Mary Haider said:  "Carol,  You are so right - another new name for an
established process."

In my opinion, data maps became a big deal in the wake of the Rules change
in 2006 because too many organizations either, 1) had no RM program in
place, 2) had a program that was built in 1978 and not updated since, 3)
had a RM program that didn't address all enterprise content, only official
records or just paper, or 4) didn't have the appropriate linkages or tools
embedded in their RRS to track specific locations as they change due to
valid infrastructure management needs ... but the organizations had very
real legal, reputational, and financial risk at their feet and needed to do
something.

Figuring out what you have and where it is is often a faster exercise (and
often "good enough" for the purposes at hand) than putting together a
thorough retention and disposition management program.  A lot of
organizations are still keeping "everything", as a rule, so a RRS won't
help them as much as a data map will.

Also in my opinion, I don't think a RRS and a data map are, or should be,
the same thing.  They are related, and support each other, but are
different things with different uses and often different "owners".

A RRS manages content to its normal-course value, assigns retention and
disposition requirements.  It is primarily focused on ensuring that
compliance with laws/rules can be effectively proven through records, and
less so, for managing costs.

A data map tells you where content lies (data sources) regardless of record
status, who the custodian of that system or data is, what retention and
disposition rules or procedures are applied to the data or data source
(this is the linkage to the RRS - or at least it should be).  A data map
exists as a locator tool, not a retention management tool, per se.

They are similar, but the nuances should not be underestimated nor should
the management tactics needed to appropriately maintain them.

When I was consulting and ran across a client who didn't have *any* formal
tools, we often started with a data map and used that as the springboard to
develop a full-fledged RM program.  They were able to mitigate their risk
in litigation quickly, and show good faith in that they are working on
expanding their efforts out across the enterprise in a proactive fashion.
Serial litigants don't have time to wait 6-12 months to develop a RM
program - they have 30 days to respond to a complaint or discovery order.

I have no issues and take no offense to the idea that a RRS isn't the
silver bullet to solve all of an organization's information needs.  To me,
it continues to show why it is so important that the conversation be
elevated within the organization, and senior-level accountability assigned,
so the tactical "owners" of these information management tools can be under
the same strategy and management umbrella - the IG program.

Again, just my opinion.

Julie

-- 
Julie J. Colgan, CRM

[log in to unmask]
http://twitter.com/juliecolgan
http://www.linkedin.com/in/juliejcolgan

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]