Would Somebody Please Let Dan Lyons Play With Them?

For years now, many people have felt that Dan Lyons of Forbes Magazine has had an axe to grind with Lotus Notes. Is it because IBM and/or Ray Ozzie never let him play with them or did not give him candy? What I do know is that Mr. Lyons, in a Forbes article published today, has reached a new level of behavior as the "kid left out" and decided to viscously attack members of the Lotus Notes professional community, while at the same time to trying to do what he can to resurrect public perception of the Radicati Group. It is too bad really, because there is some strong food for thought and discussion in his article. Unfortunately, if Lotus Notes were female, his behaviour would at best be called misogynistic. As a result, any good gets lost in his muck.

My Head Is Not In The Sand

Contrary to the belief of Mr. Lyons, my head is not in the sand when it comes to Lotus Notes. It is a far superior product simply because it does things better in a totally integrated fashion, and with development ease. But better does not always win. If it did, Macs would reign supreme and Beta would have been the dominant videotape format. I have also seen Lotus and IBM lose too many customers because of perceived (which becomes reality for these customers) lack of adequate attention/support. Constantly changing licensing models did not help either. I also have seen customers buy off on the Microsoft rhetoric and "free software giveaways" have nothing but trouble implementing the solution.

Mostly Consultants Who Make a Living...

Mr. Lyons writes that "For years Notes’ most fervent supporters (mostly consultants who make a living installing and maintaining Notes systems) have insisted Microsoft was not gaining ground, and some even claimed Microsoft was bribing analysts." Well maybe they have to do this to fight back the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) fermented by competitors and certain writers for publications that appear to have an agenda.

And please Mr. Lyons, show me where anyone has said that Microsoft was bribing analysts. What Notes advocates have fairly been doing, is taking analyst firms to task that have undertaken research sponsored by Microsoft and failing to disclose this fact (and as I have said before, I would be equally as critical of IBM or any other company doing this).

Gary Devendorf and Small Notes Applications

I will make very clear I have always liked Gary, even though I did not get a chance to get one of his cool backpacks at AdvisorLive (Note to IBM/Lotus: they rocked!). And I know that he has a job to do, and part of that job is finding a way to make migration or coexistence an easy thing to do. But for Mr. Lyons to say that it is the complexity of already built Notes Applications (and I am not sure how he defines "small") that is keeping companies from jumping ship now to Microsoft technologies is irresponsible of him to say at best. He writes, and I quote, "the pain of rewriting all those applications for a Microsoft environment is so great that many just stick with Notes".

Here is the problem with this statement. It is correct, but not for the reason he states. To build applications in Microsoft that can even come close to how they process in a tightly integrated Notes environment would be an architectural nightmare. But Mr. Lyons leaves that out of his discussion. I wish I could set up a meeting between Mr. Lyons and a former IBM customer of mine who threw their hands up trying to implement .Net. This customer told me, as I have related on this blog before, that the Benefits Enrollment and Timekeeping Systems we built for them are the only applications that worked worth a damn. And there was nothing "small" about them.

The Other problem with his view is that he is ignoring the principles of sound information technology governance, which states that there should be a measurable business objective to the acquisition of software and/or systems. If it works, you should not spend time, money and resources ripping and replacing it. But then the real world is out there too, and I accept and acknowledge that.

The CompUSA Discussion

It is the IT governance question that has me most concerned about the quote from Cathy Witt, CIO of CompUSA, who says that  she is jumping ship because she doesn’t believe Notes has a bright future. She is quoted by Mr. Lyons as saying that, “Over the next ten years I think Notes isn’t going to have a place anymore. For big enterprises, I don’t see it staying. I see more and more big companies that were Notes shops, like we were, making that change."

I am wondering on what information she is basing these statements on, and I plan on calling her tomorrow to get some perspective on her decision making process. I would like to know things like what published items is she reading? How much of her information is coming from Microsoft Consulting Services (MCS), which has been in there doing work for CompUSA for the past few years? This latter question is important because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If MCS is inside the building, IBM or any other vendor does not get a fair shake in discussing views. I hope she has time to talk with me.

The Radicati Equation

On this point I would like Mr. Lyons to listen, and listen closely. The Lotus blogging community has not been bashing The Radicati Group for being "a paid shill for Microsoft". The bulk of the criticism has been because of the unethical behaviour of a Radicati employee (which extends to the company). It does so happen that the community is suspect of Radicati output, and there are some things that I know about the report in question that you do not. But I will leave that one alone. What I will point out, yet again, is that the recent "survey" conducted by The Radicati Group, was shown to be statistically flawed and poorly done by one of the leading survey research experts in the world. And what about that Radicati study that showed Microsoft earning more revenue last year than Microsoft reported themselves? Is that the sign of thorough research methodology?

I can only think that this attempt you have made in this latest article is your way of trying to salvage the reputation of a firm whose methodologies and behaviors are questionable at best, and that since you could not publish your interview with me because it would have shown you to be the single-minded, arrogant cuss that some people night think you sound like in your latest article (Note, I did not say that I felt that way, but that other may read it that way).

Time to go eat some food and real about some real stuff...