Accountability for listing to file level should rest with the office of
origin, IMO, and be supported with periodic and/or random box audits for
reporting upward by the RIM program.  The concept should be grounded in a
clear policy statement that supports management of recorded information from
an information content perspective.  It's all part of positioning RIM as
part of the management toolkit. 

Data that reveals the time/cost related implications of well articulated
content lists and those that are not can be useful in setting the required
level of specificity (i.e. individual titles/numbers, ranges, etc.).  The
government of British Columbia maintained government wide file listings in
this way for years before there was a really adequate system support.  As in
most things, it is a matter of assessing cost, benefit and risk. 

Templates and such tools can make it easier for clients (that is, your
internal clients).  In my own experience, much of RM is about deciding to do
the work up front, or having to spend the time later. The hard part may be
getting data on the implications so that the program can support its
recommendations/requirements.

Wondering how people handle hybrid series and media spread across boxes--and
differently controlled repositories--if there is no IT system support.

John James O'Brien, CRM, MALT
www.irmstrategies.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]