KM Tools and Technologies: Community Share for Team Collaboration

1. KM Tools and Technologies: Community Share for Team Collaboration MITRE Corporation Fortune Magazine �100 best companies to work for� (2002-2007) Computerworld �100 best places to work in IT� (2005)

2. Agenda Part One: Deployment of collaborative platform based on Microsoft�s SharePoint Part Two: Information Life Cycle Management, with SharePoint and beyond

3. About MITRE About MITRE Not-for-profit, operates 3 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), for DoD, FAA, and IRS Application of expertise in systems engineering, information technology, operational concepts, and enterprise modernization 6000 employees located at Bedford, MA, McLean VA, plus other domestic and international sites; 65% of staff have Masters or Ph.D. degrees Our role Problem solving / rapid response for our sponsors �Reachback� into the corporation for knowledge is key Long standing history of information sharing practices Embedded and reinforced in our corporate culture Specific corporate initiative for knowledge management

4. Community Share Overview � What is it? MITRE�s implementation of Microsoft�s SharePoint technologies: Windows SharePoint Services (team sites) SharePoint Portal Server (portal) SharePoint: a community- or team- based collaboration platform providing common web space for Working on shared documents (including capabilities like check-in, check-out, versions, and access control) Posting events and announcements Posting links to web sites Having threaded discussions Tracking action items, meeting decisions, agenda items

5. Why Community Share? Team and community-based collaboration is central to MITRE�s work. Prior to Community Share, MITRE teams and communities collaborated through: Email and Listservs Personal file sharing spaces (transfer folders) Web sites Conferences, Technical Exchange meetings, other gatherings Center-, division- or department- specific file shares A �home grown� document management system with no collaborative capabilities and restrictive design But No corporately supported collaboration tools were being provided Each community had to figure out its own collaboration method Community leaders weren�t sure what best practices were, or what their responsibilities were for sharing So No consistency in where valuable content was stored Finding information on a team or community could be challenging

6. SharePoint Features Standard Sharepoint product met a range of team collaboration needs with easy start up: Standard product allows �templating� of functions and features to meet needs of varied community types. Community owners can meet their unique needs with easy feature selection and browser-based access to database capabilities If additional customization is needed, new functions can be added via programming, third party web parts, or HTML Provides �lightweight� document management with: Document check-in and checkout, file locking, version control Customizable metadata Consistent metaphor for document organization and naming, closely integrated with the Office desktop Distributes content control while maintaining common repository Allows owner control over content, organization, and access Common repository enables centralized asset management

7. Community Share Approach: Info Architecture We wanted to implement a service, not a product. Community Share is not �just one more tool� Templates based on the type of site: Project Organization (e.g. department) Program Sites Created on Request Based on assumption that communities grow organically and may not reflect org charts or official �projects� Want to avoid �empty� sites Can create some confusion in finding communities: makes search and browse access and organization even more important Requiring Metadata on Communities, but NOT on Documents Identifies business center, type of community, subject areas, project, etc. associated with each site for retrieval at community level Tradeoff of ease of publishing (not requiring end users to enter document metadata) and document retrieval (no metadata search at document level)

9. Community Share Approach: Support Training is key to successful use of the product SharePoint is not intuitive Some of our ingrained collaboration methods won�t work as well as adopting new methods (e.g. e-mailing documents) Choosing web parts, organizing content, determining hierarchies and permissions are complex tasks We created a Community Support team with liaisons who work with community leaders to: Organize and manage Community Share sites Train and communicate with community members Define and implement best practices Fit Community Share into existing business practices, or adjust business practices to incorporate Community Share AND use the technology We are working to develop strategic partnerships with other support organizations, in centers and in corporate, to make the best use of this new technology (in context!)

10. Community Share Approach: Ownership Centralized site creation model, with distributed ownership. Users can request sites by filling out a form online Community Share team creates sites and assigns metadata Then each community owner can configure his or her site differently: Add web parts Assign permissions Organize subsites and workspaces An active and engaged community owner is key to the success of any site Users need to be �reminded� to use the new tool and to change business processes Active stewardship of the site is crucial to keeping information up to date and users involved

11. Lessons learned Involving technical and business stakeholders in the rollout was key to our success. We had partners in: IT KM Corporate training Records and Archives Business users Factors in successful communities: Active and engaged community owner Enabling owners � security management, site design, etc. Creating an active training and support program helped users overcome technology hurdles Central oversight and reporting helped us quickly identify and address issues and manage growth Championship in business units helped guide adoption and tailor it to the needs of different work practices and styles

12. Challenges Tension between sharing and securing content Security model Impacts distributing ownership Impacts searchability All-open versus all-secured content Navigation within SharePoint Number of sites Restricted and open content CS positioning next to our Corporate Intranet What goes where, governance Customization by owners Engineering user base wants to customize everything, sandboxes for �playing� with the technology Where to draw the line especially on supportability Opposite problem � highly reliant owners depending too heavily on central support for day-to-day site management tasks

13. The Future of Community Share Use of Community Share continues to grow in MITRE, with most MITRE staff using the platform Community Share Partners, MITRE�s extranet implementation of SharePoint, rolled out last year. SharePoint 2007 upgrade currently planned for fall 2007. User expectations are higher More desire for �mandated� structure Search and navigate improvements needed Tagging / metadata improvements wanted Electronic project files Communities as information assets (CMR) Community Share as model for integrating KM into work practices Creating lifecycle managed repositories � keeping information over time

14. Part Two: Information Life Cycle Management

15. MITRE Information Lifecycle Management

16. Assessing a Document�s Value

17. Managing Information Based on Value

18. The Information Lifecycle Voice track First may need to define �Active� and �Inactive.� Active phase is the creation, editing, finalization and perhaps presentation of a document or deliverable, and active storage is the space that facilitates individual work and collaboration on the product(s). �Inactive� follows that and includes everything stored that is final, or obsolete. In practice, MITRE doesn�t have separate active and inactive storage today. Inactive materials are stored wherever they were when they were finished, and often abandoned there (especially work files). You will probably want to describe active phase first � we have solid systems in place for creating materials, and traditionally active storage has been local or network disk. We have repositories built to help with this � Employee Share and Community Share are the two most commonly used today, but hard drives and departmental servers are used even more. People are familiar with this set of tools and use it daily. But information use doesn�t stop there, though our systems (largely) do. We repurpose content all the time, so managing inactive information is important. It is becoming even more so, both because we have a mandate to share our knowledge and because we have a corporate responsibility to manage our records in accordance with the law, contracts, and industry best practice. Describe the inactive phases here and the (lack of) tools that support them � also mention that the line between active and inactive is, today, a hard line � it is extremely difficult for people to submit items for inactive management, and impossible to restore and reuse them once there (without calling a person in records.) That�s wy our active stores are getting clogged with inactive materials. (Right hand gray bar) Across the entire space, we have the need to address who can do what, based on our security policies, access controls, and the sensitivity of the data. Across time, the policies can change, the players definitely change, and access systems must accommodate those changes. Finally, backup is off the chart to the left, because backup in not an information management strategy, it is a disaster recovery strategy for the permanently archived materials. Mention if needed, otherwise skip. Voice track First may need to define �Active� and �Inactive.� Active phase is the creation, editing, finalization and perhaps presentation of a document or deliverable, and active storage is the space that facilitates individual work and collaboration on the product(s). �Inactive� follows that and includes everything stored that is final, or obsolete. In practice, MITRE doesn�t have separate active and inactive storage today. Inactive materials are stored wherever they were when they were finished, and often abandoned there (especially work files). You will probably want to describe active phase first � we have solid systems in place for creating materials, and traditionally active storage has been local or network disk. We have repositories built to help with this � Employee Share and Community Share are the two most commonly used today, but hard drives and departmental servers are used even more. People are familiar with this set of tools and use it daily. But information use doesn�t stop there, though our systems (largely) do. We repurpose content all the time, so managing inactive information is important. It is becoming even more so, both because we have a mandate to share our knowledge and because we have a corporate responsibility to manage our records in accordance with the law, contracts, and industry best practice. Describe the inactive phases here and the (lack of) tools that support them � also mention that the line between active and inactive is, today, a hard line � it is extremely difficult for people to submit items for inactive management, and impossible to restore and reuse them once there (without calling a person in records.) That�s wy our active stores are getting clogged with inactive materials. (Right hand gray bar) Across the entire space, we have the need to address who can do what, based on our security policies, access controls, and the sensitivity of the data. Across time, the policies can change, the players definitely change, and access systems must accommodate those changes. Finally, backup is off the chart to the left, because backup in not an information management strategy, it is a disaster recovery strategy for the permanently archived materials. Mention if needed, otherwise skip.

19. Components of ILM People components Acceptance Users are our Value Assessors

20. Community Share � a Lifecycle Case Study Community Share is the first �lifecycle managed� repository at MITRE Retention is �baked in� to the information architecture Metadata is collected at site creation to permit retention processing with little to no additional user effort Automated workflows locate inactive sites and initiate retirement (changes from Active to Retired lifecycle phase) Value assessment is done at the site level What is the value of a Project Site over time? Community of Practice over time? Organizational site? Wanted to preserve as much contextual information as possible Context maximizes asset value over time

21. SharePoint Information Lifecycle � How we do it SharePoint 2003 does not do this out-of-the-box. Step 1 � Build an information architecture that captures the intended use of each site. In SharePoint, we created templates by community type We trained stewards on the differences between the types We monitor type assignment at site creation Step 2 � Capture metadata about the site � its steward, its project and organizational affiliation, its contract, its subject In SharePoint, we added these metadata fields to the Site Directory for each top level site We verify metadata entry at site creation We contact stewards yearly to update metadata if needed Step 3 � Monitor all sites for inactivity In SharePoint, we created a script that checks the site�s modification dates � sites that have no new activity in 90 days are candidates for retirement

22. SharePoint Information Lifecycle � How we do it (continued) Step 4 � With steward�s input, �clean� the site and lock it down (no further editing) In SharePoint, we use custom scripts and lists to manage and track this process Old versions and some web parts are removed Documents and collaborative content (lists, discussions, events, etc.) are all retained Each site has all retirement activity �audited� and recorded via the script Retired sites remain in the Sites Directory and are still fully searchable (within access control limits) Step 5 � turn the retired site over to Corporate Records for ongoing stewardship Retention schedules applied and tracked via a SharePoint list Site ownership, security and access management become the responsibility of Corporate Records

23. Community Share � the numbers Since Community Share�s inception in 2005: 2000 top level sites opened 6000 subsites opened Retirement processing began in February 2007 325 sites were eligible for retirement � about 16% 141 have been processed 55 have been deleted 45 were exempted 41 have been retired and remain accessible in a read-only form This isn�t about storage costs, and numbers are still small, but Retired sites consume 1.6 gigabytes of storage Deleted sites freed .9 gigabytes Long term storage may be reduced by as much as 35%!

24. Conclusions Information Lifecycle Management should integrate KM with Records Management as a part of the flow of day-to-day work. Establishing asset value needs to be a measurable process. Many of the management concepts and methods you need come from Records Management � make friends with your records managers! Maximizing the knowledge value of an asset means establishing its value at creation and managing it over time.

25. Thank You !