Sharepoint CMS vs UmbracoCMS

Question

I work for a large local government organisation who are about to embark on using SharePoint to replace our ageing intranet with an all-singing all-dancing collaborative site. The focus for the intranet will be replacing random files, content pages and documents that are spread across the organisation with a SharePoint installation which will magically bring order to all of this.

The decision to use SharePoint for the intranet has already been made.

The CMS we use on our public website also needs replacing. I have proposed using UmbracoCMS, but due to the pending SharePoint implementation on our intranet, my boss has suggested using SharePoint for the website too. He's suggested this from a purely logical point of view as he's not a developer, and I can understand why this course of action might appear to be the obvious way forward.

I am very skeptical about using SharePoint to cover our website. We would only need the actually 'content managerment' elements of it with much of the rest of the website being made up of existing .NET applications.

For our Intranet, developing something with SharePoint seems obvious as it will integrate with email and Office and will allow sharing of content and integrate with our Active Directory (or that's what I assume).

However, our website is completely different and contains many applications together with an archaic CMS. This is a public sector website so website accessibility and interoperability are key. It needs to be easy to use and generate clean accessible output and valid XHTML compliant code. We don't need any of the collaborative or document sharing features of SharePoint for the website.

My gut feeling with using SharePoint for the website is that it is an extremely bad idea.

I have suggested UmbracoCMS as the control I expect we will have will be greater than with SharePoint and it's integration with .NET means that we will potentially be able to knit all of our applications together more easily than with SharePoint.

Does anybody have any experience of using either or both of these products or know of any cool features in either SharePoint/Umbraco that I might make this a little more clear cut?

Answer 1

Being on the tail-end of building one of the largest public-facing, pure web CMS sites on MOSS 2007 (extranet/intranet/internet), I can say quite confidently that it absolutely blows as a CMS. Collaboration portal? Pretty decent. Document management? Not bad at all. WCMS? Awful. Horrible. Stay away.

Why? Sure you can make it work, as there are plenty of examples out there. You can look at the finished product from the outside and it might look pretty decent. But you have no idea how much pain, frustration, cost overruns, delays, and general badness happened to get there. Trust me, it can be quite a lot.

Answer 2

My company has started testing Sharepoint Services (WSS 3.0) as it is a free version, it is short some features of MOSS (Sharepoint 2007) but it is free and comes with much of the things a company may require. However it is a Microsoft product so its always got some licensing 'gotchas'.

WSS has worked fine for us internally with document management, team collaboration, wiki / blog type functionality, it integrates with LDAP / Windows authentication (it is MS after all).

Answer 3

Without much deep knowledge of sharepoint (only used it for internal sites), I can only help out on the Umbraco part. As a developer I love the control I have over the xhtml output, no surprises and extremley flexible. Powering large sites such as Conde Nast sites outside USA, Heinz, Hasselblad + many more means that it does scale. But, I think the biggest asset is the community, it's so easy to get great help should you encounter any problems or if you have a question. See http://our.umbraco.org. I can also recommend the videos, I think it's a very nice way to learn the basics combined with the Creative Website Starter kit by Warren Buckley (available from the package repository).

Answer 4

Not knowing anything about the UmbracoCMS, i would say that using a sharepoint system will allow you to do the things you need to do now as well as extend that functionality into the future. As an additional comment to those made above, keep in mind that you will want some kind of publishing feature for this external site. WSS and MOSS can accomadate the feature. Migration of content is also interesting since you can develope functionality on your current farm and then selectivly push these features onto the external farm.

To sum up: Though the setup is still a pain in the butt, you will have a much better administrative experience if your topology is homogenous. After all, this is what you current problem is anyway... why create more chaos?

Answer 5

I don't agree with Martin that the high licensing cost is the main issue. The main issue is that Sharepoint isn't designed to be a CMS for public facing websites. Ever looked at the HTML that Sharepoint spits out by default? You can fix all those issues but I've spoken to people who did that and they all say that it doesn't make sense to use Sharepoint for your public facing website. So if accessibility and interoperability are important don't use Sharepoint.

I'll agree that sharepoint is great to build an intranet.

I think umbraco is the best cms for public facing websites. It's designed to have full control over the input, you can integrate any website design (No limitations) and you can use your existing .net controls. That's why I've chosen Umbraco as the default CMS for my customers in 2007.

Cheers,

Richard

Answer 6

Dont' forget to factor in user acceptance into your decision. Having to train on two different systems can quickly become a PITA if there are a number of people updating the site.