The only comment I would add to Elizabeth's great posting is that I tend
to view function more as the purpose(s) of a given business unit in
broad terms: accounts payable, payroll, accounts receivable. One could
even apply this to individual employees and their "function". With that
in mind, the "big bucket" is an effort at describing record series in
the broadest terms possible to align with these functions. For example:
we have one record series to describe all of the record types associated
with accounts payable, as opposed to multiple series for each record
type within accounts payable. 

In some circumstances, there is a fairly close alignment of record
series,  retention, record types and function. In these instances, big
bucket approaches offer promise. In other cases, there is not as close
an alignment: a functional business unit may have numerous records
series within it, covering a wide range of retentions. In these
instances, big bucket approaches are not as effective. 

The advantage of the "big bucket" is it can facilitate the easy
application of retention within a business unit without having to resort
to extensive classification, weeding, etc....This is particularly
helpful with e-mail (ergo my comment about employees), although this
type of approach pre-dates e-mail. Donald Skupske promoted "functional
retention scheduling" years ago, which is essentially the same thing,
and others had similar ideas prior to that. Many retention schedules in
the 70's (for example) were notable for their complexity - often
confusing record type and record series (and anyone trying to apply
them). This can be important - in many circumstances the costs of labor
associated with weeding/classification can far exceed the costs of
storage, even of duplicates.

However, the disadvantage in more complex environments is that this type
of approach can result in the unnecessary retention of large amounts of
records, as retention "big buckets" default to the longest retention
requirement of their components. Big buckets also tend to dilute
concepts of record copy, as considerable duplication may end up in the
bucket at the document level. Elizabeth's description of an invoice
illustrates this, if one were to assume that every potential use she
describes represents its own functional "bucket". In such circumstances,
cost of storage may become excessive, not to mention potential risks
associated with retaining unnecessary documents.

Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
Phone: (503)988-3741
Fax: (503)988-3754
[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]