Enterprise 2.0 Conference: A Drupal Perspective


By Jeff Whatcott - Posted on 12 June 2008

This week we sponsored and attended the Enterprise 2.0 Conference here in Boston. It was a useful week that produced several interesting insights about how Web 2.0 patterns are being applied inside large organizations.200806121716.jpg

Apparently last year this show was relatively small and mostly filled with vendors selling stuff to too few interested customers. This year has balanced that out: there were a good number of corporate clients at the show, and they appeared to be quite engaged with the concept of Enterprise 2.0 and hungry to learn more.

We sponsored a small booth in the Demo pavilion to attract potential customers and prospective partners. We had solid traffic all week. Few people coming by our booth had heard of Drupal before, so we spent considerable time educating them about the history and functionality of Drupal. We need to continue to evolve our demos and diagrams to make this process easier and more differentiating. See more on that below.

In addition to staffing our own booth, I spent some time checking out the competition to benchmark our messaging and functionality. I was struck by how thoroughly undifferentiated the pitches were. Everyone was giving essentially the same demo, talking about the same functionality and use cases.

Some of the solutions are delivered through on-premise software. Many were offered as software-as-a-service. A few are available through both. A [very] few are open source, but most of these are corporate-led non-organic open source. Drupal+Acquia was the only fully organic open source project represented.

We need to do more to help Drupal stand out in this messaging monoculture. As I've reflected on this, I think we need to more effectively emphasize the flexibility, agility, and adaptability of Drupal. It is the breadth and depth of the module library and the community behind it that makes Drupal stand out. Drupal is nearly always up to date with the latest trends. It can be adapted to meet a multitude of special situations without lots of custom coding. Not so for most of the solutions I saw at this show. Many of these solutions fall apart when it comes to delivering on the specific requirements of individual teams and internal communities. Things like custom content types, feeds that span multiple content types, and custom views of content are problematic for many of the vendors I spoke with.

This morning I participated on a panel moderated by John Eckman of Optaros. John Newton of Alfresco and Bob Bickel of Ringside Networks and talked about open source as applied to Enterprise 2.0. The audience was very engaged, the energy level was high, and truth was spoken. We took plenty of jabs at proprietary software models and highlighted the ways that commercial backers like Acquia, Alfresco, and Ringside Networks can close the expectation gap between enterprise customers and open source software. Kathleen Reidy of The 451 Group has an insightful write-up about the panel.

A photostream from the conference is located here.

Is Acquia Organic or Non-Organic?

Organic.

It seems like you are conveniently confusing Drupal w/Acquia

IMO, Acquia is non-organic based on Theodore Ts'o definition.

This puts it in contrast with “non-organic” software, where all or nearly all of the developers are employed by one company. (And anyone who proves talented at adding features to that source base soon gets a job offer by that one company.

I think one of us has our wires crossed. It may be me. Let's find out.

There were over 750 developers who contributed code to the last version of Drupal core. We employ about 6 of those people, less than 1%. For reference, Red Hat employs about 11% of the Linux kernel developers (see http://tinyurl.com/3vxu9r). I doubt Acquia will ever reach that level, but even if we did, there's no way we cross the line into "all or nearly all" territory.

As I understand it, the whole organic vs. non-organic was originally applied to *the software and the project that delivers it* as opposed to *companies*. Using Ted's definition (the concentration of developers in sponsoring organizations), the Linux kernel is organic. So is Drupal, as demonstrated by the numbers cited above. So what does that mean for companies like Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, or Acquia that are building business around organic open source projects? Are they considered organic by virtue of their participation in an organic project?

I don't think Ted's original framework was clear on this point. We could come up with criteria to differentiate between Red Hat and Ubuntu and Novell and Acquia if we wanted to. But I think that would be solving a different problem than what Ted set out to do.