Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals: Don't just say it, do it!
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
6 gefällt mir•3,027 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (11)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (6)
Ähnlich wie Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals: Don't just say it, do it!
Ähnlich wie Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals: Don't just say it, do it! (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals: Don't just say it, do it!
- 1. Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals: Don’t just say it, do it Paul Culmsee Michal Pisarek
- 2. AXCELER OVERVIEW Improving Collaboration for 16+ Years – Mission: To enable enterprises to simplify, optimize, and secure their collaborative platforms – Delivered award-winning administration and migration software since 1994 – Over 2,000 global customers Dramatically improve the management of SharePoint – Innovative products that improve security, scalability, reliability, “deployability” – Making IT more effective and efficient and lower the total cost of ownership Focus on solving specific SharePoint problems (Administration & Migration) – Coach enterprises on SharePoint best practices – Give administrators the most innovative tools available – Anticipate customers’ needs – Deliver best of breed offerings – Stay in lock step with SharePoint development and market trends
- 3. Paul Culmsee CISSP, MCSE, MCT, MCTS • Owner - Seven Sigma Business Solutions (Perth) • SharePoint architect and agony aunt • Sense-making practitioner and facilitator for large scale complex projects (non IT) • Certified Dialogue Mapper o T: @paulculmsee o E: paul.culmsee@sevensigma.com.au o B: www.cleverworkarounds.com (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 4. Michal Pisarek, SharePoint MVP • Founder – Dynamic Owl Consulting • SharePoint MVP • Microsoft SharePoint VTS • SharePoint Analyst o T: @michalpisarek o E: michal@dynamicowl.com o B: www.sharepointanalysthq.com (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 5. Basis for this session… SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture Master Class (Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals) February 6/7th 2012 Vancouver, Canada www.spgovia.com As delivered in London, Dublin, Seattle, Hong Kong, Singapore, Auckland, Sydney, Utrecht, Brisbane, Wellington Proudly sponsored by (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 6. Setting some context… • SharePoint governance and successful delivery is just as much art as science. • Practitioners need: o Deep product expertise and technical skill o Deep understanding of the softer side of SharePoint delivery. • Guess which one we suck at? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 7. Acknowledgements “f-Laws are truths about organisations that we might wish to deny or ignore – simple and more reliable guides to everyday behaviour than the complex truths proposed by scientists, economists, sociologists, politicians and philosophers” Management f-LAWS: How Organizations Really Work Russell Ackoff and Herbert Addison (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 8. f-LAW 1 THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE THE DEFINITION OF “GOVERNANCE” IS, THE LESS IT WILL BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 9. FACT! Governance originates from the Latin word “to steer”. Latin: gubernatio (“‘management, government’”), Ancient Greek kubernesis, "steering, pilotage, guiding" < kubernao, “‘I steer, drive, guide, pilot’”). (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 10. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 11. Key takeaway Governance is the means to an end You do not need to over-define it to understand it By working to achieve a shared end in mind you are governing! (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 12. Key takeaway Do all participants understand what the end in mind looks like? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 13. f-LAW 2 THERE IS NO POINT IN ASKING USERS, WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT Corollary: There is even less point in thinking that you already know what they want (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 14. Knowing vs. Learning Cognexus Institute www.cognexus.org (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 15. Knowing vs. Learning Cognexus Institute www.cognexus.org (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 16. Key takeaway For a problem that is novel or requires learning for participants, they will examine potential solutions just to explain the problem Each instance of examining the solution will impact the understanding of the problem (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 17. Key takeaway • Expect fluid requirements • Expect scope changes • Involve stakeholders • Expect resistance and pullback • Plan for prototyping • Be adaptable • Do not penalise people for their learning (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 18. f-LAW 3 THE PROBABILITY OF PROJECT SUCCESS IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE TIME TAKEN TO COME UP WITH A MEANINGFUL KPI (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 19. What project is this? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 20. WHAT PROJECT IS THIS? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 21. DIVERGENCE – MULTIPLE FUTURE STATES (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 22. Key takeaway If you cannot tell me the difference made by implementing SharePoint, how can anyone else know the difference? Even if you can, how do you know that everybody else sees it the same way as you? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 23. f-LAW 4 MOST STATED GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES ARE PLATITUDES – THEY SAY NOTHING BUT HIDE BEHIND WORDS Corollary: Most governance platitudes simply reflect the broader project platitude (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 24. An Olympic class platitude… “The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence" (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 25. The platitude indicator If you cannot reasonably disagree with an objective, or measure it, then it is a platitude “Most corporate mission statements are worthless. They often formulate necessities as objectives; for example, "to achieve sufficient profit." This is like a person saying his mission is to breathe sufficiently.” Russell Ackoff (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 26. For Example... “Collaboration will be encouraged” “A best-practice collaboration platform” “It’s a SharePoint project” (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 27. A non platitude example “To produce high-quality, low cost, easy to use products that incorporate high technology for the individual. We are proving that high technology does not have to be intimidating for noncomputer experts.” Apple Mission Statement (1984) (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 28. SharePoint non platitudes We are proving that through better information management, we can improve our customer relationships without over-burdening our staff” “We are proving that we can grow the organisation while reducing email volumes, centralising document storage and making the system a pleasure to use” (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 29. Key Takeaways A platitude is like a mirage. It looks like a goal, but in reality it is nothing Platitudes delude us into thinking that we have an end in mind when we actually do not Don’t confuse the means with the end. Always ask what difference the means will make, rather than trying to come up with a universal definition for it (f-law 1) (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 30. One “best practice” to rule them all Ensure a shared understanding of the problem among all participants “The ‘Holy Grail’ of effective collaboration is creating shared understanding, which is a precursor to shared commitment” Jeff Conklin (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 31. Key takeaway The only way to converge to a solution is to achieve a shared commitment among participants The only way to achieve shared commitment is a shared understanding of the problem among participants This is the essence of governance (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 32. But how??? • Sensemaking tools and methods are out there o Gamestorming o Mapping IBIS, Kapitola Pathway, Mindmaps, Concept maps o Visual Facilitation o Open space technology o Problem structuring methods Breakthrough Thinking, Back of a Napkin, Dialogue Mapping (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 33. Gamestorming to Shared Understanding (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 34. Creating a Vision • A clear compelling vision is a must to succeed with SharePoint • Simply asking users ‘So tell me about your Vision for SharePoint’ isn't going to work • How do you balance reality with imagination to create that future state? (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 35. The Bad Ways • Asking yes or no questions that don’t allow any expansion: o “Do you want to be able to search?” • Asking technical questions: o “Would you like to create workflows when SharePoint is implemented?” • Not asking a diverse range of stakeholders (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 36. A Better Way? • Allow participants to express the future state in their terms and language • Allow participants to explore alternative future states without any constraints • Encourage collaboration to achieve Shared Understanding and Commitment • Balance Innovation and Chaos (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 37. The Cover Story Game (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 38. • Cover: Tells the story of their big success • Headline: The substance of the cover story • Sidebars: Interesting facts about the story • Quotes: Quotes from potential end users of the solution • Brainstorm: documenting initial ideas (this is important!) • Images: Supporting the content with illustrations
- 39. Running the Game • Groups of 4-6 people • Give each group a poster • Around 30 minutes (be strict) • Review each teams work to determine composite shared vision • Can use other techniques to then rank and prioritize (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 40. The Kapitola Pathway (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 41. Overview • Concept map with three major nodes: o What: Whatever you are trying to do o Why: Why is this needed? o How: How are you going to do this? • Better than reams of documentation • Depending at which node you are looking at it will change • Draw to the left o Why are we doing this? o Unpacking the underlying purpose • Draw to the right o How are we doing this? o Explicit and measurable objectives (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 42. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 43. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 44. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 45. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 46. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 47. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 48. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 49. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 50. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 51. (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 52. The Kapitola Pathway • Another simple visual but super powerful technique to use • So much information in a very consumable format • Anything you can fit on a napkin is better than a book of documentation (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
- 53. Learn more… SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture Master Class (Aligning SharePoint to Business Goals) February 6/7th 2012 Vancouver, Canada www.spgovia.com As delivered in London, Dublin, Seattle, Hong Kong, Singapore, Auckland, Sydney, Utrecht, Brisbane, Wellington Proudly sponsored by (c) Seven Sigma Business Solutions 2010
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule… because (according to Proposition 1) the process of solving the problem is identical with the process of understanding its nature. You can always try to do better as your understanding grows. This leads to the presumption that additional investment of effort might increase the chances of finding a better solution. You cannot prove that all solutions have been consideredThere are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been identified and considered There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike. Various stakeholders will have differing views of acceptable solutions. It is a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursuedSolutions differ based on interests, values and ideology of participantsJudgements on the effectiveness of solutions are likely to differ widely based on the personal interests, value sets, and ideology of the participants. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is ‘good enough’ can be a challenge. Sox clearly to me has been a failure in its intent, given the global financial crisis, but many would argue against my assertionSome would say that SOX not working is regulation not working and argue for lessSome would argue for more
- There is no definitive statement of “The Problem.” It is a moving target. “they don’t know what they want”The problem is composed of an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Therefore, the information needed to understand the problem depends on one’s idea for solving it …In order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory for all the conceivable solutions ahead of timeA number of designers participated in an experiment in which the exercise was to design an elevator control system for an office building. All of the participants in the study were experienced and expert integrated-circuit designers, but they had never worked on eleva-tor systems before. Indeed, their only experience with elevator systems came from riding in elevators. Each participant was asked to think out loud while they worked on the problem. The sessions were videotaped and analyzed in great detail. The analysis showed, not surprisingly, that these designers worked simultaneously on understanding the problem and formulating a solution. They exhibited two ways of trying to understand the problem: efforts to understand the requirements for the system (from a one page problem statement they were given at the beginning of the session); and mental simulations (e.g. “Let’s see, I’m on the second floor and the elevator is on the third floor and I push the ’Up’ button. That’s going to create this situation....”).
- There is no definitive statement of “The Problem.” It is a moving target. “they don’t know what they want”The problem is composed of an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Therefore, the information needed to understand the problem depends on one’s idea for solving it …In order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory for all the conceivable solutions ahead of timeA number of designers participated in an experiment in which the exercise was to design an elevator control system for an office building. All of the participants in the study were experienced and expert integrated-circuit designers, but they had never worked on eleva-tor systems before. Indeed, their only experience with elevator systems came from riding in elevators. Each participant was asked to think out loud while they worked on the problem. The sessions were videotaped and analyzed in great detail. The analysis showed, not surprisingly, that these designers worked simultaneously on understanding the problem and formulating a solution. They exhibited two ways of trying to understand the problem: efforts to understand the requirements for the system (from a one page problem statement they were given at the beginning of the session); and mental simulations (e.g. “Let’s see, I’m on the second floor and the elevator is on the third floor and I push the ’Up’ button. That’s going to create this situation....”).
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule… because (according to Proposition 1) the process of solving the problem is identical with the process of understanding its nature. You can always try to do better as your understanding grows. This leads to the presumption that additional investment of effort might increase the chances of finding a better solution. You cannot prove that all solutions have been consideredThere are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been identified and considered There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike. Various stakeholders will have differing views of acceptable solutions. It is a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursuedSolutions differ based on interests, values and ideology of participantsJudgements on the effectiveness of solutions are likely to differ widely based on the personal interests, value sets, and ideology of the participants. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is ‘good enough’ can be a challenge. Sox clearly to me has been a failure in its intent, given the global financial crisis, but many would argue against my assertionSome would say that SOX not working is regulation not working and argue for lessSome would argue for more
- Expect fluid requirementsExpect scope changesInvolve stakeholders Expect resistance and pullbackPlan for prototypingBe adaptableDo not penalise people for their learningWicked problems have no stopping rule… because (according to Proposition 1) the process of solving the problem is identical with the process of understanding its nature. You can always try to do better as your understanding grows. This leads to the presumption that additional investment of effort might increase the chances of finding a better solution. You cannot prove that all solutions have been consideredThere are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been identified and considered There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike. Various stakeholders will have differing views of acceptable solutions. It is a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursuedSolutions differ based on interests, values and ideology of participantsJudgements on the effectiveness of solutions are likely to differ widely based on the personal interests, value sets, and ideology of the participants. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is ‘good enough’ can be a challenge. Sox clearly to me has been a failure in its intent, given the global financial crisis, but many would argue against my assertionSome would say that SOX not working is regulation not working and argue for lessSome would argue for more
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule… because (according to Proposition 1) the process of solving the problem is identical with the process of understanding its nature. You can always try to do better as your understanding grows. This leads to the presumption that additional investment of effort might increase the chances of finding a better solution. You cannot prove that all solutions have been consideredThere are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been identified and considered There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike. Various stakeholders will have differing views of acceptable solutions. It is a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursuedSolutions differ based on interests, values and ideology of participantsJudgements on the effectiveness of solutions are likely to differ widely based on the personal interests, value sets, and ideology of the participants. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is ‘good enough’ can be a challenge. Sox clearly to me has been a failure in its intent, given the global financial crisis, but many would argue against my assertionSome would say that SOX not working is regulation not working and argue for lessSome would argue for more
- A shared understanding between all stakeholders in the project is essential for ultimate project successIn order to achieve a shared understanding and ultimately shared commitment there is a number of different techniques that you can useI am going to cover one of the techniques from the book game stormingThe whole book is full of innovative approaches to writing workshops to facilitate both a shared understanding, encourage innovation and basically get great information out of users without using dull boring techniquesand let’s be honest sometimes the journey is just as important as the destination so make sure that the way that you gather requirements or achieve a shared understanding of both fun and engaging for everyone participating in the experience
- You need to have a clear vision for anything that you do in SharePoint so that each step of the process you can drive towards the vision that you are trying to obtainthe SharePoint is that because of the flexibility of the platform different stakeholders can have vastly different visions of what you are trying to achieve, they can even have different opinions of what the problem actually iscreating a vision is actually not as easy as it sounds because simply asking users what they envision is for SharePoint is not going to be productiveyou need to use a technique that that will balance possible realistic outcomes but not constrain innovation or abstract thought
- So let’s touch upon some of the bad waysThe first that way is asking users questions that are dead and. ask users questions that are open-ended and allow them to elaborate on their thoughts and responsesThe issue with asking yes or no questions, even though they give you very specific answers, is that you not only find out the underlying thought process behind the the answers are given. Instead of asking closed ended questions we need to be able to have a conversation with users and facilitate the process of collaboration. In the end it’s not going to be you determining the vision for the organization, this has to come from the organization themselves otherwise there is no way to achieve a shared understandingAnother issue is asking far too technical questions at this stage. Most users are not going to be aware of terminology they use as it relates to SharePoint. You need to ask questions in a business contextso instead of using words like workflow try using business specific terms like process or procedurethe other issue with asking super technical questions is that it tends to bring the conversation down to a level of detail that you do not want to achieve in the phase. Remember that a vision is a high level hope for the future, by talking about technical features you are anchoring too much to the present realityFinally you need to ask a diverse range of stakeholders. Since differing users can have many differing visions make sure that you ask a broad enough range because if you miss someone during this stage can be difficult to get that buy in at a later stage
- So let’s talk about a better wayfirstly make sure that you allow participants to express the future state in their own words and language is to make it easier for them to communicate their visionyou’re so allow exploration of future states without too many constraints so the last thing they would want to say as a facilitator in this process is “on not that willcost way too much to implement”Since you are building a collaborative platform for SharePoint make sure that your process of achieving a shared understanding and commitment is collaborative in natureand you need to really balance innovation, reality and the chaos that can happen when you simply open up the floor for comments
- One of the techniques that I use is the cover story game from the Gamestorming bookThe cover story game is about pure imagination allowing users to explore different possible visions for the SharePoint implementationthe reason I like this game is that collaborative in nature, get people involved and test open up a free exchange of ideas and dialogue between all workshop participants
- The background of the game is that the SharePoint implementation has completed successfully and at time magazine has come in and is doing a story of success on the organizationsince time is a magazine there will be a number of different elements but they want to include in the article such as the cover, headline, sidebars and anything elsethe idea is that the group project themselves into the future and develop the story for the magazinethis works very well from the vision perspective because obviously the group has to determine the vision of what has occurred before they can write the storyonce they are determining the vision they are also feeling in all the different attributes of the cover storyby not getting users to explicitly think about the future state but by allowing them to concentrate on what they have achieved and what is important to them in the context of the cover story you can gain incredible insight into what is really important for usersfor instance maybe some of the groups will say that the big success was that they now can find content easier, others will say that communication between siloing organizations has increased or others might think that their big success was that users can now work remotely
- To run the game is pretty easy. You need groups of 4 to 6 people. This number has been proven by research to contain just enough people for effective collaboration to happen, don’t go on for under this number if you can. If you have more than six people in the workshop then split them into two groupsneed to give each group a poster which you see in just a moment along with pens, paper and other implements that they can write withGive the group 30 min. to make sure that you are strict with the time that you have allotted
- Developed by Mike Kapitola a senior project manager working for a government organization in WASimple visual representation that focuses on a goal, the why and the howAllows you to easily see what you are doing, why you are doing it and how you will do it as well, a lot of information in a really simple visual notation
- First thing is first we want to implemnt user profiles
- To the left we add the ‘Why’
- To the right we add the how
- Now we shift to determine data sourcesWe see that to the left we are doing this because we want to implement user profilesActive Directory audit since most of our profile data is stored there
- Look at implemeting profilesTo the left is the why ‘Because we want to connect colleagues togetherRight is the how Data sources, taxonomy and policies
- If we change our source node, our target to determine data sourcesLeft if why ‘Implement user profiles’Right is how ‘ AD Audit’Powerful for all users or stakeholdersExecutives to the left sides of the nodes and ulimately the left of the notationPeople interested in implementation to the rightThe great this is that every node has a purpose and an actionWant to know WHY you are doing this? Look leftWant to know HOW, look right
- By product is that the more left you go you unpack the underlying purpose of the initative or projectthe limit according to Kapitola is well being, everything stems from thatFurther right you go the more measurable and explicit you find thingsLike asking the 5 HOWS, the more you drill donw