Collaboration is an experiment

The latest wave in technology is collaboration. Microsoft, Google, and even Apple have announced products to let multiple people work on documents and spreadsheets at the same time. For them, collaboration is The Next Big Thing.

I think we should pause and think before rushing into collaboration. I don't say that it is bad. I don't say we should avoid it. But I will say that it is a different way to work, and we may want to move with caution.

Office work on PCs (composing and editing documents, creating spreadsheets, preparing presentations) has been, due to technology, solitary work. The first PCs had no networking capabilities, so work had to be individual. Even with the hardware and basic network support in operating systems, applications were designed for single users.

Yet it was not technology alone that made work solitary. The work was solitary prior to PCs, with secretaries typing at separate desks. Offices and assignments were designed for independent tasks, possibly out of a desire for efficiency (or efficiency as perceived by managers).

Collaboration (on-line, real-time, multiple-person collaboration as envisioned in this new wave of tools) is a different way of working. For starters, multiple people have to work on the same task at the same time. That implies that people agree on the order in which they perform their tasks, and the time they devote to them (or at least the order and time for some tasks).

Collaboration also means the sharing of information. Not just the sharing of documents and files, but the sharing of thoughts and ideas during the composition of documents.

We can learn about collaboration from our experiences with pair programming, in which two programmers sit at one computer and develop a program. The key lessons I have learned are:

• Two people can share information effectively; three or more are less effective
• Pair program for a portion of the day, not the entire day
• Programmers share with multiple techniques: by talking, pointing at the screen, and writing on whiteboards
• Some pairs of people are more effective than others
• People need time to transition from solitary-only to pair-programming

I think the same lessons will apply to most office workers.

Collaboration tools may be effective with two people, but more people working on a single task may be, in the end, less effective. Some people may be "drowned out" by "the crowd".

People will need ways to share their thoughts, beyond simply typing on the screen. Programmers working together can talk; people working in a shared word process will need some other communication channel such as a phone conversation or chat window.

Don't expect people to collaborate for the entire day. It may be that some individuals are better at working collaboratively than others, due to their psychological make-up. But those individuals will have been "selected out" of the workforce long ago, due to the solitary nature of office work.

Allow for transition time to the new technique of collaborative editing. Workers have honed their skills at solitary composition over the years. Changing to a new method requires time -- and may lead to a temporary loss of productivity. (Just as transitioning from typewriters to word processors had a temporary loss of productivity.)

Collaboration is a new way of working. There are many unknowns, including its eventual effect on productivity. Don't avoid it, but don't assume that your team can adopt it overnight. Approach it with open eyes and gradually, and learn as you go.

The new division line is collaboration tools

Veterans of the Windows era (and veterans of the DOS era) know all too well that the dividing line between tribes was the file format. Today, it is not the file format that locks in customers, but the ability to collaborate.

In the PC age, application programs ran on individual PCs, stored files on PCs, and used proprietary file formats. Microsoft Word used its own format, WordPerfect used its own format, Wordstar used its own format... you get the idea. Spreadsheets used their own formats too.

One could have several word processors installed on a single PC. Even though these programs ran on the same PC and stored their files on that PC, it was difficult (if not impossible) to move files from one application to another, because of the proprietary formats.

The idea was that once a customer (either an individual or a corporation) had created a lot of documents in the proprietary format, they would resist change to another vendor and stay with the original. It was a way to lock in customers to a vendor's product.

Some vendors allowed for their product to read the files of other products -- Word could read WordPerfect files, for example. Generally, such "interoperability" was limited to reading the files. Reading was easier than writing an "alien" format. (It is easier to pick out the important bits than create a file with all of the right internal tables and structures that will be acceptable to the other program.)

Today we have standard file formats, so a vendor cannot rely on proprietary formats to lock in customers.

But customers can still get locked in to a vendor's product.

Our tools are changing from stand-alone programs that store data in local files to on-line systems that allow for collaboration and store information "in the cloud". More than just sharing documents, today's collaboration tools let multiple people work on the same document at the same time. Microsoft's Office 365 suite allows this, as does Google's Docs and Sheets offerings. Other vendors offer this too.

But each collaboration environment is its own isolated garden. People using Google Docs can work with other people using Google Docs. People using Microsoft Office 365 can collaborate with other people using Microsoft 365. But one cannot mix products; one cannot cross tribes. A person using Google Docs cannot work (online, concurrently) with a person using Microsoft Office 365.

I expect that individuals and organizations will settle on a a single standard for their collaboration. Large corporations with an existing base of Microsoft documents will standardize on Microsoft's tools (Office 365). Small organizations with little or no existing documents (say, start-ups) will standardize on Google Docs because of the lower cost. Individuals will pick the tool that comes with their PC, when they buy a PC. (Several laptops now offer a free year of Office 365.)

Developers and contractors who work with multiple clients may find that they use both, picking the tool that matches their clients' needs for each project.

The "age of proprietary formats" lasted decades, roughly from 1980 to 2010. The "age of proprietary collaboration" may last just as long. Yet in the future I expect that the proprietary collaboration tools will develop interoperability and will not be used to lock in customers. Of course, vendors will find new ways to lock in customers.

The killer app for Microsoft Surface is collaboration

People brought PCs into the office because PCs let people become more effective. The early days were difficult, as we struggled with them. We didn't know how to use PCs well, and software was difficult to use.

Eventually, we found the right mix of hardware and software. Windows XP was powerful enough to be useful for corporations and individuals, and it was successful. (And still is.)

Now, people are struggling with tablets. We don't know how to use them well -- especially in business. But our transition from PC to tablet will be more difficult than the transition from typewriter to PC.

Apple and Google built a new experience, one oriented for consumers, into the iPad and Android tablet. They left the desktop experience behind and started fresh.

Microsoft, in targeting the commercial market, delivered word processing and spreadsheets. But the tablet versions of Word and Excel are poor cousins to their desktop versions. Microsoft has an uphill battle to convince people to switch -- even for short periods -- from the desktop to the tablet for word processing and spreadsheets.

In short, Apple and Google have green fields, and Microsoft is competing with its own applications. For the tablet, Microsoft has to go beyond the desktop experience. Word processing and spreadsheets are not enough; it has to deliver something more. It needs a "killer app", a compelling use for tablets.

I have a few ideas for compelling office applications:

• calendars and scheduling 
• conference calls and video calls
• presentations not just on projectors but device-to-device
• multi-author documents and spreadsheets

The shift is a one from individual work to collaborative work. Develop apps to help not individuals but teams become more effective.

If Microsoft can let people use tablets to work with other people, they will have something.

The post-spreadsheet world

The tablet/smartphone revolution changes the rules for our use of computers. We can now (easily) take them with us, they provide simple user interfaces on small displays, and data is stored on servers. This new model works poorly with spreadsheets, which want large displays, have complex user interfaces, and consider the data as their own. Spreadsheets were not designed for collaboration.

Google has done impressive work with their on-line documents and spreadsheets. I have yet to see Microsoft's on-line offerings, so I will not comment on them. But I can make some predictions.

The tablet and smartphone revolution moves us into a new realm of processing. This new model of processing builds apps from small, connected services and shares data. I think that the collision of tablets and spreadsheets will give us new tools.

Spreadsheets, at their core, are scriptable data processors. They store their data in a two-dimensional format (or three-dimensional format, if you consider multiple sheets to be a dimension). The scripts can be simple formulas, or they can be programs (in Microsoft programs they are written in VBA, in Open Office they are in Java). The ability to apply simple scripts (formulas) is what gives spreadsheets their power.

I expect that in the new world of tablets we will develop small, connectable, scriptable data processors. These processors will work with small sets of data, presenting it to users with smaller screens and also letting users change the data. They will also let users create and run (and share) scripts. And most importantly, they will connect to other data processors -- probably through web services. People will not build spreadsheets but their own custom apps, plugging together these data processors.

Add version control, identity management, and access controls (based on identity), and you will be able to build enterprise-class apps.

We may keep spreadsheets, although I expect them to change. Once mission-critical data is in the cloud, we will extend spreadsheets to pull that data and merge it into a two-dimensional grid. Enthusiastic folks may build real-time updates, bi-directional updates, round-tripping, and collaboration for multiple spreadsheet users. The spreadsheet will become a client of the data processors in the cloud.

In this scenario, Alice may be working on some figures on her tablet as she commutes to the office (she rides in a carpool) while Bob reviews those same figures in the office in his spreadsheet. No one has the master spreadsheet, no one has to worry about getting the latest version.

Web presentations for everyone

And now for a little bit of news about nifty new software.

The software is "Big Blue Button", a web conferencing package.

What is the Big Blue Button?

Big Blue Button (http://code.google.com/p/bigbluebutton/) is a collection of software that lets one host presentations on the web, much like WebEx or GoToMeeting. The presenter can provide audio and video, and even share his desktop. More than that, attendees can ask questions (either in text message or audio) and can chat through IM to the presenter or each other.

Neat feature: real-time translation of instant messages. Big Blue Button uses the Google Translation API and lets people chat across language boundaries. If I set my language to "English" and you set yours to "Spanish", I can type a message in English and you see the translated version. (You can also see my original English version.)

The one feature that is needed: recording. Other products in this arena let one record the meeting for playback later. The folks at Linux-ETC recognize the need and are working on it.

Is Big Blue Button ready for everyone?

The presentation I attended had a few problems, one significant enough to crash the software on the presenters PC. The software is perhaps not quite ready for prime time. Large, respectable, and stodgy corporations will probably choose the safer option of WebEx. But smaller teams (and start-ups) may want to look at Big Blue Button.

How will Big Blue Button change things?

Big Blue Button reduces the cost of on-line presentations, and provides another method for coordinating remote teams. It makes it easier to share knowledge, and the startup investment is small. Therefore, Big Blue Button will make things easier for companies to out-source projects. If you are running your off-shore projects with e-mail, voice-mail, and audio conference calls, you may want to look at Big Blue Button's capabilities.

Developers working at home may want to neaten their office-in-the-home. A disorganized office sounds just as good as a well-organized office, but video changes the game. People get professional head shots for LinkedIn and Facebook to maintain their brand. Two-way web audio/visual connections will create the need for professional-level studios (or something that looks like a professional studio). One will need a proper background, a good microphone and webcam, lighting that is flattering, and a way to block external noise like street traffic. I expect that we will see a small industry of "video consultants" to set up office studios and home studios.