SharePoint 2007: The key questions for records management

In the recent past the records management profession did not have to concern itself too deeply with any one system from any one vendor.  The profession could establish specifications as to what it wanted records management software to do (TNA 2002, MoReq etc) and use those standards to incentivise a clutch of vendors to produce systems that operate according to that model.  Records managers simply had to understand the thinking behind the specifications.

SharePoint 2007 is different.  It hasn’t been designed around existing records management specifications, instead it has its own idiosyncratic records management model.  SharePoint team collaboration sites pose significant governance challenges and are sometimes introduced alongside, and in competition with, existing electronic records systems.  

The vendor behind SharePoint, Microsoft, already monopolises organisational servers and the basic desktop tools for document creation and e-mail. Their exceptional size brings with it exceptional ambitions.  They want to sell SharePoint into every organisation large medium or small.  They don't want to base their product around the types of records management controls (particularly the corporate fileplan) found in TNA 2002 and MoReq 2.  Only a minority of organisations have the appetite and capability to implement and sustain a corporate fileplan. 

Not every organisation will take on SharePoint 2007. Of those that do, not every implementation will be successful or sustained.  SharePoint will face competition, but on a global scale that competition is unlikely to come from the niche vendors who provide EDRM and ECM systems based around TNA 2002 and MoReq/MoReq2.  The organisation in the best position to take on Microsoft and SharePoint is Google:  another huge, cash-rich monopoly.  Google plans to skirt around Microsoft's monopoloy of organisational servers and destops by providing their Google Apps system across the web, from the cloud.

The records management profession is going to have to get used to managing records in records systems that are not of its professional making.

The strength of SharePoint 2007 in the marketplace gives us as a profession no choice but to engage with it.   We need to be in a position to ensure that organisations make decisions in relation to SharePoint with their eyes open.   When organisations do choose to implement SharePoint team collaboration sites we need to be able to help teams make the best of them.   On a broader front, as a profession, we need to assess how we move forward in a post-SharePoint 2007 world, where our records management standards and specifications will have a reduced influence on the marketplace.

Below are what I consider be the key questions that we need to address in each of these areas 

Helping organisations make informed decisions in relation to SharePoint

• Given that SharePoint 2007 has no place to hold a hierarchical corporate fileplan how do we ensure the overall coherence of the collection of collaboration sites?

• How do we guard against the danger of 'SharePoint sprawl'? 

• How do we apply retention schedules in SharePoint?  How do we protect records from amendment or deletion?  Is it worth using the SharePoint 2007 Records Centre for these purposes?

• To what extent should we encourage/require the use of version control and metadata in SharePoint? 

• Do we recommend that organisations turn on the facility to allow each member of staff to have a 'my site'?  Individuals can use their my site to share information about themselves; to blog; and to create, store and (if they wish) share documents

• Do we recommend that organisations plug in TNA 2002/MoReq 2 based EDRM/ECM systems behind SharePoint?  If so how do we recommend that they map from the elements of SharePoint (site collection, site, library, folder or content type, document) to the elements of EDRM (fileplan heading, folder, document) 

• SharePoint offers many alternatives to documents and e-mails for creating and communicating information (wikis, blogs, discussion forums etc.)  Do we need to manage them?  If so how?    

• There are usually other drivers beside records management behind a SharePoint implementation.  How can we best ensure that records management and governance needs are afforded sufficient priority?  

• What do we do when we find SharePoint team collaboration sites being rolled out in competition with an existing or planned electronic records management system?

 

Helping teams and end-users make the best of SharePoint

• What advice and support do we need to provide end users to help them set up and manage SharePoint team collaboration sites?  

• What should we be advising each team to do when they start a new project or piece of work? Should they create a new team collaboration sub-site? or a new document library within an existing site/sub-site?  or a new folder within an existing document library? 

• Should we advise end users to use folders to organise their document libraries or 'content types' (metadata)?   

• Do SharePoint team collaboration sites help with managing e-mails?  

  

Moving forward as a profession

• SharePoint 2007 blurs the distinction between the intranet and the team working space.  It blurs the distinction between data and documents. How will this affect the relationships and distinctions between records managers and other professionals?  

• Where next for the business classification/corporate fileplan?  The international records management standard is based around it.   So are TNA 2002 and MoReq2. But they are difficult and time consuming to build and have had a mixed reception with users in those organisations that have built them.  SharePoint doesn't cater for them without work-arounds and customisation.  

• Where next for electronic records management specifications? When there were lots of niche vendors in the field, and when electronic records management systems (EDRM) were distinct from other types of system such as web/intranet content management systems then specifications worked well as a way of influencing the market.  Now EDRM systems have been subsumed into broader Enterprise Content Management (ECM)  systems, organisations are basing their procurement choices on a broader range of criteria.  And Microsoft have been able to ignore the specifications but still dominate this market.

James Lappin
Senior Associate consultant

Comments

[Greg]

As with all software packages, it is impossible to meet the needs of every user. SharePoint web parts are a great way to provide tools and options to these people.

From organisational and departmental charts that help with all communication aspects in the business, to web parts that allow company news to be efficiently distributed, these products truly enhance a user’s overall experience, and meet their requirements.

[Mary Ann]

We have just commenced using Sharepoint. Mainly as a collaborative tool but I am expecting it to be used more widely as it becomes more accepted by the organisation. I wanted to respond to some of your questions.

File Plans - overrated.
I know that all the standards say you need a classification/taxonomy/file plan but SharePoint allows you to assign metadata to documents/libraries/lists in such a way that users can view the information in whatever way suits them - not via a file plan that often has no meaning to users (only to RM staff) File plans were popular and useful because they offer one way of looking at the information an organisation has but it is only one way of looking at the information. Information can be grouped together in many different ways if you have the right metadata.

SharePoint Sprawl - absolutely - a real risk. The IT team responsible for our deployment have established standards for the depolyment across the organisation. All sites/pages/libraries/lists will have the same look and feel no matter where you work or what information you are managing.

Applying retention schedules - haven't done this yet but we have already agreed with our IT SharePoint team that we will probably need to "roll up" some of our disposal classes - that is we may need to retain some short term records longer than the minimum because they are in the same library as longer term records. We will live with that. I have a problem with using the lists for permanent records as these can't be archived currently yet lists seem the perfect solution to manage our statutory registers.

SharePoint is primarily a collaborative tool - there is a risk that records could be deleted. We have discussed this with our SharePoint team. There are options such as removing/hiding the delete option, making the libraries read only once the event/project/financial year has passed. Currently there doesn't seem to be a method for placing a hold on records that need to be quarrantined for legal purposes.

I found the version control difficult. Given the state of IT literacy in our organisation we have agreed only to promote version control where it is vital. Otherwise we encourage sharing documents via the use of links.

The use of "My Site" and some of the other features i think are quite exciting however we are not have much uptake from our staff. We have established feedback forums - been a bit of a failure, knowlegebases - a bit more of a success, a corporate wide calendar system showing all the corporate eventsincluding training - seems popular.

[simonc]

The RM industry is moving into a more federated world. One of which there already are many front ends to choose from (SharePoint / SAP-HR / Siebel / vendor front ends such as Filenet Livelink Documentum / bespoke systems to manage Physical Items / etc / etc). The key to all of these front ends is to embrace them all. This is how the users want to work... and rightly so.
Records managers should be less concerned with their structure. They should be more concerned with ensuring that the records from these front ends are stored in a file plan. This is done with
- integration
- auto classification based upon metadata
- user selection (transaction value)
The best solution for the short/medium term is that these documents and records will remain in their native application, but be managed by the file plan by means of an integration. This integration will manage the lifecycle and deletions. Events will be managed by the front end or the file plan.
So no, the solution will not stop at SharePoint nor will Google become an immediate threat. There are solutions out there that tackle your concerns documented above are already addressed including MoReq "compliance".
Organisations can use many front ends, but one file plan. The file plan doesn't need to be (that) navigable, the front ends do.