Rob Seibolt wrote:

 

The author of the article that started this discussion seems to believe
that a simple and basic retention structure is the wave of the future. I
am not the most experienced records guy out there by far but it has been
my experience that implimenting a retention structure is anything but
simple or basic.

 

 

I think that was exactly the author's point.  He's talking about
"Pragmatic RM", to use his phrase.  My preferred phrase would be "Big
Bucket" records classification as opposed to "Cubbyhole" classification.
I think his premise makes a lot of sense: that the vast quantities of
electronic data that exist make it practically impossible to develop and
apply records schedules in an ECM system at the same level of detailed
records series that RM has traditionally done.  Developing records
series (categories or buckets) that are broader in scope and simpler in
disposition so that users can understand them and will be willing to use
them, may be the best solution we could hope for.  It can enable some
degree of records management to be put in place systematically
throughout the enterprise rather than just in specific silos.

 

I've been thinking about this lately.  A couple of software reps have
visited me recently, after visiting with state government agencies where
they have their products installed.  Both would like to urge the
agencies to take fuller advantage of their products' records management
capabilities.  But they need someone with records management and
retention scheduling understanding to help define the "retention rules"
that have to be incorporated into the product.  As a result of these
discussions, I've been considering whether the agencies' existing
records schedules could simply be built into the software the way they
exist today, or will the schedules need to be updated, streamlined, &
simplified to make it easier for the software to function and for the
end users to understand and accept?

 

I'm leaning toward the author's point of view that a pragmatic approach
ought to be taken.  The first step, as he recommends, is to undertake a
workflow and data flow analysis for the organization.  Then, keeping
sight of traditional records scheduling principles, develop a set of
broadly defined records categories into which all data can be easily
classified.  This approach isn't the highest level of records
management, but it is - as the author so eloquently states - "better
than the typical 'create->use->forget about' model currently practiced."

 

Isn't that the role of an "expert," to take something complex and make
it acceptable to the many?  To do the really hard messy work behind the
scenes so that the front end looks clean and neat?

 

Greg Schildmeyer, CRM

Director of Records Management

 


List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance