I. Is Drupal similar to other CMS?

1. Giving a point by point comparison of Drupal and traditional content management systems (CMS) like PHPNuke, PostNuke or XOOPs is a tricky and difficult undertaking because of two reasons: First, a comparative matrix of features will not accurately tell the tale. Second, Drupal’s impact is more on the back-end and can only be fully appreciated by web programmers/developers. Both of these reasons are explained further in this paper. It is important to note that the author has done various web development work: from making static web pages, to making dynamic websites using proprietary and open source engines. He is therefore comparing Drupal and traditional CMS from both the front end (user’s side) and back end (programmer’s side) of web development.

II. Why a comparative matrix of CMS features will not work.

2. A Google search on CMS comparisons will usually lead to several web pages containing a matrix of features with check boxes. If a feature like “Allows blogging” is available to a CMS, the feature gets a check-mark. If not, it gets an X-mark. Simplistically speaking, using a comparative matrix is like comparing laundry soap with dishwashing soap on a limited set of criteria. If our comparative matrix lists features like “Can clean”, “Available in liquid form”, and “Produces bubbles”, our matrix will not be very useful because both detergents contain these properties and we may wrongly decide to use dishwashing soap for our clothes.

3. Similarly, a comparison between Drupal and other traditional CMS is tricky: all of them do well when it comes to content management. Drupal and most traditional CMS are modular in design. This means they allow “pluggable” modules like calendaring, blogging and forums. Both are Open Source, programmed in PHP, using MySQL database, and will run over the Apache web server. These details will not be important to users, so long as they get a good finished product. (See note, below)

___

Note: Some have said that comparing Drupal with traditional CMS from a CMS point of view is deceiving since Drupal is a framework and not just a CMS, while traditional CMS are just content management systems. This is a technical point that is valid but should be the subject of another paper.

III. Key Differences

4. So at first glance, the direct impact on users is not visible. However, when the users begin to use the system and start noticing new requirements like (a) “We need new content tags in the system,” or (b) “We need to tell the search engine that this tag is a synonym of that tag” – then the main differences between Drupal and traditional CMS begin to surface. In Drupal, the questions above are easily implemented through the Taxonomy Module, something which traditional CMS do not have. Users with no programming backgrounds can be trained to handle the taxonomy module and solve the two requirements above without resorting to programming.

5. The taxonomy module is therefore the first key difference that distinguishes Drupal from traditional CMS. The dynamic taxonomy module is the next step from content management and requires a paradigm shift in this field.(See note, below) Web programmers are very aware that the web has moved on from using simple static web pages to dynamically generated content. This evolutionary step made easier the task of content management for organizations. In short, traditional CMS allowed users with little or no HTML experience to be able to set up and maintain a website. But this worsened an already untenable situation: making it easier to publish information also increased the information overload we are now encountering.

____

Note: A paradigm shift as Kuhn and Toffler have pointed out, are difficult because they cause resistance from traditional believers. Hence, programmers/developers who first encounter Drupal are often confused with the way Drupal handles content. This is because Drupal puts the content at the center of the CMS while traditional CMS put structure first and the content last. The way traditional CMS treated content and structure eventually became its limitation: if you first define the structure, then you are more or less locked within the confines of this structure. Drupal does the reverse by making content the starting point and then allowing users to define the categories and structure any way they want to. To understand this better, we can cite the YahooMail and GoogleMail analogy. The only way to categorize mail messages in YahooMail is to move them inside folders like Personal and Work. But what if a mail message has to be both under Personal and Work? GoogleMail does not use the folder metaphor but instead uses “labels”. In GoogleMail, mail messages can be multi-labelled.

IV. Paradigm Shift: From Content to Taxonomy

6. The strong need now is for organizations to be able to effectively and easily wade through the information overload. In other words, organizations must be able to easily structure and categorize information. This paradigm change is subtle and it’s what most web programmers still fail to understand. Organizational requirements have since changed: from managing content, to making that content easy to find and retrieve. The situation brings forth a strong need for dynamic taxonomy management.

7. Moreover, as more organizations explore knowledge management and transform themselves into learning organizations, it has become clear that the way we structure and categorize information is not static but fluid. One can imagine a grocery list that changes constantly because of the ever-changing needs of a household. Traditional CMS will therefore not be able to respond to the demand for fluid taxonomies; Drupal can. Drupal empowers the users themselves to easily define and change the categories and structures of their intranets and websites. Drupal’s taxonomy module also enables users to create relationships between categories or vocabulary terms without the need for reprogramming. For instance, defining the words “development” and “progress” as synonyms is trivial in Drupal and can be done by non-techie users. In traditional CMS, this task will require reprogramming. The paradigm shift is so difficult that even now, web developers who have made the shift to Drupal cannot clearly articulate why Drupal is better, even to their fellow developers (what more with non-techie users?!). Programmers also even suspect Drupal because it is relatively newer other CMS like PHPNuke or Plone.

8. At this point, programmers who use traditional CMS may say, “Why not just develop a taxonomy module for the traditional CMS?” Here the discussion brings into play another key difference between Drupal and traditional CMS: the design paradigm. Drupal was designed in the context of knowledge management and the awareness of the importance of dynamic taxonomy. To this author’s knowledge, no other CMS tool integrates a dynamic taxonomy module – not even Microsoft SharePoint, which is a fairly new product. Besides, building a taxonomy module for traditional CMS would most probably require major reprogramming of the core code, something that is tantamount to reinventing the wheel.

9. And there lies the third key factor that distinguishes Drupal: because it is developed in a new paradigm, it anticipates much of the emerging requirements of knowledge workers and organizations. Modifying a Drupal-based website or intranet will require less effort than if these sites were built on traditional CMS. Even in customization tasks that will require programmers to get their hands dirty with PHP, Drupal will prove to be easier to manage than with traditional CMS. Of course, this will sound like empty marketing promises to attract traditional web programmers to Drupal. But we can’t do anything about that – it’s the resistance to change which is at work there.

V. Summary and Conclusion

NOTE: this is the theoretical side of taxonomy. If you are a beginning Drupal user and wish to start quickly with Drupal, please read

The Power of Drupal Categories

.

10. Trying to compare Drupal with traditional CMS on a point-by-point basis on existing product features will not generate useful wisdom. It is also difficult to do because users will hardly feel the difference and the major impact of Drupal will be appreciated more by web programmers. To make matters worst, programmers will most probably resist the new paradigm and stick to the familiar terrain of traditional CMS.

11. What would be more meaningful is to discover features beyond what is covered by these traditional-minded matrix comparisons. There are three key differences that distinguishes Drupal from traditional CMS: (a) the dynamic taxonomy management module that empowers non-technical users to define and change the structure of their websites, (b) the radical design paradigm that made possible the taxonomy module, and (c) the appropriateness of the design that makes Drupal an ideal engine as a tool for knowledge sharing and management. -END-

Also read:Choosing a platform for the telecentre.org network

(http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/telecentre-platform/)

By Benc
Source: DigitalSolutions.ph
Photo Credit, Nickwheeleroz