Nick InglisSharePoint Program ManagerAIIMWeb: nickinglis.comTwitter: @nickinglisMore: about.me/nickinglisWhy 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.
Traditional ERM & SharePoint 2010Drastic differences from asystems perspective: Where records reside How records are organized Taxonomic differences(This has been a struggle for Records Managers in the past)
Where Do Records Reside?Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010 Centralized Records Dispersed Records Single Records Location Multiple Records Authority Management Repositories (Records Centers) Paper-based Structures In Place Records Think Digital "Records Management Room"
How Are Records Organized?Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010 Site Collections, Sites, Folders & Trees Libraries Paper-based Structure Organisational Structure Based on Relationships Standardized To Align Between Site Collections With Corporate & Sub-Sites Taxonomy Multiple Libraries & Multiple Repositories
What About Taxonomies?Traditional ERM SharePoint 2010 Multiple Taxonomies Single Taxonomy Content Type Tree (Powered by C.T. Hub) One Standard Taxonomy Columns/Metadata Corporate Alignment Term Store Rigidly Structured Folksonomy (Tagging) Facets (Search Refiners)
Technology Role Comparison SharePoint SharePoint Traditional ERMCollaboration Publication Document & Records Enhance Management Working Information Ensure Environment Access Compliance Process Organisational Support Governance
How Does SharePoint Fit? SharePoint Only SharePoint & ECRM SharePoint & ECRM SharePoint SharePoint SharePoint User ECRM Interface Share- Share-Information ECRM Point PointManagement ECRM 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 Mainframe Mini PC Internet ??? 1960- 1975- 1992- 2001- Years 2010+ 1975 1992 2001 2009 Typical A batch A dept A A web thing ??? trans process document pagemanaged Best Digital known IBM Equipment Microsoft Google ???companyContent Image Document Content mgmt Microfilm ??? Mgmt Mgmt Mgmt focus
Why Is It Architected This Way? Systems of Engagement Era Mainframe Mini PC Internet ??? Systems of Record 1960- 1975- 1992- 2001- Years 2010+ 1975 1992 2001 2009 Typical A batch A dept A A web An thing trans process document page Interactionmanaged Best Digital known IBM Equipment Microsoft Google FacebookcompanyContent Social Image Document Content mgmt Microfilm Business Mgmt Mgmt Mgmt focus Systems
SharePoint EvolutionSharePoint 2007 SharePoint 2010System of Record? System of Engagement? DoD 5015.2 Compliance Collaboration Focus Not fully certified Not DoD 5015.2 Certified Centralized Records Dispersed RM Single Taxonomy Functionality Folders/Trees Multiple Taxonomies
Email Management in SharePoint Out of the box connection Relatively weak and not intuitive Rely 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 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 Content Route to Selection Organizer Project Content Artifact Status = appropriate Routes to checks Type On Content Approved? Records Center Content document & Upload Organizer metadata type? or Declared as Record In Place
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 ToNew 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 CorporateTaxonomy 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) • No documents can be added. • Cannot be Parent extended outside of Content Type• Documents can be added. Content Type Hub• Can be extended by Site Administrators 1&2 Parent Metadata (Columns) Content Type Content Type Content Type A B C 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 5 Metadata derived from Parent • Site Administrator created content type Content Type • Has same metadata (columns) as it’s parent User Content (Content Type A). Type • May have additional metadata fields (columns). • Additional metadata fields (columns) must already exists. 1, 2, 3, 5 • 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