Sorry, I take a different approach entirely albeit using the same acronyms.
>
> In our lexicon:
> IRM = Information Resource Management
> RIM = Recorded Information Management


Well, as I said John... there will be a lot of differing opinions on this,
yours is but one.



> Over 20+ years in the business and particularly as an exec talking to
> other
> execs, I have found that people can grasp the notion of a need to manage
> information resources more easily than they can grapple with distinctions
> of
> "what is a record", particularly when the latter is so subject to context.


Here's one area I disagree strongly though, especially in the US, and even
more with the changes last December to the FRCP.   One thing that most execs
appreciate is their relative exposure to risk, and while the existence of
"recorded information" (as you describe it) is what has he ability to put
them at risk... the  efforts undertaken by records management staff to
clearly identify what meets the defiition of a "record" for an organization
and to eliminate the other "information" in a timely manner seriously
reduces that risk.

It's the large volumes of information that are retained for no reason other
than it takes time to go through it, identify what purpose it serves or what
value it has, and eliminate what is not declared as a record, or serves no
business purpose, is where this risk is the greatest.  Not only is it
expensive to store it, it's more expensive to have to sort through it in the
event of a legal action because it usually is not kept in any ordered
form... so when the request comes in to "produce any and all records related
to XYZ" an organization that has large volumes of information that may OR
MAY NOT be a record has to expend a lot of effort going through the
information to prove it DOESN'T HAVE any records related to the subject
matter.


> Recorded information clearly reaches all information that is recorded:
> content.  Records still imply paper to many people, and worse, database
> records that are all taken care of (aren't they?) by our friends and
> colleagues in IT.


"Our colleagues in IT" manage the hardware that stores recorded forms of
electronic and digitally imaged information, but it's not in their charter
to take care of it.... they are not "caretakers" unless it is included in
their charter and the information is properly segregated and defined in a
manner explaining what level of "care" is to be given to it.  If it is
simply written in a serial (or chronological) manner to storage devices
irrespective of the record series it belongs to, the retention requirement
that relates to it, or the segment of the organization who controls it, they
can't be expected to know what to do with it.  It will be backed up as it is
written to storage, all commingled, and the backups will be managed based on
the IT practices, NOT the records policy that determines how long the
information needs to be retained.  The failure to clearly provide direction
to IT relative to this process to ensure information handled (NOT managed)
in this manner can result in great problems for organizations.  THIS is what
execs NEED to understand.  And many of them are learning it the hard way.

This year old article seems to support much of this:
http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/resourcecenters/datamanagement/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197005766

And although this was written 3 year before the new FRCP went into effect,
it speaks volumes about the risks related to a lack of policy for managing
electronically "recorded information":
138.92.8.227/Volonino-CAIS-Journal.pdf

For these reasons I challenge the practices used by many organizations to
continue the storage of "recorded information" if it doesn't meet the
organization's definition of a record, or serve a business purpose that has
little or no risk associated with it.

As others have suggested, I have always felt that "records & information"
> seems a reach into a arger realm in order to justify or establish a
> legitimacy for what is perceived by many to be narrow and not really a
> professional domain.  In fact, an IT exec said as much in front of a team
> of
> senior exec quite willing to hear that message and avoid the messy reality
> evident in their lack of attention to records management.  It was when I
> used the language of resources, assets, liabilities and the need to manage
> information that is recorded through multiple media within a myriad
> business
> transactions and decision processes that the IT exec's words showed him,
> not
> me, to be out of touch with a corporate need.


I agree that records and information should be seen as assets to an
organization, and like all other assets, should be managed in a manner that
either maintains or increases their value.  They should be assessed to
determine their value at the time of capture, and managed by a policy
consistent with that value, changing as time progresses.

Many could argue whether it's a "professional domain", but that isn't really
a decision that could be reached here.   This is Webster's 4th definition or
professional, and I certainly think most of us agree it's 4b or c, at
minimum:

4 a*:* a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and
intensive academic preparation
   b*:* a principal calling, vocation, or employment
   c*:* the whole body of persons engaged in a calling



> I agree that this is not a trivial issue.  Since studying the power of
> records managers to influence their organizations (as part of my grad
> work)
> I have observed that language is absolutely critical. IMHO, the common
> usages for IRM and RIM speak to the choir, and effectively enough.  Our
> challenge, however, is to speak to an audience that is demonstrably not
> "in
> the choir".


And I feel the way we achieve this is to discontinue using different
languages, dialects, changing every 3 or 4 years how we package and
advertise ourselves and come to an agreement of a common manner to introduce
and present ourselves to others.  If we don't do this, we will continue to
have this problem.  RM, RIM, KM, CM are but simple examples of how we even
have trouble getting OUR OWN arms around it.

We are also suffering from not having a professional association able to
market themselves, (or us) outwardly to these "execs" in a way that they
commonly hear our message and the definition of what we are.  Hopefully, the
work on the RIM Competencies (yes, RIM!) will help in this area.


> A final thought with great respect to Dwight:  I disagree that it is
> "records" that distinguishes us (though I get your point).  Increasingly,
> we
> find that the definition of a record is not the issue in litigation or
> compliance matters.  It is the existence of recorded information. In my
> view, it is our expertise relative to the management of recorded
> information, regardless of whether the organization defines them as such,
> that is our great distinction and contribution.


And with respect to John, while your opinion is of value to both you and
others on this point, I must heartily agree with Dwight.  Organizations
typically have RECORDS policies; on a Federal level here in the US at least,
there are laws and regulations related to RECORDS, much more than
information, there's been a National Archives and RECORDS Administration
sine 1934... but no such similar organization for information in a more
general sense.

To me, information is too general in nature, and in most organizations I've
been associated with as an employee or a consultant, records are typically
identified and of concern, information is an also ran, and they have a
desire to manage it as well... but it's not of as much concern.  It's the
chaff, where records are the wheat.  And being able to clearly tell the
difference between the two and separate them for management can greatly
reduce risk and any associated costs.

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]