Ek dink dat baie van ons soms met, vir 'n gebrek van 'n beter uitdrukking, jong-kind vereistes. Die eindgebruiker werklik, baie sleg wil 'n sekere spesifieke "look and feel", of 'n baie spesifieke sorteer struktuur of 'n een klik of kieslys opsie om navigasie te vergemaklik uit te sny of [voeg hartstogtelik gehou oortuiging dat gebeur om te wees verkeerd]. As SharePoint pro se, Ons kan oor die algemeen voldoen aan bykans enige soort van vereiste met die platform, maar vir 'n paar van hulle, weet ons in ons harte dat:
- Hulle gaan 'n buitensporige bedrag van die tyd om te implementeer te neem (en dus meer kos)
- Hulle gaan om hoogs persoonlike en dus moeilik om te handhaaf en te los
- Daar is, is 'n paar maklike SharePoint benadering wat voldoen aan 80% of meer van die vereiste (d.w.z. voldoen aan die gees van die vereiste, maar nie die letter van die vereiste)
Bottom line, ons weet dat die "vereiste" is regtig net 'n lekker om te hê of selfs wettige in 'n sekere sin, maar iets wat mense moet lewe met eerder as spandeer baie tyd probeer om te "los."
Ek dink van hierdie as "jong kind" vereistes omdat ek hierdie patroon baie keer voor gesien. Kinders sal wegkwyn en neul jy vir 'n paar nuwe speelding vir weke op 'n slag. Jy kry hulle die speelgoed, hulle speel met dit vir 'n paar ure of dae en dan sit dit af, nooit dit af te haal ooit weer. Of, jy nie die speelding, die knaende tot stilstand kom en die kind beweeg op aan president van die vrye wêreld geword. Ek het gesien dat dit gebeur in SharePoint projekte. Besluitnemers óf kry wat hulle wil en dit word 'n ongebruikte of onderbenut funksie of hulle kry nie wat hulle wil hê en die projek nog steeds daarin slaag om in elk geval.
Ek was herinner aan wat vandag in 'n forum post en ek hou van hoe Clayton Cobb probeer om die forum plakkaat te kry om terug te stoot op een van hierdie soorte vereistes: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepointinfopath/thread/af8a1941-92ad-4f1a-b1bf-875e28ea79b7/
Ek is regtig nuuskierig hoe die mense sien hierdie onderwerp en hoe jy dit hanteer. Ek mis die punt? Het jy strategieë besluite makers om weg te stuur van overinvesting in triviale vereistes? Los 'n kommentaar.
</einde>
Volg my op Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin
My past experience tells me that you are correct: The desperately needed requirement is often quickly discarded, usually because it is not well thought through. I agree that it is our job as consultants to help steer the client towards a successful solution, not just fulfilling a requirement.
Egter: We don’t understand our clients’ business as well as they do. It’s important that, as consultants, we don’t become arrogant, telling the client that their requirement is unneccessary. So, we have a bit of a tightrope to walk: Help the client think through the resons for a requirement; explain why you would like to suggest another course and offer alternatives. Byvoorbeeld, offer to start with a simple solution which can be enhanced later if it turns out not to meet the need.
As with most things in life, finding the right balance can be tricky, but is worth the investment.
-Ruven
Great point, Ruven. There is a fine line. I personally tend to “give in” rather than take a hard line. It always makes me uncomfortable when someone pushes back against client requirements twice and three or more times.
I almost always follow the “simple solution” approach you describe. I can’t actually think of one instance where it didn’t work out best in the end.
I generally agree with this post Paul. In werklikheid, I catch myself often saying to people “SharePoint can do anything you want it to do except what YOU want it to do.” I often try to find simple out of the box methods to solve an end users business need. As much as I love and enjoying developing solutions in SharePoint I’d rather try something simple and out of the box first.
Most times this lands up being enough and other times it generates a new idea for them that will make building a custom solution better for them.
Great post.
Paul Liebrand
Twitter: @PaulLiebrand
I have to deal with these requests very frequently. Luckily, often the business will acknowledge the request is a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than a ‘need’.
When it isn’t clear I start with asking what they are trying to solve with the request. That typically catches items that they simply didn’t recognize as a nice-to-have initially. Then I move on to evaluate what they are asking to determine if it is actually something simple or not; and what the impact scope is like (such as is this a change to a single sub-site or to the whole farm).
The greater the impact scope, the greater number of questions I raise. If the answers do not sound like a true need, but are still focused on acting like it is a need, then I present the time/cost and whatever impact that may be associated with the request.
If the business still wants me to go forward, I do, but we all have a much more clear picture of what is changing.
I’m new to your site but follow you on EndUserSharePoint. I work for a military hospital and know what everyone is talking about when it comes to “Can Do” and “Should Do”. I get this almost every day and the “Can SharePoint make documents not printable? Can we take away the ‘send to’ option?” The department would like to have some documents view only (no problem, done) because of the numbering and tracking system for the documents. I’ve been searching different blogs and sites and can’t find the answer. Hope someone can help.
Paul:
I think that the push back, or at least the discussion about the real utility of things, is what separates real SharePoint Professionals from plain developers. We can all make SharePoint do this stuff, like hiding the “View All site Content” link even though most people don’t see it anyway. It’s our job to help the client (internal or external, it doesn’t make a difference) understand which bits in SharePoint really are useful and why, why some UI things may actually be detrimental, ens.. We ought to know better than they do and that is what we are paid for. If we simply acquiesce to every demand, then we’re only giving 50% at most.
Dankie vir die pos!
M.
Skakelkennisgewing: Steve Ballmer is a God; Why Google Won't Beat Microsoft in Cloud Collaboration; Adobe Brings Flash to Mobiles - SharePoint Daily - Bamboo Nation
Hi,
Thanks for the post and asking everyone to leave a comment for his experience, In these situations i used to give both option to the client, There is an easy to build/fast solution which gives you almost what you need but not 100% ( from performance, look and feel, maintainability..etc) and there is another custom solution that gives you what you want, present an estimate for both solutions and Cost associated to it, and then usually if the custom solution cost is higher they used to say let’s go with almost what we need :). Unless what they want is really affects the process and a highly demanded feature. I usually expect on those meetings someone will jump in and start discussing why ? and for your experience with the product you can convince him Why and How long will it take?
Hoop dit help.