What are the requirements of companies, and what can content management systems do – this was the question that the new tekom-study tried to explore. This study was presented officially on the 10th of November, at the tekom Annual Conference.
This study was conducted as part of a cooperation project, in which the other participants besides tekom were the Stuttgart-based Fraunhofer Institut IAO and the Hochschule Karlsruhe für Technik und Wissenschaft. The Fraunhofer Institut was represented by Christoph Altenhofen, while Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Ziegler represented the Hochschule Karlsruhe. Dr. Daniela Straub and Michael Fritz worked in the project on behalf of tekom. This extensive study gives comprehensive information on the CMS-functions, decision making and criteria for and against the introduction of such systems, about the costs and the effort it involves, and about the roll-out and implementation. The survey was conducted in two parts – among users in the industry, and among the product manufacturers. Thus, both sides stand to benefit from the results.
Participation in the survey There are several companies that are grappling with content management systems (CMS). This is affirmed by the high rate of participation in the user survey: of the 717 participants, 49 percent are gathering information about content management. Another 7 percent are engaged in intensive discussions on whether it will be worthwhile to introduce a CMS or not. 3 percent are engaged in the concept phase and the selection of the system, respectively. There is sufficient interest in the topic, but the degree of usage is still quite low: only one out of every 5 technical documentation departments (21 percent) is already using a CMS. 7 percent among those surveyed had decided against a CMS. The supplier market has now established itself, and the CMS systems have reached a greater level of product maturity. At the same time, technical documentation is at the threshold of newer challenges. Many companies see modern authoring systems as a solution for adapting their documentation to address the increased present day requirements, and are therefore considering whether to introduce them, as revealed by the study.
Requirements of companies The increased number and variety of product-related information, shorter product life cycles and the globalisation of markets has spelt lasting changes for all areas of TD in the last few years. The results of the user survey show that, where information is concerned in the present scenario, it has become an almost urgent or even compelling necessity for companies to:
perform version management,
archive,
research,
reuse
and to use information for creating various information products, or use it many times over for various target groups.
Some of the very basic requirements of companies also include the incorporation of images and graphics, their administration (archival, meta-information, researches) and cross-media-publishing – meaning, preparing technical documentation for various media. Furthermore, about 75 percent of the respondents consider active terminology management to be a core activity: this is but one example of the change that technical documentation has undergone. In particular, the large number of languages and the need to manage content in different foreign languages is a task faced by several companies today. And this is precisely where the companies would expect some form of support from content management systems – together with translation memory systems, in order to increase the performance and efficiency of authoring processes. Besides the basic requirements, according to the user survey, each company also has its own individual requirements profile. The specific conditions and structure of tasks also mean that certain CMS functions might be an urgent necessity for some companies, while they could be totally irrelevant for others. Another factor which decides whether to use a CMS or not is the requirements profile. Thus, an analysis of requirements is the basic starting point before selecting a suitable CMS.
What a CMS can do A whole range of CMS vendors have established themselves in the market. The various systems have their own histories, and have their origins in web content management or in document management, for instance. This difference in origin also explains the difference in focus, where the functionalities are concerned, and partly also the differences in the way they work. On the whole, 18 systems were compared in the study. According to the user survey, these are systems which are most widely used, with respect to some 100 functions and implementation conditions such as interfaces. This comparison between systems revealed the following: where the basic requirements of companies are concerned, there are almost no differences between the various individual systems. Almost all the vendors support these by default. The following table illustrates this for a selection of six functionalities.
The picture looks different when it comes to specific requirements. Here, the differences between the systems become evident, for instance, in the support for “mumasy“. This is a schema as per the VDMA Unit Sheet 66320 for the Plant and Machinery sector, which aims at standardising the exchange of data between companies. As evident from the following table, so far only three systems support mumasy as part of the standard package. Ten manufacturers are in a position to configure mumasy, two are capable of programming it, and three vendors have not made any provisions for this function. This example of mumasy also shows the sector-specific focus and experience of certain manufacturers.
Quality of standard functions The differences in the offerings of the various system vendors with respect to the standard functions have some positive consequences for companies: usually, a lot of experience from previous projects will have gone into these functions, or, in some cases, the functions have even been developed in previous projects. This means that the systems will have successfully tided over several teething problems. Moreover, one advantage is that functions that are available as part of a standard package usually come with a cost advantage: everything else that needs to be configured or programmed before implementing and using the content management system means additional effort, and therefore additional costs. This is especially true when it comes to customising the system to the existing authoring processes, and programming the required interfaces. A survey among the companies showed that costs are a decisive criterion for 68 percent of the companies. The disadvantage of standard functions, or even standard processes is the fact that the authoring processes will have to be attuned to suit the software, and not the other way round. Companies definitely differ in their preferences here for “standard“ or “customised“ solutions: according to the study, smaller companies prefer the standard software to customised software. Many companies with more than 250 employees prefer software that is tailor made to suit their needs and their organisation, even if this means higher costs. This is just one of several results which indicate that there is a need to make different categories of systems, especially for small and medium sized companies.
Choice of special functions What is indispensable for some companies could well be superfluous for others: this is true not only in the case of the mumasy, but also for other special CMS functions. Thus, for instance, not all companies will need to import DTP documents and transfer them into an XML structure, or even need a general schema or DTP Management. The same holds true for additional system functions as well. The option of “suggesting terminology while editing in the workflow“ does not constitute a decisive criterion for companies whose work structures are not highly organised, or where a separate project management is in place. The differences in function and performance differ significantly among the various systems, especially with respect to these specific or additional requirements. The following table explains this, using examples from the study:
How the systems work When it comes to selecting a system, it is not only the question “What does the content management system have to offer?“, but also the analysis “How does a content management system work?“ that plays a key role. Here, the various CMS differ in their philosophies and concepts, and in their “usability“. Therefore, the study also contains use cases. Given below are five different or similar ways in which the systems work: the example considered here is the reference to usage (annotation), which shows where a particular module is used, and which modules are used in a document (or a module):
System 1: Reference to use is displayed in a separate window when the document or graphic image is marked. The documents contained are shown highlighted in the Table of Contents.
System 2: There are two options here: If a document is open, and a module is selected, the reference to use can be displayed through the menu bar, via View/Module Information. Alternatively, a module can be selected in the Module Maintenance, and the reference to the use queried here.
System 3: Can be queried directly in the administration tool.
System 4: Optic navigation or through the information module called Reference to Use.
System 5: Displays all dependencies between the modules: the various localised versions in which they are used, other modules in which they are used, as well as the modules that are used.
Satisfaction Suitability for use is a key factor in selecting the system. This is what decides how laborious any given step is, and it also has a decisive impact on how satisfied users are with the system. On the whole, users were happy with their systems. Nearly 70 percent of the CMS users who were surveyed said that they were satisfied or very satisfied. 3 percent gave a negative answer. The users also gave a very positive assessment of the cost-benefit relation. 46 percent felt that the benefits achieved were positive, and another 24 percent even found these to be very positive. 3 percent of the respondents were negative in their evaluation. These results confirm the strategic benefits of content management systems, and can also be projected to other departments in the companies. According to 41 percent of the respondents, the introduction of such systems usually pays itself out in two years.
Dr. Daniela Straub, a graduate in psychology (Dipl. Psychologin), has worked for several years on process optimisation and organisation development projects at a large international corporate consulting firm. Since the beginning of 2003, she has been working with TC and more GmbH and is responsible for the tekom benchmarking projects there. She is also in charge of studies and surveys, and takes care of the Continued or Advanced Training and Certification departments. Michael Fritz is a business graduate (Dipl. Betriebswirt) with a specialisation in Marketing. He has headed an educational institution and gained experience in various associations. Since 1996, he is the CEO of tekom. Since 2001, he is also running the business operations of TC and more GmbH.
Zum Tagungsportal 
