
Defining a parallel operation strategy: Selection criteria
Choosing a parallel EDMS operation strategy in the public sector is crucial for ensuring process continuity and compliance with regulatory requirements. ISO 15489-1:2016 provides guidelines for effective document management, helping organizations comply with laws and regulations 1. While ISO 15489 is a voluntary standard, it can acquire legal and contractual force through national adoption, inclusion in legislation, or requirements in government tenders and commercial contracts source. This underscores the need to integrate records management requirements into the migration strategy.
Legal validity of documents during parallel operation
Ensuring the legal validity of documents during the parallel operation of old and new EDMS is one of the most complex aspects. The eIDAS Regulation ensures mutual recognition of electronic identifications and trust services across borders, with qualified electronic signatures having the same legal force as handwritten signatures 2. This means that documents signed with QES in both systems can retain their legal force, provided correct integration and compliance with standards. It is important to develop clear protocols for defining the “system of record” for each document type during the transition period, as well as ensuring an Audit Trail for all operations.
Archiving and integrity of historical data: Transfer strategies
Migrating archival data requires a strategic approach to ensure its integrity, accessibility, and legal significance. Successful document management system migration requires a “Migration Manifest” to map each source object to its destination, owner, security context, and compliance controls 5. Blindly copying permissions is a primary cause of data leaks after migration 5. For long-term preservation of electronic documents and archives, it is recommended to use standards such as ISO 14721 (OAIS reference model), which provides a structured approach to digital preservation, ensuring that digital archives remain accessible, secure, and adaptable over time 7. AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) protects data integrity during migrations with built-in safeguards, automatic validation to compare source and target data, and checkpoint and recovery features 6.
Risk management and rollback plan
Data migration is a complex process, and 30% to 40% of data migration projects fail due to complexities such as data transformation, schema inconsistencies, or performance degradation, making a robust rollback plan a critical component for recovery 8. The rollback plan should include clear steps to revert to the previous system in case of critical issues, minimizing RPO / RTO. This requires regular Backup & Recovery, as well as testing of rollback procedures.
Operational implications and personnel requirements
Parallel EDMS operation inevitably impacts operational processes and requires personnel adaptation. User training is crucial during EDMS migration; for example, even a one-hour briefing on new systems like Microsoft 365 can significantly reduce helpdesk calls after migration source. A detailed training plan must be developed, covering both functional differences and Workflow changes. It is also important to consider the load on the Helpdesk and ensure sufficient resources to support users during the transition period.
Practical matrix for parallel operation strategy selection
To make an informed architectural decision regarding EDMS migration, we propose using the following selection matrix. It will help evaluate different approaches based on key criteria, risks, and operational implications.
| Criterion | Approach 1: Full Duplication (Dual Entry) | Approach 2: Asynchronous Synchronization (One-Way Sync) | Approach 3: Hybrid (Partial Migration) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal validity of documents | High (both systems are sources of truth, but require clear protocols) | Medium (new system – source of truth, old – archive) | Medium (depends on document type, clear boundaries) |
| Integrity of archival data | High (duplication, but risk of discrepancies) | High (old system – primary archive, new – for new data) | Medium (staged migration, risk of context loss) |
| Integration complexity | High (two-way exchange, API, Workflow) | Medium (one-way exchange, ETL) | Medium (selective exchange, API) |
| Costs of supporting two systems | High (two systems in active operation) | Medium (old system in read-only/limited write mode) | Medium (depends on the volume of parallel processes) |
| Risks of data loss/downtime | Low (high Fault Tolerance, but reconciliation complexities) | Medium (risk of synchronization delay) | Medium (risk during staged transition) |
| Personnel training requirements | High (working with two interfaces) | Medium (gradual switching) | Medium (depends on the scope of changes) |
| Rollback capability | High (both systems functional) | Medium (rollback to old system possible, but new data may be lost) | Medium (rollback for individual modules) |
| Solution scalability | Medium (limited by resource duplication) | High (new system scales independently) | High (gradual expansion) |

