RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"McCutcheon, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 10:15:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
: <[log in to unmask]>

Perhaps Cohasset should consider contacting a major university to assist
with survey design.  Many (most?) Colleges of Education have competent
faculty and doctoral students teaching/studying QRM (quantitative
research methods), who might love a juicy project such as this to work
on.

Stephanie McCutcheon, CRM
Denver, Colorado

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Greg Schildmeyer
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] cohasset mer survey 2007

>PeterK said:
for the survey to be valid from year to year it should  be constructed
by a polling company and should be sent to a representative population.
This population should include members of IT, RIM, Legal, and C-level
management, members of ARMA, AIIM and possibly SAA.

what is the purpose of the survey? is it to take the pulse of electronic
records management from year to year? If so then construct a proper
survey. provide for cross-correlation. allow for deeper analysis. for
example a good survey would  with cross-correlation say something like
"Survey results show that RM believes X while IT mgrs believe Y." that
is not possible with this survey.<



Peter is dead on in his assessment, as are the others who commented on
the poor structure of this survey.  I last took it 2 years ago, and
decided it was so flawed that I wouldn't waste my time doing it again.
Particularly after Cohasset/AIIM/ARMA released the results with great
fanfare as the "definitive word" on the state of electronic records, and
it's statistics were cited in many subsequent news articles.  I didn't
feel there was enough validity to the survey methods, structure, or
questions to make those claims, and decided to avoid providing any
further appearance of legitimacy by participating in the future.

I think the effort is commendable and useful, but they should do it
properly.

Greg Schildmeyer, CRM

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2