CCM Takes Center Stage: Report Evaluates Component Content Management Systems and XML Editors

Component Content Management (CCM) technology allows enterprises to manage text content as componentized chunks of information rather than whole documents or web pages. It has become increasingly important to modern enterprises, especially given the rapid emergence of the DITA (Darwin Information Typing Architecture) standard. However, CCM technology remains largely the domain of a wide collection of smaller software vendors targeting narrower use cases, according to research from CMS Watch, a vendor-independent analyst firm that evaluates content technologies.

These findings come from the XML and Component Content Management Report 2008, a groundbreaking evaluation of fourteen major CCM suppliers and five prominent XML Editor tools, based on extensive technology research and customer interviews. The 365-page report also documents industry best practices and common pitfalls to avoid when selecting and implementing a CCM system. Developed by CMS Watch and The Rockley Group, this report provides business critical background on the tools needed to effectively and efficiently deliver the right information to the right people at the right time in the right language and format.

In this exclusive interview with The Content Wrangler, we talk with Ann Rockley, co-author of the XML and Component Content Management Report 2008.

TCW: Hello, Ann. Thanks for taking time out of your extremely hectic schedule. Let’s dive right into today’s topic. Tell us about your new research report.

AR: The XML and Component Content Management Report 2008 report reviews both XML editors and CCM systems. We’ve reviewed 20 different products. In addition, it includes detailed information on what CCM systems are, why you need to use them, and how they fit in the context of all the other types of content management systems and sample scenarios where CCM systems are used.

TCW: Why did you write the report and whom do you see as the primary audience?

AR: There are a lot of content management systems out there and reports have been written about web content management, enterprise content management, etc., but nothing about the types of systems we and others use to manage structured content, XML-based content, and reusable content components. Forrester published a report on ECM which sparked a long discussion on the CM Pros listserv about why Forrester didn’t cover these types of content management systems. And so, the idea for the report was born. CMS Watch produces a number of well-respected reports on Web Content Management, Enterprise Content Management, Portals and more. We discussed the need for a report specifically focused on component content management and decided that it would be a good addition to the CMS Watch portfolio of reports.

The Technical Communication industry is one of the primary audiences for the XML & Component Content Management Report as technical communicators have been using these types of systems for more than a decade to create, manage and deliver software and hardware documentation. Others target audiences include content professionals who serve pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, publishing and media companies, government agencies, and other types of enterprises. CCM systems are most often deployed to solve content challenges in customer support and call centers, in e-learning and training departments, knowledge management, multi-channel marketing, HR content management, content globalization, and integrated enterprise information.

TCW: How do you describe Component Content Management? What is it?

AR: Component Content Management is the practice of creating and managing content as building blocks or components of content rather than documents or pages. These components can be assembled and published to the appropriate output (e.g., web, print, mobile). Each component has its own lifecycle (owner, version, approval, use) and can be tracked individually or as a part of an assembly.

TCW: Okay, now that we know what it is, how does it differ from Document or Content Management?

AR: Web Content Management systems tend to manage HTML pages, which correspond to the published web pages. Traditional Content Management systems have typically managed content as files (documents). In other words, most content management systems manage documents or pages not chunks (components) of information. I was recently asked by someone if a vendor says they support XML does that mean it supports components. The answer is usually no. Some of the differentiating factors for CCM include:

Manages components not documents
Tracks components with independent versioning and workflow
Ability to identify where content has been reused
Support for component, filtered, and variable reuse
Ability to create multiple “assemblies” of content from components in the repository

TCW: What types of industries would benefit most from Component Content Management approach and why?

AR: CCM has been implemented in many industries, including software, hardware, aviation, and pharmaceutical and medical devices. However, it would be misleading to suggest that CCM fits specific industries. It is more accurate to suggest that it supports different types of content or different approaches to creating content. For example, CCM as an approach has also been applied to multi-channel marketing information (web, print, mobile, broadcast) and also general business documents.

TCW: So, most folks don’t yet believe this type of technology really works. That’s understandable since hardly any companies stand up and say, “Hey, we’re doing it!” So, who is doing it and why?

AR: I think I would argue with the term “most folks”, but I would agree that many companies who are having a hard time just trying to get a handle on managing their documents, let alone trying to conceive of managing components, are highly skeptical. And we would agree that CCM is not for everyone, nor for every type of information. So, where do we see this technology being used? Three of the industries just mentioned have been using these types of systems for more than a decade: technical documentation (hardware and software), aerospace, and training and development. Pharmaceutical companies started using these systems about five or six years ago with the advent of XML standards for labeling materials. Medical device manufacturers have been using it for about the same period of time, though they have no specific standards they have to follow, yet. As content has become more global and organizations are having to support localized content and global websites, CCM has started to gain rapidly increasing acceptance as companies can save a great deal of money through translation reductions if they manage their content as components and not documents. Publishing and media-oriented businesses have begun to embrace this approach to save money through multi-channel publishing. Some of the newest to adopt CCM are organizations producing multi-channel marketing materials or HR groups supporting multiple geographic regions or audiences.

TCW: What are three top reasons an organization would want to adopt Component Content Management? And, why?

AR: That’s a great question. Here are my thoughts.

Reason 1: Reuse -- All organizations reuse content to some degree. We have found when doing content audits that 25% or more of content is reused in most organizations. With CCM, you can store reusable content in components and reuse them whenever you need. The CCM system helps you to manage that reuse, with search tools to help you find reusable components, authoring tools that reference the reusable content, and management tools that help to show where content is reused.
Reason 2: Translation Management -- Translating and localizing content is expensive and time consuming. In the past, companies have sent whole documents or large sections of documents to translators. They have then relied on translation memory to find content that has been previously translated and identify where content is changed/new. It is faster and cheaper to send smaller pieces of content through the translation process. When a component has been translated, it can be also be reused when necessary. You do not have to retranslate content that has not changed or even compare it to translation memory until it is changed.
Reason 3: Collaborative Authoring -- Having multiple contributors has typically meant that you pass a file from person to person so each can add their content. Or, each adds their content to separate files, which is then passed to someone who has to stitch them all together, fix differences in structure and formatting and publish the content. With CCM, authors write content to a specific structure which makes it easy to mix-and match the content to form other information products. The technology makes the process of assembling and formatting the content easier, faster, and less error-prone.

TCW: When making such a change – and a big change this is – what are some of the common challenges and how do we avoid them?

AR: Probably the biggest change is the new way of writing. When you make the move to structured content, authors need to understand how to write in a different way, how to write to a consistent structure. They often find this change restrictive and they say it limits their creativity. The key to success is to gain an understanding of what they are writing, how they are writing it, why they write it a certain way BEFORE you model the content. The structure supports the way in which writers write, freeing them up to focus on what’s important—the quality of the content and its usefulness to the content consumer. Formatting and other manual tasks are replaced by more efficient mechanisms. At first, this approach will seem awkward, but most writers will gradually adapt. As one author said to us “structure will set you free!”

The second area of challenge is reuse. Authors write content in a specific manner for a specific reason and audience. They say that the content they create is effective for their readers, but content quality can be impacted when its not optimized for reuse. When you reuse content, content which is written for a specific purpose isn’t always the best for multiple purposes.

Recently at a conference I ran into a person from one of our clients that we had worked for a number of years ago. She reintroduced herself and then said “You know, I just wanted to tell you that I hated your guts when you changed all our processes”. I can honestly say I was taken aback, what does one say in response to this?! But she went on to say “But now, I wouldn’t create content any other way. It [structured content and content reuse] makes so much sense, we can do so much more than we used to be able to do. We’ve been able to innovate, and we can really focus on the customer”. So, yes change is not without some pain, but the long-term gain is worth it.

TCW: Many organizations want to adopt component reuse – what are the basics to developing a reuse model?

AR: You begin by developing a thorough understanding of the content. Let’s imagine that you wanted to develop a reuse model for marketing brochures and a marketing web site for a software product. You start by doing a thorough visual analysis of samples of the two types of content. You look for specific pieces of content that are reused in the different products. For example, you might find that “system requirements” shows up in both brochures and and on the web site.

The next step is to create content models. Content models are specifications that define the structure of content. Following the example of “product description,” a simple model might be “product name, positioning statement, features, benefits, value proposition” For reuse, content modeling is essential, as content must be structurally consistent to be reused and be effective. As part of your content modeling, you must also determine the metadata you need to collect. If you are going to store components of content, you need to be able to find them to use or reuse them.

A content model will then help you make decisions about the technology you might need to support reuse.

TCW: And, of course, this interview would not be complete without a mention of the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA). What is DITA and is it compatible with the Component Content Management approach? If so, why?

AR: DITA is XML-based approach to content that uses “topics” as the primary component. It defines four different types of topics, including tasks, concepts, reference, and generic topics. Each has a structure that is appropriate to the type of information be created. Because DITA is modular in nature and because it is an XML standard, it fits nicely into the component content management arena. DITA is commonly supported by software vendors and has been widely adopted by organizations of varying sizes who are attempting to improve their content creation, management and delivery processes. Those who adopt DITA often enjoy the cost savings and quality improvements of XML and content management without the challenges associated with developing a unique structure and approach.

TCW: In this increasingly global marketplace, how might the Component Content Management approach help or hinder an organization that needs to localize its content for various markets in numerous countries?

AR: Definitely help, not hinder. We have found that organizations that translate content have a huge opportunity for ROI, often 30-50% savings. Traditionally, companies create content then hand it off to a translation agency who runs it through a translation memory tool that identifies what content has changed and what content is new. Did you know that you will be charged by the agency to determine which pieces of content have changed and which have not? In a component oriented environment, only those components that have changed or are new will sent to the translation agency, immediately reducing costs by eliminating the need for the translation house to determine what will and will not be translated.

Another thing most companies don’t realize is that identical content in different formats (say HTML and in a .doc file) are considered different when reviewed by the translation memory tool. This is because HTML tags are different from rtf tags (.doc files) and are flagged as requiring individual translation. However, when content is stored in XML, the tags are always the same regardless of the channel of delivery. This means that all the costs being incurred to reformat the content when it comes back from the translation agency to return it to the original format (e.g., Quark, FrameMaker) are eliminated because the tags are the same and only an appropriate stylesheet is required to publish content correctly.

TCW: If I were an upper level manager, I’d want to know how Component Content Management impacts time-to-market. What are the potential impacts? And, how does the Component Content Management approach provide improvements in time-to-market that we can’t get from existing approaches?

AR: Time-to-market is improved through:

Productivity gains— the “write once, use many” approach means that it takes less time to create, manage, and deliver content
Less time needed to translate—less content to translate means that translation can be done faster and cheaper

TCW: Learning about Component Content Management is tricky. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of information available. So, how can our readers learn what they need to know to launch a successful Component Content Management project? Can you point us to some online resources of value?

AR: Our web site, blog and the Rockley Report are good places to start. You can also request a free, downloadable chapter from the report, which contains some useful information about CCM and a sample review of one product vendor. Other useful resources include:

The Content Wrangler
CMS Watch
Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy (by Ann Rockley, Steve Manning and Pamela Kostur)
OASIS DITA homepage
DITA.XML.org

TCW: Thanks for taking time to chat with us today. We look forward to learning more about CCM technologies and wish you the best of luck on your report. May it be a big success!

AR: Thank you. I enjoyed the experience.

More articles about Content Management : Component Content Management : Technical Writing : Authoring Tools : XML