Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Developing an Enterprise Strategy to Deliver Customized Sets of Capabilities

1,093

Published on

What people do with SharePoint and its value to the organization is as much a function of the design of work and the change management strategy as it is coding and development.

What people do with SharePoint and its value to the organization is as much a function of the design of work and the change management strategy as it is coding and development.

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,093
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Robin Macrae Toronto SharePoint User Group meeting 2008-02-20 v2c
    • 2. <ul><li>I regarded 2003 as a first effort on Microsoft's part …. </li></ul><ul><li>When 2007 was announced, I became interested </li></ul><ul><li>In Fall 2006, I began a large Enterprise project </li></ul><ul><li>I decided last spring that I would migrate …. MOSS 2007 as my workspace …. </li></ul><ul><li>I have my own dedicated SharePoint facility …. </li></ul><ul><li>I am the prototypical expert user …. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 3. <ul><li>real-time timekeeping since 1984 (~100k entries in 1st five years) </li></ul><ul><li>every document validated HTML Strict 4.01 , template-based since 2002 (~60k user content files) </li></ul><ul><li>heavy metadata (semantic encoding) since 1999 (dozen taxonomies, one with 500+ rules) </li></ul><ul><li>~30 sites integrated from 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>topic directories (2k+ topics, 20k+ entries) </li></ul><ul><li>Structured / topical authoring (50% in 2003, 90% now) </li></ul><ul><li>comprehensive work step logging for all dev and client work (virtually a scripting process) </li></ul><ul><li>DITA pattern authoring since spring 2007 </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2c Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 4. <ul><li>I come to SharePoint as a content producer as well as an IT architect and designer – I know what today’s knowledge workers need and how difficult it is to deliver </li></ul><ul><li>What people do with SharePoint and its value to the organization is as much a function of the design of work and the change management strategy as it is coding and development </li></ul><ul><li>Deploying SharePoint OOTB without addressing how it is to evolve in work practices and culture is a mistake </li></ul><ul><li>Agile or iterative approaches have the greatest potential to deliver capabilities as needs, insights and opportunities emerge </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 5. <ul><li>SharePoint means the fully loaded Enterprise version and something more substantial than OOTB </li></ul><ul><li>The optimal Enterprise use is central facility and infrastructure where users are widely distributed and businesses are diverse </li></ul><ul><li>SharePoint is first real requirement for IT governance for a real mix of clients and users — you need governance to justify and guide but … </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 6. <ul><li>Microsoft sells SharePoint on basis of low price, ease of deployment and breadth of features </li></ul><ul><li>MOSS the first product with potential to become a default ECM strategy. Implement Office 2007 product suite and you have many of capabilities that have traditionally defined ECM. </li></ul><ul><li>But meaningful ROI arises from narrowly focused capabilities and applications. Still difficult to quantify productivity, soft benefits, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Moreover, SharePoint’s user appeal is empowerment: creating web pages and sites, applets, workspaces and so on (albeit limited for the time being). So demands and expectations are high and fulfillment difficult. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 7. <ul><li>“ good enough” functionality for a large percentage of users who casually contribute and consume content </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;systems designed to handle the growing demand for scalable, 'good enough' content infrastructures that offer basic document management and Web publishing or other content management capabilities at a price that enables mass deployment.“ </li></ul><ul><li>include basic library services functions like version and access control, document check-in/checkout, search, basic workflow (routing and approval), and Web-enabled document collaboration. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 8. <ul><li>T he two key drivers for ECM adoption as an Enterprise platform are: </li></ul><ul><li>the standardization of content under a single set of rules and policies </li></ul><ul><li>the consolidation onto a single enterprise platform </li></ul><ul><li>These drivers require an infrastructure at least with respect to a metadata, templates, business records repositories. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 9. <ul><li>The potential productivity gains require effective change management for what is essentially a set of cultural changes. In part they are work methodology in nature but they are also changes in the way the work outputs are addressed. What good is increased collaboration if decision-makers do not support a more collegial decision-making framework. That is inherent in the new governance required. </li></ul><ul><li>The key is the attitude to shared services and, underlying them, the SharePoint infrastructure. If clients and users don't work together, the benefits of the web services will not be realized. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 10. <ul><li>How do you satisfy the typically high initial demands for basic collaboration and content management while creating a framework to address the more complex requirements that justified the implementation in the first place? </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 11. <ul><li>SharePoint 2003 project — didn't roll it out </li></ul><ul><li>Wide variety of projects: web, collaboration, CM </li></ul><ul><li>The corporate or central IT developing Enterprise role and driver of SharePoint but real budgets in business divisions largely for specific applications </li></ul><ul><li>Very difficult to sell development and support model (infrastructure, new expertise (more business than IT), etc.) when productivity gains nebulous </li></ul><ul><li>Managers wanted specialized and business-specific applications — users wanted basic capabilities broadly available </li></ul><ul><li>Need to educate, develop demand, manage expectations </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 12. <ul><li>Number of choices large, little help in deciding what to implement </li></ul><ul><li>OOTB will only serve as a startup stage — two basic kinds of demand will force development beyond OOTB. </li></ul><ul><li>The initial configuration requires decisions on the site hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>Going from OOTB means addressing templates which exist in at least five levels of implementation per hierarchy </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 13. <ul><li>Templates in at least five levels of implementation </li></ul><ul><li>sites, site themes, master pages </li></ul><ul><li>pages (authoring) </li></ul><ul><li>pages (publishing) </li></ul><ul><li>web parts </li></ul><ul><li>forms </li></ul><ul><li>features (potentially includes all of the above) </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 14. <ul><li>governance (how decisions on resources, priorities, development plan, etc. are made) </li></ul><ul><li>central resources with expertise in collaboration and content management </li></ul><ul><li>the various kinds of templates (sites, pages, forms and so on for corporate, businesses, departments, workgroups, etc.) and the rules underlying them </li></ul><ul><li>shared services (content management, records, search, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>web parts, applets </li></ul><ul><li>filters, views etc. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 15. <ul><li>This approach requires: </li></ul><ul><li>governance (and its support) </li></ul><ul><li>planning and implementation expertise (IT++) </li></ul><ul><li>site hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>templates </li></ul><ul><li>metadata </li></ul><ul><li>reuse </li></ul><ul><li>IT + new SharePoint 2007 skills + collaboration and content expertise </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 16. <ul><li>Capability is a business oriented term to describe the ability to perform a specified action or process. </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes capabilities at their most granular level are equivalent to features/functions. However, features and functions are specific to the chosen solution and it’s implementation while capabilities are generic. </li></ul><ul><li>A given capability would be enabled by a combination of technologies, vendor offerings and business applications. </li></ul><ul><li>E.g., basic authoring capability [Word document] </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 17. <ul><li>We developed a comprehensive model of all potential capabilities and the SharePoint or other product’s features which provided them to evaluate and justify SP and other Enterprise software </li></ul><ul><li>Then we modeled the way in which the OOTB, customized and new templates, parts and other components can be assembled into easily and quickly deployable services </li></ul><ul><li>Think of the model as a tool (perhaps an online application) providing self-service usage to people who need to know something about a capability or set of capabilities. It is a dynamic document which evolves and grows as the platform capabilities are developed. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 18. <ul><li>A model which sets out what is available (educates as well as constrains choices) in user terms . </li></ul><ul><li>Generically define all of the potential functions: collaboration, content management, records management, portal, search, blah, blah, blah. </li></ul><ul><li>Put functions together in logical sets or bundles based on the implementation strategy. </li></ul><ul><li>Select from those capabilities sets the key common elements to build as infrastructure (sites, templates, services, etc.) using architectural and design patterns, best practices, etc. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 19. <ul><li>What are the current capabilities of the platform? </li></ul><ul><li>In what sets of capabilities does a given capability exist? </li></ul><ul><li>What dependencies does a given capability or set have with regard to other capabilities or sets of capabilities? </li></ul><ul><li>What capabilities/sets are being developed now? </li></ul><ul><li>For capabilities being released, what are the rules applicable to them? </li></ul><ul><li>In terms business managers understand, what are the applications/uses typical for a given capability or set of capabilities in their business? If there is more than one capability or set of capabilities for a given function such as authoring, what distinguishes them and would lead to one being chosen over another? </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 20. <ul><li>See example in Word document. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 21. <ul><li>Some broadly available and others narrowly targeted: </li></ul><ul><li>Broadly available but shallow (OOTB) capabilities (satisfy pent-up demand, minimize implementation and support) and </li></ul><ul><li>Narrowly targeted capabilities with real depth addressing pain points and traditional ROI concerns </li></ul><ul><li>A capabilities model becomes the roadmap for SharePoint implementation. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 22. <ul><li>SharePoint Basic/OOTB: basic collaboration and content management) but infrastructure minimal </li></ul><ul><li>SharePoint Workspace: customized professional workspaces, Semantic Web desktop, structured authoring </li></ul><ul><li>SharePoint OS: virtually all work supported within workspace, largely task and event driven and workspaces are portable </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 23. <ul><li>deploy broadly without an infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>develop an infrastructure-based approach </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 24. <ul><li>Deploy broadly without an infrastructure and risks include: </li></ul><ul><li>being overwhelmed by higher level support needs (usage will explode, legacy document conversion, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>a nightmare providing the means of accessing, repurposing and managing this rapidly proliferating content </li></ul><ul><li>insufficient expertise in SharePoint itself as well as the content management, collaboration, workflow and other new capabilities for both IT and users </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 25. <ul><li>In an infrastructure-based approach, the risks are: </li></ul><ul><li>difficulty justifying the investment (SharePoint is supposed to be the low cost alternative) for all the usual ROI related reasons </li></ul><ul><li>justifying the need for and then sourcing the expertise (short supply, new skill sets, higher costs) and the transition of IT to a service provider model </li></ul><ul><li>launching complex organizational changes required (in governance: standards, chargeback schemes, etc.; in development, reusable code, agile, etc.) </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 26. <ul><li>Robin Macrae </li></ul><ul><li>416-255-7450 office </li></ul><ul><li>416-880-7160 mobile </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 27. 2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 28. <ul><li>Collaboration is term people use for what (to me) is essentially content management </li></ul><ul><li>Content underlies all of key aspects of SharePoint development and collaboration refers to the techniques people use to communicate and not what is discussed, written, edited, reused and published </li></ul><ul><li>The real benefits of SharePoint are the result of a semantic workspace, a content platform </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration a no-brainer to sell but not an appropriate basis for SharePoint enterprise development — it doesn't address the key content requirements </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 29. <ul><li>Scenarios that drive demand for MOSS integration and broad deployments are: </li></ul><ul><li>ECM only: MOSS, if implemented, would be a secondary, casual environment where there is no integration or linkages between the two systems. </li></ul><ul><li>MOSS only: The risks in this strategy include the potential loss of control as end user organizations allow their collaboration sites to proliferate without common standards or integration to a business records repository. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 30. <ul><li>MOSS as user experience. Leverage native MOSS user experience as the primary client into the ECM repository </li></ul><ul><li>MOSS as a peer ECM repository. As replacement for network file servers and to manage declaration of email messages as records </li></ul><ul><li>Working documents and business records. MOSS predominantly a WIP repository with limited retention management services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Excerpted from Coming soon to an Office near You , AIIM E-DOC Magazine 2007-03 issue </li></ul></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 31. <ul><li>MOSS is the first product with the potential to become a default ECM strategy. If you don't do anything else but implement the Office 2007 product suite, you will have many of the capabilities that have traditionally defined ECM. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 32. <ul><li>The six primary components of ECM are: </li></ul><ul><li>Document management </li></ul><ul><li>Records management </li></ul><ul><li>Imaging </li></ul><ul><li>Web content management </li></ul><ul><li>Document-centric collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Imaging is the main area still missing. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gartner New Microsoft Office System Aims for ECM, and Should Succeed as BCS </li></ul></ul></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 33. <ul><li>“ good enough” functionality for a large percentage of users who casually contribute and consume content </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;systems designed to handle the growing demand for scalable, 'good enough' content infrastructures that offers basic document management and Web publishing or other content management capabilities at a price that enables mass deployment.“ </li></ul><ul><li>include basic library services functions like version and access control, document check-in/checkout, search, basic workflow (routing and approval), and Web-enabled document collaboration. </li></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting
    • 34. <ul><li>“ will serve the content management needs of knowledge workers who don't deal with mission-critical documents that are managed by entrenched ECM systems.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ simple, commodity functions at a low price so that companies can afford to provide them to most or all employees. BCS offerings will enable companies to better organize document handling in day-to-day operations. </li></ul><ul><li>a&quot;birthright&quot; collaborative tool within most enterprises over next three years </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sources: Gartner documents and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What's the Deal with Basic Content Services? Janelle Julien, 2007-03 </li></ul></ul>2008-02-20 v2a Robin Macrae – TSPUG 2008-02-20 meeting

    ×