Just catching up on my blog reading, and read some posts about Web 2.0 and "Labs" by Adena at AllPoints and James Fee. One thing I think they both miss is what makes a "Labs" effort successful: customer feedback.

It's all about the money...
The bottom line is that companies are trying to sell something - in some cases it's software (ESRI, Microsoft), in others it's the advertising that wraps around the software (Google, Yahoo). In order to have people want the software it must be usable. The best way to detemine the REAL usability of something is to have people use it, and provide feedback. (While this should be obvious, it took the industry a long time to learn this).

Release Early and Often (to the Lab)
This feeds directly into a major concept in both Agile development and Web 2.0: "release early and, release often." What's implied in that statement is that between releases, there is a learning period where the company changes the software to address usability issues, and incrementally move the software forward. This is what makes a "Labs" effort successful. The result is a collaboration between the company and the clients - which is a whole lot more "2.0" than a monolithic release followed by a few years of vaccum, possibly punctuated by a service pack or two.

What about Beta Programs?
Labs should be different from a beta program. A beta program is basically a way to expand your testing team. The beta participants do not get to help set the direction of the software, rather they try the software in existing workflows to locate bugs which may not have been found in the standard regression testing. Software released into the lab, while possibly incomplete, should not be "beta" quality. The idea is to have the working part "work" and to get input on improvments and additional functions. The goal is to have your customers help refine your vision of what they want. This is really helpful unless you have a team of psychics who already "know" what the users want. (note: regardless of what they say, the marketing team is not psychic.)

ESRI Labs (beyond ArcWebServices)
Granted they have the ArcWebServices Labs, but it's pretty small potatoes in the whole Arc spectrum. What would really turn things on their head would be a Labs area relating to the core software. This would be very interesting, and would involve a major shift in the level of transparency. Right now, it's pretty reasonable to describe the company as an "Ivory Tower". Once (or twice) a year there is the week-long love fest, where it's all about the customer and everything is on the table. And then it's back to Redlands and all we see if the "Wall of Marketing" for the rest of the year. Sure they have publications, and trade shows, and betas, but all this is either driven by marketing, or weighed down by a giant NDA. There are some brave souls who do blog, but those few voices in the wilderness are a far cry from transparency. The recent effort towards having a blog seems stilted - it's unclear if this is a group blog, a marketing effort, or (shudder) user-generated-content. what. And thus far, it's pretty fluffy for  the 800lb gorilla of the spatial industry. Back to the Labs thing...

Until ESRI can have a consistent on-going real conversation with their customers, I skeptical they can embrace a real "Lab", where rapid customer feedback cycles drive the direction of the software.