Comments on: Robertson’s rule of CMS usage

By: Thad McIlroy

Thad McIlroy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:35:55 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more! We’ve seen it again and again with technology, where organizations go to great effort and expense to adapt a standard technology to what they imagine are their “absolutely essential and indispensable” requirements. Over time they learn that it’s far more efficient, effective, and easier-on-the-budget to see if they can’t maybe — maybe — bend the inflexible rules a little bit and adapt their practices towards what the technology offers.

By: Gigi Wiltanger

Gigi Wiltanger — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:42:05 +0000

I think what happens is, you have somewhat of a technical skill-set disconnect between the ambitious web/IT staff (who sees the potential and are usually the driving force of change) and the more practical, non-technical staff (who usually don’t want anything to change because it’s not, in essence, a priority in their positions).

The first group wants all the CMS bells and whistles, but it’s the second group who are usually stuck having to actually use the tools in order to maintain the content. So what’s the result? Absolutely brilliant web launches, only to turn into ho-hum sites after about a month.

This is a fantastic observation!

By: James Robertson

James Robertson — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:40:53 +0000

@Brendan, that’s a good perspective on things!

I think that CMS projects tend to be over-engineered most of the time, mostly because they tend to be driven by technology considerations. There is also a huge lack of practical, pragmatic information on content management systems on the web, making it hard for organisations to identify what’s real and what’s hype. (In the absence of vendor-neutral commentary, other than from folks such as CMS Watch, vendor marketing rules.)

So I’m expecting to be recommending simplification in client projects for some time, even in a recession

By: Brendan

Brendan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:36:23 +0000

Interesting James, but I can’t help but think of the parallel between your theory and the standard practice in financial theory of “regression to the mean”, ie that everything will return to equilibrium, eventually.

Nowadays people are starting to think that, in financial markets at least, activity is more driven by continual cycles of fear and greed, leading to wild swings in prices where assets are alternatively vastly overpriced (in bubble times) and then vastly underpriced (in the times that we’re heading for right now).

An interesting question to ponder for content management teams, and IT projects in general, perhaps: do we tend to overengineer in the good times and then underengineer in the bad times?

Maybe that’s just human nature?