I feel that we started to talk about change in HE at the start of the conference and how we may be reduced as a group if we didn’t move forward and look at new opportunities, but you were met with complete disarray even when the fact was told to the group that 90% of HE institutions are using SharePoint in some way! Now if someone told me this for some other product that I was not using (MS or not) I would do my hardest to go and check it out and make sure I was not left out.

I feel that the group were not seeing the opportunities to learn a new skill set; using SharePoint does not mean that you will not do the work you are doing just now or lose the skill set, but may mean you get to do more of it as SharePoint can cut down on the development times on some of the more mundane work you need to do if you know what you are doing.

SharePoint can’t do everything or can it?, it’s not a relation database and can’t really be used for this purpose in a easy way so you just need to know the limits, not so much of what it can and can’t do, as I think it can do most things, not always in a straightforward way at times, but you need to know the product so you can decide on the best development tool for the request you have been given.

We try to think about SharePoint first for development then if it’s going to be hard or take too long to develop then we look at the next tool. We connect to SharePoint from other systems; we use it to support other systems that can’t hold the data we need as we can access the data easy through web services for example and I’m not sure a lot of the other CMS’s can do this that well.

I had a person come to me with a document that compared SharePoint with a couple of other products and they had a graphic that showed that SharePoint could not do xyz.., we managed to get them into us and showed them that SharePoint could do 85% of the tasks they said it could not! So they had a complete misunderstand of what it could do and feel this is what is getting over to most of the group.

Now I’m one of the developers at
Edinburgh Napier which means I’m a bit biased and do have .Net skills which is really a must for SharePoint if you want to work with this product, did we still have a big learning curve to get to where we are with SharePoint even with the .Net skills beforehand, YES and I think I’ve only touched the surface with parts of the product, has it been worth it, I think so!, but someone said “easy to develop” but If development was that easy then everyone would be doing it! , software development for the web has changed and it’s left be hide the people who have been playing with the technologies as it has become a real development environment now.

Thanks for this really useful overview of what Sharepoint 2010 can/can’t do. I have a few thoughts based on it:

1)If we use In Place RM rather than records centres, is there any way of configuring SP so that once the ‘Declare as Record’ button is actioned, it triggers the addition of metadata (via the Managed Metadata function) to indicate that it is now an official record? I am wondering if this would be a way around the limitations of not having the records captured in an organised structure. Presumably we then have the capability to run a search for all declared records for (e.g.) HR functions. This would also assist in putting together a digital preservation plan to ensure that all records held long term or permanently are properly managed to ensure ongoing accessibility.
2)Managed metadata and keywords sounds like we are moving towards tagging and folksonomies which I don’t think is a bad thing. I like the user having the option to tag docs which would hopefully promote a greater sense of ownership of the document. If it can be linked into the folder structure it should also aid search and retrieval capability.
3)Content type sounds rather fiddly to configure, but can essentially be used to create templates for key documents to ensure metadata is captured at the point of creation of the document. This is potentially of great value to my company as it would not require the user to manually fill out a metadata table each time they create a new doc (although they can tag it with keywords if they require). This will also tie in with our Protective Marking policy by making it easier for the user to classify and identify confidential docs.
4)If we use content types, we can then use the Records Centre (rather than in place RM) but also with the support of Managed Metadata as a search aid.
5)You say that there is “no guarantee that the records in the record centre will be useful…” – this is a good point but can be tackled through training, governance and ongoing support. Given the quantities of information that my company produces, it is inevitable that the user will have to take responsibility for declaring what is or isn’t a record
6)Summing up, it looks like SP2010 offers an opportunity to redefine records management to the more fluid way in which records and information are created and consumed these days, and whilst it does throw up challenges in terms of configuration and ongoing administration, we need to be more flexible to keep up

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/australia/government/20101230_Analysis_MOSS%202007_SP_2010_against_ICA_ERMS_Requirements.pdf

We all love to criticise M$ for its blunderbuss approach, which is justified in many cases. But at least, it makes us re-think our assumptions about how things should be in RM.

All things evolve, even RM.

We are approaching today’s content creation and management challenges with a traditional records management ego, and this is causing a lot of tension, we are seen as being reluctant to adopt and adapt new ways of working and we are getting nowhere. I work with so many organisations that still in the year 2010 have a mixture of file system document storage, portal or intranet, records management system and collaboration or content management system. I feel that the records management profession has a tremendous amount of value based on our learning’s that we can bring to solving todays Information challenges and our success is related to blending our approaches with today’s users and technologies.

Your blog describes many of the new features in SharePoint 2010 and I would like to add some additional comments around these topics:

1)The lack of a clear records management model in SharePoint 2010

Yes there are various models one can adopt; however you do not need to only select one. We finally have a solution that gives us choices. Remember the typical eDRMS project, one choice and one choice only, create records in Office , store in a eDRMS and File Plan etc…, resulting in poor user adoption, and the only thing compliant about that was the technology.

The options within SharePoint 2010 means that we can implement a solution that addresses more than just one way of working, we have users with varied requirements (largely they have no compelling reason to create records) and maturity and need to be flexible in how we deliver an outcome for them. The important thing with SharePoint and 2010 is to have a PLAN for how RM will be implemented and managed, as people adopt SharePoint just as they plan for migrating content in they need to plan how this will be managed as records, where it will be managed and who will manage it.

2.Using the site collection/site/ sub site hierarchy to house your fileplan (‘In place’ records management)

Adopting a Site Hierarchy approach for housing the File Plan is something I would stay right away from. This will force traditional approaches for records management but destroy the collaborative nature of SharePoint.

In 2010 the metadata navigation and filtering can provide records managers with the context, its centralised, has management and is navigable. So in place records can be used with this functionality to give the record manager the user experience that they are familiar with. In place records in my opinion should not be used to manage all records, but records relating to temporary records, not VITAL or PERMANENT records. Do not clutter the collaboration structures with content that will be there for long periods, but DO MANAGE it.

3)Housing your fileplan in a SharePoint records centre

I am going to provide some greater insight into the disadvantages you identified:
•We don’t (only) have to use multiple CT types in conjunction with the records centre. I can classify records in the File Plan using the standard “Document” content type with a simple content organiser rule
o Of content type “document” add a simple asterisk * in the rule to allow all other content types to be evaluated and filed in the correct File Plan hierarchy
o Create a new folder for each new term that the content organiser evaluates
o Each top level folder can have a retention period assigned through the “compliance details” and inherited by all sub folders and records added to the File plan
o Each new record within the file plan automatically inherits the retention period
•Doc Sets a hugely powerful and great for managing Case Type records e.g. Projects, Recruitment, Auditing etc….., create a syndicated document set content type that is shared through the enterprise content hub and easily available to other site collection , yet centrally maintained.

I won’t add more configuration options, if people want to know more please drop me an email and I will answer any specific questions……

4) Installing your fileplan as a taxonomy in the Managed Metadata service
The implementation of the File plan as a managed metadata service is to aid classification at the point of capture and where possible I recommend the use of auto classification via folder, library or content type metadata. There are various techniques we can use in SharePoint to ensure classification occurs at the point of creation , the good thing about this is we don’t need to get a user involved….and we have the tools to provide a lot of automation in this regard.
When documents are classified at creation, and turned into a record then this classification metadata assists in ensuring the record is classified correctly in the File Plan. A reduced burned on users who do not have to add classification metadata and get it wrong.

Conclusion
I feel that looking at anything with a skeptical eye, only clouds one’s ability to see beyond what we know and are comfortable of whilst missing the opportunity to open ourselves up to adopting and adapting to change. As records management professionals we need to constantly be looking for ways in which we can get greater buy in to what we are trying to achieve and we have the knowledge to apply this to the SharePoint environment. We just have to be willing to accept that as the users and organisation need to change so do we.

So to me many businesses don’t have a choice, as SharePoint does provide lots of benefits at relatively low cost compared to old style EDRMS. Record Management is a luxury many cannot afford. IMHO!

I was told that there wasn’t a case for it and I needed to come back with a spec. for what site I needed. The head shaped dent on my wall got a little deeper that day.

I suspect that much of the issue with sharepoint is that it’s misconfigured, but I always hear the word in the same sentence as “forced”.

From what I hear, we are looking at Sharepoint2010 for running our ‘research environment’. It’s got one huge fan, amongst the planners who is very optimistic about the improvements in the 2010 release… And writing this comment has just given me an idea… I’ll ask our local enthusiast to give me some demos to try and win me over!

Except that I realised very early on in your presentation that I was also very keen to *see* what you had done with SharePoint. It was me who tweeted on the Twitter back-channel:

“Can’t help feeling they’ve missed a huge opportunity to wow! us about SharePoint rather than show a grey sketch of an elephant. #iwmw10 #p8″
http://twitter.com/garethjms/status/18507462042

I’m aware that there can be quite an anti-Microsoft feeling with some folks — I’m not one of those, Microsoft have released some great applications that I use day-in day-out e.g. Windows 7, Outlook 2007, OneNote 2007, Visio 2007 — but maybe that’s one reason to try harder and to really wow! the audience to win them over.

I’m going to be honest, I found your presentation hard to listen for so long without supporting visuals.

You were talking about something that I have no experience of, have no idea what it looks like or is truly capable. Supporting visuals would have been a huge help for me. I’m a visual kind of guy. I need diagrams. I need mind-maps. I need to read it for myself.

I understood the significance of the elephant image but I really wanted to *see* more.

That’s what I was disappointed about, to be honest. It wasn’t about SharePoint itself — like I said, I was keen to learn, open to be wowed! I’m sorry to say that I think you missed an opportunity.

Gareth

I think this is, as you pointed out, due to ‘top down’ implementations that as web managers we are tasked to deliver. Microsoft promise that it will be the panacea to all University problems ranging from staff not collaborating to poor communication – SharePoint simply can’t do that – there will always be a ‘human factor’. If people don’t collaborate or communicate well, software won’t do anything to solve that.

However, when the projects don’t deliver what Microsoft promised in this slick presentation to the board, all hell is let loose and the web managers / project team ‘carry the can’. I would suggest its these scars that engender most of resentment in this audience.

As I said at the time, my problems are with its usability and accessibility. These are my areas of expertise and interest – otherwise I’m fairly system agnostic. As long as it does the job well and focuses the user on the content rather than the system, that’s fine with me. However, this is where I personally find SharePoint fails miserably. It isn’t intuitive to use for my developers let alone the end user (I should qualify my experience is with SharePoint 2007 and not 2010). In trying to do everything it makes tasks over complicated and bloated, which in turn makes it expensive to develop for and maintain – both in the cost of skilled developers and in the time spent working with it / supporting its editors. I often find myself saying “I could do that really easily with the cms, but I’m not sure about SharePoint” Perhaps that is just a reflection of my lack of knowledge with SharePoint, or maybe its an accurate reflection of the maturity of the dedicated CMS market.

From my team’s perspective they constantly have more work to do than they are resourced for and seem to resent the time it takes to develop for SharePoint when they know they could do it in less time and with fewer frustrations in other software.

So to conclude this essay of a comment – I think the IWMW participants are involved in these kind of technologies every day, they see good and bad in lots of software – there is no one perfect solution.

Perhaps we are just all idealists who want to provide / work with software that works well, is easy to develop for, support and maintain and most importantly isn’t referred to by an end user as ‘clunky’