http://sympmarc.com/2011/02/15/displaying-links-lists-urls-in-a-content-query-web-part-cqwp-in-sharepoint-2010/

This includes a minor website refresh and some new business cards.  Also in the company strategy, more useful and more frequent posts to reach out the user community.  Promise.

Here is a glimpse of the business cards.

More to come.

To begin, I reviewed the notes of the meeting and started to doodle on a tabloid sized paper.  The doodles were ideas I wanted to convey.  I thought of all the commonly asked questions and wanted to come up with a way to answer them using diagrams, icons and images.

As I sat back and gazed at all the nonsense I scribbled, I thought, “how can I put all of this in a single document WITHOUT it becoming a 20-pager that people would just gloss over?”  The answer was pretty simple.  I would keep everything on one page – the same tabloid sized page that I was using for my doodles.  But I still had a story to tell so the comic approach kept on jumping out at me as the way to go.

So I began with creating my characters (if you can call them characters, 3 user icons) in Photoshop.

Once I had the characters, everything just took off from there.  I already had the concepts floating in my head for months so now it was just a matter of crystallizing them onto Visio.  I created one panel after the next using my doodles as the source material.

Click to Enlarge

I hope to create more of these in the future.

Gather around younglings.  Though I won’t solve your permission problems, I will share with you how I navigate these murky waters.

Let’s Talk About It

That’s it.  That’s what I did – talked about it.  Discussion after discussion, most of the time, included a white-board, are what we had to do in order to hash out a manageable security model.  The security model, of course, had to be compatible with all the business cases.  Sometimes, the business owner, site owner and content owner were all the same person and sometimes, the were all different.

Users, SharePoint Group and Global Security Groups in Active Directory adds to how convoluted it quickly becomes.  In the end, our security model solution is a simple (even though getting there was NOT).  Here is the policy:

We developed a diagram and communicated it to all the respective content owners:

Click to Enlarge

We are slammed on a regular basis of requests that fit neatly in between support calls and software development projects.

Out-of-the-box Solutions in SharePoint do not need the lengthy Software Development Life Cycle process. But having managed software projects in the past, I recognize the importance of the governance that such a process brings.

Below are not some theoretical, in-a-perfect-world approach that we pretend to adhere to. Rather, they are actual steps that I oversee to manage the sanity levels of the short-staffed team I have in place.

Click to Enlarge

From MSDN Blog: Clarifications: Collaboration vs. Publishing

In SharePoint-Land there are two concepts that people have a hard time separating out: “Collaboration” and “Content Management”. A lot of people like to blend them together, use methods, features, technology, or processes… but the truth is these are separate capabilities, and should be separately managed.

If you provision site creation within your department, you must understand the difference in the communication model.

Please take the time to read the above article to understand the dialogue that is needed to determine what communication model to use.

Understanding your communication model will make it that much easier to create and maintain your security model (the Departmental SharePoint Permissions Document).

Communication Model

Figure 1: Collaboration	VS	Figure 2: Publishing
Peer based, bi-directional sharing of information		Generally unidirectional, leader-based communication of information.

Organization Best Practice

Of course, Collaboration Sites (CS) and Publishing Site (PS) can exist on the same Site Collection (SPSC). How we manage their co-existence is the key to its longevity.

Department SharePoint Site Collection

Without getting into the custom lists and folders created during the SPSC creation, let’s take a look at how a the SPSC should look like when it is in infancy (first created), after it is migrated (launched) and when it is well into its life cycle, when it is in use.

Legend:        Publishing Site    Collaboration Site    Pages

I will be using the Legal Department (LEG) in this example.

Infancy

• Legal Department
  • LEG Collaboration Sites

I create the site collection (first-tier sites, of course, just to get the ball rolling) based on the Mind Map document created by an information architect.

Migrated

• Legal Department
  • About LEG 
    • Admin Unit 
    • Country Unit 
    • Financial Integrity Group 
      • About FIG
      • FIG Units
      • Administration
      • …
    • Front Office 
    • … 
  • Basic Law of the Fund 
  • LEG Collaboration Sites 

Departments, during migration effort, create pages and publishing sites to house the content.

In Use

• Legal Department
  • About LEG 
    • Admin Unit 
    • Country Unit 
    • Financial Integrity Group 
      • About FIG
      • FIG Units
      • Administration 
      • … 
    • Front Office 
    • … 
  • Basic Law of the Fund 

  ——————————————————–
  

  • LEG Collaboration Sites
    • FIG 
      • Collaboration 1 
      • Collaboration 2 
      • Collaboration 3 
      • … 
    • Admin Unit 
    • Country Unit 
    • … 
    • Project 1 
    • Project 2 
    • Project … 

Moving forward, Departments will provision site creation. At this point, it would be for the most part, collaboration sites. Again, the proper dialogue is encouraged to determine which communication model to use.

Harmonious Coexistence

Above the fold you have Publishing Sites. Below the fold you have Collaboration Sites.

There may be a concern for loss of fidelity by using only publishing site. This is not true. I encourage collaboration and use of collaboration sites. Whatever content is within the collaboration sites can be surfaced on the publishing pages.

Furthermore, on publishing pages, departments can have Target Audience web parts. This opens up an opportunity to surface collaboration site content on publishing pages. In short you have links to collaboration sites should a user navigate a department’s site to find collaboration site content.

Site Provisioning

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/7ec9787f-4ea9-4667-85c7-9842af7b5854/sharepoint-site-provision.aspx

Additional Information

Search Results

• http://sjoere.blogspot.com/2008/11/publishing-versus-collaboration.html
• http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262410.aspx
  • http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262789.aspx
• http://www.sharepointnutsandbolts.com/2007/09/blending-publishingcollaboration.html
• http://blogs.msdn.com/syedi/archive/2009/12/04/custom-site-definition-for-collaboration-portal-template-sharepoint-2007-wow-moss.aspx
• http://www.hrssug.org/Lecture Notes/Eichenberger_iw203_collab vs publishing sites.pptx

I kept on wondering why I wasn’t blown away as I was with the first Xbox 360 – the first Xbox 360 was design gold. Then, I realized that my reaction had to do with visual continuity. Why is visual continuity important with hardware design? Because when you have a good brand, you want to preserve it. The concave shape of the console has become iconic. The graphic interface of xbox.com uses the visual cues of the hardware design. Thus, I must boo and hssss to the decision to move away from that. See the images below.

Xbox 360, Xbox 360 Slim

The images below are hardware redesigns that kept with visual continuity. They all get a passing grade from me. Microsoft will have to repeat the class.

PlayStation, PSOne

PlayStation 2, PS 2 Slim

PlayStation 3, PlayStation 3 Slim

Nintendo DS, Nintendo DS Lite, Nintendo DSi

State your role.

In every kick-off meeting I always introduce myself, my title (it is ever-changing) and my role.

My name is Tom Pham. I am on the DAI team in TGSIK as a Business Analyst/SP Solutions Architect.  DAI’s role is to figure out how to meet your needs using out-of-the-box SharePoint features.

In stating this, you are indirectly setting expectations for the user on the extent of your involvement in the project.  Far too often, those lines of responsibility gets blurred – especially when this simple statement goes unspoken.  In cases where you’re working with a PM that you’ve worked with before on another project, they’ll assume you’ll pick up the reigns and start driving the entire project.  You think to yourself, “Whoa, I just got the meeting request 20 minutes ago and THAT was the first time I heard of this project!”  Clarifying these ambiguities even before requirements are discussed is half the battle.

Ask questions and zip it!

OK.  Tell me a little bit about what this initiative is about.

Do not assume a single thing!  Let the user speak and ask questions only to clarify.  Steer the meeting – don’t let users commandeer the meeting with side notes and tangents.  Identify what you will take ownership of and direct the user to who has ownership of XYZ system.

Who will be the audience?  Who will be maintaining the solution once we turn it over to you?

The first ‘who’ is self-explanatory.  The second ‘who’ is, again, one of those questions/statements that sets precedence on your involvement in the project.

When do you need this?

Unless it is absolutely clear that the timeline is unreasonable, there is no need to haggle over dates.  Quietly jot it down.  To talk about dates at this point is irresponsible because you haven’t begun to analyze the requirements.

Declare your intentions.

Great!  Lets talk about next steps.  I have enough information here to get us started.  I am going to have a discussion with my teammates to assure I’m using the best possible approach.  I am also going to research A, B and C and give you an answer.  After my research, I will shoot out, in an email, my recommendation.  In the meantime, please provide D.  Ed will provide E.  And Frank will provide F.  And so on and so forth.

We can set up our next meeting now or if you prefer, set up our next meeting after you’ve gone over my recommendation.

Look at what you’ve done.  You’ve committed to researching the unresolved.  You’ve let the user know that you will immediately start analyzing the requirements and will recommend a solution (your recommendation might be several recommendations based on the time and resources).  You’ve identified and assigned action items for the other members involved.  Everyone leaving the meeting should have a clear idea, not of what SharePoint can do, but of how this project will move along.  They feel confident that a previously stagnant project is finally gaining some traction.

Communicate your ideas through rapid prototypes or diagrams.

The majority of the projects I’ve undertaken were treated as an opportunity to let SharePoint shine.  How could we use this project to springboard SharePoint’s popularity throughout the organization?  Having an evangelist mindset was something that came natural.

You’ve already committed to providing the user with your brilliant recommendation.  This can be done in 2 ways.  One, rapid prototypes using the SharePoint staging environment or two, diagrams.

Rapid Prototype:  When the solution is as simple as creating a document library and adding a look-up column, of course, just create a proof-of-concept!  Don’t waste your time and Visio’s time.  Send the user the link to your prototype in staging and go grab a cup of coffee while you await their feedback.

Diagram:  Even when the solution is a simple one, I still spend the extra time to create the diagram.  I do this when there are more parties involved.  I can highlight, in the diagram, the various responsibilities of the respective parties.  I also do this for the novice SharePoint user.  Simply put, the visualization of the information flow reduces questions I would have otherwise have to answer.

Here is an example of a quickie diagram:

• STA-RES GFS data solution diagram

I use this opportunity to illustrate the manual process that will have to remain and illustrate the areas where SharePoint will automate.  This is also a good time to silence the skeptics and show your brilliance.

Know the limits – understand the Realization Model for SharePoint Out-of-the-Box Solutions.

Below is the SharePoint Solution Realization Model.  Here is a quick explanation:

As a SharePoint Evangelist, you preach that SharePoint is the Alpha and Omega.  The truth of the matter is that it will not solve everything, but then again, what does?  Outside of the quick wins, SharePoint remains a strong alternative for automating the inefficient processes that are in place.  The dangers of this is that client grow to assume that SharePointcan do simply what it was not meant to do.  Your challenge is to provide a solution whereby SharePoint’s out-of-the-box features can accommodate for 70% of the functionality – you can use your creativity to push it to more than that.  But for the sake of this example, I have set it to roughly about 70% in the diagram below.  The other 20% can be achieved through, policies, guidelines and manual processes that occur before it reaches the SharePoint solution.

Click to Enlarge

With SharePoint and the human factor, the user has reached 90%.  In the diagram, I’ve labeled it as the Acceptance Moment.  It is also known as the “Coming to Jesus (or Buhda or any diety)” moment.  At this point, the user simply accepts that SharePoint cannot reach 100% solution realization or continue to press forward and customize the solution through code development. 

Do you want to lose 5 features so that you can gain 1?

The choice will always be up to the users.  As the Analyst, you are to advise them on the pitfalls of going down this path.  You do not want to customize something so much that it becomes unrecognizable and impossible for future upgrades. 

Intangibles

Smile often.  Show enthusiasm for the project and the optimism in knowing that you’re going to blow their socks off with what you’ll come up with.  At all times, be the consummate professional – you owe it to the client and you owe it yourself.

Why is a nearly 10 year old article relevant now?  Well, because 10 years ago, we weren’t going to User Experience Meet-Ups, Interaction Designers were still called Web Masters and no one was tweeting. 

With the iPhone 4 unveiling yesterday, aside from talk of pre-orders and FaceTime, Flash’s place in mobile devices and the web in general are again in conversation among techies.  In case you’ve missed it, here are Steve Job’s Thoughts on Flash.  That’s a pretty big blow to Flash.

Staying or Going?

In the end, it is really the users that decide what stays or goes?  If Flash were to go away, it should have gone away 10 years ago as the above article perpetuated it way across the web but users still wanted it so it stayed.  10 years later, we need to ask ourselves, “Do I really need to see a moving bouncing ball fade into some exploding lines of text?”  Apologies to Flash Developers for over-simplifying Flash, I know that there are some really cool Flash applications out there.  Over the years, I’ve seen less and less Flash intros which is a testiment to a simple truth – novelty eventually wears off.

Content

The bottom line, no matter how you slice it, is content.  It has always been content, though 10 years ago, the buzz word was Rich Media and at the time, Flash was the delivery mechanism for it.  Now that browsers and client devices have evolved, the sizzle of presentation is a given and we can finally get back to content.  Content Strategy must be the driver for all design projects.