---

Why do beautifully architected, well-designed websites, especially those with content management systems (CMS), so often fall into disrepair within a year of their launch? CMS projects are enticing and sales pitches are full of promises. A CMS is designed to empower different groups and agents within the organization to manage their own content, remove IT bottlenecks, streamline and formalize workflows, and give business units complete control over what content appears online. So what goes wrong?

Sometimes, CMS deployments fail due to technology choices. But, content management must be driven by people, not technology. More often than not, problems spring from the failure to make decisions about how content will be managed on a day-to-day basis and assign responsibilities for ongoing site maintenance. Such failure is usually due to an absent or substandard content governance model-a document that dictates site content maintenance and can also summarize underlying content strategy. A CMS will only deliver the promised business value when attention is paid to the non-technical issues of content ownership. The same people who have become empowered to manage content may not have the time, interest, or training needed to effectively use the CMS.

Organizations that take the time to create a governance model increase the likelihood that their site will grow in a controlled manner and maintain its integrity over time. The process of creating a governance model allows the organization to recognize and discuss potential content management problems before they occur. The governance document resulting from these discussions serves as instructions for decision-making, identifies hiring and training needs, and assigns responsibilities across the organization.[1]

An effective content governance document covers at least the following four areas:

---

1. The key players

A significant portion of the governance model should be devoted to assigning responsibilities for day-to-day maintenance of the site as well as long-term strategic planning. In order to do this, the key players must be identified and their roles defined. Depending on the organization, the site may have several layers of oversight involved in clearing and approving content for posting. While content ownership may be distributed among many users, it is important to ensure that ultimate ownership of the site rests with one individual who maintains a broad view of the site and its goals. This individual will provide guidance to the content owners, enforce the governance model, and act as the decision-maker.

Changing processes and adding to the workloads of individuals can be extremely difficult. Given this, do not allow the technology to drive the processes that are developed for managing content. Adopt existing approval and editorial processes that are already in place within the organization. If the introduction of a content management system and the roles assigned to individuals represents a significant departure from business-as-usual, buy-in from leadership and the revision of job descriptions will be necessary in order to properly support the site.

---

2. Structural management

As with all information technology projects, CMS projects must be carefully monitored and measured to ensure a full return on investment. Measuring user satisfaction with the site itself can often uncover problems with content management and the need for larger, structural changes. The particular measures of success that are important to an organization may vary based on the type of site, target audience, or content base. Relevant annual goals should be set by the site's governing bodies. By continuously striving for improvement, the site is more likely to remain well-managed and provide a return on investment.[2]

Over time, it may become apparent that entirely new sections, or complete revisions to the design, are needed to keep a site current and responsive to its user base. These types of changes are beyond the purview of a content manager and should be carefully reviewed and considered by a board or governing body that has high-level oversight. Documenting which groups in the organization are responsible for various types of changes can assist the site owners with long-term management issues.

---

3. Content Management

Of course it is important to identify how content itself will be managed in the new environment. An effective governance model will cover these basic components of long-term content management:[3]

Legacy Content Migration

• Decide what will and will not be migrated to the new content management system.
• Identify the individuals responsible for migrating content and determine their level of decision-making authority.

Template Considerations

• Determine what constitutes the need for a new content template.
• Document the process for requesting a new template (including who should be involved in the decision-making process).

New Content Creation

• Document who is responsible for which areas of the site and make sure those individuals are made aware of their responsibilities.
• Provide instructions for creating content within the CMS.
• Generate style guides to address language choices and content format.

Content Modification and Reuse

• Set policies regarding how published content will/can be modified to avoid power struggles with the content creator.
• If third parties are contributing content, ensure that copyright and authorship issues are addressed.

Version Control and Site Rollback

• Identify who can authorize a rollback and what options exist for re-posting prior versions of content.
• Determine if the need to identify who made specific changes will be necessary.

Content Rotation and Retirement

• Determine how often content owners must consider their pages for updating.
• Set policies for the retirement of content: Will it be deleted permanently or archived?

---

4. Workflow Issues

Content management workflows are intended to help manage and put the brakes on hyperactive content submission. They also ensure that content is well-edited and appropriate for the site. However, the tools supporting workflow activities are often similar to software development tools and use jargon like check-in, check-out, versioning, branching, state change, etc. These terms and practices will likely be unfamiliar to your content editors. For this reason, attempting to create a working process by simply defining workflow within content management software will generally fail. Successfully implemented content management software does not create your workflow, rather it helps formalize and manage it. Organizations that begin with highly scripted workflows tend to remove steps, one by one until only a few steps remain. In fact, most related business processes cannot be modeled precisely in a content management system simply because flexibility is needed.

Nevertheless, delegated content management requires a system of checks and approvals on the posting of new content. It is recommended that simple, generic, role-based workflows be developed that mirror the way content is already generated within the organization. Interactions that now take place between individuals (emailing ideas, discussing formatting, etc.) should continue to take place even though they may not be closely scripted in the workflows.

Workflows represent a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, the CMS should provide a fast and efficient publishing system. On the other, workflows can improve compliance with architecture, style, and security standards. It is important to find a balance between the benefits of workflows and the extra layer of complexity they add. Generally, it is best for them to be as simple as possible while still remaining effective.

---

Pulling it together

In the end, one of the greatest benefits of creating a governance model is that it prompts site owners to talk about potential stumbling blocks and pressure points before those problems impact site performance. It can also help elevate the importance of Web content in the eyes of leadership, since a governance model must have their buy-in to be effective in the future. Yet another benefit is that documenting content management decisions and related roles within an organization can serve as a decision-making tool for day-to-day operations. Above all, however, a model must perform its primary purpose: to make content owners and related governing bodies aware of their responsibilities to the long-term maintenance of the site. If the model does nothing else, it is still likely to ensure that the site will remain intact after the consultants leave the scene.

---

Sources:

[1] White, Martin, IntranetsToday.com; "Intranet Governance,"
http://www.intranetstoday.com/Articles/Default2.aspx?ArticleID=5466&AuthorID=139

[2] Singh, Shiv; Razorfish; "Value-driven Intranet Design,"
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/value_driven_intranet_design

[3] Woods, Randy; non-linear creations inc.; "Defining a model for
Content Governance,"
http://www.contentmanager.net/magazine/article_785_defining_a_model_for_content_governance.html

View all Insight articles
NavigationArts home