Hi Bill, 

Working on something else at the moment and by no means an expert at
classification approaches, but I use "bucket" as slang for series or
classification node as applicable, the idea being that 99.999% of users
cannot understand most schedules, file plans, classification schemes, or
taxonomies because they are simply too complicated. The significance to me
is that as more and more information is retained, and as more of that is
electronic, we increasingly expect users to participate in the process. And
they won't be able to tell which of 1,500 "buckets" something goes into -
but they can separate "important" from not (2 buckets), "inbox/transitory
zone" from "work zone" from "records zone" (3 buckets and increasingly
proposed for email management), etc. It also takes into account retention
requirements and amalgamates them such that records with e.g. 6-year,
78-month, and 80-month retention are all grouped together in one bucket. The
extreme that I've seen *in practice* is the following: 
- Transitory
- Current calendar year (CY)+1
- CY+3
- CY+5
- Permanent or indeterminate

That's 5 "buckets". Search and retrieval is done using other approaches. 

It's also the case that intrinsically electronic items can be located
through other mechanisms than brute force search, as is required with paper.
Indeed, I've seen (and made!) arguments that classification structure =
metadata for physical objects; I've also seen and believe, though it be
considered heretical in this august forum, that modern records management
began as item management - balancing available physical storage space with
the need to keep and access certain information. 

So in an increasingly digital world, classification is not *as* important as
metadata and full-text search. Before anyone goes off on me, I am NOT saying
that classification doesn't have value in certain contexts. But I also know
that you can find a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, in more than 2.5 million
articles in English alone, with almost no classification structure. There
are problems with every approach, including detailed classification
structures. 

How many big buckets is enough? There's the rub. But NARA's looking at it,
many of our best and brightest are looking at it, and organizations are
often more comfortable with it than with the alternative. I don't pretend to
have the answer but I know that it's part of the central theme of David
Weinberger's book, Everything is Miscellaneous, which I reviewed for IMJ
last year, which I continue to believe is the most important book most
experienced records managers can read today, and which Weinberger will
expound upon in his keynote at ARMA 2008 in Las Vegas. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jesse Wilkins
[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]