Hi Maggi,
We've seen this work well -- it's a definite best practice. It wasn't terribly effective with earlier versions of SharePoint because of SP's challenges in being "enterprise worthy". But now we've seen about 3 years of this working well with SP 2010. Here's the basic idea. Define general usage patterns for ECM. Since you're using SharePoint, your core capabilities will center around document management, but it will also include RM, imaging, workflow, collaboration, search and access, etc. Each usage scenarios has general patterns of actions. These actions require certain capabilities. These capabilities in turn can be addressed by products and components, most of which are SP-based. Here are the usage patterns I've found most common:
Basic ECM
Standard ECM
Collaborative ECM
Transactional (or Process) ECM
Specialized ECM

All of these patterns have at least some degree of retention. Even Basic ECM has some -- in other words it's better than typical shared drives. Then it all ramps up from there. Standard builds on Basic. Collaborative builds on Standard. Transactional (think production imaging, BPM, and business system integration) is not a strong suit for Share Point but SP can be supplemented to provide it. Specialized ECM takes Standard, Collaborative, Transactional -- and adds a third party component via integration, like DAM, technical drawing management, etc.

To each usage pattern and "package" of capabilities, you can assign policies and procedures, levels of governance, SLAs, etc.

Hope this helps!

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johnsen, Maggi A.
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: SharePoint Governance

I am on a team that will be migrating all of the content from employees individual "home" drives to SharePoint 2013 My Sites.  I see this as the perfect opportunity to implement governance to site creation, maintenance, and decommissioning from a records management / information management perspective.

I remember having a conversation several years ago with someone (don't remember who) about their practice of provisioning sites based on a small number of predefined types of sites and site architectures.  There was an understanding, within this individual's organization, that not all departments or projects have the same needs, so there wasn't a "one-size-fits-all" approach.  This seemed to me, at the time, to be a good way to implement some governance around the creation, maintenance, and decommissioning of sites.  This may be a way, too, to implement some rudimentary retention functionality without having to implement a full-blown retention schedule on all sites.  Baby steps. . .

Has anyone had experience with this approach?  If you do, please contact me off-list or on-list, whatever your preference.

Maggi
_________________
Maggi Johnsen, CRM | Southern Company | Enterprise Information Governance
30 Ivan Allen Boulevard, NW | BIN SC1005| Atlanta, GA 30308 | PHONE: 404-506-0271 | Fax: 404-506-5329 | E: [log in to unmask]


List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]