30 day trial
The authorization model in Microsoft Dynamics CRM is sophisticated and dynamic. Traditional Access Control Lists (ACL) patterns may offer also Role-based security with a granularity down to individual records and even fields. Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011 and Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online also provide this capability, but a key difference is that Microsoft Dynamics CRM relies on record ownership and the organizational hierarchy of business units. As a result, access levels are based on the owner of an individual record and the business unit to which the owner belongs.
Record-level sharing is available to grant privileges beyond those for specific records and their child records (which are applied by configurable cascading rules).
Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011 also introduces team ownership of records as well as Field-Level Security (FLS), which can be used to restrict access to individual fields based on role.
Some enterprise customers require a complex security models to accommodate:
It can be tempting to use the record sharing mechanism to programmatically implement literally any desired model and “matrix.” After all, you are in control!
Your design would leverage the Microsoft Dynamics CRM security configuration and include a fairly simple organizational hierarchy, relying on custom code in plug-ins and so on to apply the record-level sharing necessary to implement the desired security model. Of course, records would not be explicitly shared with individual users. Rather, you would rely on team sharing and the native cascading rules that would apply to ensure appropriate sharing to child records.
Whenever a record is shared to a user or a team, an entry is added to the PrincipalObjectAccess (PoA) table in the database, so that there is one per share. In addition, subject to the cascading rules set on entity relationships, an entry is added for each share of each child record. For example, sharing a customer account entity with 1:N relationships to various child entities (e-mail, phone call, task, appointment, letter, contact, case, etc.) will result in an entry for each ruled-in child that is being shared specifically. For large-scale Microsoft Dynamics CRM deployments that leverage sharing, the PoA table can grow to several million records within a short time.
Simply put, the question is “Does sharing scale”?
I worked on a project for an enterprise customer with a complex (by request) set of security requirements that is implemented by taking advantage of the extensive use of sharing, which had resulted in having a PoA table with an estimated 144M records. However, using optimization techniques and avoiding redundancy reduced the PoA table record count to 30M. Both the initial and reduced sized databases provided acceptable performance on the server-side; while it is worth noting that the SQL server was well optimized.
A large bank had performance tests conducted on a scenario in which 10% of the records in a 1 terabyte database were shared. There was no significant degradation in performance after sharing 10% of the records with a PoA table that included a few millions of records. However, the bank’s infrastructure is highly optimized, and in a less optimized environment the impact on performance would in all likelihood be more noticeable.
Sharing has never been designed as a general large-scale means of implementing a security model:
I would strongly suggest investigating alternative models. Often a complex security model can be implemented with Custom Teams without Sharing. That is a team owning a set of records and by the ownership gets the right privileges. Note that while a user can be member of many teams, only one team can own a record, i.e. only one set of privileges can be assigned – no option of a “read-only team” and “editor team”.
This pattern is foreseen to scale up to thousands of Custom Teams as well as for ownership assigned to Users or Default Teams. But as always, carefully consider all evaluated factors and specifically:
Bernt Bisgaard Caspersen
Dynamics Solutions Architect | Microsoft Center of Excellence
Good article, similar experience
Because of the security requirements of a customer of mine (users along three business units’ hierarchies sharing contacts and accounts in shared territories) I had to implement this sort of complex record sharing security mechanism a few years ago.
I had no choice then, as it was a CRM 4.0 project where team owning still was not a Dynamics CRM feature, so that this solution led the POA table to almost 40 million rows and 47Gb. Performance issues arose, even though the process sharing records ran in asynchronous mode, also after fine-tuning the database. The solution was to postpone massive sharing to midnight.
I recently delivered a CRM 2011 project which similar security requirements and using ‘team owning’ was an excellent alternative. Although I had to implement custom code to create teams as needed and also assign contacts and accounts ownership to teams, the results were impressive in terms of performance.
I definitely agree with your recommendation of using ‘team owning’ as an alternative approach to complex security requirements.