Filed under: Content management
I’m doing a lot of work at the moment helping organisations select a content management system. One of the key aspects of this is making sure that our clients get to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of each product, and the vendor demos the major way of achieving this.
The first step is to prepare scenarios that outline a “day in the life” of the CMS, and to have these used as a “script” for the vendors. At the end of the session, we then use a very simple scoring scheme for each of the narrative requirements:
| Score | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not compliant | Does not provide the capability required, or meet the requirement specified |
| 1 | Poor | Inadequate implementation of requirement; or requirement promised for future version/release of the product |
| 2 | Requires development | The requirement will be met via additional custom development of the product (included in the quoted price) |
| 3 | Adequate | Meets the requirement outlined at a satisfactory, but not outstanding, level) |
| 4 | Good | Demonstrates an above-average ability to meet the stated requirement. |
| 5 | Excellent | The requirement is met in an outstanding way that exceeds expectations. |
This post was sparked by Tony Byrne’s recent writings on the topic. Like Tony, I’m a great believer in the “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” principle. If the vendor can’t show the feature today, then I’m not going to base a purchase on the promises for future versions. This is reflected in the scoring scheme…
