Jesse, you do yourself a disservice by some of the things you are saying
or implying in this thread of conversation. If you do not have access
to the CRM exam questions and cases, and you are not a candidate who has
taken the exams, how can you (or anybody) assert or assume that the CRM
exams do not include topics about electronic information management. I
guarantee they do, and in depth! EACH of the parts 1 - 5 in the exam
databank have 700 - 800 questions that are used on a random basis.
They also capture other things a RIM Manager, Analyst, or Consultant may
encounter. A common misunderstanding about our profession, and ARMA and
the ICRM, is that it is about information recorded upon the paper media.
It is much, much more than that. The CRM exams capture the body of
knowledge about RIM, including technology, basic general management, and
mirror that body of knowledge on the parts I - V examinations, and in
the case studies. Always has. This RIM body of knowledge, and the CRM
exams, also includes topics and many questions germane to imaging, since
that is part of the RIM profession also.
If you, or anybody for that matter, have a concern or any questions
about the CRM examination questions, and whether they are reviewed for
currency and updated twice per year, and whether new questions are
created and added twice per year, contact ICRM Regent - Examination
Development Debra Gearhart, CRM, FAI.
Later...
Best regards, Steve
Steven D. Whitaker, CRM
Records Systems Manager; City of Reno
>>> [log in to unmask] 10/20/05 10:22AM >>>
Steve said:
<snip>Anybody who states, asserts, or implies that the above copied
blurbs
are true in the case of the ICRM and the CRM certification credential
is
either badly misinformed, ignorant, wrong, or telling mistruths. There
have
even been some who had an agenda in spreading misinformation.</snip>
in response to my assertions:
<snip>
>...vested practititioners are the ones that create the certification
and
>tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back then".
><snip>
>Given the volume and the complexity of electronic records vs.
traditional
>paper records management, it would seem that many of our efforts (the
CRM
>exam and many of the university courses available) are significantly
>off-kilter in proportionality.
><snip>
>...frequently the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism
to
>limit competition to those who have already gotten it by ensuring that
the
>barriers to entry are high.
><snip>
The information that I have is what I see on the ICRM website at
http://www.icrm.org/outline.htm. Having worked on both the CDIA+ and
ICP
exams, I can testify to the struggle involved in updating exams from
what
has been the standard practice to what has become the standard
practice, and
in particular with regards to technology. Angoff scoring, wherein SMEs
determine what a minimally competent practitioner needs to know,
really
highlight this because frequently experts vary dramatically over what
and
how much of something someone, in this case a minimally competent
records
manager, needs to know (Minimally here means meets the minimum
standards -
not a stellar performer or industry expert, but basically competent).
Most
of those discussions are framed by the experts' opinions and expertise
- and
many of those experts in the RM world are not practitioners any more.
Many
of them are, or teach to aspiring practitioners, but many aren't. Many
have
expertise with electronic records issues - and many of them don't.
That's
all I'm getting at with regards to the updating of the exam.
No exam is perfect, and many of the points made by Steve, Peter, et al
remain germane. But I wonder how much there is on the ICRM today on
the
impact of technology on that body of knowledge - autoclassification,
storage
technologies, electronic records management systems, other electronic
information management systems and how to integrate records processes
into
them, e-forms management, email management, electronic records
inventorying
tools and techniques, etc. etc. etc. If there is, I will retract my
concerns
- but from speaking with a number of recent test-takers and CRMs (last
couple of years) I don't think I'm that far off.
Paper's not going away - in fact it continues to grow a few percentage
points a year. But paper and film records are an increasingly smaller
percentage of the overall corpus of records to be dealt with and I
simply
don't believe that most educational programs, including the CRM,
reflect
that proportionality. The basic principles are the same - but
inventorying
paper is NOT the same as inventorying electronic records from a
practical,
professional practitioner's perspective. Term digit filing or floor
load
limit issues are issues that have no real analog in the electronic
world -
and the reverse is true for managing transactional data, handling
multiple
digital file formats on multiple platforms using multiple devices, and
so
forth.
I certainly have no agenda in spreading misinformation - I am working
on
putting a package together to take the CRM sooner than later. With
regards
to my comment about raising the barriers to entry, in most cases the
reason
for going to government to insist upon credentialling has been just
that.
Not saying that the ICRM, or ARMA, or individual practitioners are
looking
for that, but simply noting that that is the background rationale
behind
many efforts to get government involved.
I think the real risk here with both the competencies and their
potential
impact on the CRM exam is that there is an opportunity to (re)establish
the
CRM as the vital indicator of competency for RIM professionals - but
that
there is a threat that if they both don't reflect what real records
managers
are running into today, which is an increasingly electronic experience,
the
exam, the ICRM, and ARMA will be less and less relevant. We want
hundreds of
candidates to take the exam every year, and pass because they ought to
and
they know their stuff - but if the CRM doesn't reflect the realities
of
email, and digital storage/preservation, and ERMS design and
implementation,
and all the other things we are running into today, folks won't take
it.
Respectfully submitted,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, EDP, ICP
IMERGE Consulting
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
[log in to unmask]
Yahoo!: jessewilkins8511
>From: Steven Whitaker <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Certification in the "RIM Profession"
>Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:27:32 -0700
>
><snip>
>...vested practititioners are the ones that create the certification
>and tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back then".
><snip>
>Given the volume and the complexity of electronic records vs.
>traditional paper records management, it would seem that many of our
>efforts (the CRM exam and many of the university courses available)
are
>significantly off-kilter in proportionality.
><snip>
>...frequently the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism
to
>limit competition to those who have already gotten it by ensuring
that
>the barriers to entry are high.
><snip
>
>These are not true regarding the ICRM; not accurate at all. The ICRM
>Exam Development Committee captures the body of RIM knowledge, and
>reflects it back in the questions and case studies. Cutting edge RIM
>technology is included, to the nth degree. Any CRM is welcome to sit
in
>on the committee to observe. I have heard from a number of CRMs who
>have done so, including some Ph.D.s, that it is a very humbling
>experience.
>
>I am not saying that Jesse is running down the ICRM; not at all.
>However, I will say this. Anybody who states, asserts, or implies
that
>the above copied blurbs are true in the case of the ICRM and the CRM
>certification credential is either badly misinformed, ignorant,
wrong,
>or telling mistruths. There have even been some who had an agenda in
>spreading misinformation.
>
>Best regards, Steve
>Steven D. Whitaker, CRM
>Records Systems Manager; City of Reno
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 10/19/05 06:07PM >>>
>I've been sitting this one out as I chew on the various aspects of
both
>this
>thread and the greater competencies vs. education thread. But this
>statement:
>
> >Frankly, I believe that we would be very likely to get government
to
> >confer a monopoly on the ICRM for certification if we were to work
to
> >that end.
>
>troubles me. One of the other key points regarding certification and
>licensure that either I missed or has been missed to date is that
>frequently
>the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism to limit
>competition
>to those who have already gotten it by ensuring that the barriers to
>entry
>are high. You can see this in a number of fields. I think it would be
>difficult to do this in RM in part because it is not as well known.
>
>It also serves, in my mind, to restrict the adaptability of the
field,
>because the vested practititioners are the ones that create the
>certification and tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back
>then". I
>don't mean this to specifically target the CRM, nor ARMA or the ICRM,
>but
>simply to point out that certifications and competencies have a
>tendency to
>result in echo chambers. Given the volume and the complexity of
>electronic
>records vs. traditional paper records management, it would seem that
>many of
>our efforts (the CRM exam and many of the university courses
available)
>are
>significantly off-kilter in proportionality. This raises a second
issue
>to
>my point above, which is that doctors have to keep up with current
>developments in medicine, and lawyers, in law; while there is a
>requirement
>to do continuing education for the CRM, there is no requirement, for
>example, to test on the newest RIM-related technology every X number
>of
>years, nor do I think the ICRM and ARMA would be particularly
>interested in
>so doing as I suspect the corpus of CRMs might drop by 50% or more
>through
>such a process (although those remaining would command significantly
>higher
>salaries).
>
>NB: Not a CRM, not eligible to sit for the exams yet.
>
>I'm going to quit for now and see what else comes up. I think this is
>one of
>the more critical threads I have seen on the list for a while and I
>strongly
>encourage everyone who has an opinion to voice it.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>
>Jesse Wilkins
>CDIA+, LIT, EDP, ICP
>IMERGE Consulting
>(303) 574-1455 office
>(303) 484-4142 fax
>[log in to unmask]
>Yahoo!: jessewilkins8511
>
>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
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
