On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Bruce White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> I reviewed the presentation and came to the same conclusion.  Replace
> "information" with "records" and there would be no difference IMHO.


Great minds DO think alike...



> When I
> see presentations like this I have to wonder if the RM community has a
> complex.


And Birds of a Feather DO flock together....



> Does the term "records" have such a negative connotation in
> everyone's mind that we are attempting to run away from it?
>

Not everyone, only select sets of individuals that seem to think it doesn't
sell well unless continually re-branded into something that has a more
kitschy acronym, or that management who haven't 'bought into' it before
might buy into if it sounds cooler.

If you do, or have done, records management in a highly regulated segment
or in local or Federal government, (or you have built and run a successful
program), it hasn't been tough to get management to buy in and support the
function.  But in private industry, especially where the case has to be
built for the need to an RM Program and funding, it's tougher.  And don't
even get me started on Archives.

I have pushed "Information and Records Management" as what I do for
decades- ever since we first started seeing content produced electronically
(documents, drawings, spreadsheets, databases, input forms, etc) the net
had to be cast wider than what was finely refined as a 'record' to ensure
ALL information was captured, protected and managed.

But the whole governance deal (and I've said it many times here... I GET
WHAT IT MEANS) is just another way of re-branding and 'packaging' all the
aspects of what a robust records management program consists of, including
all of the aligned services and functions that are parts of other
functional areas in an organization.  We have always achieved 'governance'
through collaborative arrangements with our counterparts- IT, Legal,
Procurement, Risk Management, whoever was related with the efforts that
best served the organizations needs... but we never felt the need to be
part of a common structure to do that.  You come together, develop policy
and practices to support it, publish and train others to follow it, and
then go about your business.  One policy, a set of practices to see that it
is met, and processes to ensure everyone achieves it.  Simple.

Larry
[log in to unmask]


> > Yep, sounds like Records Management to me.
> >
> > ....Can we get some more lipstick over here??
>


-- 
*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]