E2.0 Conference: Social Computing Platforms (IBM & Microsoft)

I wanted to share some background information on the tutorial presented at the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference. Specifically, the tutorial I moderated on Monday that featured IBM and Microsoft.

Background

I have been on the Advisory Board of the Enterprise 2.0 conference for a while now (which has given me the opportunity to work with some pretty amazing people). For this event, I proposed a tutorial that would allow attendees to learn more about the social computing platforms from IBM and Microsoft from a user adoption perspective rather than a "plumbing" or infrastructure viewpoint. What I have run into during my client interactions is that people rarely get to see an in-depth demonstration that is visual and one that also allows them to see a storyline involving different use case scenarios that have parallels within their own workplace. So my starting point was to help deliver a session that was "not too high" and "not too low" in terms of marketing spin and technical details respectively.

The Vendors

I worked with IBM and Microsoft in the months preceding the event. The original idea was along the lines of:

1. Introduction and overview
2. Component Walk-thru (profiles, blogs, wikis, tags/bookmarks, feed syndication, social networks)
3. Use case scenarios (expertise, community, line-of-business application, external application)
4. Q&A session
5. Under-the-hood (architecture, development tools, planning guidelines)
6. Q&A session and wrap-up

The main point at this time (Jan/Feb) was to actually bounce back and forth a lot. For example: IBM blog then Microsoft blog; IBM wiki then Microsoft wiki. Orchestrating this flow was thought to be too much like a tennis match and we would lose the audience and perhaps incur more technical problems with such constant switching around. We also thought that we would run out of time for a serious under-the-hood discussion which actually could be a more technical session for a few hours itself. We also thought that starting out with the scenarios made more sense - give people a story to see themselves in and then go on to explain how the picture was painted more or less.

So by the Mar/Apr timeframe, we had arrived at the following flow:

1. Introduction and overview
2. Use case scenarios (expertise, community, line-of-business application, project management)
3. Component Walk-thru (profiles, blogs, wikis, tags/bookmarks, feed syndication, social networks)
4. Q&A session
5. Bigger Picture (including panel discussion led by moderator)
6. Q&A session and wrap-up

We swapped out the external app with project management and the technical dive was changed over to be a more platform-wide and future roadmap discussion that would transition into a panel format that would allow me to ask questions to dig into any issue that I thought should be revisited.

The last issue was the vendor flow. We thought at first that we would alternate from section to section (Vendor A followed by Vendor B, then Vendor B followed by Vendor A) but that created some issues (Vendor B goes twice for a long period of time and Vendor A is left at the bookends). So we ended up with repeating the same sequence from section to section.

"Rules"

I did not want to deliver a session that only covered what was possible in the current shipping product and had to be limited to what was out-of-the-box. On the other extreme, I did not want to see highly customized applications that were not really reflective of the products any longer. So to balance that goal:

• Vendors could customize their solution and shape the capabilities covered to meet the use case scenarios
• Vendors could include extensions or partner add-ons
• Vendors could include new capabilities that would be delivered within the short run (e.g., within 2008)
• Vendors have to be very transparent and explicitly call out where customizations had been applied and where partner solutions were included
• Before/after capabilities had to be shown if the vendor had something that they had replaced with a partner's solution (so if you had a wiki but demo'd another you had to show both)

The goal was to be pragmatic about this and keep the audience in mind. What I was hoping for was:

1. Vendors would create a "big picture" story anchored to the list of use case scenarios (expertise, community, project or line-of-business application)
2. People would "see themselves in the story" and begin thinking of the solution opportunities within their organization
3. Vendors would then peel that layer away and talk to the social computing components that made up that story
4. People would then relate specific functional capabilities to the solutions they saw in the demo and hopefully expand on how those tools could be used in other ways within their organizations
5. Vendors would close out with a broader look at the platform ecosystem and then look ahead to future evolution of their respective platforms
6. People would see value in a platform approach, the need for an ecosystem around that platform, and how the platform investment would grown and evolve over time

"It's Showtime..."

Some thoughts on the session itself:

IBM

• IBM was the clear winner across the board. The storyline and narrative woven around the presentation and demonstrations was near-perfect. The IBM team established the use case scenarios and drilled down into those scenarios in a way that allowed people to make the connection (no pun intended) between the use cases and functional components.
• The functional components came across very well and the social computing tools covered (profiles, blogs, wikis, feeds, social networking) were linked back to the overall storyline in a way that flowed naturally and allowed the audience to put the pieces together without a lot of hard mental work deciphering how the tools worked together in the context of an application that solved a real problem. 
• One concern I had with the IBM presentation occurred when they talked about the inclusion of a feed management function. It was not clearly articulated as to what was in Lotus Connections 2.0 vs. something of a future and perhaps a future that was beyond the "foreseeable" future boundary I had defined. The other concern (more minor) was that there was little discussion around the platform and system dependencies. Again, a minor nit but I don't recall hearing that the blog component is based on Apache Roller, etc. Maybe that did come out (someone can correct me here) but I think a few more minutes on technical requirements should have been a focal point.
• One critique I have is that IBM positions Lotus Connections as an application and not a platform. I found that hard to believe actually. It might not be a platform the same way SharePoint is a platform or other platforms within IBM - but it is clearly a platform in my mind.

Microsoft

• Clearly (based on audience reaction, post-session comments, news accounts and my own observation), Microsoft did a poor job of showing and explaining why business and/or technical decision-makers should consider SharePoint as a credible solution to meet the social computing needs of an organization.
• I was really expecting to see Microsoft show off the Community Kit Extensions, or some partner integration (NewsGator Social Sites) but that was not the case. Basically, I just saw SharePoint virtually out-of-the-box with some customization but not enough to really make an impact on me in terms of thinking that the blog and wiki functions are competitive with what the market has to offer. Even the social networking capabilities within MySite were not highlighted in a way that was compelling.
• Microsoft lost the audience. There was a break between the storyline set in the use case scenarios and the component walk-thru. I could see people in the audience struggling to stitch together a narrative of where Microsoft was going with the presentation and demonstrations (especially when the IBM delivery and solution capabilities came across so vibrantly). There was too much "in-the-weeds" talk around property sheets and forms.
• The platform argument failed. Microsoft's anchor point was that social computing capabilities emerge from a platform model. I don't disagree with that argument but the feeling that I believe many people left with after the tutorial is that the SharePoint platform is slow-moving, not very flexible, with capabilities that lag behind what is available on the market. Without showing the Codeplex extensions or any partner add-on value, the entire Microsoft presentation was difficult for the audience to get their arms around. Even existing Microsoft champions seemed incredulous based on some of the backchannel conversations that were going on in Meebo.

Some might dismiss this tutorial and its attempt to let attendees compare/contrast solutions from each vendor as insignificant due to (1) IBM having better speakers (2) or that it was just a dog-and-pony show (3) or Microsoft just had a bad day (4) or that platforms are hard to showcase in terms of value, etc.

I disagree. Each vendor had a few months to prepare. Each vendor had a lot of options to present its solution as a platform and as an ecosystem. Vendors were not limited to just showing what was out-of-the-box. As long as vendors were transparent with their presentations and demonstrations, and owned up to customizations and extensions, I was happy.

Maybe Microsoft underestimated IBM. Maybe Microsoft feels that SharePoint is on such a roll that its weak blog and wiki offerings are not going to hurt it in the long run. I'm at a loss as to why the session was such a bust from a Microsoft perspective. There was clearly more that could have been shown but for whatever reason, IBM walked out of the room with a clear and decisive win.

Did it change anyone's mind? That's hard to tell - but based on multiple comments and reactions that I heard since the session, I think people are now very open that they need to look at third-parties that integrate with SharePoint for social computing. The growing change I sense (not a tidal wave yet but something very identifiable), is the idea that organizations need to extend SharePoint with third-party products. This is becoming more of the default assumption whereas before people might have thought they could avoid adding additional vendors to the mix. And in some cases, decision-makers are more open to at least considering alternate solutions they might not have even entertained before (which would be good news for IBM and Jive in particular).

Lessons Learned

Overall, I thought the tutorial was valuable to those attending. But with most things, I saw things I would change:

1. Don't forget the break time: This was a really bad oversight on my part (thus I will not be on the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader"). In my spread sheet I did not explicitly include the 15 minutes or so that the conference had scheduled for a break and that time was impossible to make up. My bad...
2. Add more audience interaction: Although I had two Q&A sessions, my foul-up on the break squeezed out the second round of questions and the demo periods I felt put the session in broadcast-mode for too long. Shorter burst with feedback would be better.
3. Include more critical analysis and debate time: Next time I think my role should be a bit more aggressive and challenging. The barrier was time. Four hours seems like a long time, but to cover the ground we actually did cover, something had to give.
4. Consider a full day tutorial: Given the above, a full day or two separate but related tutorials might work out better.

Comments

[Luis Benitez]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for giving us more context as to what happened last week. It gives me a better perspective as to what was expected from speakers. Based on all the press this session got, it seemed to me that there was a huge disconnect as to what was expected from the speakers and their level of preparation. This blog entry, however, clearly shows, in my mind, that it was a product win and not a speaker winning over another.

[Chris Stanley]

Whats the licensing structure look like for Connections? Will there be a free version with limited functionality similar to what Microsoft's Windows SharePoint Services offering is?

[Steve Kuhn]

Hi Mike. Thanks for the writeup. I was supposed to be at the session but was stranded in Chicago...

I also heard from many that Microsoft and Sharepoint did not acquit themselves well at your session, and I'm no personal fan of Sharepoint. But I would also point out that, to my mind, the most impressive real-world examples at E2.0 came from companies using Sharepoint.

Paul Fields' presentation on Wachovia's move into E2.0 was pretty great. And those that attended Lockheed Martin's case study on their implementation (and heavy customization) of Sharepoint saw audience members practically standing and cheering. (I heard one person call out: "Sell it! We'll buy it!") (Anyone interested can see my notes of the Lockheed Martin preso here: http://tinyurl.com/44xmwe)

Anyway, I heard a lot of casual Sharepoint-bashing at E2.0, but let's not write it off just yet.

[Mike Gotta]

Steve - it is true that the user case stories you list were leveraging SharePoint and outside the social computing tools, SharePoint is incredibly popular. But I would also suggest that there are a decent number of organizations leveraging non-SP tools such as Jive, Socialtext, Atlassian, Traction Software, Awareness Networks, and so on. With Connections 2.0, I expect IBM to make a more serious run.

I am not writing SharePoint off, but I am pointing out clear deficiencies and the need for partner solutions to augment what SharePoint offers overall.

[John Heckendorn]

I do think there are a couple of underlying issues at work here. The main one is that Connections and SharePoint are fundamentally orthogonal in purpose and usage, at least currently. They are both interesting tools, but one is a hammer and the other a saw. When you ask IBM and Microsoft to show what their tools can do, they will play to their individual strengths, and woe be to the one expecting the audience to appreciate clean woodcuts when they really want to see clean nail driving (MS should have known this, and were foolish to participate). Presented with the proposed scenario precisely as you described, if they knew anything about Connections and how its sweet spot coincided with the intentions of the "challenge", they should have declined outright.

Although you brush off the varying quality of speakers/presentation as immaterial, having seen both Lawrence and Suzanne present their stuff, they really are orthogonal as public speakers. C'mon, which one would you rather represent your company or product in public? Although judgement shouldn't hinge on perception, Microsoft's second serious mistake was not sending their most effective set of presenters (even on a hopeless mission).

I'm positive news of this debacle has penetrated into the upper firmament at Microsoft (perhaps even to Ray Ozzie himself). I think it would be interesting for you to have a post-massacre debrief with Lawrence et al. -- I assume he still returns your calls :') -- to compare notes as to what they heard vs. what you were proposing. There had to be a tremendous disconnect somewhere (the results demonstrate that). My guess is that when you used the word "platform", they thought of the whole Microsoft ecosystem and that they wanted to show how Enterprise 2.0 capabilities are getting gradually integrated into a CM platform that is already widely used. I also suspect that Suzanne et al. understood "platform" to mean how IBM is developing something quite unlike anything else they have ever done (a new "application", if you will).

BTW, couldn't agree more that for now (and perhaps for ever), third party products/integrations are crucial for extending SharePoint as a platform to address E2.0 objectives. Fortunately for enterprises that have developed collaborative environments on the SharePoint platform, there seem to be a growing number of imaginative third parties looking to make a living from providing those goods and services. In fact, one question some potential customers may soon ask is how Lotus Connections can be made to closely integrate with SharePoint (and if so, whether purchasing Connections now is better than waiting for MS and its partners to provide equivalently interesting functionality).

[Jim]

Hi,

A really clear, well written description of the event. I'd love to know more. Is it possible to download a video or something similar?

[Brian Kellner]

Thanks for doing the tutorial and the write-up Mike – both were very informative.

I think the ability to augment SharePoint via third-party solutions is part of its strength. And if the audience had seen something like this quick video of how Social Sites enhances social computing within SharePoint, I think their perception of the gap with Connections would have been very different.

http://www.newsgator.com/Business/SocialSites/Video/SocialSites_Viddler.aspx

[Allen_Candy]

Thanks for sharing such a nice and useful information shared here.By the way I have participated in the Cloud Computing Conference 2009 which is the World's largest conference on Cloud Computing event, innovations and latest trends. I got a fantastic opportunity to meet and talk with the world's leading expert's in Cloud Computing. http://cloudslam09.com

[Aajf 6]

I completely agree with the above comment, the internet is with a doubt growing into the most important medium of communication across the globe and its due to sites like this that ideas are spreading so quickly.

[Air yeezy]

Thanks for executing the tutorial and also the write-up Mike – equally had been really informative.