Hurrah !
At last someone is making sense about Sharepoint. I totally agree with
Pauls' comments. There are better ways of wasting time and money than trying
to make Sharepoint work.
Steve Norris
Alliance Group
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Records Management mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Headey
> Sent: 08 February 2005 16:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sharepoint
>
>
> You would be amazed at the number of organisations I have
> spoken to over the
> last 3 years that start Sharepoint Projects only to find out it's
> limitations after having spent a lot of money time and
> effort, and then
> progress to procuring Document Management products with
> industrial strength
> repositories, security permissions and Records Management
> functionality,
> workflow functionality.
>
> To the ECM, Document Management and Records Management
> industry Sharepoint
> is seen as somewhat of an annoyance, as it distracts
> organisations from
> approaching this subject with the seriousness it deserves,
> because why?
> It's free if you own a Microsoft enterprise license, or it's
> very cheap to
> buy. But guess what it's not cheap to pursue this strategy
> only to duplicate
> it using more suitable technology 18 months later.
>
> Can any one vouch for SPS's scalability, security and
> permission structure
> and state how many users they have deployed it too with how
> many millions of
> documents stored in it. I'd love to hear from any one in this
> forum that has
> managed this without bolting it into something else.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Headey
> Deltascheme
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerry Dane [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 February 2005 14:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Sharepoint
>
> We've begun looking at Sharepoint here too.
>
> Question: Do any of you who are further down the Sharepoint
> path look on it
> as 1) an add-on to RM software or 2) RM software as an add-on
> to Sharepoint?
> (leave aside for a moment the 'iffiness' of any statement
> that describes RM
> as an 'add-on' to anything')
>
> Reason I ask is that I view 1 as sound (with proviso above) but 2 as
> distinctly dodgy. Example: I can find nothing in Sharepoint
> to enable the
> building of robust classification/registration functionality
> and place this
> requirement well ahead (and pre-requisite) to the document
> sharing capacity
> offered by Sharepoint.
>
> Being essentially 'free', the Sharepoint bandwagon has an awful lot of
> momentum already built in for it - 'don't look a gift horse
> in the mouth'
> etc. Thing is I can't help worrying that the 'gift horse'
> might turn into
> the proverbial 'trojan horse' if we're not careful to ensure an RM
> infrastructure is in place (and the IT to implement it) prior
> to letting it
> off the leash. (and ending up with a bigger mess than we started with)
>
> Basically, I want to say 'Stop doing this it's dangerous.
> Let's consider the
> RM requirement before we look at document sharing'.
>
> Thing is I need to say 'spend money', Sharepoint champions don't.
>
> Question: Is Sharepoint even worth having without RM controls?
>
> Gerry.
>
> Mr.G.Dane
> University of Newcastle
> Newcastle upon Tyne
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> -------------------------------------------
> The views expressed in this message are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the University.
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController -
> www.MailController.altohiway.com
>
|