A conversation to have with clients during the planning phase of a project is whether, or not to have a content management system (CMS) for all, or part of their site versus having a maintenance agreement to make updates. It grossly affects the budget and it has an impact on the relationship with the client - pay upfront for the CMS, or pay over time for service. A good rule of thumb is, if content is not updated more than 4 times a year don’t get an administrative tool for it. The idea of the ongoing relationship with the maintenance agreement can be a good thing. It almost always grows into something better than just maintenance.

A scenario that happens all the time is a client thinks they need a content management system (CMS) so they can update the site themselves and save money. A few weeks pass and they call to have the vendor make updates using the CMS system because they don’t have the resources to do it, or need something fixed they messed up. In this case they pay twice: once for the CMS and once for the update labor. No money saved there.

Whether it’s a designer or client making the changes, a web site evolves. It’s one of the benefits of the medium. It’s important to plan how a site’s content is going to change. Decide what control method meets client needs, has the biggest impact on budgets and ensures the site remains effective.