Is SharePoint 2010 Really Ready for ECM?

Community Topic(s):

Keywords: capture, ECM, SharePoint, buckleyplanet, rileybeebs, SharePoint 2010

Current Rating:
(0 ratings)

Co-authored with fellow AIIM blogger and ECM expert Chris Riley (@rileybeebs)

 

This is an interesting question, and the answer really depends on who you ask. Microsoft has made great strides with SharePoint 2010 to meet the mainstream needs of Enterprise Content Management customers, adding new features like Document Sets (allowing for a document “bill of materials”) and Document IDs (allowing you to track persistence of a document). But I don’t believe companies will go out and replace massive ECM solutions with SharePoint on a feature-by-feature basis. Simply put, the leading ECM vendors have been in the space for a long time, and do some things very, very well. However, people are, in fact, moving to SharePoint because of all the other things that SharePoint can do (or, more precisely, what can be done through SharePoint) -- in addition to offering core ECM capabilities -- that make it appealing to these companies.

 

But let's give the question some background: SharePoint 2007 started getting the attention of the  ECM space, creating a lot of buzz and debate around whether or not SharePoint was an ECM platform.  At some point, industry analysts came together (as they often do) and decided on the primary things that were missing from SharePoint to prevent it from being a true ECM solution. Their analysis drew some lines, making it very clear that without records management, scalability, metadata, granular security, persistent links, auditing, and eDiscovery, SharePoint could not be considered an ECM platform.  And these "outliers" were in addition to what was already available in SharePoint 2007. Together, this group of industry experts outlined what they believed to be the ECM Fundamental features. 

 

However, due to semantic differences, they ignored the fact that much of this functionality was already there….just not in the expected way, such as scalability, and granular security.  SharePoint was much closer than thought. 

 

Enter SharePoint 2010. With Document Sets (to the ECM world, compound documents), Managed Metadata (i.e. Taxonomy and Folksonomy), strong content types/content type publishing (enhanced metadata, and retention schedules), in-place records management (in addition to records center), content audits, eDiscovery, and Document ID service, SharePoint 2010 does satisfy these ECM Fundamentals. 

 

So what are the barriers for a company considering moving to SharePoint? Are there any remaining gaps – possibly industry-specific gaps – that might dissuade a company from moving forward with SharePoint? The big question companies must face now is a justification for adopting SharePoint as an ECM platform, and the associated effort and costs with deploying another system.  There are gaps -- areas where companies need to do some additional development, or consider third party solution, such as the DoD 501 standard, or where the company has complicated business process management requirements.  Companies imposed with these standards have no choice but to go with another solution, and at most use SharePoint as a front-end into whichever repository they choose. These requirements are the strongest barrier to SharePoint adoption and replacement of established ECM systems, especially when they look at their annual maintenance costs for these systems.  At the very least, companies are looking at how they can leverage both their old ECM system and SharePoint.

 

The other advantage to SharePoint, of course, is that is has very broad and powerful capabilities outside of the standard ECM toolset – something which competitive solutions do not offer. For example, it offers a powerful (and relatively inexpensive) business intelligence platform, using features like PowerPivot and Excel Services, combined with SQL Reporting Services, to put BI in the hands of every team, but using an interface (Excel) that everyone is familiar with. These features allow teams and business units, when combined with the ECM capability, to build out rich corporate environments with workflow automation, dashboards and reporting. Teams do not need to build out and maintain separate platforms for each of these functions.

 

With the exception of some unique compliance considerations, SharePoint is ready for ECM.  But like all ECM platforms, planning is required to make the transition successful.  With SharePoint, the first step is setting up the platform in such a way that it can scale and perform, followed by planning for the ECM-specific features and structure.  This planning will be more or less consistent with all ECM systems metadata, security, governance, and so forth.  The goal is to create a blue print that allows for a quick and effective deployment. 

Report

Rate Post

You need to log in to rate blog posts. Click here to login.

Add a Comment

You need to log in to post messages. Click here to login.

Comments

Chris Riley, ECMp, IOAp

Great Post

This question comes up so often. There is apprehension about using SharePoint as ECM. In terms of features we are there, the only challenge now is getting some case studies under the belt.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

Daniel O'Leary

SharePoint is an ECM thanks to $6 billion + in consulting and services

The hard part about SharePoint is that people think ECM is now free. Some of the things you describe Christian like SQL reports, BI, analytics- none of those can be setup by an end user.

I think selling it as an ECM tool is like selling someone a free puppy. Sure like SharePoint, the puppy is free, but it has vet bills, needs food, and you have to walk it 6 times a day. Once day it will grow into a real dog, but not without a ton of time and money invested in it.

As the Real Story Group pointed out earlier this year, nearly $8 billion will spent in 2011 on SharePoint services, much of it trying to make it a real ECM. http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2081-The-high-cost-of-Microsoft-SharePoint
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Chris Riley, ECMp, IOAp

No doubt

Daniel yes. There is effort required first to get the platform up and running then get it up and running for ECM. But isn't this true for ALL ECM products? They all require the same amount of effort. I agree that certain marketing negates this, and that perhaps the SharePoint world does not yet understand the ECM concepts. But the effort for SharePoint is essentially the same for all ECM solutions in my experience.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Daniel O'Leary

Depends on the system

Sure, if you compare SharePoint to OnBase or EMC, you expect a ton of time and effort. But really, the paradigm has shifted with the likes of Box.net who allows people to setup an end to end system in less time than it takes to setup the server roles for a typical SP rollout, nevermind configuration and rollout.

That would make a fun challenge actually.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Christian Buckley

yes, but

That may be true, but then you've locked yourself into a very limited platform. Again, it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish today and what you know you'll need in the future. You need to weigh your future needs, or else you'll end up spending more time and money to rebuild and re-train when you have to move to something else - or add another platform - to accomplish all of what you can do within SharePoint.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

Martin Tuip

Not ready unless

I'm not convinced SharePoint is ready unless you spend a small fortune on 3rd party add-ons to fix what should have been in the base core product.

Its search engine is seriously lacking/slacking with the requirement to install ifilters for even the most basic content types like PDF (unless you add FAST = $$$).

Storage .. no dedupe and its requirement to rely on SQL for all content means you should, if content gets any reasonable size, use the RBS functionality to keep storage growth under control = $$$

eDiscovery ... not existing in the product = $$$

I love SharePoint .. ever since I first started to work with it back in 2000 ... but it isn't the cats meow all the time, sorry.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Chris Riley, ECMp, IOAp

Sounds like you dont know 2010

Sounds like you have only used 2007 or sooner. The search is dramatically improved, and installing an iFilter takes mins. FAST you still have to make sure the iFilter is installed.

2010 document ID service solves problem of duplicates. If you configure SharePoint without planning or best practices you get the problems you describe, as you would with any system.

eDiscovery DOES exist. It's a feature.

Bottom line please investigate SharePoint 2010 as you are presenting fallacies here. No system will ever be everything or the "cats meow" all the time.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Rob D'Oria

Of course it's ready...has been for years

The service numbers around implementing SharePoint are completely bogus in my mind...I've been involved in dozens of large-scale SharePoint ECM implementations and nobody spent anywhere near that much on services...unfortunately. :) That being said, a customer should absolutely expect to spend that much on implementing FileNet, Documentum, and the like...and in the end it won't be deployed anywhere near enterprise-wide...license costs and/or user adoption will make sure of that.

And as far as expensive add-ons goes, I think that kind of statement assumes that traditional ECM platforms don't require add-ons too. Look at what a K2.net costs per server/user versus a Pega or Lombardi (...or other tranditional ECM BPM suites). How about a KnowledgeLake versus a Kofax or Captiva or DataCap (...traditional ECM capture vendors). Across the board, the SharePoint counterparts of traditional ECM platform add-ons are consistently orders or magnitude less expensive, yet just as functional...just like SharePoint.

Here was my perspective on this topic over a year ago when 2010 RTM'd:

http://blog.storagepoint.com/post/2010/05/14/Traditional-ECM-Vendors-Just-Added-to-the-Endangered-Species-List.aspx
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

Richard Higgs

Fundamentals still missing

Yes, SharePoint may tick the analysts' boxes in capability stacks (Document Management, RM, collaboration etc.), but there is more to ECM than that.
If you are an institution of less than, say, 100 employees, with end-to-end SharePoint ECM, then fine, it can be made to work. Add legacy systems, more users, content-centric strategy, and SharePoint still doesn't cut it.
Yes, it delivers to a lesser or greater extent the individual capabilities like WCM and DM, but it does not support the fundamental core principles of ECM:
1) Separation of content from format, and content from metadata storage, to allow for re-purposing and component-based cross-channel publishing of content;
2) The store-once principle (it ignores the fact that one piece of content may simultaneously be an electronic doc, printed matter, web content, a download, a fragment in another document, and a business record)
3) Enterprise metadata management: SP does not support or integrate with external metadata dictionaries, data visualisation, thesauri, true taxonomy facets, contextual controlled vocabularies etc. The long-awaited Term Store falls way short of real metadata management (and seems to assume that the only metadata you will ever use will be in SharePoint).
4) Although this is not a core ECM principle, SharePoint does not support an integrated physical and electronic records registry (i.e.: shared identifiers for physical and electronic versions of the same record, or any physical registry at all).

SharePoint is really good as groupware, and can support some other requirements adequately and in isolation of each other, but it is still far from "Enterprise" scope, still has a limited approach to "Content".

My biggest gripe is still that it is being actively sold and implemented as a shortcut to ECM, somehow circumventing the need for the planning, discipline, analysis, financial input, resources and documentation that would be required for any information management implementation. The "implement now, govern later" model for SP has unfortunately become entrenched, and irreparably coloured CIO expectations.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

David Bailey

Another SharePoint plug

Give me a break, Christian.
I am a Microsoft shareholder and I wish them continued success, but what's with the free marketing.
How about discussing the consulting and ongoing development costs associated with SharePoint. Just the consulting time alone can cost more than a resonably priced complete ECM package, developed with years of experience in the ECM space.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply
Christian Buckley

i'm not disagreeing

That can be said for every tool/platform out there. I never said it was a perfect system, and Microsoft has a way to go to convince most ECM customers. But my point stands: buy an ECM-only platform, and you might get what you need for the category, but you limit your other options. Buy SharePoint, and you get most of what you need in ECM, plus a host of other features and capabilities the others cannot provide. You need to make some business decisions around what your organization really needs, in the long-term. My guess is that ECM is just a small slice of it.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

Michele Meador

What they don't tell you ...

Sure, SharePoint appears to have many of the core features of an ECM, but everyone knows that looks are deceiving. What Microsoft doesn't tell you about are the performance declines once you build out all the extra bells and whistles to get it to run like an ECM. Not to mention the fact their search leaves a bit to be desired and that in itself is a project all its own to integrate one that is up to par with end user expectations, while meeting high performance standards.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

Mark Mandel

Very interesting feedback!

Having been an end user who also is an industry veteran, I look at this from another viewpoint.

I have attended SP user conferences as a speaker, and the most profound thing I discovered listening to a number of end users expounding on the virtues of SharePoint is that most of them are doing projects on shoestring budgets. They have NO money, so doing Sharepoint is the easiest answer to getting lots of functionality without have to get a large budget approved.

This was my experience as well as an end user. I needed "basic content services", a portal, a collaboration tool, and a team site.

SharePoint fit the bill - it was free since we already owned it. I was able to design and deploy the site myself, with almost no IT support. In several weeks I had a fully functional production site with several hundred users.

For this type of project SP was perfect. There were several things it did not do that I wanted but since I had no money I could not pay for the consulting services to add these features. However I had a production system that would have cost a considerable sum had I gone the traditional RFP route.

I do not consider SP to be a viable records management system, imaging system, or COLD system, all components of a traditional ECM solution. You can do all of these with SP but the custom work and integration will wind up costing more than if you purchased a traditional ECM solution. The kicker is that SharePoint changes rather drastically every few years, so that custom work you do will often no longer work with the new version.

Look at the track record for SP Records Management. None in the first version, DoD 5015.2 certified RM in the second version, more features but no 5015.2 in the third version so now you have to go to third parties to get this. Plus scalability and performance issues that you have to resolve with third party components that will likely not be around in 3 to 4 years.

So - from the end user view - using SP for low cost high functionality solutions, using out of the box features - is the cheapest and most dependable approach. For this it is great and I highly recommend it.

For true ECM, I say get a real purpose designed ECM solution with a connector to SP - that's the best of both worlds.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

This post and comment(s) reflect the personal perspectives of community members, and not necessarily those of their employers or of AIIM International