Beyond forklift and nuclear content migrations

In general organizations can achieve more from their content migrations.

The forklift and nuclear approaches

Teams seem to be stuck in two main styles of migration: forklift (just move the data) and nuclear (don’t move anything and instead start from scratch).

The forklift approach

The inspiration for the forklift migration makes sense: if we already have content, then let’s move it over in as straightforward a way as possible.

Sometimes forklifting does make sense, for instance when the content is already high quality etc (see this list of easy migrations).

But it isn’t always the best approach since:

• the content already there may not be very good
• we may need to change the content more than can be done in a mechanical fashion
• we shouldn’t be optimizing for what’s easy but what’s important

That said, IF the forklift approach will be taken then it should be automated if at all possible. Note that even with the forklift approach we can't consider the migration done until we see the content in context in the new templates.

The nuclear approach

The inspiration for the nuclear option also makes sense and includes: our content is so poor already, so let’s just drop our current content and start from scratch. In many ways this is also in reaction to poor outcomes from some forklift migrations. 

I would say this option only makes sense if both your content is truly very low quality and your end site can be small. This is a pretty restricted case.

There are a wide variety of problems with this approach but two of the most important are:

• It presumes a redesign-forget-redesign mentality rather than an ongoing management approach — put another way, what’s to stop the problem from rearing its head again in a few years?
• It takes a lot of effort to write high quality content from scratch.

It is certainly true that if you really are going to get rid of the vast majority of your content then the nuclear option makes more sense than the forklift option.

The distance our content is traveling, writ large

If we consider the distance (there are other aspects to distance during a migration — here we are just looking at the degree of content change write large) between where we are now and our new digital presence, staying completely as-is is clearly making no change, with the forklift being some change and nuclear making a dramatic change. As mentioned above, a complete nuclear approach only makes sense in limited cases.

The forklift and nuclear options are radically different in how much the content is changing during a migration

But in general what we really want to do is considered improvements, where we: 

• Make key business-driven changes...
• ... to key content.

So in other words we aren't just saying ALL content is going to be moved over in a relatively similar way, but that some key content will get special treatment. 

Move beyond just nuclear or forklift approach to a more considered approach (in some ways it's a bit like forklifting but really concentrating on IMPROVING key content

Some content should be treated differently than other content

In real projects the different types of migration dispositions will probably more nuanced than forklift and nuclear, really covering that middle distance between (marked "considered improvements" above). The following is showing a sample snippet from a large migration (each row was a type of site, and each type of site had multiple sites), where you can see elements such as: whether the content has to be rewritten or restructured, how content flows (implying tagging time during migration), PDF treatment and other aspects. 

There are many dimensions to defining the disposition, far more subtle than simply nuclear or forklift — also, different sections of the site should be treated differently

Steer the middle ground between forklift and nuclear options

So a hybrid approach: 

1. Treats different buckets of content differently (and rules should be used to define buckets rather than inspecting content item by item) 
2. Considers options other than total nuclear or completely automated forklift

The only way this works is be careful migration planning.