Start now free!

Intranet 2.0 Unleashed

Front-end editing: the magic word that makes content editors happy

Frankly, the reason behind this blog post is rather simple. Being an active CMS/intranet community member in Twitter (@denis_zenkin), I was recently followed by a company that caught my attention by a striking slogan: “The world’s only click-to-define content management system”. It turned out the system’s major USP is allowing editors to define content areas on the front-end with click-away editing.

My first reaction was a sort of sarcastic applause full of enthusiastic interjections. Later I realized that the majority of website and intranet editors still work in stone age environments where even a minor content or structure alteration leads to special (often multiple) requests to ever-busier web programmers or appeals to a not-so-easy-to-understand and technologically autophilous back-ends with geek-style controls. This naturally leads to tremendous delays in content updating, greater error probability, and reduced productivity. In the worst cases, the problem’s persistency leads to user frustration and failure of the CMS/intranet strategy in general.

Here we have a single failure that threatens business-critical initiatives. Really, things shouldn’t be like that.

Let’s start with a quick glance at how-it-can-be and a smooth transition to how-it-should-be.

Naturally, the website’s or intranet’s content and structure is a key for a successful implementation of an online or social collaboration strategy, be it for external or internal purposes. Who really needs a web solution that is static and outdated? Leaving aside the user frustration aspect, the failure of this simple task may result in damaging the organization’s reputation.

I have already mentioned the ‘good-old’ way of managing content and structure. And this way is way too far from strategic goals. The proper way is streamlining content management and making it as easy as editing text in a word processor.

And the keyword here is front-end editing.

Let’s take Bitrix Site Manager and Bitrix Intranet as examples. Both products rely on the same interface (proudly bearing the title Amber Ergonomics smile:)) that has two levels of content management interaction. The back-end normally contains all the fine tuning things – things that are generally done once. The front-end allows click-away editing of the content and structure.

How does it work? Just like your word processor. An authorized editor points the cursor to the target field to edit and an editing tab immediately pops up. After clicking on the edit action, the system opens up a WYSIWYG/HTML editor where the sky is the limit.


Example: front-end content editing in Bitrix Site Manager

In the same elegant way editors can (and in fact should; if not – ask for an alternative CMS!) edit web pages and menu items.


Example: click-away front-end menu items and web pages editing in Bitrix Intranet

Once the editing is completed, previewed and approved the changes automatically appear online with an opportunity to roll-back.

Importantly, content editors can only work with content and structure according to their access rights. A system administrator can assign specific rights to particular users or user groups.

There are many other options surrounding front-end editing which can be employed to streamline website or intranet content management and synchronize it with adopted rules and procedures.

For example, the organization can configure integrated BPM (business process management) to implement two-way communications between, say, product managers and content editors. A sample business process can start with the product manager’s request to change a product description on the website. Once the request is approved by the involved parties, it is automatically passed to content editors with detailed guidelines. After the request is processed and implemented, the product manager gets confirmation, can review the placement, and either confirm that the job is done or request changes.

Another useful feature is tight integration of intranet and website layers. Among other capabilities, the SiteController allows organizations to orchestrate and automate the content lifecycle across the whole range of web resources. For example, once a press release is approved it can automatically be published in the intranet and on the website!

Getting back to front-end editing. Personally, I believe this feature should become a commodity in contemporary content management systems. It saves a lot of time for content editors, smoothes out internal processes and positively influences business performance.

And many CMS vendors have already followed this trend.

Partner Spotlight: Why do web development companies choose Bitrix?

Choosing the right content management system is a key element of successful business development for web studios and full-cycle advertising agencies. But what does the word “right” mean? What are the features of the “right CMS” that contribute to business development? And how does it fit into the business model of a real web development company?

Bitrix Marketing Director Denis Zenkin interviews Roman Petrov, Managing Director of ITConstruct, a Gold level partner of Bitrix, who explains the particulars of the web development business and his company’s reasons for switching from home-made and open source CMS systems to Bitrix Site Manager.



ITConstruct is one of the leading web development companies in Novosibirsk, the biggest Russian city in Siberia. The company focuses on implementing websites, intranets, extranets and comprehensive e-marketing campaigns as well as developing bespoke web applications. Since its foundation in 2005, ITConstruct has delivered more than 300 web projects to small and medium businesses, with more than 60 projects being added to the portfolio each year. The company’s customers range from small private businesses to large governmental organizations. ITConstruct has partnered with Bitrix since 2007, holds Gold Certified Partner status and regularly appears in Bitrix’ list of best performers in Russia.


Good whatever, Roman, taking into consideration the distance to Novosibirsk and impressive time difference. How do you do and what is the weather in Siberia now?



Hi Denis, I really like the “good whatever” thing, it perfectly fits the modern wired web world connecting people all around the globe. While you just had your morning coffee we are approaching our dinner. Despite the common perceptions about Siberia, I love the local weather. -20C may seem to be frightening at first (although it is -3C outside at the moment) but this is very different from -20C in a marine climate. The air is dry and there are no strong winds. Indeed, it is quite comfortable even during the winter time. And we don’t have bears roaming in the streets here scratching their backs on nuclear bombs! smile:)

Oh, let’s not talk about what the seacoast is like when it’s -20C. I had an unpleasant experience last winter on the Baltic Sea smile:) Ok, tell me the story how your company came into partnership with Bitrix.
ITConstruct started in 2005 and at that time we were using our home-made CMS. The company was delivering low-end websites and the business was growing slowly but surely. In early 2007, we underwent a major restructuring with my partner and part of the team leaving. We suddenly lost part of our technical competence and needed to invest in training new programmers. This negatively influenced ongoing projects, so we cooled down new customer engagement and marketing activity. It was a real turning point in business development and forced me to make a couple of strategic decisions. I no longer wanted to be dependent on a home-made CMS and educate new employees each time we expanded the team, nor did I want to invest in CMS development and distract resources from the core activity. I wanted a sustainable web development business and expanded our focus from low-end projects to a high-margin market, delivering comprehensive web solutions.

Why didn’t you opt for some open source CMS?
We evaluated a number of both commercial and open source CMS available on the market. Our experience with FOSS CMS was rather negative. The concept was too close to a home-made CMS, as we needed to invest in development of custom modules or search for third-party apps that were questionable in terms of functionality, performance, usability and security. Furthermore, I knew we would fall into dependence on current developers, who knew how the apps worked. Also, consider the technical support issues that we would have to cover by ourselves and the lack of a product development roadmap.

What about the commercial CMS systems you evaluated?
At that time, we couldn’t judge how good or bad the commercial CMS’s we evaluated were from the technical point of view. “You never know until you try”. To get a full understanding of this, you need to develop at least a of couple of websites. Thus, we shortlisted the basic business requirements: functionality, brand awareness, partner program, learning curve, price, support and training, installed base and customer references, availability of qualified developers, marketing support and product development vision. Finally, we collected feedback from the web developers’ community and found that Bitrix was a perfect fit to our business strategy.



What were the things you liked the best in Bitrix?
First of all, their approach in doing business with web development companies. We liked the Bitrix’ channel model with its clearly declared non-competition statement, established partner program, marketing support, and leads forwarding. The well-thought-out product line, pricing and hybrid licensing matched our wish-list for a product that would let us deliver a broad range of web projects from low-end websites to high-end e-commerce solutions. We had no opportunity for in-depth functionality testing, but we liked the Bitrix’ Swiss-Army-Knife, out-of-the-box approach and, honestly, we’ve never been disappointed.. Bitrix also demonstrated a strategic product development vision and keen understanding of market trends. Importantly, Bitrix products proved to have a very short learning curve, letting programmers with basic PHP knowledge to quickly start developing web projects.

The learning curve for a CMS is crucial for web studios when re-training existing programmers and when on-boarding new team members. Can you share how much it cost you to switch to Bitrix from your home-made CMS?
You see, that’s what I like about Bitrix. You think the way your partners think and it lets you deliver the right tools and services. You’re right in emphasizing re-training as a major headache when we were considering the switch to Bitrix. Our investment came to $1,500 per re-trained programmer and approximately $6,000 in losses associated with incorrect project time assessments in the first round of projects. However, after we took our lumps, that investment paid off within only one year. We eliminated the development costs associated with our old CMS, reached new high-end customers with a full-featured CMS, increased development speed (or lowered the project cost if you like) and got a new source of recurring revenues by selling product renewals.

There is a widespread opinion that switching to a commercial CMS from a home-made or open source CMS leads to increasing web project cost owing to software licensing. What was your experience?
I was also worrying about this, too, but now I treat this fear as a pure urban legend. The software acquisition costs average 5-7% of the total project cost, and we get a lucrative discount from Bitrix as an official partner. The software significantly increases the development speed and quality, more than enough to compensate for the acquisition cost. In other words, we managed to deliver more in less time, without the need to raise the price for the customer. We even increased our competitiveness as the customers are happier with the enhanced usability, performance and security. In turn, new upsell and cross-sales opportunities open up for us.
On the flipside of the evident savings there is a bunch of soft benefits. What I like with Bitrix is that we no longer are so vulnerable to developers leaving the company and taking competence away from our company. We can easily find a replacement from the growing certified Bitrix programmer community or quickly train a qualified PHP developer.

Seems it’s as good as it gets. Any catches here? Anything that you didn’t or don’t like about Bitrix?
Denis, nothing is perfect and I’m glad you brought this up. If I had the chance to go back to 2007 advise myself about what CMS to choose, I would choose Bitrix again with no hesitation. In fact, I would even advise myself to quicken the pace of conversion and stop losing money with the old CMS. There were and there are minor shortcomings I would like Bitrix to address, but none of them are grounds for ITConstruct to switch to another CMS.
In 2007, we had complaints about Bitrix Site Manager’s performance on high-traffic websites, but now we see the software got over this issue and it has indeed become a strong point, demonstrating industry-leading results. Recent testing revealed that Bitrix has improved performance by 430%, making it capable of supporting even the most complex web projects.
We like that Bitrix is in constant contact with partners, considering our feedback and implementing new features. We were very impressed to see the updated product roadmap at the latest partner conference that highlighted a major breakthrough in mobile interfaces and web apps, web clustering, and more features for social networking and e-commerce.



Can you shortlist, say, three of the most important Bitrix initiatives during the past years that contributed your business development?
The most important initiative was the launch of Bitrix Intranet back in 2008. Naturally, this product addresses the fast-growing market of social collaboration inside companies and allows us to diversify the business to a new, high-potential and lucrative niche. We do experience significant interest in this software from our customers and leverage it for cross-sales opportunities.
I also really liked the launching of the Bitrix marketplace. It provides customers with a click-away opportunity to install certified applications and templates, while for partners this is an extra source for recurring revenues and brand awareness.
And of course I cannot ignore the Amber Ergonomics usability concept, which goes beyond a simple nice-looking interface and literally provides a framework for more productive and higher quality web management and development.

Final question. Have you ever thought of adding an open source CMS to your portfolio? For example, for low-end web projects?
No.
Not at all. A couple of months ago I had a spontaneous look at the latest version of Joomla!. This convinced me open source doesn’t fit our business strategy. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Using open source CMS always carries hidden costs and risks. I’m better off spending $100 on the junior edition of Bitrix Site Manager and getting peace of mind knowing that the customer has an easy-to-use, stable and secure website rather than jeopardizing my company’s status of a trusted technology advisor. We are not rich enough to risk our reputation, which is the most valuable asset for business development.

Thank you Roman. And have a nice dinner, while I am going to finish my coffee!
Thanks Denis! Have a nice whatever! smile:)
Photo:

Enterprise Search as a Cornerstone of a Successful Intranet Implementation

So, your organization has finally installed a dazzling intranet, populated it with employee profiles and relevant content. You managed to launch useful social collaboration features, improved business processes, attracted the grassroots and achieved adoption of an impressive array of intranet features among the staff as a whole. However, in a couple of months you may notice that the new things are not as shiny as they were expected to be.

Employees do occasionally use the intranet but still their energy-level is below expectations. Despite the fact the intranet contains all the necessary information employees still rely on the “old good” way of data discovery by asking colleagues and distracting them from their work. Contemporary intranets do have an integrated search option, but is it good enough to make a difference in intranet adoption and bring measurable business value? What features of an intranet search can foster a new approach for internal collaboration?

Naturally, intranet content, structure and features are of minor benefit to an organization if they do not unite information flows. The intranet search solidifies scattered opportunities, bringing them together and inspiring successful intranet communications. The search is the most important safeguard of overall cohesion inside the intranet, solving problems for intranet novices who may otherwise be frustrated during the adoption phase and supporting all users as the most comprehensive information-location tool in the organization.

To fulfill this obligation, the intranet search should provide these three key requirements:
  • Content discovery
    Locate relevant documents and texts (static data)
  • Knowledge discovery
    Locate relevant expertise and knowledge (dynamic data like blogs and forums)
  • Expert discovery
    Find people qualified for solving upcoming issues (social search)

These tasks may seem to be quite simple. Moreover, many intranet solutions declare they do provide such capabilities with fabulous search relevance, speed and security. To get through pure marketing messages and understand the real value of the intranet search, we suggest evaluating the following criteria which apply well-structured taxonomy to the ever-growing amount of intranet data.
  • Intranet-wide coverage
    Intranet search should cover all intranet assets including extranet if present. The must-have list includes blogs, public forums, document storage, announcements, workgroups discussions and knowledge bases including wikis. Ideally, every intranet asset should be indexed and available for search.
  • Cross-content search
    Most intranet search engines index only text data while missing such important assets like document storages, media files, internal social network and user profiles. The cross-content capability provides coverage of the whole range of available data and gives a snapshot of relevant search results. An opportunity to connect third-party file parsers for search in specific formats is an advantage.
  • Morphology, full-text search and social rating
    Intranet search relevance is tightly connected to the linguistic and text processing technologies implemented. Morphology-based full-text search requires more system resources but delivers far better relevance that tremendously simplifies discovery of needed data. Social rating contributes result relevance as it adds extra weight to items with better user ratings.
  • Instant indexing
    Immediate, automatic data indexing makes content searchable right after its submission and speeds up team collaboration. Again, this feature should cover all intranet assets regardless of format.
  • Multi-lingual support
    While small teams may find it sufficient for their intranet search to support English only, larger companies (especially with international branches, freelancers or telecommuters) normally work in multi-lingual environments. The intranet search should at least support easy connection of additional dictionaries and stemming tables.
  • Social search
    This type of intranet search takes into account the user’s social graph (connections, interests, expertise, location, department, etc.). It significantly improves discovery of experts that can assist in completing ongoing tasks by a given employee.
  • Instant tooltips
    Instant tooltips anticipate the search input and display relevant results in various intranet containers like files, announcements, user profiles, blogs, etc. Here is an example of how instant tooltips work in Bitrix Intranet:


    Instant tooltips in Bitrix Intranet x-ray the intranet content and give instant search advice

  • Access permissions
    Intranet search should consider user access rights and only display results that are visible to the given user.
  • Search queries and filters
    For advanced search, users may create complex search queries using query language, inclusion/exclusion masks and logic operators, as well as choose specific intranet sections and apply date filters for highly-targeted search.
  • Tag clouds
    Automatically generated tag clouds are the latest taxonomy service and have gained significant momentum over the past few years. By simply clicking on the most used words in the cloud, a user can quickly jump to the right data or relevant discussion.
  • Availability
    The placement of the search box / tag cloud is one of the major elements affecting intranet usability. Its availability is a top priority in intranet design and it should always be visible to users, as if inviting them to leverage this opportunity. Search boxes normally occupy a position at the top of all, or very nearly all, intranet pages.

In March 2010 Bitrix introduced its new generation enterprise search engine – D.I.G.. We are happy to confirm that it meets nearly all of the requirements mentioned above. However, in the rapidly evolving web technologies market, the sky is the limit. We expect the upcoming release of Bitrix Intranet and Bitrix Site Manager to support social ranking and social search that will complement developing stronger business communities.

Social Collaboration In The Cloud: Paranoia Battles Thrift



Everyone who carefully monitors the mass media landscape in regard to cloud computing may observe a certain contradiction among industry analysts and opinion leaders. In some cases, different research teams within the same organization contradict each other.

In the U.S., optimistic scenarios forecasting a very-soon-to-happen mass conversion to SaaS-based business applications dominate. There is a noticeable background of neutral voices cooling down the euphoria. And sometimes you can hit on a conservative judgment challenging the market predictions with well-grounded observations of the real world. The funny thing is that in Europe things are turned inside out.

Confusing Signals

Gartner consistently trumpets SaaS market growth, forecasting revenues to reach $9bn in 2010, up 15.7% from 2009 and projecting even stronger growth in 2011, with sales totaling $10.7bn, a 16.2% increase from this year. Microsoft’s “SMB IT and Hosted IT Index 2010” echoes the wows, saying 65% of SMBs are using hosted software to some extent, with 73 percent of the remainder considering it.

Forrester questions the SMB market readiness for wide technology adoption, illustrating the point with numbers from the latest “The State of SMB Software and Emerging Trends 2010” survey. It reveals that SaaS is more commonly used by large enterprises, with 57% of SMBs expressing no interest in going to SaaS and only 9% planning to implement it in the next twelve months. IaaS, KaaS, PaaS and the rest of the aaS family inspire even less interest from SMBs. Forrester research of cloud-based storage services confirms “…respondents in all geographies and of all company sizes appear to have little interest in moving their data to the cloud any time soon.”

Pretty contradictory positions, huh?

Real Life Experience

Let me add more incomprehensibility to this discussion. As a developer of WCM and social collaboration solutions both for on-premise and on-demand use, here at Bitrix we don’t see any significant interest in SaaS-based services from SMB customers. Take into account that Bitrix serves 40K+ websites and 1K+ intranets worldwide and is rated No.3 commercial CMS vendor by W3Techs. Interestingly, in the German press, the terms “cloud” and “SaaS” are commonly associated with “overhyped” and “questionable,” especially as applied to security issues.

Gartner says that CCC (content, communications and collaboration) software leads the SaaS market with $2.9bn revenue (27,1%) in 2010, followed by customer relationship management revenue of $2.6bn. No doubt these numbers refer to the enterprise market with just a minor share of SMB. The highly-publicized SMB intentions are still intentions. SaaS-based collaboration is just a talk, so far.


Once Crawfish, Swan and Pike
Set out to pull a loaded cart,
Yet Crawfish scrambled backwards,
Swan strained up skywards, Pike pulled toward the sea.
Who's guilty here and who is right is
not for us to say-
But anyway the cart's still there today.

by Ivan Krylov
Swan, Pike And Crawfish (1814)



Irrationality in Software Strategies

Why is that? The main advantage of cloud computing is significant cost reduction in IT infrastructure implementation and maintenance. Why are SMBs not taking this opportunity to cut IT and especially collaboration costs (which is priority #2 in the SMB software strategies according to Forrester)? Are SMBs aware of the industry analysts’ market predictions that they should start migrating their collaboration tools to the cloud?

Leaving aside the hot discussions happening around this question, I would like to concentrate on a single aspect of the issue. The psychological aspect.

Different estimations say that 30-40% of SMBs are already running collaboration software, most of which is installed on-premise. Only 5-10% don’t have any collaboration tools and are not interested in deploying any. 50-65% organizations are interested and presumably have some plans for adoption.

The first two groups are unlikely to switch to SaaS as it will require significant investments or changes in strategy. The last group is the piece of the pie that SaaS providers are focusing on as the major potential market driver. What are the main obstacles these organizations envision for going SaaS? You may come across many opinions including security, reliability, customization, integration, governance, regulatory compliance and availability. However, looking deeply into the nature of this resistance, you may notice a certain irrational anxiety that comes very close to being a socially acceptable level of paranoia.

I Like To Own It, Own It

People are accustomed to possessing valuable assets. Generally, possessing means you can establish contact with the object, feel it. The common perception is if you can’t touch it, you don’t own it.

Since the day of opening the first online shop, the software industry has been making efforts to dethrone this habit in regard to software products. Even now, software vendors sometimes experience difficulties explaining that application bought online comes without box. Many enterprise customers still insist that software (regardless of its price) be delivered in a box. They need to feel something they bought although it doesn’t bring any additional value, but rather increases costs.

The same practice extends to the way organizations prefer to use collaboration software. Collaboration is a business-critical tool that directly influences business continuity and efficiency. What? You suggest to move my intranet to some cloud some thousand miles away and have some little-known Moogle-shmoogle manage my apps? What if their service gets DDoSed? What if it gets hacked? Are you nuts? This is probably what will be behind a more conservative “No, thank you” answer when you suggest an SMB going SaaS. Ironically, with collaboration software, “owning” means having a dedicated server standing in the next room. A honking cubical thing with tiny blinking green and red lights. That's really weird, isn’t it?

Irrationality Continues

You would say CRM customers never think this way. True. This is probably because of and thanks to Salesforce.com, which made a great market push, nearly eponymizing the term CRM if not with its brand but with the SaaS model for sure. The collaboration market originated in the pure, on-premise form, and this approach took deep roots in our minds.

SaaS vendors provide a reasonable and well-grounded argument demystifying the common perceptions. These vendors commit to better SLAs than most internal IT departments deliver. The vendors hire highly-qualified engineers, install the best hardware, maintain a distributed network of servers with robust protection against DDoS attacks. And they would do anything to protect their reputation. In most cases, they can do the job better than an internal IT team. This is about specialization that drives business efficiency: organizations succeed in a narrow task, doing everything often means doing nothing and delivering no result.

On the other hand, the SaaS model has a crystal clear advantages in reducing IT costs. Deploying collaboration tools in the cloud means organization bears zero capital expenditures anddelivers a lower TCO, superior ROI and reduced AMC. Naturally, here the paranoia meets up with the thrift that whispers to go ahead and get SaaS.

Conclusion

The main obstacle in wide adoption of SaaS-based collaboration is confidence. SaaS providers would need to invest great efforts to break the customers’ comprehension of the verb “to own”. In fact, in this case paranoia is a lack of trust. Trust kills paranoia. The collaboration software vendors are obligated, therefore, to educate the market, foster trust and dispel the common misperceptions. It takes time, but I am sure that in the future, organizations will accept SaaS collaboration as they now accept SaaS CRM or CMS.

NB: This is an extended version of the article published at CMSWire on Jan 3, 2011.

WCM Vendor Lock: Business Continuity Threat or Scaremongering?

Original article is published in CMSWire.



Ask a WCM open source solution provider what the major advantages of their offering is compared to proprietary software and most probably you will get the “vendor lock” argument among the top three points.

Scary movie

This argument addresses a common assumption: if you don’t have the WCM software source code you are exposed to a wide-range of risks associated with the vendor’s strategy and market fluctuations. Naturally, once the vendor gets acquired by another company or changes licensing/product policy or even worse – goes bankrupt, the customer may experience certain difficulties using the software. The multipage EULAs may (and normally do) hide a variety of really jaw-dropping conditions giving the vendor carte blanche for the future product usage and ownership. This may require the customer to switch to another product, leading to extra overheads (acquisition, deployment, integration, maintenance and training). Alternatively, product development may simply be discontinued, leaving the customer with a tough dilemma: stay with outdated software or purchase a new one that, again, leads to certain business overheads and disadvantages.

Another strong argument against proprietary software is the platform dependence. Once you commit to, say, a .NET solution, you will have to purchase a bunch of additional Microsoft technologies to ensure its normal operation: operating system, web server and database to name a few. This might be ok with large enterprises that may already have these technologies up and running. However, smaller businesses may find this burden too expensive to afford. And, again, platform dependence leads to major difficulties when switching IT infrastructure to alternative solutions.

The other side of the story

It is generally held that open source software (FOSS) is free from these drawbacks. And this is something that requires clarification.

FOSS also imposes dependence but in a different way.

Who is going to implement the WCM solution? Either the IT department or a third-party consultant. And definitely the solution will differ from the publicly-available distribution due to specific business requirements. What if the IT guys consider themselves to be underpaid and say good-bye? Or even worse, leave to a competitor with the highly appreciated source code? What if the consultant goes bankrupt, finds more lucrative work or in some other way effectively vanishes from the market? Ok, you can hire a new team or a new consultant. Or apply to the open source community for a help. However, developers tend to say it is much easier to create a system from the scratch than investigate megabytes of software code written by someone else. I am pretty sure that the organization won’t be surprised with overheads in this case.

You see, the “vendor lock” surprisingly transforms into the “solution provider lock”. Now, think what is the probability of such locking risks between an established proprietary software vendor and a third-party consultant? This is rather a rhetorical question that requires further analysis for each case. But you should admit that in general we cannot be sure about either. To summarize, the locking risks are equally present.

Same thing with the platform dependence. FOSS normally relies on certain Linux/Unix distributions and supplementary software with limited opportunities to switch to alternative platforms like Windows or MacOS (never say never!). Of course one can always hire a developer to do some mumbo-jumbo witchcraft with the source code and screw the system on another application. You see the overheads issue raises again?

Any reasonable compromise?

Frankly, I am not arguing for proprietary software. On the contrary I believe that the future of the WCM market is tightly connected with open standards and major switch in software licensing. Is there something that lies between these two commonly adopted models? Something that incorporates their advantages and evens out the disadvantages? Let’s put it this way: can flexibility of FOSS and the assurance of proprietary software coexist?

Over the last few years I have seen a certain trend in the market associated with growing number of software vendors offering a hybrid licensing model. From a commercial perspective it inherits the business model of proprietary software: vendors get money from selling product licenses, not from selling installation and maintenance services adopted in the FOSS market. At the same time, they exercise the FOSS software delivery model making the source code and an open API available to the customers.

To overcome the platform dependence issue and minimize platform switch risks, these vendors provide cross-platform support, making their software equally compatible with major operating systems (Linux/Unix and Windows is a must), web servers (at least Apache and MS IIS), databases (My SQL, MS SQL, Oracle…) and programming environments (PHP, .NET, …). Such flexibility fits the system requirements and the technology adoption readiness of a wide range of organizations from small to large enterprises. Importantly, business applications with hybrid licensing can adapt to the changing technology standards of the organization if for any reason it decides to leave the FOSS camp and go Microsoft/Apple. Ok, you change the IT environment, but continue using the familiar business applications with minimum switching costs.

Why WCM market?

What is so special about the WCM market here? The thing is that the hybrid licensing perfectly fits the market peculiarities and we already see a number of successful vendors committed to this model. There are two major points behind this trend. Firstly, the WCM solutions development cycle is extremely fast and the source code changes rapidly. Secondly, WCM technologies don't pose significant value as they can be easily replicated. It is much easier to develop a certain feature from the scratch rather than investigate a competitor’s source code to find out the actual implementation doesn’t fit the existing software architecture. Technological espionage is simply nonsense here. The competitive advantage is not a matter of simply possessing a certain technology, but being fast enough to implement the feature.

Hybrid licensing fits dynamic markets but can hardly find its place on established or technology-intensive markets. No doubt security vendors will cherish their virus detection and disinfection technologies, protecting them with all possible means including patenting and code obfuscation.

Meanwhile the WCM market intensively adopts the new licensing model. For example, two of three the world’s most popular commercial CMS, Bitrix and ExpressionEngine (according to W3Techs) already provide source code of their products. Interestingly, both emphasize this feature in marketing communications and trust this to be a competitive advantage over purely proprietary software vendors.

Hybrid licensing advantages

Hybrid licensing delivers a number of advantages to the WCM solution providers too. This model evens out the vendor lock issue, while it allows concentration on core business activity, i.e. implementing web projects, not developing and supporting the web platform itself. By default, off-the-shelf software is notable for better usability and a more complete set of features as it is based on thorough market research and constantly developed by specialized teams according in an established software development cycle. Should the customer ask for a very specific feature, the solution provider can take advantage of the source code and API availability inherent to the hybrid license and implement it.

Ok, license fees may seem to be a negative factor increasing the WCM project total cost. However, a closer look reveals the opposite. Thanks to improved employee productivity, solution providers can deliver more projects in the same time and reduce development costs. Importantly, the vendor takes on technical support, assumes development risks, shares the best practices and customer engagement experience, and provides a range of marketing activities that result in extra business opportunities. Organizations exercise better customer satisfaction, contributing to the solution provider’s status as a trusted technology advisor and opening cross-sales opportunities. Is it worth 'saving' the 100 or 200 dollars on a software license for a minor project of 2000 or 3000 dollars and starting from scratch? Unlikely, especially in the light of the long-term advantages for both the client and solution provider of a hybrid license.

Conclusion

In the short-term perspective, the issue of finding a reasonable compromise in software licensing will inevitably come to the foreground. Strong debates around advantages and disadvantages of FOSS and proprietary software is more likely to resemble an uncompromising struggle than a reasonable dialogue. Both camps are steeped in their arguments, which don’t necessarily meet the customers’ real life needs. This face-off gives a green light to the growing popularity of the hybrid licensing, which elegantly combines true software ownership, freedom of choice and assurance.

Useful links
Learn more about hybrid software licensing in WCM market in this white paper.

Social Media vs Intranet: Friend or Foe?



Recently I came across a very interesting article by Gary Flood at Computer Business Review magazine. Although one could get lost in the dozens of similar pieces published around the globe each day, I am really grateful for the social media use cases Gary outlined. Organizations looking for best practices in social media strategies definitely still suffer from the lack of valuable advice for real-life implementations. We are at the dawn of this technology as a valuable marketing tool and there’s never too much of a good thing.

What I didn’t like here is the evident mixing of social media, web 2.0 and intranet technologies. When reading the article, one may think that web 2.0 is social media and social media is about to replace modern intranets.

Wow. Rock’n’roll is dead. E-mail is dead. Web is dead. Intranet is dead. Long live social media? Yes, no, not at all, definitely not, oh, yes!

The direct answer to my title question simply doesn’t exist! Comparing social media to intranets is very much like comparing it to media players or photo editing software. It’s nonsense. You can listen to music there, place or even resize photos, but social media would never replace them. With intranets the discrepancy is even bigger: social media is for communicating with outside people, intranet is about internal communication and collaboration. Would anyone care to talk to their family at home with a speaker installed on the street?

Indeed, intranet is presented like a fifth wheel in this story. So, where’s the rub?

Social media doesn’t equal social networking. The latter term describes much broader range of application including intranets. Social networking is about web 2.0-based relations among people of a given community. I prefer not to use the words ‘open’ or ‘free’ here. Even Facebook and Twitter require registration, which means they connect people of a certain community. An intranet is a community of employees of an organization. Well, I admit this makes it not that easy to join. But again: it is about procedures, not architecture.

Facebook and other social media use social networking for public purposes. Intranets use it for internal purposes. Ergo one cannot replace another.

Look at any contemporary intranet solution: vendors aggressively emphasize on the social dimension of their products putting the social networking features to the frontline of marketing materials. Blogs, forums, wikis, friends, personal profiles, channeled broadcasting and media galleries are just a tip of the iceberg here. Even IBM WebSphere (primarily designed for application integration) and Microsoft SharePoint (designed for document sharing) started feeding the market with ground-breaking news about their products going social. I wonder where they got this process-heavy-static-divisional-boundaries-maintaining intranet mentioned in the article? Is this a sort of dinosaur-era heritage developed some 20 years ago for file sharing? Well, this is definitely NOT an intranet is today’s world.

Looking deeper into the intranet market may reveal that many intranet vendors develop comprehensive web content management systems with a variety of application including websites and online marketing. Guess what is behind Facebook? Right, a custom web content management system. Sorry for a seditious thought but, in fact, Facebook can be considered as a huge social-enabled intranet for everyone to enroll. Anyone care to say it is not?

Here is the summary: social media and intranets will co-exist. And both will heavily rely on social networking.
Photo:

Bitrix Intranet 9.5 Coming Soon

Oh, no I mode no mistakes mentioning "Bitrix Intranet" instead of "Bitrix Intranet Portal" in the blog post title. The upcoming verion 9.5 will have a number of major improvements both in the list of features and market positioning.

Let's start from the beginning.

Previously known as Bitrix Intranet Portal, the new product name better reflects its nature, business benefits and strengthens its position as an SMB-oriented solution. It also avoids the misapprehension of the word “Portal”, commonly associated with expensive enterprise-level ECM systems.

The product also gets a new feature split among editions. Previously it was available in the "Office", "Extranet" and "Enterprise" flavors. The split was based on presence of certain features and didn't reflect the actual technology adoption process and organization readiness for implementing collaboration and communication solution. As a result we were missing a significant part of prospects that are potentially interested in Bitrix Intranet but are not ready to get ahead with the whole range of functionality. Naturally, spending some thousands of dollars for a product that you are going to use for, say, corporate directory is not a good idea.

Bitrix Intranet 9.5 effectively addresses this drawback. The new editions make a start not from actual features but from the implementation process.

Our practice based on many years of Bitrix Intranet Portal confirms that many companies are ready to start with creating a simple information space to give employees a common source of internal information, broadcast corporate values and strengthen the team spirit. For example, maintain a complete list of employees with their contact details and rich profiles; insight into organization structure; advance news and announcements; new employee orientation; receive feedback from employees and launch internal social network.

In fact, this is something that the junior edition of Bitrix Intranet 9.5 called "InfoPace" delivers. Fast installation and minimum implementation risks associated with employee education. And of course a very affordable price of $499. Importantly, the edition doesn't count intranet users thus even 1000 employee profiles would cost the company same $499.

Next in the line is the "TeamSpace" edition. It is targeted at companies looking for a full range of communication and collaboration features to streamline the internal workspace and increase productivity. This edition will replicate the functionality previously available in the "Extranet" edition and have the same price and licensing approach (per named user).

Finally, the "BizSpace" edition - the whole pack of intranet features along with business process management, records management, website integration, and intranet analytics. And again, BizSpace will replicate the old good "Enterprise" edition available in previous versions.

We firmly believe the new product line ensures smooth step-by-step technology adoption according to the organization’s readiness to implement internal communication and collaboration tools.

Now, what's new of the technical side?

1) New look & feel
Bitrix Intranet’s appearance underwent a major reworking and now provides users much better insight into the key intranet functionality. It significantly reduces the learning curve for employees and ensures better workforce performance.


Intranet main page delivers clear insight into the intranet capabilities

2) Extended usability
The Amber Ergonomics concept adds extreme simplicity to the product deployment and management. Click-away editing of content, layout and structure at the front-end lets the organization quickly customize the intranet appearance. The ribbon-style administrative console with an adaptive interface in the back-end enables easy fine tuning of the product.


Editors can easily modify page content, layout and structure at the front-end. The ribbon-style administration console provides shortcuts to the main intranet management tools


User-friendly back-end allows for intranet fine tuning

3) Wiki
Organizations can leverage the advantages of global and workgroup-specific wiki-based knowledge bases extended with a WYSIWYG editor, text versioning and roll-back, immediate indexing and user access-rights management. The feature ensures better team collaboration, information availability and continuity.


Wiki provides a great opportunity to build custom user-defined knowledge bases

4) Instant search
The integrated D.I.G. engine features instant search in the intranet content with real-time search tips. It allows employees to effectively locate people, documents and titles in file storages, discussions and the organization structure. All the changes in intranet content are indexed immediately and users get search results according to their access rights.


Instant search significantly reduces time for data discovery

5) Simplified document management
Employees can replicate all intranet document storages which they use as a single network drive. A single button click makes public, workgroup-specific, and private storages available for work via the user’s local explorer or file manager.


Replicate all assigned intranet storages as a single network drive

Records management allows creation of custom lists for contacts, catalogs and to provide basic CRM functionality. In addition, organizations can apply specific business processes to records with visual constructor, thus automating routine activity and increasing performance. The e-Learning module supports import of training courses in SCORM format for employee certification and orientation.

Regardless of the installed product edition, organizations can easily enable and disable specific functionality or test features of other editions. This doesn’t require painful reinstallation as deployment wizards will gently manage the whole set up process, which normally takes just minutes. Importantly, the trial period is extended to 90 days; allowing a more balanced product experience.

The Bitrix Intranet 9.5 release date is scheduled for November 24th (let's cross fingers!). Registered users can upgrade their installed versions of Bitrix Intranet Portal to the new version. "Office" and "Extranet" edition customers can opt for either "TemaSpace" or "InfoPace" editions. "Enterprise" owners can choose any of the new editions.

You can preview more Bitrix Intranet 9.5 screenshots here.

Intranet Benefits for Human Resource Management



Socially-enabled intranets deliver obvious advantages to a wide range of verticals within an organization. The latest Intranet 2.0 Global Survey from Prescient Digital Media reveals the key business drivers behind Enterprise 2.0 initiatives: knowledge management, employee collaboration, team sites, employee engagement and executive communications. The 2.0 Adoption Council adds some business benefit flavor to this discussion, stating that with intranets organizations are primarily looking for increasing productivity (23%), better employee communication (22%) and corporate culture (16%).

Naturally, business owners can improve decision-making, maximize employee efficiency, monitor performance, implement pervasive business processes and secure knowledge continuity. IT departments can streamline project management, while financial departments experience better business visibility and accountability with collaboration tools.

However, this whole debate misses one important vertical that is unfairly left aside despite the fact it is or could be very interested in implementing intranet solutions. Yes, I am talking about HR managers who are constantly looking for new ways to improve internal communications, spread corporate culture and convert alienated employees into a highly-motivated and solid body deeply involved in business development.

However, with HR managers we see an obvious controversy. On the one hand it is difficult to refute the fact they are potentially interested in social intranets. Practice shows that they do play a major role in this process in large enterprises as no large scale implementation goes on without their involvement. On the other hand, HR teams in smaller organizations are still reluctant in this area. But what is the most surprising in both cases, HR departments never or rarely initiate the intranet implementation process.

One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the nature of intranet solutions. What is the first thing that comes to your mind about intranet benefits? If you’re an intranet professional it doesn’t count. This is a basically a rhetorical question. But you should admit that presently intranets are mainly perceived as providing collaboration or a knowledge hub which is again about collaboration. The industry constantly contributes to the market repositioning and strongly pushes the idea that intranets deliver much more than just collaboration. However, changing the impression of outsiders is, by definition, a slow-moving process.

Consequently, HR departments don’t pay much attention to intranets and the industry misses a very important ally in technology adoption. In an ideal world, HR would be an effective, even a common, entry point for an intranet vendor to start communicating within an organization. HR managers simply need the right reasoning that addresses their core needs.

Let’s have a closer look at what tools HR managers could be interested in and what benefits will they have.

A manager with even the keenest eye for hiring doesn't solve all of the company’s problems at that early stage. Experience in personnel management shows that it isn’t enough simply to hire the best – it is no less important to create an environment conducive to productive work. The socially-enabled intranet goes far beyond the traditional collaboration.

The job of creating a team from a diverse group of specialists is a cornerstone of modern business. From HR’s point of view, this duty can be broken down into the following major parts:

  • Build communications among staff, give them convenient communication tools
  • Monitor the level of corporate culture, promote corporate patriotism and raise non-material motivation of staff
  • Provide an easy orientation pathway for new people on the team, give them necessary training and education


Let’s outline basic HR scenarios leveraging an enterprise intranet and show what benefits are delivered.

Intranet as a team member

To begin with, the HR manager can really think of the intranet as an employee in his department. First, the intranet needs to be taught – familiarized with daily routines, information about employee duties, and, perhaps, how to automate some of them. This ‘training period’ quickly pays off, as it will no longer necessary to tell employees individually how to arrange their next holiday or to explain how a recent paycheck was calculated.

Empirically speaking, the intranet reduces staffing costs in the HR department via the reduction of time HR staff spends advising personnel concerning routine activities, allowing them to concentrate on solving higher value tasks, such as screening new hires or enhancing corporate culture.

In practice, the intranet portal allows automation of all the typical scenarios of interaction between the HR department and employees. To arrange a business trip - fill in the ready-made form; to take a couple of days off – just sign the template of the pre-made declaration and it is sent automatically. Of course, sometimes staff will have to give individual attention to employee issues, but in most cases, enough information and interaction will be provided through the intranet – a fact that will delight HR, as well as other departments.

Intranet as a time machine

The work of the HR department is not only to serve the needs of employees, but also, where possible, to increase their productivity. It is important to teach the staff the basics of time management.

Let’s illustrate the topic with a simple example. Imagine a hair salon with one stylist and two clients who walk in at the same time - a young man who has just joined the military (a 10-minute job) and women who wants a perm (2 hours). The work at hand will take 2 hours and 10 minutes in any case, from the point of view of the stylist. But for the clients, the order in which service is provided will determine whether someone has to wait 10 minutes or 2 hours.

Many similar, though much more subtle, scenarios occur in any organization. Hours can be spent waiting for an answer to an urgent message when in fact the recipient is in a meeting with an important client. It is therefore essential that staff be informed about each other's schedules, vacations, sick leave, etc.

Intranets normally have a set of ready functions for time management. Sharing and synchronization among the company’s primary calendar, individual and group calendars, and Microsoft Outlook allow employees to see the activity of their colleagues in real time and properly plan operations.

It is equally important that the intranet not only gather information, but also allow analysis. With a few clicks, HR managers can have an idea of how much time staff spends at their desks, in meetings, on business trips, etc. Ultimately, a better understanding of time usage allows more efficient business processes to be developed without forcing the company to make any significant financial investments.

Intranet as a conductor of corporate ideas

A company can be thought of as a small, independent state. It has its own symbols, boundaries, and authority, and it is governed by its management staff. Like any state, the company creates rules for its citizens (employees), thus forming its own corporate culture. In this context, the task of human resources is to raise company spirit among employees, making them true patriots.

The Intranet can perform very important roles in this capacity, even being the primary tool for building corporate culture. Experience shows that if employees go to the intranet at least once a day, you can be sure that the news on the front page will not be overlooked. Using the intranet, it is easy to convey any information to all employees, even without an exact list of names and even if they themselves are never gathered in a single place.

Corporate culture can be advanced through the intranet in a number of ways. First, basic information about the company - its history, mission and major accomplishments can be posted and available to everyone. This provides a common framework for understanding the company and its evolution among staff. The intranet is also the ideal media for periodic content: corporate news, analytical materials and press articles. A highly effective tool in this vein is a blog kept by company management, which reduces the distance between the top and staff, increasing the motivation and involvement of the latter.

Finally, placing photos and videos on the intranet from the latest corporate parties, events or examples of amateur talent is a great team-builder. Viewing such material perhaps takes some amount of time, but the contribution to warmer internal relations is worth it.

At the same time, it would be a huge mistake to think of the intranet’s role in building corporate culture only as an online bulletin board, because it not only conveys information from management but also provides feedback. Mechanisms such as surveys and polls, web forms, Q&A to top management or an anonymous ‘drop box’ for objective (or objectionable) feedback helps to track the mood of the team and assess the overall level of satisfaction. In guiding a large organization, these opportunities are particularly valuable because they allow full-throated communications with the entire spectrum of employees, bypassing the "food chain" of managers and middle management.

Intranet as a school of new skills

In an era of rapid staff turnover, it is not only important to attract great employees, but also to bring them up to speed in operations as quickly as possible. As a rule, even an experienced employee requires a few months to reach the normal level of productivity. Given that 2 or 3 years is commonly the period that an employee stays in a given position, the cost of orientation and adaptation are quite significant.

When joining a company, new employees must first get acquainted with its structure, collect the contact information of colleagues, and get familiar with frequently used documents. At this time, distracting their neighbors in the office by asking them purely background questions about telephone numbers, details, location of files and supplies or the names of the right people is inevitable. Communication of this kind cannot be called effective, which is why the placement of all background information on the intranet is such a big time-saver.

For example, one of the primary functions of the intranet is keeping a company structure and directory of staff with full profiles and photos. A visual presentation of the company structure which shows the hierarchy of the company by division with department heads can significantly contribute to completing this important task.

Taking this concept further, special ‘instruction kits’ can be crafted within each department of the company. This approach not only quickens the breaking in period for new employees, but is also invaluable to company veterans as a store of corporate knowledge. Ultimately, operations and communications among employees become smoother and more transparent to management.

Intranet as an internal social network

Social networking, which is considered to be one of the most significant innovations in Internet usage in recent years, has often been reckoned an enemy of the HR department. This is understandable, as staff sitting on Facebook during working hours is generally undesirable. However, a simple and total banning of such sites would ignore the clear advantages which they can bring when used properly.

A corporate social network softens the formal boundaries between employees, making staff more cohesive and motivated. In fact, what the network effectively does is add a new level – a new playing field – on which issues of personnel management can be dealt with, from standard operations to launching corporation-wide initiatives.

Note that in addition to uniting employees, a social network brings direct benefits to a company's development. Tools such as forums and internal discussions combine the knowledge and insight from all parts of the company. Employees who do not know each other or do not interact in the normal course of operations have the opportunity to exchange experiences and identify areas to improve efficiency. This distinctly organic approach brings more minds to problem-solving efforts, so that complex problems can be broken down more quickly and smoothly to their basic elements and then resolved.

Conclusion

Despite the multi-functionality and vast potential of the intranet, it is not a magic wand, which can be brought about highly efficient employee interactions in the company overnight. For best results, each facet of the intranet should be properly ‘installed’ into the routine of the company. At first, that means that the HR manager is tasked with preparing the system for typical work scenarios and then promote the use of the intranet among workers, proving its usefulness and maintaining relevant content.

It should not be overlooked that building an ‘HR-brand’ in the company and accomplishing full employee engagement is a complex process, requiring significant inputs from management. Left to itself, the intranet will not raise the level of satisfaction among personnel beyond certain technical capabilities like convenient file sharing – it must be used in conjunction with other means of forming a social, informational, cultural and physical environment that motivates employees and achieves high-level engagement.

Summarizing, I strongly believe that the successful intranet market development and technology adoption among customers depends on the right messages delivered to the right audiences. We should change the common attitude of presenting intranets as collaboration or communication or whatever tool. The market needs focus on practical application and benefits to certain groups of decision makers. And HR managers should be taken into account as one of the most important ally in this process.

Social Media Kills Search Engine Relevance

A recent post from Forrester’s senior analyst Augie Ray made me think there is something wrong going on in the social media field that really threatens search engine performance and web information discovery in general.

Ok, here is the story. On Oct 13, Bing announced that it has added the Facebook “likes” in the search results formula. Good news. At first glance it seems this feature does extend the result relevance. Naturally, the more people who “liked” the website, the better it matches the user expectations. However, “what’s in a like?” Do people cast their vote because they really recommend the website? Or is there something that makes them press the obtrusive button?

Certainly there is. And Bing is, again, a good example. The company was seen offering the FarmVille players free units for friending it in Facebook, resulting in 400,000 new fans (sic!) in a single day. I doubt they really use Bing for searching purposes. A certain part of them just wanted to get their units and Google for other freebies to trade their “likes” for. Too late. The search relevance landscape is distorted as Bing itself delivers incorrect results against their competitors.

The search industry is at the threshold of tightly merging with social media. There is no chance of escaping the necessity to include a “likes”-like advisory. At the same time, “likes” are much devalued and in such a raw form cannot be considered to be contributing more relevance to the search results. There is no clear connection between the quantity and quality of “likes” a user casts and the user’s rating. Rephrasing George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, presently “all likes are equal” and it should switch to “some likes are more equal than others” to make social media a true contributor to the search engines.

Will Google, Yahoo and Ask follow Bing’s initiative? I am pretty sure they will. But not in that clumsy manner that encourages questionable social-media SEO strategies. No search engine is interested in impairing result relevance, as this is something that differentiates them from competitors and leads to user engagement. In fact, the same thing happened at the dawn of the modern web, when buying external links to increase website ranking was declared illegal. Shall search engines ban “likes” rewarding? Both hands up for it. At the same time, search engines shall also develop certain techniques for “like” assessment and user analysis to avoid distortion of the relevance landscape.

Let’s leave aside the relevance issue. Ok, a company invested some money in social media “likes”, got an army of followers and increased its search engine ranking. Very good. Will this contribute productively to business development? In a short-term it will certainly drive more traffic to the website. But in my opinion, this shortsighted strategy will inevitably lead to reputation damage and significant negativity simply because the company is delivering the wrong message to the wrong audience and fueling unmet expectations and disappointment among users. When proceeding to a top-ranked website, users expect the highest relevance, not a 'like'-pumped rating reflecting social media investments. It is much better to have a small but solid group of convinced followers than a bunch of freebie hunters devaluating the company’s image. Generally in marketing, the end justifies the means, but in this case such companies operate with shortsighted ends and questionable means.

No doubt time shall pass till people understand the real value of their “likes” and start respecting their own recommendations. Search engines must be in the forefront of this process of educating users. The Bing-style careless inclusion of social media advisories may spoil the whole thing and damage the web community’s confidence in search result relevance. It can at least be called a setback. However, I am pretty sure in the nearest future we will see new technologies that address this challenge.

The Soft Benefits of Intranet


Many companies involved in development and deployment of information systems, including intranet portals, are still making the same mistake over and over again. While striving for innovations and technology, they forget about the customer’s fundamental needs. Most customers have no particular desire to know about the technology or standards a developer utilizes in their products. The two questions of the greatest concern for a client are obviously how much the system will cost and what the return on investment will be.

These two questions have been under discussion for years concerning most types of software products. The stumbling block is usually the lack of agreement concerning the methodology of measurement of financial indicators. Indeed, this should be expected, since every single implementation of an IT system occurs in a unique business and IT environment.

The intranet market did not escape this difficulty. In fact, dissent in this sector is possibly even more discordant than in others, given the multifaceted nature of the product. Just as a brief example, portal vendors prefer to rely on empirical conclusions, speculating quite reasonably that efficiency brings financial benefit. This implies an ‘ideal customer’ who will indeed benefit from all the features included. Customers driven by the urgent need to solve one or two issues may end up comparing highly disparate products, like a point solution and a full-featured portal, overlooking quite a lot of real value in the process.

At Bitrix we developed an online tool that allows to calculate the two principal financial indicators of an intranet project: TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) and ROI (Return on Investment). The calculation is based on key input indicators (number of intranet users, average salary, staff upkeep and turnover, discount rate, working days, time savings) with an opportunity to enable implementation risks. A sample calculation reveals that a company of 100 users can return the intranet investments within just one year if every employee saves just some 1,5 minute per day (sic!) thanks to the improved internal collaboration and communication.

Anyway, the hard benefits of intranet are not something I want to talk about here. Let’s concentrate on the soft benefits – basically immeasurable or hardly measurable intranet advantages that bolster the business performance in a rather concealed way.

Back in 2001, analysts used to compare intranets with telephony and described the efficiency of the technology as so obvious that it did not requiring any ROI calculation. Let’s have a look at a selection of case studies to demonstrate possible methods of measuring investment return from the implementation of an intranet portal. These examples are indeed specific and should not be considered a recipe; however, the case studies will help in obtaining a proper understanding of intranet portal economics and formalize the principles of ROI.

Consolidation of Data and Corporate Services
The major and the most obvious advantage of an intranet portal is the concentration of data and services. Ideally, a portal becomes a single point of access for all company employees, enabling them with access any information they need and thereby increasing the availability of information and decreasing time and monetary expenses spent on corporate service and management.

Unilever Corporation, a giant in world-wide food, personal care and household goods manufacturing, crossed this bridge back in the late 1990s (Information Week, Intranet ROI, Leap of Faith) when the corporation introduced an intranet solution throughout its entire infrastructure of 300 branches in 88 countries. As the corporation’s management highlighted, ROI was not of particular interest to anyone because the intranet applications obviously boosted information flows and brought efficiency of business processes to a new level.

However, for one division of Unilever, a substantiating ROI appeared in the modification of a single business activity. Having concentrated business information in the portal, Unilever’s Global Buying Service learned that the corporation’s various business units purchased the same goods from the same suppliers independently. The consolidation of such purchases resulted in significant volume discounts.

Sometimes, better transparency of data can reduce expenses seemingly unrelated to the use of an intranet portal. A curious example of this kind took place at one of the European medical center (Martin White, Intranet Focus). The organization kept a medical recommendation database spread over many folders. After implementing a contextual search engine, the medical center started saving $1,000,000 annually on insurance because doctors were able to find the relevant recommendations and implement them effectively.

Electronic Workflow as a Red Tape Killer
The implementation of an intranet portal is one of the major milestones in the transition to fully-electronic workflow. Digital documentation not only saves time but also eliminates printing and mailing expenses.

Bill Diekmann, the IT Director of Cupertino Electric, asserts that investment in the intranet portal was recouped entirely from savings on snail mail (Intranet Blog Connections, Your Intranet as a Cost Savings Tool). “We have over 1,000 employees but only 300 of them are in the headquarters. We used to file paper forms manually and dispatch them to other offices by mail. Any change to the forms required that we send them again. The portal has eliminated these expenses because all the documentation is now updated automatically”, Diekmann said.

Efficient Communications and Knowledge Management
Efficient communications are indeed one of the basic purposes of the introduction of an intranet portal, the latter being the means of communication to help the employees increase efficiency of their work.

A brilliant example to demonstrate efficient communications is the Eureka portal introduced by Xerox (The Eureka! Moment at Xerox). Eureka’s purpose is to form a uniform interface for sharing Xerox’ engineers’ knowledge worldwide. Before its introduction, Xerox utilized a one-way technical information database without interactive data exchange capabilities that didn’t allow adding of new technical details or comment ‘threads’.

According to Xerox, the result of Eureka’s introduction has surpassed all expectations. For example, the system helped to process over 350,000 technical support requests and save over $15,000,000 simply through proper and timely decision-making in 2001.

Extranet and Quality of Service Issues
In a number of cases, an intranet portal can be equipped with an interface to interact with third parties (extranet). When used properly, the extranet can increase the level of satisfaction of clients and contractors, accelerate interaction and make the external request response quicker.

A good example of an economically sound extranet is a client portal developed by Ketchum (Plumtree, META Publish ROI Study of Ketchum myKGN Portal). According to an independent estimation provided by META Group, the innovative client-oriented environment increases the Ketchum’s turnover by 0.5% to 5% annually. An average of those numbers produces an absolute increase of several million dollars annually directly attributable to the extranet solution.

Conclusion
Despite skepticism some analysts may express, calculating economic metrics for an intranet portal is not unfeasible. Such evaluations do not indeed account for the whole range of advancements the introduction of the portal may bring. However, even the tip of the iceberg provides conclusive evidence in this case.

The latest “Intranet 2.0 Global Study” from Prescient Digital Media reveals that only 11% of organizations actually do measure the intranet financial indicators while 89% trust the efficiency of the technology as so obvious that it did not requiring any sort of estimation.

The latter statement has fairly serious logic behind it. On the cost side, intranet portal implementation is relatively small on a company-wide scale. On the return side, an effective intranet portal affects the daily routine of every employee and thus becomes the platform for nearly all operations. Therefore, even if only a small increase of efficiency is achieved, the very large amount of business performed using the portal propels the theoretical ROI to a level beyond question.

Common Perceptions about Intranets



I spent last week on a business trip to several European countries meeting partners, customers and the press, all of which gave me an extremely valuable feedback from the market. It even made me think that in some cases, vendors of intranet solutions are a long way away from real life.

The most important finding I made was that there is no such thing as intranet solutions market in Europe. When people hear the word ‘intranet’, they normally think of some expensive, customized, difficult-to-maintain system affordable only by large enterprises. They can hardly imagine that an intranet can be out-of-the-box, require a minimum assistance, and cost less than 3,000 Euro. And in no way it can meet the basic requirements of small and medium-sized businesses.

It may sound weird, but I’ve found that selling intranets to SMBs should in no way be based on actually selling an intranet solution. Such companies are pretty much scared by the marketing activity coming from Big Boys like IBM, SAP and Oracle. They don’t understand those messages and automatically associate everything coming from these sources as … yes, “expensive, customized and difficult to maintain”.

Another antagonist in this story is Microsoft SharePoint, as the company did quite a bit to promote this product as a more affordable and user-friendly solution applicable for smaller organizations. However, the result is the same. The market is full of stories about failed SharePoint implementations that totally contradict the blooming picture that comes to mind when reading the numerous success stories. I readily confirm that there are successful implementations, but they are not very common in the SMB sector. You can read more about the bad turn Microsoft does to the intranet market in my recent blog post SharePoint Holds Back the Intranet Market Development for SMBs.

‘Intranet’ is basically a nuisance for SMBs that are looking for cost-effective collaboration and communication solution containing ready-made tools that can self-prove their value in real-life tasks. I’ve found that it is much easier to tell prospects about the nature of the intranet product by starting with common tasks it addresses.

Here are a couple of examples that really work.

Even a small organization with up to 50 people may experience certain difficulties delivering corporate values, news and announcements to the personnel. Employees may find it difficult to get to know new colleagues or track recent appointments. At the same time, these new employees lack a well-established process of orientation in their new environment. This is where an intranet comes in with rich employee profiles, a directory of official documents, news feeds and much more.

Not satisfied with accumulating knowledge in data silos like network storages, local drives and e-mail boxes? It’s really disturbing to know that if you fire a person, the knowledge accumulated on his or her computer is likely to leave the company, too. Data dispersion and legacy communication channels also restrict project and task management, limiting business transparency and performance monitoring. Again, an intranet solution comes to the rescue with internal and external workgroups containing dedicated and searchable file storages, discussion boards, reports and tasks.

Synchronizing people and departments is another task that brings certain benefits to an organization. However, it requires an Exchange server (or whatever third-party software) for centralized management of calendars. An intranet solution contains private and public calendars, an absence chart, scheduling resolution, task notifications, meeting room reservation and much more, all without need of maintaining a software zoo for each business task.

SMBs are in need of very clear messages about the product functionality. They can easily get turned off by pompous descriptions that in many cases contradict their expectations and reflects the reality with certain (*) references and limitations.

Tell them your intranet solution can automate workflow with a business process modeler. That they can simplify internal communications with an integrated instant messenger and video conferencing; work efficiently with partners and freelancers in extranet workgroups Anything that addresses SMBs common needs. And please refrain from foggy promises to increase business performance, consolidation of a collaborative environment or to improve business decision making. And in no way jungle acronyms like ECM or WCM if you don’t want your sales guys to be asked out.

There is a very important question left.

Yes, ‘intranet’ inherits certain perceptions. Shall we rename Bitrix Intranet Portal then? smile:)

Advantages of merging the internet, intranet and extranet WCM layers



Recently I came across a very interesting discussion in the Intranet Professionals group on LinkedIn where Margaret Pinchen, intranet manager at AB SKF, investigated the advantages of moving web communications tools to a single platform instead of using different solutions for website management and intranet.

The conclusions would seem to be obvious. Surely there are a number of obvious advantages, which come with a single platform running the organization’s web applications. However, the main issue here is the choosing the proper platform, one that is capable of covering the whole range of requirements and natively designed for interlayer communications. Otherwise, the organization can face serious integration difficulties and reduce the chances of a successful platform implementation.

Intranet solutions currently on the market can be divided into two parts: the ones targeting solely intranets (for example, Intranet Connections, Orchidnet, and Interact) and the ones that are a part of a more comprehensive content management platform (like Bitrix, Sitecore, and Ektron).

The latter solutions primarily originate from the CMS market. The vendors started their businesses delivering customers website management systems and have since expanded their portfolio with customized products for launching corporate intranets/extranets. These products are normally built on the same content management engine and generally are a ready-made solution with pre-set structures and services adjusted for internal use.

The intranet-specific products, on the other hand, were designed with a single purpose: to provide effective tools for internal collaboration and communications. They feature some integration capabilities like connectors with legacy software (ERP, CRM, PLM, etc.) and are powered with documented API’s for integration with other third-party applications. But unlike platform-based solutions, integration is more like an option, rather than a ready-to-go function. Most importantly, these products are not specifically tailored for website management systems. Organizations still needed to develop interaction pathways between these layers, which seems to be quite a difficult task.

When developing intranet solutions, the platform vendors were initially targeting tight integration between the layers. Integration was not just an add-on for customers but a major selling point, differentiating them in the field of competition. For example, the Site Controller module in Bitrix products allows launching of pervasive business processes encompassing the internet and intranet layers and enabling organizations to publish content automatically on their websites directly from their intranet after the content is approved by the parties involved. It also enables connection of remote offices and introduces an enterprise-wide content policy.

There are a number of additional benefits to be gained by use of a single platform solution as opposed to using niche intranet solution.

Security
A platform introduces a single security policy that smoothes out the fabric of all web applications and brings more usability to the environment. Single sign-on, user access management, anti-* (anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-hacker) tools tremendously simplify and improve the protection and integrity level of the all-in-one solution. At the same time, even a tightly integrated intranet-specific product may experience certain security gaps like accidental content exposure and cross-application user permissions. These issues require the development of inter-layer security measures, which is a very challenging task with lots of rocks below the surface.

Manageability
A centralized administration console and unified backend allows orchestration of internet, intranet and extranet layers from a single location. This significantly reduces the probability of errors, supplies more management options (like unified business processes) and avoids extra expenses in the product integration process.

TCO/ROI
While it is hard to estimate the exact numbers of the key financial indicators of both approaches, it’s quite obvious that with a platform the organization escapes a number of extra expenses associated with integration, management, maintenance and training. Without doubt a platform entails less risk and provides better business continuity and sustainability.

Support
With various products responsible for website management and intranet, an organization may experience difficulties getting quality technical support. Custom integration will inevitably lead to certain incompatibility issues that will require assistance from the vendors. The platform-based approach provides a single support source with a greater chance for successful problem-solving.

Learning curve
A single platform provides the organization with common application management practices. Content editors, system administrators, security specialists and users no longer require specific knowledge to operate in internet, intranet and extranet layers. The unified interface features the same usability experience and requires no additional staff training.

The scope of advantages of the platform-based intranets make a convincing case that the future of the evolving Enterprise 2.0 market lies in the area of comprehensive content management solutions. Solutions capable of providing organizations with a comprehensive business communication system bridging them with customers, partners and employees. While a side-by-side comparison of product features between platforms and intranet-specific products may not reveal this very important point, implementation will reveal that platforms have the flexibility to create robust, all-in-one solutions, leading to better business results.

Study: Do Customers Care About Intranet Design?

With lots of buzz surrounding intranet design, Bitrix decided to conduct a quick survey among its customers and determine their real-life preferences. We polled 32 organizations ranging from 100 to 2000 users and got rather interesting results.

The direct answer to this post’s title is that they certainly do. The unexpected thing is that they do it in a very specific manner.

It would seem that the larger an organization is, the more likely it is to launch a custom intranet design addressing its requirements in terms of usability, driving user engagement, and fitting specific business needs. However, only two (sic!) respondents said they decided to implement a custom design according to their corporate guidelines while others were satisfied with the ready-made templates and only leveraged the opportunity to make a basic customization by inserting their logos, slogans and color schemes.



This fact clearly illustrates that small and medium-sized businesses concentrate on core intranet features. They do count every dollar invested in the solution and don’t worry too much how the intranet appearance may contribute to the business performance. They are unlikely to bother themselves with how the opening page looks, whether it should be scrolled down or not, or whether the intranet meets adopted design guidelines.

In our experience, SMBs start with basic features like document sharing, internal communications, workgroup collaboration, time planning and calendaring. Later they expand their intranet practice with step-by-step adoption of more features, but they rarely care about the design! One of the respondents told me privately that since the intranet is for internal purposes it doesn’t need to be better than it is – there are no customers to attract. What SMBs need is to accomplish internal tasks in a way that brings real value to the business.

Intranet as a Driver for Business Process Automation in SMB



Modern intranet solutions have grown far beyond being just simple collaboration and communication tools. However, the sector itself is still too young to have developed a hard-and-fast list of obligatory features, and vendors are actively expanding their functionality by introducing more task-oriented tools.

In fact, the industry is moving towards adopting the full range of features to provide customers a self-sufficient platform for internal work. Ideally, an intranet should serve as a universal interface with a full range of capabilities necessary to solve business-critical tasks.

The latest trend in intranet development is powering the products with handy tools for business process automation (BPA). At first glance, including this feature may appear to be misguided. Large enterprises normally use legacy tools like Oracle BPM Suite, Microsoft BizTalk, or IBM WebSphere Process Server to connect various applications and services with business processes. Intranet-specific BPA can hardly replace these tools as the enterprise IT environment requirements overwhelms the functionality of intranets.

The SMB case is different. The problem is that SMBs can hardly figure out how to benefit from BPA. There is a common perception about business processes in the SMB market. Many organizations believe that no software can really handle this duty adequately, and if it can, it would be so complicated and expensive as to make it untenable. Both assumptions are no more than misperceptions inherited from the “good old times” of pricey customized intranets for large enterprises.

But at the same time, implementing prevalent business processes inside the intranet allows SMBs comprehensive monitoring of employee performance, streamlining of workflow to a single platform, and better business visibility and transparency. What is important is that it doesn’t entail extra expenses for additional software acquisition and maintenance.

Properly automated business processes give any organization a number of business advantages. They save employees time and thus increase their productivity; they let you orchestrate internal activity and control task performance; and they unify scattered collaborative efforts and communication tools, transforming them into a solid and interlinked system.

BPA works as a superstructure covering intranet activity and synchronizing people, teams and tasks. Imagine the common task of invoice payment. Usually the procedure starts with printing the invoice, followed by filling out a payment request, getting a number of signatures, passing it over to the financial department and poking the responsible people to get feedback. Quite familiar isn’t it? And of course boring, and rather distracting for employees with more critical business tasks. Most importantly, one should always keep an eye on the process so as not to let it stall.

With intranet intranet BPA in place, this procedure transforms into a single action. The employee simply invokes a ready-made workflow template that does the rest in fully automatic mode. It gathers the necessary approvals, sends notifications, lets you monitor the payment process at any stage and maintains a record for each and every action for future references. Moreover, one can easily alter the business process template with a construction kit to insert additional actions like sending outstanding job reminders or involving other people.

The same approach can be applied to virtually any routine activity such as acquaintance with or approval of a document, requesting a vacation or technical support, implementing specific tasks or reporting.

There are a number of stand-alone BPA suites (like Magic Software’s iBOLT, Automation Anywhere Server and Network Automation’s AutoMate) but only a few BPA-enabled intranets. An illustrative example of business process automation can be found in the Bitrix Intranet Portal. It is much easier and user-friendly than SharePoint as the product comes with a set of pre-installed templates and a construction kit to develop custom processes with simple drag-and-drop actions. A business process can be initiated both for documents and for routine activities, while responsible persons can monitor the progress and receive notifications. No less important is that the feature requires no specialized skills and can be handled by people with just basic experience in computers.

I firmly believe that BPA will become an essential part of SMB-oriented intranet solutions. This is a major technology that allows organizations to put internal interaction under control and synchronize people and departments. As a result, operations become a well-oiled machine with smoother transitions, faster feedback and better-informed decisions.

Crossing the Cloud: a Way to Survive In the Evolving Enterprise 2.0 Market



Back in the end of 1990s, I witnessed an extremely interesting metamorphosis in the anti-virus market. The way the things happened would have been perfect for inclusion in Rick Chapman’s “In Search Of Stupidity” bestseller. A dominant player in a European country which held as much as 90% of the market lost its position to a minor competitor in only two years.

What was the reason for such a total transformation on a more or less mature market? While many opinions were expressed by the market analysts, they have at least one thing in common: the company was too reluctant in covering new operating systems. While it was stuck in the old DOS-era mind frame similar to the “640K ought to be enough for anybody” attitude (often misattributed to Bill Gates), the competitor started to actively expand on Windows and Unix platforms.

Despite the evident market signals, the company continued to insist on the self-sufficiency of the DOS version. As a result, it has lost the time needed to deliver the high-demand version of its anti-virus to the market, while the competitor was successfully converting customers. Later, the Windows and Unix versions were ready but crucial time had already passed. Now the company controls not more than 10% of the national market as is desperately trying to make ends meet.

Similar things are happening now with regard to virtualization technologies. Virtual environments have become a major trend for deploying cost-effective solutions. Gartner recently estimated that 23% of the installed applications are running in virtual machines while this number will grow to 48% in 2012. IDC reported that 18.2% of all new servers shipped in the fourth quarter of 2009 were virtualized.

The flexibility in supporting this environment clearly corresponds with the software readiness to work in corporate frameworks. Very much like supporting various operating systems in the past, the more platforms you cover, the wider market coverage you have. Failing to cope with this challenge may result in losing the market just as in the example above.

In fact, the term ‘cross-platform’ has apparently transformed into ‘cross-cloud’, illustrating a software product’s operability in different virtualization environments and therefore its ability to cover new markets.

With many virtualization platforms around (but a few dominating the market) it is quite difficult to develop dedicated versions for each. There is too much hassle in converting the distributions, testing the compatibility and properly configuring the settings.

However, there is an elegant solution how a product can kill two birds with one stone, finding the balance between compatibility and productivity.

Let me share the Bitrix experience. The company has recently launched its Cloud initiative to deliver an intranet experience using a SaaS model. When evaluating the market opportunities, we decided to split the technical side of ‘cross-cloud’ support into two parts.

Firstly, native support for the major environments was developed. The company released dedicated versions of the software for VMware and Parallels technologies. The virtual machines for these platforms come with a pre-set configuration that enables the solutions’ maximum performance and security.

What about other platforms including Xen, Hyper-V and OpenVZ? Maintaining dedicated versions of Bitrix Intranet Portal for the whole list of environments causes too much trouble and requires significant development investments. At the same time, the market landscape is pretty mixed as hosting providers use different platforms to deliver services to the end-users.

In response, the company crafted a specially-designed RPM-distribution kit, which contains all the necessary software and an installation script. Thus, a host can easily initiate a Virtual Private Server (VPS) on-demand and launch a fully configured and optimized Enterprise 2.0 solution in a snap. The RPM kit is based on CentOS Linux, which is compatible with the vast majority of virtualization environments including Microsoft’s Hyper-V (as a guest OS).

I firmly believe that cross-cloud support will become a major technology trend in the evolving Enterprise 2.0 market. Intranets are now at the threshold of mass adoption with many small businesses preferring to use them in the Cloud. With this option, they can save up to 80% of implementation costs and avoid extra maintenance expenses. Importantly, cloud deployment minimizes concurrent risks of system downtime, data breach and data loss, as these issues are managed by the service/hosting provider.

Enterprise 2.0: securing the un-securable



Social tools in the enterprise environment can basically be divided into two categories: internal and external.

Socially-enabled intranets bring organizations a plethora of advantages for unleashing the power of creative communities, capitalizing on the social dimension of employees and as a result improve their market position, offering products which better reflect market demand.

By using external social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, the Two-Point-0’ed enterprise enjoys better interaction with opinion leaders, prospects and the entire community, increasing sales and getting valuable feedback.

There will always be the difficulty of finding a balance between business opportunities and the accompanying threats that arise with each step in making the enterprise more social. Intranet security issues are normally solved in the process of software implementation. The case with external social media tools is much different.

The cornerstone of an effective security strategy is based on a simple approach: disable everything and then enable selected services. Each service should be carefully evaluated as an integral part of the enterprise-wide security policy. In other words, the service must be evaluated in connection with other available services to understand the possible drawbacks which could later to be introduced in general security. In fact, this process reminds me of combinatorial analysis with generic summary and development of a general security policy.

Each new social media opportunity entails a plethora of security issues that can lead to serious threat to enterprise security. The nature of social media-borne viruses, hacker attacks, spam, application vulnerabilities and malicious social engineering is a bit different and requires a major adjustment of the security policy. The most important points include:
  • Web filtering
    Adopt social media traffic filtering to block specific malware and hacking techniques
  • Patch management
    Track social media-specific vulnerabilities and update the patch management policy with appropriate measures to keep external social applications free from security drawbacks
  • Service compliance
    Carefully evaluate the weak points of external social media tools with other web services used in the company to avoid blended attacks
  • Code of behavior
    Develop an enterprise–wide social media policy to avoid unintended data disclosure or damage to the organization’s reputation
  • Training
    Educate employees about the common security threats they can encounter with when using social media.

In his recent blog post, Joe McKendrick analyzed the Enterprise 2.0 security challenges and concluded: "Enterprise Web 2.0 adoption is so widespread and end-user driven that only end-users themselves can keep security in check."

I admit that user education is very important as the human factor is the weakest link in the security chain. However, I doubt that an average user can be that professional in tackling the security issues effectively. On the contrary, the enterprise should be the driver of implementing proper security measures and conduct a comprehensive social media security policy. Specifically, the policy must bring together new marketing opportunities and protection of digital assets to capitalize on the social effect and minimize the threat.

Well, the surest way to solve the social media security problems is just to block this tool. But following this logic, we’d end up sacrificing all other IT and return to the Stone Age. Enterprises shouldn’t neglect the evident advantages of social media but rather update their security policies with proper tools and policies.

Intranet vs Enterprise 2.0 vs Social Software: an obvious case of terminological controversy

Barb Mosher from CMSwire announced the results of their latest poll regarding the usage of collaboration tools in intranets.

Frankly speaking, I wasn’t impressed about the whole idea of this poll as I thought the results would be very predictable. However, the actual findings were absolutely surprising. It turned to be that 16,3% of the respondents don’t have intranet in place, which is far more surprising taking into consideration that the CMSwire audience is extremely advanced in leveraging the advantages of Enterprise 2.0. At the same time approx. 17% said they do have intranets but they don’t include any collaboration features and they don’t have any third-party collaboration solutions in place. Finally, 13,2% said they rely on separate collaboration tools not linked to their intranets.

I can admit the poll results may not be reflecting the reality on the ground. The statistical base was only 1000 respondents and more research should be done on the audience to understand who actually responded to the question.

Anyway, this quick poll got my attention for a different reason. When summarizing the poll results, Barb questioned the readership: “Do you hear the term intranet used when looking at social software solutions?” It made me think of a common perception leading to a misunderstanding of the meaning and distinguishing of the terms “intranet”, “Enterprise 2.0” and “social media”.

With much respect to Wikipedia contributors I would like to depart somewhat from the common definitions and share my view on what is what based on my market experience.

Intranet is basically a practical tool that creates a unified workplace for an organization supplying a number of benefits. In my opinion, the list of must-have features include collaboration, communications and knowledge base.

The intranet lets organizations put the employees’ experience into a single database to ensure knowledge continuity. There should be a number of additional features in place to avoid knowledge from turning into a useless silo and converting it into highly-available database that allows employees to easily locate relevant data. The CMSwire poll shows that 30,2% of respondents are content to use this single benefit, ignoring the others.

Intranet collaboration is tightly associated with the knowledge base. Data in a centralized repository brings little benefits in the absence of proper collaboration tools which act as a superstructure, enabling employees to effectively work with this data. In fact the connection between data and collaboration tools can be made with third-party applications. However, is there any sense in extra software investments when modern intranets are full of such tools? The only reason to work with third-party collaboration tools is legacy software. But in this case, the organization will inevitably meet with integration difficulties.

Finally, communications. Along with instant messaging, web e-mail, and video conferencing, modern intranets now contain powerful social networking features to let organizations harness the social dimension of creative communities and convert alienated employees into a solid well-wired body.

This is where the terminological controversy happens. People tend to mix up social software, Enterprise 2.0 and socially-enabled intranets while social networking is just a single intranet feature! Well, there are pure social-oriented software products like Yammer, but again – is there any reason for extra software investments in niche products when modern intranets normally contain these features?

And now we have just one step left: to define what “Enterprise 2.0” is. At Bitrix, we understand E2.0 to be, actually, … an organization that has implemented a socially-enabled intranet! Don’t blame me for contradicting E2.0 gurus. I just see there is a significant misunderstanding in terms that misleads people and confuses the organizations that are willing to Two-Point-0 their enterprise.

Enterprise 2.0 Technology Patenting

Recently I came across an extremely interesting article in InformationWeek called “Mad Rush For Enterprise 2.0 Patents” by Alexander Wolfe with an in-depth overview of the latest patents issued to software developers in the Enterprise 2.0 field.

As a passionate participant in this evolving market, I was more than intrigued to learn about the recent developments here and simple couldn’t refrain from expressing my opinion.

Frankly speaking, I could hardly get my way through the patent descriptions. I totally agree with Alexander that the "patent-lawyer-ese" language used in the patent’s descriptions is a bit hard to follow and produces rather more questions than answers. However, my general impression can be better described as astonishment and incomprehension.

My key finding is that the Big Boys’ patents described in the article could be divided into two parts. First, the “green button” patents for some insignificant features. Second, extremely generic patents that cover functionality already present in some way in existing Enterprise 2.0 solutions. While the first group is not so important for market development, the second one could pose a real threat to the competitive environment and lead to serious misunderstandings in the future.

Product development requires continuous tracking of technology improvements in the industry. At Bitrix, we carefully follow other intranet products’ functions & features. This is not understandable, as it let us stay tuned to what is happening in the industry, evaluate the trends and provide our customers with solutions better reflecting current market demand. And, of course, it is essential to know where the competition is in order to stay a step ahead of them.

I admit my "patent-lawyer-ese" is not good enough to understand the real meaning of the technologies described in the reviewed patents and requires a specilized dictionary. But I cannot stop thinking that the patents actually disguise the commonly adopted practices already presented in existing products or something that general that can be applied to virtually any technology to be developed in the future.

A good example is the Vyew’s patent application entitled “System and method for a collaborative web-based multimedia layered platform with recording and selective playback of content”, which "illustrates an example of synchronizing and annotation of a drawing in a shared space through various input devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention". If you are lucky to make it through this description unharmed, you could easily come to the conclusion that it can be applied to virtually any multimedia feature in intranet portals.

Another example is OpenText’s ‘LivePlaces’ patented technology that is nothing more than rich user profiles floridly named "peripheral vision", i.e. a central status repository showing everything in one's collaborative workspace.

Modern patenting reminds me of marking off squares on the surface of the moon and putting flags on them to show who can own what plots some hundred years after. Any motivation for any organization to build a spaceship and technologies for colonizing the moon?

Well, yes, we live in a cruel world. The world where “greed is good, greed works”. A world that legalizes the ownership of future development by entities that have have pushy lawyers on hand and can afford investing money in the future patent wars. I doubt these patents are for actual product development but rather for increasing stock value and safeguarding patent security.

I absolutely agree with Alexander’s response to one of the patents: “You be the judge of whether this stuff is obvious from prior art. That's not really the point. (Because while it might be a point of law, it's not always an impediment to obtaining a patent, and only comes out, if at all, in the litigation wash afterwards.)”. I am not a GNU fan, but I believe the modern patenting approach should definitely change, giving future development a fair chance and protecting software developers.

Is Intranet Security a Myth?

Definitely not. But its press coverage may make one think so.

Recently I was asked to produce an article about intranet security for an authoritative US magazine. I am far from being a newbie on the market and have a fair amount of first-hand knowledge about the extent to which vendors neglect integrating security features in their products, letting customers fend for themselves among third-party solutions. However, it was really amazing to discover how little coverage intranet security receives in media, on the web and in professional communities.

Alex Manchester from Step Two Designs quickly summarized my request to the Intranet Professionals group in LinkedIn: “I'd be very surprised, but also very interested, to see any responses to this.” As you may have guessed, I got a plain zero result concerning valuable information about intranet security statistics and best practices.

Most of the sources I found on the web were outdated security tips with no particular focus on intranets. What useful information was there? Well, yes, you must use a firewall, properly set up access rights, implement a security policy, etc. The advice was simply things one can actually get from numerous general security overviews but with little help for developing an effective intranet security system.

I trust the Bitrix white paper “Web security is within your reach: 10 ways to keep hackers in check and ensure safe web resources” created by Marsel Nizam could be considered among the best sources of expert advice outlining the common approaches to secure websites and intranets.

The other jaw-dropping fact is that there are absolutely no reports focusing on this issue. I spend several hours browsing the web trying to get at least some facts and figures. No stats at all.

Perhaps, it would be a good idea for the Enterprise 2.0 community to make up its mind and do some research? As it requires input from as many sources as possible, vendors and consultants may join their efforts in gathering statistics from around the globe and get relevant results.

Any interested parties are kindly requested to contact me at dz at bitrixsoft dot com to discuss this initiative.

Generation Y: Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition


In his recent column in The Harvard Business Review, Enterprise 2.0 guru Andrew McAfee raised a vital issue about Generation Y and their opportunity to revolutionize the future landscape of a workplace. Mr. McAfee then immediately suffered an onslaught of really hard questioning as a hot discussion broke out in the comments section.

The range of presented opinions was quite wide with some people arguing for Gen Y, some against and some preferring to stay neutral. However, Andrew and the majority of the audience concluded that “it’s safe to assume that the workplace will change them more than the reverse.”

I find it irresistible to express my vision of what Enterprise 2.0, and true social enablement, will lead to, as the borders among companies, consultants, partners, contractors, and even clients continue to fade.

Established corporate environments definitely mold new employees to a fair degree, forcing them to adjust their preferences and style of work to conform to the adopted rules and procedures. This will definitely result in a tough clash between conservative and liberal powers, perhaps resembling teenage rebellion. The most ambitious and passionate persons will refuse to conform to the ‘backward’ state of affairs, fleeing and gathering around into more compatible companies and businesses.

This will inevitably lead to antagonism between the two HR-models, the ‘Y’ one being more successful in launching new ideas and technologies. The Ys will be quicker and more relevant in decision making, instinctively understanding market demand by virtue of being ‘kindred spirits’ with the target audience. I am pretty sure that we will have the pleasure of seeing the competition switch from vendor-based companies to generation-based. The question “what do you do” is doomed to transform into “are you one of us?”. Sounds like truly an inquisition! smile:)

In fact, this trend has already started as we see Millennials very successful in new technologies. Sometimes they even succeed in growing into large multinationals like Google without significantly transforming their workplace approach or being swallowed by the Big Fish.

As time passes, the new model will strengthen its pressure and ‘backward’ organizations will leave the quotation marks behind, progressively stepping aside and conceding the market to more aggressive and customer-oriented businesses led by the youngsters.

I trust large organizations understand these generation gap opportunities/threats and the evolving Enterprise 2.0/social media adoption clearly illustrates the shift in workplaces. ‘Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition’ is not the case here anymore. Businesses are aware and already moving forward to take advantage of the young employees.

TGIF! What’s common between Enterprise 2.0 and beer?

Creative communities
With properly managed E2.0 technology in place, businesses can harness the power of creative communities and identify team leaders, best ideas and leverage the advantage of collective intelligence able to cope with even the most comprehensive market challenges. Beer transforms alienated, de-motivated and fatigued employees into a highly-motivated, cohesive and relaxed community able to generate ground-breaking ideas all night long.

Information discovery
E2.0 provides better capabilities for information search that can be reinforced by people properly tagging and rating data, thus delivering better discovery outcomes. Beer allows for direct information discovery in friends’ and colleagues’ brains, smoothing their minds for more relevant search results.

Simplicity of Use
E2.0 takes its cues from the natural interactive environment which has been developed in social networks on the Internet. Users require minimal acclimation if they are avid internet surfers. Beer is an acquired taste for some, but has historically proven to be extraordinarily democratic in application.

Freedom to choose
There are dozens of E2.0 solutions available on the market giving businesses freedom to choose deployment options, functionality and of course pricing. You can find dozens of brews in a single pub that will keep you busy for the rest of the weekend. Eventually, you’d better stick to one E2.0 solution and one brew to safeguard against unwanted eventualities.

Collaboration and communication
E2.0 incorporates a number of useful tools for effective collaboration and communication among employees as well as with external parties. Beer doesn’t come with any extra tools. However, the same results are achieved by amplifying the natural collaboration and communication capabilities inherent to all human beings. And, yeah, breaking the ice with external parties is more effective with both beer and E2.0.

Corporate broadcasting and team building
E2.0 brings businesses a number of advantages for broadcasting corporate values, supporting internal culture, familiarizing the personnel with adopted rules and procedures, history and market positioning. Beer has the same capabilities with a minor slant towards gossiping.

Employee adaptation
Newcomers take advantage of fast and painless adaptation using E2.0 integrated e-learning features, employee directory and social networking for launch into the job and teaming up with colleagues. Beer goes far beyond: it allows newcomers to get a real understanding of the organization’s culture, personal relations, drink preferences and what happened after Harry met Sally.

Adoption strategy
Too many E2.0 features will spoil the successful adoption of even the best-of-breed solution. Too much beer can spoil the whole weekend. Overabundance of both causes headache!

Return on investments
You can hardly calculate the ROI of an E2.0 solution. Neither that of beer. And beer will definitely not help you calculate the ROI of E2.0. And vice versa.

Can beer replace E2.0? Indeed no. If you have had too much E2.0, you go and have a beer. If you have had too much beer you obviously can’t go get some E2.0.

Inspired parties are kindly requested to contribute to this list of E2.0/beer common features smile:)

Coming next: “Why is beer is better than E2.0?”



Cheers!

Too much intranet will kill you



James Robertson from Step Two Designs published a very interesting story ‘How long are intranet projects?’ casting light on his experience delivering high-quality Enterprise 2.0 solutions to large organizations.

Being passionate in expanding the intranet popularity to SMB market I believe James’ opinion requires some clarification why an intranet solution implementation/customization may take up to 18 months. Is it really the case that a typical intranet deployment for an SMB requires so much time and effort? This is obviously something that can scare away smaller organizations from Enterprise 2.0 technologies! Let me share the Bitrix experience to dot the i's and cross the t's on this matter.

18 months? Noooo! 12 months? No. 6 months? This is a rare occurrence. We have implemented hundreds of intranet projects for companies with 100-500 users and our experience confirms that small and medium-sized businesses normally spend only three to thirty days. This timeframe includes the whole range of activities starting from the product evaluation and ending with the intranet launch.

Really? How it can be? Let’s have a look at the typical implementation process using Bitrix Intranet Portal.

First of all, I would like to note that SMBs are getting interested in intranets for task-specific features, not the whole range of Enterprise 2.0 opportunities. Moreover, some of the opportunities are often considered unwanted in the IT environment. For example, social networking and media broadcasting. On one hand, SMBs doubt that such features bring hard-dollar value to the business but will rather distract employees from their duties (common perception). On the other hand, they can achieve social networking results with traditional tools like meeting and talking.

SMBs are mainly interested in simpler things like document sharing, knowledge management, employee directory, news and announcements, business process management, polls & surveys, common documents database and extranet capabilities – all wrapped in highly secure web-based interface. And of course they are very careful with solution TCO: SMBs prefer products that entail minimum overheads associated with qualified IT staff for intranet maintenance, additional software and hardware expenses.

The focus on task-specific features tremendously shortens the process of choosing, evaluating and implementing intranet solutions.

A customer usually starts with evaluating the product in the virtual lab, which gives them live experience working with Bitrix Intranet Portal. The virtual lab creates an on-demand copy of the product using a VMware environment and guides the customer through the whole process of installation and configuration. One working day is normally enough to understand whether the product meets the requirements.

The next stage features the on-premise installation of the product, which can be done either on a dedicated server or in virtual environment, sharing the same physical server as the e-mail server or website. This is probably the most complex process as it requires OS and web environment installation and integration with legacy applications. Even so, it rarely exceeds five working days.

The most time-consuming process is content population. Bitrix Intranet Portal comes with pre-set design templates, demo data and an intranet structure which reflect the best intranet practices and addresses the SMBs’ common requirements. Now, the most important part of the implementation: customers almost never change the intranet design and accept approx. 90% of the pre-set intranet structure! SMBs are content with the default design schemes and site structure! When starting their intranet, they don’t need a highly customizable platform but rather a fast and easy solution to start squeezing the hard dollar value out!

As a result, data population and intranet customization take from five to twenty working days.

This how friendly modern intranets are to small and medium-sized businesses.

18 months? Well, yes. With only three conditions: you are a large organization, you have very specific business requirements and you are most probably implementing SharePoint! smile:)

SharePoint Alternatives: A Sample of Senseless Competitive Comparison

You certainly know the first question a prospect asks when evaluating the opportunity to implement an intranet solution. It sounds like this: “How does your product perform compared to SharePoint?”. Or this: “Why is your product better than SharePoint?”. You see the trend – SharePoint is everywhere and, most frustratingly, people are missing the crucial point about both products!

Frankly speaking, I admire Microsoft’s efforts in promoting SharePoint on a global scale. They literally set out to associate the term ‘intranet’ with that brandname, and the questions that prospects ask at first contact confirm their success.

Anyway, we decided to make a quick comparison matrix to illustrate the whole picture of difference between SharePoint, Bitrix intranet Portal and a number of other ready-to-go intranet solutions.



The matrix shows the points that are calculated according to the certain feature density. The red color shows the category best performer. (let me know if you’d like to have a look at the comparison’s full version with executive summary, more information about product evaluation, criteria and detailed feature description).

You would certainly be intrigued by the asterisk hanging next to the SharePoint features estimated with zero. Let’s make it clear: SharePoint is a platform that allows customers to develop customized functionality and meet specific business needs. Bitrix Intranet Portal is an out-of-the-box solution that can be deployed, populated and launched in a matter of days! In other words, there is no sense in comparing these products. It is like comparing a ready-made car and a kit car: one is a vehicle, the other is a pile of parts!

At the same time, the term solution doesn’t mean it cannot be customized for specific business tasks. I would say the main difference between solution and platform from the customer’s perspective is that the solution’s vendor already made a basic customization according to the best intranet practices. However, the solution’s back-end still allows a customer possessing the knowledge and experience to tailor the product to do so.

The table below illustrates the platform-like features of SharePoint and Bitrix Intranet Portal. The same comparison can be easily applied to virtually any intranet solution. Bitrix products contain powerful administration consoles with a plethora of smart functions and features at least equal to SharePoint!



In my recent blog post called ‘SharePoint Holds Back the Intranet Market Development for SMBs’ I made the statement that Microsoft’s marketing approach is really misleading small and medium sized businesses about the real value of SharePoint. To my mind, this approach gives a doubly negative impact on the market. Firstly, it doesn’t generate more demand from SMBs. Secondly, it jams the communication channels, preventing the true SMB-oriented solutions to deliver their messages to the market. Finally, it confuses SMBs about the actual state of affairs with intranet solutions availability: organizations still believe that intranets are extremely pricey, difficult to implement and maintain, and bring little hard-dollar value to the business.

I really don’t like the phrase ‘SharePoint alternative’ when someone refers to Bitrix Intranet Portal. Well, yes, in some way, every intranet solution can be considered a SharePoint alternative: customers spend less money and get better results. Same thing with beer: no matter how many pints you drink, you won’t get a truly SMB-oriented intranet within a few days. Is Bitrix Intranet Portal an alternative to beer? I doubt so. Obviously the phrase ‘SharePoint alternative’ is a part of Microsoft marketing! smile:)

General purpose intranets vs. task-oriented intranets

Surfing the web I accidentally came across a press release featuring a story about a successful implementation of intranet technology in a US-based medical facility. In fact, it is a nice story with a surface explanation of the project, basic information about functions and features and customer benefits. It’s a story that may lead other medical facilities go ahead with the adding of useful intranet features to their IT infrastructures.

This press release made me think more carefully about the future of the intranet market and its current trends.

Even a brief overview of the market will give a researcher an instant snapshot dividing out-of-the-box intranet solutions into two major types. The first type being more or less universal with no specific industry-focus. The other type comes from vendors who position their products and services for specific sectors. You can easily find niche vendors specializing on healthcare, governmental, finance & insurance and other fields.

Off the top of my head, I thought they are doomed sooner or later to be excluded from the market by generic solutions offering a broader range of functionality addressing more business requirements. However, I suddenly realized that from a customer perspective a focused functionality could be more attractive as it tremendously simplifies the process of choosing the right solution! Remember the old story about a person in a café choosing a drink?

“What would you like to drink?,” asks the waiter.
“Pepsi, please,” says the customer.
“Diet or regular?”
“Eh, regular please.”
“What flavor: cherry, blue or season?”
“Hm…”
“Would you like some ice, extra gas or anything else?”
(note: the customer has already forgotten what drink he has ordered)
“Just bring me some tap water with ice please.”


Same thing with choosing intranet. Too many features confuse the customer. When we started selling Bitrix Intranet Portal in 2007 we experienced the same troubles several times. Customers are really surprised with the product functionality while most of the features have a definite wow-effect. However, the overwhelming number of different options creates a gap between the customer real-life expectations and task-oriented benefits.

Focused solutions may offer limited functionality but they address the core business needs of a customer, simplifying the decision-making. Too much information kills the effective sales even if a product provides better quality, security and value for the dollar. The niche intranet vendors follow an easy yet effective maxim: it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a large pond.

However, there is another side of the story. Focused solutions are good and are more successful for the first-time customers, who had limited or no experience with intranets and demonstrate a lack of understanding of what goals they would like to achieve. These are normally small businesses or businesses with little grounding in IT, therefore missing the necessary experience and qualified staff to build and manage the intranet. With a growing understanding of the nature of intranets, the customer will inevitably meet the functional limitation of the focused solution that will force them to evaluate more advanced generic products.

Having 15+ year experience in marketing IT, I am a big fan of funnel sales. When communicating to a customer you should always start with their business needs rather than describing a plethora of product features having general purpose. Each and every feature should be presented with regards to the customer key requirements and demonstrate a real benefit to their established business processes and standards. Technological navel-gazing can easily kill even the best solution, resulting in a breach to the whole industry. The latter statement is especially important if the vendor communicates with an SMB customer that expects clear evidence how an intranet can simplify their job and bring a hard dollar value to their business.

I believe that the future development of the intranet market will force vendors to develop sector-focused solutions along with generic solutions. In fact, the majority of intranet products started from CMS platforms that were mainly developed for website management. Later they were customized for a broad range of content management tasks including intranet/extranet. Now the market is at the stage of going even deeper in customizing the solutions, i.e. developing specific products for specific industries.

At Bitrix, we have already successfully tested the customized solutions approach in Russia. The market positively received specific intranet products for education, government and conference management. We are closely working with our partners that provide industry-specific consultancy and implementation. For example, Aurora IT that specializes in healthcare.

The Intranet / Enterprise 2.0 market is still at the threshold of mass adoption. SMBs have just started to understand the benefits of this technology while the market has developed affordable and feature-rich solutions that can be deployed in a matter of hours and lead to a minimum of maintenance overheads. This makes me think that the niche players will be prospering within the next 3-4 years.

However, the future of the market will be for the vendors offering both generic and industry-specific solutions that will be applicable at every stage of intranet development. Customers will start with a solution with limited functionality but designed for their specific business tasks and will then have the chance to migrate easily to a more powerful intranet platform or even more comprehensive web communications platform covering the whole range of business needs.

The Intuit Enterprise 2.0 Implementation Case: To Zoo or not to Zoo?

Jacob Morgan from Chess Media Group recently published a series of reports about implementing Enterprise 2.0 technologies at Intuit (I believe there’s no need to introduce the company). It was really an amazing read and I was anticipating each new portion of the success story online with a longing heart to learn more details about the implementation and get precious experience.

Now the final, fifth part of the story is online and we can draw lines to analyze the whole process, see the advantages, weaknesses and draw conclusions.

Well, I really liked the story. In fact, I welcome any story that illustrates a successful implementation of E2.0 within a corporate environment. This pushes the technology towards market adoption by demonstrating its real value. However, I should admit this particular story was one of the best I ever read in terms of insight into all the peculiarities of the decision-making process and its candid estimation of the project in hard dollar value.

This is a perfect example of how a company can implement an E2.0 solution starting from the very beginning: understanding goal and tasks, defining drivers, designing the development process and creating successful user adoption practices, analyzing possible side effects (both positive and negative) of the project. I would say this is one of the best case studies that can be used by enterprises thinking of stepping into the E2.0 world and looking for best practices and useful advice from trusted professionals.

Anyway, there is something that leaves more questions than gives answers. And this something lays right in the final part of the story. Namely the range of technologies used to cover the valuable E2.0 functionality and complete the tasks given in the very beginning of the project.

Intuit started the project back in 2007 and titled it Brainstorm. The whole idea was to speed up the product development process by unleashing the creativity and empower employees with useful tools to move their ideas forward. The company realized that they needed more than just idea collection tool but an idea action and management tool. “…Intuit needed a way to connect ideas to the right people who can best shape those ideas, help them overcome inertia, and capture value with them.” In other words they wanted to harness the social dimension of creative communities and wrap it into a highly effective management solution.

The company successfully completed the development of the platform but here comes the most interesting part of the story. Intuit concurrently uses eight (sic!) additional social media tools to cover important E2.0 functionality with some of them colliding with each other! For instance, Lotus Connections, Joinin and WordPress for blogs; Mediawiki, Etherpad and Quickbase for knowledge and document management; and finally Yammer for … idea management and sharing experience. Moreover, the solution uses a third-party instant messenger and internal video software for better top-down communications.

I can admit I wasn’t really able to wrap my mind around the whole package. But it seems Intuit has created a typical software patchwork resembling a technological zoo rather than a solid solution with a clear goal in mind. The project has been under development too long and it has gone far beyond the initial goal of idea management. Well, in some sense this is good as every project is doomed to continuous improvement to meet the evolving E2.0 landscape requirements. However, is there really any sense to develop such a patchwork-style solution with limited management and security capabilities when there are a number of ready-made products available in the market?

Here is my opinion of what happened. As you remember the project was started in 2007. At that time, social-enabled intranets were mainly the realm of large enterprises with most of them developing their own customized solutions. Such solutions failed to compete with quickly evolving market offering and soon became obsolete, being substituted by specialized products.

I never tried Brainstorm and still trust this is a great solution meeting the company’s requirements. But at the same time, I doubt it features the same range of tools and provides the same scope of opportunities to orchestrate creative communities and manage ideas that a social-enabled intranet developed by a dedicated software vendor does.

Was it really an economically justified decision or was it a matter of principle to complete the solution development? Initial development is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of expenses. More spending will be waiting the company in the future when Intuit faces the necessity to improve the functionality and battle inevitable drawbacks that will be amplified by the technological zoo. Wouldn’t it be better for the company to concentrate on its core competence and apply to a dedicated vendor for a social-enabled intranet instead?

The most obvious answer lies in the assumption that Intuit decided not to give up the project and probably follow the example of BlueKiwi Software – a social media platform originally created for Dassault Systèmes and later set free to the market as a boxed product. I trust this is the best way to cover the expenses and even diversify the Intuit product line. Otherwise, the company will face the ever-growing burden of expenses on heritage software which provides insufficient functionality and sooner or later will be forced to migrate the social platform to a completely different product.

Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Strategy: The Philips Case and SMB Interpretation

CIO’s Kristin Burnham recently published a great article outlining four key success factors that allowed Philips to implement an Enterprise 2.0 solution and promote it to their employees. Well, I am a bit disappointed that Socialcast took over this deal smile:) Anyway, we are in the same boat and I am happy if our market neighbors experience success that will certainly lead to the further development of the market and better introduction of best Enterprise 2.0 practices to the businesses.

Anyway, competition is not something I wanted to cover here. What attracted my attention in the article is the guidance Philips’ CIO Maarten de Vries recommends to adhere to secure successful implementation of Enterprise 2.0 technologies.

Traditionally, large enterprises are the driving force in adopting new technologies that can improve their competitiveness and harness new opportunities. E2.0 itself is a bit misleading term as SMBs normally perceive everything associated with ‘enterprise’ as something pricey and too sophisticated without clear evidence how to squeeze a real benefit for a small business. However, there should be something to start with. The Philips’ case can cast light on how every organization, regardless of their scale and industry focus, can take advantage of a social–enabled intranet and what the key factors are when considering implementing such solutions.

I would like to simply translate the De Vries’s guidelines into messages more compatible with the nature of SMB and give small and medium-sized businesses a better understanding of the E2.0 advantages that will result in better internal collaboration, communication, solidifying the team and harnessing the social dimension of employees.

Large enterprises are quite good at defining strategies but they are mostly involved with dealing with soft benefits while SMBs need an explanation in terms of hard benefits. How can an intranet actually help your business? What is the real value of it? And what will happen tomorrow if I implement the solution? There is much to be discussed here as your organization’s benefits are unique and they depend on the nature of your business. Here are just a couple of tips that definitely correspond to these direct questions and clearly describe the E2.0 value.

1. Social-enabled intranet lets you convert alienated employees into a solid team motivated to contribute to business performance. Once employees see their opinion and input is valued, they will keep exploring new opportunities and find their voices to make useful suggestions that will improve the organization’s market understanding and lead to a better market position.

2. Discover the talents in your team and perform better idea management that will help in finding new business opportunities that would hardly materialize under a traditional management structure. More bottom-up generation of ideas and feedback on current methods is not reduces the rigidness of orders from the top, but also capitalizes on the insight held at all levels.

3. Broadcast your corporate values to employees, making them strong brand bearers and enhancing their business involvement. An intranet provides the perfect chance to improve the orientation process for new personnel so that they adapt optimally in the corporate environment. Organizations can conduct effective training and certification using ready-to-go tools and therefore more successfully translate new processes, improvements and innovations into the general structure.

4. Accumulate knowledge in a centralized repository that enables employees to share experience and find better ways to solve mission critical tasks. This way you will say goodbye to inefficient inherited collaboration procedures based on network storage silos and e-mail boxes that limit knowledge continuity and availability as well as posing the risk of information leakage and loss.

5. The younger generation is native to social media. There is hardly any sense in fighting this fidelity; rather, it is a new opportunity for your business to connect to the right people and build brand awareness to a larger audience. With the proper social technologies in place, the intranet will harness the social dimension of employees and put it at your service for better internal collaboration. Don’t fight the social dimension, leverage it for your business.

There are lots of other opportunities an Enterprise 2.0-enabled intranet solution can bring to your business. The market is at the threshold of mass adoption and the early adopters will have a huge competitive advantage by transforming traditional vertical management into a horizontal structure. The social dimension is the perfect chance to enhance business performance by harnessing team spirit. Collective intelligence should never be underestimated. And there are many practical and affordable tools that can help you put it to work for you.

The Cost Benefits of Intranet from the Cloud

Bitrix has recently launched a new Cloud initiative that allows hosting providers to offer Bitrix Intranet Portal to their customers on-demand (SaaS). There are many things worth mentioning when considering the SaaS deployment of the intranet solution. However, the most important topic for the customer would be the software acquisition comparison of this model with the on-premise implementation.

Intranet SaaS deployment brings a number of advantages to customers especially in terms of the total cost of ownership (the full comparison is available in a dedicated white paper). Obviously, an organization tremendously reduces initial investments associated with launching an intranet. There is no need to buy the full license. The license price is spread in monthly payments which is affordable even for a small company. For example, acquiring Bitrix Intranet Portal for 50 users for an on-premise deployment will require $2799 of for the license fee. The price for the on-demand deployment will be only $150.

SaaS deployment also doesn’t entail additional expenses like purchasing third-party software (OS, web server, database, security) and of course hardware to run the intranet on. Customers avoid the burden of hidden expenses for qualified IT staff upkeep and solution management as the intranet maintenance will be supplied and guaranteed by the hosting provider.

At the same time, customers may temporarily freeze their intranet instance running at the hosting provider, thus optimizing their spending in case no service is required for a given time. The same is true for the number of active intranet users. On-premise deployment generally allows for easy enhancement of the license according to the growing number of users. However, decreasing the number may be a time-consuming process that requires liaison with the vendor and recalculating the license price and trying to obtain a refund. In the SaaS deployment, this is simply a click-away procedure that can be easily accomplished from the customer’s personal account.

Unsurprisingly, there are some limitation on the use and flexibility of the SaaS architecture which are natural trade-offs for the advantages delivered by this system. Customers do have to sacrifice a number of on-premise deployment advantages. For example, product customization to meet specific business requirements, functionality and additional modules development; opportunities for tight integration with existing IT infrastructure (like ERP, CRM, SCM, AD etc.). And of course some security and privacy concerns will arise from the fact that remote deployment introduces a different (though often less threatening, in fact) set of data leakage and security threats.

Deeper analysis of the SaaS pricing should bring to your attention to another issue associated with long-term cumulative expenses. The on-premise customers pay a lot in the very beginning and later only pay minor subscription renewal fee that entitles them for qualified technical support, product updates and upgrades. The on-demand customers pay the full license fee monthly, which is good in the beginning but results in larger software acquisition price in the long run.

Here is a sample comparison of intranet acquisition expenses for both deployment models for a small organization of 25 users. The first table outlines annual software spending while the second table gives an overview of cumulative costs for a 3-year period.



The tables clearly illustrate that the SaaS deployment gives a cost advantage only for a certain timeframe. Depending on the vendor pricing policy, it generally is the case that the on-premise deployment is more advantageous in a 3-4 year perspective. Large companies should consider the on-premise deployment to assure optimal long-term software economy. At the same time, we emphasize that the given calculation does not reflect the other TCO items and only provides an estimation of software acquisition. This will definitely increase the numbers.

Summarizing, I firmly believe that the future of intranets lies in both SaaS and on-premise deployment, with smaller organizations concentrating in the cloud and larger organizations moving intranets in-house.

SharePoint Holds Back the Intranet Market Development for SMBs

There are not many intranet-related online news feeds that I consistently follow. However, I got interested in tracking down the share of news devoted to SharePoint and came to an intriguing but not really surprising conclusion. In fact, I am pretty sure you would expect the thing to be just this way.

Despite the fact that the recent research from IDC named IBM and their Lotus Connections the worldwide market leader in Social Platforms Software, Microsoft absolutely outnumbered them and other Big Boys in pushing their Enterprise 2.0 solution to the public. It is really amazing to see that one of my favorite content management newswires mentioned SharePoint in 1/3 of its publications that week! That’s probably not an aberration, of course. Most of them are really boring reading along the lines of "We are the best of the best", said with military strictness and lacking a convincing argument, full of generic phrases about nebulous business benefits.

Well, I admit this approach can work in the enterprise market, where the brand is the most important part in the process of choosing intranet solution. However, small and medium-sized businesses must be singularly confused by these signals. The SharePoint prevalence in mass media, their argumentation (or lack thereof) and market message is in fact something that holds back the mass adoption of intranet technologies among SMBs! Customers still believe intranets to be something very expensive that contains only a small among of discernable evidence concerning return on investment.

Intranets started a dozen of years ago as pricey enterprise solutions or custom solutions developed specifically for a given organization. Listening to the chatter in the marketplace now, you would think that we are still living in that era. But the market has changed! Now there are reasonably priced out-of-the-box solutions addressing core business needs of even small companies. They can be launched in a matter of hours and they don't entail a number of additional expenses like extra software, security, hardware and IT staff burden.

As an example, we calculated TCO for Bitrix intranet Portal for an organization of 250 intranet users and found it is $109 per user for the first year and $338 per user in a 3-year perspective. To reach a positive ROI indicator, the portal needs to provide a saving of only 1,22 min of worktime per day per user. Clearly, these figures are hardly achievable with SharePoint and any other heavy enterprise platform.

Ad interim SharePoint continues its successful enterprise market penetration. But there are grumblings to the effect that the customer has little understanding why they buy this product. The latest survey from AIIM went under the intuitive title "SharePoint Surge Continues but Strategies are Lacking", which concisely describes the situation. Less than 50% of SharePoint implementations were subject to a formal business case, and only half of those made a financial justification. Obviously, Microsoft simply imposes the product!

A number of deployments of Bitrix Intranet Portal have actually been the endgame following an ill-conceived SharePoint experience. Companies tried to implement SharePoint, spent lots and achieved a little. Subsequently, they learned about Bitrix, evaluated it and in couple of weeks launched a fully-functional intranet portal. Hyundai made it crystal clear: they said they did more with Bitrix Intranet Portal in 1 month than they ever did with SharePoint. As a result, they simply dropped the ‘market leader’ and concentrated fully on Bitrix.

Let me say it again. SharePoint’s prevalence in the mass media hinders the market. Especially concerning the mass adoption of intranet technologies among small and medium-sized businesses. The result is that the message delivered is the wrong message, it does not reflect the current reality of the market, and it slows the evolution of intranets into a sort of FMCG for the IT market. There are no objections that SharePoint is a great product that certainly has its target audience. But the market analysts and media should give better coverage and put more attention on reviewing alternatives. Well, not really alternatives. Bitrix does not actually compete with Microsoft (you can learn more about the difference between platforms and solutions here). We only face difficulties sending the market the right message because the channel is monopolized by Microsoft. A message that there are affordable, ready-to-go and feature-rich intranet solutions available for SMB.
Photo:

Long live Bitrix - the company celebrates 12th anniversary!

Sometimes you wake up in the morning and find out that something you were considering very usual and floating somewhere around has suddenly changed. Not really changed but you realized that this something is now a bit different especially you realize that has been around for quite a long time!

It happened to us on June 5th when we were celebrating the 12th anniversary of Bitrix. I mean *twelfth* anniversary! It seems just the day before Sergey Rizhikov, Dmitry Valyanov, Vadim Dumbravanu and Yury Tushinsky (you can learn more about the company's founders here) started the new enterprise with an ambitious goal to create the world's most secure website management system.

However the time passed that fast. Now Bitrix has gained a solid reputation in the market with ~70% of the market share on its local market in Russia and ex-USSR. We are now 80+ people, 4000+ partners worldwide rely on Bitrix as a trustworthy business partner. 30,000+ customers from around the globe use Bitrix Site Manager and Bitrix Intranet Portal to secure their web business communications to improve competitiveness and leverage the power of creative communities.

Despite the global economic downturn the company demonstrated a significant growth during the last 2 years with the sales results of the 2010 booming. Bitrix started its active international business development by registering its overseas office in Alexandria, US and launching a global marketing and partner recruitment campaign. We face the future with confidence: the things are changing really fast and what is the most intriguing thing - we see our ambitious goals are coming true. i just wonder what the company will look like next year during the 13th anniversary? Let's cross our fingers and feel the big time sensuality!

Meanwhile you can enjoy some informal pictures from the anniversary celebrations that were taken place on the Curonian spit - a natural wonder from the UNESCO world heritage. Here you can see many people from our international team that develop, test, support and market Bitrix products.

A sneaky TCO/ROI calculator preview

You may heard or even took part in numerous discussions around the issue of calculating TCO, ROI or whatever indicators casting light on intranet deployment economic efficiency.

However even a slight acquaintance with this controversy will lead you to a clear conclusion that each person has his/her own opinion on this matter. The spread of opinions ranges from "my time worth more than time I spend for calculation" to "every benefit can be calculated and it should be calculated". There is at least one area where intranet professionals are more or less unison in opinions. Intranet provides hard benefits and soft benefits. The value of hard benefits can really be assessed with acceptable rate of accuracy. Evaluating soft benefits is like counting drops in the sea. Theoretically it is possible but who thinks of this challenge?

At Bitrix we have developed a home-brew methodology of calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO) and a set of investment efficiency indicators (ROI/NPV,IRR) for Bitrix Intranet Portal (BIP).

Evaluating TCO is a rather simple task. Our experience with hundreds of customers from small offices to large enterprises confirms the cost ownership includes the following items: software and hardware acquisition, deployment, data population, administration and training.

When calculating TCO for BIP we considered only Bitrix licenses as the solution can be deployed on LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) platform that requires no additional expenses. With hardware acquisition we used an opposite approach. In fact, BIP imposes very moderate hardware requirements and supports a wide range of virtualization environments. The software can be deployed on the same server running, say, e-mail gateway or web site or whatever. But we decided to include in TCO assessment the full hardware cost to attain the most trustworthy result.

Return on investment (ROI) is a bit (who said "a bit"?) more complicated issue. Naturally how can one estimate the efficiency of an intranet portal? There are many approaches like counting how much paper sheets are saved, how much money is spared due to improved business processes, etc. We believe these indicators are very business-dependant and cannot be applied to a wide range of organizations.

At the same time there is a simple, clystal-clear parameter describing the intranet investment efficiency, which rouse no or a very little debate. Intranet saves employees time. Anybody wants to argue? I doubt it. Employees can locate proper information, share knowledge, collaborate in workgroups and extranets, manage tasks and synchronize calendars and much more - everything more efficiently than with the traditional means.

So we decided to rely solely on employees time economy and leave the soft benefits aside. even such a conservative approach has demonstrated an extremely intriguing results. Briefly I can tell you that working with BIP is very profitable.

Have a look at the figures for a typical company with 100 intranet users. Let's assume an average monthly salary is $2,000, staff upkeep is 200% (salary multiplier), annual staff turnover is 33%, discount rate is 10% and each employee saves only 2 min (sic!) per day thanks to BIP.

The results are:

1st-year TCO: $19,347
1st-year TCO/user: $193

2nd-year TCO: $8,024
2nd-year TCO/user: $80

3rd-year TCO: $8,826
3rd-year TCO/user: $88

TOTAL 3-year TCO: $36,197
TOTAL 3-year TCO/user: $361

1st-year ROI: 13,7% (economy $22,000)
2nd-year ROI: 68,8% (cumulative economy $46,200)
3rd-year ROI: 101,2% (cumulative economy $72,820)

Impressive, isn't it?

The practical implementation of the calculator is still under development. However, you can already submit a request for BIP TCO/ROI assessment for your company at http://www.bitrixsoft.com/tcoroi/. As soon as the calculator is ready you will also be able to learn more about the calculation methodology in a dedicated white paper.

Intranet 2.0 Global Survey

Prescient Digital Media has announced the Intranet 2.0 Global Survey 2010. Each year they bring us valuable information about the current state of affairs in the intranet market and useful information about trends and what shall we expect in the future.

I would like to take this opportunity and invite you to fill in a 10 minutes questionnarie to make the whole study more relevant. Please, take time to send invitations to your friends, who are also involved in the intranet market.

Again thanks to Toby Ward, CEO of Prescient Digital Media for this initiative. You can find lots of valuable information about intranets at his blog here.

Marketing expenses: now 50% off!

Hi everybody,

Long time no hear!

You must have already seen the news concerning the latest Bitrix partner initiative. No, it’s neither an early April Fool joke not a typo. Yes, now you can get a compensation for up to 50% of Bitrix-related marketing activities starting March 31, 2010.

I believe the main question that bother you is an I eligible to use this opportunity? The answer is simple: yes, if you hold the Bitrix Gold Certifies Partner status. I would like to emphasize this is an exclusive opportunity focused at the best performing partners, who have understanding, knowledge and experience in marketing Bitrix products.

Now let’s get into details of the cooperative marketing program. The idea is simple: each quarter 10% of your net sales (i.e. sales with your partner discount) go directly into a special marketing fund. Partners can use this fund to cover up to 50% of their Bitrix-related marketing expenses. Note: the activities you would like to get compensated should receive prior approval. The reimbursements will be transferred to your personal account that can be used to purchase Bitrix product licenses.

Here are a couple of illustrative examples:

Example 1: Partner has accumulated $5,000 in cooperative fund and places an ad with a total cost of $4,000. In this case the partner is entitled to receive a reimbursement to its personal account for $2,000 (50% of total expenses).

Example 2: Partner has accumulated $1,000 in cooperative fund and places an ad with a total cost of $4,000. In this case the partner is entitled to receive a reimbursement to its personal account for $1,000 since the partner’s cooperative funds are less than 50% of the total cost of the approved ad.

Accumulated marketing funds are not eternal. They expire at the end of the next year’s first quarter. For instance: Q1-Q4 2010 funds will expire on March 31st, 2011. Q1-Q4 2011 funds will expire on March 31st, 2012, etc.

That’s all about the major details of the cooperative marketing program. We encourage Bitrix Gold Certified partners to leverage this opportunity to enhance your business and save on marketing. Your Channel Account Manager will provide you more details about the program including detailed program training presentation and the program text.

Let me know if any questions arise.

New forums available

It was a surprise to find out we do not have dedicated support forums for a flagship product smile:) Well, at the same time this could be considered as the best confirmation our developers are really cool and there are no really many user complains. Most of them were successfully resolved by our helpdesk (God bless the helpdesk!)

However it is better to start a good thing later than never. Now the orphaned state of both Bitrix Intranet Portal and Bitrix Virtual Appliance are over. Please, welcome the BIP forum and the BVA forum!

Should you have any ..... well, yeah, we are eager to answer your questions!
Partner Program
Free Online Training
Subscribe to Bitrix News