Thanks for the response Fern. The system we are looking at is called M-Files which is a document management system.
________________________________
From: Fern Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
To: Matthew Revitt <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2011, 10:39
Subject: Re: Document Type vs. Fileplan
Matthew
Welcome re your first post. I used an EDMS with Canadian Federal government and found that it really didn't matter what the IT call the structure points, you can use them for a fileplan preferably with some customization if possible. One has to be careful to define the terminology and use.
You don't mention the name of the software system, that would be helpful to know.
I doubt that you could set retention by document type, but if both the type and content were identifiable as unique you might. For example .jpg was always used for inspections.
Generally content management and records management should be separated, there is overlap but that just adds to the confusion. I find that records management is still just that if you really understand what RM is supposed to be.
Fern Phillips, CRM
Note: that I have a draft textbook with chapters which I distribute for free if I can get some editing back on style and consistency and structure. I retain copyright and ask that this NOT be passed to vendors or consultants. If you are interested please put 'textbook' in the subject line.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Revitt" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:44 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Document Type vs. Fileplan
> In the course of investigating Content Management Sys
> Hi Everyone:
>
> In the course of investigating Content Management Systems to manage paper and electronic records at a medium-sized business, I have found that some of the Document Management Systems have a limited (2-3 tier) hierarchical structure with the top level as Function, below this Activity, and below this Documents Types (for example, invoice and contract).
>
> This shallow structure and emphasis on document types is a different approach to capturing documents then what I have been previously used to. Back in the UK, when implementing an ERMS we developed fileplans based on the functions, activities, and processes of the organization. The fileplans had multiple levels and users had to choose where in the hierarchical structure the document should be saved. Based on that decision, certain metadata would be automatically attached to the record (such as security and retention). With this approach, it did not matter whether the document was a contract or invoice: it was related to a specific process and therefore managed with other documents created in the course of performing this process. I am not sure how the system relying on document type would allow for rules like this to be applied automatically.
>
> 1. I would appreciate any feedback from people regarding the use of document type vs fileplan.
> 2. If you use a CMS which emphasizes filing based on document type, rather than a fileplan, what are your experiences?
> 3. Is the use of document type just a difference between a fully functional ERMS and Document Management System?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Finally: hello, list! My name is Matthew Revitt and I am long time subscriber, but first time poster. I am originally from the UK where after receiving a MSc Econ in Records Management from the University of Aberystwyth I worked as a records manager for a number of local government authorities. I have been living in the US for nearly three years and I am currently working for a forestry and timberland management company in Maine.
>
>
>
> Matthew Revitt, MSc Econ Records Management
> RIM Consultant
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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]
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6075 (20110427) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6075 (20110427) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
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]
|
