Hemen beste artikulu idatzi zuen jende ona dut da SharePoint Informazio saioa entitled “Finding Great SharePoint Talent”. The article tries to give some advice on how to find truly good and well-experienced people when you’re looking to expand your staff.
Hemen trailerra da:
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
Kontuan izan: Artikulu hau, jatorriz etan www.endusersharepoint.com. I forgot to post it to my own blog 🙂
SharePoint handia bilakaera izan du bere hastapenetan, eta geroztik, Microsoft teknologia inkubazio sort –beldurrezko film bat bezala da ia eboluzionatu, non zientzilari ero en sorkuntza bere bizitza bat hartzen du, breaking free of its creator’s expectations and rules. The technical evolution is obvious – the WSS 3.0 objektu eredua da, aberatsagoa eta konplexuagoa WSS baino 2.0, which was itself an improvement over earlier versions. The next version will no doubt show tremendous improvement over 3.0. From an End User’s perspective, Hala ere,, SharePoint bilakaera da, are gehiago esanguratsua.
Hasieran egunetan, SharePoint didn’t offer much to End Users. They would have their usual functionality requirements, work with IT to define them well and implement a solution. IT would use SharePoint to solve the problem. The product wasn’t very accessible to End Users. I’ve thought threw a few analogies, but I decided to stick Venn Diagrams to show what I mean. When Microsoft first released SharePoint to the world as a commercial offering, Azken erabiltzailearen eredua nahiko tradizionala ondoren <-> IT relationship. A lot of End Users, komunikatzeko eta bertan jende kopuru oso txiki batekin irtenbide enpresa arazoak konpontzeko emateko lanean:
Globalaren arazoa domeinu diren SharePoint egokia entrega plataforma da txiki (especially compared to today’s SharePoint. End Users and IT worked in a more classic arrangement with IT: define eskakizunak IT, itxaron egin lana oihala atzean eta azken produktuaren entrega hartu.
SharePoint to eboluzionatu gisa 2.0 mundu (WSS 2.0 eta SharePoint Portal Server), several things happened. Lehen, the “problem domain” increased in size. By problem domain, I mean the kinds of business problems for which SharePoint could be a viable solution. Esate baterako, ez duzu uste gehiegi gogorra larri bat bilatu beste irtenbide ezartzeko SharePoint ingurune batean buruz SPS arte (eta, nahiz eta, ondoren,, ez zen ona behar da izan). Aldi berean,, Amaiera Erabiltzaileek aurrekaririk gabeko ahalmena ez da bakarrik definitzeko, but also implement their own solutions with little or no IT support.
The 3.0 plataforma (WSS eta MOSS) maintained and increased that momentum. The problem domain is enormous as compared to the 2.0 plataforma. Virtually every department in a company, fabrikazio-, osasun-eta segurtasun-sailetako marketing artekoak, kalitate-kontrola salmenta - SharePoint erabilera ona aurkituko dute (eta ez da Kopako bat Peg mashing karratu zulo sartu kasu bat). Aldi berean,, the platform empowers even more End Users to implement their own business solutions. I try to capture that with this diagram:
This has proven to be both a potent and frustrating mixture. The 3.0 platform turns previously stable roles on their heads. Suddenly, Amaiera, erabiltzaileak modu eraginkorrean epaile, epaimahaiak eta Ejecutor enpresa analista, application architect and developer for their own business solutions. This gets to the heart of the problem I’m writing about. But before I dive into that, dezagun kontuan hartu aretoan elefantea.
Nola izango SharePoint 2010 eragina duten patroi hau? Will it be incremental or revolutionary? Will more, gutxiago edo amaiera erabiltzaile kopuru berean buruz aurkitu konponbideak eraikitzeko SharePoint-en ahalmena beraiek 2010? Will SharePoint 2010’s problem domain expand even further or will it just refine and streamline what it already offers in WSS 3.0 / Moss?
Ez dago informazio nahikoa da "hor kanpoan" segurtasunez esan, orokorrean erantzuna dela:
The Venn Diagram would be larger than this page and cause some IT Pros and CxO’s to reach for their Pepto.
I believe it’s going to be a tremendous opportunity for companies to do some truly transformational things.
Dirudi handia, baina nire SharePoint aholkulari gisa ikuspuntutik eta ni jarriz IT kudeatzailea zapatak sartu, I see this vision. I own a China shop with beautiful plates, kristal, etc (nire SharePoint ingurumena). I’ve rented a space, I’ve purchased my inventory and laid it all out the way I like it. I’m not quite ready to open, baina aurrea hartzeko, I look at the door to see if my customers are lining up and I notice an actual bull out there. I look more closely and I actually see bi bulls and even a wolf. Then I notice that there are some sheep. Sheep are beraz, bad, but are they maybe disguised wolves? I don’t want bulls in my china shop!
It gets worse! When I rented the space, I couldn’t believe how nice it was. Wide and open, terrific amenities, very reasonable price. Hala eta guztiz ere, now I’m realizing that the wide open spaces and the huge door is just perfectly sized for a bull to come wandering in and lay waste to my china.
I’m pushing this analogy too far, jakina. End Users are not bulls (most of them, hala ere) and IT departments don’t (ziur aski, edo behar ez) view their user community with that kind of suspicion. Hala eta guztiz ere, han egiten ari da dagoeneko dagoen talka perfektua moduko hori 3.0 platform that I expect will only get worse in SP 2010. SharePoint already empowers and encourages End Users to define and implement their own solutions.
Hori da, handia eta guztiak, baina kontua da hori, oraindik ere oso teknikoa, produktu bat, eta oraindik enpresa indartsua eskakizunak analisi mota eskatzen, design and general planning and management that technical projects require to be successful. These are not the kind of skills that a lot of End Users have in their bag of tricks, especially when the focus is on a technical product like SharePoint.
I’ve given this a lot of thought over the last year or so and I don’t see any easy answer. It really boils down to education and training. I think that SP 2010 da jokoa aldatzeko pixka bat joan eta play ezberdinean eta mugimendu motela hasi da joan enpresa roll out beren SP 2010 konponbideak baino gehiago 2010 and beyond. In order to succeed, End Users will need to transform themselves and get a little IT religion. They’ll need to learn a little bit about proper requirements
analysis. They will need some design documentation that clearly identifies business process workflow, adibidez. They need to understand fundamental concepts like CRUD (sortu, eguneratu eta ezabatu), dev / test / qa / prod inguruneak eta nola azpiegitura hori erabiltzeko behar bezala zabaldu irtenbideak bizi polit bat denbora luzean eta bihurgune (ez hausteko) Erakunde baten aldaketak erantzunez.
Datozen asteetan, Eta saiatu ematen nire ideiak batzuk egiteko asmoa dut, baita lan handia lotura beste askotan egileek egin (an www.endusersharepoint.com eta beste nonbait) so that interested End Users can learn that old time IT religion. Keep tuned.
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
[Kontuan izan: Artikulu honek gurutze-etan argitaratua Amaiera Erabiltzaile SharePoint hemen: http://www.endusersharepoint.com/2009/09/09/sharepoint-a-case-study-in-ask-the-expert/]
Batzuetan,, aholkulari gisa lan egiten ari zaren (lanbide gisa, edo zure enpresaren barruan eginkizun aholku), you find yourself living in an Onion story. The Onion has a series of articles called “Ask an [aditua] buruz [arazo batzuk]". This follows the famous “Dear Abby” format where a concerned person is asking for personal advice. The onion’s “expert”, Hala ere,, is so focused on his/her area of expertise and current problems that the expert ignores the question entirely and rambles on about his area of expertise. As consultants, we need to keep that in mind all the time and avoid falling into that trap. It’s classically described like this – “when you use a hammer all day long to solve your problems, everything starts to look like a nail.” We professional consultants are always on guard against that kind of thing, baina etortzen kontaktua dugu jendea bere rol propioa profesional larriak, but are not consultants. They don’t have the same need or training to do otherwise.
Azken astean, Nire enpresaren bezero bati buruz idatzi nuen, eta on-going-proiektu bat we have to enable high quality collaboration between various eye doctors in the US and Canada performing clinical research on rare disease. In addition to leveraging core SharePoint features to enable that collaboration, we’re also working an expense submission and approval process. It’s complicated because we have so many actors:
The Accounts Payable group has been a challenge. Working with them yesterday reminded me of the Onion series. In my role as business consultant, Beharra azaldu I, kontuak ordaindu beharreko enpresa:
Beharra azaldu dut, 3 party hartu sakon dive beren barne-gastua onesteko prozesuak mumbo buruz Lingo Jumbo, Oracle kodeak, alderantziz presidentetzarako sinadurak, 90 Egun txanda-arounds, etc. And panic. I shouldn’t forget about the panic. One of the bed rock requirements of the consulting profession is to learn how to communicate with people like that who are themselves not trained or necessarily feel a need to do the same. Among other things, it’s one of the best parts of being a consultant. You get to enter a world populated with business people with completely different perspectives. I imagine it’s a little bit like entering the mind of a serial killer, izan ezik ez dira bizitza ruined esperientziaren ondoren (though entering the mind of an AP manager isn’t a walk in the park 🙂 [ikus ohar garrantzitsua azpitik ***] ).
One of the great things about our technical world as SharePoint people is that we have ready-made answers to many of the very valid concerns that people such as my AP contact have. Is it secure? How do I know that the expense was properly vetted? Can I, Ordaintzaile behin betiko gisa, gastua xehetasun guztiak ikusi? How do I do that? What if I look at those details and don’t approve of them? Can I reject them? What happens if the organization changes and the original approver is no longer around? Can we easily change the process to reflect changes in the system? Gastu hau revisit I urtebete geroago, eta denean dit ikuskatu eta ordainketa defendatzeko behar?
SharePoint pertsona bezala, we can see how to answer those questions. In my client’s case, erantzuten dugu gehiago edo gutxiago hau bezalako:
Ospakizuna, dago bizitza estilo bat da hemen profesional aholkulari ikuspuntutik deskribatzen I, but which applies almost equally to full time employees in a BA and/or power user role. Work patiently with the experts in your company and extract the core business requirements as best you can. With a deep understanding of SharePoint features and functions to draw upon, ez baino sarriago, kezkak erantzuteko, eta guztion lana Egun aprobetxatuz core SharePoint ezaugarriak hobetzeko eskaintzen modutan egin ahal izango duzu.
***Ohar garrantzitsua: I really don’t mean to compare AP people to serial killers. Hala eta guztiz ere, I could probably name some AP pro’s who have probably wished they could get a restraining order against me stalking them and asking over and over again. “Where’s my check?” “Where’s my check?” “Where’s my check?"
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
[Kontuan izan: blog post hau zeharkatu Mark Miller gune hemen etan: http://www.endusersharepoint.com/?p = 1897]
One Nire enpresaren ezohiko bezero gehiago New York City medikua nor bere medikuntza-eremu bereziki liderra da (begi arreta). Like many doctors, he has a strong interest in research. He wanted to do some research on a rare eye disorder that affects a relatively small number of people in the U.S. and Canada. I don’t know the number, but it’s really too small for a large pharmaceutical company to invest its own private funds with an eye toward eventual commercial success. I’m sure large pharma’s do some amount of research into rare diseases, baina ez dut uste U.S duen. government is probably the largest source of funding. Atsegin dut ezer, resources are scarce. Many doctors across the country want to perform research and trials. Baten ondorioz, there’s more than a little competition for that government funding. This is where my company and SharePoint enter the picture.
The fundamental idea is that a master organization will recruit other doctors across the country and enlist those doctors’ practices in a particular research study. These individual practices must sign up with the master organization and then, ondoren,, sign up for a particular study. The relationships look like this:
Maisuak erakundea bera da desglosadas taldetan:
Azkenik, denean zehatz bat medikuaren praktika sinatu arte estudio batean parte hartzeko, profesionalak eskaintzeko rolak barietate bat betetzeko behar dute:
The above roles have very specific and highly proscribed roles that vary by study. I won’t get into more detail here, baina bazara, interesa izanez gero, utzi iruzkin bat, edo email me.
Eta orain, galdera erantzun ahal izango dut, SharePoint - Zein da ona? The answer – it’s really good for this scenario.
Sarrera hau dagoeneko uste baino denbora gehiago dut, beraz, ezinbesteko rola SharePoint duten konponbidea eta dive xehetasunik jotzen laburbilduko dut etorkizunean, artikulu (ezin baduzu itxaron, email me edo utzi iruzkin bat eta zoriontsu izan, eztabaidatu eta agian saiatu demo bat egin nahi dut). We are leveraging a wide array of SharePoint features to support this concept:
Du forma oinarritutako autentifikazioa modulua izan ezik, eta InfoPath forma eskukada batekin, proiektu hau da, ia guztiak erabiliz lauki SharePoint funtzionaltasuna.
Bildu nuen aurretik min-kasu honetan, Ez proiektu honetan parte hartzen du - puntu zerbait oso garrantzitsua nahi dut (alde batera utzita, noski, nire enpresa) has any idea that a thing called “SharePoint” is playing such a fundamental technical role. Nearly all of my end users view this as “the web site.” Our client values us because we’re solving their business problem. SharePoint is a great technical blob of goodness, baina egin eskuineko, that’s irrelevant to end users. They need a problem solved, ez da teknologia burbuila zoragarria.
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
Edo ni besterik ez da? I’ve received three or four calls at my house since late September looking for SharePoint work. I’m used to the email solicitations, but these phone calls are a little unnerving. I haven’t had an updated resume on a job site I(like Monster pr Dice) since almost two years ago exactly. And back then, my resume was all about BizTalk and MS CRM. That’s the only place my phone number appears on line anywhere, beraz, urruti ezagutzen dudan bezala.
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
Itxiera honen Besterik on pentsatu tristea artikulu ondo hitz egiten du, arazo tekniko komunitate askotan aurre:
"Such dreary developments, ziur aurreikusi, ordaindu beharko da philosophically."
This puts me in mind of one of the presentations I gave at the SharePoint Best Practices conference last month. I was describing how to get "great" negozio-baldintzak eta ikusleen norbaitek galdetu, indarrean, what to do if circumstances are such that it’s impossible to get great requirements. Adibidez, jakin batean enpresaren kultura lekuak IT eskakizunak gatherer aurrean / enpresa analista, preventing direct communication with end users. This is a serious impediment to obtaining great business requirements. My answer was "walk away." I’m not a big humorist, so I was surprised at how funny this was to the audience. Hala eta guztiz ere, I’m serious about this. If you can’t get good requirements, you can be certain that a dreary outcome will result. Who wants that? I’m a consultant, beraz, errealista da (izugarri mingarria eta gogorra izan arren) for me to walk away. Hala eta guztiz ere, zu enpresa bat bada, eta lehia nahi ez, edo ezin, jaramonik, George (for once 🙂 ) bidea erakusten.
</amaiera>
Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
Nola sarritan hau ez duzu gertatuko? I’m sitting at my laptop, blogetan irakurtzen, foro mezuak erantzuteko, 2 estudioan bisual irekia kopiak eta VPN'd dira zerbitzari bat, bere ikusmen estudioan egin dituzten + 15 leiho (tipikoa egun bat) eta norbait izendatu Samantha (nire emaztea, itxuraz) esaten dit, "We have be there in 30 minutu. Get dressed."
Jaiki naiz daze batean, etxe inguruan ibiltzea confusedly, auto bat eta hurrengo gauza dakit lortu, Naiz festa batean nire eskua garagardo batekin, eta norbaitek galdetzen dit, "So, zer bizi bat duzu?"
Elkarrizketetan hauek inoiz ongi.
Me: "Ahh … EMC arkitektoa irtenbide bat naiz."
Nameless pertsona: hutsik lurrungailua
Me: "I work with a product called SharePoint … Microsoft-etik ere."
NP: "Aha! Enpresa hori ez dut entzun! What is SharePoint?"
Me: "Umm … lankidetza du … pertsona erabiltzen da informazioa partekatzeko … Eraikin busines sol plataforma bat da…"
NP: Begiak kristal.
Me: "I’m a programmer."
NP: "Aha! I know people in my company that do programming! When I was in high school, Inguruan jokatu dut oinarrizko batekin."
Eta elkarrizketa baino gehiago parte hartu duten, piztu zerbait errazagoa egiten dugu hitz, politika bezalako.
Edonork-laguntza hori nola kudeatuko dira deskribatzeko?
</amaiera>
Klase Nik horiek azken bi asteetan izan da eta gauza bat ukitzen me daudela pentsakor asko, smart pertsona SharePoint buruzko lan (aholkulariak, edo langile gisa) ez duten bloga, twitter, Badirudi mezu publiko MSDN foro edo SharePoint Unibertsitatea bezalako batzordeak jakitun, mantentzeko Facebook edo LinkedIn profilak, etc. They are pure information consumers. Not bad, besterik interesgarri.
</amaiera>
A bunch of years ago, my boss asked me to train some users on a product called Results. Results is an end user reporting tool. It’s roughly analogous to SQL Server Reporting Service or Crystal. At the time, it was designed to run on green tubes (e.g. Wyse 50 terminal) connected to a Unix box via telnet.
My default answer to any question that starts with "Can you … " is "Yes" and that’s where all the trouble started.
The client was a chemical company out in southern California and had just about wrapped up a major ERP implementation based on QAD’s MFG/PRO. The implementation plan now called for training power end users on the Results product.
I wasn’t a big user of this tool and had certainly never trained anyone before. Hala eta guztiz ere, I had conducted a number of other training classes and was quick on my feet, so I was not too worried. Dennis, the real full-time Results instructor, had given me his training material. Atzera begira orain, it’s really quite absurd. I didn’t know the product well, had never been formally trained on it and had certainly never taught it. What business did I have training anyone on it?
To complicate things logistically, I was asked to go and meet someone in Chicago as part of a pre-sales engagement along the way. The plan was to fly out of New Jersey, go to Chicago, meet for an hour with prospect and then continue on to California.
Beno, I got to Chicago and the sales guy on my team had made some mistake and never confirmed the meeting. Beraz,, I showed up and the prospect wasn’t there. Awesome. I pack up and leave and continue on to CA. Somewhere during this process, I find out that the client is learning less than 24 hours before my arrival that "Paul Galvin" is teaching the class, not Dennis. The client loves Dennis. They want to know "who is this Paul Galvin person?" "Why should we trust him?" "Why should we pay for him?" Dennis obviously didn’t subscribe to my "albiste txarra eman hasieran" philosophy. Awesome.
I arrive at the airport and for some incredibly stupid reason, I had checked my luggage. I made it to LAX but my luggage did not. Niretzat, losing luggage is a lot like going through the seven stages of grief. Eventually I make it to the hotel, with no luggage, tired, hungry and wearing my (by now, very crumpled) business suit. It takes a long time to travel from Newark — to O’Hare — to a client — back to O’Hare — and finally to LAX.
I finally find myself sitting in the hotel room, munching on a snickers bar, exhausted and trying to drum up the energy to scan through the training material again so that I won’t look like a complete ass in front of the class. This was a bit of a low point for me at the time.
I woke up the next day, did my best to smooth out my suit so that I didn’t look like Willy Loman on a bad day and headed on over to the client. As is so often the case, in person she was nice, polite and very pleasant. This stood in stark contrast to her extremely angry emails/voicemails from the previous day. She leads me about 3 miles through building after building to a sectioned off area in a giant chemical warehouse where we will conduct the class for the next three days. The 15 edo 20 students slowly assemble, most them still expecting Dennis.
I always start off my training classes by introducing myself, giving some background and writing my contact information on the white board. As I’m saying, "Good morning, my name is Paul Galvin", I write my name, email and phone number up on the white board in big letters so that everyone can see it clearly. I address the fact that I’m replacing Dennis and I assure them that I am a suitable replacement, etc. I have everyone briefly tell me their name and what they want to achieve out of the class so that I can tailor things to their specific requirements as I go along. The usual stuff.
We wrap that up and fire up the projector. I go to erase my contact info and … I had written it in permanent marker. I was so embarrassed. In my mind’s eye, it looked like this: There is this "Paul Galvin" person, last minute replacement for our beloved Dennis. He’s wearing a crumpled up business suit and unshaven. He has just written his name huge letters on our white board in permanent marker. What a sight!
It all ended happily, Hala ere,. This was a chemical company, azken finean. A grizzled veteran employee pulled something off the shelf and, probably in violation of EPA regulations, cleared the board. I managed to stay 1/2 day ahead of the class throughout the course and they gave me a good review in the end. This cemented my "pinch hitter" reputation at my company. My luggage arrived the first day, so I was much more presentable days two and three.
As I was taking the red eye back home, I was contemplating "lessons learned". There was plenty to contemplate. Communication is key. Tell clients about changes in plan. Don’t ever check your luggage at the airport if you can possibly avoid it. Bring spare "stuff" in case you do check your luggage and it doens’t make it. I think the most important lesson I learned, Hala ere,, was this: always test a marker in the lower left-hand corner of a white board before writing, in huge letters, "Paul Galvin".
</amaiera>
Due to some oddball United Airlines flights I took in the mid 90’s, I somehow ended up with an offer to transform "unused miles" into about a dozen free magazine subscriptions. That is how I ended up subscribing to Scientific American magazine.
Software gisa / aholkularitza pertsona, we encounter many difficult business requirements in our career. Most the time, eskakizun horiek bilera-maite dugu, eta hain zuzen ere,, it’s probably why we think this career is the best in the world. I occasionally wonder just what in the world would I have done with myself if I had been born at any other time in history. How terrible would it be to miss out on the kinds of work I get to do now, Une honetan, eta munduan historian at? Uste dut: nahiko terrible.
Urteetan zehar, some of the requirements I’ve faced have been extremely challenging to meet. Complex SharePoint stuff, Eraikin web prozesatzeko ez-web-friendly teknologian oinarritutako marko, complex BizTalk orchestrations and the like. We can all (Zorionez) itxura harro gure ibilbidean, eta esan, "yeah, duten gogor bat ebatzi zen, baina azkenean I pwned sumbitch duten!" Hobeto oraindik, are gehiago interesgarri eta dibertigarriak erronka zain.
Pertsonalki, uste dut nire curriculuma duten, Zentzu honetan, nahiko sakona da eta nahiko harro nago (nahiz eta jakin nuen, nire emazteak ez du inoiz ulertzen da 1/20th). But this week, Buruzko artikulu bat irakurtzen ari nintzen Partikula handiak Collider in my Scientific American magazine and had one of those rare humbling moments where I realized that despite my "giant" zirkulu jakin batean edo egoera nola sakona uste dut nire esperientzia ondo, there are real giants in completely different worlds.
The people on the LHC team have some really thorny issues to manage. Consider the Moon. I don’t really think much about the Moon (izan naiz, nahiz eta oso susmagarria buruz ikasi dut geroztik Lurraren errotazio da motelduz, horrek ezin digu Gizakiak gauza ona izan daiteke epe luzera). Baina, the LHC team does have to worry. LHC’s measuring devices are so sensitive that they are affected by the Moon’s (Lurraren errotazio-moteltzea eta, azkenean, hil-guztiak-bizitza) gravity. That’s a heck of a requirement to meet — ekoizteko zuzena Neurketak Moon horrek interferentziak arren.
Alea izan zen I pondering denean esaldi hau irakurri nuen: "The first level will receive and analyze data from only a subset of all the detector’s components, from which it can pick out promising events based on isolated factors such as whether an energetic muon was spotted flying out at a large angle from the beam axis." Really … ? I don’t play in that kind of sandbox and never will.
Hurrengo denbora nago lagun batekin, Topa biltzeko eta LHC lanean jende ona izan dut, hope they don’t successfully weigh the Higgs boson particle and curse the Moon. I suggest you do the same. It will be quite the toast 🙂
</amaiera>
