Decision Point: Static or Dynamic Web Sites

The question really comes to this: Are dynamic sites critical to the mission of a college or university? Is a student's interactive and social experience while using the university's web resources (and one that may continue long after they become alumni) a compelling reason to support the complex infrastructure that is required?

During a recent meeting with system administrators of our university's network infrastructure, we discussed the problems and advantages of software applications to deliver dynamic web content. Our proposal was to deploy a system to enable blogging and portfolios for students, faculty and staff. They were, uh, sceptical. Having attended similar meetings in the past, I expected some criticism of the proposal - dynamic systems are resource hogs, they don't scale, security holes, a preference for storing resources on file systems, and one I didn't expect: performance enhancement techniques such as caching are "hacks".

As I write this I have to keep in mind that sysadmins have the toughest job in a stressful profession. Not only do they have to defy the odds and keep critical network systems running regardless of software and hardware failures, sabotage, and human error, but they have to manage the expectations of faculty and staff thinking about the next big thing. In the technology space, they are the conservatives, and they have come by that honestly. Hmmm... context.

So, it's not surprising they should be skeptical, nay, sometimes hostile, to a proposal to host content management services for web sites, blogs, wikis and other big things. They're entirely correct in pointing out that system overhead of dynamically building web pages is expensive in system resources relative to static sites on the file system. Caching solutions reduce those costs dramatically, but unquestionably, it's more trouble to run a dynamic site. So, why are so there so many dynamic web sites, and who are the morons that are paying for them?

Apparently, some people running businesses and critical systems think the cost of dynamic sites is worth the expense and trouble. Web sites hosting eCommerce services, social networking, portfolios, personalized content and aggregation, news services, portals, office productivity applications, and web-based email (email?), to name a few, have to be dynamic sites to provide value. And, yes, they have unique performance and security concerns.

Viewed within a larger context, dynamic web sites should reduce the total cost to deliver content at the same time that it can improve user experience. Reduced costs and ROI are the litmus by which institutions commit to content management systems. A CMS for web sites, blogs, and other resources makes access to the content easy; they use the talents of many people to create and maintain content with little or no training; they give editors control of quality if your mission so requires.

The question really comes to this: Are dynamic sites critical to the mission of a college or university? Is a student's interactive and social experience while using the university's web resources (and one that may continue long after they become alumni) a compelling reason to support the complex infrastructure that is required?

One last point: The sad evidence that most CMS projects fail is typically not a failure of software, of horrible performance, or any of the other objections of the sysadmins. It's a failure of strategy and implementation. Failure is often the result of trying to fix institutional problems with a CMS. But that's another, and very interesting, subject.


Search: static versus dynamic web sites