4 ms·

Current company: SharePoint. I think it's no good for that use case (TBH, I don't like SharePoint for anything). Last company: Confluence. Worked pretty well,

Current company: SharePoint. I think it's no good for that use case (TBH, I don't like SharePoint for anything). Last company: Confluence. Worked pretty well, although we did need to customize it to fit our needs (same with Jira). I still haven't found a "holy grail" (Confluence was decent enough, but I still wouldn't recommend it unreservedly). Search is a key feature which most do badly.

WheelsAtLarge 10y ago
Last company I worked for we used Sharepoint. Ultimately it was a waste of energy. The information was hard to get to (the irony, given Sharepoint's selling point of easy access to data) and there was no easy way to update it. Before that we used Word files and the network's file system, which worked better than Sharepoint. I don't think the technology is the key to keeping documentation relevant. Ultimately there needs to be a policy of how to keep documentation up to date and in order AND someone needs to make sure the policy is followed. Documentation is a balance between keeping it useful and not being so detailed that it's hard to maintain.
- GFischer 10y ago
  I agree with your points. Tech isn't the key, but it's definitely an enabler. Some key features for a good documentation system IMO are : - that it has to be frictionless both to add information and to use it (and Sharepoint isn't), - someone has to stay on top of it (that's the most important thing IMO), - and information has to be easy to look up (another Sharepoint failing). Word files on a file system, with something to make it searchable, would be pretty decent for a few users (too bad Google Desktop Search has been discontinued). For multiple users or sites, concurrency and versioning will probably be a problem. Sadly, many companies get carried away with security concerns and end up with less than optimal solutions. I guess that's why people like Git whatever for it.

WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

Last company I worked for we used Sharepoint. Ultimately it was a waste of energy. The information was hard to get to (the irony, given Sharepoint's selling point of easy access to data) and there was no easy way to update it. Before that we used Word files and the network's file system, which worked better than Sharepoint. I don't think the technology is the key to keeping documentation relevant. Ultimately there needs to be a policy of how to keep documentation up to date and in order AND someone needs to make sure the policy is followed. Documentation is a balance between keeping it useful and not being so detailed that it's hard to maintain.

GFischer 10y ago
I agree with your points. Tech isn't the key, but it's definitely an enabler. Some key features for a good documentation system IMO are : - that it has to be frictionless both to add information and to use it (and Sharepoint isn't), - someone has to stay on top of it (that's the most important thing IMO), - and information has to be easy to look up (another Sharepoint failing). Word files on a file system, with something to make it searchable, would be pretty decent for a few users (too bad Google Desktop Search has been discontinued). For multiple users or sites, concurrency and versioning will probably be a problem. Sadly, many companies get carried away with security concerns and end up with less than optimal solutions. I guess that's why people like Git whatever for it.