On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Records Management <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It's pretty much a matter of perspective...Like yourself, I'm a long-term
> practitioner, whether you want to call me a records manager or information
> governance professional (the latest coin word), it only matters on how
> effective we are in working within our organizations in addressing the
> management of information/records. If you notice, I've slashed
> information/records purposely, as technology has made it such that storage
> of records is no longer "static" (e.g. paper, microfilm, etc.) but includes
> "dynamic" media (e.g. optical, virtual, cloud, etc.) to the point where we
> now intrude into the world formerly exclusive to IT professionals...
>
This change, the management of dynamic forms of information, began for me
in the mid to late 80s and it's never gone back to a strictly static
state. There are organizations who draw a line in the sand between the two,
but for the most part that's only for the storage and access issues. The
practices and principles aren't much different, it's just more tedious and
complex to manage things in digital forms to retain persistent access for
longer periods of time. And the requirements for retention are no
different, they're based solely on content, not form.
> I'm not contesting your math, but if the records management community
> consists of 3 times the current membership of ARMA, then why (?) are they
> not members?
>
Believe me, you DO NOT want to get me started on this one. You and I go
back a long ways and I think you know my thoughts on why this is... we were
once both part of a smaller discussion group on this very subject.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...The use of "records" to describe
> our industry has been debated for years. Quite frankly, it is what it
> is...My job title includes records management, so if that's what they want
> to call it, sobeit. However, I believe that I "manage" beyond what most
> people would perceive as "records management" and that seems to expand
> further as new technology changes the lifecycle of information.
>
I agree- the problem has been one of changing the 'perception' of what the
term "Records Management" means... but instead, the people who should be
doing that keep reaching for that tube of lipstick and trying to dress it
up with new names. If as much energy was spent on supporting the value of
managing records as information assets within organizations as is spent on
trying to re-brand it, we would be MUCH FARTHER along now.
> So, am I a records manager? Probably so, but definitely not in the
> traditional sense...
>
I'm a Records and Information Manager... not an Evangelist, or a Ninja, or
any of the other three letter acronym titles others are seeking to assign
to the position. I didn't "fall into" this, I sought it out and have
performed a wide range of duties in a number of industries at differing
levels, and I wear it proudly.
Larry
[log in to unmask]
--
*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]
|
