What to look for when choosing an Electronic Document Management on MS Sharepoint 2013 platform in the first place. Part 1
So, serious uncles at a round table of an even more round company gathered and decided to implement MS Sharepoint 2013 based Electronic Document Management System. What uncles should pay attention to first and foremost when spending their own money.
“Do you want songs? I have them! ”
Let's leave alone the comparative characteristics and advertising slogans about which Electronic document management is better - only lazy did not write about it. And how many articles on this topic are written by — and not to be counted, but here are some of the most important key points — not specifically addressed. For some reason, they are bypassed by the close attention of the ink and pen workers. I suggest a little bit to get acquainted with this secret rituals and nevertheless devote a couple of straightforward lines to the problem of choice.
So let's see what we all want from all this music. We need a digestible, conveniently functional, fairly smart product on the MS Sharepoint 2013 platform, which can be developed further and with sufficiently adequate costs both for the initial implementation and for further maintenance.
1. A clear understanding of the tasks that need to be solved, moreover, not to wait when they “tell” you what they are giving you, but try to present the big picture according to your requirements.
')
First you need to understand a couple of important things:
a) Developing SED from scratch and using your own resources is an unreal evil. If all of you decided to “develop” it yourself, then even gnomes in the forest will laugh at you. Forget it.
b) Electronic document management systems under MS Sharepoint 2013 in Russia - literally recount all these ready-made boxed solutions of different degrees of customization. They differ in the details and in the secondary functionality - but the basic component of the classical document management is performed at 100% - regardless of their sophistication and intricacy.
Electronic document management is essentially the movement and storage of disobedient documents within YOUR company. Very clearly define for yourself what YOU want - for example: registration of incoming / outgoing, contractual workflow, what static business processes, routing capabilities, EDS, tasks and instructions, etc. What exactly is important for YOU, regardless of the decision? Not that the developer offers for specific money (but more on that later), but what is primarily required by you and only YOU. And not in the sense - of the tasks performed by the specific product currently being considered, but in the sense of YOUR needs and desires.
Of course, during the initial conversation, the customer first of all addressed the question “what exactly do you need from our hot-tempered SED” - cheerfully and without batting an eye answers: “Everything!” —But what exactly is difficult to clarify, except for the most common concepts “Registration of documents and agreement ". In the same way as the developer, to the question “What does your decision allow?”, “Everything!” Vigorously reports.
In this case, both interested parties are on different sides of the barricades, in essence, they wish to act as true, but they absolutely do not understand each other, while one person extremely urgently wants to part with corporate money, and the other, no less corporate person, wants them urgently to accept. And it is absolutely unimportant that in negotiations there are serious guys in expensive ties and cufflinks for the price of an average uninhabited island in a very quiet ocean.
This happens precisely because - often, initially responsible for the customer - does not bother with a clear definition of the tasks required for solving the problem, but looks at the whole project in a broad perspective, naturally identifying his saved time with the time of the company and, naturally, eager to spend it as You can get less on these studies, and get a salary and gingerbread as much as possible. But in vain! His gingerbread is very closely interconnected with the General Director's gingerbread, which is always bigger and stronger than the person responsible for the project. And in case of failure, the General Director or the Owner of the company will be extremely specific and detailed in his speech - which will be replete with common and non-literary epithets in relation to those responsible for the project, as well as to their close and distant relatives. Take care of gingerbread.
In general, before you go into a search engine and start choosing a box solution and a developer, try to understand as precisely as possible what your company wants to get on the exhaust (and you are its representative), while specifics are desirable, more, and less common phrases.
2. Mandatory understanding - the basic functionality you require from the boxed solution, again - precisely in accordance with your requirements, and not with a stretch of ears for what you are offered.
It is categorically necessary to meticulously understand the specific solution under consideration - what you see in its functionality, so to speak, in the cymus itself. That is, it must be understood that the basic requirements for the functionality of any electronic document management at Sharepoint are:
- friendly cards with a functional part of the documents, processes and tasks, plus of course the search
- further, of course, the convenience of managing business processes and their routing
- convenient location of libraries and section navigation and filtering
- the most positive display of tables according to the lists of documents
- employee role participation
- delegation and substitution
- as well as clear creation of your own lists and communication of card fields - convenient admin panel, and adequate interface
- comments, lists of sighting and routing, reports
- normal technical support, which is always ready to put the festive goose aside on the eve of New Year's Eve, leave the table and go to the computer, with visible pleasure to solve customer problems. Well, or that the equipment in support could always be called at any time and just talk with him about this and that. They love it.
Of course, this is at a minimum, and there can be a great many of these points, I just listed the fundamental ones - that is, the car may have many nuances, but the body of the wheel and the engine should be one hundred percent. But these are the most basic things - which must be present, if they are - it makes sense to continue the conversation, if something does not fit in - forget and don’t remember. (about the price and negotiations in the next paragraph)
You do not need to immediately embrace the immense and try to attract all the understanding of the functionality of complex solutions based on MS Sharepoint 2013 or consider yourself a mega-guru in the SED, falling asleep with questions about the paper of an innocent manager or rushing to the store for a thousand pages management administrator, it is enough to sensibly understand the basics of the functions you require from the solution in question and build on them.
This is what is most necessary and must be present practically unshakably and in the only correct variation. Everything else is already particular and depends more on the specific requirements of the customer, the requirements of individuals, departments of the company or just additional functionality that is not necessary - but extremely pleasant (of course it depends on the additional functionality itself) - with this on Sharepoint we keep our ears (there are a couple of pitfalls in this) - since we remember that free cheese comes only in the last refuge of wild mice.
3. Detailed awareness at the mental level - for what exactly of the existing functionality you pay voluntarily, and what is not important for you, but you are being delivered as mega-needed chips - since any sneeze is taken into account in the final price.
Let us again remember what we specifically need, as was indicated at the very beginning: it is a digestible, conveniently functional, fairly smart product on the MS Sharepoint 2013 platform, which can be developed further and with adequate costs both for the initial implementation and for further maintenance. Remember each word from this sentence. Below is a detailed division into some points:
Platform.
There are no MS Sharepoint 2010. This is an outdated system, but the price of 2010 does not differ from the price for 2013, so no excuse for the developer why the system is being implemented on the previous version is not rolling. When you purchase licenses and implement the product - the Sharepoint version can only be the latest, and no excuses. If the developer has nothing to show from the 2013 Sharepoint on the demo, then there is nothing to talk about. Just as there is nothing to talk about with a potential contractor - if, for any reason, he refuses to show the demo version of the product for the following reasons: “something is updated”, “server is transferred”, “manager is ill”, “something happened to the planet an invasion of tomato people ", etc.
If the company is positioning in its asset a boxed ready solution at Sharepoint 2013 - then the demo stand in the round-the-clock access should always be available - in the “take out and put” mode. Not 2007, not 2010 - namely 2013 ball. Any excuses under any pretext from the demo show (regardless of the size of the company) - talking in favor of the poor. Of course, they may ask you for additional data (name, company name and corporate mail) - but these are nuances, of course, you should be ready for them, if you position yourself as a serious customer - and not just “go around the store” ", No one will lick a client who writes with vasiapupkin@ofigennayapochta.ru
In general, the first rule is that you pay only for the latest version, and any excuses why you will introduce an outdated product will not roll. No demo of the latest version of Sharepoint - the conversation is closed.
Functional elements.
Sharepoint is, as already mentioned, a constructor. And when the developer shows you his version of the SED, separately or in conjunction with the Corporate Portal, this is his vision of the world order - “the artist sees this.” Of course, the nuances may not coincide with your worldview, but enough drops of water to guess the existence of the ocean. Therefore, if you have seen a sufficiently made product, then believe me, the developer will have no difficulty in “finishing” it to fit your needs or correcting something according to your wishes - this is normal and correct. On this platform, you can implement almost everything that only the soul wishes.
Another question is that some things are given out for their own development - but in fact they are present by default in the standard Sharepoint functionality. For example - co-editing a document.
There is absolutely wonderful (free) application from Microsoft - WebApps Server. It allows you to perform absolutely enchanting things in the joint work with the document. That is, this thing is already implemented and feels great - swing - connect with the ball and enjoy. But as it turns out the developer - made a similar functionality as part of his decision - that is, he 'invented the bicycle' himself.
What for? That is, there is no dispute - the functionality is good if it goes by default - when you don’t even need to do any gestures to make it work, but this will of course always be taken into account in the price. You need it as part of the product or not - you will still pay, because in the development of this functionality - money and time were invested, although in practice you can save a lot of money (or, for example, take into account your financial interest, but why not ) - for example, if you take a product that is cheaper, and after that, on your own (which is not difficult) - to fasten WebApps. Well, it's like a variation of course. Or, for example, My Site (personal account) - is part of the Enterprise, why make a garden and invent your own office, when you can easily make it on the basis of a ready-made and moreover, part of the standard Sharepoint composition.
Very serious explanations - that it is vital, are taken for such a feature as managing task execution status via the Outlook add-in (a feature for the manual). Previously, the thing is gorgeous - and attracts initial attention enormously. “I want it. Give two !! In fact, if we consider this, it will be more prosaic. De facto, in our era of "modernization" - the leadership of any company without exception sits on the tablets on which Outlook is used extremely sluggishly. That is, this is Android and iOS - and, accordingly, this add-on is needed by anyone, but not by the manual, that is, to use it, Windows is required and, as a result, the user stays in front of the stationary machine or laptop, which again excludes the mobility and appeal of such a chip. Whether I should pay for it as part of the solution — for example, an extra 2-3 thousand green apricots — I don't know. At your discretion, given that it will require support and updating, etc., etc., etc. + again, bind to one specific developer.
And there are a lot of such things - which are issued for the mega-super funktsional, quite a lot if you dig deeply. No, of course it is clear that even just competent adjustment and installation of a standard ball costs some money, but it cannot be calculated in a few hundreds of thousands within one medium-sized company.
Rule two - be sure to check on the Functional Table - what has already been entered into Sharepoint 2013 by Microsoft itself, and where the developer has put his “bikes” on to increase the cost of his shortcut. It often happens that the claimed unique functionality is already present in the most standard ball in one form or another, and the price difference amounts to several hundred thousand for minimal changes in the interface. If you understand what items you can give up, because you will know what they already have in the product initially, you can choose a solution that will be less financially costly.
Design
Design can be good or bad. This is not important - a good appearance is easily achieved by. In any case, you will always need branding in your corporate style or at least just the use of corporate colors and logo. Of course, someone will want to author the design and then you need to be ready to bookmark a specific funding for this issue. But the best option is not to bother. But just place your logo and change the style of color and fonts and images placed. In the document flow, there just needs to be a clear interface, and on the portal, just a pleasant and corporate style. Absolutely wonderful beauty can be achieved by simply pre-moderating photos of employees and pictures in the content. Believe me - the most demanding management will be satisfied with the look - at no extra cost, in the end - this is a tool and not a New Year tree.
If you decide to develop and apply a unique design, and even with scripting elements - be prepared for quite serious initial costs (only painting the design of the layouts and the interface will eat at least 3-4 thousand green marzipans and plus of course its use - what else from above 10 thousand) - not only that, in the future, you will have all the additional nagantized modules and sections - draw and apply in the same design and style, and this is money again. In general, a good thing - but the budget requires a very special. The design should be pleasant and no more (colors are not important - they can always be quickly changed), it’s good if it is decent in the product, but if the price is tasty without serious drawing of modules and general form, then you can there will be a branded pleasant product - without serious overpayments for the mega-design included in the final cost.
Customization Sharepoint 2013. The most cunning item. The most of the most. And almost the most important.
In fact - the customer loves deep customization. Moreover, the deeper - the richer it looks. There are two options, on a general scale. Customization of standard functionality and tools - bringing them to a digestible look and functionality with accurate interspersions of third-party code, with maximum emphasis on performing the required tasks, but the Sharepoint functionality is taken as the basis. And the second is the application by the developer of his functional things and a large amount of his own code, i.e. decision "in itself." I mean, in one case we take building materials prepared for us and build a house, in the other case we replace all or part of the prepared building materials with our own, and we also build a house. The result in both cases is about the same - to create a comfortable and reliable home. In principle, both are very good and correct for everyone - except, of course, the customer.
Here is a certain point. , , — . «» « » — — . — — . — , ( ) — . This is normal. , , . ( — ) — .
: — . . , . ? Of course. .
, Sharepoint — — , , . , . . .
— ? Not at all. ( ) — Microsoft ( ), — . . — — , .
, ( — ). — — , 300-400% ( ). — ( , ) — .
. , — « » — . : , + . ( ) — . — 1,5 , 5-6 . , , — , — , . — , . — :) .
, :
1. ( ), . . . , .
2. — . — , — . — — — . !
3. , , ( ) , . , , .
6. Microsoft ( , Lync, Exchange ..)
— , « » — , , . Microsoft. — , Exchange — . . .
( ):
Worklite Docs Worklite Portal
Ittilan Portal Know Docs
Wss Portal Wss Docs
Deskwork
Conteq
— .
“Do you want songs? I have them! ”
Let's leave alone the comparative characteristics and advertising slogans about which Electronic document management is better - only lazy did not write about it. And how many articles on this topic are written by — and not to be counted, but here are some of the most important key points — not specifically addressed. For some reason, they are bypassed by the close attention of the ink and pen workers. I suggest a little bit to get acquainted with this secret rituals and nevertheless devote a couple of straightforward lines to the problem of choice.
So let's see what we all want from all this music. We need a digestible, conveniently functional, fairly smart product on the MS Sharepoint 2013 platform, which can be developed further and with sufficiently adequate costs both for the initial implementation and for further maintenance.
1. A clear understanding of the tasks that need to be solved, moreover, not to wait when they “tell” you what they are giving you, but try to present the big picture according to your requirements.
')
First you need to understand a couple of important things:
a) Developing SED from scratch and using your own resources is an unreal evil. If all of you decided to “develop” it yourself, then even gnomes in the forest will laugh at you. Forget it.
b) Electronic document management systems under MS Sharepoint 2013 in Russia - literally recount all these ready-made boxed solutions of different degrees of customization. They differ in the details and in the secondary functionality - but the basic component of the classical document management is performed at 100% - regardless of their sophistication and intricacy.
Electronic document management is essentially the movement and storage of disobedient documents within YOUR company. Very clearly define for yourself what YOU want - for example: registration of incoming / outgoing, contractual workflow, what static business processes, routing capabilities, EDS, tasks and instructions, etc. What exactly is important for YOU, regardless of the decision? Not that the developer offers for specific money (but more on that later), but what is primarily required by you and only YOU. And not in the sense - of the tasks performed by the specific product currently being considered, but in the sense of YOUR needs and desires.
Of course, during the initial conversation, the customer first of all addressed the question “what exactly do you need from our hot-tempered SED” - cheerfully and without batting an eye answers: “Everything!” —But what exactly is difficult to clarify, except for the most common concepts “Registration of documents and agreement ". In the same way as the developer, to the question “What does your decision allow?”, “Everything!” Vigorously reports.
In this case, both interested parties are on different sides of the barricades, in essence, they wish to act as true, but they absolutely do not understand each other, while one person extremely urgently wants to part with corporate money, and the other, no less corporate person, wants them urgently to accept. And it is absolutely unimportant that in negotiations there are serious guys in expensive ties and cufflinks for the price of an average uninhabited island in a very quiet ocean.
This happens precisely because - often, initially responsible for the customer - does not bother with a clear definition of the tasks required for solving the problem, but looks at the whole project in a broad perspective, naturally identifying his saved time with the time of the company and, naturally, eager to spend it as You can get less on these studies, and get a salary and gingerbread as much as possible. But in vain! His gingerbread is very closely interconnected with the General Director's gingerbread, which is always bigger and stronger than the person responsible for the project. And in case of failure, the General Director or the Owner of the company will be extremely specific and detailed in his speech - which will be replete with common and non-literary epithets in relation to those responsible for the project, as well as to their close and distant relatives. Take care of gingerbread.
In general, before you go into a search engine and start choosing a box solution and a developer, try to understand as precisely as possible what your company wants to get on the exhaust (and you are its representative), while specifics are desirable, more, and less common phrases.
2. Mandatory understanding - the basic functionality you require from the boxed solution, again - precisely in accordance with your requirements, and not with a stretch of ears for what you are offered.
It is categorically necessary to meticulously understand the specific solution under consideration - what you see in its functionality, so to speak, in the cymus itself. That is, it must be understood that the basic requirements for the functionality of any electronic document management at Sharepoint are:
- friendly cards with a functional part of the documents, processes and tasks, plus of course the search
- further, of course, the convenience of managing business processes and their routing
- convenient location of libraries and section navigation and filtering
- the most positive display of tables according to the lists of documents
- employee role participation
- delegation and substitution
- as well as clear creation of your own lists and communication of card fields - convenient admin panel, and adequate interface
- comments, lists of sighting and routing, reports
- normal technical support, which is always ready to put the festive goose aside on the eve of New Year's Eve, leave the table and go to the computer, with visible pleasure to solve customer problems. Well, or that the equipment in support could always be called at any time and just talk with him about this and that. They love it.
Of course, this is at a minimum, and there can be a great many of these points, I just listed the fundamental ones - that is, the car may have many nuances, but the body of the wheel and the engine should be one hundred percent. But these are the most basic things - which must be present, if they are - it makes sense to continue the conversation, if something does not fit in - forget and don’t remember. (about the price and negotiations in the next paragraph)
You do not need to immediately embrace the immense and try to attract all the understanding of the functionality of complex solutions based on MS Sharepoint 2013 or consider yourself a mega-guru in the SED, falling asleep with questions about the paper of an innocent manager or rushing to the store for a thousand pages management administrator, it is enough to sensibly understand the basics of the functions you require from the solution in question and build on them.
This is what is most necessary and must be present practically unshakably and in the only correct variation. Everything else is already particular and depends more on the specific requirements of the customer, the requirements of individuals, departments of the company or just additional functionality that is not necessary - but extremely pleasant (of course it depends on the additional functionality itself) - with this on Sharepoint we keep our ears (there are a couple of pitfalls in this) - since we remember that free cheese comes only in the last refuge of wild mice.
3. Detailed awareness at the mental level - for what exactly of the existing functionality you pay voluntarily, and what is not important for you, but you are being delivered as mega-needed chips - since any sneeze is taken into account in the final price.
Let us again remember what we specifically need, as was indicated at the very beginning: it is a digestible, conveniently functional, fairly smart product on the MS Sharepoint 2013 platform, which can be developed further and with adequate costs both for the initial implementation and for further maintenance. Remember each word from this sentence. Below is a detailed division into some points:
Platform.
There are no MS Sharepoint 2010. This is an outdated system, but the price of 2010 does not differ from the price for 2013, so no excuse for the developer why the system is being implemented on the previous version is not rolling. When you purchase licenses and implement the product - the Sharepoint version can only be the latest, and no excuses. If the developer has nothing to show from the 2013 Sharepoint on the demo, then there is nothing to talk about. Just as there is nothing to talk about with a potential contractor - if, for any reason, he refuses to show the demo version of the product for the following reasons: “something is updated”, “server is transferred”, “manager is ill”, “something happened to the planet an invasion of tomato people ", etc.
If the company is positioning in its asset a boxed ready solution at Sharepoint 2013 - then the demo stand in the round-the-clock access should always be available - in the “take out and put” mode. Not 2007, not 2010 - namely 2013 ball. Any excuses under any pretext from the demo show (regardless of the size of the company) - talking in favor of the poor. Of course, they may ask you for additional data (name, company name and corporate mail) - but these are nuances, of course, you should be ready for them, if you position yourself as a serious customer - and not just “go around the store” ", No one will lick a client who writes with vasiapupkin@ofigennayapochta.ru
In general, the first rule is that you pay only for the latest version, and any excuses why you will introduce an outdated product will not roll. No demo of the latest version of Sharepoint - the conversation is closed.
Functional elements.
Sharepoint is, as already mentioned, a constructor. And when the developer shows you his version of the SED, separately or in conjunction with the Corporate Portal, this is his vision of the world order - “the artist sees this.” Of course, the nuances may not coincide with your worldview, but enough drops of water to guess the existence of the ocean. Therefore, if you have seen a sufficiently made product, then believe me, the developer will have no difficulty in “finishing” it to fit your needs or correcting something according to your wishes - this is normal and correct. On this platform, you can implement almost everything that only the soul wishes.
Another question is that some things are given out for their own development - but in fact they are present by default in the standard Sharepoint functionality. For example - co-editing a document.
There is absolutely wonderful (free) application from Microsoft - WebApps Server. It allows you to perform absolutely enchanting things in the joint work with the document. That is, this thing is already implemented and feels great - swing - connect with the ball and enjoy. But as it turns out the developer - made a similar functionality as part of his decision - that is, he 'invented the bicycle' himself.
What for? That is, there is no dispute - the functionality is good if it goes by default - when you don’t even need to do any gestures to make it work, but this will of course always be taken into account in the price. You need it as part of the product or not - you will still pay, because in the development of this functionality - money and time were invested, although in practice you can save a lot of money (or, for example, take into account your financial interest, but why not ) - for example, if you take a product that is cheaper, and after that, on your own (which is not difficult) - to fasten WebApps. Well, it's like a variation of course. Or, for example, My Site (personal account) - is part of the Enterprise, why make a garden and invent your own office, when you can easily make it on the basis of a ready-made and moreover, part of the standard Sharepoint composition.
Very serious explanations - that it is vital, are taken for such a feature as managing task execution status via the Outlook add-in (a feature for the manual). Previously, the thing is gorgeous - and attracts initial attention enormously. “I want it. Give two !! In fact, if we consider this, it will be more prosaic. De facto, in our era of "modernization" - the leadership of any company without exception sits on the tablets on which Outlook is used extremely sluggishly. That is, this is Android and iOS - and, accordingly, this add-on is needed by anyone, but not by the manual, that is, to use it, Windows is required and, as a result, the user stays in front of the stationary machine or laptop, which again excludes the mobility and appeal of such a chip. Whether I should pay for it as part of the solution — for example, an extra 2-3 thousand green apricots — I don't know. At your discretion, given that it will require support and updating, etc., etc., etc. + again, bind to one specific developer.
And there are a lot of such things - which are issued for the mega-super funktsional, quite a lot if you dig deeply. No, of course it is clear that even just competent adjustment and installation of a standard ball costs some money, but it cannot be calculated in a few hundreds of thousands within one medium-sized company.
Rule two - be sure to check on the Functional Table - what has already been entered into Sharepoint 2013 by Microsoft itself, and where the developer has put his “bikes” on to increase the cost of his shortcut. It often happens that the claimed unique functionality is already present in the most standard ball in one form or another, and the price difference amounts to several hundred thousand for minimal changes in the interface. If you understand what items you can give up, because you will know what they already have in the product initially, you can choose a solution that will be less financially costly.
Design
Design can be good or bad. This is not important - a good appearance is easily achieved by. In any case, you will always need branding in your corporate style or at least just the use of corporate colors and logo. Of course, someone will want to author the design and then you need to be ready to bookmark a specific funding for this issue. But the best option is not to bother. But just place your logo and change the style of color and fonts and images placed. In the document flow, there just needs to be a clear interface, and on the portal, just a pleasant and corporate style. Absolutely wonderful beauty can be achieved by simply pre-moderating photos of employees and pictures in the content. Believe me - the most demanding management will be satisfied with the look - at no extra cost, in the end - this is a tool and not a New Year tree.
If you decide to develop and apply a unique design, and even with scripting elements - be prepared for quite serious initial costs (only painting the design of the layouts and the interface will eat at least 3-4 thousand green marzipans and plus of course its use - what else from above 10 thousand) - not only that, in the future, you will have all the additional nagantized modules and sections - draw and apply in the same design and style, and this is money again. In general, a good thing - but the budget requires a very special. The design should be pleasant and no more (colors are not important - they can always be quickly changed), it’s good if it is decent in the product, but if the price is tasty without serious drawing of modules and general form, then you can there will be a branded pleasant product - without serious overpayments for the mega-design included in the final cost.
Customization Sharepoint 2013. The most cunning item. The most of the most. And almost the most important.
In fact - the customer loves deep customization. Moreover, the deeper - the richer it looks. There are two options, on a general scale. Customization of standard functionality and tools - bringing them to a digestible look and functionality with accurate interspersions of third-party code, with maximum emphasis on performing the required tasks, but the Sharepoint functionality is taken as the basis. And the second is the application by the developer of his functional things and a large amount of his own code, i.e. decision "in itself." I mean, in one case we take building materials prepared for us and build a house, in the other case we replace all or part of the prepared building materials with our own, and we also build a house. The result in both cases is about the same - to create a comfortable and reliable home. In principle, both are very good and correct for everyone - except, of course, the customer.
Here is a certain point. , , — . «» « » — — . — — . — , ( ) — . This is normal. , , . ( — ) — .
: — . . , . ? Of course. .
, Sharepoint — — , , . , . . .
— ? Not at all. ( ) — Microsoft ( ), — . . — — , .
, ( — ). — — , 300-400% ( ). — ( , ) — .
. , — « » — . : , + . ( ) — . — 1,5 , 5-6 . , , — , — , . — , . — :) .
, :
1. ( ), . . . , .
2. — . — , — . — — — . !
3. , , ( ) , . , , .
6. Microsoft ( , Lync, Exchange ..)
— , « » — , , . Microsoft. — , Exchange — . . .
( ):
Worklite Docs Worklite Portal
Ittilan Portal Know Docs
Wss Portal Wss Docs
Deskwork
Conteq
— .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/201758/
All Articles