[Sigia-l] Content Management Implementations

[Todd R.Warfel]

Well, when I came to Cornell, they didn't have a CMS. I insisted that 
this was one of the first things we put into place. We did a 2-3 month 
eval of several vendors (e.g. Vignette, Documentum, Divine 
(OpenMarket), Interwoven, FatWire, ArticleBase, RedDot, ZapWerks). Then 
I insisted that we plan a first phase at 6-9 months out, as we had to 
run the process of requirements definition, design, testing, 
prototyping, deployment, etc.

We have a total of around 15-20 sites we'll be migrating into FatWire's 
UE over the next three years. We put together a loose three year plan 
and we're working sites in one by one, as we go along.

One thing I've learned about Academia vs. the "real world" - timelines 
in Academia are a bit longer. In the commercial world, we probably 
would have had 6-8 weeks for the whole thing.

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 10:33 AM, paula.thornton wrote:

> Pipe up anyone else who has been on an implementation, but 
> implementation
> projects are still fundamentally driven by deadlines first and project 
> plans
> are worked backward to fit the space. I've not seen one CMS 
> implementation
> that was given more than 6 months implementation time (on their 'first'
> try). Yet, realistically, for what most of the projects I've been 
> involved
> with were trying to accomplish -- total corporate content management 
> -- it
> would have been nearly unrealistic to allow less than 6 months just 
> for the
> requirements phase.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel

_//message first [method second]
.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.
_//user experience architect
Information architecture
Interaction design
Usability analysis
[P] (607) 339-9640
[E]  twarfel at messagefirst.com
[w] http://www.messagefirst.com
.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.==.--.

In theory, theory and practice are the same,
but in practice, they're not -- anonymous