An outline of how the University of Edinburgh manages its corporate content management system for about 600 users and 80 units. How the service was established and where it's headed. The presentation was a primer for discussion among the attendees on content management system models.

1. Managing and supporting
a central CMS
…for a devolved
web publishing community
University of Edinburgh
Website Programme
www.ed.ac.uk/website-programme

2. Introductions
• Neil Allison @usabilityed
– Programme manager
– Responsible for user experience and staff training
– Leading CMS review process & consultations
• Joe Farthing @josephfarthing
– Communications & technical specialist
– Split role between UWP & Sustainability
– Focus on improving the CMS user experience

3. Overview
• Background
– Where we came from – where we are
• How we do things round here
• Where are we going?
• Our challenges
– Your challenges?

4. Where we started (2006)
• Small project team
• 2 year initial timeframe
• Collaborating with Information Services and
Communications & Marketing

5. Where we are right now (2012)
• Small programme team
– Backed up with editorial support
• Coordinating a larger virtual team
– C&M, IS, User training & support,
Disability Service, Records Management
• Facilitating a large diverse web community
– Polopoly CMS users
– Web management specialists across University

6. Initial scope
• A central website driven by a single CMS
– Polopoly
• ‘Outward facing’ content owned and
managed by distributed units
– “Units”: my shorthand for:
• Schools, Colleges, Subject areas, Research institutes,
Programmes, Offices, Departments…
• Basically, any group of web publishers
acting (semi) autonomously

7. Where the scope stretched to…

8. How does all this hang together?
• A single CMS instance
• Initial access regulated – training compulsory
• Workflows and permissions set as required, unit by unit
• Graphic design tied down to a great extent
• CMS functionality steers editorial and IA approach
– Guidelines, support and training too
• No web police
– But we do QA, appraise and encourage review & enhancement

9. What do we do to deliver this?
It’s not just CMS service
management

10. What do we do to deliver this?
• Training • CMS
– Polopoly, W4tW, Usability – System administration
testing, Prototyping, Analytics – Ongoing development
– External functionality
• Support & community
– Phone, email, drop in 1-2-1 • Graphic design
– Wiki and online discussion management
– Guidelines
• Polopoly-specific
• University wide
• Legal compliance
– Appraisal, enhancement, QA – Accessibility
– Web Publishers Community – Privacy
– Technical Peer Group – Information retention
– Surveys and consultation

11. Meet our CMS users
– Annabel – Terry
– Colin – Harriet

12. Annabel the Admin Assistant
Technical Non-technical
Time for No time for
publishing publishing
Frequent user of Infrequent user
Polopoly of Polopoly
“I haven’t got time. Just tell Full relevant Minimal relevant
functionality functionality
me what you need doing” used used
TYPICAL  Creates new web pages using
• Feels she’s doing a better job TASKS content as provided with minimal
than with previous website copyediting
 Updates existing pages as directed
• Likes that Polopoly help &  Everything takes too long. Edits
support is on hand should be really easy
POINTS
 Avoids anything other than the basic
PAIN
• Little interest in the bigger features.
picture, or in the website users  No time to experiment or to risk trying
new things that may go wrong.

13. Colin the Communications Specialist
Technical Non-technical
Time for No time for
publishing publishing
Frequent user of Infrequent user
Polopoly of Polopoly
“It’s better than before but Full relevant Minimal relevant
functionality functionality
I want to do more” used used
 Steers local publishers
TYPICAL
• Wants to learn from others
TASKS
 Oversees site management
– no interest in reinventing  Manages high profile content &
the wheel tweaks others’ work
 Too hard to monitor editorial
• Sees his website in broader activity on site
POINTS
contexts – part of his
PAIN
 Some layout restrictions &
comms activity and part of limitations are frustrating
greater University site  Pace of development too slow

14. Terry the Technical Specialist
Technical Non-technical
Time for No time for
publishing publishing
Frequent user of Infrequent user
Polopoly of Polopoly
“Local solutions better Full relevant Minimal relevant
functionality functionality
meet our needs” used used
 External systems support &
integration
• Keeping an eye on tech TYPICAL
TASKS
development innovation, both in &  One-off projects covering all
out of Polopoly areas of web development
 Emergency publishing, fixing
• Pleased about the reduction in others’ problems
editorial tasks & basic user support
 Would like more freedom to
POINTS
• Ambivalent about Polopoly, Uni- customise locally
PAIN
wide publishing & guidelines  Integration options could be more
sophisticated

15. Harriet the Head of Unit
Technical Non-technical
Time for No time for
publishing publishing
Frequent user of Infrequent user
Polopoly of Polopoly
“Spread the workload,
Full relevant Minimal relevant
cut the overheads, functionality functionality
impress our visitors” used used
 If she could remember how:
TYPICAL
TASKS
• Keen to be seen to be on board with
corporate systems  Updating own staff profile
 Tweaks to key pages
• Little time for the detail, but the site has
to deliver for the business
 Asks others to make edits for her
• Wants to cut costs & save time – a
 Forgotten the basics since
POINTS
professional, hassle-free website
PAIN
training. This should be obvious!
• Supportive of guidance & Uni-wide  Relying on training booklet.
bigger picture, so long as she’s still in Support wiki? What’s that?
control

16. Where are we going?
• The University has committed to a significant
investment in the website over the coming years
– “…to continue to develop its current corporate
website, and to take it to the next phase.”
• The Website Programme was tasked with
consulting the web publishing community and
key stakeholders to inform development of a
Business Requirements Document

18. Looking to the future
“The future of the University website must be
rooted in the people managing it, and their
interrelationships; with Information Services
providing the technology to underpin a
resilient, flexible, collaborative platform.”
“Providing functionality isn’t enough.”

19. Beyond the CMS
• The CMS is a vital cog in our web publishing
machine alongside:
– Web publishers’ skills and time available
– Training & support
– Technical development & support
– Collaboration within the community

20. Retain & enhance
• Consistency of the website
– Editorial, navigation, information architecture
• Standards, guidelines & quality assurance
• Pre-defined styles & formatting help
– We just need more flexibility
• Training & support services
• Potential for sharing
– But needs to be better realised

21. Issues to address
• CMS usability
– Too slow, clunky & time consuming
• Range of presentation options is too narrow
• More direct control for site managers
• More sophisticated tools needed
– For system-, content- and user-management
• More sophisticated integration options
• Better opportunities for technical development
– Involvement & collaboration
• Website search isn’t good enough

22. Greater flexibility
• More page layouts
– Ideally with the opportunity to develop locally
• More space for local identity and branding
• More colour palettes
• More sophisticated integration options
• More opportunities for technical development
contributions from across the University

23. The challenge
“…to deliver a broader range of options
while maintaining the core elements of
editorial and structural consistency…”

24. Discussion & activities
Are our challenges your challenges?

25. Strict policing
of guidance
Add your
post-its to
the wall
INSTITUTION NAME
YOUR MAIN
CMS, ANY OTHER
CMSs
Lots of INSTITUTION NAME
WHERE YOU WANT
TO GO IN THE
Single CMS
different CMSs FUTURE
Where you are now Where you want to go
INSTITUTION NAME INSTITUTION NAME
YOUR MAIN CMS, No guidance – WHERE YOU WANT TO
(laissez faire)
ANY OTHER CMSs GO IN THE FUTURE