Posted by Sheri McLeish on April 6, 2010
Like many OpenOffice.org adopters, Forrester's enterprise clients are starting to wonder what's going on with the once-promising open source alternative to Microsoft Office. As one chief technology strategist posited last week: "Oracle has made several strong public pronouncements that their support for OpenOffice.org will continue abated. This, however, begs the question of the increasing functional and technical gap between standard programs like word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations and the new, all-encompassing view of the desktop being adopted by Microsoft in Office 2010. That being so, is there really any future for StarOffice/OpenOffice.org within the enterprise, except as an ever-shrinking niche to support basic, ultra low-cost office document capability on home-use platforms?"
Great question. After 10 years, Open Office hasn’t had much traction in the enterprise – supported by under 10% of firms, and today it’s facing more competition from online apps from Google and Zoho. I'm not counting OpenOffice completely out yet, however, since IBM has been making good progress on features with Symphony and Oracle is positioning Open Office for the web, desktop and mobile – a first. But barriers to Open Office and Web-based tools persist, and not just on a feature/function basis. Common barriers include:
- Third-party integration requirements. Some applications only work with Office. For example, one financial services firm I spoke with was forced to retain Office because its employees needed to work with Fiserv, a proprietary data center that is very Microsoft centric. “What was working pretty well was karate chopped.” Another firm rolled out OpenOffice.org to 7,000 users and had to revert back 5,000 of them when they discovered one of the main apps they work with only supported Microsoft.
- User acceptance. Many firms say that they can overcome pretty much all of the technical issues but face challenges around user acceptance. One firm I spoke with went so far as to “customize” their Open Office solution with a Microsoft logo and told employees it was a version of Office. The implementation went smoothly. Others have said that they have met resistance from business users who didn’t want Office taken off their desktop. Other strategies include providing Open Office to only new employees and to transition through attrition. But this can cause compatibility issues.
- Lack of seamless interoperability with Office. Just like third-party apps may only work with Office, many collaborative activities force use of particular versions of Office. Today’s Web-based and Open Office solutions do not provide seamless round tripping between Office and their applications. Corel, with its just released WordPerfect X5, probably does the best job, along with Thinkfree, a web-based, low-cost Microsoft alternative. But while it’s possible to open Microsoft Office documents in Google Apps and Open Office, there may be features, macros, and formatting missing, and outputting back to an Office format may also result in inconsistencies. This means that iWorkers that need to collaborate on content may revert to PDFs or other more cumbersome approaches to achieve interoperability.
- Legacy content support.For companies that have a lot of legacy content in Office applications, there is also the potential need to access and manipulate these documents. Most companies Forrester talks to find that only a small percentage of legacy content remains active, usually less than 20%, but if this content supports critical business processes and has macros, links, or other formatting that could be impacted, then it poses a risk of not being usable. Generally this content can be isolated and remediated or recreated, but there’s effort involved to do this. And this content also tends to be core to the business and based on structured templates, like contracts or customer correspondence, which make the effort to redo these materials in an alternative difficult if the alternative doesn’t have the rich functionality needed like mail merge or watermarks, or if there are embedded macros that need to get recreated as widgets.
With all of these barriers it’s no wonder Open Office isn’t better represented in enterprises. But there is hope: IBM/Lotus has been investing more heavily in the past few years in its Lotus Symphony suite to add advanced features like pivot tables and better round tripping with Microsoft Office. It’s also slated to be integrated into LotusLive, the online collaboration and email platform, and it may become integrated with IBM’s Project Vulcan. Similarly, Novell could seek to integrate Open Office with Pulse and Google Wave, but has other potential distractions with its imminent sale. Oracle isn’t offering much detail on its plans for OpenOffice.org, but I expect to hear news by midyear. Oracle has committed to making the first industry Open Office solution available on the web, desktop, and mobile though has offered no time lines. This would be a giant step forward if it delivers on this promise.
The code bases for Lotus, Novell, and Oracle/Sun are also slated to synch this year, which will help provide more unity between the Open Office versions, though there’s still division since IBM’s version is Eclipse-based.
So, if IBM, Novell, and Oracle can successfully integrate Open Office into their collaboration and content management solutions, Open Office could see sunny days ahead as it becomes blended with the Information Workplace experience of these vendors. This suggests Open Office is more likely to make its way into enterprises surreptitiously than as a conscious choice for a low-cost alternative tool set. So, yes, I do see a future for Open Office in the enterprise -- one that’s closely tied to integration with collaboration, content management, and business processes and facilitated by the likes of Oracle and IBM. But even then, it likely serves still as a complement to Microsoft Office, not a replacement for those 20-30% of iWorkers requiring the richer capabilities of Microsoft Office for the foreseeable future.