Sitecore just released a new white paper, Content Management: The (New) Governance Manifesto, which they wrote in conjunction with ISITE Design and non-linear creations. If you’re considering adopting a CMS technology, or have already begun down the path of implementing a CMS, I would highly recommend this white paper. It’s not written to be focused on just us techies either. I would recommend this for not only IT, but those in marketing who are involved in the CMS process, and even for boards of directors, and other higher ups who should be looped into the decisions being made in their organization.
The white paper defines 5 “site-killers” identified as major issues that companies run into when trying to implement a CMS in their organization. The Sitecore Competency Center has seen all 5 of these in action, which is why I think this is such a good read for everyone involved in CMS implementation – if we’re all aware of potential pitfalls ahead of time, hopefully we can all work together to avoid them in our specific implementations.
So what are my favorite three site-killers that the white paper defines?
No One Thought Through How the Site Will Really Be Used
Every time I encounter this one – it amazes me. It seems all too often nowadays that corporations are willing to spend large amounts of money on a technology implementation but aren’t willing to spend the time to have fully fleshed out what they’re spending their money on, or why it is they’re implementing a CMS to begin with. It’s certainly understandable to want to minimize costs of implementing a new system, but if we think about it, wouldn’t it be best to have higher upfront costs that ensure the success of the money and time we’re spending, rather than lowering those costs but greatly increasing the risk that they will all be sunk costs at the end of the implementation?
Thinking that Marketing (or IT) Doesn’t Need to Be Involved
This is always one of my favorites, because not only do I see this with clients, but before I came to Perficient, I worked in an organization that had this exact issue while trying to implement a new public-facing website. It’s the nature of the work, and the people drawn to the work, that those in Marketing have different opinions and requirements for a new site than those people who work in IT. A successful CMS implementation needs to involve both of these groups, and meet as many requirements of each group as possible. If you stray too much to the IT side of thinking, you’re likely to end up with a highly functional website that might not be engaging to its users thus reducing its effectiveness. Stray too far to the Marketing side, and you’re likely to end up with a very pretty site that’s somewhere in the spectrum of difficult to impossible to maintain, and in some worse-case scenarios, a website that’s not viewed as functional but instead is considered broken.
Thinking that the Site is “Done” after It Launches
This is a big CMS gotcha. Unlike the old static sites that were prevalent when the web first gained popularity, the whole point of a content management system is to allow content to be dynamically updated by people without technical training. That means, in order for a site to be truly effective, the content on it needs to be analyzed and updated to be sure that it’s always the most relevant it can be. Much like the first “site killer” I pointed out above, if an organization is willing to spend money to implement a CMS in the first place, it needs to be willing on continuing to invest in the CMS site after launch, or it will likely not be able to justify implementation costs.
A CMS-driven site can certainly provide ROI if it’s managed properly, but just like any other technology implementation, there are risks and pitfalls that can prevent success and keep that ROI from being realized. Hopefully after reading Content Management: The (New) Governance Manifesto, we’re all aware of 5 of those pitfalls and now have enough insight to avoid them in our implementation.
