Chris,

Perhaps your right.  Someday we will be able to store records permanently
using electronic means.  It is not beyond imagination to believe that future
generations may find an ancient CD or other "orb" lying around and figure
out how to decode it.  However, history has a tendency to repeat itself and
it is just as likely that they will spend countless hours examining our 20th
century hieroglyphics and cuneiform scribblings.

NORSAM.COM

>>some of the records in the ERP need to be removed from the system. Several
series of records have reached their retention period and need to be
destroyed.<<

Absolutely, when the retention requirement has been met, the record(s) need
to be destroyed, regardless of format or system.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION OF HOW?

>>If a records is required to be created, the information is collected
electronically, entered into the ERP automatically, the tables are mirrored
into the data warehouse, populated with information, where does the record
reside. By default the record is the database.<<

I don't see the logic of this one.  Unstructured data are not records.
Maybe I am missing the point, but I think the concept that since the
database is populated with form data the database must be a record is akin
to calling a file cabinet full of paper forms a record.  IMHO we are talking
about two very different types of records.  The first is a computer record
or transaction record containing information from or about a single form.
The second is a report, which selects which of the data are to be obtained
and the order in which they are to be presented.  Both can and should have
retention timeframes.  However, the data file cabinet, the database, does
not need a retention value.

I AM NOT SAYING SCHEDULE THE DATA WAREHOUSE (FILE CABINET). I AM SAYING
SCHEDULE THE SERIES WITHIN THE DATA WAREHOUSE (FILE CABINET).WE NEED A
DEFINITION FOR RECORD THAT INCORPORATES CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCE. IN A PAPER
WORLD I CAN REMOVE THE MICRO INFORMATION, FORMS ETC., THROUGH THE SCHEDULING
PROCESS. THIS LEAVES ONLY THE MACRO INFORMATION, STATISTICAL INFORMATION,
REPORTS ETC..BY FAILING TO SCHEDULE THE DATABASE INFORMATION AS A RECORD
MANAGEMENT IS REMOVED FROM THE PROCESS. COMPLIANCE BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE


In addition, mirroring information into a seperate system doesn't make a
data warehouse, it makes RAID.  Unless my understanding of is way off base,
a data warehouse contains information not generally available through
traditional business applications.  Instead, data from multiple applications
is massages, configured, combined and reworked in a manner that adds content
and improves accessibility.

MAYBE BUT HE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS MY SITUATION IS PLANNED TO
DERIVE FROM THE ERP. WHILE INFORMATION WILL BE MINED FROM OTHER SOURCES (A
COMPLICATING FACTOR), IT IS THE CONTINUITY OR FLOW OF THE RECORDS THAT I AM
ADDRESSING. IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO SCHEDULE JUST THE ERP. THE DATA
WAREHOUSE IS WOULD BE THE NEXT SOURCE FOR THE RECORDS IN THE EVENT THE
RECORDS ARE REMOVED FROM THE ERP.

>>Doesn't Prism make database/data warehouse applications?<<

Yes, and they wrote the paper.  But does being a vendor automatically
eliminate credibility?  BTW, the link was to the Center for the Application
of Information Technology at Washington University of St. Louis.

I DON'T THINK IT ELIMINATES CREDIBILITY, AFTER ALL WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT DATA
WAREHOUSES THAN THE DEVELOPERS? HOWEVER, THE GENERAL IT ARGUMENT THE ROI IS
ACHIEVED WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FUNCTIONALITY BY LEAVING EVERYTHING IN
THE SYSTEM IS THE ISSUE. ONE PRIMARY FACTOR HITTING THE WORLD IS THAT THE
DEVELOPERS AND THE IT FOLKS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES IN TERMS
OF ERP AND DATA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS REMAINS
JUST WRONG TO ALTER A DATA WAREHOUSE. FUNCTIONALITY MIGHT DECREASE, ROI
COULD BE PUT OFF AND CREDIBILITY COULD SUFFER. AS LONG AS THE DATABASES ARE
NOT DETERMINED TO CONTAIN RECORDS THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO COMPLY WITH
RETENTION SCHEDULES.

>>Circumstance requires that values change and so does an archive.<<

Granted, but remember that what we are talking about here is a snapshot of
the organization that will be used primarily for research purposes.  If we
use photographs as a comparison, you may decide to decrease the quantity of
a collection of photographs, it is rare that you would destroy them all.  In
addition, how many times are reappraisals done when space/cost is not an
issue?  I submit that reappraisials are often done not because the material
has lost its value, but because something else is taking its place that has
a higher value.

COSTS ARE A FACTOR IN THE ONGOING EXISTENCE OF A DATA WAREHOUSE. AND I AM
NOT CONVINCED THAT DATA WAREHOUSES EQUATE TO ARCHIVES. ARCHIVES CONTAIN
PRIMARY SOURCE UNIQUE ORIGINAL RECORDS. DATA WAREHOUSES CONTAIN THE RECORD
COPY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS ENTERED INTO IT. SPECIFICALLY THE MOST RECENT
VERSION OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORD IS THE RECORD COPY. BY LEAVING THESE RECORDS
UNMANAGED A GOOEY MESS OF VERSION CONTROL. NEXT BEST EVIDENCE AND DATE OF
CREATION BECOME AN ONGOING PROBLEM AS MORE CURRENT VERSIONS (RECORD COPIES)
CAN BE, AND WILL BE, CREATED ON DEMAND.

>>Simply because a transaction is carried out electronically doesn't mean
that an audit need not exist.<<

And the reverse is also true.  Just because a transaction occurs does not
mean that an audit is automatically needed.  Many transactions are
informational in nature and do not need to be audited.

>>What possible beneficial use to the individual could retaining an
permanent active audit of all transactions since day one have? <<

None, that's why data warehouses are receiving all the press.

THE RECORDS REMAIN IN THE ERP OR ANY OTHER SOURCE FOR THE DATA WAREHOUSE.
THE MICRO INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED OUT.

Chris Flynn

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