I think this may be the first time I've linked to the Notes Migration Blog.  This blog, started six months ago, is written anonymously by an IT person going through a Notes to SharePoint migration.  While I don't know who the author is, at some point, jonvon vouched for him/her, so I consider it worth reading.  The mission of the blog, stated six months ago:

To document the real-world situations encountered in a migration from Lotus Notes/Domino technology to a Sharepoint/.NET technology platform. I hope to be fair to both technologies, and will prefer to focus on their strengths, rather than documenting their weaknesses.
Fast forward to the last few weeks, and the postings have gotten pretty interesting.

On February 17, the bloom was off the vine:
we've finally started trying to architect our first major apps in SharePoint. That effort has shown just how short SharePoint falls. All the people who have been pushing SharePoint, saying that its "out of the box" functionality can build entire apps have realized that that is not true.

The final conclusion is that while SharePoint can handle maybe 30% of any given apps functionality out of the box, the other 70% needs to be covered by BizTalk, .NET coding, and other Microsoft technologies. SharePoint is not living up to its marketing.

The most ironic part of it all is that SharePoint shares exactly the same weaknesses as Notes.
On March 18, an "updated strategy" was disclosed: "After a few months of working with both Notes & SharePoint, I have updated my strategy to the following: Don't try to get rid of Domino -- just get rid of the Notes Client."

On March 20, the author was soliciting feedback, looking for quantified data about time / money / effort around SharePoint development and maintenance efforts.

Yesterday, they shared the results of that query.
After all of my inquiries and research into real measurable data comparing SharePoint Dev and Maint costs.... there is no data.

Everyone I talked to is in the same boat we are - just getting going, spending more money on SharePoint at the moment, but with no real idea of what it will cost long-term. It is all guesswork.

I've seen no evidence that anyone really is having a successful migration that saves them money. If anyone does have evidence, feel free to share it.  ... In general, SharePoint feels like a big old marketing scam to me. It doesn't do as much out of the box as Microsoft would have you believe, but it does give Microsoft and their partners a good chunk of money. A decision to go with SharePoint is a decision to tie yourself into their full product line.  ...

Why shake up the status quo for a new technology that nobody is skilled in, that costs more money to deploy, that is guesswork for long-term costs, and that ties you to a specific vendor? Even if it did perform as advertised, I just don't see justifiable answers to that question.
Maybe this is a truism and maybe not.  When I talk to partners who are doing work with SharePoint, I hear statements like "80% of SharePoint deployments are just for sharing files."  Sean Burgess coined the term "file server 2.0" to describe SharePoint in a blog post a few weeks ago.  To be clear, I know there are successful SharePoint applications in market and in use.  I am not trying to make a blanket statement questioning the technology.  I highlight the Notes migration blog at this moment because, as has been predicted a few times by publications such as CMSWatch, the reality of what SharePoint can or cannot do is finally becoming clear in the market.  And that should be useful at separating hype from reality.

Link: Notes Migration Blog >

Post a Comment