Comments on: And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling #SharePoint kids!

By: Michael Hinckley

Michael Hinckley — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:05:02 +0000

Both Jay and Kerri pulled out the quick meaning of this post. I only realized that the short set up paragraph (case bio) was excluded after I saw the comments. I imagine Twitter writing is to blame, apologies to all. This would have set the scene better and the defeated consultants’ quote/ title would have ended on a better note.

Apologies for the minor lack of clarity, but I would like to point out that especially in large organizations system/applications can be brought under scrutiny at a moment’s notice. The only defense for that is having all pieces in place I described: governance, training and organization strategy. I know I am seeing a trend of consultants invading Financial Services now that signify (hopefully) the worst of times have passed. And while there are many amends that need to be made in that industry it should not replace what has efficiently road out the recession quite nicely in my world, SharePoint.

]]>

By: EndUserSharePoint

EndUserSharePoint — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:45:08 +0000

I’m going to ping Mike and ask for clarification on all this. — Mark

]]>

By: Nancy

Nancy — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:54:21 +0000

I’m confused too. Did they use SharEPoint for this solution of not?

]]>

By: Kerri

Kerri — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:00:59 +0000

That was my interpretation as well, but it did take another read to get it. Michael was expecting the consultants to bash Sharepoint, but because of the proper planning, and metrics, it sounds like they had no foothold to even mention another solution. Congrats Michael sounds like a perfectly executed deployment.

]]>

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:53:58 +0000

I think (and I stress THINK here) the author is making the point that because the implementation was well planned, there were reports and metrics on usage, training, governance etc… there was nothing for anyone to complain about as related to their SharePoint implementation so it was considered a non-issue.

That being said I could be wrong, just my interpretation.

- Jay

]]>

By: Steve C

Steve C — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:50:25 +0000

Could you use some clearer language? I’m with George — I don’t know what your point is or even what took place.

]]>

By: Jason MacKenzie

Jason MacKenzie — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:46:52 +0000

I really wanted to get it – but no dice.

]]>

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:31:22 +0000

Very confusing.

]]>

By: George W

George W — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:56:28 +0000

Sorry, I don’t get it.

]]>