Humans have natural instinct for grouping, classification and categorisation of things. It helps us find what we are looking for and gives us a sense of satisfaction, whether it be household items, computer storage, or much broader social and population groupings.
Humans have created and kept records ever since we developed a way to record them, on stones, clay shards, papyrus, bamboo sheets, velum, paper and various other means. Multiple records were aggregated in ways that made sense to the people who created or kept them and wanted to find them again.
The introduction of computers at work from the late 1980s/early 1990s began the decline of traditional ways of aggregating records about a particular subject together in a physical ‘file’, although that practice has persisted to the present day because it was and still is easier to refer to. Lawyers (or more often the legal clerks) still attend digital courtrooms armed with printed copies of (usually digital) evidence and other materials for this reason.
The ‘problem’ of digital aggregations
While physical files provided the ability to store anything (printable) about a given subject in the one location, digital ‘files’ (or aggregations) suffered from the fact that emails and other content are created or stored in completely different locations.
The only way to keep emails together with other content about the same subject was for end-users to copy them to a network file share folder location or a digital recordkeeping system. In almost every case, the original email remained in the mailbox where it might still have an active life. Some email mailboxes became a primary (or alternative) storage location for both emails and attachments (as did some desktops!).
Keeping all digital records about a given subject in a single aggregation was never an easy task. It was never possible to be sure that everything was captured because it relied on end-users.
The email mailbox – SharePoint conundrum
In the same way that organisations decided to store copies of emails in network file shares or EDRM system, it was easy to see SharePoint as the replacement for both.
But Microsoft have never made it easy to ‘natively’ copy an email from Outlook to SharePoint. There isn’t even a download option for emails. Emails can be dragged and dropped to synced document libraries, and various third-party products exist, but the process usually relies on end-users (a) to copy the emails and (b) to copy them consistently. Neither of these can be guaranteed.
And, of course, the records created and captured in Microsoft 365 is not just in Outlook mailboxes and SharePoint. A number of other apps create content that could records (for example Yammer conversations, Teams chats, calendar entries, Planner tasks, even Whiteboard diagrams). Few of these records can be saved to SharePoint.
So, are digital aggregations impossible?
There is nothing stopping organisations doing whatever they can or want to group related records together. In Microsoft 365, the most logical way to do this is in SharePoint document libraries (the ‘Files’ tab in Teams channels). An entire SharePoint site (the ‘Files’ tab in MS Teams channels) provides a form of meta-grouping; that is, multiple document libraries grouped by the SharePoint site/Team.
But if we stand back for a moment, to look at the (Microsoft 365) forest, what we see is not just individual trees (SharePoint sites, Exchange mailboxes and so on). Just as in a forest the roots of all the trees connect via mycorrhiza networks, sometimes known as ‘wood wide webs’, something similar happens in Microsoft 365 (and many other online systems, including Facebook).
The equivalent of networks in these systems are the ‘graphs’.
Like other graphs, the Microsoft Graph draws on all the rich data created and stored by end-users, in this case across the Microsoft 365 ecosystem – our corporate relationships, who we connect with and how, what we are communicating or writing, what we like, the way we use our time and so on. The graph learns what is popular or trending and makes suggestions (while respecting permissions) as to what we might want to see or know about.
Project Alexandria and Viva
According to a post in the Microsoft Research blog published in April 2021 and titled ‘Alexandria in Microsoft Viva Topics: from big data to big knowledge‘, Project Alexandria is ‘a research project within Microsoft Research Cambridge dedicated to discovering entities, or topics of information, and their associated properties from unstructured documents’.
The blog post also noted that ‘Alexandria technology plays a central role in the recently announced Microsoft Viva Topics, an AI product that automatically organizes large amounts of content and expertise, making it easier for people to find information and act on it’.
The outcomes sound similar to traditional ‘manually’ created aggregations, although they don’t replace them. In fact, the more that content is manually curated, the more likely that Viva Topics can accurately connect them and other related content that might otherwise be missed.
While Viva Topics might appear to primarily focussed on supporting knowledge management outcomes and is currently limited to content stored in SharePoint, the technology has potential implications for records management. In particular, the age-old issue of how to find all information about a given subject (or know that a pre-defined aggregation contains all relevant information).
Viva Topic cards
As noted already, there is nothing stopping organisations from creating aggregations in ways that make sense to them and their end-users. SharePoint document libraries are the most logical form of aggregation that also happen to allow complex metadata, versioning and other features typically associated with EDRM systems. SharePoint document libraries are just one of several ways that content may be aggregated; Exchange mailboxes are another.
But, in most organisations, potentially relevant information AND records is frequently hidden from view in personal mailboxes and OneDrive accounts, in Teams chats, and in other applications (e.g., Planner). Viva Topics has the potential to leverage this information.
While Topics are still limited to SharePoint content and people, there is potential to extend this model even further by including details about emails, chat messages or other content across the Microsoft 365 ecosystem – even if that information cannot be seen. For example:
Suggested people (perhaps grouped by AD manager or business area)
Suggested files and pages (you can see)
Authors of (n number of) emails that are related to the topic with an indication of volume over given periods (e.g., ‘251 emails in the past 6 months’) or a graphic representing this activity
Names of Teams that contain (n number of) chat messages related to the topic.
Participants in Teams 1:1 chats that contain (n number of) messages related to the topic.
Volume and date range of other related content (e.g., Tasks, Whiteboards, Forms, Yammer conversations).
Could Topic cards be the new aggregations?
Topic cards have the potential to resolve the age-old dilemma of digital aggregations, but they are unlikely to replace pre-defined ways to aggregate records including by copying emails to SharePoint document libraries. Those older methods will continue to exist for a long time.
But more importantly, they have the potential to draw out or highlight content that would otherwise be hidden from view – even if that content remains inaccessible.
When configured, Viva Topics already appear in search results, enhancing search outcomes.
It is only a matter of time before the probabilistic programming techniques of Project Alexandria, with expert human curation, begins to provide the type of high precision knowledge base construction for all relevant content about a given subject, first described by Microsoft researchers in May 2019.
Perhaps they may even support or link with retention and disposal processes, highlighting records due for disposal within a given period or even preventing their premature disposal.
There are several ways to create, record and assign tasks in organisations. These may include:
Personal tasks (or calendar entries) in email applications such as Outlook, or set via the Microsoft ‘To Do’ application.
Team and Group-based tasks created and managed in various ways, including on physical white boards, via Microsoft 365 Planner/Tasks or ‘Tasks by Planner for Teams’.
Project-based tasks, including in Microsoft Project or other similar applications. Depending on the type of project (e.g., agile or waterfall), this may also involve tasks pinned on Kanban boards.
Activity-based tasks, including in dedicated task-based software such as Jira, Trello, etc.
This post describes the three main elements of tasks in Planner/Tasks (including via Teams), where the records are stored, and recordkeeping considerations.
An important point to consider while reading this post is whether you regards tasks in Planner (or Tasks by Planner for Teams) as records? If your answer is yes, then you will need to think about how these records will be managed.
To quote from the e-book ‘Office 365 for IT Pros’, Microsoft Planner (also known as ‘Tasks by Planner and To Do’ in Teams) is ‘a lightweight task-oriented planning application’ that is based on membership of Microsoft 365 Groups (click link if you are unfamiliar with Microsoft 365 Groups).
While there is some functional similarity between Microsoft Project and Planner, organisations soon (or will need to) learn which one is most appropriate for their business needs. Based on my own experience:
MS Project is best for tracking activities and tasks for major projects.
Planner is useful for general group task assignment and tracking of those tasks.
What are the three main elements of tasks in Planner?
Every task in Planner has three main elements:
Data. The details of the task itself including the ‘bucket’ it belongs to, progress, priority, dates, notes and a checklist.
Attachments. This may include either uploaded documents or links. Two tasks cannot have the same attachment, for reasons explained below.
Comments. These are effectively ‘conversations’.
When a new task is added via Planner or Teams (Tasks by Planner for Teams) via the ‘+ Add task’ option, an end-user simply needs to enter the task name, set a due date (if required), and assign if (if required).
After the new task has been created, the end-user may click on the three dot menu to add a label, assign the task, copy it, copy a link to it, move it, or delete it. Note that deleting a task does NOT delete any attachments or comments.
The end-user may also click on the name of the tasks, which offers the options shown below to add attachments or make comments.
What is stored where?
According to Office 365 for IT Pros, ‘Planner stores the metadata for plans, including information describing the tasks and buckets that make up each plan, in an Azure data service’. Click this link to learn in which country your Planner data is stored)
The accessible metadata about each plan can be seen when the plan is exported to Excel.
Task ID (for example: QXkIWsgkqkO5rLu5pvfMhQgAEyXz)
Description (= Notes)
Completed Checklist Items
As can be see, the Plan metadata does not include or show references to attachments or notes. There is no way of knowing from the exported data if the task had any attachments or comments
Any task can have attachments or links to other content. When uploaded ‘from computer’, these attachments are not stored in Planner but in the Documents library of the Team’s SharePoint site (the ‘Files’ tab), at the same level as (public) channel folders, as described in detail below. There is no option to choose where they will be saved.
This can be quite confusing, especially as all attachments uploaded from a computer, for all Tasks may be stored in the same location, without reference to the task. (This underlines the importance of saving the required attachments to the Teams channel Files tab first).
In the example below, the Teams channel ‘New Sites’ has a plan named ‘New sites tasks’. A task (‘Does this seem right’) has been added with an attachment ‘ExamplePDFA’. (Note, the visual of the document is a check-box option; only one visual can be displayed if there are multiple attachments).
As noted already, if uploaded from a computer, an attachment is actually stored in the Documents library at the same level as the channel folders, which means they are not visible from the Files tab for the channel as can be seen in the screenshot below.
To get to the task attachments from Teams you have two options:
Go to the ‘General’ channel, click on the ‘Files’ tab, then click on the ‘Documents’ option (to the left of ‘> General’). ALL attachments to ALL tasks for every channel in the entire Team are stored in this location. This needs to be kept in mind if anyone syncs the library to File Explorer as there is no indication that these attachments belong to a task in Planner.
By clicking on ‘Open in SharePoint’ and then navigating to the top of the Documents library as can be seen below.
In the same way that the task data exported to Excel does not show any reference to attachments, attachments uploaded from a computer (or, for that matter, attachments from Teams files) show no reference to the related task.
From a retention point of view:
If retention labels have been applied to the Team’s folders in SharePoint, these labels will not apply to uploaded documents linked with tasks.
If a retention policy has been applied to the entire site, then these attachments will be deleted in line with that policy.
The following could happen:
Anyone with delete rights, not knowing why these uploaded documents exist, to simply delete them.
A member of the Team or Group could add more content to the library at the same level as the uploaded attachments, especially if they are working via File Explorer. (Keep in mind that a new channel is NOT created when a new folder is created in the library at the same level as the channel linked folders.)
Also, if the person who created or is editing the tasks ‘removes’ the document from the three dot menu next to an existing attachment, that attachment is not deleted from the library, which is why there are two documents titled ExamplePDFA above, one with the extra ‘ 1’.
Although it may be difficult to enforce in reality, asking end-users to attach or create a link to a document already stored in a Teams Files tab is better practice.
Task Comments are threaded conversations that are captured in the Microsoft 365 Group’s mailbox. If the Team was created first, the M365 Group mailbox will not be visible to the end users in their Outlook client. However, they will receive a copy of the conversation in their normal inbox.
In the example task below below, which was created in a Team with a visible Outlook mailbox, there is one initial comment to indicate the task was created, then two additional notes.
In the Outlook client, each of these added comments is visible as a thread ‘in reply’ to the original task.
Curiously, the copy that appears in the end-user’s Inbox also shows the retention period for all other Inbox emails. It is not clear if this retention policy will apply to the task conversations or not.
Managing records in Planner/Tasks
Are tasks records?
If organisations decide that tasks are records, they will need to consider how they will be managed given:
The way that Planner stores task data, attachments, and comments separately. Planner task data is made visible via the Teams interface, it is not stored in Teams.
The ability for members of Teams to create multiple plans with multiple tasks with multiple uploaded attachments (all stored in the same location without reference to the task it relates to).
The fact that a Group/Team may create a range of different types of content, not just in Teams.
The inability to apply retention policies to tasks in Planner, while retention policies might affect uploaded attachments, Teams files or comments as conversations in Outlook.
The inability to close or archive a plan, or export all the content as a single entity.
At a minimum, all the task data could be exported to Excel and stored somewhere – perhaps even on the Team’s SharePoint site. The exported data will not include any attachments or comments (neither of which are not referenced in the Excel export). One problem with this approach may be deciding when and if the task data is to be exported, and if the original plan should then be deleted – who is responsible?
If organisations decide that tasks are not records, they should still consider how to manage the various elements of each task and plan from a retention point of view.
At what point can a plan be deleted? Does the deletion need to be recorded somewhere?
What if the Team decides to delete it anyway? There is currently no information governance/retention coverage for Planner but attachments and comments (if any) may remain.
Perhaps the easiest approach is to regard Planner tasks as low-level working content, not really records, in the same way that tasks in the former Outlook were generally overlooked as being records.
The COVID pandemic from early 2020 led to the requirement for many employees to work from home (WFH). IT Departments scrambled to enable this capability, many making use of Microsoft (MS) Teams that was already bundled with their Microsoft 365 licences.
The rapid enabling and uptake (rather than an actual ‘implementation’) of MS Teams was more often than not achieved without much consideration for recordkeeping requirements or an overall plan for using Microsoft 365.
MS Teams became popular quickly, increasing from around 30 million active users daily in early 2020 to around 250 million by mid 2021 (Source: ZDNet quoting Microsoft latest results). End-users could chat with each other and with external people (and on their phones too!), have video meetings, create new teams with channels and private channels, share and collaborate on content via the ‘Files’ tab in Teams, create and manage tasks, and more. They also continued to use email.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the capture of records to on-premise electronic document and records management system (EDRMS) declined from early 2020. One reason suggested for this was that it was too hard to save some cloud records such as Teams chats or content from the Files tab to an on-premise system. Alternative approaches for managing records with Microsoft 365 began to evolve.
This post discusses four approaches to managing records in Microsoft 365, summarised in the diagram below.
Which approach have you taken? Answer my (anonymous) short survey here (Microsoft Forms).
Approach 1 – EDRMS + key Microsoft 365 applications to create and capture
This model has two elements:
Retaining an existing centralised recordkeeping system (the EDRMS) for the storage of records.
Using email, Teams, SharePoint or OneDrive to create or capture records to be copied to the EDRMS, and leaving other content (in theory non-records) ‘in place’.
The main positive aspect of this model is that records are (in theory) captured and managed in the EDRMS with all the traditional recordkeeping options. Some leading EDRMS vendors now offer solutions that integrate with Microsoft 365 and make it easier to capture records from Microsoft 365. But the model is still based on a centralised recordkeeping system and the requirement for end-users to copy content identified as records.
The main negative aspects of this model include the following points:
End-users still have to identify and copy records to the EDRMS.
Not all records created or captured in Microsoft 365 can be copied to the EDRMS.
Additional products or add-ons may be required to enable the copying.
The record is copied to the EDRMS, not moved, so remains in place with no controls.
Records that remain stored in Microsoft 365 applications may not be subject to the same degree of recordkeeping controls available in the EDRMS. Unless they acquire a third-party product (see next approach) to overcome this problem (which is unlikely for cost reasons), organisations must use the out of the box recordkeeping capability in Microsoft 365. This capability may not meet all requirements for keeping records if not properly configured.
There is a real risk that some records that remain in Microsoft 365 may be lost, especially if settings allow content to be deleted and there is no retention policy or backup.
EDRM system admins and records managers will need to learn a lot more about Microsoft 365.
The unified logs in Microsoft 365 only retain the details for 3 months (E3) or 12 months (E5) – although SharePoint’s versioning history can provide a lot of ‘modified’ event metadata for the life of the document (up to the the maximum number of versions allowed). (Update: Microsoft 365 customers can retain the audit log for up to 10 years with an add-on license. Many export audit data to a SEIM such as Azure Sentinel where they can retain the log for as long as they want.)
On a positive note, however, Microsoft 365 includes a wide range of search, audit, monitoring and reporting tools, as well as security and protection controls, that improve the ability for records managers to find, manage and protect records (or potential records) in Exchange mailboxes, MS Teams chats and posts, SharePoint sites and OneDrive accounts AND put that content on a legal hold. So, as long as those options are enabled, the risk of losing records is reduced.
Approach 2 – Third-party application + Microsoft 365 applications for creation, capture and storage
A number of Microsoft partners have developed applications to manage records in Microsoft 365. Several have been available for a decade or more, originally designed to manage records primarily in on-premise SharePoint environments.
Most of these third-party applications were developed to comply with the same recordkeeping standards used by EDRMS vendors. These applications are generally either:
Replacements for EDRM systems (often requiring migration from the EDRMS).
New implementations where there was no EDRMS beforehand.
It is not common to see both an EDRMS and one of these third-party products being used together, because of licensing cost reasons.
The main positive aspect of using a third-party dedicated application is that records created or captured in Microsoft 365 can be stay there and be managed according to recordkeeping requirements. Some of these applications are invisible to end-users, making them even more attractive.
The main potential negative aspect of using a third-party application, which is the same for any other vendor product, is that it creates a dependency on the vendor to maintain the product. Microsoft 365 continues to evolve and any third-party application must keep up with these changes. Two questions might be asked:
Will this dependency become a ‘tech debt’ liability in the future, if a ‘better’ option comes along?
How hard will it be to transfer to a different vendor in the future? Generally speaking this is less likely if the vendor is an established Microsoft partner, but the question should still be asked. For example, many organisations decided to use the Google suite of products but have now decided to use Microsoft 365.
Organisations seeking to implement third-party applications to manage records in Microsoft 365 should have a very detailed understanding of the underlying Microsoft 365 environment beforehand and the impact the third-party application might have on this environment. Some of the considerations might include:
The requirement to provide the third-party vendor with admin (including global admin) access to the Microsoft 365 tenant. Is this a security concern?
The location of records – in some cases, third-party vendors may use, move or back up content to one of their Microsoft 365 tenants. Is this a security concern? How can you monitor activity on your content if it’s not in your tenant?
The use of the central Term Store or Content Types to support the application. Will this create a dependency or make it harder for people to work, for example by requiring end-users to select Content Types or add metadata.
Changes to SharePoint settings and architecture, including the addition of hidden columns. Will these changes be consistent with your own architecture model?
How and where event metadata (audit logs) will be captured and managed.
How retention outcomes will be managed.
Approach 3 – One or more Microsoft 365 applications are the default ‘recordkeeping systems’ (no EDRMS or other application)
This approach focuses on the applications where most records are likely to be created or captured in Microsoft 365 – Exchange mailboxes, MS Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive for Business – and therefore considers other content created and/or stored in other Microsoft 365 applications (e.g., Yammer, Forms, Planner/Tasks, etc) as being non-records.
There are several variations on this model including the following:
Outlook and Teams are the primary ‘recordkeeping systems’ as they are the two applications that are most used. Teams has been positioned as the primary interface for both SharePoint and OneDrive (via the ‘Files’ tab). The ability to also access both SharePoint and OneDrive from File Explorer via the sync option makes it even less likely that SharePoint or OneDrive will be accessed by end-users.
All four applications are the recordkeeping systems, using the various controls and settings available in the various admin portals, as well as the Compliance admin portal for retention policies.
SharePoint is the primary recordkeeping system, configured to mimic EDRMS capability. In this case, end-users would be expected to copy emails from Outlook or records from OneDrive, similar to the way they would have to do this for an EDRMS. Various controls and settings, such as ‘back end’ retention policies, might be applied to the other main applications to ensure that any records in those systems (such as Teams chats or emails) are not destroyed before a given period.
The main positive aspects of this approach are (a) simplicity and (b) cost savings, mostly by not having to purchase an EDRMS or third-party application.
However, these potential positives should not compromise the requirement for both IT and records management to have a very good understanding of, detailed approach to, and governance for, managing records in Microsoft 365. In other words, simply saying that one or more of these four applications is the recordkeeping system is not sufficient; additional work is required to ensure that records stored in them are managed appropriately.
There are several potential negative aspects of this model:
With the exception of SharePoint, none of the other three systems can be configured to manage records based on standards used for EDRM systems. Given that SharePoint has been positioned behind the Teams user interface, and SharePoint document libraries can be synced via Teams to File Explorer, any recordkeeping functionality configured in SharePoint should in theory be accessible or useable via Teams and possibly also File Explorer, but this is mostly not the case. So, SharePoint on its own, accessed via the browser only, is not really an option. Additionally, without effective controls, the Files (SharePoint) element of Teams has the potential to become the future equivalent of legacy network file shares full of redundant, outdated and trivial content.
If only one or two systems are considered to be the only recordkeeping systems, there is a risk that records may not be saved and/or could be lost, especially if end-users can delete records and there is no back up option.
Managing records in this way requires both access to and a very good understanding of the applications designated to be the recordkeeping systems by both IT and records managers.
Retention policies (either the base level information governance or more expensive records management) may not be adequate, in terms of both application and coverage, and retention outcome management.
Exporting the records to another system or transferring them to another organisation, could become a complex task.
Accessing audit logs over a long period (see first approach, last dot point, above).
Approach 4 – All of Microsoft 365 is the recordkeeping system
This approach is similar to the previous one except that it takes a broader approach and requires a degree of ‘letting go’ of the standards used by EDRMS systems (and third-party products). It is also the Microsoft default.
The approach assumes that records may be created or captured anywhere in Microsoft 365, saved to Microsoft 365 via archive connectors, or accessed (subject to access controls) via search connectors. Records are managed ‘in place’, meaning wherever they are created or captured, using a range of tools already available in Microsoft 365. Additional ‘in place’ controls allow certain items to be declared as records.
The approach requires both a very good technical understanding of the Microsoft 365 environment and effective governance by IT and records managers. If internal skills are lacking, it may also require a third-party organisation to implement the system – but based on what recordkeeping model? A reliance on a third-party to implement the recordkeeping elements has several risks (see below).
The main positives of this approach include the following:
Records that are created or captured in the Microsoft 365 environment remain there. There is no requirement to copy them to a separate system.
Some records, such as emails, can be copied to SharePoint if required.
The combination of Teams and SharePoint sites allows for multiple models to manage records – for example, high value records could be managed in a dedicated SharePoint site with multiple dedicated libraries and additional controls (metadata, retention, permissions etc), whereas low level records could be managed in the single ‘Documents’ library presented as the Files tab in a Team, or via File Explorer.
All the content (records and non-records) stored across Exchange, Teams, SharePoint/One drive can be searched (subject to roles and permissions). This allows records managers (and others such as Legal) to identify if records may be hidden in personal mailboxes or Teams chat or OneDrive accounts.
Minimum retention periods can be applied to all the content (not just records), ensuring that records that may be hidden in Teams chats, OneDrive accounts, or personal mailboxes, will be retained for minimum periods. This option also helps to reduce the volume of redundant, outdated and trivial content that may build up over time otherwise.
Retention labels can be applied, including automatically (and using machine learning), to records in mailboxes, SharePoint sites and OneDrive accounts (but not Teams chats or posts, yet).
The main negatives of this model are the same as those listed for the previous model with more focus on the need for both IT and records managers to have a very detailed understanding of and establish effective governance for the entire environment where records may be created or captured, not just the main four applications. This requires some effort to achieve and should not be understated. It is not uncommon to see IT staff with Global Admin managing the entire Microsoft 365 environment using default settings and/or records managers will little technical knowledge or appropriate access struggling to understand how the environment works and drawing on experience with EDRM systems.
Some organisations may engage third-party implementation specialists to configure and set up the environment. Organisations that decide to go down this path should ensure they have the details of this configuration and can support it in the longer run, or the environment (or parts of it) could end up becoming difficult to manage or support over time.
Approach 5 – A potential future model
Microsoft 365 includes a wide range of settings, options and capabilities that have a significant impact on the way records can and will be managed across Microsoft 365 in the future.
Microsoft 365 will continue to evolve over time, including in ways that will support how records are managed. But it is important to keep in mind that Microsoft 365, or its component applications, is not and will never be an EDRMS based on standards such as DOD 5015.2. Microsoft 365 is too complex, and the volume and type of content stored in it too large, for any part of it to be considered the ‘records management’ system.
A new approach is required for the identification and management of records. This approach may draw on existing recordkeeping standards and concepts but is likely to rely more heavily on new and evolving ways to work with information, including records.
Some of these ways have been around for a decade or so in the form of graph-based machine learning (ML), process automation, artificial intelligence (AI). Examples include Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Netflix, Amazon, eBay and so on. These examples have one thing in common – they all take advantage of the various ‘signals’ and ‘digital exhaust’ voluntarily offered by their users to identify and present things that match your interests – jobs, friends, things to purchase, movies. Post something on Facebook or (perhaps) talk about a particular subject near your phone, and related ads will appear.
So, what is different about Microsoft 365? End-users are related to each other thanks to Active Directory, they connect and communicate with others via email or Teams, they share content, they attend meetings. All of these (and a lot more) signals feed into the underlying Graph and allow connections to be made and suggestions.
There is nothing stopping organisations setting up dedicated SharePoint sites with multiple well-named libraries to manage certain records and leaving other content and records to the world of Teams Files. But all of this information can be related based on context, including who created it, what team that person was in, who they connect with, what access do they have and so on.
Perhaps by 2035, the primary approach to records management will be relying on all the digital connections and signals, machine learning, the Graph and AI to identify all related records in context, not just the ones neatly placed in a SharePoint document library. Records may be automatically identified as important and needing stronger controls based on this context – who created, sent or received it, whether it relates to a subject that is trending (or was in the past).
Instead of just a simple pre-defined aggregation of records (which will still be a valid way to aggregate records), future aggregations will include a wider range of content, created automatically, likely presented in the form of ‘cards’.
Viva Topics is an interesting pre-cursor to this possible future model.
Looking further ahead, Alexandria’s ability to extract information automatically gives us the opportunity to customize the knowledge discovery process. By automatically retrieving the set of types and properties being talked about in an organization’s documents, Alexandria can create a knowledge base with a bespoke schema exactly tailored to the needs of each organization and using the familiar language and terminology that people in the organization are used to. Read more about the proposed schema-based design in our research paper.
We are only beginning to dream of the experiences that an automatically created and updated knowledge base can enable, but it is already clear that it could transform the future of how we work. The era of big knowledge is coming sooner than you might think.
Whatever the new approach is, managing records in Microsoft 365 will require new skills on the part of information and records managers.