Mark Schneider's SharePoint Taxonomy and Governance Blog

What is a "disruptive technology," anyway?

People tend to understand new concepts through analogy.  This is especially true in the world of technology.  When there is a groundbreaking technology that has no analogy, it is considered to be disruptive.  Disruptive technology is so revolutionary that those who use it effectively will do well, and those who do not will fail.  Disruptive technologies disrupt the status quo.

Spreadsheets are my favorite example of a disruptive technology.  I'm old enough to remember when VisiCalc, the original spreadsheet, first entered the market.  I was working in an R&D lab developing real-time operating systems for factory control devices.  Some of the marketing folks came into my lab area and asked me to explain what this "VisiCalc thing" was all about.  So lucid and thorough was my description of spreadsheet technology that my audience nearly lapsed into a collective coma.  When i mercifully stopped lecturing, the Marketing Director asked "so it is like a word processor for numbers?"  Flabbergasted, I stammered and answered "sort of."  "Then we'll just type numbers into our spreadsheet, it is easier!" he replied.  On their way out, one of the marketing execs muttered "why didn't he just say it was a word processor?"

Of course it was nothing like a word processor, but people learn new concepts by making comparisons with things they already understand.  It takes a long time to form an entirely new concept, and ironically the people who understand the most about prior technologies have the toughest time adapting to the new concepts.  That is why disruptive technologies are disruptive-- they shake up the status quo and provide a chance for new businesses to overturn established businesses.  Now that everyone understands the concept of a spreadsheet, spreadsheet users are absolutely everywhere.

Although hard to imagine now, spreadsheets caused quite an upheaval in corporate culture.  Prior to spreadsheets, if you wanted a computer to calculate something for you then someone had to write a unique computer program.  With spreadsheets, literally anyone can create, modify and use a sophisticated business model without asking IT for assistance.  In fact, this originally created a huge problem for IT departments.  People tended to think that computers magically generated correct answers, and so they were unprepared for the spreadsheet's ability to make wrong answers look very impressive.  And so we come to Sarbanes-Oxley.

When spreadsheets generated wrong answers, the user would complain to IT that the spreadsheet wasn't working.  The hapless IT support person would answer with something like "what do you want me to do about it?  It is your spreadsheet!"  This did not improve IT's reputation with the rest of the business, and led to stress-eating and significant weight-gain among the IT people.  It took a long time for the average knowledge worker to gain a personal handle on the old adage "Garbage In / Garbage Out."  Each individual user had to take responsibility for spreadsheet results.  This was very awkward at the time, but it led to more effective integration of technology and business.

SharePoint represents a similar revolution in the technology world.  SharePoint, like the spreadsheet, puts the ability to create, modify and manage complex web solutions into the hands of every end user.  Just as anyone can use a spreadsheet, the intent is that anyone can use the building blocks provided by SharePoint to solve information management problems.

The problem facing SharePoint is not technical as much as it is cultural.  It may be awkward until the knowledge workers realize that SharePoint has set them free to make their own tactical decisions, but that with freedom comes responsibility.

The problem with virtualized environments

Why are governance and taxonomy planning suddenly such a big deal?  Engineering is the process of creating solutions that take advantage of natural laws.  As an example, building designs follow certain rules because they are leveraging the same organizing principles.  Things like gravity, tensile strength, compression, expansion and contraction, friction etc. all provide a framework for civil engineering decisions and best practices.

The problem with the world of computing is that it is becoming increasingly virtualized.  Virtualization essentially means that the engineered solution is isolated from the "real world."  Virtualization layers at the OS level make operating systems interchangeable and the physical architecture largely transparent.

The problem is that engineers still need a set of organizing principles and best practices in order to create solutions that work together in concert.  If, by its very nature, virtualization technology has removed any dependence on the physical environment, then hardware and software engineers must agree to an entirely arbitrary set of organizing principles.  This process of creating arbitrary standards to harmonize disparate technologies is known as Enterprise Architecture. 

SharePoint has now taken virtualization to a whole new level.  Business process and decisions are, for the first time ever, largely unconstrained by physical technology.  So, there is a need for a new set of processes for business leadership and technology leadership to agree upon arbitrary organizing principles and best practices.

The organizing principles are founded on the organization's taxonomy, and the best practices are embodied in the governance process.  The good news is that the business leadership is really and truly calling the shots with regard to technology for the first time ever.  The bad news is that the business leadership has to figure out what they really want and how to communicate it to the technology team.

This is where my governance and taxonomy workshop comes into play.  For two days the business and technology leadership works together to hammer out a set of agreed organizing principles (taxonomy) and a method for generating and managing minimalist best practices (governance).

SharePoint will do just about anything you want it to do, and this means it is all up to you.

Libraries as Super Folders

The application layer that  you see when using a computer has evolved and improved tremendously over the past thirty years.  Modern application layers involve multimedia presentation of information, dynamic generation of content, and interoperability and integration between applications like never before.

Operating systems have similarly evolved and improved over the years.  Operating systems feature plug-and-play extensibility that really works, the ability to heal and recover from failures, advanced network awareness, and an unprecedented level of stability.

The odd thing is that between these rapidly improving layers we are still using the "C:\ wave your left leg in the air" method of saving and accessing files.  Directories and subdirectories date back to the 1980s and the introduction of the Apple III.  When the Mac came out the directories were rechristened as "folders" and clever icons were added to their representation.  Oddly enough that is where things ended.

With SharePoint it is as if Microsoft decided that it was time to rethink the whole "folder thing" and come up with something better suited to life in the 21st century.  When I ask my workshop participants to brainstorm a "magic folder" to replace the oldfangled Windows folders, they usually come up with a pretty impressive list of ideal features:

1. Virtualized.  Why should I have to know physically where I put my folder?  I don't have to physically track things on the Internet, I just search and download.  I give no thought to the kind of computer I'm talking to or where it is located.  Search, find, get.  Why can't I have that same freedom with my own files.
2. Secure.  I would want the magic folder to be able to manage security and tailor information to the user depending on the user's permissions and privileges.
3. Findable.  Not a real word, but you know what I mean.  If I put something in a magic folder I want to be able to find it again.
4. Version Control. I want it to automatically take care of version management.
5. Review and Approval.  I want my magic folder to have a built in process for gaining approval and publishing documents.
6. Navigation Aware.  I want my magic folders to be aware of other folders and be able to navigate from one to the other.
7. Email and RSS Enabled.  I want to be able to email stuff to the magic folder and subscribe to it.  Any folder any where.
8. Web enabled.  I want to be able to use anything in a magic folder over the web with no monkeying around.

In the workshop I then cross out the phrase "magic folder" and put in SharePoint Library.  That is essentially what a SharePoint library is... a next generation superfolder.

Amazon's New Kindle is Amazing

Although it is now closed to the public, Rockford Illinois' "Time Museum" was one of my favorite places to spend an afternoon.  http://www.timemuseum.com/  It was a privately owned collection of timekeeping devices dating back to the Egyptians.  The exhibits were (of course!) organized in chronological order, and it was possible to walk through the entire museum and get a feel for how timekeeping technology changed over the centuries.

Since I'm invariably drawn to pivotal or "disruptive" technologies, the Time Museum was a place for me to ponder and learn.  It turns out that invention doesn't occur in even and manageable steps.  Technologies are refined and improved and then suddenly there is a huge shift to a new technology concept.  In regard to clocks, the introduction of mechanical gears, pendulums and springs was totally disruptive.  Sundials, waterclocks, and hourglasses were obsolete in a moment.  From that time onward timekeeping technology was a matter of housing better gears in more ornate and compact packages.

Then suddenly in the 1970s the first digital watch was introduced.  I'm old enough to remember these $800 marvels that used "hot" LED display technology, chewed through batteries quickly, couldn't be read in the sunlight, and could be stilled by a single drop of water.  And yet the world was forever changed by solid state timekeeping technology.  From then on in the museum exhibits were all about digital technology improvements.  Gears and springs were the stuff of quaint specialty watches and fashion statements.  The world had changed.

Ever since the offset printing press made its debut in the Middle Ages, bound books have been the method of choice for delivering written words.  Much effort has gone into creating electronic means for delivering books and periodicals, but none were compelling.  Books don't need batteries, can recovery from water damage, cost very little, are easy to read, and satisfying to hold.  Their electronic cousins just couldn't out book the books.

Amazon's new Kindle device is the first compelling electronic book replacement thingiemajob.  The fact that I haven't got a word for it is a clear indicator that a new thing has happened.  it isn't an electronic book, it is a Kindle--that is the point.

You can buy books and periodicals, read them, search them, annotate them, bookmark them all from the Kindle.  It is constantly online using free cellular technology, so if you have a spare moment at the airport and no book to read, you can buy it right from your Kindle and it will download and install in a minute or so.  No intervention is necessary.

It is very personal to hold and use one, much like a book.  The display is very readable.  Rather than providing a depth-of-field view to the text, the Kindle display presents crisp 2-dimensional text which the eye can easily track.

It is a transparent technology in that you forget you are using it and disappear into the book you are reading, which is as it should be.

It isn't waterproof but a simple ziplock bag will fix that if you, like me, read in the hot tub.

It is also, by the way, able to take advantage of the current revolution in federated taxonomies.  So it could conceivably serve as a front end to corporate libraries and the like.  However, to my knowledge Amazon has not introduced such plans.

When I travel I like to bring a novel or two, my Bible, a few computer and business references.  All these now fit easily into my Kindle, which is about the same size as a thin paperback.

I highly recommend you give the Kindle a look.  This one is going to stick.

What is the difference between a public and private Governance and Taxonomy Workshop?

I’ve been asked about the difference between my “private” workshops and my “public” workshops.  The Governance and Taxonomy Workshop provides a strategic view of the business impact of SharePoint, establishes and validates the organization’s taxonomy, establishes a governance model, and creates a project charter complete with requirements matrix.  Not bad for two days, although they are two very intense days.

The private workshop occurs at your location, with your team, and exclusively focuses on your company’s taxonomy, governance and project plan.  When the private workshop is complete, your team is on the “same page” with regard to SharePoint’s purpose and impact on the organization.  You have a very solid top-level taxonomy that has been developed by your team and solidly validated.  Your governance model is established and the team is identified.  You have a project charter that includes a high-level requirements matrix.  And last but not least, you have an “action plan” which outlines exactly what to do next to get the project off the ground.

The public workshop is open to all registrants.  The next public workshop is in San Francisco in September and is promoted by both Microsoft and Mindsharp.  It is the same curriculum and we will develop the same documents and deliverables.  However, it will obviously not be focused on any one organization’s planning needs.  Also, if you are the only one from your organization attending the public workshop then you won’t be able to get your team on the same page.  You’ll have to do that when you get back to your office. 

The private workshop is entirely focused on you and your team, but it costs $8,500 for two days.  The public workshop covers the same materials as an open group, but it costs just $995 for two days.

For more information please email mark@vitalskill.com

Hope this helps.

Governance is about leadership more than management

It is amazing what leadership can do for an organization, a team, and a nation.  Things weren’t going so well for the United States in the early days of the space race.  Launching rockets was cool enough, but our only goal seemed to be to prove that our captured German rocket scientists were smarter than the Soviet Union’s captured German rocket scientists.  It was little more than an expensive game of “neener neener boo boo, can’t catch me!”  John F. Kennedy changed all that in a single speech.  He called upon NASA and the nation to land a man on the moon, and return him safely, (always a nice touch) by the end of the decade.  Suddenly the nation was galvanized by a common vision. Rocket launches were no longer random, but stepping-stones to a larger future for humankind. 

JFK didn’t micromanage the project, or choose the technology, or tell NASA how to get the job done; he simply gave them a very tough and dramatic goal.  And NASA achieved the goal within the seemingly-impossible deadline.  That is leadership.

It is also important to consider how NASA approached the challenge.  They didn’t start building a moon rocket but rather focused on getting an astronaut into orbit under a variety of circumstances, and safely returning him to Earth.  When the Mercury program was complete, they focused on the Gemini program to get two astronauts into space.  They also used Gemini to learn how to walk in space, live in space, find another space capsule and dock with it, and a host of other skills and technologies necessary for a successful moon shot.  Then more progressive steps and lessons with the Apollo program, until Neil Armstrong finally stepped upon the surface of the moon.

There is a lesson in this for Strategic Governance Teams.  When it comes to accomplishing big goals, sometimes more is less.  Sometimes a suggestion is better than a command, and vision is better than micromanagement.  OK, vision is always better than micromanagement.

So, when establishing your SharePoint environment, start with a governance team of no more than 12 people.  Establish a stable top-level taxonomy of no more than 10 categories.  And then start with your own Mercury Program—a pilot project that is impressive enough to gain grassroots support, complex enough to learn how to “do” governance, and small enough that it can be completed in 30 days.  When you have a handle on the pilot project, then and only then move on to your own Gemini Program and learn how to collaborate between dissimilar groups.  Then, and only then, move onto the Apollo Program and build your enterprise information management and collaboration environment.

My two-day Governance and Taxonomy Workshop will get your Mercury Program off the ground, and help to frame your Gemini and Apollo Programs.  I believe firmly in starting small and building on success.

SharePoint didn't create the need for taxonomy planning, it just provided the tools to finally make taxonomy planning happen

I've been a consultant of one stripe or another for most of the past 30 years.  My focus has been on technology strategy, which I consider to be equal parts Enterprise Architecture, Project Management, and Business Process Improvement.  A good technology strategy merges all three into a single set of objectives in support of the organizations overall business goals.

Being a strategy wonk, I'm obviously drawn to ground-breaking technologies that will have a disruptive impact on the business world.  Disruptive technologies are technologies that rapidly change the rules and present amazing new opportunities to solve old problems.  Those who keep up with those technologies do very well, and those who ignore them generally disappear.  SharePoint is the most important disruptive technology in the world today, IMHO.

When I was about 30 (19 years ago) I was hired by one of the world's largest storage manufacturers to solve a big problem  I went to the customer's headquarters expecting to solve some sort of mass storage problem.  Imagine my surprise when I was told by my sponsor (a C-level executive) that their highly skilled and valuable engineers were experiencing low morale quitting in droves.  Would I please see what I could do to help them retain their engineers?

Since I was a hardware and software "systems engineer" at that time, I was pretty mystified to be working with peopleware. The customer insisted so I signed on for what would become a one-year engagement.  After attending endless meetings, making friends with the various key engineers, and listening a whole lot, I realized what the problem was.  These highly motivated and highly skilled engineers were spending the vast majority of their time trying to find usable information!  They were spending so much time acting like informational archeologists that they never seemed to get around to being engineers.

Each of the company's subsidiaries had their own legacy systems, and these legacy systems couldn't share even basic information with other subsidiaries.  The biggest example that comes to mind is that no two subsidiaries used the same work-order numbering system.  Some were sequential and some were not.  Some were simple indexes and some had embedded logic in the work orders.  Some used alpha and some used alphanumeric work orders.

The highly trained engineers spent most of their time trying to reconcile and cross reference incompatible work order numbers (and other mundane pieces of information) in order to simply track the history of work products.  It was just awful for them. 

In order to help them share information more effectively, I created what i then called a "Common Data Architecture" which was a database of standard terms, formats, and variances.  We didn't know enough back then to call it a taxonomy, but that is exactly what it was. 

We recognized that the Common Data Architecture would need constant updating, management and trimming.  So, we formed a "CDA Governance Team" populated by people from very different walks of life across the organization.  It all worked amazingly well.

Not only was it effective, it was democratic and collaborative.  No one had to adhere to the Common Data Architecture (CDA) unless they wanted to share information with others or receive shared information.  Over time it became easier for folks to adhere to the standard rather than be ostracized by their peers.

We didn't know it at the time, but we "accidentally" used many modern collaboration concepts like: data stewardship, collaborative governance, federated governance, taxonomy planning, and data standardization long before these were commonly understood strategies.

This experience changed my professional life forever.  Never again would I forget to include people in my strategic technology planning.  This was the first time in my professional life that I saw the strategic "big picture" that integrates people, information, business processes, and technology.

When I first heard about SharePoint, I knew it was going to be world-changing--totally disruptive.  SharePoint is the first compelling solution to the "Common Data Architecture" problem I first encountered 19 years ago.   

Why are My Sites necessary?

Many organizations are understandably hesitant to enable My Sites for their users.  For one thing, the name “My Sites” sounds a lot like “My Space.”  My Space is an excellent social-networking tool, but it is not at all the same as SharePoint’s My Site service.  The problem is that people learn new technologies by using examples and analogies, and My Sites are a new concept.  With no obvious analogies to use, it is understandable that folks will make an analogy based on a dissimilar tool that sounds similar.

An Example from Higher Education

In order to explain what a My Site is, and why it is important that you enable it, I’m going to use an example from my consulting experiences.  I’ve had the honor to work with a number of colleges and universities over the years, and one such engagement involved the effective use of SharePoint My Sites.  Most schools are pretty quiet during the summer months, and then the entire student body shows up on a single day and demands immediate service.  This can present a particular problem for the IT department which is usually staffed according to the quiet times and judged during the busy times (like most places).

During welcome week the IT staff must get everyone an email account, a file sharing account, a storage account, links to class room management sites, links to appropriate online services, phone directories and the like.  This usually involves handing one several slips of paper with cryptic login information, account names, temporary passwords, and other details that add to the confusion experienced by the students.  It therefore can exponentially increase the support demands placed on the already burdened IT staff.

Using My Sites to onboard students

We developed an improved process to simplify the “onboarding” of students during welcome week, and we used My Sites to make it happen.  Here is how it worked.

1.       SharePoint automatically created a unique My Site for each student and faculty member when they first logged into the system.

2.       The My Site included a web interface to their email account, task list, calendar and other Outlook tools.

3.       The My Site included a private library for the student to house confidential documents and a public library to include documents to be shared.

4.       Links were included to the various online tools and applications the student would need.

5.       Each student had the ability to create sub-sites, so they could form clubs, study groups, and so on. 

6.       Each My Site had a set quota

7.       The My Site included RSS feeds for school news, departmental news and student body news.

8.       Emergency and frequently used telephone numbers were included

9.       A link to the student handbook was included as well.

10.   As the SharePoint deployment grows to include team sites for each class the student is in, these links can be added to the site.

11.   It is also possible, once the classroom sites are implemented, to have calendar, task list, contacts, and forum rollups to the student’s My Site.  This gives the student the opportunity to automatically see and stay on top of assignments, classmates, deadlines, and discussions from each class the student attends.

Instead of numerous slips of paper and a list of instructions a mile long, the student was able to gain access to personally relevant and tailored information with a single sign-on.

Imagine My Sites at your organization

Imagine if, with a single logon, each employee in your organization immediately had access to their team mates, supervisor, employee manual, email, tasks, forums, documents, and external applications.  Imagine if this information was automatically tailored to their individual needs and requirements.  Further imagine if they could modify and personalize it to better fit their needs.  That is what a My Site does. It is an agile and personalized portal and tool kit designed to support each individual user when they log into the system.

With the support of the proper taxonomy and governance model, My Sites empower the user to focus on their jobs rather than trying to work around their tools.

During my Governance and Taxonomy Workshop, I make sure you understand the role and placement of My Sites within your taxonomy plan.

Who should attend a Governance and Taxonomy Workshop?

The Governance and Taxonomy Workshop is a uniquely effective approach to establishing your SharePoint project's taxonomy and governance plan.  Make no mistake, it is a workshop and not a class.  Although I do most of the speaking for the first four hours or so, this is only to make sure the workshop participants have a common understanding of the business impact of SharePoint.  It is amazing to me how many very skilled and brilliant technical experts are skilled at SharePoint deployment, web part development, and administration but have no real understanding what SharePoint "means" to the organization.  If everyone isn't on the same page regarding the business purpose of SharePoint then the project will be a technical success but a business failure, and no one wants that!

After the first few hours, the workshop team gets down to business.  Everyone participates and works to create the actual documents your team will use to drive its SharePoint project forward. In order to be able to effectively and gently move your SharePoint project to a successful conclusion, your workshop participants should include no more than 12 people.  These 12 people should be evenly selected from the following groups:

1. IT Professionals - It is important to make sure that your IT professionals are well represented in the workshop.  They are, after all, the ones who will actually have to accomplish what your team agrees to during the workshop.
2. Power Users -  SharePoint sites are designed to be managed and modified by power users who act as site collection administrators.  The governance and taxonomy plan you develop will be designed to describe the information that spans your entire organization.  You will want to make sure that the Power Users who act as data and site stewards are strongly represented in your workshop team.
3. Powerful Users - These are people who are organizationally very powerful and have policy-setting authority within the organization.  Typically we look for "C Level" executives or their designates.  SharePoint must ultimately be governed by enterprise business policies and best practices.  This means the support and buy-in of the top leadership in the organization.

Taxonomy Development.  During the workshop we spend several hours developing a common taxonomy of information categories that are meaningful to the entire organization.  We aim for just seven categories (or buckets) to put all the organization's information into.  I've seen valid taxonomies with as few as three categories and as many as nine, but we never ever go beyond ten categories.  Why not?  Because people can't remember more than ten.  Everyone must know and understand the ten categories in order for the organization to succeed at managing its information and intellectual property.

Governance Plan.  The top level of the taxonomy we develop is pretty much "carved in stone," but below that the taxonomy grows into and merges with the organization's overall information architecture.  This requires ongoing management and maintenance by a Governance Team composed of business and IT stakeholders.

Project Charter.  Once we have agreed to the informational goals of the SharePoint project and the governance model that will be used to manage it, we capture the information into a project charter for the SharePoint project.  This document is usually about 20 pages (an example can be found and downloaded on this site), and includes the project team, business case, budget, milestones, high level requirements and traceability matrix, the top-level taxonomy, and governance plan. 

Action Plan. Lastly we develop a list of specific and measurable tasks, their owners and due dates.  This list then enables the team to "hit the ground running" on the next day.  Planning is vital, but doing is even more vital!  So, the focus of the two-day workshop is to drive meaningful and rapid action immediately after the workshop ends.

High-Level Training Plan.  Technology will only be as successful as the people who use it.  The workshop also helps develop a list of the major skill sets that need to be developed within your organization.  My Governance and Technology Workshop (also called an 'Action Plan Workshop') is integrated into Mindsharp's excellent "OnPath" training methodology.  for more information about Mindsharp's OnPath methodology, please click here

Imagine how successful your project can be if you walk out of the Governance and Taxonomy Workshop with the above stakeholders in total agreement and in support of the above documents!

It really happens in two short (but intense) days.  Believe me this is worth your time.

 

How do you "make people" use your new taxonomy?

This is one of the more common questions I'm asked regarding the use of taxonomies and organizational change.  This is, of course, the wrong question.  Say what you want about users, they are actually very wise.  The average person in a cube has too much work to do in too short a time.  Their income, self-esteem, and free time all depend on their ability to work the system to get their tasks done well and quickly.  If your SharePoint implementation, taxonomy model, and governance plan make their lives one iota more difficult then they will find a way around you.  They will have to, won't they?

One workshop participant recently said "What do we care about the user's needs?  If they want to work here they will do what we tell them to do!"  Thankfully he was joking, but this has been the attitude of IT for many years.

SharePoint is intended to be the most democratic of tools.  The power to create workflows, sites, libraries, navigational structures, groups, and other technology solutions is actually placed in the hands of the end user!  Taxonomies managed by a governance team are the only thing standing between this SharePoint democracy and total anarchy.

The ideal result of a collaborative governance model is to provide

1. Strategic Framework. Create a strategic framework of definitions (taxonomy) and policies, that provide a strong strategic framework to keep the company organized
2. Tactical Freedom. Provide tactical freedom for the end users as they work within the strategic framework. 
3. Just enough governance.  Just the right amount of governance support at the right time.
4. Federated governance.  Federate the taxonomy and policy governance team with other established governance teams that already exist within the organization.
5. Rapid response.  The governance team must be accessible and able to make a decision immediately.
6. Small governance team.  The governance team is chaired by IT but is "for the users, by the users, and of the users. "  The governance team should be made up of business stakeholders from across the organization with one or two IT representatives.  The default answer should be "yes."
7. Recognition for excellence.  SharePoint provides the opportunity for the end user to innovate and create without running the risk of causing trouble for someone else.  Governance should always be on the lookout for grassroots excellence and promote it.  If someone comes up with their own project management team site template, and other project managers like it and use it, make it a standard template.  Give the originator tons of credit and a gift certificate for dinner.  Governance hunts for excellence and promotes it.  Governance does not boss people around any more than is absolutely necessary!

What the end user needs is

1. Creative freedom. The end user needs to be agile in using and adapting technologies to get their job done as quickly and effectively as possible. 
2. Operational safety.  They need to know that if they use the tools under normal circumstances they are protected by a larger strategic framework.  In other words, they don't have to beg permission to do their jobs but they also don't have to worry that they will accidentally transmit sensitive information to the wrong people.
3. Least resistance.  The end user needs the governance team to provide policies, tools and best practices that make good common sense.  These solutions should also be the easiest, fastest and most effective choice.  People will make the easiest choice that makes sense to them.
4. No delay.  Any decisions from governance should be available immediately.  Since it is not usually easy to get representatives to attend a meeting on short notice, the balance of governance decisions should be made using asynchronous collaboration means (i.e. a SharePoint team site).
5. To be heard.  The end user needs to know that governance doesn't exist to box them in, but to listen to them and make sure they have what they need.
6. Representation.  You'll find that your end user community will take much stronger ownership of SharePoint if the governance team is composed of their peers.  I recommend a staggered six-month rotation schedule (every six months rotate 1/3 of the members out and new ones in).  This provides for continuity, fresh thinking, and helps to indoctrinate as many people as possible.
7. Training.  The biggest cause of new technology failure isn't hardware or software, but peopleware.  If you don't show people how to effectively use a new technology, how will they know?  At the same time, flexible and non-linear tools like SharePoint are like chess. You can learn the basic moves to chess in an hour, but you will spend the rest of your life improving your game.  The same holds true for SharePoint.  You will learn the basic moves rather quickly but then continually improve your game.  The role of governance is to identify, prove and promote the best chess players.

The answer to the question - "How do you "make people" use your new taxonomy?"  You don't.  If people won't use your taxonomy, then your taxonomy is too big, too small, doesn't make sense, or is unusable for one of a thousand other reasons.  You can waste your time and theirs by trying to enforce the taxonomy, or you can work with your users to find out what would make sense.   What would they buy into and support.

This is what my workshop does.  I work with you and key representatives of your user community to develop a taxonomy and governance model that does make sense to them.  They will use it because they helped create it.  They own it because they believe in it.  It makes sense to all concerned because everyone must agree to it.  It fits the best practices for taxonomies because the workshop includes processes to prove and validate the taxonomy.

So, if folks won't use your taxonomy then the problem is yours, not theirs!