I like the analogy of an ecosystem where Microsoft is the host and the ISV partners (those who make software) are guests that live together in an equilibrium, where without one, they both die, but at a minimum is mutualism where they both benefit from each other.  The ecosystem that is Microsoft partners reminds me a lot of the environment I was just in.  I’m talking about the wilds of Africa.  Eric Harlan and I did a morning safari walk tracking down a pair of white rhinos.  One thing our tracker mentioned was of a tickbird or oxpicker that when seen meant that rhinos were near.  This a special bird often sits on the back of the rhino and as it walks through the forest it hops off and eats the bugs from ground where it’s been kicked up or eats bugs off their backs that it pick up from the bush.  It also essentially keeps the rhino cleaner and takes care of the ticks and bugs that cause problems.

(Photo right: Compliments of Eric Harlan seen during our walking safari at Kruger)

Recently Mike Fitzmaurice was talking about the new workflow design features in Visio 2010 and was discussing how this was good stuff, but very likely wouldn’t impact the Nintex business in the long run.  I also read a response from Furuknap.  He’s been a controversial figure lately, as his passion and sharing what he’s learned has pushed a few buttons.  In his response to Mike Fitz’s post, he calls Mike shy, and points out these gaps as Microsoft’s weaknesses… “The reason for this rich and competing product offering is that third-party developers are simply more creative. I’m not saying Microsoft isn’t innovative or creative, but considering they only have a limited number of employees, they can’t imagine everything.”  I think this is a poor assessment, while it may be accurate from in some areas of the business, in the SharePoint team I believe most of it comes down to limits of time and space.  They definitely have limits to what actually makes it into the product despite all of the creative and intuitive ideas that get cut, so it can ship with some level of stability.  Those Adds/Cuts meetings can be brutal, but many of them are quite peaceful as everyone is informed on the tradeoffs.  You’d be amazed what the original design of every PM would be if they could have everything they want.  Obviously that’s not realistic, but it doesn’t stop us from trying to fight for the things that mean the most.

My first hand experience over multiple versions and being involved in those decisions, went a bit different.  Microsoft doesn’t take lightly the decision to build a feature that is currently being performed well by a partner.  In the past these decisions often involved acquisition, or inviting the partner(s) on campus to discuss their plans to help provide a heads up.  The partner ecosystem and this symbiotic relationship is very important to both Microsoft and it’s partners like Nintex and Quest.  While I’ve heard people say…. “Microsoft couldn’t build a management system like Toad (a popular SQL management interface).”  I personally find it’s not in the cards.  Microsoft has no reason to build a toad when a partner is doing well in this space and when customers are saying they are looking for innovation in other areas.  Microsoft is ultimately attempting to both listen to customer complaints, identify gaps which will increase their position with the analysts and in the industry, and it also comes down to are customers willing to pay for it?  The amount of dev weeks per product version is often used in illustration to how many bucks you have.  If you have a limited number, you often don’t want to put it all in one investment area.  Partners on the other hand can focus on a gap and seek to fully address it, while it may take multiple versions of a larger product to more fully address a gap.

People who have heard me talk about SharePoint have often heard me refer to it as plastic.  It’s interesting to hear Jeff Teper talk about how SharePoint is compared software from the reaches of Facebook to SAP.  What a spectrum!!!  Chris Capposella recently mentioned in that awesome NY Times article “Microsoft’s SharePoint Thrives in Recession” (I recommend everyone read it) that SharePoint often has 50% of the functionality when compared to other fully featured BI systems like Cognos.  I’ve often called SharePoint the 80/20, because of the gaps around the various buzzwords… WMC, ECM, DM, etc…  These gaps are opportunities for partners not just in the obvious end user space, but in the dev tools, the IT tools, and especially business tools that result in feature enhancements.

Partners in the SharePoint space should not be considered the mice that pick up the crumbs that fall off the table of Microsoft.  A few weeks ago Microsoft’s leadership and product teams spend a week with their partners at WPC the World Wide partner conference.  This annual conference is all about helping partners feel the love, they learn about the opportunities, get first hand info on what’s going on with future products and award partners for their contributions.  Partner solutions and partnerships result in more sales, happier customers, and more fully featured solutions.  Add on a services integration partner and you’ve got an even more comprehensive ecosystem where customers have experienced and trained experts providing guidance.  Owen Allen and his team are designed for such a purpose, to help the partners.

As you can see these software solutions are not leeches.  It’s not a harmful situation, and the SharePoint team very frequently invites its preferred partners in special programs to help them understand their roadmap.  There’s a partner portal, there is partner training, there’s partner certification, heard of SDPS (SharePoint Deployment Planning Services)? The SDPS program is totally designed around helping give partners an opportunity to build relationships early as well as more successful deployments due to partner involvement.  The ISV partner TAP (Technology Adoption Program) is totally designed around giving partners an early look so they can better position their products to provide more breadth, depth, and more of what customers need beyond what Microsoft plans to provide.  There is even a for the privileged, partner counsels (PAC) that are by far the best exposure to the product teams early in the pipeline, way before the TAP begins, the planning teams are discussing high level plans with the counsel.  (Ironically EMC advertises their participation in the PAC in a job description on linked in for a mid to senior level SharePoint Architect.)

While in SharePoint the billion dollar business doesn’t have a clear ISV partner that owns the space, there is a lot of leadership in a number of partners that have worked closely with Microsoft since the first and second generation.  The opportunity for partners expands with each version.  The surface for partners is NOT getting smaller.  From a handful to thousands of partners across the ISV and SI partner ecosystem. If you ever hear a partner bashing Microsoft to sell their solution, it’s because they don’t understand the ecosystem well enough.  Partners should recognize that they both benefit from the relationship.  Just as the Rhino is soothed and is taken care of, the opportunities are on a different scale and the overlap is rarely 100%   Through this next wave of 2010 you can bet that partners will need to position their products around the unique value add, but I hope they take Mike Fitz’s attitude of recognizing the innovation of Microsoft and help position their solutions as providing value.  They really don’t need to compete.  Sure people want to know the delta or difference between out of box, but lets keep the attitude above the belt.  We work together, partnerships don’t need to be hostile like leeches or menacing like mice.  Through this next wave I look forward to seeing innovative partner solutions.  As you view the sneak peak videos don’t make conclusions about partner solutions, everyone ultimately is waiting for the October SharePoint conference for disclosure.  So let’s spend some time on the floor at the SharePoint Conference and get to know the partners.  Ultimately we are all better off as a result of this healthy symbiotic relationship.

Kudos to Microsoft and to future partner relationships that are fostered and healthy.  According to Wiki Answers the symbiotic relationship between rhino’s and oxpeckers is mutualism, essentially both benefit from the relationship.