1 / 45

SharePoint in Real Life

SharePoint in Real Life. Two recent case studies at Opus. Two Case Studies. www.opuscorp.com External/ Customer-facing site. “O · net” Intranet/Portal. Case 1: External Site. Background Our approach Why SharePoint? Technical overview Lessons learned. Background: Pain Points.

claire
Télécharger la présentation

SharePoint in Real Life

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SharePoint in Real Life • Two recent case studies at Opus

  2. Two Case Studies www.opuscorp.comExternal/Customer-facing site • “O·net”Intranet/Portal

  3. Case 1: External Site • Background • Our approach • Why SharePoint? • Technical overview • Lessons learned

  4. Background: Pain Points • Time-consuming/expensive to maintain • Poor reliability • Few options for integration

  5. Background: Site Components • Structured/dynamic content (Job Postings, Projects, Press Releases, News Letters, Testimonials, Bios, etc…) • Static content (Company History, Mission Statement, Descriptions of Services, etc…) • Canadian site(www.oredevelopment.com) • Project search • Site search • Flash content

  6. Core Requirements • Maintain same design (“pixel perfect”) • Reliable • Use internal IT resources sparingly • “Good” ROI • Easy maintenance • Complete by end of year (6 Months) • Friendly to search optimization

  7. Other “Nice to Haves” • Delegation of content management • Full control over design • Integration options (for other Opus systems)

  8. Our Approach • Gather full requirements • RFPs/vendor selection (Inetium) • Site design • Implementation • Content manager training • Main site launch • ORE site development • ORE site launch

  9. Why SharePoint? • Built-in content management capabilities • Web content management (critical) • Document management (to a lesser extent) • Publishing model • Schedule date to release • Version control • Approval workflow • Templates • Multiple page layouts (article with image on left etc.) • Custom (policies and procedures) • Design Flexibility

  10. Content Architecture: Design Process Existing Site List of Site Entities • Relationships • Who Publishes • When/How Often Published Taxonomy

  11. Content Architecture • Structured site to be free of extraneous managed code • Designed to accommodate modular security needs, with a central approval process • Leveraged OOB navigation for top and left navs • All data maintained in lists, including a couple thousand images • Data – joins and filtering of lists revealed interesting quirks in SPD • Leveraged Reusable content

  12. Site Infrastructure *Internet “www.opuscorp.com” www.opuscorp.com ISA Server (Rev-Proxy/Firewall) *DMZ “exweb” Content Switch(s) (Cisco CSS 11501) Database Cluster (SQL 2005) *Internal Front-End Web Servers (MOSS 2007)

  13. Lessons Learned • Look for ways to use re-use content (lists, master pages, and page layouts seem to be the key) • XSLT is an essential skill for highly-customized SharePoint sites • The learning curve for customizing SharePoint is high, but the reward is a site tailored to your needs. • The Reusable Content list is a great little tool • Because of schedule constraints, using external consulting services (Inetium) was important.

  14. Q&A

  15. Case 2: Onet Redesign • Background • Our approach • Why SharePoint? • Implementation details • Lessons learned

  16. Onet Redesign • Background • Designed exclusively by IT • “Org Chart” taxonomy • Extensive/complicated menu system Slow to load/as many as three levels to navigate • Search - Google Search Appliance • Platform: FrontPage (static content)/.Net (custom web apps) • No “portal” tools (collaboration, personalization, etc) Onet – The Ugly Years

  17. Onet Redesign • Pain Points: • Outdated design • Difficult to find “stuff” • Difficult for content publishers to update • Difficult for IT to support content publishers Onet – The Ugly Years

  18. Our Approach • Assemble a committee(from a variety of disciplines and levels) • Establish high-level scope • Gather feedback/research • (from the committee, content publishers, and employees) • Analyze feedback/research • Establish/communicate full scope • Implementation • Deployment

  19. Why SharePoint? • Ease of publishing for content owners • Item-level Security, Web Parts • Standard Portal Features • Personalization, Alerts, RSS, etc.. • Built-in content management capabilities • Custom lists and views (lots) • Version control • Approval workflow • Web content management (just a little) • Document management (surprisingly little at first, but more and more) • Familiar platform (existing staff) • Design flexibility

  20. The Theory Good Design Intuitive Navigation Useful Search/ Site Tools An Easier-to-Use Site?

  21. Gather Feedback!

  22. Design Options

  23. Navigation/Taxonomy Options • Option 1 – No Change • Option 1 • My Life • My Job • My Company • Option 2 (Variation of Current Scheme) • Departments • Application • Forms • Employee Center • Project Delivery

  24. Taxonomy: Our Approach • Company-wide survey (ONET Top 5) • Department/steering committee surveys • Focus groups (card-sorting sessions) • Consulting services (Inetium) • Industry best research and best practices (Nielsen Group, Human Factors Int’l)

  25. (Almost) Final Taxonomy

  26. Implementation • Design Implementation • Master pages(for SharePoint & ASP.Net custom apps) • Layout pages • Custom site definition • Custom controls • Location-aware tab-strip • Custom breadcrumb • “My Links” • Convert content sites (Both SharePoint and FrontPage sites) • Develop New Areas • Main Areas (forms center, landing pages) • “My Location” sites • Utility areas (Help, Site Map) • Home Page

  27. The Final Result…

  28. Site Infrastructure http://onet/ Content Switch(s) (Cisco CSS 11501) /sites/* /applications/* Database Cluster (SQL 2005) Front-End Web Servers (MOSS 2007) Custom App Servers (C#/.Net) Search Server (Google Search Appliance) *Internal

  29. Growth Rate Go-Live Project Kick-Off Number of Sites

  30. Favorite Features • Audience targeting • Article publishing system • Forms/surveys • Custom lists • Business Data Catalog (BDC)

  31. Not-So-Favorite Features • Deployment process • Backup/restore • Site definitions are permanent(cannot be changed after site creation) • Hardware requirements(makes development difficult) • SharePoint designer bugs!

  32. Other Fun Stuff • Several My Location sites have launched location-specific suggestion box lists, local announcements, and local calendars • Departments have gone above and beyond by helping employees in new ways. (eg. Tax department posts personal tax tips) • RSS feeds are becoming more popular • A number of custom lists are being developed to replace previously manual processes

  33. The future of Onet • Opus Project Library (done!) • Lease Library (in progress) • Project Delivery (‘08) • Records Management/Document Retention? • FolderNav vs. SharePoint document libraries

  34. Another Perspective on Systems Integration

  35. The future of Onet Project Delivery Lease Library Records Management/Document Retention

  36. Q&A

More Related