Learn about Records Management in SharePoint and how to avoid common pitfalls.

1. SharePoint & ERM

2. Nick Inglis
SharePoint Program Manager
AIIM
Web: nickinglis.com
Twitter: @nickinglis
More: about.me/nickinglis
Why would you listen to me?
AIIM SharePoint Master
AIIM Enterprise 2.0 Master
AIIM Enterprise Content Management Specialist
Inbound Marketing Certified Professional
Inbound Marketing Certified Educator

3. • 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.

4. SharePoint & ERM

5. 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)

6. 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"

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Technology Role Comparison
SharePoint SharePoint
Traditional ERM
Collaboration Publication Document &
Records
Enhance Management
Working Information Ensure
Environment Access Compliance
Process
Organisational Support
Governance

10. How Does SharePoint Fit?
SharePoint Only SharePoint & ECRM SharePoint & ECRM
SharePoint SharePoint SharePoint
User
ECRM
Interface
Share- Share-
Information ECRM
Point Point
Management
ECRM
Don’t often see this with
ECRM but with PeopleSoft
& Active Directory

11. Why Is SharePoint Architected This Way?
System of Record

12. 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 page
managed
Best
Digital
known IBM Equipment Microsoft Google ???
company
Content
Image Document Content
mgmt Microfilm ???
Mgmt Mgmt Mgmt
focus

13. 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 Interaction
managed
Best
Digital
known IBM Equipment Microsoft Google Facebook
company
Content Social
Image Document Content
mgmt Microfilm Business
Mgmt Mgmt Mgmt
focus Systems

14. Why Is It Architected This Way?

16. SharePoint Evolution
SharePoint 2007 SharePoint 2010
System 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

17. Potential SharePoint ERM Pitfalls
Email Management
Multiple Dispersed Systems
Search Refiners
Hold Orders (e-Discovery)
Records Declaration

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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

30. SharePoint & ERM