# CMS: workflow as a bonus, but reliability to be tested

## Definition

The CMS (Content Management System), often termed this way for marketing purposes but more accurately described by the acronym EDMS (Electronic Document Management System), introduces workflow and link management features that are invaluable for handling modular documents.

## Key principles

When using monolithic formats such as FrameMaker, technical writers can employ a CMS like SharePoint, Alfresco, or similar systems (as an alternative to a [single Git repository](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/single-repository/)) to:

1. download a local copy of shared files to their hard disk,
2. make modifications to the local copy,
3. upload the modified copy to the central repository.

This approach is more efficient than using a simple file server, primarily because file transfers over the network are less frequent. However, it remains necessary to lock files being modified, a task managed by the CMS.

While originally designed for monolithic documents, many CMS solutions now accommodate the modularization of technical documentation. Systems such as DocZone or Componize, the latter built on Alfresco, are specifically designed to manage [modular documentation](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/formats/modular-documentation/) using the DITA XML architecture.

## Trade-offs

How can we be sure that solutions updated this often — frequently for commercial rather than technical reasons — stay consistently reliable?

It's prudent to exercise caution when relying entirely on them for managing and archiving documentation source files. A careful selection of the solution is essential, paired with a robust backup and restore strategy.

## The docs-as-code alternative

With text-based source formats, a version control system provides most of what a CMS workflow is chosen for, without file locking:

| What a CMS workflow is chosen for | What version control provides |
|---|---|
| **Parallel work** | Branches let several writers work in parallel |
| **Review and approval** | Pull requests carry the review and approval steps |
| **Traceability** | The history records who changed what and when |
| **Archiving** | Every clone of a Git repository is a full copy of its history, which addresses part of the archiving concern |

See [integrating documentation into development processes](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/integrating-documentation-into-development/) and the [review workflow example](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/toolkit/example-review-workflow/).

A CMS remains relevant when contributors cannot work with text files and version control, or when the organization already relies on one for other content.

## Related articles

- [Version management systems - rustic but reliable](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/version-control-systems/)
- [Repository](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/repository/)
- [Git: from file to content](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/git-from-file-to-content/)

---

Source: https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/tech-writing-process/cms-workflow-and-reliability/