Forum Discussion
Can IC work without SharePoint savvy?
Specialist knowledge is needed outside of a traditional IC role e.g. a detailed understanding of the platform and any technical considerations relating to the business architecture. An understanding of information architecture, metadata. It can also support IC for
- escalations when something goes wrong with the tech or requirements change
- platform / tech training
- special events where IC want to step outside of an existing template / process etc
A traditional IT role won't always sufficiently understand the needs of a comms team (exceptions can be business partners, as you've mentioned it could be someone in IT with a dotted line in to the comms business area.
The ideal would be a dedicated channels / intranet / IC tech manager who understands both comms needs and tech (I may be biased in this regard as this is my role). A dedicated role also helps ensure a wide variety of inputs are considered e.g. championing an overall user experience and needs from other teams such as HR / operational teams.
Expertise should live somewhere in the business. Whilst an initial view could come from an outside contractor knowledge should be embedded in to the business for ongoing maintenance, adaptations, training etc (unless there's a close, ongoing relationship with a supplier which is likely to be expensive).
For SharePoint specifically, there have been a lot of improvements but OOTB there are still big challenges when used for bigger businesses. I'd say it's impossible for large organisations to use SharePoint OOTB. It looks like Microsoft would prefer to allow 3rd parties to create customisations and fill in gaps.
SharePoint training does seem to focus on information management and only some specialists offer an intranet / communications management perspective. I can only think that this isn't more widespread due to 3rd party involvement for SharePoint intranets. You're often limited to training and consultancy with your 3rd party supplier on their specific flavour of SharePoint.
- The final paragraph really resonates here; I've often said that what SharePoint does really well (and I was speaking more for on-prem versions) is information management. Its taxonomy and metadata, data retention functionality is awesome, it's real strength.
What I'm wondering is, what do these third party wrappers offer for Comms teams that OOTB doesn't? This is a big market and suggests something is missing from either the functionality or the traditional support - or the traditional training and support model provided by organisations?ALCorbett There are a lot of detailed functions that the third party products excel in. They will say, during a demo, that SharePoint is bad in a lot of areas. That is maybe true, but SharePoint is much better in other areas never mentioned during the demo. I've been part of (on the customer side) a couple of third party presentation and if you do not have detailed knowledge of SharePoint you will get convinced of the need to buy a third party product. When I, after the demo, sit down with the customer and explain what can be done with SharePoint OOTB they do not want to spend the extra license fee for a third party product.
One of the most important reasons to choose SharePoint OOTB is that you can follow MS roadmap and the integration between the different tools in M365 will work.
I can see one reason to go with a third party: They often have a project organization with workshops and training sessions prepared. If you do not have access to the same competence for SharePoint then you cannot do it by yourself.
Have a nice weekend whenever you read this:-)- I’ve worked with differing amounts with 8 or 9 intranet platforms, including 3 of the leading non-SharePoint solutions. At their best, they abstract a lot of the permissions issues, provide a slick experience for managing news and campaigns, and take away the doubt. As Martin says, they also can run the workshops and get you making good decisions sooner.
The biggest issues I’ve had were 1) a very unintuitive set-up for default section home pages with Interact, and 2) dreadful reliance on OpenStreetMap maps with Unily. Also, if they don’t do it, you’re going to need to find a developer or pay the provider (possibly with the privilege of seeing the product in a later version). Additionally, building pages can involve a lot of clicks (although Unily’s search is very helpful), and I’ve not encountered any that could be automated in any way. Note, I hate using PowerShell, but appreciate what can be done.
Clearly, SharePoint is becoming more IC-friendly, and adoption guides and the Look Book are helping the conversations. I feel there’s still a long way to go.
I agree with almost everything in your post, except one thing. I've been part of too many:-) intranet projects and now the time has come to use SharePoint OOTB. During the last two years I've been responsible for the solution at a number of customers ranging rom 500 to 100.000 employees. It works great. The number one thing you need to be aware of is that you need slightly adjust the requirements to fit. For example: You cannot get exact the look that you want. You maybe need to implement e.g. the brand with images and other small adjustments as well. But you get a really great intranet that will evolve automagically when Microsoft updates MS 365.
If you go with a third party product, whatever they say (I've been part of that) they will lock you in and they will not be capable to follow in Microsoft's tempo. I understand that I'm a bit controversial here but I have the experience to back it.- Interesting to know, I'm trying to implement a mostly OOTB project at the moment and there are still major gaps. Some degree of compromise is reasonable, there's a very real battle between what I'd consider to be relatively standard business expectations and current SharePoint functionality. The SharePoint roadmap does seem promising at least.
- Can you share some examples?
