Best Practices: Doc-as-App and Workspace AI — Rakenne vs Notion, Coda, M365 Copilot, Google Duet

“Doc-as-app” tools—Notion, Coda, and similar—combine documents, databases, and automation in one workspace. Add AI in the editor (Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google Duet), and you have another way to generate and refine content without leaving your daily apps. This article outlines best practices and compares Rakenne to these doc-as-app and workspace AI alternatives.

Best practices in this space

1. Clarify “document” vs “workspace” — If the main outcome is a deliverable document (policy, contract, report) with a defined structure and validation, a document-centric workflow fits. If the outcome is living workspace content (wiki, tracker, mixed docs + DB), a doc-as-app fits.
2. Decide who defines structure — Experts can define structure in markdown workflows (Rakenne), in blocks and databases (Notion/Coda), or via admin-controlled “document agents” (Copilot). Choose based on who owns the spec and how much you need validation.
3. Use AI where it’s grounded — Prefer tools that ground AI in project context, references, or knowledge bases rather than purely open-ended chat.
4. Plan for export and handoff — If the deliverable must be DOCX/PDF for clients or auditors, ensure the tool supports export with consistent formatting and structure.
5. Balance flexibility and repeatability — Flexible workspaces are great for ad-hoc work; repeatable document types benefit from fixed workflows and checks.

Alternatives: doc-as-app and workspace AI

Rakenne vs alternatives: features, strengths, weaknesses

Rakenne

Features: Document-elaboration workflows in markdown (skills); LLM agent in the browser (one per project); skill library, references, AGENTS.md; export to DOCX, PDF, HTML, LaTeX; optional extension tools for validation.

Strengths

• Document-centric and workflow-defined — Built for producing one deliverable document (or set) per project, with ordered steps and validation. Not a general workspace.
• Workflow as spec — Experts author workflows and references in markdown; the agent follows steps and runs checks until they pass. Repeatable and auditable.
• Validation tools — Extension tools (coverage, logic gates, completeness) give deterministic PASS/FAIL; the agent self-corrects. Notion/Coda/Copilot don’t offer this pattern.
• Single agent, one project — One conversation and one workspace per “document job”; context and references stay scoped.
• Export-first — Output is structured for handoff (DOCX/PDF) with reference doc and optional branding.

Weaknesses

• Not a general workspace — No wikis, databases, or project trackers; Rakenne is for document elaboration, not “everything in one place.”
• No in-app blocks/databases — No Notion-style blocks or Coda-style tables and automations; content lives in markdown and workspace files.
• No “edit in Word/Google” — Users work in the browser and export; no native Word or Docs add-in.
• No embedded AI in third-party apps — No Copilot/Duet-style “AI inside your existing doc”; Rakenne is its own app.

Notion

Features: Pages, databases, templates, wiki; Notion AI for summarize, draft, translate; collaboration; integrations.

Strengths: Flexible workspace for docs, DB, and projects; fast to adopt; AI available in-context; good for knowledge bases and lightweight project tracking.

Weaknesses: No fixed “document workflow” or validation tools; structure is whatever you build in blocks; export is available but not optimized for formal deliverable documents with strict structure and checks.

Coda

Features: Docs + tables + buttons/automations; Coda AI for content and formulas; packs and integrations.

Strengths: Strong for “doc that behaves like an app” (tables, automations, AI); good for templates that mix narrative and data.

Weaknesses: Same as Notion: no workflow-as-spec with validation; document types are template-based, not agent-orchestrated with PASS/FAIL checks.

Microsoft 365 Copilot

Features: AI in Word, Outlook, Teams, etc.; draft, edit, summarize; optional “document agents” and central control (e.g. via Templafy or similar).

Strengths: Works where users already work; no context switch; enterprise control possible when layered with governance.

Weaknesses: General-purpose AI in the editor; no first-class “workflow + references + validation” in the product itself; structure and repeatability depend on prompts and discipline.

Google Duet / Docs AI

Features: AI in Docs, Sheets, Gmail, etc.; draft, edit, summarize across Workspace.

Strengths: Same as Copilot: in-context, no new app; familiar for Google-centric orgs.

Weaknesses: Same as Copilot: no built-in workflow engine or validation tools; structure is manual or prompt-driven.

When to choose which

• Choose Rakenne when: The goal is producing a specific deliverable document (policy, contract, report, proposal) with a defined workflow and validation. You want experts to own the spec in markdown and the agent to follow steps and run checks. Export and handoff to DOCX/PDF are required.
• Choose Notion when: You need a flexible workspace (wiki, docs, DB, projects) with in-page AI and don’t need strict document workflows or validation.
• Choose Coda when: You need docs + tables + automation and in-doc AI, with “doc-as-app” behavior rather than formal document elaboration with checks.
• Choose M365 Copilot or Google Duet when: Staying inside Word/Docs is mandatory and you’re okay with AI assist without a dedicated workflow and validation layer (or you add that via another layer like Templafy).

Best practice: use Rakenne for document types that need workflow + validation + export; use Notion/Coda/Copilot/Duet for general workspace productivity and in-app AI where the outcome isn’t a single, validated deliverable document.