Hugh

In a separate posting I've commented about the difference between records
management and archiving (business needs vs historical posterity etc). You
also raise a good point on another difference - as a business-focused
records manager, I'm VERY interested in the document content, but far less
interested in the hardcopy or electronic artifact itself. Provided I can
establish the integrity of the content, the artifact is largely irrelevant

I can recall in 30 years only one situation where the artifact itself was
important - a forgery case where forensics played a big part - angle of pen
pressure on paper etc. But from a risk point of view, one case in 30 years
across a multitude of government and private sector employers and clients
doesn't usually justify maintaining a corporate archive for hte artifacts.

And yes, world wide, we have a long way to go to get electronic records and
archive management up to speed.

Cheers

Glenn

Glenn Sanders
Australia
0407 187 333
These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked and
they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and Glenn".
Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.

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]