The SharePoint Maturity Model - as presented 1 March 2011 for Nothing But SharePoint

8,452 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,452
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5,277
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
234
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Webinar: my company also has a Creative Services department and specializes in usability and visual design of sharepoint – some of that you’ll see in the slides to come.Speaking:Write email address on the board!
  • Mention data model here.Point out – compliance, regulatory issues, and validation are not included here. Possibly change slide to include a section “what this model does NOT cover” – public-facing, regulatory & compliance, etc.Point out – not every competency has to be at the 500 level – you have to decide where to make the investments based on your business.If anyone has read the Checklist Manifesto – this model needs to be customizable to your business.Link to 1st publication - http://www.endusersharepoint.com/2010/11/05/the-sharepoint-maturity-model-version-1-0/
  • MS divides them into six groups
  • The SharePoint Maturity Model is divided into three sections.
  • As we go along – please rank yourself using the sheet that was on your chair!Russ Edelman – “Different maturity levels within an organization are not unusual.”
  • We’re about to go into the individual competencies…
  • 200 – light switch metaphor.Progression from Information Management to Knowledge Management.=> Mention accessibility issues. (Harbridge 1/29/11)
  • Announcements – look nice with the HTML, but no way to find them individually, or archive them – if you don’t want a page that scrolls forever then you’ll have to delete them.Links – handy but not personalized.
  • Featured story, substories, people profileSites for you - personalizedPolls & recent search activity give a dynamic & interactive component
  • Not just collab around documents and files but all kinds of collaboration activities – nonlinear included.100 – SPRAWL. Other tools also being used as well as SP. Team site used (which creates problem – hundreds of empty Shared Document libraries)That notion of Progression from Information Management to Knowledge Management comes in here too – often there’s good info buried in collab sites which should be promoted to not only Final but example of work to leverage.Customizations here would be cross-site roll-up, information roll-up / aggregation, custom web parts.
  • Designed for collab w/external contributors…
  • No notes.Background - Workflow typesHuman to system – focus here.Scope – DepartmentCross site / cross departmentEnterprise – spans multiple applicationsExternal user integrationHuman to humanSystem to systemTools- OOB workflow – either true OOB or configured- SP Designer / Nintex-- Custom .NET workflow-- Integration to enterprise WF tool. K2, SkeltaAreas of focus:Auditing – on/off in SPMonitoring – build/buyReporting – oob / custom
  • No notes.Harbridge mentioned personalized search results on 1/29/11 – e.g. sales team gets sales-oriented results - I would make this 500 level but needs research if it will be added.Background - Search –Scope – OOB/customIntegration / connectors (ifilters) – OOB/customSEO – Y/NDisplay – facets / best bets / rankings / federation (separate or merged) / results – tabular, w/images, etc. / Actionability Integration w/automated taggingVolume – SP / Fast or other 3rd party tool.
  • No notes.Background:Profiles – maturity progresses through out of box, customization, LOB data, self-service.MysitesTemplate - - OOB / Customized Centralization / organization of mysite and profile (multiple MySites based on domain login etc. – ideal is single.)
  • Distinction between composites/dashboards – dashboards are read-only; composites are interactive.
  • Dynamic mapSelectable indicatorsFull detail at right
  • Distinction between the two – represented by slash.
  • Distinction between the two – represented by slash.
  • Credit to Christophe
  • Lots to consider here.One audience member (Chris M.) pointed out to me on 1/29/11 – the infrastructure maturity is correlated to the degree that IT uses the system.Background - Infrastructure Server config considerations Farm planning - Availability (redundancy / failover)ScalabilityStorage – archiving/de-provisioningLeveraging low-cost storageBLOB integrationBackup & restoreManaged using OOB toolsDefined using 3rd party or custom toolsMonitoring Updates – manual or automatedVirus checking
  • Mention notion of Support – it is baked in to all the 500-levels – it doesn’t matter what the support system is, what matters is that users have a way to report a problem or make a suggestion, and that this is tracked and responded to in a timely fashion.Communications, Marketing, and Culture / Change Management not specifically called out here but they are also essential to adoption of the system.
  • Notion of total cost of ownership – costs $ to build, costs $$$ to maintain & update. Spend more up-front to make the application configurable – so that instead of code drop, change requires update to list, XML, or database table.CustomizationsEnvironment – Prod / Prod + Shared Dev QA / Full 3+ env.Source code – none / simple file storage / source code control system.Build – manual / mixed manual + automated / automatedDeployment & rollback – manual / backup & restore / solution package & scripts / feature creationDeployment – farmwide vs. sandboxed solution (impact on overall farm due to minimized priviliges)Tier – middle (Jquery) vs ? (.NET)
  • Filling out the self-assessment - for you, as an exercise to see how you’re doing. Like taking one of those “am I an alcoholic” quizzes.
  • ×