As with everything in life, it's all a matter of the lens you view things through.  Something can look rosey to one person while looking like a train wreck to another.  Often times the view of a legacy content management system is dependent on where you sit within your organization, and rightly so.  But many times the decision to not replace a legacy CMS is based completely on the false premise that everything is OK and IT has everything under control.  In our experience, many times the IT organization is overwhelmed with projects and maintaining a legacy system becomes more difficult with each passing year.  

In many publishing organizations that we speak with on a daily basis, legacy CMS' are patched together by one or two very key individuals within an organization because they happen to be the longest tenured staff and were around when the system was installed.  There is generally a knowledgebase of small system idiosyncracies that these individuals know to stay away from because of either a design flaw or through implementing the system incorrectly.  Having an IT person be a single point of failure is not a good business practice to begin with, but having little or no understanding of what the black box legacy CMS is doing is much, much worse.  Unfortunately these situation exist at major publishing organizations around the globe.  This is an outgrowth of publishers who don't want to face the reality that their system is in serious jeapordy of crashing and there is no recovery mechanism in place.  

So how does each management level within a publisher view a legacy CMS?  Here's an outsiders perspective:

C-Suite View - We have technology that is proven

From the top, everything looks calm, cool, and collected.  Think about the duck gliding across the pond.  Products are being produced, money is being collected, why do we need to change anything? Remember the duck is paddling like crazy under the water.

VP View - We can make this work with little investment

While there are issues we need to address, the technology is solid and has been proven for some time.  Our team does not have turnover issues and therefore they are well versed in the CMS.  Some investment might be required to patch things here or there, but we have no need to upgrade to a new CMS.  Throwing more staff or budget at the legacy CMS will take care of everytihng.  We should be fine to meet our strategy.

Director View - We are unable to keep up with daily issues let alone scale the system

The system has been working, but barely.  The fragile nature causes daily concern that one hiccup could bring the entire production process down.  Editorial is comfortable with the workflow, knows the editorial tools, but under the covers the CMS cannot be extended and is patched because the technology has not been upgraded in years.  Adding more content, integrating with other systems, or adding third party tools will be extremely difficult without a large budget and a sufficient timeline to complete.

Developer View - We are so screwed 

The application has been maintained by different people over time.  Nothing has been documented, we have not paid support and have not received CMS software upgrades, and the underlying database has not been upgraded in years.  If the system goes down, I may need to look for a job.

The Bottom Line

Every position and management level at a publisher has a different view of their CMS.  It's natural.  What consistenly surprises people is that a legacy CMS can only address the requirements from yesterday and potentially not address the strategy of multi-channel publishing or automated eBook creation or whatever objective because changes are difficult and the system cannot scale.  Legacy systems are generally proven, but they do not generally have the stability to support the long-term business objectives and must be replaced.

If your CMS is over seven years old, has been patched to keep it running, and doesn't support your strategy, let us show you why publishers from around the globe and over 10,000 publishing professionals use RSuite every day.

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.

There are many reasons that CMS projects fail, but over the past decade these five are top of mind.  You will not be able to avoid all of them, but recognizing an issue early on and addressing it will benefit you in the long run and make everyone happier because of the ultimate success your team will achieve.

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.