And to follow Gary's thread...

If the Records Managers can get clarification on the value(positive and
negative) classification for the records then the IT department will have an
easier time devising infrastructure that meets that optimizes value rather
than always exceeding it.  And the RM process overall helps clarify the
infrastructure requirements.

The easiest IT case to make is one where the infrastructure cost is tightly
aligned with the business need.  Tangentially it helps others self-assess
their value proposition before they jump into the "me too" queue of requests
for IT spend.

For this reason I wouldn't want a 5th category for IT.

Link, Gary M. writes:

> Dave,
>
> Don't think in terms of retention requirements. Think in terms of value. Those are the four categories in which records managers place the value of records & information. Fiscal value might generally apply during the records's active use phase. Legal value generally applies more in the inactive phase. Of course there are many exceptions to those statements.
>
> We records managers need to make a habit of looking past the records themselves and focusing on their value. Only then can we consistently communicate to others the value of records & information and the value of records & information management.
>
> Gary Link, CRM
> Corporate Records Manager
> Astorino
> 227 Fort Pitt Boulevard
> Pittsburgh, PA  15222
> 412.765.1700
> 412.765.1711 Fax
> www.astorino.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of David Gaynon
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Theoretical Question on Retention Model
>
>
> I have a question for my fellow records managers on the list. My
> understanding is that retention requirements are commonly derived from
> legal, business, fiscal, and sometimes historical needs for evidence.  Why
> are legal and fiscal separate categories when fiscal requirements are
> typically defined by laws and regulations.  Is this just the way some
> archivist (Schellenberg maybe) laid it out back in the olden days?  If
> anyone knows the answer to this one I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> Dave Gaynon
> [log in to unmask]
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance