Records Mgmt & Archiving

Kommentar s. Link

Nachricht aus dem Project Consult Newsletter 20091203:

Auf der SharePoint 2009 Konferenz in Las Vegas hat Microsoft Details zur neuen Sharepoint Version 2010 bekanntgegeben. Im Umfeld von ECM sind besonders Records Management-Funktionalitäten, wie Klassifizierung, Einhaltung der Aufbewahrungsregeln als auch Zugriffsrechte interessant.

"Wesentlich ist der Ansatz, die Informationsobjekte dort zu belassen, wo sie lagern, und nicht in Sharepoint-Repositories zu migieren. Dies bezeichnet man als “In-Place-Management”. Schwerpunkt ist die zentrale Kontrolle der Records, nicht deren Speicherung."
(U. Kampffmeyer)

Es ist richtig Sharepoint nicht als ECM Strategie zu definieren, sondern entweder als Frontend zu robusten repositories oder als reines Collaboration tool.

s. auch: ECM erwacht aus dem Schlaf - dank Sharepoint?
JH

Was wir hier schon immer gesagt haben, wird bestätigt:

Die AIIM rät Anwendern, nicht der IT das Feld zu überlassen und der Versuchung zu widerstehen, SharePoint wie jede andere Microsoft-Software einfach von der CD zu installieren und die Standardeinstellung unreflektiert zu übernehmen. Vielmehr ist ein Governance-Modell nötig, das eindeutig regelt, wie SharePoint-Lösungen entwickelt und genutzt werden dürfen. Grundsätzlich sind dabei die Dimensionen "People" (Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten), "Policies" (Richtlinien) und "Processes" (Leitfaden, wie zum Beispiel der Aufbau einer Site oder die Anpassung von Vorlagen (Themes) zu erfolgen hat) zu beachten.

s. Computerwoche

Mit Sharepoint hat Enterprise Content Management (ECM) neuen Schwung bekommen. Denn Microsofts Lösung bietet eine einfache und schnelle Möglichkeit, in das Thema einzusteigen. Doch so entstehen auch neue Content-Silos, die durch die firmenweite Inhalteverwaltung eigentlich Vergangenheit sein sollten.

s. Artikel in der Computer-Zeitung

Ich würde allerdings die Feststellung relativieren, dass es "einfach" sei eine Sharepoint Instanz zu installieren.

Last issue of Infonomics contains come interesting stuff for DM/RM Managers using SharePoint

Taming SharePoint

Quick Guide to SharePoint Governance

The trend is ... toward using SharePoint as a front-end application and using other ECM platforms such as Open Text, Documentum, or IBM’s FileNet, as a back-end repository.

jh

Very useful list of questions and open issues around SharePoint in Document & Records Mgmt on tfpl blog

Go to posting

from
James Lappin
Senior Associate consultant

White Paper von ZyImage kommt zum Schluss:

Nutzt man darüber hinaus SharePoint „Out-of-the-Box“, bietet die Software keine Konformität mit Regulierungen wie FDA, FAA, DoD 5015.2, Moreq-2 oder HIPPAA. Dies stellt für viele Unternehmen, die SharePoint einsetzen wollen, ein Problem dar.

see Link deutsch

Français

J. Mancini made some interesting observations about how MOSS has developed.
It seems that the perception of the elephant has changed.
Now the predominant approach is acknowledgment, coexistence and leverage of SharePoint.

go to Blog

deutsche Rezeption von Hanns Köhler-Krüner

see also

Despite of the undeniable run for Sharepoint the future sprawl is also part of the problem.
interesting article in:

Information Week

SP for the front-end yes, but underneath other ECM vendors should be preferred; they offer more capabilities as IWR says.

see IWR Blog:
http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/09/sharepoint-pros.html

and from another UK blog: tfpl

Some quirks ...

If you want to introduce a records management fileplan / business classification scheme into SharePoint you need to decide for each heading of your fileplan whether to set the heading up as a site, or as a document library within a site, or a folder within a document library.

Here are the quirks that Marc identified:

* Folders within document libraries don't have as much power as any of the other entities in the hierarchy: they were put in as an afterthought by Microsoft who had thought they wouldn't need them.

* There is no support for hierarchical pick lists/taxonomy: you can only present the user with flat lists.

* The metadata columns you define for documents do not link in with the advanced search facility. You can define a 'subject' field for documents, and you can provide a pick list to act as a controlled vocabulary for that field. But (out of the box) you can't present that same pick list to a searcher, even though there is an advanced search facility which shows the 'subject' field.

* Site-Collections work in a counter-intuitive way. Every site must be nested within a site-collection. But site-collections are invisible to users, who can only spot their existence through the url adress of the particular site or resource that they are looking at.

* Site-Collections function like boundaries within the system. When you set up a content type, or a web part, or define metadata columns, these types, parts and columns only work within the boundaries of a site collection. If you want them to apply across the whole system you have to set them up afresh for each site collection. This would naturally push you towards having as few site collections as possible, but the catch is that there is a limit on the capacity of each site collection. Site Collections should not exceed 100Gb (the reasons why are explained here).

* Document libraries normally inherit access permissions/restrictions from the next level up in the hierarchy (the site). But access permissions can also be set by content types which cut across different areas of the hierarchy. This leaves open the possibility of access permissions inherited from a site conflicting with access permission assigned from a content type. Out of the box MOSS 2007 does not have any way of managing this conflict, and where the conflict occurs access permissions are broken for that area of the hierarchy.

James Lappin

http://tfpl.typepad.com/tfpl/sharepoint/index.html

interesting post on Bill Gates' keynote at last week's SharePoint conference

see:
http://aiim.typepad.com/aiim_blog/2008/03/sharepoint-and.html