Maarja - I'll try to answer your questions as best I can fou you and the rest of the Listserv.....

<<As a Federal historian, I have a question for you regarding the functional records schedule you developed 7 years ago.  Actually, since you're describing the records of a non-Federal entity, not all of my concerns would apply to your situation.>>

We are about as federal as it gets.  We adhere to the GRS as well as the DOE-specific schedules, and some that were designed and approved just for the SPR.

<<How many cross references and links did you provide in the revised schedule to the schedule that immediately preceded that one?  Did you do a crosswalk between the old schedule and the new one?  Did you keep a copy of the crosswalk? >>

In a way, I lucked out here.  The schedules (departmental at the time) we SO bad that we just scratched them and started over.  We actually began the project a 1.5 years earlier (8.5 years ago) and totally revamped the entire records program (policies, procedures, work instructions... Everything!) to be in accordance with CFR 36 records requirements.  We've never regretted that major effort, as we have since been able to comply with everything that comes out of DOE HQ and NARA without having to make any changes in our program.  We did attempt to keep a cross walk at first, but it quickly became apparent that it would not be worth the effort.  Since individual departments were allowed to develop their own departmental schedules using the GRS, they often interpreted the GRS differently and chose different schedules for the same document.  We finally gave up chasing our tails and started over.  We started by doing a complete inventory of everything we had in storage... and I mean everything.  We then determined the "functions," and inventories everything the functions created or received.  After much song-and-dance scenarios between the function, we finally pinned the functions down to who really owned the true record copy of a document.  The current RIDS were then born, and we promptly rescheduled all incorrectly schedule documents based on the RIDS.  We are now keeping a cross-walk for our own personnel to use when trying to determine which department is responsible for which function... for today.  It could change tomorrow.  These crosswalks are controlled corporate documents under full document control.


<<Does your organization keeps copies of all the previously issued records schedules?>>
Yes, we keep every single one., and they have been very valuable.  For example: One set of records were scheduled for destruction 4 years after the close of the fiscal year in which they were created.  The records were destroyed in 1997.  We maintained the metadata of the records and their destruction, but the records were gone.  In 2000, the schedule changed from 4 years to 75 years.  We immediately change all existing records to the new schedule.  Our customer wanted to see these records going back to 1996.  We were able to pull the federal schedule in force at that time and prove that the 1996 copies had been legally and appropriately destroyed based on the schedule at that time.


<<Now, when your organization re-organizes, what documents show the shifting of responsibilities and functions, since schedule revisions would not reflect that as much as unit-based schedules would?>>
Organization Charts.  These charts are formal approved records, and are maintained under a strict document control regiment as well as records control requirements. When superseded by new information, obsolete org charts become INACTIVE records, and are retained as such.  If needed (such as happens in litigation), I can provide the approved, signed organization chart from a specific period showing the department, organization, and manager under which the function resided at the time, which in turn proves that the person signing any of the records documentation (RIDS--which are also under strict document control, storage requests, retrieval requests and/or destruction authorizations) was the authorized manager at the time.  Subsequent personnel records for this individual would further defend this claim.   As I said, we have a strict document control process for the entire life cycle of a document, including unique document numbers, effective dates, approvals of appropriate managers, and document policies and procedures that make this possible and viable, even in court.

I believe the key to much of our records management success is that we treated the "records" phase as only one life cycle of a document.  From the beginning of our plans, we dealt with the entire elephant - all documented materials on all media at all lifecycle stages.  Our goals were (and still are) simple but massive - 1) THE RIGHT INFORMATION IN THE RIGHT HANDS AT THE RIGHT TIME, 2) SINGLE DOCUMENT, MULTI USE, and 3) FORM FOLLOWS CONTENT.  We've never lost sight of these goals in the past 8.5 years.  Once we wrestled the records phase under control, we expanded our procedures to control all lifecycles of all corporate documents in all media, even those that are not yet approved and released as active records.  For example, I no longer require our formal procedures to have a manager's signature.  I accept an e-mail from the manager stating that the attached document is ready for publication in the company corporate library as formal approval, then post that e-mail with attachment as part of the "record" for that document. How can I do this? Because we have a detailed corporate procedure regarding the use of e-mail and the password protection of PCs which require us to lock our PCs any time we leave our desk, and we conduct formal, traceable training. This means that if Manager John Doe sends and e-mail approving a document regarding a function for which he is responsible:  1) I have the approved org chart showing he is the correct manager/subject matter expert allowed to approve the document, 2) we will not have the formal cross-walks clearly identifying function/department relationships, 3) the Information Systems procedures on appropriate use of PCs and e-mails, and 4) the official training records showing that every person in the company took the PC and password training and passed.  All documents in combination, along with my records management and document control procedures, would fully support litigation.

Whew!  Sorry if I was too verbose, but I'm very passionate about this topic, and I truly believe in it.  See what happens when you silently lurk on the Listserv for years?  All of a sudden, you just gush it all out at once.  Ya'll probably won't hear from me again for several more years!

Elizabeth Laiche
Records/Document Control Manager
DynMcDermott Petroleum (DOE SPR Contractor, New Orleans)

-----Original Message-----
From: Maarja Krusten [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 3:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; Laiche, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: agency re-organization and RM Issues


Hi, Elizabeth!

Your posting made me start thinking about research 30 or 50 years from now.

As a Federal historian, I have a question for you regarding the functional records schedule you developed 7 years ago.  Actually, since you're describing the records of a non-Federal entity, not all of my concerns would apply to your situation.  But still, I thought I'd ask you and the List in general.  How many cross references and links did you provide in the revised schedule to the schedule that immediately preceded that one?  Did you do a crosswalk between the old schedule and the new one?  Did you keep a copy of the crosswalk?  Does your organization keeps copies of all the previously issued records schedules?  Now, when your organization re-organizes, what documents show the shifting of responsibilities and functions, since schedule revisions would not reflect that as much as unit-based schedules would?

The reason I ask is, as a historian, I've found that older style unit based schedules can provide useful information about how an organization operated say 30 years ago.  Obviously, historians need to understand departmental organization in order to figure out where in retired or NARA-accessioned records to look for older documents, say ones from 30 or 50 years ago.  Or to work up lists of oral history interview questions when interviewing elderly retirees.  Knowing something about the old set-up from various sources, such as a records schedule, is helpful.  In doing my research, I've relied on all sorts of old hard copy library materials, including agency telephone directories from the 1960s, directives, and records schedules.  Now, telephone directories usually are web based.  A lot of information that used to be available in hard copy and linked to a specific issue date is being handled very differently.

While I understand the benefit to records managers of moving to broader, functional schedules, I'm curious as to how organizations that are using functional schedules are capturing the broad scope of organizational information ― who did what, who was in charge as of what date, etc. ― that has been useful to historians in the past.

Maarja


>>> [log in to unmask] 3/14/2005 3:23:05 PM >>>
You have quite a job ahead of you.  We are a sizable government contractor that reorganizes frequently, usually due to budget cuts and personnel reductions. In the 18 years I've been with this contractor, we have reorganized more times than I care to count.  The constant updates to documents to accommodate reorgs drove us records and document control people crazy. Here are two changes I made that help the company stay organized and productive during reorgs.

FUNCTIONS VS. DEPARTMENTS
The biggest (and hardest) improvement I made at our company 7 years ago was to: 1) break the entire company down into "functions" that are independent of departmental or organizational structures, and 2) developed clear records inventory and disposition schedules (RIDS) for all record and non-record documents in all media based on those functions.  Since we are a management and operations contractor with an extensive range of contract responsibilities, we had 63 separate operational (maintenance, construction, engineering, etc.) and administrative (personnel, payroll, travel, etc.) "functions" located under 8 directorates and 25 departments.  Now, when we reorganize, nothing changes except the department name and manager that has been designated to assume oversight of the various functions impacted by the reorg. I don't have to update RIDS to move documents from one department to another because the records are tied to a functional process, not a specific department.  The new departments/managers review the existing RIDS for the functions they have inherited to learn what documents (both record and non-record) for which they are now responsible and accountable. Everyone else in the function continues to do exactly what they did before, with the exception that they sometimes do it in a different building or on a different floor, they have a different department name, and they answer to a different manager.  OK... So they don't do EXACTLY what they did before.... but the business process does not change, nor do the documents and records associated with it.

BUSINESS PROCESSES
We are currently developing cross-functional business process flowcharts from a high-level company perspective all the way down to a detailed work instruction level.  By checking the cross-functional map for functional responsibilities, hand-offs and deliverables BEFORE reorganizations occur, it is easy to spot which functions will be impacted by the reorganization and how they will be impacted, allowing us to eliminate problems before they occur.  This works only if you define and develop functions first.  If not, your business process flowcharts will be cross-departmental instead of cross-functional, and will need to be revised every time the company reorganizes.

Hope this helps!

Elizabeth Laiche
Records/Document Control Manager
DynMcDermott Petroleum (DOE SPR Contractor, New Orleans)


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aquino-Perez, Ana
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: agency re-organization and RM Issues


We are going to be going through a major reorganization in our agency shortly and I want to make sure that records management (rm) is being addressed as we move forward with the reorganization.

If you have gone through this process in your companies/agencies (and even if you haven't and have good recommendations) can you tell what were the major and your most critical RM issues that you faced as you reorganized and how did you solved them? What other issues I should keep in mind and bring forward to my management for consideration?  What could be any developing issues or policy questions that may need to be addressed? Do any of you have any service level agreements that you have develop for your rm services in your organziation?

RM has resurfaced as a high priority in the process.  Whatever I bring forward will be considered as part of the RM implementation plan for the reorganization. This is a major opportunity for me to bring RM to the forefront and I want to take advantage of it.

Any help and information you can provide will be much appreciated. Please, reply directly to my email address. Thanks much! Ana Aquino-P*rez Records Officer 4802 Sheboygan Ave Rm. 751 PO Box 7915 Madison, WI 53707
Tel.: 608-266-5290
Fax: 608-267-4892
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance