On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Nolene Sherman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have been developing a "wish list" of functionality for an EDRMS system
> and have used MoReq2 extensively. I just find it much more readable than DoD
> 5015. I would not say it is European-centric. The requirements are based on
> ISO 15489 and are applicable anywhere that wants a comprehensive records
> management software system.
>


There is nothing wrong with using MoReq2  to develop a functionality wish
list. My suggestion to use 5015.2 is based upon the fact that vendors submit
their products to JITC for compliance testing. Such testing has only just
started with MoReq2, and information about the testing program can be found
here. http://www.moreq2.eu/downloadsc.htm

I would suggest that MoReq2 required functionalities be cross-walked against
the 5015.2 required functionalities, that way when you look at product that
is 5015.2 compliant you will know how it matches up against MoReq2.

If you are more comfortable using MoReq2 than 5015 that is fine, but
recognize that it will take longer for a vendor to respond. If your RFP asks
"Are you 5015 compliant?" the question is easily answered and verified.

One additional point, just because a product is 5015 compliant doesn't mean
that a private organization has to implement the 5015 model. For example the
product I work with has 3 models that can be implemented Base, 5015 and
MoReq (the original). The vast majority of the customers I've worked with
have implemented the Base model. Why 3 models? Because the company wants to
sell to the broadest customer base.


Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the
electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers

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]