Some very good thoughts on this and I am in full agreement.....as a matter 
of fact I'm  in the process of re-doing our records structure now.  I 
muddled over this for a great period of time and came to the realization 
that the current file plan, although working well in the paper world, did 
not work well in the electronic realm.  Thus the new functional file plan 
will have a great reduction in the main series as well as subseries.  we 
have to a simplistic approach, so all users, regardless of where they 
work, will understand the plan,

What is not being discussed is the mapping of the old series to the new 
series.   This is what has been holding me back but finally decided to 
bite the bullet build a new file plan.  I believe that many of the old 
series will be easily mapped, while some subseries may end up in totally 
different main series.  Any one done this and care to offer advise?

Larry says:  As an example, there is
a suggestion to roll 17 existing record series into one.  Currently, 10 of
those have a 3 year retention, 3 have a 2 year retention, 2 have a 5 year
retention and 2 have a 75 year retention.  The proposal is to make them 
ALL
75 YEARS.  Now THAT'S a BIG bucket.

Not certain why you would even want to go down this road.  Is it because 
retention is set at the main series level?  If so, I understand.  If not, 
then why do this.  Doesn't it make sense to set retention at the 
sub-series level?  Our EDRMS software has just provided us with this 
feature and was the catalyst in going to a new file plan. 

John Annunziello
Manager, Records and Information 
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
[log in to unmask]

"Information is a corporate, strategic asset that needs to be managed"




"Manago, William M" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
01/30/2007 09:52 AM
Please respond to
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
[RM] 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?  Are users are more likely to
file when there are less options (file locations) available to them?  If
so, what is the impact on the accuracy of filing?  Has anyone reduced
the number of categories and sub-categories in their organization's file
plans by 10%?, 20%?, 30% or more?  Your thoughts and observations would
be appreciated. 
 
Bill Manago, CRM
Technology Strategist
CA MDY 
Phone: + 1.954.358.2900
Fax:      + 1.954.358.2905
Cell:     + 1.201.519.4249
Email: [log in to unmask] 
 

 

 

 

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