web content management system a uits proposal uconn web development lab october 2010
TRANSCRIPT
Web Content Management
SystemA UITS Proposal
UConn Web Development LabOctober 2010
Problem Description
•Massive & Spread Out
•13+ Servers
•1000+ Webmasters
•Hundreds of Thousands of web pages
Problem Description
•Typical Webmaster
•Highly Paid Faculty / Staff
•No Significant Training
•Only works on site occasionally
Problem Description
•Consequences
•Lost Productivity
•No single Security model, standards, or policies
•Poorly Constructed Sites
•Accessibility Litigation
Solution for Consideration
•By improving...
•Productivity
•Security
•Code
•Costs are reduced
Solution for Consideration
•Enterprise Web Content Management System
• (CMS)
•Web Application
•Manage Web Content
•Thousands of users and sites
Solution for Consideration
CMS Criteria
• VersioningCheck In / Check OutAuthenticationBrowser-basedWorkflowMultilingualAnalytics & Reporting
• Visual "WYSIWYG" Interface
• User Roles and permissions
• Content Aggregation/ Syndication
• Rich Media Support
• Broad Device Support
Alternatives Considered
•Pros
๏ Direct Department ControlIndependentPossibly utilize existing servers or systems
•Cons
๏ CostlyNo Standard ImplementationNo Assurance of compliance with Security, Privacy, or Accessibility standardsLimited Technical SupportCosts can easily escalateKey person dependentNo Backup (people, content, systems)
Alternatives Considered
Departments acquire their own CMS
Alternatives Considered
•Pros
๏ Direct Department ControlIndependentVendors responsive to customer needs
•Cons
๏ Very Costly to Sustain
๏ Contract must be managedNo Standard ImplementationNo Assurance of compliance with Security, Privacy, or Accessibility standardsLimited Technical SupportCosts can easily escalateKey person dependentNo Backup (people, content, systems)
Departments hire Vendors
Alternatives Considered
•Pros
๏ No Change
๏ Direct Department ControlCost of Dreamweaver by Department
๏ UITS Server SupportServer Backups
•Cons
๏ Software and Training costly to InstitutionGrowth on Central Web Server remains unplanned
๏ No Standard ImplementationNo Assurance of compliance with Security, Privacy, or Accessibility standardsCosts can easily escalateKey person dependent
Departments use Dreamweaver & Central Web Server
Alternatives Considered
•Pros
๏ Assurance of compliance with Security, Privacy, and Accessibility standardsEnvironment controlled by standards, monitored, supported
๏ Not Key person dependentCost of Dreamweaver by Department
๏ UITS Tech SupportServer Backups
๏ Growth on Central Web Server controlled and monitored
•Cons
๏ Dozens of FTE Staff requiredFunding
๏ Dependent on UITSDepartments lose direct control
Departments assisted by Web Lab (using Dreamweaver)
Alternatives Considered
Enterprise Content Management System (hosted and supported by UITS)
•Pros
๏ Single system serves all website needs
๏ Departments control content
๏ No training or expertise required
๏ Audit Trail
๏ Contracts & Purchasing through UITS
๏ Assurance of compliance with Security, Privacy, and Accessibility standardsEnvironment controlled by standards, monitored, supported
๏ Not Key person dependentUITS Tech SupportServer Backups, High Availably, Disaster Recovery
•Cons
๏ Minimal FTE Staff required to manageFunding
๏ Dependent on UITS
Costs
•Inventory of Hardware/Software ongoing
•Minimum Costs are used in this presentation
Doing Business Now
•Software
•Hardware
•Training
•Services
•Vendors
•Lawsuits
$7.314 M over next 3 years
Future State
•Software
•Hardware
•HA Server
•Services
•SAN
•DR Cost
$3.895 M over next 3 years
3 Year Costs
Business Now $7.314 M
Future State $3.895 M
Savings $3.419 M
Risks of Inaction
•Duplication of Resources and Efforts
•No Standards in Implementation, Security, and Privacy
•Accessibility Compliance & Litigation
•No Audit Trails
Vendor CMS
•School of Nursing
•School of Pharmacy
•School of Social Work
Central CMS Requested
•School of Art
•School of Engineering
•School of Education
•School of Nursing
•College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
•School of Pharmacy