Cms recommendation Report



Download 0.85 Mb.
Page2/8
Date31.05.2016
Size0.85 Mb.
TypeReport
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Methodology

The methodology employed to evaluate the suitability of an upgrade path emphasizes existing knowledge and experience and includes the following approaches and phases.


CMS Functional Requirements

A comprehensive set of functional requirements for a replacement CMS were developed based on requirements developed by the University Library and additional requirements identified in the Web@UWA Review (2005) and UWA CMS Review (2007). Additional consultation was undertaken with critical stakeholders and an invitation for comment was sent to the University web-authors mailing list.


Vendor responses and the Library’s experience were used to measure the performance of MySource Matrix against the functional requirements.
Risk and Issue Registers and Treatment plans

A Risk Analysis was undertaken in line with the University’s Risk Management process which is closely aligned to the relevant national risk assessment standard AS/NZS 4360.


The following steps were performed:

  • Step 1 – Establish the context - Understand the Business and Clarify Objectives

  • Step 2 - Identify Risks (via a Risk Register and Treatment Plan)

  • Step 3 – Assess Risks (via a Risk Register and Treatment Plan)

In order to ensure a structured and consistent rating of risks and to ensure risk relativity across the

organisation, the University Risk Matrix was be used to assess consequence, likelihood and

calculate risk rating.


Case Studies

Three institutions with CMS implementations were selected for the purposes of identifying additional risks, requirements and opportunities. Two universities and one state government department were selected. One using MySource Matrix, two using another CMS, one of which is using the same portal technology recently selected for the UWA portal. The institutions selected were University of Melbourne, Monash University and the Department of Justice.


Feature Comparison of CMS Products

The decision not to go directly to market for a replacement CMS introduced a risk that other systems that might meet or exceed our requirements would be excluded from evaluation. In order to highlight additional requirements, a feature comparison of some leading CMS products was conducted via the comparison tool at CMSMatrix.org. CMS products compared were MySource Matrix, Drupal, Interwoven Teamsite, and RedDot CMS.


Expected Benefits

Brief statements of expected benefits accruing from an upgrade to MySource Matrix were compiled into a list.



Summary of results



CMS Functional Requirements

Functional requirements for a University CMS were compiled from:



  • The Library’s CMS functional requirements (adapted for University-wide solution)

  • Web@UWA Review

  • UWA CMS Review

  • Information Management Review

  • Liaison with ITS

  • Liaison with Schools currently outside the CMS

From Squiz.Net’s response, the experience of the University Library and that reported by the University of Melbourne (Appendix 8), it was determined that all mandatory functional requirements were met by MySource Matrix. (Appendix 1)


Risk and Issue Registers and Treatment plans

A risk analysis was performed in-line with the University’s Risk Management process which produced a Risk Register and Risk Treatment Plan. Additionally an Issue Register was started and expected benefits documented.


Feedback into the risk analysis was sought from Safety and Health (Stuart Spouse), ITS (Peter Morgan, Paul Blain, Roger Hicks), those with technical expertise and experience with the current CMS (Dan Petty, Mark Tearle) and Faculty representatives (Di Arnott, Narelle Molloy, Heather Merritt, Jason Pascoe).
Risks identified concerned

  • Governance

  • Scalability

  • Security

  • Custom functionality

  • Extensibility

  • Integration with other systems

  • Complexity

  • Infrastructure

  • Short time-frame of project

  • Product support and development

  • Usability

It was established that all identified risks with upgrading to MySource Matrix had existing controls or treatment options, and that all identified risks were assessed as minor or low. (Appendices 2, 3, & 4)


The risk and issue registers and treatment plans are intended to be live documents that would evolve as an implementation was planned and as each risk and issue was addressed.
Case Studies and Feature Comparison of CMS Products

The decision not to go directly to market for a replacement CMS introduced a risk that other systems that might meet or exceed our requirements would be excluded from evaluation.


For example, Gartner Research lists Interwoven TeamSite in the leading quadrant of Enterprise CMS solutions. References were sought from the Department of Justice (Appendix 6) and Monash University (Appendix 7), both of whom use Interwoven TeamSite as their CMS.
Screenshots and live demonstrations of the Interwoven TeamSite editing interface revealed it to be significantly more complex to use than front-end, in-context editing in MySource Matrix. This may have been a factor in the relatively small number of staff trained to use the product at each site examined relative to the 2,000 staff using the current version of MySource Classic at UWA.
However the Interwoven MetaTagger product used at both the Department of Justice and Monash University was of particular interest. MetaTagger can be trained to classify documents according to agreed schemas, thereafter automatically classifying documents with a high degree of accuracy. MetaTagger would significantly reduce the work entailed in classifying web information and would very likely improve the quality of classification. Local vendors have confirmed that MetaTagger is available as a standalone product with an interface that should allow integration with a range of enterprise applications including MySource Matrix.
A comparison was conducted by CMSMatrix (http://www.cmsmatrix.org) between MySource Matrix, Interwoven TeamSite, Drupal and RedDot CMS.
The case studies and CMSMatrix comparison did not uncover any functionality missing from MySource Matrix that would be desirable. Although the University should investigate the feasibility of integrating a standalone classification tool such as MetaTagger with the CMS.
Expected Benefits

A number of benefits (Appendix 5) may or will accrue from the University’s upgrade to MySource Matrix. Generally these benefits fall into two categories: benefits derived from upgrading from an older to new version of a related product and benefits of MySource Matrix versus other CMS products including MySource Classic.


Simplification of site migration through the vendor’s experience in supporting this upgrade path, reduction in retraining through familiarity of some aspects of the user interface and processes and reduction in time and cost to migrate custom functionality in Classic to Matrix through common elements of the architectures are some significant benefits flowing from an upgrade to Matrix.
Reduced cost through open source licensing, utilisation of existing infrastructure and architecture, access to comprehensive CMS feature set and better support for legislative requirements.




Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page