Just catching up on my blog reading, and read some posts about Web 2.0 and “Labs” by Adena at AllPoints
and James Fee. One thing I think they both miss is what makes a “Labs” effort successful: customer feedback.

It’s all about the money…
The bottom line is that companies are trying to sell something – in
some cases it’s software (ESRI, Microsoft), in others it’s the
advertising that wraps around the software (Google, Yahoo). In order to
have people want the software it must be usable. The best way to
detemine the REAL usability of something is to have people use it, and
provide feedback. (While this should be obvious, it took the industry a
long time to learn this).

Release Early and Often (to the Lab)
This feeds directly into a major concept in both Agile development and Web 2.0: “release early and,
release often.”
What’s implied in that statement is that between releases, there is a
learning period where the company changes the software to address
usability issues, and incrementally move the software forward. This is
what makes a “Labs” effort successful. The result is a collaboration
between the company and the clients – which is a whole lot more “2.0″
than a monolithic release followed by a few years of vaccum, possibly
punctuated by a service pack or two.

What about Beta Programs?
Labs should be different from a beta program. A beta program is
basically a way to expand your testing team. The beta participants do
not get to help set the direction of the
software, rather they try the software in existing workflows to locate
bugs which may not have been found in the standard regression testing.
Software released into the lab, while possibly incomplete, should not
be “beta” quality. The idea is to have the working part “work” and to
get input on improvments and additional functions. The goal is to have
your customers help refine your vision of what they want. This is
really helpful unless you have a team of psychics who already “know”
what the users want. (note: regardless of what they say, the marketing
team is not psychic.)

ESRI Labs (beyond ArcWebServices)
Granted they have the ArcWebServices Labs, but it’s pretty small
potatoes in the whole Arc spectrum. What would really turn things on
their head would be a Labs area relating to the core software. This
would be very interesting, and would involve a major shift in the level
of transparency. Right now, it’s pretty reasonable to describe the
company as an “Ivory Tower”. Once (or twice) a year there is the
week-long love fest, where it’s all about the customer and everything
is on the table. And then it’s back to Redlands and all we see if the
“Wall of Marketing” for the rest of the year. Sure they have
publications, and trade shows, and betas, but all this is either driven
by marketing, or weighed down by a giant NDA. There are some brave
souls who do blog, but those few voices in the wilderness are a far cry
from transparency. The recent effort towards having a blog seems stilted – it’s unclear if this is a group blog, a marketing effort, or (shudder) user-generated-content. what. And thus far, it’s pretty fluffy for  the 800lb gorilla of the spatial industry. Back to the Labs thing…

Until ESRI can have a consistent on-going real conversation with
their customers, I skeptical they can embrace a real “Lab”, where rapid
customer feedback cycles drive the direction of the software.