This is why I generally prefer a functional Retention Schedule as
opposed to a record series Retention Schedule.

Almost everything created (record-wise) will fit into a functional
Retention Schedule.  For example, if we are talking about an accounts
payable function, and a retention of six years has been assigned to that
function, then regardless of records being paper or otherwise, that
retention fits.

If this is all wet, please let me know.

GT

Graham Kitchen
Corporate Records Manager
Unified Western Grocers
5200 Sheila Street
Commerce, California 90040
Telephone:  (323)264-5200 Extension 4560
Cell:  (323)243-1865
email:  [log in to unmask] 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jones, Virginia
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Documenting destruction of electronic records - 
> a little long
> 
> <Ginny, I'm really interested in your SAP conversion process and am
> wondering if you are modeling your e-record series to your 
> paper records
> series.>
>  Yes and No.  (good lawyer type answer 8-)) Our current schedule does
> not differentiate between paper and other media, although the "old"
> system allows a one-to-one correlation between a records series and an
> e-record which made application easy.  So, we started by using the
> retentions and groupings we use in the current ("old") 
> system, and then
> matched them up with the data groupings (called "objects") in the new
> SAP system. I immediately saw that there is no one-to-one correlation
> with our current retention schedule records series.  The "objects" are
> combinations of data that were kept separate in the old system.  So we
> developed what we call "functional data sets" that we are 
> equating to a
> "record."  These data sets may be comprised of several record 
> series and
> retentions under the current schedule.  We are applying the 
> longest time
> period (just like developing the retention value for a record 
> series) to
> the object, based on its function in SAP, and adding these 
> "records" to
> the retention schedule as series. 
> 
> For example, in the old system we had a record called the customer
> account, and a record called meter readings, and a record called work
> orders (that are used for water cut-offs, water turn-ons, water system
> repair, water system replacement, etc.).  The customer account record
> has a retention of 3 years after payment of final bill, the meter
> readings have a retention of 3 years after close of fiscal 
> year in which
> read (ties in with the billing), and work orders have a retention of 5
> years after work completed.  The way the program was written, it is
> simple to generate a delete list of each record series and apply the
> retention.
> 
> In the new system, meter readings are an integral part of the object
> "business partner" as are the customer name, billing address, and
> transactions.  In addition, service orders are tied to the business
> partner object for cut-offs, water service begin, etc., BUT NOT for
> water system repair, water system replacement, and so on.  So 
> the object
> "business partner" must have an applicable retention as its own record
> series.  The service orders tied only to business partner actions must
> also have an applicable retention as its own record series 
> exclusive of
> the values applied to other work orders.
> 
> 
> Ginny Jones
> (Virginia A. Jones, CRM, FAI)
> Records Manager
> Information Technology Division
> Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
> Newport News, VA
> [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