[Web4lib] RE: [ALACOUN:14893] Content Management RFP

[K.G. Schneider]

> ALA has issued an RFP for a content management system, and posted the
> request to Web4Lib (among other discussion lists).  Another member of that
> list notes that a content management program was implemented last year,
> and wonders whether this is a good use of ALA funds

(sent to both Web4Lib and Council)

I am one of a number of WAC members who went over the RFP and added my 200
cents. I was pleased to see the RFP, and am glad to see ALA move forward on
it. 

Is this a good use of funds? In a nutshell, yes. (Note that the actual post
to Web4Lib was not a question but a statement: "And this is to replace the
content management system put in, what, last year? I'm sure all ALA members
will be thrilled to see how well their dues are being spent.")

Longer answer: when the new website rolled out on April 7, 2003 (not that I
have the date memorized or anything) it was *ahem* not met with a whole
lotta happiness. The search engine was part of the problem, but the CMS
itself is directly and intimately related to problems people still have from
the front end (those long URLs, which you've frequently noted, Sue, among
other issues) and to problems people have with creating and managing content
internally. Basically, it sucks. 

Funding a new CMS is not just a good use of money. It is a REALLY good use
of money. It is a NECESSARY use of money. It would be better if the CMS had
been a good choice the first time around. We could armchair-fly those
decisions to the North Pole and back. But I will tell you, as one mired in
CMS upgrades herself, that even in a best-case scenario, it ain't easy to go
from nowhere to CMS. I think also that ALA overall has learned some basic
TANSTAAFL lessons about software, particularly the idea that the good stuff
costs money. And for that matter maybe has a better sense how important it
is to fund ITTS overall, adequate staff included. Tech staffing/resources
are crucial for an organization that relies so heavily on resources such as
the website, which is many things for us--archive, repository, first face
forward to the public, etc. 

Frankly, ALA is still understaffed and underequipped from a technology point
of view. But things, I hope, are improving. As for spending money, I am
indeed thrilled to see ALA address the limitations of the CMS. I think it is
a *fabulous* use of my dues. Go ahead and take pot shots at ALA, but in my
personal opinion, not representing anything but myself, I consider this
significant progress. 


Karen G. Schneider
kgs at bluehighways.com
WAC member
RFP reader/kibitzer
CMS upgrade survivor
Blah-de-blah blah...