Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Filed under: open standards

Is there a future for email?

3204310433_3059fe3c74
French company, Atos, cause a stir recently by repeating again its intention to ban internal email from 2014 that was announced earlier in the year. There has been a fair bit of misunderstanding on the Web about this so I suggest you read this BBC interview with ATOS CEO, Thierry Breton, that explains his thinking behind this strategy.

Most of the critical responses to this idea have expressed an incredulous attitude towards the idea of eliminating what most people consider to be a critical business tool (remember the reaction to the BlackBerry outage a few months ago?). In some respects, many of the arguments against banning email are reasonable:

  • Can you ban email if your customers and clients are using it? (to be fair to ATOS, they aren't planning on banning external email).
  • Rather than banning email, users just need to manage their inboxes better.

However, on balance I think there is good reason for aiming to effectively ban email. But rather than outlawing it, we need to reinvent how we utilise email as a software protocol and also the ageing paradigm of the inbox, particularly where the assumed effectiveness is built on false assumptions around utility and information ownership. At a software level, email offers a number of important features - such as:

  • Interoperability and extendability.
  • It can work offline (although this is becoming less important).
  • For the sender, it costs no more to send messages to 1 or many people where ever they are.
  • Both sender and receivers can store and organise copies of messages exchanged independently of each other.
  • Email addresses act a simple proxies for identification.
  • Email accounts can be created for individuals, groups and also non-human systems.

These features provide a great deal of utility, although we can look at each feature and find many negatives too - for example:

  • Email standards and extensions aren't implemented homogeneously, so users may have problems reading or processing an email.
  • When you go online after an extended absence, your inbox is flooded with new messages.
  • People send many messages that for the receiver are just transient or ambient information - but your inbox treats them as all the same.
  • The independent nature of email messages contributed to fragmentation of the information chain, making it hard to know who knows what and people who should know made end up getting left out of the loop.
  • An email address doesn't actually tell you anything about the user, who they are or why you should trust that identity.
  • High volumes of automatically generated notification emails from non-human systems contribute to information overload.

In summary, we can say that email works as a pragmatic solution, but not without creating numerous problems for individual users and organisations a like. As a result there many solutions out there that help us to deal with everything from email processing to email data management. Some solutions are technical in nature, like help desk ticketing software or records management systems, but others focus on the user as problem and attempt to fix individual behaviours. But ultimately none offer a way of making email the perfect tool and it will take a leap to improve how we communicate and collaborate.

So, what is stopping us taking this leap? Thinking about this from a social experience design perspective, I think there are four key issues that need to be addressed to create something better than the email we use today:

  1. Move to open work as the default. Email provides users with a simple system of directing messages at people - this falls into a mental information sharing model of open only by exception that is the default in most organisations, but it is also supported by a false perception that email is owned by the sender and private if we restrict the names included on the To, CC and BCC lists. Of course, this doesn't mean we stop supporting some private communication entirely!
  2. Everything is Miscellaneous. Centrally designed information systems that enforce fixed, common models for organising information and work process don't work. These were designed with good intentions, but they aren't effective and only encourage the use of personal information stores.
  3. Collaborate by staying apart. We need the same ease of interoperability between different social business software platforms that email offers - I shouldn't be forced to use your system, when I have my own, and neither should you.
  4. Who are you? We need to shift from email addresses as identifiers towards a model where organisations can offer a better user identifier and profile that will enable messaging to take place through the right channel or system.

Its entirely possible that email protocols will continue to play a role in this new environment, but I think it will also depend on other Web 2.0 protocols like Activity Streams, Open Social, and ATOM. This actually hints that the death of email will come incrementally, if we wait for the technology to rise up and present better alternatives. In practice, the tide of data created by other social business software tools will make the traditional email inbox an unsustainable proposition.

The water is rising slowly right now, but don't doubt that the inbox will need to be reinvented at some point - the question is really when and how, not if.

BTW if you found this interesting, you might enjoy this presentation, Architected for Collaboration.

Image credit: Inbox Art CC BY-SA

Google Plus - email re-imagined?

In the last few weeks a lot has been written about whether Google Plus is the ultimate killer social networking site of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or several others, you name it. Perhaps we have seen far too many articles and blog posts on the topic and while I do think it’s just a bit too early to make such kind of statements, even if Google Plus has just reached over 25 million users already. I still think it’s a bit too early to be announcing the painful death of each of those social networking environments. Let’s not forget how long it took both Facebook and Twitter to become mainstream and reach that tipping point of no return, of rampant progress, of gaining enough relevance and importance to stick around for a while, in short, of having enough global impact that almost everyone has heard, or knows about them. G+ still needs to reach that level. I do know though it will reach it eventually, perhaps even sooner than anyone else!, but what I am rather surprised about is the fact that hardly anyone has talked or blogged about the fact that Plus does present a real threat to the king of communications, collaboration and knowledge sharing: email!

For me, one the interesting things I've found about the Google+ experience to date is how much it resonated with my experience of enterprise microblogging platforms.

Now, Google got things right with Gmail (right now, it still is IMHO the best email app available and I love my ninjas), but stumbled with Wave. Google+ may well end up being the evolution of Gmail into email being re-imagined, perhaps later combined with the elements of Wave that did work (and also Open Social). But for that happen, Google+ will need to support a seamless, minimum level of compatibility with current email systems and other social tools.

Being open could be a recipe for success over the longer term, rather than trying to make Google+ the single social network. The unstated goal should also be to retire Gmail in its current form (although I'd like to keep the ninjas!). And that's where I see the enterprise going too - who will be first?

Plumbing the social enterprise with IBM Lotus Connections - user profiles and more

Media_httpsynchronous_yyewg

The Business Card feature in IBM Lotus Connections - explained in all its technical simplicity by Joseph Russo in his post on the Synch.rono.us blog - highlights one of the reason I think it is such an interesting piece of software. From one perspective, I see Connections is this amazing enterprise social engine interfaced through an open AtomPub based API. This make Connections as much a tool to integrate applications as it is an enterprise social computing destination for employees to use.

BTW This isn't lost on other vendors either - from Attensa to Socialcast and also Socialtext, although each approach the opportunity slightly differently.

In related reading, Bertrand Duperrin talks about rich user profiles as an area that is currently being overlooked. I don't actually think we lack the technology, but I agree we might be ignoring it at the moment while we get caught up with microblogging and wikifying the workplace.

OpenOffice.org Community announces The Document Foundation

The Internet, September 28, 2010 - The community of volunteers who develop and promote OpenOffice.org, the leading free office software, announce a major change in the project’s structure. After ten years’ successful growth with Sun Microsystems as founding and principal sponsor, the project launches an independent foundation called "The Document Foundation", to fulfil the promise of independence written in the original charter.

The Foundation will be the cornerstone of a new ecosystem where individuals and organisations can contribute to and benefit from the availability of a truly free office suite. It will generate increased competition and choice for the benefit of  customers and drive innovation in the office suite market. From now on, the OpenOffice.org community will be known as "The Document Foundation".

Oracle, who acquired OpenOffice.org assets as a result of its acquisition of Sun Microsystems, has been invited to become a member of the new Foundation, and donate the brand the community has grown during the past ten years. Pending this decision, the brand "LibreOffice" has been chosen for the software going forward.

Personally I've been using OpenOffice a lot more recently on my Mac, although iWork is my main workhorse. However, I've had it installed on various machine over the last few years and found it has been getting better and better.

But if you don't use OpenOffice you might be thinking, so what? Should you care about the future of OpenOffice? I think there are a couple of reasons:

  • OpenOffice might be part of the back end of another product you use; and
  • If you care about the adoption and use of The Open Document Format (ODF).

Like many others, I hope Oracle does the right thing here and hands over the OpenOffice brand.

NoSQL isn't anti-SQL: Non-relational, distributed, open-source and horizontal scalable

Media_httpcouchdbapacheorgimgsketchpng_dzhgdgtbaprmwhk

Something to investigate over the summer break, NoSQL:

Next Generation Databases mostly address some of the points: being non-relational, distributed, open-source and horizontal scalable. The movement began early 2009 and is growing rapidly. Often more characteristics apply as: schema-free, replication support, easy API, eventually consistency, and more. So the misleading term "nosql" (some call it "not only sql") should be seen as an alias to something like the definition above.

I'm particularly interested in the schema-free variety of NoSQL databases, like the Apache CouchDB project. However, this is just one variety of NoSQL.

Hat tip to Redmonk.

The Australian health sector needs a whole new approach to information technology, not just open source

OPEN source software offers one cure for clinical system implementation woes, as authorities struggle to find solutions that meet all medical requirements, a leading health informatics researcher says.

...

Rather than the all-in, big-bang approach of a full CIS (clinical information system) implementation, an open, standards-based approach would allow a more incremental, lower risk approach, with organic expansion based on lessons learnt.

I think the mixing of terminology around open source software and open standards is a little confusing in the piece. However, what is clear is that complex environments, like we find in health care, need new approaches to information technology to avoid the mistakes of the past. This includes open source software, open standards, etc but also new approaches to procurement, support, solution design and project management. Just focusing on open source software itself is missing the bigger picture of the challenge. And what about the hardware too?