Readiness & Strategy Assessment

Readiness & Strategy Assessment AKA Maturity Model Simon Hudson, Director, Cloud2 Ltd.

In the previous episode At the ISC Mick Miller spoke about the SharePoint Maturity Model developed by Sadalit van Buren. It s an excellent technical resource for assessing the state of an existing SharePoint deployment It is designed for developers and architects rather than the business

Episode 2 The one about the business Business needs: A plan prior to a SharePoint project Candidness on current platform maturity Understanding of broader organisational factors and capabilities Clarity on strategy and targets A users view This session presents a new model, designed to help the business plan, justify, implement and benchmark their use of SharePoint.

Amount of stuff & Users Plan Build Migrate & Adopt E m p h a s i s P h a s e Rely SharePoint phases Function Migration and use Protection & Performance Maturity level: 200 300 400 500 Maturity, utilisation, sophistication

History o Van Buren SharePoint Maturity Model (2010) Limitations of the Van Buren Model: Technically focused Assumes use and detailed understanding of SharePoint Doesn t address business needs Not applicable to non-sharepoint solutions as a starting point Can t assess non-sp intranets etc? Some important real-world elements missing e.g. adoption and governance No target setting Need both as is and the vision Criteria insufficiently clear/detailed Descriptions too terse for routine use No tracking, visualisation or recommendations Want stronger outputs No benchmarking

What's in it for me For organisations committed to understanding and maturing their SharePoint implementation, a Maturity Model can provide: Clarity on current strengths and weaknesses View from different parts of the organisation Identification of organisation s objectives Mapped to SharePoint/intranet capabilities A strategic roadmap Warnings for stretch targets Dashboard view of current situation, targets, risks Expert observations and recommendations

MATURITY MODEL - OVERVIEW

16 Elements Business Process Search Customisations Infrastructure Staffing & Training Stack Synergy Collaboration Publication Implementation & Adoption Governance Strategy Integration Business Intelligence Information Architecture Business Solutions People & Communities

16 Elements Publication Collaboration Business Process Search People & Communities Business Solutions Integration Business Intelligence Infrastructure Staffing & Training o Chosen to reflect business dimensions not specific or generic SharePoint functionality Document management Records management Portals Etc. Customisations Stack Synergy Information Architecture Strategy Implementation and Adoption Governance

Process Gather a group of users Guided assessment of the current intranet (etc.) Rate each element 0-500 Multiples of 10 Achieve consensus Target for where they want to be in 12 months Target for each element 0-500 Multiples of 100 Repeat with further groups Review results for headlines, watch-outs and trou de loup Trou de loup also known as a prat fall or seemed like a good idea at the time, is a project goal or scope extension introduced by those unfamiliar with SharePoint maturity development. Commonly associated with ID ten T errors

Criteria Anchored Rating of Elements Consultant guides groups of stakeholders Level Publication Collaboration Description 200 500 present. Each element 400 rated content. 0-500 300 200 100 Anchored 100 against detailed Dimensions criteria Presentation of content in SharePoint for consumption by a varied audience of authenticated users. Areas of focus include navigation, presentation of content (static vs. personalised), content organisation and storage, customisations to the template, and approvals and workflow. Content is personalised to the user. Content is shared across multiple functions and systems without duplication. Feedback mechanism on taxonomy is in place. Content is presented in many locations based on single sources and duplication is actively avoided. Automated tagging may be Content is monitored & maintained; some is targeted to specific groups. Site and content usage is analysed. Digital assets are managed appropriately. If more than one doc mgmt. system is present, governance is defined. Mechanisms for authoring and publication are defined and used. Authority of published content is assured. Duplication is minimised. Processes support the range from unstructured through to strongly structured and governed Site Columns/ Managed Metadata standardise the taxonomy and IA. Page layouts & site templates are customised. Approval process for content is used. Expiry and Status fields are employed uniformly. Some custom metadata is applied to content, but on an ad hoc/local basis. Templates standardised across sites. Lists used rather than static HTML/text. Multiple document mgmt. systems may be present w/out governance around purpose or overlap. Navigation & taxonomy of a publication system are not formally considered/planned. Little to no checks on content. Folder structure is based on or re-created from shared drives. Content that could be in lists is posted as text (in Content Editor Web Part etc). No templates or Out of Box site templates / layouts are used. Pages, Communications, Definitive content, media Doesn t influence other than to reach consensus Drive the process along Brings debates to a close Some custom metadata is applied to content, but on an ad hoc/local basis. Templates standardised across Collaboration occurs outside the firewall i.e. with external contributors. sites. Lists used rather than Automated static processes exist HTML/text. for de-provisioning and archiving Multiple sites, for promoting and retaining content. Real-time, on demand and offline document mgmt. systems collaboration may are be all supported present and actively used. w/out governance around purpose or overlap. Multiple individuals working jointly within SharePoint. Areas of focus include provisioning & de-provisioning, templates, organisation (finding a site), archiving, using SharePoint's capabilities (i.e. versioning & doc mgmt., task mgmt., calendar mgmt., discussion thread, surveys, workflow). Multiples of 10 for assessment multiples of 100 for target Collaboration tools are used across the entire organisation. Email is captured & leveraged alongside core document functions. A strong Authoring to Final model is in place. Real Time collaboration exists in places alongside presence and simultaneous editing. Navigation & taxonomy of a publication system are not formally considered/planned. Little to no checks on content. Folder structure is based on or re-created from shared drives. Content that could be in lists is posted as text (in Content Editor Web Part etc). No templates or Out of Box site templates / layouts are used. Collaboration encompasses documents (with versioning and status indication) and some use or discussion threads, wikis, blogs, and Notes boards. Multiple copies are rarely in circulation. Site templates are developed for specific needs. Some extension to mobile collaboration Processes allow rapid creation of new sites. Collaboration efforts are collected in document libraries, with emailed links (rather than documents) commonly used. Collaborated is supported and encouraged via the tool. File shares are rarely used. Access depends on role and need rather than location and local network constraints. Out of box collaboration sites/areas can be set up as needed without Granular requirements structure or organisation. No formal process each exists for requesting level a new site/area. Permissions are ad hoc and not under control. Collaboration is not actively supported by the technology. Higher level ratings Teams, work in progress, assume content control, lower document & records levels management Aim to be technology agnostic

Data capture Maturity Assessment Elements Mean Rating (IMT management) Rating (Users) Target (IM&T management) Target (Users) Target Mean Assess the PUBLICATION maturity of your SharePoint or intranet portal 235 220 250 400 400 400 Assess the COLLABORATION maturity of your SharePoint or intranet portal 215 180 250 400 500 450 Assess the BUSINESS PROCESS maturity of your SharePoint or intranet portal 140 100 180 400 400 400 Assess the SEARCH maturity of your SharePoint or intranet portal 110 120 100 500 500 500 Assess the PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES capabilities of your SharePoint or intranet portal 205 210 200 400 300 350 Assess the BUSINESS SOLUTIONS maturity your SharePoint solution 200 200 200 400 400 400 Assess the INTEGRATION maturity of your SharePoint or intranet portal 150 200 100 400 400 400 Assess the BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE maturity your SharePoint or intranet portal 180 120 240 500 400 450 Assess the INFRASTRUCTURE maturity underpinning your SharePoint or intranet portal 380 380 380 500 400 450 Assess the STAFF AND TRAINING needed to support and drive your SharePoint or intranet portal 370 380 360 500 500 500 Assess the sophistication of CUSTOMISATIONS and development approaches associated with your SharePoint or intranet portal 100 100 100 300 300 300 Assess the specific STACK SYNERGY associated with your SharePoint or intranet portal 210 220 200 400 500 450 Assess the specific INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE maturity used in your portal 200 200 200 400 500 450 Assess the sophistication of the STRATEGY for your portal 285 300 270 400 500 450 Assess the maturity of your IMPLEMENTATION AND ADOPTION approach and capability 240 230 250 400 500 450 Assess the maturity of your portal GOVERNANCE provision and approach 255 260 250 400 400 400

Outputs - The Dashboard

Red flags Gap analysis implications Maturity Gap Comment 0-200 Easy, with appropriate support and commitment 200-300 Challenging, needs significant commitment and resource 300-400 Target too high. Risks over-extension, underfunding & failure 400-500 Very dangerous, avoid this size step change

Radar plots Target and Current by group Target and Current by year Recommendations Target vs. Current gap

Analysis and recommendations Lowest performers Recommendations Current year Comment Solution is relatively mature in several areas compared with other NHS trusts. Business Process Few business processes addressed Search Some content not indexed and security trimming needed Both user and manager aspirations are high. Aim to improve by no more than 200 in any single step. Phase accordingly. See following comments Customisations An appropriate focus on out of the box development Search and Business Processes improvements offer quick wins. Improve (to 300) Publication, Collaboration & Stack Synergy for strong benefits Upgrade to SP2010 to access new features, performance and ease of use Plan to raise all elements except Customisation to 200 in next phase Ensure Information Architecture is developed to 300+ in next phase Review infrastructure to ensure it continues to: Highest Performers - Maintain the positive staff perception. Address search issues Current year Comment - Protects content and processes. Add resilency and better backup Infrastructure Perceived as robust and high availability. Aim to move more processes into the intranet to drive better adoption Staffing and training Good level of internal capability to support platform Aim to move more content into the intranet to reduce use of file servers & drive adoption Focus on enabling remote and mobile working to release efficiency gains Create a clear strategy and roadmap with a strong communication & governance plan. Anticipate cultural resistance and use the disruption to set a new culture. Delegate roles. Seek executive engagement, to drive adoption & show benefit Repeat assessment 6 months after phase 1 Gap analysis implications Summary Maturity Gap Comment Current platform is moderately mature (for NHS) and somewhat used 0-200 Easy, with appropriate support and commitment 200-300 Challenging, needs significant commitment and resource User and management expectations are for considerably more. An upgrade to 2010 & emphasis on collaboration, mobility and search will deliver rapid 300-400 Target too high. Risks over-extension, underfunding & failure benefits, with scope for more business processes to be embedded in phase 2 and beyond. 400-500 Very dangerous, avoid this size step change A needs and benefits driven roadmap should be developed. This must anticipate the need for a cultural shift and degree of user pain in achieving this. Infrastructure restrcuture to gain better utilisation and performance.

Benchmarking

Limitations of the model ocriteria have gaps osome overlap between elements otends to assume SharePoint 2010 otakes 2 3 hours per session ostack Synergy! Surely there s a better name obenchmarking is manual (and no deep analysis yet)

Discussion Balancing the elements Choosing the focus Accept the laggards Customisations, Integration Emphasise non-functional maturity Information Architecture, Strategy, Implementation and Adoption, Governance Organisational insights The client gets value from the debate Anticipates a journey for the client Continual improvement, not a one off project Framework for client discussion

Coming up next Run more assessments Tweak and improve tool Obtain longitudinal data Analyse maturity against success Extend benchmarks Get more data Analyse trends by Organisation size Industry/sector etc Introduce cost and benefit element What does it take to move up each maturity level? What financial and non-financial benefits does each deliver Get people to use it Licence model vs. free to use? See if we can establish it as an industry standard Shared benchmarks?

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Credits o Sadalit Van Buren o SharePoint Maturity Model (Customizations) from Hugo Esperanca's blog. http://activeobjects.blogspot.com/2008/07/sharepoint-maturitymodel-smm 20.html o Rate Your Organization's SharePoint Collaboration Maturity, from Lee Reed on EUSP: http://www.endusersharepoint.com/2010/01/07/adoption-tip-4-of-8- rate-your-organizations-sharepoint-collaboration-maturity/ o Capability Maturity Model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/capability_maturity_odel