Obviously an important consideration within an overall implementation plan for a custom taxonomy to provide a foundation for SharePoint 2010 is the question of assigning team members to specific project roles. It makes sense when grappling with a role assignment challenge to start with a choice for taxonomy architects. Mike Doane, author of a video training course on planning custom taxonomies for SharePoint 2010, Evaluating the information before you proceed – Part One, proposes that corporate librarians make excellent candidates for this role. After all, librarians are very much involved with “linguistic concepts” and “semantic ideas” (quoted from Mike Doane’s video training course, which we have just mentioned), which is a core feature of taxonomies; therefore, they make excellent candidates for a leading role as regards custom taxonomy architecture.
Of course, if a business already includes individuals in the role of taxonomist, then it makes complete sense to assign a lead architect role to a resident taxonomist. The reality is, however, that corporate taxonomists are still very rare, and, therefore, it is unlikely that this type of professional will be available to play a role in the taxonomy implementation project. It is worth noting that the few resident taxonomists that are already in place, generally, have an academic background in Library Science, therefore, librarians, as we have already mentioned, can be counted on to play a productive role in a lead position.
Finally, Master Data Manager (MDMs) can be enlisted for this role. These professionals are usually deeply involved with methods of managing databases. SharePoint Document Libraries and Lists are tables within a database structure (with SQL Server on the back end); therefore, hence the appropriateness of an individual coming from an MDM role as a taxonomy architect for a project. The weakness of these individuals, as Mike Doane points out, is that they may be “too technical.” We would add that this role does not include the experience with language, and, in turn, the business processes generally behind the semantics developed to support line of business (LOB) processes and objections. On the other hand, corporate librarians generally do have this type of background, and, therefore, in our estimation make for better candidates for this role.
Mike does not that librarians may not be technical enough for this role. We think that this lack of technical understanding is an easily surmounted obstacle. Therefore, librarians should not simply be passed over for lack of technical background.
© Rehmani Consulting Inc, all rights reserved