stressfree - project management

Projjex: Online project collaboration for the rest of us?

David — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:53:59 +0000

I have recently been checking out Projjex, a relative newcomer to the online project/collaboration/document management market. The "cool kid on the block" when it comes to this field is 37signals' Basecamp, but it seems like the two companies are after very different audiences. Basecamp is synonymous with "Web 2.0" and has a look and feel that suits this crowd. In contrast Projjex seems to be going after the older (more mature?) audience with an offering that emphasises practicality over design.

My sweeping generalisation is that if you read TechCruch religiously then Basecamp is for you, whereas if you have never heard of TechCrunch (or prefer 'real news') then Projjex is probably more to your liking.

The genre clash dilemma

Before I go over Projjex I need to get a couple of things off my chest. The problem I have with these project/collaboration/document management tools is that they are trying to do too much with too little. It is like a summer blockbuster that cannot decide whether it is an action, comedy, drama or romance film and just ends up being nothing. Pulling something like this off is almost impossible and at some point the software developer has to put a stake in the ground and focus their efforts on one primary thing. For example when you take a look at the 'traditional' desktop each one of these functions is handled by a dedicated product:

Project management: Microsoft Project
Collaboration: Outlook, Notes, Groupwise, Apple Mail...
Document Management: Sharepoint, Alfresco

Every one of the above products has a very deep feature-set and whilst it is possible to monitor projects in Sharepoint or manage documents within Outlook, these capabilities are purely secondary and often accidental.

In contrast both Projjex and Basecamp apply the 80/20 principal (see Joel Spolsky's critique) in order to cover such a broad problem space in a realistic amount of time. On one hand this works well because it provides a slick (a.k.a. spartan) user interface. However on the other hand this limited functionality soon starts coming up short as people gain an understanding of the product. Personally I would much rather use (and pay for) a deep product that seriously tackled the one problem space rather than investing my time in a service that did a little bit of everything poorly.

For example the feature that makes Microsoft Project "kick ass" is its ability to visualise the abstract world of project management. At meetings or in emails nobody is interested in seeing a list of milestones or tasks - what everybody wants to see is the really pretty gantt chart clearly illustrating the process spaghetti going on. Unfortunately what software developers see as important (and easy) when they come to Microsoft Project is the list of dates and tasks. Consequently what we end up with in tools like Projjex and Basecamp is that text-based list of things we all hated looking at in the first place. Personally I think the product that will kick Microsoft Project of its pedestal is an offering that somehow does away with those boring lists entirely.

A consequence of this generalist nature is that these project collaboration services have a walled garden approach when it comes to interaction because the underlying assumption is that every person associated with the project will be a signed up member of the service. However if I am using Projjex and a business partner has chosen Basecamp we should not need to have accounts on both systems to collaborate on different projects. If these services were more focused then I am sure more effort would be placed on getting them working together (e.g. Basecamp for collaboration and Projjex for project management). Unfortunately because every one of these companies are going for the same 'generalist' pie, there is no room for negotiation or partnership. I am sure this tune will change once a major player enters the arena, sending the smaller companies clammering for higher ground. Which leads me to my second thing...

Where is Google?

This project/collaboration/document management market seems ripe for Google to come muscling in. On paper it would seem like a no brainer for a Google Projects like service:

It would tie in nicely with their Google Apps offering.
GMail, Google Docs and Google Calendar would integrate perfectly.
It would support open source development and compliment Google Code.
There is an opportunity to do something really different.

At the back of Projjex and 37signals' minds must be some lingering uncertainty around if (or when) such a service will be released. If past events are any indication the result would not be good as it would draw users away from these smaller services and probably force Microsoft's entry into the online market. As a potential user this is a problem because you do not want to entrust a business critical task on a service that will be run out of business (or at the very least eclipsed) by a major player in the (perhaps) not too distant future.

Why not swim with a big fish?

What we have yet to see is any of these project collaboration tools take the task of desktop/web integration seriously. For example if Google ever do release a project management tool that integrates seamlessly with GMail, GCalendar, etc. would it not make sense to be the competitor with excellent Outlook and Sharepoint support? Alternatively by deeply integrating your product with Google's services it may lead to hesitation before the release a competing product (see Saleforce.com & Google).

The problem with this theory of course is that it breaks the 80/20 rule. If something is to integrate seriously with any of these applications it by definition must be a deep product. Compounding the problem is that building this integration takes far more effort than adding extra features to your proprietary web-interface. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that integration trumps aesthetics and functionality nine times out of ten. An online project management tool that integrates seamlessly with Outlook is far more valuable to a heavy Outlook user than one that does not.

Only time will tell whether Google or Microsoft enters this market and if they do whether smaller services like Projjex can survive or even flourish. In the meantime lets take a look at how Projjex shapes up as standalone service within a relatively immature market.

Projjex at a glance

If the look of Projjex had to be summed up in a couple of words for the catwalk it would be "subdued practicalism" (note, I don't think practicalism is a real word).

The fact that Projjex is not glitsy is a matter of taste, but personally I believe it is a good thing. When it comes to business critical tools what you are after is something that works when you need it and gets out of the way when not. On this scale Projjex performs pretty well, it is uncluttered and designed with an eye to getting things done first, and looking good second.

Whilst the introductory videos did a very good job of introducing the functionality and setting the tone for the product my initial experience was not very welcoming. When I first went to log in with Safari I was presented with this rather intimidating message:

Note to Projjex developers: If a site works in Firefox 2/3 it will pretty much work in Safari or any other Webkit-based browser. Sure, go ahead and display a warning message if the person is using Netscape Navigator 4, but in the case of Webkit if the only issues are going to be minor bugs then the warning should be more subtle. As far as I could tell things worked fine with Safari except for a couple of negligible graphics issues, all of which looked more like bugs with the site rather than the browser.

What works

Tool-tips

It was a pleasant surprise to see lots of useful tool-tips appear on each new page. Whilst it may seem trivial these aids helped point out things that first time users who never read manuals should know about.

Dialogs instead of page loads

The project creation and data-entry tasks were all pretty straight forward for anyone used to using applications like this. Rather than using lots of different pages Projjex opts for a dialog model that is very reminiscent of a desktop application. This is a wise move because not only is it familiar, it also feels more responsive and more consistent.

Time-sheets

One user interface feature I really liked was the ability to quickly fill in time-sheet information. For this Projjex uses a hybrid spreadsheet/dialog approach that is not only fast but very easy to understand. Time-sheets are a necessary evil and with this in mind it does a very good job.

Minute taking

Lots of applications let you setup meetings, but very few follow through with emailed minutes and attendance. The idea is that as you are having your meeting you record changes to the project (i.e. add requirements, update tasks, etc.). Once the meeting finishes you 'close' the meeting in Projjex and it generates a set of minutes based on the changes made during the meeting. This is a really good idea because it closes the loop between organising a meeting, recording the changes and notifying everyone.

Simple yet sophisticated security

For every entry created in Projjex you can assign sharing rights that range from completely public through to private. There is also an option to share entries only with those in your business. Whilst it may appear simple, the fact that these permissions can be inherited or individually set provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to mapping out your project with others.

What doesn't

The dashboard

Dashboards are the one place on any system where things need to be visually appealing. I would say the most successful dashboard ever is the one provided by Microsoft Outlook. That alone has probably helped sell more copies of Exchange than any other function or marketing campaign. The dashboard is your first impression of Projjex and to say it is underwhelming would be an understatement:

In contrast checkout this one from Salesforce.com:

The dashboard needs to be the place where all this abstract, textual data is aggregated and presented in a clear and visually appealing manner. Currently as it stands the Projjex dashboard is something you want to get away from as quickly as possible because it just feels so stale.

The dashboard is also an excellent place to integrate with other systems, for example an easy place to start are HTML widgets for websites such as iGoogle and Facebook. Beyond that is the fragmented desktop widgets/gadgets environment (Google Desktop, OSX, Yahoo and Vista). The dashboard should arguably be the first and last place you visit during the day, so striving to make it ubiquitous and appealing is the goal.

Lack of visualisation

Beyond the dashboard is the lack of any serious charting functionality to enable project data to be summarised and visualised on a single printed page. When it comes to projects and communication the ability to stick a gantt chart in front of people's faces is the single best way of getting them to understand the overall project and where they sit in it. By not answering this problem Projjex are forcing people to export their data into another, competing product (e.g. Microsoft Project).

Beyond gantt charts is the lack of visualisation of documents. When all your documents are stored on a remote server it is important that you can quickly see the right file without having to download it completely. The fact of the matter is that people never name their files intelligently or take the time to adequately describe them with meta-data (e.g. 'This document describes...'). Projjex needs the ability to quickly preview contents of commonly used files in the same manner as Alfresco Share. For example image files should have thumbnails generated and text documents a preview of the first page rendered.

A screenshot of Alfresco Share's document previews

In conclusion

Overall Projjex is a solid service that contains a couple of really good features (meeting minutes and time-sheets). The interface is very practical and works well in general. Projjex needs to focus on integration with third-party services and develop the depth of functionality in one or two key areas. If you are working in a small team and looking for a low-cost, project/collaboration/document management service then Projjex may fit the bill. However be warned, if you are looking for Web 2.0 glamor, Basecamp maybe more to your liking.

OmniPlan comes to the project management party

David — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:09:07 +0000

For the longest time finding a decent project management tool for OSX has been difficult, if not impossible depending on the features you require. Unfortunately even in the Windows world finding an alternative to the powerful but very expensive Microsoft Project is challenging. This is primarily because Microsoft Project pretty much owns the project management space in terms of the functionality provided and the level of lock-in demanded. Consequently with Microsoft not porting their application to OSX and alternatives lacking when it comes to functionality, usability and interoperability there is large void when it comes to the applicability of OSX to certain businesses. Fortunately the Omni Group have set out to change this fact with their first release of OmniPlan.

The OmniPlan workspace (click to enlarge)

The Omni Group have a long history of making great OSX software, in fact they started out developing software for the NEXTSTEP operating system - the forerunner of OSX. Without their OmniGraffle diagram/vector drawing package my life would be a whole lot harder. Omni Group software consistently gets even die hard Windows users drooling because of its ease of use, looks and depth of functionality. The reason why the Omni Group make excellent OSX software is because their products are designed specifically for the graphical and interface conventions of OSX. As their software is not simply a port of a Windows version or designed from the outset to run on multiple platforms the applications always look fantastic, integrate extensively with other OSX services and run as smooth as silk. I have been playing with OmniPlan and at this early stage it looks like the Omni Group have managed to maintain their high standards when it comes to functionality, usability and aesthetics.

When it comes to functionality OmniPlan covers all the bases and applies the standard (i.e. Microsoft Project) functional idioms when managing your projects. Being a 1.0 release the depth of functionality is not there just yet and for mid to hard-core Microsoft Project users they will soon become aware of missing, essential functionality. However if you are like me and only need to use project management tools every so often to create the odd overly ambitious gantt chart you will find OmniPlan meets your needs well. Without consulting the manual it is easy to add tasks, dependencies, resources (i.e. people) and plot critical paths if you have a little knowledge of Microsoft Project (or similar tool). In fact if you have experience with other Omni Group applications like OmniGraffle or OmniOutliner you will feel right at home as the same user-interface conventions and keyboard shortcuts are carried across into OmniPlan.

OmniPlan by default saves to its own proprietary format but for those working with Microsoft Project users you will be happy to hear that OmniPlan reads and writes Project XML and Project Exchange files. A note of caution though, I did not have any files to test the real-world compatibility of the formats and from past experience your mileage may vary when it comes to swapping complex data between different platforms. For people working with text documents you will also be happy to see the option to export as a TIFF, JPEG or PDF file which means gantt charts can be easily embedded within all sorts of documents.

Resource management with OmniPlan (click to enlarge)

The thing that really stood out in using OmniPlan was its export to HTML functionality. This tool quickly generated a multi-page project website. The nice thing about this tool was that the templates are fully customisable using standard HTML and a little bit of specific OmniPlan markup. Unfortunately a drawback was that only one standard template ships with OmniPlan and no preview functionality is provided. It would be nice in future releases to see a set of professional, stylish templates and a preview interface similar to what is provided in Keynote so that project managers can quickly generate stylish web reports with a minimum of hassle. It would also be good to see OmniPlan support automatic upload or synchronisation with online services like .Mac and FTP/Network drives so that these exports can be effortlessly published to the Web or Intranet.

Quickly producing printed copies of project gantt charts and reports is also very easy so long as in the print dialog box you select OmniPlan from the print options drop-down list. Selecting this brings up a host of useful options such as the template to apply, the number of pages the report should span and what data should be included in the print job. Unfortunately if you forget (or fail to notice) this option and just press Print the results are not spectacular to say the least. This is a shame as generally speaking accepting the defaults and seeing what happens is standard human nature. It would be nice if either the OmniPlan print options were displayed by default when the print command is given or like Photoshop, there was some kind of Print with Preview command that let you see a dynamic preview before committing to the actual print job.

Apart from these gripes the 1.0 release of OmniPlan is very solid and holds a lot of potential for the future. Like all Omni Group products it is competitively priced at US$149.95 (a steal compared to Microsoft Project) and a free, fully functional demo is available for download. If the Omni Group's other products are any sort of example there will no doubt be versions 2.0 and 3.0 of OmniPlan that build upon the existing functionality of this first release and extend it further into the realm of Microsoft Project killer. Congratulations go to the Omni Group for getting this out the door (so to speak) and I, like many Mac business users will be looking forward to this products exciting evolution.

What makes this different to big-iron project management?

David — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:42:14 +0000

Recently Mike and I met with a couple of representatives from Bentley. It was interesting to talk to them, basically it boils down that Bentley has taken a hands off approach in the New Zealand market and now they have realised that does not really work, especially when they are up against very vocal ArchiCAD and Vectorworks salesmen and an industry entrenched in AutoCAD. The first reaction when I described my research was 'ProjectWise does this already'. This is in part true of any Internet-enabled, project documentation management tool such as the aforementioned Bentley ProjectWise, AutoDesk Buzzsaw, Constructw@re or Prolog (a glitzy Flash demo for is available here). However there are some significant differences between the approaches that I should go into.

Firstly all the products just mentioned require a significant degree of buy-in both in terms of financial outlay and training. All of the products are vast in their functionality and are primarily targeted at management of large, long-term construction projects where all participants (architects, contractors and engineers) have extensive and long-term relationships. These long-term relationships provide justification for the considerable learning curve involved in implementing the products. A few years ago I saw I demo of a piece of New Zealand developed design/construction management software for a large spec-housing company that satisfied the same economy of scale argument as these management tools. However there is a large untapped market of very short-term, small scale architectural projects that could benefit from online collaboration but cannot justify the costs of implementing a large management system. This is the target market for my research and ultimately this is the ideal Internet experience, allowing participants to converse directly with one and other unrestrained by the forces of centralised management. The Cluetrain Manifesto touches on this concept from an advertising and marketing perspective but it has also been termed 'talking to an audience of one'.

All the of the products use a centralised management approach requiring a dedicated server or hosted service which in turn have their own ongoing maintenance and support costs. The emphasis of my research is identifying a means of achieving distributed project knowledge sharing to remove the presence of a centralised server and re-utilise existing office resources such as their email and web-hosting services. Most if not all offices now have access to an email service and probably a web-host as well. Coupled with this is the wide variety of online mail services offered with huge storage capacities and very little cost (GMail, Runbox, Yahoo for example). Yet these centralized tools do not take advantage of these services, in fact most of these programs began development in the late 90's well before these services even existed. Buying into online collaboration should not involve buying into an expensive server or service, the most expensive purchase should be the bandwidth and even over time the price of this is going down (though there are some concerns related to how the Net will evolve in the future).

These document management products also emphasize the word management. To a certain extent all these products are aimed at top-tier managers with the end-users (builders, CAD monkeys and client) coming in a very distant second place. Even the reasons promoted for implementing these systems revolve around how useful these tools are for management to keep their employees up to date and keep a watch on how their projects are progressing. I personally think I am aiming for the 'Google Architect' of AEC document management arena; who's emphasis is on ease of use and flexibility for the end-user to both interact with and understand how their work fits in to the big picture.

Just like Google there should be zero buy-in and buy-out in the system for users. Google does not make end-users pay money to search or limit the search scope based on economic needs (though sometimes political demands have forced some changes). However most of the AEC project management products emphasize the creation of a brand silo that tightly integrates with and rewards the use of company supported products. Consequently migration between product silos is made very difficult as the document management meta-data is proprietary and stored within databases housed on the server or on the hosting provider. My work is looking to find a way of adding value to existing data (through the creation of meta-data enriched RSS feeds) whilst preserving the independence of the underlying information from a corporate silo. Through sticking to industry standard email (SMTP,POP3), web (HTML) and RSS technologies the mechanisms put in place would in no way lock users into to any particular brand.

Rather than championing the use of a central server my work is trying to distribute tasks and re-utilise the existing email and web hosting services already present within the infrastructure of an architecture practice. Through reusing these resources and the spare CPU cycles of increasingly powerful desktops the requirement for a dedicated and costly server should no longer be required unless in situations where it economically makes sense. This will significantly reduce buy-in and heighten adoption vertically throughout the industry from small two person practices right through to large organisations as decisions can be made without significant outlay of time or money. Plus following this strategy the emphasis would be on a bottom-up adoption model rather than a top-down strategy for implementation.

Most importantly the emphasis of this research is on creation of an AEC decision & conversation management tool, not simply a document management framework. Obviously CAD and image files play a crucial role in this conversation but email, schedules and eventually blogging are just as important. This is especially true as time passes and the personal relationships and decisions that helped form the design are forgotten or the people that were associated with development transfer project documentation off to others. Exactly how this conversation is (or isn't important) to the evalutation of the project is important and most probably the crux of my thesis. Determining whether or not the preservation or re-evaluation of project conversation can play a beneficial role is the end-game conclusion for the work. My hypothesis is that the advent of such a tool would greatly improve not only collaboration and understanding but also the long-term success of a project. Proving this hypothesis is what the testing phase is all about.

An old but still very interesting Cadalyst article I read recently touched on the importance of conversation and collaboration in the evolution of the Building Information Model. The article even suggested that the success of Industry Foundation Classes may hinge on the failure of proprietary silos and collaboration tools (what need is an open model if most of the value comes from a proprietary means of collaboration?). This is an interesting point of view and quite logical when the true value of collaboration and conversation is factored into the life-cycle costs of a project.