With so many of our clients using Microsoft SharePoint as a collaboration platform, and most declaring that their current implementation a complete mess in terms of organization and structure, what’s the best way to balance user adoption with record-keeping requirements?
On the one hand, we want users to dive in and begin using collaboration platforms like SharePoint. So we don’t want to impose too many “rules” or adopt a heavy approach to governance. With employee adoption rates up in the 70 percent range, from a collaborative standpoint, the system is a success.
On the other hand, allowing users to dump content into SharePoint without some degree of consistent structure, including the notion of record versus non-record, only means that we are setting ourselves up to replicate the mess we have on network drives and email.
What is the right balance? While talking to a client this week (hopefully you read this!), my opinion is that clients should prioritize user adoption and try to impose just a moderate degree of structure. And then over the years and as new sites are created and content added, raise the bar slowly regarding structure. I’m sure some of my friends that are steeped in the records discipline are choking while reading this, but to them, I offer this: Something is better than nothing.
Let me define “nothing”. “Nothing” means zip, nada, none – no content under any form of records management. Which is typical for collaborative content. So, if we can achieve even the most basic classification scheme, such as “all content inherits one of eight different content types (two of which are considered records and retained for 10 years, the rest is flagged to be disposed in 3 years),” what a home run! Now, it’s not perfect, and it certainly doesn’t facilitate wholesale conformance to the current corporate records schedule with its 100-plus record types, but it’s better than nothing.