>
> Why is the term Records and Information Management (RIM) more commonly
> used than Information and Records Management (IRM)? To my mind,
> information is the parent (records being a subset of information) and
> should therefore come first.


Obviously, there will be a number of responses to this, all offering their
opinions as to why it is what it is... I'll simply add another.

In my view, the most critical component being managed is the RECORDS, and
because many of them are included in systems that contain INFORMATION, the
"I" was added later to the practice.  Those working in this profession have
long been known as "Records Managers", and since the mid to late 1980s, the
field and its practices have broadened to include the management of various
forms of information, much of which DOES NOT meet the definition of a
"Record".

I know this is how it happened for me, as the functions I was responsible
for in the 70s and 80s were primarily responsible for the management of what
were formally identified as organizational records, and because we did such
a good job of it, we were asked to take on the management of non-records
(information, which sounded a lot better than "all this other stuff') as
well.

Since the mid 1980s I have always identified myself as a Records and
Information Management Professional, and I have identified my colleagues as
RIM practitioners and professionals as well.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM 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]