Greg Schildmeyer wrote:

> Then, keeping sight of traditional records scheduling principles, 
develop 
> a set of broadly defined records categories into which all data can be 
easily
> classified.  This approach isn't the highest level of records
> management, but it is - as the author so eloquently states - "better
> than the typical 'create->use->forget about' model currently practiced."

Yes, making classification easy for the user is a worthy goal. The trick 
is to balance ease of use with those inevitable exceptions that challenge 
any classification system and that make records managers (and anyone else 
who deals with cataloguing-related work) cry in their tea/beer/whatever.

The *other* trick, from my perspective, is realizing that many users don't 
approach classification the same way that records managers do, assuming 
they approach it at all. The act of classifying involves a mental step 
back from the information to consider its "aboutness" (to use some 
technical terminology from library school), then the user has to 
understand the classification system well enough to know how to match the 
information to that framework. This is not trivial. No matter how simple 
you make your system, some people will not have the time or patience to 
change their mental maps to work with it. (See Donna Maurer's "Card-Based 
Classification Evaluation" for an interesting view of how to incorporate 
user perspectives into a classification system. 
<www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/cardbased_classification_evaluation.php>) 
In addition to trying to balance retention requirments with business 
processes, we in records management need to stay in touch with the users 
to help them appreciate the benefits of organizing information to help 
make retrieval easier.
 

> Isn't that the role of an "expert," to take something complex and make
> it acceptable to the many?  To do the really hard messy work behind the
> scenes so that the front end looks clean and neat?

Yes, but it's really difficult to show someone all the thinking you did 
and have them appreciate the amount of mental work that's involved in 
creating a simplified system. I remember one consulting job I had as a 
librarian where I organized the books and reports of a small medical 
association. I interviewed the users about their information needs, 
assessed the range of subjects covered by the collection, and decided to 
use coloured dots on the books (instead of labels with numbers) to 
identify the subject. Make it easy for the users, right? When I explained 
the system to the association's director, he said (and I'm pretty sure he 
was joking, but still...), "Coloured dots? I could have gotten my children 
to do that."

Cheers,
Taina Makinen
Vital Records Specialist
Canadian Tire Corporation

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