  | Cat | | Feature | RVG SCR | RVG Comments | AS SCR | AS Notes | EME SCR | EME Notes | SH SCR | SH Notes | WSS 30 | MOSS for Search | MOSS Standard CAL | E-MOSS CAL or MOSS-I | | xMOSS for Search | xMOSS Standard CAL | xE-MOSS CAL or MOSS-I | Andrew's Testing Notes |
|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 1 | Real-Time Presence and Communication | 3 |
20080103 May be useful for a small team ... no push durning 2008 look at in 2009
| 1 | I’d like to see how this works. I don’t see it as being useful for Rooms per se, though. Where does the information come from? Outlook? | 3 | This could be helpful depending on the number of users and the range of adoption. Some staff might find it undesirable to be “locate-able” at all times. | 5 | Seems like a “nice to have” that some folks might really like, but I don’t think people expect that level of presence-awareness. | I | I | I | I | 3 | I | I | I | I see the Presence graphic in the Assigned To column of a Task list. It says "presence is enabled for this column". However, it doesn't seem to show the presence. I gave tasks to me, Martha, and Harold, and I don't see any indication of our status presence.
I think this goes somewhere else. There's a section in columns like Assigned To, something called People Picker. You type in a name and type Check Names. it finds it in the directory and underlines it. When you mouse over the name it shows up as "AFSC\username". You also seem to be able to choose groups like "AFSC\haitian_group", which I found using Browse. |
| | 2 | Social Networking Webpart | 3 |
20080103 FaceBook or MySpace ... maybe we just use them and not in Star Cafe or maybe we use it for only the 400 people in Active Directory ... Don't worry about this in 2008 ... relook in 2009
| 9 | This could be very useful if we want to use the Rooms infrastructure to help people find each other. | 5 | Expanding our use of social networking software would be great, but we may want to focus on tools that are already widely used | 9 | I think this functionality is very important, but not necessarily via SharePoint. But it is not yet clear to me exactly how this relates to #13 (My Site), #23 (Colleagues/Memberships), #34 (People Search), and the Knowledge Network add-on (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/ha101687241033.aspx) | F | F | N | N | 7.666666667 | F | N | N | I don't see this in any of the web part libraries. |
| | 3 | Standard Site Templates | 9 |
20080103 1. We will use a CSS for our own look and feel like we did in WSS 2.0 except MS has solved the "navigation problem" the Harold and Andy had to work around in 2.0. Yea ... big behind the scenes ... We will get a designer like Andy to help us with the standand CSS (style sheet) We do want master Star Cafe site Templates and we want them to be as standard MS out of the box, but with a non MS feel. Harold and I have talked to Omicron and they have done this with 3.0 with one of there big clients they most likely can help us. Point person is HP&RVG Need early attention in 2008
| 1 | We’re not using any of these standard templates as far as I know. I think we should stick with homebrew versions of our own templates. | 6 | Again, these tools (blog, wiki, project site) are incredibly useful – we are already using many non-Microsoft tools for these purposes. | 7 | Depending upon how useful these are out of the box, they may be very helpful in pushing design capability out to others. | I | I | I | I | 4.666666667 | I | I | I | Some of the site templates, like the meeting workspaces, have some custom web parts like Agenda and Decision List. I haven't gone through all the templates, but so far I haven't seen anything that has a custom backend to it. They're just lists with custom named fields for a particular purpose. We may want to look at them if we decide to create some templates of our own.
Document workspaces seem to behave differently than the others. There isn't the same breadcrumbs |
| | 4 | Wikis | | | 9 | I hope a Windows wiki actually works. This could be a very cool addition to our toolkit, especially if we can make a Star Café-themed wiki and offer it as a standard sub-Room feature. I’d like to see the WYSIWYG in action. | 9 | Yes, yes, yes. It’s easy to learn, facilitates collaboration – even among the technologically challenged. Plus, it’s already being used both in IT and in other parts of the organization, so getting buy-in will be easier. | 9 | Functionality is essential, though not necessarily using SharePoint’s version. Advantages of SP’s version, however, include: | N | N | N | N | 9 | N | N | N | The wiki is a separate site beneath a site.
So far the wiki seems to work very well to do basic things. You can't compare two versions. You can easily see the change between versions, though, that's very nice. There's a check in and out option, but I'd need a few different accounts to see how that works fully. I can't seem to create new pages. |
| | 5 | Blogs | | | 5 | Wasn’t there already a Blog that we tested about a year ago? I think that was a Collutions product. I’d be more in favor of a blog that integrated into a Room. | 7 | | 7 | In KM circles wikis and blogs are usually coupled. I see less immediate need for blogs, but expect that our desire for them will grow over time. Again, it doesn’t necessarily have to be SharePoint’s blog, though there are a few integrational advantages. | N | N | N | N | 6.333333333 | N | N | N | |
| | 6 | People and Groups Lists | | | 9 | Thank goodness. I bet the Person field type could save us a lot of hassle. | 9 | This speaks to the need we’ve heard from our customers for a way to access more information about colleagues. | 8 | | I | I | I | I | 8.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 7 | Calendars | | | 9 | Good. | 9 | Good. Can’t argue against the usefulness of a calendar. | 6 | People may reasonably prefer using Outlook. | I | I | I | I | 8 | I | I | I | |
| | 8 | Email Integration | | | 7 | 37signals is incorporating this into their tools as well. This could be very cool, since people might look at listserv archives in a Room but not bother to log into a separate system. Email could be a part of the Room instead of separate from it. | 8 | Sounds great – I’ll be interested to see how this integrates with Outlook’s existing features. | 7 | Could be cool. Note that you would also be able to email content into SharePoint blogs and wikis. | N | N | N | N | 7.333333333 | N | N | N | |
| | 9 | Task Coordination | | | 7 | I’m holding my breath but I’m hopeful. I’d like to see how it represents task relationships, that’s a hard one for me to think about. | 5 | Sharepoint 3.0 may allow for more complex task management. If not, we should consider relying on other project management tools (Basecamp is one, but others, like Central Desktop, also work well.) | 9 | Again, this functionality is essential, but we have to evaluate if SharePoint’s version meets our needs as well as other task managers (e.g., Basecamp) | N | N | N | N | 7 | N | N | N | |
| | 10 | Surveys | | | 7 | Good to hear. | 2 | Let’s stick with Survey Monkey. I tend to think that surveys aren’t the most effective way to get staff feedback anyway. | 3 | If it hasn’t improved significantly (or has other big integrational advantages, I’d stick with using SurveyMonkey | I | I | I | I | 4 | I | I | I | |
| | 11 | Document Collaboration | | | 5 | Not something I’ve had to deal with but I imagine it would be useful if people are using Rooms to share and edit documents instead of email or a wiki. | 5 | Yes! Hopefully this will be a leap towards eliminating the “versioning” problem. | 9 | | I | I | I | I | 6.333333333 | I | I | I | |
| | 12 | Issue Tracking | | | 5 | Haven’t used Issues much but I like how they save versions of themselves. | | I’m not sure I understand what this is. | 4 | Not familiar enough with the function to really judge desirability. | I | I | I | I | 3 | I | I | I | |
| | 13 | My Site Personal Site | | | 9 | The Rooms have really been lacking something like this. It’s not a new feature? Maybe we just didn’t implement it. People like personal dashboards. I’m assuming this is different from a Personal View, which we have decided not to use. | 5 | This is an idea that Seth and I have been discussing for some time in the project. If it’s easily accessible and editable, it should be great. | 9 | I think this functionality is very important, but not necessarily via SharePoint. And it is not yet clear to me exactly how this relates to #2 (Social Networking Webpart), #23 (Colleagues/Memberships), #34 (People Search), and the Knowledge Network add-on (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/ha101687241033.aspx) | | | I | I | 7.666666667 | F | I | I | |
| | 14 | Content Syndication | | | 5 | Great, but I don’t know how many people in AFSC use RSS. At least it’s a pretty horizontal learning curve. | 6 | Sounds useful. | 9 | Functionality essential, but can’t judge if using SharePoint’s is the best. (One apparent advantage is the ease with which an RSS feed can be applied to saved search criteria if/when using MOSS search.) | | | I | I | 6.666666667 | F | I | I | |
| | 15 | Privacy & Security | | | 9 | Same as item 13. | | Seems like a good idea. I’d be curious to know what the security options are and what usage is like at other orgs/companies. | 9 | Relevant only IF we use MySite | | | I | I | 6 | F | I | I | |
| | 16 | Site Directory | | | 9 | This is basically what I was recommending that Hosts create manually. | 9 | Fantastic. This is the best thing I’ve heard yet. Let’s get it into the lobby so that the StarCafe architecture is easier for users to navigate. | 7 | | | | I | I | 8.333333333 | F | I | I | |
| | 17 | User Profiles and the Profile Store | | | 5 | I don’t really know what this means. | 7 | See answer to #8. | 9 | Functionality for both User Profiles (and Audience Targeting) is pretty important, but would be best accomplished by whatever “Master User Database” we end up with (inside or outside of SharePoint). Description of User Profiles can be found here: http://blah.winsmarts.com/2007-1-User_Profiles_and_Audience_Targeting.aspx | | | I | I | 7 | F | I | I | |
| | 18 | Audience Targeting | | | 5 | Ditto. | 3 | What would this be used for? | 9 | Functionality for both Audience Targeting (and User Profiles) is pretty important, but would be best accomplished by whatever “Master User Database” we end up with (inside or outside of SharePoint). Description of User Profiles and Audience targeting can be found here: http://blah.winsmarts.com/2007-1-User_Profiles_and_Audience_Targeting.aspx | | | I | I | 5.666666667 | F | I | I | |
| | 19 | Site Manager | | | 9 | Anything that makes being a Host easier sounds good to me. | 7 | I don’t have any experience managing Sharepoint sites, but this sounds like it could be useful to someone who does. | 7 | Could make life a little easier for Site Moderators. | | | N | N | 7.666666667 | F | N | N | |
| | 20 | Mobile Device Support | | | 1 | Fancy and useful to some I’m sure, but I really don’t think this should be a consideration for us. | 5 | Cool. | 2 | Don’t think our clients would demand this heavily. | N | | N | N | 2.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 21 | Portal Site Templates | | | 1 | We got our templates for now. Nyaah! | 7 | See answer to #19 | 3 | I’m inclined to think we’d be better creating such templates from scratch. | | | N | N | 3.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 22 | SharePoint Sites and Documents Roll-up Web Parts | | | 9 | Hot. | 9 | Great ideea. Anything that makes using the Rooms easier to manage and see gets a “9” from me. | 4 | Sounds cool, but I’m not sure I see the need. | | | N | N | 7.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 23 | Colleagues and Memberships Web Parts | | | 5 | Maybe? It depends on how it works. | 9 | Same as above. | 9 | I think this functionality is very important, but not necessarily via SharePoint. And it is not yet clear to me exactly how this relates to #2 (Social Networking Webpart), #13 (My Site), #34 (People Search), and the Knowledge Network add-on (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/ha101687241033.aspx) | | | N | N | 7.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 24 | Integration with for Access 2007, Excel 2007, PowerPoint 2007, and Word 2007 | | | 9 | I think people will really like this. I know I do, even though I don’t use it all that much. I wonder what can be done with Access. | 9 | Great. The more integration between software, the better, especially from the support perspective (the easier it is for tech-challenged staff to use these things, the less energy the HelpDesk will have to devote to the tedium of synchronizing them). | 8 | As long as we’re in bed with Microsoft... | N | N | N | N | 8.666666667 | N | N | N | |
| | 25 | Integration with Outlook 2007 | | | 9 | I do some limited integration already with my copy of Outlook 2007, but this looks a lot more comprehensive. This could mean that Outlook is a good end tool for personal task management and make a strong case for Rooms being a good task management system for inside AFSC. | 9 | Same as above. | 8 | same as with the other Office products | N | N | N | N | 8.666666667 | N | N | N | |
| | 26 | Integration with SharePoint Designer | | | 9 | This sounds cool as long as we can use it, which I’m not sure we can based on our current customizations. | | Don’t know much about this. | 5 | I’m not in a position to judge what is the best design platform. | I | I | I | I | 4.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 27 | User Interface | | | 5 | Search is good. | 9 | YES! Searchability is so important…and many of the project customers have highlighted the need for better search methods in the StarCafe realm. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | I | I | I | I | 7.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 28 | Search Results | | | 5 | Search is still good. | 7 | Again, if this is clean (and doesn’t provide users with too much extraneous information), it could greatly enhance search capabilities. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | I | I | I | I | 7 | I | I | I | |
| | 29 | Enterprise Content Sources | | | 5 | Search continues to be good. | 5 | Am I right that the Google Appliance would also perform some of these same tasks? Not sure how this is different. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | | I | I | I | 6.333333333 | I | I | I | |
| | 30 | Relevance | | | 5 | Yep. | 6 | Don’t see a problem with this – depends on how it works. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | | I | I | I | 6.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 31 | Administration and Management | | | 5 | I believe you. | 7 | Good. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | | I | I | I | 7 | I | I | I | |
| | 32 | Indexing Controls | | | 5 | Really, I do. | 6 | See answer to #’s 25 and 26. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | | I | I | I | 6.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 33 | Security | | | 5 | You don’t believe me, do you? | 4 | Okay, also depends on how this works. As long as there’s no privacy issue, should be fine. | 9 | assuming we’re not using Google | | I | I | I | 6 | I | I | I | |
| | 34 | People Search | | | 9 | This is something different and worth looking at. It could mean a really functional database of users. I’m excited about this. | 9 | Fantastic, as I mentioned before (#6). | 9 | I think this functionality is very important, but not necessarily via SharePoint. But it is not yet clear to me exactly how this relates to #2 (Social Networking Webpart), #13 (My Site), #23 (Colleagues/Memberships), and the Knowledge Network add-on (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/ha101687241033.aspx) | | | N | N | 9 | | N | N | |
| | 35 | Business Data Search | | | 1 | Doesn’t look like it applies to us. | 4 | I’m not sure how much people would use this, as long as they had the “People Search”. | 9 | Akin to Google “Onebox”. Retrieve content stored in databases. Could be very helpful. | | | | N | 4.666666667 | | | N | |
| | 36 | Business Document Workflow Support | | | 3 | Potentially useful. I wonder if this is more regimented than AFSC itself is. | 3 | Bob and I came across this idea a the last PA Distance Learning Association meeting. I’m not convinced that it’s not an added burden to the work process. | 6 | Interesting, but a) does this fit AFSC’s processes, and b) how burdensome would the corresponding changes to current business processes be? | | | | | 4 | | | | |
| | 37 | Document Management Site Templates | | | 3 | Not really sure what this is. | 9 | This could be incredible – I’m very excited to look at this template. It’s another element Seth and I have been discussing in the context of our project. Does translation library actually mean multiple language translations? Could be cool. I ‘m not sure how performance indicators work in here. | 9 | IF one of these is a good fit, we could use it for the Desk Reference (and other content-heavy sites). | | | | | 7 | | | | |
| | 38 | Integration with Microsoft Information Rights Management (IRM) | | | 5 | Some people would probably want to see this included. | 8 | This speaks to the privacy/security concerns raised by many of our customers. Good. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 5.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 39 | Document Information Panel | | | 3 | Again, not sure. | 2 | See answer to #36. I think this would be burdensome and therefore unused. | 3 | beyond our needs? | N | | N | N | 2.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 40 | Document Action Bar | | | 5 | This could be good for things like HR. | 2 | Same as above. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 3.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 41 | Retention and Auditing Policies | | | 3 | Don’t know what this means. | 5 | Potentially useful – there’s a clear need for articulating clear information management procedures. I’m not sure if this could help us do that. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 3.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 42 | Records Repository | | | 3 | What’s the repository? | | Would the repository be the document management sites? Unclear. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 2 | | N | N | |
| | 43 | E-Mail Content as Records | | | 7 | Sounds good. | 8 | This looks very interesting. Many staff already use email to file/record information…perhaps we should embrace that, rather than rail against it. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 6 | | N | N | |
| | 44 | Legal Holds | | | 3 | Not my area of expertise. | 5 | Guess this could come in handy…let’s hope we don’t have to use it. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 3.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 45 | High Fidelity Websites with Consistent Branding | | | 7 | Maybe this is a better way of doing our custom templates than FrontPage. It could also devolve some control to the Hosts. | 6 | Sounds good. | 3 | beyond our needs? | F | | N | N | 5.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 46 | Navigation Controls | | | 8 | Vague but interesting. | 5 | Also sounds cool. Seth mentioned faceted navigation for the Desk Reference – I’m curious to see if/how this relates to that. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 5.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 47 | Content Authoring | | | 7 | Holding my breath but maybe useful. | 4 | I want to know more. | 6 | If easy enough to use, could be useful to many AFSC staff. (How does this differ from, or relate to, #52 (WYSIWYG Web Content Editor)? | | | | | 5.666666667 | | | | |
| | 48 | Content Publishing and Deployment | | | 3 | This could be good if we want to take the Rooms into the direction of being a sort of hosting site for groups to have their public pages. Kind of the vision we already have but more specific. | | I’m not sure how this process currently works, so I can’t say if this would be more or less useful. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 1.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 49 | Site Templates | | | 5 | The Portal sites could be good for cross-office issue groups within AFSC and any networks that might develop within outside groups using the Rooms. | 9 | This piqued my interest. It sounds like it has the potential to create a more appealing, “user-friendly” visual aspect of various tools and applications, which would increase customer use tremendously. | 2 | Seems to me that the Star Café is unlikely to fit into any pre-defined “enterprise site template” | F | | I | I | 5.333333333 | | I | I | |
| | 50 | Page Layouts | | | 3 | This sounds like it has limited use for us if we’re going with a couple standard templates. | 5 | This could be helpful for individuals (like myself) who are unfamiliar with designing page layout. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 3.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 51 | Site Variations | | | 7 | I think I know what this might mean. Would this make it easier to access Web Parts from subordinate Rooms? | 5 | Bob sounded excited about looking into the prospect of (some of) StarCafe in Spanish, and maybe this would be a way to accomplish that. | 3 | beyond our needs? | | | N | N | 5 | | N | N | |
| | 52 | WYSIWYG Web Content Editor | | | 8 | Yay, I think. | | I’m unclear on this. | 6 | If easy enough to use, could be useful to many AFSC staff. (How does this differ from, or relate to, #47 (Content Authoring)? | | | N | N | 4.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 53 | Slide Libraries | | | 5 | Potentially cool. | 4 | As far as I know, ImagePortal is the only tool we have to do this sort of thing, and it may be limited to single images. I’m not sure how widely this would be used, though. | 5 | Might be nice. Compare to SlideShare (www.slideshare.net) on the web. | | | N | N | 4.666666667 | | N | N | |
| | 54 | Policies, Auditing and Compliance | | | 5 | Sounds a little fancy for us. It would be good to easily see actions on sites, as part of a Host’s job. Rooms could really use something easy to look at “footprints” that people leave behind, so they know who’s looking at things. | 6 | Again, I don’t understand which repositories this refers to. | 2 | This is not something we’ve really taken responsibility for in the past. But I believe Bob has spoken to AFSC counsel about some compliance issues, so maybe it is relevant. Bob? | | | N | N | 4.333333333 | | N | N | |
| | 55 | Browser-based Forms | | | 1 | Does anyone in AFSC use InfoPath? | | Don’t know much about this. | | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | | 0.333333333 | | | | |
| | 56 | Centralized Forms Management and Control | | | 7 | If HR and other form-heavy departments could use InfoPath combined with Rooms to help with their information management, I’m all for it. | | See answer to #55. | 2 | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | | 3 | | | | |
| | 57 | “Design Once” Development Model | | | 5 | Only if we use InfoPath. | | See answer to #55. | 2 | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | | 2.333333333 | | | | |
| | 58 | Form Import Wizard | | | 5 | Ditto. | | See answer to #55. | 2 | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | N | 2.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 59 | Integrated Deployment Model for “No-code” Forms | | | 5 | Ditto. | | See answer to #55. | 2 | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | N | 2.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 60 | Compatibility Checker | | | 5 | Ditto. | | See answer to #55. | 2 | I’m assuming we’d use Word or PDF forms, which are more familiar to staff. | | | | N | 2.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 61 | Integrated, Flexible Spreadsheet Publishing | | | 5 | Ditto. | | This could be useful. | | beyond our needs? | | | | | 1.666666667 | | | | |
| | 62 | Share, Manage, and Control Spreadsheets | | | 4 | Not super-essential but it could be a good way of keeping and carefully distributing information. There are probably other ways though. | | This, too. If it allows various people to collaborate on document management and editing, I’m for it. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | | 2 | | | | |
| | 63 | Web-based Business Intelligence Using Excel Services | | | 1 | Business Intelligence, huh? | 1 | This doesn’t seem to apply in our context | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | | 1.333333333 | | | | |
| | 64 | Data Connection Libraries | | | 5 | Hard to say. It depends if we find a need to have lots of links to external data, like Access databases. | 5 | I’m not sure I’m clear on the ODC concept, but I’d like to know more about the centralized document library feature. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | N | 4 | | | N | |
| | 65 | Business Data Catalog | | | 1 | Doubt we need that. | 1 | Again, doesn’t seem relevant to our work. | 8 | If this is the only way to get the Search function to retrieve data from within external databases or sharepoint lists, then it seems like it could be important. (see #35 Business Data Search) | | | | N | 3.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 66 | Business Data Web Parts | | | 1 | Ditto. | 1 | See above. | 7 | Useful, if we use the Business Data Catalog (#65) | | | | N | 3 | | | N | |
| | 67 | Business Data Actions | | | 1 | Ditto. | 1 | See above above. | 5 | Perhaps useful, if we use the Business Data Catalog (#65) | | | | N | 2.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 68 | Integrated Business Intelligence Dashboards | | | 1 | Ditto. | 1 | See above above above. | 5 | Perhaps useful, if we use the Business Data Catalog (#65) | | | | N | 2.333333333 | | | N | |
| | 69 | Report Center | | | 2 | Not sure what reports would be produced. | 5 | This sounds interesting. I’d like to see it. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | N | 3 | | | N | |
| | 70 | Key Performance Indicators | | | 1 | Ditto. | 2 | We’ve talked some in the context of KM about integrating performance indicators into the workflow process…but I’m not sure this is the way to do it. | 2 | Beyond our needs? | | | | N | 1.666666667 | | | N | |
| | 71 | Filter Web Parts | | | 1 | Ditto. | | Don’t know what this means. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | | 1 | | | | |
| | 72 | Configuration Management | | | 5 | What? | | Don’t know what this means, either. | 2 | beyond our needs? | | | | | 2.333333333 | | | | |
| | 73 | Administration User Interface | | | 5 | Good, I think. I didn’t think the administration pages were that terrible. | 5 | This seems like a useful function | 7 | | I | I | I | I | 5.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 74 | Delegation | | | 9 | I’m assuming this is a good thing. | 5 | Can’t imagine this would hurt. | 7 | | I | I | I | I | 7 | I | I | I | |
| | 75 | Re-Parenting | | | 9 | Yes. Yes. Yes. | 5 | I don’t have much experience or familiarity with building Sharepoint sites, but I’d guess this would be useful. | 8 | would be nice to be able to move rooms around more easily. | N | N | N | N | 7.333333333 | N | N | N | |
| | 76 | Provisioning | | | 3 | Sounds fun but it doesn’t sound like something we make use of. | | Does this mean that users of rooms would be able to adjust the template? That could be good or it could wreak havoc for administrators. | 2 | beyond our needs? | I | I | I | I | 1.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 77 | Usage Analytics | | | 9 | Good? | | What is this? | 2 | beyond our needs? | I | I | I | I | 3.666666667 | I | I | I | |
| | 78 | Monitoring | | | 5 | Good? | | Not sure what this means. | 2 | beyond our n |