Use SharePoint Worfklow Like Robots on a Conveyor Belt

The idea of automating a business process with SharePoint workflow to make things more efficient and consistent sounds like a novel concept and a way leverage a technology investment. However, if you examine any major business process from the top down, what you will find is that it is made up of several tasks (some linear, some not) as well as decisions which are based on a constantly changing environment and context. These decisions are not only in support of executing the process, but often times the process itself is being evaluated real time.

Take for instance, the beginning portion of a new hire process that a company might have. This might involve a series of human interactions between candidate and recruiter. An application is submitted and the recruiter would evaluate the application, comparing it to an open requisition. The recruiter would interpret the information on the application and ask for clarification. If a match is made, then an interview might occur, and so on.

When the people involved are attempting to execute a process such as this, it is only natural that the changing conditions of the work environment will prompt questions about what tasks need to be completed, who should complete the tasks, what information should be gathered, how should that information be evaluated, what laws exist, etc.

Although, it is possible to automate certain tasks in this process, SharePoint workflow is not designed for automating the entire business process. Where SharePoint workflow really comes in is making discrete tasks more efficient. For example, the workflow technology may be used to transfer an applicant's information into a database where it can be easily compared with open requisition criteria.

The technology is not going to do a human's work, though, and it is not practical to even try to make it. No, instead, a more appropriate approach to leveraging SharePoint workflow is for efficiency gains which target small steps or tasks; ones that are completely black and white, like modifying and loading records into a custom list or database, moving documents, or sending out an e-mail when a specific event occurs.

Portal site designs which help guide the human through a series of steps is essential to a workflow solution. The portal provides the framework to guide the user, while the workflow elements provide automation for specific tasks that occur during the process.

Whatever the application, the goal is usually to provide tools that allow the human to logically string each step together, flowing as if the site is a virtual conveyor belt and the workflow elements (conditions/actions) are specific robots that do stuff at each stage. The overall solution should help guide and progress the overall process in a consistent direction so that humans can participate, contribute, and derive the needed results.

Still, in an ever changing environment, it is only natural that the conveyor belt will need to be stopped and participants will ask each other whether the process is effective and efficient enough, and what might need to happen differently. The simple fact is, every business process is a work in progress.

NESQL 2010 October 14 Virtualizing SQL Server

I attended a New England SQL Server User Group meeting last night. Brent Ozar did a presentation on Virtualizing SQL Server.

During the last few years, I have become a fan of virtualization for SharePoint environments, including the SQL Server database server role. I know many in the SharePoint community are skeptical about this, so, it was interesting to observe the opinions and responses from the local SQL Server community. I think the majority of the room was still skeptical (as expected) about virtualizing SQL Server. However, Brent did a good job of providing guidance on how to get the best performance out of a SQL environment when it is virtualized.

Beyond enlightening me about some of the finer details of how virtualization impacts I/O, Brent's presentation provided greater validation for my opinion of virtualizing SQL Server. At this point, I believe the technology is definitely mature enough to handle all roles (including database role) of most production SharePoint environments. That is; if adequate hardware is allocated and if virtualization is implemented well.

Some of the take-aways I scribbled down include the following (no warranties with these notes because I can barely read what I wrote):

CPU
- CPU-Z is a great, free utility for monitoring true CPU performance on guest systems
- In a virtual environment, more cores assigned to a SQL Server VM may actually leads to worse performance due to overhead related to instruction assignment behavior in shared environments relative to processor caching.

RAM
- In VMWare, set memory reservations, don't over commit RAM, use large pages (Microsoft, 2010).
- In SQL Server, remember to set min/max memory appropriately.

Storage
- Group DBs logically based on purpose, maintenance schedule, security, etc.
- Still separate Temp DB in virtual environments.

I believe Brent will be presenting the complete version of his presentation at the PASS Summit in November. Either way, if you are reading up on this topic, then check out his blog post on Virtualization Best Practices.


Reference

CPUID (2010). CPU-Z supports the new Intel Sandy Bridge processors. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from
http://www.cpuid.com/news/26-cpu_z_supports_the_new_intel_sandy_bridge_processors.html

Microsoft (2010). SQL Server and Large Pages Explained. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/psssql/archive/2009/06/05/sql-server-and-large-pages-explained.aspx.

Ozar (2010). Virtualization Best Practices. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from http://www.brentozar.com/sql/virtualization-best-practices/.

Reference: Tab Navigation

I'm always looking for ways to improve navigation. Tab navigation can be useful sometimes, depending on the situation. The resources below are helpful when exploring tab navigation options with SharePoint 3.0 and SharePoint 4.0.

Easy Tabs 5

Tab Navigation using CSS only


Reference

Humbert, C. (August, 2010). Easy Tabs Version 5.0. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from http://www.pathtosharepoint.com/sharepoint-user-toolkit/Pages/Easy-Tabs-v5.aspx.

Solomon, H. (August, 2005). Tab Navigation using CSS only - Great for SharePoint. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from http://heathersolomon.com/blog/archive/2005/08/10/1434.aspx.

SharePoint Saturday Boston #3 Webinar Series

The SharePoint Saturday Boston #3 Webinar Series schedule was recently announced. As part of this series, I will be presenting "Implementing SharePoint for Enterprise Search: Methodology and Mechanics" on Friday, December 10, 2010 at 11:45 AM.


Click Here to Register


Agenda
11:45 AM EST – 11:55 AM EST Welcome and Sign-In
11:55 AM EST – 12:00 PM EST Speaker Introduction
12:00 PM EST – 1:00 PM EST Presentation

For more information or to register for other Webinars, visit the SharePoint Saturday Web site, SharePoint Saturday Boston #3 Webinar Series: http://www.sharepointsaturday.org/boston/Pages/SPSBos3WebinarSeries.aspx

Reference: Location Codes

I was doing some ETL work today and needed to translate location codes from one system to another. These resources were helpful in creating a reference table.

Official USPS Abbreviations

List of U.S. States by Time Zone


Reference

United States Postal Service (2010). Official USPS Abbreviations. Retrieved October 14, 2010 from http://www.usps.com/ncsc/lookups/usps_abbreviations.html.

Wikipedia (2010). List of U.S. States by Time Zone. Retrieved October 14, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_time_zone.

SharePoint 4.0: How Search Indexing Works

The crawl process is essential to the Indexing side of SharePoint 2010 Search. Exploring the Search Service Application screens provides some insight to the configurable components that make up Search in SharePoint 2010, but you may actually have to dive deep into the system documentation and other resources to gain an understanding for the steps that occur within the subsystems, when SharePoint is instructed to crawl content.

The crawl process goes something like this:
1. Full crawl started
2. Start address moved to queue
3. Protocol determined
4.Connector selected
5. iFilter opens files
6. Content index created on crawl server
7. Index moved in batches to query server
8. Data written to Crawl and Property databases
(Microsoft, 2010)

One myth about SharePoint 2010 crawl process is that when content is crawled it never touches the file system of the Crawl Server and goes directly to Query Server...this isn't true. The way it works in environments that have crawler and query roles on separate servers is; a content index is built on the crawl server initially, but is moved in batches to the query server(s). The point when all batches have propogated to the query server, then it may appear as if there is no foot print on the Crawl server's file system...this is because all the batches have been moved up.

From a server topology perspective, Search requires three different server roles. These include Crawl Server, Query Server, and Database Server. Each of these roles plays a role in the crawl process. For scalability and availability, the architecture supports configurations that include one or many of each of the server roles. Determining the best topology is a balancing act of capacity requirements with available resources.

Reference

Microsoft (2010). Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Product Information Capabilities Search. Retrieved September 22, 2010 from
http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/en-us/product/capabilities/search/Pages/default.aspx.

Enterprise Search Summit Fall 2010

There will be an Enterprise Search Summit in Washington D.C. November 16-18, 2010. The event is taking place at the Renaissance Washington, DC Hotel.

For more information, click here.

SPS Boston: Implementing SharePoint for Enterprise Search: Methodology and Mechanics

On Saturday, September 25, 2010 I presented a session at SharePoint Saturday Boston.

Title:
Implementing SharePoint for Enterprise Search: Methodology and Mechanics

Abstract:This session explains how following a proven approach and using certain configuration techniques can ensure the success of a SharePoint Search implementation. The prevalence of search technologies available on the World Wide Web has caused stakeholder expectations to remain high. Yet, an Enterprise Search solution is an excellent opportunity to introduce exciting capabilities and productivity gains for a business. Included in the presentation is a walk-through of project phases, a review of key design considerations, and examples of recommended configurations.

Click HERE to access slides.

In the near future, I do intend to create individual blog posts from some of the presentation slides so that I can expand on some of the topics in greater detail. If you would like to request that I write a blog post explaining a particular Search topic, please submit a request using the comments feature of this post.

Microsoft Project 2010: Outline Number and Fill Down

I was recently updating a Microsoft Project file and encountered a couple items worth mentioning.

First, by inserting a column called "Outline Number," Project automatically populates the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) task ID (WBS column does the same thing). This is much better than doing it manually.


Secondly, Microsoft Project doesn't let you paste a value into a range of cells like Excel. So, instead of manually typing in durations or pasting one at a time, there is a "Fill Down" menu option. Select the cell that contains the value you want, select the range, right-click, and select "Fill Down."

This will fill in the range with the source value.

Why Move to SharePoint 2010?

From a technology road map perspective, I think it makes sense to migrate to the SharePoint 2010 platform to be current with technology. Doing so extends the lifespan of platform support and work efforts by three years (typical product cycle). The 2010 platform provides a more stable and scalable architecture too. Furthermore, innovation in the community occurs with the most current version, so to participate in the knowledge sharing on the Web, at events, and conferences, it requires remaining current.

Beyond these reasons, business needs continue to evolve and mature. The product features of the latest version enable the delivery of better solutions, with less effort, with less customization. Aggregating information from different systems is easier now (Search, BCS). It is easier to provide end user conveniences, such as Outlook calendar integration or multi-select actions in document libraries. Branding is easier with the themes engine. There are more Search tools (e.g. navigators) available, allowing search experiences to be more like what people expect from using Web. In fact, the 2010 Search technology is rich enough to use as a development tool. Taxonomy and Folksonomy features help make organizing and navigating through content easier, while Managed Metadata Services help ensure consistency.

Different scenarios require different thought processes and approaches to 2010. For example, existing SharePoint Web sites which are flat and primarily exist to push Web content to many consumers, may benefit from a straight software upgrade. On the other hand, redesign opportunities exist for other types of SharePoint applications which are more interactive; which support business processes or facilitate workflows.

At this point, it makes sense to design and develop anything new directly in 2010, to take advantage of the technology and community benefits. Doing so also reduces duplication in efforts since there will not be a future need to upgrade the new solutions to 2010; they will already be there. That, by itself, is a legitimate reason to go 2010.

Reference

Microsoft (2010). SharePoint 2010 Product Information Overview. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/en-us/product/capabilities/Pages/default.aspx.

Missing the Point on Spirit of Governance

Over a short period of time in the SharePoint community, the term "governance" has evolved to describe a class of software products or features. Yet, IT governance has nothing to do with what tools a SharePoint administrator has. Instead, IT governance has everything to do with the people and processes side of things; and the decision making framework that, when in play, can be used to determine that a portal should exist, who should manage it, who it should serve, how decisions will be made affecting it. Governance is really about policies, processes, roles, responsibilities, and priorities (Ross, 2004).

The scope of an effective Information Management Governance Model spans beyond a specific solution, such as SharePoint Intranet or collaboration portal, and encompasses the Information Management practices occurring throughout the organization. A SharePoint governance model should be a subset to that. Putting this in the context of documentation, an overarching Information Management Statement of Governance document should exist and define the framework at the global level, while specific statement of governance documents should be maintained for each Information Management system within the organization; SharePoint being one of those.

The IT project management framework is another significant and relevant topic to governance. The project management framework established the processes followed to initiate, plan, and execute IT projects. These processes should include such activities as the evaluation of new SharePoint projects in the context of the organization's overall information architecture. Aligning the project management decision making with Information Management, business, and IT decision making results in solutions that have backing, are sustainable, and actually provide business value.

The spirit of governance is really about defining what the processes should be, and if generous enough, explaining why to some extent. In the end, governance models maintain decision making integrity amongst people...that is not something a portal administrator can do by running a report or recovering a deleted site.

Reference

Ross, J., Weill, P. (2004). Recipe for Good Governance. Retrieved August 4, 2010 from http://www.cio.com/article/29162/Recipe_for_Good_Governance.

Event: SharePoint Saturday Boston 2010

SharePoint Saturday Boston, 2010 (#3)


When:
Saturday, September 25th, 2010


Where:
Microsoft Corporation

201 Jones Road

6th Floor

Waltham, MA 02451

Call for Speakers:

http://www.sharepointsaturday.org/boston/Pages/speakers.aspx/

Three SQL Server Settings for SharePoint Environments: Autogrowth Option, Auto Shrink Option, Shrink Database Task

As I was tuning a SharePoint environment today, I thought it would be a good opportunity to post a brief message about three SQL Server settings: Autogrowth, Auto Shrink, and the Shrink Database Task.

1. Autogrowth - Fixed Amount:

This setting applies to data files (.mdf) and transaction log files (.ldf). Autogrowth allows or prevents SQL Server from automatically increasing the size of the files when the need arises. In SharePoint environments, it is best to do capacity planning in advance and set the intial database sizes appropriately. Then, set the Autogrowth value for both the data files and the log files to a fixed amount. This ensures that the files grow in consistent increments. The fixed amount should be somewhat substantial, relative to the size of the database. This ensures that the growth does not occur too frequently.



2. Auto Shrink - Turn it Off:

Auto Shrink is an option that allows or prevents SQL Server from automatically reducing the size of database files. By default, the SQL Server Model database has the Auto Shrink option off. As Paul Randal points out, enabling Auto Shrink can lead to Auto-Grow, Auto-Shrink loops as well as database fragmentation, and other performance issues (Randal, 2007). As a general rule of thumb for most SharePoint environments, this option should remain off for system and content databases.




3. Shrink Database Task - Don't Schedule It:

The Shrink Database Task is an available Maintenance Plan Task. If set, this operation will reduce the size of a database according to a schedule, leaving a specified amount of free space. As with the Auto Shrink option, the Shrink Database Task leads to performance issues and is not recommend in SharePoint environments.

So, if an existing SharePoint environment does have a scheduled Shrink Database Task, then a suggested action would be to remove the Shrink Database Task and then plan to monitor and manage database size using a manual approach. When determining a plan for managing database size, it is important to keep Database Recovery Models in mind.

Reference

Randal, P. (August, 2008). Top Tips for Effective Database Maintenance. Retrieved July 30, 2010 from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2008.08.database.aspx?pr=blog.

Randal, P. (March, 2007). Turn AUTO_SHRINK off!! Retrieved July 30, 2010 from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2007/03/28/turn-auto-shrink-off.aspx.

Why Information Silos Are So Persistent

Information silos are disparate entities that exist as rogue systems, utilities, spreadsheets and Access databases. Actually, an information silo might be anything that is not centrally managed or does not conform to existing design patterns. Silos may or may not be considered an official part of the enterprise...awareness about the silo doesn't change its definition.

Most of the time, these tools were developed to fill a gap. A gap between what the enterprise offers and what certain areas of the business actually need to function. They serve a purpose; and in many cases they are significant to the processes that they support.

Considering where technology is today, why are are information silos so persistent, more prevalent than ever? Why can't IT just build something into the enterprise architecture?

One reason (or cause) is because of the technology, which has become easier to work with and more accessible to people inside and outside of IT Departments. A person of any role can go on the Internet and figure out how to set up an Access database. In many cases, this is much easier than approaching a centralized IT department with their requirements. The Internet isn't going to say "no." By circumventing IT, nobody asks for funding, tries to minimize or question the need, or compromise the intention in any way. But, if the request did go to the IT department might, there might be resistance.

Secondly, a rogue solution is much less risky for a business person in terms of exposure and process transparency. By setting up a tool of their own, a business person may struggle a bit with configuration, but at no point is their process going to be visible to other people for criticism. If the person was to bring their requirements to the table and ask for help, then a lot of questions might be asked, putting guarded knowledge at risk. Unfortunately, for protective types, this means that the process would, in fact, become more transparent. The original process owner would become a "stakeholder" with influence rather than an "owner" with full control.

Beyond that, information silos also exist when an organization's methodologies and practices for providing holistic solutions are not mature enough to truly help. For example, IT organizations which are disorganized and reactive, might not be capable of helping the business person with their needs. There's no process, no authority, no plan to handle this sort of thing.

All of these situations challenge a centralized Information Management strategy.

General Business Requirements vs. Solution Requirements

What came first, the solution or the need? Let's hope the need, but we all know that is not always (often not) the case. With the great technologies available to us today, rapid application development enables us to solve problems. But, does the ease of development actually create a new set of problems? Yes, it does.

When the software development process is lengthy and drawn out, it forces many planning activities such as requirements analysis, design specifications, and planning. Not doing these things leads to costly adjustments later. The lengthy process also forces organizations to really think about what solutions they are developing and how these solutions fit into the big picture. We've got it pretty easy today. With portals, collaboration, search, BI, content management, and workflow platforms today, some times doing it "wrong", undoing it, and doing it again is actually less expensive than the cost of planning and documenting.

Yes, I am familiar with the twelve principles of the Agile Manifesto (Agile Alliance, 2001). I like agile development when it follows some organized processes and produces artifacts that can be used for reference later. You still need documentation for future development, disaster recovery, and repair.

However, what I don't like is "premature solutioning" or the practice of directly jumping from a problem to a solution design without any sort of further questioning, analysis, thought, or sanity checks. When you encounter a problem, and immediately form a solution and begin developing it, a lot is lost. You are not considering what other stakeholder needs are, what other colleagues are already working on, and how this "fly by the seat of your pants" solution actually fits in (or doesn't) into your overall information architecture.

Working with my colleagues, we recently began formalizing our thoughts around the solutioning process. One of the first roadblocks we encountered had to do with semantics. We began observing that our push for "requirements" was being misunderstood. When a problem-solution situation arose, we would explain that we needed to analyze requirements. The response to this typically included design specifications. We would then stop and say, no, we don't want detailed design specifications, what we want is to understand the problem better and understand how it impacts other people, so we can create a solution that will fit into our information architecture in a way that adds value and doesn't undermine anything else we are doing.

After a few more of these scenarios we decided that we had to make others aware of our solutioning process and how we think, so that everybody would be able to communicate with each other better. The first thing we did was make a distinction between the types of requirements that we would discuss in the course of solutioning.


We decided on the following:

General Business Requirements - Facts and opinions that help understand the problem better. These are not design specifications and do not explain a solution. Instead, this information explains what the business needs are.

Solution Requirements - Facts and opinions that define how a solution is supposed to look, feel, or act. This information directly dictates the design specifications.


So, now when a new request arises, we start by gathering "general business requirements." We then consult with stakeholders, policies, procedures, standards, goals, etc. and analyze the information. Once we have all the facts, we begin to design a solution. At that time, we ask stakeholders to help us define the "solution requirements." The result of the latter activity is a design specifications document. Next, we schedule and plan the development activities and proceed from there.


Reference

Agile Alliance (2001). Principles Behind the Agile Manifesto. Retrieved July 24, 2010 from http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.

SharePoint 4.0: Summary Links Data Column Type

In SharePoint, there is a column type called, "Summary Links Data." Microsoft desribes this column type as "Columns that represent summary links for a page. Summary Links include a title, description, image, and URL and are used on publishing pages to present grouped links by using a set of shared styles" (Microsoft, 2010).

This column type is brilliant in theory, but unfortunately they don't appear to work as expected. Here is my assessment of the Summary Links Data column type.


In SharePoint 2010, if I add a Summary Links Data column to document library, then add a new document, the new or edit document properties page looks correct. The Summary Links Data column is represented by an editable summary links control.

However, after the links have been added and the document uploaded, you return to the document properties using the "View Properties" page. The result of this is that the links are not visible. Huh?


OK, so let's try a custom list. Added the column to a custom list. Adding or editing an item results in a non-editable field. So, the Summary Data List story just got even worse in custom lists...

Reference

Microsoft (2010). Create a site column. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint-server-help/create-a-site-column-HA010177759.aspx.

Site Columns: SharePoint 2010 vs. SharePoint 2007

When comparing the "create site column" screen of SharePoint 2010 versus the one in SharePoint 2007, the features are mostly similar except for three enhancements in 2010. These include:

1. Column types for Rich Media and Managed Metadata.
2. "Enforce unique values."
3. Column validation.

(Microsoft, 2010)


During the past few years, I do remember occasions when I was "wishing" for the ability to apply unique permissions at the site column or content type level, but these abilities are not something available in SharePoint 2010.

I imagine field level or content type security would require a more dynamic design at the list and library level, since the list and libraries still work off the static template model, storing their own column definitions in XML as they were defined at the time of list or library creation, and maintaining their own security settings. This is evident when you delete a site column that is being used in a list or library. The site column is removed from the site column gallery, but a local instance of it still remains on the list or library.

In order for field level or content type security to be possible in SharePoint, each site column and local column definition would need to be expanded to include a security definition. List and library views would also need to become more security aware, rendering different columns based on varying security contexts. So, pushing down unique site column or content type security is more than the platform can handle at this time.


Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010



Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007

Reference

Microsoft (2010). Create a site column. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint-server-help/create-a-site-column-HA010177759.aspx.

Microsoft (2010). Introduction to Columns. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms450825.aspx.

Fiddler

A gentleman named Eric Lawrence has developed a very useful Web debugging tool named, Fiddler. The Fiddler Web site is http://www.fiddler2.com/fiddler2/version.asp. I've used this tool recently to pinpoint performance issues, security issues, and authentication issues.

"Fiddler is an HTTP debugging proxy written by Eric Lawrence of Microsoft.[1] It seamlessly captures HTTP traffic and logs it for the user to review.[4] It can also be used to "fiddle" with HTTP traffic as it is being sent.[3] By default, traffic from Microsoft's WinINET HTTP(S) stack is automatically directed through Fiddler at runtime, but any browser or application can be configured to route traffic through Fiddler.

The new version, known as Fiddler2, offers support for interception and tampering with HTTPS traffic." (Wikipedia, 2010)

To install Fiddler, follow these steps:

1. Download Fiddler.
2. Run the setup.exe.


To run a trace, follow these steps:

1. Open Fiddler (Start > All Programs > Fiddler2).
2. Begin a trace (File > Capture Traffic).
3. Launch Internet Explorer and produce the activity you would like to trace.
4. Stop the trace (File > uncheck Capture Traffic).
5. Save the trace file (File > Save > All Sessions).
6. Now, you are able to analyze the activity and pinpoint issues. You may also consider comparing the Fiddler trace to the Application Event log from the client and server machines.

Reference

Lawrence, E. (2010). Fiddler2 - Installation Information. Retrieved July 20, 2010 from http://www.fiddler2.com/fiddler2/version.asp.

Wikipedia (2010). Fiddler (software). Retrieved July 20, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_(software).

Microsoft Certifications for SharePoint 2010

For the 2010 generation, the Microsoft SharePoint certifications tracks have been enhanced. Below is a breakout of the certifications available.


Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP): SharePoint Administrator 2010

70-668 PRO: SharePoint Server 2010, Administrator
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/Exam.aspx?ID=70-668

70-667 TS: Microsoft SharePoint 2010, Configuring
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/Exam.aspx?ID=70-667


Microsoft Certified Professional Developer (MCPD): SharePoint Developer 2010

70-576 PRO: Designing and Developing Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Applications
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/Exam.aspx?ID=70-576

70-573 TS: Microsoft SharePoint 2010, Application Development
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/Exam.aspx?ID=70-573


Microsoft Certified Master program (MCM)
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/architect.aspx


Microsoft Certified Architect certification (MCA)
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/master.aspx#tab2



Reference

Microsoft (2010). Microsoft SharePoint – Training Portal. Retrieved July 21, 2010 from http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/training/sharepoint.aspx.

Prometric (2010). Microsoft Certifications. Retrieved July 21, 2010 from http://www.prometric.com/Microsoft/default.htm.

Connected Lookup on Codeplex

It is called many names; Connected Lookup, Cascading Dropdowns, Dependencies, etc. Whatever the nomenclature, the requirement to have one choice column drive the choices in a another choice drop down is an extremely common requirement in SharePoint applications.

There is a Codeplex project that I discovered today, for WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007. I've pretty much halted future development on MOSS 2007 at this point but I thought I'd post the link regardless.

Reference

Codeplex (2010). SharePoint Connected Lookup. Retrieved July 12, 2010 from http://cl.codeplex.com/.