Jesse Wilkins said:
<snip>
But, what I have observed over the last several years is that ARMA had
not embraced the advances in ECM and RIM technologies and continues to
approach records management from a more traditional paper based
approach.
<snip>

Followed by Steven Whitaker:
>I disagree that ARMA approaches RIM from a traditional paper based
>approach.  ARMA's focus is on managing information, and that includes
>ALL media in use.  Many organizations still use paper (darn it), even
>though 98% of all the information they create is electronic.

I have to agree with Whitaker on this; ARMA (and most records managers
in general) see the potential advantages of ECM/RIM systems.  Just look
at the number of sessions in San Antonio which in which in one form or
fashion touch on electronic records management.  I suspect if you poll
the RMers in the field you'll find that many of us embrace new
approaches to management information (and records).  

At the same time we still have good old paper to contend with.  The
notion of a paperless office isn't going to happen anytime soon and
probably not in my lifetime.  As a records manager I respect once told
me "We are being pulled in both directions."  

I fully support using an ECM to manage our records.  In fact I'm smack
dab in the middle of an implementation.  What concerns me is when
certain vendors try to tell my management that all we have to do is scan
all our paper and we'll be fine.  Or that microfilm is an "obsolete"
technology.  

What seems to be forgotten is what happens 10 to 20 years from now when
the records can't be accessed because the format or technology is no
longer supported.  I've read (and been involved in) horror stories where
this happens.  It's now someone else's problem.  Someone ends up
cleaning up the mess (and it's not the individual(s) who sold the
solution.)  Would be nice to have some standards that will pass the test
of time.

Sort of reminds me of the situation we have here in "Enron Next to the
Sea." Over the past 10 to 15 years various city councils agreed to
expand employee pension benefits while at the same time not fully fund
the pension.  The chickens have now come home to roost and guess who is
responsible for picking up the $1.4B+ tab?  I'll give you one hint; it's
not the council members who approved the changes in the first place.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

Bruce L. White, CRM, PMP
San Diego, CA
TEL: 619-696-4671
FAX: 619-696-2534
CELL: 619-952-7145
 
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