Every time I see Sadie Van Buren talk about her truly excellent SharePoint Maturity Model, I think of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ work on Death and Dying. Yes, that may sound weird, but I find that many technology implementations do through the same phases to some degree.
Here are the five stages, as documented on Wikipedia:
1. Denial — “I feel fine.”; “This can’t be happening, not to me.”
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death.
2. Anger — “Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; ‘”Who is to blame?”
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy.
3. Bargaining — “I’ll do anything for a few more years.”; “I will give my life savings if…”
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…”
4. Depression — “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die… What’s the point?”; “I miss my loved one, why go on?”
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.
5. Acceptance — “It’s going to be okay.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with her/his mortality or that of a loved one.
Replace “death” and “loved one” with “SharePoint implementation” liberally, and you may see what I mean. SharePoint is just the technology; we’re asking people to fundamentally change the way they work. That’s hard, and going through the denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance path is natural in most significant changes we have imposed on us. Change sucks, and we all have to deal with it every day.
(Please don’t think that I am in any way trivializing what people go through with a death. Far from it. I just find that this model applies to more situations than EKR originally intended.)
There is almost always a “chasm of despair” people must accelerate through to succeed with a significant change, whether a technology change or any other. One of my theories is that the organizations that have a high velocity when they enter the chasm can get out of it faster. There are some leading indicators for this, which are soft and fuzzy, just like all technologists look for. Not.
The things I look for in organizations that I think are indications for success:
- Organizations which are strategically and organizationally nimble
- Flatter reporting structures
- Organizations without rigid job descriptions (the willingness and encouragement to step out of one’s role as needed)
Note that budget doesn’t always enter into it. I’ve seen organizations do amazing things on a shoestring and I’ve seen $100 million spent for little to no return. (Literally. I was part of a $100 million effort that was a total failure, IMHO.) Oh, there’s another indication: the ability to name something a failure, accept the blame for it, and learn from it openly.
One of the HUGE things that I feel has been missing in SharePoint’s first 10 years is a clear focus on measurable results. As Christian Finn kept saying at this summer’s SPTechCon keynote: deployment is not adoption. Unfortunately, it’s taken 10 years for Microsoft to really say this out loud in public.
In other words, we still have a lot of work to do. Sadie’s model and [hopefully] thinking about change management, and measuring success in meaningful ways (not page hits or number of documents uploaded), can help us reach that next stage of SharePoint maturity. That ought to mean the next level of organizational efficiency and effectiveness on many levels.
What do you think of all of this?