On 5/24/07, Nolene Sherman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> I had considered not having an office of record at all, but I believe in
> some shape or form I do need to indicate which department is ultimately
> responsible for the record. We do have a few types of documents where every
> executive gets their own copy, or multiple departments are on the
> distribution. I don't want a situation where everyone sends their copy to
> storage because no one knows whose should be kept.


I agree this is rather important, whether it's in a paper-based or
electronic environment.

A couple of things to consider here is it makes it easier to establish a
vital records protection program and to ensure the most current version of
whatever records are identified as "vital" to your operations are always
placed in the system that manages your vital records.  The responsibility
for transferring a copy can be assigned to the "office of record".

Another benefit is if you are using an Enterprise-wide ERMS, this document
can be identified as the "record" and only the originating department
(office of record) will be allowed to modify it; all others will have access
to read-only versions (PDF or other form), which provides a couple of
benefits. It eliminates the unauthorized modification of records by anyone
other than the approved parties, and it assists in keeping duplication in
storage to a minimum.

Plus each department may keep their copy of a record in a different filing
> scheme. I want to be able to search for it later by knowing if it is "this",
> then it will be in a folder called "that." The official copy will be kept in
> that manner and other convenience copies may be kept in the way that is most
> efficient for the context in which the document was used. The searching for
> documents by and large will be done at the division level. I, personally,
> don't need to know which department they have designated, but the local
> records coordinator needs to know.


This is something that sounds as if it's begging for a work flow study =)
Likely, in your role, you aren't given the ultimate authority to change
practices and processes across the organization, but the clear
identification of a lack of consistent practices and continued support of
"siloed" practices can expose an organization to additional costs and risks
in the event of an e-discovery action.

Done in an effective and persuasive manner and placed in the hands of the
right executive at the right time, you could find your role changing.

We do have a few series that MUST be a particular department, usually
> something that must be kept at the corporate office, in which case we
> preface the department by a "C." But for some, it doesn't really matter
> which department, just that one is designated. One suggestion was to just
> say "Generating Department." Or perhaps I could put a common department and
> then add "Local OR, if different: ______________________." I want the
> divisions to decide and actually have it written down rather than the local
> records coordinator just **knowing** what it is. Our RC's do that job in
> addition to their regular duties, so they come and go.


It's common for organizations to have "word of mouth" practices that have
been supported over time and when you start asking questions, you'll hear a
lot of "we've always done it that way" justifications for following
antiquated procedures. When I was consulting, one of the work flow studies I
did for a client in the insurance industry had a lot of elements of this, so
I make highly visible pink masters of some forms they used.

I went to the individual in a department where a process started and asked
"what do you do with this form, and why?" and started there... I made the
requisite number of copies and took them to the recipients and asked "what
do you do with this when you get it, and why?" and kept going down the
rabbit hole.  It was amazing that along the way, there were 6 copies that
were filed "because we always do that when we get those" but when I asked
"who uses them and how long do you keep them?" no one seemed to know, and
they eventually went to storage, with no retention period set for them.  The
obvious recommendation was to discontinue sending the copies and to notify
these prior recipients that if anyone needed access to this information,
they could see it in the central files area.  During the 3 months I was
there, no one ever asked to see them.

This was the first one of these "because we always do it that way" processes
I studied, and there were over 70 of them that resulted in some degree of
the same recommendation.  It wasn't long before some people started catching
on that there were a lot of people doing work that wasn't needed anymore,
but they were smart enough to redeploy these hours to doing more productive
work rather than taking the knee jerk reaction of staff reduction.  If the
message is made clear you aren't out to eliminate people's jobs by improving
practices, you'll have a lot more success... if they see you as a
"productivity nut", they'll think you're out for their jobs and you won't
get too much information.

Good luck, Nolene!

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

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