Office 2010 ... Sans the Add-Ins

Can Legal use Officewithout Add-ins?

DASPG2- Monday, August 27th 1:00PM

Agenda

• Our Speakers, their firms and environments

• Add-in Basics

• Why do we use Add-ins and why eliminatethem?

• Stories from the field – our experiencestrying to remove add-ins

• Lessons Learned

• Questions

• Question for the audience.

Our Speakers

•Training Manager•Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

MichelleSpencer

•Director of Information Technology•Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

JustinMcLaughlin

•CIO•Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

BrianDonato

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

• 400 attorneys in 10 offices

• Windows 7 (32 bit) / Office 2010

• OpenText eDocs DM 5.3

• InterAction / PS|Ship / Workshare Protect

• Innova / DocXtools

• Approx. 20 add-ins in Outlook

• Approx. 10 add-ins in Word

Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

• 225 Attorneys

• 7 offices

• Windows 7 64-bit

• Office 2010

• FileSite 8.5.3, iScrub, Payne, Fast Filer/FastFolders, HotDocs

• 11 add-ins in Word, 10 add-ins in Outlook

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

• 360 Attorneys

• 6 offices

• Windows 7 / 64 bit

• Office 2007 (some 2010)

• iManage 8.2/8.5

• Nuance PDF Pro, Workshare, Fast Filer/FastFolder, Payne, iCreate

• 48 add-ins across the Office suite

Types of Add-ins

Interoperability Functionality

How does an Add- In Function?

• Register and load, if enabled, upon programstartup

• Can be enabled or disabled

• Interact programmatically with host app

• Vary greatly

– Simple - enhancements or extra menubuttons/bars

– Complex - separate programs with their ownmemory/CPU slices

Why use Add-Ins?

• Create better user experience

• Improve application integration

• Easier to bundle in the image than distributeon demand

• Vendors prefer it – competing for real estate

• Filling Office functionality gaps

Why remove Add-Ins?

• Improve responsiveness

• Improve stability

• Reduce support/development needs

• Reduce user calls / frustration

• Reduce software costs

STORIES FROM THE FIELD

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Approach to freeing Office

• Keep UI close to out-of-the box

• Use native functionality where possible

• Consider users’ workflows and functionalneeds

• Look at EVERYTHING!

Process

• Find the right team members

• Review functions in old environment

• Consider new tools

• Evalulate new tools

• Determine what earns inclusion

• Test, test, test!!!

Obstacles

• Vendors’ approach

• Missing/flawed functionality in Office

• Need for niche tools

• IT staff changes

• Lack of familiarity with new features

• Time

What Worked

• Teams working on add-ins were in constantcommunication

• Use of a few key consultants with more in-depth knowledge of Office 2010

• Microsoft SCCM for application deployment

• AppSense for profile management

• Vendor responsiveness to issues

What Didn’t Work

• Vendor responsiveness to issues

• Not enough time for adequate testing ofimage with all add-ins

• Vendor delays in 2010-compatibleapplication versions

• Assuming SCCM and AppSense would doeverything

• Native Word Compare

Bottom line

STORIES FROM THE FIELD

Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

Approach to freeing Office

• Adopted a "bouncer" philosophy, minimalistapproach

• Streamlined interface, simplified workflow

• Agile software deployment "App Store"system – key

• Increased automation in softwaredeployment, evolved software packaging

• Rigorous, methodical testing

Process

• Critical look at all software – what could bereplicated with new, built-in functionality?

• User feedback and analysis – what did ourvarious practice groups REALLY use, andwhat did they consider to be unnecessary?

• Extensive pilot testing, working closely withfull range of users

• Full firm buy-in on approach and results

Process (cont’d.)

• Applications Matrix with Three-TierClassifications:

– Tier 1 = Applications used by everyone

– Tier 2 = Applications critical to one or morepractice areas

– Tier 3 = Everything else

• Tier 1 apps bundled directly into Core Image

• Tier 2 & 3 apps are "on demand"

Obstacles

• Vendor support for "new" Office was challenging

• Lack of expertise with Office 2010 initially –needed development

• Needed a superior software deployment system

• Needed deeper packaging expertise

• Participation and buy-in from practice groupsand firm management – radically differentapproach

• Political pressure

What Worked

• Microsoft SCCM and advanced applicationpackaging made "app store" concept possible

• Incorporation of "Six Sigma" into test cyclesensured accuracy with complex add-in integrations

• Close work with practice groups throughout theprocess

• Overall, add-ins were reduced by roughly half

• Streamlined image has reduced Helpdesk calls by38%

What Didn’t Work

• Vendors in general really want you to useadd-ins – did not prove helpful in technicaltalks regarding streamlining

• Poor existing documentation in most casesregarding add-ins

STORIES FROM THE FIELD

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease llp

Approach to freeing Office

• Minimize add-ins on image

– Gold image with “all user” apps.

– Most Add-in were in after image packages.

• Treat Office, especially Outlook, as scarcereal estate

• Office 2010

– Allow users to disable add-ins on their own

– Still in pilot

Obstacles

• Some Add-ins are necessary for folks to dotheir work

• Others require completely different approach

– Example – using server-based metadatascrubbing instead of client-based

• Vendors continue to focus development onadd-ins

– InterAction

What Worked

• Creating a process that made it hard for anadd-in to reach the “gold” image

• Accepting that a goal of fewer add-ins madesense

• Disabling add ins even for gold image apps

– Example – Nuance and WorkShare in Outlook

What Didn’t Work

• The No Add-in Image

– Too many “must have” items

Putting it all together

• It takes a village

• Who is responsible for the components ofthe desktop? For add-in decisions?

• What is the impact on user support andtraining?

• Enterprise App store - demise of the “onesize fits all” desktop?

Questions