I have had some recent experience in looking at Sharepoint (WSS and SPS)
as a records management tool. Its advantages are it is relatively cheap,
is pretty intuitive to use, lends itself well to metadata and fits in
nicely with an MS desktop and does a fair imitation of a records
management tool. However it doesn't actually save records - a major
issue! You can however spend money developing its record saving
functionality and what you will get is a fundamental record repository.
You will need to focus very strongly on your training, procedures and
governance rules - I guess though you need to do this anyway with any
record system.

We have been piloting this and have had some success in getting people
to save 'records' once they are aware of what a record actually is.

The decision has not been made yet and we are still considering options.

Chris Campbell
Records Mgr
British Council



-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eldin Rammell
Sent: 09 February 2005 08:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sharepoint

A former organisation that I worked for was in regular communication
with
Microsoft as a result of its large buying power. I remember 2-3 years
ago
hearing that MS were planning on introducing "records management" into
Exchange Server. The risk that I mentioned at the time was that I
thought it
unlikely that the functionality would be "true records management" but
that
because it was bundled with Office, people would use it anyway thinking
that
they were "doing records management". As records managers we needed to
see
how we could build a proper records management infrastructure around
this
new product since it would be difficult to disuade people from using
standard MS products.

I also remember looking for Microsoft delegates, presenters or
exhibitors at
the ARMA conference and wondering why there weren't any if they were so
interested in records management!!

Regards,
Eldin.

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Norris
Sent: 08 February 2005 21:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sharepoint

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
>