There is a fascinating new "spin" on this from the MoReq2010 project
(MoReq2010 is meant to be a new version of MoReq that will take over from
MoReq2, though the status of the current draft is a bit unclear). The DRAFT
MoReq2010 requirements are based on the idea that records will outlive any
single ERM solution, and that therefore (a) records must always be
accompanied by all the metadata they will need for their entire lifecycle
(rather than only the metadata needed to manage them in their current
system); and (b) all ERM solutions (well, all MoReq-compliant solutions)
must be based on the resulting metadata model. This has a number of
profound implications on syst6em functionality, which are covered in the
draft MoReq2010 specification (publicly available at
http://contribute2moreq.eu). MoReq2010 also throws out most of the
assumptions and paradigms we associate with MoReq2 (including our current
understanding of audit trails, "document type", vital records, capture and
many others) and several similar specifications, replacing them (IMHO) with
more powerful concepts that arguably are better aligned to the capabilities
of contemporary information technology, rather than depending on the
historical paper paradigm. Pretty revolutionary, in other words.
Regardless of what happens to MoReq2010 and the current draft, there are
some interesting issues here.
Marc Fresko
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick O'Callaghan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 January 2011 21:10
Subject: Re: Ideal Functionalities for an ERMS?
Vital/Essential Records (and related archive or backup of these files)
Document Type
Retention/Disposition/Legal Hold
Archive/Transfer
Capture/Registration (Unique ID)
Audit Trail
Workflow
Digital Signature
Bulk Import
Backup/Recovery
See MoReq2.
Patrick O'Callaghan
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Mumtaz (Mohammad) Ahmad <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Greetings Everyone,
>
> I was comparing the various features for an ERM solution. Some of the
> functionalities I could find are Create, Store, Search, Retrieve, Archive,
> Version Control, Metadata, Classification, Auto-Classification/Retention,
> Auto-Archive, Auto-Delete, Access Restrictions, Records Repository and
> Imaging.
>
>
>
> Could someone come up with some more functionalities that an ideal ERM
> solution should provide?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mohammad
>
> --
>
> *Mohammad Mumtaz Ahmad*
>
> *MISt (2010)*
>
> *Records Management, Library and Information Studies***
>
> *Faculty of Information (iSchool), University of Toronto*
>
> Program Director
>
> ARMA Toronto Chapter
> Cell : (647) 898 3970
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> Email Alternate: [log in to unmask]
>
> *P* *Think Green! Print this email only when** **necessary.*
>
> 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]
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]
|
