Behind Glass Walls

This post is a continuation from my previous post, looking at some of the issues in collaboratively constructing documents. There are a huge range of options available for collaboratively producing documents. From sharing a file via USB or file hosting website to online editing and annotation, each method is best suited to different purposes. The main considerations include:

• Control:  Where is the document stored? What happen when services/people are not available?
• Security: How easy is it to control who can access the document? What system is used for authentication?
• Versioning: Are different versions stored and are they clearly organised?
• Document Type: File/desktop app (eg. pdf, doc or odt)? Browser-based (eg. wiki, word processing)?
• Formatting, Layout and Markup Language:
  1. Plain Text (“lowest common denominator”) – no formatting
  2. lightweight markup (WikiText, BBCode, Textile) – simple to compose, easy to read in plain text form
  3. WYSIWYG (MS Word, OpenOffice.org, LaTeX) – document preparation systems with full formatting support

In looking at these attributes it is clear that using a Wiki for a sensitive or critical document may not be the best choice. Similarly, sharing a MS Word document via USB drive will quickly cause chaos through incomplete or confused revisions. It is necessary to determine the above attributes before choosing a method of creating the document.

There are a huge range of options when it comes to online collaborative document editing. How do we choose something that matches the needs and knowledge of an organisation, a community group, or a university assignment group? He’s my first look at some comparisons:

Wiki

The most Web 2.0 way to appraoch document editing. Gains in ease of access and use, with losses in security, formatting and overall structure.

eg. Wikipedia, Confluence, PBWorks, WikiSpaces, WikiMatrix (comparisions)

• are usually intended for on-screen display
• may use a special ‘wiki’ markup rather than WYSIWYG or HTML
• generally put emphasis on recording changes and authors
• can have anything from no restrictions to strict, role-based authentication in company intranets
• have a number of pages and incorporate internal linking as a core feature
• are intended to be constantly evolving
• allow pages to be created and removed with ease
• do not impose structure, relying on links and searching for navigation
• rely on guidelines and undoing actions

Some info from the Wiki Wikipedia article.

Single Document Editing

Applying Web 2.0 ideas and tools to a very common issue. Allows concurrent, direct editing, at the expense of formatting power, often requiring remote hosting or interaction with external companies.

eg. Google Docs, Zoho, Huddle,

• are generally a single page
• usually aim to produce a ‘final version’, when the document will be reviewed or made read-only
• are intended to be edited simultaneously
• tend to have a structure and format
• promote drafting before editing the document
• use WYSIWYG editors

Online Document Sharing

The least effective way to version and edit a document, but allows for the most formatting power, control over access and provides a huge array of features.

eg. Box.net, XDrive, Files Anywhere

• usually using Word or plain text files (may include pdf, OpenDocument, .docx)
• most difficult form of collaboration
• each computer requires a browser and the software to read the file
• are usually in a semi-complete form
• allow for comments or notes
• make more powerful formatting tools available
• can be backed up or moved easily

I’ll do another post in the next few days talking about common issues with document management, and how the three methods above can help or hinder the process.

It seems there are two key changes required for successful adoption of Enterprise 2.0 within a company. The first is using the right tools for the job, and having staff knowledgeable and trained in how to use those tools effectively. Training is nothing new to companies, and can be incorporated into professional development or taken up by human resources as a subproject. The second, and usually more interesting and difficult change is the atmosphere and attitudes.

Companies of any decent size tend to be run very much in a top-down way. Enterprise 2.0 involves giving some control back to employees – a bottom-up model. This does not mean that the entire business should shift to user-generated content and management. As Mike LaFleur points out in his response to Dennis Howlett’s post about Enterprise 2.0 being simply a label:

Enteprise 2.0 is much more than merely enabling community; it has the potential to solve myriad business issues and provide an solid return on investment. [...] Enterprise 2.0 is not merely allowing for user-contributed content; it is also enforcement of corporate governance on this content. Where Web 2.0 is bottom-up, Enterprise 2.0 is bottom-up AND top-down.

While Dennis Howlett’s post does seem to concentrate on the aspects of Enterprise 2.0 that are already mainstream, there is still a long way to go in the concept and attitudes. In this area, giving up even a little control does not come easily to middle management. The executive level may see aspects of Enterprise 2.0 as ways to share the load of policy formation or take advantage of new technologies that employees would use no matter what. Non-managerial staff might see Enterprise 2.0 as just an extension of personal activities, applied to business processes and problems. Managers unfortunately tend to see just a loss of control, as more powerful technologies allow things that in the past did not need to be considered, or were restricted.

I’ve read quite a few detailed discussions about the wonderful things that Enterprise 2.0 can allow. Sometimes, it gets a bit hard to take in all the abstract concepts. So let’s try to break it down:

• Enterprise 2.0 is not a ‘thing’. It might be best described as using new and existing tools to more effectively allow information to be communicated and gathered. This can be internally, externally, or allowing a level of free flow between the two.
• There are many tools, such as wikis, blogs and portals, that can be used in an ‘Enterprise 2.0′ way, or a more traditional way. It depends on the engagement of the staff. A wiki full of word documents is no different from a folder on a document server. The differences show and the platform comes into its own when wiki pages are used instead, allowing efficient drafting and stream-lined access.
• It is quite easy to over-do Enterprise 2.0, or to end up with negative effects. It is not straight-forward to take up. Due to this, it may be that for some areas and businesses, the risks outweigh the benefits. Critical business processes require workflows, require some control to be exerted. It is possible to transition, and end up with a more efficient, yet effective model. It is a delicate balancing act.

There is no one way that will work for everything. Successful use of Enterprise 2.0 seems to require a more down-to-earth approach that ignores the abstract ideals of Web 2.0, and instead looks at how improved tools and changed attitudes to work can result in getting more done with greater knowledge. Isn’t that just a good way to run a business?

When businesses are getting into Web 2.0 tools, and looking to adopt some progressive thinking, there is still “an albatross around their neck” in the form of IE6. It’s not like they can miss the fact that IE6 is hated by developers. That message has been around for years. There are so many options for browsers now:

• Mozilla’s Firefox
• Opera Software’s Opera
• Apple’s Safari
• Google’s Chrome

And word is that there will soon be another entrant: RockMelt. All these browsers are in active development, and support a much broader range of technologies. With all these options, you’d think business could find something to use? Apparently, so many businesses have web-based apps that are tied to IE6, that the reason IE6 is still floating around is because users just don’t have a choice. And there’s no solid reason to upgrade (apart from a few security issues). There’s also the issue of management – IE is by far the easiest to deploy to large installations. This begs the question – why not IE8?

This seems to go against the whole idea of implementing and incorporating Enterprise 2.0. How can modern, complex web interfaces that usually use some very advanced JavaScript and styling run on IE6, an eight (yes, count them, 8!) year old browser. In the world of tech, where applications are evolving every few months, if not faster, that seems ludicrous. However, there is not an easy solution. Any further ideas out there for how companies can at least move to IE8?

Well, here we are.  Week 1 of uni has begun, and one of the units I’m taking is INB346 Enterprise 2.0. The idea of the unit is to investigate how new uses of web technologies are affecting businesses, and can be used by businesses to communicate with customers and clients.

I’m a heavy user of web apps, and one of the areas I think needs a lot more consideration is how businesses view and use new tools and opportunities.  While I know and accept that there is bound to be resistance due to the need to use proven tools and established workflows, the increased pace of information flow poses an equally as important consideration.

I’m not a fan of the ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘Enterprise 2.0′ terms. It’d be nice to find alternatives, but these terms convey the concepts in a very small space. That said, I’ll make some suggestions as I post more. ‘Communication platform’ for Web 2.0? ‘Equal discussion for business’ for Enterprise 2.0? Not great, but I’ll keep thinking.

Companies can no longer make their own timetables and broadcast a message, and expect customers and clients to go along with it. More and more,  the expectation is that a conversation will take place, with all on an even footing. No more black boxes. No more dividers. Companies don’t have to open up about everything. They might remain behind walls, but they aren’t brick any more – now everyone else can look in as they work behind glass walls.