Microsoft Sharepoint and Records Management

Firstly, let me remind you that these ramblings do not necessarily reflect EMC's thoughts. Although I am very proud of the technology that we build at EMC I try to keep my blog agnostic - I think it is more interesting that way. Bear this in mind when you read my thoughts on Microsoft's foray in to the world of records management. This entry is not a Microsoft-bashing session just to be fashionable, I genuinely believe that Microsoft's strategy is flawed and will be damaging to a company's records management deployments.

From a compliance perspective there are a lot of things that concern me about applications like Sharepoint. For example, their relative ease of deployment makes them viral in nature, the lack of centralized repository makes risk management & discovery difficult — security and scalability are another blog entry all together but these are not my biggest concern. My biggest concern might be somewhat less obvious. I'll try to make this very brief because I don't want to belabor the point; as always email me or post comments if you want to discuss the implications.

Can you say "Silo"?

Let's start with a brief history of records management. When all records were printed on papyrus/paper we had no choice but to move them to a secure storage location for safe keeping. Later, when the first electronic records management systems came on to the scene we replicated this model; when a document was deemed to be a "copy of record" it was moved to a separate electronic document repository. We did this for two key reasons: 1) The only system we could rely on for immutability was the records system and 2) It allowed us to sleep soundly at night seeing all of the records safely held in one single location.

However, the problems related to moving records in to a silo are significant. The most obvious one is that you just moved a business document in to a silo — hence it is no longer where it used to be. Heaven help the poor sap who was using it and still needs to have access to it. Obviously you could copy the file to the silo but that creates a disposition and security headache later on.

Over the last 5 years we have started moving away from the mandatory "silo it to protect it" model. For example, here at EMC, our records management system can enforce DoD chapter 4-level security on any piece of content in any Documentum repository without having to move it anywhere. This means that the record declaration of a document can happen in a non-invasive way — there's no reason to up-root the content just because it makes you feel better.

Not convinced? Look at the amount of excitement around EMC's assured federated records management solution. Why is it compelling? Because we want to centralize the management of our compliance solutions. We want to have a single place to go to see all records, perform discovery, manage disposition, do capacity planning, etc. Every time you create a new non-federated silo you compound the problem of enterprise-wise records management.

So why does Sharepoint's approach to records management scare me so much ? Every Sharepoint repository is effectively a content silo. Forget formal records management for a second and consider discoverable content - pretty much anything in your enterprise could be subject to a discovery notice from the courts. Will you be able to go to one place and find, categorize, lock down and deliver content from all of your Sharepoint repositories? I spoke to a customer recently who were adding 1,000 new Sharepoint repositories a month - yes, that's 12,000 new silos per year.

If you think that's bad then understand that when you declare a record in Sharepoint it moves the document to a separate records repository (read "silo") — sounds familiar doesn't it? It's what we were all doing 10 years ago and have fought hard to move away from for the last 5 years. 

The bottom line.

Sharepoint might look very compelling now but when you have 20,000 disparate repositories in your organization and you need to perform controlled disposition or start a formal discovery you'll feel the pain - I guarantee it! I want to re-assure you that this is not me taking an anti-Microsoft stance as a marketing ploy — I genuinely believe that this silo-approach to records management will hurt records deployments significantly. We cannot let it happen, sign a partition, (there's one in the bathroom), or better still a petition.

If you are going to do this, and I do understand why it is compelling, then at least ensure that you are using a decent federated search engine to tie the content together; better still, use Sharepoint as a front end to a real enterprise content management solution...if not then you are on your own. Let me know if you are moving ahead and I'll set up a cron job that will email you a "Told you so" in 2 years time.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

  • 9/14/2007 1:16 PM Miles wrote:
    I agree with your point about silos being undesirable but your assertion that 'every sharepoint repository is effectively a silo' isn't true. You can set up sharepoint repositories as silos _if you want_ but you certainly don't have to.
    Reply to this
    1. 9/14/2007 3:42 PM Andrew Chapman wrote:
      Agreed, you don't HAVE to but the thing that worries me is that companies are letting people run amuck creating repositories without any thought to how enterprise-wide functionality will be superimposed on them at a later date. They are not planning ahead for enterprise search, discovery, hold, retention or disposition. It seems like a "stitch in time" type of situation... I tell companies to put some forward planning in place today and they will save themselves a boatload of pain in the future. Obviously, I am biased but put a decent ECM solution behind Sharepoint and then at least you have a common location for your content and a chance to unify the management and compliance of that content.
      Reply to this
  • 9/19/2007 3:55 PM Gabor wrote:
    I take issue with this statement of yours 'put a decent ECM solution behind Sharepoint' SharePoint IS more than a decent ECM solution, and the fact of the matter is that no matter how many so-called 'advanced ECM features' legacy repositories have, in the end if they are too hard to use for the end user, or if they have performance issues (as is the case with most ECM installations today, no matter whose repository is behind them), they will fail to fulfill their promise.

    See here also. And there are several partner solutions that achieve federation and centralization of compliance controls and discovery, so the issues described above are well known, and also addressed by the MOSS partner community, without the need to have a centralized Uber-repository in the back end.

    See here also:

    http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/961-Microsoft,-Big-ECM,-and-Big-Pharma
    Reply to this
  • 10/1/2007 10:40 AM Keith Fisher wrote:
    For many organisations, SharePoint is literally their first-step into *any* kind of ECM initiative. This is why it is easy to point to numerous examples of mis-managed deployment.

    Two things are happening that have tectonic implications; changes to the law and cost reduction. Both are turning appropriately "strategic" heads in the ECM direction and, unsurprisingly, there is a growing awareness of "best practice" developing (as attested to by the posters above). It is not a technology issue - my ECM is bigger than yours - it is a business process and management issue.

    Sharepoint has, in a most obscure way, all the tools available to avoid the potential issues you rightly raise.
    Reply to this
  • 10/7/2007 4:33 PM Mike Alsup wrote:
    The key reason to plan for the records management integration of a SharePoint site, even if it is in the future, is that the if the records management features are instantiated through the site template, we believe that it will take an order of magnitude less work for each site to integrate with a records management site, be it Microsoft, EMC, or another vendor. Multiply this by thousands of sites, and a boatload of future work is avoided by a modicum of up front planning. Let us know if you need help with the up front planning, however.

    Mike Alsup, Gimmal Group
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.