It is interesting that most of the information available about SharePoint focuses on the nuances of the technology itself. This isn't all that surprising, I guess. There is a lot to know and there are many very bright people to help you figure things out. Don't forget that the point of SharePoint isn't technology, but improved business performance where ad hoc data is concerned.
SharePoint isn't an application in the traditional sense. It isn't a special-purpose automation tool focused on a particular pattern of business processes. PeopleSoft is a traditional application. It has flexibility, but it's purpose is to help your organization organize, integrate and automate a particular set of business processes. SharePoint is something else entirely. It is a virtual environment that connects people, information and work areas in order to accomplish ad hoc tasks. The truly amazing thing is that it does so in a way that enables the knowledge workers to have a great deal of tactical freedom while maintaining a strategic structure and focus to all of their activities.
Installing SharePoint and configuring it is rapidly becoming a "commodity service." Unless it is a huge or sophisticated implementation, the implementation tends to be pretty straightforward. The bigger portion of the story is what you do with it once you have it in place. Your organization has to understand what SharePoint "means" to your culture, your processes and your people. It is the peopleware and not the hardware or software, that will differentiate vendors moving forward. Can your implementation and services vendor help you figure out how to successfully leverage and use SharePoint after it is in place? If not then all they have done is help you install a really expensive "U: Drive."
In order to make the most out of SharePoint you need to not only deploy the technology, but you need to decide how it is to be used in day-to-day operations. And then, here's the tricky part, you need to figure out how to manage the ad hoc information in the SharePoint environment. The word "manage" is actually out of vogue in favor of "governance" because the goal is no longer to strictly limit and control the use of information from the "top down." The goal now is to set up a system in which the users will be able to operate with tactical freedom while being supported and focused by a strategic framework. This strategic framework is the policy taxonomy that I talk so much about.
The policy taxonomy is not so much about findability, although it helps with that too, but more about managing information "in the cloud"where there no longer is a "top" or a "down." No policy taxonomy = no governance structure = U Drive.
Comments