On 12/1/05, Jones, Virginia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Time for a definition.  I meant to send this a while back, but got
> sidetracked by work.  Please note that the key to successful ILM
> (Information Life Cycle Management as defined in the IT world) is the
> application of established BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS for managing the data,
> records, and information.  Who sets the business requirements? RIM
> folks, of course, as part of the Life Cycle Management of Records &
> Information.
>
> For more info on ILM as a concept see
> www.snia.org.....


99.997 out of 100 times, I'll be in complete agreement with my esteemed
colleague Ginny, but my personal take on this is SNIA is really the largest
part of the problem when it comes to the decision to force a new definition
for ILM and attempt to convince everyone that one didn't already exist.

The definition given by Ginny is the 2nd (well, almost 3rd) cut that SNIA
took at it and it came after more than a year of a few RIMs attempting to
convince them that to redefine a term that's had an accepted definition for
DECADES and trying to force their definition on individuals charged with
managing information since before there were servers was wrong.  The whole
concept of designing a process to institute the most cost effective means of
managing information and basing that on usage patterns goes completely
against what RIM and Information Lifecycle Management is about.  The
addition of "business requirements" to their definition came a bit later in
the game, but I (and it appears others) still have a real problem with the
cost effective issue.

My main issue here is IT is responsible for the systems (hardware and
software) used to manage the information that is an organizational asset.
RIM provides the support to determine the retention requirements based on
legal, regulatory, statutory and business needs.  The departments that
generate the information (and the organization itself) "own" the
information.  As long as IT provides the tools necessary to provide access
to the information, they've done their job... they don't need to get into
the other aspects of managing the information.  For them to develop
definitions for a process where the limits of their responsibility are to
ensure access is possible makes no sense.

In addition, it causes confusion when IT and RIM have disparate definitions
for a term and IT speaks to others and uses their definition, especially
when RIM has already discussed ILM issues with the same audience.  And as
bad as this one is, try holding a discussion about ARCHIVING with anyone
after IT has told them they archive data. =)

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/799

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/1201

Larry

--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance