Craig RothWith all due respect to William Ury and his negotiating strategy book “Getting to Yes,” the difficulty faced by owners of governance projects in organizations not used to governance is how to get to the point that saying “no” is feasible and actually works. After all, you don’t need to do anything with governance if you the answer to everything anyone wants to do is “yes.”
I talk to many intranet, portal, and SharePoint owners that are about to instantiate governance. About half the time they tell me this is the first attempt at governance in IT (at least around any type of knowledge infrastructure). Sure, the governance author can word it positively, being effusive about how this makes their life easier and saves them effort by eliminating decision time, dead-end choices, and makes them feel more free since they know their boundaries, etc. But my clients report consternation since it’s the first time people are going to be told not to do use a certain technology, not to change a site design, etc. How will they take it? Will they listen? What if they don’t? How will that reflect on me as the governance owner?
Before exploring what governance should consist of, I usually ask clients some questions that gauge whether anyone will listen to the governance. What’s the point in putting together a slew of committees, policies, and processes if no one will change their behavior anyways? That’s a “career limiting move.”
The power and authority to say “no” is not a given in organizations that don’t have a history of proscribing the activities of users in a given domain (knowledge infrastructure in this case). So here are some handy questions to think about before you try instantiating governance:
- Will users be aware of what they should not do? Given that users will not scan a 25 page governance document before starting any activity, how will they even know what they are not supposed to do?
- When do you propose to tell them “no”: before they do something they shouldn’t or after they’ve done it? Both have their own difficulties. The first option implies visibility, awareness, and possibly an approval process. The latter option implies audits.
- Why will people listen to you? Even if an executive has granted you some formal authority to create the governance, do the users take orders from that executive? Was the formal authority just a vague and general mandate? Have they been told independently (not from you) that they have to listen to you? Are their financial strings that will be pulled?
- Have there been previous attempts at telling users “no” and how did they fare? If they didn’t fare well, why will your fate be different?
- What will you do if you tell users “no” (such as telling them to post newsletters on the portal instead of emailing them around, or to use a standard design template) and they don’t listen to you?
Best of luck on your governance initiative. Here’s hoping that you not only write a sterling statement of governance, but that people actually listen to you the next time they try to do something that should now be done differently!
Comments Off
Category: governance IT Governance Microsoft SharePoint Portals Tags:
