CMS selection · Consulting

System selection
you can verify yourself.

We select content management systems using a transparent evaluation model: weighted requirements, verified answers for each product and a ranking you can trace back to each individual answer.

Discuss your selection View our work

When the platform question is open

A relaunch, a jump in licence costs from your current provider or several systems that need to come together: choosing a CMS affects editors, development, operations and procurement at the same time, and commits you for years. Choosing based on a demo impression or market position makes this decision too, only without anyone noticing.

We make requirements and their weighting explicit, assess each product against the same questions and present a result with transparent calculations.

Our method

We organise requirements into topic areas: editorial work and author experience, content model, workflows and governance, internationalisation and multi-site, digital asset management, API and stack fit, AI and personalisation, SEO, GEO and accessibility, security and compliance, operations and scaling, costs and investment protection. Each area is divided into capabilities, and each capability into specific questions.

Answers are scored according to the effort required for a capability in the respective product: from immediately available to unsupported. You define the weighting of topics separately by role, because editors and IT have different priorities. This produces a weighted total for each product. Every value in the result can be traced back to the answer that produced it, and every previous state of the evaluation can be reconstructed.

Result

What you receive.

Every result states the date of the information, sources and open points. This keeps the decision well-founded even when requirements or products evolve.

Question catalogueRequirements as questions with weighting by role, agreed with editors, development and operations.

Product dossiersA dossier for each system: brief profile, evaluation by topic area, gaps and risks, sources and date of the information.

Vendor enquiryQuestionnaires for providers and partners. Every answer carries its source; we close gaps through our own checks.

Decision paperRanking with calculations, a recommendation and the conditions under which it would flip.

Workshop and implementation planReview the result with stakeholders; on request, a service specification for implementation.

Experience with the process

We have supported system selections for Merck, VIER, a reinsurer and iF Design, among others.

We define the field of candidates together rather than prescribing it: your shortlist and current system, Gartner and Forrester market analyses of content management and digital experience platforms, plus established systems from our own practice, from headless platforms such as Contentful, Storyblok or Payload, through enterprise systems such as Sitecore, to traditional systems such as WordPress and TYPO3. Every candidate goes through the same questions. We are not tied to any product and recommend according to the task, rather than trends.

Frequently asked questions

Do you also evaluate our existing system?

Yes. The current system is included as a candidate. Sometimes the result is that no change is needed, just better use of the system.

Are vendors involved?

On request. Vendors and partners receive the same questionnaire. Every answer carries its source, and we verify key statements ourselves.

Can we change the weighting later?

Yes. Weightings and answers are stored separately. If a priority changes, the ranking is recalculated and the previous state remains available to view.

Do we still need a CMS with AI?

For pages that need to be maintained, scheduled and approved over years, yes. The more open question is which type fits: traditional, Git-based or headless. AI tools then work within the CMS, producing drafts subject to approval.