SharePoint Governance a bad Idea?

Wow! Just wow! I was reading this post by Paul J. Swider, and I kept waiting for the punch line that never came.

I have a great deal of respect for Paul – I have seen him speak, and follow his posts and tweets regularly. While this presents an interesting counterpoint to conventional thinking around governance, I am afraid he lost me on this one.

First off, lets look at the comparison to Y2K. Is he saying that no one should have invested in fixing Y2K issues, and that no systems would have failed if nothing had been fix? That seems to be what he is saying, since he is comparing Governance to that, and obviously governance is only good if it does not cost anything.

Then there is this statement:

“Many companies haven’t had governance and compliance features in place for there information systems for years. This has been true since I started working with software in the early 90’s”

This is like saying “for many years, most companies did not have software development processes”, and using this as justification that no investment should be made in such processes. Ditto for QA, or project management. We survived without much investment in any of these silly processes.

Just because lots of organizations are using SharePoint and do not have governance, does not mean that they are doing so effectively or the best way they can. It is also still too early in SharePoint’s lifetime to truly assess the long term costs of doing it wrong.

Finally, lets look at

“Most CIO’s and managers I speak with are tired of hearing about soft dollar calculations and want hard dollar cost savings immediately, after all these are complex and challenging fiscal situations they are managing.”

It is true that most CIOs and managers are being pressured into short-sighted approaches to many things. That does not mean that they should abandon meaningful and appropriate processes just because times are tough.

(would you suggest abandoning corporate governance and controls because money was tight? oh wait, I think many on Wall Street did)

Paul’s example needing a new purchase process to respond to funding cutbacks is a good one, and provides a good segue to what I see as a more positive takeaway from this discussion, which is the appropriate use of process.

Through much of my career, I have been involved heavily in process – whether software development, QA, test engineering, innovation, or otherwise. For many years, I worked on military and aerospace projects, which are noted for extremely heavy processes. What I learned from all of that was that you can invest in all the process in the world, and still fail miserably. And even when you succeed, the overhead involved in such processes makes them untenable.

This has led me to what I have referred to previously as just enough process (I know I am not the first to use the term). The software development process must match the context – the type of organization, the type of solution, the potential impact of failures of the system, the potential lifetime of the system, etc. A software development process appropriate for a social networking web app is hardly acceptable for medical devices.

The same is true of SharePoint governance. Cookie cutter approaches will not do. Off-the-shelf consulting processes will not do. This is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

Rather than encouraging the total abandonment of governance processes, or treating governance as a “nice to have” luxury that you do away with in favour of short-term perceived cost savings, it is far more appropriate to encourage clients to find the level and type of governance process which suits their situation.

After all, isn’t that what a good consultant does? Helps the client find the solution that is right for them, rather than applying the same solution to all clients?

Advertisements

Why are you still not focused on the business when implementing SharePoint?

Over the past week I have been reading a couple of recent SharePoint-related papers, and thought I would share some of my thoughts.

The first paper is entitled SharePoint – strategies and experiences from AIIM. This document presents the results of a survey of 624 AIIM members last spring regarding experiences and plans with SharePoint. I strongly recommend downloading and reading the entire report, as I do not intend to cover all of it in this post, only those items that seemed interesting to me (which is actually difficult, because there is a fair amount of interesting stuff in there!).

The findings I found most interesting were:

  • Lack of business-case justification for implementations
  • Governance challenges
  • Perceived ROI
  • Implementation challenges
  • The number of organizations planning to upgrade to SharePoint 2010
  • The ranking of most popular uses of SharePoint

For me, the most startling result in the report is

Half of SharePoint implementations went ahead with no business case being made to justify the
investment. Only 23% were required to make a financial justification. Where a business case was
made, improved collaboration and better knowledge sharing were the main benefits assessed.

Is it just me, or is this insane? As I said last year in my column Danger! Do not implement SharePoint in your Organization!, the focus of your SharePoint implementation should be solutions to real business problems, bringing real business value. A business case is not just something you do in order to get funding. It is something you do so you understand what functionality you are implementing and why. Not doing a business plan is setting the project up for failure, but for a failure you may never know about. After all, if you have nothing against which to measure success, how can you even know if you have failed, or at least failed to live up to potential? I guess I am optimistic, but I thought everyone understood this by now.

The second point is equally astonishing to me. While the first links I saw to the AIIM document had headlines implying some weakness in SharePoint governance was found (here for example), the real finding is that many of the organizations implementing SharePoint simply do not put appropriate governance in place. A great many organizations have a lack of definition of governance of features, sites or content.

Surprisingly, despite the lack of business case and governance, most of the organizations surveyed were happy with the ROI achieved (which is amazing if they had no definition of what they were trying to accomplish!). Only 9% said that the ROI was worse than expected. Then again, maybe this is just a reflection of having no real idea of what you expected the ROI to be.

The results also identified some of the challenges faced when implementing SharePoint. Among the key issues identified were:

  • Managing process change
  • Took longer than expected
  • User resistance to new UI
  • Technically more difficult than expected
  • Cost more than expected
  • Poor performance/infrastructure capability

All of these, in my opinion, are reflections of lack of planning and lack of business case. While many of these challenges are common even in the best of circumstances, a lack of a clear, business-focused vision and plan will invariably make them worse.

There were also a couple of positive results from the report (more than a couple, but 2 I will mention here).

The results indicated that 13% of the respondents are planning to upgrade to SharePoint 2010 almost immediately, while half are planning to within a year. I see this as positive, anyway.

It was also interesting to look at what SharePoint features are most popular in these organizations. While I always tend to think of SharePoint primarily as a portal platform, and a solution development platform (hey, I am a developer), the most popular usages found in the survey were:

  1. Collaboration
  2. Document management and file-share replacement
  3. Portals
  4. Intranets

These are just some of the points I found interesting in the report. Again, I strongly urge anyone looking at SharePoint to real the whole report.