Microsoft has built SharePoint to be a one-stop destination for enterprise collaboration in an evolving Web 2.0 environment. They’ve provided the social-computing solutions in Sharepoint (primarily wikis, blogs, and videoblogs) that balance end-user empowerment without sacrificing IT control.

But does the social software in SharePoint lack the functionality and usability of competing products? Some analysts say yes. SharePoint was not originally built as a Web 2.0 offering. The software itself seems to be built on the idea that employees will spend most of their time working with Microsoft’s installed desktop software—the Office Suite.

Though it’s obviously in Microsoft’s best interest to keep people working in Office, installed software generally isn’t what powers Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 is driven by open-source content authored by users. The ability to create content and share it with peers tends to work better with an online 2.0 model. Both SharePoint and its competitors are fully aware of this, though SharePoint 2007 needs work in this area.

However, are built-in Web 2.0 tools like chat or conversation-style emailing necessary in a collaboration software? This is debatable. SharePoint and Basecamp can each improve a business’ file organization and employee collaboration, even though Basecamp has more built-in 2.0 tools than SharePoint. Both produce a similar output, but by different means. SharePoint businesses can make use of its beautiful customization by customizing css/skins, embedding online pages, and if needed make use of external 2.0 tools.

One issue worth discussing could be all in your head—literally. Social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Plaxo have a pretty consistent interface. Colorful and aesthetically pleasing, their interfaces are usually full of 2.0 capabilities. Not waiting for a page to reload to complete a function is normal. Clicking and dragging files to folders is also normal. For users used to communicating through social media like this, Basecamp will be much more understandable and aesthetically pleasing since it offers a similar interface with similar capabilities. To these employees, SharePoint may seem archaic. Their learning curve may be larger because of this intuitive gap. Likewise, users used to communicating through media like Outlook and beta-style email may find SharePoint more understandable and may have a hard time adjusting to Basecamp. The question you have to ponder: which one of these areas do more of your employees fit into?

While SharePoint is a little less 2.0 mature than some of its key competitors, your ultimate decision to adopt it should not hinge on the quality of its built-in 2.0 tools— especially with the new SharePoint 2010 release on the horizon, which provides quite a few 2.0 tools it’s generally knocked for. SharePoint’s ability to be customized for enterprise collaboration is of far more magnitude. Its ability to upload and share gigantic files with ease and its ability to keep track of issues with sound organization makes it a superior tool.

When we help companies implement collaboration software, we want to accomplish the most we can for the company. Software like Basecamp and MindQuarry, though intuitive, cannot come near the complete collaborative package SharePoint brings to the table. We want to see companies benefit on all levels from SharePoint’s abilities. SharePoint’s tight integration with Office and Exchange, robust web services and APIs, and far superior administrative capabilities makes SharePoint an attractive buy for IT departments.

Would you like more from us? Contact us here.