Designing a SharePoint 2013 Architecture

Moving or Upgrading to SharePoint 2013?

When discussing SharePoint 2013 migration, most will say: “It’s easy! Simply attach your existing database to your new farm.” But with this article, I want you to take time and think about it and analyze the options available to you, before going ahead with the move.

In some cases, taking an older SharePoint content database and attaching it to new SharePoint server could be a great scenario.

If you remember in my previous article, we mentioned that SharePoint 2013 can run a site collection in SharePoint 2010 mode as part of the migration process.

While it does make sense to eliminate your old environment after the migration, and to have everything moved to the new farm, there is one question you should ask yourself.

Will you move your Intranet from 2010 to 2013, or will you upgrade your Intranet from SharePoint 2010 to SharePoint 2013?

Designing Your SharePoint 2013 Architecture

When designing the architecture for SharePoint 2007 or 2010, it was always done with the available resources of the platform, but also with its limitations.

For example, you may have stored all your content within the same Site Collection, knowing it can be difficult to query outside of it. SharePoint’s available features will influence the way we build the architecture of our environment.

SharePoint 2013 brings along new features and functions that could change the way teams collaborate and share. So why would you simply copy the same environment built for 2007 or 2010, limitations and all?

Here are some of the features to keep in mind when building your new architecture.

Query Content from Everywhere

As mentioned above, in the earlier iterations of SharePoint, we had to plan our architecture while taking into consideration the boundaries of the platform.

If content was stored in different sites within a Site Collection, the Content Query Web Part would be the only way to query what we wanted to display on our page.

Of course, there was always the search option, but since it depended on a crawl schedule and it seemed complex for a power user to set up things like “managed properties”, we kind of ignored it.

So, we built our architecture based on this knowledge. If a customer were to ask me to create a Site Collection for Marketing and one for Research, I would have to look at the collaboration needs of the two teams before I could jump and say “Yes, we should do that.”

Luckily, with new versions comes new features. Thus, new architecture possibilities. SharePoint 2013 has introduced two things that impact our architecture planning when we are considering pulling information from outside our site.

First, the new Search experience with continuous crawl. This means that it is constantly searching your indexed content, throughout your entire SharePoint environment. If someone adds a document, it will be available through the search results.

Second, is the new Content Search Web Part. Which, like its predecessor the Content Query Web Part, will allow you to build a search query and display the results using a display template. The main difference is that you can easily, without having to master the XSLT language, aggregate content from multiple locations in a single, user-friendly, display template.

These changes mean that the barriers between Site Collections have fallen, and thus should no longer be taken into consideration when building an architecture. It could completely change the way you build your new SharePoint environment when planning a migration.

Cross-Site Publishing or XSP

The architectures built in SharePoint 2007 or 2010 for our extranets or public facing sites may be very different from what can be built in 2013.

With the new search breaking the barriers between Site Collections and Web Applications, users can write content in one place and have it surface somewhere else.

This means that if you have information that needs to be displayed in your extranet, it no longer has to be hosted within that Site.

The above graph is redesigned version of an image explaining XSP from the Microsoft blog – I find it to be a great visual explanation of the concept.

Gaining SharePoint Knowledge

Let’s face it. When you started building your SharePoint 2007 or 2010 architecture, you probably didn’t know about the Content Type Hub, Document Information Policies or how to use the Managed Metadata Column.

For most companies, it’s been a constant learning process as they went along with SharePoint. “I didn’t know I could do that!” is something I hear quite often during my sessions. You don’t have to be shy about it, it’s ok! It’s all part of the game.

Things are different now, there is a lot more SharePoint knowledge today than when it was first released in 2003. We know what Content Types are and the benefit it brings us to plan them properly.

Of course, this is just an example, but it shows us that we’re no longer starting from square one every time a new version is released.

Migrating to SharePoint 2013

Don’t just wrap your SharePoint 2010 with the covers of SharePoint 2013. Although many believe that not much has changed in this newest iteration, there’s enough to make a difference in your architecture.

My recommendation is to make a roadmap of your migration to SharePoint 2013 and to plan it accordingly. I will cover this in the next post in this series.

In conclusion, yes, you can use the database-attach upgrade to migrate from SharePoint 2010 to SharePoint 2013.

However, you should make sure that you are re-evaluating the architecture of your SharePoint portals, to ensure you are taking advantage of the new, or existing features that you might not be using. A migration is a great time to reorganize.

And thanks to the new SharePoint 2010 mode within SharePoint 2013, you will be able to attach your content database, then granularly migrate the content to your newly designed 2013 environment.

SP Online Governance Plan

What is a SharePoint Governance Plan?

A SharePoint Governance plan is a set of rules that help to facilitate the use, maintenance and operations of your SharePoint. The plan helps set expectations and guidance for your team, as well as the end users.

The problem I see in most Governance plans is that they try to do, or to say too much. The result, no one reads or follows it and you’ve wasted weeks writing it. Why? Because most land on the TechNet section dedicated to SharePoint Governance.

I think the information Microsoft provided is amazing, however it has way too much content, which leads the person in charge of Governance to sometimes overdo it.

If a SharePoint Governance plan is 100 pages long, it simply will not drive anyone to read it or refer to it.

Using Enterprise Wiki for Building a Governance Plan

If you already have SharePoint, a fun way to start Governance is by using the Enterprise Wiki. This way, you can easily link your pages.

Start your Governance plan by topic, and tag each one with a Wiki identifying the “topic” pages.

Topics that Should Be Defined

There are certain things that absolutely need to be defined, but remember that it is not an inventory of your environment!

Typical example: The Governance plan should state what SharePoint environments will be used, with a short description as to what goes in it, or what it is used for.

Type	Description	Owner
DEV	Development environment limited to SharePoint developers.	Devs
INTEGRATION	This environment helps to test, to package and the integration of solutions.	Devs
TEST	Application tests and solution sign-offs from business users.	IT SP Team
PRODUCTION	Live environment with tested packages and solutions	IT SP Team

As you can see in my example above, I am not listing URLs or the number of servers, etc. That is not the role of the Governance plan.

Here is a list of Governance topics I make sure to have before beginning a SharePoint migration:

Topic	Description
Site Request	How does one ask for a new site and what goes into it.
Site Template	What Templates are available (including custom) and what are they used for.
Site Management	Definition of the allowed management of the site for the Site Owner. Is it free for all, slightly controlled or managed by an Information Architecture?
Unused Sites	What are they and what happens to them?
User Agreement	Whenever they get a new Site or Site Collection, Site Owners must agree to access the site.
Security	How is it managed?
Social Policies	Ratings, Tagging, Status etc… The My Site Profile privacy.
Multilingual	It's very important to explain what users should expect for multilingual needs in SharePoint. Variations, MUI or 3rd party tools?
Support Model	How is support defined? Who does the End User ask to get answers?
Naming Convention	Databases, Servers and Web Applications should be named using a designated convention.
Backups and Restores	What is the schedule for backups and when are restores tested?
Development	Define how thr development of new features will be done.
SharePoint Designer	Will it be used and if so, by who and how?
Archiving	Is there a plan for Records or will you just be eliminating old content over time? Link to a file plan if it exists.
Communication Plan	Constant communication with the End Users needs to be there to ensure the success of the project.
Training	Define what kind of training will be available for site owners, administrators and end users.
Etc.

The key to successful SharePoint Governance is to keep it simple. Every topic I mentioned above should stay very high level to help the business know what to do by referring to this document.

Keeping the Support Model Simple

Instead of getting into super complicated definitions of what the support model should be in your organization, use something like PowerPoint.

This way, I am sure everyone will understand the flow of support.

Don’t forget, if you chose to use a Wiki for your SharePoint Governance plan, it will be easily accessible from the Team Sites.

One effective way to do this is to add an option to contact support through the Site Actions menu.

Creating a SharePoint Information Architecture

I know what you’re thinking- Information Architecture? Wasn’t this an article on SharePoint Governance? Bear with me here. Information Architecture is like the best friend of a Governance plan, they complete each other!

Think of it this way- if you give a document that is so well defined that the developer, or whoever is building the SharePoint environment, can take it and create the sites exactly how you needed them; then you have an Information Architecture.

Whenever I create an Information Architecture, I want to make sure that everything is covered. Content types, Site Columns, Sites, Document Libraries and everything else required.

Using a combination of Excel and Word, I can list everything I need to the default value of a column in a Content Type. During a SharePoint migration, nothing is more important.

Of course, you could be using SharePoint migration tools to get the job done. But before you do that, you want to make sure you know what you are copying and where.

During a migration project, it’s the perfect time to restructure your Information Architecture. Many of us have learned over time what to do and what not to do, so there is a good chance that you’ll want to organize your Content Types in a similar way in SharePoint 2013.

The Tools I Used to Get Started

Information Architecture sounds fancy. Sounds like the kind of document you don’t want to oversee. However, it can be a lot simpler than you think, and the best person to do so is the one who already has a decent amount of knowledge on the ins and outs of SharePoint.

Here are some tools that could help you get organized:

• XMind
• Mind Manager
• Visio
• Book by Ruven Gotz – “Practical SharePoint 2010 Information Architecture”
• Balsamiq
• Excel
• Word

These are the tools I’ve used to kick start my SharePoint Information Architecture.

A good trick if you are just starting with Information Architecture, try to see what information you need on documents to archive them. This will give you a good starting point to identify document metadata.

In time, you will want to use tools like XMind or Mind Manager to organize this structure quickly. You’ll notice quickly enough, thanks to its easy interface, that many documents are similar in terms of properties or metadata.

You’ll find yourself grouping them together and forming “Content Types”. Once you’re finished, you’ll be ready to create a formal SharePoint Information Architecture.

It Doesn’t Have to Be Boring

You got into this project to work on SharePoint and now you find yourself having to build an Information Architecture. We’ve all been through it, and at first I felt the same way you are now.

My advice, take it one piece at a time. Go meet the teams and explain what you are doing and why, they won’t want to help unless you can show them how this will be helpful.

Don’t jump right into a 100 pages Word document, open XMind, start organizing some thoughts around it. Believe me; otherwise, you will be going back and forth into this Word document adjusting it constantly.

It can be fun; Information Architecture touches many things, including functionality design.

Navigation of the sites or site collections needs to be mapped and for that, Balsamiq does the trick. If there is a requirement to make an Events Calendar, someone must sit down and use Balsamiq to identify what it will look like. But most importantly, what information will be presented and where is that information pulled from.

Key Takeaways Before Starting a Migration Project

Although these can be applied at any moment throughout the timeline of your project, SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture are crucial steps in anticipation for a SharePoint migration.

What you need to remember before you start looking at migration tools, is that a solid Governance framework and a complete Information Architecture should be built. Otherwise, you will find yourself moving the same old problems and limitations to the new SharePoint 2013.

Start your Governance plan in pieces, don’t try to attack the whole thing at once, and forget about the complicated 200 document version.

Take it to the next level and make it an Enterprise Wiki. What’s important is to not get caught up in the little details and to really focus on providing a set of rules to help standardize the use, maintenance and customizations of your SharePoint environment.

The Information Architecture helps you identify what can be grouped together, and how it will need to exist in SharePoint. This document could technically be given to a SharePoint specialist outside the company to create the entire solution exactly as it is required. 

Better get cracking!

SharePoint 2010 - User profile information show different in security group on different site collections and SP User Profiles

My SharePoint user profiles in Central Admin is showing different id then in the site collection.

The problem you are experiencing is because the information you are refering to is not being displayed directly from the User Profile.  It is being displayed from the User Table that is stored in each site collection content database.  SharePoint does it this way becasue the same information is displayed in the same way in both SharePoint Foundation and SharePoint Server.  Since Foundation doesn't have user profiles the information needs to come from somewhere else.  So both versions of SharePoint pull the information from the same place.  However, when you have User Profiles there are two timer jobs that synchronize information between user profiles and the user information table in the content database.  The problem is that those jobs only synchronize information for "active" users.  An active user is someone who has "contributed" to a site by doing more than just reading the content.  They have either uploaded a file or created a list item or changed some piece of metadata.  So if the user has only read information in a specific site collection then their updated information in their user profile will not be synced to that particular site collection.  The only way to fix it is to either remove them from the whole site collection and re-add them or have them change somethign on that site collection and then wait a couple hours.

http://sharepointbergen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/old-or-wrong-user-display-name-is.html

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/paulpaa/2009/10/01/user-profile-information-not-updated-on-site-collections-people-and-group/

Retention Policy or archival issues

Retention Policy or archival issues

To start with for investigation

1.There are two timer job services in Sharepoint 2010 ( it looks the same on 2013 as well) so ... "Information management policy" and "Expiration policy". check if these Job are working as desired for the web application. I understand it works partially on some instances. But I don't know if it is on the same webapp level.

2. Next can you check if these documents are checked-out to some one on the team or to a person who has left the firm which is very common sometime User Profile service may give you tickle by not syncing as desired.
3. If you have custom content type for which the the document is saved. then if the same content type exist on the destination folder ( drop off lib) where document to be moved.

I had a situation when the documents where located inside a folder (leaf) inside document library. Move of document expected a same folder on destination which was weird. But after changing folder name which had '(' symbol it worked.

I have also seen some instances of permissions to the folder for the timer job but, I did not have that experience.

If Move to recycle bin is working but Transfer isn't, I'm assuming your destination site is the same as the source. If so, this is not going to work because according to Microsoft support

It was as per design. If you try to move documents to a different location using Retention policy, you have to move it a library in a different site collection. Preferably ‘Records center‘ site collection. Main idea of Microsoft is to have one Archival or Records center site collection for the whole organization.

So, if you are trying to move documents after expiration to a library in same site or site collection, you can use a workaround to start a workflow on expiration date which moves the document to archival library.

User Profile sync issue

Uncompleted article (bare with me):

http://aarohblah.blogspot.com/2016/02/my-notes-on-sharepoint-2013-user.html

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/spsocial/2010/05/04/how-user-profile-synchronization-works-in-sharepoint-2010/

SharePoint List and Library limitations

Uncompleted article (bare with me):

SharePoint Online

List view threshold limit in site libraries or lists	5000 max items per view (without index) and 12 lookup columns per view. For more information, see Manage large lists and libraries in Office 365.	5000 max items per view (without index) and 12 lookup columns per view. For more information, see Manage large lists and libraries in Office 365.
Terms in term store	200,000	200,000
Site collection storage limit	Up to 25 TB per site collection.	Up to 25 TB per site collection. Kiosk workers (plans K1-K2) cannot administer SharePoint site collections. You will need a license for at least one Enterprise plan user to manage Kiosk site collections.
Site collections (#) per tenant	500,000 site collections (other than personal sites).	500,000 site collections.
Subsites	Recommended up to 2,000 subsites per site collection	Recommended up to 2,000 subsites per site collection

To increase the List View Threshold:

You have to change the List View Threshold to the number of items returnd in one database query.

1. You do that in Centra Administration > Application Management > Manage Web applications. In the ribbon
2. select the Web application you want to edit
3. select General Settings
4. edit List View Threshold item limit.

 

OneDrive vs SP Online

You can store, sync, and share files with both OneDrive and SharePoint. This table explains some of the similarities and differences of these components of Office 365.

OneDrive for Business	SharePoint Online
Included in Office 365 Business plans	Included in Office 365 Business plans
Available as a stand-alone service, and there is a similarly-named consumer version	Available as a stand-alone service, but no consumer-facing version exists
Evolved from a service called SharePoint Workspace 2010, and before that Groove 2007	Cloud-based version of the SharePoint service that dates back to Office XP
Core architecture built on (or “powered behind the scenes” by) SharePoint	Core architecture built on (or “powered behind the scenes” by) SharePoint
Often considered or called a “storage location”	Often considered or called a “team site”
Could be thought of as the cloud version of the My Documents folder on your work computer	Could be thought of as an internal website and/or file server alternative
Manage files/data with metadata and versioning	Manage files/data with metadata and versioning
Accessed from browser or local folder or app depending on user preference	Usually accessed from a browser to use all features, but files can be accessed from local folder
OneDrive for Business sync app is used to sync OneDrive for Business files to a folder on local computer	OneDrive for Business sync app is used to sync SharePoint files to a folder on local computer (separate from OneDrive for Business folder)
All uploads default as private until you decide to share	Uploads default to inherit permissions from the directory/folder in which they are uploaded
Users sign in to their own OneDrive for Business accounts, with no shared interface	Users can access SharePoint as a branded company page, managed by an admin, that acts as a dashboard with news, calendar, etc.
Best place to upload private work documents that only you intend to see, or a document that has a limited scope or lifecycle (for example, a doc you only share once)	Best place to upload team files and/or documents that are intended to be collaborative and/or use check-in workflows and permissioning

So, OneDrive for Business and SharePoint Online: not exactly the same, yet not entirely different.

The real, noticeable differences will come with the way your workplace or department decides to use SharePoint. Organizations use SharePoint for project-based management sites, human resources portals, and more. OneDrive for Business uses SharePoint technology, but is better suited for storage and one-off sharing. Both of these components live in the cloud (it is Office 365, after all) and can sync files to your device so you can work anywhere.