All… for those who have responded to my question in the above Subject thank you, especially to the person who referenced the MoReq Spec. it was helpful.
 
Unfortunately, I did not see any responses to my original question which is: “I would like to hear any opinions good or bad about what the standard (DOD 5015.2) does not address but should.”
 
If you have an opinion that is constructive and has value about the Subject I would like to hear it.  
 
If you are going to respond with some abstract nonsense and long dialogue that has no relevance to the Subject; don't hit the reply button. You are not helping, it wastes our time reading your reply. If you must feed your ego with your knowledge, please change the subject line.
 
My intention is not to offend anyone but I am tired of reading all the responses that has no relevance to the original Subject.
 
Regards,
Joe
 
On a side note, it seems to be the practice of this list to provide a bio of oneself.  I have been involved with Document and Records management for 20 years. Other then that I prefer to be anonymous. 

 
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:41:00 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DOD 5015.2 Standard
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 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]

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]