1 ©2010 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice

Integrating HP TRIM with SharePoint: lessons learned

Charlie ArpEnterprise Content ManagerBattelle Memorial Institute

2

Agenda

• Battelle

• Context

• Getting started

• Initial steps

• TRIM 7 implementation plans

• Communities of practice model

• Conclusions

3

What We Do

• Charitable trust – 501(c) 3

• Scientific research

and development

• Reduction to practice and

licensing of inventions

• Global science and technology enterprise

that explores emerging areas of science

• Manage laboratories for customers

4

• Generates $5.6 billion annually in global R&D

• Oversees over 20,000 employees in 130 locations worldwide

What We Are

• Global enterprise

– Applying science and technology to real-world problems

– Managing machinery of scientific discovery and innovation

– Creating commercial value by bringing new technologies to international marketplace

• Non-profit, charitable trust formed by Will of Gordon Battelle in 1925

4

20 International

Locations

Rev022210

5

What We Do

• Manage or co-manage six national laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Brookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, New York

National Renewable Energy LaboratoryGolden, Colorado

Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, Tennessee

Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichland, Washington

Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho Falls, Idaho

6

7

Vice President, Operationsand Systems Services

M. Duchi

SBMS Facilitator

L. Zimmerman

Lead Facilitators/DeputyManagers, SBMS

K. BaronD. Bosner

Director,Knowledge Management

C. FlemmingStrategy and

Implementation Planning

D. Easter

Executive Secretary

T. Minor

IM Resources –Knowledge Management

K. Iwamasa

SBMS Business Process

Specialist

D. Leckrone

KM Project Manager

T. Monroe

Manager, Knowledge Enablement

D. Easter

Manager,Battelle Library

K. Lang

Admin Office Assist.

Y. Ranly

Document Control/Records Specialist

C. StanleyK. Whitt

Enterprise ContentManagement

Application Specialist

R. Will

Librarian II

D. BlumS. Ravi

C. Staudenheimer

Coordinator Library

Services, SEW

J. Schueller

Library Clerk

D. Fields

Library Assistants

M. GustafsonB. Powell

January 2010

Manager, EnterpriseContent Management

C. Arp

*This includes management of the King Avenue and BEST Center GLP Archives,

however, the day-to-day operations of the BEST Center Archives are performed by

C. Voelker and S. Clinedinst (who are not members of the KM organization).

GLP Archives*

C. Stanley – Archivist

J. Hanna – Backup Archivist

Knowledge Management

8

RMO – What We Do

• Traditional records management – paper

– 26,000 cf. in off site storage

• ECM – management of electronic records

– 8 different groups using TRIM

– 1.6 million electronic records - 1.4 terabytes

• Purchase, issue and track laboratory records books

• GLP archives

– Tightly regulated management for FDA and EPA studies

• Vital records program – just getting started

9

Context

• We are committed to SharePoint

– Over 6,000 sites

– We have been manually capturing content off retired sites

– 150 sites waiting to be harvested

• We are a decentralized project culture

– Each project has a SP site

• Project SP administrator is an “as time allows” job

– With minimum training

– Few requirements

10

Context

• We are committed to doing electronic records management in the flow

– Records management is seen as an intrusion

– 50% of users said they would not use the RMA because it was “too difficult and time consuming” – 2000, NHPRC MI RMA project

• We tried to implement TCSI in TRIM in 2008/2009

– 32 bit application in a 64 bit world

• We have hammered HP about the TRIM SharePoint integration since April 2009

11

Getting Started – TRIM 7 Workshop

• We have used an outside consultant since 2001

• 3 days at their facility

• Goal was to get an in depth look at TRIM 7

– How would we implement TRIM 7?

– Get started on the project plan

• 5 staff attended the workshop

– 2 from the RMO, 2 from KE, 1 from IM

– 2 others from the IM – SP Team attended virtually for parts of two days

12

Getting Started – TRIM 7 Workshop

• Agenda

– TRIM 7 overview

– TRIM/SharePoint Integration deep dive

– TRIM 7 administration and support issues

– Information governance strategy development

– Other considerations

– Wrap up and review

13

TRIM 7 Workshop Results

• Going was the best result

– Beginning of the TRIM/SP team

• IM/SP team concerns were addressed

– Measured, controlled implementation

• Overall structure of our TRIM 7 implementation was agreed upon

– Mode A - Capturing sites at project close

– Mode B – Active management of the project using the TRIM/SP integration

14

TRIM 7 Project Plan

• 2 project plans

– Baseline Implementation - thin and thick client interfaces

– TRIM/SP integration

• Wanted to implement TRIM 7 as quick as we could

– To take advantage of the improvements in the application

– We knew we couldn’t rush the TRIM/SP integration

• Common to both plans is an KM/IM team

– Essential, no one group has the expertise to do it all

– Team could be expanded to include legal and business units

15

Baseline Implementation

• Goal - move the base line functionality of TRIM from version 6 to version 7

• Team – RMO and IM

• Assumptions:

– TRIM test and development environment created

– This project must be completed before the TRIM/SharePoint integration project is completed

– The two projects will overlap

– Higher priority KM projects and/or IM projects will not significantly delay progress

16

Baseline Implementation

• Phase 1 – Preparation

– Consolidate our datasets

– Decisions about using records types or classification

– Evaluate and normalize metadata

• Phase 2 – Functionality testing

– LDAP Synchronization tool

– Access controls, Search, Indexing

– Populate a dataset in test and play with it

• Phase 3 – Move to production

17

The Initial Implementation of TRIM

• In the beginning you just want people to use the tool

• Internal salesman for TRIM

• Customize the use of TRIM to make your users happy

– Separate datasets

– Individual record types, complex record types

– Metadata

• You cannot support the customized use of TRIM in a enterprise wide implementation

18

We Had to Change

How We Used TRIM

• Consolidating datasets - went from 9 datasets to 4

– Production

– Litigation

– Test

– Development

• Multiple datasets was another way of making our customers happy

– The archivist in me wanted permanent digital objects kept separately

– Need a separate dataset for e-discovery

19

Record Types v. Classification

• Making people happy by customizing everything via record types

– Unique metadata

• But support organizations have specific metadata needs for enhanced search

– And they want stronger access controls

• Default position:

– Use generic record types for R&D groups and control access by classification based on the group

– Use customized record types for support groups – some with hard code access controls

20

Metadata

• Record type clean up

– Had 65 record types

– 28 records types were consolidated into other record types and deleted – now we have 37 record types

• Metadata clean up

– Created a metadata dictionary for the 50 user defined fields – cross referenced to record types

– Using more pick lists

– Using more outside databases

– Combined some - Deleted some

21

Baseline Implementation Status

• No issues with access controls, search, or indexing

• LDAP Synchronization tool is squirrelly

– Suspect this is a test and development environment configuration issue

• Playing with data in the test environment now

• Scheduled to go to production by the end of June

– No issues so far

– Training the users doesn’t seem to be an issue

22

TRIM/SP Integration Project Plan

• Goal is to define the use of the TRIM/SharePoint integration module and implement a pilot project using that module in the production environment

• Assumptions:

– Will be done in phases to accommodate dependencies and competing priorities.

– Dates for deliverables will be agreed upon in collaboration between IM and KM prior to start of each phase

– SharePoint means MOSS2007. SharePoint 2010 will require modifications to the plan

– Competing priorities will not significantly delay progress

23

TRIM/SP Integration Project Plan

• Phase 1 - Defining TRIM/SharePoint Integration

– TRIM/SP Integration team

– Two different modes of TRIM/SharePoint integration

• Phase 2 - Testing

– Create & execute test plans for Modes A & B, and search

– Draft the ECM governance document

• Phase 3 - Validate with user groups in test

– User acceptance testing

• Phase 4 - First implementation in production

– Revise ECM governance document after 90 days

24

Phase 1 – Defining

TRIM/SP Integration

• How are we going to use this?

– Given our culture and de-centralization 100% full integration didn’t seem like the best path forward

– Sticking a toe in the water

– Change defaults going forward

• Create the TRIM/SP Integration team

– Staff from the RMO, KE, and the IM SP team

• Search very important for us

– Will FindIt work?

– What other search engines are possible – SP 2010

25

Mode A

• Intial default mode

• Project SharePoint sites will be harvested at the close of the project

• Use of project SharePoint sites document libraries will be defined in the ECM governance document

• Content will be held in SharePoint or TRIM

• The project SharePoint sites will be “relocated or archived” using the TRIM/SharePoint Integration module

26

Mode B

• Full TRIM/SharePoint integration – SP content harvested in real time by TRIM

• Project SharePoint sites will be “managed or finalized” using the TRIM/SharePoint Integration module

• Must have a well defined records requirement

• R&D project team identifies a TRIM liaison to manage the TRIM/SharePoint integration

– contract between the project team and the TRIM/SP team to define the roles and responsibilities of both

27

Phase 2

• Mode A

– Create a test plan harvesting a project SharePoint site

– Harvest the project SharePoint site using the TRIM/SP Integration nodule - test access controls for the harvested Project SharePoint site

• Mode B

– Create a test plan for the TRIM/SP site in the test environment including access controls

– Test the functionality of a TRIM/SP prototype site in the test environment - includes access controls and search

• Create the ECM governance document

28

Phase 3 – Validate with Users

• Building something no one wants to use is stupid

– Customer service is what we do

• Tell the users what they can do

– Creating training documentation

• Have the users do it

– Let them tell us what works and what doesn’t

• Revise the training as necessary

– Ask the users to review the revisions

29

Phase 4 – First Implementation

• The same user group who participated in Phase 3 will be our first implementers

• After 90 days of use we will re-convene the users

– What worked

– What didn’t

• Revise the ECM governance plan as needed

• Schedule the second implementation and move on down the road

30

The Communities of Practice Model

• A “social site” where members of a group share information – one stop shop for information

– Question and answer, Expertise

– External and internal sources of information

– A collection of project sites – a community portal

• The TRIM/SP integration will be used to expose internal informational resources to those vetted members of the communities

• Our user group is setting up a community of practice

31

Communities of Practice Workflow

• All projects will use a SP site

– Specific document libraries will be used for categories of records, this will attach retention periods to those records

- Final reports

- Project management documents

- Project working files

• When staff within the community manage their project records with the SP site – those records are made available to other members of the community

– Administrative metadata is inherited from the SP site

– Clear Forest creates descriptive metadata

32

Full text vs. metadata-enhanced search

• Full text

– Returns an overwhelming amount of unfiltered information

– The user has to employ search strategies

- Boolean and/or proximity to cull through the information

• Metadata

– The information is filtered into meaningful groups

– The user is searching on known attributes

• The problem with metadata is creating it

– Users will not consistently create good metadata

33

Clear Forest Creates Metadata

• It extracts or creates metadata from structured or unstructured content

• Can be used on digital objects containing text: documents, e-mail, databases, web sites, Excel files

• Uses semantic/linguistic and statistical analysis

• Server based application

34

Clear Forest

• Entity extraction: Identifies and tags metadata based on grammatical rules

– City, country, region/state, technology, products, company

• Key Concepts: Identifies, tags and prioritizes noun phrases found in documents

– Good for a “quick look” into a search result

• Categorization: Assigns subject headings (taxonomic terms) based on terms & key words defined by training sets

– Great for enhanced search

35

Our Plans for Project Records

•Title•Author•Date Created

Usable Metadata

1) Document is uploaded to Project Sharepoint Site

HP TRIM

2) Document is transferred to the TRIM repository

•Title•Author•Creator•Date Created•Date Registered•Project #•Contract #•Award Date•Project Mgr

3) A copy of the document is passed to ClearForest

4) The TRIM record is updated with ClearForest output

•Title•Author•Creator•Date Created•Date Registered•Project #•Contract #•Award Date•Project Mgr•Categories•Key Concepts•Technology•Products•Company•City•Country•Region or State

5) New attributes are exposed via sharepoint

36

End result

• Project staff load their documents into a SP library

– Retention periods are attached to the documents based on the library the documents are loaded into

– Administrative metadata is attached to those documents based on the project site they are loaded into

– Descriptive metadata is attached to those documents by Clear Forest

– Access to the documents are defined by classification based on location (group) within TRIM

• The user has met their records management obligations simply by loading the document in the correct library within the correct project site

37

Conclusions

• Implementing an ECM must be a team effort

– An overarching application requires multiple areas of expertise

– Being a records manager, I think records management should be in control – but is this true?

- Information expertise is more important that technical expertise

• Quality systems approach is key

– Constant testing and revision

• Our project plans put us in the best position possible to be successful

– But it is way too early to kiss the cook

38

Questions?

arpc@battelle.org

(614) 424-7897

Thanks for your time

39 ©2010 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

To learn more on this topic, and to connect with your peers after

the conference, visit the HP Software Solutions Community:

www.hp.com/go/swcommunity

40