Thanks - this confirms my observations. It is very useful to know this information to help assess and plan an appropriate information architecture.

I think we are now able to fully engage with determining how Clearspace(x) can be used to support both internal and external communities. I can see the logic of large organizations having separate facilities for both sets of communities, but for SME's there is a tremendous opportunity to build an integrated collaborative environment.

I've done some experimenting with trying to structure Clearspace to span both internal & external needs. The following snapshot depicts the high-level structure.

I'll explain a bit more about the structure and logic. The facility is split into two main space areas, External & Internal. In essence they are only structural containers. Both only have blogs enabled (since you have to have at least one blog/discussion/document). Indeed, the next level down is also structural only and also only has has blog enabled. Below this level Sub-spaces and Tag Groups are used to manage the bulk of the content.

I am using blog aggregation, but carefully to ensure that only appropriate blog content is shown at the higher levels. 

I feel comfortable about the appropriate use of Spaces and Tag Groups; I also accept plans to enable free form Wiki landing pages, but I'd personally like to use the structuring ability of the product as the main organization and navigation method.

Some Observations

The first obvious one is the limitation of space hierarchy levels i.e. only one level of nesting. I need, at least, another level in my structure. Ideally, it would be an expandable tree interface. I appreciate that multiple levels could get visually messy. I have also mentioned before that I'd like to have Tag Groups also appear in the organization hierarchy panel i.e. the diagram above.

Whilst it is could be useful to have blogs for high-level structural containers, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the Clearspace architecture could support just a pure structural container concept. It would be useful to be able to have a 'page' of detail to explain the structural level/sub-content (some thing more rich that the space description).

I'm not sure how the main page What's New works in regard to aggregation. There is a possible bug with the current see separate reported issue Main - What's New Aggregation Issue . I assume the aggregation of What's New ( a very important aspect of the product) is space permission based? If so this should enable the correct exposure of content. I've noticed that you have to set a space to implement discussions and documents if you want to get an aggregated list.

Popular Tags could pose a problem. They appear to expose all popular tags. (1) Offer things that return nothing is crude/unkind, (2) Even short names can expose sensitivities.

Similarly and more deeply related to controlled segmentation of external & internal is Popular Contributors.  Even though personal details can be hidden and non real usernames used, the exposure of people could cause problems with client confidentiality even on a pure external community implementation (a classic use for Clearspace is for project collaborative environmemt).

Summary

In summary, to achieve a Internal & External split, whilst retaining the advantages of one system and shared content, poses some architectural challenges. It would be useful to chase out the feasibility and also look in more detail at how two instances could be integrated together.

An interesting use case is the one in the original Re: Internal & External Feature Discussion

Thanks Greg, the blogs are good and confirm the direction of dialogue we have been having. I support your whole approach to focusing on solution areas, rather than getting driven by features. Indeed, the positioning of Clearspace & Clearspace is much clearer and logical.

Your post update and blogs, together with the line that my thread has been taking, sets <span style="border: 0pt none ; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 50%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; position: static; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer"></span>me up nicely for the suggestion of a new solution use case - Clearspace Y. This is for organizations who want to operate and integrate both Clearspace & Clearspace X use cases in one solution. The benefits of which include:

• Collaboration continuum between the internal and external communities - Web 2.0 Max

• Improved information management costs by integrating front-end and back-end operations

• Increased leverage of ideas and talents - synergistic

• Increased adoption success -  internal world rather use one than two systems, external see benefits of closer access to SME's<span style="border: 0pt none ; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 50%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; position: static; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer">* * </span>

• Security segmentation where required for confidentiality

• .....

A Clearspace Y organization want<span style="border: 0pt none ; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 50%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; position: static; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer"></span>:

• Clearspace AND Clearspace X (preferably on system or a seamless integration of the two)

• Joint Internal & External authoring and approval of information

• Project & Customer Communities to run walled garden collaborations with aggregated content/access from/to public/selected communities

• Open Communities to engage with the outside world

• Traceability and integration to enable coordination of chaotic-to-structured

• ..........

Can I suggest a new Community section for this topic to see who else might want this, establish the requirements, and validate the benefits?

Indeed, why not also set up specific communities for Clearspace & Clearspace X, perhaps in the Lounge section?

Message was edited by: Magpie

What do you think Greg?

Hi Greg - I agree the solution can be either on one system or <span style="text-decoration: underline">a seamless integration of the two</span>. 

It may very well be that <span style="font-weight: bold">Clearspace Y</span> is a set of additional tools and facilities to connect and aggregate  appropriate information over a number of communities. It may be worth you looking at the concepts of federation.

Whatever the solution, I would still suggest it is worth creating a community/space area to discuss the requirements for Clearspace Y. This could help guide, justify, and shape the solution. I notice that your own poll that 42% of respondent are using both Clearspace X and Clearspace. Whilst this does not mean 42% would want them connected together, I suspect a number would if such a facility existed.