A Content Management System
That's Pulling Its Weight:
How a Customized Plone-Based System is Supporting Sites for Libraries Across Michigan and Around the Country
Sonya Schryer Norris
Plinkit logo
The Library of Michigan has joined a national collaborative providing Web sites to small and rural
libraries
– Created with federal seed money in the state of Oregon in 2003
– Has branched out to seven states and is growing
Plinkit
The specialized software is called “Plinkit:” Public Library Interface Kit.
In use by 317 libraries, schools and hospitals and growing.
Plone
Plone is among the top 2% of all
open source projects worldwide, with 200 core developers and more than 300 solution providers in 57
countries.
The project has been actively
developed since 2001, is available in more than 40 languages, and has
the best security track record of any major CMS.
Why We Chose Plone
Over Drupal
Plone Strengths
– Easier for content authors to use – Enterprise-quality CMS – Extensive configurability for security, workflow and scale
– Mulder- and Scully- strength CMS
Drupal Strengths
– Easier for system administrator – More popular = more support – Easy installation – Range of plug-ins – Efficient for lightweight and specialized sites
Brazilian g’ment
Examples of Plone look and feels Boston Community Change
Skins
We bid the ability to use any skin with the pre-populated Plinkit
Where Michigan Got Started
Recognized the need
State Librarian Nancy Robertson asked me for a memo of options:
– Assistance with setting up and
maintaining free sites with blogging sites or Google
– Teaching basic HTML and buying or creating templates
– Plinkit
Why Plinkit Stood Out
Plone Features
Inherited by Plinkit
– Accessibility – Navigation
– Excellent search engine – Easy-to-set-up forms
– Easy-to-install RSS and other “2.0” features
How Plinkit
Differs from Plone
Pre-populated content
Initially, a default skin that could be altered for any site as desired Default access choices
– Specific access levels
– Root access at state and not library level
Participation
70 applications in Michigan
out of a targeted pool of 210
libraries
We have 19 libraries up now
and expect to have about 50
by the end of 2010.
Michigan’s
Customization Choices
Database proliferation Skins
Banners/Look and Feel
Portlets that cannot be removed by participants
What the Libraries See
An easy-to-operate Web site with an intuitive WYSIWYG
No cost to them
Includes on-going training,
support, hosting, upgrades and mutually decided upon
enhancements for all libraries Basic disaster relief
What the Libraries Contribute
A non-compulsory advisory board they may sit on if they choose
Local control with assistance at the state level
– Marketing
– Content updates
– Staff competencies/local training or train the trainer models
Examples of
Customization We Provide
Customized site set up including choice of 16 color schemes,
personalized banner, creation of new forms, routine preference settings and ongoing changes that require site administration knowledge and access.
Getting Used to Saying “No”
What we don’t do:
– Work that would require more
than half an hour of our vendor’s time for any one library
Customize an individual site beyond the out-of-the-box options and settings
– Advisory committee will have a say in developing the product using
Real Costs
Up to $32,999 a year out of a bucket of federal funds totaling around $5 million a year
– $8,000 to the collaborative
– $6,500 for hosting up to 50 libraries at a time; costs will go down for us next year
– $7,500 for support
– Up to an additional $8,000 for custom work including programming and graphic design One half of an FTE paid for by the State of
The Collaborative
Colorado State Library
Illinois Regional Library Systems MCLS: Midwest Collaborative for
Library Services (IN and MI) Library of Michigan
The Library of Virginia Oregon State Library
Lyrasis (for AL, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, NJ, PA, SC, TN & WV) Texas State Library
Virtual Relationships
I mean, we’re not even friends on Facebook!
Most of us have never met in person
About the Collaborative
Operate on consensus
– Let me tell you about next month’s programming priorities!
Joint development decisions Hired BTU Consultants, a well
known educational and library support agency, for project
What to Bid Out
The collaborative is constantly making enhancements
– Find team members who manage the bidding process rather then relying on our own small pool of programmers – Leave time for User Acceptance
Testing; all participate to reduce the
burden
– Consider using multiple vendors for different aspects of your work
Michigan’s Tech Contributions
We pay our vendor for
programming jobs or share the cost among just a few members, and share those enhancements with the rest of the Collaborative
– This has included customized
Michigan’s Non-Tech
Contributions
Full participation in all aspects of collaborative membership
– Reviewing manuals
– User Acceptance Testing
– Participation with vendor negotiations – Project management
– Sharing presentations such as this one that can be customized for other states to use
Collaboration
Non-technical contributions
– Marketing
– Documentation – Training manuals
– Project management tips – Leading work groups
Why Mentoring?
Darci, Darci, Darci
Collaborative was designed to
have two participants from each state: one tech and one program manager.
– In reality, many states have one participant who is often lacking one set of skills or the other
Mentoring Structure
Greeter
Technology Support
Program Management Support
Expectation that you will go from mentee to mentor
Formal and Informal Training
Every 3 years, collaborative pays bulk of cost for re-training for all
collaborative members (often this will mean new members from the same states)
Working toward the idea of
specialized training when we move from one version of Plinkit to another
Vendor Relations
The Request for Proposal process How and why we chose the host
we have
Using support hours wisely
– …Just a moment on “buckets”
Contracting for additional services Methods employed by other Plinkit
The Request for
Proposal Process
We needed a host, programmers and technological support –
what I didn’t know was how to quantify it
I sought help from two different Plone administrators
I wrote the Statement of Work to cover all possibilities and cherry picked the responses
How and Why We
Chose the Host We Have
A joint application review team was formed to evaluate the two responses. We based our
decision on
– Cost
– Expertise
– Capability to meet our needs to scale
Using Support Hours Wisely
We have:
– Unlimited project management
– 2 hours of systems administration support monthly
What Are You Paying For?
Look for hidden costs as well as hidden bonuses
– User Acceptance Testing
What we pay for and what is gratis
– Monthly status reports vs. weekly audit reports
– Systems administration hours that turn into support hours
Over-communicate
Different corporate culture communication styles
Contracting for
Additional Services
Our provider is perhaps too big
– They have been willing and able to
subcontract everything we’ve needed. It saves us a step but removes us from the process for choosing service providers
Consider an RFP for non-integrated services you need rather than using a single vendor for all aspects of your project.
