This very interesting thread seems to have taken on a characteristic of the  
undying, perhaps because of its importance in the broader scheme of things. If 
 the list hasn't already had enough of it, I'd like to amplify on some 
comments  in the past week, esp. those of Bill Benedon (competencies taking account  
of the historical fundamentals of our profession and the 'birth  to death"  
concept of records), Russell D. James (doing vs. training others to do) and  
Susan McKinney (questions about functional placement of mail and imaging).
 
I find it useful to think about some of the important distinctions we need  
to consider in the context of whatever aspect we are talking about:  
competencies, organizational arrangements, best practices, etc. Some of these  relevant 
to this thread are:
 
1)  Historical vs current vs future roles. Well educated information  and 
records managers (more highly paid or contributing to higher-level  positioning?) 
should be well informed about all of these roles. Continuing  education 
requires focus on current best practices and likely future  implications of 
changing workpatterns and recordmaking technologies. So if the  context is ARMA 
competency standards or ICRM tests, then all aspects should be  taken into account 
in testing, making the distinctions among them clear. Do we  view our jobs as 
"just the facts, M'am" or do we see them beyond the basics and  in the broader 
opportunities they afford. As Ginny Jones and others have noted,  the 
registry system is alive and well in Europe and North America. As ARMA  
"International" and "I"CRM are international professional organizations, they  need to 
continue to keep an international perspective on this set of issues. 
 
2) Issues arising out of the "post-custodial" discussions (going   back to 
Gerald Ham's first usage of the term in 1981; see papers on this at  
mybestdocs.com), especially: the physical vs conceptual, intellectual or logical  
handling, "custody" and responsibility for recordkeeping. This is not to  suggest 
that it has become an either/or situation but rather that our  traditional 
responsibilities and competencies for physical records must be  greatly strengthened 
with those relating to logical control of records in  digital form. And even 
if we surrender  the physical handling of certain paper records, including 
snail  mail, it is still incumbent upon us (all the more so than before) to  
maintain logical control over information objects that meet the definition of  
records. The latter roles involve quite different competencies,  staffing, 
staffing levels, etc. Paper vs digital records run into one  another in the use of 
technology to gain and maintain logical control over  records, such as when we 
develop and implement policies/procedures/systems  to capture and manage paper 
records through the use of imaging and  other content 
management/recordkeeping  technologies. Also when  we design business systems models and information 
discovery schemes to  ensure that paper and electronic records are linked. 
 
3) Balance on the focus between the "Management" and "Records" aspects  of 
RM. Over time, the balance has shifted in important ways, as noted  above, 
largely because of the advent of electronic records suggesting increased  focus on 
the management side of RM, i.e., carrying out functions vs ensuring  that 
functions are carried out by others or by systems (whether by training,  auditing, 
having an oversight mandate...or whatever). Again, as several have  noted, 
this varies greatly depending on organizational size.
 
Regards,

Rick

Rick Barry
_www.mybestdocs.com_ (http://www.mybestdocs.com/) 
Cofounder, Open  Reader Consortium
_www.openreader.org_ (http://www.openreader.org/) 

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