At the risk of both being flamed and being misunderstood, my understanding
of BBT (big bucket theory) hinges on two points. 1. It recommends or even
requires a dissociation between classification for retention purposes
(transitory, working, record or permanent) and classification for
findability. Findability then hinges on one or more of a comprehensive
taxonomy, effective finding aids, full-text search, metadata search, etc.
2. It clumps together records of shorter mandatory retention into longer
retention buckets, e.g. 12 months, 15 months, 18 months, and 2 years all go
into the 2 years bucket, under the assumption that the slight increase in
liability for keeping things longer is offset by the ease of understanding
and better compliance with the retention requirements.

Given those two assertions, I don't see why it can't work in every
environment. The only wrench in the works that I see would be those rare
records where the legal or regulatory authority sets maximum retention
periods, such as for personal information. For all other instances it
becomes a risk/benefit management calculation of number of buckets & ease of
use vs. likelihood of them being requested for audit/discovery in the
marginal time (time between original retention and "big bucket" retention)
and cost to produce.

-- 
Regards,

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
blog: http://informata.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins

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]