Hello, In our organization we implemented the EDRMS using SharePoint 2010. We have only implemented the DM part working to set up the Record Centre. One of our discussion points is the number of versions that we should allow in the In Progress libraries and also the number and types of versions that we should transfer to the Record Centre.
Our recent analysis showed that 98% of the documents uploaded have a maximum of 10 versions, but we do have some documents that have a high number of versions (50-1350). We identified these documents as being logs or tracking sheets and decided that moving forward we will use lists for these types of documents.
If you are using SharePoint 2010 and have the Record Centre set up, I would appreciate it if you can share your experience with me. We are trying to benchmark the industry best practices, in regards to the following:
-Number of versions that you are allowing into the In Progress libraries – did you set up a certain limit (minor, major)?
-Are you transferring to the Record Centre all versions (minor /major)?
Thank you very much,
Hi Daniela, you’ll want to run a test once you’ve got your Record Center configured. The Record Center is it’s own site collection in SharePoint. As such, when you “move” a document from your host site collection to the RC, you’re effectively doing a copy to the RC rather than a move. The result is, the latest version of the document is sent to the RC, but not the versions. If you were to move that object within the same site collection, the versions should be maintained. I’m also assuming you’re using standard Send-To functionality to for the move.
You may want to implement a hybrid solution where some types of records are managed “in-place” while others are off to the RC. Note, that may also change your search strategy as you may want to exclude some libraries from your standard search scopes/result sets.
KeenIM LLC Denver,
I don’t think I “replied all” in my prior response, but I’d additionally echo a key technical point from my response to Daniella in case it benefits anyone researching the topic:
In 2010, if you have 10 versions of a document that’s the equivalent of storing 10 documents, even if all ten of those documents versions don’t much differ than by a letter.
With shredded storage in 2013, version storage is much more efficient, so that the (“delta”) differences between versions are stored rather than necessarily the complete document x 10. So it is going to have a less of an impact on storage costs to maintain more versions of items in 2013.
NTT Data, Inc
I’m interested in your suggestion about a hybrid in-place/RC solution. We currently have a Documentum instance with that scenario and it causes considerable confusion for the end users. If a user is assured that the appropriate version of a document has been declared and ‘copied’ to the RC, doesn’t that clarify their understanding and access?
Can you tell me if there a blatant indicator of record status in SharePoint so that users can determine if a document has been declared?
Lean On Me Business Consulting Inc.
Hi Barb, there are a number of things we typically consider on the records side as to whether something is in-place or in the RC. We tend to consider the search design as well as the records design at the same time. In SharePoint (more so in 2013), the ability to define searches plays a key role. For example, if you consider search results, do you really want general users to find superseded policies or just the current policy?
A good way to start is to look at event-based records. In some cases, those records are no longer active/needed on a routine basis. You may or may not want those to show up in search results. Is it meaningful to the average user doing a search? Is it detrimental to the search result?
A for records, declaring the record in SharePoint does distinguish it as an official record via the icon (assuming the settings do that). The question is, what do you want the users to see?
We typically exclude the RC from general search result sets. That’s not to say they’re not searchable, but we do want to make sure that when someone is searching for a policy, procedure, benefit plan, etc., they’re not having to sort the inactive records to get confused by which document is “THE” document.
In your case, it sounds like you have records in both Documentum and SharePoint. In that case, the planning around governance and search is all the more important.
I’m not sure if I answered your question or not. The general concept is to review each type of record with the departments and determine if the records need to remain “active” in that they should be findable by the average user. In some cases, it’s preferred to keep the record in place. In others, for example those that are superseded, it’s better to move inactive records to a location where they are retained, but not generally available to confuse users. As a side note, sometimes, that takes a bit of programming.
Thanks very much for your insight. Your comments have convinced me that I still have a considerable amount of research to do to understand this new record repository as you have touched on a couple of concepts I had not yet considered. Much appreciated!
Lean On Me Business Consulting Inc.
Thank you very much for your reply Michael. A hybrid solution will be one of the options that we will present to our Information Management Working Group for discussion.
As SharePoint does not allow (out of the box) to move anything other than the latest version of an object to the Records Center site, you really don’t have much choice there unless you look at 3rd party or do customizations.
As far as how many versions for content that hasn’t met your defined criteria for a ‘record’ yet, I would suggest that is wholly up to the business user community that is authoring/consuming that content. With a caveat ;). The caveat being the cost of storage which is a discussion with your IT group.