Content Management @ Wesleyan

Content Types

Project participants divided into small groups to tackle individual (if often overlapping) kinds of content. Each group organized its report around the same set of questions

Definition of the domain that the group is working in. What is included? What is excluded from consideration?
Existing practices, including the number of people involved in the practice, the technologies/systems involved in managing the process, budget for materials in that area, and budget for systems/personnel in that area.
Strengths: What is good about the existing practice?
Weaknesses: What could be improved?
Opportunities: What are things that other schools or institutions do that we might emulate? What trends are emerging from other sectors that we could use to our advantage?
Threats: What bad things could happen if we keep doing what we are doing? What bad things could happen if we change the way we are doing? What is happening in the environment that we are unprepared for now and would suggest that we need to change our ways?
Short-term recommendations: What are some short-term (next six months to a year) things we could do to address issues and opportunities identified in this report? What would be some concrete next steps towards making this happen? What would it cost?
Long-term recommendations: What are some longer-term (two-five year) things we could do?
Readings and Links: What are the key readings in this area that would help others become informed about this area? What are some examples of technologies and applications of those technologies that would help us think through how to approach content management in this particular domain?

Follow the links below or in the column on the left to see how each group defined its domain. In some cases full draft reports are also available.

Content Management @ Wesleyan

working groups

Sections

Content Types