The most interesting point in all of this for me is that Microsoft support didn't understand it as a setting, but instead as a bug. I've sent a link to your post to some people on the search team at Microsoft. Maybe they can tighten up that knowledge base. M.

I think it comes down to expense and enforcement. Usually the incentives - something like a free Mexican lunch (I saw this one at Home Depot a few weeks back!) - aren't compelling enough. The general apathy of the wage slave comes in here no matter what, along with the lack of understanding why these programs even matter. Bonuses? Doubtful at the hourly level. M.

Having worked in retail many moons ago, I can guarantee you the sequence of events you went through was not what the merchandisers at headquarters had planned. Unfortunately, retail breaks at its weakest links. There are many of those weak spots, but the POS folks are one of the most obvious. What do they care about the loyalty program when they are paid minimum wage? It's just more work for them to engage you in the ways you suggest and usually they really don't care. M.

Your post made me go digging into some old slides I worked on back in 1996-1998 about knowledge management. The interesting thing to me is that these concepts of technology not being able to solve things fully without cultural change (and real effort!) are not new. The tech keeps improving, but without the incentives changing, executives "walking the walk", rock solid information architecture, and fundamental changes to work styles, none of the tech matters. Next time I see you - if you want a good snooze - ask me to show you my old KM slides. M.

Sadie: These suggestions are gold. Like you, I've seen or gotten pushback to all of these ideas, but each makes inherent good sense. We know that opacity these days is much less a positive quality than openness (even if you and I believed it all along). We need more posts like this! M.

Chris: It sounds like you are trying to rely on the ribbon and built-in capabilities of SharePoint Designer. Taking that route, you're limited in what you can do by the capabilities SPD exposes. If you were to write your own XSL for this, you can make it work any way you want. [I tried to post some code here, but your blogging platform isn't going to allow it] You could also do a count of rows that meet a specific criteria. M.

Indeed. v. http://www.sptechcon.com/news/the-new-age-of-sharepoint M.

Christian: I'm not sure that I agree with the "reduce your requirements to fit within the out-of-the-box capabilities of SharePoint" statement. Requirements are requirements. But very often, the things people see as "requirements" are more like "nice to haves" or "impress my bosses". To me the key is to be realistic in deciding what your requirements are in such a way that you try to implement exactly what is going to drive improved performance in your organization. (Reduced costs can be good, too, but there's not a lot of blood left in those turnips these days.) Taking a long hard look at what really matters in your collaboration software may lead you to a cloud deployment more easily than you might think. Just like any "upgrade" to SharePoint, in considering the cloud we shouldn't view the efforts as technical move. Instead, we should be right sizing our collaboration efforts to make the performance of the people in our organization soar. Aim for innovation and excellence, not prettier logos or font sizes. Lip gloss may make us prettier, but it don't make us smart. If the cloud can support the collaborative strategies in your organization, then get your team moving on it. M.

I've always believed that the best search is the one you don't need to do. Findability (which isn't a word!) is about creating multiple ways to get to the right content in the context of doing the work. That's why things like the Content Search Web Part are so important in SharePoint 2013. Embedding content in the right places - whether it is search-driven or not - leads to more streamlined knowledge management. More importantly, it can lead to improved performance, which is the actual goal. M.

Truth be told, all those knowledge workers out there aren't always so wild about using technology *at all* to get their work done. This is yet another one of the hidden secrets in ECM: people want to do their work their own way. Evolution doesn't go in a straight line; there are back eddies and side developments all the time. That's also the case with real people trying to do real work. (I'll ignore the clock punchers who just show up because they have to on this one.) Sometimes a stack of note cards is the best "technology" out there. We can't force people to use tools where it doesn't make sense or work for them. M.

Hear, hear. Misuse of language doesn't benefit anyone; it just causes misunderstandings. The general erosion of the English language that you and I bemoan may not concern others, but what about the fact that it makes one sound less intelligent? M.

Whatever could you be talking about? M.

Jealous! Many fond memories of Mytilini and Samos, thanks to our pal Mike. M.

One other important point in all of this - seen through older eyes - is that every inevitable trend in technology has an inevitable denouement. We don't use a lot of technologies anymore that were considered fantastic at the time. The cloud also mirrors in many ways the old days of time sharing. As technology changed, on premises installations made much more sense. That will inevitably happen again. The rush to the cloud may well be replaced or layered by a rush to something else. There will be other technologies that come into fashion during the time of cloud adoption (your 7-10 years, which seems reasonable) that we have no way of predicting. Because of this cloud strategies need to be strategies, not just operational decisions. We can't assume that it's cloud and done. Cloud should be a part of an evolving overall strategy for the organization's use of technology.

For the most part, I agree with Bjørn on this one. Axceler may be an exception, as there's plenty of bad behavior out there. I try assiduously not to opt in - mainly because if I want to know about a vendor's products I can ask the people I know there - yet I get the "thanks for stopping by our booth" emails every single time. In most cases, I haven't stopped by the booth, requested anything, opted in intentionally, etc. Unlike Bjørn, I immediately unsubscribe, yet the cycle starts all over again with the next event. I have my mental list of the vendors that do this, and to be honest, they tend to fall to the bottom of the list of vendors I recommend to my clients. If they annoy me, they will annoy my clients, plus I consider it an indication of how they view their customers - potential or otherwise. As for the conferences that have the auto opt-in attitude, they aren't doing the vendors any favors, either. By giving the vendors the contact info of people who don't want info, they set the vendor up to annoy the attendee with the "thanks for requesting our information" emails. I'm fully aware that we're all in this to make money and that someone has to pay the bills. Marketing poorly to people who don't want it isn't a winning strategy for anyone. M.

Christian: I'm with you as long as the utility of "can we do this?" isn't trumped by "should we do this?" at the expense of business productivity. It's a fine line, and IMO if there are big gains now that may cause a little IT pain down the road, then that's good and something to just plan for. These solutions aren't *for* IT: they are for the business. They exist to improve performance, accelerate innovation, and broaden communication. When we lose sight of that, it's just another crappy Intranet. M.

Understanding enough about the other disciplines related to succeeding at one's own discipline shouldn't be important just for Marketing folks. As the pace of innovation and change in the workplace continues to accelerate, it has become more and more important to have people available who can straddle many different disciplines. In the past we were used to building teams that had one person representing each discipline. The teams had long lifespans and knowledge areas were sacrosanct. Crossing the lines was frowned upon. Today that is less often the case. We need teams to coalesce, accomplish, and dismantle in faster and faster cycle times. By building those teams with fewer people who have wider knowledge spans, we can reduce the communication requirements and accelerate accomplishment, thus innovation. So, maybe Marketers should learn to program, but Designers should learn Accounting, Developers should learn to design, and so forth. It's truly another time in history where the "Renaissance man" is in high demand, and therefor can call his (or her, of course) own shots. M.