There is a debate brewing in the world of SharePoint Enterprise Records Management (ERM) between whether a preferred approach is In-Place Records Management or the use of a Records Archive. While I weigh heavily towards an “Archivist” approach with a central Records Center (based on my security/usability viewpoints), there is a time and place for using In-Place Records.
Discovering when to use which method can be difficult, so to assist in this endeavor, please reference the following chart, provided by Microsoft TechNet, as it lays out some solid rationale for each particular approach.
Differences between a records archive and in-place records:
Factor |
Records archive |
In-place records |
| Managing record retention | The content organizer automatically puts new records in the correct folder in the archive’s file plan, based on metadata. | There may be different policies for records and active documents based on the current content type or location. |
| Restrict which users can view records | Yes. The archive specifies the permissions for the record. | No. Permissions do not change when a document becomes a record. However, you can restrict which users can edit and delete records. |
| Ease of locating records (for records managers) | Easier. All records are in one location. | Harder. Records are spread across multiple collaboration sites. |
| Maintain all document versions as records | The user must explicitly send each version of a document to the archive. | Automatic, assuming versioning is turned on. |
| Ease of locating information (for team collaborators) | Harder, although a link to the document can be added to the collaboration site when the document becomes a record. | Easier. |
| Clutter of collaboration site | Collaboration site contains only active documents. | Collaboration site contains active and inactive documents (records), although you can create views to display only records. |
| Ability to audit records | Yes. | Dependent on audit policy of the collaboration site. |
| Scope of eDiscovery | Active documents and records are searched separately. | The same eDiscovery search includes records and active documents. |
| Administrative security | A records manager can manage the records archive. | Collaboration site administrators have permission to manage records and active documents. |
The following table describes differences between the two records management approaches that might affect how you manage IT resources.
Resource differences between a records archive and in-place records:
Factor |
Records archive |
In-place records |
| Number of sites to manage | More sites; that is, there is a separate archive in addition to collaboration sites. | Fewer sites. |
| Scalability | Relieves database size pressure on collaboration sites. | Maximum site collection size reached sooner. |
| Ease of management | Separate site or farm for records. | No additional site provisioning work beyond what is already needed for the sites that have active documents. |
| Storage | Can store records on different storage medium. | Active documents and records stored together. |
Source: Microsoft TechNet
PDF 
Tags: 
2 Responses
This is a nice simple breakdown of some advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Our company is trying to find a good way to handle document management in general with SP2010 and we are considering the heavy use of a Document Center for public, ‘final’ documents while allowing teams to have their own libraries on their site. Very hard decisions need to be made and they will be a big change either way so it is challenging!
Splitting between a central Document Center/Team Libraries can be a great approach. It allows for a “private” and “public” document view (in that items in the Document Center can be shared across the enterprise, while teams can maintain any “private” documents to themselves). What I have found helpful is to ask the question “Where do we do business”. If all teams collaborate on documents centrally, use a Document Center. If they are team specific, have the documents team site based.