Hi Mary, 

My statement dealt with the historical reason for creating a distinction
between records and non-records. It WAS originally a space issue; we have
since progressed as a management discipline.

I agree with the first part of your distinction, but not the second. Records
are identified and maintained according to content (that's the Holy Grail,
anyway) - but not all recorded information is a record. There are many
organizations that follow the regime you outline, wherein everything is a
record albeit of different values and therefore retention periods. But not
all of them do. All recorded information is discoverable - but not all
recorded information is, or should be, treated as a record. We run the risk
of diving into semantics here, but there is a reason why "document" is
defined in ISO 15489 and defined differently from "record". 

Finally, lots of organizations do precisely that - with regards to email.
They make a business decision (albeit incorrect, and very risky to the point
of fiduciary irresponsibility) that since they cannot manage email, it must
therefore not be a record. 

For your organization, catalogs do form an important class of record; for
mine, they do not. I suppose they would be discoverable, but I cannot
imagine the circumstances under which they would be relevant (and therefore
desirable of being produced). 

Hope that clarifies my thought process. 

Regards, 

Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, EDP, LIT/ERM, ICP, ERMs, ECMs
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
Visit www.imergeconsult.com/ermworkshops.html for scheduled AIIM ERM
workshops

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of mwhaider
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Record vs Non-record

Jesse,
In your response about scanning you said, "the distinction between "record"
and "non-record" was more about prioritization of what paper to keep vs.
what the organization could get rid of (by choosing not to keep it)."

I think this is a misconception.  The distinction between record and
non-record is about content - or the lack thereof.  All recorded information
is a "record" and is discoverable.  We make distinctions based on the
content and purpose of the record.  Many records are classified as general
administration or housekeeping (this often includes convenience copies) and
may be disposed when no longer needed by the user/custodian.  But this does
not change the classification to "non-record".  We do not classify recorded
information as a "non-record" just because we don't have space to retain the
information.  And, we do not keep all electronic records just because we do
have the space.

Blank forms and published material make up the bulk of "non-records" because
they do not document the business/organizational activities. However, we
have found that the published catalogs of our organization are in fact a
very important record of the company, so the designation of record vs
non-record is not always simple.

Of course, any organization has the right to define specific categories of
recorded information as a non-record but that does not make them any less
"discoverable".

My approach is that "all recorded information is a record. (If it is
recorded on company equipment/time it belongs to the company.) Then we
classify the records based on their content and purpose/use for and within
the organization.
Thanks,
Mary W. Haider
Records & Information Manager

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

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