Hi

I attended and spoke at the Perth Business Analyst World Conference this week and really enjoyed it. This was a bit of a departure from the SharePoint events that I normally frequent, and I really didn’t know what to expect. Certainly, not having to fly 30+ hours just to speak is a big plus 🙂 The recommendation to the organisers to consider me, came about via Craig Brown, who has a very popular project management blog that I follow. Thanks so much Craig, I owe you a beer when I am in Melbourne next.

The conference report…

My talk was actually *not* about SharePoint and instead I was able to focus on more of my material on wicked problems, the shared understanding/shared commitment principle and then, the sense-making tools and techniques that I use to help bring this about. I was also able to demo the fruits of a very exciting, non IT project that I have been working on for a long time (more on that in a future post).

Despite my “This ain’t my normal crowd” trepidations, the feedback was great and the best thing to hear from participants, was that for many, it was stuff they have never heard before. That, for me, was really satisfying because I like the notion of presenting new ideas that actually have some decent practical examples to back them up. (This is something Andrew Woodward and I have in common. We love academic rigor for what we use, but it has to have been used in the real world with tangible success). Although I know that some people will disagree with the methods that myself and my colleagues use, I was able to demonstrate what I think is some pretty compelling case studies that support them.

What was interesting though, was that the examples and case studies were able to support what a lot of the other presenters had to say as well.

Ann Smith of Black Circle for example, had a great talk that was essentially about human cognition; essentially the wiring in our brains that serve to explain why big, fat documents are often not good ways to convey information. (Being a practicing dialogue mapper, no arguments from me there!) I am a nerd for this sort of stuff, having written previously on behavioural styles, learning styles and organisational culture, and Anne offered some new, interesting things that I have previously not considered or covered – more blog fodder for CleverWorkarounds, methinks.

Another highlight,the Western Power Business Transformation project, presented by Lorraine Pestell was also fascinating (I have a weakness for voice of the customer type sessions and this was no exception). Many of the strategic challenges that they are facing, such as sustainability and the changing business/regulatory environment, is very similar to the work I am doing elsewhere and it was great to see how Lorraine and her team were approaching the challenge and has given me some ideas and approaches to take back with me to my clients and projects.

The BA identity crisis

But back to the question suggested by the title of this post. There were some panel and round-table sessions about the topics of what actually *is* a BA, how you validate or recognise BA excellence, and the perennial BA versus PM turf-war debate.

Up until this time, I had actually never considered myself a BA because I had never actually given it any thought! As a self employed consultant, the only thing that matters is doing a good enough job to keep people wanting you to come back. So to that end, I didn’t worry so much about what I was called, provided that my clients were happy and the invoice was paid. But even if I wasn’t a consultant, I think that role titles often do not reflect reality and they also have a pigeonholing effect, depending on the attitudes and perceptions of what others think that role entails. Many position titles were discussed, “Solutions Architect”, “Business Architect”, “Change Manager” and some that were so pretentious that they bordered on wanky. More fancy words with no more clarity. No wonder many BA’s are struggling a bit for a sense of identity.

What I noticed when talking to the conference participants was that some attendees spoke from a lens where they seemed to feel that it was incumbent on them to provide a “translator” role between IT and “the business”. After all, nerds and CFO’s can’t communicate right? Enter the BA to ask questions and solve problems.

I have no major objection to that notion at some levels, but it is that *precise* mindset that makes me think “Well, I am definitely not a BA.”

Why? It was the notion that this “translation” was based on being the go-between from IT and the business. Thus, taking what one party says, transforming it and then passing it to the other party. As a result, BA’s are acting as a listener and interpreter, yet relaying second hand messages (messages that may be very different originally) between parties.

I personally balk at this. In fact, it really grates on me. By that definition, I don’t think I am a BA at all.

Interestingly, other topics of conversations were around “Well, how does a BA fit into Agile?”, “Is there a place for the BA in an Agile world”, and the like. What was interesting, and somewhat concerning, about these conversations was that those BAs who tended to think of themselves in terms of this “translation” role, really did not have a great grasp on the underlying principles of what we now call “Agile”.

Although Agile means a lot of different things and there are different sub-methods applied, these BAs got all focussed on the processes of Agile. They overlooked the fact that the process is actually the means to an end and it is the end-game that they have overlooked. Agile, (okay well Scrum anyway) attempts to use process and rigour (yes, rigour!) to make a project as conducive to shared understanding as possible. Probably the best thing that Agile does, above all else, is put diverse people in the same room. That alone will make bigger understanding breakthroughs than anything else!

Business Analyst KPI – shared understanding?

So, why am I not a BA?

My methods for translating are fundamentally inclusive. In other words, I do not “translate” anything, “take” it to another party and “relay” through my own words (and lens). I feel that despite all best intentions and whatever diagramming or modelling tool that you use, when you do this, you will always still find that you have your own cognitive biases that will not necessarily deliver the shared understanding that you think you are delivering. Instead, what I do is provide a rich container for a group to explore an issue together. In the same way that Agile tends to like all project members and stakeholders to be in the same room, Dialogue Mapping puts everyone in the same room and provides a suitable container for handling dialogue in a much better manner than traditional meetings and workshops.

If you agree with my previous assertions that a lot of the visible causes of project failure (scope creep, vague requirements, etc) comes from a lack of shared understanding among participants, and that BAs identify themselves as the bridge between IT and “the business” (which by the way is an insultingly gross simplification), then isn’t the ultimate KPI for the BA is to create and maintain that shared understanding? If not, yours is just another opinion that is counted no more or less than anybody else’s. Are you signal or noise?

So, in my humble opinion, the role of the BA is not to be the go-between from disparate stakeholders. Instead, it is your ability to create the sort of conducive holding environment that enables project participants to achieving shared understanding. How you do that is completely up to you of course, and if you have managed to progress a group from an agreed undesirable present state to a desirable future state, then your methods are totally validated.

Get over titles…

Now, if you call yourself a BA and think I am picking on you because you feel that you are the translator, don’t feel bad because plenty of PMs are guilty in their way too. In some ways, I feel that business analysts only exist as a career because enough people with the “Project Manager” title thought that time and budget alone were the only factors in project success. Some PMs who disagreed with this, felt that solving the problem was also critical, gravitated to the discipline of what we now label as “Business Analyst”. Some application developers that felt there was more to life than cutting code and made a similar gravitation. Put a bunch of like-minded people together and soon enough we have a “cool kids” club and lo’ and behold, we have a new discipline with a new set of titles.

(“Information architect” is a more recent example of this phenomenon than “Business Analyst”).

But, let me tell you something else about this title misconception. For a BA to label all PMs as interested only in time and budget is an insult to those PMs who actually understand that achieving and maintaining shared understanding is the end-game. The truly great project managers who I have had the pleasure of working with were actually leaders, not managers. They have all of the same characteristics of what makes a truly good business analyst: Critical thinking, soft-skills and most of all, a great radar for determining when stakeholders are not aligned and doing what is necessary to rectify the situation. They do not always dive into process and structure because their particular body of knowledge told them to. Instead, they have coffees, drink beer, conduct lunch-time workshops with free food and beverages, mediate, essentially whatever is needed to oil the cogs of dialogue that prevents something small becoming something nasty later.

By the way, I have met some angel application developers like this too, as well as infrastructure people.

If you want proof of a truly great project manager, then Kailash Awati’s wonderful site should be mandatory reading for both the BA and PM disciplines (and scrum masters too for that matter!). Kailash writes what essentially is a project management blog, but he has a deeper understanding of the sorts of soft factors that would put many BAs and some facilitators to shame.

Conclusion

In my talk at the conference, I emphasised that the ultimate success factor in any project is bringing about shared commitment through shared understanding among the participants. I believe that achieving these goals is the ultimate KPI for a BA, or anybody else who feels that they are there to help solve a problem, not deliver a crap solution that happens to be on time and on budget.

Thus, any method that helps a group achieve this is a good method because it has made a positive difference in advancing a group from understood present state to an understood desirable future state.

So, perhaps I am, after all, a BA?

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hi there.

Welcome to part 2 of a series of articles on the craft of Dialogue Mapping – something that forms a significant chunk of my SharePoint and non SharePoint work. In the “One best practice” series of articles, I explained IBIS. In part 1 of this series, I introduced the facilitation part that goes along with IBIS. In this article, I’ll spend more time on how Dialogue Mapping works in real world scenarios.

In the previous article, I wrote about how important it was for tools and methods like this to be intuitive and inclusive, allowing you to start from any given point. I also wrote about how methods need to be adaptable and grow, accepting and accommodating for the fact that understanding of the problem changes over time. In any project or problem that is novel or new, there is, invariably, a large degree of unknowns and uncertainties among participants. Solutions are not always obvious and we should be careful not to presume that we are doing something wrong if we reinterpret the problem, as a result of learning more or seeing a suggested solution.

New IT projects, by definition, often fall into this bucket and SharePoint is a poster child for this type of project. But in saying that, some of the toughest problems on the planet are not technically complicated at all and SharePoint is actually not the most wicked problem that I have used this craft on. More on that in part 3…

So, the first example of the practice of Dialogue Mapping that I will tell you about is how effective it is in dealing with IT department physics and nerd law.

IT department physics and nerd law…

Before consulting on any IT project, it is important to understand the inner workings of the IT department. For SharePoint this is particularly important because of its amazing ability for exposing the inherent constraints of IT departmental physics in a negative way.

There are certain fundamental principles of how IT departments work that I have classified into several immutable laws. They are:

1. The web team dislikes the corporate marketing team because marketing always wants the same garish lime-green colours they have for their printed brochures;
2. The infrastructure team dislikes the web team because they see them as a bunch of cowboys who mess with forces they do not understand and do not have to deal with the consequences of it;
3. The web team dislikes the infrastructure team because they are a bunch of control freaks who won’t even allow you to fart without filling in a change control form; and
4. Nobody likes the misunderstood compliance/records management team at all. They unfortunately perpetuate this by droning on continually about whatever compliance standard/s the organisation has to adhere to.

There are some interesting sub-laws that go along with the four immutable laws. For example, you have only one shot to ask the right question to a good infrastructure guy. In other words, the way you word the question will tell them a lot about your technical chops and if you word the question badly, you will be forever banished into the same sin bin where they hold most project managers and sales people. Once sin-binned, it takes an enormous amount of effort to get out. Similarly, when approaching an application developer, always start the question from the presumption that the error you are encountering is *not* in their code, despite you being fairly certain that it is.

Ted Dzubia is a tech writer equivalent of Dr House. A terrific writer with brilliant insight woven between layers of blistering attitude and well placed vulgarity. He cites a classic example of what he calls “nerd law” and it cuts to the heart of the problem that projects like SharePoint face.

The only way to adjudicate Nerd Law is to write about a transgression on your blog and hope that it gets to the front page of Digg. Nerd Law is the result of the pathological introversion software engineers carry around with them, being too afraid of confrontation after that one time in high school when you stood up to a jock and ended up getting your ass kicked.

If you actually talk to people, network, and make agreements, you’ll find that most are reasonable…

Defying the laws of IT physics

One of my earliest uses of Dialogue Mapping was to deal with a classic case of IT department physics and nerd law. A completely new SharePoint project, with no in-house staff having significant expertise in the product, has decided to implement SharePoint for an intranet. To make it interesting, the project is instigated out of the web team. As the immutable laws explain the forces of IT nature, this means that several things happen by default:

• The infrastructure team will automatically be against it because they don’t want to get saddled with, yet another, enterprise application to support and manage
• The records management team, having already been scarred from trying to convince an uninterested workforce that the existing records software does not suck, now will assume that SharePoint is going to take over their area.
• The software development team will assume that SharePoint is here to replace all of their lovingly coded, yet bloaty and insecure line-of-business systems.

At this point, each side starts googling and discovers that the means by which they will address the “obviously” out-of-bounds web team is via this thing called “Governance”. Governance is then mentioned in every second sentence, in a manner to improve their respective positions. This is the nightmare scenario where governance is used as a tool to perpetuate nerd law. This is to be avoided at all costs.

In this project, I introduced the dialogue map from the very first meeting with a simple root question “What are we going to do with SharePoint in Organsiation X”?

Now in this case, SharePoint is my core discipline, so unlike some of my subsequent engagements. I already had a bunch of questions that I wanted the client to start pondering. Being well aware of the destructive forces of the immutable laws of IT, I put down some immediate sub-questions.

• What are the goals of the project?
• What are the governance requirements of this project?
• What are the infrastructure requirements for SharePoint?
• What should we do about operational support for SharePoint?
• How will we develop the project?
• What else do we need to be aware of?

The web team had also developed a project charter which explained, in some detail, the background to this project and how we came to be where we were. I linked this into the issue map. Something that also came up fairly quickly was that the organisation had just completed a large strategic review project and an Information Management Plan had been drafted and approved. This was a key document that pretty much set the direction of the organisation for the next four years.

Below is the map showing these initial questions, along with the project charter and Information Management Plan. Note how I can attach documents into the IBIS map along with the argumentation.

Adaptive requirements gathering…

As you can imagine, we started working through these questions. Given that the SharePoint was completely new to the team, I was perfectly happy for the web team to jump around to different areas of the map and fill it in. Fairly quickly, the participants identified that a staged approach would be needed for implementation, and we initially would flick between goals and stages until that began to solidify that the details of the implementation matched the goals.

This map evolved over a period of time where we would spend time on-site with the team, performing training and advisory on SharePoint itself. As understanding of SharePoint’s capabilities grew from the use of a demonstration virtual machine, we refactored and re-examined the map as new knowledge, insights and/or understandings came to light. The team took to dialogue mapping like ducks to water, and the web team leader downloaded and installed compendium so that she always had the latest project rationale on her desktop.

This also had advantages to my colleagues who were also involved in the training and advisory phase. Since each of us were trained in IBIS and dialogue mapping, any one of us was able to conduct a session and the new map would be redistributed to all participants. Thus, even if I did not attend a meeting, I was able to very quickly orient myself around any new questions, issues or ideas.

Planting seeds of buy in…

One area that many web teams are weaker on in their knowledge is in infrastructure. In this case, I had a dual role as dialogue mapper and SharePoint consultant because I know how infrastructure guys think. After all, I used to be one myself. Therefore, I wanted to ensure that a lot of infrastructure considerations were captured and made explicit in the map before we took it to the other teams. I ensured that farm topology options were captured, backup and recovery implications, virtualisation and the like were covered. Additionally, many questions were captured but not answered, such as network topology, active directory configuration, large database management, SLA and the like. A snippet of this is below.

One thing that we were all aware of was to ensure that records management considerations were duly covered. By having a SharePoint environment to use and learn from, the team was able to quickly become much more informed about SharePoint’s view of the world, especially in relation to the orientation of metadata, sites and site collections. We confirmed that the goals of the project was an intranet and the sort of document management that would be required would be skewed very much towards team collaboration. The web team was aware that a records management system existed and also some members had some previous experience working with these systems. We ended up creating a very detailed map outlining the strategy for integration with records management, the options for integrating the current records system with SharePoint and most importantly, the golden rules around integration that ensured that the records management system was still the authoritative location for records. Later, Microsoft and the records management vendor visited the site and presented the latest information on the integration for the product and SharePoint, and the salient points were added to the map. Below is a snippet of the map discussing this topic (deliberately obscured for privacy, but you can get a good feel for the breadth of the discussion).

The acid test…

Fast forward another couple of weeks, and the team now has a pretty good understanding of SharePoint and a very well factored map. By this time, others in the department had been called in at various times and added their rationale to the map, answering some of the open questions. Next stop was the ultimate test. A meeting was called, where all of the opposing forces were going to be in the one room at the same time. A dozen people in all, key decision makers who didn’t always enjoy a cosy relationship, crammed into a hot, tiny room with a portable projector.

The web team manager introduced the project via the charter, and we all worked our way through the map. We discussed the goals of the project, how they related back to the strategic Information Management Plan, how we were structuring the phases to support those goals, what was in/out of phase 1 and why, and of course, the considerations that we had made in relation to the other IT Teams. After around 90 minutes, we were done and the group proceeded to give feedback.

The records management team was clearly relieved. In producing the map, we had demonstrated a good awareness of records management considerations and we made it clear and explicit in the map that SharePoint was *not* going to replace or devalue what they already had in place. They loved the fact that we had captured rationale that discussed the pros and cons of the various methods and techniques we could use for integration between their tool and SharePoint as they did not know about this. The infrastructure team was also happy for the same reason. We had captured many of the questions that they would have asked themselves of the web team. We had managed to pass our “one shot” test and were not sin-binned for being naive to the nuances of IT infrastructure.

Key success factors and conclusion

All in all, in that one two hour meeting, everybody was on-side and excited about the project. It was fed back to us that achieving such buy-in within one meeting across these different IT departments was previously unheard of in this organisation.

The key success factors boiled down to 3 major factors:

1. The participants in the Dialogue Mapping process were extremely enthusiastic with the process. We did not sell Dialogue Mapping at all with this engagement – we just used it from the very first workshop. By the end of that first workshop, the participants were very impressed with the richness of what had been captured and it became the standard way we conducted workshops and requirements meetings.

2. The visibility and clarity of the rationale meant that any major concerns of the other teams were mitigated by the fact that the questions they were interested in were either addressed or, at the very least, captured and visible on the map. For many parts of the map, the web team made no pretence to know all of the answers. However, by raising those questions in the map, it gave the other teams much more assurance that the web team were not running off and doing their own thing with a lack of consultation.

3. As a mapper, knowing a fair amount about SharePoint meant that fast-tracking of learning was taking place, both at the map level and at the product capability level. Providing the team with a demo virtual machine allowed members to learn about the product, and then applying that learning back to their understanding of the problem in the map space. This was a great way for them to iterate and converge on the solution much more quickly than fumbling around with the product alone. As a SharePoint practitioner, I was able to foresee problem areas and then utilise the rationale in the map to help steer the various participants into determining the optimum solution for their circumstances.

All in all, this was a great example of the power of Dialogue Mapping in speeding up the normally laborious process of stakeholder consultation and developing a shared sense of what was trying to be achieved. The one thing I would say about this method however, was that being a subject matter expert, as well as the dialogue mapper, meant that I was able to exercise a fair degree of control over the flow of the map. This is because I was both a participant as well as the mapper, both capturing as well as answering questions, raising concerns and flagging issues that may have been missed otherwise. For any aspiring dialogue mappers out there, this is actually a good way to start because you can concentrate on creating well formed IBIS, and not have to worry about whether you are articulating a participant’s dialogue correctly. Almost by definition in this case, you know exactly what the participant is talking about and getting the context onto the map in IBIS notation is not a huge mental challenge.

But there is more…

If I concluded this series now, I would be misleading you. The form of Dialogue Mapping that I undertook here was not what I would call pure Dialogue Mapping. In my explanation of the above process, I was a participant, strategist, mentor as well as mapper. My knowledge of the problem space was very detailed and I used Dialogue Mapping as a tool to help steer the group to a position that enabled them to improve their chances of a great outcome.

In part 3, I will detail more about the craft of pure Dialogue Mapping. In this case, you are not in the room because of any particular expertise and you often do not know any of the stakeholders either. Your critical success factor is to produce a great map and thus, make a positive difference for a group in tackling a really wicked problem. As you will soon see, that changes things quite a bit…

Until then, thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hi all

Just a quick note to let you know that I will be speaking at the Perth leg of the BusinessAnalystWorld conference this week. My topic is called “IBIS: The one best practice for managing wicked problems" and I will be talking about the characteristics of wicked problems and how IBIS and Issue Mapping can help to manage them. I will also cover off some other sense-making tools in this talk like debategraph.

The BA World conference is the only one of its kind in Australia and will cover all sorts of interesting topics such as requirements elicitation, change management, business process modelling, Agile, stakeholder management and BABOK. The theme for the event is “Work Smarter. Plan Harder” and will allow BA leaders to ensure that projects are clearly defined and flawlessly executed, enabling them to make the right decisions at every level in the organisation and increase project success.

I am really looking forward to participating and it will be interesting to see what sort of feedback I get from a non SharePoint audience. As you may have gathered, this is not a SharePoint event and although I will still be talking about SharePoint as a collaborative platform to support working smarter, the main focus is on the power of IBIS and issue Mapping to help elicit real and tacit requirements and fast-track the path to shared understanding.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hiya

For those who do not regularly read CleverworkArounds, I have a bit of a split career-personality where half my working life is spent as a SharePoint practitioner and the other half as a sort of facilitator, based around the craft of dialogue mapping. This series of articles will delve a little deeper into dialogue mapping and how I have used it.

I previously introduced the topic of IBIS and Issue Mapping to a SharePoint audience in the “One best practice” series of posts. That series of posts focussed on the issue mapping side of things because it dissected a debate that had already taken place (Joel’s ‘Just say “no” to site definitions’). While this is an effective demonstration of the way that IBIS can break down a seemingly complex argument into more easily digested chunks, I never really wrote about the craft of dialogue mapping, which is a much more difficult, mentally exhausting, yet ultimately fulfilling practice.

Now I have to tell you, as an IT consultant who has managed to not get *too* messed-up over the last 20 years, I don’t get too intimidated with IT these days. But first time dialogue mapping for a group of stakeholders on a non IT project, where I had no buy in to that project, and my sole purpose was to craft a good issue map to help them work through their complex issue, I was so nervous that I couldn’t sleep the night before.

So first up, let’s clear up the terms I using so that we are all on the same page.

• IBIS: The grammar that is used to create an issue map. When I talk about issues, ideas, pros and cons, I am describing the elements of IBIS grammar. You can read about this elsewhere on my blog, my mentor, Jeff Conklin or the amazing work by Kailash Awati.
• Issue mapping: The craft of creating an map based on IBIS notation. Some examples are in this article.
• Dialogue Mapping: The facilitation process where a facilitator works with a group to create an issue map and translate discussion into Issue Maps.

Why dialogue mapping?

If you have ever uttered the cliché “They don’t know what they want”, then you have your answer. Many problems are rather difficult to define and pin down because, even to define them, requires you to think about possible solutions to the problem. Based on our experience, values (and DNA), we will form our own interpretations of the problem space and then spend considerable time “fumbling around” when working with the rest of the group to clearly articulate our understanding to others, only to find that our understanding is not universal. Disagreements, therefore, are inevitable and are amplified by the sheer number of stakeholders, the fluidity of the problem space and the constraints around the problem, such as a time deadline. This has a way of making life unpleasant and stressful; a situation nobody particularly enjoys.

People deal with this in different ways. For many, the natural reflex to this situation is avoidance – to try and return to the “business-as-usual” or status quo that existed before. True believers may don the boxing gloves and spar for a few rounds with other true believers. Some may become the ninja, invisible and striking silently. Either way, this sort of chaos that represents organisational pain is fairly familiar to most.

Now, there are many methods that you can use to remedy this situation. But for me, there are some key ingredients required for the really effective methods.

1. The method should not take you too far away from the problem space. So, for example, you are trying to grapple with a difficult organisational problem. You decide to adopt a methodology. Now you are focussing on learning the methodology, obsessing if you are doing it ‘right’ and then still trying to gain a shared understanding of the problem space.
2. The method should be simple enough that people do not have to be trained just to participate.
3. The method needs to be inclusive, and all voices (not just the metaphorical boxers) need to be heard
4. The method should be easy to adapt and grow as understanding of the problem changes over time.
5. Most importantly of all, the method needs to allow a group to start from what they know now. Half the battle with organisational chaos is the continual “going in circles” pain from feeling that all of the questions need to be answered now and if not, we are doing something wrong.

One of my clients recently summed it up well when he said to me “In dealing with complexity we persist in creating complex methods and wonder why its still complex.” – I found that very profound, but it might have been the beer I was drinking at the time.

Anyway, I digress. Below is an IBIS based issue map discussing Frodo’s dilemma. Note that I didn’t need to tell you how to read the map. it is inherently readable due to the symbolism in the nodes. This is the sort of output to expect from a dialogue mapping session in Middle Earth.

So, how would such a map be produced from a meeting or workshop?

Ideally the room would be set up as per the illustration below. This image below is from the Cognexus site, the home of Dialogue Mapping. Note how one person is sitting at a laptop, with a projected map behind them, facing the rest of the group. The rest of the group is interacting with the mapper and map, discussing arguments, asking for additions or modifications and building out a chain of logic around the problem space.

The facilitator is the key here. This person knows the IBIS grammar and is taking the group deliberations and translating it to the issue map in real-time. Using software and a projector, as opposed to flip charts, restructuring or refactoring the map live and on the fly is quick and painless. By using the IBIS grammar, the map is inherently readable and very clear, compared to a normal meeting where there is no tool to provide the sort of “holding environment” to allow people to keep collective focus and explore the different perspectives on the problem space.

This notion of the holding environment also is critically important. If you are lucky enough to work in a job you love, with a team you love, for a visionary CEO who you admire and respect, then that CEO has created the ultimate holding environment and you should consider yourself very lucky (and your CEO is worth all that money they earn). For the other 99.9% of us, we have to make do with what we have. The point here is that any tool or method you use needs to augment the understanding process, not complicate it. If it is over-complicated it will not improve understanding and the group will fall back to business-as-usual and participants will likely wind up resenting the method.

Consider dialogue mapping as a holding environment versus traditional meeting decorum. Inevitably, a group will start out with one question, and fairly quickly realise there are underlying or deeper questions that also need to be answered. In a regular meeting governed by a strict agenda and roles (as is recommended by many books and facilitators), problem exploration will be stifled. All too often, changes in understanding of the problem is seen as an unwanted tangent that derails the agenda of the meeting. In other words, the system works against the problem exploration space and that sort of meeting decorum is a poor option for this sort of exploration. Why did we invent such systems to keep meetings on track? Because meetings alone are a crappy container for problem exploration! However with the IBIS grammar and the shared space of the dialogue map, underlying questions can be captured and explored with an organised, evolving point of reference.

The shared space also has a positive effect on the decorum of exploring prickly issues. The group’s attention is now fixed on an evolving map on the wall. A skilled dialogue mapper can utilise IBIS grammar to take a lot of the heat out of argumentation and the process becomes more about building a chain of logic, than cheap point scoring. Typical meeting tactics like pulling rank or personal attacks thinly veiled as “questions” are easily dealt with by the dialogue mapper and never make it to the map in the form intended. The desire to pull back to business is usual is mitigated by the neutrality of the IBIS language and the improved quality of deliberation.

Perhaps the most important benefit of all, is the capture of rationale, or organisational memory. For me, this is precisely where my SharePoint world intersects with this craft because IBIS maps have for me been one of the best artefacts I have seen for the capture of implicit or tacit knowledge. These maps ultimately are an extremely rich exploration of a given problem and demonstrate very effectively, the circumstances and understanding of a problem at that point in time. With issue maps, gone are the days of looking at a process, policy or report years later and wondering “what the hell were they thinking?”.

So finally for part 1, let’s sum up by examining dialogue mapping in relation to my earlier criteria for the really effective methods of collaborating on difficult problems.

The method should not take you too far away from the problem space. So, for example, you are trying to grapple with a difficult organisational problem, so you decide to adopt a methodology. Now you are focussing on learning the methodology, obsessing if you are doing it ‘right’ and then still trying to gain a shared understanding of the problem space.

With Dialogue Mapping, only the mapper needs any training. All other participants do not need any previous IBIS or Issue Mapping experience. Participants do not need to wonder if they are doing it right, because just by articulating their opinion on issues, ideas and arguments, they are doing it right.

The method should be simple enough that people do not have to be trained just to participate.

Cut and paste my last answer. Aside from the mapper, all other participants do not need any previous IBIS or Issue Mapping experience.

The method needs to be inclusive, and all voices (not just the metaphorical boxers) need to be heard

Two things that positively kill meetings is death by repetition and grenade lobbing. Death by repetition is when we tend to find a way to suggest our solution, no matter what question is asked. This behaviour has the opposite effect than intended on other participants. But once an idea is captured, it idea is visible along with all of the other ideas. If the repetition continues, all the dialogue mapper needs to do is ask the person if they have anything more to add to the map for that idea. This is surprisingly effective as the disruptive behaviour becomes very obvious to the serial repeater.

Grenade lobbing happens when someone challenges the whole context of the conversation in some way. When this is a dialogue mapped meeting or workshop, the map comes into its own. The dialogue mapper will capture the challenge as an issue and restructure the map to accommodate this issue. The previous disruptive power of the grenade lob is significantly mitigated and the map now has richer argumentation.

The method should be easy to adapt and grow as understanding of the problem changes over time.

IBIS is founded on the principle that problems and solutions are intertwined closely and that exploration of one will change the other in a cyclical fashion. As discussed, refactoring maps over time is critical to managing a problem that is a moving target. But also being able to save the state of understanding at a given point in time, and then being able to examine the evolution of that understanding and rationale (tacit knowledge) over time is capturing a snapshot of organisational memory. Even better, put that snapshot into SharePoint, classify it with metadata and now your collaborative portal includes findable, organised tacit knowledge!

Most importantly of all, the method needs to allow a group to start from what they know now.

The exploration of what we know now actually can offer a lot of clarity and insights when integrated into a coherent map. Instead of a long, laborious meeting where various people have lost the thread of the conversation, we have a point of reference on the wall. Furthermore, in breaking down the arguments into simple to follow IBIS structure, participants are better equipped to make the sort of connections between chains of logic to better understand the frame of reference of the other participants. The map is an output of this collective effort, which is visible and available for others to explore. Rather than starting out by trying to peel the onion of problems understanding in ever widening scope, we simply start. We put up a question on the map and attempt to answer it.

Conclusion

Hopefully, I have managed to convey a little of what the dialogue mapping experience looks like. In part 2, I will expand upon this topic and discuss my baptism of fire experience with dialogue mapping, the factors that have helped me improve my skills in it, as well as working with the master in action – Jeff Conklin

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Quick note: This is another of the sort of posts where I cannot help but feel that some readers will wonder what I have been smoking. It is not essential, but reading the “one best practice” series will provide a lot of background to this post.

On the grand scale of world problems, your average messed up SharePoint project would not be considered particularly “wicked”. If you compare a haywire SharePoint project to the truly *global* wicked problems, such as global warming, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and Tom Cruise, then it kind of makes you realise just how good we SharePoint architects, developers and engineers have it. I mean, hey, if a bunch of nerds can’t make little ol’ SharePoint a success, what hope do we have for the big issues like making Tom Cruise less of a tool?

I know some people who have left SharePoint architecture work because of all the “people crap”. If you think “people crap” is bad in IT, imagine trying to mediate between the myriad of stakeholders involved in, say, cuts to carbon dioxide emissions. That is a world of hurt that is so huge that it pains my brain just to imagine it.

Last year when I was learning the dark Jedi arts of dialogue mapping I got to know David Price, one of my fellow students who operated in that world of hurt. David is a very smart man indeed, with a Ph.D in organisational learning and environmental policy. His career has included public policy consultancy, TV documentary production, academic research and mediation.

It was during that training course that David introduced me to a joint venture that he started with another scarily smart man named Peter Baldwin. Peter is an Australian who had a 15 year career in national politics, including six years as a federal minister in the Australian government. Unlike many Australian pollies, his background was engineering. After leaving politics, with a keen interest in how the web could “raise the quality of debate about public policy issues,” he cranked out visual studio and got down to some coding.

The “baby” from this collaboration between David and Peter is a unique tool called Debategraph and it is a very interesting tool indeed.

DebateGraph was conceived as a tool to improve the quality of public debate on contentious or complex issues. Public debate, in general, is usually pretty awful. David and Peter explain why this is the case pretty comprehensively below.

Public debates tend to be complex; with multiple data sources and perspectives and conflicting demands and values. In complex debates, the volume of information and arguments can seem like an overwhelming obstacle to someone, trying to develop a comprehensive understanding of the essential arguments advanced by all sides.

Public debate is all too often characterized by repetitive contributions, digressions, argumentative fallacies, rhetorical flourishes, manipulative framing, obfuscation and personal attacks that result in a high noise-to-signal ratio and confusion rather than clarity.

Conventional media reporting of public policy debates often struggles with the challenge of conveying nuanced, reasoned positions in a compressed linear form, when simple heated oppositions deliver a more dramatic and rewarding effect.

This, in turn, makes it harder for established public figures to think tentatively and creatively in public about new policy approaches and to acknowledge strengths and common ground in opponents’ positions.

We are talking about wicked problems here a lot of the time since public policy debates by definition respond to problems or questions where the general public are stakeholders. This means that there are a lot of varied stakeholders with even more varied world views and frames of reference. By creating a tool to improve the quality of a public policy discussion, DebateGraph is a tool that helps to deal with wicked problems themselves. What is interesting about DebateGraph is that like the IBIS based issue mapping that I practice, it is a visual, map based approach, yet it was developed independently from Conklin, Compendium or anything else in the space.

DebateGraph is a free online service. It allows the global community to collaboratively build maps of complex debates that accurately present all sides of the debate from a neutral standpoint, free of repetitive clutter and ‘noise’. Like a wiki, all aspects of the debate maps, both their content and structure, are continuously open to revision, refinement, comment, and evaluation by anyone who wants to join the community of thought. Each map is a cumulative work in progress.

Readers and editors of the maps can explore the top-level structure of debates and delve into specific strands or sub-structures of a debate. What interested me was the fact that the debate maps can be embedded into other websites; with changes made to the map on one site updating immediately across every site on which it appears.

DebateGraph also has RSS and email alerting like SharePoint, as well as a unique rating system where users can specify how much they relate to, or believe in a particular argument. The map then self reconfigures based on what arguments are considered the strongest. In effect, the map becomes a multi-dimensional poll or decision making tool.

“Although consensus can emerge from such a process, not least because it promotes the discovery of previously unidentified options, our hope is as much that the people who continue to disagree will do so on the basis of an enriched understanding of the reasons for their disagreement and having had the chance to test each other’s reasoning to the fullest.”

How DebateGraph works

Using DebateGraph is pretty easy, given that you can embed it into other web sites as I have done here in this post. From the hundreds of maps that I can choose, I’ve decided to embed the map of the global financial crisis for you to explore. Click on the bubbles below and move them around. You will find that like bubble-wrap, you will spend your first few minutes immersing yourself in moving nodes around and navigating here and there. Go ahead and have a play – I’m patient – I’ll wait for you 🙂

Right! I’m guessing around seven minutes have passed. Now that you’ve had a play, click on the first arrow, below the map and above the bottom toolbar. This will take you back to the top level financial crisis map. Let’s take a closer look at what is going on here.

Attached to this “Global Financial Crisis” map is several root questions covering the cause, consequences, triggers and response to this problem. If you hover your mouse over any of the nodes, you will find a more detailed view of the question. Hover your mouse over the arrows between nodes, and you will find that the questions “arise from” the central “global financial crisis” node.

Also, note the thickness of the arrows between nodes. The width represents the importance placed on this node by the community of users that have developed this map.

The node colours are important too. Click on the “Long term causes of the financial crisis?” node above, and it will break out to a sub-map. Here the nodes are blue, rather than orange as shown below. The difference in colour is because these nodes are possible responses to the question “Long term causes of the financial crisis?” Once again, the width of the arrows indicate the community’s view of the validity of the responses. Now let’s look at a response that would potentially be divisive. One of the potential answers to the long term causes of the current crisis is “Natural financial dynamics of the baby boom generation.” So, it’s all the baby boomers fault, is it? 😉

Clicking on the “Natural financial dynamics of the baby boom generation” and we see a map with a few different coloured nodes. This is because there are some supporting and opposing arguments to this idea. The green nodes support the idea and the red nodes oppose the idea. This is the essence of the pro and con type arguments used when you create IBIS maps.

There are also some other nodes where the direction of the arrow is the opposite to the ones we have examined so far. These are links to other maps, and if you highlight the outward arrows, you can see that our current map relates to nodes in completely separate maps.

This highlights a really important point about DebateGraph. It links related issues into a “web” of argumentation allowing readers to fully explore the myriad of interlocking issues that make up complex problems without “drowning” in information overload.

Contributing to debates

If you feel strongly on a particular subject then you are free to contribute to the debate. All DebateGraph maps have a toolbar that allows you to perform more advanced activities.

From left to right, the icons perform the following tasks

• Open the DebateGraph home page
• Show detailed text and comments for the currently selected item
• Add comments to the selected item
• Open this map in mapper (map edit) view
• Edit this map in mapper (map edit) view
• Search all DebateGraph maps for a given term
• Share this map view or embed it in your own site
• View the map in full screen mode
• Key and explanatory notes for maps

SharePoint Governance?

Andrew Woodward suggested that I should create a DebateGraph map for us all to collectively explore how we could save Tom Cruise from complete agonising lameness. I chose not to do this for three reasons.

1. Tom Cruise cannot be saved
2. Tom Cruise’s lawyers would sue my ass
3. There are more important topics to explore

Let’s instead talk about a pet topic of mine: SharePoint governance.

Governance in SharePoint is pretty misunderstood. There are many definitions of governance and they are all equally right, when judged through the lens of the person defining it. I have my own interpretation of governance (which is, of course, the definitive and completely correct one! – hehe). Maybe we should debate the issue?

Joel talks about a SharePoint governance plan needing to be a ‘living’ document and in fact he states this explicitly in the sample governance plan that he did for Microsoft. I agree wholeheartedly on this notion. The reality is that documents like MSWord documents are not overly conducive to this ideal. The paradox is that the bigger and more comprehensive the governance plan is initially, the harder it can be to maintain and manage over time, and therefore, the greater the likelihood that it can go out of date or fall into disrepair over time.

As a result, it occurred to me some time back that a DebateGraph map is the sort of “living” document that a governance plan really aspires to be. So, I roped in a couple of friends, most notably Andrew Jolly and Ruven Gotz, and together we experimented with DebateGraph to explore our own questions and ideas on the topic of SharePoint governance. The result is the map below which you can explore.

Seven Sigma web part for DebateGraph

It then occurred to me that others could benefit from this experimental exploration of the topic of SharePoint governance. This gave me the idea that having a “SharePoint governance web part” that could be added to any enterprise SharePoint portal would be a really great way to augment internal governance efforts. Additionally, one of my clients is responsible for conservation and sustainability at a local level in the community. They loved the DebateGraph debates around environmental, social and economic sustainability and this web part idea would work equally well for them.

Accordingly, my company, Seven Sigma, has just released a free webpart for SharePoint that allows you to embed DebateGraph debate maps into your SharePoint sites and tune their display to fit into enterprise SharePoint portals. The default debate is the SharePoint Governance debate shown above, but you can view any of the many Debategraph maps via the web part properties.

I have recorded a couple of webcasts, covering the installation and usage of the web part which can be viewed below. Otherwise, click here to download this free web part from the Seven Sigma web site.

Conclusion

This new web part and the SharePoint governance debate, are essentially an experiment in trying to tackle collaboration a novel way. Like any wiki, to make it truly “living”, the maps need contributions from people who have something to offer on the topic. I fully accept that this initiative is not going to be everybody’s cup of tea, but I hope that it might get people to think about the sort of possibilities presented by this sort of wiki based display. The fact that all of the issues, ideas and argumentation can so easily be made available to a wide audience via a simple web part I think is unique.

Thus, if you would like to contribute to this SharePoint governance debate sign up to Debategraph and we will add you to the governance debate.

I think that DebateGraph, and applications like it, may well represent the next step in the evolution of collaborative applications. While Twitter and Facebook have found interesting ways to bring people together, those applications aren’t exactly going to provide you with the sort of ‘container’ required to tackle really wicked problems. I foresee a lot of development in this sub-genre of collaborative applications in the future.

In other words, watch this space!

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hi

I have been very busy on a number of fronts – which is why the blog hasn’t had much attention lately. I’ll be back soon enough though – once I get a few big jobs done.

For those of you that are not aware, there is a podcast interview that I did with Brett Lonsdale at Sharepoint Pod Show where he allowed me to blab on and on and on and on 🙂 Poor Brett – he didn’t know what he was getting himself into at all!

So if you think my posts are boring and wordy, wait till you hear me talk! 🙂

Paul

Today I presented a session at the Perth SharePoint Users Group. I was a little unsure whether my non-technically focussed content would be of interest to the geeks but the turnout was terrific and the feedback has been brilliant. (The 3 copies I gave away of Dux’s excellent “SharePoint for Project Management” book may have sweetened the deal – hehe )

My sincere thanks to new user group president Sezai Komur for giving me the opportunity to present this material as it was the first time it has seen the light of day in Perth.

If you want to check out the slide deck from the session, you will find it below. Expanded information that builds on this content can be found at the Seven Sigma site, as well as here at CleverWorkarounds.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

This post was supposed to be called “SharePoint Governance is not a deliverable” – hence the pizza above, but my secret evil plan has worked faster than expected! Read on…

When I met with Dux Sy for breakfast the other day in a diner that looked remarkably like the set from Happy Days, our conversation covered various areas of topics around US vs Australian culture, SharePoint governance, project management, food, wicked problems, sense-making and my two kilograms of Vietnamese coffee beans that came from a weasel’s digestive tract :-). Smart guy, is our Mr Sy indeed; good business acumen – well suited to being a SharePoint sensei.

But one part of that conversation triggered a memory about a post that I was supposed to write and then completely forgot about. Thanks for jogging my memory, Dux.

Right in the middle of writing said post, SharePoint Joel has just posted some thoughts about his recent excellent governance document, inspired in part by some twitter conversations with Andrew Woodward. Andrew, like me, dislikes the word “governance” because he has seen the same confusion that can arise. Joel in his post, nailed totally what I was going to write about here, and referred to an old post of mine written in October 2008 where I undertook an experiment on whether I could make my own buzzword.

So, I think I will kill two birds with one stone here. I’ll post my original idea – in effect echoing what Joel said with regards to how to best use his governance plan, and I will also talk about the exciting adventures of intrepid hero “Governance Man” and vain attempts to defeat his arch nemesis “Dr Wicked” :-).

The precedent…

I have had a couple of experiences now, where I have been called in by clients who have the typical SharePoint chaos. Things have gotten out of hand and as a result, key stakeholders started to lose faith, and the project team really felt the pressure from the powers to be. There were strong undercurrents of desperation to get things sorted, like… yesterday. Under these circumstances, they asked for help on “governance”. They needed “governance”, they must have “governance”  and they spoke about governance as if it was something that a pizza driver can deliver to their door (and if it was not there in 30 minutes, it was free).

I was being a bit flippant when I talked to Dux about it, because both times I was dealing with the project manager in charge of each SharePoint implementation. I recall saying something along the lines of “some project managers have a lot to answer for here”. What I meant by that was “governance” in their eyes was a 1 line item on a work breakdown structure on their project plan – a project deliverable. As a result, they had this impression that by getting me to produce a “governance document” would somehow solve the chaos. Therefore, I had to answer the standard HMHL question (how much, how long) so it slotted nicely into the work breakdown structure.

*Sigh* if only it was that simple.

This hopefully provides an insight to why I am uncomfortable with the word. What these clients, in fact, were dealing with, was a crisis of confidence with the platform. They were unable to provide a level of assurance to the organisation that the platform could meet their needs. The lack of confidence turned to user pessimism, and the pessimism turned to outright rejection of the platform by some sectors.

Adding to that, Joel Oleson recently published a major revision of his sample governance plan, which I had the opportunity to review and made a few suggestions here and there. It is a great template to use for many organisations, but my fear is that people will think that this plan alone will be all that is needed because it has “governance” in its name. I mean, as a template, it is the best thing by far that is out there right now and adds significantly more meat than the governance checklist guide does.

“Governance Man” vs “Dr Wicked” (and “Agile Boy")

I have listened to the governance godfather Robert Bogue suggest that governance is a process and I think that is pretty close to the mark. He has also suggested that governance at its core is about risk management which I also agree with – or at least I do partly. As previously stated, I’ve always found that “governance” never really succinctly nailed this risk management emphasis. Isn’t risk management about providing assurance to stakeholders? It certainly makes more logical sense than saying “providing governance to stakeholders”.

So, in October last year, I wrote a post about the curse of “governance” now achieving buzzword status which makes life confusing for all, given that “governance” is talked about a lot, yet seemingly hard to understand and/or execute. To make it interesting, I blamed it all on my arch nemesis – “Governance Man”. You can see him in the photo below (check the T-shirt). Although the disguise is almost perfect (like mine), can you pick who he is? 🙂

In that October 08 post, I also executed my “secret evil plan ™” which actually had little to do with the governance/assurance debate itself. I simply wanted to see how long it would take for a new buzzword to take hold. I spoke of “SharePoint Assurance” and with a little help from my trusted super-friend Andrew “Agile Boy” Woodward, my arch nemesis – that meddlesome “Governance Man” fell into my wicked trap by blogging about it!

Mwaahahahahah… more people debating it! Another piece of Dr Wicked’s secret evil buzzword plan falls into place :-).

The unified theory of everything…

I recently did some Dialogue Mapping work for a local government organisation. In performing that work, I finally came across a definition of governance that I liked because it was simple and succinct and did not come from IT. It also has the positive side effect of putting my assurance instinct into the right perspective, too. Governance was defined in these terms:

“The word ‘govern’ means to ‘steer’. We aim to steer the energy and resources available for the greatest benefit to all”

Now we look at the definition of assurance (ripped from quality assurance)

“Assurance provides confidence in a product’s suitability for its intended purpose. It is a set of activities intended to ensure that customer requirements are satisfied in a systematic, reliable fashion.”

I see these as quite distinct activities and the key words in the above definition are “intended purpose”. Defining and maintaining “intended purpose” is the realm of governance via ‘steering’. Thus, governance is all about achieving shared commitment among stakeholders to a solving business problem, whereas assurance is all about achieving and maintaining confidence in the solution.

Paradoxically, you actually need both governance and assurance, for each to stand on their own individually. I mean, how can you achieve shared commitment without confidence? How can you have confidence without a shared commitment to a course of action? This is wicked problem fodder right here, and for a more detailed exploration in the relationship between shared understanding, shared commitment and project failure, then read the one best practice to rule them all series.

This, I think gets, to the root of why I get nervous when I hear the term “governance” bandied around. So, I take Joel’s point that assurance may “lack legs”, but assurance, to me, has a clearer meaning for the “confidence” side of governance. As I mentioned earlier, a nice little test is to say out loud these two statements and see which one ‘feels’ right.

• “We have to provide better SharePoint assurance to the business.”
• “We have to provide better SharePoint governance to the business.”

For what it’s worth, this article is not the first one to try and unify these concepts in this way. John Miller previously wrote a nice article that relates these two concepts together neatly way before me.

Are we splitting hairs? Yup, totally. In fact the next section is really what is important.

It’s all in the attitude…

Joel talks about governance in terms of “defining a service offering” as well as “mitigating conflict within an organisation”. No objections to both of these arguments as that is not really assurance. But my own “high level” governance guides are usually 2-5 pages, and guess what? I define the service offering, the guiding principles and define the roles and then refer to the other documents where the bulk of the material ends up. More often than not, these documents are assurance oriented documents.

Let’s talk for a minute about the “mitigating conflict within an organisation”. If you have read my “project fail…” and especially the “one best practice” series of posts, the “conflict resolution” aims of governance is definitely not served by a “governance document”. This is the world of what Jeff Conklin calls social complexity – or put perhaps in a simpler way: people, strategy and politics.

This is where I differ slightly from Robert Bogue. I attended his Feb 09 Best Practices Conference session where he spoke of SharePoint governance as a process. I personally believe that SharePoint governance is more in common with a methodology, and should be looked at through similar lens to other methodologies, like Agile software development, PMBOK, SEI CMMI and the like. Agile is not considered a ‘process’, although process is a significant part of it. I think the difference is that a methodology requires attitude to support the process. It is the latter area where the problems are. Without the commitment to back up the process, “governance” will be nothing more than just another document that few will ever read and even less will understand.

A document cannot alone drive the shared commitment required to make governance work.

When you look at SharePoint governance through the “methodology lens”, you will see that the reasons for governance failure are the same as why methodologies themselves have a hit and miss fate. Most methodologies require significant attitude to support the rigour to succeed.

Lessons from Agile

Not so long ago, I spoke to SharePoint’s own Agile/TDD guru Andrew Woodward about the topic of rigour and attitude to make Scrum projects a success. I had read this terrific real life story on the attitude factor required in Agile and was interested in Andrew’s experience with this, specifically in the SharePoint realm. Andrew confirmed that attitude and shared commitment among the team were particularly critical. Here is what he had to say.

When discussing agile teams and why they fail, Malcom Gladwells theory about Broken Windows is often quoted.   The premise is that if a broken window is left unrepaired, people will conclude that no one cares and will stop caring themselves. This is a very relevant to agile development teams where they rely on team ownership; where the team as a whole have to care about what they are developing and the way it is developed.

Agile processes quickly start to fail if some team members don’t care;  the broken window could be something as seemingly small as a failed unit test not being fixed or continually forgetting what they did yesterday at the scrum, eventually if this broken window is not fixed other team members will stop caring and the team will reach their tipping point.

The rigor needed by all team members is significantly greater than traditionally applied to development,  the myths around lack of control and process could not be further from the truth.  To be successful with agile processes you need every team member to care

I think you would agree, that Andrew could have been talking about being successful with SharePoint itself. 

Finally something practical

I thought that I would end this post by being practical as the post thus far has been a bit of a theory-fest. If you take some lessons from why methodologies such as Agile/Scrum fail, then it is pretty easy to list some practices that are likely to help you with your SharePoint governance effort.

One size definitely does not fit all

• Organisations vary in terms of size, industry and culture. A template cannot possible cover all scenarios.
• It is unwise to submit Joel’s sample plan without a real concerted effort to make that plan your own

Systems thinking and commitment

• We all rely on each other in complex and implicit interdependencies. Without a shared understanding among all participants, you will not have shared commitment among participants.
• Without shared commitment, a governance plan is just another document that will be out of date within months.

Governance affects different participants in different ways

• Culture is only changed if strong leadership makes it so, or participant accountabilities are crystal clear and completely unambiguous; therefore
• Split accountability into service ownership (“service”, being the SharePoint platform, is the domain of the IT department) and the Information Asset ownership (the applications and running on the service) are the domains of the business; and
• Identify owners versus custodians. Make sure that owners realise they are *always* accountable, even if they delegate day to day operational matters to custodians. If something goes wrong, the finger is pointed at *owners*. This has the benefit of making them suddenly much more interested in service and information assurance.
• It is more than the geeks. Geeks are custodians 99% of the time. In fact, SharePoint chaos comes more from Information Architecture and poor strategic planning as much as from a poor installation.
• Communicating the governance plan to more than the geeks is paramount. We should work to keep at least the high level material in planning as buzzword free as possible, my grandma should be able to read this stuff.
• Provide training for custodians and owners (if an owner refuses, then they may not appreciate their accountabilities as described in the second point).

Use common sense

• It doesn’t have to be bigger than Ben Hur. Doggedly following the written word to the last letter ignores the cultural commitment required by participants to make it work
• People only want to read what applies to their responsibilities. Make your documentation relevant to the key roles.
• One big document is just like meeting minutes – most will never read it. Split the document up if you have to.
• User evangelism is a good thing; be too controlling and you will lose it. Once lost it takes a long time to recover (look at Microsoft who have spent years trying to win back support from the days when they acted like bullies in the marketplace).
• Why put in SharePoint and then use a paper based change control or configuration management system? 

Put the supporting structures in place

• Targeted training. For key roles in the governance framework bring someone into your organisation. Targeted training for this group is better than some generic course.

In short, attitude and commitment is a problem of social complexity. The documented plan is great, but that is unfortunately the tame bit.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hi again and welcome to the sixth and final post in this series aimed at enlightening readers to the often overlooked importance of shared understanding of a problem. For those of you who have come across this article for the first time, I suggest very strongly that you stop and read through its predecessors. There is a lot that was covered to get to here.

To recap, we have spent the last two posts delving into the deep structure of problems by using an issue based mapping method. This post will continue in that same vein, but I am going to move a little faster this time and cover more argumentation with a little less explanation. I’ll also finish off with some other interesting aspects to IBIS and dialogue mapping that we haven’t covered so far.

The first 4 posts were all about one of the key root causes of the organisational chaos that causes projects to go haywire, whether it is a SharePoint installation or trying to get the coffee machine fixed. I believe very strongly that if a group of participants can attain and maintain a sufficient level of shared understanding, then often what seemed like a polarising problem with intractable stakeholder positions, can start to make real progress toward resolution. The collective intelligence of a group is a powerful tool to be leveraged, but all too often it can be brought undone by social complexity and the inherent inefficiency of meetings. SharePoint is prone to social complexity because of its technical complexity, malleability and the fact that it is sold by Microsoft and they use that damn six pillar pie chart :-).

By the way IT people – your projects are rarely actually “wicked problems” in the true sense of the term. Until you have been involved in dialogue mapping a planning or social policy type problem with countless sub-issues and stakeholders, then you do not know just how good you have it! 🙂  In saying that, I recognise that many, if not all, IT projects have a lot of wicked elements to them.

Previously on CleverWorkarounds…

In my last post, we had developed an IBIS based issue map that I think is a reasonable reflection of a blog article written by Joel Oleson, incorporating some feedback by readers who disagreed with many of his points. What is great about Joel’s style of writing is that he likes to use headline grabbing titles for his articles. As a result of this, he stimulates rigorous debate and I could probably spend the rest of my days on CleverWorkarounds simply IBIS mapping his posts and all of the responses.

But, we haven’t finished issue mapping this site definitions thing, so let’s finish it off by mapping the rest of the responses. Below is a scaled down view of the map that we had by the end of part 5 (click to enlarge).

Now, let’s go through some more responses and work them into the issue map. First up was this incredible quote showing much wisdom and maturity. Who uttered such pearls of wisdom? Oh, wait, that was me  :-)!

Joel and I spoke about this earlier in the day actually before this was posted – I hate them also but accept their need in WCM scenarios.
My biased view of the world stems from a site that I visited where branding had been put above all else and so it was an undocumented site definition with custom controls, dodgy web.config hacks all running in full trust to make it all work. 2 days later and I had it migrated. But it was all so *unnecessary* and I think that’s Joel’s point. They get used when they shouldn’t.

The client in this case had never been shown columns, views, versioning and this was a document centric intranet for cryin’ out loud! Instead they get a pretty site with a 50gig content DB because of a hacked site definition with custom nav controls to look pretty, application.master hacks to make it consistent and no thought process into information architecture. They simply took their existing ugly filesystem and whacked it in!

Hmm, when you read my response, all I did was support Joel’s original assertion that site definitions are modified unnecessarily, so in essence I did not really add that much to the conversation and in fact the example that I used was a client who had way more issues than the custom site definition alone. So as it happens, my post really didn’t add anything *new* to the discussion.

Next we have this anonymous response:

In situations where lots of sites need to be created from one pattern and you want old sites to get new changes, site definitions are a must. As mentioned above, you can’t staple features to a template.

I think you’ve swung the pendulum too far with your comment. Yes, big, bulky, all encompassing site definitions aren’t very maintainable. So don’t use them this way! As AC and others have blogged about, create a blank site definition for stapling purposes, and package everything in features. You still need that first site definition though! STP’s are for end users, IMO, not for solution developers.

The quote above makes the important point that “if a lot of sites need to be created from one pattern” and “if you want old sites to get new changes”, then site definitions are pretty much required. I created an pro called “Single click deployment and upgrade” and then fleshed it out with the those ideas. The comment about pendulum is unimportant. Below is the new map

Next up Adam Toth makes an excellent, yet subjective counterpoint to the “difficult to upgrade” argument.

Since this is version 1.0 of Features, Solutions, Stapling, Content Types, Workflow, etc., I really believe that any upgrade to the next version is going to be a headache anyway. No matter what you did in sharepoint v1, it broke going to v2. v2 to v3 was also incredibly painful because the product changed so dramatically. We have no visibility into v4, and have no way to figure out what approach will make upgrades least painful. We can assume that things are starting to solidify, but there are no guarantees.

The above response from Adam questions the previous claim that site definitions “are difficult to upgrade and support” by arguing that upgrading will be difficult no matter what. I do not delete the original “difficult to upgrade and support” con, but incorporate Adam’s points as a new question “Really?” against the con, and then support that question with the idea that “Upgrading will be difficult anyway”. Adam supplied 3 arguments supporting his claim (many SharePoint components are V1, the previous versions were all painful upgrades and that we have no visibility into how the next SharePoint will work). Now the map looks like this.

Next is David Mann

Custom Site Definitions are a tool. Like any tool, they have benefits and drawbacks. Used properly, they provide much value. Used improperly, they cause pain.
Even the body of the article contradicts the sensationalist-headline by saying that there are some things you can’t do without a custom site def. The article of AC’s that this links to, and it’s comments, talk about a solution that is a totally blank CUSTOM SITE DEFINITION, that is then built up properly with Features/Solutions. They also mention publishing scenarios that the recommended approach is a custom site def.

So, the best approach is to do your homework. If a custom site def REALLY is the best approach, then feel free to use them. Just make it a conscious decision, knowing the trade-offs, not your default reaction because it’s easier.

At this point, it is time to add a new question to this map, as like other respondents, David is referencing Andrew Connell’s post on this subject. David mentions a specific application of site definitions (use a blank one and add to it with stapled features), which is in itself not a pro or con of site definitions, but a way of using them that mitigates many of the disadvantages of them.

Since we are IBIS, and we now have this new idea “Use a blank site definition with features/solutions”, and we need to infer the question behind the idea. My initial guess is “What is the best practice for using Site Definitions” and I have added it to the map as shown below. We could easily use Andrew Connell’s post on this subject to further flesh out the best practice for Site Definitions on this map, but for the sake of article size I have chosen to continue with the original responses to Joel’s post.

Chunk it up

At this point, the map is getting large and we need to make it more manageable. Fortunately, this is very easy using tools like Compendium. I simply create a new sub-map and copy the nodes to the sub map. In effect I start to build a hierarchy of the logic behind the argumentation. Below shows the top level argument map at this point, now chunked into sections. Each sub map “Discussion on the use of site definitions” and “Discussion on the use of site templates” is now in its own sub-map that is accessed by clicking on the parent map.

The final response that I will cover off for now is from SharePoint Yoda, Eric Shupps who writes a really excellent factual based response to the post.

There are many scenarios in which they are required:
1. Automated Provisioning – Self-contained solutions that have all necessary functionality baked in (think hosting and SAS models).
2. Repeatability – They migrate better from dev to staging to production better than any other method.
3. Maintainability – New Features can be added or removed as required and the solution upgraded. Try doing that with an STP file.
4. One Click Deployment – The user simply selects the proper definition on the site creation page, to which you can add descriptive text and sample images (what do you think all those other options are? They’re OOTB site defs, that’s what).
5. Control – Nothing beats a site def for restricting what features site owners can and cannot use. Very important in many enterprise environments.
6. Ease of use – There are lots of workarounds for the power and flexibility that site defs provide but all require a great deal more code than a simple site def with stapled features.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you’re wrong on this one. Next time, ask a developer with experience doing Site Definitions the proper way before you go off on an opinionated rant. I’d be happy to help!

Some of Eric’s arguments are already in the map, but not all of them. Furthermore, he further expands on some of the arguments that already are there. First up, I changed my original pro of “Single click deployment and upgrade” to “automated provisioning” because I think this captures that argument more succinctly. Even though Eric then lists “1 click deployment” as a separate criteria, I think they belong together and it’s my map! ;-).

Eric also highlighted “hosted” and ”software as a service” scenarios where automated provisioning is particularly important. Since I already have a nice string of argumentation, asking for criteria of when to use site definitions, I have added these as supporting arguments to this existing set of nodes.

“Repeatability” and “Control” are excellent points, and I have captured Eric’s arguments in this area. To make the idea clearer, I captured “Control” as “Tight administrative controls” as this is less ambiguous in its meaning than “control” alone.

Then Eric hits the one argument that no-one seems to agree on. “Ease of use”. Clearly Eric’s idea of ease of use is different to Joel’s. When you look at Eric’s supporting arguments for ease of use, it appears that he is really reiterating the “automated provisioning” pro for site definitions and supported the “more manual customisations needed” con for site templates.

The adjusted map for the site definitions idea has now morphed into this.

Emergent Themes

I am going to stop this IBIS map now because otherwise, I could spend another 5 posts just working through all of the contributions made by various people. But more importantly I want to highlight a few really important points that might get lost in all of the screen-shots.

One of the things that I notice when performing Dialogue Mapping with a group is that the action of utilising a shared display like IBIS allows people to make connections much more quickly and really starts to make clear some of the underlying themes behind the discussion. It is much quicker and more efficient for participants to achieve the necessary breakthroughs when argumentation is visually represented and lots of seemingly abstract concepts can be logically related to each other. It seems to be that as human beings, our brains are particularly well-wired to visual based representation.

I want you to picture yourself in a meeting scenario where we are discussing a problem. It doesn’t have to be a face to face meeting either (although this is usually the case). It can be a group collaborating on a problem using blogs, wikis, discussion forums or any other medium. Without the issue map, there will be a number of problems that will combine to derail the meeting.

First up, there is likely to be a lot of points that have been made. If we were following the meeting in a traditional, linear fashion the argumentation would look something like this:

What you are looking at above is in effect, a visual version of traditional meeting minutes. (You know those documents that get sent around that you never read?). This also is not too dissimilar to the structure of a blog post (and the subsequent comments). Contrast this to the issue map that uses an issue based structure that makes the logic and flow of the conversation visible. Which is more meaningful? Which is easier to “read”?

For a start, people do not have to decipher any convoluted dialogue – we do not spend half the meeting disagreeing and then realising that we are actually talking about the same thing. The objectifying of the dialogue reduces those situations where the defences are high because people have inferred some bias that can easily be misconstrued. Different points of view are made much clearer and we do not continually revisit the same old topics over and over again. As the argumentation is further fleshed out, participants are much less likely to get lost or lose track of the conversation. Even if they do, we have a beautiful ‘corporate memory’ system here that is starting to form. Just because one person wants to return to a previous point and ask a question or add an argument to it, doesn’t mean that the next person has to take up this point at his or her turn. They can jump to wherever in the map their current train of thought takes them.

Death by repetition is also mitigated nicely. Death by repetition is those times in a meeting where there is a “true believer” who believes very strongly in a course of action to the point that they will find a way to work their answer into every question asked. Don’t feel too guilty when reading that – we all have done this.  Of course, it annoys the crap out of everybody else present, but the true believer will doggedly persist because they feel that their answer has not been considered enough or given the recognition that it deserves. But once captured on the issue map, the idea is visible and has equal footing to all of the other ideas. If the true believer persists, then the mapper simply asks the true believer if they have anything more to add to what is there already. Usually this only happens once :-).

There are other phenomena that are guaranteed to derail a meeting, usually leaving all participants emerging from the meeting annoyed that they never got to the actual agenda. Conklin calls this “grenade lobbing” and this is where a participant, usually with the defence drawbridge raised, will challenge the whole frame of the meeting. “That is not the real issue here”, they will explain, “it is this”. (Remember wicked problem rule number 8, every problem is a symptom of another problem). Every time you have emerged from a meeting, feeling deflated and wondering what happened to the agenda, chances are a few grenades were lobbed and the entire purpose for coming together was caught up on a tangent.

But issue mapping makes dealing with this easier too. Usually when a grenade is lobbed, where the frame of the meeting is challenged, it means that the root question of the map is not correct. Fortunately with an issue map, the answer is quite easy. You simply shift the map to the right and work with the grenade lobber to infer the deeper question. Once captured, the group can continue to work with the implications of this new question or continue to work with the rest of the map. The previous disruptive power of the grenade lob is significantly mitigated.

Final Note – Tech geeks vs Developers

I previously said that performing Dialogue Mapping and IBIS allows people to make logical connections much more quickly and really start to clear some of the underlying themes behind the discussion. This “Joel vs developers on site definitions” example that I have been working with was actually not a great IBIS example. The reason is that if we had started the entire conversation using IBIS, then a lot of the subsequent argumentation would have been very different. If say, Joel had used IBIS to structure his arguments to begin with, apart from making my job a lot easier, the map would have underpinned a very different blog post in structure and clarity of argument.

But despite the somewhat artificial nature of my example, from the mapping that we have performed so far it is clear to me that the two distinct viewpoints have emerged. This argument cuts to the heart of the IT Pro vs Developer world. Certainly a strong indication of this was the disagreement behind what is actually “easier”. It seemed that Joel’s easier is very different to the developer view of “easier”. Of course, we haven’t even counted the other stakeholders either and I bet the end-users’ definition of “easier” would be completely different from the two themes that emerged.

I personally come from an IT pro background and IT pro’s have become paranoid types because they are always the ones who have to deal with the after-effects of bad customisations (See the “mother hen reflex” post for how that has come to be). But through mapping this issue out, I was able to make some definite connections with the developer centric replies too. I didn’t necessarily agree with all of the points made, but I now have a much better understanding of their point of view.

At the end of the day, understanding those points of view is going to give you that shared commitment required to see a problem through to an effective a solution.

Well that is it for this series. I hope that you found it of some use and welcome any feedback. Since I am a trained, practicing and designated Dialogue Mapper, expect to see a lot more IBIS on CleverWorkarounds and Seven Sigma over the coming months.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Hi again and welcome to the fifth article on this series of posts on the topic of group sense-making and the pursuit of shared understanding among a group of participants trying to solve a problem. If you haven’t read the previous articles of this series, then I strongly recommend you go back and read the previous articles in order.

If you have read through the first 4 posts, you should have a pretty good appreciation now for the sort of “lens” that I view the world of problems and the projects undertaken to try and solve those problems. You should also have a pretty solid appreciation of the concept of wicked problems, their characteristics, and the ways and means that those characteristics can turn a happy project into a toxic wasteland, destroying all of the initial enthusiasm and commitment among the participants. Microsoft’s Jason Guthridge recently nailed SharePoint’s place in it all when he wrote the immutable law of SharePoint that “By itself, SharePoint can neither create nor destroy organizational chaos, but does an excellent job of reflecting the level of organizational chaos that existed at the time of deployment” – hehe love that!

I approach all my engagements these days from the point of view that project failure is not due to a lack of rigour or governance around any project management methodology. More often than not, the root cause is in “organisational chaos” and this is *not* a process problem. It all boils down to the fact that shared understanding among a diverse team is an illusive goal which is deceptively difficult to achieve and maintain. That is because SharePoint’s technical complexity gives rise to social complexity. At the end of the day, we all have vastly varying behavioural and learning styles, we all come from varying organisational cultures, have different skills in varying disciplines and have different value sets and life skills. A collaborative platform almost by definition forces us to confront and work through this social complexity and that is where chaos and wicked problem characteristics find a fertile breeding ground.

It is this same underlying social complexity that makes SharePoint governance so hard. That is because governance at its essence is about accountabilities and risk. In short, governance is an attitude and the fact that it is a shared responsibility among participants gives rise to those same “people issues”.

But of course, none of this is helped by the common misdiagnosis that project failure is a failure of process. Although I believe that process is part of the answer, when we look at project failure as a process issue only, we inevitably apply process oriented tools and methods to get things back on track. But if you agree with me that a lot of the time, the real issue is the lack of shared understanding among participants, then it is clear that we are missing a critical step before we dive into process oriented solutions. How do we know that we are all on the same page? Will a 40 page project charter and project management plan do the trick? History tells us fairly convincingly that the answer is no.

Thus, in my last post I described IBIS (Issue based Information System). IBIS is an issue based argumentation system developed in the 1970’s by Horst Rittel and further refined by Jeff Conklin. I described the craft of Dialogue Mapping – a *practical* method that leverages a simple grammar and a shared display, to help groups gain understanding of complex problems right at the very beginning of the journey. This prevents the usual problem of jumping past the sense-making phase too quickly by diving headlong into process and rigour. Even before a project charter is committed to paper, IBIS fills that sense-making void that most of the other methodologies presume exists, but is rarely there in sufficient detail.

For an interesting little experiment, if you have found this series to your liking, now go back and look at your last project management plan and specifically re-read the charter and problem statement. Is it more than two paragraphs? Would all stakeholders read it and then tell you the exact same understanding of the problem being solved?

More IBIS and Issue Mapping

Now if you recall part 4, I created an IBIS issue map to demonstrate the arguments made by Joel Oleson some time back, when he wrote an article that was originally entitled “Just say no to site definitions”. It caused some vigorous debate at the time, and I demonstrated how I was able to both simplify and objectify Joel’s post into a simple issue map that was very easy for any reader to understand. That map is below and this is our starting point for part 5. Have a good look and if you need a refresher on how it was created, refer to part 4.

Now it is time to map some of the counter arguments made by those who responded to Joel’s ideas. The first response was anonymous and made various counter points. Let’s take a look at the first half of the counter spray :-).

Are you serious? You prefer STP files over a custom site definition? Man, you obviously have never had to try to build a solution around STP files before.

• For one, you can’t feature staple to an STP file, so you are simply limited to the manual UI customizations. To run automation when a site is created, you need to use a site definition with a provision handler or feature stapling.
• STP files are buggy, and sometimes you will randomly get errors like this one in your navigation bars: http://www.sharepoint-tips.com/2007/09/wrokaround-error-in-navigation-when.html
• STP Files do not support sites with the publishing feature activated.
• STP files do not package all your settings, especially content type visibility and column visibility on lists and
  libraries: http://www.sharepointblogs.com/toth/archive/2008/08/08/the-problem-with-content-types-and-columns-part-2.aspx
• If an STP relies on elements from other higher-level sites or lower-level subsites, good luck.

The first line of the response is actually very interesting from an IBIS nerd viewpoint because and it a perfect example of social complexity playing out and it made decide to change major aspects of the map. The above respondent immediately honed in on something that wasn’t actually all that clear to me to begin with. When I first mapped Joel’s statement in part 4, I never actually put the idea of using site templates into the issue map. Why? because Joel never actually suggested it! The closest he came was the statement “Site Templates as tough to work with as they are, are better than custom site definitions”. But I interpreted this as using the example of site templates to highlight the complexity shortcomings of site definitions. I simply captured the argument of “complexity”, supporting the idea “Do not use site definitions”.

But look here! Our first respondent interpreted it completely differently to me. They inferred (likely correctly) that Joel prefers site templates over site definitions. But the response then takes a shot at Joel’s credibility.

Are you serious? You prefer STP files over a custom site definition? Man, you obviously have never had to try to build a solution around STP files before

If that exchange happened in a meeting, you may as well call it quits, because it would be very likely that very little valuable dialogue would be obtained after such an exchange. Participants are on the defensive and the meeting will likely get derailed on this tangent. But this is a terrific example of how using IBIS grammar is extremely effective at teasing out ambiguous or poorly formed argumentation, thereby removing the “sting” out of these sorts of debates.

So what should this map look like then? Below is a new version with a few key adjustments.

The most obvious change that I have made to the argumentation presented above is Joel’s original idea. I have removed the negative connotation of “Do not use site definitions” to “Use site definitions”. As a result, the previous pros now become cons, because they are no longer supporting the idea. I did this because I have also added the idea “Use Site Templates”, so now we have presented the two ideas without any inferred bias and can simply examine the characteristics, pros and cons of each idea.

For what it’s worth, engineers sometimes unconsciously word questions in a manner that non engineers find biased because of the implied connotation. You can read more about this in my “it’s all how you ask the question” post.

Finally, I also removed the “there are easier alternatives” pro from the map altogether. I did this because this argument has became somewhat redundant. Note how we are now exploring all of the alternatives as separate ideas in the map anyway. More importantly, what does “easier” mean anyway? What is “easier” for an IT pro type person like Joel may be very different to what is “easier” for a SharePoint developer”.

Stepping back

The ability to restructure a map on the fly is one of the key benefits of IBIS. A skilled IBIS practitioner is able to quickly restructure the map as the conversation moves around the various topics, all the time leveraging collective intelligence of the group as they dissect the problem together.

Another key improvement from the previous map is that we have further objectified things. Our first respondent also supplied some great factual counter arguments to Joel, but hid it behind an initial barb that could easily be inferred as a cheap shot.

Nevertheless, here is the portion of the map with showing the additional argumentation from the respondent about using site templates. Now we are getting somewhere!

Let’s examine each of the statements of the respondent. All of the arguments made were dumping on site templates in some way, so we capture them as cons to the “Use site templates” idea. The respondent actually did a very good job with his arguments and they were very easy to add to the map.

• The statement “For one, you can’t feature staple to an STP file, so you are simply limited to the manual UI customizations. To run automation when a site is created, you need to use a site definition with a provision handler or feature stapling”, is a bundled up statement. There is the con argument “feature stapling cannot be used”, with an implication of that argument being “Can only customise manually”. I broke that out into three IBIS elements
• “STP files are buggy, and sometimes you will randomly get errors like this one in your navigation bars” is stating that there are bugs, and supports that argument by stating a specific example of one. I split this out into separate IBIS elements and additionally linked to the specific example.
• “STP Files do not support sites with the publishing feature activated” is a nice, simple argument that I captured as “Not supported with the publishing feature”.
• “STP files do not package all your settings, especially content type visibility and column visibility on lists and libraries” is again a nice counter argument backed up with examples.
• Finally, the comment “If an STP relies on elements from other higher-level sites or lower-level subsites, good luck”, is in effect stating a counter argument that site template files to not handle dependencies. In case this paraphrased statement is ambiguous, I added additional detail to this node with the original argument as shown below.

More arguments against?

Below is the rest of the response that is nowhere near as clear as the first half. Let’s drill down…

I disagree, I think it is lazy devs that want to use an STP file, instead of creating a custom site definition, just like it’s laziness to create a content type through the UI for a custom solution instead of in XML with a feature (which can then easily be moved from environment to environment).
And honestly, is it really easier to go through the machinations to customize the MySite template as recommended here (http://blogs.msdn.com/sharepoint/archive/2007/03/22/customizing-moss-2007-my-sites-within-theenterprise.aspx) to simply move a few web parts around, rather than just make a tweak to the original site definition? Honestly which is less maintenance for a customer, a quick documented change to an XML file in a folder, or a Feature+WebControl+Custom master page+stsadm commands to activate etc.?

I think you are way off base here, and painting with broad brushes.
(I do agree with zero footprint efforts, and only editing built-in site definitions for tiny tweaks).

The first argument is actually now a moot point. Joel did indulge in a bit of developer bashing in his post (and who doesn’t enjoy a bit of that from time to time) and this respondent is simply reacting to that. But since I have already objectified Joel’s original point then arguments about “lazy developers” is actually answering a different question altogether and does not belong here.

I previously removed Joel’s “it is easier” argument and what do we see here? We see the respondent questioning what is “easier”! This respondent argues that a documented tweak is “easier” than applying manual changes. Once again in a real meeting I can see where this would go. One party would probably then say “yeah but you lazy devs never document it” and we are off into a conversational tangent that will not achieve much. So like Joel’s arguments earlier, I am removing the “my easier is better then your easier” arguments.

What’s left? Well, pretty much this entire bit of the conversation is talking about how much manual work is involved to manage changes when not utilising site definitions. So we can summarise this counter argument as “more manual customisation needed”. When I look at the map, I see that our existing argument “feature stapling cannot be used” is actually an example of this. So the adjusted arguments against site definitions now look like the map below. Note how I have removed the con of “Feature stapling cannot be used” and reworked it as an example of a new con, called “More manual customisations needed”. This now looks better.

And finally for now, I have this consolidated map to represent our current understanding of the question “What should the best practice be around SharePoint customisation”. There are still other counterpoints, and we still have to add the pro argument into the map too. But by now, you should be getting the idea. Imagine yourself having this discussion in a meeting. Would this map, displayed on a projector have helped keep the meeting on track?

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au