Following on from my article suggesting technical authors/writers should avoid publishing articles on LinkedIn that cover repeated topics (many times over), let’s focus on the wider problem.
What happens when SharePoint becomes a dumping ground by accident? It happens one unnecessary document at a time. The culprits are duplicate documents in SharePoint.
So, before you sit down to write a document, ask yourself one question: What existing information does this replace, improve, or retire?
In SharePoint and other DMS environments, duplication happens for several common reasons.
1. People write to prove activity, not to solve a problem
Many documents exist because people require proof that they have completed a task (hey, look at me!). They use the document to show we followed the rules, which is something the project will finish, or results from a meeting. Its purpose is not always to inform the reader. Its purpose is to exist.
This leads to documents stating:
We reviewed the process.
We identified improvements.
We recommend further engagement.
Which usually means:
We have written a document to show we are moving something forward, even though nothing practical has changed.
2. Contributors do not search before writing
Many contributors do not treat the DMS as a knowledge source. They treat it as a dumping ground. Before writing, they do not ask:
-
-
- Has an SME written this already?
- Is there an existing approved version?
- Is this a replacement, supplement, update, or duplicate?
- Who owns the current source of truth?
-
Someone creates another document because writing from scratch feels easier than updating the original.
3. No one knows what the “source of truth” is
This is the major failure. If the organisation has five versions of a process, which is the source of truth?
People create another one because they think:
“The existing document is old.”
“That version is for another team.”
“I need one that fits my project.”
“I was asked to produce my own version.”
“I don’t know whether I’m allowed to change the existing one.”
The result is not knowledge management, but document inflation.
4. People confuse variation with value
An editor does not add knowledge to an existing document by changing words. They have added another route to the same information.
This is common with LinkedIn-style articles, too. Many repeat the same safe observations:
-
-
- Communication matters.
- AI will change documentation.
- SMEs need to collaborate.
- Plain English is important.
- Documentation must be user-focused.
-
All true. But if the article does not add evidence, it is noise and clutter.
5. There is no editorial control
Most DMS platforms are not the problem. SharePoint, Asite, Confluence, Teams, and other systems can hold solid information. But without governance, they become storage cupboards.
Who is asking the hard questions before accepting new content?
-
-
- What is this document for?
- Who is the audience?
- What decision or task does it support?
- Does it duplicate existing content?
- Does it replace another document?
- Who owns it?
- What is the review period?
- What should be archived when this is published?
-
Without that discipline, every project, team, and manager produces another version of the same thing.
6. People write around uncertainty
Sometimes duplication is a defensive act. People are unsure what is current, so they produce their own document to protect themselves.
It says:
“This is what our team is doing.”
But underneath it means:
“I do not know whether the official process is reliable, so I am creating something I can point to later.”
That is an organisational trust problem, not a writing problem.
7. Documents are easier to create than to maintain
Writing a new document gives people a sense of progress. Maintaining an old one requires discipline.
Maintenance involves:
-
-
- verifying accuracy,
- consulting with owners,
- removing obsolete content,
- fixing links,
- updating screenshots,
- reviewing metadata, and
- archiving superseded material.
-
That is less glamorous than publishing something new, but is where proper information management happens.
The technical author’s view
A technical author or information manager should not ask, “Can you write this?”
They should ask:
“What existing information does this replace, improve, or retire?”
That one question would stop a large amount of useless documentation.
When organisations reward production over usefulness, they count documents, uploads, articles, and deliverables, but rarely measure whether anyone used, trusted, or needed them.
A controlled DMS isn’t a place for everyone to upload additional information. Instead, it is a managed environment where only the appropriate information remains, while the unnecessary data is challenged, merged, archived, or removed.