| Status | Pending Stakeholder Review |
| Owner | Gautier Todoschini |
| Stakeholders | John Donovan, Frank Bolata, Boris Foiselle |
Issue
AODocs migration strategy: at least 3 scenarios are possible but no comparative analysis was made so far, and the current migration planning does not fit with related ECIF milestone 9 (June 1st).
Recommendation
Option 3 : A combination of manual recreation and automation based on Scripting and export tooling.
Background & Context
AODocs has a wide range of functionalities that need to be replicated. The process can be seperated in a few levels: data migration, metadata migration, process flow migration.
Assumptions
The current numbers and estimates are based on the detailed inventory provided by the Syensqo technology owners.
Constraints
- Limited tooling availability to facilitate the data migration with metadata.
- Difference in Legal and Auditing requirements.
Impacts
Third party tooling requires an elongated pilot phase. Tooling needs security validation. Manual requires creation of complex scripting.
Options considered
Option 1: Scripted approach & Rebuild.
Option 2: Third party tool & Rebuild.
Option 3: Approach 1 or 2 in combination with business enablement to recreate basic processes on their own.
Evaluation
Option 1: Scripted approach & Rebuild | Option 2: Third party tool & rebuild | Option 3: Approach 1 or 2 in combination with business enablement to recreate basic processes on their own. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Feasibility | (Complicated) 1) Export of metadata and history required 2) Move to a shared google drive required 3) Fastrack migration required 4) Custom script execution required 5) Process recreation required 6) Pilot and incremental execution required | (Complicated) 1) Export of metadata and history required 2) Custom script execution required 3) Process recreation required 4) Pilot and incremental execution required | (Complicated) 1) Advanced training required in SharePoint 2) Advanced training required for Power automate 3) Data migration still required with either scenario one or two 4) Complicated processes still to be rebuild by Avanade |
| User Impact | (High) 1) limited coexistance as we can rebuild the application in parallel 2) Testing & validation required 3) Time required for process definition and detailing | (High) 1) limited coexistance as we can rebuild the application in parallel 2) Testing & validation required 3) Time required for process definition and detailing | (High) 1) Strong coexistanceas users are rebuilding parts of the AODocs libraries 2) Testing & validation is still required for the more complicated libraries handled by the COE 3) Time required for process definition and detailing |
| Support Impact | (Medium) 1) Less support impact as the entire recreation / orchestration is handled by COE | (Medium) 1) Less support impact as the entire recreation / orchestration is handled by COE | (High) 1) Higher impact due to self development and potential additional questions in regards with redevelopment |
| Time to implement | (Very high) 1) Clean rebuild 2) Centralized metadata stores 3) Every process flow requires inventory and detailing | (High) 1) Duplication rebuild, migration tooling does not centralize components or fields. Everything is recreated every single time in a seperate sharepoint 2) Every process flow requires inventory and detailing | (High - Medium) 1) Partially clean rebuild for the complicated applications 2) Less work for the COE team in regards of development effort, but increase in support and training effort |
| Security & Compliance | Scripting and custom coding follows the highest security standard.Microsoft validated endpoints and Azure security principlesRequires a very extensive pilot phase. | Requires third party tooling validation.Requires a very extensive pilot phase.No guarantees on throughput speed or time line | Higher error rate, end users are more likely to make mistakes |
Operational Complexity | 1) (After transformation)Clean and centralized rebuild allows for easier management on the longterm 2) (during transformation) Higher effort and complexity in the initial setup and configuration | 1) (After transformation)One to one builds give much more overhead and duplication of components 2) (During transformation) Less effort for the data migration and initial setup due to the inclusion of metadata migration | 1) Business rebuilds are highly dependent on the creator for the quality 2) Can result in additional operational tasks after the transformation period |
| Cost | High external resource cost | Medium - High resource costTooling cost | Medium - High resource costInternal resource cost |
See also
LM01-KDD002 - Gmail Migration to Exchange Online
[WIP] LM01-KDD00x - Migration to SharePoint
[WIP] LM01-KDD00x - Personal Drives Migration to OneDrive