Might as well don my fireproof undies, I'm sure this is gonna draw some
heat.

While I appreciate the fervor which many are approaching the whole EyeGee
thing with, similar to one observation Robert made early in his post:

"Yes, there is the discussion that fads and trends have come and gone and
IG might do the same."

I have to say I wouldn't hang my hat on looking to rebrand position titles
with this latest buzzword anytime soon.  If you go back a few (6-8?) years
ago, you saw a desire to hire "Knowledge Management" workers, but you don't
see too many KM positions posted these days. For an even shorter time,
there were positions offered for "Content Management" workers, and I see
even LESS of those positions around now.

THANKFULLY, I'm not seeing the terms "Ninja" or "Evangelist" appended to
any of the position titles in our arena any longer, but sadly, there ARE
still a few of those appearing in the IT environment.

I understand the desire to attempt to move away from titles some feel are
"dated" or that others seem to think indicate individuals work with (gasp!)
paper and aren't working in the more avant-garde digital content world, but
rest assured many of us that have these old time titles have been working
in those areas since at least the mid to late 1980s.

What we are managing (governing, if you prefer) is the information
contained in the records, whether they are paper, microfilm, photographic,
audio, video... whatever.  It is managed using a variety of techniques,
some including conversion and imaging, others involving detailed indexing
and finding aids, but the bottom line is it's all managed based on the
value of the information contained in the source materials.

I "get" the concept being sold, but I see a lot of effort being expended to
justify the brand and build an industry/empire around it, and I'm not sure
there is any real "there there".  If this is what some people feel it takes
to raise awareness of the practices we're already following and put a
pretty bow on it to sell it to their management, so be it... but let's see
where it is in 2 or 3 years.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Presidential "Managing Government Records
Directive" includes (Item B3) work to "Establish a formal records
management occupational series", something many of us pressed a certain
professional association to work on for over a decade and were told it
couldn't be done... if this succeeds, maybe we'll see people once again
willing to embrace the title "records manager".

Larry
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Seibolt, Robert <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>
> The time has come to revise terribly outdated job descriptions. I have
> created job descriptions with titles such as "Information Governance
> Supervisor", "Senior Information Governance Specialist", and "Information
> Governance Specialist".  I was told the terms might be too "cutting edge"
> and revolutionary for the Midwest and possibly the organization. I am going
> to chuckle about that comment for the rest of the week and then grumble
> about it next week.
>


-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

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]