Hi - I'm new to the group (as of this morning). Please forgive me it I
send this incorrectly...
I would suggest a departmental approach. You may be able to avoid some
of the inevitable resistance if you provide some information seminars
and training in conjunction with the migration of data. In my
experience, when people understand the larger picture and the reasons
behind decisions, they're far more likely to get on board with the
process.
We've found good coffee and donuts help in making the process more
enjoyable, as well - I realize that may sound trite, but it is
definitely true!
Laura Kirbyson
Records Manager
City of Calgary Water Services
[log in to unmask]
NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Schildmeyer, Greg
Sent: 2006 March 06 12:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Migrating Data/Backfile into DM/RM System
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
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
