Email is NOT as simple as Steve and Larry describe - otherwise more
organizations would already have applied 60+ years of RM best practices to
the problem and have solved it, thereby rendering those vendors' unnecessary
solutions, well, unnecessary. 

I do not claim that "the sky is falling". I do claim that because of the
intrinsic qualities of email including but not limited to ease of
forwarding, Ccing, BCCing, multiple attachments of any type which themselves
might be records, the tendency to have multiple messages as part of a single
message (as Steve just demonstrated) which are editable prior to
replying/forwarding, the tendency to keep the same subject line for that
thread ten messages after the thrust of the thread has changed completely,
the fact that emails are sent to and received from inside and outside the
organization, often as part of the same thread and at different times in the
conversation to different individuals and groups, the different electronic
formats available for email messages and the applications used to create and
store them (3 different things here), and most importantly the sheer volumes
involved, that email cannot be addressed in the exact same fashion as paper
records or even many other types of electronic records, which otherwise
might be addressable in the fashion Steve describes (although I reserve
judgment on that as well in many instances). 

I think this is akin to arguing that microfilm is just another record media
and should not be treated any differently. This is also not true - from the
physical storage to the indexing mechanisms used to retrieve a requested
frame to how that information can be shared with others, we do treat
microfilm slightly differently. And multipart forms. And physical records
like core samples. And notarized documents. And the list goes on and on and
on. Or that CAD files are just another file format and can be treated as
their paper counterparts, while ignoring the unique things having the
original electronic file provides (views and layers as a starting point). 

If your organization has already solved the email challenge, and you're
declaring as high a percentage of those email messages that rise to the
level of records and as accurately as you do paper, congratulations. Of
course, you probably don't need an ERMS either - because since electronic
records are the same as paper, just a different media, it's unnecessary;
only vendors who assert that "the sky is falling" would design solutions to
address electronic records; and only users who have been hornswoggled would
ever buy those solutions. 

Cheers, 

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]

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