http://nyti.ms/cLgZK3

While this isn't directly related to Records Management, the example below
gives one example of a possibly questionable RM Policy/Practice.  Typically,
version control in a critical step in RM and the fact that both of these
documents existed within the RM system and were obtained through an FOIA
request indicates SOMEONE didn't do SOMETHING they should have. 

It would appear the earlier version would have been a 'draft' that should
have been replaced by the final version issued following further testing. 
But one would have to wonder, was the second file, instead of being a later
version of the original, given another name and possibly this is why they
both existed in the system?

All of this brings up the question- what practices are in place IN YOUR ERMS
to avoid the renaming of documents to prevent something like this from
happening?


In April of this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was “unlikely
to be a successful cement job,” according to a document, referring to how
the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well.

The document also says that the plan for casing the well is “unable to
fulfill M.M.S. regulations,” referring to the Minerals Management Service.

A second version of the same document says “It is possible to obtain a
successful cement job” and “It is possible to fulfill M.M.S. regulations.”

Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman, said the second document was produced after
further testing had been done. 


Larry
[log in to unmask]
[Yes, it's really me =) ]

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]