Comparing tools for cross-organizational collaboration
By Robert Slagter | In EN, team blog | 10 comments.
Since one of our customers would like to experiment with close collaboration across organizational boundaries (discussing information), I am currently comparing a series of tools. The table below represents my findings from testing the different alternatives. The information in the row “User friendliness” is subjective: it indicates how easy I could find my way around the tool. If you see information in the table that you consider to be not correct, please let me know or post a comment.
| Quickr | Google Docs | Ning | Zoho wiki | Office Live | Box .net | Huddle | Con fluence | Base camp |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logging in |  | | | | | | | | |
| Https |  ? | | | | | | | | |
| New workspace | | | | | | | | | |
| According to template | | | | | (1) | | | | |
| Access rights | | | | | | | | | |
| My workspaces | | | | | | | | | |
| Documents | | | (2) | | | | | | |
| Action points | | | | | | | | | |
| Traceability | (3) | | | | | | | | |
| Notification change | | | | | | | | | |
| Notification action points | | | | | | | | | |
| Schedule | | | | | | | | | |
| Online status | | | | | | | | | |
| Chat | (4) | | | | | | | | |
| Knowledge base | | | | | | | | | |
| Free | (5) | | | | | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
| User friendly |  |  |  | | | | | | |
| Web application | | | | | | | | | |
| Dutch | | | | | | | | | |
| Ads free | | | (10) | | | | | | |
| Standard | DFNAS | DF | NS | DN | DFNAS | DF | DFAS | D | DA |
About the demands: based on the way the customer would like to work together with people from other organizations, we have formulated the following demands on the virtual workspace. The words must, should and could in the description indicate the importance of the requirement:
- Logging in. The workspace must be secure and people need to log in before being able to access information.
- Https. Communication over the internet should be secure.
- New workspace: It must be possible to create new sub-workspaces that contain information on a specific topic/case, with specific access rights.
- According to template: It should be possible to create new workspaces according to a template to create a standard structure or to fill them with standard documents.
- Access rights. It must be possible to indicate per sub-workspace which people or groups have access (edit, view, no access)
- My workspaces. It should be possible to have an overview of the workspaces (topics/cases) you are working on.
- Documents. It should be possible to upload documents (Word or PDF) as part of a workspace. In the next phase of our experiment this must be possible.
- Action points. It must be possible to keep track of action points as part of a workspace.
- Traceability. It must be possible to see who made what changes to the workspace.
- Notification change. Users must be able to receive notifications of changes to the workspace.
- Notification action points. Users must be able to receive notifications of changes to the action points.
- Schedule. It should be possible to keep track of scheduled meetings in the workspace.
- Online status. It could be nice to see the online status of other workspace members in the workspace.
- Chat. It should be possible to exchange chat messages with other users in the workspace.
- Knowledge base. It should be possible to create a knowledge base at the highest level of the workspace, with questions and answers that all registered users can access.
- Free. The workspace should be free to use.
- User friendly. The interface of the workspace must be intuitive, clear and appealing (subjective scale).
- Web application. Users must be able to access the workspace via the internet using their web browser.
- Dutch. The workspace should have a Dutch interface.
- Ads. The workspace should not show ads.
- Standard: While it is often possible to store information in a workspace (for instance, notes about a document can be placed on a wiki), this shows which types of information (relevant in the pilot) the workspace recognizes.
- Documents
- Folders
- Notes
- Action points / tasks
- Scheduled meetings / events
Notes:
- Only via pre-defined templates
- Only via external applications: Ning Apps
- Only in the Quickr wiki
- Requires integration with Lotus Sametime
- The costs are €71 per person per year
- The costs are $15 per person per month
- Costs start at $200 per month, see http://www.huddle.net/huddle-price-plans/
- See the options at http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/pricing.jsp
- See the pricing options at http://basecamphq.com/signup
- Paid option
Tags: collaboration, in sync, open organization, tools
Entries (RSS)
Upon popular request, we have added Basecamp to the comparison as well. The blog entry on the advice will follow shortly.
You’ve done a great research on the tools. It would be great if you would consider adding our powerful pm and collaboration tool – http://www.comindwork.com (available in Dutch with integrated Google Translation)
Two wrongs on BaseCamp:
1. secure connections (login over https) is available for all plans, including the free one, which brings me to point
2. there is (on the pricing page) a link (though small) to the free plan, limited to one project. In many situations, multiple projects can happily coexist in a larger space, or there is no occurence of multiple simultaneous projects, in which case you can always archive one and start the next one.
Subverting the notion of a ‘personal free plan’ a bit, there is nothing stopping you from creating multiple single-project free sites. (you’ll have to do separate administrative duties, but that’s all)
Oh, one more on BaseCamp: there is no reason (in fact, it is a quite valid approach) that meetings can not be put on the list of milestones. This is not a meeting scheduler, but it will show the meetings on the calendar and allow for tasks and whatnot to be associated with that meeting.
Requet to compare:
- google wave
- project place
You’re right, but we are explicitly not looking at possible workarounds here. If we have to explain to a large group of users that their meetings are called “milestones” in this environment, that would be a disadvantage with respect to a workspace that lists events as “events”.
Thanks! I changed the https availability.
Regarding the free plans: the administrative duties are quite serious in this case, so it really is a “no”, from my perspective.
Hello Robert
First of all thanks for sharing the table. Regarding contributions i can share only 3 minimal contributions concerning GoogleDocs, based on my experience.
a) When we are editing a doc, if someone else with access to the doc cames in to edit, it will be visible on the right side of the working space. I do not know if it qualifies for «online status»…
b) … when are co-workers are in that same space, on that same right side, you can chat with them. But then again, I do not know if it qualifies for «chat».
c) regarding «https://» when you open a doc from google, you can see on the link address to that working space the https:// so in this one i think it qualifies for secure.
Best regards
Thanks for sharing this information. I’m just wondering, given your familiarity with our company, why you didn’t include Winkwaves Kenniscafe in your comparison? When discussion is key, I think Winkwaves Kenniscafe can definitely compete with the environments you mention. I hope you will include us as well!
Great contributions Mónica!
I have updated the table to reflect points b) and c). I have not updated the “online status”, since for this one requires that I can see if someone is online, independent of them editing the document.