On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:36:12 -0400, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>I won't attempt to answer Fred's questions for Vaughan, as I think others
>have seen, he can speak well enough for himself =) After reading Vaughan's
>post I must admit I'm having trouble sitting still this morning.
Holy smokes, no kidding! I finally read Vaughan's posting, and I'm totally
agreeing!
I did get in touch with one of the organizations Larry mentioned in his posting,
and was asked to address 10 criteria. Here they are, with my answers
regarding 30300 (not 30301):
1. How well the publication meets the needs of the targeted audience
I think a lot of the document was not written at high enough of a level for the
targeted audience, which is supposed to be managers (including top
management, who is given the mandate of implementing the MSR) who are not
records managers. Some of ISO30300 repeated almost verbatim from
ISO15489, and was not needed in a document that is supposed to be written
for non-records professionals. I would expect that a document of this nature
would be non-technical and brief. This became somewhat technical, and is
definitely not brief.
2. How well the publication is organized
I thought the last sub-sections in Section 2 should have been first, and entire
sub-sections and sections should be removed completely.
3. How well each section is developed
Much of Section 2 was ‘overkill’…it was too much information for the intended
audience. Section 3 should be re-done…it needlessly separates the definitions
into groupings; this makes finding a definition much more difficult than it
should be. Annex A should be removed completely.
4. How sufficient and meaningful the headings are
These were satisfactory.
5. The ease with which key points and interrelationships are identified
I think this document was trying to make interrelationships where they really
weren’t needed (as in Figure 2, and the whole Annex A). Key points were
discussed, but then seemed to be re-discussed at times.
6. The technical accuracy of the concepts and terminology (Please also
evaluate the use of acronyms, jargon, etc.)
The examples of conversion and migration in the Definitions were wrong.
Otherwise, the technical accuracy seemed mostly correct.
7. The sufficiency and relevancy of the illustrations
Without exception, the graphics did not serve to give any meaningful insight
to the text. In addition, several of them were confusing even to this records
professional. I cannot imagine what management would think when trying to
decipher them…and they probably would give up.
8. The sufficiency and currency of references
The references used for Annex A can be removed (since I am advocating
removing Annex A). The other references were sufficient and current (if one
counts the latest version of ISO15489 from 2001 as being current) for this
document.
9. Whether or not the publication is readable
When I took out several sub-sections, the publication became readable.
Again, for the specified target audience, this publication would NOT be
readable.
10. Whether or not you would recommend the publication’s approval as
an ISO standard and, if not, why not
As written, I would NOT recommend this publication for approval as an ISO
standard. It is too confusing for a non-records management person to
understand. Perhaps, if the areas that are not written at a high level are
removed, this publication could be recommended for approval.
My manager and I were talking about this a bit ago (last week?), and one of
the questions he asked me really stuck with me...that was, what is trying to
be standardized through these documents? I'm not familiar with the contents
of ISO9001, although I get the gist of it. I just didn't get the feeling that
there was enough 'how-to' in 30300, and in my skimming of 30301, I'm not
really getting the feeling that it was addressed there, either. Maybe
these 'management standards' are like that?
Kelly Hamilton, CRM
[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]
|
