Have you ever watched a sports team huddle over a big play? With the game on the line they make a decision in minutes and everyone runs out to do their part. Or at least that’s how it seems. In reality, dozens of pre-game decisions have to happen. Before they step on the field, coaches have already discussed their team’s abilities, mapped out possible plays and decided who makes the final call.
Contrast that to the last CMS selection meeting I attended. Stakeholders were all over the field with different priorities, design preferences and scope. The vendor was left trying to guess whose priorities took precedence and the end result was a painful implementation process that never really got us what we wanted.
What went wrong? We didn’t take the time to make the decisions you need to make before choosing a CMS. Instead of focusing on the decision at hand (which vendor was the best fit), we were focused on winning internal debates. To be frank, it cost us the game.
So before you even start your short list of vendors, I beg you to gather your stakeholders together for some pre-game decisions.
This one might sound easy, but it’s critical that everyone understands any non-negotiable deadlines. There is no 30-day grace period for a retailer who misses Black Friday. One way to approach this is by asking yourself what happens if you miss the proposed launch date. Will it mean suffering through a few months on an old CMS, delaying a product launch or could it lead to longer delays if resources are needed elsewhere? Stakeholders should disclose any conflicting priorities or busy times of the year that could affect resource availability.
Security regulations, technical limitations, preferred vendors and pre-existing technology investments will factor into the final CMS decision. Decide which ones are deal breakers so you don’t waste time falling in love with a CMS that you can never have.
On the technical side, these can include preferred infrastructure (Saas vs on premise, cloud-based, etc.), the languages your developers use, security requirements (PCI DSS compliance, ISO 27001 compliance, 99.99 SLA) and ability to integrate with an existing tech stack.
For practitioners, deal breakers are often use cases (ecommerce site, personalization, localization, digital signage, interactive content, etc.). Practitioners should also consider preferences around the user interface, workflows and compatibility with the tools they use.
The CMS can be a bone of contention between developers and editors as greater functionality can impact usability for less technical users. These debates can get heated when you’re looking at vendors and making trade-offs. Understanding the reason behind different needs can help stakeholders better weigh the importance of each team’s preferences and prioritize them.
For example, you might prioritize ease of use for people who will use the CMS daily because that can save more time than automating a function that is performed monthly. Or you might be willing to trade some ease of use to get a CMS that empowers developers to build and ship faster.
Imagine asking a potential customer what they want their website to look like and getting five different answers. In my experience, the vendor either makes their best guess at who will win or presents a mishmash that doesn’t work for anyone. Stakeholders should talk about how the digital experience will look as well as what they expect the CMS to do.
Think about how many digital channels or projects you expect the CMS to support. If it’s replacing an old CMS, how different do you expect it to be? Are you looking for an out-of-the-box solution or do you plan to push the limits of a traditional CMS? Will it support one team or do you want a solution that can scale enterprise-wide? Do you want to unify content management across different products and channels?
This might not be in scope for the current project, but if unifying content is a long-term goal then choosing a CMS with that potential can avoid replatforming in a few years. Using a headless CMS for a smaller project can serve as a proof of concept to eventually pull content into a single hub capable of multi-channel content delivery. This breaks down content silos and streamlines content operations for long-term value.
CMS selection often focuses on how a CMS will help you meet specific requirements or achieve certain goals. Vendors tend to gloss over the details of implementation and onboarding until later in the process. When those details are unpacked it can feel like a lot of surprises that have an impact on the time and resources needed to go from selection to production.
Key areas to consider are:
This gets to the heart of what you want to accomplish — launching a new digital product/experience, faster shipping speed, fewer content bottlenecks, happier editors and developers, etc. Agreeing on measures of success can help guide your CMS decision, but it is equally important to talk about failure. What are your biggest issues you want to avoid? For example if the CMS delivers the customer experience you want now, but can’t scale on the backend is that really a success? Stakeholders should agree on what success looks like, how it will be measured and what additional benefits would be the icing on the cake.
Once you have all your pregame decisions made — or at least get them out on the table — you’re ready to start looking at CMSes and making your shortlist. And hopefully when you’re sitting at those vendor meetings your team will be aligned and ready to make a game changing decision. Good luck!
Lisa Lozeau is a Contentful writer. She has lead digital marketing programs across several industries on a variety of platforms. She knows the shortfalls of traditional CMSes and is excited about the solutions Contentful has to offer.