I assume that this is a tongue-in-cheek question but it gives me a chance to
respond to a point that you allude to in your last email, namely
distinctions between data, information, and records.

I'm an IT storage guy so I work with data all day long and worry about what
flavor of rust-on-plastic (tape) or rust-on-metal (disk) to put it on.
There are lots of people just like me who find this endlessly fascinating.

I usually seek feedback from business units on how fast they might need
their data to go from one rust to another or else to in-flight electricity
or light and out of my realm.  If I'm lucky these business units have
requirements and value that, if I do it right, I can translate to a cost for
an infrastructure that delivers to the requirements for less cost than the
value.  This has been the process by which I associate context to data and
then call the package the Information in the I of IT and get the dollars to
spend on the T of technology.  With explosive growth in data there is the
challenge to remove what is no longer expected to have business value
whether this is done by IT or by business administrators.

Now, in light of lawsuits and compliance, there is a new context to be
considered.  As Chris points out: Information is not the same as a Record
and two primary changes are settling in:  Information can have liability
rather than assumed value; and Laws that are being enforced govern what
should be done with information that is a Record and how long that record
must be retained.

So here's why IT needs Records Managers: Data centers are not the best place
for lawyers.  The Record Manager is in the best position to be the arbiter
of compliance policy and thus the liaison between IT and the lawyers.
Records Managers are in the best position to craft policies that will keep
all of us out of unwanted news headlines.

Personally, I find easy to relate to the disciplines around Records
Management but I have the narrower and easier task of focusing on cost and
requirements that are set by people who probably don't sit too far away from
me.  And we talk about data and value instead of records and compliance.

I do not think that most IT folk want to become subject-matter experts on
current legislation and litigation but we need help understanding what
requirements laws and litigation are setting.

Or, finally, to quote an old saw from ARMA:  RM's own the rules; IT owns the
tools.  From a process perspective this might be re-worded thus: RMs set
requirements and rules and then IT can buy and build tools.




cflynn writes:

> Do Records manager need to exist?
> If Records Managers do need to exist, why?
>
>
> Chris Flynn
>
> 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