University of Wisconsin–Madison · CMS Assessment Committee Phase I Report Executive Summary...

CMS Assessment Committee Phase I Report

Executive Summary

Phase One Methodology and Overview The CMS Assessment group membership is comprised of campus IT professionals with significant website administration knowledge; it is chartered by John Krogman. The committee will report both to John Krogman and MTAG. The committee’s primary goal is to first gather information regarding the use of website Content Management Systems (CMS) on campus. If the data indicates an opportunity to better utilize pooled campus funding, the committee is prepared to engage a second phase, which will put forward enterpriselevel tool recommendations. During this first phase, the committee identified internal and peer institution CMS trends, conducted targeted inperson interviews with 12 campus stakeholders, and collected campuswide data (from over 650 individuals) over a two week period through a survey geared toward current and future CMS usage. The data collected indicates the timing is right to explore options for a new, centrally supported, enterprise caliber CMS. Choosing a new CMS tool will afford campus an opportunity to use existing funding levels to maintain and support a significantly larger percentage of CMS based websites, in addition to the potential real money and opportunity for cost savings that could be realized by units through voluntary aggregation and shared services. In addition, aggregation of websites using a widespread CMS tool would potentially lower the overall risk platform for campus while freeing up security team cycles. User feedback indicates a strong desire for a centralized library of resources, themes, and plugins, however existing distributed campus users would likely be slow to migrate to a centralized CMS. Better CMS alignment on campus would allow centralized development of a library of resources, themes and plugins and a pathway to more centralizing. Our current campus CMS tool, OpenText (formerly RedDot) was chosen during an RFP process in 20072008. It is comparatively expensive to maintain the license ($79k) and infrastructure ($86k), which are covered through campus assessment. Even though web development and technical support services are available at no cost to end users, to date OpenText has been adopted by approximately 10% of campus web sites. According to data collected in the survey, current users of OpenText that are planning a website migration are overwhelmingly looking at other tools, despite their strong satisfaction with the support provided by the WiscWeb CMS team.

Narrative Summary

Introduction In recent years, the use of websites has exploded on the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. At present, there are at least 1900 separate UWrelated websites. They are used by groups large and small, for purposes as wideranging as sharing research data, to broadcasting photos of plants, to selling artwork, to collaborating between teams scattered across continents. To address their needs, many units have utilized their own internal staffing and infrastructure to develop and host their web sites. Additionally, some groups within the UW community contracted with thirdparty website vendors to develop custom websites, then hired their own IT support staff. Often times, websites are put up by a graduate student and then orphaned when that person exits the program. Campus groups have looked to DoIT for guidance and support. For the sake of efficiency, branding, and offering guidance for those who need it, the UW needs to map out a strategy to address this critical, and radically shifting landscape. DoIT is very invested in working with campus to work on a future strategy for CMS. In August of 2015, John Krogman, DoIT COO, constituted a committee to conduct a campuswide evaluation of this everevolving website environment on campus. This committee, called the UW CMS Assessment Committee, is chaired by distributed IT and comprised of twelve individuals who represent a broad crosssection of departments, schools, and experiences. This report presents the collective findings of that committee. The CMS Assessment Committee needed to gather information from numerous sources. Subcommittees were formed to conduct facetoface interviews of UWMadison staff, to contact peer institutions, to collect usage on our own campus website community, to analyze the data that was returned through our survey, and to craft the various components of this report. Through committee meeting time, and google document comments, main themes were pulled from the sub groups reports (see Appendix I), and turned into this report.

Gathering Information To better understand the CMS landscape on campus, the committee conducted twelve facetoface interviews with UW groups who had recently built, or rebuilt, their websites, or were otherwise involved in the UW website situation. (See Appendix I, 1on1 Themes) During these interviews, we asked about the decisions that were made, the priorities that were pursued, and ultimately, what guided the group to make the decisions they made.

CMS Assessment Committee Final Report Page 2 of 10

Some recurring themes encountered during these interviews include: There is interest in centralized support for various webneeds on campus. There is also a strong desire for various degrees of autonomy. Campus website owners are largely expecting to provide and edit their own website

content. A strong desire for easy to access branding, pictures, UW data feeds, and plugin

support. Across campus, there is broad support for (and use of) multiple website platforms. The

three most common tools are WiscWeb CMS, Drupal, and WordPress. The WiscWeb CMS, OpenText, has a mixed reception on campus. The service and support team for WiscWeb CMS has a very strong reputation on

campus. Many groups on campus are willing to spend a significant amount of money for custom

development and hosting of their websites, while other groups need a free service. One of the main themes was ease of use for content editors, which frequently was a key

factor in the next CMS selection. A desire for optional workflow control. Significant frustration when a site was dependent on developer support when the area

had developer turnover. Instantaneous publishing when the publish button is pressed.

A Qualtrics survey was conducted to determine what tools people are using, and why those tools are being chosen. The survey utilized smart logic to keep the questions relevant based on previous responses. If they had recently migrated, we asked them about their old site and reasons for moving. We asked about their current site. And if they planned to migrate within the next two years, we asked them about what they were migrating to. We had over 650 responses, the vast majority were from Drupal, WordPress, and Wiscweb users. In addition to emails to Tech Partner Primes and MTAG, we also sent the survey to the Drupal, WordPress, and Wiscweb user groups. DoIT hosting sent the questionnaire to all their customers, and DoIT’s PTE sent the survey to the attendees of CMSrelated training. A couple standouts

● WordPress is growing; over 50% of the migrations in the next two years. ● Functionality was the top priority when choosing new websites.

A number of similar universities were contacted and asked simplified questions, usually with a phone follow up to see what they were doing for enterprise solutions.


Current UW–Madison Offering UW–Madison offers one enterpriselevel web publishing tool: OpenText. It is supported centrally by DoIT’s WiscWeb CMS Enterprise Service, is funded through a campus assessment, and is available at no additional cost to those who use it. OpenText has a small but loyal following of users who are very pleased with the tool. Almost all who responded were pleased with the support provided by the WiscWeb CMS team. However, many groups on campus have decided to not use OpenText, because they determined that the tool did not meet their group’s needs; however, given the absence of central support for other tools, these groups were left to find and fund support on their own. OpenText is a static website generator that pushes content to web servers. This is a very different model than the current crop of CMS where the ability to edit is embedded with the hosting. Modern CMS make much better use of shared resources, requiring fewer staff and vastly cheaper hosting costs per site. In particular, Drupal and WordPress have become commonplace in both corporate and higher education creating a robust user community with innumerable enhancement (plugin) options. UW Milwaukee performed an exhaustive investigation into different CMS options, looking at usability and long term cost before recently settling on WordPress. Other large campuses made the move to Drupal after similar studies. UW–Madison campus users are also making the move. Over 50% of planned new sites will use WordPress.

Current State Issues We also saw a small but significant number of sites that are working with outside vendors for design. There is limited design support on campus. While this isn’t necessary an issue, since there are a number of commercial design companies able to step in, it is concerning that the designers tend to propose new CMS options which further diversify the campus installed CMS base. We did hear that design firms designed for WordPress or Drupal but not OpenText. The result leaves some campus units on a platform for which they have no support. We also investigated several shared hosting options on campus. We found that multihosted WordPress and Drupal were a fraction of OpenText hosting costs and frequently had fewer staff supporting them with a similar portfolio of service to WiscWeb CMS. We also investigated a few cloud vendors, and found potential, though it was often hard to easily gauge final costs. For instance, they typically charge for web certificates, but those can be obtained at no cost on campus due to a subsidy from the Office of Cybersecurity. Our reading of the data shows these two areas, campus multihost sites and cloud solutions, should be covered in a detail in a Phase II report to validate they scale to enterprise levels and with adequate technical detail to able to be evaluated for campus use.


One of the areas that needs to be explored is a way to better leverage work done by WiscWeb CMS for use by more of campus. A number of groups noted they are unlikely to move to a campus solution but would be very interested in a library of resources that they can consume.

Other Universities and Corporate We found that universities were moving to Drupal and WordPress. From Gartner reports, these are both strong contenders, each with the ability to handle most website needs with energetic developer communities. Gartner noted that supporting both platforms would ensure that all web projects could find an appropriate CMS tool for their needs. We also looked at reports on adoption rates and found that both Drupal and WordPress had a large user base and market share, while OpenText has dwindled. (See Appendix 4.) UW–Milwaukee in particular was very interesting. They recently picked WordPress as their enterprise solution and are migrating to it. They invested significant resources in researching the best option for CMS, including user testing and analyzing long term maintenance costs. WordPress was found to be the easiest and most efficient content editor, saving staff time when editing pages. It was also the best value when long term maintenance costs were factored in. It was assessed robust enough to handle the vast majority of their needs. There were a number of other large schools that adopted Drupal.

WiscWeb CMS FY16 Budget DoIT Labor 535,000 Training 40,000 DoIT Hosting 76,420

Servers, Database, Network, Storage, Backup

Licensing 84,394 Open Text 79,000 Depreciation 10,000 Misc 3,150

Room rental, advertising, font services, etc

Total 708,964


Statistics and Survey Analysis

Q: What CMS systems are respondents using now to manage their websites and how many websites are they managing on each CMS (question 16)?

CMS Response % Resonse Websites % of Total

WiscWeb CMS 145 33% 175 9%

WordPress 201 45% 658 34%

Drupal 80 18% 260 14%

HTML/CSS 144 33% 338 18%

SharePoint 15 3% 17 1%

Google Sites 37 8% 78 4%

Other1 72 16% 277 14%

Other2 11 2% 118 6%

Numbers in this chart reflect only users who responded to the survey. Actual numbers for all CMSs are believed to be higher.

Q: Why did your group migrate from the prior platform(s)? (Select all that apply.)

Reason Responses % of Total

dissatisfied with the functionality (e.g. the ability to create new pages, edit existing pages, make minor changes to appearance and layout)

78 54%

dissatisfied with the technical support (e.g. the ability to develop new features, expand the website’s usefulness)

54 38%

dissatisfied with maintenance (e.g. maintaining versions, installing patches, managing backups, security, etc.)

55 38%

dissatisfied with the cost 8 6%

I don’t know 34 24%


Q: What will be your priorities when selection the next platform? (Select all that apply.)

Reason Responses % of Total

functionality (e.g. the ability to create new pages, edit existing pages, make minor changes to appearance and layout)

131 89%

technical support (e.g. the ability to develop new features, expand the website’s usefulness)

92 62%

maintenance (e.g. maintaining versions, installing patches, managing backups, security, etc.)

102 69%

the cost 8 5%

I don’t know 12 8%

Q: Where applicable, indicate your group’s satisfaction with the technical support available with the following web content management platforms or tools. (Note: Responses ranged from 1pt to 4pts. A lower “Average Value” represents a better, more positive response.)

Reason Average Value

WiscWeb CMS 2.45

WordPress 2.62

Drupal 2.77

HTML/CSS (e.g. DreamWeaver) 2.68

SharePoint 3.14

GoogleSites 2.85

Other 2.90


People who have WiscWeb CMS sites, and are planning on migrating in the next two years.

People who have WordPress sites, and are planning on migrating in the next two years.

People who have Drupal sites, and are planning on migrating in the next two years.


WiscWeb CMS satisfaction results for people with WiscWeb CMS sites.

WordPress satisfaction results for people with WordPress sites.

Drupal satisfaction results for people with Drupal sites.


Committee List Eric Giefer, Chair, Law School Ryan Engel, Learning Support Services (LSS) Libby Peterek, University Marketing Jason Pursian, CALS Griffith Randall, L&S Student Academic Affairs Greta Seckman, Division of Continuing Studies Alan Silver, Chemistry Dan Simanek, VCRGE Joe Tarter, DoIT James Vogel, Office of the Registrar Nick Weaver, University Marketing Cliff Cunningham, PM, DoIT


Printed 11/17/2015

CMS Assessment Committee – Phase I Report Appendix 1 CMS Assessment Committee – Findings and Assessment

Themes from 1on1 Interviews Individuals Interviewed OneonOne Meloney Linder, School of Business Brenda Spychalla, School of Education Aaron Stern, OHR Amy Toburen, Dean of Students Office Brian Rust, DoIT Communications Mike Pitterle, School of Pharmacy Steve Barnet, Ice Cube Alissa Ewer & Kathi MatthewsRisley, Graduate School David Luke, UW Libraries Beth Tobakos, Political Science Department Kelly O’Loughlin & Allyson Casey, UW Union Cathy Riley, WiscWeb CMS

Existing Service

WiscWeb CMS, currently using OpenText as the web content management platform, hosts approximately 200 sites on the UWMadison campus. The service provides both standard and responsive templates. Custom site development is also available. Publishing is done via SFTP to a remote site. Extensive documentation is available, as is training. Group training is offered several times a month, while 1on1 training can be made available. WiscWeb CMS provides access to frontend web developers, along with active maintenance and security. It was noted that there are a significant number of people on campus who don’t have funding for a website(s) and/or don’t have access to web developers. This community, in particular, is a key driver behind the existing services.

Themes: Usage Trends

A number of large campus entities have recently chosen to migrate away from WiscWeb CMS or never adopted the platform. The most common target platform(s) for campus entities not using WiscWeb CMS are clearly the open source, PHPbased web CMS platforms, WordPress and Drupal specifically though others were noted. Education and School of Business both make use of thirdparty commercial tools, though it seems Education has mixed use with Wordpress and may be shifting in that direction.

Appendix 1 - CMS Assessment Committee - Findings and Assessment

Page 1 of 23

Themes: Reasons given for not selecting WiscWeb CMS

Several reasons were stated for not making use of or moving away from the WiscWeb CMS service. Stated reasons included:

● User experience for editors is poor, laborious ● Not flexible enough for developers ● Slow and cumbersome to use, sometimes requiring repeat training not intuitive ● Tool does not protect the end editors from code enough ● Windows only for administering (no longer true) ● WiscWeb CMS timetables for delivery could be long

Themes: Key features needed in a tool

A number of needs were identified when seeking a web CMS tool. Some of the identified needs included:

● Quick use of templates and layouts (branded look & exact page layout) ● Quick and easy editing ● Image sliders ● Forms and workflows ● Open source platform and plugins ● Cross promotion of event ● Responsive/Mobile ready ● Support for distributed editors ● Enforcement of boundaries and controls across distributed editors/contributors. ● Some interactivity with data ● Ability to pull in data from 3rd party sites

Themes: Desired items in a central service

A number of items were identified as desirable in a central service. These items included: ● Available development and support with option to opt out when local staff are available ● Access to training ● Appropriate security and long term maintenance ● Ability to make changes quickly ● A central repository of themes and plugins ● Ability to have plugins written and installed ● Tools to manage and move data between test and production


Page 2 of 23

● Delegated access control ● Very tight shibboleth integration and access for those outside the UW ● Not constrained by UW look and feel ● Search engine optimization ( SEO ) ● Address accessibility ( ADA ) issues and concerns

Themes: Other Insights

● A number of campus entities are outsourcing design and development to consultants, sometimes for sixfigure contracts

● Use of the DoIT Web Hosting service appears to be very common ● Some do not want to develop or maintain themselves, so ongoing support has been a

question for those currently using WordPress or Drupal ● Some custom plugin work has been provided from DoIT Desktop Support and Academic

Technology ● For those building their own sites, some mention of staff turnover or limited access to

development time


Page 3 of 23

Other Schools & Industry

Questions asked:

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage?

2. Are there other CMSes you support?

3. How long have you used said CMS?

4. Who made this decision?

5. Are you happy with it?

Notre Dame

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage? ○ We do not use a CMS for www.nd.edu. It's pretty much a simple PHP class and

we update the pages directly on a staging server.

2. Are there other CMSes you support? ○ Our primary CMS on campus is an in-house built Rails app called Conductor

(http://conductor.nd.edu/) which manages approx 480 websites. We also have a Wordpress Multisite install that runs our blogs.nd.edu network. The Engineering department uses Plone, but my team is not involved in that product.

3. How long have you used said CMS? ○ We have used Conductor since 2007.

4. Who made this decision? ○ Our web team decided to build a CMS because the solution at the time

(Contribute and Dreamweaver) were underwhelming, and none of the other open-source CMS's at the time were very interesting.

5. Are you happy with it? ○ We are very happy with Conductor. We have been able to craft it over the

years to fit our needs very well.


Page 4 of 23

http://www.nd.edu/http://www.nd.edu/http://conductor.nd.edu/http://blogs.nd.edu/http://blogs.nd.edu/

UT Austin

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage? ○ Yes – Drupal 7

2. Are there other CMSes you support? ○ Yes, Wordpress only.

3. How long have you used said CMS? ○ We’ve been on Drupal for 8 years.

4. Who made this decision? ○ Combination of the central IT web team and University Communications.

5. Are you happy with it? ○ Absolutely! The only downside is that it has become difficult to find, hire, and

retain good employees because the demand for Drupal developers is so high in Austin.

University of Michigan

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage? ○ No, customized platform for umich.edu “gateway” utilizes a robust php/MySQL

framework

2. Are there other CMSes you support? ○ Yes, Wordpress for two primary reasons ○ Ease of use for content stewards ○ Ease of use in keeping secure

3. How long have you used said CMS? ○ Several years

4. Who made this decision? ○ UMich Creative team

5. Are you happy with it? ○ Yes, very.


Page 5 of 23

University of Illinois

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage? ○ No - Dreamweaver and static files

2. Are there other CMSes you support? ○ There is no centralized solution. Several instances of Wordpress and Drupal on

campus. Even within each school or college, different CMSes are used.

3. How long have you used said CMS? ○ N/A

4. Who made this decision? ○ Each unit makes their own decision based on experience and expertise.

5. Are you happy with it? ○ The web services team has created several applications within what they call

the “Tool box” They include, but are not limited to: calendars, blogs (home built), directory, maps, email, shortened URLs, and Form and survey builder. All of these applications can be pulled into any of the various web solutions used around campus. The web services team is happy with their solution but cannot speak for the rest of campus.


Page 6 of 23

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee*

1. Do you use a CMS for your homepage? ○ Yes, UWM uses CommonSpot by PaperThin for the UWM Home Page and some

top level (university-wide) web page content on www4.uwm.edu. CommonSpot used to host most of the school/college and administrative unit content as well. We are transitioning to WordPress (multisite) with a UWM-branded theme and curated catalog of plugins residing on web host that simply has the uwm.edu domain (no www4). Most schools/colleges have moved to WordPress (e.g. http://uwm.edu/business/) and we are actively working on moving the remaining campus units to WordPress, as well as the UWM Home Page and top level page content that remains on CommonSpot. WordPress infrastructure is hosted at AWS. University Relations & Communications supports the WordPress software for campus.

2. Are there other CMSes you support? ○ CommonSpot and WordPress for organizational unit-level outward-facing web

content. CommonSpot is still supported but is colloquially considered a legacy service. We have not yet started a formal retirement project. We are in the process of rolling out another WordPress-based web publishing service for faculty and staff professional pages (e.g. people.uwm.edu/rothfels). The provider is CampusPress. UWM is also in the process of rolling out Office 365 Sites (SharePoint). I believe SharePoint will be primarily targeted at internal audiences, but I mentioned it because it does have CMS capabilities.

3. How long have you used said CMS? ○ CommonSpot since late 2007. WordPress since March 2014.

4. Who made this decision? ○ In both instances, a campus working group conducted research, gathered

feedback, produced requirements, vetted candidates, consternated slightly, and issued a recommendation. Both working groups were sponsored by UWM's Web Steering Committee.

5. Are you happy with it? ○ WordPress was selected in May 2013 as an alternative to CommonSpot, based

on a campus working group recommendation. The campus working group was formed in June 2012 to assess CommonSpot service/functionality gaps that had become apparent as the CMS landscape evolved in the time since we first selected CommonSpot. WordPress has been well-received on campus, is efficient to work with, and has proven to be approachable by a wide audience of content authors/owners. We have experienced a quite significant reduction


Page 7 of 23

http://uwm.edu/business/http://uwm.edu/business/

in development and support hours with WordPress, as well as a significant decrease in time required for web-related project completion with WordPress.

* On the phone, Mark walked me through their process. It was very helpful. They did a lot of things right like measuring time and cost for ongoing support of a new system and a high level usability test of the most common tasks in Drupal, Wordpress, and their current system. From those tests, it was revealed that Wordpress was 6x more efficient than any of the other CMSes in completing basic tasks (i.e. fixing a typo, adding a pdf, inserting a photo with caption, inserting a photo gallery, etc.) He’s sending some of their documentation over in the morning. (11/5/15)


Page 8 of 23

Managed/Enterprise Web Hosting

UWMadison has a well established history of building and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to support its teaching and research missions, including hosting solutions for websites and web applications. However, given the proliferation and widespread adoption of cloud services in many areas of the IT landscape, it would be remiss of this committee not to include a comparison of some cloud services/service providers in its report. Given the scope of the university’s online presence and the many hundreds of websites associated with the UW, this comparison focuses on a handful of enterpriselevel providers competing in the cloudbased, hosted web content management space. Vendors in this space use a variety of mechanisms for determining pricing, making a straight comparison of the included vendors difficult. One way to elicit a more direct comparison would be to provide each vendor with a sample hosting scenario based on one or more known hosting environments currently in production at the university and that includes a matrix of high, medium, and lowvisibility websites, monthly visitor traffic, the average disk per site, nature of the codebase (single or multisite), etc., along with less commonly used requirements like Solr search or a caching system. We recommend including such an exercise in Phase II of this committee’s project. The vendors included in this report were chosen in part because they have relatively equivalent, comparable feature sets, including a wrapper of service around the content management systems each vendor provides hosting for; these vendors also provide specialized tools to make administering those systems easier. A more comprehensive comparison could include vendors like Amazon Web Services or Rackspace but with acknowledgement that it would be university staff providing the wrapper of support and maintenance of any specialized administration tools and not the host provider.

Blackmesh Blackmesh is a fullymanaged web hosting provider founded in 2003. Blackmesh focuses on providing highly flexible, customized hosting solutions based on customer needs; it also provides fullservice support for WordPress and Drupalbased websites.

Features and Service Configuration: ● Hosting/infrastructure: Drupal, OpenText, Wordpress, or any other service or tool ● Service/support: Will install, configure, and support everything from infrastructure up to

code ● Compliance/Security: FedRAMP, FISMA, HIPPA, PCI ● Server stability/uptime: 99.999% stability; written into SLA contract ● Additional services: Apache Solr availability and support, SAML integration ● Development environment: flexible/customizable per customer needs


Page 9 of 23

● Infrastructure built using dedicated resources; not a shared hosting environment ● Data center information: USbased; located Virginia and Nevada ● Brag: claims to cost approximately 30% lower than competitors but with higher levels of

service

Pricing based on: 1. Number of CPUs 2. Amount of ram 3. Size of disk/storage space used 4. Complexity of system 5. Traffic

Customers include: Johns Hopkins University, Department of Energy

Pantheon Pantheon provides a scalable website management platform for WordPress and Drupal with integrated developer, workflow, and automation tools. Pantheon offers tiers of service ranging from personal websites up to Pantheon Enterprise and Pantheon for Edu.

Features and Service Configuration: ● Hosting/infrastructure: WordPress and Drupal hosting ● Service/support: Elite tier includes unlimited tickets 2 hour response SLAguaranteed,

phone support, and 24x7 oncall support ● Compliance/Security: Recommends against hosting FERPA data on Pantheon

infrastructure ● Server stability/uptime: 99.9% (Elite tier customers only) ● Additional services: Apache Solr v3.6 delivered as a service, Varnish and Redis

(caching), Denial of Service Protection, Network Intrusion Protection ● Development environment:

○ Developer dashboard with oneclick site provisioning ○ oneclick core updates to apply WordPress and Drupal security patches ○ separate Dev, Test, and Live environments

● Pantheon does not support traditional multisite installations; instead, they provide custom upstreams/distributions that allow individual/department website owners to launch sites with centrally administered branding and templates (Enterprise level only)

● Rolebased permissions to control site/team/department/individual owner access within an organization

● Data center information: USbased data centers; primary hosting located at Rackspace in Chicago


Page 10 of 23

● Brag: “Pantheon is the world’s fastest hosting for Drupal and WordPress…. Multiple independent benchmarks have compared Pantheon with other providers, and we consistently come out on top.”

Pricing (Pantheon Enterprise): Pantheon pricing is organized around their Personal, Pro, and Business plan levels. Pantheon Enterprise includes a $10,000 annual selfservice credit that is used to manage multiple selfservice plans (Personal, Pro, Business). Owners of individual sites then select the appropriate plan based on a site’s pageview, storage, RAM/memory, etc., needs; site owners can switch between plans based on evolving site needs. Pantheon for Edu includes free hosting for development sites; charges begin only after a site is launched. Pricing for the selfservice plans is as follows:

● Personal: $25/month with up to 10,000 monthly pageviews and 5GB storage ● Professional: $100/month with up to 100,000 monthly pageviews and 20GB storage ● Business: $400/month with up to 500,000 monthly pageviews and 30GB storage

Customers include: Arizona State University, Columbia, MIT, Princeton, UCBerkeley, University of Minnesota

Acquia/WP Engine Acquia is a largescale Drupalonly cloud platform provider, though for the University of Texas at Austin, Acquia partnered with WP Engine, itself a WordPressonly hosting service, to provide a comprehensive enterprise hosting solution.

Acquia Features and Service Configuration: ● Hosting/infrastructure: Drupal hosting ● Service/support: 24x7 support for critical issues with non24x7 support for other issues

(Acquia Cloud Enterprise tier) ● Compliance/Security: HIPPA, FISMA, PCI ● Server stability/uptime: 99.95% SLA ● Additional services: Varnish and Memcache (caching); Apache Solr search; Mollom

(spam blocker); Acquia Content Hub (a cloudbased, centralized content syndication tool that ties into many popular content management systems)

● Development environment: ○ development, staging, and production environments ○ easy deployment of code, files, and databases between environments ○ Drupal core and module security patching ○ automated tests monitor and flag issues as content is migrated between

environments ○ GIT and SVN support


Page 11 of 23

○ Drush integration ● Enterprise contracts usually a combination of Site Factory (6080% of sites) and Acquia

Cloud (2040%). Site Factory is relatively locked down with little control of underlying infrastructure; Acquia Cloud provides more access to the underlying platform.

● Data center information: USbased data centers in Oregon and Virginia

WP Engine Features and Service Configuration: ● Hosting/infrastructure: WordPress hosting ● Service/support: 24/7 technical support from USbased WordPress experts ● Compliance: PCI ● Additional services: Evercache (caching), builtin enterprise CDN ● Development environment:

○ staging area with oneclick pushtolive ○ git push integration

● Autoapplication of minor patches; WP Engine tests major patches before recommending customer upgrades

● Realtime security threat detection monitors against DDOS and brute force attacks, intrusion detection, Javascript/SQLinjection, XMLRPC attacks, and other vectors

● Automatic backup and disaster recovery ● Data center information: USbased data centers located in the Midwest ● Brag: “If you get hacked, we’ll fix it for free.”

Pricing based on: The complexity of a joint pricing contract with Acquia and WP Engine is beyond the ability of this report to estimate. Acquia has a flexible pricing solution that incorporates factors including amount of CPU/RAM, site storage, number of PHP processes, number of code bases, and support needs. WP Engine’s basic pricing is organized around a system of hosting plans based on code bases, page visits, and data storage. WP Engine also has a Premium and Enterprise plans.

Customers include: UCLA, Harvard, UTAustin


Page 12 of 23

Campus Summaries

WiscWeb CMS ● # Sites: around 200 ● # staff: 6.5 FTE, representing the following rolls: Project Manager, Application

Administrator, Support Consultant, Application Developers, Database Administrator, End User and Administrator Trainers, System Administrator, LDAP Administrator

● #infrastructure cost (licenses & hardware): $165,420 ● Service (noninfrastructure) cost: $543,544 ● Cost to user: $0 (if different levels, explain) ● Service narrative (a couple paragraphs, not longer than a page) — should include

support (who does patches), security, description of service (i.e., design, dev, training, etc), who the service is suitable for.

● WiscWeb CMS Info: ○ Push type CMS from OpenText, previously RedDOT.

● WiscWeb CMS Service Narrative: ○ Provides CMS hosting for any UWMadison dept/school/college. ○ http://info.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/ ○ Support provided by DoIT HelpDesk and the DoIt WiscWeb CMS team.

Numerous well written KB articles covered most end user and administrative topics.

○ Users are added/removed to project by WiscWeb CMS team. ○ Team is very responsive and customer focused. ○ Monthly brown bags with end users to both share new features and gather user

input. ○ Training provided by DoIT training. Regular user classes (3 hours), no cost to

user; Admin training, 2hours, free; specialized training on request. ○ Website can be hosted by DoIT CMS team, or by DoIT WebHosting, or on own

server ○ CMS server supported by DoIT WiscWeb CMS team ○ Provides older standard and new responsive templates with numerous content

classes, including: Photo Carousel, RSS Feed, Calendar, Video, Tabs, Accordions, Blog, Forms, Google Maps, Person Bios, News articles, and numerous text entry options. http://demo.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/ , http://demo.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/responsive/

○ Templates have accessibility built in. ○ New custom templates are developed by the WiscWeb CMS team as needed.

Includes a customizable workflow, with approval before publishing ○ Templates allow easy editing by content owners, reducing the need for web

developers to update content.


Page 13 of 23

http://info.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/http://demo.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/http://demo.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/responsive/http://demo.wiscwebcms.wisc.edu/responsive/

○ Templates allow extreme flexibility, allowing web developers to combine complex web apps with content that is updated by content owners.

○ Provides versioning, with compare versions, and restore version ○ Content can be activated/deactivated automatically at predetermined times. ○ Original RedDOT CMS was selected by an exhaustive RFP process, and

included a campus wide team of users/server admins that reviewed over 15 different CMS's.

DoIT Hosting ● # Sites: 215 WordPress, 40 Drupal, some Silverstripe & Joomla ● # staff: ? ● #infrastructure cost (licenses & hardware): ? ● Service (noninfrastructure) cost: ? ● Cost to user: $0 if html only site with 5GB storage, then three tiers for database (ie

WordPress) with multidomains, starting at $45 and an enterprise restricted data hosting for $150/month. NOTE: basic WordPress/Drupal is $540/year.

Service Narrative The service has all the usual options – unlimited bandwidth, nightly backups, ability to increase quota, usage reporting, test/prod servers, and custom domains (mysite.wisc.edu). They support open source applications through Plesk Support Control Panel which is great for quickly creating sites. Easy integration with NetID and partnerships with DoIT ADI and WiscWeb CMS. They take care of patching the core service, however things like WordPress plugins need additional manual attention. The have additional security, including Mod_security that helps moderate connections to the server preventing some kinds of attacks, admin features only available on campus or through VPN. Service is focused on empowering users with the access to the kind of server they need, quickly, and with self service options to quickly be up and running with a reliable host. They have rapid support response when needed. The service is suitable for anyone from a static dreamweaver website (free), to a complex Drupal/WordPress site (at a monthly fee), or restricted data (at a monthly fee, see above). Design and Development is available at an hourly rate.


Page 14 of 23

Sample Drupal Hosting in Chemistry ● # Sites: around 75 ● # staff: .5 FTE, .2 student hourly

representing the following roles: Project Manager, Application Administrator, Support Consultant, Application Developers, Database Administrator, End User and Administrator Trainers, System Administrator, LDAP Administrator

● #infrastructure cost (license and hardware): $4,000 ● Service (noninfrastructure) cost: $0 ● cost to user: $0

Service Narrative

Provide Drupal CMS for any department entity that is looking for a web presence. All hardware infrastructure is hosted at Chemistry. This includes 70+ sites including the main department site, research group websites, events, facilities and inventory databases. These sites that we set up initially are then handed over to those groups that we work alongside. This can be graduate students, staff, or faculty. We offer multiple templates and tailor the sites to the needs of the user/group. A research group UW branded themed site is already in production in Chemistry. Our service offering is comprised of a team of 3 people.

● Admin The admin is in charge of security, patching the application and system, and initial drupal install. This is handle by one person.

● Development The support team includes flushes out what the main department website will look like and how it will function. They are also work directly with entities who are looking for a new website. They collect information about how the user would like the site to operate. This duty is handled by 3 of us. Two people of the team can handle the basic development. If it complicated, the 1 main developer will step in to help.

● Support Any questions about adding content, adding new functionality also goes through our three team members for triage. Training and support is done in person and via email whenever users have questions.


Page 15 of 23

Sample Drupal Hosting in LSS ● # Sites: 133 ● # staff: 1 FTE

representing the following roles: Project Manager, Application Administrator, Support Consultant, Application Developers, Database Administrator, End User and Administrator Trainers, System Administrator

● #infrastructure cost (license and hardware): $1300/y for two virtual servers, 2 servers purchased at ~$6k (approximately $1,000 per year)

● Service (noninfrastructure) cost: $0 ● cost to user: $0

Service Narrative

Similar to Chemistry, most support in one person, with some duties supplemented by others.


Page 16 of 23

CMS Assessment SurveyResponses Summary

1. Who completed the survey? a. Most responses from “staff” (86%) b. Most respondents are decision makers (84%) c. Almost all respondents are affiliated with a website (97%) d. Majority of respondents have content related dutieseditor, publisher, reviewer

(65%) and writer/contributor (59%). e. Roughly onethird of respondents identified as “IT professional, site administrator,

system admin” and another onethird identified as “Designers.” f. Only 16% identified as “Developer or programmer.” g. Exactly 27 respondents identified as “Dean/CIO/Executive Administrator.”

2. What did we learn about the websites represented in the survey?

a. Almost all website represented in the survey are publicfacing websites (92%) b. Other significant functions include intranet (35%), events/eventrelated (54%),

and personal/biographical/researchrelated (30%) c. A number of respondents used the “other functions” field to add a comment about

the desire for webbased forms, scheduling, or other data input type functions. d. Of the websites represented in our survey, approximately 70% have been on the

current platform for more than two years.

3. Approximately 144 respondents (30%) indicated that the websites represented in the survey have been on the current platform for less than two years. What did we learn about these websites and associated respondents, in particular?

a. The most common prior platform response is the “HTML/CSS (e.g. Dreamweaver)” selection. Since the committee opted to combine HTML/CSS with Dreamweaver, we can’t be sure how many of these prior “platforms” were handcoded websites as opposed to Dreamweaver websites.

b. The second highest number of responses for prior platform is WiscWeb CMS with 28 responses (20%).

c. Of the “other” responses for question 11 (What was prior platform?), there were only three unique platforms cited with more than 2 responses each: Adobe Contribute, Sitefinity, and Joomla.

d. Of the reasons cited for leaving the previous platform, cost had the lowest response of all reasons provided (6%)

e. Of the reasons cited for leaving the previous platform, dissatisfaction with functionality received the highest number of responses (54%)

f. Dissatisfaction with technical support offerings (37%) and platform maintenance concerns (38%) both received significant responses


Page 17 of 23

g. Two common themes emerged in the comments for question 12 (Why did you leave your prior platform?). The first theme concerned the availability of and ease of access to a set of prebuilt, UWbranded designs/templates on other platforms. The second common theme detailed an unacceptably high level of perceived difficulty for basic content editing operations on the prior platform.

h. As would be expected the priorities in the selection of the new/current platform mirror the reasons for leaving the old platform. The same three selections: functionality, technical support, and platform maintenance each had over 50% response.

i. The same (inverse) themes were true of the comments for question 13 (What were priorities in selection of current/new platform?). Common themes included: ease of use for content editing, availability of common UWthemed branding components, and the availability of local technical support options for the platform.

j. Interestingly, while the “cost” option was not selected as a significant concern with the old platform (6%) nor a significant priority for the new/current platform (3%), it did emerge frequently in the comments for the “priorities for new platform” (question 13). Approximately 30% of the comments included at least one reference to “low cost” or “free” as being an important consideration in the selection of the new platform. The cost option in question 13 was labeled as “dissatisfied with the cost” and I think that might have caused some confusion for respondents.

4. What CMS systems have respondents used (question 15)? a. Out of 499 responses in total, 185 respondents have used WiscWeb CMS (37%),

295 respondents have used WordPress (59%), and 144 respondents have used Drupal (29%). Additionally, 61% of respondents have used “HTML/CSS (e.g. Dreamweaver).” As noted above, due to the specific survey language used, we can not differentiate between manual HTML/CSS coding and Dreamweaver usage.

b. “Other” was selected by 111 respondents (22%). Other platforms mentioned at least 3 times include Joomla (13), Sitefinity (6), DotNetNuke (5), Adobe Contribute (4), Expression Engine (3).


Page 18 of 23

5. What CMS systems are respondents using now to manage their websites and how many websites are they managing on each CMS (question 16)?

CMS Response % Resonse Websites % of Total

WiscWeb CMS 145 33% 175 9%

WordPress 201 45% 658 34%

Drupal 80 18% 260 14%

HTML/CSS 144 33% 338 18%

SharePoint 15 3% 17 1%

Google Sites 37 8% 78 4%

Other1 72 16% 277 14%

Other2 11 2% 118 6%

6. Are respondents satisfied or dissatisfied with the CMS systems they are using now? This is a summary of the data collected in questions 17, 18, and 19. For the purposes of a summary, we have combined “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied” into one response and “Very Dissatisfied” and “Dissatisfied” into one response.

CMS Functionality Support Maintenance

% Sat.

% Dis. % Sat.

% Dis. % Sat.

% Dis.

WiscWeb CMS 40 33 54 16 47 15

WordPress 72 4 45 16 59 8

Drupal 42 12 34 17 34 19

HTML/CSS/DW 50 20 41 19 41 25

SharePoint 15 19 10 21 11 16

Google Sites 43 9 28 16 29 12

Other1 49 15 27 24 37 22

Other2 19 10 14 9 19 10


Page 19 of 23

7. What is your affiliation to the university? (choose one)

Affiliation Count %

Staff 517 86.5%

Faculty 46 7.7%

Undergraduate student 7 1.2%

Graduate student 9 1.5%

Postdoctoral 0 0%

PA/TA 1 0.2%

Other 18 3.0%

8. Are you a “decision maker” regarding your group’s website? (choose one)

“Decision Maker” Count %

Yes 312 52.2%

No 100 16.7%

No, but my recommendation will be accepted. 186 31.1%


Page 20 of 23

9. What role(s) do you play in the management of your group’s website? (select all that apply)

Role Count %

Campus communicator or marketing 152 28.8%

Web editor, publisher, or reviewer 342 64.7%

IT professional, site admin/custodian, account manager, server maintenance

140 26.5%

Content contributor, copy writer 313 59.3%

Owner 118 22.4%

Designer or layout editor 170 32.2%

Developer or programmer 87 16.5%

Dean/CIO/Executive Administrator 27 5.1%

Other 52 9.9%


Page 21 of 23

10.People who have WiscWeb CMS sites, and are planning on a new site in the next two years.

11.People who have WordPress sites, and are planning on a new site in the next two years.

12.People who have Drupal sites, and are planning on a new site in the next two years.


Page 22 of 23

WiscWeb CMS satisfaction results for people with WiscWeb CMS sites.

WordPress satisfaction results for people with WordPress sites.

Drupal satisfaction results for people with Drupal sites.


Page 23 of 23

Printed 11/17/2015

CMS Assessment Committee – Phase I Report Appendix 2 CMS Assessment Committee – Survey Results – Without Comments

CMS Assessment Committee - Survey

Full Report, without individual comments

11/12/2015

Appendix 2 - CMS Assessment Committee - Survey Results - Without Comments

Appendix 2 - Page 1 of 23

1 517 86.45%

2 46 7.69%

3 7 1.17%

4 9 1.51%

5 0 0.00%

6 1 0.17%

7 18 3.01%

598 100.00%

# Answer Bar Response %

Staff

Faculty

Undergraduate student

Graduate Student

Postdoctoral

PA/TA

Other

Total

What is your affiliation to the university? (choose one)



1 312 52.17%

2 100 16.72%

3 186 31.10%

598 100.00%


Yes

No

No, but my recommendation will beaccepted.

Total

Are you a "decision maker" regarding your group's website? (choose one)



1 596 97.23%

2 17 2.77%

613 100.00%


Yes

No

Total

Does your university group currently have a website? (choose one)



1 7 41.18%

2 10 58.82%

17 100.00%


Yes

No

Total

Is your university group currently pursuing the creation or development of a website?



1 3 60.00%

2 1 20.00%

3 3 60.00%

4 0 0.00%

5 0 0.00%

6 3 60.00%

7 1 20.00%

8 1 20.00%

12 100.00%


an intranet (sharing documents,information inside our organization, etc.)

instructional/educational content(information aimed at students, a site thatstudents contribute content to, etc.)

to share information with the public aboutour organization (college, school,department, program, center, institute,lab, research center, etc.)

personal/biographical/research related (aprofessor's CV, a "research notes" blog,etc.)

cultural/heritage/online exhibits

events/event-related

Student organization

Other:

Total

What functions do you envision being served by your group's website(s)? (select all that apply)



1 1 20.00%

2 5 100.00%

3 1 20.00%

4 2 40.00%

5 0 0.00%

6 3 60.00%

7 0 0.00%

8 0 0.00%

9 1 20.00%

13 100.00%


WiscWeb

WordPress

Drupal

HTML/CSS (e.g. Dreamweaver)

SharePoint

GoogleSites

None

Other

Comments:

Total

Below is a list of web content management platforms or tools. Please, indicate any that you or your group hasexperience working with. Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (choose all that apply)



1 5 100.00%

2 1 20.00%

3 3 60.00%

4 1 20.00%

5 0 0.00%

6 0 0.00%

10 100.00%


functionality (e.g. the ability to create newpages, edit existing pages, make minorchanges to appearance and layout)

technical support (e.g. the ability todevelop new features, expand thewebsite's usefulness)

maintenance (e.g. maintaining versions,installing patches, managing backups,security, etc.)

dissatisfied with the cost

I don't know

Comments:

Total

What will be your priorities when selecting a platform? Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (select all thatapply)



1 152 28.79%

2 342 64.77%

3 140 26.52%

4 313 59.28%

5 118 22.35%

6 170 32.20%

7 87 16.48%

8 27 5.11%

9 52 9.85%

1401 100.00%


Campus communicator or marketing

Web editor, publisher, or reviewer

IT professional, siteadministrator/custodian, accountmanager, or server maintenance

Content contributor, copy writer

Owner

Designer or layout editor

Developer or programmer

Dean/CIO/Executive Administrator

Other:

Total

What role(s) do you play in the management of your group's website (select all that apply)



1 194 35.79%

2 246 45.39%

3 498 91.88%

4 161 29.70%

5 42 7.75%

6 292 53.87%

7 54 9.96%

8 61 11.25%

1548 100.00%


an intranet (sharing documents,information inside our organization, etc.)

instructional/educational content(information aimed at students, a site thatstudents contribute content to, etc.)

to share information with the public aboutour organization (college, school,department, program, center, institute,lab, research center, etc.)

personal/biographical/research related (aprofessor's CV, a "research notes" blog,etc.)

cultural/heritage/online exhibits

events/event-related

Student organization

Other:

Total

What is the function served by your group's website(s)? (select all that apply)



1 158 28.52%

2 182 32.85%

3 149 26.90%

4 65 11.73%

554 100.00%


less than 2 years

2 to 5 years

6 or more years

I don't know

Total

How long has your group's current website existed on its current platform? (choose one)



1 28 19.44%

2 22 15.28%

3 11 7.64%

4 44 30.56%

5 0 0.00%

6 2 1.39%

7 40 27.78%

8 28 19.44%

175 100.00%


WiscWeb

WordPress

Drupal


SharePoint

GoogleSites

Other

Comments:

Total

You indicated that your group's current website is less than two years old. On which of the following platforms ortools was your group's website built prior to the current platform? Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (selectall that apply)



1 78 54.17%

2 54 37.50%

3 55 38.19%

4 8 5.56%

5 34 23.61%

6 61 42.36%

290 100.00%


dissatisfied with the functionality (e.g. theability to create new pages, edit existingpages, make minor changes toappearance and layout)

dissatisfied with the technical support (e.g.the ability to develop new features,expand the website's usefulness)

dissatisfied with maintenance (e.g.maintaining versions, installing patches,managing backups, security, etc.)


I don't know

Comments:

Total

Why did your group migrate from the prior platform(s)? Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (select all thatapply)



1 106 72.60%

2 77 52.74%

3 75 51.37%

4 4 2.74%

5 25 17.12%

6 41 28.08%

328 100.00%






I don't know

Comments:

Total

What were your priorities when selecting the current platform? Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (select allthat apply)



Ease of use was big as we do not have a dedicated web dev.

From what I understand the old version of DNN was not going to work any longer on a server so we had to bemoved over to the new version.

We were extremely happy and impressed with the support and professionalism of Learning Support Servicesthrough L&S.

cost is a major factor. we need to take advantage of campus resources that are affordable.

We chose WiscWeb so we could easily and cheaply create a website for our department. I was what was availablenon cmapus to use for free.

Support from WiscWebCMS staff to migrate our site (at no cost) was extremely attractive when choosing a newplatform.

WiscWeb CMS was presented and understood to be the platform of choice for the enterprise.

There was no website before I started working here. I started one. I asked someone and they told me how to startone. I really didnt choose, didnt know there were other options.

Align with the campus standard.

We chose WiscWeb to conform to the University's "look" and to have DoIT support and training.

View More

Text Entry

(Optional) Please, elaborate with any other relevant details as to why the current platform chosen.



1 188 36.72%

2 301 58.79%

3 148 28.91%

4 315 61.52%

5 48 9.38%

6 103 20.12%

7 22 4.30%

8 112 21.88%

9 51 9.96%

1288 100.00%


WiscWeb

WordPress

Drupal


SharePoint

GoogleSites

None

Other

Comments:

Total

We would like to know what content management platforms or tools you have used anywhere, not limited to yourcurrent website. Please, check all the relevant items below. Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (select all thatapply)



1 147 32.59%

2 204 45.23%

3 83 18.40%

4 147 32.59%

5 15 3.33%

6 37 8.20%

7 73 16.19%

8 11 2.44%

9 63 13.97%

780 100.00%


WiscWeb

WordPress

Drupal


SharePoint

GoogleSites

Other1

Other2

Comments:

Total

Please, tell us about your current web environment. Some groups on campus are responsible for multiple websites.Indicate the approximate number of websites in your group that are managed on the various platforms. Use the"Comments" field to elaborate. (select all that apply)



1 WiscWeb 223 2.91

2 WordPress - 269 2.12

3 Drupal 160 2.61

4 HTML/CSS (e.g.DreamWeaver) 220 2.56

5 SharePoint 79 3.10

6 GoogleSites 99 2.56

7 Other1 74 2.51

8 Other2 21 2.90

# Question VerySatisfied Satisfied Neutral DissatisfiedVery

Dissatisfied ResponseAverage

Value

29 60 61 49 24

54 139 65 11

22 45 73 14 6

37 73 67 35 8

2 10 52 8 7

13 29 48 7 2

14 22 27 8 3

1 3 15 1 1

Where applicable, indicate your group's satisfaction with the functionality of the following web contentmanagement platforms or tools.



1 WiscWeb 204 2.45

2 WordPress 239 2.62

3 Drupal 144 2.77




7 Other1 67 2.91

8 Other2 22 2.95



Value

44 66 61 24 9

28 80 92 32 7

16 32 71 19 6

26 49 72 25 9

2 4 45 9 4

6 17 48 10 3

9 9 33 11 5

1 2 17 1 1

Where applicable, indicate your group's satisfaction with the technical support available with the following webcontent management platforms or tools.



1 WiscWeb 206 2.57

2 WordPress 245 2.39

3 Drupal 144 2.83




7 Other1 63 2.83

8 Other2 21 2.90



Value

36 62 77 17 14

34 109 81 14 7

12 36 68 20 8

21 53 61 28 17

1 6 48 6 4

5 19 50 7 3

7 16 26 9 5

1 3 15 1 1

Where applicable, indicate your group's satisfaction with the maintenance involved with the following web contentmanagement platforms or tools.



1 157 32.44%

2 327 67.56%

484 100.00%


Yes

No

Total

Is your group considering migrating to a new platform in the next two years?



1 26 18.31%

2 88 61.97%

3 23 16.20%

4 9 6.34%

5 3 2.11%

6 5 3.52%

7 2 1.41%

8 42 29.58%

198 100.00%


WiscWeb

WordPress

Drupal


SharePoint

GoogleSites

None

Other

Total

You indicated your group is considering a migration to a new web content management platform. Below is a list ofweb content management platforms or tools. Please, indicate any that your group is considering for this migrating.(select all that apply)



1 131 88.51%

2 92 62.16%

3 102 68.92%

4 8 5.41%

5 12 8.11%

6 48 32.43%

393 100.00%






I don't know

Comments:

Total

What will be your priorities when selecting the next platform? Use the "Comments" field to elaborate. (select allthat apply)



Printed 11/17/2015

CMS Assessment Committee – Phase I Report Appendix 3 CMS Assessment Committee – Survey Results – Comments Only

Q2_TEXTWhat is your affiliation to the university? (choose one)Worked on website as a graduate student; now in an interim academic staff position.Professor EmeritusContractor (Web work)Outreach specialist, UW‐Extension, funded through CALSProfessional Organization Volunteerstaff and student (multiple roles ‐ there are some of us)contractorStudent Web Developer (workstudy staff), undergraduateUW Hospital employeeMarketing Partner/VendorEmeritusVendorEmerita professorEmeritus Professor

Q8_9_TEXTWhat role(s) do you play in the management of your group's website? (Select all that apply)Advisorand Unit Director

assistant dean responsible for communications, our team is just me, one other person and a handful of studentsContent reviewer/approverCoordinator (or Director) of three programs with three separate websites.co‐owner with program directordepartment administrator and development committee memberDepartment SupervisorDeveloper for many other campus units, frequently refer people to shared hostingDirector of Website ServicesDirector; Chairdivisional/path coordinator, I do edit two web sites alsoDon't play a rolefaculty directorGive input on site content as a staff memberI create information that gets posted on the Webpage regarding our programI edit and manage a site within a larger group's work.I have been in marketing, editing, designer, and developer roles. Currently I supervise those who do these functions.I maintain my own website because it is too hard to update our group's

I post informatiion about events and field days happening at our station and data/results from display gardenI provide campus wide services (EOH dept) Occupational HealthI supervise the employee who develops, designs, and maintains it.I'm a digital project manager at a local ad agency.Liaison to web developer

Appendix 3 - CMS Assessment Committee - Survey Results - Comments Only


Manager, technology groupManaging data from our Filemaker system to an Oracle system which then feeds our CMSn/anaNo roleNo roll at allnonenonenoneNot allowed to manage our website. Can give input/advice, but rarely listened to.our group website has a set of pages assigned to the sub‐unit I manageprovide input and feedback to assist with design and content informationReview/Recommend website interface with our management tracking database systemSEO consultantSome content needs to be approved by me; any expenditures have to be approved by meStrategic planning for unitsupplies purchasing, including sogftware if the order is approvedThese are positions from the previous academic year. I remain a resource with some authority.Two websites: one for my research group, one for my department (I am the chair)updatesUserwill be a contributor

Q19_8_TEXTWhat is the function served by your group's website(s)? (select all that apply)‐Other:All of the selected above are representative of our clients. Our group also has its own informational site.also to share internally information about policies, etc.an infrastructure for many groups of research specific resourcesApplication‐heavyassist people to identify and request services from the groupChild care business, lab school (research & teaching)Communicate about our organizations services to campus patronsCommunicate with faculty, staff, students and alumniContent aimed at other UW‐Madison users (administrators, staff, faculty)content distribution (files in excel, pdf, etc.)data reporting for public/student/staff/factultyDocumentation for technology we have that the UW‐Madison community can use.educational content for the industry we support (non‐traditional students); short course registration;

help students apply and enroll; provide policy info for students; provide resources for students and communityhttp://snapplus.wisc.edu/ ‐ Wisconsin Nutrient Management software siteindustry outreachInformation and gateway on how to use services for students; resource for facultyinformation for students (but they don't contribute)Information on programs including application links.information targeted to physicians, researchers, and advanced practitioners in academic medicine



Instructional content aimed at adult learners, particularly farmers; instructional content aimed at high school ag instructorsInstructional content aimed at employesslarge campuswide initiativeMarketing‐‐to recruit students to our programsMy organization has built all of the above for campus organizations.Office 365 information and training for employeesOn‐Boarding, HR, and Payroll both Internally and ExternallyOrganizational recruitmentOur website addresses faculty, staff and student issues across campus from driver authorization to approved vendors.personalProgram registrationProvide researchers with knowledge of our services, web forms for selecting those services, a repository for varies printed reports and forms and assistance with the funding process.Providing central location for student leader group organization, providing central location for staff organization (multiple sites)publicize events and programs of multiple entities across campusReal‐time weather datarequest formsResearch supportresources needed by faculty, university guidancescheduling appointmentsSell UW Press books through our website and provide information about the Press (esp to authors)Selling courses both non‐credit and credit.share information and resources with membersshare information with faculty about governance activities, mostly on campusshare opportunities for grant funding, distribute research policysoftware assurance facilitystreamingStudent Job Center jobceter.wisc.edu built for campus but used by Madison community also. Wisc idea, in action.technical training and organization informationThis site shares academic information such as degree requirements both on and off campus.to communicate with University and commercial clients / researchersto inform patrons about our servicesTo make certain kinds of data more visible and visual, and to make it easier to access that data.to share information with critical access hospitals, clinics, nurses, hospital administrators, etc.Various Functional Group Specific Applicationswe would like to add intranet but have not been able to muster the required resources to do thatWeb access to our professional development catalogWeb Hosting, CMS management, Web Development

Q14_7_TEXTYou indicated that your group's current website is less than two years old. On which of the following platforms or tools was your group's website built prior to the current platform? ‐ Other



AngularJSCMS Red DotContributeContributeContributeCustom ASP.net CMSCustom built CMSDIY / hand‐codedDNN Dot Net Nuke older versionDon't know. Site is hosted on departments Web sitedon't knowDont' know what it was before migration to WiscWeb 1.5 years ago‐ the migration to "current" wiscweb site occurred before my tenure. We are revamping current layout and content of website now using wiscweb as it does not fit our needs.dotCMSDotNetNuke 7DreamweaverDreamweaverDreamweaver, along with a custom developed upload and versioning systemEMS?Home‐grown CMS developed internallyHomegrown with Html, java and PhpI am not sureI think it was Dreamweaver, but I'm not sureJoomlaJoomlaJoomlajoomlaN/ANot surenot surenot sure, UHS IT/commuications can address this question w/your groupSilver StripeSitefinitysitefinityThere was none.UnknownWeb services consumed by WordPress for data display, e.g. Library hours and services, staff directory, etc.

Q14_8_TEXTYou indicated that your group's current website is less than two years old. On which of the following platforms or tools was your group's website built prior to the current platform? ‐ Commentsbuilt and maintained entirely in‐house, with sporadic student developer assistanceCurrently WordPress, do not recall what it was before, possibly wiscwebdon't know



dotCMS was free when we switched to it. Before then we had IBM WebSphere, which was expensive and very difficult to use.Have consolidated the multiple programs in our office over the past few years in an attempt to have all affiliated websites hosted in WiscWeb CMSI am not sure. We upgraded to DNN7 and I am not sure what it was prior to that.I believe it was HTML, but the main office site is DrupalI do not knowI don't know, as I just started this position in eraly 2015.I don't know, but my guess is HTML/CSSI don't know; website was designed by our PA; we had to switch to DrupalI should clarify that we were on WiscWeb prior to now, but in 2013‐2014 we updated to the standard templates. Prior to that the website was being done in Dreamweaver.I wasn't around yet.new site to replace crappy old site. CMS has been good

Not sure if that was the name of the platform but that was the program I used to make changes to the website.Not sure.Not sure. Was not responsible for it at that time.not sure; was not employed here at that timeOur main site is based on a custom ASP.net solution.Ours is WordPress. We often do Drupal work as well.Still support sitefinity for other instances

Unit and websites did not exist prior to current platform ‐ these are new resources for students and for facstaff.We bought server space from DoIT.We did not have a websiteWe moved the site from D6 to D7. Does that count as moving platforms?we now have Wordpress but I don't remember what it was before that because CALS IT managed it thenWe recently migrated to WiscWeb CMS after our Drupal site was hacked.website was newly launched, did not have a prior life

Q15_6_TEXTWhy did your group migrate from the prior platform(s)? ‐ Comments:also with the inability to control various user rightsBiggest reason was the responsive design offered by WWCMS. Secondary reasons included better navigation and adapting a closer replication of the UW brand.CALS ARS as a group moved from the Contribute platform to WordpressCALS made the decision to move from Adobe Contribute to WordPress.Didn't migrate ‐ started new site with WiscWeb CMS.dissatisfied with complexity of simple tasks AND difficulty of implementing larger custom functionalitydissatisfied with the speed of implementation and the flexibility. WiscWeb was unknown to many outside developers ‐ so we couldn't engage external resources to support it.Dreamweaver is terrible.drupal was so clumsyEasier to have staff trained in a single platform. Additionally, DoIT support and free classes for beginner training we a huge plus



Found WiscWeb not to be user friendly for people maintaining the site. Overly complicated and not intuitive at all, and online documentation is lacking.Group we are part of all migrated to Wordpress.Have developers who could do work but time was scarce for that, wanted to move to a platform that allowed more, less technical, contributors to website updates and managementI don't remember but I believe it had to do with not being looking current enough (layout, design, functionality) and possibly not mobile friendlyI was not responsible for the migration choice, and was fine with the older system.I was very satisfied with Dreamweaver, but our Director wanted us to have a website that utlizes the UW Theme in Wordpress.It was more to have something more compatible with CALS and to have something that worked better. It was more about moving forward that dissatisfaction.Launched a new UW branded website with assistance from UW CommunicationsLSS required the switch for security reasons. Our site was breachable and provided a way into other systems for hackersMeat Science was covered by Animal Scienc

University of Wisconsin–Madison · CMS Assessment Committee Phase I Report Executive Summary...

Documents

Transcript of University of Wisconsin–Madison · CMS Assessment Committee Phase I Report Executive Summary...