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.