Getting people to use your Sharepoint intranet: First, get rid of the users?

For a successful SharePoint implementation, you can’t forget the most important ingredient — getting the platform used.

If you are reading this article, it is likely because you’ve heard whining in your office or you’re tired of repeating the same message over and over to improve user adoption of your SharePoint implementation.

You may be a frustrated project manager or business champion who spent countless hours on budgeting, planning, governance, information architecture, training and timelines, only to find that the last task in your SharePoint project plan that has no due date is USER ADOPTION. And to your horror, no one is taking your words seriously and people don’t care. The bottom line is this: for you to get people to take advantage of your hard work, you have to add one more task assigned to yourself — don’t give up.

Unfortunately if thinking about "user adoption" is the last step, then you've already failed. Written by a software vendor, this article - underpinned by an assumption that the software is perfect - advises people to Break Down the Resistance, Stop the Whining and then Babysit, aka Enforce change. This approach is more than overtly paternalistic and I'm surprised they don't just recommend getting rid of the users who are blemishing the hard work of the technocrats. Part of me wonders if this attitude is just symptomatic of the Microsoft SharePoint ecosystem being geared towards software development and implementation, rather than a well rounded mix of people, process, technology and content (like we do at Headshift | Dachis Group). What do you think?

Can you deploy collaboration software out of the box?

Mark Gilbert from Gartner spoke at the Gartner BI summit in Sydney recently. He said that firms shouldn't deploy collaboration software "out of the box" - I disagree, but I disagree because I'm being pedantic, although I think it is important to be so given this is a Gartner person speaking.

Overall, I think Michael is right to be pedantic. What I'm not clear from Gilbert's statement is that when he talks about the need to adapt collaboration (and social software), is he talking about actual developed customisations or customisations achieved through configuration and user-generated information architecture.

However, Gilbert also mentions SharePoint - and that does complicate things, because of the way I typically see SharePoint deployed, which is with little thought. If we read "out of the box" SharePoint to mean, you've just finished installing the software, switched it on, and announced job done then I can understand why Gilbert might be concerned.

Does this argument hold for enterprise social computing tools? It depends. Architecturally speaking, other "pure" tools of this type (by which I mean, are designed to be or have specific heritage in social software) typically have a greater resilience for dealing with organic and emergent usage. However, I would also encourage people to design for adoption anyway, remaining open to exploring customisation through both development and configuration based on user's and business needs.

Bringing me back to the beginning... you can *sometimes* deploy out of the box. But even while that might be the end of your technical activities, its only the start of the project.

BTW You can come and debate this with Michael and I at the Intranets2011 conference, where we are both presenting.

How to do SharePoint right

At a technology level, I was impressed. At a business engagement level, I was incredibly impressed. What Jan and Carol have created, in conjunction with in-house developers, is impressive, but what really stood out was their deep knowledge of how lawyers work, and an almost obsessive focus on getting it right - through discussions, experimentation, trying things out, seeking feedback and input from lawyers, working with people through the change process, and so on. This blog post is my standing ovation to Jan and Carol - tremendous work!

You know how I said I'm not anti-SharePoint. Well, here is a good example of what it takes to use it well. And yes, as you can see it does take some effort and time. More organisations, particularly in government, could take a leaf out their book. Note: This is about using SharePoint as a document management solution.

I'm not anti-SharePoint

Media_httpfarm4static_gfrvd

Some people have the misconception that I'm anti-SharePoint, but that's really not the case. What I don't like about SharePoint is how it is implemented in many organisations I come across. The typical implementation anti-patterns I've seen include:

  • We are going to deploy a "vanilla" SharePoint, so it will be easy to upgrade later.
  • We need something to do X and SharePoint lets us do X and more... we just haven't worked out why we want the 'more' yet.
  • Switch on the social features in SharePoint? You must be kidding.
  • We've deployed SharePoint, now lets find out what users need it to do.

The first point is probably the worst case, because it limits your ability to do anything but train your users to work within the constraint of the vanilla experience. Yet, SharePoint is designed to be extended and integrated. And (just as with any complex enterprise product) you will need to do that if you want to work within SharePoint's architecture, which has some limitations as a social business platform.

Case in point - I was recently asked by someone to help them explain why a particular social business software product was better than SharePoint. My response was this:

  • Why do they think SharePoint would meet user's needs?
  • Why do we assume we have to choose one or the other?

Which brings me to this story in the RWW Enterprise blog which claimed:

80% of users with SharePoint access still chose to e-mail documents to necessary parties instead of using SharePoint.

There are - as the blog post and comments report - many possible technical solutions to this problem that can be plugged into SharePoint. Still, fundamentally the argument goes that email is so pervasive we need to fit new tools around the dominance of email. In effect, don't change anything. Which leaves me thinking that some organisations just want to use SharePoint as a platform to augment email. And you wonder why I don't work with organisations that use SharePoint that much...

BTW Headshift isn't technology agnostic either - we have preferences, but we're not aligned to a single product or vendor either.

Photo Credit: Sharepoint Design - 2 CC-BY



What intranet tribe are you? #e20 #intranet #sharepoint

I'm wondering if you've noticed this...

One way or another I've been involved with intranets for over a decade and I've seen some changes in that time. Back in the past the world of intranets was quite simply - generally speaking, you could divide the world into three intranet tribes: those that were run by IT, others by HR and most of the rest by corporate communications. Sure, there were always a few exceptions (like me).

But since then two significant things have happened:

  • SharePoint arrived; and
  • Enterprise Social Computing was definied... aka Enterprise 2.0.

Some people have migrated from the old world to the new world of Enterprise 2.0; but SharePoint - which is still closely associated with the old world - has also created a brand new tribe through the force of numbers, sucking in new people but also many intranet converts (forced or voluntary).

The problem is, I get the feeling that the new world of Enterprise 2.0, the spin-out tribe of SharePoint and already divided tribes of intranet aren't really talking to each other. A good indicator of this divide is the conference circuit, but it is also evident on Twitter (for example, compare the conversations and people using #e20 to #intranet) and more broadly across the social Web.

However, is this a good thing or bad thing? From a knowledge management and innovation perspective I think it is a bad thing. Even for those people focused on 'traditional' intranets and SharePoint who say they are too busy with today to worry about the future, I think its pretty sad to hear endless conversations about the best place for the news link or if weather widgets are a good idea. We have over of decade of experience with intranets, collaboration etc, but continue to re-invent the wheel, when we could invest that time in what is happening next.

But what do you think? Where did you come from and what intranet tribe are you part of today?

Photo Source: UN Flags (CC: Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic)