Internet World

The open source package Drupal is one of the few social publishing platforms built on top of a longstanding Web CM (WCM) system. It has a strong foundation with a very flexible taxonomy system which -- along with thousands of 3rd-party modules -- enables you to assemble social publishing applications.

However, these modules could be your biggest problem as well because many times, module upgrades do not keep pace with Drupal upgrades. Even though Drupal has released version 6.2, many of the more popular modules are still on 5.x. These include Organic groups (for building communities or groups), MySite (module for MyPage or MyYahoo type functionality), Panels (module for creating more flexible layouts) and Views (module for creating flexible lists of content) -- all modules that are necessary for building such social publishing applications.

Meanwhile, some of the problem related to 3rd-party modules could be reduced with the new firm Acquia announcing a commercial Drupal version which will include support for many of these 3rd party modules. Even though Acquia has received a bit of publicity (and VC funding), the first release of "Carbon" (its commercial offering) won't be released until the second half of this year.

So if you are planning to employ Drupal for your social software project, pay special attention to the modules that are required and test them thoroughly on Drupal. It is quite possible that you do not need any of these 3rd party modules because Drupal also includes many modules like Blog and Forums in its core. But if you do need external modules like these, your best bet would probably be to go for Drupal 5.x (and the same holds good for those looking to upgrade from 5.x to 6.x as well). As we continue to research social software in the enterprise, look for more details in these pages on Drupal and competing platforms.

Yesterday at the Henry Stewart Digital Asset Management & Marketing Operations Symposium in New York, I sat in on a DAM "best practices" talk given by onetime independent consultant Linda Tadic, now an Adjunct Professor at New York University teaching classes on digital archiving and related topics. As a former Manager of the digital library at HBO, Digital Projects Coordinator at J. Paul Getty Trust, and Director of Operations at ARTstor, Tadic has been involved first-hand in a number of large DAM system rollouts. She's learned some interesting lessons along the way. Here are a few quick takeaways from her talk:

• "DAM isn't a system; it's a workflow." Don't think statically about a DAM system. It's not some cryogenic tank that you dump bits into for longterm storage. There are processes associated with every asset in the system.
• "Allow six months for initial research." Don't even think you're going to initiate any kind of discussion with a DAM vendor within the first six months. You need to spend that time doing basic DAM research; identifying and talking to stakeholders; getting buy-in from sponsors; assessing your current situation with regard to assets, metadata, and IT resources; and so on. ("Take whatever time you've budgeted for initial research," said a panel member in an earlier session, "and just triple it.")
• "Identify all of the different types of users you'll have." You need a taxonomy of users. Why? Because you can't begin to know your requirements until you understand who all the actors are that might use your system, and in what capacity they are going to use it. (Note that more than one speaker emphasized the need to write "user narratives" instead of, or in addition to, formal system requirements.)
• "Interview users of all the different types you've identified." Develop personas. Capture them as user narratives.
• "Metadata should contain information about the asset's chain of custody back to the beginning." For every asset, you want to be able to find out: Who created it? Who has owned it? Who owns it now?
• "Granulate your metadata." Most metadata isn't fine-grained enough. You want to be able to run reports quickly and easily, without spending a lot of time parsing the metadata just to get at certain bits.
• "Allow for the idea that you may need to restrict edit rights on metadata at the field level." This is difficult to do with most systems. But the key intuition is, you don't want someone who rightfully needs "write access" to one or two fields of the metadata to be able to overwrite all fields.
• "Insist on owning any code produced by anybody who helped implement your system." Ditto for any documentation associated with the project.

All great advice.

As a content producer, it has been fascinating to watch the evolution of channels where technology suppliers talk to technology customers -- the trade press and industry conferences in particular.

Take conferences. In the go-go 1990s, prospective speakers were busy making money, and conference organizers (of which there were many!) aggressively courted panelists and often paid them to speak. During the last recession, most conferences stopped paying speakers (except for keynotes and training). In fact, in many venues the pendulum has shifted towards pay-to-play, and you see more exhibitors on conference panels than ever. Not surprisingly, when this happens the quality suffers apace.

The trade press has not been immune from this trend either. Still, I was shocked last week when a UK-based IT publication asked one of our analysts to pay the publisher to run an article that the magazine itself had solicited. This was not a "sponsored white paper," but a regular article in a regular trade publication. Everyone knows the 4th Estate has fallen on hard times, but I didn't realize it was that bad, and in any case one would hope that basic ethics don't get lost amid shifting business models.

I think these trends reflect a broader phenomenon: There is more marketing money than ever chasing finite buyer attention. You see it at conferences that are longer on exhibitors than attendees. And webpages that are longer on ads than content. We've written previously on the substantial conflicts of interest baked into traditional analyst industry models.

What does all this mean for you the customer? It means you need to be more skeptical than ever. At some level you already knew that, but it's possible that your colleagues helping you to make technology choices do not. That's why you need to hard-wire careful, hands-on testing into any software procurement. Surely, there are products and vendors out there that really could offer a good fit for your needs. But in the end, experience really is the best selector.

We think doing proper advance homework is essential, or we wouldn't sell evaluation reports for a living. But now more than ever, you need to trust your own judgments. Base those judgments more on actions than words.

Over the last few years, many people (including us) have asked whether or not Facebook can be used as a enterprise intranet. Many have dismissed this notion by stating that Facebook is really just a time-wasting toy. While that question continues to be debated in enterprises across the globe, there is no question that Facebook has caught the attention of the big boys -- namely Google and Microsoft.

We have been hearing of Facebook as a drain on Google resources for some time. When asked about the biggest challenge to Google's success, one Google employee we talked to indicated that it was the loss of talent to nearby Facebook. It's not surprising that employees would be attracted to move down the street from Mountain View to Palo Alto to find a similar collegiate, yet pre-IPO, culture; but now the defections are becoming more senior, and more strategic. Facebook's COO, VP of Global Communications, Director of Business Development, Director of Platform Product Marketing are all ex-Google employees.

In the midst of Facebook's talent threat to Google, the company has also piqued the interest of Microsoft as a way to challenge Google themselves. As Prescient Digital Media's Toby Ward points out, Microsoft may look to Facebook's platform as a way to tap into the hosted enterprise tool market where Google has found success.

I agree with Toby that the Facebook platform certainly has a ways to go to truly compete head to head with Google's current offerings, but Microsoft's interest should indicate that Facebook has some major strategic value. The platform, the 70 million users, and the ever-growing ex-Google experience, are all assets that would strengthen Microsoft's arsenal in these early stages of a possible showdown between Microsoft and Google. Clearly, Facebook is much more than just a toy.

Next week, I will be moderating a panel discussion on this and other Facebook in the Enterprise questions at the Enterprise3 conference in San Diego. The panel will be comprised of the previously mentioned President of Prescient Digital Media, Toby Ward; Serena Software's VP of Communications, Kyle Arteaga; and the Senior Director of Optaros Labs at Optaros, John Eckman. Please join us for what should be a very lively discussion.

As the Henry Stewart DAM Conference kicks off in New York City today, CMS Watch has quite a bit to say about the state of the DAM industry, based on our research for the recently released Digital Asset Management Report 2008.

As we discuss in our press release, despite the continued "on-the-cusp" feel of the DAM industry, it has yet to explode. And, frankly, we question if it ever will. DAM's growth has been more like that of a trusty, stable bond investment than a late-'90s software stock. All the better, perhaps, if DAM grows slowly but surely, even if it's a bit in the shadows.

We'll blog more on the themes from our report, and this week's conference, in the coming days.

The worlds of SEO and enterprise search are not as far apart as you might think. Let me explain. Along with my colleague Alan, I had the pleasure of attending the upbeat Internet World UK conference earlier this month in London. What I enjoy most about attending such large, diverse events is going to sessions about technologies related to, but not directly about, the technologies I cover -- and so I found myself attending numerous sessions on SEO, or Search Engine Optimization.

Though there was an inquisitive crowd present for my talk, the topic I spoke about -- enterprise search -- is much lower on the totem pole for e-marketers (the principal attendees at this event) than SEO. A few showed up, in fact, wanting to better understand the nuances of website search vs. enterprise search vs. SEO. Are there universal things we can do to simultaneously improve all things, I was asked? Indeed. Despite the differences in searching the web, searching within your enterprise, and making your own website more findable by search engines, many of the same best practices apply.

As readers of The Enterprise Search Report know, good content hygiene is essential to good search results. Consistent content structure, metadata, and simple things like clear and meaningful document titles all help search engines work better -- be they the public (e.g., Google) website, or enterprise kind. But in most cases, content managers don't know where to start with their clean-up: it's an often overwhelming task. As such, content clean-up continues to get cast aside ("too much work"), and search technology vendors make it seem that much less important when they promote technology as the panacea to content woes. Don't believe it for a second.

A few more tidbits from the event:

1. These days, 80% of e-commerce transactions start with a web search, says Dan Cohen, Head of SEO for MSN UK.
2. The #1 hindrance to SEO is poor content and code (which also highly contributes to poor web and intranet search results)
3. Creating clear, topic-related content "hubs" on your web site is the next most important thing for SEO
4. As readers of our Web Analytics Report know, analytics should be a core part of your e-marketing pie, to get a clear picture of what your customers are looking for and where they're getting stuck.

Bottom line: cleaning up your content can improve your website search results and your Google ranking.

As an "Enterprise-focused" content management analyst, I am asked two basic questions on a regular basis. The first (which I shan't speak of further here) is "what about SharePoint?" The second is, "what about imaging?"

At many conferences, and regularly via e-mail, people ask me about imaging in the context of ECM. Imaging is the the major cost that most projects either forget about or dramatically under budget for. Partly this is due to the fact that during the buying process it's all too easy to get caught up in the flurry of believing that every file will soon be digital. Even though paper is clearly here to stay.

So before you fall into that trap let me offer you a few words of advice. Firstly, dealing with the "backfile" of paper documents may well be the most costly and difficult part of your entire ECM project. Though you almost certainly do not need to capture and convert all the paper, the very task of identifying what is important to convert and what is not, is labor intensive in its own right. Secondly, the scanner is the least of your concerns. The cost and complexity of capture do lie not in hardware. Rather, your bigger expense will come in the form or software -- software that processes the captured image, indexes it, and puts it through quality controls, and (in many cases) extracts data elements and instigates workflows. Thirdly, recognize that capture and imaging will likely always be a part of the ECM process; you can try to eliminate it, but you will likely fail. So address it early on.

To many customers, particularly IT buyers, Imaging and Capture seem dull and uninteresting. It's not sexy like WCM or DAM are supposed, yet it is typically much higher cost, and typically more of a challenge to install, test, run and support. On the other hand, imaging is also where almost immediate process change and potential cost savings can be seen and calculated.

Imaging remains big business, which is why the likes of Oracle, IBM and EMC are so serious about developing these capabilities. It's why web oriented firms like Vignette cling hard to their (acquired) imaging legacy solutions, it's why specialists like Hyland and Laserfiche continue to thrive in turbulent markets.

And it's why you the buyer should prioritize imaging budgets and concerns early in your project and procurement process. Remember at core ECM systems typically consist of 3 core subsystems: library services, imaging, and workflow. Those are the same 3 core technology blocks that existed in the earliest document management systems, and it is those core technologies that continue to dominate the market, regardless of SharePoint.

A CMS Watch customer implementing Liferay Portal sent me this screenshot below. On the whole, the implementation is going well enough, but the abrupt tone of some of the error messages is turning off early community testers.

Of course, cryptic and even rude error messages are famously the bane of many software applications, and at least the Liferay messages include the magic word "please" after telling you that you screwed up. Thing is, when the software in question serves developers, the vendor gets a lot of direct blowback, but when the software serves business users, there is typically an intermediary at the customer who suffers first.

For example, behind every portal project lies the portal project manager. Let's say her name is Maria. Maria may be leading a Liferay (or IBM, or Oracle, or Jetspeed or whatever) implementation, but end users don't know and probably don't care which tool is getting deployed. To them, it's Maria's portal. And they will ask, "Maria, why is your portal so mean to me?"

Maria will of course try to make the error messages friendlier and more meaningful. But her developers explain that this part of the portal remains undocumented, and the messages appear to be system generated. That's not a good answer, because even though the codebase is open source, Maria has been around the block enough to know that sending her developers off on a wild goose chase to track down, modify, and recompile some part of the platform is asking for trouble later. So, Maria appeals to the original portal developers and the broader community, but doesn't get a satisfactory reply. Fixing error messages joins the to-do list for Maria's Portal, version two.

Of course, the very same set of events could have transpired if Maria's firm had gone with a commercial portal product, but somehow I think that certain open source projects are particularly vulnerable here -- especially those where contributors get their props and cred for the features they develop, rather than the usability they engender.

As Enteprise Portals Report readers know, Liferay the company (center of Liferay the open source project) pretty much falls into that category. Liferay is a somewhat distractable and hyperkinetic firm that seems rather more interested in putting out cool modules than debugging them. Again: I know many commercial vendors with the same profile. As always, test first, and ye shall find...

In an earlier post, prompted by my recent involvement as co-lead analyst (with Theresa Regli) on The Digital & Media Asset Management Report 2008, I commented on a few areas in which DAM and MAM vendors seem to have mastered some content management principles that Web CMS vendors (who tend, by and large, to be a bit younger than their DAM counterparts) perhaps shouldn't have to reinvent or discover on their own. Things like capturing metadata on every item that goes into a repository, and storing that metadata as tables in a relational database where the data can easily be queried, mined, and managed.

DAM vendors may have gotten some important things right, but in certain areas there's a great deal of catch-up left to do. I'll comment briefly on a couple of those areas: workflow and reporting. Bear in mind, these remarks don't apply to every vendor; there are exceptions.

One area where DAM offerings tend (surprisingly often) to come up short, out of the box, is workflow. In speaking with DAM licensees, I found this to be one of the most frequently voiced complaints. ("We liked everything but their workflow system.") What's particularly striking about this shortcoming is that asset management tends to be more process-intensive, while most web publishing scenarios only require relatively simple approval workflows.

Nevertheless, Web CMS vendors seem to have figured out that the process of making content consumable is indeed a process that sometimes needs to accommodate well understood flow-control rules, actors with definite roles, time-out and retry policies, logging, error-handling, and at least some degree of administrative oversight (so that in-progress workflows can be monitored and obsolete or orphaned workflow instances can be killed). More fundamentally, a workflow is something that can be modeled. Most DAM offerings have no real understanding of that.

Much of what masquerades as workflow in the DAM world is simply e-mail-based reminder routing (with no real state management). There's seldom any formal support for fan-out, fan-in, role-based delegation, retry policies, quorum constraints, escalation, or rollback. DAM customers who need something more robust than simple e-mail chaining typically find themselves having to integrate a third-party workflow solution, or else build a custom solution. Either way, it means significant added cost.

Meanwhile, reporting and auditing facilities also remain incredibly weak in many DAM products. (Of course, as Web CMS Report readers know, quite a few WCMS offerings are guilty here too.) You would think that a product that comes with a versioning subsystem would offer file check-out history views, but even that kind of rudimentary reporting capability is frequently missing from DAM systems. Likewise, "auditing" often turns out to be nothing more than event-logging. The ability to dump log data to an Excel file frequently gets touted as a "convenience" -- sorry folks: it's not.

There are a couple of quick takeaways here for prospective DAM (and WCM) licensees. First, don't confuse team-based collaboration (no matter how cleverly supported) with workflow. If you need to be able to model what you're doing and launch auditable instances of it, you need bona fide workflow support. Decide up front whether that's what you in fact need, and if so, don't let a demo-god convince you that an ad hoc notification system with "approval" written all over it constitutes workflow.

Likewise, understand that event logging is not synonymous with auditing and reporting (any more than data is the same thing as information). Consider your reporting and auditing needs in the context of your workflow needs; security requirements; the "turnover" characteristics of your content (and user population); and corporate accountability (governance) requirements. Also consider the degree to which you might need real-time monitoring capability in addition to offline or time-shifted reporting.

When it comes to workflow and reporting, don't assume that the basic functionality that should be in a product will be in it. In the DAM world, that's all too often not the case, and you'll need to budget for it.

Those are just a couple of quick thoughts. For a much more detailed discussion of these (and other) issues, with an in-depth look at how some of the best-known DAM and MAM vendors address (or fail to address) these points in their currently shipping offerings, be sure to consult The Digital & Media Asset Management Report 2008. You can find a free sample here.

The recently concluded eMetrics Summit was somewhat quiet on the vendor front except for the Coremetrics announcement of its Spring 2008 release featuring ad hoc query functionality in its new offering, "Explore."

This now gives Coremetrics a competitive offering to Omniture Discover and WebTrends Market Intelligence.

More advanced users of Coremetrics will likely be pleased. As Web Analytics Report readers know, one of the major pain points among customers seeking deeper-dive analysis was needing to go through account managers to run custom queries and potentially have to wait a long time to get results. If Explore works as billed, it will mitigate that problem.

I've always thought that Coremetrics did a decent job at creating out-of-the-box reports that address the needs of marketers and less sophisticated analysts. While they have lagged their competitors in offering a strong ad-hoc analysis tool, another way of looking at it could be that they have been tracking their customers learning curve more accurately...and now they believe there is enough analytics maturity among their client base to actually use a deeper analytics tool.

If this is the case, it represents a different approach than what has often characterized web analytics..."a build it and they will be sold" strategy that provides tools that are too sophisticated and challenging for the customer base to use effectively. As you review web analytics software -- as you would any technology -- make sure not to over-buy something you don't know how to use.

The Digital Asset Management (DAM) marketplace doesn't receive a lot of attention, but DPCI's Joseph Bachana argues that some very interesting developments are transpiring. The problem is, no single vendor has a lock on how to combine all these innovations into a comprehensive offering...

I'm thrilled to announce the launch of The Digital & Media Asset Management Report 2008. While we've followed DAM and blogged quite a bit about DAM and MAM (Media Asset Management) over our 7-year history, this report represents our first comprehensive comparative evaluation of 18 DAM tools, and our first aggregation of DAM and MAM best practices.

Subscribers, you'll be getting your copy shortly; others can download a free sample here.

For several evaluations of major enterprise DAM vendors (Open Text's Artesia, Interwoven's MediaBin, EMC's Documentum Digital Asset Manager, and the IBM FileNet / Ancept Media Server pairing), we built on the foundational DAM research in our ECM Suites Report 2008. We then looked at several pure-play DAM vendors, including ClearStory, North Plains, Canto, WAVE, Widen, and ADAM. You can see the full list of vendors covered here.

As always, the core of our research centers on talking with customers, the real everyday users of DAM systems. Our goal is to cut through the marketing hype and report people's real-world experience with the tools, and help you, the buyer and implementer, understand which tools are most appropriate for which situations. As with all the technologies we cover, the DAM industry has seen many failed or abandoned investments because of poor product selection or implementation practices. We want you to go into your product selection and implementation with full knowledge of a product's strengths and weaknesses.

My fellow DAM analyst Kas Thomas and I will blog a lot more about DAM and MAM in the coming months. We both had a great time putting this report together, as it's a rather fun and sexy technology. We also hope to see you at the Henry Stewart DAM Symposium in New York City next week; my Wednesday tutorial, "Sorting Out the Content Technology Marketplace," will present an overview of this new research, along with some of our latest ECM and WCM findings, as well.

Just when you thought the Java application server market was pretty well saturated (if not in actual decline), along comes a brand new entrant with familiar-sounding promises of "lighter, faster, easier." What's doubly ironic is that this new contender comes from the very folks who've done so much (intentionally or not) to make "Java appserver" a bad name in recent years. I'm talking about the people at SpringSource (purveyors of the celebrated Spring Framework).

The newly announced SpringSource Application Platform is (according to its creators) "a completely module-based Java application server that is designed to run enterprise Java applications and Spring-powered applications with a new degree of flexibility and reliability." Spring geeks will recognize it as the long-awaited integration of Spring with OSGi.

Source: www.springsource.com

OSGi, by way of background, is a fairly mature specification (dating to 1999) encompassing a dynamic component model in which Java classes are deployed as bundles, which are in turn registered as services within the OSGi execution environment. The OSGi framework provides automatic versioning, dependency resolution, and secure "find and bind" functionality such that bundles can discover and safely call the right versions of each other. (Think of it as a kind of SOA microcosm inside a running JVM.)

The real value-add of OSGi comes in terms of lifecycle management of classes, cleaner isolation of code, and more thoroughgoing code reuse. With OSGi, there's no need for every deployed web app to hide its own copy of xalan.jar (or whatever) under WEB-INF, as so often happens on J2EE appservers. A bundle gets exposed once, and the various apps that need to use that code can do so without getting caught in classloader hell.

More interesting is that bundles can be hot-swapped without breaking any running apps. You can update part of an app (just the bundles that need updating) without disturbing the rest of the app or having to bounce the server.

There are other benefits as well, but efficient code reuse and the ability to hot-swap code modules are core to what OSGi is about. Which may explain why WebSphere, WebLogic, JBoss, Jonas, and others are moving to (or already have moved to) OSGi-based architectures.

What (if anything) makes SpringSource Application Platform better than any of the other OSGi-enabled app servers? On a purely technical level, SSAP tends to expose low-level OSGi internals more directly, for developers who want programmatic access to OSGi-based magic. (Other appservers tend to hide OSGi's innards.) Also, SSAP is more flexible with regard to deployment options. And (oh yes), it uses Spring.

Still, there's a down side to all the wonderfulness. New programming patterns are in play with OSGi (representing a new learning curve for developers), and overall complexity has not gone down; it has merely been shifted around. Also, some people are put off by the project's GPLv3 license. (Spring itself will continue to use the Apache license, however.)

Our take? The OSGi-powered SpringSource Application Platform represents an important paradigm shift, one that has the potential to revitalize Java EE development (much as Spring itself did when it debuted on the first day of Spring in 2004). How? By raising expectations around code reuse, serviceability, reliability, remote management, hot upgrades that don't break anything, version-based conflict resolution, and other difficult issues that (frankly) have long needed solving in order for Java EE development to go to the next level.

For people who implement, customize, maintain, upgrade, and/or administer Java-based content management systems, the potential payoffs of OSGi are many. Note that the WCMS vendors best positioned (in theory, at least) to benefit from the new paradigm are those already using Spring, such as Alfresco, CoreMedia, Enonic, and Hannon Hill. Mind you, it's not a given that any vendor currently using Spring will migrate to the SpringSource Application Platform. But it's definitely something to watch for. We'll be following the situation closely; and we intend to let you know what "develops."

I've been hearing various rumors recently about mid-market Web CMS vendors up for sale. If true, you could imagine all sort of marketplace shifts (both good and bad) causing ownership stakes to start moving. Certainly one toolset in play is Serena Collage. Almost all these vendors are privately traded, so such rumors are...just that.

But one WCM vendor, UK-based Mediasurface, trades publicly (on the "alternative investment market" of LSX), and quietly had to explain a recent stock bump. I say "quietly" because we only got wind via an investor-blogger, who first mentioned a company communication (pdf) -- a statement that remains more or less hidden in the investor-relations area of the Mediasurface website. In the short memo, Mediasurface "...notes the recent share price and announces that it has received a preliminary approach, which may or may not lead to an offer for the Company."

In recent years Mediasurface has grown -- a bit haphazardly we thought -- via acquisition, but evidently failed to control costs, and a surprise announcement (pdf) of losses late last year sent the stock tumbling from around 25p to languish at about 5p per share, at least until this latest courtship. You can track the stock price here.

If consummated, a match with "a UK company that does not compete directly with Mediasurface" might not be a bad thing for the vendor's customers. Like direct competitor Tridion (sold to SDL earlier this year), Mediasurface has global ambitions, and sometimes global reach, but struggled a bit beyond its regional base. As Web CMS Report 2008 readers know, Mediasurface's flagship Morello product suffers from a rather dated back-end, but the company has innovated enough on features to keep it interesting even for larger buyers. Things may start to get even more interesting soon.

When budget-building time comes up, many technology customers face the interesting question of how much money to put aside for new software licenses. Even without looking at specific vendors, you might have to tell your manager some ballpark figure for expected license costs.

As an analyst I'm frequently asked about license prices. A recent interesting discussion among peers challenged my views and provided helpful feedback that might assist you in arriving at the right numbers in today's marketplace:

List prices aside, buyers can presently obtain significant discounts on enterprise portals and on Web CMS tools. This may be caused by the increased SharePoint infiltration. A commentary in February on big software discounts and recent numbers from Vignette seems to confirm this trend. SharePoint licensing for websites is the exception that proves the rule. In general if the Web CMS comes from an ECM vendor, it will be more expensive -- potentially way more expensive

With enterprise search at the high end, the reverse is true. The marketplace is seeing strong demand at the moment. Many enterprise-tier search offerings come only as a bundled offering, so there is little list pricing to benchmark against. Deals quickly run into the millions of Euros in large, global, and complex enterprises.

Among the huge array of mid-market vendors across different content technologies -- many them local/regional in footprint -- you can typically find solutions that meet the needs of even organization-wide deployments in most enterprises, but at a factor of five (or more) cheaper than the higher-end solutions

If you are willing to serve as a reference client or appear on the customer list -- or better within a press release -- this is very valuable for the vendor and should help you to get significant discounts. (And of course as you look to evaluate vendors and they provide such testimonials, you should also understand how this game is played.)

Remember that enterprise deals entail complex negotiation and pricing models that ultimately boil down to what the salesperson thinks you can afford. Perhaps needless to say, but still: Implementation costs are higher than licensing costs and open source projects are not necessarily cheaper just because you might save licensing costs.

Thanks to Alan Pelz-Sharpe, Apoorv Durga, James Robertson and Martin White.

Everybody wants improved collaboration, but how, and towards what end? Or as we asked quite intently in our SharePoint Report 2008, what kind of collaboration?

Those questions came to mind during Martin White's keynote at the Intracom 2008 conference (which was quite vibrant, btw) in Québec, PQ, Canada earlier this week.

Martin's keynote offered many gems, including several cautions about social software in multilingual environments. Most social software applications assume the primacy (and at some level even the replacement) of written communication over oral. This of course raises all sorts of cultural issues, but perhaps more importantly: non-native speakers who may comfortably listen and speak in a second or third tongue may not feel proficient enough to write in a foreign language. Of course, sometimes the opposite is true. But the broader point -- that electronic collaboration systems can redistribute interaction patterns in a potentially random way -- still stands.

The part of the keynote that particularly interested me was Martin's description of different kinds of teams: communities of practice; formal workgroups; project-specific teams; informal networks. Each has its own rhythms and needs.

And what are those teams actually doing? Well, there are different types of collaborative tasks, ranging from problem-solving, resource-sharing, status-tracking, and quite a bit more.

This analysis might seem obvious, but I think is terribly important, because it gets to the heart of collaboration / social software when that technology assumes the broader mantle of "Enterprise 2.0." At an enterprise level (and beyond) you will find quite diverse collaboration and networking requirements. The smart enterprise invests in finding out what its employees' really need, and will actually use, before investing heavily in new tools.

In our SharePoint Report 2008 we discuss SharePoint's shortcomings and strengths in the search space. While SharePoint 2007's search capabilities have been improved over the 2003 product, it's still not "enterprise class" for a variety of different reasons.

Clearly Microsoft saw this same shortcoming (both in SharePoint and it's overall search offerings) and announced that they were going to acquire enterprise search vendor Fast Search and Transfer (more information on FAST can be found in our Enterprise Search Report 2008).

For SharePoint users, this brings up a few opportunities and issues. In a previous blog post about the SharePoint conference, I highlighted the presentation that FAST employees gave. This presentation showed nifty new Silverlight-enabled search Web Parts. These Web Parts demonstrated several capabilities that FAST brings to the SharePoint world, like: content spotlighting, multimedia search, and taxonomy management.

The last capability is one that I believe would be particularly interesting for SharePoint users, since taxonomy management represents a challenging area for most SharePoint implementations -- SharePoint taxonomies are very rigidly based on physical structure of the SharePoint sites and leave little flexibility for a more logical taxonomic structure (Redmond folks would argue that the content query Web Part might help, but it's not a solution). That said, what Microsoft hasn't really provided is good guidance on what users can expect to see and any migration path between SharePoint search and FAST. Unfortunately, that really hasn't changed: Microsoft has not release any roadmap for Fast's integration, though you could argue it's still early.

That aside, what could the FAST acquisition mean to SharePoint customers? Here are a few of my thoughts:

• The FAST acquisition was officially completed today. This is a good thing, since Microsoft can now get down to the business of integrating the company's technology with the rest of Microsoft's products. However, it's not clear what, if any, impact this acquisition will have in the very short term. Judging by the Groove acquisition, which preceded the SharePoint 2007 release by some months, an acquisition after the release will not yield any updates in the core product until SharePoint vNext (probably around 2010 or so) and beyond. However, I'd be willing to bet that some elements of the demo given at the SharePoint conference make their way to sites like Codeplex or as free downloads on Microsoft's site.
• The former CEO of FAST will assume the role of VP of Enterprise Search. His responsibility will include all search products: SharePoint search, Search Server Express and Fast ESP. So I guess the "Enterprise Search" moniker might need to be removed or rewritten on the SharePoint search page; FAST is, by far, the new "enterprise" search product at Microsoft. What's interesting here is that Microsoft has historically brought Office-related technologies under one roof; just look at what happened to SharePoint specifically -- that product was once it's own product group. As they integrate FAST, it would appear that this announcement suggests Microsoft might break out search into its own dedicated team and make SharePoint a "customer." This opens up the possibility of decoupling SharePoint from any particular search technology -- perhaps a pipe dream, but we can always hope.
• In a blog entry on the Enterprise Search blog, Microsoft stated that the FAST offering will continue its Linux and Unix support. The blog entry was quick to reinforce the message that Microsoft does not want to support or wish to invest in Linux or Unix solutions. While they would like to "delight a core part of Fast's customer base," they are openly hoping those customers will convert to Windows and .NET. This does call into question whether this Linux/Unix support will be long for the world. In the short term, however, Microsoft can boast a better product from which to launch a play to be a real contender in the enterprise search space; see our related blog entries and article on FAST here. In the long term, Microsoft will have to come to grips with the fact that enterprises will continue to leverage non-Windows technology and if Microsoft wants to benefit from that revenue, they should consider continuing Fast's support for those technologies (their recent earnings announcement, and the subdued guidance for the year, may reinforce that message).
• Microsoft won't support SharePoint on Linux . This is probably not a surprise to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with Microsoft. However, the fact that FAST (currently) is supported on Linux may introduce greater content aggregation and, certainly, search capabilities within SharePoint. Let's hope that Microsoft sees it that way.

In general, the FAST acquisition, for SharePoint, will likely have little impact short term. Over the longer term, it's clear that the Office 14 version of SharePoint will be substantially improved in the search area (depending on the SharePoint product team's willingness to implement the new technology). I would personally like to see some add-ons in the near term, since that would improve search within organizations that may have both tools.

Stay tuned for more on this topic as the integration progresses.

Our new SharePoint Report explains how one of the core challenges with the platform -- dating from inception through to MOSS 2007 -- is that the needs of a collaboration service often conflict with the requirements of other information services, particularly around website publishing.

One example: like many other portal vendors, by default MOSS wants to insert a lot of extra code and non-standard mark-up on every page to create an interactive collaboration dashboard. As this MSDN brief on how to performance-tune a MOSS 2007 WCM site warns, "Office SharePoint Server, by default, is not XHTML compliant." This has manifold implications for website publishing, not the least of which is accessibility.

Can you fix this? Yes, with an experienced developer carefully going into the innards of the tool at various levels to replace code. Not particularly friendly.

Of late, Redmond has been touting its "Accessibility Kit for SharePoint." At least one avid researcher points out that the fix remains incomplete. (Link thanks to Martin White.)

As Web CMS Report readers know, some competing web content management packages quietly suffer the same problem. At least with SharePoint you can read all about it publicly. But Microsoft casts a huge shadow on this space, and their relative disregard for core web standards just lowers the bar for everyone else.

Our partners in Denmark, J. Boye, have just published a white paper, Wiki in the Enterprise.

There are many useful nuggets in the research (including a handy project check-list), but what I liked best about the paper is that it clearly contrasts the real value of wikis in a workgroup setting with the thorny challenges that wikis present enterprises once they evolve beyond a single departmental implementation. Have a look.

"Recycling" information (a.k.a., "content reuse") is a critical goal for most content management systems. On this Earth Day 2008, I thought it appropriate to share another green movement that's emerging in the content management industry. While researching SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions for The Web CMS Report 2008, I talked to several customers who stated "it is greener" as a reason they decided to choose a hosted solution for their enterprise.

Granted, it was not the decisive reason -- apparently getting out of the IT business is more compelling than saving the planet -- but it was the first time that I heard it as a factor.

Many observers consider SaaS greener to the traditional installed approach because SaaS providers host multiple "tenants" on the same servers. This more efficient approach requires less energy and releases less CO2 than if each tenant were running their own servers.

So it should come as no surprise that two of the four SaaS CMS vendors we cover, Clickability and CrownPeak, both promote their offerings using the "greener" message. Clickability promotes their Four Green Tenets of the SaaS Model, and today CrownPeak announced a site devoted to helping other companies achieve carbon neutrality.

In an era of increasing server virtualization, this argument holds less water, at least within larger enterprises who are increasingly mastering virtualization. But for the mid-market customers that most SaaS vendors target, energy savings could become quite real. The bigger benefit may come in not having to employ people to babysit your Web CMS servers -- quite literally reducing the carbon-based footprints in your enterprise...

Of course, SaaS isn't for everyone. Bringing the wrong solution into your enterprise can generate a lot of hot air and steam, too, so consider all factors here.

Happy Earth Day.