Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:13:50 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
My experience has been that HOW the codes are assigned isn't as important
as LOCKING the codes in once they are determined. I hate to use the word
arbitrary, but I guess I just did.
In the past, we've assigned a three digit letter code based on the business
function followed by a dash and then a sequential number using 3 digits. It
would look like this LGL-001 or a legal file , ENG-024 for engineering. But the
varieties in all the different numbering schemes that I've seen would make
Baskin Robbins jealous.
If some divisions have codes established, and they work for what you are
trying to do, then perhaps those codes can be adopted by other divisions.
Same for records series titles. The main thing that is all divisions associate
the same CODE with the same RECORD SERIES.
It sounds like each division may be dancing to their own tune and if you are
building an enterprise wide records management program, then you'll have to
teach them all to Charleston, Salsa...or Macarena, depending on your age.
File Plan - How they maintain records
versus
Retention Schedule - How long they maintain records
If you are bulding a functional retention schedule, then you have some leeway
to grant as far as FILING is concerned - not necessarily RETENTION. If some
business units are filing alphabetically, and it works, then perhaps allowing
them to continue that method and make those decisions themselves won't
harm the coporation and provide a sense of comfort and familiarity during the
all important change management process when you implement.
DISCLAIMER: The more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know anything.
Have a blessed weekend!
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]
|
|
|