Page 12

DigiCULT

Info

to a wide range of content objects both

within and outside traditional CMS

content repositories.

· Delivery/Publication. Provide content

to participating delivery servers and to

facilitate the publication and manage-

ment of delivered content.

· Site Management. Provide mechanisms

for monitoring and reporting on the use

of managed content; provide mecha-

nisms for automatically generating high-

level `site maps' depicting the relation-

ships of pages and objects to a depth of

at least four layers of referral.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

ogether with the distributed institu-

tional structures of the university,

baseline functional requirements helped

determine the technical parameters of a

content management system.

· Federated Architecture. Multiple

independent servers running a standard,

accepted CMS software package put

together in coordination with a central

CMS support organisation.

· Interoperability. CMS systems must

interoperate as seamlessly as possible

with a wealth of existing content already

available through a number of well-

travelled and well-recognised Duke

campus Websites. System-driven man-

dates for change should be at the

discretion of the content creators,

where possible.

· Integration. Because the level of tech-

nical expertise varies dramatically among

campus users, flexible integration with

third-party development and authoring

tools is critical. Some users will have a

high degree of technical expertise and

demand fine-grained control over their

content; some will have a low degree of

technical expertise and need to create

and deliver content in the most natural

and `matter of fact' fashion possible.

· Scalability. Because neither the size of

the user population nor the extent of

etc.) needed to support efforts to balance

creativity and flexibility with brand con-

sistency at the departmental, school and

University levels.

· Flexibility. Make it easier for all Duke

Web efforts to support the full range of

Web content sources (development

tools, databases, etc.) and Web display

devices (graphical browsers, text-only

browsers, kiosks and emerging small-

screen platforms such as cell phones and

PDAs).

· Implementation. Give first priority to

the immediate needs of early adopters

and second priority to anticipated future

needs of an emerging CMS community.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

he overall goals for the campus con-

tent management initiative defined a

discrete set of functional capabilities that

must be included in any system, whether

bought or built locally.

· Content Authoring. Provide for the

smooth and efficient creation and edit-

ing of content; integration with com-

mon editing and word processing tools;

ability to import existing content,

metadata, multiple file types.

· Presentation. Flexible use of common

development tools; creation or import of

templates, standard forms.

· Syndication. Support the sharing and

reuse of content across campus.

· Workflow. Support various forms of

workflow and facilitate the management

of content throughout its lifecycle (from

creation through publication and syndi-

cation to deactivation and archiving).

· Versioning. Provide revision control

mechanisms, both in support of collabo-

rative content manipulation and in sup-

port of change management and content

reversion.

· Accessibility. Content stored or

indexed within content repositories must

be easily accessible during Website devel-

opment, and access needs to be provided

1. authoring (creating Web content in a

managed and authorised environment);

2. workflow (management of the steps

between authoring and publishing);

3. storage (authored content components,

in multiple versions, in a repository);

4. publishing (dynamic delivery of stored

content to the Web).

DUKE GOALS FOR A CONTENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

t Duke, as may be the case in any

widely decentralised organisation, the

capabilities of an enterprise software tool

with the wide impact of a content man-

agement system are demanding.The team

charged with identifying a CMS tool for

the university developed a list of key goals

driving the software selection process.

· Site Maintenance. Enable non-techni-

cal staff to update and maintain their

Web content more easily and efficiently

using a variety of computing platforms

and Web development tools.

· Consistency. Provide a consistent Web

site management environment that will

handle content creation, style, visitor

usability, policy, workflow, versioning,

and revision control for decentralised

Web infrastructures and content authors.

· Sharing. Facilitate the syndication

(sharing and reuse) of Web content, with

the appropriate editorial accountability,

by offering central facilities to index and

cache content that originates anywhere

on the Duke subnet.

· Automation. Reduce inaccurate, out-

dated, redundant or unauthorised

content through automated content

management processes, versioning and

workflow.

· Accessibility. Make it easier for all

Duke Web efforts to achieve and main-

tain compliance with evolving standards

(ADA and W3 compliance, University

and departmental privacy policies, etc.)

and provide the tools (repositories of

approved templates, images and logos,