Critics

Critic: Matthew McQueeny

In any industry, buzzwords abound! 
In the Digital Experience (DX) landscape, it is no different – and you will hear a handful of terms that seemingly set the standard for the ecosystem.
However, you might not know what they all mean and how they are different from one another. That could pose a major problem, particularly as a technology, marketing, and/or business leader in the enterprise who is expected to be at one with the trends and best practices while leading their organization to digital glory.
I recently sat down for an hour during a<a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/tDAVv1VwHgU?feature=share"> DX Café interview with Andrew Kumar,</a> VP of Customer Solutions at <a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/uniform-adds-new-visual-editing-and-integration-features-to-enhance-dxcp/">Uniform</a>, and we talked about four of the oft-heard concepts around the DX industry “watercooler.”
Uniform is an interesting company to start with as a frame of reference for much of this headless and composable DXP and product industry. As Kumar noted in the discussion, Uniform is “a rapidly evolving product set, but it is very much this visual workspace for digital teams.” 
One of our first orders of business was to define four specific terms within DX architecture: Monolithic, Headless, MACH, and Composable.
<h2>Monolithic: "All your software embedded into one application"</h2>
Kumar discussed the transition from monolithic systems to more modular, composable systems in enterprise technology. Traditionally, monolithic systems encapsulated all software functions in one application, which led to challenges due to the complexity of enterprises. Companies often had to adapt their processes to the monolithic system or spend significant resources to adapt them to their business.
Kumar suggests that enterprises' complexities arise due to their constant need to meet customer demands, leading to diverse offerings. When enterprises attempt to fit monolithic systems into their complex business operations, they often encounter difficulties.
In response to these challenges, monolithic platforms decompose into modular structures to support these complex business needs.
“I am starting to shy away from the term monolithic,” said Kumar. “And I'm shying away from that because the historical monolithic platforms are decomposing themselves.”
However, Kumar mentions that businesses often underestimate their complexity until they have analyzed their operations. Only when the complexities are fully understood can technology be molded around the business rather than vice versa.
He uses the term "all in one" rather than monolithic, as the platforms are becoming more modular and adaptable to fit the needs of the business. However, these all-in-one systems often do not integrate well with external modules, akin to battery packs that only fit one brand of tools.
While all-in-one solutions can be beneficial due to their convenience, speed to market, and easier vendor management, they often do not excel in any particular area, only offering adequate solutions for various functions. This can be a drawback for businesses requiring a specific solution or the best feature. Despite these shortcomings, it can prove valuable if the out-of-the-box solution fits an enterprise's needs.
Kumar concludes that the move away from monolithic systems is largely based on the level of complexity and customization that a business requires. The more complex and custom a business needs, the more likely a monolithic system is to be an impediment.
<h2>Headless: "Kind of a hot keyword"</h2>
Kumar talked about the concept of "<a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/top-free-headless-cms-platforms/">headless</a>" systems, which are becoming popular in the tech industry. Headless systems offer more flexibility than traditional "all-in-one" systems, as they separate the content from how it's presented to the customer. This decoupling allows for easier content distribution across various channels.
In an all-in-one system, content creation and presentation are intertwined. For instance, a Content Management System (CMS) creates webpages and websites. However, presenting the same content on a mobile app or other platforms like email channels, digital displays, or VR headsets requires significant effort to untether the content from its original presentation.
“An all-in-one CMS builds webpages and websites,” said Kumar. “(but) then if you try to build a mobile app with the all-in-one, you have to untether. You have to undergo a lot of effort to create flexibility. If you try to put that content into an email channel, or a digital display or a VR, like an Apple VR headset, it's a lot of work. It's feasible, but it's a lot of work.”
Conversely, headless systems don't know or dictate where the content will end up. The content is consumed through an API and can appear on a website, an app, or other platforms. This gives tremendous flexibility and allows reusing content across various touchpoints and channels.
The challenge with headless systems is that they do not inherently provide a way to preview how the content will appear in different consuming applications. Over the past six to seven years, Kumar has been developing tools to enable such previews.
The appropriateness of headless systems depends on the industry and the nature of customer interactions. Headless systems make sense in industries like telecom, where most customer interactions are through mobile devices or chatbots. Some organizations start by using headless for a single website before expanding to multiple websites, thereby beginning to take advantage of the system's flexibility. However, it's a different paradigm with a lean, out-of-the-box solution.
<h2>MACH: "Very high bar for standards of quality"</h2>
Kumar noted that the MACH in the <a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/the-future-is-composable-a-conversation-with-new-mach-alliance-president-casper-rasmussen/">MACH Alliance</a> stands for Microservices, API-first, Cloud-native, and Headless. The MACH Alliance sets high standards for vendors in the tech industry, and not every vendor meets these standards. 
Like Kumar's company Uniform, those who receive approval can assure prospective buyers that their platform has been audited and meets specific technical standards. This approval can help support both the buyers' previous and future investments.
Kumar acknowledges criticism that the MACH Alliance is not inclusive but argues that maintaining high standards is necessary to push the industry forward. The high bar for entry ensures that the MACH Alliance seal retains its value and is not awarded to companies that do not meet its stringent criteria. Therefore, he views the exclusivity of the Alliance as a potential strength rather than a weakness, ensuring that only vendors that meet the highest standards are admitted.
<h2>Composable: "The way it's being defined is learning the lessons from the previous three terms"</h2>
Kumar lastly broke down the concept of "composable" systems, stating that this is the latest term in the tech industry. He sees it as a natural evolution from monolithic to all-in-one to headless systems and now to composable systems.
Traditional monolithic systems are now decomposing into composable systems. They're breaking down into smaller, more manageable modules that can be reconfigured per business needs.
“Headless tools are generally composable by default,” asserted Kumar. “Because they're unique, like ring-fenced capabilities that can be plugged and played as necessary.”
The MACH Alliance's standards, Kumar explains, push the needle on what it means to be truly composable. Having APIs on top of any software does not make it headless or composable. He highlights the importance of having clean, well-defined microservices to manage the platform's infrastructure. He also emphasizes the necessity of being "API first," where APIs get published concurrently with features.
Moreover, he addresses the importance of the Cloud in the MACH model. While one might have a headless system hosted locally, it would not meet the requirements of being self-serve, auto-updating, and cloud-native. In a cloud environment, the vendor takes care of security patches, reducing the maintenance burden on users.
Finally, he highlights the value of being composable for complex business enterprises. Adapting technology to business needs is vital in a rapidly changing business environment. While "composable" hasn't gained much search volume or intent yet, he anticipates it may become the next hot keyword in the industry.
Education is paramount in the ever-shifting DX industry. We hope you have gained a better understanding of some of the key principles that are frequently raised in conversations. 
<hr />
<a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/critics/matthew-mcqueeny/">Matt McQueeny</a> is part of the leadership team at <a href="https://konabos.com/" target="_blank">Konabos</a> and a CMS Critic contributor.

Exploring DX Architecture

mattmcqueeny

The <a href="https://www.boye-co.com/groups/cms-experts" target="_blank">Boye &amp; Company CMS Experts Group</a> always provides lively debate and thought-provoking presentations. At the organization’s annual <a href="https://www.boye-co.com/conferences/cmskickoff23/program" target="_blank">CMS Kickoff</a> on January 17-18 in St. Petersburg, Florida, the event went to script.
One of the lines of thought particularly intriguing to me was put forth by <a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/cms-kickoff-2023-draws-global-attendees-focuses-on-the-future-of-content-and-composable/">Optimizely's Deane Barker</a> in his opening presentation. He talked about the creation of content – where content begins – and the idea that the “first 85% of content exists outside of a CMS.”
I had never considered this but had learned from my own experiences – and nightmares – why this is the case. 
<h2>So many CMSes, so little time</h2>
I have had the opportunity in my varied roles as a journalist, consultant, project manager, search engine optimizer, and content producer to interact with more than 15 different content management systems. Whether proprietary, mass appeal, enterprise license-based, low-code, no-code, or HTML-code, they all essentially do the same thing. An interface exists to push content to the web, and this interface is more user-friendly, organized, and manageable than doing so in code. A CMS enables many more users within an organization to publish to the web and (should) limit the old bottleneck that was created by content creators (often many) sending their written content “over the wall” to developers (often few) to bring those “artifacts” to life digitally. 
While publishing to the web might have become an action to be handled by many more hands, the fact that content creation itself doesn’t happen in a CMS – Barker’s “85%” comment – is still the general law of cyberspace.  A CMS – even when it features a WYSIWYG or visual editor – has never felt like a great place to begin the content journey. For me, it has never provided a better toolset than word processing software, like Microsoft Word or Google Docs, or notes applications, like Evernote, Apple’s Notes, or Microsoft OneNote. In addition, I am sure we have all experienced the nightmare of trying to develop content in a CMS, and then some reboot or login script automatically triggers and wipes away your potential masterpiece. 
Barker noted that people are hesitant to create content within a CMS because of an anxiety of potentially being judged while a kernel of an idea is gestating. “Psychological Safety” is important for healthy content development. Barker himself negotiates “keyboard time” into his agreements with his employer, <a href="https://www.optimizely.com/?utm_source=linkedin&amp;utm_medium=referral" target="_blank">Optimizely</a>. This is an acknowledgment that to create, you often need to “go dark” for at least a bit and be trusted to create. It also got me thinking that while content editing, queueing, moderation, and publishing can feel like a virtual supply chain, content creation feels more like product development or innovation. 
<h2>Trust the process... whatever that may be</h2>
Some enterprise organizations, like Boye &amp; Company event presenter <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-spenceley-7058a312/" target="_blank">Michael Spenceley</a>’s team at <a href="https://www.jnj.com/" target="_blank">Johnson &amp; Johnson</a>, can build a high-performing content team that aligns impeccable customer-centric content creation into a kind of content conveyer belt, but most still need inspiration from the mind of a creator to kick things into gear. Could this – should this – be accounted for in the CMS? Is it good for content operations, from conception to commercialization, to be commoditized?  Should we still leave and trust some parts of the process to serendipity?
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/carriehane/" target="_blank">Carrie Hane</a>, principal evangelist at <a href="https://www.cmscritic.com/sanity-raises-39-million-focuses-growth-on-content-as-data-for-transformative-digital-experiences/">Sanity.io</a>, talked at the Boye &amp; Company CMS Kickoff about how content technology impacts business. Her own research and vantage of the market note that “CMS users still think their CMS sucks, and that’s just how it is,” and that “most organizations don’t have a content strategy.” She also noted that composable technologies are being embraced by early-adopting IT teams and are better for content management. 
This made me further think about the best use cases and philosophical aspirations of a content management system. 
How do we square all these competing elements?
<ul>
<li>CMS users who don’t like the system, but only use it for 15% of the content process.</li>
<li>IT teams procure new systems on behalf of content managers, who will primarily use them.</li>
<li>The right platform for content inspiration simultaneously enables quick and efficient processes for content perspiration.</li>
</ul>
Most importantly, is there a specific problem in all this that is hankering to be solved?
<h2>A new (old) content sheriff in town?</h2>
In times of yore – let’s say the late 2000s – when selling the virtues of the then-nascent CMS to a prospective customer, we would often say that the technology allows you to manage and publish content on the web as simply as you can within Microsoft Word. Back then, it felt like the CMS would make Microsoft Word redundant, or worse, anachronistic!
This is a funny notion now in 2023. Microsoft has made quite a resurgence, up to its current perch as the third-largest company in the world by market capitalization. And just this past Monday (January 23), it announced <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/01/23/microsoftandopenaiextendpartnership/" target="_blank">a multibillion-dollar investment in ChatGPT</a>, via its maker OpenAI. Many are frenziedly anointing ChatGPT as the holy grail of content creation and production. It will undoubtedly become tightly integrated with Microsoft’s products.
Is it possible in the future that a CMS could just become a way to deliver generative AI-enhanced, Microsoft Word content directly to the web for publishing? What if Microsoft can swoop in and own Barker’s “85% of content” happening outside of the CMS and make a moot point of whether CMS users think their CMS sucks or not (per Hanes’ presentation)?
What happens in the CMS might not stay in the CMS much longer. It's a gamble to be sure, but the bets are already on the table that AI will change everything. We'll have to wait and see. 
<h2>About the Author</h2>
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-mcqueeny-9732493/" target="_blank">Matthew McQueeny</a> is part of the leadership team at <a href="https://konabos.com/" target="_blank">Konabos</a>, a global agency that specializes in digital experience platform implementation. Matt's role as the relationships and community lead is powered by over 15 years of digital marketing and web project management experience. He has worked with clients ranging from Fortune 500 to startups across a wide range of industries including healthcare, publishing, technology, telecommunications, education, retail, entertainment, manufacturing, and transportation. 
Matt loves the intersection of technology, marketing, and communications. Throughout his career, he has worked with many licensed and open-source content management systems, in editorial, social media strategy and advertising, search engine marketing, lead generation, analytics, and podcasting. You can follow Matt on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-mcqueeny-9732493/" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/mattmcqueeny" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.

What Happens in the CMS, Stays in the CMS?

Las Vegas sign with text that reads "Welcome to your Fabulous CMS" instead of Las Vegas. Background of Las Vegas city skyline at night.

Matt is part of the leadership team at Konabos, a global agency that specializes in digital experience platform implementation.