Analyst Report Finds Lotus Domino R5 Superior to Microsoft Exchange 2000 as Application Development Platform

Study Finds Domino Advantage in Speed, Cost and Functionality for Typical Collaborative Application

Select a topic or year


CAMBRIDGE, Mass - 07 Mar 2001: A new report, commissioned by Lotus Development Corporation and released today by Creative Networks, Inc. (CNI), confirms Lotus Notes and Domino R5 provide a faster and more cost-effective development environment than Microsoft Exchange 2000. The study, designed to measure platform effectiveness and capabilities in a real-world example, found development of this typical collaborative business application to cost 44% less and take 42% less time on Domino than on Exchange. CNI also found the Notes/Domino version to be more functional than the Outlook 2000/Exchange 2000 version, while requiring a less complex and less expensive development environment.

Michael D. Osterman, Vice President of Market Research at CNI, said "Our analysis showed that in this application, the Lotus platform retained a clear advantage in cost, speed and functionality. Furthermore, it will be more difficult for Microsoft to close the gap in light of the recent announcement that its Local Web Storage System and Office Designer -- two technologies that were supposed to add Notes-like functionality at the desktop -- will not be delivered as part of Office XP later this year."

The CNI study was conceived as a resource for developers and business managers, by measuring and analyzing the actual time and investment required to develop a typical business application on both Notes/Domino R5 and Outlook/Exchange 2000. The application , a roles-based project management system with dual Web and dedicated client interfaces, was specified in collaboration between Lotus, CNI, and InfoKinetics, Inc., the developer contracted to do the work. Design goals were to create a realistic and useful collaborative application, and to filter out any inconsistencies that would prevent an "apples to apples" comparison. A project feature is support for independent analysis and feedback: the study, Domino and Exchange code, and a discussion forum are available at the CNI site: www.cnilive.com/domino-exchange.

InfoKinetics, an independent consulting firm which holds top certifications on both platforms, managed the two projects independently at separate branches in Illinois and Colorado. At the conclusion of the development cycle, CNI interviewed the developers and was given all code and time sheets. CNI then produced the report based on its own analysis.

John Bugarin, president of InfoKinetics Inc., said "We found Domino to be far more powerful and elegant as an application platform. Its maturity and consistency allowed our Domino team to spend its time creating business value, while the Exchange 2000 team spent a lot of energy learning a completely rearchitected version of an existing product, and integrating disparate products into the solution. Also, Exchange development requires a server due to the dependency on Windows 2000 and Active Directory. Domino development is done at any workstation and can be hosted on many server operating systems, including Windows NT, Sun Solaris, all IBM platforms, and Linux."

The CNI report builds on earlier findings that a larger number of Notes/Domino customers build applications "beyond mail" than companies using Exchange. On average, Domino customers had 347 business applications deployed within their organizations, while Exchange customers had only 37 business applications deployed. CNI found that organizations can build and deploy Domino applications faster, with less investment of valuable IT resources or outside consulting services. And since Domino Web and Notes applications use a common design environment, developers benefit from greater consistency and choice than when using disparate Microsoft technologies such as Exchange 2000, Visual Studio and Outlook Web Access.

Related XML feeds
Topics XML feeds
Software
Information Management, Lotus, Tivoli, Rational, WebSphere, Open standards, open source