Proprietary CMS vs Open Source, a Contrarian Point of View

Proprietary CMS vs Open Source, a Contrarian Point of View
by Al Polanec, Blue Archer Principal
When searching for the best software to power your new website, you could easily be deluged with possibilities. From completely open-source products available free for the taking on the web to proprietary platforms that are available only from their respective developers, the options can be overly expansive.
So where to begin? Well, the first step in analyzing a decision like this should always be to focus on your needs first. Do you have extensive internal technical capability and resources? Are you willing to invest in learning a new technology? Do you want to work with the firm that developed the CMS software? Do it yourself website projects are actually very similar to do it yourself projects at home. How much time do you have? Do you want to save on the initial costs but extend your timeline and ongoing costs? Will you ever really “finish” your project?
Open-source projects do have their following in the general internet community, and also with qualified implementers. Finding a qualified developer who can implement an open-source software can mitigate some of the work and risk involved in a “DIY” project. But is having a third-party involved in the project really a benefit to your business?
Typically produced by educational projects or informal gatherings of developers from around the world, open-source projects tend to adhere to the design principals of their creators. Not generally created with a specific business purpose or end use in mind, the open-source projects tend to focus on tools rather than outcomes. The implementers of these products must therefore inherit many of these conclusions drawn in a relative vacuum from the end-use business world the software will eventually inhabit. Due to the non-commercial nature of many open-source projects, there also is a limited degree of reliability of version releases, bug fixes, and integrated hosting offerings. Implementers who utilize a specific open-source product may well become relatively expert in their use and implementation, but do not typically have the “architects” viewpoint when it comes to making extensive modifications to the software. With this in mind, there is often not a lot of support for extensibility. Since you cannot work direct with the designers of the software, your end-product may not be flexible enough to evolve at the same speed as your business. The traditional advantage cited by open-source projects is that anyone can develop using the platform. This is technically true, but any developer will require a learning curve to master a new technology, and since the technology labor is the most expensive part of any customization project, businesses that choose open-source will end up paying for this learning curve.
The world of proprietary CMS software has seen strong growth in the past several years. With this growth has come a wave of specialization across industries and needs. Some firms have developed software specific to the non-profit sector, while other firms have focused on small-business or the middle-market. These firms have typically developed their own software, and architected this software to meet the needs of their clientele. These firms are positioned to quickly and efficiently meet their needs of their clients, including extending and customizing their technology to meet specific needs. Due to specialization and operational efficiency, the degree of time, cost and functional flexibility of these proprietary offerings can often far outreach their open-source counterparts. And so in the end, forming a strong partnership with a successful, established provider of CMS software can not only result in a better outcome for your company, but also be cheaper. Not to mention that successful CMS providers are around for a reason, they provide a value for their customers. So be sure to check their references and examine their portfolio of work to ensure they are a good fit for your business.