1. Tools and Strategies for Content
Management – Publishers’
Perspective
Jabin White, Executive Director,
Electronic Production-Health Sciences
Elsevier
Presented by: Jabin White (jabin.white@elsevier.com)
Title: Tools and Strategies for Content Management
Presented at: SSP Annual Meeting; Baltimore, MD
Date: April 30, 2003
2. Agenda
• Introductions
• The Problem – simple Content
Management is no longer enough
• Brief history of workflow, reasons for
improvement
• Case Study
• And now for the next trick…
• Conclusions
2 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
3. Who is Elsevier?
• Publish more than 1,800 journals, more than 2 million
pages per year
• Publishing imprints include Mosby, Saunders, Churchill-
Livingstone, BH, and more…
3 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
4. Who am I?
• Started as Editorial Assistant, then
Developmental Editor
• Learned SGML at Mosby
• Moved to Williams & Wilkins in 1997, merged
with L-R in 1998 -- responsible for “front-end”
SGML initiative
• Moved to Harcourt Health Sciences in October,
2000, acquisition by Elsevier completed in
September, 2001
4 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
5. The Problem
• “Traditional” content management, by
definition, is no longer enough
• More to the point, it is:
– Managing content more efficiently ($$$)
– Content enrichment
– Setting up content for multiple delivery streams
– Preparing content to be searched/indexed
more intelligently
• All of these have become part of the definition
of Content Management, hence the confusion
5 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
6. Traditional (Old) Workflow
• Manuscript submitted on paper
(sometimes with disk) to Editorial office
• Paper accepted for publication
• Paper keyed and coded
• Article laid out (paginated) in proprietary
typesetting system
• Proofs sent to authors, proofreaders,
etc.
6 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
7. Traditional Workflow (cont’d)
• Changes made to pages, author
queries answered
• Changes inserted into proprietary
typesetting files
• Final pages approved
• Print pages published
• Typesetting files converted to SGML
• Electronic product produced
7 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
8. XML front ends • rethinking content & markup
Traditional Publishing Process…
Manuscript Galleys Pages
Electronic Product
(repurposed from print)
8 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
9. XML front ends • rethinking content & markup
Problems inserted…
Changes lost in
Changes made on paper media-neutral format
(version management issues)
Manuscript Galleys Pages
Paper submissions Electronic Product
(repurposed from print)
Changes made to proprietary
typesetting
files
9 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
10. XML front ends • rethinking content & markup
Traditional Publishing Process…
Manuscript Galleys Pages
Electronic Product
(repurposed from print)
10 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
11. XML front ends • rethinking content & markup
Problem solved?
Pages
Manuscript Galleys Final, corrected
Galleys articles in DB
Electronic Product
X, Y and Z
11 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
12. XML front ends • rethinking content & markup
Problem solved…
Pages
Manuscript Galleys Final, corrected
Galleys articles in DB
Electronic Product
Publishers can add value and “squeeze” profits by making X, Y and Z
this part more efficient – enter CONTENT MANAGEMENT
And by diversifying
the product suite it
offers to the market
12 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
13. Major activities of the E-workflow:
Production
Link editorial to suppliers
Production system Network delivery
Websites for
Editorial Science Direct,
Electronic Production
offices MD Consult, etc.
submission
implement electronic Digital workflow
submission in Production
implement use of
tracking systems
and electronic peer
review
13 Copyright 2003, Elsevier Jabin White, SSP 2003
14. Content Management for Efficiency
• “Extend” benefits of digital workflow
back in the process to author
submission
• Benefits:
– Seamless movement of files in media
neutral format
– Enforcement of standards begins early
– No surprises
– Speed, speed, and more speed
• Examples: ElSubmitElsevier Editorial
System; Author Gateway
14 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
15. Efficiency at the Front
• Committed to a suite of web-based author
services
• A-Team (author support team)
• Goals:
– Better management of peer review process
– Provide tools for authors to track status of their
manuscript throughout publication process
– Decrease transfer time from:
• Author to Editor
• Editor to Referee
• Editor to Production
15 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
22. Major activities of the E-workflow:
Production
Link editorial to suppliers
Production system Network delivery
Websites for
Editorial Science Direct,
Electronic Production
offices MD Consult, etc.
submission
implement electronic Digital workflow
submission in Production
implement use of
tracking systems
and electronic peer
review
22 Copyright 2003, Elsevier Jabin White, SSP 2003
23. CAP Workflow (Computer-Aided
Production)
• Began in 1997 with SGML DTD, related
tools
• One common global workflow, many
different local production offices
• All use same tools, tracking systems,
etc.
• All copyediting is outsourced
• Submission systems, peer-review
systems occur before CAP
23 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
24. PTSIII (Production Tracking System)
• Completely integrated between
production offices and suppliers
• Provides “transparent” global workflow
capabilities
• Oracle database with lots of XML
managing workflow triggers
24 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
26. The EW (Electronic Warehouse)
• Massive storage facility in Amsterdam
• Oracle database with proprietary
extensions
• Millions of articles
• Today handles just journal articles, in
the future will handle books
• Helps in production, assembly of
products
26 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
27. End-to-end process…simple
Products
Editorial process Production Electronic
processes Warehouse
27 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
29. And now for the next trick!
• Doing for book workflow what Elsevier
has done for journals workflow
• CAP workflow for books?
• Vast differences in content, authoring
environments
• Same principles of consistency,
enforcement, etc., can be applied, but
very carefully
29 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
30. Re-using what we’ve learned
• Common DTDs, enforced centrally
• Content Management standards
enforced globally
• Authoring/editing tools that help with
standardization and enforcement
– Keeping in mind the different author
environment
• Recognizing *when* workflows must be
flexible, and when they cannot
30 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
31. Conclusions
• Digitization of “end” of workflow is
assumed
• Business case has been made for
having digital files at the end of the
production cycle (this little thing called
the web)
• How far “back” in the workflow you go
depends on many factors in your
organization (size, “change
environment,” content types, etc)
• It’s a marathon, not a sprint!
31 Copyright 2003, Elsevier
