Clark argues that, while the separation of form fromcontent is not a new concept, “no content is [truly] free of presentation” and that“[c]ontent and presentation are never separated.” Within the content managementcontext, therefore, Clark suggests understanding this separation in two ways: (a) ascontent being complete texts, and presentation being output structure, navigation,and visual style; and (b) as content being content modules, and presentation beingoutput structure, navigation, visual style, and genre definition. This separation,dictated by the nature of structured writing and single sourcing and by the techno-logical nature of content management systems, is perceived in different ways interms of its affordances by different participant groups involved in the contentmanagement process.

No longer can writers think in terms of texts or even publications. They haveto start thinking in terms of asset management: the strict separation of form andcontent to allow for seamless repurposing of content, data mining, reduplication ofeffort control mechanisms, and writing in a collaborative environment with multi-ple authors and multiple purposes feeding off of and contributing to a conglomera-tion of assets that collectively make up a content archive.

For a content management system to be successful, Hall (2001) argues, two im-portant factors must be emphasized: end users (documentation specialists) anduser needs.

To makeourselves a force to reckon with in the content management discourse, arguesAndersen, we need to raise the visibility and accessibility of our scholarship in thisarea, go beyond our focus on end users and rhetorical problems, and make strongbusiness arguments for rhetorical work so that those making critical business solu-tions will stop “view[ing] ECM as a technical solution to the sociotechnical andrhetorical challenges of empowerment, collaboration, quality, usability, and tech-nology adoption.”

Nevertheless, the authors see promising implications ofcontent management for technical communication: how workplace writing re-search may help transform organizational cultures and how technical communica-tors are in a capacity to provide expertise and critical services in helping smallbusinesses and nonprofit organizations in their transition to a new infrastructure.

In addition, as far as we know, books on content manage-ment systems have almost exclusively approached the topic from the practical per-spective. In other words, they teach you how to design and/or use such systemswithout critical examinations of why such systems should be used in the first placeand why they succeed or fail. Nor do they consider what effect working in such en-vironments has on writing as a practice.

The most important part ofthis whole puzzle—the end user, i.e., technical communicator—is often left out ofthe process. The very expressioncontent managementexcludes any idea of writingor communicating and focuses on information independently of the people whoproduce or consume it.

The effect of writing in these electronic environments hasbeen profound for technical communicators. Rather than thinking of the end productof their work as tangible products or even documents, they are beginning to see theirefforts as part of an endless flow of information.

A content management system, then, is any systematic method designed to organizeand distribute information, while content management system software automatesthe system, typically providing “a platform for managing the creation, review, filing,updating, distribution, and storage of structured and unstructured content”

Wehope, with the assembly of this special issue, not so much to offer definitive an-swers on these issues as to open up discussions for a better understanding of thephenomenon and its implications for technical communication.