HanMade

There’s a little wall-mounted electronic air freshener in our men’s room on the floor where I work. It’s one of those advanced things that automatically spits out a certain amount of freshener every so often. Thankfully, and probably optimally, they have mounted it above a little doorway just inside the men’s room entrance, before you reach the sinks.

I say it needs help because it’s been complaining for the past two weeks.

Every ten seconds or so, it beeps twice. Kind of quiet, in a very polite way. It sort of makes this little “meep…meep” sound. It’s a little bit like a timer letting you know it’s still there.

I can only assume from the fact that it’s been doing this awhile, and by the two zeros on its little display window, that it’s out of air freshener. We have a pretty clean group at my work, so you can’t really notice the difference too much.

Except for the “meep…meep”. Every ten seconds.

It got me thinking…what a clever idea to make the air freshener meep like that when it runs out of air freshener. It makes sense that it would keep doing it until it’s refilled, because our attendants visit twice a day to freshen up in there.

On the other hand, our attendants visit twice a day, have done so for two straight weeks, and yet……”meep…meep”. They don’t hear it. Or maybe they hear it but the cartridges for the thing are too expensive.

Whichever is the case, I think it’s hooked up to the central electric supply. It would be sadder if not, because in addition to the “meep…meep” we would all hear it slowly peter out over time, which would make it sound like a very patient little forgotten robot, stuck in the men’s room, complaining about the smell, or lack of “air-freshened” smell, with no hope of rescue before its little batteries ran out.

I wrote this little piece because, while it must have seemed like a clever idea at the time, giving the air freshener a “meep” doesn’t seem to have increased its chance of being filled one iota. The result is kind of annoying (feels like you have to hurry up in there), and if you think anthropomorphically, a little sad.

I guess a better solution would have been to provide a transmitter for the beep, to let whoever manages the attendants know to order more spray stuff. Another option would be to make it beep whenever someone with an attendant’s badge comes in – but louder, more insistently, and perhaps let it spray something different for them. Something that says “I’m not helping the situation in here, and can you help me?”.

Even better, it would be great if someone left a pack of air freshener cartridges in the men’s room, so I could just replace it myself.

If you’re not familiar with the term, Forrester Research coined “Information Workplace” as the next evolution of business web portals. Follow the lines of Web 2.0, portal applications, collaboration tools and various new devices that access the Internet, it seems natural that these concepts will eventually converge in a truly interactive, context-sensitive, role-based usable environment that will finally help people work and learn what they need to do their jobs.

Contrary to some interpretations, the IW is not just about web portals. It’s about incorporating the total user experience of employees and optimizing every opportunity they have to interact with business applications and information. It does not assume that everyone is an information worker, but that information is vital to nearly every position. If you have access to Forrester’s research, they describe these principles much more eloquently than I.

On the other hand, current web portal companies are jockeying to deliver the full Information Workplace, whether or not they will actually be the lynchpin for this new world of work. Personally, I believe the brunt of effort will be born by organizations and knowledge managers, who will need to define the many nuanced roles and relationships that people have with information.

Since my company uses one of these portals, I recently tried to determine who was the better bet to deliver the “portal” part of the IW, and here’s what I found:

Who will deliver the Information Workplace?

Introduction

Enterprise web portals allow companies to communicate with their employees, business partners or customers. They differ from Internet web portals by providing secure access to content, content management, team collaboration, enterprise-wide search, personalization and some business integration through small applications called “portlets”.

Enterprise web portals improve daily tasks for employees called “knowledge workers”, who excel at finding and collecting information. However, portals do not meet the needs of all employees. Creative workers lack tools to brainstorm and strategize. Problem solvers lack a way to learn from others, share their findings and see problems from end to end. Scientists, factory workers and other “doer” workers lack ways to interact with the real world through the portal (Moore & Driver, 2005).

Connie Driver and Erika Moore from Forrester Research coined the term “Information Workplace” (IW) to define how portals will meet the needs of all employees, not just knowledge workers. While they predict the Information Workplace is more than five years away, many business professionals believe some of its features will arrive in only two to five years. There are many portal vendors on the market, but in order to deliver the Information Workplace in the next few years, the predominant vendors will have the best chance for success. The question is, which of the predominant vendors will deliver the Information Workplace?

What is the Information Workplace?

In 2006, Moore and Driver studied the future of enterprise portals to determine how they would evolve to serve the needs of knowledge, creative, problem-solving and productive workers. They predicted that the enterprise portal will meet this need by evolving into the “Information Workplace” (Moore & Driver, 2006, p 1). According to Moore & Driver:

To deliver the full Information Workplace, portal vendors must find ways to deliver more contextual awareness, real-time and team collaboration tools, tighter integration with alternative devices (PDAs, cell-phones) and customized business process integration.

Regardless of how long it will take to deliver, near-term realization of the IW seems to hinge on a portal’s integration with collaboration tools, email, scheduling, document management and business processes (Levitt, Quirk, 2006).

Therefore, the vendor who provides seamless integration between these features will likely deliver the long-term benefits of the Information Workplace as well.

Currently, none of the predominant portals can provide the IW, but three will contend for the title: IBM Websphere, Microsoft Sharepoint, and BEA Aqualogic. (Gootzit, 2006). Forrester’s survey reported that many business owners believe Microsoft and IBM will likely deliver the IW (Driver & Moore, 2006), even though BEA is one of the predominant portal vendors, and favored to deliver the IW by Gartner (BEA, 2006). All three vendors are planning to provide some of the near-term benefits of the Information Workplace. Between IBM, Microsoft and BEA, which is best positioned to deliver the Information Workplace?

How will IBM Deliver the Information Workplace?

IBM’s enterprise portal, Websphere, is a Java-based framework within which companies can provide traditional portal features, such as departmental home pages. Lotus Workplace provides team workspaces, instant messaging, presence awareness and web conferencing. Lotus Notes provides email, calendars and scheduling for employees. Until now, these tools did not work well together and failed to deliver true integrated collaboration for all employees.

Integrated business processes require a tight coupling between portal software and business applications. If a company is heavily invested in Java technology, they will benefit from the Java framework upon which Websphere is built. Integrating with .NET applications will be more difficult due to the infrastructure required to support two platforms (Harney, 2005).

IBM recently added its Lotus Workplace to Websphere portal, which will ensure tighter integration between office productivity and the company portal (Rymer, 2006). IBM’s collaboration suite may integrate well with Websphere, but they do not plan to provide the same integration with either Microsoft or BEA portals.

The upcoming version of Websphere will integrate new Web 2.0 features such as Wikis and Blogs, which will further enhance employee interaction and move Websphere closer to the Information Workplace (Leon, 2007).

Because of the tighter integration between Websphere and Workplace, and the common platform upon which they are built, IBM is in a good position to deliver integrated collaboration tools. That makes IBM a good bet to deliver near-term benefits of the Information Workplace.

How will Microsoft Deliver the Information Workplace?

Microsoft’s enterprise portal, Sharepoint Portal Services, is a .NET-based framework that provides traditional portal features. Windows Sharepoint Services provide individual team workspaces for project discussions, planning and document management. Sharepoint Portal Services provide search, document management and authentication across many Windows Sharepoint Services. Microsoft Office provides employee email, calendaring and productivity tools.

Office 2007 will tightly integrate with Windows Sharepoint Services and work seamlessly together to improve employee collaboration (White, 2006). This will provide a boost to Sharepoint as a serious portal environment and will prod other vendors to pursue similar integration (Leon, 2007).

As with Java environments, if a company uses .NET technology heavily, they will benefit from the .NET-based Sharepoint portal (Harney, 2005). Integrating with Java applications will be more difficult due to the infrastructure required to support two platforms.

Microsoft’s collaboration and office productivity suites may integrate well with Sharepoint, but they do not plan to provide the same integration with either IBM or BEA products.

Because of the tighter integration between Sharepoint and Office, and the common platform upon which they are built, Microsoft is also well-positioned to deliver integrated collaboration tools. That makes Microsoft a frontrunner to deliver the first stages of the Information Workplace.

How will BEA Deliver the Information Workplace?

BEA Aqualogic User Interaction is the combination of Plumtree portal (acquired in 2005) with BEA Weblogic portal. Aqualogic portal, based on either Java or .NET, provides traditional portal features, including departmental home pages (called “Communities”) and team collaboration, document management and search capability. BEA Aqualogic Collaboration provides team collaboration, discussions and project planning. Collaboration is seamlessly integrated with Aqualogic, but is not seamlessly integrated with email and calendaring tools. BEA Aqualogic Publisher and Knowledge Directory provide content and document management seamlessly within the Aqualogic UI platform, but is not seamlessly integrated with office productivity tools.

Integration with email and calendar vendors is possible within BEA Aqualogic, but not automatically. BEA does not provide its own suite of office productivity tools, so it relies on custom integration with other vendors, or sacrifices the benefits of seamless integration.

Due to BEA’s heterogeneous architecture, and its need to integrate with both Java and .NET platforms, Aqualogic is the best fit for companies that need to bring together different content systems, search repositories and custom applications (Harney, 2006).

BEA’s plan for the Information Workplace includes new Web 2.0 features included in the latest Aqualogic platform, and new collaboration options built into its collaboration, content and document management suites (Leon, 2007).

BEA’s collaboration and content management suites are not as widely used as IBM or Microsoft’s, and neither vendor’s suite integrates seamlessly with BEA. Therefore, BEA is at a disadvantage in providing the near-term benefits of the information workplace. BEA’s best integration with existing tools is with Microsoft products. They plan to provide a Sharepoint console, through which multiple Windows Sharepoint Services spaces can be surfaced (White, 2006).

Conclusion

The long-term features of the Information Workplace do not yet exist, but portal vendors already plan to deliver some of the near-term features. Integrated collaboration, office productivity and business processes will pave the way for further improvements down the road. The vendor who provides seamless integration between these three elements will likely provide the long-term benefits, as well.

The above evidence supports either Microsoft or IBM to deliver the near-term benefits of the Information Workplace. Both vendors plan to provide seamless integration between their collaboration and office productivity tools. While BEA’s Aqualogic integrates best in heterogeneous environments, it lacks robust, widely used collaboration and productivity tools, and must integrate with the more popular IBM or Microsoft products.

Between Microsoft and IBM, the victor may depend on which vendor eventually dominates the market for all of these services. If IBM and Microsoft continue to compete almost equally in the enterprise software market, they will develop different versions of the Information Workplace. For CIO’s, the decision may already be made by the company’s established platform. If a company is heavily invested in .NET technology and Microsoft productivity tools, Sharepoint may be the most cost-effective solution. However, if a company is heavily invested in Java technology and IBM services, IBM Websphere seems the most logical choice.

None of these vendors has determined how to provide the long-term benefits of the Information Workplace at an enterprise level. Small, experimental companies will likely develop these long-term features, and large enterprise vendors will likely acquire those who fit their Information Workplace vision. Watch IBM, Microsoft or BEA to see who they acquire to learn how the Information Workplace will evolve.

References

BEA. (2006, April). State of the Portal Market 2006: Portals and the New Wisdom of the Enterprise. Retrieved March 10 from BEA 2006 State of the Portal Market WP.

Driver, E., Moore, C. (2006, April 27) The Information Workplace: Who Wants It And When? Retrieved March 5, 2007 from The Information Workplace: Who Wants It and When?.

Gootzit, D., et al. (2006, May 16) Magic Quadrant for Horizontal Portal Products 2006. Gartner. Retrieved from BEA article cited above. BEA 2006 State of the Portal Market WP.

Levitt, M., Quirk, K. (2006, June). Retrieved March 10 from EBSCO Host database, KM World, 15 Issue 6. KM World, 15 Issue 6, p8-9, 2p.

Leon, M. (2007, Jan 1). Enterprise Platform and App Giants Take Web 2.0 to Heart. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from App Giants Take Web 2.0 to Heart.

Moore, C., Driver, E. (2005, June 1). The Information Workplace Will Redefine The World Of Work At Last. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from The Info Workplace will Redefine the World of Work At Last.

Ok, I’ll have to admit I get a little jealous of what I see out in Web 2.0 land…not really because I’m not lucky enough to have started some of these ingenious companies. Mostly because I haven’t been able to take part in designing them.

My wife thinks I’m a little mad because I don’t have an iPhone, and because I didn’t wait in line for one, that I’m a little ticked that everyone’s going to have one but me.

I wish that were the case.

I am extremely inspired by the iPhone. However, I would have given my left kneecap to have helped design it =].

For some inspiring words on what Web 2.0 really means, and how content (not just design) is reshaping the Internet and the way we do things, take a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE