Chris,

Good point reg. ERP.  Within such environment, the vast number of data
could be labeled as records, and applying the GRS could be a challenge
as well.

BTW, what does IMHO stand for?  I noticed that in some of your messages,
and was curious.

Thanks.

Shreekant (Sam)
Records Mgmt Program Consultant


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Flynn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Databases


Dwight,

To be sure I am still noodling this one. This is where I se things now.
As a result of SOX the trend is towards capturing the record of the
transaction as it occurs and simultaneous to it entering a database or
ERP. The record is then used to validate against the database enduring
proper reporting etc. This will satisfy audit and any SEC rule that
might apply as well as give the CFO a better nights sleep. A dilemma
might occur when the record is scheduled out and properly disposed of
from the records system. In the electronic records world the most
current version is the record copy. The database record then becomes the
record copy. Records Managers stating that it is not a record is going
to have little impact. The fact remains that the information exists,
might be corrupted, and is admissible in court because we did not
dispose of it properly. That we did not maintain record integrity in the
database environment will not help credibility. IMHO it would only aid
the opposition. However if we were able separate the micro from macro,
essentially removing in a systematic way the record integrity, we might
survive. The problem is not the ability to do this, it is the perceived
or real need to do it and the willingness to shoot the ROI out a lot
further.

Chris Flynn

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