On 6/1/07, Harris, Paula <[log in to unmask] > wrote:
>
>
> I attended the MER Conference last week and heard Susan Cisco talk about
> Big Bucket retention schedules.  I am currently looking at my schedule
> to see if I can consolidate some classifications but was wondering if
> any of you folks have done this in your organization.  If so, how did
> your organizations respond and were there any downsides?  Thanks for
> your help.


Paula-

I'm pretty sure this is the session you're speaking about.

 www.merconference.com/session151.html - 13k
>


It's sort of ironic this would come up, as we've been discussing a potential
project for the ARMA SDC to look into developing a white paper on this
subject, but more focused on speaking to the issues related to scheduling
records in ERMS and using the same RIM principles that exist in the paper
records practices.

This abstract provided a real "Pie in the Sky" view as far as I'm
concerned.. and the Q1 2007 study they mention in here???  I don't think
it's seen the light of day.  Also, given it involved ONE vendor and ONE
integrator, I can just about guarantee you, it was designed to support their
desired outcomes.  What they're sounding as though they're focused on is
coming up with a means to auto-classify and assign retention periods to
records on creation or receipt... and this can be done, but it's a lengthy
process, which requires a lot of stroking and fine tuning along the way...
and the smaller the organization and less complex their structure, the more
successful it will be.

The big bucket concept has come up in the past.  If you want to read some
"historical perspectives" on it, here's a good place to start.
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2005/2005-05.html

This provides a good overview of what it's all about.  And when you hear the
concept being discussed, it's frequently coming from the Federal side of the
house.   If you look at the General Retention Schedules (GRS) which apply as
an over-arching document to ALL Federal Agencies, or others managing what
are deemed as "Federal Records".  Each Agency also has their OWN Retention
Schedules, which usually go into a finer level of detail and description of
the records series established in the GRS, and identify specific record
types and examples generated routinely by those Agencies and their
Contractors.

Years ago (like in the 60s), there were fewer schedules and fewer series,
and as things became more complex (new reports, more regulation, division of
Agencies, etc.) the volume of schedules and series began to grow... and by
the late 80s/early 90s, they were pretty voluminous.  In the "Federal
Arena", if a record isn't identified in a published schedule, or can't be
tied to an existing "record series", you have to submit an SF-115 form, to
get it scheduled.  It first goes to the Agency you work under and then to
NARA for approval, to assign a retention period, or to get approval to "plug
it into" an existing one.  It's an arduous process, and as weird as it may
seem, if it results in a NEW record series, it has to be approved by THE
Archivist of the US.

So, what does all this have to do with "big buckets"?  Well, over the past
10 years, it's become apparent that more and more records are being
generated electronically, and the Government has finally accepted that this
is likely NOT GOING TO GO AWAY... and more to the point, that it's a royal
pain to attempt to identify the series each of these fits into and even
worse to try and establish hundreds of different retention periods, ranging
from as short as 1 year to 75 years, and in some cases Permanent, also known
as "the Life of The Republic".  In one Agency I work with alone, there are
more than 240 different retention periods. There are also many retention
periods that have "triggers" associated with them, such as records related
to employees or contractors working in and around potentially (or known)
hazardous materials.  The retention requirement for these is "75 years
beyond separation from employment", so a 40 year employee's records must be
maintained for a minimum of 115 years.

Now, there is a move afoot again to consolidate the retention periods, or
combine record series that serve similar purposes and assign them like
retention periods.  This is largely being "pushed" by those in the IT realm
and others trying to find ways to simplify doing what RIMs have done for
years in the physical records side of the equation.  There has been some
discussion of trying to go as far as to limit it to as few as 4-5 retention
periods,  such as 3 years, 10 years, 25 years, 75 year, or Permanent.  The
problem seems to be the way they want to go about it... at this point, we're
hearing combine the record series (which is where all the descriptive,
identifying, and example type information exists) into more "logically
titled" components.  The problem is, if no one remembers what was where, and
there's no crosswalk document to get you back to how this was determined,
finding anything is going to be... well, let's say... difficult.

There are those of us that are proposing a more sane model, one which calls
for the maintaining of the record series, but combining and re-establishing
of the retention periods into fewer time periods. maybe 10-15, but not
sacrificing the significant information that tells users where to put (or
find) something.

OKAY... likely more than you wanted to hear, but that's my story and I'm
stickin' to it!


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