And that's what we get paid to do for our organizations. 

Carol Choksy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>We call that a filing system.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Aug 31, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Dwight WALLIS <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Bailey is cited as follows: "He argued that we need  new email
>> management policies and that we should listen to users.   Not talk *to* them
>> or worse yet tell them what to do.  But to understand how people use their
>> email accounts, then build reasonable management controls that will not be
>> evaded around those practices."
>> 
>> Regarding email and other desktop systems where the individual is the
>> primary records custodian: Rather than imposing enterprise taxonomies on
>> such systems for purposes of compliance, I wonder if a better approach would
>> be to train individuals to better tag/name their own information in a way
>> that makes sense to them, and helps them do their jobs.
>> 
>> A simplified classification approach would still apply: to paraphrase
>> Meadke, Robek and Brown, tags/names should be "logical, standardized,
>> practical, simple, functional, retention  conscious, mutually exclusive, and
>> flexible". With some modification, these are basic trainable concepts that
>> can have meaning and use to individual users.
>> 
>> Our own surveys and experience indicate user frustration with organizing the
>> information they maintain. As technologies proliferate, individuals are
>> increasingly becoming responsible for their own compliance with organization
>> requirements. Perhaps they should become responsible for their own
>> "classification" as well. Presumably, a self developed classification would
>> have a better chance for compliance than one imposed externally, if that
>> compliance is the responsibility of the individual user. It doesn't have to
>> be hierarchical, it could use existing folder/tagging/naming technologies,
>> it doesn't even have to be particularly consistent - it just needs to help
>> the user do their job better.
>> 
>> To my knowledge, this type of training - "what to call stuff" - is not
>> widely done, as the skill is assumed. Most naming convention guidelines I've
>> seen focus more on structure, less on content. Most classification training
>> I've seen is focused on shared or enterprise systems. What if we trained the
>> same concepts, simplified, at the individual level?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dwight Wallis, CRM
>> Multnomah County Records Management Program
>> 1620 SE 190th Avenue
>> Portland, OR 97233
>> ph: (503)988-3741
>> fax: (503)988-3754
>> [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]
>

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]