smoothly.