Recently I was working on a variety of software and data projects for a client – a large independent operator with substantial US onshore assets – when I received a call from one of their business managers asking for help with a SharePoint library. This library had hundreds of folders, each containing files of various kinds. The manager wanted to have a set of files that were in common for the extended team, and he also wanted each sub-team to have their own version of the same folder structure for files specific to that team.
According to the manager, they weren’t so worried about security requirements; they simply wanted everyone on the extended team to have easier access to files. So, the central problem was just simple usability and the effort it took not only to find files but to understand where to put them in the first place. I suggested we consider a different approach to storing the files, replacing the existing hierarchical folder structure with a flat folder structure, and also taking advantage of SharePoint’s metadata and search capabilities. My client immediately balked at the idea, however. First, he thought that introducing such a change in approach for his team would be too disruptive. Second, the cost and effort to convert the existing structure certainly was a concern.
Disk drive directory structures have trained most of us over the course of our working careers to organize our files in hierarchical sets of folders. And so, even on SharePoint 2013, which has much more powerful capabilities for organizing information than hierarchical folders, I still most often see files stored this way, using out-of-the-box SharePoint libraries and user interfaces to recreate an ‘90s-era directory structure on a 21st century ECM platform. People might as well continue using their old shared network drive instead of a powerful tool like SharePoint.
From a file storage perspective, there are many problems with taking this approach. One of them is deciding which folder goes on top. For instance, imagine you wish to organize files by both geography and job function. By holding on to the old hierarchical structure, you have to choose whether your top level folders are geography (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana) or job function (finance, operations and marketing). And whatever you choose, the structure is inevitably suboptimal for some of your users. You’ll have three finance folders, one for each geography and so on. So, what if you want to access finance files for all regions? In more hierarchical taxonomies, these sub-folders are typically not visible to the user until the top level is accessed. Wouldn’t it be much easier for everyone if the files were all stored in a single folder with filters for region and job function? Now all the choices can easily be laid out on a single page without navigation, and any combination of filters can be viewed typically with far fewer mouse clicks. And this comes without any extra effort on the part of file contributors. It’s no more work to make a couple of metadata selections than to navigate two levels of a folder hierarchy to find the right location to upload a file.
SharePoint 2013 is one of many ECM tools that are designed for creating new organizational efficiencies via flat file folder structures. But to get to those efficiencies, we have to take the time to set the tools up properly to take advantage of those capabilities and to ensure that there is a robust change management program in place to facilitate user adoption. Generally this investment is well worth it for oil and gas operators considering both the satisfaction of users in using easier systems and avoiding the cost of lost or misplaced information.