I agree, Larry. I, too, had an opportunity to skim the document and see the resemblance with DoD 5015.2 in that it is required for federal agencies but would be useful for others.
It was good to see the emphasis on business process analysis and workflow management, including electronic signatures. I also see they're struggling with interoperability issues such as the best way to capture metadata from other systems into the records management system. That portion of the document brings to mind the challenges addressed in TR48.
You're right. This doesn't appear to be a standard but rather guidelines to be followed. It's a very interesting read.
Pat
___________________________
Patricia C. Franks, Ph.D., CRM
Endwell, NY
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Larry Medina
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RAINdrop: Germany - DOMEA organisational concept (ERMS standard) is now available in English
On 10/10/05, A.Khramtsovsky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> "The Federal Government Co-ordination and Advisory Agency for IT in the
> Federal Administration (KBSt), located within the Federal Ministry of the
> Interior, offers the DOMEA(r) organisational concept and requirements
> catalogue 2.0 now in English."
>
After a sketchy review of DOMEA, and I think it potentially has a lot of
merit, however, I think some notes/caveats should be sent regarding this
document....
First, it seems as if it's been translated sort of "literally" so I think
it's lost some of it's intent (?) Some phrases don't translate well, so it
may be difficult to understand what was meant when reading what is said
(similar to the earlier document posted in French regarding ISO 15489, which
applied to RIM, but was focused more at the archival community)
Also, I can tell this is a document generated by A Federal Agency for use
by othe Federal Agencies, but I'm not sure how applicable it is to
non-Federal Agencies whose work product may in some way be "controlled" by
the Govt, seeing as their political climate is much different than ours.
I guess what I'm getting at is could this be like a DoD 5015.2, where any
US Federal Agency is looking to implement an EDMS or ERMS is told the tool
they purchase MUST be DoD 5015.2 compliant, but the non-Federal arena only
uses this as a guideline and can choose to select a DoD 5015.2 compliant
product or not.
I was also a bit concerned to see how it describes Life Cycle Management
Concepts (pgs 73-76), especially the aspect of "automatic transfer of legacy
filing after transfer deadline has ended". Footnotes 25 and 26 refer to
other documents providing additional guidance, which may clarify some of
this, but unfortunately, those aren't translated. I think what's presented
here is much closer to the RIM model of life cycle management than what's
recently been provided by the IT/Storage industry, but it's not real clear.
I think as a "conceptual" document, intended to be used as a "guideline"
and NOT intended as a Standard, the document has a lot of merit and if
someone has nothing to go on for managing their world of digital format
information, this provides a decent framework to work from.
Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972
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
|
