CMS Selection

”Choosing a content management system”

This presentation contains information that is confidential and is solely for the use of Semcon personnel. No part of it may be used, circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside your company without a prior written approval from Semcon. If you are not the intended recipient of this presentation, you are hereby notified that the use, circulation and quoting, or reproduction of this presentation is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Presentation by Nicklas Jarl

Nyköping, March 29 2012

Agenda

• Introduction

• Information production differences

• The RFP

• The evaluation

• The suppliers

• The results

1

Introduction- Nicklas Jarl

• Experience:

– CMS systems

• Supporting development of Semcon CMS Kentucky, VCC CMS nevis

• Training editors and illustrators in CMS/XML-based content creation VCC, JLR, DeLaval, Atlet etc.

• Development of interim topic based content creation environment for export to mobile apps. VCC

– Parts cataloguing

• Technical expert for development of next generation parts catalogue at VCC

– Illustrations

• Creating high speed, high quality CAD to illustration process Semcon, BRUKS, JLR, VCC, Thermia etc

• Developing software for high speed, high quality CAD to illustration creation. Semcon

• Setting up cost effective photorealistic image process. Semcon

– System selection:

• Evaluation and benchmarking of parts catalogues in the automotive sector

• Evaluation and benchmarking of CMS for several customers.

– System implementations

• Supporting CMS implementation at ABB, Consilium, Rolls Royce, Asko,

• Daily second-/third-line support for all types of issues that arise during information production in CMS and parts catalogues.

2

Selection of information production system supplier 2

Why external advisor?

• Time consuming

• Spot differences

• Large investment over a long time

• Shift focus from what you are doing to how you should be doing it

CMS Selection 3

• Introduction

• Information production differences

• The RFP

• The evaluation

• The suppliers

• The results

Agenda

4

Production needs of Parts information

• Parts information is less authoring and more structuring of available data into groups, lists and associating lists to images.

– Productions benefits from a close connection to the PLM system at engineering and the use of BOM:s for creating product unique spare parts information.

– End user benefits from product unique parts information that is available and updated electronically and published for paper.

• The parts information production should integrate as much as possible with PLM system or other available engineering system.

5

Exploded view of Voyager 1973

Production needs of Service and user information

• Service and user information is mainly authored and presented as informative and instructional text and images.

– Huge production benefits when using a CMS and XML

• More automation

• More reusability

• Easier updates

• Less translation costs

• Easier handling of translations

• Easy and quick publishing

• Un-matched information handling, overview and searchability

– A new CMS opens the possibilify to produce all kinds of output from the same material, i.e apps, webs, pdf and print.

6

• Introduction

• Information production differences

• The RFP

• The evaluation

• The suppliers

• The results

Agenda

7

Overview of project methodology

8

Evaluation

Short list • Supplier 3 • Supplier 4 • Supplier 9

Recommendation

Selection

S

U

P

P

L

I

E

R

S

Final analysis

Long list • Supplier 1 • Supplier 2 • Supplier 3 • Supplier 4 • Supplier 5 • Supplier 6 • Supplier 7 • Supplier 8 • Supplier 9

The RFP – Be careful what you ask for.

RFQ – Request for proposal

• The guiding document for you and the supplier

• Obvious pitfalls

– Too specific

– Too undefined

• Describe expected result from functionality rather than how it should work.

9

The RFP – Be careful what you ask for.

Considerations when implementing a new system

• When developing a system, create a process and build the system based on use-cases to accomodate the process.

• When purchasing a system, if possible, adopt the best practice process of that system. If not:

– Need for customisation

– Results in higher cost

– Less benefits in implementing a new system

• Legacy data

– If not XML, dont machine convert. Re-create

10

“The presented solution shall be based on the separation of content and presentation workflow using XML, DTD/XMLSchema, XSLT and surrounding standards and technologies. The selected systems best practices will be adopted by us.”

The RFP – Request for proposal

11

Other sources of input data

Content Management System.

XML - DTD/XMLSchema Configuration/profiling

Version handling Translation handling.

Image HandlingReporting Filtering Terms and phrases

Authentication

Illustrator

Service Editor

Training Editor

Team Manager

Wiringdiagram editor

XML Editors and CMS

tools.

PDF for print

PDF for screen w. navigation and

search

Online interactive publication for

computer screens

Online interactive publication for

devices

Publication system using XSLT

Stylesheets for-Operators Manual

-Service Manual -Maintenance Schema-Maintenance Manual

-Safety Manual

CMS connected data review

handling?

Legacy Data

conversion

SysAdmin tools

Sys admin

New system – then what?

• A new system takes a long time to adapt to and it should be considered as a key component but it is only one step(albeit crucial) towards getting an effecient information production.

• Other crucial steps that are needed:

– Author acceptance of new production method i.e. Everyone needs to input meta-data correctly or the re-useability is crippled.

– Understanding the concept of separating content from presentation

– Establishing authoring methods such as minimalistic writing (ABREVE), or other authoring rules for harmonising the content.

12

• Introduction

• Information production differences

• The RFP

• The evaluation

• The suppliers

• The results

Agenda

13

The evaluation – evaluation areas

• Overall viability as a supplier

• Viability of the proposed implementation project

• Support and training

• Functionality:

– Publishing

– Translations handling

– Authoring environment

– CMS viability

– Review, task and issues handling

– Terminology and phrase functionality

– System to system interfaces

• IT-architecture compliance

• Relevant reference cases

• Current customers/references opinions

• User impressions of system from reference visits and presentations.

14

The evaluation – grades and weighting

• Relative grades

• Related to competing systems and expected functionality

– 1 disqualified

– 2 insufficient

– 3 Expected performance of a selected suppliers on long list

– 4 Exceeds expected performance

– 5 Exceeds requirements

• Weighted grades

– Overall viability as a supplier – grade x2

– Viability of the proposed implementation project – grade x2

15

Evaluation area - Overall viability as a supplier

• Viability as a long-term supplier

• Company Financials

• Company size

• Company age

• R&D and innovation

16

Evaluation area - Viability of the proposed implementation project • Realistic time plan that includes pilot

• On-site prescence during pilot and implementation

• Support during production pilot

• Cost of implementation project

• Training activities during and after implementation project.

17

Evaluation area - Support and training

• Localised support

– How many and which languages are supported?

• Support availability

– How?

– When?

• Support cost

– Included or optional?

• Availability of additional training eg. for new employees or at major updates etc.

18

Evaluation area – Functionality: Publishing

• Type of publishing method

• Type of publishing “engine”

– Proprietary or third party

• Approach to style sheet creation

• Supplier analysis of your style sheet needs(custom or default or both?)

– Are they making a valid assumption?

19

Evaluation area – Functionality: Translations handling • Level of integration of translated information

• Ability to use different input languages

• Ability to switch master language of composed and translated information

• Workflow for interaction with Localisation Services provider

20

Evaluation area – Functionality: Authoring environment • XML-editor functionality and integration with CMS

• User friendliness

• WYSIWYG/WYSIWYN (How and Why)

• (Live) preview

• CMS interface

• Re-useability level

– What is possible

– Meet necessary needs

• Search interface

• Context sensitive entry-helpers?

• Etc…

21

Evaluation area – Functionality: CMS viability

• Technological platform

– Distributed architecture

– Database type

– Fragmentation level

– XML and associated standards compliance

– Setup

– Configuration

• Ease of re-use

• Viability as technical information production platform i.e Tailored for information production

22

Evaluation area – Functionality: Review, task and issues handling

• Analysis of review workflow handling

– Fixed workflow

– Customisable status

• External review handling

– Non CMS user reviewers?

– Review feedback handling

23

Evaluation area – Functionality: Terminology and phrase functionality

• Type of terminology and phrase handling

– Third party or proprietary

– Included or option

– Integration level in authoring environment

– Level of phrase functionality across translations

24

Evaluation area – Functionality: System to system interfaces

• API for custom integration of current or future systems

– Web-services?

– Standards interfaces?

• Interfaces towards Localisation Services provider?

– Included or optional?

25

Evaluation area – Single topic, external analysis and subjective analysis

• IT-architecture compliance

• Licensing model

• Relevant reference cases

• Current customers/references opinions

26