Gary,

I wouldn't set out to design two different strategies if I had the
opportunity to design a system from startup.

My observation is that there is most often a paper system in place when an
electronic system is designed.

I'm a minimalist, so I always try for the fewest File Parts possible when
designing an electronic classification scheme. (Which is 99.9% of what I do)

And I'm not trying to dredge up an old discussion, but I subscribe to the
Big Bucket theory, where you minimize the classification meta data in the
File Plan and put it where it belongs in the Document Meta Data. This keeps
File Plans small and easy to implement (read: users will more likely
classify Records properly when they have 5 - 8 choices than when they have
hundreds or even thousands of File Parts to choose from).

The reason I bring this up though, is because a Bug Bucket approach is not
always feasible with paper documents, because you don't have the benefit of
filing them in large File Folders the way you can with electronic documents,
and being able to locate them via their meta data.

Brent

_____________________________________________
Alexandri
Document and Records Management Specialists
(512) 657-3291
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Link, Gary M.
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paper & Electronic Filing

Brent,

Are you saying that it is normal to have a different filing scheme for
electronic documents than paper documents for the same process, project,
function, etc.?

Couly you elaborate on the "different strategies"?

Thanks,
Gary
 

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]