5. Cost of SharePoint vs. Enterprise
ECM/ERM Competitors
• SharePoint is often already owned for other
purposes
• Cost of eDiscovery can be lower for covered
content
• Cost of required add-ons is usually either
comparable or less than that for similar
components of competitor suites.
6. 2009 Price Comparison
EMC/
Documentum
OpenText Alfresco SharePoint
100 Users $129,078 $196,794 $18,500 $24,669
1000 Users $863,937 $637,304 $46,250 $318,738
• 2009 figures from a comparison done by Alfresco
• These are first year costs with maintenance/software
assurance
• Compares cost for “Document Management, Collaboration
and Web Content Management”
• No ERM features included in EMC, OpenText or Alfresco
quotes
• No Office integration included in any of the other quotes.
• By the way: Do you already own SharePoint?
7. Example third party licensing costs
eDocs DM vs. SharePoint DM with MacroView - Cost Comparison
Products Licensing Cost Annually/1
Time
Cost Now Yearly cost
eDocs DM Licensing Costs
eDocs DM standard user licenses ($813.15/user) x 30 $23,394.50 one time $23,394.50
eDocs DM extensions for SharePoint ($173.75/user) x 100 $17,375 one time $17,375.00
eDocs DM standard user
maintenance
($162.63/user) x 30 $4,878.90 annually $4,878.90
eDocs DM extensions for
SharePoint-maintenance
($34.75/user) x 100* $3,475 annually $3,475.00
Total $48,123.40 $8,353.90
SharePoint DM Licensing Costs
MacroView DMF – Software
Assurance licensing
3 server farms and
30 users
$8,670 one time $8,670
Software Assurance $1,416 annually $1,734 $1,734
Total $10,404 $1,734
*eDocs DM extension for SharePoint required by all users who view documents through eDocs on SharePoint (currently 100 user licenses). MacroView DMF
client required for all users who actively profile documents, but documents are accessible for other users in SharePoint directly without additional charge.
8. “But other ECM providers offer
everything in one package”
This is not accurate. Here’s why:
• Most vendors offering a “complete solution” built it by
acquiring makers of enhancements to their product.
Often these acquisitions haven’t been fully absorbed—
with separate code bases, revision cycles and support
organizations.
• In most cases, additional functionality such as ERM
features are priced in addition to the core product.
• All the vendors provide SharePoint add-ins—so if you are
using SharePoint at all for documents, you can’t avoid
integration.
9. SharePoint’s integration advantage
• Best built-in integration with the rest of the
Microsoft product line.
–Office (Word/Excel/PowerPoint)
–Outlook
–Microsoft Exchange
–Microsoft CRM
–SQL Reporting Services/Analysis Services
• SharePoint is so ubiquitous that most other
enterprise server applications support
integration with it.
11. ECM, ERM and eDiscovery in
SharePoint: A Brief History
• SharePoint 2007
–Check-out/versions
–Basic Records Center (silo)
12. • SharePoint 2010 ECM Features
–Managed Metadata (enterprise-wide controlled
vocabulary)
–Content type syndication (enterprise-wide document
types and policies)
–Column default values
–Document Set content types
–Increased scale
• Very large libraries and lists (up to 10,000,000 items)
ECM, ERM and eDiscovery in
SharePoint: A Brief History
13. ECM, ERM and eDiscovery in
SharePoint: A Brief History
• More on SharePoint 2010 ERM
–Unique document IDs
–Multi-stage disposition
–In-place holds and records, BUT with limitations
14. • Search
–Continuous crawl
–Entity extraction
• User interface improvements
–Drag and drop filing
–Bulk editing
• Shredded Storage (i.e. only version deltas are
stored)
SharePoint 2013 ECM
Improvements
15. SharePoint 2013 ERM Features
• Declaring records
• Retention policies
• Content organizer
• Legal holds
16. Retention Policies
• Based on multiple factors
–Content type
–Library
–Folder (Important for robust file plans)
18. Declaring Records
• SharePoint potentially lets anyone declare a
record
• Records can be declared
• Manually
• By policy
• By custom workflow
• In-Place
• Send to a Records Center
• Move, copy or leave a link
19. Content Organizer
• AKA: File Plan
–Rules to file document in libraries and by
folders matching metadata values
• Requires matching content types
–value of content type syndication
• Folders can have retention policies set
automatically with some PowerShell or
event receivers.
23. What SharePoint 2013
Brings to eDiscovery
• eDiscovery Center
–Search to hold and refine
–eDiscovery export
• Content can be changed while held
• Exchange and Lync included
• File servers too*
27. Challenges and Pitfalls of using
SharePoint for ECM/ERM
• SharePoint technical limits
• ERM-specific limitations
28. SharePoint 2013 Technical Limits:
The List View Threshold
List Views and Folders Limited to 5000 items
• Issue Details:
– Biggest issue from RM perspective: misleading/missing results
– Not corrected by paging the results.
– Affects most list views—even if the columns are indexed.
• How to address it:
– Use the Metadata Navigation feature.
– Train users to understand the issue.
– Develop Search-based approaches.
29. SharePoint 2013 Technical Limits
File Size Limit
Cannot upload files larger than 2GB
• Issue Details:
– Primarily a SQL limitation
– No web-based system could handle this size without a lot of tweaking.
– Note: Remote Blob Storage doesn’t fix this.
• How to address it:
– Compress files.
– Store larger files elsewhere with links.
– Realize how rare a file larger than 2GB really is.
30. Records management limitations
• No intuitive file plan builder
• No built-in event-driven disposition
• Lacking built-in physical records management
features
• Not DOD 5015.02 ERM certified.
31. SharePoint-native approach to
overcome file plan limitations
• Create a complex file plan by customizing the
content organizer feature.
1. Design a file plan and represent it in SharePoint with Records
Centers, content types, and content organizer rules that create
folders based on metadata. (“Out of the Box” functionality)
• Business-based content types may not match your archival
requirements
2. Create additional rules within these content types by adding a
“Record Type” column and creating separate rules for each.
3. Add event receivers to:
• Define additional metadata automatically in the records center folders
(Location-Based Metadata).
• Define folder-level information management policies
32. Third party options
• Gimmal (http://www.gimmal.com)
• RSD (http://www.rsd.com)
• Collabware (http://www.collabware.com)
34. Why do records management
projects fail?
• Lack of alignment with business goals and
business model … make it “frictionless”
• Failure to integrate with business
processes and IT systems
• Failure to answer the user’s question:
“What’s in it for me?”
35. The solution
• Make your System of Record a System of
Engagement
–Don’t create a records silo; integrate it with day
to day processes.
–Define document types that make sense for
users, not just records managers.
“It is simply not realistic to expect broad sets of employees to
navigate extensive classification options while referring to a
records schedule that may weigh in at more than 100 pages.”
Forrester Research/ARMA International Survey
36. • Knowledge Management
Solution for a Major US
Accounting Firm
• Extranet Document Repository
for a Large US Accounting Firm
• Enterprise Taxonomy and
Search Design at a Global
Manufacturing Company
• Massive Records Repository for
a Financial Services Firm
C/D/H ECM Case Studies
www.cdh.com/whatwedo
37. Detroit
1500 Woodward Ave
Suite 400
Detroit, MI 48226
(248) 546-1800
Grand Rapids
15 Ionia Ave SW
Suite 270
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 776-1600
Thank You
www.cdh.com
Notes de l'éditeur
Covered Content – Content is responsive to discovery requests
Bullet 2 – focus on 3rd Party products, such as SAP APIs, etc.
Users prevented from working on a held document
Holds limited to SharePoint content
Configured by site collection
Based on content type (document type) only
Entity Extractions: provide Dictionary for a category (e.g. City) (provide a dictionary w/city names and abbreviations it will find its place entry in search index))
Content Organizer – typically called a “File Plan”
In SP this is called an “Information Management Policy”
Focus on having policies for non-records and records and multi-stage disposition (i.e. recycle after 3; review after 2)
Security Driven / Permission
Content Type Syndication required to help ensure the content type used for the file plan is available in both source and destination locations
*For export only (cannot hold it or otherwise enforce any policies … findable if indexed)
How does SP help make eDiscovery easier and less expense: The next 2 slides will demonstrate the improvements
Export format “EDRMS” - Electronic Discovery Reference Model
Point 1: Real World isn’t perfect
Point 2: You may want to consider working with someone who has some experience
Why the LVT can create misleading results: if the threshold is exceeded, SharePoint automatically trims the results to show the most recent 5000 items by Created date. But if you are sorting by Modified date descending for example, recently modified items that were created before the most recent 5000 will not appear.
Remote Blob Storage doesn’t fix this:
If you’ve heard of RBS, which is the feature of SharePoint that allows large files to be externalized from the SQL content database, you may have heard or thought that this would address either the LVT or the 2GB limit. Neither is true.
Realize how rare a 2GB file is:
Generally, this will either be compressed file image like an ISO, or it will be a database of some kind.
Lesson: Don’t store a database inside another database
Record Types are available in other Records Management Systems
By creating a “Record Type” column that aligns with archival and other RM policies we can meet Organizational Record Management Rules – this would be likely across various content types on a completely different criteria and could potentially be defaulted based on library or site, etc.