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?

Langelo

Whilst I have no knowledge of UmbracoCMS (sorry) I recommend Robert Schifreen's twelve articles, May 2012, about SharePoint at University of Brighton: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 – Nasalize

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.

Vulgus

SharePoint as an extranet can be done, just make sure you have the necessary staff and most important of all is the TIME to deal with all its issues. Even if you are a .NET shop, avoid it if you can. – Boson

Ahem … With Microsoft's web interface alone – without third party products – can an end user move a folder in SharePoint Server 2010? – Nasalize

@RexM - Has this changed with SharePoint 2010 or 2013? – Pickax

Answer 2

The main problem of using Microsoft Office SharePoint Server for your public web site is the very high licensing cost. You will require something like an Office SharePoint Server 2007 for Internet Sites license. The price is listed as USD 41,134 on the Microsoft pricing page. Other than that I have found that SharePoint is very feature rich and certainly suited for web sites other than the "standard intranet".

Atthia

While the MOSS IS licence is expensive, it's not the only scenario. Microsoft's Emma Healey is an Licensing Escalation Manager for Microsoft UK. She describes some scenarios and their licensing requirements (see link). For some scenarios you can use a Windows Server External Connector which is US$2,000: ladylicensing.spaces.live.com/blog/… – Recession

Answer 3

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

Shanitashank

Although I agree that sharepoint can/is a mess when it comes to orchastrating public facing sites, it certainly can be done. I believe all of the recovery.gov / whitehouse.gov sites are running on Sharepoint (for example). – Episiotomy

Answer 4

Without knowing your complete requirements, Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (as opposed to Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007) is a good solution. Licensing is free and it works well as the framework for public-facing websites. Using WSS 3.0, you'll be able to take advantage of your MOSS 2007 infrastructure, administration, and user training. I have developed a number of successful public-facing sites using SharePoint for various customers and am happy with the results.

This link provides a comprehensive comparison between WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointtechnology/FX101758691033.aspx

Coprophagous

Answer 5

Many public organizations use SharePoint for publicly-facing internet and collaboration sites. When architected, designed, and implemented to your specifications, SharePoint can meet the requirements you have described (including the accessibility requirements).

The real gotchas with SharePoint (as with any major software engineering project) are that you have a team of competent professionals who know what they are doing.

Here are some links to lists of sites that use SharePoint to get a better idea of how existing organizations are using SharePoint:

• SharePoint (WSS and MOSS) sites by industry as wssdemo.com
• A list of the top 100 public SharePoint sites by Joel Oleson, former SharePoint Product Manager at Microsoft.

Recession

Answer 6

Can SharePoint be used for public facing web sites? Oh yes, indeed. If you have your doubts, check out this site: http://www.topsharepoint.com, where you'll find sites such as Ferrari, Volvo Cars, Library of Congress, Carlsberg, Viacom, KPMG and a lot of other high profile company or government organizations.

Admitted, there can be accessibility-challenges with SharePoint if you rely only on the Out of the Box-features from Microsoft Office SharePoint Server(MOSS), but in time even these issues have all been addressed. The ARF is a nice example of how some of these issues have been addressed (and now even web parts can be made to validate). Another is AKS, which even has Microsoft officially involved. A third is BKS.

If people are still making non-validating sites in SharePoint today, it could very well be because they haven't researched thoroughly or aren't prioritizing it.

If you look above the challenges of validation, I would say since you've already decided on using SharePoint for intranet, there's very little reason not to do so for your public sites also. A lot intranets running on MOSS are in fact based on it's CMS-templates, because then you get the best of both worlds. All the collaborative features can, for the most parts, be easily enabled for CMS-sites as well. In fact you get a very mature, enterprise-ready, scalable product i MOSS which also includes a range of other features like easy code-package deployment, enterprise-ready search, workflows, scheduled server-to-server content deployment, detailed user-management and a long list of other features.

I could go on and on about SharePoint, but in closing I just have to say that even the free WSS-part can be made into a CMS system, proven by sites such as Tozit and CompleteSharePoint.NET. You will most likely also find, that should you need consultants or hire people for the job, it's easier to get SharePoint-people on board than Umbraco, simply because of the big community supporting the SharePoint-platform.

Thrive

Answer 7

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).

Maddeu

Thanks for the advice on WSS 3.0 being free. Are you saying there are licensing gotchas with your setup? – Langelo

WSS uses the same licensing as the Windows Server running the installation. You need the required user/device CALS. The only "licensing gotchas" associtated with WSS are if you plan to extend it to users outside of your organization, in which case you need the external connector. – Recession

Answer 8

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.

Episiotomy

That probably won't be much of an issue. The SharePoint system will be potentially used by 3,000 members of staff, but the website will be updated by only around 20 staff. – Langelo

Answer 9

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).

Khartoum

Answer 10

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?

Kurtzig