At 06:18 AM 13/08/2009, you wrote:
>Well, in actuality NEITHER ONE is a "Standard", they're both Requirements
>criteria documents, and you cannot rely solely on the information from
>either to determine which product suits an organization's needs, only that
>the products meet the requirements set forth by those documents.

Didnt' we have exactly the same discussion a few month ago? ...with 
the same persons involved.  It would probably be a good idea for 
people who have these clear cut questions to begin from the archives 
of this listserv or of ERECS-L...

In any case, although the second statement in the paragraph above is 
partially true, in that it states a necessary but not sufficient 
criterion (organization's needs), I beg to differ on the first 
statement.  There are de iure standards and de facto standards.  Both 
DoD and Moreq are de facto standards in that they are issued by a non 
standards-developing organization, but they both, respectively in the 
US and in Europe, come very close to being de iure standards in that 
it is pretty much expected that they be observed in the public sector 
and in any organization that does official business with the public sector.

>Your organization will need to perform a functional needs assessment of what
>criteria YOU REQUIRE a system to satisfy then determine which of the
>available systems meet THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

However, what you require is better established in the context of a 
comprehensive framework of what you should require and are very much 
likely to require, and this is what a user standard does:  it does 
not tell you what product is certified and will do what you need, but 
it tells you what your necessary and optional requirements should be 
and helps you design your recordkeeping system in a scalable way, so 
than afterwards you can go out and look for a product or a 
combination of products that satisfy the needs of the system that you envision.

>What Fred says about 5015.2 being for a "defense" or a "government"
>environment is in part true, that was how it was originally designed, but
>it's become more broadly accepted as the marker by which many RMAs are
>measured- but what can be misleading is that if a system meets the criteria,
>it doesn't mean they're all equal; just that they can do the same things in
>one way or another.  It might take 2 clicks or 15 clicks to satisfy a
>requirement, all that maters to pass the test is that it does.

I would agree with this statement.  I was a very active part of the 
1997 original version (if anyone remembers the UBC-DoD project, which 
developed the DoD 5015.2 content--see 
http://www.interpares.org/UBCProject/index.htm) and, although we did 
make some special allowances for the US government needs (e.g. 
classified records), we made sure that those requirements could be 
easily ignored if not needed.  The process of development was 
extremely rigorous in terms of concepts and methods, with no 
concessions for the special needs of DoD.  Ken Thibodeau, who worked 
with us during those two years of fire (1995-1997) can attest to that.

>As for MoReq, well... it was developed by a Consulting firm on a for pay
>basis with the aid of input from others.  It wasn't done under the same
>rigor applied to developing a consensus based Standard, nor were they
>required during public review to satisfy all questions submitted or resolve
>any issues to the satisfaction of the submitter before going forward.

Here I disagree big time.  The consulting firm did all the hard work 
of writing the text, receiving and analysing the feedback, ensuring 
and studying the results of the testing, etc., but it worked together 
with 8 records and archives managers (read their names on the title 
page of Moreq2--I was one of them), who did an enormous amount of 
rigorous intellectual work, analysing the findings of all relevant 
research projects, all the existing standards, etc. and developing 
the requirements in a way consistent with the theory of the records 
and with the best methodologies for their creation and 
management.  Mark Fresko can tell you much about our unending 
discussion on hierarchical classification, on digital signatures, on 
required versus optional modules.  We worked like crazy for more than 
a year and went through several drafts.  In addition, all our work 
was discussed by hundreds of specialists who sent us formal (national 
archives) and informal (business archives and records management 
programs) comments, which we kept into account.  Finally, our draft 
was submitted to the records management experts of the European 
Commission, who took it a part once again, and we reviewed the text 
in light of their comments, as required.  Thus, I would say that 
Moreq2 has been developed in a much more rigorous way than DoD 5015.2 
in terms of ensuring that the user standard can meet all the needs of 
potential users in terms of both rigor and flexibility.

>And as much as 5015.2 is US defense/govt focused, MoReq is EU focused.

I disagree again, as the DoD 5015.2 requirements were consciously 
incorporated within Moreq2.  Indeed, Moreq2 does not include the most 
European of all possible requirements, a register of all incoming and 
outgoing records, while the UBC-DoD project, the foundation of DoD 5015.2 did.

In conclusion, DoD 5015.2 and Moreq2 are entirely consistent with 
each other and should be respected as much as possible, given the 
specific information environment of the organization.  While Moreq2, 
being a user de facto standard, is a good guide and framework for 
establishing the requirements of an organization, 5015.2 helps you to 
determine what product meets those requirements.  So, they are 
complementary.  My advice is to use both. Perhaps Mark Fresko wants 
to jump into this discussion...

Luciana

Dr. Luciana Duranti
Chair and Professor, Archival Studies
Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org
Director, Digital Records Forensics Project www.digitalrecordsforensics.org
School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca
The University of British Columbia
The Irving K. Barber Learning Centre
Suite 470, 1961 East Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia  V6T 1Z1 CANADA
Tel: 604.822.2587
Fax: 604.822.6006
www.lucianaduranti.ca
_________________________________________________________________
Note: This email (including all attachments and content conveyed 
hereby) is intended for the addressee, in person or position, only.
Unauthorized use, distribution or action based on this email is 
prohibited. No rights of ownership are waived or lost through
transmission, misdirection or interception. If you are not the 
intended addressee, kindly notify the sender immediately and expunge
all traces of this email from all relevant data systems.

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]