Shared Spaces ... the Collaboration Advisor

2007 Microsoft Office, Feb 16 2006

Microsoft branded Office "12" as "2007 Microsoft Office" and released more details about included products, packaging, and pricing of the updated system to be available at the end of this year. Microsoft's stated intention is to "increase individual impact, simplify collaboration, streamline business processes and content management, and improve business insight".

Here's my tentative reaction.

On Groove
Groove 2007, an updated edition of Groove Virtual Office 3.x, is only included in Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007, the top-of-the-line package (which includes 10 separate products and a number of other capabilities). It can, however, be purchased separately. If Microsoft wanted to make Groove pervasive throughout the ranks of information workers, it should have included Groove in every package.

In order for Groove to work, enterprises must deploy the new Microsoft Office Groove Server 2007 for synchronization of Groove data, or subscribe to Office Groove Enterprise Services. For smaller organizations, Office Live Groove is a per-user subscription service which includes the client and a publicly-hosted relay service, at US$79 per user per year. This is a change from Groove's previous pricing approach of paying up-front for the client and getting the relay service at no charge.

Finally, Microsoft said that customers of Groove Virtual Office 3.x will not be forced to upgrade. The current service and support contract will remain in place (see groove.net). That's cool.

On Product Overlap
Three of the 10 products in Office Enterprise 2007 are related to communication and collaboration tasks: Outlook 2007 (email, calendar, offline synchronization with SharePoint), Communicator (presence, instant messaging, voice over IP), and Groove (shared workspaces, synchronization with SharePoint). Two of the products include electronic forms capabilities ... InfoPath 2007 and Groove 2007.

The vast majority of people will not need this top-of-the-line offering ... the overlap and apparent duplication of functionality will make this an exceedingly complex package to get one's head around, to use effectively within a group, and to use consistently for appropriate information management. I think Microsoft needs to fundamentally re-organize its individual products; just throwing more stuff into the box isn't going to make it any easier for individuals and teams to improve productivity and effectiveness. Simplify! Simplify! Simplify!

On Collaboration Complexity
Building a collaboration infrastructure using Microsoft technologies will require a plethora of servers to be deployed and managed. This represents a lot of specialized IT resource, numerous interlocked decision and upgrade points, and the need for very tight coordination across different products. I hope it works! The servers are:

• Office SharePoint Server 2007. Delivers portal services, content management, business insight, and business process capabilities (workflow?). Windows SharePoint Services will still be delivered from Windows Server.


• Office Project Server 2007. For project management. Covers the management of ad-hoc and complex projects.


• Office Project Portfolio Server 2007. For the management and governance of portfolios of projects. Enables prioritization of project investments in light of all options and opportunities.


• Office Forms Server 2007. For electronic forms management. User interaction is via a Web browser.


• Exchange Server 2007. For email, calendaring, and wireless messaging.


• Office Groove Server 2007. For synchronization between Groove spaces. Combines Groove Enterprise Management Server, Enterprise Relay Server, and Enterprise Data Bridge into an apparently single product. I say apparently because (a) there will still be three separately installable server components ... Office Groove Server 2007 Manager, Office Groove Server 2007 Relay, and Office Groove Server 2007 Data Bridge, and (b) each component is licensed separately.


• Office Live Communications Server. For presence, instant messaging, and federation with other organizations.

Ye gads!

I'll sign up for the beta. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

More Reading
Microsoft's Press Release
2007 Microsoft Office System Packaging
2007 Microsoft Office System Pricing
Microsoft Office Groove 2007: Frequently Asked Questions
Microsoft features software by Mass. firm in new Office, Boston.com
Butler Group: Microsoft Office is Dead, Long Live Networked Office, Tekrati
Office 2007 to Feature New Workflow and Collaboration Tools, InformationWeek

When Email Loses Its Power of Attention, Feb 16 2006

Email can be an effective channel of communication when both parties are willing to use it, are willing to respond promptly, and don't let email messages die in the inbox. What do you do when people you communicate with do not respond to your messages ... your requests are ignored, it seems like they don't care, and the effectiveness of your communication diminishes because anything you send disappears into an apparent black hole at their end. In short, what do you do when email loses its power to grab the attention of people with whom you need to communicate?

Regaining Attention
Here are three ideas to regain the attention of others:

1. Talk with them about it. Call them on the phone, or even better, meet with them over coffee or lunch. Talk with them about how they are handling the communicating tasks of their role, and if there is anything that you can do to make it easier for them. Speak with them about what you think you need in return from them ... that you will need a response within 4 hours, or 8 hours, or the next day, or whenever. But be clear what your expectations are, and then be willing to hear about their expectations, requirements, and constraints. If email is to work, there needs to be a meeting of the minds toward a common approach for reasonableness, responsiveness, and appropriateness.


2. Switch to a new channel of communication. Stop sending email messages that require an immediate reaction or response. If you absolutely need a response from someone else about an issue you are facing in your work processes, email isn't the right tool. Call them on the phone, or on their cell phone. If your organization has instant messaging, start an instant messaging chat and ask that way. If they are external to your organization, use a public instant messaging service or the IM capability in Skype. In short, if you are facing a decision point that requires immediate feedback from others, don't trust the discussion to email.


3. Change how you communicate with significant others. If there are a handful of people that you deal with on a continual basis, from whom you need to secure feedback and input, consider stopping the use of email. If you need to regularly catch up with this group of people, coordinate around next actions, and discuss key decision points, call a daily 15 minute stand-up meeting or stand-up teleconference instead. Everyone in the group agrees to meet in person or by phone for no more than 15 minutes at a set time each day, say 8am. Each person gets to outline what they are working on, to ask for feedback on key points, and to establish delivery expectations for the subsequent day. Others can immediately provide feedback, double check on action point delegation, and ensure alignment and consistency. This one change to your communicating processes will make a significant difference to productivity, communication effectiveness, and clarity of action.

Email may lose its power of attention, but you still need to gain the attention of others. You can do so by setting joint expectations, switching to other means of communication, or changing your communications approach altogether.

What About You?
What strategies and tactics have you followed when email loses it power of attention?

RIM Reveals Details of Its Work-Around Technology, Feb 6-10 2006

Research In Motion disclosed details of its workaround technology, designed to enable the RIM BlackBerry service to continue if an injunction is awarded when the court hearing RIM vs. NTP sits on February 24. RIM has developed the workaround as a contingency against the injunction, although it is still saying publicly that an injunction is unlikely.

Overview of the Workaround Technology
The workaround involves the installation of a software update called the "BlackBerry Multi-Mode Edition". The software update itself has not been released, only details thereof. RIM's overview document (PDF, 5 pages, 116 KB) on the Multi-Mode Edition says the following:

• The workaround technology applies to converged voice/data BlackBerry devices in the US, connected to either a BlackBerry Enterprise Server or BlackBerry Internet Service.


• The software update significantly changes the underlying message delivery system and message queuing system in order to not infringe on NTP's patents. There is no visual effect on the BlackBerry experience for an end user. There is also no visual effect on the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, although due to changes in the message queuing system (see below) there will be additional server log entries created and recorded.


• The Multi-Mode Software supports two modes of operation: the current way (what NTP would call "NTP Infringement Mode") and the workaround way. When inside the US with a BlackBerry powered by a US service provider, the workaround way is used. When outside the US and receiving service from a non-US service provider, the current way is used.


• The workaround requires the installation of a software update on BlackBerry devices and the BlackBerry Enterprise Server. It seems as though the update will be provisioned over-the-air to BlackBerry devices, but this is not made entirely clear. The software will be made available at no charge.


• Under the workaround, the RIM Network Operations Center (NOC) will cease to queue messages that can not be delivered because a BlackBerry device is turned off or out of coverage. The NOC will return the message to the appropriate BlackBerry Enterprise Server, and it will queue the message until the NOC notifies it that the device is back on. When this happens, the BlackBerry Enterprise Server will record a log entry.

RIM said that it commissioned a legal analysis of the workaround by a leading expert in patent law and workarounds, and the resultant legal opinion is that the workaround does not infringe on any of NTP's patents. That is a good starting point to provide comfort to current and prospective customers, although NTP is sure to challenge the validity of the workaround if the injunction is awarded.

Analysis and Thoughts
A couple of thoughts about making more details of the workaround public:

1. It is good to see RIM talking publicly about the details of the workaround. As we've said previously on this site, RIM needs to do as much as possible to clear up confusion and uncertainty about the workaround.


2. If the injunction is awarded, customers will need more details about how the workaround effects the operation of the BlackBerry service. Is it slower? Does it use more bandwidth? Is it less secure? For those tech-heads that want detailed information, they will need to know what exactly has changed in order to evaluate the new service.


3. RIM should make this software available to IT departments now. They will want to test and evaluate it, and not have it forced down their throats at the last minute. In all fairness, RIM should have made this software available months ago.

The whole RIM vs. NTP debacle is going to become fodder for (a) case studies on patent law at business schools, and (b) case studies on how not to handle emergency situations.

Further Reading from RIM
"RIM BlackBerry Multi-Mode Edition" (aka 'the workaround website'), BlackBerry
"RIM Announces Workaround Contingency for BlackBerry Customers", RIM Press Release
"BlackBerry Multi-Mode Edition Preview Announcement: Frequently Asked Questions", RIM White Paper (PDF, 2 pages, 44 KB)

Coverage from Elsewhere
"RIM Reveals work-around for BlackBerry", InfoWorld (also comments on the "feeding frenzy" among other push email providers)
"BlackBerry Work-around: Too Little, Too Late for IT Departments", Mobile Enterprise Weblog

EMC Adds Insignia Product Line for SMB Attack, Feb 6-10 2006

EMC Corporation, a traditionally big-box and big-customer focused vendor, on Monday took the wraps of EMC Insignia, a line of hardware and software products aimed at the small-and-medium sized business market. Offerings include a disk storage array, an add-on storage and recovery system for Microsoft Exchange Server, backup-and-recovery software for servers, desktops, and laptops, a data replication offering, a storage resource management offering, and a Web-based collaborative workspaces offering. The products are cut-down versions of EMC's existing enterprise offerings, and with the exception of the disk storage array, all have the term "SMB Edition" appended to the actual product name.

Storage isn't my area of focus, so let's consider this from the collaboration angle.

eRoom SMB Edition: Competing with SharePoint
The Web-based collaborative workspace offering in the Insignia product line is a version of the eRoom product that EMC acquired when it purchased Documentum. Documentum itself had purchased eRoom Technology. The SMB Edition lacks capabilities from the normal and enterprise editions of eRoom, and many of the items removed from it don't apply in the SMB market anyway. Features such as load-balancing across servers, provisioning support, and integration with an LDAP directory server or Microsoft Active Directory are of less relevance in this market.

One of the very valuable capabilities of eRoom is its ability to summarize data across multiple eRooms (we've talked about this previously in the 7 Pillars material). For example, a project manager overseeing four projects can roll-up risks and issues for a business-wide view. Similarly, where team members are planning and coordinating meetings out of a series of eRooms, a consolidated view of each person's calendar from the series of eRooms can be generated ... a very helpful feature for ensuring that you don't double book your time! eRoom includes two features to deliver this capability: the "Enterprise Database" and the new "Dashboarding" capabilities added in the recent eRoom 7.3 release. The eRoom Enterprise Database capability is not included in the SMB Edition, but dashboarding is. An SMB customer will therefore miss out on some helpful functionality, but they may be able to negate the lack by using dashboarding.

The price point of eRoom SMB Edition should put it on the evaluation list of SMB customers considering a Microsoft SharePoint implementation. To this end, one hopes that EMC will offer a free 30 or 60 day free trial of eRoom SMB so that customers can evaluate how well it works in their environment, and consider it side-by-side with SharePoint.

What about Documentum SMB Edition?
EMC needs to add a Documentum SMB Edition to its Insignia line. It would provide EMC with a preemptory strike against the forthcoming Microsoft ECM platform, the first version of which is due in the Office "12" wave of products (due late this year, or early 2007). Small and medium-sized businesses will have three valid concerns with Microsoft ECM; (1) it's a version 1.0 product (and Microsoft has never been good at those); (2) it may not scale as the business grows, and (3) it will "work best" with other Office "12" offerings. By offering a Documentum SMB Edition, EMC could take its mature and successful ECM platform and prepare an edition for the same target market that Microsoft is going after. However, unlike the Microsoft offering, the Documentum SMB Edition would not be a v1 product, would have a clear scalability story from day one, and is less precious about the authoring software applications used on the desktop.

Challenges Facing EMC with Insignia
We think that EMC is going to face three significant challenges in making Insignia a success in the market place.

1. Rapidly Building a Channel. EMC has to get a channel built quickly in order to be successful with its Insignia line. Given EMC's pedigree, it will be easier to build the channel from the perspective of storage capabilities than from the perspective of collaboration software, so EMC is likely to use a pull-strategy for the eRoom SMB Edition. In other words, it will focus on finding and cultivating partners who can sell storage (and many will be interested), and then EMC will use those relationships to pull eRoom SMB in front of customers.


2. Does Enterprise Minus Stuff Equal SMB? The storage capabilities of Insignia are all cut-down editions of enterprise products. There has been no re-packaging of product capabilities, or accumulation of multiple product capabilities into a new general purpose storage offering for the SMB market. This "enterprise minus stuff" approach may make it too complex for the SMB market, particularly those that don't have their own internal IT resources. Perhaps EMC would be better to deliver an integrated offering for the SMB market that is purchased as a single line item and does a range of things.


3. Getting Mind Share. In enterprise accounts, the IT department is large enough to include an IT professional who "loves" EMC's gear and equipment. When dealing with the SMB segment, where business managers are more involved in decisions, EMC is going to have to work hard to build appropriate mind share.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The most critical signpost of early success or failure will be the number and quality of channel partners who join the EMC Velocity SMB Partner Program.

The Week in Collaboration, Jan 30-Feb 3 2006

What is Visto Up To? A Question of Strategic Intent
On December 14, 2005, Visto announced a patent licensing agreement with NTP, the patent holding company which is engaged in a high profile patent infringement case with RIM. One day later, Visto filed a patent infringement case against Microsoft, claiming misappropriation of Visto's intellectual property. Microsoft offers push-based wireless email capabilities in Exchange Server 2003. Visto said that it was seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Microsoft from using its intellectual property. And a few days ago, on January 31, Visto filed a second patent infringement case against Good Technology, and seeks the same outcome: a permanent injunction against Good's use of its intellectual property.

Intent: Wound Opponents
Why is Visto doing this? Why is it doing it now? To determine what it is up to, and why it is following this path, let's step back and consider the key decision facing BlackBerry users and IT mobility managers: what alternative platform will we embrace if RIM is closed down? And what is one of the key decision points that will be being discussed: if we embrace the platform under consideration, what is the risk that we will have to switch it out due to another patent infringement ruling? You can be sure that if push-comes-to-shove with RIM, enterprise IT mobility managers will not want to be forced to switch out a new acquired platform for something else because of another patent infrigement filing. The change from BlackBerry will be costly in terms of new wireless email server software and new devices, not to mention the productivity cost and retraining expenses for staff and executives.

One natural alternative to RIM is Microsoft. Proper push-based wireless email is going to be added at no charge to Exchange Server 2003 once the technology is finished. Organizations could elect to wait for that. While Microsoft does not appear to have a licensing agreement with NTP, it has the financial wherewithall to pay up if required. By suing Microsoft and seeking a permanent injunction, Visto is attempting to muddy the waters, sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, and raise questions over the validity of Microsoft's technology and approach.

Another natural alternative is Good Technology, which has been in business for a decent number of years (vendor stability), has a solid product and approach (product maturity), and works with a collection of devices (no device vendor lock-in). Unlike Microsoft, Good does have a patent licensing agreement with NTP, taken out no doubt with the strategic intent of calming fears on the behalf of its customers and prospects. As with Microsoft, Visto's patent infringement case thrusts a dagger through Good's defenses, thereby weakening them as an opponent in the eyes of a prospect. The conversation might run as such:

IT Manager: "In summary, Good's technology looks good, and it works with a variety of devices. They also have a licensing agreement with NTP, so we've covered our bases there. I recommend that we proceed with a Good implementation."
CIO (looking up from computer screen): "Well it was a good idea, but Visto just filed a patent infringement suit against them. It's too risky now. You'll have to get rid of them."
IT Manager: "Okay. I'll check out Visto then."

Next Actions
So what should Microsoft and Good Technology do? One option is to settle immediately. Call Visto. Set up that meeting. Determine the price. Pay up. Issue press release. Etc, etc. That would remove the competitive and psychological benefit that Visto holds at the moment. The second alternative is to counter-sue for patent infringement. That would negate what Visto has done to each of them, and call into question Visto's own viability in the eyes of enterprise IT mobility managers. With Microsoft's vast hoard of patents, it shouldn't be too difficult to find something that is potentially infringing. One would hope, for Good's sake, that they have patents covering their inventions. If not, the situation doesn't look (good?) bright.

As a final word, I speculate that Visto is feverishly working to pull together a similar patent infringement case against Nokia / Intellisync, another very natural alternative. Perhaps Intellisync should sue first.

Quest Releases Archive Manager 3.0, based on AfterMail's Technology
Quest Software provides tools for enterprise IT organizations to enhance the management of applications, databases, and Microsoft infrastructure. One of its infrastructure management products for Microsoft Exchange Server is Archive Manager, an email archiving product.

Archive Manager Version 1.0, released in December 2004, consolidated PST files and messaging data into a centralized archive, that being a separate Microsoft Exchange Server. Pricing was $15 per managed mailbox. Version 2.0 debuted 8 months later in August 2005, with new compliance management capabilities, such as keyword filtering. Pricing doubled to $30 per managed mailbox. Version 3.0 was released earlier this week, on January 30. It is an entirely new code base, being a re-branding of the technology acquired when Quest purchased AfterMail Limited earlier in January. Pricing has increased by $10 per managed mailbox, to $40. AfterMail, which has been written about previously on this site, provided a namesake email archiving tool that used a relational database management system for storing the archived data.

The new Version 3.0 of Archive Manager provides a super-set of capabilities of the previous Version 2.0. Here's a few highlights:

• Storage System. Version 2.0 used Exchange Server; Version 3.0 uses Microsoft SQL Server, a relational database management system. This provides much enhanced scalability, and the use of a relational store gives new opportunities for leveraging corporate knowledge throughout the organization.


• Capture Everything. Both Version 2.0 and 3.0 capture all mail going through the Exchange Server, that being both internal and external email traffic. Version 3.0 uses journalling, a standard feature of Exchange.


• Full-Text Indexing. Version 2.0 relied on Exchange. Version 3.0 introduces a new way of doing full-text indexing, but it is still very much on offer.


• New Tools for Getting Data Out. Version 3.0 includes Web services, RSS feeds, and other ways of integrating email messages into other tools and systems. For example, a formatted URL can be passed to Version 3.0, and a list of matching customer emails will be presented for rendering within, say, a CRM system.

Hence, Quest has significantly and rapidly improved its product offering by purchasing a competitor which had better technology. AfterMail's technology, combined with Quest's sales and channel footprint, make a great match.

In closing, there are a couple of other implications of this acquisition and the new product version announcement. Firstly, Quest has the option of expanding its infrastructure line into new markets. The AfterMail technology works with Novell GroupWise and general-purpose SMTP servers, and Lotus Notes/Domino support was under development when the acquisition was announced. Quest will incur ongoing support costs if it embraces this opportunity, and will need to cultivate new extended go-to-market sales channels. My net-net view is that Quest will continue to focus on the Exchange Server opportunity only, and let these other alternatives slide. As always, however, time will tell!

Secondly, from the first time that I heard about AfterMail, I was intrigued by the prospect of using its technology as a collaborative workspace alternative, or more specifically, as an alternative to the discussion and document tools within a collaborative workspace. Rather than expect people to stop using email for talking about a project, or for using email to share files, they could continue as before and we would let the AfterMail technology assemble a view of those interactions. Project participants could track conversations via an RSS feed out of AfterMail, and the single instancing of documents and messages would minimize confusion. Although there were a couple of elements missing--such as (1) an automatic way of assembling the list of project discussions, and (2) a method of tracking the evolution of document editions--I think it has real potential as a disruptive idea. I will be watching Quest's moves carefully in this area.

---

The Week in Collaboration is authored by Michael Sampson, who spends his time explaining what's going on in the industry, directing vendors to make better products, and advising organizations on how to best embrace collaboration. You can reach Michael via michael.sampson@shared-spaces.com.

The Week in Collaboration, Jan 23-27 2006

Whose Fault Is It When Collaboration Software Sucks?
A vendor see a market opportunity for collaboration software. It builds a product to enable teams to work together, share information, and coordinate action. It signs up business partners who see the promise of the offering. They start offering services to the market based on the product. Organizations embrace it. Some find great success and rave about it. Others think it is the worst thing ever created and do nothing but complain. In either case ... success or failure ... who is to be praised or blamed? The organizations that found success will usually be quick to claim the praise, but those that fail are usually slow to accept blame. Is that fair?

I have been thinking about this question in relation to Lotus Notes and Domino, although it has wider implications. In terms of Notes/Domino, the world is very much divided about it ... you either love it with a passion or hate it with a passion. These two polarized positions are extremely interesting from a market dynamics perspective. Please note that neither IBM nor any individual associated with IBM nor any other vendor requested or suggested that I write this article; it is an independent perspective, and the lessons apply more broadly.

Let's see if we can think about this logically. When Notes and Domino fail in an organization, or where people hate it with a passion, who is at fault?

Is IBM at Fault?
It would be IBM's fault if the product didn't do what it claimed to do, which is messaging and collaboration, or more fully email, task management, calendaring, discussion databases, an application development environment for collaborative applications, workflow routing, and more. IBM releases patches and bug fixes, as do other vendors, as well as ongoing updates to add new and enhanced functionality, again as do other vendors. I conclude that since an appropriately trained individual can install and configure Notes and Domino to achieve "messaging and collaboration" outcomes, that it is not IBM's fault when Notes and Domino fail within an organization.

Net-net: It's not IBM's fault.

Is the IBM Business Partner at Fault?
IBM engages with some organizations directly, but most Notes and Domino business is carried out through the IBM Business Partner channel. In return for paying an annual partnership fee to IBM and training specific people in Notes and Domino skills, these third-party business partners can offer Notes and Domino consulting services. It is normally the business partner who holds the relationship with the customer, sells them on the concept of Notes and Domino, and installs / configures / manages the servers and clients on an ongoing basis. They may also provide training services, to help the organization's people learn the product and how to use it effectively. If ... and many things can hinge on that word ... if the business partner is skilled in what they do, Notes and Domino should technically operate to specification. It will route, receive and deliver email. It will enable people and resource scheduling. It will support threaded discussions. It will do replication of databases for offline access. So, it is probably not the business partner's fault.

Net-net: It's probably not the business partners fault.

Is the Application Developer at Fault?
Being a collaborative applications development platform, Notes and Domino enable a software developer (or power user) to build specific custom applications that meet the collaborative mandates of a team or division. There are Domino Servers all over the world filled with custom work routing applications, expense reporting applications, customer relationship management applications, product literature applications, and many more. People offering services in this area have to be well trained and experienced ... because the product is so flexible, and there are different ways of doing things, you can make a great job or a right royal stuff-up. But that's no different than with any other software development environment; if a developer gets the constructs and underlying logic wrong in a C++ project, it won't work as to specification and the users will be most unhappy. Due to the rapid application development environment, Notes/Domino do have some redeeming factors over say C++, but nonetheless, if the underlying data model is wrong from the word go, it is expensive and time consuming to find redemption. So ... if developers throw together an application without appropriate care and attention to the data model, to data consistency, to user interface design, to system documentation, and to user documentation ... yes, they are to blame for failed projects. If all of those items have been taken care of, and they have built a system that meets the expressed needs of the user, I would be slow to lay blame on them.

Net-net: It could be the application developer's fault.

Is the Organization at Fault?
Some organizations have had great success with Notes and Domino, and I'm thinking now in terms of application development. They've built a collection of custom databases that work well together, enable business teams to coordinate action, and provide the information and reporting that drives business results. These organizations prove that Notes and Domino can work well, and that therefore it is not "IBM's fault". All praise should go to the organization; it has been clear about the results it wanted, engaged appropriate people to make it happen, and then can reap the benefits.

And then there are others.

They dabble in custom applications. They don't demand documentation or show a willingness to pay for it. They are unclear about the results the want. They don't train people how to use Notes and Domino effectively. They don't understand the design intentions of Notes and Domino and so try to put it to inappropriate uses. And they get a mess. In this instance, it is clearly the organization's fault ... and they will not achieve better outcomes with a migration to Microsoft's collaboration platform (or anything else) without a corresponding change in the way they approach development projects. And if they change their approach, they may not get any better outcomes with a Microsoft or other platform compared with starting again with Notes and Domino.

Net-net: Either success or failure is most frequently in the hands of the organization.

Is the User at Fault?
It could be the user's fault. They may have experienced Notes and Domino in a previous organization, may have had a bad experience with it, and so may set their mind to make it not work in the new place. Or they may feel no involvement in the process of scoping out applications, when they actually have really good ideas that should be included. Finally, they may be offered no training or documentation and be expected to "pick it up" themselves. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that they feel less than love toward the product. Other users love what it can do, have a good relationship with the IT people who are making it work, and see the results they are gaining.

Net-net: Users may sabotage the effort, but leaders should lead.

Implications
Here are the implications I see:

1. Choose your application developers carefully. Competence matters. A history of success is important. If you skimp to save a few dollars here and there, you are more likely to reap a disaster downstream.


2. Before you ditch one product in favor of another, ensure you know why the current product failed. Unless you have a clear understanding of why and where it failed, you will repeat the same mistakes the next time.


3. The required software development disciplines are no different from other development environments. Ensure you gain a clear understanding of the desired outcome and business results. Do the requirements definition and collection correctly. Look for similarities to other projects and leverage existing code. Scour the market for off-the-shelf alternatives. Document, document, document. Train, train, train. You get the picture.


4. IBM needs to make a bigger deal about the customers that have experienced outstanding success. I know it is the week of Lotusphere, and so this may not be a representative day to visit, but the home page of www.lotus.com has not one word about a customer that has been successful with Notes and Domino. It's all about IBM Lotus and what they do now and will do in the future. Front-and-center on the Lotus home page should be success stories, with real customers mentioned and quoted, with photos of the people, and with an exploration of the results they are achieving. Everything else is supporting material.

Notes is here to stay. IBM isn't going away. If you have an implementation that isn't working, figure out why. Engage the best help that is available. Until you have a clear understanding as to why Notes and Domino isn't working, then you have no basis on which to embrace an alternative product.

IBM Lotus Sametime Gets Federation
IBM announced Version 7.5 of Lotus Sametime, its instant messaging and presence platform for the enterprise. Although IBM holds the lead in seat count for enterprise instant messaging and presence, it has been severely criticised by users for the lack of progress made in (a) making Sametime look nicer, and (b) releasing support for cross-enterprise federation capabilities. At Lotusphere this week, IBM came through with an answer to both of these complaints.

With respect to the user interface, Sametime finally looks beautiful rather than bland. More details are given to the user about the person or people they are speaking with. Color has been added to help distinguish conversation items from different people. Timestamps have been included to note who said what when. Although other vendors offer similar user interface capabilities already, it is good to see these being adopted in the IBM world.

The federation story is equally good. Microsoft stole the thunder on federation with the public IM networks last year, with announcements about a fee-based interoperability agreement. In other words, if you have Live Communications Server 2005 and the latest service pack, for $13-$16 per user per year you can federate with the public networks. IBM will offer federation with three public IM networks--AOL, Yahoo and GoogleTalk--at a nil price point. There is no incremental cost required for the federation, which is great news for IBM customers. There is also no federation with MSN Messenger, and I posit that this was due to Microsoft being unwilling to do for-free federation. In other words, although I have no direct evidence for this, I assert that IBM approached Microsoft to be included in the for-free federation announcement, and Microsoft said "no". And that is clearly fine; if IBM customers want Microsoft MSN Messenger federation desperately enough, they'll offer to pay and IBM will announce a for-fee agreement with MSN Messenger.

Will Microsoft back away from its for-fee licensing terms? The way I think about it is that the for-free federation announcement from IBM will have little or no impact on the competitive dynamics for instant messaging and presence in the enterprise. In other words, a Microsoft house will not dump its Microsoft collaboration platform or plans in favor of IBM's collaboration platform in order to save $13-$16 per user per year. And so whilst Microsoft will cop some flack for its licensing costs, I don't think they will back away from it, nor do I think they need to.

In closing, it is worthwhile remembering that it was only 12 months ago that David Marshak resigned his position as an analyst at the Patricia Seybold Group to join IBM as product manager for Sametime and some other things (such as Activity Explorer). The announcement earlier this week is a huge testimony to his vision and the results he has championed within IBM. Of course David hasn't done it alone ... there have been many others within IBM that wrote the code, struck the agreements, gave permission and authority to make it happen ... so I say kudos all round, with an especial call out for David "Microsoft's Worst Enemy in RTC" Marshak.

---

The Week in Collaboration is authored by Michael Sampson, who spends his time explaining what's going on in the industry, directing vendors to make better products, and advising organizations on how to best embrace collaboration. You can reach Michael via michael.sampson@shared-spaces.com.

The Week in Collaboration, Jan 16-20 2006

Google for Federated Instant Messaging
Users care about federated instant messaging, even if they can't put it that way. It makes absolutely zero sense to the user that they should be forced to have multiple IM clients on the desktop, one for each of the IM networks on which they maintain an active account. Back in the late 1990s, when new entrant IM network providers such as Microsoft were first getting going, they too cared about federation, although at that time it meant enabling new MSN Messenger users to access their AOL buddies through the MSN Messenger client; given that AOL earnt money from advertising via the AOL IM client, it is no surprise that it was less than keen about the idea.

In the intervening years, little has happened to rectify the federated IM question, although Microsoft is definitely in the lead today. Its customers, and that means those who have deployed Live Communications Server 2005 and signed up for an optional add-on at additional cost, are able to give users the seamless IM experience they have wanted. Live Communications Server (LCS) is able to federate with the MSN Messenger network, Yahoo Messenger, and AOL Instant Messenger. Note that this integration and federation is not standards-based, but occurs technically because it is constructed on specific business agreements where money passes from Microsfoft to the network providers. This, in effect, recompenses them for lost advertising revenue.

Google entered the IM network business in August last year (with a beta release as per Google's normal style), offering an IM service powered by the Extensible Instant Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) standard as ratified by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Its stated vision at that time was a "unified, abuse-free instant messaging network", and Google took a large leap toward that this week with the announcement that Google Talk can now freely federate with other XMPP-based servers.

What will the impact of this be on enterprise customers and other IM network providers? My sense is that it will have very little impact. For a Microsoft-oriented house, they will not rip out Microsoft Live Communications Server 2005 and replace it with an XMPP-based one. It would cost the business lost functionality, especially as regards the integration of presence and instant communication opportunities into Outlook, Windows SharePoint Services, SharePoint Portal Server, workflow processes powered by the coming Windows Workflow Foundation, and other custom applications. XMPP-based offerings can not offer this same level of integration, since Microsoft is in control. In terms of Lotus shops, the same constraints apply. It is Sametime that can be integrated into Notes Mail, discussion databases, Quickplace workspaces, and custom Lotus Notes applications. Until Google is able to have an impact beyond just a federated IM client, specifically through code to enable integration with line-of-business and custom collaborative applications, its impact on the enterprise will be minimal.

How about service providers? Will AOL, Yahoo and MSN Messenger embrace XMPP to facilitiate federation with GoogleTalk and others? It seems doubtful, as there is little or anything in it for them. They have so far demonstrated little willingness to freely open the kimono to Microsoft, and have only done so recently due to the existence of a financial agreement. Given the collection of online services that complement instant messaging--such as a blog, an email account, an online calendar, and more--any opening up of their networks to Google runs the risk that users will have yet another reason to shift to Google's range of services, since they can access their network-specific IM buddies in an integrated list via GoogleTalk.

There is some benefit for a segment of the market, however, and that is those businesses, large or small, that have embraced an XMPP-based offering. Customers of vendors such as Jabber, the Jabber Software Foundation, and Antepo, will be able to bring their consumer customers into internal business applications via federated access. And that's a good win.

Microsoft Lures Lotus Notes Shops
Microsoft is continuing with its efforts to get Lotus Notes and Domino shops to migrate to Exchange and SharePoint. It announced new editions of migrations tools, one that analyzes Notes applications to determine how well they could be shifted across to a Microsoft infrastructure, and a second that offers some data movement capabilities. A number of the ardent Lotus supporters tried out these so-called newly updated tools, and found that they didn't work, but it turned out that Microsoft hadn't actually released the new tools and the tests were completed with the older editions. Microsoft implemented some rapid Web site changes to note that the new tools were pending, and not yet available as the press release had implied.

Microsoft has to continue at its efforts to migrate Notes and Domino customers to its infrastructure, and clearly will have a much easier job technically of helping customers migrate email, calendaring and tasks to Exchange than it will with application migration. The application development capabilities of Notes and Domino have made it a very sticky platform, due to the high cost involved in revamping a Notes/Domino application suite for a Microsoft environment. Microsoft's forthcoming application analyzer looks at the simple Notes application templates that ship with Domino, and determines whether they can be migrated across to SharePoint.

There are three situations where a migration is valid and defensible:

• (a) The business likes Microsoft's strategy and approach to messaging and collaboration better than it likes where Lotus is going.


• (b) There has been a leadership decision to embrace Microsoft and shift away from Lotus. This is often called a "political" decision by those on the wrong side of it, that is, that the decision has not been made on solely on the results of a technical evaluation.


• (c) The suite of custom Notes applications have become long in the tooth and are high cost items to maintain and upgrade and so an alternative is sought.

In these cases, what is to be done about custom applications? First of all, you have to know what you are talking about. An application audit is required, with applications being grouped into logical baskets. Second, the currency of each application needs to be ascertained. There will be some applications that are heavily used, others that are infrequently used, and some that can be archived. Third, for those that remain, business analysts need to visit with the business teams using each of the applications, and determine the state of their current needs. Those needs may have changed or evolved, and so need to be taken into consideration when planning future strategy. A one-to-one migration from a Notes application to a SharePoint site may be a really dumb idea, because the current and projected needs of the organization and its teams are not being taken into consideration. As an output from this stage, the business analysts should prepare a strategic application architecture for collaborative applications across the business. Fourth, packaged applications should be sought for as many of the items in the new stack as possible. For example, a homegrown customer relationship management system could be replaced with an off-the-shelf one. Capabilities will have increased since the Notes application was built; going to market to see what is available is highly appropriate. Fifth and finally, if no packaged applications can be purchased, new ones according to the new stack will have to be built. If Microsoft truly wants to take on the Notes faithful, this is where it will have to prove that it is up to scratch.

Migration Away from RIM BlackBerry
Research In Motion holds the dominant position in the wireless email market, but its ongoing legal problems with NTP over charges of patent infringement are hurting its foward prospects. Gartner advised RIM customers last year to hold off on their BlackBerry deployments until some clarity has been achieved in terms of whether the US RIM service will be shut down or RIM will avoid it by paying lots of money to NTP. This week, Jack Gold of J. Gold Associates calculated that it will cost $845 per user for a 1,000 user deployment of RIM BlackBerry to shift to an equivalent platform. That is not pocket change, although as Daniel Taylor, Managing Director of the Mobile Enterprise Alliance points out, 1,000 user deployments are few-and-far between.

What should a RIM customer do?

• Firstly, there needs to be an urgent project undertaken to discover what alternatives exist and will work for each organization. Most RIM deployments work hand-in-glove with Microsoft Exchange, so there is no shortage of alternatives on the market.


• Secondly, investigate how users within the business are actually using their RIM BlackBerry devices ... are there some natural groupings with respect to frequency of access, numbers of messages sent and received, and geographical locations in which the BlackBerry is used? Also, determine the age profile of BlackBerry devices; it may be that 30-40% of devices are ready to be upgraded due to being 3-4 years old. These user profile groupings may point to the opportunity to use the free wireless email capabilities within Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 Service Pack 2 for a good proportion of your user base, which will cut down on additional server licensing costs.


• Thirdly, pilot your selected alternative. Buy a small user pack of the software, get some appropriate devices, and try it out. See what works and what doesn't. Learn what the hassles are going to be for your users if a migration has to take place. And most importantly, determine whether you can save some future licensing revenues by re-thinking your RIM BlackBerry plans. For some users, a Windows Mobile 5.0 device coupled with Exchange Server 2003 SP2 may be perfectly adequate.


• Finally, communicate with your internal users about the plans are you are developing, and how you intend to handle a migration away from RIM if push comes to shove. Although RIM has taken a high risk approach to dealing with NTP, it is very unlikely that the threatened injunction will actually happen; RIM will pay at the final moment, because once it has lost customers as a result of the injunction, it will be 3-5 years at the earliest before it can think about getting them back.

In conclusion, you must take a pragmatic and risk-calculating approach to determine what to do if the US RIM service should disappear, although it is unlikely that it will. Worst case, then, is that you will identify where you can deliver an equivalent service for a lower cost to some or all of your users. That appears to be a reasonable risk to take.

---

The Week in Collaboration is authored by Michael Sampson, who spends his time explaining what's going on in the industry, directing vendors to make better products, and advising organizations on how to best embrace collaboration. You can reach Michael via michael.sampson@shared-spaces.com.

Thoughts on RIM vs. NTP, Dec 1

If RIM is required to "shut down its US operations", what does that actually mean? Given that the BlackBerry network operations center is based in Canada, and that all wireless email traffic routes through there, what is the impact on the US? Here's my analysis:

1. Will RIM's US-based wireless carriers still be able to have operational BlackBerry components in their network? I guess not.


2. Could a UK-based BlackBerry user roam with their BlackBerry while in the US? I think they could.


3. So does that mean that a quick-moving non-US-based wireless carrier could offer BlackBerry roaming services to US-based customers? For example, that one of RIM's European carrier partners could offer an "international BlackBerry" at a competitive rate, and thus pick up a portion of US business?

And finally, as Dan Taylor discusses in the Mobile Enterprise Weblog, RIM's so-called "workaround" hasn't been tested and customers don't even know about it, how to deploy it, or when to expect it. Did I mention that it hasn't been tested by customers in the field? Sounds like Intellisync has a golden opportunity for a new marketing campaign and press release: "The Research In Motion Workaround Is Finally Available: Introducing Mobile Suite from Intellisync" ...

Update on Chandler, Nov 29

It has been over a year since I last investigated the Chandler interpersonal information manager from the Open Source Applications Foundation, but with the OSAF President and Chair Mitch Kapor due to speak at When 2.0 at Stanford University next week, I decided to get an update. Based on reading the OSAF web site (that is, without an actual briefing), here's my understanding of the state of play.

Chandler: Unified Collaboration Client
The long term vision for Chandler remains the same, that is the delivery of a cross-platform unified collaboration client that permits messaging, calendaring, the sharing of item collections (via shared access to common servers, or peer-to-peer synchronization), and the ability to associate different items of multiple types for display in a single integrated view/list. It appears to be a potential solution to the problems I talked about in my Collaboration Software Clients: Part 1 paper last year (and no, I haven't written Part 2 yet).

In terms of the here-and-now, however, OSAF has changed from a "great leap forward" strategy to one based on the incremental delivery of usable functionality, with intelligent calendaring (Pillar 4) being the prima facie focus of current iterations of the Chandler client. This seems like a good move on multiple levels ... calendaring is definitely broken, so people recognize the pain and should therefore be willing to try something new that may solve the pain. It's also a good idea because it turns the project from something that may never be achieved, into a set of smaller highly-focused deliverables. And finally, it gives OSAF the opportunity to get real hands-on experience with the current CalDAV standard, on which its people are key contributors, and to carve out an early niche for CalDAV compliant offerings.

Chandler 0.5 is currently freely available as a stable release, and a Milestone 8 release is available for those wanting to get a sense of what the 0.6 release will include (I downloaded the Mac OS X edition, at 37.9MB; Windows 2000/XP and Linux editions are also available); 0.6 is due on December 19, 2005.

One of the neat capabilities in Chandler is the ability to enter appointments based on a nominated time zone, and to have those render appropriately according to the time zone one is currently in. In the screen shot below, the When 2.0 appointment correctly shows for New Zealand time at 4am-5pm on Wednesday December 7, which is the correct translation for 7am-8pm on Tuesday December 6. When the master time zone is changed, Chandler re-calculates scheduled appointments in the right way. It definitely beats manually counting hours forward and backwards in the products that are available today.

Two New Product under Development at OSAF
Since I last reviewed the OSAF strategy, two new products have been added:

• Cosmo is the code-name for a server. It offers two main capabilities: a file store for WebDAV clients, and a calendaring server for CalDAV clients. The latter is intended to offer a general-purpose CalDAV calendar sharing environment for calendaring clients, although in the short-term it is essentially targeted at Chandler. It is currently available in a 0.2.3 release (released November 16 2005, featuring a new data repository). It does not offer content management capabilities.


• Snoopy. In essense, Snoopy provides a Web-based interface to item collections stored on the Cosmo server, with a current especial emphasis on publish-and-subscribe calendars. It will enable Chandler users to get access to their item collections from any Web browser, and will enable Chandler users to share calendars (and in the future, other item collections) with non-Chandler users.

Have You Tried Chandler Recently?
Have you recently investigated Chandler or the associated offering from OSAF? I'd love to hear your reaction, either by email or via a comment below.

Year in Review 2005

I have been planning for some time to write my "year in review" article (and perhaps it's too early, given that it's just the middle of November ... oh well). Since I had more time available due to a recent trip to Australia, I was able to show a little more creativity ;-). So, here's my sometimes tongue-in-cheek annual review for 2005.

A is for all, all the people I've met,
Who've made this year the most incredible yet.

B is for briefing, the Daily News sort,
About all the changes since last time, published for all on my own press court.

C is for coordinaction, my made-up word,
My attempt to replace "collaboration" and direct the herd.

D is for doing, as in getting stuff done,
Hat tip to entreprenuers all over, who equate doing with having major fun.

E is for Eric, of eProductivity, a Tablet adopter ... but the Mac-less Mack.
On balance, however, he's a jolly-fine chap.

F is for forum, or OCF,
Touting for openness without being the ref.

G is for go-to-market, a strategy chore. You have to do it, and get it right,
Or your prospects will hate you, partners will flee, so make it up wisely using all your might.

H is for hope, for SharePoint from now on. Microsoft's got lots of it, the channel seems keen,
Let's see if they do it without renting a spleen.

I is for Intellisync, and wireless email.
New ideas, more devices, new offerings to boot. They're hard at work on the holy grail.

J is for Jen (and James, Eric and Alex), of MediaLive.
Welcoming Michael to New York in June for CTC 05.

K is for Katrina, my beautiful wife.
Running the home and home schooling so well that I can have a working life.

L is for Lotus, with Notes/Domino 7.
With Web services and DB2 support on board, the Lotus camp is rejoicing in collaboration heaven.

M is for Microsoft, that's Bill, Steve and Ray.
Working hard to stop the beast from going astray.

N is for NextPage, for Tom, Cyd and Mark.
Solving document chaos is clearly their hark.

O is for Oracle, the awesome calendaring dudes.
For leading the pack when other systems just show their rudes.

P is for Projects, for clients and me.
Doing great work and earning my fee.

Q is for Qantas, my international airline of choice.
Good prices, good service, good seats ... engines so reliable they could be Rolls Royce.

R is for Rod and Tim,
Of Aftermail. Giving words of encouragement (and a project!) when all looked grim.

S is for seven, the 7 Pillars framework.
It's had a good reception, so it's not full of pork.

T is for travel, as in international trips.
Visits to LA, New York, Boston, Melbourne, Sydney and San Fran, and mostly in summer to avoid the drips.

U is for unified, the unified collaboration client.
Part one, it is done; part two, has been less reliant.

V is for vacation, the thing that comes soon.
Time with my wonderful family will be such a hoon.

W is for when, as in When 2.0.
It's all about timing in systems, that is helping people to coordinate flow.

X is for XML, and RSS specific.
Has made keeping up-to-date a lot less horrific.

Y is for Yankee, guys and gals with huge ideas, and the gumption to stay.
It's helpful, of course, to find customers willing to pay.

and

Z is for Zimbra, the AJAX-rich email team.
Getting so much good coverage that Satish, Scott and the rest of the guys are sure to beam.