From my perspective as a consultant the answer is a resounding YES.

I have counseled every client that I have worked with over the past 3 years
to adopt the Big Bucket approach.

That said, I need to clarify that every project that I have worked on in the
past 3 years has been based on handling electronic documents and records -
not paper. 

When an organization is using a Document/Record management system, a large
File Plan is redundant. Documents are profiled at the time of creation with
information such as Document Type, Originating Organization, Client, Matter,
Subject, etc. etc. depending upon the organization.

The File Plan doesn't need to replicate this data. The File Plan only needs
to define how long the Document/Record should be kept and the triggering
event for the retention period.

I counsel my clients to develop a File Plan with a single File Part for all
Records with similar Retention periods and trigger events. 

I see no sense in creating 2 or more File Parts that have a retention period
of 3 years after the File Part is closed. In the paper world, this is
necessary because file cabinets have limited space, and the filing system is
necessary to locate the Records when they are needed. In the electronic
world, space in a File Part is a non-issue, and Documents/Records can be
located using a variety of search methods.

The Big Bucket approach makes classification much easier for the end user.
If the classification process is too difficult, users won't use it properly,
Records will not be filed properly and then, what is the point ?

My clients include several offices of the Federal Government, several City
Governments, large commercial clients such as Chevron and International
Truck, financial companies such as Waddell and Reed and Nuveen. All of them
have seen the wisdom in paring down File Plans to the smallest number of
file Parts that will keep them in compliance with their regulatory bodies.

One of my clients, a government agency that will remain unnamed but was in
the news recently for wiretapping incidents, was contemplating using only 2
buckets for their File Plan. Their concern was that given more choices,
employees would not take the time to properly classify records, thus
invalidating the whole process.

My .02

Brent Reid


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Manago, William M
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New Thread: Big Buckets vs Small Buckets

Is there a trend to reduce the number of subject catogories that are
available to users when declaring records? 
 

   

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance