SharePoint and Its Origin

October 25, 2009

One of the articles I set aside to review when I was in Beltway Land last week was “Meet the Father of Microsoft Share Point: Jeff Teper”. I have an interest in SharePoint. The US government finds SharePoint a Swiss Army knife of possibilities. Any information that helps me understand where this product’s roots are anchored is of interest to me. The first thing I noticed about the article was the eyes. You can click here and draw your own conclusion. I see in these eyes a certain intensity. Remarkable. The second impact on me hit me when I read:

Bringing the idea for SharePoint to Gates and Ballmer resulted in two different takes from two different high-level Microsoft managers, Teper reminisced. He said Gates asked a lot of questions about the long-term architecture (SQL Server, .Net, etc.) behind what evolved into SharePoint. Gates also asked a lot of usability questions, Teper said. Ballmer, on the other hand, used his classic “I don’t get this” line of questioning to bring SharePoint’s charter into focus. “Ballmer said we need to make it simple, simple, simple,” Teper said. “He wanted to keep the message very simple.” So how did all this talk about simplicity yield a product that even Teper himself acknowledges is quite ambitious and complex? (He called it this week the “ultimate Swiss Army Knife.”)

SharePoint was to be simple. SharePoint consists of six servers and is, in my opinion, more complex that most enterprise applications. I think the story of SharePoint’s origins provides some insight into how large companies permit products to evolve. The focus is not upon better; the focus is upon more. The idea that problems can be ameliorated by adding additional features and functions is the DNA of SharePoint.

The subhead “A Great Success Born from a Great Failure” struck me as ironic. The ZDNet article stated:

With SharePoint 2003, Microsoft replaced the Exchange data store with a SQL one. Microsoft also purchased NCompass Labs during this period, and integrated its web-content-management technology with SharePoint. In 2007, Microsoft morphed SharePoint yet again, this time developing and realigning it to be more of an intranet and Internet focused tool. Microsoft launched the SharePoint Server 2007 release shortly before it made yet another related acquisition: enterprise search vendor FAST Search & Transfer. The upgrade process between the 2003 and 2007 versions was anything but smooth, the Softies acknowledged this week.

I am not sure what the meaning of “success” is. Perhaps it is the revenue, estimated at more than $1 billion out of Microsoft $65 billion in revenue. Okay. Perhaps it is the large number of alleged SharePoint licenses that are in the use. There are, I have heard, 100 million licenses. How many are in use? How many are freebies, bundled with other Microsoft products? Perhaps it is the legions of certified Microsoft professionals who earn a living making SharePoint work? I have heard that SharePoint consulting is a very solid business for some companies.

After reading the article, I think I know more about the zig zag path of SharePoint from its inception to the present day. With CFOs worrying about costs, I wonder if the costs of customizing and scaling SharePoint are a consequence of its DNA or of the nurturing Microsoft has given the product.

And search? What about search? A work in progress because of the complexities perhaps?

Stephen Arnold, October 25, 2009

No, no, another essay for no dough.

Comments

One Response to “SharePoint and Its Origin”

  1. Reading Intranet Blog’s Intranet predictions for 2010 « Fredzimny's Blog on January 17th, 2010 7:46 am

    […] SharePoint and Its Origin (arnoldit.com) […]

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta