sharepoint & erm
DESCRIPTION
Learn about Records Management in SharePoint and how to avoid common pitfalls.TRANSCRIPT
SharePoint & ERM
Nick InglisSharePoint Program ManagerAIIM
Web: nickinglis.comTwitter: @nickinglisMore: about.me/nickinglis
Why would you listen to me?AIIM SharePoint MasterAIIM Enterprise 2.0 MasterAIIM Enterprise Content Management SpecialistInbound Marketing Certified ProfessionalInbound Marketing Certified Educator
• AIIM is the community of Information Professionals.• Approximately 65,000 Associate and Professional members
and more than 20,000 professionals have attended our training programs.
• Research to empower the community (e.g. State of SharePoint for ECM, State of the ECM Industry, etc.)
• Recently launched the “Certified Information Professional (CIP)” designation, now the de facto standard for knowledge in the Information Management field.
• Basic membership is free, so go to www.aiim.org to get your free benefits.
SharePoint & ERM
Traditional ERM & SharePoint 2010
Drastic differences from a systems perspective: Where records reside How records are organized Taxonomic differences
(This has been a struggle for Records Managers in the past)
Centralized Records Single Records Location Authority Paper-based Structures Think Digital "Records
Room"
Where Do Records Reside?
Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010
Dispersed Records Multiple Records
Management Repositories (Records Centers)
In Place Records Management
Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010
How Are Records Organized?
Folders & Trees Paper-based Structure Standardized To Align
With Corporate Taxonomy
Site Collections, Sites, Libraries Organisational Structure
Based on Relationships Between Site Collections & Sub-Sites
Multiple Libraries & Multiple Repositories
Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010
What About Taxonomies?
Single Taxonomy One Standard Taxonomy Corporate Alignment Rigidly Structured
Multiple Taxonomies Content Type Tree
(Powered by C.T. Hub) Columns/Metadata Term Store Folksonomy (Tagging) Facets (Search Refiners)
Technology Role Comparison
SharePointTraditional ERM
SharePoint
Collaboration
Enhance Working
Environment
Document & Records
ManagementEnsure
Compliance
Publication
Information Access
ProcessOrganisational Support
Governance
How Does SharePoint Fit?
User Interface
ECRM
SharePoint & ECRM
ECRM
SharePoint
ECRM
Share-Point
SharePoint & ECRM
SharePoint
Information Management
Share-Point
SharePoint Only
SharePoint
Don’t often see this with ECRM but with PeopleSoft
& Active Directory
Why Is SharePoint Architected This Way?
System of Record
Why Is It Architected This Way?
Era
Years
Typical thing
managed
Best known
companyContent mgmt focus
Mainframe
1960-1975
A batch trans
IBM
Microfilm
Mini
1975-1992
A dept process
Digital Equipmen
t
Image Mgmt
PC
1992-2001
A document
Microsoft
Document Mgmt
Internet
2001-2009
A web page
Content Mgmt
???
2010+
???
???
???
Why Is It Architected This Way?
Era
Years
Typical thing
managed
Best known
companyContent mgmt focus
Mainframe
1960-1975
A batch trans
IBM
Microfilm
Mini
1975-1992
A dept process
Digital Equipmen
t
Image Mgmt
PC
1992-2001
A document
Microsoft
Document Mgmt
Internet
2001-2009
A web page
Content Mgmt
???
2010+
An Interaction
Social Business Systems
Systems of Record
Systems of Engagement
Why Is It Architected This Way?
SharePoint Evolution
SharePoint 2007System of Record? DoD 5015.2 Compliance
Not fully certified Centralized Records Single Taxonomy Folders/Trees
SharePoint 2010System of Engagement? Collaboration Focus Not DoD 5015.2 Certified Dispersed RM
Functionality Multiple Taxonomies
Potential SharePoint ERM Pitfalls
Email ManagementMultiple Dispersed SystemsSearch RefinersHold Orders (e-Discovery)Records Declaration
Email Management in SharePoint
Out of the box connectionRelatively weak and not intuitiveRely on users to declare email as records or
bring in everything (neither is a really good strategy for Email Records Management)
3rd Party Vendors
Multiple Dispersed Systems
A challenging situation that many organisations struggle with because of various “best of breed” systems that meet focused business requirements better than SharePoint may.
Potential: Out of the box BCS connection utilizing CMIS Reality: Probably want to consider a 3rd Party Vendor
Search Refiners & e-Discovery
If you have FAST search, ignore the following: Search refiners limit at 50 out of the box
Can refine to 500 with configuration If using search for e-discovery, do NOT use search
refiners
Hold Orders
Batch holds are managed via search Holds and eDiscovery features are not turned on by
default. They are turned on at the site collection level Supports multiple holds on an individual item Cannot hold at the container level (i.e. libraries and
folders) Not incredibly robust, but will get the job done for many
organisations Alternatively, there are 3rd party vendors that can add to
the functionality
Records Declaration
Content Type Selection Routes to Content
Organizer
Content Organizer
checks document &
metadata
ProjectArtifactContent
type?
Status =Approved?
Route to appropriate
Records Center or Declared as Record In Place
Records declared using drop off library method
Records declared using in-place method. (Note: turn off the “Undeclare Record” option. Undeclare a record?)
A Better Way: Content Organizer or Workflow (Example)
User Selects Content Type On Upload
Bridging The Gap
Don’t Blame SharePoint For The Larger Shift Relate Old Folder Structure To New Structure Have A Primary Organisational Taxonomy Governance Plan Is Key Factor Understand The Benefits of Secondary
Taxonomies
Don’t Blame SharePoint
If your existing systems want to survive, they will also change.
SharePoint is a broad platform rather than a focused platform like your traditional ERM systems.
Microsoft leaves room for it’s 3rd party vendor community.
Advanced functionality to deepen the functionality in any one area can be purchased to meet each organisation’s individual business requirements
Relate Old Folder Structures To New Structure
Folder alignment to Content Types If primary level of old folder structure is based on
corporate departments, also align first level (and additional levels based on departments) folder structure to site collection/site structure
Have A Primary Corporate Taxonomy
Don’t allow your taxonomy to be run ad hoc. Have a plan in place for your taxonomy Have a plan in place for your content types for several
levels (also what will be managed centrally and what will have dispersed management)
Have a plan in place for your metadata (columns) and it’s relationship to content types.
Give flexibility to site administrators to extend existing content types, but not create new ones.
Planning for Content Types and Related Metadata (Columns)
Parent Content Type
1 & 2
Content Type A
1, 2, 3
User Content Type
1, 2, 3, 5
Content Type B
1, 2, 4
Content Type C
1, 2, 5
• No documents can be added.
• Cannot be extended outside of Content Type Hub
Parent Metadata (Columns)
• Documents can be added.• Can be extended by Site
Administrators
Metadata derived from
Parent Content Type • Site Administrator created content type
• Has same metadata (columns) as it’s parent (Content Type A).
• May have additional metadata fields (columns).• Additional metadata fields (columns) must
already exists.• No creation of new metadata fields (columns)
Governance Plan is a Key Factor
Have a SharePoint Governance Planning Committee that has broad representation (executive sponsor, LOB, IT, RM, legal, etc.)
Include corporate taxonom(y/ies) in Governance Plan Structure site collections/sites in alignment with
corporate taxonomy
Benefits of Secondary Taxonomies Folksonomy (Tagging)
User generated Separate from primary taxonomy Understand how users are utilizing content Learn how users are defining terms (and how it may
not align with your corporate taxonomy) Can be used to improve corporate taxonomy Can be used to feed the “thesaurus” Improves findability
Facets (Refiners) Easily find items on predefined criteria Improves finability Only utilized within the realm of search
SharePoint & ERM