Implementing a Web Content Management Solution

Case Study: Kent State University August 19, 2003

Presenters

Joe Murray, Ph.D., Director, New Media Center

Christine Shih, Senior Systems Analyst

Lin Danes, Web Coordinator, University Communications & Marketing

Agenda• Where We Were (Murray)

– Institutional Snapshot– CMS Perspective, Objectives and Selection– People and Costs

• How We Grew (Shih)– CMS Implementation– Site Development Objectives

• Where We Keep Growing (Danes)– Key CMS Features Utilized– Lessons Learned/Benefits Realized (Murray, Danes Shih)

Where We Were

• 29,739 Students (Includes 8-Campus Network)

• 214 Academic Programs

• 5,000 Faculty and Staff

• 85 Administrative Departments

Where We Were• All types of Web editing software used prior to implementation

• Mostly PC based

• Strong Mac usage in a few areas

• 500,000 hits per day

• 90% Web visitors using IE, 8% Netscape

Where We Were

• CMS selection process began in 1999-2000

• CMS systems were high cost and corporate

• No strong educational precedent or niche

Where We Were

• Resources included:– Gartner

– Local development

– NMC networking

– Many live demos with users, editors, faculty and staff

– PC Magazine Editor’s Choice Awards

Where We Were

• Costs for content management systems at the time ranged from around $12 K to $350 K

• PaperThin’s CommonSpot™ Content Server was in the middle--at about $85 K

• Purchased at version 2.5-- launched with version 3.0

Web Site Stakeholders: Overall Goals

• Student recruitment: undergraduates and graduates• Provision of services and resources to current students and

faculty/staff– Operations & Curb Costs

• Faculty and staff recruitment• Enhancement of connectivity with and among alumni• Internal communication• Overall advancement of Kent State’s institutional identity on local,

regional, national and international level• Support research, teaching, learning

Web Improvement Plan Content Goals

Redesign Must Provide:

• Quicker, more intuitive navigation• Collective events calendar• Easier access to academic programs • No frames• Improved access to utilities such as online applications, WFS, e-

mail and phone directory• Separation of current and prospective student audiences• Protection of sites redesigned in “family look” of generation II

Web Improvement Plan Technology Goals

• Improve system redundancy, failover protection and security

• Leverage several key integrated technologies and innovations to improve data integrity (active directory, NSI Geoclustering, big IP)

• Provide University Communications & Marketing (UCM) content editors with ability to directly maintain and publish content to the institutional Web presence

• Replace homegrown TEXIS based system for content management

Implementation Challenges

• Implement new architecture without interrupting service

• Systems analysts, developers, operators and UCM content editors must be trained

• Coordinate conversion and build system in concert with next generation Web design migration and launch

• Aggressive timeline

CommonSpotRead-Only

Slave Server

(P2)

InternetUsers

HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion

HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion CommonSpot

Read-OnlyMaster Server(P1)

Big

IP

L

oad

Bal

anc

e

Sec

uri

ty

Red

un

dan

cy

HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion

HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion

Clu

ster

ed D

atab

ase

sIn

Diff

eren

t Lo

catio

ns

Hardware System Administration: Wearley Database Administration: RitleyCS Application Administration: ShihNetwork/servers: Roberts

CommonSpot Standard or Enterprise

Edition License

Authoring Server HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion

LibraryMS-SQL

DB Server

KSU Only Contributors

CommonSpot Standard or Enterprise

Edition License

Authoring Server HT

TP

Ser

ver

Col

dFus

ion

MoultonMS-SQL

DB Server

HT

TP

Ser

ver

Var

ious

DevelopmentServer

Staff Assignments/Responsibilities

Firewall

Firewall

Firewall

Firewall

Implementation Strategy Proposed IS/CS Server Architecture

CommonSpot Implementation Timeline

• Approximately 7-month span from initial install to data migration and launch on Aug. 26, 2002

• Initially 18 professional staff from four different departments in the IS division (New Media Center; Network Services; Academic Computing & Technology; Help Desk) and 23 staff from UCM and other departments contributed to successful completion

• Good out-of-the-box features, interface, documentation and customization capabilities

• Price

• Support relationship and continuity

•Genuine interest to improve product, and work to make our implementation successful

Why We Chose CommonSpot Content Server

How We Grew: Implementation

Implementation Steps

• Hardware

• Software

• Template building

• Content population

Hardware: Software:

• One authoring server

• Two target servers

• Two SQL servers

• OS – Windows 2000

• ColdFusion 5

• CommonSpot 3.2 SP1

Hardware Challenges

• Firewall all the servers located in two buildings• Load balancing between the two target servers in two

buildings• SQL servers in two different locations

Solutions• BIG IP and Geoclustering

Hardware Diagram

Hardware Setup Modified

www.kent.edu

• Institutional site has five tiers– Each tier has a different look

• Departmental and Regional Campus templates also vary

• Challenges– Tabs with highlights– Left-hand side navigation

changes with tab– Alternating images on the

home page and 2nd tier pages– Text-only versions of all

sites required

Template Solutions

• Use templates written in ColdFusion for each tier/level

• Use Javascript in the templates to control the alternating images and tab highlighting

• Page layout is done in the templates

Web Trends Statistics Validate Effectiveness of Redesign

Additional Web Goal Operations

• Examples:– Online admissions

• Fall 02 = 1st time online; 11% submitted electronically• Virtual tours• Arrange for campus visit

– Grads/president’s list ($11K savings)– E-inside– Viewbooks

Where We Keep Growing

• Key CMS Features Utilized

• Lessons Learned/Benefits Realized

Ongoing Challenges

• Replication stability• Sluggish through dial-up• MAC compatibility issues• Dual servers create short-term content

inconsistency when large amount of changes are applied

• Rollout to Departments

Rollout Not a Challenge After All!

• Administrative AND academic units coming on board

• 35+ sites in various stages of development (templates only made available in late February 2003)

• 10+ sites already live

• Minimal public relations – all clients predominantly contact UCM based on word-of-mouth testimonial from other clients

Benefits of Implementing a CMS & Pre-Defined Templates

• Advances integrated marketing at institutional and departmental level

• Provides departments with free resource to help:– Non-techies maintain departmental Web sites– Redesign for departments lacking budget for design– Web sites now compliant with recently approved Web Publishing Policy

• Templates comply with the recently approved Web Publishing Policy

• Use of WebTrends to monitor hits, most popular pages, etc.

Key Features of CommonSpot

• Meta tags, alt tags– Support ADA

compliance

• Freshness reminders/publish dates

Key Features of CommonSpot

• Link management (PDFs, upload files, e-mail notifications, broken links)

• HTML option• Workflow control

How Departments Migrate to CommonSpot

Four part process – online as pdf

1. Scope meeting – Preview available templates

• Departments

• Regionals

2. Assessment

3. Pre-production

4. Production

Regional Campus

Site

www.salem.kent.edu

www.kent.edu/developmentAdministrative Unit

www.kent.edu/nursingCollege of Nursing

Administrative Unit

Questions?

E-mail:

Joe Murray – gmurray@kent.edu

Christine Shih – shih@listserv.kent.edu

Lin Danes – ldanes@kent.edu