Microsoft's Sponsored OOXML Study

Next week's ISO (International Organization for Standardization) vote could fast-track or stall Microsoft efforts to get OOXML (Office Open XML) format standards ratification. Microsoft has pushed hard to get the votes, which must be placed by the Sept. 2 deadline. I see the new IDC report, which Microsoft commissioned, as yet another attempt by Microsoft to influence the outcome, particularly because of the findings' emphasis on Europe.

OOXML standards ratification is crucial to Microsoft, because:

• The file format is linchpin to the company's broader Office, Dynamics and business intelligence strategies. OOXML isn't just a format; it's the glue that will bind together products and product strategies and lock businesses into Microsoft's desktop-to-server stack.
• The ratification process has generated call for a single, open document standard. ODF (Open Document Format) already has ISO approval. Microsoft doesn't want to be cut out of the process or see its format sidelined. The company's informational campaign for OOXML and against ODF dramatically increased after talk started about a single open document standard.

Today's IDC white paper is another salvo in Microsoft's informational campaign. Is the study less valid because it was commissioned? Yes. Reputable analyst firms like IDC typically release two kinds of reports: Editorial and commissioned. Editorial content is what the organization plans, and reputable analyst firms let their own research drive the results; companies like Microsoft have little-to-no say in the results.

Commissioned reports typically come in two forms: Those produced for a company's internal use and others done for external distribution. When I was an analyst, I worked on some studies used for clients' internal use, typically to help improve business or product strategies. I never produced any external, commissioned reports, and my old employer, JupiterResearch, took a dim view of white papers. For good reasons.

The external reports have an inherent bias because the client is paying for them (which carries certain outcome expectations) and there is generally a broader marketing objective behind them. Would Microsoft promote a commissioned report that was somewhat to largely negative to OOXML? The answer is obvious. That said, IDC is a fairly reputable analyst firm and must consider its broader reputation and the reaction of other clients to a commissioned report. Additionally, Microsoft knows that the word "commissioned" taints any report's findings with the news media. So both parties have reasons not to candy coat the findings.

The report authors do an excellent job of laying out the broader document landscape and capturing IT and line-of-business document and file format priorities. Their effort is commendable. Still, it's easy enough for any analyst firm to present only some of the data (that favoring the client) and present the bulk in a favorable manner to the client. My quick review of the findings: Data is somewhat favorably presented, with some rather broad generalizations in the conclusions.

For example, the report states that "in both geographies, the dominant XML standard deployed is Office Open XML." The word "dominant" is way too strong, for a format only available to businesses since Nov. 30. The report confirms this.

IDC asked: "Which document standards are in use in your organization today?" From the chart on page 10 of the report it looks like that in the United States: Adobe PDF, close to 75 percent; OOXML, about 5 percent; and ODF, about 2 percent. For Europe: PDF, about same as United States; OOXML, about 25 percent; and ODF, about 4 percent. I wouldn't call 5 percent, or even 25 percent, as being dominant. PDF's 75 percent is dominant.

I would question that 25 percent number in Europe, by the way, and I'll suggest the data should be differently interpreted. IDC's question isn't exclusive, meaning anywhere in the organization rather than everywhere. So, 25 percent means someplace, not everyplace.

Additionally, the report offers no corroborating data on Office 2007 adoption. Office 2007 and OOXML are linked hip and femur. Is IDC suggesting that Office 2007 adoption in Europe is five times the United States? I've seen other analyst data (that I can't yet publish) that suggests Office 2007 adoption is less on the continent than here. The problem with commissioned studies: They tend to derive from fairly narrowly focused surveys. An editorial report would pull from more of the analyst firm's data. Surely for an editorial report, the authors would have used Office 2007 adoption to tune their analysis and corroborate any conclusions.

A few other things about OOXML's so-called dominance. In answer to that same question, "Others" was about 20 percent in the United States—or about four times OOXML—and around 15 percent in Europe. Highly revealing: IDC also asked of European respondents, "Which will be in use in 12 months?" Nine percent said "fully deployed" for OOXML and another 6 percent in "pilot." That's a lot less than 25 percent. The nine percent figure sounds just about right, given the pace of Office 2007 adoption. By the way, the number "considering" OOXML and ODF is statistically equivalent.

I don't mean to malign the work of the report authors. They did good with what they had to work with. But as I said, commissioned reports carry bias, even when the intentions are to eliminate it. In looking over the IDC report, I see findings presented in a way favorable to Microsoft's OOXML objectives. But the report authors also included the valuable data that would let anyone carefully reading to reach reasonable conclusions.

The report is not an endorsement of OOXML, OOXML dominance over ODF or massive OOXML adoption, particularly in Europe. But the Microsoft FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spin-makers are sure to make it seem so.

Related Posts:

• Microsoft FUD Watch, 8-24-07, Microsoft Watch, August 24, 2007
• Microsoft's Closed Book on Open Standards, Microsoft Watch, July 2, 2007
• The Pointless Office Converter Delay, Microsoft Watch, May 29, 2007
• When Is 'Open' More Open for Microsoft?, Microsoft Watch, May 17, 2007
• Microsoft's Open Debate Is Nothing of the Kind, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 14, 2007
• Understanding OOXML and PDF Standards Approval, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 5, 2007
• Closing Up the Open Format Debate, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 4, 2007
• Document Format Wars Go Public and Get Personal, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 8, 2006
• The Pointless Converter Debate, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 5, 2006
• Microsoft's Interoperability Trust Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
• Interoperability: Is Microsoft All Talk?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 15, 2006