Evaluation of Open Source (OS) Content Management Systems (CMS): Alfresco, Drupal, and Joomla!

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Open Source (OS) Content Management Systems (CMS): Alfresco, Drupal, and Joomla! 18 September 2007

2 Executive Summary Businesses are using content management systems (CMS) to perform web administrative functions, manage assets, provide personalization and localization features, and much more. However, selecting an open source CMS is difficult because there are many options. This report uses trend data from independent research organizations to form evaluation criteria that can be used to further analyze CMS software. Evaluation criteria were then used to evaluate three different open source products: Alfresco, Joomla!, and Drupal to determine which products were suitable for different web requirements. Results indicate that Alfresco is suitable for websites that require advanced functionality such as detailed content analytics or document and knowledge management features. Drupal is suitable for sites that require intermediate level functionality, such as the ability to grant access of one portion of the site to a subset of users, or the ability to maintain multiple sites. Joomla! is suitable for basic sites that require some intermediate level functionality, such as blogs and forums. 2

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Table of Contents... 3 Introduction... 4 Definitions and Terms... 5 Methodology... 5 Literature Review and Industry Research... 6 Evaluation Criteria... 7 Candidate Selection... 8 Evaluation and Results... 9 Conclusion Appendix End notes

4 Introduction Once upon a time, when businesses were starting to establish their web presences and visitors had limited bandwidth, many websites functioned as brochures. Users visited these websites, which consisted primarily of static HTML pages, to learn more about products and services. Interaction with the company meant sending an to the sales representative or finding the toll-free telephone number to call technical support. Today, as visitors grow more web savvy, and as access to high-bandwidth connections become more prevalent, visitor expectations have changed. Visitors now expect training videos, to be able to connect with other visitors via forums, to be able to find white papers that answer specific questions, and much more. Additionally, as more people from different countries gain internet access, businesses must find ways to globalize their web content. Multinational companies often communicate with geographically and linguistically diverse employees via internal intranets. To help meet these needs, businesses are using Content Management Systems (CMS) in conjunction with other products. CMS are used to perform web administrative functions, manage assets, provide personalization and localization features, and much more. There are many subcategories of CMS. A Web Content Management (WCM) system has additional features specifically tailored to manage web site content. A Digital Asset Management (DAM) system has additional features to support the ingesting, cataloguing, storing, retrieving, and annotating of digital material. An Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system is usually comprised of a WCM and DAM, and provides additional knowledge management and document management features as well. However, the dizzying array of options can be daunting for even the most seasoned information technology (IT) administrator. CMS Matrix, an open source organization that tracks and rates content management systems, lists over 800 different open source CMS packages. i And, if we expand the list to include commercial packages, the list grows longer. If an administrator requires a CMS for a mid to large company, and there are funds for a commercial solution, the selection process becomes easier. There are many respected independent IT research firms, such as Gartner Incorporated, Forrester Research, and International Data Corporation (IDC) that regularly determine which applications are best-of-breed. The administrator can use this material, coupled with a thorough understanding of business requirements to quickly identify viable candidates. But, evaluating open source CMS packages is a bit more difficult. The few firms that concentrate on open source applications may or may not include trend analysis. Those that do often produce reports that are expensive for many. For example, the 2007 CMS Watch Web Content Management System report ranges from $975 to $2975, depending on licensing options. ii Although Gartner, Forrester, and IDC offer reports within the same price ranges, if commercial vendors are positively reviewed, they are more likely to purchase the rights to publish those reports on the web. Although the intent of these 4

5 companies is to use these reports to attract potential customers, researchers interested in open source can exploit this free source of information to obtain trend analysis data that is standard in these reports. This document uses that approach to evaluate three open source CMS packages: Joomla!, Drupal, and Alfresco. These three packages are widely considered best-of-breed in the open source community. Additionally, because this document focuses on web site management, the CMS packages selected are those that have been categorized as WCM software or have a significant WCM component. These packages have then been evaluated to determine which type of website it best serves. Definitions and Terms Although the CMS and its subcategories have been briefly discussed, it is helpful to gain a fuller understanding of each. Content Management System (CMS). A content management system is software that is used to support the creating, updating, publishing, translating, archiving, and retiring of digital information. Standard features, such as tracking the changes made to digital information are often included. CMS is a generic term that can be applied to many different types of software. Subcategories of CMS include web content management and digital asset management software. Digital Asset Management (DAM). Digital asset management software has additional features to support the ingesting, cataloguing, storing, retrieving, and annotating of digital material. Traditionally used to support media organizations, DAM software is being increasingly used to store corporate information, such as webcasts, podcasts, or audio material. Web Content Management (WCM). Web content management software has additional features specifically tailored to manage web site content. Examples include the ability to publish content on a web server or the ability to provide web content in different languages (commonly part of a set of features related to localization ). Enterprise Content Management (ECM). According to Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM), ECM software are the technologies used to capture, manage, store, preserve, and deliver content and documents related to organizational processes. iii ECMs often contain include WCM, DAM, and knowledge management features. Methodology A traditional software evaluation process involves approximately seven steps: Requirements Gathering, Literature and Industry Research Review, Candidate Selection, Request for Proposal, Vendor Demonstration, Formal Evaluation, and Software Selection. However, since the goal of this process is not to select software, but rather to determine which software can be used to support which website goals, modifications to this process have been made. 5

6 1. Literature and Industry Research Review 2. Development of Open Source Evaluation Criteria 3. CMS Search and Candidate Selection 4. Formal Evaluation 5. Software Mapping and Categorization First, research literature was reviewed to identify trends and commercially-used evaluation criteria. Reports from independent research organizations were reviewed and evaluation models identified. Next, review and trend data was distilled to generate evaluation criteria suitable for open source software. Next, data from independent open source research organizations were evaluated to determine which CMS products were considered to be best-of-breed. Additionally industry awards, awards were reviewed to find candidates. At the conclusion of this, three candidates were identified for inclusion in this report. Once candidates were identified, the actual software was evaluated using the open source evaluation criteria, CMS Matrix data, and actual working copies of the software. Documentation, as well as comments from users, were evaluated against the raw data. As part of the evaluation, results were compiled in a spreadsheet and software was categorized according to website level. Literature Review and Industry Research In 2006, Gartner published WCM and DAM: The Next Generation, which outlined key issues and trends in web development that have affected the development of web content management and digital asset management systems. Gartner found that WCM will continue to offer core functionality, such as workflow management, library services, and access to templates. iv However, because of changing user expectations, businesses are beginning to create websites that are more targeted and focused on the customer. Therefore, high-end CMS packages are offering analytics to track user behavior, a means for feedback, and stronger integration with portal software. Previously advanced features, such as blogs and forums are now standard. The Forrester Wave: Web Content Management for External Sites, Q echoes Gartner s findings. v In addition to addressing the need to deliver targeted information, the report also highlights the need for consistent branding. Internal employees who don t have programming skills want to be able to perform administrative functions such as create personalization rules or administer multiple sites. Both reports indicate that presenting content in different languages, reusing content, and having the ability to use metadata to tag content are vital for high-functioning web sites. The CMS market has changed significantly to address these trends. In particular, the enterprise content management market has been volatile. As ECM vendors have realized the importance of the web content management, many have rushed to acquire companies with strong track records in this area. Consider IBM s acquisition of FileNet, SDL s acquisition of Tridion, or Oracle s recent acquisition of Stellent, which is one of the most 6

7 feature-rich WCM packages on the market. Major ECM vendors have recognized that an ECM suite is not complete without strong WCM. In response, WCM products not associated with an ECM are quickly adding more features to stay competitive. Because commercial ECMs can be quite expensive (ranging from $100K to over $1M, depending on options purchased), standalone WCMs are a viable option, particularly for small to mid-sized businesses. Evaluation Criteria The Forrester s WCM Model, which maps different web goals to WCM features, served as a starting point for the development of this report s evaluation criteria. vi The evaluation criteria used in this report incorporates industry trends and basic website goals. These criteria have been specifically formulated for open source applications. For example, for commercial applications, the corporate commitment to a product is partially determined by whether a vendor has been profitable and the number of employees dedicated to the product line. For open source applications, one way to measure this is to determine the size of the user community and the frequency of releases. So, an open source project that is supported by two people and that has had no releases for the past two years is the equivalent of a company that has been posting record losses and is facing bankruptcy. Website Goal Basic: Establishing Web Presence Intermediate: Adding Internal and External Functionality and Standardization Table 1: Web Evaluation Criteria WCM Evaluation Criteria Is it low cost? Is technical support and developer support available (e.g. documentation, forums, mail lists)? Is work ongoing (updates, patches)? Has there been a release, patch or update within the past year? Can users publish a static page? Are social networking plug-ins available (e.g. blogs, forums, chat rooms)? Can users check in and check out digital assets to a centralized library? Is it version controlled? Can people who don t know HTML enter and publish content? Is there multi-site management? Can you share content among sites? Can administration of the site be delegated? Are search logs available? Basic statistical reports (e.g. impressions, keywords)? Is this product a portal or can it be integrated with one? Is this product compliant with major W3C recommendations/standards (e.g. 508C), accessibility standards, and JSR 168 (for portals)? Are templates available? Can users customize the site? 7

8 Website Goal Advanced: Targeted Operations and Services Table 1: Web Evaluation Criteria WCM Evaluation Criteria Is localization supported? Can users customize workflow? Are content analytical tools available? Can users publish information in a variety of formats (multi-channel publishing), such as Word, PDF, or XML? Is site and archive retention available? Are there metadata tags available for content? Candidate Selection The first step in candidate selection was to find a systematic means of sifting through the 800+ open source CMS packages. CMS Matrix provides a website for users in the community to download and review CMS packages. Users review software using nine categories: system requirements, security, support, ease of use, performance, management, interoperability, flexibility, built-in applications, and commerce. Because of the systematic nature of the review, this seemed to be a good starting point. Only products that had, at minimum, 150 user reviews (indicating a large user base or at least interest in the product) and that scored a six or higher in six of the nine categories were considered as potential candidates. From these, the top five for each category was selected. Additionally industry awards, such as InfoWorld s Best of Open Source Software (BOSSIES) and the Packt Open Source Content Management System awards were vii viii reviewed to find potential candidates. The following tests were then applied to each system potential candidate: 1. Software must provide basic WCM capability including the ability to publish pages, connect to or function as a portal, and perform web administration, and maintain user accounts. 2. Software must have an active user base, as is evidenced by the presence of forums and/or mailing lists as well as user groups and/or conferences. Activity must have been detected in these forums or lists within the past 14 days. 3. Software must have demonstrated evidence of product development within the past year. This includes major or minor releases, patches, or testing. 4. Software demonstrates that there are plans for future upgrades or releases. At the end of this process, three candidates emerged as clear contenders: Joomla! is a content management system that allows users to build websites of varying complexity using a combination of user entered data, custom code, and extensions. Although the product is fairly young (the first release was in 2005), it is built on the Mambo codebase, which was first developed in Joomla! meets all basic criteria and was announced the winner of the Packt Publishing Open Source Content Management System Award in ix 8

9 Drupal is a CMS that provides a means for users to quickly build web sites. There are many modules available right out of the box as well as extensions. Drupal was originally built as a bulletin board system and became open source in Drupal won the CNet Webware 100 and was second runner-up (by one vote) in the Packt Publishing Open Source Content Management System Award in x Alfresco is an Enterprise Content Management system that offers web and document content management functionality as well as records, knowledge, and image management features. Only the web content management features were evaluated. Alfresco was founded in 2005 by the former Chief Operating Officer of Business Objects, a major business intelligence software company. Since its inception, Alfresco has won numerous awards, including the InfoWorld BOSSIE and KMWorld s Trendsetting project of xi Evaluation and Results Overall, the software evaluations revealed that each product could be successfully used for different types of sites. The following table presents a summary of the results. Refer to Table 1: Web Evaluation Criteria for more information on the Web Site Goal/Criteria. A detailed list of results appears in the appendix of this document. Web Site Goal/Criteria Basic Table 2: Evaluation Summary Joomla! Drupal Alfresco X (Good, but standards compliance might be an issue.) Intermediate X X Advanced X X X (But may be too complex. This is an issue because technical support is not free.) Joomla! Joomla! handily fulfills the requirements needed by basic websites. In addition to providing the standard features, Joomla! has a large and active development and user community, user groups, and conferences. There are also many plugins to add functionality. Web forms make updating content easy for non-html users. 9

10 Figure 1: Joomla! Control Panel However, site administration is substandard. Permissions are preset, not granular, so administrators precisely control user access to different functions. Another drawback is that Joomla! does not offer multi-site management, which would be needed to handle more advanced business needs. There are issues with compliance to industry standards as well. However, a commercial plugin can be purchased to supply this feature. Search analytic tools are limited at best, but the software does support the use of Google Analytics. There is also no support for secure socket layers, which is a basic requirement for secure web sites. Note that Joomla! 1.5 will be released soon and may address some of these issues. Pros: Strong developer/user community, many templates, many plug-ins Cons: Permissions not granular, can not administer multiple sites without paying for a plugin, no SSL Recommendation: Good option for Basic Web Sites Drupal: Drupal is very simple to use and easy to administer. User permissions are granular, so administrators can easily control the features users have access to. In addition to meeting basic web requirements, it provides many advanced features that make it a good option for intermediate-level web sites. 10

11 Figure 2: Drupal Content Management Page However, there are some simple functions, such as including an image on a page that can be cumbersome initially. Drupal has a large development and user community. It allows those without HTML knowledge to edit sites and has rudimentary change management features. Like Joomla!, Drupal supports Google Analytics. Pros: Strong developer/user community, multi-site management Cons: Functionality for simple functions is sometimes cumbersome Recommendation: Good option for both Basic and Intermediate Level Sites Alfresco: Alfresco is the most robust of the WCM evaluated in this report. Alfresco offers all of the functionality needed for basic websites (e.g. page publishing, web forms entry, multi-site management, delegated administration) as well as for advanced sites. Alfresco is compliant with many W3C and industry standards (such as 508 and JSR 168), which means easier integration with other products. It also includes a virtual server that provides previews of site changes. Users can publish to multiple channels such as PDF or Word. The workflow can be customized to the business and is based. In addition to electronic image capture and document management capabilities, the application supports java server faces, a huge advantage for those using Struts to develop web applications. Content analytics and archived format conversion are some of the features that make this product suitable for advanced websites. 11

12 Figure 3: Alfresco Dashboard Alfresco is not without drawbacks however. One major drawback is that although Alfresco is free, technical support is not. Although user groups are forming, because Alfresco is fairly new, there are not as many free, alternative sources of support. Pros: Feature-rich, advanced capabilities, industry standard compliance Cons: Technical Support Recommendation: Good option for intermediate and advanced web sites Conclusion Today, businesses are using content management systems (CMS) to help them deliver targeted information for visitors interested in their products and services. There are many software packages available, however selecting a CMS is sometimes difficult because trend and evaluation data does not always coexist in the same reports. Using a process that incorporates trend analysis conducted by independent researchers and feature analysis conducted by open source organizations can often facilitate decision making. The results of this report indicate Alfresco, Joomla!, and Drupal have various strengths and weaknesses. Alfresco provides advanced functionality, but may require more expertise to administer since user support is somewhat lacking. Joomla! provides good basic functionality and is very easy to use, but is missing some key features. Drupal is a good solution for basic and intermediate websites and can be easily administered (although some features are a bit cumbersome). Ultimately, the best path for business owners is to use trend data, coupled with their own requirements to choose a CMS that will support their web strategy, both today and in the future. 12

13 Appendix The following is the detailed evaluation criteria for each CMS candidate. Drupal Evaluation Version: 5.2 Website: Evaluator: Chantel Brathwaite Evaluation Date: 8-Sep-07 Criteria Score Comments Cost (Software + Tech Support) 5 Developer Support 5 Huge community. Lots of support. Legacy Static Page Publishing 4 Hard to do some very basic things. But overall very good. Social Networking Tools (blogs, forums, etc.) 5 Large variety of plugins and core components. Library Functions (Check In / Check Out) 3 No version control, but can interface with systems to provide this. Web forms content entry 4 Very intuitive although simple actions can be complex. Standards compliance (508, JSR 168, etc.) 5 Multisite management 2 A little kludgy - must be done using scripts Delegated administration 5 Fully customizable Content sharing between sites 3 Localization 3 Based on user preferences Personalization (customize look and feel) 5 Content analytics 3 Extremely limited, supports Google analytics Segmentation and personalization 3 Multichannel ( , newsletters, websites) 0 Archive and retention 0 Workflow Management 0 Metadata Support 0 content and language - based on user preferences 13

14 Joomla! Evaluation Version: Website: Evaluator: C. Brathwaite Evaluation Date: 6-Sep-07 Criteria Score Comments Cost (Software + Tech Support) 5 Developer Support 5 Many user groups, forums, can interact with the team. Very enthusiastic community. Static Page Publishing 5 Social Networking Tools (blogs, forums, etc.) 5 Large variety of plugins and core components. Library Functions (Check In / Check Out) 2 No version control, but can interface with systems to provide this. Web forms content entry 5 Very intuitive Standards compliance (508, JSR Fair. The team is addressing this but this 168, etc.) 3 could hinder the adoption of this tool Web forms content entry 5 Simple! Multisite management 1 Only for pay ( Delegated administration 3 Somewhat inflexible. Can't assign user to more than one role. Author, editor, publisher, manager, administrator, superuser Content sharing between sites 0 Localization 4 Personalization (customize look and feel) 5 Content analytics 2 has a little web analytics in core package, but nothing in-depth. There are extensions. Will need a different tool or extension to do more analysis. Google analytics is available for download. See what users are searching, trends, report summaries. Landing page optimization. Multichannel ( , newsletters, websites) 0 Archive and retention 0 Workflow Management 0 Metadata Support 0 14

15 Alfresco Evaluation Version: 2.1 Website: Evaluator: Chantel Brathwaite Evaluation Date: 10-Sep-07 Criteria Score Comments Software is free but technical support is not. Cost (Software + Tech Support) 2 Can be quite costly. Developer Support 3 Not a huge user community yet, the forum at Alfresco seems to be monitored but providing free support would probably work against their bottom line. Static Page Publishing 5 Social Networking Tools (blogs, forums, etc.) 5 Library Functions (Check In / Check Out) 5 Since Alfresco is an ECM, it excels at this Web forms content entry 5 Very intuitive Standards compliance (508, JSR 168, etc.) 5 Great, one of the strengths of the tool Web forms content entry 5 Multisite management 5 Can do this and have virtual server previews Delegated administration 5 Content sharing between sites 5 Localization 5 Personalization (customize look and feel) 5 Content analytics Multichannel ( , newsletters, websites) 5 Archive and retention 5 Workflow Management 5 Metadata Support 5 5 Robust package 15

16 End notes i CMSMatrix Home Page. September 18, ii CMSWatch Pricing page. September 18, iii AIIM Home Page. September 18, iv WCM and DAM: The Next Generation Gartner. v The Forrester Wave: Web Content Management For External Sites, Q September 2007, page 2. vi The Forrester Wave: Web Content Management For External Sites, Q September 2007, page 4. vii Packt Pub. viii InfoWorld. ix Packt Publishing, x CNet. xi Alfresco. 16