RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
L Carpenter <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 May 2008 13:46:33 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
I'm looking at retention periods and how to make them more usable and user
friendly. The basic premise is rolling out retention rules to the average
user who may have no previous exposure to records & information management
or a retention schedule. For basic retention periods, not too hard to do to
put them into more common language than RIM speak. But, in trying to
implement retention periods where there are 2 or even 3 conditions that must
be met, I thought it would be good to see what ideas my list serv colleagues
have.

Here are two examples of a set of rules that could apply to one records
category/series and various ways to compose the retention period:

Scenario A:  Retain until the tax department has closed their audit/releases
the tax year, but a minimum of 7 years.
Some thoughts were:
1) "TAX MINIMUM 7 years"
2) "7 years, TAX"
3) "TAX / 7" (and train users the slash is the longer of the 2)
Other options? Or which is most useable for an employee with no exposure to
retention schedules/RIM?

 Scenario B:  Retain for the term of the agreement plus 7 years or term of
the agreement AND until the tax department has closed their audit for the
year the agreement terminated:
Some thoughts were:
1) "TERM+ TAX MINIMUM 7 years"
2) "TERM +7 years, TAX" (train users that "TAX" period begins at the end of
the term of the agreement
3) "TERM +7 years, TERM +TAX"
4) "TERM +7 years / TERM +TAX" (and train users the slash is the longer of
the 2)
Other options? Or which is most useable for an employee with no exposure to
retention schedules/RIM?

Note: I may have concerns if the suggestion was to have a separate column
for tax considerations rather than contained in the retention period field,
I think they should be really obvious to the new user.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated!

Laurie Carpenter, CRM
[log in to unmask]
(greetings from sunny and warm CA!)

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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2