I think one of the
reasons a lot of companies have had so much difficulty with SharePoint
deployments and adoption over the past ten years is simply their “pickiness.” I know this is true because I have seen it
over and over again with my own eyes in my role as a consultant and trainer.
The kind of pickiness I am talking about is related to
changing the software just because they would like for it to be a certain way
or look a certain way. To many people in
enterprise environments this doesn’t seem wrong. “We are big, we are important, we are
complicated, and we have the development resources. So, why shouldn’t we get it the way we want
it?”
What they aren’t thinking about is:
·
the additional costs that these changes cause
during design and development
·
the opportunity costs related to the delay of
getting the benefits from SharePoint until these changes can be properly made
and tested
·
the opportunity costs related to the other, more
important things their development resources could be working on which would
benefit the company
·
(the biggest one of all, in my opinion) the hard
costs or opportunity costs that result when three years down the road the
company either A) can’t upgrade to the new version of SharePoint at all because
they modified their existing version so much, or B) have to spend big again to
handle a very difficult migration to the new version because they modified the
existing version so much.
There is no doubt in my mind that
as much as 50% of the organizations that implemented MOSS 2007 are still in
this situation today. MOSS 2007 was a
marketing and sales bonanza for Microsoft.
The penetration of the product in the market was huge in the 2007–2009
timeframe. But a big number of the
adopters during that timeframe came out of an era where customizing enterprise
software was what every large organization did.
It was unthinkable to try to use enterprise software like SharePoint
out-of-the-box. The prevailing thought
was that “our requirements are just not that simple.”
I wish I had a nickel for every
time I have had someone at a large enterprise tell me “our requirements are not
that simple.” Nine out of ten times what is really going on is that their
organization is so screwed up and complicated and the resistance to change is
so great that they just start modifying the software to keep the peace in the
company.
I can give you an example of this
scenario (this one is from SharePoint 2010 – I couldn’t quickly find a MOSS
2007 environment to get one from, but in general, this kind of thing is even
worse in MOSS 2007), and you can use my example to judge whether I would think
of you as unnecessarily picky when it comes to SharePoint.
Example: Assume you have a site
and have granted some users read-only permissions to the site. You’ve enabled the publishing features on the
site and discovered that your read-only users still see the Site Actions menu
and the View All Site Content menu option:
This is simply how the software
works out of the box. There is really no
harm in it – if you ask me. Yes, the
read-only user can click on the View All Site Content option and see the list
of all objects in the site that they have read access to. What problem does that cause? I don’t see any. Does the presence of the site actions menu
and this option cause any clutter or confusion for those read-only users? Maybe some people would say so, but what a
minor issue to be concerned about in the grand scheme of trying to have a
successful business!
Would this example be a deal
breaker for you or your company? Would
you just “have to have this fixed” before you could roll out this site to
users? If so, I would probably think of
you as unnecessarily picky. If you were
one of my employees, I would wonder if you are very good at seeing the big
picture. (Incidentally, here
is one solution for “fixing” it.
And, if you implemented this solution it would just be one more thing
you would have to take into account at upgrade time.)
As a society in the U.S., I think
we have evolved into a very picky population of consumers. Consumer product companies have fueled this
fire with their marketing in their never-ending attempt to win the consumer and
get a leg up on their competitors. I
think this mentality has spilled over into the workplace and is costing
companies a lot of money – especially when it comes to their use of packaged
software. Why not just learn how to adapt
to the software as it is instead of modifying it because you don’t like something
about the way it comes out of the box?
No comments:
Post a Comment