What would help for me is to develop something meaningful that doesn't
require an acronym or a marketing plan that organizations could use as a
tool to determine the validity of their RM Programs.

It would need to work uniformly across any/all industry segments, in either
the public or private sector, and they would see as beneficial to their
business strategies and bottom line.  If there is no quantifiable bottom
line benefit or penalty for failing to do something, there is little
interest in pouring money towards achieving it.

I don't care what it's called, as long as there is no question it's agreed
upon by the adopters that it legitimately assists them in effectively and
efficiently managing their information assets.

The largest problem is no one is asking for this and they haven't been,
even following incidents like the ENRON/Arthur Andersen debacle.  And
although "we" know there are benefits to doing this in a common manner,
there is no quantifiable benefit you can hold up in front of an
organization to say "Here's why you need this".

The question posed a couple weeks ago about what % of an organizations
budget should be spent on RM is an example of how no one knows how to go
about this.  Another is the "ROI" argument... you can't really set an ROI,
but you can identify potential cost avoidance by having a solid RM
Program.  But like I said when the last question was posted, think about
what the cost of FAILING to properly manage your information assets has
been for some organizations and then determine what it's worth spending to
do it right.

There is no textbook methodology for establishing an RM Program across the
vast spectrum of industry segments largely because of the manner in which
they are regulated and their differing business models.  And while 36CFR
does provide guidance for Federal Agencies, we've seen that in many cases
it is either too prescriptive to follow (costs and lack of staffing) or it
si out of date due to the moving 'technological target' and the volume of
information.  The Presidential Directive goes a long way towards improving
that, but it fails to provide funding to meet the aggressive schedules
included in it, due to a failure to properly scope the effort and assess
the lack of available staffing.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Chris Flynn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Larry,
>
> Would it help to replace "Principles" with "Code"?
> Leave in Records
> Remove the idea of "General" and simply say "Accepted"?
> Finish with "Practices"
>
> It moves the debate a managment level discussion. This allows for further
> development of the "C level" discussion over where Records folks belong in
> the ownership process. It also more closely reflects many folks opinion of
> how this has all broken out.
>
> Well let me know what you think,
>
> Chris "the cricket" Flynn
>
>
-- 
*Lawrence J. 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]