The Importance of Governance and Taxonomy for SharePoint Deployments

REGIONAL SHAREPOINT USERS CONFERENCE 2007 RSUC 27 October 2007 The Importance of Governance and Taxonomy for SharePoint Deployments Microsoft 2007 Federal Services Partner of the Year Award 9990 Lee Hwy, Suite 450 Fairfax,VA 22030 www.inforeliance.com Phone: (703) 246-9360 Fax: (703) 246-9331 Governance and Taxonomy Why Bother? I don’t really Approaches to deploymentneed planning, can’t I just put the disk it and hit install? Information Configuration (In A Perfect World) Employee Directory Collaboration News Feeds Document Management 1. Enterprise Portal Content Managers submit documents and create folders 2. Documents Reviewed for 508 Compliance and published 3. Portal crawls and exposes published documents Real World Users were not finding the information they needed to do their job! Employee Directory Collaboration News Feeds Document Management Enterprise Portal   Browse experience was confusing and difficult Search returned the “wrong” documents Without Governance or Taxonomy Plan The technology works but the process does not!  Taxonomy (Folder Structure) ▫ No naming conventions ▫ No creation review process ▫ No overlying strategy  Documents ▫ Duplicate and outdated materials ▫ Cumbersome metadata requirements with no quality control As a result:  Non-intuitive folder structure built along organizational lines  “Siloed” content where only owners could find it  Dilution factor from mass of low-value content  Poor search results from inconsistent/nonexistent metadata Issue Identification (What we have seen)       Taxonomy went 14 levels deep Folder names included “Misc.”, “Other”, and “Docs” Metadata was copied from field to field 1,022 Folders in Taxonomy, only half of which had been opened more than a few times in last 6 months Over 8,000 Documents in Taxonomy, with less than 3,000 opened more than a few times in last 6 months Exchange Public Folder – 23K No Governance – Real World Issue From This Week “Reminded me of the conversations yesterday at the XXXXX with regard to MySites. IA's long standing concern regarding MOSS is the fact that, "anyone can post content to the system without any reviews." In particular, they don't like MySites. Yesterday, I was asked, "What would prevent someone from uploading porn and such to their MySite, either public or private sides?" Well, duh? Isn't that covered under the user agreement we all sign? Doesn't the same level of potential abuse exist on the current file shares, email systems, and such? What is worse, the customer has stated these social networking functions are indeed part and parcel of the solution they insist must be deployed. Nobody is saying hook it into Facebook or Myspace, but at least internally people should be work similar functions to locate colleagues. Yet, there is resistance to "exposing information about people" through the MySites/Profile system in MOSS. I asked the stupid question, "So when are we going to lock down the GAL so as not to provide that same level of information?" Or even more pointed, "If you are concerned about phone numbers getting out, why are we required to put our job title, unit, org, and phone number at the bottom of every email, to include those going to the non-military destinations?" We are paying a toll here for not having a dedicated team member working the XXXXX.” [7] Taxonomy Overview Not All Taxonomies Are Created Equally [8] Traditional v. Business Taxonomy  Taxonomy for Scientists and Librarians  An overall organizational system with many branches or subbranches that attempt to organize their world of information  Each book or plant falls into one specific category  Taxonomy on the web or with a portal     Document-driven, some redundancy Minimize empty folders Flatter, simpler, more navigable More common, intuitive language Business Taxonomies  Tend to be less rigid and constrained  Influenced by usability concerns  Minimize number of “clicks”   Often content-driven  Ensure balanced content distribution Allow flexibility, redundancy  Items may be organized into multiple categories  May support multiple taxonomies for disparate audiences  May use one or more different categorization approaches A traditional taxonomy… [11] …v. a Business Taxonomy [12] The Difference  What you lose with a Business Taxonomy  Absolute granularity  Ultimate classification  What you gain  Usability  Simplicity  Use the “Bucket” test to validate Goal is ease of use for the end user  How much training did you need before you could use Yahoo or Amazon?  That is about how much training your end users should need to find information in your portal if the taxonomy is done right for your organization.  Why?  Provide structure to unstructured information  Pull together disparately located content  Allows users to discover and learn  Search tools alone are inadequate  Allow our users to find the information they need in a way that makes sense to them [14] Three Core Metadata Fields  Document Name –   Most important field for browsing and search results Naming standards can increase value A narrative of what the document is about provides great value for browsing and searching Can be used to weight results Can be used to approximate a thesaurus The topical taxonomy listing Relate documents based on their topic  Document Description –     Subject/Category –   Categorization Schemes Method Facet-based Definition Information categorized into multiple taxonomies or “stackonomies” based on unique but pervasive characteristics including topic, function, etc. Examples Wines by region France > Alsace Hardest Easiest Wines by type White > Chardonnay Wines by price Subject-oriented Information categorized by subject or topic.  Instantive - each child category is an instance of the parent category  Partitive - each child category is a part of the parent category water pollution, soil pollution, air pollution… Functional Information categorized by the process to which it relates employment, staffing, training Organizational Information categorized by corporate departments or business entities. Information categorized by the type of document Human Resources, Marketing, Accounting, Research… presentations, expense reports, press releases … Document Type [16] How Do I Get There From Here? You can get there from here [17] First Steps: Dos and Don’ts      DO Review the MS Whitepaper and template Convene a cross-functional group of business and information users Ask “Who is our audience?” Ask “What is their mission?” Ask “How do they think about information? DON’T  Default to purchasing off-theshelf taxonomies  Purchase taxonomy software before understanding scope and needs  Default to the path of least resistance If your are government... review the government guidelines! http://www.cio.gov/documents/icgi.html http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/ Establish a Steering Committee  Ensure participation from across the enterprise ▫ ▫ ▫ IT stakeholders Director-level business heads, business managers Subject matter experts Establish a charter with clear lines of authority and responsibilities.  Involve the project sponsor as an active chair and facilitator  Spawn implementation committees, working groups, task forces as needed to investigate issues and options, make recommendations  ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫  Design & Usability reviews Identity management/authentication Taxonomy & Content Management Metadata Design Meet on a regular (monthly or quarterly) basis Know Why You’re Building  Define a simple business case to help control scope and communicate with end users and stakeholders  Create a scope document that communicates what the portal will and will not do  Manages scope creep  Sets expectations  Develop a timeline and listing of phases to detail when specific functionality will be available  Limit initial scope to ensure success  Define a roadmap     Communications tool to set user expectations Marketing tool to excite potential users and generate buzz Scope management tool for project team and constituents Should be publicly accessible Keep Your Audience in Mind  Recognize that users may think about and look for information in different ways  How many ways can you find the Harry Potter books?  Understand your business practices and use the most appropriate categorization method(s)  Consider multiple taxonomies for disparate audiences  Use familiar vocabulary and organizational schemas to ensure a logical browsing experience. Focus on the End User Are your decisions benefiting the end user?  More folders, more content is not better  ▫ The more you have, the more a user has to go through to find what they need ▫ Each click takes time – place a high value on them  Balance the needs of sustainability against service to the end user ▫ Don’t make it too difficult to make change ▫ Agree upon consistent response times  Constant Evolution     Provide access to current business content and functionality Seek guidance from any and all constituents Respond quickly to user requests and requirements for additions Modify strategy when necessary Develop a Loyal Constituency  Build for your users  “Is this going to make your life easier?”  Identify and act on “pain points.”  Instill service value at all levels of the project  Give users ownership and involvement at all levels  Create roles for users  Provide a training curriculum for all roles  Reward your users  Use web parts to identify achievers [23] Communications and Education  Give users the ability to learn about the taxonomy by a range of means: ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ One-on-one meetings Live presentations Documentation Animated Tutorials Context Sensitive Help White Papers Feedback Web Part Did you find what you were looking for? Please help us by providing your feedback.  Create two-way communications and prove it means something ▫ ▫ ▫ Document decisions and archive all input Make all feedback available to end users Provide means of communication via the system  Market the value of the taxonomy and effective metadata use – mandates will not be sufficient Limit your Scope  Technology decisions ▫ Security model and architecture ▫ Infrastructure design and management  Global content standards ▫ Enterprise taxonomy management ▫ Metadata standards ▫ Document publishing processes  Strategic direction; Taxonomy management ▫ Set boundaries for development and management authority ▫ Prioritize requests for modifications and new development Control Depth & Breadth Depth  A “flat” taxonomy ensures that users can find information quickly  Avoid deep taxonomies:  ▫ May frustrate users with too many clicks ▫ May indicate too much specification or too much information  Breadth  A focused taxonomy ensures that users can easily “digest” the scope of information  Avoid overly broad taxonomies:  ▫ May frustrate users with too many initial options ▫ May indicate your categories are too specific  Guideline: 2-4 levels deep Guideline: 10-15 top-level categories Define Governance  Apply the core governance principles to your taxonomy and metadata strategy: ▫ Roles and Responsibilities –  Managers  Reviewers ▫ Policies –  For naming  Required Fields ▫ Procedures –  For reviewing and approving metadata placement  For acting on poor metadata application Develop Portal Governance  Identify Project Objectives and Business Case  Clearly define the scope  Set expectations upfront  Sell constituents on why they need a portal  Define Project Roles and Responsibilities  Give people ownership within the project  Set up domains of responsibility  Create High-Level Policies and Procedures  Development/Coding Guidelines  Security Rules  Global Settings  Provide Communication and Education  Give users the ability to learn about the portal  Create two-way communications and prove it means something Optimize Content and Functionality   Prioritize Content and Functionality above all else Users will return frequently if they can trust they will find what they’re looking for:     New Information Essential Information Reliable Information Dynamic Information  If the users do not trust that the content is viable, then with regards to your portal, you can build it but they won’t come Distribute Ownership      Although some decisions (e.g., technology, categorization approach) should be made by a central body such as a Steering Committee or Portal Program Office…. Taxonomies touch too many stakeholders and lines of business to centralize all decisions and development Get buy-in from across the enterprise (upper management, IT stakeholders, business managers, end users) Clarify who owns which policies; ensure they can enforce and audit compliance Reassess ownership at key points: Development Production/ Go-Live Support & Maintenance Employ Active and Passive Analytics  Active (Survey/Interviews) ▫ Perform online and in-person interviews ▫ Provide feedback mechanisms on every screen ▫ Conduct pre- and post-rollout surveys  Passive (Usage Monitoring) ▫ Identify components that are not being used in order to address improvements ▫ Alert administrators to empty folders, too many documents, or a proliferation of other components ▫ Identify most popular components in order to learn from them ▫ Identify the terms users are searching for and the folders in which they are browsing to provide similar content ▫ Identify inactive users to address their issues Make a Long-term Investment The Taxonomy will never be finished – accept that fact  Taxonomy development is an iterative and on-going effort ▫ Respond to change: validate and modify regularly ▫ Invest in dedicated, long-term resources  Initial effort must have foresight ▫ Establish a solid foundation ▫ Allow extensibility to accommodate new information ▫ Plan for iterative development  Consider auto-categorization/auto-taxonomization technologies ▫ But recognize that human intervention and oversight is critical  Establish maintenance and governance processes ▫ Conduct regular (quarterly) taxonomy and content categorization reviews  Taxonomy Development Process Business Case Rollout Planning Knowledge Gathering Taxonomy Team Focus Group Construction Content Population Testing and Review Maintenance and Evolution Plan for the Future      Plan for the portal being the primary platform for your business Develop a Governance Plan to serve as a guide “Live” within the portal as much as possible Budget and plan for long-term maintenance and evolution Construct web parts and applications with an open architecture Governance in Action Followed complete Taxonomy Methodology to build structure and create lifecycle governance to support it! Clearly stated Value Statement that sets user expectations and helps them to understand and exploit the full benefits of the Taxonomy Taxonomy Team and other groups in place to support the evolution of the taxonomy, with roles for all groups clearly defined Policies and Procedures defined and easily accessible as a quick reference for all constituents Education, training, and marketing materials all readily accessible via the portal, specifically defining the value of the Taxonomy and effective Metadata Sustainability Initial efforts can quickly be degraded without effective governance  Lack of oversight will result in poorly named content and folders  Lack of coordination will result in duplicated, inappropriate, or incorrectly placed content  Documents in Directory: 10,000 Folders in Directory: 90 Directory Depth (Levels): 4 Duplicate Content: 0 Documents in Directory: 20,000 Folders in Directory: 150 Directory Depth (Levels): 7 Duplicate Content: 5,000 Documents in Directory: 40,000 Folders in Directory: 250 Directory Depth (Levels): 15 Duplicate Content: 15,000 Time from Rollout (months) Governance and Taxonomy Major Risks Governance - Lack of Mandate        No top cover (Executive Sponsorship) Project manager will lack the strength to involve other users and make difficult decisions Project managers might never find their audience or muster involvement from constituents Project may be hampered by lack of resources Project might not have sufficient “buzz” to ensure buy-in Project may conflict with regulations, policy or instructions Security not brought in early, has not agreed to the plan or doesn’t understand Governance - Lack of End User Communications  Lack of communications to end users will result in unclear expectations, lack of buy-in, and overall opposition to the project  Lack of communications from end users will result in poor scope definition, misunderstood requirements, and corruption of existing processes  Customers do not really understand what SharePoint is  “It’s just a web based network file system…”  Customers over architect what they think they need  “We need Biztalk, and K2.net and ……..”  “We already bought XYZ software…” but policy or regulation prohibits its use Governance - Competing Interests  Vertical development will result in multiple portals (multiple taxonomies, platforms, coding languages, etc.)  Project can be co-opted or blocked by competitors  Project can be stalled due to project dependencies:  Taxonomy Creation  Software Selection  Security Design – Forms Based Authentication, External partners, etc  Cost – Licenses and CALs can be an issue Unruly Scope with “Big-Bang” Rollout  Initially ill-defined scope or overly flexible scope can result in:  Inaccurate user expectations  Poor Business Case and Messaging  “Scattershot” Functionality  Delaying the rollout until major amounts of content and functionality are available can separate the tool from the users  Danger of misinterpreted requirements  Potential to build for the sake of building  Decreased user interest or support Too Loose/Too Tight Governance  Loose governance can result in a portal flooded with broken or inappropriate content and functionality  “Can’t we just provision 20K sites and let the users play with them?”  Tight governance can stifle a portal, preventing constituents from evolving it to fit their needs  “Every web part must go through a complete CCB process….”  “ All 15K sites must be the same”  “Just use the tool to migrate all 23K Public folders…” Governance - Unclear Scope  Project timeline and goals will meander without clear scope, resulting in loss of existing support and frustration of constituents  Constituents can balloon the scope if it is not clearly defined  Majority of end-users will not provide support without understanding the project road map Governance - Other Issues      No control over environment or infrastructure No plan for IA accreditation Design and architecture not approved by IA No Change Management Plan to ease end user transition shock No configuration management or CM is too strict Risks and Challenges Taxonomy - Lack of Understanding and Complexity  The primary concepts and value of taxonomy and metadata are often misunderstood:  Managers, Designers, Architects  Content Publishers  End Users  Organizations design overly complex taxonomies and metadata strategies:      Too deep and too wide Too much jargon Too many fields Too many pick options Too much variation  Entry forms are often overly complex or lengthy Taxonomy – Compliance and Resistance to Change     Regardless of training, education, threats, or enticements, many users will not provide effective Metadata Even the “best” content contributors typically won’t exceed a certain effort threshold Dilution Factor: The poor work of some devalues the good work of others Users will be averse to moving away from their existing ways of storing and finding information  Organizational to Topical  Secure access to more Open access   Content owners will fear losing control of their content Content Managers will fear losing their “role” Delay and Avoidance  Lacking a clear understanding of where to begin, many organizations have swept taxonomy development to the side  Unclear understanding as to the major investment in time and resources required for success  We hear the same complaints over and over:       Planning is too hard, we just want to install it We don’t have time for governance Content is difficult to find Search does not work Browse is not intuitive Too many documents and folders that aren’t of value No Plan – No Change Remember… every time you attach a file to your email, a little kitten dies. Please Use SharePoint Points of Contact CEO, Co-Founder Bill Williams www.inforeliance.com 703.246.9369 x105 Bill.Williams@inforeliance.com Director DoD and Federal Programs John Adamson www.inforeliance.com 703.246.9369 x145 John.Adamson@inforeliance.com SharePoint Principal Consultant Mack Sigman www.inforeliance.com 703.246.9369 x312 Mack.Sigman@inforeliance.com [50]