Douglas Allen <[log in to unmask]> posed a quandry:

>(1)  He doesn't understand our language - that sounded like our complaint
>about IT
>

Yeah, there's always communications issues- sometimes it the use of terms
with multiple meanings (archive, backup, store) and sometimes it the way the
terms are used.  This is why I've found it beneficial to include a short
glossary of terms in policies, procedures, etc. whenever there may be
confusion about terms that may be well understood py a portion of the
impacted population, but not everyone.

>
>(2)  The rules containing the puzzling language are a bit overwhelming in
>their number
>

In many cases it's common to state 'rules and regs' verbatim. When this
happens, some people just glaze over when reading them, and would rather
wait for the movie than read the book.  Depends on how heavily regulated
your industry is how important this is. If you feel there is a need to cite
things directly, then it's always advisable to include a reference to the
original citation so it doesn't appear you pulled it out of your...hat =) .  

In other cases, you can either paraphrase the language, or first state the
"formal requirement" and then the 'simple interpretation' as it applies to
users.

>
>(3)  His program didn't recognize the need that he had for an "off-line
>copy" of vital information related to safety inspections -- He frequently
>meets with refinery folks in venues where internet access is NOT a
>"given"....so in order to actually do his job, he has to violate the
>organization's RIM practices.
>

Your 'use copies' of vital records can take any form you wish, as long as
they exist.  CD, DVD, microfilm, removable drive, paper copies... as long as
they are current and accurate.  You can do this by planned or routine
dispersal to other sites, electronically, by mail , or by 'sneaker net' (how
many of you remember THIS term?)  

If he finds the method by which he maintains a copy for use to meet
continuity needs "violate the organization's RIM practices", those practices
should be evaluated during a COOP drill and the failure should be apparent
to someone.  No value in having a formal practice documented that cannot be
enacted.

>
>Anyway, there were a few "other issues" but... most of those were what I
>would refer to as "annoyance factors", and things that he probably
>misunderstood about his organization's program.  The language thing...well,
>I could identify with that quite easily, and I am certain that it is
>something that a good RIM program can find ways to avoid.
>

I *KNOW* this would probably be like trying to get someone from say... New
York to understand people from Texas!!  }8^)

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]