Annemarie,

Apologies for the long response. Others may skip right on by if Classification isn't a topic of interest!
 
Card sorting has definite value in the determination of business classification schema (BCS). But one needs to understand its strengths and weaknesses, as I suspect you have already discovered. But aiming at a high level ‘umbrella’ classification is an approach that works well.
 
I believe that you are contemplating what can be called a ‘closed’ card sort, one where you are giving the group already filled in cards, and even some structure, and asking them to arrange the cards or validate your work to date. The danger with the closed card sort, when it is ‘sprung upon’ a group of users, is that instead of moving forward one is typically spending valuable time debating the cards, the terms used, and their placement, rather than moving towards validation of the structure. Closed card sorts should in my view be left for the validation stage with a group that has already drafted the structure they see as accurate and useable, and are comfortable with this method. 
 
The chief limitation of the way many approach card sorts is the natural expectation, based on the fact that the card is a ‘physical’ item, that the card must fit in only one place in the BCS, like a book in a library. A strict interpretation like this leads typically towards a strict and inflexible hierarchical taxonomy, where there is one ‘right’ way to organize everything. And typically when we RIM people do it, we lack enough understanding of the way users see their information. My experience is that there is little chance that an entire organization will agree on a single classification tree, and on many terms which from the high level appear to be synonyms. And you may spend a great deal of energy and momentum trying to achieve ‘perfect’ when ‘usable and effective’ is the real objective. 

The way around this strict hierarchy is what some call a ‘poly-hierarchy,’ where  a term/category can be repeated in different parts of the BCS. For example, Reports. These can find a place under specific program areas, under  Finance, etc. Each use of the term has a specific context in its pairing with a parent term in the BCS, for example: ‘Financial Management – Reports’ are clearly different than Projects Management – Reports. There is a danger in using poly-hierarchy – be very careful how you repeat terms try to avoid a term at multiple levels in the BCS. I know that this repetition of terms is open to debate, so it is something to contemplate for your own organization. I suspect you have already gathered some examples from other OPS agencies on how they handled this.
 
You state that you have used a card sort to determine ‘schedules.’ The (retention) schedule is not the same as the BCS, and it is an important distinction. When the schedule structure and BCS are uniform, meaning you have one place for a term/category in the BCS and also one place in the schedules, then it is a workable scenario. But if you need to repeat terms/categories, which is IMO inevitable in the BCS, then the structure of the schedules must be independent of the BCS because you cannot duplicate schedules.
 
In my experience, the structure of the BCS should be focused on staff usability and coherence with their business context, while the retention schedules are a taxonomy of records policies that can be applied to one or many different terms (categories/folders) in the BCS, meaning that as either changes, you reduce the need to change both structures.

Hope this has been helpful and not too wordy.

Regards,

Bruce 

Bruce Schinkelwitz, MAS CRM
Principal

Foundational, Inc.
T: 1-888-901-3401
[log in to unmask]

-------------------------
On May 26, 2010, at 9:00 PM, RECMGMT-L automatic digest system wrote:

> Date:    Wed, 26 May 2010 17:14:12 -0400
> From:    Annemarie Toth-Waddell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Value of card sorting exercises in building a functional classification/retention schedule
> 
> We have been working on building a function based retention schedule for
> our organization that we are now in the process of validating with
> staff. =20
> 
> =20
> 
> The draft business classification we are now validating was designed
> based on  research into similar types of schedules being created in
> other organizations, direct knowledge of the types of records held in
> the various departments in our organization that we gained by working
> with staff in the past, review of legislation governing our organization
> and documentation on our existing services, card sorting done by RM
> staff using the existing branch based records schedule and ideas gained
> from attending numerous workshops on schedule creation.  Feedback we are
> now getting from interviews with key staff is helping us to further
> refine the business classification and ensure staff are comfortable with
> the record series groupings and terminology.  Our goal is to create a
> classification which is easy to understand conceptually and is high
> level enough to allow staff to create more granular folder structures
> that will serve individual departmental needs.
> 
> =20
> 
> I am evaluating whether there is any value in doing additional card
> sorting to validate the draft schedule.  My impression is that card
> sorting will be valuable when we come to the point of helping staff
> reorganize shared drives and develop the more granular folder structures
> they need, but for the high level classification we are trying to
> introduce, I'm not sure we will ever get agreement through card sorts,
> particularly when it comes to governance files that cross the
> organization.=20
> 
> =20
> 
> I would be interested in getting opinions or comments on the value of
> card sorting for building a high level functional classification like
> this.
> 
> =20
> 
> Annemarie=20
> 
> Annemarie Toth-Waddell
> 
> Manager, Records Management Program
> 
> Office of Information Management
> 
> Information and Technology Services Division
> 
> Legislative Assembly of Ontario
> 
> Queen's Park
> 
> Toronto ON M7A 1A2
> 
> 416-314-8515
> 
> email: [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]