(LAS VEGAS) Lest you be tingling with excitement about the potential enhancements to your less than spectacular content management system, there are two realities for SharePoint 2010: what is promised, and what is hoped for.
Those working with MOSS 2007 can be forgiven for the vacuous deflating sound from their proverbial balloons – those familiar with 2007 promises that don’t materialize as promised (e.g. People Search); others attending the annual SharePoint Conference in Las Vegas can be forgiven for their rapid inhalation of hot air as there is great reason to be optimistic, even excited.
Nonetheless, I’ve been both impressed and underwhelmed with what I’ve seen, but more time is needed for Microsoft to complete the beta testing and final refinements before 2010 ships to customers in the spring of 2010. When I asked SharePoint chief Tom Rizzo to explain how he thought the content management functionality compared with other market leaders, Rizzo – speaking as a proud, if not slightly defensive father – instead turned the question back on me: “I challenge all of the other vendors to offer as comprehensive a platform as SharePoint – nothing comes close.” Touché!
Here are five of the biggest impact, promised improvements to enterprise content management (ECM) that I’ve seen with my own two eyes, and even used (albeit with mixed success as the ‘lab’ demos are not all working as promised, and a demo is in fact just a demo):
1-Publishing platform – the entire publishing platform is, in essence, a wiki. You can choose to lock down wiki or public authoring rights, extend them to some, or extend them to all. However, it is possible to create sites as wikis. The wikis come with complete version control, history and permissions, and the rich editor or “ribbon” functionality (as seen in Word 200).
2-Web content management (WCM) – communications professionals rejoice: publishing news and other static content just got a lot easier. The new publishing includes the new “ribbon” user tool that opens when you click on a page or a document, or you simply hit the edit button at the top of a page. Instead of opening a content ‘template’ the new publishing features in-context editing: click on whatever piece of content you want to “edit”, and edit right there on the page (just as you would a wiki). New image tools allow for better control and manipulation of photos, and you no longer have to make the extra step of uploading a photo to a document library before you input it into the page – you can now pull images right from your hard drive, or a website URL.
3-Records management (RM) – Microsoft has invested a lot of money in improving RM in 2010. Among the many features that have impressed, users or administrators (or someone else that has permission to do so) are able to lock down a document in a document library, as a record. And with a right click, can send that document to a Record Center with confirmation. Additional Life Cycle controls have been added.
4-Digital asset management (DAM) – yes, SP 2010 actually includes DAM – you no longer have to use a third-party option to professionally manage images, video and other multimedia.
5-Taxonomy & meta data – perhaps the single, most impressive upgrade or enhancement to SharePoint is the addition of true taxonomy and meta datacontrols. All content now comes with a Managed Meta Data Service Term set that can be inherited from the global taxonomy (site collection), can be built upon or controlled by an administrator, or open to all users (or a combination). In other words, when content is created, be it a page, document, wiki, meta data can be added on the spot, as determined by the publisher or limited to a pre-determined set or tree of terms that is locked down. End readers and users can ‘tag’ the content as well with term tags, ratings (1-5 starts) and “I like it.” What is most encouraging about the use of meta data is that it can be “forced” or a “mandatory field” for all content (we all know that most organizations have options to input meta tags on content, but most content authors ignore it if given the choice).
Other taxonomy features:
·Term ‘nesting” or “threading”(think of the tree with parent & children categories)
·“Fill-in” choices as an option in locked-down taxonomies
·Different taxonomies at different levels: site collections, sites, libraries, etc.
·Managed meta data service can be consumed by multiple farms
·Multilingual taxonomy support (taxonomies using multiple languages)
·Taxonomy workflow (invite specific people to contribute or review the taxonomy)
·View and filter documents by term:
oGeography
oProduct Category
oVertical Industry
oContent Type
oDeal Size
oFolders
oEtc.
While not all of these promised improvements were working in the hands-on labs in my time spent using MOSS 2010, this is in-fact only the beta version (in fact, one of the MS officials helping me through the hands-on labs told me that some of the tutorials are in fact still alpha versions. In fact, the first time I used the new wiki I was convinced it was the 2007 version as I could see not a single improvement to it). There is still some 6 or 7 months still to pass before Microsoft has to work out all the bugs, kinks, and refinements (planned release to existing MOSS 2007 customers is at the end of April, though I would not expect something for installation much before the summer; new customers will have to wait even longer).
Finally, it’s worth noting that MOSS is a massively complex, and powerful system. It’s to be expected that some of the promised functionality may not work for some time, or without serious additional development and customization. In fact, any organization considering an upgrade may do well to wait until after the first service pack, or simply trial the new SharePoint Online which will have close to feature parity with the installed, on premises version.
It
comes up less frequently in 2009 then it first did when I formed
North America's first intranet consulting firm (Prescient Digital
Media) in early 2001, but the definition of an intranet is still
debatable.
Toby
Ward's definition of an intranet (first committed to paper in 2001 in
the Finding
ROI white paper):
A
private network, similar to the Internet and using the same protocols
and technology, that is contained within an enterprise. It may
consist of many inter-linked local area networks (LANs), desktop
computers, websites and portals, and email system(s). However, in
common vernacular, the intranet is the internal website home page
that is for employees only -- and the other internal websites that
link to it.
Wikipedia
definition of an intranet:
An
intranet is a private
computer
network that uses Internet
technologies to securely share any part of an organization's
information or operational systems with its employees. Sometimes the
term refers only to the organization's internal website,
but often it is a more extensive part of the organization's computer
infrastructure and private websites are an important component and
focal point of internal communication and collaboration.
No
surprises, really.
Another
term that causes confusion, more so than the intranet, is “portal”
or “corporate portal” (sometimes referred to as an “enterprise
information portal”).
Toby
Ward's definition of an intranet portal (first committed to paper in
version 2 (2003) of the Finding
ROI white paper):
A
primary website on the enterprise intranet. A web-based gateway to
most, if not all, tools and information on the enterprise intranet.
The portal can be a ‘catch all’ for all of the intranet, or a
business unit or function specific portal (i.e. Sales or HR portal).
The characteristics that best distinguish it from a standard intranet
home page include:
3-
enterprise search (search that extends beyond the intranet home page,
but doesn't necessarily search every single shared drive, email
folder & enterprise database).
Wikipedia
definition of an intranet portal:
An
intranet portal is the gateway that unifies access to all
enterprise information and applications[1]
on an intranet.
It is a tool that helps a company manage its data, applications, and
information more easily, and through personalized views. Some portal
solutions today are able to integrate legacy
applications, other portals objects, and handle thousands of user
requests. For enterprise user, it is also known as an enterprise
portal.
Now
the lines blur somewhat as different consultants and vendors use
different definitions (mostly to serve their sales needs). I've never
seen a portal that “unifies access to all” enterprise information
and applications, though “unifies access” is open to
interpretation. If a simple hypertext link to a database qualifies as
unified access then perhaps this is true. However, this is why my
definition for the past 6 years was written to say “most, if not
all, tools and information.” I don't think a portal is an “all”
or “nothing” scenario, but it certainly seems to fit if the
portal unifies “most” information and applications.
Why
are we even talking about this?
The
question once again arose last week when I wrote about the importance
of strategy and planning for an intranet (see Intranet
strategy & execution). An intranet strategy (which may
include one universal plan or multiple plans) should encompass all
internal facing websites, and apply standards across the network,
including all social media, email and related systems.
The
intranet strategy should include the use of a portal (where
applicable), internal websites, social media, shared drives, and
related knowledge management systems. Exclusions might include
specialized applications that are for a small, minority audience such
as senior executives and the finance team (e.g. Oracle financials,
board of directors extranet, CRM system, etc.)
Here's
the rub: regardless of your definition, you require a solid intranet
strategy that defines what can be done by whom (roles and
responsibilities) and according to defined standards (rules).
Having
trouble selling an intranet redesign? Or securing funding for a new
CMS or social media tool?
During
times of economic downturn, organizations are seeking to discover new
ways to make the most of their investments, but too many fail to
understand the intranet's value and potential to increase business
performance.
Join
this free webinar to learn how to convince executives to cough up the
cash for your intranet redesign.
Like
the content of your website or intranet, planning and governance is
technology agnostic; whether its SharePoint or another portal or
content management platform, the necessity for and the approach to
governance is the same. Given its technology neutral status in the
realm of website and intranet evolution this module on planning and
governance is largely applicable to any technology platform and as
such is generic to start.
While
generic in nature, there are some components of SharePoint that
require specific consideration, and are discussed and addressed by
the interviewed subject matter experts and the included case studies
(see Planning
for SharePoint Success).
“Without
proper architecture and governance, I can guarantee you that
SharePoint will fail,” says Bob Mixon, President of Mixon
Consulting,
addressing the annual Enterprise 3 conference in San Diego.
In
particular, the powerful Team Site features and easy deployment
features (Site Collections) of SharePoint make it even more demanding
of a rigorous plan and detailed governance model. While
intranet governance provides clarity and rules: namely the titles,
roles and responsibilities of its owners, managers, stakeholders and
contributors.
Sadly,
very few organizations actually have a well-defined governance model,
and many of those have spent hundreds-of-thousands to millions of
dollars on their website or intranet – amounting to extraordinary
investments left to chance and execution on a whim.
only
47% of organizations have a defined governance model (32% have 6,000
employees or more; 11% have 30,000 employees or more);
of
the tools and platforms being used by survey participants, a
whopping 47% are using SharePoint (MOSS 2007) in some shape or form.
Intranet
Sprawl
As IP
technology has advanced corporate intranets have become more complex
and interactive including human resource and purchasing applications,
collaboration tools, business intelligence and real-time reporting
tools. Some organizations without intranet governance and enterprise
standards (for web page and content creation) have seen the birth of
individual intranets for every department and work team.
“Do-what-you-like” was the only rule and the corporate network
became the wild west or ‘intranet sprawl’.
'Intranet
sprawl' can be a poisonous side-effect of SharePoint Team Site and
site collection use without the proper “rules” for deploying and
managing sites. However, its not merely a SharePoint problem. At one
point at the turn of the millennium, IBM's network was choked with
approximately 10,000 intranet sites before they undertook a
governance process and federation (consolidation campaign) that saved
the company untold millions (IBM claims its saved more than a $1
billion).
Perhaps
more so than most, SharePoint (MOSS 2007 or WSS) requires a
governance model. I categorize intranet governance by four broad
approaches or models:
Decentralized
(no single owner; do-what-you-like)
Centralized
a single owner or department controls it all; highly bureaucratic;
common in small organizations)
Collaborative
(shared ownership via committee)
Hybrid,
centralized
(single owner, with collaborative accountability, decentralized
content ownership)
Learn
more about planning and governance for the corporate intranet, with a
specific focus on MOSS 2007, during our free webinar Planning
for SharePoint Success (April 13).
Microsoft
Office SharePoint 2007 (MOSS) is becoming the dominant intranet
technology platform with nearly half of all large to medium-size
organizations using it (or the previous version) to power some or all
of an intranet’s components.
Here
are some stats:
55% of
organizations have implemented or are considering implementing
SharePoint (Global
Intranet Trends 2009 report - 227 participant organizations)
46% of those
companies using social media on the intranet are using
SharePoint(Intranet
2.0 Global Survey – 430+ participant organizations)
In
this five-week online workshop, we’ll examine MOSS as a technology
platform, and as a communications platform for managing content
including news and social media. MOSS is not known as a strong
solution for a large-size enterprise intranet. But it is good
starting platform in a Microsoft environment, and is very good for
team and group collaboration. This workshop will consider all of the
pros and cons of MOSS, with expert opinion and advice for non-techie
business users and communicators. Included in this Webinar will be:
Introduction
to MOSS—An overview of the technology in non-techie language.
Pros
and cons of MOSS for communicators—The good, bad and the things
Microsoft won’t always tell you.
MOSS
for content management—The elements and functionality of the
content management system and how it compares to other systems.
Planning
& Governance—MOSS can in fact create more problems without the
necessary planning and governance. We’ll tell you what you need to
prepare.
Plug-ins
and alternatives to MOSS—MOSS is a very complex platform, but
there are many additional modules and plug-ins that can enhance it
greatly… We’ll also compare MOSS to other alternative solutions.
Webinars
are asynchronous-you participate when it’s convenient for you. A
new text-based lecture is posted each Monday morning, but you can
take advantage of it whenever you have the time. Be sure to watch the
video demo of the webinar format to determine if it’s right for
your professional development needs.
(AARHUS, DENMARK: jboye08) “MOSS is
very good for very good in smaller, workgroup environments,” says Alan
Pelz-Sharpe, analyst, CMS Watch and his
presentation on Evaluating SharePoint. “It’s not traditionally very good for
5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users.”
Content and Code's visual representation of the SharePoint Platform
CMS
Watch’s approach / focus to evaluating MOSS:
Customers
that are making a purchase today (or shortly)
Independent,
specific advice for end users and buyers
We
never work for vendors… and in fact can be (even) ‘rude’ or
honest about some products
We
have a reputation of being anti-SharePoint; not true, we’re
independent and in fact we’ve recommended MOSS to many
Sometimes
however MOSS has not always been accurately advertised; not they’re
(MS) dishonest, but it (MOSS) not always the best fit for an
organization
PROS:
MOSS
is really unusual: a lot of different dynamics
Most
people are fairly happy with SharePoint
SharePoint
is an end-user’s dream with some exceptions; users are usually
very happy
For
building small collaborative environments, it’s nearly perfect
(I’m exaggerating for affect)
File
sharing
Team
sites
Well
priced for small organizations
CONS:
Those
that aren’t happy with it are those that use MOSS where it’s not
a good fit
Those
that aren’t typically happy are those that are in-charge of
governance, legal, etc.
Before
MOSS there was chaos… now the chaos is more visible with MOSS (and
its bringing more visibility to this chaos)
Enterprise
content management (ECM) which demands strict controls (compared
with Documentum, Oracle, FileNet and IBM)
Very
poor at index/search of non-MOSS info
Search
results can be unexpected out of the box
Project
/ task tracking
Social
networking
Discussion
& collaboration and communication
Trouble
consuming its own RSS feeds (authentication issue)
Pricey
for larger organizations
Case
study example (editor’s note: SharePoint sprawl):
There’s
a bank HQ’d in the UK and they have SharePoint… started using it
as a test in 2006 and immediately upgraded to MOSS in 2007… and
now have 23,000 instances of MOSS… and it’s a massive problem
for the bank
The
way it was deployed and structured was deplorable… that’s the
bank’s fault, not Microsoft’s
“How
to bring it under control? I’m not entirely certain…”
MOSS
SharePoint history:
Initially
a countermove to the success of Lotus Notes
When
SharePoint was formally launched in 2003 MS had very low
expectations
The
initial success was very high… MS was stunned and very pleased
MS
managers were stunned… “Why is it such a big success?”
The
success was in users deploying it as a light-weight portal
MOSS
launched in 2007 and updated to .NET 2.0 / 3.0 as a development
platform
Recurring
Threats:
Separation
between underlying “free” Windows platform and richer portal
product with extra services, for a fee
If
you’re an MS enterprise client, you will get most MOSS services
for free
Traditional
disconnect between SharePoint and .NET (mostly resolved in 2007)
(e.g. MS is very large but very much like a college campus with many
different groups and departments… that don’t necessarily talk to
each other… and there are times that products get ‘out-of-sync’
with each other
Endemic
confusion about what resides in SharePoint and what does not (and
licensing implications)
MOSS
is very good for very good in smaller, workgroup environments (it’s
not traditionally very good for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users)
(e.g. Oracle on the other hand focuses on larger enterprises and are
traditionally “terrible” at the workgroup level
deployments)
MOSS
has to run on a MS technology stack (.NET, Windows Server, SQL
server)
“I’m
not really convinced that there really is any business intelligence
(in MOSS)… though MS says there is.”
Current
SharePoint Product Universe:
WSS
Foundation
components, free with Windows
Basic
collaborative features
MOSS
Fee
based server product that extends WSS
Advanced
features like CMS, personalization, forms processing and Excel
services
Some
enterprise features not included
SharePoint
Search
Search
engine for MOSS
Can
crawl a number of different content sources, including Exchange
(email)
MOSS
Standard can only index 500,000 pages
Forms
Server
Form
rendering and processing (“One of the best features of MOSS… I
love this. Really good value add.”)
Used
in conjunction with InfoPath to deliver electronic forms via the Web
Still
retain interactive attributes provided via InfoPath
Key
functions:
Functional
capabilities:
Enhanced
search
Business
data catalog
Excel
services
Forms
services
Shared
services: farm-level services
User
import/management
Search
engaging configuration
Basic
usage reporting
Profile-based
site for individual users
MySite
Both
profile and personalizable home page
Somewhat
controversial
Actually
provisions entire site collection
Things
that can affect pricing:
Extent
of external connectors and licenses for “Internet Site” licenses
Only 12 enterprise
portal vendors remain on Gartner’s latest magic quadrant for “horizontal portal
products.”
The only
changes are the subtraction of BEA, now part of Oracle, and the addition of
Covisint and RedHat (though lest they be seen as ‘prescient’ I had included
them in my Portal
magic quadrant two years ago!). Also added to this year’s quadrant is the
one to really watch: Liferay.
Some of
Gartner’s findings include (most of which I highlighted two years ago):
Mashups, lightweight
composite applications based on Web-oriented architectures (WOAs), could
emerge as alternatives to horizontal portal frameworks for creating
enterprise Web environments
Increased interest in Web 2.0
By 2011, Gartner expects at
least 10% of new enterprise portal projects in the Global 2000 to use
open-source horizontal portal frameworks
Frankly,
I’m surprised more organizations are not using portals. The Intranet 2.0 study
reveals that only 10% of respondents (some 230 respondent organizations thus
far) use a portal product to power their intranet. However, these solutions are
complex, and pricey.
I will
not be doing an update of the Prescient Portal
magic quadrant just yet: there haven’t been enough significant changes… the
only one is to remove BEA’s label under Oracle.
I do
however note the following trends:
Gartner is spot on:
open-source will become more and more popular
Liferay is the challenger to
watch (Gartner thinks its RedHat)
Plone could well find its way
onto the quadrant but Python holds it back
IBM is the portal leader and
champion
Microsoft SharePoint (MOSS
2007) is the darling
Product consolidation is
largely over as IBM, Oracle
and Microsoft will own 95% of the total money put into portal solutions
(but Vignette won’t last much longer and will be bought)
Usability and price will be
the principal weaknesses that scare buyers
Web 2.0 functionality will
continue to grow but not be a primary consideration for buyers
Don’t
forget: you cannot get the full results of the Intranet 2.0 study without
taking the survey.Please take
10 minutes to take the Intranet 2.0 Global Survey and you’ll get a copy of
the full results including the good, bad and learned lessons – ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT TO PARTICIPATE IF YOU DON’T
HAVE INTRANET 2.0 TOOLS.
Prescient's Jed Cawthorne discusses the time and place for SharePoint (MOSS):
Microsoft's
SharePoint technologies have their sweet spots in that they definitely fulfill
specific requirements for certain use cases within the bigger picture of varied
information management scenarios.
However, MOSS is not a panacea. It is
not the solution to every information management related business problem, and
despite what others may tell you, it's certainly not a 'one size fits all'
technical solution to all those annoying business issues.
