Good Day,

 

I have spent about 3 to 4 hours struggling thru the documents under
reference and a couple of days to digest mainly due to "commonality"
between them and other ISO documents.

 

Picking up on Larry M's invite to step into the minefield......apologies
for any duplication of comments but I think reinforcement is needed!

 

Firstly I have to state that I am somewhat surprised that the idea of
these documents appears to have been conceived somewhere in 2007/2008(?)
by a select group and only now many months later do fairly far developed
documents see the light of day! I realise that there is an ISO or
whatever process (together with a whole bunch of politics and bull) but
you cannot develop standards without the input and support of the
greater user community. If I recall there has been a statement that
.....yes but these are intended for Management ....to which there was a
reply ....that RIM practitioners will be required to "sell" this.......!
Given they will, these documents require 100% support by the RIM
practitioners - and yes I mean individuals who are actively involved in
implementing and managing RIM on a daily basis. 

 

Secondly, I would like to ask the same very stupid question that never
gets a real answer (and that's why its called stupid) - why has 15489
not been reviewed and updated and if there was a decision not to by whom
and why was the greater RIM community not consulted on such a
far-reaching decision? (I thought there was a set process and period of
time for regular reviews of all ISO for standards) ISO 15489 is really
not a bad document if you view it from the basis that implementing is
about what is relevant to your RIM operations and that may involve only
10% or 50%, etc. It is definitely not 100% implemental in its current
form but that does not make it irrelevant. 

 

My apologies I digress. 

 

My first observation is that both documents total some 48 pages
(together with 15489 another 80 pages with more to come.....) of
somewhat weak disjointed content and try to justify their existence with
poor content. For example there are three pages of Terms & Definitions
which tend to confuse - if you are going to have Terms and Definitions
then define one and the rest be damned unless there is strong objection
during a proper RIM community review (which I seriously doubt is going
to happen!!!).

 

Commenting on 30300 I will dispense with all the irrelevant stuff like
confusing diagrams and wording like .....and to contribute to the
preservation of collective memory (what has this got to do with the
creation of records in a business environment?????); .....and the
recognition of public interest....; ...potential future stakeholders
(must we now be psychic); ....support the promotional activities......;
...future needs....; et al.

 

Having worked within ISO 9001 systems most of my RIM career both
documents appear to be a RIM (but I am not sure what the collective
compilers actual RIM or ISO 9001 hands-on experience is) re-write of ISO
9001 -

 

*                        page v - defined roles & responsibilities;
systematic processes; measurement and evaluation; review and improvement
(all in ISO 9001)

*                        page vi - Application of ISO 30300 a) b) & d)
(all in ISO 9001)

*                        page 7 - Process-based MSR model (taken
straight out of ISO 9001 but with different wording to suit a MSR)

*                        etc

 

From page 1 onwards I kept on asking myself WHY? For example - .....This
can be done through a MSR..... - why can/must it be done thru a MSR; Top
management has a role to link the MSR......- why? And so on and so on.
Having implemented a couple of RIM systems you can be assured, at least
in South Africa, that Management haven't got the slightest interest in
any management system standard for records. Yes they may have ISO 9001
implemented but it is to deliver a product or service and is not viewed
as a MSS. All the RIM implementations were driven by legal & statutory
requirements, or by spill-off of ISO 9001 or SG 50 QA2, etc. In fact my
last implementation of a Phase I RIM system (which cost about $65k) was
never implemented any further than thank you very much and payment of my
invoice.

 

And then we get to page 6 - and section 2.5 is a direct steal out of ISO
9001 - Plan Do Check Act but translated into RIM-speak in Figure 3
Management Responsibility becomes Leadership (MSR); Resource Management
becomes Planning (MSR) and Support (MSR); Product realisation becomes
Operation (MSR) and finally Measurement, Analysis and Improvement
becomes Performance Evaluation (MSR) and Improvement (MSR).

 

And so on to 30301 which is a somewhat meatier document but still most
of the content is a direct steal on ISO 9001 (which people need to bear
in mind addresses product and services!!!!) so I won't go into any
detail. And this is reinforced by Annexure A which lists ISO
9001/14001/27001 document requirements. Annexure B is most probably the
best content of both documents because it finally gets down to what and
a how. Annexure C Check list for self-assessment is really poor and the
compilers would have done better by using the ARMA GARP(r) Model.

 

IMHO!!!!!!!

 

Referring to a couple of the posts on June 18th there is just too much
in these documents (120 and counting) and far too many documents (4 so
far and what about 15801 and if you have a QMS then it is also 9001 and
possibly 11442 - you are going to up to armpits in crocodiles sorry
standards and you bet your bottom dollar many documents many problems).
The scenario that now presents itself (au fait accompli by an unknown
community of professionals) is that the greater RIM community now have
to convince Management that they need a MSR to support an out-dated
standard that Management didn't understand in the first place. This is
not going to happen in my lifetime (yes I know I am an old f**t!). What
I believe should have happened is that a simple one document management
standard should have been developed in parallel to an upgrade of 15489
driven by the RIM community so that both could be placed before
management at the same time. For example it is possible to implement a
fully functional Quality Management System using ISO 9001 - I do not
have to use multiple documents. Why not the same for RIM?

 

There has been no explanation, no consultation, no information, no
nothing, etc on the development of these standards in South Africa (or
even on international forums that I keep a beady eye on) - which is the
norm. And this is the biggest indictment of this process! So would
somebody please enlighten me on who this community of professionals, the
people, 18 participating countries, official representatives, etc are
that have done such a sterling job???

 

And finally I must respond to just one item (12 Benefits for
certification - top reasons for certification) in the FAQ N1069 - 

 

*                        to enhance company image - how does this
enhance and why would I want it? 

 If I am already a $450 million per annum international operation, with
40000 employees and an earnings per shareholder of 38%, etc what would
be the benefit?

*                        to meet customer demands - there is no customer
demand!

    We have now gone from Management to Customers - I am not sure how
this requirement is going to be driven by customers, more so in terms of
what value to the customer!

*                        to gain preferred supplier status - why and
who?

    Having a MSR and certification is going to have absolutely no impact
on my ability to supply anything, however ISO 9001 will! 

*                        to establish better control - how much control
can you have?

If your system conforms legally how much better can you make it? (it is
the committees opinion that an org will have to implement both
standards, if you don't where does that leave you?)

*                        for a foundation for continuous improvement -
you do not need a set of management standards to achieve this!

    This is already a foundation for any good business and if you have
ISO 9001 in place, another two standards are not going to incrementally
add that much more value

 

I would like to end by stating quite categorically that I support
standards for doing business. However, they must be simple, relevant and
user driven!

 

I look forward to comments from the many experienced practitioners on
the listserv - which so far has not been very forthcoming and is
desperately needed for this situation!

 

Kind Regards

 

Vaughan Spooner CRM

 

 

 

 


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]

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]