AGA question

Posted by

Hi folks,

In the early stages of attempting an AGA deployment.

We have the RM schedule built out in OpenText and would like to make sure that documents that are created in SharePoint will be tagged in the same way as the content in OpenText and moved with the relative metadata when they are marked/become records.

Question is – how do I capture right metadata in SharePoint after it is marked as record? How does SharePoint know what to capture for each doc type….Bear in mind there could be several document types for each OpenText Category.

Also we want the profile archiving (not interactive) method to perform the archiving. Is this possible? If so, what are things I should keep in mind in order to have the best chance of success.

Any info is appreciated.


Hi,

It sounds like you have good control of your SharePoint taxonomies. Congratulations!!! There are a lot of different flavors of AGA. What version of OTCS do you have and what AGA components/versions you are using? How many schedules do you have in OTCS? If that is complex, I may recommend simplifying it first. Are you using Archive Server? I have done this a number of times but each client is different but I will reply as best I can. Cheers,


Thank you everyone for your responses. We are upgrading to CS16.2 and running SharePoint 2013.

From the responses and what I have gathered, having a shared taxonomy is really the beginning point and then you can configure the systems.

We have lots of OT Categories & Attributes (and maybe some more coming) that would need to be synched up with their Content Types in SharePoint so keeping them in synch will be a bit of a challenge as it sounds like we would need to map each category to a Content Type in SP.

Also we would rather use profile archiving rather than interactive which may be an issue as it seems you can only have one location to archive documents from SharePoint doc library to OpenText folder per profile. Is this an accurate statement?

Thanks again!


I wonder if you have any resources, documentation, experience (or war stories) you can share around making a business case along with requirements development for the procurement Auto-classification and metadata management tools. We are looking towards a SharePoint Online/365 implementation but would like develop a cross-repository approach to information classification and governance as we go.

Ngā Mihi
Stephen

—————————–———————
Ministry of Education New Zealand
—————————–——————–


Auto-Classification… Yikes!

——————————
Ministry of Education
——————————


Hi Stephen, you may find some joy close to home at Ministry of Justice, Inland Revenue, and Department of Conservation, who have all implemented autoclassification, or are in the process of doing so. Happy to provide some contacts if that helps.

regards
Joanne

—————————–—-
Archives New Zealand
—————————–—–

Hello,
We have successfully implemented the AutoClassification capabilities from OpenText, to the tune of millions of emails/month with >90% accuracy in a number of larger implementations. As you imply, the cost is immense, remember also that maintenance is important, over time you will need to re-exemplar content to keep your accuracy in an acceptable range.
If you are to that scale, I think you will find SharePoint lacking in capability to do much. I would recommend validation, rules, and inheritance to control information. I would also recommend using those rules to force as little human error as possible and “automatically” move, control, tag, or otherwise permission your workspace. Hope that helps!

Cheers,

—————————–—-
IQ Business Group, Inc.
—————————–—


Thanks Rick
No, we haven’t started a build (though a POC might not be too far away) – requirements first. This area is one for which we don’t have specific history or experience. For scale we are an organisaton of 3500 pax and will likely need to scale a solution to ~100 to 200k documents per month + emails.

—————————–—-
Ministry of Education
—————————–—-


Hi Kevin. I run the Product Marketing team for OpenText Content Suite/xECM. AGA isn’t in my portfolio, so when I saw your post here I checked in with the PM for some guidance. The advice: “Define the metadata structure for SP documents with SharePoint Content Types. Those Content Types can then be mapped to CS Cats&Atts. Metadata of SharePoint documents is transferred to CS based on that mapping. In addition, RM classifications can be applied to the archived document based on the Content Typeof the original SharePoint document.”

Hope that’s helpful, and if you have other questions about how to approach the configuration, the OpenText Customer Support would be happy to help. Contact info: https://www.opentext.com/support/contact/opentext

—————————–—-
OpenText UK EU Prime
—————————–—–


Some things to be thinking about with a “dual existence” strategy between OT and SharePoint:

  • The AGA mapping is not automated or self-sustaining. As Content Types and sites and libraries/lists are created in SharePoint, the mapping must be maintained in AGA.

  • If using SharePoint as the primary search platform, search results can occasionally get a bit wonky depending on which “archiving” configuration is chosen for AGA

  • You need to plan and budget for considerably more time, effort, and repetition for user training and ongoing governance including audits to ensure content is being managed as desired between the environments (the “what to use when” issue)

  • OT has vast depth of capability, but there are quite a few overlaps with SharePoint/Office 365 functionalities. It is challenging to keep a ‘clean’ environment.

  • You can map 1 or many SP Content Types to OT’s Cats&Atts (that slang term had gone out of memory until Alison resurrected it for me…thanks Alison!)

  • The security model in OT is dramatically more capable than SP, but AGA imposes some constraints on that in order for the interactivity to function properly


Stephen………First establish a working taxonomy to identify exactly what you at looking for (i.e., Records). Then you will need to obtain one of the many Machine Learning tools out there (some mentioned below). I have used Concept Search (presented at last AIIM conference) which will crawl a SharePoint environment. Training the tool is a slow process but over time becomes very effective.

—————
Raytheon
—————


Yes, thanks. I’m trying to stay blind (or at least partially sighted) to specific solutions in favour of developing a proper set of Business requirements first. Budget holders are not unsympathetic but none-the-less all eyes will inevitably be on the savings in licensing and support inherent in an O365/SP Online deployment so the case for a good slice of that pie has to be made.

——————————
Ministry of Education
——————————


Hi,
We have purchased and been piloting auto classification capabilities with our EDRMS. I would recommend exploring potential use cases within your organisation to scope and detail the business case (migrations, existing business processes, reclassifying existing content etc). Our business case was based on a migration and relying on analysis and manual classification etc was not be feasible. Well established information architecture and business classification scheme is essential. Auto classification solutions usually require training against your business classifications to generate terms with weighting from indexed content. Our lessons learnt from a business case perspective are to educate stakeholders and set expectations low, auto classification for projects vs business processes is different and it’s really a continuous improvement process once established.

—————————–————————————————
Information Governance Team Leader City of Sydney
—————————–———————————————–

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.