When I first started working with the Tieto Office 365 internal initiative we hadn’t made too many decisions on how to move forward with implementing a collaboration platform – This blog is about the first thoughts I had back then; which still hold true now.
At the core of any business, and any collaboration system is information – the management and protection of that information one of the keys to its success. Tieto, like pretty much all companies has information policies and its essential that we adhere to them. Some core things to consider:
- Information classification – We have a standard set of classifications and those classifications determine how we manage information. Anyone is allowed to see public information – where as confidential information has a controlled access list for example. any information we store has a classification, and that has to be identified in our information model. Typically the classification of information is related to the risk of its exposure to various parties.
- Information Ownership – Information is always owned by someone, and that someone is responsible for the classification of information – although there may be some mandatory rules an information owner may need to adhere to. Its also important to know there are differences between an information owner, and information author. although in many cases its often the same person assuming those responsibilities.
- Information Traceability – establishing ownership is part of this but we need to be able to effectively track or locate information.
- Information life-cycle – its important to understand if information is current or outdated, and to establish rules around things such as information retention.
What this means in real terms is we need to ensure anyone using our systems can classify information and it means we have to put in mechanisms to in some cases enforce policy. Discussions started early on over minimums that our internal security team needs in place – but at its core, before we can do anything we need to ensure our information needs are managed and then add the layers of security on top of that – for example we need to consider things like multi-factor authentication. Requirements are drawn up by our security team in collaboration with the architects, and in some cases we need to consider modernizing. Our versioning policy is a prime example of this. On most modern systems we have a simple major/minor approach to version management – many people are unaware of the formal policy we have at work, because our information systems don’t support a version that is expressed something like 1.0.1-2D.
With any kind of architecture engagement requirements management is important; one of the biggest problems I have had working in my current role is getting focus to be more at a business layer than a technology one.
Security is not exception to this – its very easy for a security policy to be dictated by the functionality of a tool, and we should be very careful not to do that. This is why, with our security team we have tried to lay out the requirements before even talking technology – even so, I sometimes get the feeling that some of the see come directly from a Microsoft manual. Its important that we discuss and balance the requirements – and decide what is and is not in scope. Some things will be mandatory, and some things may not be in scope; that’s OK – it can be managed as a risk – and sometimes the business can decide to accept a risk – because business drives security, not the other way round.
There’s a balance. The users in the modern age expect a certain amount of freedom on how they work with information, but at the same time we need some controls in place to protect the organisation and its members.
Too much freedom – and you have risks related to information getting into the wrong hands, or lost, or worse. Too little freedom and it invites users to find innovative ways to work around the systems you put in place. If I restrict who can access a site for example, then people will work around it – they may start emailing files around and suddenly you lose control of where the latest version of your file is, or who has access to it. If I cannot create my own teams site, then maybe I will want to use something else. In such a case by restricting access we have effectively lost control of access all together.
We have been very mindful of this from the start of the Tieto project – Tieto has many ways of working, and no one way fits all. When we first started on-boarding users into Office 365 some policy decisions were made – people in specific customers were not allowed to be on Office 365. When it comes to collaboration, Not allowing people on creates a very real problem. suddenly those customer teams are alienated from a wider Tieto community, which means we either loose our connection to them, or they find a way of working around the mechanisms we have in place. In Tieto, any restrictive policy we put in place is going to impact someone somewhere.
So how do we address this? We know already the information we must keep to have a minimal level of security, but more important if for us to understand our information policies
Knowing Your Responsibilities
As information owners we all know pretty much what we should and shouldn’t do, and to be successful we need to have a level of trust that our users will know both our information policy and what their industry/Customer does or doesn’t allow. Rather than restrict we need to educate.
For those users in customers that are not allowed to have information online we need to ensure we have a system in place that makes it very easy for the to understand where they are – whether it be on O365, or on our private internal solution. At the top level we decided we would color code. The site theme for Office 365 should be different to on premise so that we can immediately see where we publish.
We need to make sure that as part of this project our communications team makes it fairly clear what our responsibilities are.
How This Is Realized In Technology Terms
We implement core content types that are mandatory and a basic template that all others are derived from – out of the box SharePoint, and we have taken other decisions on things like Multi-factor authentication. We then continued a discussion on how and what we need to implement around EMS and other technologies.
These are the things we were considering at the beginning and still form important parts of the ongoing work because of course outside the office 365 conversation, there is also a device management conversation going on.
I hope this gives a little insight into some of the information considerations we had when practically moving to Office 365 & its surrounding technologies.