On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Wayne Hoff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> I have been feeling the same way, Pilar - if one thing trumps all other
> things right now, it's user acceptance.  Even if that creates
> non-compliance
> with traditional RM... I cringe as I say it, but if the system isn't
> accepted by
> users, then what remains is a complete absence of RM.
>

I don't disagree with Pilar, I guess I've just spent too long in a Federal
Setting.... if I was in private industry, I might feel differently.

I've still got the mindset of "drive a wedge between records and
non-records... don't commingle them.  That's why I suggested adding a
series MAKING them a record with a disposition period, which is "review
after X years, then re-classify" or whatever.

In our scenario, we have an R&D Schedule, with records that have 3 "Levels"

one is Permanent
one is 25 years (after termination of project)
one is 10 years (after termination of project)

The manner in which the "Levels of project" are defined determines how long
they are retained.  If within the scope of the initial 10 years on the
Level 3 project it rises in importance, it gets rescheduled to Level 2, and
retained for a longer period of time.

-- 
Larry
[log in to unmask]



*----Lawrence J. MedinaDanville, CARIM 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]