Larry,

Re: "Seldom in the US do you see the term "recordkeeping" used."

I have to disagree a little bit. In the private sector, including lots of
news/media statements and discussions about legal/tax issues, I see the term
"recordkeeping" used a lot. In fact, I often use it myself to describe the
act of keeping records, because (though we don't like admitting it) the term
"records management" is not as widely understood. Many times in initial
discussions with private sector companies, they ask me "What do you mean by
Records Management?" I usually talk about the life cycle concept for
information/records and the need to have an overall Records Management
*Program* (policies, procedures, retention schedule, file plan, etc.). Then
they understand (eventually).

But I regularly see the term recordkeeping used to describe keeping all
kinds of records, and it is a self-explanatory term. I think that the
problem is that the term "management" can be used in so many ways that it is
hard to know what it exactly means: Human Resources Management, IT Systems
Management, Self Management, Executive Management, Production Management,
Automobile Fleet Management, Records Management, Content Management, etc.
etc.

I see recordkeeping as simply the act of keeping records (wisely or
unwisely), but explain that to keep records professionally and responsibly,
you need Records Management practices and principles. Both terms seem
useful.

John


********************************
John T. Phillips
MSLS, CRM, CDIA, FAI
Electronic Records Management
Consulting, Education, Research
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Larry Medina
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MAC (Management Advisory Committee) Report No 8 release /
Recordkeeping in Australian Public Service / Reference

On 9/3/07, Randy Preston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> The main issue I have with this definition of "recordkeeping" is that 
> it conflates two very distinct records-related activities, involving 
> two distinct entities of responsibility, into one act.



I have to agree with Randy, I think this confusion of two activities into
one term may be why we don't see a universal acceptance of the term
"recordkeeping" throughout the RIM profession globally.

It's interesting, but I alos think this is a clear example of the quote
about "two Nations separated by a common language"

Seldom in the US do you see the term "recordkeeping" used.  In 36CFR, Part
1220,  the NARA definitions include:

"recordkeeping requirements"  all statements in statutes, regulations, and
agency directives or authoritative issuances, that provide general and
specific requirements for Federal agency personnel on particular records to
be created and maintained by the agency

and "recordkeeping system"  a manual or automated system in which records
are collected, organized, and categorized to facilitate their preservation,
retrieval, use, and disposition

But no definition for recordkeeping itself.  Same is true for the ARMA
Glossary.

The term is widely used in the UK and AUS, and I've seen it used a lot in CA
as well... but not in the US.  It also appears in ISO 15489, so it must be
used extensively elsewhere in the EU.

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 To unsubscribe from
this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE
RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]