>I'm quite confused by this argument.  

Well, first I didn't know there WAS an argument... I just thought there was
a discussion going on =)

>Should there not be a broader discussion of the business argument for or
>against using a particular technology beyond what is most convenient for
the >records managers?  Fine, you can write a policy outlawing these tools.
 But >what if your CEO wants to use these tools?  Or your VP for marketing?
 And for >a government agency, don't you need to be where your constituents
are, and >don't you need to be using the tools that will allow them to work
with you and >allow you to support them?


In a perfect world, everybody should be able to do whatever they want with
no concern of any repercussions of any kind, but I don't think any of us
live in that world.  And I don't think when decisions are made to disallow
the use of certain technologies its because it "...is most convenient for
the records managers..."

Case in point? SEC regulations on financial transactions.  Another more
mundane one?  The decision made this week by the NFL to disallow the use of
Twitter by rostered players and staff of NFL teams on game day from 90
minutes prior to game time until post-game.  And a colleague of mine who
works for a high tech think tank was recently told  by a client that he was
not allowed to use his cell phone to send a text message from their facility
or to post any feeds to Twitter, even if he didn't identify them, because
the GPS feature in the phone would allow people to potentially track where
the transmission came from and that would be in violation of the NDA he had
signed =)   

NONE of those examples serve the needs, desires, or practices of records
managers... it's the "legal beagles" that were making the decision in all of
these cases.

To answer your other questions about what if someone WANTS to use them, or
has the perception that they NEED to use them... just because they exist
doesn't grant someone an immediate right to use the technology.  When the
person in the lane next to me puts on their turn signal, it indicates they
have desire to occupy the space I'm in, but it doesn't grant them the right
to merge into me or cut me off.  

For years, organizations have had to weigh the benefits against the risks of
the use of certain technologies or other decisions they make... this is no
different.  I think the point others were trying to make is instead of
deploying the technology first and then trying to capture the hurricane in a
bottle, make some decisions on how to control it BEFORE you begin using it.  

Can anyone say e-mail?  The questions being asked about how to
manage/convert .pst files today is a PERFECT example of what happens when
technology is thrown at a problem prior to analyzing it... and even without
involving the .pst issue, the whole Pandora's Box of e-mail in general is
another example. 

Simple studies have shown that less than 5% of all e-mail has a retention
value exceeding that of transitory records (180 days), yet the 'solution'
many organizations choose is 'e-mail archiving' which is not a solution or
an archive, it's a massive repository that resembles a digital version of a
haystack.


>Just my philosophical rantings on a Thursday afternoon.  I've perhaps been
told >"no" by one too many IT professional during my career to take such an
attitude >lightly.  And apologies for my sarcasm earlier.


Given the .edu you post from, I can understand the consternation with being
told no (by an IT person, an RM person, or an Administrator of some kind)
but in every organization, someone has to make the rules... and most of the
time, these are "Golden Rules"... he who controls the Gold, makes the Rules.

Happy Thursday

Larry
[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]