We all love new things. Once the Internet was new and it was fun. We were learning all sorts of things. We had no idea of the potential. I thought, incorrectly, that the Web would become a giant library of linked information (similar to the “semantic” web) but that was it. I underestimated the innovation to come.

Then came eCommerce followed by Web 2.0. Both were innovations as we went from Informational to Transactional and finally to Conversational versions of the Web. Web 2.0 definitely changed how we use the Internet and has provided a means for so many people, like my old relatives, to become regular Internet users.

And Now Comes…

Web 3.0!?! GET A GRIP! You can say it will be, or is, the semantic web, but until the semantic web is everywhere, it isn’t a new version of the Web, it is, at best, a new technology. So was Flash and Cascading Style Sheets. They weren’t new generations of the web.

Chill out. The masses will tell us when Web 3.0 is here.

How will they tell us? Simple, they will all be using it and ignoring the outdated, pure Web 2.0 stuff. Heck, for it to be truly Web 3.0, I expect it will have many capabilities of Web 2.0. We won’t know it what it is until it has become widespread.

It MAY be the semantic web, but I would bet against it. For one, creating content for the semantic web is more work than many people want to undertake. Some argue, including myself, that it will take smart content analytics to create the necessary layer of tags and metadata to create the semantic web. Of course, when technology matures, we can just use it to analyze things live, without all that semantic infrastructure.

Even if the semantic web becomes pervasive, I’m not sure it raises to be the level of a new generation or revolution. It took 15 years to get through 1 generation of the Web. Take a step back and breathe.

And Finally

As for some visions of Web 4.0, give me a break. This technology is currently just as likely to be Web 3.0 as the semantic web. Heck, maybe even more likely. I don’t care how cool the technology is, it isn’t the next generation of the Web until people are actually aware of it, not to mention using it.

All you marketing people need to go away and write that book you thought about when you were younger and still had dreams of your own. Stop trying to label things to look like you are ahead of the curve. Settle down and just innovate. Everyone will tell you when you have revolutionized the Internet.

Note: I know a like a bunch of marketing people and some of them are quite good at doing their job. They manage to do it without filling the world with ridiculous terms.

One of the discussions is whether Enterprise 2.0 is evolutionary or revolutionary.  The simplest answer is yes. How others answer this question is most likely directly related to their belief in the importance of the technology in the equation of building Enterprise 2.0 success.

The Evolving Technology…

I would hope that most people would agree that the technology involved is just the next step in the evolution of collaborative platforms. Let’s look at a few components…

I could have written a Blog back in the 1990′s.  I almost did for a game that I played. I just didn’t have the time to really sit down and update a website with the latest “news/stories” that I wanted to publish.  I had to update links, move things around, archive my old content…it was a hassle. Now I just pull out a little rich text editor, type up my post, and click publish. Links are Web 1.0 stuff and comments are just small discussion forums associated directly with a post versus an interest area.  All those cool widgets, portal technology from the early part of this decade.

Blogs are clearly evolutionary.

Wikis are just rich-text documents with version control, simple linking, and a mechanism to handle edit conflicts. Each item is nothing new. At this point, Wikis aren’t new.

Twitter, just a way to use the SMS protocol to group and sort statements. My “feed” is nothing more than the results of a search of all tweets that mention my name or are from a list of people I follow.  Each of their names is just a search term on the “author” field of a tweet. Nothing complex in concept, just some good technology to implement.

Tagging…advanced keywords.

Web 2.0 tools are evolutionary.  Placed in the workplace on an Enterprise 2.0 platform, still just the next step. The revolution is HOW we use them.

Worker of the World Unite!

I think the revolution comes when the tools are given to organizations that already collaborates.  They might not collaborate across different operational units, but if they work together during the course of their day, the roots of the culture are there. Maybe they chat over the water cooler or wander down to each other’s offices, but they work together.  The culture is there, ready for better tools to enable better collaboration.

For those organizations it is only a shift in the mindset to open up and work with everyone with an interest and something to contribute.  If you give them the tools and make it easy and intuitive for them to use those tools, you can drive adoption. If you get the adoption, you’ll get the revolution.

The Enterprise 2.0 revolution is about people working together in ways that weren’t possible, or at least not feasible, in the past. The Enterprise 2.0 evolution is about the technology. Without the people and the technology working together, you may as well go back to trying to collaborate in email and live with all of those problems.

The Problem with Google Search Appliance

Bex covers this beautifully in his post, and in his previous post on Search Engine Optimization for the Enterprise. Essentially, the problem with Google is multi-fold:

1. When I look for something in the web, there are lots of places with the answers.  When I look for something at work, it is usually only in one document. Precision is more important. Bex describes Internet search well, People aren’t looking for THE answer, they are looking for AN answer. There are lots of answers out there.
2. When I search on Google, if I don’t find what I want on the first page I read, I can either go back to the search results OR follow a link on the page. Wikipedia pages are loaded with links to other pages and to source pages.  At work, everything I look at has no links.  Most documents in repositories, regardless of format, are devoid of links.  Historically the underlying systems don’t support linking from within the documents. You can add the link in Word, but it breaks when you put one, or both, documents in a repository.
3. No links? Sure makes ranking relevance is tough. That shoots the core basis of the algorithm.
4. There is a ton of content in the Internet and Google presents it the same, regardless of who you are. If my boss and I search for something, we’ll get the same hits.  At work, I can only search systems that I can authenticate against and have authorization to access. When my boss and I search for something, our hits are not the same. When you consider that each system may have it’s own Identity Management approach, which is another problem entirely, you can see complications start to pile-up.

Now, in Google’s defense, the existing engines for the Enterprise aren’t a panacea.  They just have a head start in solving the Enterprise search problem.  Even a team of FAST and EMC engineers took time just to get the FAST engine to correctly, and efficiently, index a Documentum Repository.  they had all the expertise and a well-defined scope.  One of my clients has a multi-node index in D6 that now hums.  When the engine first came out in 5.3, FAST search hummed for no person outside of a development environment.

Let’s Get Social

Daniel Tunkelang noted some of the same issues to making search a utility and proposed two approaches to making Enterprise Search work.  With Enterprise 2.0 changing the landscape, we can actually choose what’s behind door number three.

Enterprise 2.0 isn’t just a fancy term or interface.  It is an approach to working that not only helps the Google Search Appliance, but can help traditional enterprise search engines.  The post that inspired Bex, Social Search Wins, and its follow-up, explore how these Web 2.0 concepts can help users find things in their environment by grading results. This goes beyond the obvious implementation of a wiki pages for content that link to each other.

More importantly with Social Search, if we don’t find the answer, we can find an expert that CAN provide the answer.

Identifying users that provide answers and content is the first step. The second is determining the quality of the answers.  If I give out lots of answers, it doesn’t mean that I know what I am talking about regarding any topic.  Just look at this post and you’ll see that I’m not a search expert. It just makes me someone that is likely to be willing to help.  If this post is highly rated and linked to from discussions, wiki pages or blogs, then that may make me more of an expert.

This applies inside the firewall just as well, except the environment is limited to a finite number of systems.

The last stage is the social networking aspect.  If a “friend” links to an answer, or rated an answer highly, you are more likely to want to see that answer first. It isn’t just a trusted source, though that is a significant consideration.  The crux of the matter is that people that are close to you in the social network are most likely looking at that topic with the same perspective.  That adds an even greater strength to the reference.

This approach doesn’t solve all the search issues.  Some answers are in databases or require a combination of data and content.  That is were mash-ups can come into play or search engines can learn to integrate the results from both.

Heck, if I can just find a copy of that proposal we wrote two years ago that had the write-up I want to use now, that would be great.  Lucky for me, I know who to ask. If we were 10 times bigger, I may not be so lucky.

Reshaping Your Business with Web 2.0

Vince Casarez, Billy Cripe, Jean Sini, and Philipp Weckerle

I have to say that I was pretty excited when Billy Cripe asked me to review his new book.  I’ve been a big fan of his blog for a while now and I have enjoyed his writing on the topic of Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0.  I haven’t always agreed with him, but the dialog has always been engaging and enlightening.  I had very high expectations for the book.

I want to start by saying that I did find the book quite useful and informative.  I’m not sure it could be called definitive on the topic, but it was an enjoyable read and provides a solid insight into both the why and how of implementing Web 2.0 technologies in the enterprise.  If you are looking to implement Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, this book will help you understand the various challenges and provide ideas on how to overcome them.

The Sum of its Parts

The book is well organized.  Each author wrote, or collaborated on, individual chapters.  This is where my largest complaint with this book centers.  It almost feels more like a collection of articles and not a truly cohesive book.  Each author brings a distinct style.  So while the chapters that Billy, and for the most part Jean, wrote met my expectations, the others varied to some degree.

The largest variations fall in the middle section on Technologies.  Vince and Philipp each wrote two chapters talking about the various technologies in the Web 2.0 space.  All four chapters were fairly technical and in sharp contrast to the rest of the book.  There is even sample code in three of the chapters.  It feels as if the middle section is targeted at implementers while the rest of the book is targeted at the strategists.  It threw me off me stride a bit.

The larger shift was Vince’s chapters.  While only one had code, both felt like advertisements for Oracle products.  Okay, I understand that Vince is an Oracle VP that focuses on Web 2.0 technology development, Enterprise 2.0, and portal products.  It is his job to sell Oracle products.  My problem is that it feels out of step with the rest of the authors, and there isn’t a big Oracle stamp on the book which would prepare you.

To be fair to the book, the other authors seem to go out of their way to show products from other companies, like Google, Facebook,  OpenSocial, and Yahoo!.  Also, Vince did introduce me to Yahoo! Pipes in his Mashups chapter.  Walking Oracle advertisement or not, Vince gained credibility there.  Of course, I didn’t need the course on how to use Pipes complete with screen shots, but it is a cool application.

What Did I Learn?

Quite a bit.  It is a little hard to quantify as much of it has merged into my general knowledge.  Billy had a nice final chapter on the Semantic Web and how we need our systems to start building links for us.  Right now, I can link places and search engines can derive some meaning from those links.  There are other places to which I do not link, because I don’t know about them, I’m lazy, or they don’t exist yet.  If I understand correctly, in the Semantic Web, those links would be created for me.

You can see an example of this on my blog.  WordPress has a feature called Possibly related posts.  If you are reading this post in the full page, as opposed to my front page, you can see the automatically generated links right above the Comment area.  The features has a while to go until the links are precise, but this is what the Semantic Web will try to achieve.  Call it Web 3.0, Knowledge Management, or just solid search algorithms finally delivering, it doesn’t matter.  The Semantic Web is a target that we have been striving towards for years.  Right now, we still need people to create solid links, but when we don’t need people anymore, the world will change.

I learned a lot more about tagging, keywords, and otherwise categorizing content and information.  I can’t really pull it out, but I think that Chapter 3 on the Varieties of Collaboration broadened my horizons on some of the possibilities.

The book also made me realize how fast things change and how easy it is to fall behind.  This book will give you a solid foundation for Web 2.0, but be sure to hit the web when you are done to see the latest thinking and to read about actual experiences out there.

Overall, definitely a worthwhile read.  If I knew more about the differing styles before I read the book, I would have enjoyed it more, but the information inside is no-less insightful.

KM is Dead, Long Live KM!

Everyone knows that KM died. The term became a very scary thing for executives to hear. It meant money and time gone. It meant undelivered promises. It did, and still can with the wrong approach. Let’s start simply with what is Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Management isn’t the Management of Knowledge. That just sounds nice and fits well with all the other buzzwords from the 90s. It is a means of capturing an organizations knowledge and allowing others to access it. You capture it so others can find it. Simple. Everything else is details. So lets look at some details on Capture.

What are you trying to Capture? Well, some knowledge is stored in the content of an organization. Other knowledge is distilled in the many structured systems like CRM. How successful projects and teams work is also knowledge. Let’s not forget what is sitting in people heads and shared over a water cooler. I’m sure there are other items as well.

Storing content is easy, and the bedrock of any good KM, Social Media, and many enterprise applications. Content is distilled knowledge from one or more authors. Once Captured, this content becomes potential knowledge for others if it can be discovered. More on that in a minute.

Data from the CRM system, or other enterprise applications, is even easier to capture than content. Capturing how successful projects work requires them to either write lots of things down, or to have them work online so it can be observed and captured. As for what is in people’s head…still manual and difficult. Discussions, wikis, and blogs can get some of that knowledge captured by turning it into easily contributed content. Incentives can help increase that percentage even more. (Forget the carrot though, I work for either cookies or frosty beverages.)

Now that I have “Captured” everything, how to I find it for use? Assuming you had a smart Change Management plan in place and people use the system at all, this is where things fall down. Search engines are stupid. They are smarter than they were 10 years ago, but they have a long way to go. You can remedy this problem with tagging and metadata, but depending on all users to spend the necessary time can be a risky gamble.

Then there is all of that information in the various corporate systems. It is just information until it is analyzed and placed into reports and charts showing trends and usable tidbits. It needs to be easy to access and it needs to be served-up in context with other relevant information. That information can be anything that has been captured. Mash that stuff together.

As for the last two captures listed, that is what good, advanced, collaboration tools can provide. They work much better when other items are integrated into the whole, like ECM behind a Social Media application or eRoom.

The Challenges of Discovery

This is the biggest problem for Knowledge Management in my book. Solving this also led to the older beliefs of what a KM project entails. Taxonomies, hierarchies, and meta data libraries are the tools that were available to use in the beginning. Users understand putting something into a folder structure, they do it all the time. If a taxonomy is well-defined, then users can find content much more readily.

That wasn’t the only factor that was needed for success, but that is the defining characteristic that people remember about KM systems. The collaborative solutions of today, linked with our re-envisioned ECM platforms (plug for ECM 2.0) can provide new approaches to cataloging information. Ratings, recommendations, tagging, and linking can help identify content in such a way that search engines are almost useful.

KM isn’t dead. KM is evolving. Things have continuously evolved in the capture arena, but the advent of Web 2.0 technologies are allowing KM to be reborn into something that is easier to use. Enterprise 2.0 isn’t the realization of Knowledge Management. Enterprise 2.0 is the next stage in the evolution of Knowledge Management. (Did I just try and define Enterprise 2.0? I thought I wasn’t going to do that? Oh well, back to the main thought…) Like the introduction of the opposable thumb, Web 2.0 technologies are making KM look around and find new and better ways of using the information that was already around us.

As for the discussion about SOA and Enterprise 2.0, the correlation depends. If you accept the premise that Enterprise 2.0 is the evolution of KM, the SOA is right in there. Remember, KM needs information from all sources put together in context. SOA allows that information to more readily be surfaced.

Mashups and Knowledge Management is a beautiful marriage. SOA makes it happen.

My basic challenge is simple. A company decided that they needed to consolidate their knowledge (their word) and implement ways to both expand and re-purpose their information. I’m thinking Enterprise 2.0=Knowledge Management. I’m thinking cool new technologies. I’m getting all excited.

Then during a requirements session I hear, What is a Wiki?

Generations X and Y

James focuses on the fact that those in the Web 2.0 mindset are more fluid and dynamic. They think laterally and not necessarily hierarchically. As James puts it, the Web is a bottom-up approach while BPM and existing solutions are more top-down. He then spins it as a Generation Y versus the established mentalities around process.

I think James has defined the paradigm problem. Changes like this aren’t instantaneous. The lines around the problem are not just Gen Y based.

Let’s take Generation Y. For the most part, they get it. They live it in their daily lives. How will that translate at work? Gordon over at Infovark pointed out a little reality:

[T]hese people will join the workplace as wide-eyed and impressionable new starters, and they’ll do their best to work within the framework that they are given with the tools that are allocated to them. Then, slowly, their own ideas will become part of the way people work, including their favorite tools and technologies.

The Millenials, as Gordon calls the Gen Y crowd, are not going to have the power or the authority to do much, at first. Oh, they will find some companies that will let them work with those tools. They can also form startups, but a majority of them will have to learn the old ways before they can change them.

Next comes Generation X, my generation. We were a bunch of disgruntled, disrespecting people with no focus or direction. That isn’t true anymore. Oh, there are holdouts, but the ones that have adapted are the ones leading. As a whole, the technical GenXers “get” the whole 2.0 thing. We may not use the tools to the degree that the Millenials do, but we see them as valuable tools and can use them.

Last is the group of non-technical GenXers and those that pre-date Generation X. While there are exceptions, they are more married to the “tried and true” methods for getting things done. They rely more on the methods and processes that they have helped develop over the years. The methods are comfortable and they “work”.

One Step at a Time

You can’t force change. Okay, in a company you can, but it breeds resentment and attrition. Some think that the Millenials should be given more control to change things. My basic question is, Into what? They don’t always understand the business or know the best way to apply what they know to the business.

Experience provides that knowledge. A good collaboration system can allow that knowledge to be shared, but what if those with the knowledge aren’t ready to dive in?

Chuck Hollis has been guiding EMC through this internally. After nine months, the system hasn’t had the adoption that he had hoped for at this point, though it is successful. They are making progress and it is growing, but it hasn’t been a revolution. His blog’s title on the subject says it all, A Journey In Social Media. His biggest tip, the initiative has to be driven top down. But if it isn’t supported bottoms-up, you’ll get nowhere.

You have to have that grassroots support to provide the foundation. It needs to grow until you have critical mass and the success that comes with it.

Getting to 2.0

Back to the company. How do you push-out a system that is very 2.0 when the organization is at 0.0? Simple, you don’t. You find something, like SharePoint, that will be inexpensive and start building the proper behaviors and attitudes. Teach them how to share information. Preach the value of emailing links and not document drafts. Show a little process can provide control without limiting creativity.

EMC was at 1.0 when they started their journey, and it is taking time to move to a 2.0 mindset. They have a solid foundation and it is growing. They have an evangelist helping. I think that is key. Repeatedly exposing users to the proper concepts will help users see the benefits in a more advanced Collaboration solution.

As users at the company in question start to learn about proper 1.0 collaborative behavior, they can slowly start thinking about the benefits of even more dynamic collaboration offered by social media.

Let the people grow, adapt, and realize that there is more. They will become hungry for the next step. It just takes time and a gentle touch.

The funny thing was that when I read the name of his post, Poking the Bee Hive, I was watching a Dr Who episode featuring a giant wasp. Weird stuff.

I’m going to bypass the editorial stuff discussion for the most part. That is a matter of opinion and Billy had a co-author and editorial staff to answer to when writing the article. Like Billy, I want to focus on the intersection of Enterprise 2.0, SOA, and ECM. That is the meat of his article and the part that can actually lead to greater understanding on everyone’s part.

So while I wait for Billy to start his side of the discussion, I will poke the bee’s nest some more.

ECM Supports SOA

This is a no-brainer here, and one for which I think Billy and I are on the same page. If so, then we can just move to the next section. Both SOA and ECM pre-date Web 2.0 and work well without any Enterprise 2.0 applications. There is no dependency in that direction.

I think my initial disappointment with the article was that it was titled ECM and SOA. There is a lot to write about on this topic without any reference to Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0. The whole concept of Transparent ECM, ECM 2.0, is built for the SOA world. There is a lot of benefit to be gained from combining these two technologies that doesn’t require any of the new Enterprise 2.0 mind set.

Not to say that Enterprise 2.0 isn’t useful….

Enterprise 2.0 Enhances Knowledge Management

I wrote a while back on how Enterprise 2.0 really enables that old mystical Knowledge Management solution that people have been chasing for years. While the observations are more directly related to Social Media, that encompasses much of the Web 2.0 mind set. All of these new tools enable collaboration with participants that used to be purely consumers.

SOA and ECM can both improve upon this, but neither are required. Yes in an ideal world, they will all co-exist. The only problem is that I have never met anyone living in an ideal world. Let’s look at ECM and Enterprise 2.0…

ECM can heavily benefit from Enterprise 2.0. Better tagging and discussions around content. More dynamic work areas. Life is good.

Enterprise 2.0 can benefit heavily from ECM. Centrally storing blogs, wikis, and discussions can allow for content on public sites to be captured as a record for liability issues. Content generated on a site in one country can be translated and pushed out to a site in another country. Let us not forget any moderating of that content that can take place.

These are great things. No SOA required.

When do you need SOA? Ideally when you want two systems to talk together. You can give any application that Enterprise 2.0 make-over, but what happens behind the scenes is independent of that. The need for SOA exists outside of Enterprise 2.0.

Having all three is nice, but you can have any two without the other. (Note: Enterprise 2.0 and SOA without ECM does seem a little silly.)

I chose poorly…

Billy Cripe has just had an article published in the May/June edition of AIIM E-DOC. I was excited. I usually see one or two articles in each issue that catch my interest, but I am always underwhelmed by the content. I wasn’t this time, I was just disappointed.

It All Falls Apart

I want to start with the simple disclaimer. I respect Billy and I firmly believe that we have the same vision of ECM 2.0 and where it is going. He always has seemed to have a firm grasp on all the relevant technologies. That didn’t really change after reading his article. I am disappointed in the way he delivered the message.

I think the best way to sum-up my thoughts on the article was that after the introductory paragraph, I wanted to yell BINGO! (though I love SOA-izing) to all of my fellow commuters. I got the impression that Billy was trying to cram too much material into too short an article. It felt rushed.

Let’s dive into the content now shall we?

Web 2.0 Gone Wild

Instead of focusing on SOA and ECM, Billy focuses on Web 2.0. Actually, he says he is talking about Web 2.0, repeatedly, but he is actually talking about Enterprise 2.0 for most of the article. That drove me nuts. To be fair, many readers may not know Enterprise 2.0 well, but it was up to Billy to address that early in the article. AIIM has been trying to embrace Enterprise 2.0, which makes great sense, and this was an opportunity for Billy to link it together.

In the concluding section, Billy says Web 2.0 in the enterprise, or enterprise 2.0 if you will. This would have been a great line at the beginning of the article. In a sidebar Billy does define Enterprise 2.0, and I liked it:

Enterprise 2.0 can then be defined as bringing Web 2.0 expectations, technologies, and design approaches to bear on processes, applications, and employees in a managed environment across a business.

Great. When taken in conjunction with the rest of the sidebar, I think it safely lays the foundation for the rest of the article to be framed as a discussion around Enterprise 2.0. Web 2.0 is not Enterprise 2.0 and I’m afraid that some of the readers may get that impression.

Web 2.0 vs Enterprise 2.0 vs SOA

The one thing I did disagree with Billy upon was some of the dependencies that he laid out for some of the technologies. ECM has to work in an SOA environment have to work together independent of the whole Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 world. Storing Content in an ECM system so that it can be accessed in a CRM system or SharePoint is a great idea that is facilitated by a SOA environment.

On the other hand, you can have Enterprise 2.0-style solutions in environments that utilize no SOA technologies. Let’s face it. If every organization waited to have a Service-Oriented Architecture before implementing Enterprise 2.0 technologies and solutions, then Enterprise 2.0 isn’t going anywhere. There are lots of platforms out there that can assist in delivering an Enterprise 2.0 environment that can stand-alone or integrate into an ECM system.

Yes, ECM and SOA make Enterprise 2.0 better, but in no-way are they required.

Final Warning

In the article, Billy says, the risk of adoption is less than for brand new technology. I disagree. The technology may be more proven, but there is a lot of organizational change required. I would even argue that as Enterprise is a new way of doing business that the mind set change is much more dramatic than implementing a CRM or ECM system.

Enterprise 2.0 isn’t just a new way to do a job, but a new way to think. It changes the job description, not just the execution of the job. This change isn’t easy. It can’t be rushed. Throwing it all at an organization at once could backfire. It depends on the technological maturity of the organization.

The maturity isn’t based upon what applications are running behind the firewall. It all boils down to the exposure that the people have had to technology in general. If an person doesn’t use the technologies in the Internet, having them see the benefits in the Enterprise is difficult.

I’m not saying that it isn’t worth it. I’m just saying that it is just as risky as any technology deployment. It just needs a deeper focus on the Organizational Change Management to make it work.

Shall we set sail…

The Rigging

Before setting sail, let’s take a very quick look at what we know of the the rigging. It is using DFS for all of its communications with the Content Server. By default, it is using a local instantiation of DFS and communicating intra-JVM. This is because DFC is still faster and more efficient. All APIs are faster than the services that they are built upon. It is configurable to use a remote DFS service though, so I wouldn’t consider it an issue.

In the front, we have Ext JS (The new rich media user interface is Flex). I’ve just taken a quick gander, but I liked what I saw. The phrase 508 compliant does tend to float across my mind though. Hopefully it is in the rigging somewhere.

All this means is that there is no WDK framework. This is okay. They have stated that the WDK is not going away, at least not in D7. Webtop is going to remain as an interface for the power user and for provided heavily customized interfaces.

I like Webtop these days, when you keep the above focus and purpose in mind. Magellan is being provided as a collaborative CEVA built to work with an ECM system through services.

I think I’ve heard that architecture before.

The Easy Course

Okay, now I am now leaving port and I couldn’t be more excited. Like everyone else I think Magellan is incredibly cool and sexy, especially for an ECM-based interface. It offers a simple interface for all of the basic library services with the addition of the Workspace paradigm and the pervasive use of discussions and comments.

The vision for Magellan is quite simple:

• A Web 2.0 Client: Check. Had that. Very pretty.
• Information Intelligence: Saw the introduction of a Folksonomy with tagging and a nice search filter. They may be getting that correct, given current technology.
• Anywhere Access: There are plans for a mobile version that will be location aware, I think in the D7 release cycle. Don’t hold them to that as that isn’t written down and my memory could be off. With it built on DFS, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be achievable in that timeframe.
• Web 2.0 Platform: Personally, I think this is just an excuse to say Web 2.0 twice. It is important, but the entire application is Web 2.0. Another reason for the split? A four part Vision seems more robust than a three part vision.

It is a good vision and EMC seems well on its way to delivering it. Once the Enterprise version of the client is delivered in Q1 of 2009, if not sooner, it is planned that Magellan will surface all of the Collaboration components that are currently in the Content Server and part of the Collaboration Edition (DCE). I can almost feel the eRoom vibe from here.

Once you get away from the coast, you enter the part of the map labeled “Here there be Dragons!” For EMC, it more likely reads, “Here there be SharePoint!”

SharePoint vs. Magellan

This isn’t a blow-by-blow comparison. After all, I don’t have Magellan to play with and it isn’t even out in Beta. Once it is in Beta, I hope to be in the program and sworn to secrecy. I’m not very good at Beta applications, so we’ll see if that happens.

Until then, I did note the following features not in the Magellan Essentials, the “free” version of Magellan, that is in SharePoint Services, the “free” version of SharePoint: wikis and lists/data tables. Now I understand the data table as that could be considered an advanced eRoom feature. The EMC data table is, in many ways, more flexible and easier to use than the SharePoint list. No problems there with leaving that out.

As for the wiki, I think that this is a potential missed opportunity. A simple, non-moderated, wiki would be a great asset in the Essentials client and would help increase the Web 2.0 feel of the interface. Provide an advanced moderated version of the wiki in the Enterprise client for differentiation. I think that if it properly packaged, it will drive adoption of both clients.

The goal shouldn’t be to stop people from switching to SharePoint. The goal should be to reverse the trend.

Paradise Found

Just past the dragons, we come to the South Pacific and see beautiful islands. This place is the stuff of dreams and why we started in the first place. Of highest interest to me is the fact that Magellan represents the first new User Interface for collaboration in many an age (DCE doesn’t count). We now see the next generation of collaboration with a roadmap that feels tangible and a destination that is in sight.

The goal is that by D7, all the features of eRoom will be in Magellan Enterprise. Not all of them are in the Content Server yet, so there is still a little more work on that end.

What makes everything feel tangible? How does this feel more real than last year’s eRoom 8, aka Phoenix, announcements?

• How about the announcement that they have engaged Crown Partners to build a migration tool to go from eRoom to the Content Server-based Magellan?
• How about their desire to take those on eRoom maintenance and just port their licenses and give them the tool?

That is money out of their pockets. A lot can change, but it sounds like they are committing to saving their comrades in the eRoom world.

Magellan is a priority for the CMA group. This is obvious from talking to multiple people on multiple levels. This isn’t just a side project or just a token attempt to stop losing market share to SharePoint. This is a strategic commitment to creating a versatile, mobile, and flexible user experience in the Enterprise. There is a sense of urgency to get it out there and let people see it, feel it, and experience it. This is their Enterprise 2.0 interface into their ECM 2.0 platform.

Will it come in time? Will the SharePoint dragon become so bloated that it can’t handle the potentially nimble Magellan ship? Time will tell.

• Key characteristics
  • Habitable software
  • Community governance
  • “Leveraging humanity”, David Freund
• EMC’s Innovation Network drives research collaboration with social media
  • Global Research Collaboration
  • EMC ONE, Online Network of EMCers
• Daoli Trusted Infrastructure Wiki, http://www.daoliproject.org/
  • Hosts research on trusted computing and virtualization for EMC Research China and several university partners
  • Open to the Public for Comment
  • Daoli: A research collaboration environment where everyone can make active contributions
  • The purpose is for people to learn, not to build product which would be private
• Web 2.0 Total Customer Experience (TCE)
  • Gives an overall view of a data center
  • Mashes together multiple support sources plus customer knowledge
• Experts Finder helps find people one given topic
  • Allows a rating to measure expertise
  • Mashes location together as well
• Five lessons learned
  • Social computing follows social connections, start with the existing ones
  • Problem solving drives participation
  • Corporate efforts need a common “space”
  • Information sharing must be intentional and a habit
  • Transformation takes time

Debating on attending another Social Computing presentation or getting some work done. I guess we will all know soon when we read the next post. One thing is certain, coffee.

Disclaimer

All information in this post was gathered from the presenters and presentation. It does not reflect my opinion unless clearly indicated (Italics in parenthesis). Any errors are most likely from my misunderstanding a statement or imperfectly recording the information. Updates to correct information are reflected in red, but will not be otherwise indicated.

All statements about the future of EMC products and strategy are subject to change due to a large variety of factors.

• The presentation seems to be acting on its own. Possessed even.
• Web 2.0 “aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and most notably, collaboration among users.” (Too much quoting of wikipedia)
  • Rich user experience
  • User participation: one of the most important aspects (Agreed. I like the collective intelligence aspect of it)
  • Dynamic content
  • Metadata
  • Openness
  • Freedom
  • Collective intelligence by way of user participation
• More focus on Customer
  • Focus on introducing new brand experiences
  • Proliferation of creative content
• Internal drivers for Web 2.0 concepts in the Enterprise (Enterprise 2.0)
  • Support virtual teams
  • connect thought leaders
  • RSS feeds
• External drivers
  • Link partners and internal teams
  • Facilitate unstructured business processes
  • Promote self-service models
  • Allow partners/customers to help each other
  • Solicit feedback at all levels
  • Generate customer interest and loyalty
• Enterprise 2.0 (was beginning to wonder)
  • Will we get constructive feedback, or just rants?
    • Liability incurred from external posters
    • Compliance issues of the information posted (is it a record?)
  • Moderated wikis mitigate risks and control the message
  • Things should be driven by company objectives
  • The appearance of openness is critical, even if not 100% open (I like this presentation. He is sharing the reality of meeting company objectives by controlling the external interactions)
• Content Distribution Services is replacing Site Caching Services and will be bi-directional when desired. (This is important in order to capture the end-user content from the website and place it back in the repository for tracking, auditing, and compliance)
  • This information once collected can also be sent back to be thrown into a workflow and classified
• Dynamic Delivery Services delivers XML to a Web Server Runtime that will render the XML as HTML based upon the user interactions
• (Brian is refreshingly, brutally honest. He is now one of my favorite people. I wish there was time in this convention to talk to him more)
• Recommendations can help identify and reinforce an organization’s objectives
  • “Most popular downloads” could be filtered on the user profile
• Working on taking content collected on one web server and replicating it to other web servers
  • Discussion thread in US replicated to Asian server
  • Can have some review and approval before the stuff is replicated
• Use Content Transformation Services to “normalize” the format and metadata
• Tagging is taking prominence
  • In Web 2.0, the community decides what tags are best
  • in Enterprise 2.0, the organization needs to be able to prune some tags

Off to DFS Real World examples.

Disclaimer

All information in this post was gathered from the presenters and presentation. It does not reflect my opinion unless clearly indicated (Italics in parenthesis). Any errors are most likely from my misunderstanding a statement or imperfectly recording the information. Updates to correct information are reflected in red, but will not be otherwise indicated.

All statements about the future of EMC products and strategy are subject to change due to a large variety of factors.

• The vision
  • Web 2.0 Client
  • Information Intelligence
  • Anywhere Access
  • Web 2.0 Platform

• Web 2.0 Tools for collaboration
  • Author & Publish: Wikis, blogs, Collaboration, IRM, customized lists
  • Organize & Manage: Guided Navigation, Tagging, Classification, Personalized views
  • Network & Access: Enterprise Ready, Securde off-network, Access anywhere, retention
• Need to find the information and find related related information
• Magellan is Compliant, secure, intelligent Web 2.0
• Individual, Team, and Organizational Workspaces
• Trying to improve Ease of Use, hiding complexity of policies and content intelligence
• Ease of installation is a focus
• Future in 2009
  • Easy configuration
    • Partition deployments and configure features that are needed
    • Apply a common set of policies to all spaces in a site
  • Ease of Deployment (D7)
    • Package and license individual units of functionality
    • High Availability
  • Ease of Development
    • Tooling and RAD
    • Leverage the client side tech that best suits the business (Ajax, Flex)
• Magellan Essentials client: no cost client that works with Documentum, late August free beta
  • Team workspaces
  • Library services
  • Access control
  • Content templates
  • Guided navigation
  • Lifecycles
  • Desktop Integration
  • Event triggered collaboration through SOA support
  • Reecent Changes
• Advanced client has more (This is the one that would be worthwhile)
  • Wikis, Blogs, and RSS
  • Template and component base user interfaces
  • Personal spaces
  • Tagging
  • Data tables for managed collections of information
  • Federated search
  • Visualization
• Show the canned demo from the keynote (Essentials), slower pace
  • See recent documents and recent comments on start page
  • Comments and discussions are supported around documents
  • Includes thumbnails, assuming a thumbnail has been created
  • Everything can be directly accessed with an URL
  • Drag and drop in the UI
• Composed Pages in full client
  • Bring wikis, blogs, RSS Feeds, and other information into one page
  • Unify information into one Space
• Custom components in D7
• Data Tables from eRoom and Collaboration Edition will be surfaced
  • Will add validations down the road
• Q1 2009, Essentials and Magellan full will be released
• Magellan D7 in latter half of 2009
• Webtop D7 is in the works and future versions are planned
  • Showcases the full power of Documentum
  • Provides more specialized and flexible customizations
  • Client of choice for power users requiring advanced content management functionality (Virtual Documents)
• eRoom will be supported for many years to come
  • Maintenance releases will continue
  • All eRoom features in Magellan in D7 timeframe
  • Working with Crown Partners for free migration utility leveraging Bulldoser. Will be available for customers to migrate from eRoom to Magellan.

Time for dinner and the party. [Edit: Follow-up Article here.]

Disclaimer

All information in this post was gathered from the presenters and presentation. It does not reflect my opinion unless clearly indicated (Italics in parenthesis). Any errors are most likely from my misunderstanding a statement or imperfectly recording the information. Updates to correct information are reflected in red, but will not be otherwise indicated.

All statements about the future of EMC products and strategy are subject to change due to a large variety of factors.

Well, KM is back, but under a disguise. Enterprise 2.0, using the Social Media on Web 2.0 in the business world, enables Knowledge Management. When I took my adventure through Chuck’s Journey, it was like a light bulb clicking on in my head. All of this Social Media tech solves some of the key issues that have plagued KM systems.

Knowledge Management and Philosopher’s Stone

KM is a wonderful dream. The goal, simply put, it to capture the knowledge of the people of your organization and turn it into a organizational asset. Consultants and organizations have been pursuing this for years. Like many claims made by people to turn lead into gold over the years, KM has continued to elude the world at large.

Back in 2001, I presented at Momentum 2001 a basic concept: take a portal, throw the content on an ECM platform behind the scenes, and get some solid Enterprise Search. I didn’t claim that we had true KM with this approach, but it was a solid step. We had a single interface with all content in a centralized, searchable repository. Search was federated and could return results from many systems at once.

There were weaknesses to the solution. Search wasn’t intelligent enough. It still isn’t. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.

Context was also poor. On my screen, users could see email, Siebel information, and their latest pieces of content in separate portlets. To group information by context, and not by source, users had to search and hope for the best. It was purely pull. Push wasn’t possible without taking several systems down and investing more resources than was available at the time.

The largest issue was how to gather knowledge. It is one thing to have design documents, proposals, and manuals in a system. How do you capture the thoughts behind the creation of that content? How can you enable people to add nuggets of information without having to author a document? Portlets could be created to capture ideas, but the collaboration wasn’t there.

Enter Web 2.0

Mashups, Wikis, Blogs, and Discussion Threads. Threads are old-hat, but everything else is pure Web 2.0.

• Mashups are Context! Enterprise systems are getting to the point where this can be done. With SOA standards simplifying the aggregation of data, I can now realistically anticipate have separate portlets for Clients A, B, and C with information spanning all my corporate applications. I can’t tell you how excited I was when I learned what mash-ups were a while back. It was my old Infodata white board come to life.
• Wikis provide a way for people to all contribute to building a body of knowledge. FAQs, hot-to guides, and lessons learned are great uses for wikis.
• Blogs allow people to quickly share information and experiences in a way that can lead to revelations in others. If someone learns a neat trick, they can write it up on a blog so that it is now searchable for the next person.

The problem we were trying to solve in 2001 was how to take knowledge and turn it into content, capturing it for all. With Enterprise 2.0, the resulting content enables the creation of knowledge. This can enable knowledge to grow in the organization exponentially once you get enough participation.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

The new problem is the need to filter and search all of the new content and information. This isn’t so much a new problem as it is the evolution of one of the three key weaknesses, weak search.

During my Momentum presentation, I basically told the audience that I would never be able to give them a true KM system because search would not be ready. I did promise them that my kids would sell it to them. I may be a little off on that prediction as I think it may be ready before my oldest kid finishes college. The point was valid though. It wasn’t here, yet. It still isn’t.

I said it then, and Chuck is saying it now, It’s a Journey. The light at the end of the tunnel just got a lot brighter though.

When you look at the list of frequent participants, you see the same people, like Johnny Gee, that are active in the Support Forums and people from some of the larger Documentum integrators. One thing that I would like to do, aside from having myself and my team contribute more, is to try and encourage others in the community to participate.

Wikis, Blogs, and More

One thing that I talked to Alan about was the future of the Developer Network. The Developer Network is about providing a place for people to learn best practices, ask advice, and to find technical information to jumpstart Documentum solutions. Right now this is accomplished through discussion forums, a code exchange, and articles. However, this is going to grow.

We talked about bringing the site into the Web 2.0 universe. This was focused on many things. One was offering a place to host blogs. On thinking about this since then, many of the columns could be converted into blogs with invited authors and an editor reviewing and approving each entry. This would allow a more dynamic interaction and could lead to some interesting discussions. The discussions would also be right there and not stored in a separate forum.

The other interesting thought was adding wikis. These could be a collection of best practices, guides, and design patterns. Craig Randall has a great idea of turning large chunks, if not all, of the actual Documentum documentation into a wiki. He suggests, and I agree, that the Developer Network would be a good spot for hosting that wiki. It might turn out a Developer Guide with much better sample code that gets updated with known issues and work-arounds listed by version. If there are two ways to do something, it could show both.

Bex recently explained the key difference between the blog and the wiki from a selfless/selfish perspective. By providing both creative outlets, the Developer Network can appeal to all sides of the people’s creative motivation. Alan is already thinking in that direction and I want to encourage him to continue that path.

Documenting Design Patterns

That’s right, design patterns. There are several patterns in the ECM world. There are some that are also specific to each platform. The scope all depends on what level of the design we are talking about. The Developer Network is starting this now.

The first one is related to a post I made a few months back. The topic is When to use registered tables versus object-types with no super type. Not your typical approach to documenting a Design Pattern. However, it is great for a few reasons:

1. A thread was started for discussion.
2. It was not posted with the intent that it was 100% completed. They plan to revise it to make it more complete based upon feedback.
3. THEY ARE DOCUMENTING IT!!!

As mentioned above, this is the sort of thing that will evolve into a wiki in the future. One thing I would have is to provide a better format for organizing and documenting the patterns. However, it is great to have the process started. It can evolve and get to where it serves everyone’s needs.

A Self-Serving Plug

If you checked the RSS feed over to the right, assuming you are reading this around the time I am writing this, you may have noticed that I am the most recent Featured Blog on the Developer Network. I figured it was only a matter of time given the limited number of Documentum blogs out there. That is one reason I timed this post for now, to encourage consumers to start contributing.

On that note, I have contributed. I wrote an article for the EMC Developer Network for the Service Station column. It was suggested to me by Alan and I was happy to help out. I was able to pick my own topic, so I picked something that I’ve had to help several organizations do over the years. So I wrote about Upgrading Documentum Installations. If you read it and want to discuss it, you can talk about it with me on the Developer Network.

I will be contributing more articles, and I ask others to do the same. If you aren’t comfortable writing a full article, or have a topic you would like addressed, check the forums every few days. Answer a question, post an opinion, or ask advice. PARTICIPATE! The community is only as strong as its level of participation. Alan and his team are working to make it easier and more useful, but we need people to go online and support them as they work to make our lives easier.

This was, at the same time, one of the best, and most painful, conversations I have had in quite a while. On the one hand, it is good to have to occasional defend your convictions in order to make sure that they are still on solid ground. On the other hand, sometimes you want to hit your head into a wall when someone doesn’t get it. However, I can see why that opinion exists. The vendors and analysts are to blame.

Over Promising

For years, ECM has been defined as a strategic framework and technical architecture that supports all content types and formats over the entire content life cycle. See Gartner. To accomplish this, would-be ECM vendors bought missing Content Applications, built them, or both. This has led to many problems:

• Disparate Systems: One vendor can solve all your problems, if they can ever pick which acquired solution, or in OpenText’s case..solutions, best fits the clients need. All ECM vendors are guilty, including EMC with core Documentum and eRoom.
• Deteriorating Functionality: Over time, those acquired, or built, solutions fail to evolve at a comparable rate with the pure-play vendors. This is most likely due to a number of factors. One is from the inability of R&D dollars to keep up with the increasing number of solutions. Another is managing of platform changes required for one solution so that the other solutions aren’t adversely affected. eRoom, once a leader in collaboration, is stagnating. I still like it better than SharePoint, especially after recent travails (Don’t ask).
• Lack of Performance: Try as they might, the hardware and software haven’t been able to effectively scale fast enough. This problem is going away as computers get faster, but it isn’t gone. The problem can’t be solved like in the Data side of the world with a Data Warehouse. We have to actually design better, more efficient software.

No vendor can deliver top-notch solutions in every area, yet. There are a few that can deliver from good to excellent in every category, but that isn’t consistent with the best-of-breed approach. This was the point my opponent was trying to make. My contention was that just because no one single vendor could do it all that it wasn’t something of value to strive for attaining.

ECM + SOA = ECM 2.0

In my discussion, I was trying to explain the need for RM, BPM, Collaboration, DM, and WCM to all sit on the same platform. As I have discussed previously, the Content Applications should not be tied to an ECM platform. EMC is starting to take this approach with their Content Services for SharePoint. They’ll sell the platform and the integration to SharePoint, but not any end-user application.

Mark Lewis recently shared a new approach at this year’s Momentum Europe by developing frameworks for partners to build Content-Enabled Solutions upon. This has led to some mixed reviews. The gang over at BrilliantLeap even went so far as to wonder if this is the Emasculation of Documentum.

I don’t think it is, if EMC invests wisely. They are spending money on the platform and I feel that they are making solid progress in that direction. They are turning their existing Content Services products into DFS based interfaces. What they need to do is turn all of their interfaces into DFS based interfaces. They also need to work to get an ECM SOA standard in place in order to make sure that the DFS is aligned properly.

The platform feeds Content into the SOA world. The Content Applications reach into the SOA environment and pull the content out that they need. The vendors should be independent. ECM may not have been real, but ECM 2.0 has a chance to be everything that we need.

One last thing for EMC to do, invest in the solutions!!! Spend money to make eRoom part of the Web 2.0 world. Bring WCM and their publishing up-to-speed. Integrate X-Hive sooner, not later. EMC needs to go look at every solution’s visionary leaders and build to that. They need to do it yesterday.

If they don’t, someone else will.