So, I spoke with our IT guy this morning about the scheduled meeting we
have today to present our plan for retention management of our key
function (grantmaking) electronic information. He said, we have triple
the capacity that we need to store and are having no performance issues
(in our document management and SAP applications), search tools are
getting better and better for finding information, and we are low risk
for litigation (philanthropic organization).
My response was "what about the next conversion?" He says, but we have
everything in TIFF and PDF. The industry will have to convert those to
the next whatever. Besides, we have other options like "archiving off"
rather than purging. He says we have greater issues with the stuff that
is not in our DMS (without ERM) and SAP. He's right. He left and I
walked out with his boss who says to me, "I thought of you last week as
I was in a Sharepoint conference and thought we should get you in on
learning and contributing to this thinking."
My meeting is at 3pm today about the retention issue for our key
grantmaking records in DMS/SAP. Obviously they think there are no
"driving" issues with those applications, but are thinking more broadly
to the other types of records that Sharepoint might be able to address.
We only have so many resources. I sure would like to be worthy of being
invited to the table. I'd be interested in your responses to these
questions:
Should I back off the electronic records in a these systems and
concentrate on the other types of records that are all over the place
first? I've been watching the chatter on this and it doesn't seem to
have much teeth, but maybe we don't need that much? I'll start doing
some research on this - any suggestions to get started?
Should I have the backbone to make the case for these key electronic
records for the sake of "good" retention management and archival
accessibility but acknowledge it might be a later priority? Executive
staff approved policy recently that we will keep records according to a
retention schedule (soon to be updated and approved).
Cheryl Rose
Records & Archives Analyst
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of WALLIS Dwight D
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] WAS: CIO adds RM NOW: Convergence of RM and IT
Not to jump on Jesse - who's postings I really enjoy - just wanted to
add to some of the comments:
One thing I think I'm starting to make headway on here in the county is
getting IT, our customers, and legal to take a holistic approach to this
stuff. Here's what often happens:
- new rules of evidence? Lets get the latest "new rules of evidence"
tool!
- e-mail storage a problem? Let's get the "e-mail storage reduction"
tool!
- public access an issue? Let's buy the better "public access" tool!
- paper a problem? Lets get the "paper elimination" tool!
The problem is that these "tools", often acquired to address the need of
the moment, may not operate together in a way that addresses the core
issue that offers the potential of solving all of these problems:
effective records keeping. And a lot of that is not necessarily the
fault of IT - these tools are often sold in isolation to make IT's life
easier without any reference to any coherent concept of records keeping.
Why wouldn't they want to buy a tool that reduces on-line e-mail storage
(for example)? Records management - well, that's records management's
problem, to be addressed after the fact by "policy and training" to
match the needs of the tool.
I think we're starting to make headway in getting folks to understand
the common records connection that unifies these issues and needs. It's
quite frankly inevitable - the issues just keep piling up, and the
disconnected "tools" aren't coping! Once that is understood and a
framework of common reference is developed, then the tools can better
operate together within that framework, in support of policy.
One of the principle challenges I face is that each existing "tool" may
have an entire constituent base associated with it of staff, management,
and vendors that may not be keen on venturing outside their given silo.
That's why its important for records managers to maintain a strategic
vision that is "big picture" enough to provide coherence and guidance in
fitting these pieces together within a records keeping framework. That's
particularly important since it is doubtful that such a framework will
be built in a coherent/planned way - in my experience, its usually more
opportunistic, perhaps even reactive.
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
Phone: (503)988-3741
Fax: (503)988-3754
[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
|
