Hi all

Welcome to my fifth post that delves into the irrational world of cloud computing. After examining the not-so-obvious aspects of Microsoft, Amazon and the industry more broadly, its time to shift focus a little. Now the appeal of the cloud really depends on your perspective. To me, there are three basic motivations for getting in on the act…

1. I can make a buck
2. I can save a buck
3. I can save a buck (and while I am at it, escape my pain-in-the-ass IT department)

If you haven’t guessed it, this post will examine #3, and look at what the cloud means for the the perennial issue of the IT department and business disconnect. I recently read an article over at CIO magazine where they coined the term “Server Huggers” to describe the phenomenon I am about to describe. So to set the flavour for this discussion, let me tell you about the biggest secret in organisational life…

We all have an identity crisis (so get over it).

In organizations, there are roles that I would call transactional (i.e. governed by process and clear KPI’s) and those that are knowledge-based (governed by gut feel and insight). Whilst most roles actually entail both of these elements, most of us in SharePoint land are the latter. In fact we actually spend a lot of time in meeting rooms “strategizing” the solutions that our more transactionally focused colleagues will be using to meet their KPI’s. Beyond SharePoint, this also applies to Business Analysts, Information Architects, Enterprise Architects, Project Managers and pretty much anyone with the word “senior”, “architect”, “analyst”  or “strategic” in their job title.

But there is a big, fat, elephant in the “strategizing room” of certain knowledge worker roles that is at the root of some irrational organisational behaviour. Many of us are suffering a role-based identity crisis. To explain this, lets pick a straw-man example of one of the most conflicted roles of all right now: Information Architects.

One challenge with the craft of IA is pace of change, since IA today looks very different from its library and taxonomic roots. Undoubtedly, it will look very different ten years from now too as it gets assailed from various other roles and perspectives, each believing their version of rightness is more right. Consider this slightly abridged quote from Joshua Porter:

Worse, the term “information architecture” has over time come to encompass, as suggested by its principal promoters, nearly every facet of not just web design, but Design itself. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the latest update of Rosenfeld and Morville’s O’Reilly title, where the definition has become so expansive that there is now little left that isn’t information architecture […] In addition, the authors can’t seem to make up their minds about what IA actually is […] (a similar affliction pervades the SIGIA mailing list, which has become infamous for never-ending definition battles.) This is not just academic waffling, but evidence of a term too broadly defined. Many disciplines often reach out beyond their initial borders, after catching on and gaining converts, but IA is going to the extreme. One technologist and designer I know even referred to this ever-growing set of definitions as the “IA land-grab”, referring to the tendency that all things Design are being redefined as IA.

You can tell when a role is suffering an identity crisis rather easily too. It is when people with the current role start to muse that the title no longer reflects what they do and call for new roles to better reflect the environment they find themselves in. Evidence for this exists further in Porter’s post. Check out the line I marked with bold below:

In addition, this shift is already happening to information architects, who, recognizing that information is only a byproduct of activity, increasingly adopt a different job title. Most are moving toward something in the realm of “user experience”, which is probably a good thing because it has the rigor of focusing on the user’s actual experience. Also, this as an inevitable move, given that most IAs are concerned about designing great things. IA Scott Weisbrod, sees this happening too: “People who once identified themselves as Information Architects are now looking for more meaningful expressions to describe what they do – whether it’s interaction architect or experience designer”

So while I used the example of Information Architects as an example of how pace of change causes an identity crisis, the advent of the cloud doesn’t actually cause too many IA’s (or whatever they choose to call themselves) to lose too much sleep. But there are other knowledge-worker roles that have not really felt the effects of change in the same way as their IA cousins. In fact, for the better part of twenty years one group have actually benefited greatly from pace of change. Only now is the ground under their feet starting to shift, and the resulting behaviours are starting to reflect the emergence of an identity crisis that some would say is long overdue.

IT Departments and the cloud

At a SharePoint Saturday in 2011, I was on a panel and we were asked by an attendee what effect Office 365 and other cloud based solutions might have on a traditional IT infrastructure role. This person asking was an infrastructure guy and his question was essentially around how his role might change as cloud solutions becomes more and more mainstream. Of course, all of the SharePoint nerds on the panel didn’t want to touch that question with a bargepole and all heads turned to me since apparently I am “the business guy”. My reply was that he was sensing a change – commoditisation of certain aspects of IT roles. Did that mean he was going to lose his job? Unlikely, but nevertheless when  change is upon us, many of us tend to place more value on what we will lose compared to what we will gain. Our defence mechanisms kick in.

But lets take this a little further: The average tech guy comes in two main personas. The first is the tech-cowboy who documents nothing, half completes projects then loses interest, is oblivious to how much they are in over their head and generally gives IT a bad name. They usually have a lot of intellectual intelligence (IQ), but not so much emotional intelligence (EQ). Ben Curry once referred to this group as “dumb smart guys.” The second persona is the conspiracy theorist who had to clean up after such a cowboy. This person usually has more skills and knowledge than the first guy, writes documentation and generally keeps things running well. Unfortunately, they also can give IT a bad name. This is because, after having to pick up the pieces of something not of their doing, they tend to develop a mother hen reflex based on a pathological fear of being paged at 9pm to come in and recover something they had no part in causing. The aforementioned cowboys rarely last the distance and therefore over time, IT departments begin to act as risk minimisers, rather than business enablers.

Now IT departments will never see it this way of course, instead believing that they enable the business because of their risk minimisation. Having spent 20 years being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, security-type IT guy, I totally get why this happens as I was the living embodiment of this attitude for a long time. Technology is getting insanely complex while users innate ability to do some really risky and dumb is increasing. Obviously, such risk needs to be managed and accordingly, a common characteristic of such an IT department is the word “no” to pretty much any question that involves introducing something new (banning iPads or espousing the evils of DropBox are the best examples I can think of right now). When I wrote about this issue in the context of SharePoint user adoption back in 2008, I had this to say:

The mother hen reflex should be understood and not ridiculed, as it is often the user’s past actions that has created the reflex. But once ingrained, the reflex can start to stifle productivity in many different ways. For example, for an employee not being able to operate at full efficiency because they are waiting 2 days for a helpdesk request to be actioned is simply not smart business. Worse still, a vicious circle emerges. Frustrated with a lack of response, the user will take matters into their own hands to improve their efficiency. But this simply plays into the hands of the mother hen reflex and for IT this reinforces the reason why such controls are needed. You just can’t trust those dog-gone users! More controls required!

The long term legacy of increasing technical complexity and risk is that IT departments become slow-moving and find it difficult to react to pace of change. Witness the number of organisations still running parts of their business on Office 2003, IE6 and Windows XP. The rest of the organisation starts to resent using old tools and the imposition of process and structure for no tangible gain. The IT department develops a reputation of being difficult to deal with and taking ages to get anything done. This disconnect begins to fester, and little by little both IT and “the business” develop a rose-tinged view of themselves (which is known as groupthink) and a misguided perception of the other.

At the end of the day though, irrespective of logic or who has the moral high ground in the debate, an IT department with a poor reputation will eventually lose. This is because IT is no longer seen as a business enabler, but as a cost-center. Just as organisations did with the IT outsourcing fad over the last decade, organisational decision makers will read CIO magazine articles about server huggers look longingly to the cloud, as applications become more sophisticated and more and more traditional vendors move into the space, thus legitimising it. IT will be viewed, however unfairly, as a burden where the cost is not worth the value realised. All the while, to conservative IT, the cloud represents some of their worst fears realised. Risk! risk! risk! Then the vicious circle of the mother-hen reflex will continue because rogue cloud applications will be commissioned without IT knowledge or approval. Now we are back to the bad old days of rogue MSAccess or SharePoint deployments that drives the call for control based governance in the first place!

<nerd interlude>

Now to the nerds reading this post who find it incredibly frustrating that their organisation will happily pump money into some cloud-based flight of fancy, but whine when you want to upgrade the network, I want you to take take note of this paragraph as it is really (really) important! I will tell you the simple reason why people are more willing to spend more money on fluffy marketing than IT. In the eyes of a manager who needs to make a profit, sponsoring a conference or making the reception area look nice is seen as revenue generating. Those who sign the cheques do not like to spend capital on stuff unless they can see that it directly contributes to revenue generation! Accordingly, a bunch of servers (and for that matter, a server room) are often not considered expenditure that generates revenue but are instead considered overhead! Overhead is something that any smart organisation strives to reduce to remain competitive. The moral of the story? Stop arguing cloud vs. internal on what direct costs are incurred because people will not care! You would do much better to demonstrate to your decision makers that IT is not an overhead. Depending on how strong your mother hen reflex is and how long it has been in place, that might be an uphill battle.

</nerd interlude>

Defence mechanisms…

Like the poor old Information Architect, the rules of the game are changing for IT with regards to cloud solutions. I am not sure how it will play out, but I am already starting to see the defence mechanisms kicking in. There was a CIO interviewed in the “Server Huggers” article that I referred to earlier (Scott Martin) who was hugely pro-cloud. He suggested that many CIO’s are seeing cloud solutions as a threat to the empire they have built:

I feel like a lot of CIOs are in the process of a kind of empire building.  IT empire builders believe that maintaining in-house services helps justify their importance to the company. Those kinds of things are really irrational and not in the best interest of the company […] there are CEO’s who don’t know anything about technology, so their trusted advisor is the guy trying to protect his job.

A client of mine in Sydney told me he enquired to his IT department about the use of hosted SharePoint for a multi-organisational project and the reply back was a giant “hell no,” based primarily on fear, uncertainty and doubt. With IT, such FUD is always cloaked in areas of quite genuine risk. There *are* many core questions that we must ask cloud vendors when taking the plunge because to not do so would be remiss (I will end this post with some of those questions). But the key issue is whether the real underlying reason behind those questions is to shut down the debate or to genuinely understand the risks and implications of moving to the cloud.

How can you tell an IT department is likely using a FUD defence? Actually, it is pretty easily because conservative IT is very predictable – they will likely try and hit you with what they think is their slam-dunk counter argument first up. Therefore, they will attempt to bury the discussion with the US Patriot Act Issue. I’ve come across this issue and and Mark Miller at FPWeb mentioned to me that this comes up all the time when they talk about SharePoint hosting to clients. (I am going to cover the Patriot Act issue in the next post because it warrants a dedicated post).

If the Patriot Act argument fails to dent unbridled cloud enthusiasm, the next layer of defence is to highlight cloud based security (identity, authentication and compliance) as well as downtime risk, citing examples such as the September outage of Office 365, SalesForce.com’s well publicized outages, the Amazon outage that took out Twitter, Reddit, Foursquare, Turntable.fm, Netflix and many, many others. The fact that many IT departments do not actually have the level of governance and assurance of their systems that they aspire to will be conveniently overlooked. 

Failing that, the last line of defence is to call into question the commercial viability of cloud providers. We talked about the issues facing the smaller players in the last post, but It is not just them. What if the provider decides to change direction and discontinue a service? Google will likely be cited, since it has a habit of axing cloud based services that don’t reach enough critical mass (the most recent casualty is Google health being retired as I write this).  The risk of a cloud provider going out of business or withdrawing a service is a much more serious risk than when a software supplier fails. At least when its on premise you still have the application running and can use it.

Every FUD defence is based on truth…

Now as I stated above, all of the concerns listed above are genuine things to consider before embarking on a cloud strategy. Prudent business managers and CIOs must weigh the pros and cons of cloud offering before rushing into a deployment that may not be appropriate for their organisation. Equally though, its important to be able to see through a FUD defence when its presented. The easiest way to do this is do some of your own investigations first.

To that end, you can save yourself a heap of time by checking out the work of Richard Harbridge. Richard did a terrific cloud talk at the most recent Share 2011 conference. You can view his slide deck here and I recommend really going through slides 48-81. He has provided a really comprehensive summary of considerations and questions to ask. Among other things, he offered a list of questions that any organisation should be asking providers of cloud services. I have listed some of them below and encourage you to check out his slide deck as it is really comprehensive and covers way more than what I have covered here.

Conclusion and looking forward…

For some organisations, the lure of cloud solutions is very seductive. From a revenue perspective, it saves a lot of capital expenditure. From a time perspective, it can be deployed very quickly and and from a maintenance perspective, takes the burden away from IT. Sounds like a winner when put that way. But the real issue is that the changing cloud paradigm potentially impacts the wellbeing of some IT professionals and IT departments because it calls into question certain patterns and practices within established roles. It also represents a loss of control and as I said earlier, people often place a higher value on what they will lose compared to what they will gain.

Irrespective of this, whether you are a new age cloud loving CIO or a server hugger, any decision to move to the cloud should be about real business outcomes. Don’t blindly accept what the sales guy tells you. Understand the risks as well as the benefits. Leverage the work Richard has done and ask the cloud providers the hard questions. Look for real world stories (like my second and third articles in this series) which illustrate where the services have let people down.

For some, cloud will be very successful. For others, the gap between expectations and reality will come with a thud.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

www.hereticsguidebooks.com

Hi all

Welcome to the fourth post about the adaptive change that cloud computing is going to have on practitioners, paradigms and organisations. The previous two posts took a look at some of the dodgier side of two of the industries biggest players, Microsoft and Amazon. While I have highlighted some dumb issues with both, I nevertheless have to acknowledge their resourcing, scalability, and ability to execute. On that point of ability to execute, in this post we are going to expand a little towards the cloud industry more broadly and the inevitable consolidation that is, and will continue to take place.

Now to set the scene, a lot of people know that in the early twentieth century, there were a lot of US car manufacturers. I wonder if you can take a guess at the number of defunct car manufacturers there have been before and after that time.

…Fifty?

…One Hundred?

Not even close…

What if I told you that there were over 1700!

Here is another interesting stat. The table below shows the years where manufacturers went bankrupt or ceased operations. Below that I have put the average shelf life of each company for that decade.

Now, you would expect that the bulk of closures would be depression era, but note that the depression did not start until the late 1920’s and during the boom times that preceded it, 660 manufactures went to the wall – a worse result!

The pattern of consolidation

What I think the above table shows is the classic pattern of industry consolidation after an initial phase of innovation and expansion, where over time, the many are gobbled by the few. As the number of players consolidate, those who remain grow bigger, with more resources and economies of scale. This in turn creates barriers to entry for new participants. Accordingly, the rate of attrition slows down, but that is more due to the fact that there are fewer players in the industry. Those that are left continue to fight their battles, but now those battles take longer. Nevertheless, as time goes on, the number of players consolidate further.

If we applied a cloud/web hosting paradigm to the above table, I would equate the dotcom bust of 2000 with the depression era of the 1920’s and 1930’s. I actually think with cloud computing, we are in the 1960’s and on right now. The largest of the large players have how made big bets on the cloud and have entered the market in a big, big way. For more than a decade, other companies hosted Microsoft technology, with Microsoft showing little interest beyond selling licenses via them. Now Microsoft themselves are also the hosting provider. Does that mean most the hosting providers will have the fate of Netscape? Or will they manage to survive the dance with Goliath like Citrix or VMWare have?

For those who are not Microsoft or Amazon…

Imagine you have been hosting SharePoint solutions for a number of years. Depending on your size, you probably own racks or a cage in some-one else’s data centre, or you own a small data centre yourself. You have some high end VMWare gear to underpin your hosting offerings and you do both managed SharePoint (i.e. offer a basic site collection subscription with no custom stuff – ala Office 365) and you offer dedicated virtual machines for those who want more control (ala Amazon). You have dutifully paid your service provider licensing to Microsoft, have IT engineers on staff, some SharePoint specialists, a helpdesk and some dodgy sales guys – all standard stuff and life is good. You had a crack at implementing SharePoint multi tenancy, but found it all a bit too fiddly and complex.

Then Amazon comes along and shakes things up with their IaaS offerings. They are cost competitive, have more data centres in more regions, a higher capacity, more fault tolerance, a wider variety of services and can scale more than you can. Their ability to execute in terms of offering new services is impossible to keep up with. In short, they slowly but relentlessly take a chunk of the market and continue to grow. So, you naturally counter by pushing the legitimate line that you specialise in SharePoint, and as a result customers are in much more trusted hands than Amazon, when investing on such a complex tool as SharePoint.

But suddenly the game changes again. The very vendor who you provide cloud-based SharePoint services for, now bundles it with Exchange, Lync and offers Active Directory integration (yeah, yeah, I know there was BPOS but no-one actually heard of that). Suddenly the argument that you are a safer option than Amazon is shot down by the fact that Microsoft themselves now offer what you do. So whose hands are safer? The small hosting provider with limited resources or the multinational with billions of dollars in the bank who develops the product? Furthermore, given Microsoft’s advantage in being able to mobilise its knowledge resources with deep product knowledge, they have a richer managed service offering than you can offer (i.e. they offer multi tenancy :).

This puts you in a bit of a bind as you are getting assailed at both ends. Amazon trumps you in the capabilities at the IaaS end and is encroaching in your space and Microsoft is assailing the SaaS end. How does a small fish survive in a pond with the big ones? In my opinion, the mid-tier SharePoint cloud providers will have to reinvent themselves.

The adaptive change…

So for the mid-tier SharePoint cloud provider grappling with the fact that their play area is reduced because of the big kids encroaching, there is only one option. They have to be really, really good in areas the big kids are not good at. In SharePoint terms, this means they have to go to places many don’t really want to go: they need to bolster their support offerings and move up the SharePoint stack.

You see, traditionally a SharePoint hosting provider tends to take two approaches. They provide a managed service where the customer cannot mess with it too much (i.e. Site collection admin access only). For those who need more than that, they will offer a virtual machine and wipe their hands of any maintenance or governance, beyond ensuring that  the infrastructure is fast and backed up. Until now, cloud providers could get away with this and the reason they take this approach should be obvious to anyone who has implemented SharePoint. If you don’t maintain operational governance controls, things can rapidly get out of hand. Who wants to deal with all that “people crap”? Besides, that’s a different skill set to typical skills required to run and maintain cloud services at the infrastructure layer.

So some cloud providers will kick and scream about this, and delude themselves into thinking that hosting and cloud services are their core business. For those who think this, I have news for you. The big boys think these are their core business too and they are going to do it better than you. This is now commodity stuff and a by-product of commoditisation is that many SharePoint consultancies are now cloud providers anyway! They sign up to Microsoft or Amazon and are able to provide a highly scalable SharePoint cloud service with all the value added services further up the SharePoint stack. In short, they combine their SharePoint expertise with Microsoft/Amazon’s scale.

Now on the issue of support, Amazon has no specific SharePoint skills and they never will. They are first and foremost a compelling IaaS offering. Microsoft’s support? … go and re-read part 2 if you want to see that. It seems that no matter the big multinational, level 1 tech support is always level 1 tech support.

So what strategies can a mid-tier provider take to stay competitive in this rapidly commoditising space. I think one is to go premium and go niche.

• Provide brilliant support. If I call you, day or night, I expect to speak to a SharePoint person straight away. I want to get to know them on a first name basis and I do not want to fight the defence mechanism of the support hierarchy.
• Partner with SharePoint consultancies or acquire consulting resources. The latter allows you to do some vertical integration yourself and broaden your market and offerings. A potential KPI for any SharePoint cloud provider should be that no support person ever says “sorry that’s outside the scope of what we offer.”
• Develop skills in the tools and systems that surround SharePoint or invest in SharePoint areas where skills are lacking. Examples include Project Server, PerformancePoint, integration with GIS, Records management and ERP systems. Not only will you develop competencies that few others have, but you can target particular vertical market segments who use these tools.
• (Controversial?) Dump your infrastructure and use Amazon in conjunction with another IaaS provider. You just can’t compete with their scale and price point. If you use them you will likely save costs, when combined with a second provider you can play the resiliency card and best of all … you can offer VPC 🙂

Conclusion

In the last two posts we looked at some of the areas where both Microsoft and Amazon sometimes struggle to come to grips with the SharePoint cloud paradigm. In this post, we took a look at other cloud providers having to come to grips with the SharePoint cloud paradigm of having to compete with these two giants, who are clearly looking to eke out as much value as they can from the cloud pie. Whether you agree with my suggested strategy (Rackspace appears to), the pattern of the auto industry serves as an interesting parallel to the cloud computing marketplace. Is the relentless consolidation a good thing? Probably not in the long term (we will tackle that issue in the last post in this series). In the next post, we are going to shift our focus away from the cloud providers themselves, and turn our gaze to the internal IT departments – who until now, have had it pretty good. As you will see, a big chunk of the irrational side of cloud computing comes from this area.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

My next door neighbour is a builder. When he moved next door, the house was an old piece of crap. Within 6 months, he completely renovated it himself, adding in two bedrooms, an underground garage and all sorts of cool stuff. On the other hand, I bought my house because it was a good location, someone had already renovated it and all we had to do was move in. The reason for this was simple: I had a new baby and more importantly, me and power tools do not mix. I just don’t have the skills, nor the time to do what my neighbour did.

You can probably imagine what would happen if I tried to renovate my house the way my neighbour did. It would turn out like the Ikea fails in the video. Similarly, many SharePoint installs tend to look similar to the video too. Moral of the story? Sometimes it is better to get something pre-packaged than to do it yourself.

In the last post, we examined the “Software as a Service” (SaaS) model of cloud computing in the form of Office 365. Other popular SaaS providers include SlideShare, Salesforce, Basecamp and Tom’s Planner to name a few. Most SaaS applications are browser based and not as feature rich or complex as their on-premise competition. Therefore the SaaS model is that its a bit like buying a kit home. In SaaS, no user of these services ever touches the underlying cloud infrastructure used to provide the solution, nor do they have a full mandate to tweak and customise to their hearts content. SaaS is basically predicated on the notion that someone else will do a better set-up job than you and the old 80/20 rule about what features for an application are actually used.

Some people may regard the restrictions of SaaS as a good thing – particularly if they have dealt with the consequences of one too many unproductive customization efforts previously. As many SharePointer’s know, the more you customise SharePoint, the less resilient it gets. Thus restricting what sort of customisations can be done in many circumstances might be a wise thing to do.

Nevertheless, this actually goes against the genetic traits of pretty much every Australian male walking the planet. The reason is simple: no matter how much our skills are lacking or however inappropriate tools or training, we nevertheless always want to do it ourselves. This brings me onto our next cloud provider: Amazon, and their Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) model of cloud based services. This is the ultimate DIY solution for those of us that find SaaS to cramping our style. Let’s take a closer look shall we?

Amazon in a nutshell

Okay, I have to admit that as an infrastructure guy, I am genetically predisposed to liking Amazon’s cloud offerings. Why? well as an infrastructure guy, I am like my neighbour who renovated his own house. I’d rather do it all myself because I have acquired the skills to do so. So for any server-hugging infrastructure people out there who are wondering what they have been missing out on? Read on… you might like what you see.

Now first up, its easy for new players to get a bit intimidated by Amazon’s bewildering array of offerings with brand names that make no sense to anybody but Amazon… EC2, VPC, S3, ECU, EBS, RDS, AMI’s, Availability Zones – sheesh! So I am going to ignore all of their confusing brand names and just hope that you have heard of virtual machines and will assume that you or your tech geeks know all about VMware. The simplest way to describe Amazon is VMWare on steroids. Amazon’s service essentially allows you to create Virtual Machines within Amazon’s “cloud” of large data centres around the world. As I stated earlier, the official cloud terminology that Amazon is traditionally associated is called Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). This is where, instead of providing ready-made applications like SaaS, a cloud vendor provides lower level IT infrastructure for rent. This consists of stuff like virtualised servers, storage and networking.

Put simply, utilising Amazon, one can deploy virtual servers with my choice of operating system, applications, memory, CPU and disk configuration. Like any good “all you can eat” buffet, one is spoilt for choice. One simply chooses an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) to use as a base for creating a virtual server. You can choose one of Amazon’s pre-built AMI’s (Base installs of Windows Server or Linux) or you can choose an image from the community contributed list of over 8000 base images. Pretty much any vendor out there who sells a turn-key solution (such as those all-in-one virus scanning/security solutions) has likely created an AMI. Microsoft have also gotten in on the Amazon act and created AMI’s for you, optimised by their product teams. Want SQL 2008 the way Microsoft would install it? Choose the Microsoft Optimized Base SQL Server 2008R2 AMI which “contains scripts to install and optimize SQL Server 2008R2 and accompanying services including SQL Server Analysis services, SQL Server Reporting services, and SQL Server Integration services to your environment based on Microsoft best practices.”

The series of screen shots below shows the basic idea. After signing up, use the “Request instance wizard” to create a new virtual server by choosing an AMI first. In the example below, I have shown the default Amazon AMI’s under “Quick start” as well as the community AMI’s.

Amazons default AMI’s

Community contributed AMI’s

From the list above, I have chosen Microsoft’s “Optimized SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1” from the community AMI’s and clicked “Select”. Now I can choose the CPU and memory configurations. Hmm how does a 16 core server sound with 60 gig of RAM? That ought to do it… 🙂

Now I won’t go through the full description of commissioning virtual servers, but suffice to say that you can choose which geographic location this server will reside within Amazon’s cloud and after 15 minutes or so, your virtual server will be ready to use. It can be assigned a public IP address, firewall restricted and then remotely managed as per any other server. This can all be done programmatically too. You can talk to Amazon via web services start, monitor, terminate, etc. as many virtual machines as you want, which allows you to scale your infrastructure on the fly and very quickly. There are no long procurement times and you then only pay for what servers are currently running. If you shut them down, you stop paying.

But what makes it cool…

Now I am sure that some of you might be thinking “big deal…any virtual machine hoster can do that.” I agree – and when I first saw this capability I just saw it as a larger scale VMWare/Xen type deployment. But when really made me sit up and take notice was Amazon’s Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) functionality. The super-duper short version of VPC is that it allows you extend your corporate network into the Amazon cloud. It does this by allowing you to define your own private network and connecting to it via site-to-site VPN technology. To describe how it works, diagrammatically check out the image below.

Let’s use an example to understand the basic idea. Let’s say your internal IP address range at your office is 10.10.10.0 to 10.10.10.255 (a /24 for the geeks). With VPC you tell Amazon “I’d like a new IP address range of 10.10.11.0 to 10.10.11.255” . You are then prompted to tell Amazon the public IP address of your internet router. The screenshots below shows what happens next:

The first screenshot asks you to choose what type of router is at your end. Available choices are Cisco, Juniper, Yamaha, Astaro and generic. The second screenshot shows you a sample configuration that is downloaded. Now any Cisco trained person reading this will recognise what is going on here. This is the automatically generated configuration to be added to an organisations edge router to create an IPSEC tunnel. In other words, we have extended our corporate network itself into the cloud. Any service can be run on such a network – not just SharePoint. For smaller organisations wanting the benefits of off-site redundancy without the costs of a separate datacenter, this is a very cost effective option indeed.

For the Cisco geeks, the actual configuration is two GRE tunnels that are IPSEC encrypted. BGP is used for route table exchange, so Amazon can learn what routes to tunnel back to your on-premise network. Furthermore Amazon allows you to manage firewall settings at the Amazon end too, so you have an additional layer of defence past your IPSEC router.

This is called Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) and when configured properly is very powerful. Note the “P” is for private. No server deployed to this subnet is internet accessible unless you choose it to be. This allows you to extend your internal network into the cloud and gain all the provisioning, redundancy and scalability benefits without exposure to the internet directly. As an example, I did a hosted SharePoint extranet where we use SQL log shipping of the extranet content databases back to the a DMZ network for redundancy. Try doing that on Office365!

This sort of functionality shows that Amazon is a mature, highly scalable and flexible IaaS offering. They have been in the business for a long time and it shows because their full suite of offerings is much more expansive than what I can possibly cover here. Accordingly my Amazon experiences will be the subject of a more in-depth blog post or two in future. But for now I will force myself to stop so the non-technical readers don’t get too bored. 🙂

So what went wrong?

So after telling you how impressive Amazon’s offering is, what could possibly go wrong? Like the Office365 issue covered in part 2, absolutely nothing with the technology. To understand why, I need to explain Amazon’s pricing model.

Amazon offer a couple of ways to pay for servers (called instances in Amazon speak). An on-demand instance is calculated based on a per-hour price while the server is running. The more powerful the server is in terms of CPU, memory and disk, the more you pay. To give you an idea, Amazon’s pricing for a Windows box with 8CPU’s and 16GB of RAM, running in Amazon’s “US east” region will set you back $0.96 per hour (as of 27/12/11). If you do the basic math for that, it equates to around $8409 per year, or $25228 over three years. (Yeah I agree that’s high – even when you consider that you get all the trappings of a highly scalable and fault tolerant datacentre).

On the other hand, a reserved instance involves making a one-time payment and in turn, receive a significant discount on the hourly charge for that instance. Essentially if you are going to run an Amazon server on a 24*7 basis for more than 18 months or so, a reserved instance makes sense as it reduces considerable cost over the long term. The same server would only cost you $0.40 per hour if you pay an up-front $2800 for a 3 year term. Total cost: $13312 over three years – much better.

So with that scene set, consider this scenario: Back at the start of 2011, a client of mine consolidated all of their SharePoint cloud services to Amazon from a variety of other another hosting providers. They did this for a number of reasons, but it basically boiled down to the fact they had 1) outgrown the SaaS model and 2) had a growing number of clients. As a result, requirements from clients were getting more complicated and beyond that which most of the hosting providers could cater for. They also received irregular and inconsistent support from their existing providers, as well as some unexpected downtime that reduced confidence. In short, they needed to consolidate their cloud offering and manage their own servers. They were developing custom SharePoint solutions, needed to support federated claims authentication and required disaster recovery assurance to mitigate the risk of going 100% cloud. Amazon’s VPC offering in particular seemed ideal, because it allowed full control of the servers in a secure way.

Now making this change was not something we undertook lightly. We spent considerable time researching Amazon’s offerings, trying to understand all the acronyms as well as their fine print. (For what its worth I used IBIS as the basis to develop an assessment and the map of my notes can be found here). As you are about to see though, we did not check well enough.

Back when we initially evaluated the VPC offering, it was only available in very few Amazon sites (two locations in the USA only) and the service was still in beta. This caused us a bit of a dilemma at the time because of the risk of relying on a beta service. But we were assured when Amazon confirmed that VPC would eventually be available in all of of their datacentres. We also stress tested the service for a few weeks, it remained stable and we developed and tested a disaster recovery strategy involving SQL log shipping and a standby farm. We also purchased reserved instances from Amazon since these servers were going to be there for the long haul, so we pre-paid to reduce the hourly rates. Quite a complex configuration was provisioned in only two days and we were amazed by how easy it all was.

Things hummed along for 9 months in this fashion and the world was a happy place. We were delighted when Amazon notified us that VPC had come out of beta and was now available in any of Amazon’s datacentres around the world. We only used the US datacentre because it was the only location available at the time. Now we wanted to transfer the services to Singapore. My client contacted Amazon about some finer points on such a move and was informed that they would have to pay for their reserved instances all over again!

What the?

It turns out, reserved instances are not transferrable! Essentially, Amazon were telling us that although we paid for a three year reserved instance, and only used it for 9 months, to move the servers to a new region would mean we have to pay all over again for another 3 year reserve. According to Amazon’s documentation, each reserved instance is associated with a specific region, which is fixed for the lifetime of the reserved instance and cannot be changed.

“Okay,” we answer, “we can understand that in circumstances where people move to another cloud provider. But in our case we were not.” We had used around 1/3rd of the reserved instance. So surely Amazon should pro-rata the unused amount, and offer that as a credit when we re-purchase reserved instances in Singapore? I mean, we will still be hosting with Amazon, so overall, they will not be losing any revenue al all. On the contrary, we will be paying them more, because we will have to sign up for an additional 3 years of reserve when we move the services.

So we ask Amazon whether that can be done. “Nope,” comes back the answer from amazons not so friendly billing team with one of those trite and grossly insulting “Sorry for any inconvenience this causes” ending sentences. After more discussions, it seems that internally within Amazon, each region or datacentre within each region is its own profit centre. Therefore in typical silo fashion, the US datacentre does not want to pay money to the Singapore operation as that would mean the revenue we paid would no longer recognised against them.

Result? Customer is screwed all because the Amazon fiefdoms don’t like sharing the contents of the till. But hey – the regional managers get their bonuses right?

Conclusion

Like part 2 of this cloud computing series, this is not a technical issue. Amazon’s cloud service in our experience has been reliable and performed well. In this case, we are turned off by the fact that their internal accounting procedures create a situation that is not great for customers who wish to remain loyal to them. In a post about the danger of short termism and ignoring legacy, I gave the example of how dumb it is for organisations to think they are measuring success based on how long it takes to close a helpdesk call. When such a KPI is used, those in support roles have little choice but to try and artificially close calls when users problems have not been solved because that’s how they are deemed to be performing well. The reality though is rather than measure happy customers, this KPI simply rewards which helpdesk operators have managed to game the system by getting callers off the phone as soon as they can.

I feel that Amazon are treating this is an internal accounting issue, irrespective of client outcomes. Amazon will lose the business of my client because of this since they have enough servers hosted where the financial impost of paying all over again is much more than transferring to a different cloud provider. While VPC and automated provisioning of virtual servers is cool and all, at the end of the day many hosting providers can offer this if you ask them. Although it might not be as slick with fancy as Amazon’s automated configuration, it nonetheless is very doable and the other providers are playing catch-up. Like Apple, Amazon are enjoying the benefits of being first to market with their service, but as competition heats up, others will rapidly bridge the gap.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

Hiya

I have been wrong about many things – I am happy to admit that. In SharePoint land, one of my bigger naive assumptions was that in early 2007, I figured I’d have maybe a 6 month head start before the rest of the industry began to learn from its initial SharePoint deployment mistakes and start delivering SharePoint “properly.” I thought that I’d better make hay while the sun shines, so to speak, as the market would tighten up as more players entered it.

Yet here we are, heading to the latter half of 2011 – some five years later. As I continue to go into organisations, whether in a SharePoint remedial capacity, or a training/architect capacity, I am still seeing the legacy of really poor SharePoint outcomes. Furthermore I am seeing other, frankly disturbing trends that leave me both concerned and pessimistic. I now have a label for this concern: “SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome.” SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome is hard to define, yet its effects are there for all to see. I suffer from it at times, and I am certain others do too. As an example, recently on the Perth SharePoint User Group on LinkedIn the following topic for discussion was raised:

Hi folks, as you already know we have a worrying skills shortage in SharePoint Development / Architecture in Perth and things are getting worse. It’s getting to the stage where companies have to suspend or worse still abandon their SharePoint projects due to lack of available talent. As the core of the SharePoint community in Perth your suggestions are vital towards finding real solutions to this growing problem. What can be done?

Now I know that this problem is not just limited to Perth. There are consistently reports online that speak of SharePoint people being in demand. So you would think that in a “hot” sector like SharePoint, where the industry is crying out for talent, that the rate of attrition would not outpace the uptake of new talent. After all – money talks, right? If you are a .NET developer with half a brain, there is serious money to be made in SharePoint development land. On top of that, there is the collective realisation in the marketplace that actually talking to people about how SharePoint could make their lives easier, leads to better outcomes. Hence the emergence of this notion of a “SharePoint Architect” with a more varied skill-set that just tech or dev. This role has further been legitimised by entire conferences now just catering to the business this end of the market (I am thinking the Share conferences here).

So, we have all of this newfound collective wisdom spreading through the community via various channels, in terms of the skills and roles required in SharePoint circa 2011 and beyond. We have the fat pay-packets being commanded as a result of demand for these skills. So, with that in mind, why is the attrition rate growing?

As an example, I know personally, several exceptional SharePoint practitioners who are no longer in SharePoint. I’ve also had various quiet conversations with many SharePoint practitioners, right up to SharePoint MCM’s, who vent their various frustrations on how difficult it is to get truly lasting SharePoint solutions in their clients and organisations. I’ve reflected on the various reasons I have come to the conclusion that SharePoint is just plain tiring. As a result, people are burning themselves out.

7 causes of SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome…

Burnout, in case you are not aware, is actually a lack of emotional attachment to what you are doing.  Quoting about.com:

The term “burnout” is a relatively new term, first coined in 1974 by Herbert Freudenberger, in his book, “Burnout: The High Cost of High Achievement.” He originally defined ‘burnout’ as “the extinction of motivation or incentive, especially where one’s devotion to a cause or relationship fails to produce the desired results.

SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome is SharePoint manifested burnout. The symptoms include feeling physically and emotionally drained, difficulty maintaining optimism and energy levels, feeling that you have less to give as the burden of work seems overwhelming. Sound familiar?

So why does SharePoint work run this risk? I see 7 major reasons.

1: Cost pressure leading to overwork

First up, the lure of the big dollar is a double edged sword. Not long ago I shared a beer with a SharePoint developer who’s work I respect greatly, yet I can’t afford to hire. This is because the percentage of chargeable hours he would need to work just so I can break even, is very high. This puts me (the employer) under pressure and at risk. As a result, I need to ensure that my newly minted SharePoint employee is productive from day 1 and I need him to work a lot of hours. But here is the irony. When I had my beer with this developer, the conversation started with him lamenting to me that he is already pulling ridiculous hours (60 to 80 per week). He was looking for a job with less hours and yet more money. This is simply not sustainable, both for employer and employee. The more you chase one (work hours vs. money), the more you lose the other it seems.

2: Structures that force an inappropriate problem solving paradigm (and wicked problems of course)

Then there is the broader problem where structure influences behaviour. As a basic example: from the developers’ perspective, they have to put up with sales guys who promise the world, and project managers who then make their life hell and force them to cut corners delivering the impossible. Project managers find out that their beloved work breakdown structure gets chopped and changed when their pain-in-the-ass developers whine that they can’t make the schedule. As I have stated many times previously, SharePoint project are likely to have wicked problem aspects to them. The structures that work well to deliver tame problems, such as Exchange, a VOIP system or a network upgrade, are much less effective for SharePoint projects. While organisations persist with approaches that consistently fail to deliver good outcomes, and don’t look at the structural issues, the attrition rate will continue. There is only so much that someone can take putting up with these sorts of stresses.

3: Technical complexity

SharePoint’s technical complexity plays a part too. No-one person understands the product in its entirety. The closest person I know is Spence and ages ago on twitter he remarked that even within Microsoft no-one understood it all. As a result, it is simply too easy to make a costly mistake via an untested assumption. (I thought the user profile service was tough – until I did federated claims authentication and multitenancy that is). The utter myriad of features, design options and their even greater number of caveats, mean that one can make a simple design mistake that causes the entire logical edifice of an information architecture to come crashing down. Many have experienced the feeling of having to tell someone that the project time and cost is about to blow out because nobody realised that, say,  Managed Metadata has a bunch of issues that precludes its use in many circumstances. Accordingly, SharePoint architects learn pretty quickly that it is hard to answer a definite “yes” to many questions, because to do so would require a question worded like a contractual clause, to ensure it is framed with appropriate caveats. Even then, consultants would know that lingering feeling in the back of their mind that they might have missed an assumption. This brings me onto…

4: Pace of change

This is BIG…and becoming more acute. Remember the saying ‘The only certainties in life are death and taxes?’ Outside of that, the future is always unpredictable.

In between SharePoint 2003 and SharePoint 2007, the wave of Web 2.0 and social networking broke, forever changing how we collaborate and work with information online (and some of those effects are still to be felt). Microsoft, like any smart organisation, responds to the sentiment of its client base. Microsoft also, like most mature organisations, tends to hedge its bets in terms of marketplace strategy in which it tries to get in on the act with the cool kids, yet tries not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Just look at Windows 8’s new interface, tablets, app stores and the cloud.

But that is one facet. Change happens in many forms and at many scales. For example, at a project level, it may mean a key team member leaves the organisation suddenly (SharePoint fatigue no doubt). At a global and organisational level, events like the odd global financial crisis force organisations to change strategic focus very quickly indeed.

I don’t know about you, but when Windows 8 was announced recently I was not excited (in fact I was not excited by SharePoint 2010 either). I thought to myself “So soon? I am still figuring out the current platform!”

As an example of the effect of pace of change, consider all the Government 2.0 initiatives around the world. Collaboration is in-vogue baby, so information should be free and government agencies should engage with the community. While that’s nice and all, there is the world of compliance, security and records management that takes a very different view. So, we end up with market forces that push against each other in combination with vendors hedging strategy of being all things to all people. It’s little wonder that SharePoint projects become very complex very fast.

By the way, it is worthwhile checking out what Bill Brantley in this post sums up the whole government 2.0 issue when he said:

What exactly is the nature of the Gov 2.0 challenge? This question was inspired by Andrew Krzmarzick’s post (What Gov 2.0 Needs Now: Managers, Money and Models) and Christina Morrison’s post (What is Gov 2.0? A survey of Government IT pros) on the recent GovLoop survey about Gov 2.0. As Andrew and Christina argued, the survey demonstrates many differing perspectives on Gov 2.0 in terms of what it actually means and how to implement Gov 2.0. To me, this suggests that Gov 2.0 is the classic wicked problem

5: SharePoint Entropy

One of my clients (who you will meet in my book when it’s published), once said to me “All good ideas eventually deteriorate into hard work.” This is a nice way to lead into the concept of SharePoint entropy, which in some ways is the inevitable outcome from the first four symptoms. The easiest way to understand entropy is to watch this awesome TV series called the “Wonders of The Universe.” In that show, the concept of entropy was discussed and for me made a lot of intrinsic sense. Without getting into the detail, entropy is the notion that over time things move from an organised to less organised state. Rather than have me waste your time trying to explain it in prose, let’s listen to the show in question. (Don’t skip the video – this is important!)

Now what does this has to do with SharePoint fatigue? Gordon Whyte saw what I am getting at with his post on entropy within organisations, especially in relation to change management.

For example, when we build a car we take raw materials such as metal, leather, plastic and glass and arrange them in a highly organised way to make a car. But if we then leave that car for long enough the metal will rust, the glass will become brittle and break and the leather will dry out and turn to dust. If the car is left for a very long time it will eventually disappear altogether. This thought left me wondering about the nature of organisations. If a progression from order to chaos is the natural order of the universe, then is this same pressure present in organisations and, perhaps more importantly, what is the optimum position for an organisation between the extremes of rigid inflexibility (low entropy) and complete chaos (high entropy)? This question is not as crazy as it might at first appear”

Gordon has nailed the issue in his post. Any SharePoint solution that has a low entropic nature requires more energy and effort to maintain that order and control. Complex SharePoint solutions often have complex governance wrapped around them. Governance that is process and structure centric by definition, has low entropy and accordingly, needs higher effort to maintain over time. In fact, if you do not maintain that effort and energy, then any SharePoint solution will usually disintegrate back into the sort of information management chaos that gave rise to SharePoint in the first place!  Rather like the sandcastle in the video.

By the way, I feel that email and file shares are high entropy solutions – all failed SharePoint projects lead back to these tools because they require less structure to maintain (in the short term).

In short, if SharePoint is implemented with low entropy, more energy is needed to maintain it. Remove the energy and very quickly, things become chaotic again. Governance approaches that are not cognisant of this will never stand the test of time. The question then becomes whether people feel that the end in mind is worth the perceived extra effort that is being asked of them.

6. Social complexity

Social complexity is also somewhat of a result of the first five symptoms. Most organisations have a blame culture. If they didn’t, then people wouldn’t spend so much time trying to position themselves for blame avoidance. Social complexity is the result of turf wars, ideological smackdowns and all of the other sort of things that result in the cliché of “the silos” where people are not talking to each-other in organisations. SharePoint exacerbates social complexity for two main reasons.

Firstly, because it is a collaboration tool, it actually requires some collaboration to put it in! This is often easier said than done. Secondly, because it is a pervasive and disruptive technology, it almost always clashes with an established tool, process or practice where proponents aren’t willing to change. In fact, they may not even recognise that there is a problem to solve – especially when SharePoint has been thrust upon them. (In an old post, I wrote about the notion of memeplexes and the ideological immune mechanisms that they create and why it is so hard to get shared understanding across departmental boundaries in organisations. Memetic smackdowns are the result).

The long and the short of social complexity is that there is only so much stress people can take. We all seem to have a pathological need to seek order and safety, rather then remain in a stressful situation. Once social complexity bites, the merry-go-round of staff attrition really starts to bite…

7. Meaning over motivation…

Now if I haven’t completely depressed you, let me offer you a perverse glimmer of light. For those of us who understand the preceding 6 fatigue symptoms, recognise them for what they are and take steps to mitigating them, there is one other symptom that contributes to SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome. This is the trickiest of all – and I am a somewhat willing victim of it.

I have spent a lot of time learning techniques to help address the symptoms I outlined here and as it turns out, these skills are universally applicable, whether in SharePoint, IT or beyond IT. For years now, I have metaphorically had one foot out of the SharePoint world door and the other foot into the world of construction, health and management sectors. Hell…I have written what I think is the first business book ever by a SharePoint person that is a non SharePoint and non IT. I also have clients with SharePoint deployments who do not know me as a SharePoint person at all, but only as a sensemaker (and for that I am grateful.)

The point is this: While the investment in these skills enables me to counter the effects of SharePoint fatigue syndrome, it is also inexorably pulling me away from SharePoint work. It seems that once you crack this nut a little, your skills are in demand across the entire problem solving spectrum. Right now this is my coping mechanism for SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome – I get to step away from SharePoint for periods and work on something else. Eventually…inevitably…I will also be one of those attrition statistics.

Conclusion:

The problem is that SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome is a negatively reinforcing cycle. As evidenced by the SharePoint attrition rate, money isn’t that great a motivator. If it was, then the void of skilled resources would have been filled by now. Paying more money might give you a short term gain, but in the long term is not going to address my seven causes of SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome.

I will leave this admittedly negative sounding post with the key to breaking this cycle. While you can attend my SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture class or Issue Mapping Class to learn many ways, the video below says it all. I encourage you to watch and reflect on it, because it’s the same key point to understanding how to do effective user engagement.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

On the twitterverse recently, someone stated that because of a problem of excessive SharePoint site sprawl, they were going to institute a new site approval process. On the surface this remedy seems to be perfectly reasonable. After all, there is a clear problem that has emerged and in the name of governance, we have taken steps to address it via this new process.

There is only one small problem with this. It’s probably the wrong thing to do or at best, a minor facet of what to do.

Before I explain why, consider another scenario that I am sure all of us have experienced. You have a problem so you call your bank, ISP or some other provider of services that you have paid for. You encounter an operator or customer service representative who seems hell-bent on closing your call at all costs, whether you think the problem is solved or not. Common examples of how this plays out is the oft used “well I will close this call and you can call back and log a new one if there is still an issue” line. A more subtle, yet equally frustrating one that even Microsoft have used on me is the “well you logged the problem as X, but in reality its Y. So you will need to close this call and re-log a new call for problem Y”.

The underlying reason for this is very likely that the performance of the person on the other end of the line is judged on time spent handling your call. The logic would be that the speedier a call is closed, means the less time users have spent on tech support, which indicates good outcomes for customers.

Alas, if only that were true. Anybody who has been on the receiving end of this sort of treatment knows full well that the opposite happens. As a customer, you get frustrated and pissed off. More dangerously for the organization, this sort of indicator conveys a warped representation of reality. Essentially the operator has altered their behaviour to maximise their performance according to this measure of “effectiveness”. Customers who are paying the money are not necessarily satisfied. In fact they are more often than not dissatisfied. Therefore, the notion that length of support calls somehow lead to happier customers is a fallacy. In the longer term, customers will tire of crappy outcomes and take their business elsewhere.

This success indicator is a mirage, and in actual fact contributes to the nastier, longer term problems of customers ending up with competitors.

So with that said, lets go back to our Sharepoint site sprawl issue. Before instituting such a policy, I ask the following simple question.

So why are there lots of sites?

Now there will be various reasons, but the most common answer I get back from this is:

Users don’t know any better.

This assertion is pretty easy to test too. Take a look at the sites in the wild west of a chaotic SharePoint install. Since most site templates in SharePoint have a single document library, it is common to see many hundreds of sites with a single document library in them. Clearly, people simply aren’t aware that they can do things like add more libraries or lists to a site or they are unwilling or unable to do so. I have experienced users telling me that if they had have known, they would have never created a site for a particular collaborative activity.

Side Note: SharePoint’s own attempts to be “intuitive” is the problem here. For a start, sites build navigation by default so people get duped into using sites to create navigational structure when its wholly inappropriate. Secondly, creating a new site is inferred as the right thing to do. To see why, go to the site actions menu and what is a default action there? You guessed it – create a site. SharePoint out of the box actually contributes to users forming this mental model of how SharePoint hangs together).

So clearly, many instances of excess site sprawl is symptomatic of something deeper. Users do not know that there are potentially better alternatives. This leads us to a somewhat rhetorical, yet critical question:

What does an approval process do about users not knowing any better?

Many times such approval processes shift the burden of creating the site to an authorised party like IT, after a requestor’s boss has given it the go ahead. Naturally, people will have to do more paperwork to get approval and it might take longer. Furthermore, maybe their request will be rejected under certain circumstances. But at what point will they learn that there is more to life than sub sites? Even after instituting the approval process, we still may end up with a heap of sites with a single document library in them. Have we really addressed the real issue?

Do you see the parallel? The sort of thinking that decided an approval policy is the answer to site sprawl is the same sort of thinking that decided that call times are a reliable indicator of customer outcomes being met. Both treat the superficial, visible symptoms of a problem, not the underlying cause. Furthermore, both end up leaving stakeholders with crappy outcomes in the longer term. Your support calls are still frustrating and you are still using SharePoint in a sub optimal fashion.

More scarily though is that we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have dealt with the problem. SharePoint governance is often built around this sort of superficial thinking. If a governance plan weighs as much as a door stop, and gets about as much attention as a door stop, then you might be making this mistake.

What about legacy?

This problem is more common than you think. There is a more systematic pattern of delusion that can happen in project management. Check out the diagram below.

Seen this diagram before? It is very common on project management books and presentations. We have a pyramid that implying that to have quality, we have to have time, cost and scope balanced and understood. Like the site approval policy, this seems perfectly reasonable on the surface. But unfortunately, by its very nature can cloud us to what is really important.

Below is an example of a project output – the Sydney Opera House. During my classes, everyone recognises it and there is always someone who has been there. In fact people come to Sydney just to see it. In term of economic significance to Sydney, it is priceless and irreplaceable. the architect who designed it, Jørn Utzon, was awarded the Pritzker Prize (architecture’s highest honour) for it in 2003.

So I ask you the question:

Was this a successful project?

I ask this question to people all around the world and the answer is always a great big Yes. But if we look at this project through the lens of our quality triangle above, the view changes.

Why?

Well, here are a few fun filled facts about the Sydney Opera House.

• The Opera House was formally completed in 1973, having cost $102 million.
• The original cost estimate in 1957 was $7 million.
• The original completion date set by the government was 1963.
• Thus, the project was completed ten years late and over-budget by more than fourteen times.
• Ultzon, the designer of the opera house never lived to set foot in it, having left Australia in disgust, swearing never to come back.

“Utzon soon found himself in conflict with the new Minister. Attempting to rein in the escalating cost of the project, Hughes began questioning Utzon’s capability, his designs, schedules and cost estimates. Hughes eventually stopped payments to Utzon. Unable to pay his staff, Utzon was forced to resign as chief architect in February 1966 and left the country never to return. Utzon has never seen the completed work that brought him international renown”

Harsh huh? Clearly, when judged through the “quality” lens of time, cost and scope, this project was a unmitigated epic fail that makes SharePoint look like a walk in the park.

The example of the Sydney Opera House serves to remind us that when all is said and done, we judge quality across something deeper than time, cost and scope alone. That something is legacy.

People remember legacy, not scope

So when you look at the Opera house through the lens of the quality triangle, you are making the same mistake as the call-center KPI and the well intentioned site creation policy. You are taking a superficial view of things and in doing so, missing more subtle, but ultimately important factors. In fact you are treating symptoms and not looking for the “story beneath the story” that caused the visible symptoms in the first place.

Yet…

Why do we go to the time, effort and cost to put in tools like SharePoint? It is because we see that it can take us to a better place than we are now. After all, if we didn’t believe this fundamental truth, then we wouldn’t spend the that time and money working on it. This notion of a “better place” implies that we are trying to escape a legacy of the past – such as poor information management practices, inefficient process, silo organisations and so forth.

As illustrated by the Opera House example, people do not remember time, cost and scope. What they do remember acutely however is legacy.

So what is a more reliable indicator of quality? Who visits the Opera house and takes a photo of it because it was such a breathtakingly bad example of project management 101? No, they take their photo because it is unique, has value and people want to experience it for themselves. Its the legacy that they remember, cherish and want to be a part of.

As a result, there is a critical lesson here for all SharePoint practitioners (from the nerdiest of nerds to the hippiest of web 2.0 pundits). Ask yourself, “what legacy is my governance actions going to leave”, because if you fail to consider the legacy of your approaches to SharePoint delivery, you are probably dooming your organisation to the very same legacy you wanted to escape in the first place!

And that’s just tragic.

So I think that PM 101 diagram needs to be redrawn because it misleads – especially for complex, adaptive or wicked problems. To me, considering time, cost and scope without legacy is delusional and plain dumb. Legacy informs time, cost and scope and challenges us to look beyond the visible symptoms of what we perceive as the problem to what’s really going on.

When I get time, I will post several examples of how I was able to utilise this sort of thinking in a future post, but I hope this gives you some food for thought.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

www.spgovia.com

For one night only USA…

Ah, Erica Toelle – what a legend! Thanks to Erica and Fpweb, I’m thrilled to confirm that the Seattle SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture class is all systems go. Save the date as its very likely indeed to be the only SPIA class in the USA in 2011.  If it wasn’t enough that Erica will be joining me, but Ruven Gotz will be there too.

Thursday and Friday, May 05-06, 2011. (http://spiaseattle.eventbrite.com/)

The location is the Silvercloud Inn, 14632 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98004

In this multimedia extravaganza of a blog post, lets take a closer look at this class and what you can expect. Below is a snippet of a talk I did in New Zealand called “SharePoint Governance  Home Truths”. This clip shows a little diagnostic test that I do on my audience, to see whether they have experienced the visible signs of wicked problems. If you want to know why you should go to SPGov+IA, then take my 2 minute test yourself.

If the two minute test has taken your fancy, then you might want to see what is in store on the course itself. Below is the first half-hour of module 1 (in the form of a conference session), as well as the accompanying slide deck.

Course Information:

Download Course Outline (PDF)

Download Class Flyer (PDF)

Most people understand that deploying SharePoint is much more than getting it installed.  Despite this, current SharePoint governance documentation abounds in service delivery aspects. However, just because your system is rock-solid, stable, well-documented and governed through good process, there is absolutely no guarantee of success.  Similarly, if Information Architecture for SharePoint was as easy as putting together lists, libraries and metadata the right way, then why doesn’t Microsoft publish the obvious best practices?

In fact, the secret to a successful SharePoint project is an area that the governance documentation barely touches.

This Master Class pinpoints the critical success factors for SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture and rectifies this blind spot.  Paul Culmsee’s style takes an ironic and subversive view on how SharePoint Governance really works within organizations while presenting a model and the tools necessary to get it right.

Drawing on inspiration from many diverse sources, disciplines and case studies, Paul Culmsee has distilled the "what" and "how" of governance down to a simple and accessible, yet rigorous and comprehensive set of tools and methods that organizations, large and small, can utilize to achieve the level of commitment required to see SharePoint become a successful part of your enterprise.

Some workshop sessions are hands on, we provide all of the tools and samples needed but please bring your own laptop.

Course Structure:

The course is split into 7 modules, run across two days.

Module 1: SharePoint Governance f-Laws 1-17:

Module 1 is all about setting context in the form of clearing some misconceptions about the often muddy topic of SharePoint governance. This module sheds some light onto these less visible SharePoint governance factors in the form of Governance f-Laws, which will also help to provide the context for the rest of this course

• Why users don’t know what they want
• The danger of platitudes
• Why IT doesn’t get it
• The adaptive challenge – how to govern SharePoint for the hidden organisation
• The true forces of organisational chaos
• Wicked problems and how to spot them
• The myth of best practices and how to determine when a “practice” is really best

Module 2: The Shared Understanding Toolkit – part 1:

Module 2 pinpoints the SharePoint governance blind spot and introduces the Seven Sigma Shared Understanding Toolkit to counter it. The toolkit is a suite of tools, patterns and practices that can be used to improve SharePoint outcomes. This module builds upon the f-laws of module 1 and specifically examines the “what” and “why” questions of SharePoint Governance. Areas covered include how to identify particular types of problems, how to align the diverse goals of stakeholders, leverage problem structuring methods and constructing a solid business case.

Module 3: The Shared Understanding Toolkit – part 2:

Module 3 continues the Seven Sigma Shared Understanding Toolkit, and focuses on the foundation of “what” and “why” by examining the “who” and “how”. Areas covered include aligning stakeholder expectations, priorities and focus areas and building this alignment into a governance structure and written governance plan that actually make sense and that people will read. We round off by examining user engagement/stakeholder communication and training strategy.

Module 4: Information Architecture trends, lessons learned and key SharePoint challenges

Module 4 examines the hidden costs of poor information management practices, as well as some of the trends that are impacting on Information Architecture and the strategic direction of Microsoft as it develops the SharePoint road map. We will also examine the results from what other organisations have attempted and their lessons learned. We then distil those lessons learned into some the fundamental tenants of modern information architecture and finish off by examining the key SharePoint challenges from a technical, strategic and organisational viewpoint.

Module 5: Information organisation and facets of collaboration

Module 5 dives deeper into the core Information Architecture topics of information structure and organisation. We explore the various facets of enterprise collaboration and identify common Information Architecture mistakes and the strategies to avoid making them.

Module 6: Information Seeking, Search and metadata

Module 6 examines the factors that affect how users seek information and how they manifest in terms of patterns of use. Building upon the facets of collaboration of module 5, we examine several strategies to improving SharePoint search and navigation. We then turn our attention to taxonomy and metadata, and what SharePoint 2010 has to offer in terms of managed metadata

Module 7: Shared understanding and visual representation – documenting your Information Architecture

Module 7 returns to the theme of governance in the sense of communicating your information architecture through visual or written form. To achieve shared understanding among participants, we need to document our designs in various forms for various audiences.

Putting it all together: From vision to execution

Attendees will be taking home a manual ~480 pages, containing the Seven Sigma Shared Understanding Toolkit CD with a sample performance framework, governance plan, SharePoint ROI calculator (Spreadsheet), sample mind maps of Information Architecture. These tools are the result of years of continual development and refinement "out in the field" by Paul Culmsee and have only been recently released to the public through this Master Class.

More Information:

• Praise for SharePoint Governance and IA Masterclass

Refund Policy:

No refunds will be issued for attendee cancellations once payment is recieved.  Class cancellation by the organizer will result in a refund less transaction fees.

http://spiaseattle.eventbrite.com/

Hiya

A few months back I posted a relatively well behaved rant over the ridiculously complex User Profile Service Application of SharePoint 2010. I think this component in particular epitomises SharePoint 2010’s awful combination of “design by committee” clunkiness, along with real-world sheltered Microsoft product manager groupthink which seems to rate success on the number of half baked features packed in, as opposed to how well those features install logically, integrate with other products and function properly in real-world scenarios.

Now truth be told, until yesterday, I have had an unblemished record with the User Profile Service – being able to successfully provision it first time at all sites I have visited (and no I did not resort to running it all as administrator). Of course, we all have Spence to thank for this with his rational guide. Nevertheless, I am strongly starting to think that I should write the irrational guide as a sort of bizzaro version of Spencers articles, which combines his rigour with some mega-ranting ;-).

So what happened to blemish my perfect record? Bloody Active Directory policies – that’s what.

In case you didn’t know, SharePoint uses a scaled down, pre-release version of Forefront Identify Manager. Presumably the logic here to this was to allow more flexibility, by two-way syncing to various directory services, thereby saving the SharePoint team development time and effort, as well as being able to tout yet another cool feature to the masses. Of course, the trade-off that the programmers overlooked is the insane complexity that they introduced as a result. I’m sure if you asked Microsoft’s support staff what they think of the UPS, they will tell you it has not worked out overly well. Whether that feedback has made it way back to the hallowed ground of the open-plan cubicles of SharePoint product development I can only guess. But I theorise that if Microsoft made their SharePoint devs accountable for providing front-line tech support for their components, they will suddenly understand why conspiracy theorist support and infrastructure guys act the way they do.

Anyway I better supress my desire for an all out rant and tell you the problem and the fix. The site in question was actually a fairly simple set-up. Two server farm and a single AD forest. About the only thing of significance from the absolute stock standard setup was that the active directory NETBIOS name did not match the active directory fully qualified domain name. But this is actually a well known and well covered by TechNet and Spence. A quick bit of PowerShell goodness and some AD permission configuration sorts the issue.

Yet when I provisioned the User Profile Service Application and then tried to start the User Profile Synchronisation Service on the server (the big, scary step that strikes fear into practitioners), I hit the sadly common “stuck on starting” error. The ULS logs told me utterly nothing of significance – even when i turned the debug juice to full throttle. The ever helpful windows event logs showed me Event ID 3:

ForeFront Identity Manager,
Level: Error

.Net SqlClient Data Provider: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: HostId is not registered
at Microsoft.ResourceManagement.Data.Exception.DataAccessExceptionManager.ThrowException(SqlException innerException)
at Microsoft.ResourceManagement.Data.DataAccess.RetrieveWorkflowDataForHostActivator(Int16 hostId, Int16 pingIntervalSecs, Int32 activeHostedWorkflowDefinitionsSequenceNumber, Int16 workflowControlMessagesMaxPerMinute, Int16 requestRecoveryMaxPerMinute, Int16 requestCleanupMaxPerMinute, Boolean runRequestRecoveryScan, Boolean& doPolicyApplicationDispatch, ReadOnlyCollection`1& activeHostedWorkflowDefinitions, ReadOnlyCollection`1& workflowControlMessages, List`1& requestsToRedispatch)
at Microsoft.ResourceManagement.Workflow.Hosting.HostActivator.RetrieveWorkflowDataForHostActivator()
at Microsoft.ResourceManagement.Workflow.Hosting.HostActivator.ActivateHosts(Object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)

The most common issue with this message is the NETBIOS issue I mentioned earlier. But in my case this proved to be fruitless. I also took Spence’s advice and installed the Feb 2011 cumulative update for SharePoint 2010, but to no avail. Every time I provisioned the UPS sync service, I received the above persistent error – many, many, many times. 🙁

For what its worth, forget googling the above error because it is a bit of a red herring and you will find issues that will likely point you to the wrong places.

In my case, the key to the resolution lay in understanding my previously documented issue with the UPS and self-signed certificate creation. This time, I noticed that the certificates were successfully created before the above error happened.  MIISCLIENT showed no configuration had been written to Forefront Identity Manager at all. Then I remembered that the SharePoint User Profile Service Application talks to Forefront over HTTPS on port 5725. As soon as I remembered that HTTP was the communication mechanism, I had a strong suspicion on where the problem was – as I have seen this sort of crap before…

I wondered if some stupid proxy setting was getting in the way. Back in the halcyon days of SharePoint 2003, I had this issue when scheduling SMIGRATE tasks, where the account used to run SMIGRATE is configured to use a proxy server, would fail. To find out if this was the case here, a quick execute of the GPRESULT tool and we realised that there was a proxy configuration script applied at the domain level for all users. We then logged in as the farm account interactively (given that to provision the UPS it needs to be Administrator anyway this was not a problem). We then disabled all proxy configuration via Internet explorer and tried again.

Blammo! The service provisions and we are cooking with gas! it was the bloody proxy server. Reconfigure group policy and all is good.

Conclusion

The moral of the story is this. Anytime windows components communicate with each-other via HTTP, there is always a chance that some AD induced dumbass proxy setting might get in the way. If not that, stateful security apps that check out HTTP traffic or even a corrupted cache (as happened in this case). The ULS logs will never tell you much here, because the problem is not SharePoint per se, but the registry configuration enforced by policy.

So, to ensure that you do not get affected by this, configure all SharePoint servers to be excluded from proxy access, or configure the SharePoint farm account not to use a proxy server at all. (Watch for certificate revocation related slowness if you do this though).

Finally, I called this post “consequences of complexity” because this sort of problem is very tricky to identify the root cause. With so many variables in the mix, how the hell can people figure this sort of stuff out?

Seriously Microsoft, you need to adjust your measures of success to include resiliency of the platform!

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

• The facets of collaboration Part 1–Meet robot barbie
• The facets of collaboration Part 2–Enter the matrix!
• The facets of collaboration Part 3-The feature jigsaw
• The facets of collaboration Part 4 – BPM vs. HPM

Hi all

Welcome to another exploration of the collaborative world through a lens called the facets of collaboration. If you are joining us for the first time, I am writing a series of posts that looks at how our perception of collaboration influences our penchant for certain collaborative tools and approaches. SharePoint, given that it is touted as a collaboration platform, inevitably results in consultants never being able to give a straight answer. This is because SharePoint is so feature-rich (and as a result caveat-rich), that there are always fifty different ways a situation can be approached. Add the fact that many clients do not necessarily know what they want and learn about their problem by examining potential solutions, we have all the hallmarks of a wicked problem in the making.

These wicked problems, underpinning SharePoint, often results in Robot Barbie situations (cue the image to the left), which is the metaphor that I started this series with. Robot Barbie represents everything wrong about SharePoint deployments, as it is symptomatic of throwing features at a platitude, pretending to be solving a real problem and then wondering why the result doesn’t gel at all. It is a pattern of behaviour that is similar to an observation made by the very wise (and profane) Ted Dziuba who once spoke these words of wisdom.

If there’s one thing all engineers love to do, it’s create APIs. It’s so awesome because you can draw on a white board and feel like you put in a good day’s work, despite having solved no real, actual problems. Web 2.0 engineers, in addition to their intrinsic love of APIs, have a real hard-on for anything having to do with a social network. For example, developing a Facebook application lets them call their shitty little PHP program an "application" running on a "platform," like a real, live computer programmer does. Make-believe time is so much fun, even for adults.

Apart from making me giggle, Dziuba may have a point. Elsewhere on this blog I have spent time explaining that there are different types of problems that require different approaches to solving them (wicked vs. tame). My conjecture is that collaboration itself is exactly the same in this regard. People who espouse a particular type of tool or approach as the utopian solution to collaboration are taking a one size fits all approach to a multifaceted area and even worse, treating that area as a platitude. Anyone who calls themselves an Information Architect and doesn’t at least give cursory examination to the dimensions or facets of collaboration is likely to be doing their stakeholders a disservice.

All of us have certain biases, and I am no exception. For a start, I am generation X – the so-called cynical generation. Apparently we whinge and whine about everything and then blame it all on generation-Y. Thus, if cynicism is the gen-X stereotype, then I will happily accept being the poster child. I mean seriously, all of you vanity obsessed, self interested generation y’ers, if you spend a little less time preening and more time thinking, we might get some wisdom out of you (see – I am such a cynical gen-X right now).

So let’s recap the facets of collaboration. The model I came up with identifies four major facets for collaborative work: Task, Trait, Social and Transactional.

• Task: Because the outcome drives the members’ attention and participation
• Trait: Because the interest drives the members’ attention and participation
• Transactional: Because the process drives the members’ attention and participation
• Social: Because the shared insight drives the members’ attention and participation

In the last post, I used the model to examine the notion of Business Process Management versus Human Process Management and looked at some of the claims and counter claims made by proponents of each. This time let’s up the ante and talk about something curlier. We will examine the notion that social networking in the enterprise is the answer to improving collaboration within the enterprise. On first thought, it makes perfect sense, given the incredible success of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate about the use and value of social tools in the enterprise driven by their rise outside of organisational contexts. One particularly strongly worded quote is from Aaron Fulkerson, co-founder and CEO of MindTouch who doesn’t mince his words:

This class of software forces business users to adopt the myopic social visions imagined by the developers, which are nearly identical to their corresponding consumer web implementations. In short, social software is not solving business problems. In fact, these applications only serve to treat symptoms of the problems businesses face. They exacerbate the real problems within businesses by creating distractions and, worse, proliferate more disconnected data and application silos.

Ouch! Even within the SharePoint community there is significant variation of opinions as to the value of social. While I better protect the innocent and not name names, I have spoken with several well known SharePointers who think social is a giant waste of time, versus those who see real value in it. Irrespective of your opinion, you cannot ignore the fact that social is a significant game changer with effects still being felt. While web 2.0 has dropped off the Gartner hype cycle, its effect on particular sectors has been far reaching. Now it seems that all sectors have a 2.0 on the end of their name. For example:

• Enterprise 2.0
• Education 2.0
• Legal 2.0
• Government 2.0

Clearly, if things were just a flash in the pan, why are governments around the world trying to revitalise their public sector by utilising these tools?

Look at Microsoft as another example. They have, I think smartly, recognised industry trends and reacted to them via the introduction of a number of new SharePoint features, such as tagging/folksonomy via managed metadata, ratings columns, enhanced wiki capabilities and a significant investment in the capabilities of my-sites. Their clients now have the option to leverage these features should they choose to do so.

So just as there are naysayers, there are the pundits. Many people cite the reasoning that these features are necessary to attract and retain the next generation of workers, who have grown up with these tools in their personal lives. Whether this claim is valid is debatable, but I have to say, I really like the Enterprise 2.0 slide deck below by Scott Gavin for a number of reasons. I think it encapsulates the 2.0 vision, underpinned by social/cloud technologies very nicely. I sometimes ask people to discuss this slide deck in my IA classes and discussion is equally polarising as social networking in the enterprise itself. Some people think it represents the vision for the future, and others think it is hopelessly idealistic and doesn’t reflect cold, hard reality. Take a look for yourself below…

And the survey says…

Using the facets quadrants, we can start to see patterns for success of these tools for the enterprise and whether Aaron Fulkerson’s argument has merit or whether Scott Gavin is on the right track. An interesting use of the facet diagram is to plot where various tools and technologies are located. in my classes, I ask people to plot where Facebook belongs on facets diagram. Guess where it is usually drawn? 

While some people will draw Facebook at various levels on the vertical axis, everyone pretty much describes Facebook (and LinkedIn)  as trait based, while being highly dominant on the social quadrant. As discussed in the last article, if I ask people to plot a crowdsourced tool like Wikipedia, the dominant characteristic is always trait/social. In other words, people maintain and update Wikipedia articles because of their interest in the topic area, not because it helps them get something done.

Clearly, big social networking technologies are successful in the "trait based social” quadrant. In other words, we tend to use Facebook more for common interest collaboration than to solve a task based collaborative issue (such as deliver a project). Another interesting thing about a lot of social networking technologies is that for many, our work-based collaborative life tends to be more task based, compared to our non-work which is more trait based. In other words, for a lot of us, our work life revolves around working with a group of people for a common outcome and if it was not for that common outcome, we wouldn’t necessarily have much in common (I risk falling victim to my own generalisation here – so I will come back to this later in the section titled “Why User Buy-In Is Hard”).

When you look at where Facebook sits in the quadrant, it begs the question of how well this type of tool (or the building blocks it is based on) would work in an organisation that is project (task) based and highly transactional. To that end, consider a project management information system, such as the basic one that Dux espouses in his book or the more complex one that Microsoft sell to organisations. Where do you think it belongs on the quadrant?

When I ask people to plot their project management information system, I typically get this response:

I speculate that the further away two tools lie on the spectrum, the more likely we are to have a robot-barbie solution if you blindly mix features that work well in each individual quadrant. The wiki argument I made in part 3 seems to support this contention. If you recall, in part 3 of this series, I mentioned that I ask every attendee of my classes if they had ever seen a successful project management wiki.  Irrespective of the location of the class, the answer was pretty much “no”. I noted that where I had seen successful wikis tended to be where the users of the wiki were linked by strong traits.

Looking Deeper

While that is interesting, I think the facets diagram tells you more than it intends. Obviously, it is clear that these project management systems such as MS Project Server are oriented toward task/transactional (“getting things done”) aspect of project delivery (ie, time, cost, scope, budget and the like). While some people might point to this and say “there you go – I told you all that social crap was a waste of time – bloody gen-Y and their social networking hubris”, I feel this is naive. If task based transactional tools are sufficient, then why do so many projects fail?

I have stated many times on this blog that shared commitment to a course of action requires shared understanding of the problem at hand. The act of aligning a team to project goals and developing this shared understanding is the realm of the task/social quadrant (the top left), where insights and outcomes come together. When I ask people to name tools that live in this space, few can name anything. Obviously, most project management systems are devoid here. Worst still, we subsequently delude ourselves to thinking that shared understanding can come from a few platitudinal paragraphs labelled as a “problem statement”.

Social networking pundits implicitly recognise this issue (and frequently butt heads against command and control type project managers as a result). But i feel they make the mistake in applying a one size fits all approach to collaboration and apply trait based tools as a panacea when they are not wholly appropriate. The social tools seem to fit exceptionally well into the top right quadrant, but not in the top left.

In fact the only tools that spring to mind that belong in the top left category are the sensemaking tools that my company practice, such as Dialogue Mapping.

Where’s the proof, Paul?

So I guess I am arguing that using social tools because they are the “choice of the new generation” ignores a few home truths about the nature of these tools versus the nature of organisational life. Just because Microsoft provide the tools for you, tells you that they are hedging their bets rather than having any more insight than you or me. So to test all of this, let’s use the facets model in a different way to back up some of my observations and suggestions in this post. Guess what happens when I ask people to plot SharePoint itself on the facets map?

When I asked SharePoint practitioners to do this, they initially drew SharePoint 2007 as a circle over the entire model. Once they did so, they would very often adjust the drawing to emphasise transactional over social collaboration as shown below.

When practitioners were asked to draw SharePoint 2010, they usually indicated a higher representation in in the two social quadrants, but favoured the trait based social over task based social as shown below.

What was interesting about this experiment is that very few people drew SharePoint over the entire facets of collaboration. Social collaboration with SharePoint it seems, only stretches so far. This leads me onto more conjecture, and now we get to the bit in the post where we name a giant SharePoint elephant in the room.

Structured tools for social collaboration?

Many collaborative tools purport themselves as operating in the social space. SharePoint 2010 clearly does so, principally due to the Managed Metadata service, pimped MySites with tagging/rating capabilities. But SharePoint’s core heritage is database/metadata driven, document based collaboration. If we go back to our definition of social collaboration as dynamic, unstructured, with sharing of perspectives and insight through pattern sensing, then social collaboration is clearly not a predefined interaction.

Yet, database driven tools like SharePoint, and its building blocks like site columns and content types require considerable up-front planning to install and govern. Many, many inputs need to be well defined and furthermore, unless you have learnt through living the pain of things like content type definitions in declarative CAML, SharePoint buildings blocks are difficult to maintain/change over time. SharePoint suffers from a problem of reduced resiliency over time in that the more you customise it to suit your ends, the less flexible it gets. In the case of social collaboration the problem is worse because we are trying design for outputs where the inputs are not controlled. Trying to turn something that is inherently organic and emergent to something that has an X and Y on it may be misfocused and destined to fail in many circumstances. The realm of well-defined inputs is the realm of transactional collaboration, where workflow and business process management thrive and change is much more controlled before SharePoint ever gets a look in.

SharePoint excels at transactional scenarios as this is its heritage – after all, the majority of its feature set is oriented to transactional collaboration. The fact that people are prepared to draw SharePoint as dominating across across the transactional half of the facets diagram illustrates this.

But this raises interesting, if not slightly heretical question. If we need to use information architects to get a collaborative tool deployed for social collaboration (to get those inputs defined), then are we pushing the solution into the transactional side of the fence? Recall that in part 3 of this series, I looked at document collaboration and noted that when asked to draw team based document collaboration, people typically drew it operating in the social half of the matrix (pasted below for reference). I also noted in part 3 that for team based collaboration, rules and process are much less rigid or formalised with regards to document use and structure. I then referred to a recent NothingbutSharePoint article where a large organisation’s attempts to introduce the usage of content types largely failed. Like the seeming lack of success of wiki’s for task based collaboration, maybe content types simply are not the ideal construct as you move up the Y axis from transactional to social?

Now do not assume that I am anti metadata/content types here as this is not the case at all. Content types rock when it comes to search and surfacing of related information across a site collection (and beyond if you use search web parts). What I am calling out is the fact that if the SharePoint constructs that we have at our disposal were the panacea for social collaboration, where are the best practices that tell us how to leverage them for success? Perhaps the nature of the collaboration taking place plays a part in the lack of take-up reported in the aforementioned article? Those who advocate highly structured metadata as the only true solution may in fact be pushing a transactional paradigm onto a collaborative model that is ill-suited to it?

The knowledge worker paradox – one of the reasons why user buy-in is hard

Finally for now I’d like to cover one more aspect to this issue. Last year, one of my students looked at the facets and said “Now I know why my users aren’t seeing the value that I see in SharePoint”. When I asked him why, he explained:

“Many of my users are transactional and governed by process – that’s their KPI. Here I am as a knowledge worker, seeing all of these great collaborative features, but I am not judged by a process or transaction. I don’t live in that world. I forget that someone whose performance is judged by process consistency is not going to get all excited by a wiki or tagging or a blog.”

I call this the knowledge worker paradox and it is reminiscent of what I said in part 4 where we looked at BPM vs. HPM. Each role on an organisation is multifaceted. For many roles, there is varying degrees of transactional work taking place. Accordingly some people are very much process driven just as much as they are social driven. Gross generalisations that make statements that “80% of people are knowledge workers or perform knowledge work” do not help matters. In fact they serve to feed the one size fits all mentality that has proven to be detrimental to projects when people fail to recognise that some projects have wicked aspects.

SharePoint people are almost always knowledge workers. Thus if you, as a knowledge worker who is rarely governed by transactional process, think that you have the vision to prescribe a SharePoint driven meta-utopia to meet transactional needs without having lived that world, then if your results are not what you hoped for then to me its hardly surprising.  My student in this case realised that he had been approaching his user base the wrong way. Like Jane in part 1, he did not take into account the dominant facets of collaboration for the roles that he was trying to sell SharePoint into.

When you think about it, the whole argument around records management versus collaborative document management is in effect, an argument between a transactional oriented approach, versus a social oriented one. It is the same pattern as BPM vs. HPM. In records management, the paradigm is that management of the record is more important than the content of the record. Furthermore, that record shouldn’t change. Yet with team based document collaboration, without content there is no document as such and furthermore, the document will change frequently and require less strict controls to grease the gears of collaboration.

Both records oriented people and social pundits commonly make the same mistake of my student, where they force their dominant paradigm on everyone else.

Conclusion

Food for thought, eh?

This is probably my last facets of collaboration post for a while. It is one of these series of articles that I feel has value, but I know it won’t be read by too many 🙂 Nevertheless, I do hope that anyone who has gotten this far through has gotten some value from this examination and sees value in the model to help users make more informed Information Architecture decisions for SharePoint and beyond. I certainly use it now in most engagements and hope that it can be improved upon as a tool, or somehow incorporated into some of the SharePoint standards or maturity model stuff that is out there.

Remember the most important thing of all though. Despite all I have said, it is still definitely all generation y’s fault!

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

Monte Carlo simulations are cool – very cool. in this post I am going to try and out-do Kailash Awati in trying to explain what they are. You see, I am one of these people who’s eyes glaze over the minute you show me any form of algebra. Kailash recent wrote a post to explain Monte Carlo to the masses, but he went and used a mathematical formula (he couldn’t help himself), and thereby lost me totally. Mind you, he used the example of a drunk person playing darts. This I did like a lot and gave me the inspiration for this post.

So here is my attempt to explain what Monte Carlo is all about and why it is so useful.

I have previously stated, that vaguely right is better than precisely wrong. If someone asks me to make an estimate on something, I offer them a ranged estimate, based on my level of certainty. Thus for example, if you asked me to guess how many beers per day Charlie Sheen has been knocking back lately, I might offer you an estimate of somewhere between 20 and 50 pints. I am not sure of the exact number (and besides, it would vary on a daily basis anyway) , so I would rather give you a range that I feel relatively confident with, than a single answer that is likely to be completely off base.

Similarly, if you asked me how much a SharePoint project to “improve collaboration” would cost, I would do a similar thing. The difference between SharePoint success and Charlie Sheen’s ability to keep a TV show afloat is that with SharePoint, there are more variables to consider. For example, I would have to make ranged estimates for the cost of:

• Hardware and licensing
• Solution envisioning and business analysis
• Application development
• Implementation
• Training and user engagement

Now here is the problem. A CFO or similar cheque signer wants certainty. Thus, if you give them a list of ranged estimates, they are not going to be overly happy about it. For a start, any return on investment analysis is by definition, going to have to pick a single value from each of your estimates to “run the numbers”. Therefore if we used the lower estimate (and therefore lower cost) for each variable, we would inevitably get a great return on investment. If we used the upper limit to each range, we are going to get a much costlier project.

So how to we reconcile this level of uncertainty?

Easy! Simply run the numbers lots and lots (and lots) of times – say, 100,000 times, picking random values from each variable that goes into the estimate. Count the number of times that your simulation is a positive ROI compared to a negative one. Blammo – that’s Monte Carlo in a nutshell. It is worth noting that in my example, we are assuming that all values between the upper and lower limits are equally likely. Technically this is called a uniform distribution – but we will get to the distribution thing in a minute.

As a very crappy, yet simple example, imagine that if SharePoint costs over $250,000 it will be considered a failure. Below are our ranged estimates for the main cost areas:

If you add up my lower estimates we get a total of $140,000 – well within our $250,000 limit. However if my upper estimates turn out to be true we blow out to $435,000 – ouch!

So why don’t we pick a random value from each item, add them up, and then repeat the exercise 100,000 times. Below I have shown 5 of 100,000 simulations.

So according to this basic simulation, only 2 out of 5 shown are below $250,000 and therefore a success according to my ROI criteria. Therefore we were successful only only 40% of the time (2/5 = .4). By that measure, this is a risky project (and we haven’t taken into account discounting for risk either).

“Thats it?”, I hear you say? Essentially yes. All we are doing is running the numbers over and over again and then looking at the patterns that emerge from this. But that is not the key bit to understand. Instead, the most important thing to understand with Monte Carlo properly is to understand probability distributions. This is the bit that people mess up on and the bit that people are far too quick to jump into mathematical formulae.

But random is not necessarily random

Let’s use Charlie Sheen again to understand probability distributions. If we were to consider the amount of crack he smokes on a daily basis, we could conclude it is between 0 grams  and 120 grams. The 120g upper limit is based on what Charlie Sheen could realistically tolerate (which is probably three times the amount of normal humans). If we plotted this over time, it might look like the example below (which is the last 31 days):

So to make a best guess at the amount he smokes tomorrow, should we pick random values between 0 and 120 grams?  I would say not. Based on observing the chart above, you would be likely to choose values from the upper end of the range scale (lately he has really been hitting things hard and we all know what happens when he hangs with starlets from the adult entertainment industry).

That’s the trick to understanding a probability distribution. If we simply chose a random value it would likely not be representative of the recent range of values. We still have to pick a value from a range of possibilities, but some values are more likely than others. We are not truly picking random values at all.

The most common probability distribution people use is the old bell curve – you probably saw it in high school. For many variables that go into a monte carlo, it is a perfectly fine distribution. For example, the average height of a human male may be 5 foot 6. Some people will be larger and some will be smaller, but you would find that there would be more people closer to this mid-point than far away from it, hence the bell shape.

Let’s see what Charlie Sheen’s distribution looks like. Since we have our range of values, for each days amount of crack usage, let’s divide up crack usage into ranges of grams and see how much Charlie has consumed. The figure is below:

As you can see, according to the 50% of the time Charlie was not hitting the white stuff particularly hard. There 16 occurrences where Charlie ingested less than 10 grams. What sort of curve does this make? The picture below illustrates it.

Interesting huh? If we chose random numbers according to this probability distribution, chances are that 50% of the time, we would get a value between 0 and 10 grams of crack being smoked or shovelled up his nasal passages. Yet when we look at the trend of the last 10 days, one could reasonably expect that its likely that tomorrows value would be significantly higher than zero. In fact there were no occurrences at all of less than 10 grams in a single day in the last 10 days.

Now let’s change the date range, and instead look at Charlie’s last 9 days of crack usage. This time the distribution looks a bit more realistic based on recent trends. Since he has not been well behaved lately, there were no days at all where his crack usage was less than 10 grams. In fact 4 of the 9 occurrences were over 60 grams.

This time, utilising a different set of reference points (9 days instead of 31), we get very different “randomness”. This gets to one of the big problems with probability distributions which Kailash tells me is called the Reference class problem. How can you pick a representative sample? In some situations completely random might actually be much better than a poorly chosen distribution.

Back to SharePoint…

So imagine that you have been asked to estimate SharePoint costs and you only have vague, ranged estimates. Lets also assume that for each of the variables that need to be assigned an estimate, you have some idea of their distribution. For example if you decide that SharePoint hardware and licensing really could be utterly random between $50000-$60000 then pick a truly random value (a uniform distribution) from the range with each iteration of the simulation. But if you decide that its much more likely to come in at $55000 than it is $50000, then your “random” choice will be closer to the middle of the range more often than not – a normal distribution.

So the moral of the story? Think about the sort of distribution that each variable uses. It’s not always a bell curve. its also not completely random either. In fact you should strive for a distribution that is the closest representation of reality. Kailash tells me that a distribution “should be determined empirically – from real data – not fitted to some mathematically convenient fiction (such as the Normal or Unform distributions). Further, one should be absolutely certain that the data is representative of the situation that is being estimated.”

Since SharePoint often relies on some estimations that offer significant uncertainty, a Monte Carlo simulation is a good way to run the numbers – especially if you want to see how many variables with different probability distributions combine to produce a result. Run the simulation enough times, you will produce a new probability distribution that represents all of these variables.

Just remember though – Charlie Sheen reliably demonstrates that things are not often predictable and that past values are no reliable indicator of future values. Thus a simulation is only as good as your probability distributions in the first place

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

p.s A huge thanks to Kailash for checking this post, offering some suggestions and making sure I didn’t make an arse of myself.

Hi all

I just thought I would check-in with some updates on happenings and some upcoming travels. In less then 2 weeks now, I will be in London with Andrew Woodward and Ant Clay of 21apps for the second SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture Master Class. There are still places available on this class so if you have been thinking about attending, now is the time to act.

Also in Europe, a class is being run in Utrecht, Netherlands in May by Ant Clay.

I am proud to be chosen to be a keynote speaker at the Australian SharePoint conference in Sydney in March. I am still wondering if I should dialogue map 600 people! I will also be running a two-day class after this conference – the only one in Sydney for this year. The week after I am in NZ at the SharePoint conference there, also running a 2 day class and hopefully the first ever Issue Mapping class in New Zealand.

After a small break (begging forgiveness of clients who have to put up with my “international man of mystery” gallivanting), I’ll be heading to North American shores to run classes over there. Confirmed cities at this stage are Boston and Toronto, but DC and Chicago are in the works and I am hopeful to run one on the west coast, perhaps in San Francisco or Seattle.

If you are a SharePoint consultancy in these areas and would like to partner with us on this, please contact me on twitter @paulculmsee or email me via the address at the about page of this blog.

Below is the current itinerary for Governance and Information Architecture classes. Things are still being solidified, and will obviously change a little between now and then. Keep an eye on twitter @paulculmsee for more detail.

if you live in any of the regions that are either “tentative” or “in the works”, please contact me and register your interest so I can work with local partners on the ground in these locations.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee