OpenSource: Great in Theory, Difficult in Reality

I can hear the crying and gnashing of teeth. But the truth is, that while we’ve looked at a number of Open Source solutions that have a lot of promise, they simply don’t have the functionality that most of our clients need. Not next month, or next year, or in 18 months, but right now when they’re building and launching a website. So it’s not the quality of the existing code that’s lacking-it’s the features that aren’t there.

An enterprise-level content management tool the caliber of RedDot, Serena Collage, or a similar product, has a significant amount of built-in functionality. Yes, these systems need to be customized to do exactly what you want them to do for your institution. But the components are already there. OpenSource systems often lack the most basic CMS tools: like, for example, a simple end-user interface that allows just about anyone to manage basic web content.

Where do these tools come from? Someone has to create them.

The basic question is who does that work? The developers who work for our clients-from private liberal arts colleges to universities-are already over committed and have way too many responsibilities. Where will they find the time to create the necessary components for an Open Source CMS?

The argument about saving money is a spurious one-when your primary “cost” for anything is staff time, turning internal developer(s) loose to extend and customize an Open Source CMS is expensive because they ignore other priorities to do this work. And how long will it take? Who knows?

I’m not dissing Open Source solutions, just acknowledging reality. Institutions elect to go the Open Source route for a content management tool must recognize the compromises they’re making and prepare to invest in development time and support for some time to come to create the functionality they need. Sometimes, that’s possible, but most of the time we’ve found that our clients simply aren’t prepared to do what it takes.