Kevin
 
We are acquiring the same kind of tool and the vendor did a terrible job of explaining to me and the attorneys the benefit of designing retention buckets and forcing or allowing users to classify their emails. The vendor failed to explain the software's design of competing retention programming and its resolution between 1) the discovery module ('journaled' emails) and 2) the user module where, as you stated :
 
<3. Employees would move the business records to folders with specific retention series>
Since these tools perform 'single instance' archiving, which retention assignment wins out? The longest one that gets assigned in the user module? Or the one set by the super-users (eg the attorneys) who control retention programming the discovery module? The answer is important because it determines who can still find it easily during its lifecycle. We wasted lots of time thinking it was worthwhile to force users to classify emails and to target various retention periods/folders to users on the user side of things only to have the vendor tell us that you really should have only one, or maybe 2 or 3 maximum retention periods (which are 'user groups' -a blanket retention assigned to all emails of a person in a given user group) in the discovery module or 'journaling' side because it's too unwieldy to control otherwise (or maybe that's all the system can handle). The way it works is that if the user assigns a longer retention period than do the attorneys on the ediscovery/journaling side, the email will exist for the longest period of time but the attorneys will not be able to find the email using the ediscovery tool for the remainder of the user-assigned retention period.
 
 (Remember if a thing exists then it is discoverable so your attorneys better be able to find it and not have it turn up after you've claimed it doesn't exist- see the Morgan Stanley $1.4 billion sanction for this very thing).
 
So the upshot is that we must design user-side retention periods to be the same (or shorter) as ediscovery/journaling side retention. Since the product only works with one or two journaling side retention periods (assigned to 'user groups') there's no point in having more retention options than that on the user side. It doesn't matter, for legal purposes, how many user retention periods are available or how users classify their emails: the thing will still exist in the ediscovery archive for the duration. 
 
There's no benefit to users tagging their emails with a variety of retention periods from a searching optimization point of view because the tool uses statistical matching of message body contents and 'advanced' search uses inherent characteristics of the email (names of sender/recipient, date sent, size etc).
 
 Maureen CusackSan Francisco, CA     > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:19:44 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Email archiving retention question> To: [log in to unmask]> > I recently initiated an email archiving/e-discovery project with IS. We > reviewed 4 or 5 vendors products. When we narrowed our list down to two > vendors they demonstrated their products. Both had a feature whereby you > could set retention periods based on user profiles or folders. While > administratively challenging we were going to set up the following > process:> 1. The emails would be archived after 60 days.> 2. Employees would identify emails as either business records or > non-records> 3. Employees would move the business records to folders with specific > retention series> 4. After 90 days any email not moved to a records retention folder would > be deleted.> 5. The folders would automatically process the emails based on the > folders retention period.> 6. The e-discovery tool would allow us to search and put individual > emails on hold, thus stopping us from inadvertently destroying records.> > Both vendors stated their system could do it this way.> > The project is currently on hold.> > > Kevin Tisdel > Director of Corporate Compliance> Shaw Industries Group, Inc.> > > > > "Mrozak, Suzanne" <[log in to unmask]> > Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>> 02/13/2009 10:25 AM> Please respond to> Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>> > > To> [log in to unmask]> cc> > Subject> Email archiving retention question> > > > > > > Greeting to all from Cambridge, MA, where the snow is finally melting > :-)....> > > > **********************************************************> Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.> If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.> Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company or its subsidiaries.> **********************************************************> > 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]
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009
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]