If you want to manage your organization’s documents and records successfully – from cradle to grave – I would encourage you consider implementing an enterprise Information Lifecycle Model. Of all the philosophies and theories about information management I’ve heard, ILM is by far the one that seems the most logical and, based on my experience, the most effective. And this is particularly true with SharePoint deployments.

If ILM is new to you, let me try to explain the concept without getting too bogged down in the details. Essentially, an ILM is a succession of conditions through which information is processed, from creation (or receipt) to final disposition. These conditions are called ‘states’. When a document moves from one state to another, one or more processes occur depending on the particular needs of the organization.
Each organization must determine what different states its information passes through, but a typical lifecycle may look like this:
Temporary > Draft > Final
In this example, when a user opens a document, it would be considered ‘Temporary’. Over time, the user would make several modifications or, possibly, several users would work collaboratively on the document. Eventually, the document would move from Temporary to a ‘Draft’ state. (In SharePoint this would likely be done by changing the value of one of the columns in the document’s content type.)
Changing the state to draft would fire off a couple of processes depending on the organization’s requirements. One of those processes could be routing the document to someone for approval as well as sending the approver an email notice that informs him that he has an approval task to process.
Once the approver OK’s the draft, the document owner can move the state to ‘Final’. This new state would also cause processes to kick off. For instance, the document could be published to a portal or emailed to a partner. And the organization may have a requirement to declare the final document a record, so a process would fire that automatically sends a copy to the Records Center. The point to keep in mind here is that all of these processes were initiated in a way that was completely transparent to the information worker who created the document, so we have the potential to significantly lower the burden on the end user, but still consistently enforce the organization’s policies and standards.
October 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I need to create an information management policy for content posted on our company SharePoint site and was wondering if you had an example of a policy?
October 27, 2009 at 12:47 am
Hi Mark,
I wrote a pretty long post on IMP’s awhile back. You can find it here:
http://sharepointrm.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/creating-information-management-policies/.
Let me know if this isn’t what you are looking for.
Don
October 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Don,
Thanks for the reply.
I am familiar with creating the policy in SharePoint. What I’m looking for is an example of the verbiage that would go into a written policy. I need to write a document/policy that will establish the rules for my company. Did that make sense?
Thanks,
Mark.
November 4, 2009 at 7:47 pm
OK, Mark, I get it now. I don’t have any written policy that I can share with you, but I can tell you that any policies I’ve seen written for SharePoint RM aren’t any different than policies written for any other solution.
There are a ton of generic poolicies floating around out there on the Internet. Also a good source of that kind of thing is the Records Management ListServ. Ever seen it? It’s a pretty good source for records management advice. You can find it here:
http://lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RECMGMT-L
Don
December 22, 2009 at 5:54 am
I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the Records Continuum?
http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/australia/index.html
Not many recordkeepers subscribe to the lifecycle theory anymore. Its a bit outdated.
December 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Hi Meela,
This is interesting. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I have not heard of the Records Continuum, but it looks like a compelling theory. I will definitely be looking into it soon.
Do you know of any deployments where the Records Continuum theory is implemented up here in North America? I’d be interested to know what type of success they’re having.
Regards,
Don
December 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Sorry Don, I’m based in NSW, Australia. Our records management is fairly advanced (we wrote the international standard, FYI).
The Records Continuum is more a way of expanding your thinking about records and archives. Instead of a defined linear progression between “draft” and “destroyed”, we actually expand the concept of how records are used and by whom. In fact, records can be personally or globally useful.
Its fairly natural when you actually work with records. You realise that there are more pathways for information use (and therefore management) than just draft-final-archive-delete. The continuum also helps us to realise that there are more dimensions to an archive than what is generally imparted when many IT bods use the term. An archive isn’t a dusty dumping ground that gets deleted after 2 years.
Archving is a process that is performed on only some records which have continuing, but not immediate, value.
I’m not entirely convinced that an application like Sharepoint can actually deliver records management. From my experience, it simply can’t. I’m keen to see this “sharepoint as a records management tool” dialogue develop, though. Its quite interesting.
Cheers
Meela
December 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Meela,
Thanks for the follow-up.
Since this is a SharePoint Records Management blog, I’m interested to know why you believe SharePoint can’t deliver records management. I hear this said often, but it is seldom followed with an explanation. What, specifically, do you think prevents SharePoint from being a useful records management application? A number of the SharePoint ECM Development team follow this blog and I’m sure they would appreciate understanding you concerns.
Thanks,
Don