(This is a slightly amended version of a post from my pwcom2.0 blog that discusses how UK construction collaboration vendors are embracing social media as part of their communications mix.)
I have spent much of the past ten years working in the ‘extranet’ or ‘construction collaboration technologies’ market, but as well as this blog, I also write about PR, marketing and social media. Occasionally, that interest also crosses over into my ICT interests – as it did when I looked at Asite‘s recently launched Web 2.0-enabled platform (see post here and on ExtranetEvolution.com), and, today, a Google Alert has just sparked another snapshot exploration.
The Alert took me to a Facebook page created for Aconex, an Australia-based provider of construction collaboration technologies. I created a similar page for [my former employer] BIW Technologies some months ago (plus one on LinkedIn and a BIW Twitter feed), so this set me searching for similar pages relating to the main construction collaboration vendors – of which there are about ten currently active in the UK.
About as social as the rest of AEC
Given that their core business is focused on improving information sharing and collaboration among users, you would have thought that these supposedly technology-savvy companies would have been in the forefront of Web 2.0 adoption. But I think their marketing instincts are, in the main, reflective of customers and end-users’ attitudes and behaviours in the somewhat conservative architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) market. ‘Safe’, business-focused networks like LinkedIn are popular, as is the current media darling, Twitter, but take-up of other tools is more patchy.
Searches on the business-oriented networking site LinkedIn were most successful, yielding company pages for 4Projects, Aconex, Asite, BIW, Business Collaborator, Causeway, and ePin in the UK, the France-based Sword group, plus US based e-builder and Kalexo among others.
I found official Twitter feeds from Aconex (updates protected), Asite, BIW, ePin, Sarcophagus and Union Square; most were established relatively recently and have few updates or followers – currently the most prolific and most followed Tweeter is the longest-established: BIW. But recent market entrant Woobius is an active Twitter user, as are around half a dozen regularly tweeting ‘Woobians’. (To see if this changes over time, I am minded to create a construction collaboration Twitter league, echoing the Architects Twitter league set up by Su Butcher, and Martin Brown’s recently launched FM Twitter league).
On YouTube, I identified seven Asite (solutions) videos, three Aconex-related videos, and one by BIW. Again, Woobius is quickly establishing a presence, with three YouTube videos posted in the past fortnight alone.
The official UK collaboration bloggers include Asite, Aconex and Woobius (I was, I suppose, an unofficial BIW blogger until earlier this year).
However, in Facebook, there is a scant presence. Apart from the Aconex and BIW corporate pages (the fans of both seem to be mainly comprised of staff), I discovered only Asite Past and Present, an unofficial alumni group for existing and former employees (featuring a distinctly non-corporate and politically-incorrect discussion of Who knobbed the most people at work? – a stark warning of the risks that can arise from uncontrolled staff use of social media).








Jul 21 2009
Drop into drop.io
21 July 2009
I had a transatlantic meeting via Skype this afternoon with three of the people at Brooklyn, New York-based drop.io, providers of “simple real-time sharing, collaboration, and presentation”. Their Software-as-a-Service solution has already achieved some media attention in the US – though the focus to date has been on generic file-sharing rather than on enabling industry-specific collaboration (echoing e-grou – see post – perhaps?), but architecture is one of ten sample market sectors profiled (also architectural photography).
According to the website, Drop.io provides an easy-to-use online collaboration and file-sharing service that allows users to privately share images, video, audio, documents and other digital content through user-created and controlled sharing points called ‘drops.’ (see the How To video). These drops allow users to upload content via web, e-mail, MMS, Facebook, Firefox extension, phone and fax inputs and share it on-the-fly through drop.io’s various outputs including the web, email, MMS, Twitter, iTunes and fax. Each ‘drop’ is non-searchable, non-networked, does not require any type of account registration, can be password-protected and can expire after a period of time. In short, you can share exactly what you want with just whom you want for just as long as you want.
On the basic service, drops can be created for free with up to 100Mb of storage. More functioniality is available with drop.io Manager, where personal or group plans start from $19/month, with professional plans priced from $49/month.
The architecture offering
Prior to my meeting, I read some of drop.io’s architecture-related information, including a short white paper and a data-sheet. As I explained to them, file-sharing for architects has been around for over a decade (some of the marketing messages about avoiding FTP, mail and email, enabling remote access to design information from anywhere anytime, and the virtues of computing in the cloud are now somewhat dated), and for many designers sharing and collaborating upon drawings and other documents online is almost second nature. However, drop.io’s drawing-sharing technology is based on iPaper (“Powered by Scribd“), which has no on-screen mark-up or commenting functionality; some ‘moaning architects’ may still hand-craft their comments and amendments (maybe even in red pen!), but others will see this as a short-coming. On the upside, though, drop.io’s chat, presentation and conference calling facilities offer something currently lacking from most of the established construction collaboration solutions (exceptions include relatively recent arrivals such as Kalexo – see post).
As a low-cost solution, drop.io is going to be compared with other inexpensive web-based applications such as the afore-mentioned e-grou and UK start-up Woobius (see post). The latter has been designed from the ground-up, by architects for architects, so this may make it more appealing to fellow practitioners, but – on the face of it (I’m hoping to get a more detailed look at the premium offering) – the emergence of drop.io certainly intensifies the competition in an already very price-sensitive market. It also further underlines the growing interest in incorporating Web 2.0-type functionalities into collaborative workspaces – though I suspect this won’t be a deal-clincher, at least for a while yet.
Share this: