I would agree that minimizing categories is not a tenable approach given
that the multiplicity of categories tends to be a function of legislation.
My limited view as an IT person is that the legislation accounts for the
bulk of the growth in categories.  Thus the multiplicity becomes a
requirement that the technical solution has to address.   If the
multiplicity were driven by end-users then it would be eaiser to push back
against this growth by showing the cost of many, many rather than few
categories.  I imagine that IT folk in companies would tend to want limited
categories as well because this reduces what they would have to manage as
they try to respond to requests with the tools that they currently have.

On a different note, I belong to the SNIA End User Council, a collection of
the IT folk who use and manage the storage, and I can help push back to the
SNIA solution designers who want fewer categories.  I can also help get ARMA
folk into the solutions groups at SNIA who are trying to address the issue
from a standards perspective.  Please email me if you are so inclined.  (
This invitation doesn't extend to vendors of products who could elect to
join SNIA directly. )




On 4/26/07, Allen, Doug <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We (ARMA) are continuing to work with SNIA and will have involvement in
> their Enterprise Information World....including some outstanding speakers.
>
> One of the items with which we continue to struggle is SNIA's view that
> Records and Information Managers classify records into categories that are
> far too numerous and far too narrow.  Their view (NOT mine), is that we need
> to find some way to minimize the categories to .... say five (5).  I cannot
> imagine that could possibly work, given regulatory concerns, and the need to
> dispose of information that is no longer required, because my belief is that
> a very small number of categories takes us right back to the "old
> philosophy" of retaining everything forever.  Perhaps some who sell storage
> might see that as something desirable for THEM, but I don't believe that it
> will work for our employers.  The challenge as I see it, and as I have
> articulated it with the "ILM crowd" (if there is one identifiable such
> group)....is that Records Managers do not classify records into
> exceptionally narrow categories because they "want to" or because they are
> obsessive/compulsive when it comes to detail, but that we are responding to
> two things: (1) the understanding of such categories by our end-users, and
> (2) the regulatory needs that exist at local, state, national and
> international levels.
>
> I'd be interested in additional thoughts and comments!!!!
>
> Doug Allen, CRM, CDIA+
>
>
>
> 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