CONTENTdm is well-suited for smaller organizations as a simple solution to present a digital collection on the web. If your need is complex and requires digital preservation as part of the workflow, it may not be the best solution.
Kapost has potential to be a great asset in small and large orgs. If you're not producing a great deal of content, or coordinating across a large team, there's still tremendous value, but it scales as your org scales because it makes it easier to coordinate and manage large teams and large content archives.
Filtering: If you make the most out of your custom details and custom fields, you can gain newfound access to materials that may have long been lost in the ether. It's really easy for us, for instance, to see all of our videos at once. Or everything targeting a certain buying stage. Or you can keyword search to see everything on one topic.
Workflows: It's really nice to lay out "who sees what when" in a digital way, because everyone involved on an asset can easily see what stage things are at. You can also set deadlines to tasks, which seems a bit more firm than a casual email, because you can visually see how meeting your deadline fits within the whole timeline.
Calendars: The calendar feature is nice for us because we have a blog, so we can see when everything is (supposed) to go live. It's easy to see when I, as a copy editor, should be expecting work, so I can align my day accordingly. Way better than the old-fashioned "mental note" system.
As a digital asset management system, one would expect the capability of managing preservation, which CONTENTdm lacks.
Lack of batch updating and other advanced metadata management capabilities.
The usage statistics does not work, and the company is not planning to fix it, at least based the interaction with tech support staff. Customers were referred to use Google Analytics.
Social media distribution needs improvement. Specifically a calendar for planned Tweets and a better way to schedule multiple shares of the same content.
System performance is somewhat slow.
Should be an easier way to make changes, like adding custom fields or publication destinations, to all content types, rather than one at a time.
We are using some other systems that might have replaced Kapost, but none of them had the workflow functionality we were looking for. So, we're sticking with Kapost for now.
The calendar view is a great feature and so are the custom views. It is relatively easy to see a clear view of what content the user is responsible for and then the due dates associated to it. The ability to create and update workflows for the team is easy to navigate and keeps us on track.
The reputation of the product matches up to its reputation as one of the leaders in the space. I love that you can share and access content at your fingertips from anywhere. The downside is that it does not have the prettiest interface but you can get over this with its functionality.
We selected CONTENTdm because it had a good reputation, was used by many institutions, provided a good product, and supplied feedback and monthly reports. We are wondering about DPLA and if that will be the next evolution or platform.
Workfront has a lot of great features, but Kapost was the right tool for what we needed at the time. With a team of our size, we had to make sure we weren't biting off more than we could chew and the project never got off the ground. We had to be thoughtful with how we rolled it out.
It helped us to get started with our digital collections projects at a relatively low cost.
As our needs grew, it became apparent that we needed something more powerful, and that provides better workflows and better statistics and is able to handle the whole life cycle of digitation projects.
