The Week in Collaboration, Jan 16-20 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

What should a RIM customer do?

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


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


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


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

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

---

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

Comments

[Ed Brill]

To be fair, some of the tests of the Application Analyzer were completed on beta code of the new version, not the old 2003 version. The old 2003 version is still posted on Microsoft's website, while the beta 2006 release has been removed.

[Peter de Haas]

Michael,
Somehow I expected you to comment on this press release :-)

A few remarks :

***“Lotus Notes and Domino shops to migrate to Exchange and SharePoint”***

I am glad the comparison is no longer Lotus Notes Domino vs MS Exchange. I don’t think it is fully right to compare Lotus Notes Domino to MS Exchange and SharePoint either.
Lotus Notes Domino is an integrated set of functionality (or products) in essence a platform. This requires (and justifies) that you should compare platforms.
In the migration context, you should take into account additional elements of the Microsoft platform as well such as InfoPath (electronic forms) and looking at the more complex applications alo SQL Server and Visual Studio for the development of application(components).

It is however right to assume that a large portion of the Lotus Notes Domino databases/applications have (Windows) Sharepoint (Services) as the target platform, expecially now that Microsoft provides a lot of standard functionality and applications that replace the most common Lotus Notes Domino apps.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sppt/wssapps/default.mspx

***“The application development capabilities of Notes and Domino have made it a very sticky platform, due to the high cost involved in revamping a Notes/Domino application suite for a Microsoft environment. “***

Sticky is the right word for it :-). In many cases an organsiation with lets say 20.000 users has over 30.000 Notes databases, including replica’s.

As with any large base of application goes that application rationalization is the right approach, regardsless whether you are running Lotus Notes Domino, .NET or have thousands of Excel “apps”.
No organization should depend on thousands and thousands of applications for its business. I did an attempt over a year ago to address that : http://www.peterdehaas.com/2004/12/application_rat.html

***“There are three situations where a migration is valid and defensible:
(a) The business likes Microsoft's strategy and approach to messaging and collaboration better than it likes where Lotus is going.
(b) There has been a leadership decision to embrace Microsoft and shift away from Lotus. This is often called a "political" decision by those on the wrong side of it, that is, that the decision has not been made on solely on the results of a technical evaluation.
(c) The suite of custom Notes applications have become long in the tooth and are high cost items to maintain and upgrade and so an alternative is sought.”***

I would say your advise makes sence. I do think however that (a) and (b) are related. I would argue that every decision in an organization has political / emotional and whatever elements to it. The discussion is never solely about the functions and features of a product or solution.
You have to give Microsoft credit for the recognition they get from the industry on their vision and execution around the collaboration platform. This vision and recognition is paying in a great way

http://www.peterdehaas.com/2005/06/whats_microsoft.html

***” In these cases, what is to be done about custom applications? First of all, you have to know what you are talking about. An application audit is required, with applications being grouped into logical baskets. Second, the currency of each application needs to be ascertained. There will be some applications that are heavily used, others that are infrequently used, and some that can be archived.”***

The above is exactly what the Application Analyzer toolset is set out to do; collect the design / usage criteria, # replica’s, date last accessed, etc. of each individual database and process this for a first analysis.
Ofcourse the tool only collects the information; an additional tool (the dataprocessor, available to Microsoft partners) provides a more detailed analysis and reporting. Ofcourse this is a tool and expertise is needed, as well as knowledge from the developer(s) (if they are still with the company) to fully understand the more complex applications.

***“A one-to-one migration from a Notes application to a SharePoint site may be a really dumb idea, because the current and projected needs of the organization and its teams are not being taken into consideration”***

Spot on Michael. I haven’t seen this remark in many of the press / competitive coverage yet (and I am not cynical). No one migrates their applications over to another platform to get the same functionality.
Many applications may have been developed years ago and although they still provide the required functionality there may be dozens out-of-the-box applications / tools that provide exactly that functionality and more today.

Also don’t forget that many organizations that have migrated from Lotus Notes Domino to the Microsoft platform choose to have a number of applications to remain on the Domino platform where Domino becomes just another applications server. There are plenty of technologies that allow organization to intergrate / access these applications in a variety of ways (portals, browser, etc)

[Michael Sampson]

Thanks for your feedback and comments Peter. You raise some good points ... migration, custom applications, migration rational.

The one additional thought I would add ... is ... be careful about saying "no organization should depend on thousands and thousands of applications". In the Notes/Domino world, these are most likely to be a standard or customized template that enables a team to work together. In the SharePoint world, these are called "sites". Microsoft has something like 50,000 of these ... and HP said the other day at its "success with SharePoint" webinar that 3-4000 of these are created *per month*. So ... an organization isn't necessarily going to be any better / worse with SharePoint vs. Notes/Domino for an "application" count.