On 4/26/07, Allen, Doug <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that the very broad categories (personnel, equipment
> history, etc.) would quite fit..... The retention requirements can vary
> quite widely.... from hazardous material and associated medical
> "personnel records" through personnel appraisals, etc.  Of course, I'm
> not in the "business" right now of setting retention periods, so I don't
> look at differing legal requirements on an ongoing basis.

You are correct in your assessment.  Retention requirements can vary
from record type to record type.  If you are an international company,
you are now dealing with
even more requirements. Some of these are quite different than those
of the US, especially for financial and administrative records.

I know of organizations that have attempted to group "like" series
into big buckets, with various success.   I'm all for the big bucket
concept and attempted to push it at my last organization, with some
success.  But there comes a point where increasing the size of the
bucket can also increase the risk exposure an organization faces.

> What concerns me sometimes is what I hear from SNIA contacts, they'd
> prefer to see no more than five records categories and five associated
> retention requirements.

Yup, that's what I heard in conversations with SNIA and others.  They
are attempting to make their life as easy as possible and I can
understand their position.  At the same time, they could be placing
their organization at greater risk by going down this path.

> Just a few thoughts.... but, when it comes to defining how narrowly or
> how broadly to define records series and how to best apply differing
> retention requirements (imposed by government agencies), it appears that
> we don't have a RIM consensus on what our best practices might be.

That's what makes this field so fascinating and also frustrating.  In
simplistic terms it comes down to what is the pain threshold of an
organization; it will vary by entity.  And, as with implementing
ECM/ERM/CRM systems, one size doesn't fit all; what works for one may
not work for another.

If management is willing to reduce the number of series, potentially
increasing the risks by either disposing of it too soon or not
retaining long enough, that's up to them.  In the short term this may
save $$$ by reducing maintenance and storage costs.  As my finance
professor use to say "increased risks can mean increased rewards; but
it can also spell disaster."

-- 
Bruce L. White, CRM, PMP
Houston, TX
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

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