Lee,
I'd personally maintain that the value of big buckets is twofold:
1) Make it easier to manage records from the enterprise perspective
2) Vastly reduce the number of options that record owners use to
categorize their "stuff"
There's nothing inherently wrong with 50 departments each having a
"contracts" or "correspondence" category. However, setting up
enterprise standard systems and tools under such a structure would be
extremely challenging -- and maybe impossible.
I don't think this is a question (or group of questions) to which
there's a single correct answer. As Barbara Nye always tells us, the
correct answer to every RIM question is, "It depends."
At Boeing we never could implement big, semi-big, or even moderate
buckets, although we toiled mightily at reducing the quantity of
categories (down from 10,000 to 2,500). I'd argue that 2,500 is still
WAY to large a population for end-users to search through.
In any organization there are going to be those who are going to look
through a retention schedule and want to see their records described in
excruciating detail (the "splitters"), and those who prefer things
gathered into generic groupings (the "joiners"). Without an
acknowledged enterprise strategy, the RIM organization is continually
buffeted by those shifting tides and competing demands. I'd argue that
anything can work if it's consistently applied, the record owners can
(and do) use it, and it serves the information needs of the company.
Pilar McAdam
[log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar C. McAdam
Director of Legal Information Systems
333 South Hope Street
48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
[log in to unmask]
Direct: 213.617.5417
Fax: 213.443.2703
Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein (or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any attachments).
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
http://www.sheppardmullin.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nemchek, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Record Series Question
Hi All: This may seem elementary to some, but I'm trying to understand
how organizations apply big bucket records series across departmental
lines. Here's my issue:
Let's say you are starting at the beginning and conducting a
broadly-based process mapping/functional analysis project in order to
capture records inventory/series information throughout the
organization. In order to carry out such a project, you necessarily
have to identify the organization's different operating
departments/units, interview team leaders, document the business
processes carried out by each department, etc., etc. After going
through such an exercise, the end product is a departmental breakdown of
functions, processes and business record series.
In researching how various organizations format and configure their
retention schedules, I've seen some very good examples where the top
level buckets tend to be departmental, e.g., Human Relations,
Information Technology, Accounting, etc. Then, I've seen other equally
good schedules that seem to have somewhat (but never entirely)
eliminated the departmental focus in favor of functional record
categories that cross departmental lines, e.g., Administration, Budget,
Contracts, Property, Safety & Security, etc. A third choice is to
create retention buckets based not on departments or functions, but
built around work processes.
My questions:
(1) Isn't it somewhat of a waste of time and effort to scrap the end
product that you already have in hand just for the sake of configuring a
schedule that groups like records together, regardless of department?
(2) Isn't it worth an acceptable level of duplication - e.g.,
contracts will appear as a record series in almost every department - to
label your biggest buckets with names that departmental staff will
easily recognize and that they can zero in on? In other words, why make
people peruse multiple big buckets each time they want to find a
specific series when they could just go to their primary departmental
bucket to find it? I realize that you can cross-reference your
retention schedule with a searchable word index, but that's just adding
one more level of complexity to the process.
(3) Has anyone had success developing a hybrid retention schedule
for their organization, i.e., a schedule that might contain some
elements from each of the types listed above - departmental, functional,
process-focused?
I'm interested in hearing what people think about this dilemma. Am I
over-thinking?
--Lee
Lee R. Nemchek, MLS, CRM
Vice President, Records Management
Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.
333 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
p +1 213 830-6252 f +1 213 830-8504
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.oaktreecapital.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of
the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
