08-22-2019 09:02 AM - last edited on 08-22-2019 09:07 AM by Eric Starker
We are trying to move from SharePoint 2013 to 365. We want to use the Teams app but we have to tag all files with a data classification level and super granular retention polices to meet the Alberta Canada government policy ARDA. (a meeting minutes document will have a different retention policy then a meeting agenda document. Its super granular and 100's of different document types have to be tagged. ) Currently in 2013 we use content types to meet these polices. Our users hate having to fill in a zillion fields each time the upload a doc and so our adoption of SP203 has been low. They classify things wrong, and our search is linked to the content types and so it doesn't work great. I read not to add custom content types to the default Documents library where the Teams files tab puts files. I'm hoping with the 365 retention polices we won't have to use content types anymore and we can have the system tag files using keywords so our user don't have to do this and we can still meet these government regulations. Is this correct can we do this? If we stop using content types in SP online what will be the consequences? Will it effect the new search capabilities? I'm looking for anyone that uses Teams and has to follow ARDA that can give some advice. I'm still trying to learn about the 365 retention polices and how they work. What is Microsoft's roadmap for content types moving forward? Are you moving a way from them and using other solutions to meet these requirements?
08-22-2019 05:30 PM
@Sandy_vallee I believe a good method would be to have the policies applied at the site or document library level, thus any document added or created to that now policy-wrapped container would fall into the compliance/governance you wish. You could also have auto-updated metadata applied to each file once it's in the preferred location; requiring a little set up up front, but less from each user per file. Other in the community who are consultants may be more fluent than I, and that's a direction I'd explore. - Mark.