Tag: Organization Change

SharePoint Governance and Continuous Improvement

There are a number of reasons why I have seen SharePoint Governance stall in many environments, but one of the most common reasons and the one I would like to address today, is the problem of trying to take or address too much scope at once.  There are a lot of topics that roll into SharePoint Governance; the SharePoint Governance Framework we use at my company identifies over 50 distinct topics.  In most cases it is not practical to take the full list of topics and work through a governance plan in one pass.  Instead, I advocate for an iterative approach starting with a selection of core topics and finding a pace that matches your organizations cadence to continue solidifying the process.

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement (CI) is a concept that relates to Lean, Kaizen or TQM practices and is intended to use small, incremental changes to bring big results instead of trying change everything at once.  There are many advantages to this approach but the one that resonate most with me is that the incremental investments could be very small, but you start to see gains quickly.  I believe this relates very well to the process and concepts of SharePoint governance.  As you start to gain momentum you are much more likely to get stakeholder involvement which is critical to any governance effort.

Selecting Topics

The selection of topics is important.  There are some topics that lay the foundation for everything else.  I typically start with the core topics that are needed to define the service and system to be implemented (or that has been implemented).  I then move to the most critical items that are needed for managing the system such as touching on the core Information Architecture, Site Topologies, Site Creation Process (who/how/where) and Permission Management.  Over time, and definitely in more mature organizations, you can start to tackle some of the more subtle topics.

Depth for Topics

When reviewing a topical area, it is important to iterate there as well.  For example, when starting an implementation stakeholders may have a decent idea what the service definitions and SLAs might look like, but this will certainly change after it is in use for a while and perhaps became mission critical for core business processes.  As these requirements and needs evolve, additional iterations are required.  This fits very well with the CI concepts mentioned above.  These iterations continue to deliver more value to the stakeholders in small increments.

Finding a Pace

Finding the pace for the governance work can be difficult.  I think the pace for change in any organization is heavily tied to the organization’s maturity.  Anyone that has been IS/IT or IS/IT management for while should be familiar with the Capability Maturity Model.  In Level 1 organizations things are completely chaotic, with ad-hoc efforts which means you are constantly chasing a moving target.  As you progress up the maturity model though, there should be more discipline and an ability to stay focused.  In these organizations it is possible to iterate more frequently and potentially to tackle more topics in parallel.  There is no doubt that more mature organizations work more efficiently.

Other Considerations

Governance should be an ongoing process and the document should be a living document that continues to see change over time as the organization and it’s needs evolve.

It is also important to note that groups should not take a shortcut and try to minimize the stakeholder involvement to simplify the process or to quicken the pace.  Stakeholder involvement, specifically non-IT, is critical to these efforts and it could be argued that you really do not have any governance without this involvement.

Summary

Governance is a key aspect to success with SharePoint and by taking the right approach, and one that is in sync with your organization’s capabilities will greatly increase the likelihood that your governance effort will be successful.

Overcoming Obstacles in SharePoint and Ent 2.0

One of my favorite general IT blogs is Michael Krigsman’s IT Project Failures blog.  Michael provides a balanced view with great insights into the failures of many organizations.  These are lessons that every implementer, integrator, or system stakeholder should pay attention to.

In a recent post titled Resistance to change:  The real Enterprise 2.0 barrier Michael discusses some of the challenges to implementing Ent 2.0 systems.  As always it is a great and relevant read, but I think it matches much of my experience with implementing SharePoint in the Enterprise.  The top obstacle listed was Resistance to change.  The capabilities of the tools are not the biggest limiting factor, user adoption is.  Some of the reasons discussed include fear of change, the power of information holders and lack of interest.

Fear of Change – This is a natural human response.  Much has been written about how to drive change in an organization, but I think the most critical technique is end user involvement.  When people are involved they are much more likely to have a positive view of the change and you are more likely to value insight into how things are actually done in practice. 

This also provides a good opportunity to fine tune your feedback collection techniques so that all stakeholders continue to have a voice after go live. 

Information Power – In some organizations there is a culture in place where people feel like they have to be a gateway to information.  With the recent economical downturn people are all the more desperate to be seen as irreplaceable.  Organizations need to work towards transparency and openness.  A positive side effect of this is better use of the subject matter or domain experts who are normally over worked in closed organizations and frequently have to answer the same questions repeatedly.

Lack of interest – Lack of interest can definitely have an impact on the life of a system.  Some users still do not understand or have any interest in Ent 2.0 systems.  I think easiest way to get passed this is to show sustained value.  It is easy to establish and maintain interest with small groups, but it gets exponentially harder as the size of the group increases.  Keep the tools current, and show incremental advances to keep stakeholder interest.

I’ve also seen turnover in key positions or management impact a groups use of these tools.  It is important to work with the new stakeholders to review what is there and what can be done to align it with any changes to the group’s direction.

Closing

I’m always interested in hearing feedback.  Do you agree, disagree?  Have any other tips to decrease the resistance to change?

Related Posts

%d bloggers like this: