Web-based vs. Web-enabled

About four years ago, when I first began researching and writing the LitSoft business plan, I was amazed to find out that several of the “main stream” hosted ESI review platforms we’re not actually web-applications. Instead, they were traditional desktop applications that were hosted and served over the web via terminal service technology, most commonly Citrix. Popular ESI review platforms that are web-enabled desktop applications include Attenex, CaseLogistix, and Stratify, among many others.

As one could logically surmise, the primary advantage of web-enabling an existing desktop application using Citrix is that doing so allows geographically dispersed access to the application without having the redevelop the software as a web application. The cost-benefit here is an assessment of whether the redevelopment costs outweigh the added efficiencies a true web application would bring to bear. Sometimes — depending on many other variables that I’d rather not get in to here — the answer is yes. Conversely, very often the answer is no, which is why so many enterprises have undertaken development projects to modernize their applications and convert them to web-based.

In a hosted ESI review context, the primary advantage of web-enabling desktop applications using Citrix becomes a moot point. The users of these applications (GCs and Law Firms) are not the owners of the technology, and therefore the cost-benefit analysis I previously mentioned is not applicable. In a hosted/on-demand/software as a service model, users’ only concern is having a tool that facilitates maximum efficiency at a minimum cost, and a desktop application that has been web-enabled via Citrix certainly doesn’t fit this bill. I’m not trying to bash Citrix here — it certainly has its “sweet spot” — I just want to be clear that in a hosted ESI review context, this practice is down right laughable.

So what makes desktop applications that are web-enabled via Citrix less efficient than true web applications?

1. Higher Cost: Citrix (and similar terminal service technology) require costly licenses for the software to be deployed on both the server and all client machines. In addition, more hardware is required to support the same number of users/data.
2. Steeper Learning Curve: A desktop application can employ a multitude of user interface/navigation constructs. True web-applications on the other hand, all have similar navigation constructs that have become second nature for most users.
3. Worse Performance: Because web-applications have been designed and developed to work over the web, they perform better than desktop applications in that environment (faster response times, page loads/screen refreshes, data transfers, etc).
4. Decreased Integrations: Web applications are built on protocols and standards, making them relatively easy to integrate with other web applications. Desktop applications were never meant to integrate in this way, therefore they can not.

With the evolution of Web 2.0, web applications are becoming much more functional and responsive, and have enhanced the overall user experience. My guess is that for hosted ESI review, web-enabled desktop applications will eventually be phased out completely, which will increase the overall efficiency of e-discovery. Let’s hope our client community demands that this occur sooner rather than later.