An article from the e-Disclosure Information Project titled "SharePoint 2010 is the next dumping ground for lawyers to understand" caught my attention this week.  While the article was about a product to help organizations deal with e-discovery specifically for content stored in SharePoint, I was drawn to the notion of governance for managing information is still an afterthought in many technology implementations.

The author, Chris Dale, pointed to an article on the Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Website titled "Planning for E-discovery" which said the following: "Electronic discovery, or eDiscovery, is locating and producing electronic information to support events such as litigation, audits, or investigations. If you use Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010 to manage any electronic information, you should consider eDiscovery when you plan your SharePoint Server solution. Auditing, expiration policies, and search are considerations that you should evaluate. Your planning decisions in these areas should be completed in advance of the possibility of any need arising for using eDiscovery." (emphasis added).  Mr. Dale added the following observation:

"Your planning decisions …. should be completed in advance of the possibility of any need arising for using eDiscovery, it is like the inventor shouting after the already airborne pilot that he must remember to work out how he is going to land."

This statement is so true when it comes to implementing SharePoint in many organizations.  There is very little planning in how the technology and the content it contains will be governed, particularly when the implementation project is headed by IT.  (See previous blog post at this link where second graphic shows that over 52% of respondents indicate SharePoint is controlled by IT with no input from Records Management or controlled at a department level).   Many organizations implement the technology first and then after it has become a dumping ground for content, give some attention to how it is going to be governed.  Unfortunately, this sometimes happens in the heat of battle after an organization has become aware of potential litigation.  And then it truly has become what email historically has been; a heap of content that lawyers have to understand.

The lack of governance around SharePoint is clearly demonstrated in the latest AIIM Industry Watch report - "SharePoint Strategies and Experiences" (available at this link, but registration required).

The following graphic shows the various responses to the survey when asked "Which of the following organizational issues have you experienced with your SharePoint implementation?" (Multiple responses allowed)  Over 40% responded that there was not a plan as to which features are used and where.  30% of the respondents indicated that they didn't know how SharePoint would fit with existing ECM systems.  Over 25% indicated there is no defined ownership of team sites.

SharePoint will likely become an enterprise project and must have a strategy where users understand how it will be used, and just as importantly, how it will not be used.

The AIIM report also had a question about SharePoint Governance.  The following graphic shows responses to the question "Which of the following governance policies do you have in place for SharePoint usage?"  Over half of the respondents indicated they have policies on roles and administrative access or policies on who can set up team sites, but most of the other governance items have far fewer respondents indicating they have them in place.  20% of the respondents indicated they have none of the policies in place.  And to Mr. Dale's article about SharePoint being the next dumping area for lawyers to understand, the survey shows less than 10% of the respondents have legal discovery procedures.

Implementing SharePoint or any other Enterprise Content and Records Management (ECRM) system requires rules for the road.  If you don't consider how you are going to govern the technology, you back-end processes like e-discovery will be that much harder to implement.  It is better to do it right the first time instead of rushing to implement something before the governance is ready.