I'm reading a GREAT book that's a compilation of articles from the acclaimed journal for word lovers called "Verbatim," (note: link is to the mostly defunct web site) and am really enjoying the linguistic gymnastics that skilled writers have created for my entertainment.
The latest article I read appears to have been originally published (per this blog) in 1986, and it introduces me to the term "semantic taint."
Semantic taint is the phenomenon of a word inheriting a "distinctive coloring" (usually negative, sometimes scatalogical or sexual) due to its association with other words. Some examples include:
- appeasement (forever associated with Munich, and not in a good way)
- diaphragm (there's a great Steve Martin bit about this that I'll leave it to you to find)
- erection (for my friends in construction, of course), etc.
I think that the word "SharePoint" is a dangerous word to use when talking about and building support among business stakeholders for a new collaboration toolset, intranet, extranet, portal, knowledge management system, or digital workplace. It could either be a foreign, techie-sounding word, or could evoke a technology project from days/years past (hint: most of these fail -- you know this, right?). Now, SharePoint is a wonderful set of technologies, blessed with phenomenal adoption, a great partner ecosystem, and one of the absolute dominant players in the software world behind it. It, in many cases, is inevitable. But, if you are defining your project in terms if SharePoint, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
As many of the speakers discussed at this week's Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston, start with the business value ("we will create and publish content more efficiently," "we will build a workspace where we can collaborate on documents and other content with our partners," etc.), decide on a platform, and CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE.
“Our SharePoint initiative” conjures images of an IT-driven technology-centric project, while most potential users of SharePoint have never heard of it, and (rightfully) will not care a whit about it unless they understand first how it will make THEIR jobs easier, and THEIR lives better. (Think: "What's in it for me?")
This is 100-level stuff, but it's both validating (in our jobs as SharePoint consultants) and aggravating to see the same mistakes time and time again. So, rather than “our SharePoint initiative,” or “the portal,” consider such examples as:
KMANet -- OK, this one is not super-inventive, but at least it is about the organization, not the technology. And, it's succinct, which is always important.
Cramerville -- By, of, and for “creatives” at a top interactive agency, and those who support them. Great name for a family-owned business with a strong sense of community and great internal brand.
Shmoogle -- Perhaps not the most Microsoft-friendly, but it’s about the client, not the software, and it evokes a place to go to learn/know everything about the organization and they, a Jewish philanthropic organization, got a kick out of it.
Better yet, make it your choice of business-relevant, user-selected, and fun/memorable title. Some great resources on this topic are:
- Microsoft's SharePoint 2010 Adoption Best Practices White Paper,
- The Nielsen Norman Group's annual report on best intranets
- The Intranet Benchmarking Forum
- Your local SharePoint Saturday, in the end-user track.
If all else fails, remember the first rule of Fight Club (hover over link if you don't remember)!
Recent Comments