Good views, more complementary thank conflicting, in this thread.  As an
additional thought, there is a general disconnect between the RM and Km
interests within organisations, with KM often relegated to IT and/or Talent
Management (more rarely to organisational development). Some of the same
content that we,as records managers, strive to manage is scooped for
knowledge & learning support functions housed in separate systems.  Our
focus tends to be to develop data models that integrate RM with learning &
development needs so as to avoid nasty surprises resulting from the
existance of information--sometimes replicating the initial format--outside
the purvue of risk & records management.

Aside from that angle, from my perspective as an organisational leader, I
have always felt that one of the great values of a comprehensive RM program
lies in the transparency and consistency it brings to the introduction of
new staff, understanding the business, revealing congruity between mission
and operations.  You won't find meta data associated with these interests in
standards, but as Peter suggests, once you've taken a stand on suitable
products, then it is a matter of understanding how they function at a
practical, front-line level and how they can be shaped to suit operational
and managerial needs.  Then, of course, you are into the customisation
versus configuration territory.  The more knowledge that can be brought to
the equation, the greater the likelhood of configuration with its lesser
cost impact.

My two cents ;-)

John


John James O'Brien, CRM, MALT
http://www.irmstrategies.com
Hong Kong - Bangkok 

http://www.s4kresearch.com
Stockholm

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]