I love this question, especially in light of some discussion recently on the
UK RM List regarding backups and opinions being voiced on whether or not
there is any such thing as an "original electronic record" =)

On 7/5/06, Michelle VanAllen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I need some opinions and/or results from experience regarding what a
> user sees once an electronic record is destroyed (deleted). We are
> currently implementing Livelink as our ECM solution including the RM
> module.


A decent choice of a system, lots of options available and wise of your
organization to have the foresight to include the RM Module in the
purchase.  Those that don't are only purchasing half of the puzzle.

We have elected the option to retain metadata associated with a
> record that has met its retention and been destroyed.


I believe this is a wise decision as well. Hopefully, the metadata will
reflect the date and a code indicating that it was legitimately destroyed as
well.

However, we need to decide if the user needs to see that or not. The options
> are: 1) The user searches for an item and receives a hit on that search even
> if the item has been destroyed. However, when they attempt to view the image
> they will only see a message indicating that the record has been deleted.
> Or, 2) The user does not see any hits for that item in his search results.
> Therefore, even though the record was deleted, he doesn't know if it was
> ever there or not.


I'd personally go with Option 2.  This allows them to locate the existence
of the record, if for nothing else than to identify it as deleted.  The only
potential problem I see (and it's nothing that a work-around can't be
designed for) is that in a paper world, you have a signature approving
destruction from the "owning organization" for the records you an produce
indicating that the final decision was theirs.  In this scenario, you'd need
to take a couple of extra steps to ensure you have the same CYA.

What we've discussed (that's correct... discussed but haven't implemented)
is a process by which electronic records that have met their assigned
retention period would be identified and "flagged" as qualified for
destruction, and an action would be required by the "owner" to release the
record or to (at minimum) respond to the notification approving the
destruction prior to it being instituted.  Similar to paper-based
destruction notices, these would be retained as a record of contact being
made with the organization responsible for the records and approval being
provide prior to destruction.

And yes, consideration is also being given to notification being provided to
Legal as part of the review process to ensure that records potentially
impacted by any ongoing actions or moratoriums weren't inappropriately
destroyed.

Of course, the RM staff would continue to maintain records of what was
> destroyed.


Now I know you're saying "of course" here as if it's a simple thing to do,
but you may need to give a bit of consideration to a few things here.  1)
what exactly will RM be maintaining? 2) Is it searchable, and how would it
be searched?

Another consideration here is although the record is "destroyed", what
actually takes place is the "pointer" that indicates how to access the image
of the record and/or the native file is obliterated and the ability to
access the record becomes MUCH MORE problematic.  However, the record is
STILL on the optical platter (or other storage medium) and through the use
of various forensic techniques, can be resurrected.  Another consideration
is if the system is backed up (and naturally, it should be), the backups
will still contain the records until they are destroyed.

SO... you may want to give some thought to the manner in which records are
recorded to storage media in your Livelink system. Options here might be to
only write records from a single organization onto a platter, and that those
all be either from the same series or have a common retention period.
Another might be to organize records in to folders by organization and then
have multiple organization, but again, similar retention periods.

In either of these cases, it would be easier to ensure that when they're
backed up and ultimately, when they're destroyed that the platters and/or
other media can ACTUALLY be destroyed.  And in the event there are any
records that you elect to retain beyond that time frame, they can be
re-written to other media and retained.

If any of you have a preference between option 1 and 2 or have tried
> either option, please let me know your successes/failures and/or opinion
> as a user.


That's all I've got.

Larry
-- 
Larry 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