Friday, July 22, 2011

Information Governance with SharePoint

I recently attended a seminar on Information Governance and until then I had not really considered what "Information Governance" was all about, much less that it was anything significant.  I now think there is something to this concept.

Having worked on several projects that focused primarily on records or case folder management and having my eyes opened to the real problems that most government agencies have with how they manage their records, I have a growing understanding and respect for the industry of records management.  I have heard from more than one records management professional that "Records Management is not rocket science". However, there are some organizational issues that create problems trying to implement a sound and compliant records management program. The main problem being that no one seems to care enough about records management. Unfortunately little attention is paid to this area, with everyone sharing the responsibility to perform records management but few realizing the importance of doing so. And, for those of us who have been around long enough to remember the office admin assistant (secretary), many of them are not there anymore to keep us straight and our records filed correctly. Some organizations don't think about records management seriously until  they are being sued for something they did or didn't do, and now they can't find documents to support what was done.  Too Late!!!

The seminar I attended focused on records management capabilities of an application that works with SharePoint 2010, but the epiphany that I experienced had more to do with the emerging importance of Information Governance.

As it was explained, information governance is the convergence of Records Management, Search or eDiscovery and Storage Management. As these functions overlap the importance of reducing records management resources, easing access to information and saving storage costs creates a focus on the information within the framework and the ability to govern this information.

So what does this have to do with SharePoint?  The popularity of SharePoint across the Government is phenomenal. About 3 out of 4 agencies are using SharePoint to some degree. And as many of you have probably heard, there are just about as many horror stories on what went wrong with the implementation.  One of the benefits of SharePoint is the tremendous capabilities that it can provide to the user to create websites, share and store documents like never before. However, therein lies the problem for many agencies. Careful thought and planning must occur prior to implementation and a vigorous governance framework must lead the way. Otherwise existing information governance issues become exaggerated and spiral out of control.

Back to records management for a moment. An idea frequently espoused by records management professionals is the idea that good records management is all about the content, not the container. This emphasizes the importance of the information within the record and not the container which holds the information. With this in mind, think of what is going on with electronic information in particular. The amount of information is growing exponentially and the access and storage of this information is also expanding in new ways ranging from social media to cloud computing. This ever increasing amount of information from various sources creates a demand for agency-wide collaboration tools like SharePoint.  So how do you address the implementation of an agency-wide collaboration tool like SharePoint?

Common sense tells me that first you must find out what you don't know. Get a basic understanding of what information you have and the various types of containers the information is in.  This may not be a simple task. Any agency which has been around for more than a couple of years will have an amazing amount of information and it may be in dozens of formats. And also typical for many organization, much of this information is not known by the agency as a whole, but known only to a few within a business unit. In my opinion there are two primary reasons for this lack of agency knowledge.

First, records management has not been a priority for the organization. Records inventories are not conducted and file plans either do not exist or are not followed. This leads to the development of records and information that is not tracked and managed.  This creates a "You don't know what you don't know" situation.

Second, the agency CIO either is not fully empowered or does not have the resources to manage the "I" in CIO... that is Information. Probably, the main focus has been on systems and the infrastructure supporting the business. However, the focus on knowing the organizations information, what is important, who creates and owns the information etc... is not as strong a focus as managing all the technology equipment.  Again, this creates two problems. One being that information is not known, managed or reliable. Two, shadow IT flourishes, because systems are not managing and supporting the information suitable to the user. Faced with the lack of systems support, the business units find a way to develop there own "work-around" or in some agencies they are funded to develop there own systems. And the cycle continues to grow and spiral out of control.

Information governance combined with a powerful collaboration tool like SharePoint can help manage your information. Without governance these collaboration tools can be the catalyst to fertilize existing problems. Information governance can drive and control some basics for your implementation planning.  Helping the agency answer questions; How much and what type of content do you have? Who will be using the content and what compliance requirements or regulations must you consider?



I would like to hear your thoughts on "Information Governance"

      

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Lean Six Sigma and the Evolution of Software Development

Software development processes have evolved significantly in recent years, shifting from traditional software development lifecycles (SDLCS) to more flexible or “Agile” development approaches. Although many new development models exist, the iterative and incremental development techniques all of these models introduce focus on a shift away from the “Waterfall” methodology, which dominated the industry for years. Agile software development methodologies are based on an iterative and incremental development approach, where requirements and technical solutions evolve through extensive collaboration between business owners and cross-functional teams. So, regardless of the Agile process model name (i.e. Agile Unified Process, Spiral process, Rational Unified Process, Rapid Application Development, Cleanroom development and Scrum), the fundamental tenant of each is iterative and incremental development.


Although waterfall methodologies have received a lot of criticism, there are some instances where it may be an effective development approach. These instances may include development within stable environments, including maintenance releases or existing products or porting an existing product to a new platform. However, absent these factors, an iterative development approach will more likely provide the flexibility and communication needed to enhance project success.

Current best practices in software development management stem from three key drivers. First, development processes are driven by short-term milestones. By focusing on short-term (usually about a month) goals, a laser focus on requirements and an improved alignment of business and technology can be obtained. Second, development processes provide teams some flexibility in approach. Although, the development process is well-defined, flexibility within the development teams to solve problems and create solutions is provided, allowing for creative and innovative solutions. And third, communication and learning within the development process are being used as a catalyst to spawn change and institute new work practices throughout the organization. As the development team(s) work with business owners to create solutions, the communication and learning between business owners and with technology professionals lead to innovative improvements that are being shared across organizations.

Professional organizations for standards and frameworks like CMMI, PMBOK, Lean Six Sigma and ISO have introduced additional models and techniques that can be leveraged to improve agile development cycles. PMBOK, for example, has become the industry standard for defining management practices and processes. As a starting point for building a development team, trained and experienced project managers are a necessity with PMI certification validating an understanding of the industry best practices for project management.

The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Development is an integration of best practices that provides a single framework to assess development and maintenance processes and improve performance. CMMI certification has also become a standard for software development. Although many development teams/shops strive to obtain a CMMI certification, many of the tools can be used without going through the extensive certification process.

Lean Development has evolved from Six Sigma techniques, which focus on the improvement of process by eliminating waste. Within the context of software development, these process wastes are defined as: 1.) unnecessary coding and functionality development, 2.) delays in the development cycle, 3.) unclear requirements, 4.) bureaucracy and 5.) slow communication. By recognizing these “waste” areas and eliminating or improving them, performance dramatically improves, adding value to your solutions and the business operations. Incorporating lean principles and conducting a value assessment to remove non-value added steps and processes, helps keep the development cycle lean and high performing.

So Lean Six Sigma techniques are well aligned with recent trends is software development. Lean Six Sigma provides a new way at looking at your development processes, with a strong focus on how to improve the process, which by default leads to faster, better and often cheaper solutions. 

Monday, March 28, 2011

Giving Technology the Business!

Giving someone the business is a jargon you have probably heard. It means giving someone trouble, or a roughing up, or beating.  Giving someone the business can mean you are trying to make a point and willing to go to a lot of trouble to make it. So what's my point. What do I mean about giving technology the business?  First, I am not condoning beating up your techie friends. However, what I am suggesting is to take a look at your business without a technology focus for a change. Instead of focusing on how technology is used to support your business lets take a look at the business to see how the process is working, not how your technology is working.

Are you experiencing bottelnecks, backlogs, long wait times between your process steps? Once you identify exactly where the problem areas are occurring, you can begin to focus on why they are occurring. After you have identified the problem areas and why they are occurring you can begin to ask if these problems are due to poorly defined business process requirements or poorly designed technology systems? 

A common six sigma tool to assess processes is called the Value Stream Map. In a manufacturing production line the Value Stream Map is often used to identify backlogs, delays, and overproduction which cost money and create waste. It is quick and easy to see where production delays are occurring and to focus on specific ways to improve your production time. But how does a Value Stream Map help with a business process where backlogs, delays and overproduction are not so obvious. It can be done, but we don't usually look at business processes this way. The following link provides some examples of Value Stream Maps from eVSM software. http://www.evsm.com/examples.htm

There are a couple of techniques in developing the Value Stream Map that help us look at a business process in a new way. One technique is mapping the process from the end point backward. Most of you process modeling purest out there may question this approach, but give it a chance. Start by looking at the end product, service or output. What is the end point of the process? From that point, start working backward by looking at the inputs to the last step. By starting at the end and moving backward to the beginning of the process, you can more easily determine which process steps were waiting for input. Maybe the process was not only waiting for input, but routinely receives the wrong input, or too much input. As you work your way backward through the process, document these areas where time is lost.

From a business perspective these are the delays, backlogs and production errors that are much more visible in a manufacturing environment, but routinely exist in many business processes. Sometimes you may find that a technology system or application forces an action that is not adding value to the process or may be causing a delay or unnecessary step. When system requirements get out of sync with business processes, sometimes the business is expected to adapt to the system despite the inefficiencies created. Reducing this impact is what I refer to as a high integration of business and technology.  High integration of business and technology minimizes the negative effects of technology on business processes.

Can or should the business process change to leverage the benefits of a new technology?  This hits at the root of most problems when implementing new technology. And, my opinion is that most of the problems with implementing new technology are due to business problems not technology limitations. More often than not, technology capabilities can support business requirements.  However, we often muddle things up by confusing and co-mingling discussion of business requirements and technology capabilities, losing focus on the business need and conceding change of the business to conform to existing technology limitations. Sometime this may not be avoidable, but let's not default to this way of thinking. Let's keep giving technology the business.  

I am not sure how many organizations use a Value Stream Map or similar tool to develop a fresh perspective on business processes. I think there are not many, and I suggest there should be many more. At worst it provides a clearer picture of your processes, at best it highlights the specific areas where you can reduce wasted time or process steps.  And maybe it will help define areas where your technology can better serve your business process.   


 
 

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Six Sigma to the Rescue?

I just completed six months with Villanova's online Six Sigma Certificate Program. To be specific, the Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Certificate program. I must say that it is a great set of courses that require more than a casual effort to complete. The combination of online virtual classroom lectures, CDs with hours and hours of presentations from industry leaders and the required project work, provides a great learning opportunity for those of us who are interested in that sort of thing.

This of course begs the question why? What does this have to do with business and technology integration? Six Sigma has been around for several decades and has primarily been focused on the manufacuturing industry, which limits its application for most of us who have never worked on a production line. However, the "Lean" focus is really about expanding the use of Six Sigma tools beyond the realm of manufacturing to the business service environment. So my plans over the next few months is to explore this idea of using Six Sigma to solve business problems, which includes technology problems since technology is a service to the business.

I welcome input for areas to explore, but my recent experiences I believe will provide more than enough foder for comment for the next few months.

For now, I will leave you with the a few basic points relative to Lean Six Sigma. First, the primary focus is on reducing waste in your existing processes. Waste can be recognized in many shapes and forms. Basically, if something is happening in your process that is not adding value to the service you are providing then there is a potential for waste... and therefor there is a potential to eliminate or drastically reduce it, and by default improve business processes and the bottom line.

Secondly, what do I mean be adding value...? Very simple... to add value to your service you must physically change something in a way that the customer is willing to pay for and it must be done right the first time, no rework allowed. That is the only way to add value.

So I will leave on that note for now. More to come soon.