SharePoint - Subversive?

  • >>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

    My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?

    *******************
    What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!

  • Now that's a question I can't resist commenting on because although I certified in SharePoint development I get about 80% administration tasks by necessity regardless of the type of firm - if they don't have a SharePoint administrator. I see way wacky things because the installation process for SharePoint is in no way automatic or obvious - like the recent discovery of a WFE server set up on the back-end SQL Server and the actual SharePoint server not serving much! Another area that is almost never set up properly is the service accounts - and that's understandable because they have to have groups created in active directory and then correctly permissioned in SQL Server before being assigned to the right applications in SharePoint. Once you do get things set up properly **if you don't let anyone touch it** your OOTB SharePoint install can run happily for a long time without a lot of hands on adminstration. The recommendations for managing its SQL Server are that its instance server SharePoint exclusively and not be directly queried. There's a great DBA article about that here.

    As to the metadata, that's something that can be tailored to your org terms when it is set up and then required when content enters a library or list - but that too is an advanced setup task. It is a change of thinking from folder based doc management and way easier when users get the hang of it.

  • brosspremier (1/3/2012)


    >>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

    My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?

    I'd say this question, for us, is the critical question. If it requires an administrator, then it just isn't going to happen. We're so poor that they no longer pay for even $50 technical books.

    Rod

  • Ramona-1042522 (1/3/2012)


    Now that's a question I can't resist commenting on because although I certified in SharePoint development I get about 80% administration tasks by necessity regardless of the type of firm - if they don't have a SharePoint administrator. I see way wacky things because the installation process for SharePoint is in no way automatic or obvious - like the recent discovery of a WFE server set up on the back-end SQL Server and the actual SharePoint server not serving much! Another area that is almost never set up properly is the service accounts - and that's understandable because they have to have groups created in active directory and then correctly permissioned in SQL Server before being assigned to the right applications in SharePoint. Once you do get things set up properly **if you don't let anyone touch it** your OOTB SharePoint install can run happily for a long time without a lot of hands on adminstration. The recommendations for managing its SQL Server are that its instance server SharePoint exclusively and not be directly queried. There's a great DBA article about that here.

    As to the metadata, that's something that can be tailored to your org terms when it is set up and then required when content enters a library or list - but that too is an advanced setup task. It is a change of thinking from folder based doc management and way easier when users get the hang of it.

    Does SP really require a well designed AD structure? Hmm. That could be a problem for us as well. Our current AD structure requires some significant redesign. It was based upon an NT 3.51 network way back in the day, and hasn't changed much since then.

    Rod

  • Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)


    Revenant, you brought up a couple of things. First, I think you made an excellent point that users would have to have to adhere to properly putting in header information into documents. Where I work, that isn't ever going to happen. So SP does that for you, then? I also notice that you mentioned that TFS is a specialized version of SP; that's interesting, as I've been thinking it would be good to migrate our very old instance of Visual SourceSafe to TFS. But the problem is identifying a server to put it on.

    Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    SP can reject a doc that does not adhere to a set template, or templates.

    Re migration to TFS, TFS will run OK on a modest 4 GB machine, which may be virtual. TFS 2012 you will be able to run off the cloud.

    Yes, TFS does require an administrator, and if you want to use it to manage the entire lifecycle, including but of course not limited to running automated tests on a dedicated test server - which can also be virtual - as is needed for repeatability, you will need a service account with admin rights to the Test Manager, the test server, and the TFS. I am mentioning it specifically because this powerful combination of privileges raises lots of security questions that better be answered before you start setting things up.

    I think that TFS importance to SQLS development will increase because Visual Studio 2012 includes native tools for testing of SQL scripts including stored procedures. The argument that testing T-SQL under TFS is too laborious because you need custom wrappers will no longer hold water, so I would definitely recommend thinking about migration.

  • Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)


    brosspremier (1/3/2012)


    >>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

    My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?

    I'd say this question, for us, is the critical question. If it requires an administrator, then it just isn't going to happen. We're so poor that they no longer pay for even $50 technical books.

    SP requires an administrator, but not necessarily a full time administrator.

    Also, admin responsibilities can be spread around if you create subsites that are administered by the groups that own them. Then the role of SP administrator is reduced to setting up the subsites and their security and acting as a guru to their respective admins.

  • In our case, I'd guess it's a combination of things. Likely lack of management trust in "underlings" is one facet; lack of interest on the part of the IT staff is another probability. Right now, our Sharepoint instance is available only to the IT staff, not the rest of the company.

    Originally there was a request for staff to determine a "structure" to build on, but that was quickly set aside in favor of a management-designed structure. Though there is supposed to be some flexibility.

    The larger problem is finding / making time to transfer documents from the old shared network folder structure to the new Sharepoint folders - and making Sharepoint the "master" for the documents. The last thing we need is multiple copies of a single document floating around.

    As a "distributed" company with developers in multiple time zones, Sharepoint provides a single accessible point where all team members can access and update common documents. That's the ROI for us.


    Here there be dragons...,

    Steph Brown

  • Problem I've seen with distributed administration is that the sub-admins don't get the proper training and you're still left with a less than useful result.

  • Revenant (1/3/2012)


    Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)


    Revenant, you brought up a couple of things. First, I think you made an excellent point that users would have to have to adhere to properly putting in header information into documents. Where I work, that isn't ever going to happen. So SP does that for you, then? I also notice that you mentioned that TFS is a specialized version of SP; that's interesting, as I've been thinking it would be good to migrate our very old instance of Visual SourceSafe to TFS. But the problem is identifying a server to put it on.

    Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    SP can reject a doc that does not adhere to a set template, or templates.

    Re migration to TFS, TFS will run OK on a modest 4 GB machine, which may be virtual. TFS 2012 you will be able to run off the cloud.

    Yes, TFS does require an administrator, and if you want to use it to manage the entire lifecycle, including but of course not limited to running automated tests on a dedicated test server - which can also be virtual - as is needed for repeatability, you will need a service account with admin rights to the Test Manager, the test server, and the TFS. I am mentioning it specifically because this powerful combination of privileges raises lots of security questions that better be answered before you start setting things up.

    I think that TFS importance to SQLS development will increase because Visual Studio 2012 includes native tools for testing of SQL scripts including stored procedures. The argument that testing T-SQL under TFS is too laborious because you need custom wrappers will no longer hold water, so I would definitely recommend thinking about migration.

    Thank you, Revenant, for your reply. However, given what you've said, I think that's going to kill TFS for us as well. At this point we're a 3 member IT/development group, having lost 1 due to retirement (and then unfortunately death) in June. We haven't anyone to administer TFS. And within a couple of months we'll be loosing another. The only way anything will work for us is if it is entirely turnkey.

    Rod

  • Revenant (1/3/2012)


    Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)


    brosspremier (1/3/2012)


    >>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

    My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?

    I'd say this question, for us, is the critical question. If it requires an administrator, then it just isn't going to happen. We're so poor that they no longer pay for even $50 technical books.

    SP requires an administrator, but not necessarily a full time administrator.

    Also, admin responsibilities can be spread around if you create subsites that are administered by the groups that own them. Then the role of SP administrator is reduced to setting up the subsites and their security and acting as a guru to their respective admins.

    Hmmm. That may alleviate some of my concerns, of my co-worker who will be reminding after we loose the next one, is willing to help me. Otherwise, I just don't have the time.

    Rod

  • Doctor Who 2 (1/4/2012)


    Revenant (1/3/2012)


    Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)


    Revenant, you brought up a couple of things. First, I think you made an excellent point that users would have to have to adhere to properly putting in header information into documents. Where I work, that isn't ever going to happen. So SP does that for you, then? I also notice that you mentioned that TFS is a specialized version of SP; that's interesting, as I've been thinking it would be good to migrate our very old instance of Visual SourceSafe to TFS. But the problem is identifying a server to put it on.

    Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

    SP can reject a doc that does not adhere to a set template, or templates.

    Re migration to TFS, TFS will run OK on a modest 4 GB machine, which may be virtual. TFS 2012 you will be able to run off the cloud.

    Yes, TFS does require an administrator, and if you want to use it to manage the entire lifecycle, including but of course not limited to running automated tests on a dedicated test server - which can also be virtual - as is needed for repeatability, you will need a service account with admin rights to the Test Manager, the test server, and the TFS. I am mentioning it specifically because this powerful combination of privileges raises lots of security questions that better be answered before you start setting things up.

    I think that TFS importance to SQLS development will increase because Visual Studio 2012 includes native tools for testing of SQL scripts including stored procedures. The argument that testing T-SQL under TFS is too laborious because you need custom wrappers will no longer hold water, so I would definitely recommend thinking about migration.

    Thank you, Revenant, for your reply. However, given what you've said, I think that's going to kill TFS for us as well. At this point we're a 3 member IT/development group, having lost 1 due to retirement (and then unfortunately death) in June. We haven't anyone to administer TFS. And within a couple of months we'll be loosing another. The only way anything will work for us is if it is entirely turnkey.

    There is no such thing as turnkey TFS, I am afraid.

    On a second thought, part of TFS admin duties ought to be carried by the lead of performance testing, because setup of performance environment is in my experience the most-time consuming part.

  • Thank you, Revenant, excellent feedback.

    Rod

  • Is your team one that empowers non-management to make meaningful contributions, shape decisions and share insights about the technical environment?

    No

  • "How else can I account for the seemingly apparent lack of interest in allowing all team members to have a venue in which to share what they know or offer their take on changes in methodology so it doesn't fall into a black hole?"

    I once wondered this same thing about a very skilled team member who was never contributing to the Sharepoint Knowledge Base we had set up when every one else in the team was, and I asked him this once and his immediate response was

    "Job Security. Why would I share my bag of tricks with everyone? That is my hole card for more money every year when management doesn't want to hand it out. I just threaten to leave, and the the thought of my head walking out that door pretty much guarantees me a healthy raise every year. So, why would I want to give that edge away by sharing what I know with everyone?"

    My response was:

    "Then you are basically holding the company hostage?"

    His response was:

    "Call it what you want. I call it looking out for my best interests."

    😀

    "Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"

  • The funny thing about knowledge and ideas is that when they are hoarded they do not multiply but rather stagnate, diminishing not only your friend's usefulness, but greatness. Watch "Where Great Ideas Come From":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU

    *******************
    What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply