Introduction
Interakting use both Open Source and proprietary products to deliver solutions for many companies. We always try to select the best tool for the job, and when it comes to Content Management it is no different. We have a range of tools we consider using including various Open Source tools (e.g. Nuxeo, DotNetNuke) and also our proprietary offerings (EPiServer, ADXSTUDIO). In the context of many projects it would certainly be possible to deliver a ‘successful’ project in either a proprietary or an Open Source solution. However, when we consider budgetary, functionality, deadline, support and longevity constraints, all of these areas are problematic in the Open Source arena, whereas proprietary systems such as EPiServer can provide an arguably better and more cost-effective solution. This article discusses some of the reasons for this. The majority of 'pure CMS' sites we deliver are on the EPiServer platform and so this will form the basis of our discussion. Interakting is an EPiServer Solution Partner.
Budgetary
With a proprietary CMS such as EPiServer, the main costs are ‘up front’. The client would be buying a licence to use EPiServer CMS, and the cost of this covers the effort and time taken by the vendor to develop and support the product. This means that the vendor does not need to find other ways to recoup their costs beyond the licence fee and an optional small annual support fee. The client can therefore budget for the outright licence as a clearly transparent and defined cost.
Open Source costs are far less clear, as companies who ‘own’ an Open Source initiative may give the software away ‘free’ but then seek to recoup their costs, even if only running costs. This is usually done by support contracts, consulting or selling additional ‘modules’. It is easy to be trapped into a ‘free’ product and then find that the actual cost is far higher.
Functionality
As proprietary systems are designed to be sold as widely as possible to reach the maximum number of customers, functionality in proprietary systems is usually excellent and if additional functionality would assist their sales then the company owning the product will often update their core product or provide value-add modules at low or no cost. This is very much the case with EPiServer, who have grown rapidly due to their responsiveness to customer demands and now have many thousands of seats worldwide. The CMS is particularly user-friendly and intutitive and can be used by novice users without the need for costly training.
In the Open Source arena this becomes more complex. The popular view is that the community ‘works together’ to build a product for the good of the community. This works well, to a point, but ultimately people are not entirely altruistic. Sooner or later (and sometimes always) they only contribute to things that benefit themselves. This means that the ‘out of the box’ product is often minimal functionality, and even if it is fairly well featured then those features are often not very flexible and designed for the use of the company that commissioned them with specific needs. It is unlikely the community will help add or update functionality and therefore it is left to the project team to do so, which can be fairly hard and time consuming. User training is likely to be required, particularly post deplyoment when users change jobs and new users need to work with the CMS.
Deadline
As a general rule, any proprietary systems must be designed to provide a very rapid solution as this is a key selling point since the market is very competitive and unforgiving. In this regard EPiServer stands up very well which is one of the many reasons that Interakting has selected this tool. The well-featured out of the box nature of EPiServer, together with the well-documented and supported APIs, mean that a robust solution can be built rapidly and efficiently. The tools are built with the clients business needs clearly in mind as much as the developers.
In an Open Source project, it has generally built by developers with a very code-centric approach. There is an expectation that the basic product will be customised by developers as needed, and the out-of-the-box functionality capability is usually minimal. Even with ‘starter’ kits for a particular tool, there is often a large amount of code and customisation to be done. Agencies promoting open source solutions capitalise on this aspect as it is very lucrative to develop the added functionality needed for more complex reqirements such as multi-lingual non-Latin support
Support
With EPiserver, as part of the licence agreement, the vendor undertakes to provide support and their reputation relies on this support being accessible and effective. The support is also usually rapid and efficient to respond with managed Help Desks staffed by knowledgeble individuals. They are able to respond with authority on support issues as they designed, wrote, maintain and own the codebase.
For an Open Source tool, the support is either an expensive add-on from the company providing the tool or is community based. If a company is supporting a tool this is often not so much of a problem, although there is an issue that they are supporting code that they quite possibly did not write. From our experience (remember that we also work with Open Source solutions when we feel it appropriate), support from the community is often slow and inadequate for projects that have a critical path.
Longevity
EPiServer is committed to the products they sell and even if they discontinue a product will generally provide migration or upgrade paths. Generally speaking, it will also be clear in advance whether a product will be passing out of support and therefore a proper exit or migration strategy can be planned well in advance. EPiServer is also helpful in that, in the event of it ceasing to trade, it has made its code available to its licensees through an escrow arrangement at a nominal annual cost (although this is optional).
Open Source projects are often left unfinished or unsupported once the community using them has moved onto something different. As a general rule, Open Source projects have a limited time in which they are actively updated and maintained and once a critical inactivity threshold is reached then they effectively become ‘legacy’, are taken into closed source or amalgamated into something larger. It can also be harder to plan an exit strategy as the ‘lifetime’ of a product is usually unclear.
Summary
In summary, we believe that for the many projects, the unknowns and variables involved in taking the Open Source route will result in a slightly higher initial cost of development and deployment and a significantly higher cost of ownership over a two year period following the initial go-live.
By choosing to use a well-proven CMS which uses the .NET framework, a project is grounded on a solid, well defined and tightly costed product and the real cost of deployment and support over a 2-5 year lifetime can be estimated with a far higher degree of accuracy. Ongoing maintenance, functional enhancements and support will also be easier to define and budget. Finally, a large pool of .NET developers able to work with EPiServer and are readily available at competitive day rates meaning the client has total flexibility and would not be locked into any single supplier in the future.
If you're looking for a CMS solution for your web site, shouldn't we be talking?
Subscribe