CWilliams wrote:

My initial thoughts are to take the smaller drives first.... 

Another approach could possibly be to go department by department.... 

My opinion either way, there will be quite a bit of resistance but I'm
not sure which would be more effective.  Any suggestions from the
group?? 

------
I agree there will probably be resistance either way.  

One thing you didn't mention is why there are so many drives that people
can choose to store data on.  Does each drive have a designated purpose
or type of data that it is supposed to be used for?  If so, then you
might want to focus on each drive in order to be able to migrate similar
types of data into the new system and be able to apply retentions on a
more systematic and consistent basis, and refine retentions where you
find it necessary.  The downside to the "drive" approach is that you
will need to go back and bother each department repeatedly as you work
through all the drives.

The advantage to the "department" approach is that it concentrates the
amount of time that each department will have to spend on the problem
into a shorter period and focuses their attention on it.  Do the job
once, and they're done with it.  Downsides to this approach will be lack
of cooperation, workloads and schedule conflicts, etc.

If the drives are used randomly, without a classification scheme, then I
would recommend the "department" approach.  But, if they represent
significant collections of similar data, I'd think seriously about using
the "drive" approach.

Greg Schildmeyer, CRM

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