02/05/2013

SharePoint Records Repository & In Place Records Thoughts Part 2

Following on from Part 1

Lets consider a simple example of in place v central records when it comes to aggregated content.

So imagine we have an image that will constitute a record at some point within it's lifecycle.
The sensible thing to do is create a content type for the image and define an appropriate information management policy etc.

So we are ready for the image to be published and viewed within our organisation. We may go through some approval or workflows and finally when all the business processes have been met, we declare it as a record....fine, that's the correct thing to do.

So we have a library containing our image content types and we use an image from the library in some content within our organisation - in this simple example we are using it within a publishing page layout.

So here's our image in all it's glory.


And here is our image content type in its document library.


So we now want to declare this as a record...fine.

In a central repository model we simple send to > records center and we are left with a nice link.
Great its now a record in our central repository.


And back to the home page.
Oh!!!!!

If we are using in place records management we can simple declare the record in situ.



And our image will not be removed.

Although this is a simple example it is an effective one.
Any content within your organisation is potentially a record, be it images, documents, etc etc.
As it is business content then it will probably come under the remit of some records management policy.

So when planning your records management architecture it is worth bearing in mind how you will aggregate any records-based content to other/all areas of your farm.

In place or central repository?
Plan, plan, plan !!!!!








No comments:

Post a Comment