![](media/image1.png){width="4.356944444444444in"
height="0.8152777777777778in"}

# 

# 

# 

######### [Facilitating Cross-Agency Collaboration]{.smallcaps} 

######### 

######### 

######### 

######### 

######### [Jeff Biedell]{.smallcaps}

######### [David Evans]{.smallcaps}

######### [Daniela Ionova-Swider]{.smallcaps}

######### [Jonathan Littlefield]{.smallcaps}

[John Mulligan]{.smallcaps}

######### [Je Ryong Oh]{.smallcaps}

######### 

######### [Faculty Advisor: Professor David Darcy]{.smallcaps}

######### 

######### ![](media/image2.png){width="1.45in" height="1.4145833333333333in"}

######### 

######### 

######### 

######### 

######### [December 2001]{.smallcaps}

# Table of Contents

# 

# 

[Table of Contents 2](#table-of-contents)

[Executive Summary 3](#executive-summary)

[Introduction 4](#introduction)

[Framework 7](#framework)

[Four Components of Team Issues 8](#four-components-of-team-issues)

[*I.* *Team Design* 8](#team-design)

[*The Modular Approach to Organizational Design*
8](#the-modular-approach-to-organizational-design)

[*Team Attributes* 13](#team-attributes)

[*II.* *Team Management* 14](#team-management)

[*Reporting* 14](#reporting)

[*Appraisal* 15](#appraisal)

[*III.* *Team Processes* 16](#team-processes)

[*IV.* *Team Support* 18](#team-support)

[*Resources:* 18](#resources)

[*Collaborative Training:* 18](#collaborative-training)

[*I/T Tools* 19](#it-tools)

[Conclusions & Recommendations 20](#conclusions-recommendations)

[Web-Based Software Providing Organization Support
21](#web-based-software-providing-organization-support)

[Overview 21](#overview)

[Minimum Requirements 21](#minimum-requirements)

[Product Evaluations 23](#product-evaluations)

[Support of Organizational Issues 23](#support-of-organizational-issues)

[Team Design 24](#team-design-1)

[Team Processes 24](#team-processes-1)

[Team Support 27](#team-support-1)

[Team Management 27](#team-management-1)

[Conclusions and Recommendations 28](#conclusions-and-recommendations)

[Appendix A - Definitions of Terms
29](#appendix-a---definitions-of-terms)

[Appendix B -- Software Evaluation 32](#appendix-b-software-evaluation)

[Appendix C -- Feature Discussion of Each Product
37](#appendix-c-feature-discussion-of-each-product)

[Exhibit D -- Functional Comparison
43](#exhibit-d-functional-comparison)

[Exhibit E -- Survey Results 45](#exhibit-e-survey-results)

[Appendix F -- Interviews 49](#appendix-f-interviews)

[References 55](#references)

#   {#section-16 .unnumbered}

# Executive Summary

This report is aimed at managing partner agencies and program managers
who are engaged in the planning and execution of the e-Government
initiatives. Focused on facilitating collaboration, it approaches
collaborative efforts through the lens of teamwork, and it answers the
following questions:

-   How are highly effective teams designed?

-   What are characteristics of highly effective collaborative teams?

-   How are highly effective teams supported?

For managing partners, the report provides ideas for supporting program
managers and their teams. It recommends several approaches, including
proposals for centralized resources, and it outlines areas for further
review, including a detailed assessment of collaborative software.

For program managers, the report suggests a method for designing an
effective team and it outlines a host of best practices to serve as
guideposts while planning and executing an initiative.

The central thesis of this report is that these initiatives require
collaboration on an unprecedented level, and that collaboration demands
highly effective teams. Of course, rather than serve as the final word
on teams, it should operate as a "playbook" with suggestions and options
for team design, management, processes and support.

Successful collaboration depends on highly effective teams. In
recognition of the extraordinary tasks facing the managing partners and
program managers, we offer suggestions and considerations to aid
initiative delivery.

To support these teams, we recommend Teamcenter, produced by Inovie,
Incorporated if it is feasible to choose only one product to be used by
all teams. Reasons to choose a single product include a need for
cross-team collaboration as well as cost issues. However, each of the
nine products we reviewed offer unique value propositions, and, if it is
feasible for each team to use its own product, we provide tools to help
managing partners identify the best fit for their teams.

# Introduction

From the Oval Office to the citizenry, expectations of electronic
government run high. Named earlier in the year as one of the five key
elements of the President's Management and Performance Plan,
e-government has taken top priority in 2001. The Office of Management
and Budget has moved quickly to achieve e-government's promises. Within
the final six months of 2001, OMB has:

-   Hired Mark Forman as the Associate Director for Information
    Technology and e-Government *(June 2001)*

-   Established and concluded an e-Government Task Force, under Forman's
    direction, to identify high-payoff e-government opportunities *(July
    2001)*

-   Identified 23 e-Government opportunities *(Oct. 2001)*

-   Assigned each initiative to a "managing partner" agency *(Oct.
    2001)*

-   Appointed "program managers" to lead each initiative *(Oct. 2001)*

-   Reorganized the federal CIO council to include three committees --
    best practices and capital planning, architecture and IT workforce
    -- and several portfolio management teams to focus on service to
    citizens, to businesses, to other government entities and within the
    federal government *(Oct. 2001)*

-   Obtained detailed "business cases" from each initiative's manager
    *(Dec. 2001)*

Not surprisingly, the pace of change has been rapid and its impact
significant. Newly appointed managing partner agencies and program
managers have been asked to deliver the initiatives within the next two
years, and each has responded with detailed business cases.

This paper was commissioned by the Office of Electronic Government
within the General Services Administration (GSA) as part of an overall
effort to facilitate cross-agency collaborations. Its research coincided
with Mark Forman's e-Government Task Force that identified 23 high
potential e-Government initiatives in October 2001 for implementation.
As a result, since GSA was assigned managing partner responsibility for
five of the initiatives, the project re-focused on planning and
supporting initiative collaboration.

The authors interviewed five key leaders within the GSA-managed
initiatives. We would like to thank Steve Timchak, Tom Freebairn,
Timothy Burke, Lew Sanford and Becky Rhodes for their assistance. During
our interviews, several mentioned that the project teams have yet to be
organized formally. One had an idea of a core team comprised of "no more
than 10 people." Another indicated a core team of 15 members. Yet
another mentioned a huge project scope. In addition, it appeared that
outside contractors are under active consideration. Thus, the idea of
collaboration through teaming took root, and became the fundamental
topic of study.

**Challenges**

Traditional organizational models and project management methodologies
often fail to deliver results in complex, distributed, multi-enterprise
initiatives. Conventional "command and control" management practices
face increasing challenges in handling virtual teams, compressed
delivery times and new demands for efficiency. New institutional
behaviors are demanded to meet timeline and budget targets.

The federal government, with its e-Government initiatives, seeks to
transform its operation. Of course, such a task involves complex
variables, including agency politics, reporting structures, funding and
budgetary issues. Certainly, traditional agency structures, and the
concomitant cultural "stovepipes," were designed to facilitate delivery
of a single service not to facilitate cross-agency collaboration. As
agency resources are reallocated, there is increasing dependency on
collaboration to optimize government efficiency as opposed to agency
efficiency. The current effort is to 'unify and simplify' lines of
business to better meet the needs and demands of federal state, and
local government, as well as those of citizens and businesses. (Bush
Memorandum, 2001)

**Considerations**

Achieving the strategic goals of each initiative, both singly and
collectively, requires managing complexity. On one level, strong and
proven program managers have been chosen to lead the efforts. On another
level, all are being asked to manage cross-agency collaboration on an
unprecedented plane.

**What to expect**

The central thesis of this report is that these initiatives require
collaboration on an unprecedented level, and that collaboration demands
highly effective teams.

For managing partners, the report provides ideas for supporting program
managers and their teams. It recommends several approaches, including
proposals for centralized resources, and it outlines areas for further
review, including a detailed assessment of collaborative software.

For program managers, the report suggests a method for designing an
effective team and it outlines a host of best practices to serve as
guideposts while planning and executing an initiative.

# Framework

Collaboration entails the highest degree of multidiscipline integration
and interaction. Lack of communication, divergent interests, unclear
decision-making processes and poor governance hinder team efforts of all
shapes and sizes.

Certainly, technology has had a dramatic impact on how people work,
especially with the advent of distributed computing in the Internet age.
On one hand, resources have been dispersed and face-to-face
communication reduced. Yet, technology also brings the best resources
together virtually, and it allows teams scattered across the globe to
tackle common problems and projects.

Studies suggest that successful collaborations require careful planning.
One pair of commentators notes that collaboration requires careful
consideration to be given "to the scope of the effort, stakeholders and
members, how the results of the work will be applied, limitations,
timeframe, and expectations of the sponsor of the collaboration" (Chiat
and Mickiewicz, 1999). With regard to the e-Government initiatives
substantial planning has already occurred.

Each project has a business case that pinpoints the variables cited
above, with the notable exception of identifying project members. As
discussed later in detail, each project team will need a shared vision
and clear understanding of the objectives in order to foster effective
collaboration.

To address the specific requests of the Office of Electronic Government,
we have divided this paper into two main sections:

I.  **Team Issues:** We have identified four segments of team
    issues: (i) team design, (ii) team management, (iii) team processes
    and (iv) team support. This section of the paper offers suggestions
    for organizing, best practices to incorporate, and ideas for team
    support.

II. **Web-based collaborative software:** In this section we provide an
    analysis of leading web-based collaborative tools, and offer a
    discussion on how these types of tools support and address the four
    components of organizational issues.

#  Four Components of Team Issues

We have identified four team issues, including design, management
structure and processes. In addition, highly effective teams are
characterized by strong levels of team support, especially in areas of
resource allocation and collaborative training. Another element emerging
as a key enabler of team success involves collaborative software. Figure
1 highlights the areas covered in this section.

**Figure 1:** Four components of organizational issues

## *Team Design*

### *The Modular Approach to Organizational Design*

A unique approach to organizational design was developed recently by
Agarwal and Sambamurthy (2001). While their research focused primarily
on organizing I/T functions, we have adapted its five-step process to
building teams in the context of the e-Government initiatives. It
provides a useful tool to managers seeking optimal team design because
it organizes around activities and expected capabilities.

Applying a "modular approach" is at the core of the Agarwal and
Sambamurthy process. They suggest that the modular organization,
comprised of fundamental "building blocks," speeds project delivery,
enhances innovation and promotes adaptability to change (2001). The
following section on team design borrows liberally from their research
and findings and it has been adjusted to fit the unique environment of
the e-Government initiatives. The five-step process, useful for both
program managers and managing partners, follows on the next page:

Step 1: Identify the critical activities and capabilities expected of
the team.

Activities should be identified, and then separated into the primary and
secondary categories outlined in Figure 2. Primary activities are
defined as the core activities required by the project, such as
delivering the solution or set of solutions. Secondary activities may be
described as support activities like budgeting or contract management.
Furthermore, the researchers recommend that expected capabilities be
categorized under the headings "infrastructure, knowledge *(IT human
capital and technical skills)* and relationships *(networking
with...executive management, dispersed IT staff and external IT
partners)"* (2001, pg 5).

Regarding the e-Government initiatives, we suggest that primary
activities be characterized in terms of what Agarwal and Sambamurthy
call "solutions delivery" or "services provisioning." Secondary
activities can be grouped under a number of headings including finance,
contract management or other support function. Figure 2 defines the core
primary and secondary activities as well as the suggested capabilities
in greater detail.

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Pr     |                                                   |
| imary Activities |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Solutions        | Analysis of business needs, conceptualizing       |
| Delivery         | applications, and delivering the applications     |
|                  | either through internal development, external     |
|                  | contracting, or through solutions integration of  |
|                  | packaged software                                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Services         | The provisioning of utilities, such as data       |
| Provisioning     | center, and services, such as helpdesk or desktop |
|                  | management, for the users across the initiative   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Seco   |                                                   |
| ndary Activities |                                                   |
|                  |                                                   |
| (Can be modified |                                                   |
| to include other |                                                   |
| support          |                                                   |
| functions)       |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Financial        | Includes management of OMB filings, budgeting and |
| Management       | other items                                       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Contract         | Includes structuring contracts, developing        |
| Management       | statements of work and other items                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| ######           |                                                   |
| ### Capabilities |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Knowledge        | The know-how possessed by team members in terms   |
| (includes human  | of technology competency and business knowledge   |
| capital)         |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Infrastructure   | Includes establishment and management of          |
|                  | infrastructure standards and requirements.        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Relationships    | The social capital possessed by the team in terms |
|                  | of relationships with key stakeholders (including |
|                  | senior management and key agency partners)        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

Figure 2 Components of the Modular Logic (Adapted from Agarwal &
Sambamurthy, 2001)

*Step 2: Identify the organizing options for each activity and
capability.*

Outlined below is an adapted version of Agarwal and Sambamurthy's
"Components of Modular Logic." In this step, the goal is to link
specific organizing options to each activity and capability. For
instance, solutions delivery activities can be organized in a
"centralized, decentralized, federal or outsourced" manner (Ibid).
Figure 3 offers organizing options for each activity and capability.

+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ##              |                                                    |
| ####### Primary |                                                    |
|  Activities/Org |                                                    |
| anizing Options |                                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Solutions       | -   Centralized *(Operated from program office)*   |
| Delivery        |                                                    |
|                 | -   Centralized, with additional Agency Manager    |
|                 |     roles to manage relationships and requirements |
|                 |     of impacted agencies *(Operated from program   |
|                 |     office)*                                       |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Decentralized *(Dispersed among impacted       |
|                 |     agencies)*                                     |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Federal (De*livery groups reporting to both    |
|                 |     program office and agencies)*                  |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Outsourced *(Contractor delivers with          |
|                 |     oversight by program office)*                  |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Services        | -   Centralized                                    |
| Provisioning    |                                                    |
|                 | -   Decentralized                                  |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Federal                                        |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Outsourced                                     |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ####            |                                                    |
| ##### Secondary |                                                    |
|  Activities/Org |                                                    |
| anizing Options |                                                    |
|                 |                                                    |
| *(Can be        |                                                    |
| modified to     |                                                    |
| include other   |                                                    |
| support         |                                                    |
| functions)*     |                                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Financial       | -   Centralized *(perhaps centralized within       |
| Management      |     managing partner and shared across multiple    |
|                 |     initiatives)*                                  |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Decentralized *(each initiative maintains its  |
|                 |     own resource)*                                 |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Contract        | -   Centralized *(perhaps centralized within       |
| Management      |     managing partner and shared across multiple    |
|                 |     initiatives)*                                  |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Decentralized *(each initiative maintains its  |
|                 |     own resource)*                                 |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ######### C     |                                                    |
| apabilities/Org |                                                    |
| anizing Options |                                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Knowledge       | -   Centralized *(program office acquires and      |
| (includes human |     manages required know-how)*                    |
| capital)        |                                                    |
|                 | -   Centralized around competencies *(could        |
|                 |     initiatives share certain resources?)*         |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Decentralized *(each impacted agency staffs    |
|                 |     project)*                                      |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | ```{=html}                                         |
|                 | <!-- -->                                           |
|                 | ```                                                |
|                 | -   Outsourced *(contractor provides know-how)*    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Infrastructure  | -   Centralized                                    |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Distributed                                    |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Leased                                         |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   ASP Hosted                                     |
|                 |                                                    |
|                 | -   Outsourced                                     |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Relationships   | -   N/A (Chain of command already identified)      |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+

Figure 3 Organizing Options (Adapted from Agarwal & Sambamurthy 2001)

*Step 3: Identify the most appropriate organizing mode for each activity
and capability.*

Evaluating which organizing option best suits each initiative is perhaps
more art than science. Agarwal and Sambamurthy's research suggests that
organizational history and senior executive philosophy play a
significant role (2001). However, in terms of the e-Government
initiatives, there appear to be few precedents. Therefore, to assist in
assessing the alternatives, Figure 4 outlines the key features,
strengths and weaknesses of each option.

+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Option**   | **Features**      | **Strengths**   | **Weaknesses**  |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Centralized  | Either owned and  | -   Economizes  | -   Requires    |
|              | managed by a      |     on IT skill |     additional  |
|              | specific          |     needs       |     staffing    |
|              | initiative or     |                 |     vs. sharing |
|              | consolidated      | -   Perhaps     |     resources   |
|              | within a managing |     promotes    |     with        |
|              | partner and       |     better      |     impacted    |
|              | shared between    |     management  |     agencies    |
|              | two or more       |     and         |                 |
|              | initiatives.      |     oversight   | -   Ineffective |
|              |                   |                 |     development |
|              | In terms of       |                 |     of          |
|              | secondary         |                 |                 |
|              | activities, the   |                 | agency-specific |
|              | managing partner  |                 |     knowledge   |
|              | owns the resource |                 |     and         |
|              |                   |                 |     expertise   |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Centralized, | Centralized, but  | -   Improves    | -   Dedicated   |
| with         | includes          |     interaction |     staff       |
| additional   | dedicated Agency  |     with        |     needed for  |
| Agency       | Managers role.    |     impacted    |     Agency      |
| Manager      |                   |     agencies    |     Manager     |
| roles to     |                   |                 |     role        |
| manage       |                   | -   Promotes    |                 |
| r            |                   |     focus on    | -   Focus on    |
| elationships |                   |                 |                 |
| and          |                   | agency-specific | agency-specific |
| requirements |                   |     needs       |     needs could |
| of impacted  |                   |                 |     create      |
| agencies     |                   |                 |     demands for |
|              |                   |                 |                 |
|              |                   |                 |   customization |
|              |                   |                 |     --          |
|              |                   |                 |     increasing  |
|              |                   |                 |     project     |
|              |                   |                 |     complexity  |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Federal      | Multiple          | -   Balance     | -   Complex     |
|              | solutions         |     between     |                 |
|              | delivery groups   |     initiative  |    coordination |
|              | aligned with      |     innovation  |     challenges  |
|              | specific          |     and agency  |     due to dual |
|              | initiative        |                 |     reporting   |
|              | requirements.     |    coordination |                 |
|              | Dual reporting to |                 |   relationships |
|              | initiative and    | -               |                 |
|              | agencies.         |   Customization | -   Potential   |
|              |                   |     of IT to    |     for         |
|              |                   |     agency      |     competing   |
|              |                   |     needs       |     or          |
|              |                   |                 |     conflicting |
|              |                   |                 |     interests   |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| D            | In terms of       | -   Initiative  | -   Limits      |
| ecentralized | primary           |     does not    |     initiative  |
|              | activities and    |     need to     |                 |
|              | knowledge,        |     hire        |   opportunities |
|              | resources are     |     dedicated   |     to leverage |
|              | allocated and     |     staff       |     experience  |
|              | managed by        |                 |                 |
|              | impacted          | -   Potential   | -   Complex     |
|              | agencies.         |     for greater |                 |
|              |                   |     agency      |    coordination |
|              | In terms of       |     buy-in to   |                 |
|              | secondary         |     initiative  | -   Potential   |
|              | activities,       |                 |     for         |
|              | initiatives own   |                 |     competing   |
|              | and manage the    |                 |     or          |
|              | resource.         |                 |     conflicting |
|              |                   |                 |     interests   |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Outsourced   | Contractor        | -   Leverage    | -   Knowledge   |
|              | performs activity |     existing    |     not         |
|              |                   |     outside     |     retained    |
|              |                   |     expertise   |                 |
|              |                   |                 | -   Perhaps     |
|              |                   | -   Flexibility |     adds        |
|              |                   |                 |     complexity  |
|              |                   |                 |     to support  |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Figure 4 Features, Strengths & Weaknesses of Organizing Options (Adapted
from Agarwal and Sambamurthy 8/2001)

*Step 4. Integrate the activities and capabilities into existing
organizational architecture.*

Overall governance is provided by both OMB and a managing partner (such
as GSA). As expected, each initiative's program manager defines
activities and capabilities. Either OMB or a specific managing partner
could identify opportunities to share resources centrally between two or
more initiatives. For instance, the initiatives currently sponsored by
GSA are sharing a contract manager in order to standardize the
approaches and potentially leverage buying power. Additional
opportunities for achieving efficiency may be uncovered and should be
considered.

*Step 5. Improvise an organizational architecture.*

Both OMB and managing partners serve valuable roles across the 23
initiatives. According to Agarwal and Sambamurthy, private sector CIOs
"find that no single integration strategy alone might be appropriate to
effectively manage all of their firm's IT \[activities\]" (2001, pg 6).
For that reason, they suggest that improvising "supplemental
architectures" adds flexibility and allows private firms to extend
capabilities and manage all activities.

Along the same lines, OMB and the managing partners can improvise as
related to the initiative's activities. For instance, it may be
determined that one initiative requires an outsourced solution for an
activity typically centralized by other initiatives. By allowing for
such customization, the modular approach promotes flexibility,
adaptability and innovation.

The Modular Approach's Fit with OMB

The modular approach, as described above, is ideal for the unique needs
of OMB because it allows for customization and scalability. The ability
to build unique models for each initiative, with varying value streams,
organizing tactics and features, will allow each agency to maintain its
primary focus while contributing to collaborative projects
simultaneously.

### *Team Attributes*

Studies of successful teams derive primarily from new product
development, R&D, engineering and I/T environments. However, the
concepts can be applied broadly.

#### *Collaborative Purpose or Shared Vision*

Shared vision is a critical element that binds together highly effective
teams. Unfortunately, in hurried situations, insufficient time is spent
on ensuring that all team members are driving in the same direction.
Teams can feel pressure to be moving in some direction, with the belief
that their work will ultimately be useful towards the end goal. As
projects increase in their complexity and number of parties involved,
the common understanding of the ultimate objective is of increasing
importance.

Suggestions for program managers of the e-Government initiatives include
drafting strong vision statements, keeping goals clear and developing
achievable, stepped objectives.

#### *Trust*

Trust is a key component of successful collaborative teams. According to
Fukuyama (1995), trust 'societies' are particularly beneficial during
periods of innovation, technological change, and strategic change. The
stronger the level of trust, the more flexible and adaptable a team
becomes in its pursuit of an objective. Once this is recognized, the
question becomes how to foster trust within a team. This is particularly
relevant to the e-Government initiatives where individual team members
selected from representative agencies may bring preconceived notions of
others' objectives.

Research conducted by Jergeas, Herzog, and Beikhuizen (1997) found
several aspects relevant to fostering a trusting partnership, with
'sharing' being the primary factor. Where open and honest communication
is a common operating principle, team members are more likely to trust
their colleagues. Other team attributes cited include an appreciation of
individual and team roles, team pride, joint responsibility, and
collaborative problem solving.

Trust issues extend beyond expecting group members to fulfill their
commitments. Open, trusting environments foster vulnerability and
questioning of assumptions. This atmosphere can reduce oversights and
encourage beneficial risks and leaps of faith.

#### *Size Issues*

One common concern regarding team design is the optimal number of
members to achieve the team's goal in an efficient and expeditious
manner. Our research found several recommendations regarding maximum
team size (ranging from 8-20). However, it was noted, "teams are getting
larger and more geographically dispersed" (Gibbons and Brenowitz, 2001,
pg 3). This has been a natural progression due to the increasing
complexities of projects undertaken and an increase in the number of
parties with stakes in the outcome.

One consultant suggested, "team size is contingent on the number of
employees whose activities are independent and who are mutually
accountable to other for results" (*Compensation and Benefits
Review*,1996). The mutual accountability is a critical element of that
relationship. Losing mutual accountability becomes a concern when team
size exceeds 15 members (Ibid).

The bearing of these findings impacts e-Government initiatives projected
to have thousands of parties involved in the development process. Teams
should be structured to both have a core collaborative team responsible
for the overall direction, and subteams mutually accountable for
elements of the overarching goal. New collaborative IT software can
assist in enabling status checks, consistency across teams, and
continuing to pursue the same goal.

## *Team Management*

### *Reporting*

Although we have offered a process for designing a team's organization,
a significant collaborative implication remains unresolved for the
e-government initiatives. Specifically, the issues associated with
reporting and appraisal add complexity to the mix. The projects are
following a team design similar to that of matrix organizations, which
originated during the mid-1950's. According to Dunn (2001, pg 2), matrix
forms were outgrowths of companies "utilizing projects for work
delivery, allowing them to retain functional groupings while meeting the
needs of multiple projects".

For some projects, resources continue to be shared between the project
and their respective agency. Individuals continued to be responsible for
many of the same duties as before. Split duties complicate the already
potentially contentious dual reporting structure to both a team leader
and a functional manager. Indeed, this conflict between multiple lines
of supervision is frequently identified as the primary disadvantage of
matrix organizations. Kahn, et al. (Knight, 1976) cited the primary
potential sources of stress as role conflict, role ambiguity, and role
overload. Several questions are raised. How to minimize conflict? Who is
responsible for the member's appraisal? What type of evaluation system
is included? How does the team leader ensure that the shared resource
has the time to fulfill team obligations?

The answers to these questions will vary by team, based upon
capabilities and needs. Much research was conducted by Dunn (2001),
regarding the typical roles performed by functional and team managers
throughout matrixed organizations. The findings supported that the
functional manager retained many of the responsibilities regarding the
job environment. These included personnel development, evaluation and
reward, and overall oversight. Other project-oriented responsibilities
became the domain of project managers. These include interpersonal team
skill development, scheduling, conflict resolution, team building, and
administration. Tasks like leadership, planning, communication,
budgeting, and motivation were performed by both the functional and
project management.

### *Appraisal*

Appraisal within the team environment brings unique challenges as well.
How should employees be appraised regarding performance? What skills,
behaviors or results are rewarded, and who decides the verdict? A number
of appraisal methods are available, including: individual skills,
behavioral competencies, or meeting team performance goals (Lake, 1996).
Which are utilized will depend upon the success factors identified
within the organization. Many firms have a tendency to evaluate more
junior employees on their behavioral traits and skills. As employees are
able to provide a greater impact upon the overall results through
reaching higher positions, they are increasingly evaluated by the
results achieved.

Evaluations can be performed by either the team (360-degree appraisal)
or the manager. In some cases, managers continue to hold responsibility
for the appraisal of subordinates. One advantage to this system is that
they may have the broader context of the organization in mind while
completing the evaluations. Team members may have had important
contributions that did not directly impact others on the team. A
disadvantage is that control lies in the hands of an individual, while
the complete team may have a deeper understanding of member's daily
interactions and behaviors.

360-degree appraisal systems emphasize the importance of the team.
Criteria can also be tailored to place priority upon desired
characteristics and behaviors. One firm reviewed team members several
times a year on the following criteria:

-   Commitment -- Team member significantly and proactively contributes
    to achieving the team's mission and objectives

-   Quality and Timeliness - Team member's deliverables are of high
    quality and completed on time.

-   Teamwork -- Team member's interactions with others are conducted
    professionally and in the spirit of teamwork, cooperation and
    support.

-   Communication -- Team member clearly and proactively communicates
    ideas, concerns, and recommendations.

-   Accountability -- Team member arrives at team meetings/activities
    prepared and actively participates in team discussions

-   Diversity -- Team member demonstrates that he/she values and
    respects the thoughts, concerns, inputs and responsibilities of
    others and recognizes that everyone has something to contribute"
    (Lake, 1996).

## *Team Processes*

Two main issues must be addressed in order to improve team processes.
The first issue is one of place, i.e. -- where do processes take place.
The second issue is one of sequence, the order in which tasks are
scheduled to achieve project completion. Virtual teaming environments
(enabled by software collaboration tools and IT infrastructure) can
support process improvement, but should be properly considered as tools
that enhance team processes as opposed to a new management paradigm.

The promise of electronic collaboration is that teams can work as
geographically dispersed individuals or units. The attraction is that
meetings can be replaced by real-time or near real-time information
channels, thereby offering cost savings in reduced travel and greater
efficiency. For example, collaboration tools extend the capability of
existing project management software packages by adding communications,
messaging, and other coordination features. Yet, it must be realized
that certain processes require face-to-face meetings or collocation. The
initiation of projects, for example, require the development of shared
understanding and trust building through either temporary or permanent
collocation. (Malhotra, 2001)

Teams are also impacted by the ability to develop new sequences of
traditional work processes. Significant efficiencies can be obtained
through the ability to convert serial processes to parallel processes to
save time and potentially reduce labor costs. However, it is difficult
to gain significant parallelism from creative or contentious processes,
because solutions are often achieved in unpredictable ways. Ambiguous
contexts, roles, or norms will necessitate collaborative processes that
cannot necessarily be implemented by virtual teams. (Ibid.)

Consideration must therefore be given to the nature of the tasks as well
as the stage of the project in evaluating the appropriateness of
electronic collaboration. Work processes are guided by expectations and
beliefs that are shaped by mutual understanding. "Unless the
organizational culture and norms established and reinforced by senior
management support openness, information exchange, and trust building,
it is overly optimistic to expect transparency ....to emerge within
teams." (Jassawalla and Sashittal, 2001, p.4) While the promises of
collaboration software packages contribute to greater awareness by
improving communication and knowledge management, it also creates the
opportunity for information overload. Managers must be discerning in the
application of such tools due to the current limitations to handle tacit
information.

## *Team Support*

### *Resources:*

Basic resources teams need include tools, appropriate meeting space,
access to computing services and standard software, and other resources
that make it possible for the team to work in a timely, proactive and
effective fashion. Teams that have such resources readily available
strongly outperform teams that do not. Lack of resources is among the
factors demoralizing the team and preventing it from embracing
self-management.

Some leaders are reluctant to hand over resources to struggling teams
under the premise that "they haven't learned to manage them yet." A
solution to this problem could be engaging the team(s) in a discussion
of resources they really need to perform well. An agreement can be
negotiated whereby the team(s) commit to tackling particular performance
problems in exchange for additional resources. Such practices help teams
see more clearly what they need to do and assure them that they would
have basic resources necessary to solve their work problems. (Wageman,
1997)

Our survey of initiative leaders (aggregated results provided in
[Exhibit E -- Survey Result Summary](#exhibit-e-survey-results))
demonstrates the breadth of IT resources considered to be important for
improving electronic collaboration. Beyond the fact that the survey has
a small sample size of 3), the survey criteria are open to
interpretation, which undoubtedly contributes to the variability of the
results. Project management was seen to be the most important function
of a collaborative toolset, with ease of use being the key evaluative
criterion. Microsoft Project integration was selected as a key
attribute, presumably because the G.S.A. has standardized on this
software package. Collaborative editing, and access/release control were
seen to be the most desirable attributes of document management tools.
These results suggest that there is a wide spectrum of potential needs
to meet with new collaborative resources.

### *Collaborative Training:* 

Virtually every study on teams and collaboration cited training as a
fundamental element in promoting highly effective collaboration. One
study on new product development teams suggested that "collaborative
behaviors are difficult to learn and seldom result from mere membership
on teams" (Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1999).

Most studies promote formalized team-building activities. One
commentator suggested an intensive organizing initial training session.

Research indicates that collaborative training peaks at 10% of the
employee's time during project start-up and major change efforts, and
continues at about 4% for the rest of the project (maintenance).
(Joinson, 1999)

Collaborative training usually consists of two parts:

1\. **Training in team tools** -- team members learn to use a variety of
tools, including problem soling techniques, statistical process control
and flowcharting. After an initial overview, this training is best
delivered in a just-in-time fashion, with employees learning about a
specific tool just before they use it.

2\. **Facilitation in team planning and group skills** -- focus on the
specific issues a team will face, helping the members create a charter,
set ground rules and solidify other teamwork elements. The training also
cover the skills needed to function as a group, such as meeting
management, stages of group development and how to avoid "groupthink".

Collaborative training works best when all members of the team receive
it at the same time. Many organizations do not realize this and "mix and
match" their classroom attendance with people from different teams. This
approach may make it easier to schedule the training, but it doesn't
promote the spirit of a particular team. And it isn't the point of the
training. (Chaudron, 1995)

### *I/T Tools*

*Web-Based Collaborative Tools and Knowledge Management*

We will provide a detailed discussion of web-based collaborative tools
in the second half of this paper. Research on virtual teams has found
that knowledge sharing in virtual teams is facilitated by evenly
distributing knowledge to all team members, communicating knowledge of
both content and context, ensuring that informal knowledge-sharing
opportunities are not suppressed, and allowing for decision processes to
not become too explicit to be monitored by others (Malhotra, et al.,
2001).

# Conclusions & Recommendations

Successful collaboration depends on highly effective teams. In
recognition of the extraordinary tasks facing the managing partners and
program, we offer the following suggestions and considerations to aid
initiative delivery.

**For Program Managers:**

-   **Team Design:** Quickly identify as many primary and secondary
    activities and expected capabilities as possible. Organize within
    the categories identified in Figure 2 (page 10) and consider what
    organizing option offers the best fit. Certain activities and
    capabilities may be outsourced, while others are better centralized.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Team Attributes:** Organize a core team of no more than 15
    members. Collectively agree upon a shared project vision and work to
    build a sense of collaborative purpose. Find opportunities to use
    teambuilding activities or training to foster trust and open
    communications. Identify and resolve potential issues early.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Team Management:** Clearly outline the team's reporting structure
    and appraisal processes. For some initiatives, resources will be
    shared between the project and an agency, and roles will require
    definition. Will the team manage itself? If so, 360-degree
    appraisals can assist in emphasizing the team's responsibilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Team Processes:** Determine where primary activities will occur
    and sequence the tasks clearly. Will the team be collocated or
    dispersed? If dispersed, additional challenges arise -- how will
    collaboration, trust and shared purpose be achieved?

**For Managing Partners:**

-   **Team Design:** Assess the expected activities and capabilities of
    each initiative. Identify activities and capabilities that could
    employ shared resources, like contract procurement. Serve as a
    central point for knowledge management -- specifically, if one
    initiative finds a creative organizing option, share the idea with
    other initiatives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Team Support:** Consider hiring a professional trainer early in
    the process to facilitate team development. Additionally, if a
    collaborative software program is deployed, engage an expert to
    serve as a shared resource. Just as you actively collect and share
    best practices among program managers, attempt to collect and share
    resources as well.

# Web-Based Software Providing Organization Support

### Overview

As indicated above, software can be used as a shared resource to support
teams. In order to assist the office of Electronic Government with the
implementation of various initiatives, all of which require varying
levels of inter and intra agency collaboration, we have identified and
analyzed several collaboration tools. These tools have been evaluated
according to the unique complexities and scope of the various
initiatives, as discussed above. Specifically, we used the following
guidelines:

# 

### Minimum Requirements

1.  Web based with no requirement of any software installation unique to
    the product.

2.  Shared virtual workspaces with varying levels of availability.

3.  Asynchronous discussion capability, such as threaded discussion
    boards, message boards or email.

4.  Scheduling tool, such as a shared calendar or shared Gantt
    schedules.

## 

Products that meet the above minimum requirements are listed below.

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > **Product**                  | > **Company**                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Teamcenter                   | > Inovie                            |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > eRoom                        | > eRoom                             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > WebWorkZone                  | > Sitescape                         |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Quickplace                   | > Lotus                             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > CyberAlliances               | > Cyberalliances                    |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Arcturus                     | > Arcturus                          |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Groove                       | > Groove                            |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Intraspect                   | > Intraspect                        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Active Project               | > EBS                               |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

> Figure 5 Companies & Products Evaluated

The look and feel varies widely across the products listed in Figure 6.
All have functionality that supports and enhances the set of minimum
features listed above. For the purposes of this evaluation, we have put
a high value on project management and document management functionality
while keeping a critical eye on each product's ease of use. These
dimensions are valued based on instructions provided by e-Gov and
comments from the Sanford and Burke interviews and surveys (Appendixes E
and F).

The review of each product is dependent on the availability of product
demonstrations. Each product website provides a list of functionality,
requirements and suggested uses. Because the web-based collaboration
software market is still in its infancy, different companies use
non-standard terminology to describe similar functions. Therefore, many
functionality lists are full of company-specific expressions. It is,
therefore, difficult to make comparisons based on these website-provided
lists , such that hands-on demonstrations are necessary to make
meaningful distinctions between packages.

The quality of the demonstrations we were able to view also varied. With
CyberAlliances, eRoom and Arcturus, we were able to log in and
manipulate the product while speaking with a company representative (for
CyberAlliances we spoke to CEO Deepak Kanungo; for eRoom we spoke to
Sales Representative Jason Messina, and for Arcturus we spoke to CEO
Matt Kern). WebWorkZone and Groove allow entry into sample web based
work spaces. Teamcenter, Intraspect, Active Project uses a slide show
method to show static screens and explanations of functionality. As part
of the preparation for this project we used Quickplace. Each member of
our team became a member, and we posted, shared and edited documents,
used the calendar functionality as well as its discussion and instant
messaging capability.

To facilitate a preliminary means of evaluation, we constructed a
side-by-side comparison of each product against a compilation of all
features provided by the products. This comparison, in Appendix D,
illustrates the baseline functionality, common added functionality and
functionality unique to each product. It is evident from this comparison
that Teamcenter, CyberAlliances, eRoom and Active Project contain the
most comprehensive set of tools.

As mentioned earlier, the language used to describe functionality is
sometimes ambiguous and often inconsistent. While we will use some of
the same terms as are found on the websites of the reviewed products, we
have attempted to develop common definitions for these terms. Our
terminology matches a majority of the language used for product
marketing, but not in all cases. Terms used in this evaluation are
defined in Exhibit A, and should not be confused with similar sounding
or even identical terms used by the websites of the reviewed products
but defined differently on those websites.

### Product Evaluations

For each company we provide the company name, product evaluated,
website, features, pros and cons, a quick summary and company contact
information in Appendix B. The features for each product are listed and
discussed in Appendix C. To facilitate comparison, we have summarized
this information by rating each product on ease of use, document
management functionality and project management. We rated these products
relative to each other, not against an external standard. A total score,
based on an evenly weighted sum of the dimensional scores is also
calculated to determine the most complete offerings (for instances where
the most complete package is warranted). Figure 6 provides a summary of
our findings.

+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > *        | > **      | > Ease   | >        | >        | > *      |
| *Product** | Company** | > of Use | Document |  Project | *Total** |
|            |           | > (1-10) | > Mgmt   | > Mgmt   |          |
|            |           |          | > (1-10) | > (1-10) |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| >          | > Inovie  | > 8      | > 9      | > 9      | > **26** |
| Teamcenter |           |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > eRoom    | > eRoom   | > 8      | > 7      | > 7      | > **22** |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > W        | >         | > 9      | > 2      | > 5      | > **16** |
| ebWorkZone | Sitescape |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| >          | > Lotus   | > 7      | > 5      | > 6      | > **18** |
| Quickplace |           |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Cybe     | > Cyber   | > 8      | > 7      | > 7      | > **22** |
| rAlliances | alliances |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Arcturus | >         | > 7      | > 9      | > 7      | > **23** |
|            |  Arcturus |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Groove   | > Groove  | > 9      | > 5      | > 9      | > **23** |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| >          | > I       | > 6      | > 8      | > 8      | > **22** |
| Intraspect | ntraspect |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Active   | > EBS     | > 6      | > 7      | > 8      | > **21** |
| > Project  |           |          |          |          |          |
+------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Figure 6 Evaluation Summary

###  Support of Organizational Issues 

As we indicated earlier, our goal is to provide the program managers
with tools to design effective teams and offer managing partners
recommendations for supporting multiple initiatives. We lay out and
discussed four areas of concern; team design, team processes, team
support and team management. We suggest using a web-based collaboration
tool, such as those being discussed, to address these four components.

### Team Design

The software can be used to facilitate the building and designing of
teams. An example of this is searchable member profiling. This function
enables the strengths, availability, experience and interests of team
members to be profiled. Team builders can search this database to build
their teams, and team members can search this database to find those
that may be able to help them.

### Team Processes

Choose a web-based collaboration tool that most accurately meets the
needs of the designed team. From our interviews, we concluded that
project management functionality, document management functionality and
ease of use are important attributes. We constructed two-dimensional
matrices to facilitate the evaluation of the products along these
attributes. For example, Matrix 1 illustrates that Teamcenter provides
the best blend of ease of use and document management, while WebWorkZone
excels in ease of use, but does not provide the document management
tools provided by others. For a team interested in ease of use, and does
not require document management functionality, this Matrix would
therefore help them to choose WebWorkZone as their best fit. However, a
team interested in both document management and ease of use would want
to choose TeamCenter.

+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > **Product**                                   | > Number            |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Teamcenter                                    | > 1                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > eRoom                                         | > 2                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > WebWorkZone                                   | > 3                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Quickplace                                    | > 4                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > CyberAlliances                                | > 5                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Arcturus                                      | > 6                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Groove                                        | > 7                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Intraspect                                    | > 8                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| > Active Project                                | > 9                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------+

**Table 1.** Numbers used For Matrices and Figures 7 and 8

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####### Mat           |                       |                       |
| rix 1. Document Manag |                       |                       |
| ement and Ease of Use |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 10                    |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| ######                |                       |                       |
| # Document Management |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 1                     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | 1 10                  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | **Ease of Use**       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####### Matrix 2.     |                       |                       |
| Document Management a |                       |                       |
| nd Project Management |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 10                    |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| ######                |                       |                       |
| # Document Management |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 1                     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | 1 10                  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | **Project             |                       |
|                       | Management**          |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####### Ma            |                       |                       |
| trix 3. Project Manag |                       |                       |
| ement and Ease of Use |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 10                    |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| #####                 |                       |                       |
| ## Project Management |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 1                     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | 1 10                  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | **Ease of Use**       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Where evaluation of the above matrices results in several tools still
under consideration, we recommend that the individual analysis for each
tool be consulted (Appendix contains individual analyses). For example,
eRoom and Teamcenter are both found in the upper right corner of all
three matrices. Upon inspection of the specific analyses found in
Appendix B and C, which provide a description of the tools, along with
commentary on the functionality, it is evident that Teamcenter actually
has more management tools. To further refine the evaluation of products
along project management and document management functionality, Figures
7 and 8 are provided. These figures list the functionality that support
the two dimensions and show which product offers each function.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 37%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="product" class="heading">Product</p></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Online rating of partners</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Tracked communication</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Web conferencing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Redline and text on Drawings</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Resource allocation evaluation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Timecard Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Online polling</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Skill Sets &amp; Skills Tracking</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cost Management</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Management Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Executive summaries</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Task delegation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Event Notification System</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Access control and security<sup>2</sup></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Web work space</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Calendars<sup>1</sup></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Figure 7** Project Management Function Comparison

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 41%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="product-1" class="heading">Product</p></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Drag and drop file sharing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Attach comments to documents</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Multiple app viewing tool</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Doc. change tracking (within)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Search Engine</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Doc. change tracking (author, title, etc)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Web repository</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Posting, sharing and editing of doc</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Figure 8** Document Management Function Comparison

### Team Support

Each tool should also be evaluated based on a comparison of the amount
of support it provides to the team with the amount required by each
team. During our interviews we were unable to develop comprehensive
lists of the specific team needs, due primarily to information
sensitivity concerns and the early stage of development of many teams.
However, such lists should be constructed by each team leader or
organizer, with the input from team members. We would suggest that the
list be constructed by taking all of the functions listed in Appendix D,
and checking off those that are beneficial, which are required and which
are not helpful at all. This list, when compared side by side to
Appendix D would allow the best match of support functions needed to
support functions provided.

### Team Management

The ability of the tools and the requirement of management to monitor
the progress, evaluate the performance and measure costs in real time
should be considered. Some tools provide comprehensive management
features, while others do not even attempt to venture into this area.
Please refer to Figure 9 for a side by side comparison of each product's
management functions.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 40%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="function" class="heading">Function</p></td>
<td>1</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Timecard Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Resource allocation evaluation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Skill Sets &amp; Skills Tracking</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Cost Management</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Management Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Executive summaries</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Task delegation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Search Engine</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Event Notification System</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Access control and security</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Calendars</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Figure 9** Team Management Functions

#  

### Conclusions and Recommendations

We have taken nine industry-leading web-based collaboration tools and
evaluated them using various methods against various dimensions. These
methods included a quantitative evaluation, a qualitative evaluation and
product offerings comparisons. In doing so, we hope to provide the
Office of Electronic Government with tools with which they can determine
which products are best suited for its use.

# 

With the level of analysis provided above, and the obvious strengths and
weaknesses of various products, it is tempting to draw conclusions that
some products are better than others are. However, we would argue that
each product might be ideal for certain teams, given different goals and
objectives of those teams. With this caveat, we make recommendations
based on the information provided during interviews and summarized in
Exhibit E.

Ease of use is the most valued function, with a score of 38.3. This is
followed by project management (36.7), communication (31.7) and document
management (26.7). Given these responses, we suggest that Teamcenter is
the most appropriate product, due to its ability to most completely meet
those needs. Following Teamcenter is eRoom, Arcturus and CyberAlliances.

The products suggested above best meet the combined needs of the teams.
However, more customized matches may be appropriate for specific teams,
as discussed above. Therefore, depending on the amount of interaction
that different teams have with each other, it may be feasible to allow
each group to determine which tool fits its unique needs the best. If
this is the case, we recommend using the comparison tools provided in
this paper to determine the best product for each team.

# Appendix A - Definitions of Terms

**Access control and security:** Security allows administrators and
Workplace owners to easily specify access rights and capabilities on a
user-by-user basis at both the overall system and individual Workplace
levels.

**Attach comments to documents:** Comments typed and saved may be
attached to documents saved in the web repository. It is unclear if the
comments are actually in the document, but it seems as though they are
not.

**Calendars:** Any sort of time management tool such as the classical
calendar view, Gantt charts or milestone reporting that can be shared.

**Chat/Instant Messaging/Online Presence Detection:** Any type of
real-time messaging tool, similar to AOL instant messenger, which allows
text to appear on the screen of the sendee almost at the same time as it
is sent by the sender. This tool also indicates when users are online
and available to communicate.

**Cost Management:** Associate bill rates with resources or Skill Sets
and provide managers with detailed and summary project cost views,
including estimated and accrued costs. Both variable labor and fixed
costs are supported.

**Customizable Databases:** Create unlimited \"worksheet-like\" database
objects for tracking action items, project risks, contact lists, issues,
and much more.

**Drag and drop file sharing:** A tool that allows documents to be moved
from one file to another simply by mousing over the file, clicking down
and holding the click while mousing over to another location.

**Document change tracking (by author, title, etc):** A filing system
that facilitates the versioning of documents to that the evolution of
the document is illustrated, along with who made changes to each
version.

**Document change tracking (within document):** This tool allows the
marking up of documents by designated members of a given workspace, and
indicates the author of each change.

**Event Notification System:** Event-based email notifications,
including events related to Documents, Collaborative Notebooks and Group
Discussions, speed team communication.

**Executive Summaries:** Executives can get updates on the status of all
teams and projects. Event-based notices can be set to warn users of
emerging trouble spots and much more.

**Extensibility (API):** API provides ability to extend the tool into
the broader enterprise environment.

**LDAP enterprise directory support:** Get seamless integration with
corporate naming directories easing administrative tasks.

**Management Reporting:** Provide management-level reports based on data
entered.

**Multiple app viewing tool:** In addition to initiating desktop
viewers, such as Microsoft Word for \*.doc extensions, this took
provides the ability to launch and view the application file in the
workspace.

**Multi-threaded, multi-topic discussions:** A workspace that
facilitates asynchronous discussion through the posting of discussion
topics and indented responses under each topic.

**\"My \_\_\_\_\" portal pages:** These pages allow the customizing of
portal pages. Examples include personalized calendars, customized news
and customized web repositories.

**Online rating of partners:** This feature enables users to post
evaluations of other team members or partners with which the user
worked. The ratings are available for all users to view.

**Online polling:** Facilitates quick surveys of team or project members
to gauge consensus or resolve issues.

**Posting, sharing and editing of documents:** The ability to save files
in a web repository so that other team members can view the documents,
edit the documents and save them back to the repository under another
name or version number.

**Redline and text on Drawings:** Within the workspace, markup and share
thoughts on CAD drawings and other graphic documents.

**Resource allocation evaluation:** This feature compiles the work
associated with team members and compares it to an assumed maximum work
level. Thus, a team leader can view the workload of various team members
to help decide if some members are being under or over worked.

**Search Engine:** Search technology to perform searches across all
individual workspaces and entries, including most attached documents.

**Simultaneous multi-use of sch, disc and notebooks:** This feature
enables various team members to access the same calendar, discussion
board or notebook at the same time. This does not necessarily mean that
they will see changes by other members as they are made -- a refresh of
the browser may be necessary.

**Skill Sets & Skills Tracking:** This allows managers to more easily
search and check availability of resources with the needed skill sets to
accomplish the job at hand.

**Summary Page:** Essentially a portal view into the workspace. It
displays a summary of your favorite discussions with new activity
counts, today\'s calendar entries and scheduled chats, and a list of who
is online for Quick Messaging.

**Task delegation:** A team leader can sort through various team
members, choose those to delegate a given task to (possibly given their
listed skills or workload) and send a message to them.

**Timecard Reporting:** This full-featured timecard reporting system
includes approvals, ability for users to directly add new tasks, default
accounting codes, and much more.

**Tracked Communication:** The recording of who has read and sent a
given form of communication, such as a notification or email.

**Web conferencing:** Any type of conferencing over the web enabling the
simultaneous input from multiple locations.

**Web repository:** Space on a server allocated for documents and
accessible to members.

**Web work space:** A virtual meeting room set up for a particular
purpose, usually includes postings, updates, discussions and group
members.

# Appendix B -- Software Evaluation

**Company:** Inovie Software

**Product:** Teamcenter

**Website:** http://www.inovie.com

**Pros:** Multi-framed layout helps ease of use. Side frame shows
hierarchy, middle frame contains workspace. This is the most
comprehensive web-only tool.

**Cons:** Price?

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 8

Document Mgmt (1-10): 9

Project Mgmt (1-10): 9

**Total: 26**

**Contact Info:**

Inovie Software, Inc

11995 El Camino Real, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92130

\(858\) 792-3900

\(858\) 481-7088 

[info@inovie.com]{.underline}

**Company:** eRoom Technology, Inc.

**Product:** eRoom

#### **Website:** http://eroom.com

**Pros:** Easy to use, critically acclaimed (received recognition from
CIO Magazine, PC Magazine, NetMarketing, ComputerWorld, others), large
customers provide stability.

**Cons:** Bare-minimum functionality of provided tools, add-ons possible
through API, document management examples are not provided.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 8

Document Mgmt (1-10): 7

Project Mgmt (1-10): 7

**Total: 22**

**Contact Info:**

eRoom technologies, Inc

725 Concord Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

617-497-6300

617-497-5055

[support@eroom.com]{.underline}

**Company:** Sitescape

**Product:** WebWorkZone

**Website:** http://www.sitescape.com

**Pros:** This product is designed for communication and time
management.

**Cons:** Lacks document management tools.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 9

Document Mgmt (1-10): 2

Project Mgmt (1-10): 5

**Total: 16**

**Contact Info:**

SiteScape, Inc.

2030 Eastwood Road, Suite 6

Wilmington, NC 28403

\(910\) 256-5038

\(910\) 256-5074

http://www.sitescape.com/next/contact.html

**Company:** Cyberalliances

**Product:** Cyberalliances

**Website:** http://cyberalliances.com

**Pros:** Small company willing to commit to providing most appropriate
solution for e-Gov.

**Cons:** Manual input needed for cost evaluation. Uncertain future
prospects as a going concern due to lack of customers.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 8

Document Mgmt (1-10): 7

Project Mgmt (1-10): 7

**Total: 22**

**Contact Info:**

CyberAlliances Inc.

20800 Homestead Road, Suite 11H

Cupertino, CA 95014

408-777-8490

[support@cyberalliances.com]{.underline}

**Company:** Arcturus

**Product:** Arcturus

**Website:** http://www.productization.com

**Pros:** Three frame layout helps navigation. With API, any additional
tool can be integrated into middle window. Familiarity with government.
Revolutionary document management system which claims to result in lower
cost and easier retrieval than Documentum.

**Cons:** Layout, while functional and relatively easy to navigate, is
not as welcoming or alluring as other products.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 7

Document Mgmt (1-10): 9

Project Mgmt (1-10): 7

**Total: 23**

**Contact Info:**

> Productization & Commercialization Incorporated\
> 2545 Hillsman Street\
> Falls Church Virginia, 22043\
> Voice: 703.204.2922\
> Fax: 703.204.1666

**Company:** Groove

**Product:** Groove

**Website:** http://www.groove.net

**Pros:** Neat product, customizable and easy to use.

**Cons:** Groove requires installation on computer (we included Groove
in the comparison at the request of e-Gov)

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 9

Document Mgmt (1-10): 5

Project Mgmt (1-10): 9

**Total: 23**

**Contact Info:**

Groove Networks, Inc.

100 Cummings Center, Suite 5350

Beverly, MA, 01915

\(978\) 720-2000

\(978\) 720-2001

[info@groove.net]{.underline}

**Company:** IBM Lotus Software

**Product:** Quickplace

**Website:** www.lotus.com/home.nsf/welcome/quickplace

**Pros:** Simple, intuitive layout, does not spread itself too thin by
attempting to do everything. Viewing tool is helpful for quick reviews.

**Cons:** Some functions are made more difficult than necessary, such as
document sharing. Bare-minimum functionality makes for simple layout,
but limits options.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 7

Document Mgmt (1-10): 5

Project Mgmt (1-10): 6

**Total: 18**

**Contact Info:**

IBM Lotus Software

One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142

\(617\) 577-8500

**Company:** Intraspect

**Product:** Intraspect

**Website:** http://intraspect.com

**Pros:** Built to work with customers and intra-organizational
departments at the same time.

**Cons:** Demo is not interactive, and is confusing at times -- not
clear if the problem is with the tool of the demo.

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 6

Document Mgmt (1-10): 8

Project Mgmt (1-10): 8

**Total: 22**

**Contact Info:**

Intraspect Software, Inc.

8000 Marina Blvd, Suite 800

Brisbane, CA 94005

\(650\) 246-5200

\(650\) 869-6000

[sales@intraspect.com]{.underline}

**Company:** Engineered Business Solutions

**Product:** Active Project

**Website:** http://www.engbsolutions.com/

**Pros:** Assorted file viewers; drag-and-drop file uploading; intuitive
project area design.

**Cons:** Software runs only on Windows

**Summary:**

Ease of Use (1-10): 6

Document Mgmt (1-10): 7

Project Mgmt (1-10): 8

**Total: 21**

**Contact Info:**

Engineered Business Solutions, Inc

3311 Richmond Ave., Suite 317

Houston TX 77098

\(713\) 522-3480

\(713\) 524-0871

<contactus@engbsolutions.com>

# Appendix C -- Feature Discussion of Each Product

Where the functionality differs from that defined in the Definition of
Terms (Appendix A), a description of that difference is provided under
"Comments."

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ####### Teamcenter                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Easy to navigate between        |
| documents                          | multiple workspaces containing  |
|                                    | documents, also easy to post,   |
|                                    | uses native viewers.            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Intuitive navigation with       |
| discussions                        | two-framed view.                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Uses Gantt charts to assist     |
|                                    | with project management.        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Contained in middle frame.      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality.         |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Chat/Instant Messaging/Online      | Standard functionality.         |
| Presence Detection                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Based on login ID and password  |
|                                    | -- not role based. Project      |
|                                    | managers can customize          |
|                                    | accessibility for each project. |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Event Notification System          | Customizable through a wizard.  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Task delegation                    | Provides list of team member's  |
|                                    | assignment status and current   |
|                                    | workload.                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Executive summaries                | Reports include workplace and   |
|                                    | individual timesheets,          |
|                                    | workplace tasking and budget    |
|                                    | reports.                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Management Reporting               | Tools include project status,   |
|                                    | issue tracking, milestone       |
|                                    | identification, and timesheets. |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (by       | Well organized, shows which     |
| author, title, etc)                | documents are "checked out" and |
|                                    | by whom.                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (within   | Example not provided.           |
| document)                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Resource allocation evaluation     | Charts workload of each member  |
|                                    | by capacity and task.           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Cost Management                    | Compares actual costs to        |
|                                    | expected, lists costs by        |
|                                    | activities, shows status of     |
|                                    | activities.                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Extensibility (API) and            | Standard functionality.         |
| customization                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Timecard Reporting                 | Allows task identification, and |
|                                    | status, plus time entry.        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Drag and drop file sharing         | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Customizable databases             | Can import/export to .csv       |
|                                    | compatible applications (like   |
|                                    | excel).                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| LDAP enterprise directory support  | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **eRoom**                          | ###                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Indicated, but no example found |
| documents                          | in demo, uses native viewers.   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Bulletin board allows           |
| discussions                        | hyperlinks and document         |
|                                    | postings.                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Classical calendar view.        |
|                                    | Clickable items that lead to    |
|                                    | more detailed view. Documents   |
|                                    | can be posted to detailed view  |
|                                    | area.                           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Easy and straight-forward       |
|                                    | navigation.                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality.         |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Based on list of names, not     |
|                                    | defined roles.                  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Event Notification System          | Option of sending notification  |
|                                    | of document changes.            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Search by text, author or date. |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Skill Sets & Skills Tracking       | Capability indicated but not    |
|                                    | found on demo                   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document Change Tracking (by       | No example provided             |
| author, title, etc.)               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Extensibility (API) and            | Example provided is integration |
| customization                      | with Outlook                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Customizable databases             | Can be used to perform skill    |
|                                    | searches for team building      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| LDAP enterprise support            | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Online polling                     | Allows customization of         |
|                                    | questions and viewing           |
|                                    | accessibility of results and    |
|                                    | who voted for what.             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **WebWorkZone**                    | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Unclear of how to post or       |
| documents                          | retrieve documents, uses native |
|                                    | viewers.                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Discussions are well organized  |
| discussions                        | by multiple attributes.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Provides option to view by day, |
|                                    | week, month or year. Drill down |
|                                    | provides small amount of        |
|                                    | additional information.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Very little functionality.      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Unclear of how to post          |
|                                    | documents.                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality.         |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Chat/Instant Messaging/Online      | Standard functionality.         |
| Presence Detection                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| \"My \_\_\_\_\" portal pages       | Includes calendar, contact list |
|                                    | and news.                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **CyberAlliances**                 | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Easy interface with desktop for |
| documents                          | uploads and downloads, uses     |
|                                    | native viewers.                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Navigation would be easier with |
| discussions                        | frames.                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Viewable by day, week or month, |
|                                    | exportable as .CSV file.        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Simple navigation, intuitive    |
|                                    | layout.                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality.         |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Based on login name, can be     |
|                                    | customized by project managers  |
|                                    | for each workspace.             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Event Notification System          | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Searches for team members using |
|                                    | profiles, does not search for   |
|                                    | documents.                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Task delegation                    | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Executive summaries                | Reports performance based on    |
|                                    | cost metrics and time.          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Management Reporting               | #### Same tools                 |
|                                    |  as used for executive summary. |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (by       | Standard functionality.         |
| author, title, etc)                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| \"My \_\_\_\_\" portal pages       | Customizes calendars, profile   |
|                                    | and events.                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Cost Management                    | Compares actual costs to        |
|                                    | expected, shows variance.       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Skill Sets & Skills Tracking       | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Online polling                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Extensibility (API) and            | Standard functionality.         |
| customization                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Online rating of partners          | Controversial, viewable by      |
|                                    | everyone.                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Arcturus**                       | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Standard functionality, uses    |
| documents                          | native viewers.                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Standard functionality.         |
| discussions                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Matt indicated that this        |
|                                    | function will be running soon.  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Customizable and relatively     |
|                                    | easy to use.                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Unique server sharing           |
|                                    | architecture, developed by      |
|                                    | former government worker fed up |
|                                    | with Documentum architecture.   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Role based instead of list      |
|                                    | based -- theoretically improves |
|                                    | scalability.                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Task delegation                    | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Management Reporting               | Not standard for product, needs |
|                                    | to be integrated.               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (by       | Standard functionality.         |
| author, title, etc)                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Extensibility (API) and            | Standard functionality, with    |
| customization                      | third frame ready to use for    |
|                                    | any integrated tools.           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Redline and text on Drawings       | Uses native viewers.            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Groove**                         | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Standard functionality, uses    |
| documents                          | native viewers.                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Standard functionality.         |
| discussions                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Chat/Instant Messaging/Online      | Standard functionality.         |
| Presence Detection                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality.         |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Quickplace**                     | ###                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Posting and editing requires    |
| documents                          | more steps than other tools.    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Standard functionality.         |
| discussions                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Views include 1 and 2 day, 1    |
|                                    | and 2 week and month. Also has  |
|                                    | drill down feature.             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Shares calendars and            |
| disc and notebooks                 | discussions can be accessed at  |
|                                    | the same time.                  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Chat/Instant Messaging/Online      | Standard functionality.         |
| Presence Detection                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Name based, not role based.     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Event Notification System          | Customizable by author of       |
|                                    | change or event.                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Task delegation                    | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (by       | Standard functionality          |
| author, title, etc)                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Drag and drop file sharing         | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Intraspect**                     | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Allows use of browser or email  |
| documents                          | to folder (which has an email   |
|                                    | address) as an attachment, uses |
|                                    | native viewers.                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Standard functionality.         |
| discussions                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Indicated but not shown in      |
|                                    | demo.                           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Fairly comprehensive and        |
|                                    | intuitive.                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Based on login name, can be     |
|                                    | customized by project managers  |
|                                    | for each workspace.             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Event Notification System          | Can be customized to send       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Search Engine                      | Standard functionality.         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| #### Executive summaries           | Indicated but not shown in      |
|                                    | demo.                           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Management Reporting               | Indicated but not shown in      |
|                                    | demo.                           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Extensibility (API) and            | Standard functionality.         |
| customization                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Active Project**                 | ######                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Features:**                      | ####### Comments                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Posting, sharing and editing of    | Standard functionality          |
| documents                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multi-threaded, multi-topic        | Standard functionality          |
| discussions                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Calendars                          | Indicated but served as a       |
|                                    | framework for sharing Microsoft |
|                                    | Project schedules               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web work space                     | Set up simply                   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web repository                     | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Simultaneous multi-use of sch,     | Standard functionality          |
| disc and notebooks                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Access control and security        | Downloaded browser tools        |
|                                    | plug-in at the first visiting   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Task delegation                    | Simply and speedy               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Management Reporting               | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Document change tracking (by       | Standard functionality          |
| author, title, etc)                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Redline and text on Drawings       | Enabled to view various types   |
|                                    | of CAD files                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Web conferencing                   | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Attach comments to documents       | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Tracked communication              | Tracked action items directly   |
|                                    | within the project.             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Multiple app viewing tool          | Standard functionality          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

# Exhibit D -- Functional Comparison

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 27%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="functions" class="heading">Functions</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Drag and drop file sharing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Timecard Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Resource allocation evaluation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Doc. change tracking (within document)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Online rating of partners</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Multiple app viewing tool</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Tracked communication</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Attach comments to documents</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Redline and text on Drawings</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>LDAP enterprise directory support</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Customizable databases</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Extensibility (API) and customization</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Online polling</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Skill Sets &amp; Skills Tracking</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cost Management</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>"My ____" portal pages</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Doc. change tracking (by author, title, etc)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Management Reporting</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Executive summaries</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Task delegation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Search Engine</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Event Notification System</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Access control and security</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Chat/IM/Online Presence Detection</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Sim. multi-use of sch, disc and notebooks</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Web repository</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Web work space</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Calendars</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Multi-threaded, multi-topic discussions</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Posting, sharing and editing of documents</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Product</strong></td>
<td>Teamcenter</td>
<td>Cyber-All.</td>
<td>eRoom</td>
<td>Active Project</td>
<td>Quickplace</td>
<td>Arcturus</td>
<td>Intraspect</td>
<td>WWZ</td>
<td>Groove</td>
<td>Team Space</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Company</strong></td>
<td>Inovie</td>
<td>Cyber-All.</td>
<td>eRoom</td>
<td>EBS</td>
<td>Lotus</td>
<td>Arcturus</td>
<td>Intraspect</td>
<td>Sitescape</td>
<td>Groove</td>
<td>Flypaper</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Exhibit E -- Survey Results

  --------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------------
  Section   Ranking Evaluative Criteria                               
  I:                                                                 

            **[Criteria]{.underline}**                 **Average     **Standard
                                                       Points        Deviation**
                                                       Allocated**   

            Ease of Use                                38.3          27.5

            Price (server, client, development)        6.5           2.1

            24x7 Availability                          6.5           2.1

            Web-enablement                             16.7          5.8

            Scalability (number of simultaneous users) 6.5           3.5

            Customizability                            6.0           2.8

            Vendor has existing Federal customers      5.0           4.2

            Vendor provides development & consulting   14.7          5.5
            services                                                 

            Vendor and product stability               15.0          7.1

            Other                                                     

            Other                                                     

                                                                     

                                                                     

                                                                     

  Section   Rating Functional Importance                              
  II:                                                                

            **[Function]{.underline}**                 **Average     **Standard
                                                       Points        Deviation**
                                                       Allocated**   

            Document Management                        26.7          2.9

            Project Management                         36.7          11.5

            Communications                             31.7          7.6

            Extensibility                              5.0           8.7

            Other                                                     

            Other                                                     
  --------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------------

  ---------------------- --------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
  Section III:                           Rating Specific Functional Importance                       

                                         **[Function]{.underline}**                   **Average     **Standard
                                                                                      Points        Deviation**
                                                                                      Allocated**   

  ***Document                                                                                        
  Management***                                                                                     

                                         Archiving                                    11.7          2.9

                                         Version Control                              11.7          2.9

                                         Access/Release Control                       20.0          17.3

                                         Collaborative Editing                        28.3          7.6

                                         Document-level Security                      8.3           2.9

                                         Document Compatibility (Word Perfect, MS     16.7          10.4
                                         Word etc.)                                                 

                                         Other: \"Work Flow Management\"              3.3           5.8

                                                                                                     

  ***Project                                                                                         
  Management***                                                                                     

                                         Project Status Overview                      13.3          18.9

                                         Individual Status Updates                    5.0           5.0

                         Gantt Charts                                                 6.7           7.6

                         Microsoft                                                    23.3          17.6
                         Project                                                                    
                         Integration                                                                

                         Project                                                      15.0          10.0
                         Component Level                                                            
                         Health Status &                                                            
                         Milestones                                                                 

                         Task                                                         16.7          15.3
                         Assignments                                                                

                         Skill Tracking                                               2.5           3.5

                         Approval                                                     2.5           3.5
                         Control                                                                    

                         Other: \"Earned                                              12.5          17.7
                         Value                                                                      
                         Assessments\"                                                              

                         Other: \"Funds                                               8.3           14.4
                         Tracking\"                                                                 

                                                                                                     

  ***Communications***                                                                               

                         E-mail                                                       26.7          7.6

                         Instant                                                      16.7          14.4
                         Messaging                                                                  

                         VoIP (Voice                                                  1.7           2.9
                         over Internet                                                              
                         Protocol)                                                                  

                         Threaded                                                     23.3          7.6
                         Discussions                                                                

                         Whiteboard                                                   25.0          5.0

                         Other                                                        6.7           11.5

                                                                                                     

  ***Extensibility***                                                                                

                         XML Capability                                               30.0          17.3

                         APIs                                                         30.0          17.3
                         (Application                                                               
                         Programming                                                                
                         Interfaces)                                                                

                         LDAP                                                         13.3          11.5
                         (Lightweight                                                               
                         Directory                                                                  
                         Access                                                                     
                         Protocol)                                                                  

                         OS                                                           13.3          11.5
                         Compatibility                                                              

                         Network                                                      13.3          11.5
                         Architecture                                                               
                         Requirements                                                               
                         (e.g.. JAVA                                                                
                         enablement)                                                                

                         Other                                                        0             0
  ---------------------- --------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------

**Exhibit E -- Survey Results Sorted by Rank**

  --------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
  Section   Ranking Evaluative Criteria                             
  I:                                                               

            **[Criteria]{.underline}**               **Average     **Standard
                                                     Points        Deviation**
                                                     Allocated**   

            Ease of Use                              38.3          27.5

            Web-enablement                           16.7          5.8

            Vendor and product stability             15.0          7.1

            Vendor provides development & consulting 14.7          5.5
            services                                               

            Scalability (number of simultaneous      6.5           3.5
            users)                                                 

            Price (server, client, development)      6.5           2.1

            24x7 Availability                        6.5           2.1

            Customizability                          6.0           2.8

            Vendor has existing Federal customers    5.0           4.2

            Other                                                   

            Other                                                   

                                                                   

                                                                   

                                                                   

  Section   Rating Functional Importance                            
  II:                                                              

            **[Function]{.underline}**               **Average     **Standard
                                                     Points        Deviation**
                                                     Allocated**   

            Project Management                       36.7          11.5

            Communications                           31.7          7.6

            Document Management                      26.7          2.9

            Extensibility                            5.0           8.7

            Other                                                   

            Other                                                   
  --------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------

  ---------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
  Section III:           Rating Specific Functional Importance                   

                         **[Function]{.underline}**               **Average     **Standard
                                                                  Points        Deviation**
                                                                  Allocated**   

  ***Document                                                                    
  Management***                                                                 

                         Collaborative Editing                    28.3          7.6

                         Access/Release Control                   20.0          17.3

                         Document Compatibility (Word Perfect, MS 16.7          10.4
                         Word etc.)                                             

                         Archiving                                11.7          2.9

                         Version Control                          11.7          2.9

                         Document-level Security                  8.3           2.9

                         Other: \"Work Flow Management\"          3.3           5.8

                                                                                 

  ***Project                                                                     
  Management***                                                                 

                         Microsoft Project Integration            23.3          17.6

                         Task Assignments                         16.7          15.3

                         Project Component Level Health Status &  15.0          10.0
                         Milestones                                             

                         Project Status Overview                  13.3          18.9

                         Other: \"Earned Value Assessments\"      12.5          17.7

                         Other: \"Funds Tracking\"                8.3           14.4

                         Gantt Charts                             6.7           7.6

                         Individual Status Updates                5.0           5.0

                         Skill Tracking                           2.5           3.5

                         Approval Control                         2.5           3.5

                                                                                 

  ***Communications***                                                           

                         E-mail                                   26.7          7.6

                         Whiteboard                               25.0          5.0

                         Threaded Discussions                     23.3          7.6

                         Instant Messaging                        16.7          14.4

                         Other                                    6.7           11.5

                         VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol)      1.7           2.9

                                                                                 

  ***Extensibility***                                                            

                         XML Capability                           30.0          17.3

                         APIs (Application Programming            30.0          17.3
                         Interfaces)                                            

                         LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access       13.3          11.5
                         Protocol)                                              

                         OS Compatibility                         13.3          11.5

                         Network Architecture Requirements (e.g.. 13.3          11.5
                         JAVA enablement)                                       

                         Other                                    0             0
  ---------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------

# Appendix F -- Interviews

**Source: General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide
Policy**

####### Contact: Timothy Burke, Director of Travel Management Policy

**Date: November 21, 2001.** Interviewed by David Evans and Je Ryong Oh

**Category:** Business Practice for e-Travel Initiative

####### Prior and Current Practices

Last year, the federal government spent \$9.6B on travel (including
military). By law, the federal government is legally required to use
travel agents to book flights, hotel stays, rental cars, and similar
services. Private sector rules differ from government practice regarding
travel (including entitlement restrictions, and City-Pair contracts).

The federal government has no travel data center (TDC), a central data
warehouse. Instead, it uses multiple legacy computer systems that cannot
provide proper account auditing and consolidation.

The eTravel Initiative was preceded by FedTrip, a pilot project involved
MOUs for some agencies to do travel bookings via the world wide web,
costing \$13 on average instead of \$37 per transaction. The Quicksilver
project surveyed 100 agencies to generate 172 project candidates for
collaborative e-Government projects. From this list, the CIO Council
e-Government Initiatives were chosen for:

-   Achievability

-   Conformance with White House agenda

-   Potential to serve government constituencies.

####### Role of GSA in eTravel Initiative

The role that the GSA performs in the eTravel initiative is strategic in
nature - to create the program management office. Program establishment
will involve determining staffing and resource requirements, project
management, and introduction of common standards and performance
metrics. Furthermore, the GSA will need to take a leadership role in
change management with regard to:

-   Adoption of best practices

-   Integration of travel with HR function

-   Meeting the requirements of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
    (GPEA).

####### The eTravel Initiative

The focus of the Initiative is on cost management and program
management, with a view to manage travel as a business rather than an HR
function. There is perceived to be a 5-year window of opportunity to
change best practices, by establishing a rules-based system that meets
e-Government requirements. A potential savings of 10-20% of travel costs
are expected annually in the few years of the program. Three primary
objectives given for the eTravel initiative are:

-   Consolidate business unit expenses

-   Improve auditing and budget control

-   Augment accessibility and personalization for federal employees.

> There is the opportunity to provide an "end-to-end web enabled travel
> portal" supported by a back end bookings engine. Such a portal will
> enable:

-   Transaction data collection

-   Consolidation of accounts

-   Ease of travel request approval

-   Ease of reconciliation

-   Performance-based budgeting and program assessment

-   Automatic tracking/loading of expense report info.

Because commercial practice in this area is state-of-the-art and readily
transferable, a pilot program is scheduled to be running and generating
results in six months. Initial cost savings should provide an indication
of long term savings. Current projections show cost savings of up to
\$9B over 9 years are possible through deployment of such a system
(based on potential cost avoidance of \$30 to \$50 per booking over 15
million bookings per year).

####### Management Challenges

While there are substantial improvements possible in servicing federal
travel needs, there are concomitant challenges in making the necessary
changes. Chief among these challenges are the need to:

Leverage staffing resources using knowledge management techniques

Centralize information and access and coordinate communication to
improve management of bureaucratic processes

Ensure data security as use of collaboration tools are extended to
industry partners

Anticipate and accommodate complex political implications as travel
industry suppliers face changing business opportunities.

**Source: General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide
Policy**

**Contact: Becky Rhodes, Deputy Associate Administrator**

**Date: November 14, 2001.** Interviewed by Jeff Biedell

**Category:** Business Practice for e-Travel Initiative

####### Prior and Current Practices

All agencies are currently at different stages of moving towards
automation of their travel procedures. Legacy systems offer varying
levels of capability, including HR systems. The GSA is currently
undergoing an effort to centralize e-travel for the Federal government.

An interagency committee currently meets quarterly to discuss travel
efforts. Close to 100 agencies, including the small agency council, are
represented by over 100 individuals. Subsets of the committee, including
State and DoD meet monthly.

Last year, the federal government spent over \$9B on travel. Government
practices regarding travel, including entitlement restrictions, and
reimbursement differ from the public sector.

This project was initially assigned to OPM, with GSA assigned as a key
partner. On November 13, the effort was officially assigned to GSA for
development.

####### The eTravel Initiative

The eTravel initiative is designed to consolidate and centralize the
development of eTravel enabling platforms. Travel agents have typically
serviced the government at no fee, relying on commissions from industry.
As these commissions have decreased, fee-based master contracts are
becoming more typical. It is in the interests of the government to
maximize their leverage through pooling travel services together into a
single face.

The first step for the e-Travel initiative to accomplish was to identify
the best features already developed by existing agency solutions. This
step has been completed, and the respective agencies are now amongst the
six partner agencies working with the GSA.

Features can be broken down into five stovepipes, each of which can be
separately developed, but should work together within a federal travel
portal. These stovepipes are planning, authorization, reservation,
claims, and vendor reconciliation.

The Dept. of Transportation built the first search engine for government
travel, FedTrip. This engine was tailored to the government needs
including hotel per diems and entitlement regulations. Fed Trip and
booking agency fees were paid for by industry; there were no costs tied
to the government's usage. Eight agencies signed up to utilize Fed Trip,
and this engine will serve as the primary platform for GSA eTravel
development.

####### Agency Partners

Other agency partners beyond the GSA include DOT, VA, DOI, HUD, and
Dept. of Treasury. One representative from each agency will be relocated
to the GSA to work exsclusinvely on this project.

***Management Challenges***

There are several challenges currently facing the eTravel initiative:

-   Need buy-in from interagency committee

-   Need buy-in from Industry, potential partners include Sabre, Apollo,
    or Calico (Cendant). Ideally, this development of the project should
    be funded by industry.

-   Need MOU from agencies for expectations and funding

-   Tight timeline -- 6 months for initial version up, with everything
    expected online

**Source: General Services Administration, Office of the CIO**

**Contact: Lewis Sanford, Chief Architect**

**Date: November 21, 2001.** Interviewed by David Evans and Je Ryong Oh

**Category:** Overview of e-Gov Initiatives

####### Implementation of Initiatives

There are approximately 23 Initiatives, ranging from \$70M to \$1.5B
projects, with a politically defined timelines of 18 to 24 months to
implement. The potential scale of several of these projects, in terms of
users, rivals some of the largest private enterprise IT implementations.

Scale issues would normally take much longer to address, and begin with
pilot test cases to emulate use by 50-odd users. Currently, GSA has no
reference points in terms of staff expertise (with greater than 6 months
of collaborative e-Government experience), prior project costs, or
well-studied cost estimates. Initial case projections are therefore
rough estimates for time and funding required.

####### Project Management

An early priority is to establish commonality of management practices
for the Initiatives. This began with a common methodology for preparing
the Initiative business cases (300B). Despite using this approach, the
business cases appear to lack uniform consistency due to the very
limited time allowed for preparation. Ironically, the process initiating
collaboration within and across agencies allowed insufficient time for
such collaboration. Nevertheless, it is believed that the perceived
urgency is helping to move the process forward, with attention paid to
the top 80% of issues. 300B drafts have been submitted to OMB.

While GSA is perceived to be a leading agency with respect to software
adoption, application complexity is a significant barrier to common use
of new software tools. Currently, GSA has standardized on Microsoft
Project for project management, and has instituted use of Lotus
QuickPlace as a collaborative environment. QuickPlace adoption appears
to be ramping more slowly than desired, and has required encouragement
of program leads to motivate teams to learn and use the application.

####### Discussion of Governance

The parties involved in developing, funding, implementing, and
benefiting from the Initiatives can be grouped into three main types of
participants: stakeholders, partners, and interested parties.

*Stakeholders* have some sort of risk at stake in the ventures,
including:

-   The Administration -- with political leadership at stake;

-   The Congress -- with ultimate funding authority and political
    stakes;

-   The Office of Management and Budget -- with management oversight
    authority at stake;

-   The GSA -- with e-Government oversight at stake.

*Partners* are federal agencies that have budgetary impacts due to
providing services or receiving services impacted by e-Government
changes:

-   Agencies assigned leadership responsibilities for one or more
    Initiatives;

-   Agencies at large partnering with lead agencies;

-   Dependent agencies who receive some provision of service or benefit
    from a lead agency (e.g., GIS or PKI)

-   Education

-   Expertise provision

-   Marketing

*Interested parties* are potential users of e-Government services:

-   Agencies who may use e-Gov services;

-   State and local governments;

-   Industry

-   Businesses

-   Contractors/Suppliers;

-   Citizens.

Involvement in e-Government projects is largely driven by the perceived
risks and benefits for the participant. At present, participation in the
strategic governance has involved stakeholders and partners.
Stakeholders currently view the potential opportunities of e-Government
to outweigh the political risks. Partners are in the midst of
determining the potential to gain or lose power over cost centers that
they control. For example, Integrated Acquisition is GSA's "bread and
butter", a program that the agency would like to maintain a leadership
role in managing while implementing a collaborative Initiative.
Interested parties hold the potential to significantly complicate the
dynamics of collaborative governance by raising the risks, primarily,
for stakeholders through formal or informal lobbying efforts.

# References

Agarwal, Ritu and V. Sambamurthy, "Designing for Agility: The Modular IT

Organization, (2001).

Agarwal, Ritu and V. Sambamurthy, "Organizing the IT Function in the
21^st^ Century",

(2000).

Borck, James R., "A new look at your old project management methods can
promote

your advantages", *Infoworld* Framigham, MA. Volume 23, Issue 3, page 57

(2001).

Bush, George W., "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies"

(<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010711-5.html>)

##### Chaudron, David, "How to improve cross-functional teams", [HR Focus]{.underline}, (August 1995).

Chiat, William S. and Michele Mickiewicz, "Collaboration for Success:
Facilitating large

group interventions, Quality Congress, (1999).

*Compensation and Benefits Review*, "The network discusses: Team size,
pay,

performance and awards." Saranac Lake; Mar/Apr (1996), Anonymous.

Duarte, Deborah and Nancy Tennant Snyder, Mastering Virtual Teams,
(1999).

Dunn, Steven C. "Motivation by Project and Functional Managers in Matrix

Organizations", [Engineering Management Journal]{.underline} (June
2001).

Dunn, Steven C., "Motivation by project and functional managers in
matrix

organizations", [Engineering Management Journal]{.underline}; Rolla;
(June 2001).

Fukuyama, F "Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity,
(1995)

Gibbons, Tracy and Randi Brenowitz, "Workforce Collaboration: A
By-Product of the

> Technology-Driven Marketplace",
> [www.millpondgroup.com/collaboration.html](http://www.millpondgroup.com/collaboration.html)
> (2001)

Herzog, Valerie Lynne, "Trust Building on Corporate Collaborative
Project Teams",

[Project Management Journal]{.underline}, (March 2001).

Holpp, Lawrence, "Teams: It's All in the Planning", [Training &
Development]{.underline}, 51, (April

1997).

Jassawalla, Avan and Henant C. Sashittal, "The role of senior management
and team

leaders in building collaborative new product teams", [Engineering
Management]{.underline}

[Journal]{.underline}, (June 2001).

Jergeas, G., L. Herzog, and R. Beikhuizen, "Claims and Disputes in the
IT Industry",

[Project Management Institute]{.underline}, (1997).

Joinson, Carla, "Teams at Work", [HRMagazine]{.underline}, (May 1999)

Knight, Kenneth, "Matrix Organizations: A Review," [Journal of
Management Studies]{.underline},

13:3 (May 1976).

##### Malhorta, Arvind Majcharzak, Ann Carman, Robert Lot, Vern , "Radical Innovation 

without collocation: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne, Part 1", [MIS
Quarterly]{.underline},

(June 2001).

Odomirok, Paul W., "the power of collaborative purpose", [Industrial
Management]{.underline};

(Jan/Feb 2001).

Promisel, Robert, "Project Management Basics" [IIE
Solutions]{.underline} (March 1999).

Wageman, Ruth, "Case Study: Critical success factors for creating superb
self-managing

teams at Xerox: Part 1 of 2", [Compensation & Benefits
Review]{.underline}, 9/97

Weill, Peter, and Michael R. Vitale, [Place to Space: Migrating to
eBusiness Models]{.underline},

Harvard Business School Press (2001).

[www.cyberalliances.com](http://www.cyberalliances.com/)

[www.engbsolutions.com](http://www.engbsolutions.com/)

[www.eroom.com](http://www.eroom.com/)

[www.flypaper.com](http://www.flypaper.com/)

[www.groove.net](http://www.groove.net/)

[www.inovie.com](http://www.inovie.com/)

[www.intraspect.com](http://www.intraspect.com/)

[www.lotus.com/home.nsf/welcome/quickplace](http://www.lotus.com/home.nsf/welcome/quickplace)

[www.productization.com](http://www.productization.com/)

[www.sitescape.com](http://www.sitescape.com/)