domingo, 10 de julio de 2016

Governance on Sharepoint or Who's responsability is this?

Hi all.

Very tricky post this about Governance. Microsoft defines governance as "...the set of policies, roles, responsibilities, and processes that control how an organization's business divisions and IT teams work together to achieve its goals".  SO it's basically a list that specifies Who does what, and who's responsible for a specific point in Sharepoint, wether it's infrastructure, content or regulations.

I 'd rather stay with this definition: a list of who's responsible and who's to blame, that is: who takes the decission regarding a specific doubt.

Usually, a good rule is that Servers are managed by the IT team, and the Developments are managed by the DEV team (duh!).  However, there are a few gray areas between:
- Content Publishing.  Usually should be definied a team inside the company (or Department) that mantains the content of the site, managed by someone aware of company highlights (release dates, news, etc).  An usual good practice is that if company has a Public Relations/Press group/communications they're in charge of this part.
- Dev alignment with Business requirements.  This is usually the Analyst job.  But at some point a decission has do be made: if the development is OK or is missing functionality, how far they're from the business requirement and/or, a previous step: if the Business Requirement is even achievable with current Technology.  At some point, the analyst has to face the owners (those folks who define the business requirements, and that in the end, should be paying for all this) and present all this info, so they take the decission.


lunes, 4 de julio de 2016

Sharepoint Roles & profiles

Last week I was checking my Linkedin profile and found this excelent article which describes the major roles in a sharepoint deployment:  Sharepoint Administrator, Developer, Architect and designer.  However, I find it incomplete.  There are several other options that do not state there (or they might be a detailed specification of what they proppose).  Surfing the web I've found this other article which describes a better approach:  
  • Support,
  • Tester,
  • Trainer,
  • EndUser,
  • PowerUser,
  • SiteOwner,
  • Information Owner,
  • SiteCollection Administrator,
  • Web Designer,
  • Developer,
  • Several administrators profiles,
  • Business Analyst
  • Architect.
They also provide the best book-style explanation. However, based on my experience, I'll try to provide a clarification on several roles:  EndUser, PowerUser, SiteOwner, SiteCollection Administrator, Web Designer... by providing an example:
Some guy builds a building. He has no idea on how the real-state business works. However, he makes this fantastic building. SO he is now the InformationOwner.  As he's a sharp mind, he decides to hire someone to manage the administration of the building: bills, rent offices/floors, hire/outsouce maintenance/cleaning provider.
So far, we have 2 roles identified:
- The Information owner, which took the decisions.
- the Administrator (siteCol Administrator)

At some point, this 4 stories builiding is rented by 4 different companies (one by floor).  Each one of the is a different company, and they manage their own internal resources.  So they can allocate people inside each floor, and perform some minor modifications (installation of vending machines, distribution of desktops, etc).  However mayor modifications requires approval from the Administration: bathrooms, general access doors, maintenance providers.  Now we have: the SiteOwners identified.

Each siteOwner can have it's floor personalized until certain limits, by a decorator.. or WebDesigner.   You can also have your own IT Dept/service Department, which will make the installation/allocation of Computers, phones, generate identification badges... or PowerUsers.  A good idea would be that the ID badges also allow access to the building, so this guys must follow certain rules/procedure (like notifying the personal data to the Administration for security reasons) and align with Administration some of these tasks.

The Administration (or one of the Floor companies) might as well perform certain improvements on the building. This improvements might be related to a specific floor or affecting several/all of them. This modifications should be contracted to some company with experience, and should an engineer/architect checking the floor layout, generating a plan, and giving some instructions to technicians (Developers)...

I guess this is a nice way to remember. You might follow some certifications and add complexity (project managers, service Managers, etc), but in the basis, it's the same as managing a building...

Next post (related): that funny thing called Governance (or how decissions should be taken and who's to blame)