I generally make this distinction - RM takes care of the retention issues,
IT takes care of the systems/technology issues, and the
users/legal/compliance/etc. take care of the content/value issues.
Obviously, RM has to understand both internal and external perspectives on
content/value to impact retention. However, the reason I can usually
effectively pursuade IT that they DO NOT want to be involved in declaration,
classification, filing, and content decisions, is that it vastly expands
their responsibilies, when they alread have more than enough to do.
Suddenly IT would have to get involved in the content evaluation of EVERY
business function's system content, to be equally fair to records
users/creators - HR, accounting, engineering, compliance, legal, etc. RMs
typically enjoy learning about content (especially value issues) and IT
people generally want to work with actual systems, and not get bogged down
into user's content and processes. That is why it is so common to find
systems that are not "user-friendly" - IT created the specs/requirements and
ignored the users - a classic boondoggle with a long history.
John
********************************
John T. Phillips
BS, MSLS, CRM, CDIA, FAI
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Tyler, Judy K Ms CRDAMC-Ft Hood
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WAS: CIO adds RM NOW: Convergence of RM and IT
I totally agree with Doug here. RM is where it belongs. Just yesterday I
had a discussion with my higher command on this very subject. A policy is
being established regarding the retention of e-mail. I started the
conversation when asked how long I felt e-mail should be retained by say,
"OK, now I'm going to get on my soapbox". I explained that, as I saw it,
e-mail is the mode of transportation. In other words, if I were to get a
contract in the U.S. mail, I would take it out and file it in the
appropriate file cabinet with file category and retention associated to that
document. The individual agreed that would be the correct thing to do. I
then asked, then why would I treat a contract I received attached to an
e-mail any different. The same would apply to a letter received in the mail
or the same information received in an e-mail. The content is what
classification and retention should be associated with, not the mechanism to
receive the information. As a result of my phone conversation, I will now
have input into that policy.
Judy K. Tyler, CRM
Records Management Officer
Information Management Division
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
Fort Hood, TX 76544
(254) 288-8009
DSN 738-8009
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Allen, Doug
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WAS: CIO adds RM NOW: Convergence of RM and IT
Not to really "jump on Jesse's question" and not intending to go into attack
mode....... This is a pretty loaded question for the listsev audience.
Jesse, were you really intending to toss this hand grenade into the mix on a
Friday afternoon????
I have yet to meet many in the IT community (CIOs, IT Department heads,
etc.) who have any ability to determine how to classify records, either
electronic or paper. IT types in general terms (not all, but many)fail to
understand those situations that arise that have an impact on retention
(i.e. legal holds, audit holds, event-driven retention periods, etc.)
The obvious response is RM. Jesse, I'd be interested in hearing which group
YOU think should make such decisions.....
Douglas P. Allen, CRM, CDIA+
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Jesse Wilkins
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] WAS: CIO adds RM NOW: Convergence of RM and IT
I would only add that I am by nature and by nurture an IT guy. That's why I
like all the shiny flashy spinny techie things like blogs, wikis, RSS,
nano-bio-opto-molecular timeshifting portals, and the like. But I like to
think I can "do RM" most days, and I know at least a couple other fellow
bitheads who are also CRMs and who hang out on the list - c'mon, don't be
shy, you can come out of the datacenter....
To demonstrate the difficulty of separating the two, here's an exercise for
the list:
Who should have day-to-day responsibility for the declaration and management
of email messages as records? IT or RM?
Discuss.
Regards,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, ICP, edp, ermm, ecms
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
Yahoo! IM: jessewilkins8511
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
Looking for the latest education on electronic records, email, and imaging?
Visit http://www.imergeconsult.com/schedule2.html for a current schedule of
courses.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Colgan, Julie J.
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] WAS: CIO adds RM NOW: Convergence of RM and IT
Ok, now Larry, I can't let you "out" my apparent schizophrenia without
rebuttal, now can I? :)
I disagree that my first statement isn't supported by my second. I do
support IT folks learning about, and gaining competency in, RM, however not
as a path to do RM - rather to be better prepared to communicate with RMs
(and I think the same goes for RMs gaining knowledge in IT and look forward
to ARMA's Competency workproduct).
My point is that I hope the Feds approach this from the standpoint of
fostering collaboration, rather than trying to turn IT people into RMs.
The reason being is the IT folks tend to approach problem solving from a
different perspective than RMs, even when armed with RM concepts and
understanding. I think this is similar to your statement that IT and RM
should have the same reporting path yet remain separate.
I'll add that I haven't yet looked at pages 6 or 7 as you suggested so I'm
not sure if I might be missing your point a bit.
Okay, that's it for me today. Thanks for letting me eat up some of your
bandwidth!
Julie
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
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
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
