SharePoint

Working for a large organization, it should be no surprise to all that my workplace is going down the SharePoint path for its "enterprise software" solution. What may be surprising to some is that SharePoint confuses me.

I finally got a chance to read CMS Wire's article, SharePoint vs Alfresco: A Platform Perspective. Nothing too surprising in the article as it shows that both SharePoint and Alfresco can stand on their own.

While we believe the comparison was fair, we also agree that there's more to SharePoint than immediately meets the eye. By the same token, there's more to Alfresco than just Share, much of which we eluded to in the article.

Lots of changes from Microsoft is expected to come in the next few years through its Unified Communications push. CMS Wire is the first site I saw that I saw mentioning that the new SharePoint will be called SharePoint 2010.

Finally. Microsoft has come forward with some news about the next version of SharePoint.

First, we have an official name: SharePoint 2010. Not overly innovative, but at least we can all agree on what to call it now.

Last week, Socialtext's Eugene Lee forwarded a link on Twitter with SharePoint as the focus of the article.  The SharePoint article is titled, SharePoint 2007: Gateway Drug to Enterprise Social Tools and the author discusses the frustration enterprises and site developers have with the Microsoft product.  There is some truth in the article as I've heard from many people discussing their concerns about SharePoint lacking quality Enterprise 2.0 features or causing vendor lock for their organization.  However, the article borders slightly on the side of a rant on SharePoint and I've allowed it remain in a tab on my browser for quite awhile while I pondered what I wanted to take from the article.

I think the frustrations the author describes about SharePoint isn't a SharePoint problem.  And the author describes the issue very well without recognizing it's just not SharePoint that drives organizations crazy.

SharePoint does some things rather well, but it is not a great tool (or even passable tool) for broad social interaction inside enterprise related to the focus of Enterprise 2.0. SharePoint works well for organization prescribed groups that live in hierarchies and are focussed on strict processes and defined sign-offs. Most organization have a need for a tool that does what SharePoint does well.

This older, prescribed category of enterprise tool needs is where we have been in the past, but this is not where organizations are moving to and trying to get to with Enterprise 2.0 mindsets and tools. The new approach is toward embracing the shift toward horizontal organizations, open sharing, self-organizing groups around subjects that matter to individuals as well as the organization. These new approaches are filling gaps that have long existed and need resolution.

The problems identified with SharePoint can easily be said about many enterprise applications out there.  Many of the enterprise suites provided to the market traditionally offered turn-key solutions in an effort to deliver a single integrated solution for the customer.  These integrated suites can and do create "vendor lock" but that isn't the sole goal of enterprise products being delivered by such companies as Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle.  The customers asked for efficient and effective enterprise solutions and the big software companies responded by providing the expected tightly controlled software platforms (historically a good thing) along with terms of licensing, predictable pricing, training, and infrastructure support.

CMS Wire has an article by Barb Mosher titled, Under the Covers: Alfresco's SharePoint Services (WSS) Killer.  The article is worth a read and provides a good overview of Alfresco's Share as well as the Alfreso Enterprise CMS.

"Our prediction, though proved to be correct though in another sense, inasmuch as the push to sell SharePoint as a replacement to ECM systems has to a large degree stopped — a good thing for buyers, for in that direction lay serious disappointment.

The fact is that buyers typically do not replace systems, be they ECM or otherwise. The growth in the data mountain and the ever-changing demands to the business mean that IT adds to and attempts to enhance what is already there, rather than rip and replace."

It has been awhile since I've considered using KnowledgeTree on the office intranet. I eventually decided that I needed to focus more on our content management system (we are now using Drupal) and consider implementing a document management system (DMS) at a later date. A recent Linux.com article on KnowledgeTree reminded me about the DMS that I almost forgot about.

These days, effective document management means accessibility from anywhere on the planet, electronic storage, reliable backup, and instant document modification updates. KnowledgeTree offers all that and more. It's available in several editions, including an open source community version (which we reviewed last year) that businesses can tailor to their individual needs.

You can install KnowledgeTree in-house on your company's server or use it as an online, hosted service. With it, you can create, edit, and store documents from Linux, Mac, and Windows computer. KnowledgeTreeLive, the hosted version, can be accessed from any computer with an Internet connection and a supported browser -- Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer.

I always promised myself that I would take a second look at KnowledgeTree sometime down the road. Unfortunately, at least for for KnowledgeTree, the regional office I'm under has started a move toward Microsoft's SharePoint. As I've written in the past, SharePoint is confusing system to describe and even Microsoft has a tough time explaining their product to potential customers. I initially thought SharePoint would be more of a CMS, Portal, and wiki but each time I've looked at SharePoint I'm realizing that it's greater strength may be in document management.

This may surprise regular visitors to my site, but I'm an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal.   Why is it surprising for some that I read the WSJ?  Well, probably because after all the links and excerpts to stories I have provided from CMS Report, this is the very first time I have ever mentioned an article from the WSJ in one of my blog posts.  The sad truth is that about every article found at WSJ.com can only be fully read if you are a subscriber of the online newspaper.  I have wanted to avoid frustrating readers the issues with providing a link to an article they can't access unless they're ready to hand over their cr