I had always imagined a tree-structure to the choices presented to an
end-user seeking to save a record.  In such a scheme the number of
permutations could be vast but the number of choices required to reach a
bucket would be few.  And many such end users would tend to have a
repetitive pattern to their choices that might be "learned" by the tool.
This would appear to be "simple" to an end user provided that the decision
tree could be rationalized because it might be quick.  Of course, I don't
know these decision structures very well.

I wonder though, as an IT guy, what a cost/benefit analysis would look like
on the number of schedules to maintain.  If I choose to exceed the retention
requirements for some things then I could reduce the number of schedules
required but I would take on more risk of liability and perhaps more cost to
storage.  The over-simplification approach is, I think, is a motivation
behind a knee-jerk reaction to deciding to save things like emails for
years.

Is there a concept of associating likely liability to records?  Those with
lower liability and unique schedules could be saved longer, couldn't they,
if it meant having fewer schedules to maintain.

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