Larry, I can't say that I disagree with any of your points, particularly
when we are talking about a shared system.
We all agree that users share a responsibility to use email and other
communication/collaboration tools in a manner that aligns with business
goals and organizational policies. That responsibility includes a
recognition that these produce records subject to various requirements, and
that those records are not "private" and are subject to access by various
parties - management, legal council, and in the case of the public sector,
the public. The same applies to our personal "files", be they in our
personal drive, in a file cabinet, our email box, etc... These shared
responsibilities are generally outlined in appropriate use policies.
Where we probably disagree is when we make the leap from shared
responsibility to shared records keeping. In my opinion, email is less a
shared records system, and more of an individual communication system. The
same applies to other "personal" files, of utility only to the individual at
the desktop.
Enterprise ERM systems exist in part to impose compliance, and to facilitate
sharing. My sense is where they break down is when the utility of sharing is
non-existent to the individual user, and engaging in the system of sharing
or integration becomes a burden that the individual user simply does not
derive any benefit from in the performance of their job duties.
One common error I have noted for some time in the ways we address
electronic records keeping is that we put the benefit of compliance ahead of
the benefit of job performance. In other words, we assume that the added
burden placed on the individual in engaging in the system of
sharing/compliance is justified by the benefits to the organization in
achieving compliance, even when the sharing is really unnecessary, both from
a business need perspective, and from an individual user's perspective.
Compliance does not precede utility, in my opinion; compliance derives from
utility. In most major shared systems - medical records, inmate files, case
files, payroll records - this is relatively easy to address as the distance
between compliance and utility is fairly small. In "personal" desktop
systems, this may not be the case. The burden of compliance may, in fact,
significantly impact utility.
Both utility and compliance start with organization - even minimal
organization. I'm suggesting that training users on the basic concepts of
"naming" derived from classification principles may have real utility to
them, and enhance compliance.
In talking to my colleagues in this area, there seems to be a "rule of
thirds" - one third will do a great job, one third will do it halfway, and
one third will ignore it entirely. My response is: so what? Those thirds
will be determined by how much utility the individual users derived from the
tool. That utility will be based to an extent on personal usefulness in
performing job duties, and business need.
It is a reasonable assumption that the business benefits from better
personal job performance. We may find that those who did not engage in the
process did so because they found no utility in the process, and there was
no real business need. There are other approaches that will work for them
(for example, big buckets, records declaration process, or some other cruder
alternative).
This is why Records Management is a discipline, not a suite of products and
services.
--
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Multnomah County Records Management Program
1620 SE 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
ph: (503)988-3741
fax: (503)988-3754
[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]
|
