I agree that once a technology is being used enough to actually create
something that might be records, it's use should be addressed in policies
and procedures. However, it is not until it is experimented with a bit that
we even know if the technology is of any real value. So it seems a bit
unrealistic for us to expect IT to worry about these issues until they begin
to create actual records issues. We as Records and Information managers
cannot really allow/disallow new technology procurement. Being a gatekeeper
for technology procurement, use, and adoption is truly a daunting task.
Think back to the early 80s/90's and our use of PCs, pagers, and cell
phones. Mostly, they were a convenience with little real volume of
communications or records being generated initially. (Remember asking a
coworker - "Do you think we should create an extra copy of that on another
floppy disk?") A department tells purchasing to order something because it
might be useful - maybe only occasionally or for very limited tasks. It is
not until it proves its utility that the technology is widely adopted, so
telling IT a policy revision is needed very early in the technology adoption
cycle would be greeted with a few laughs.
It is for this reason, that Records Managers are having to address issues
cross-organizationally by primarily creating guidance and occasionally
monitoring (often by sampling) compliance. The idea is to not chase the new
technologies but place the RESPONSIBILITY for information management on the
users/creators. The RMs serve in an advisory role. Guidance can be general
enough to say that "if you are managing information that needs preservation
and/or retention it needs to be properly captured and preserved. Check our
Web site for further information and then email or call us" or whatever
wording seems best in each situation. There will never be enough RM
technology wizards to intervene early in new technology adoption and use.
However, once a technology seems to be becoming useful for information
management or communication, then RMs can intervene successfully by
illustrating the risks of information loss from poor recordkeeping or
retention failures. Just communicating that it is THEIR responsibility to
assure the information is appropriately managed can start the discussions.
An RM should not have to actually recommend a solution, but should become a
part of the decision process in technology selection and implementation.
I think that RMs all too often think it is their responsibility to find the
solution. All they have to really do is ask these questions:
1. Does the information that you (IT/Business user) are processing in the
new technology have to be retained? Do you know? Don't know?
2. In what format and in what system? For how long? Who will be asking for
it? When?
3. How do you know? Why are you so sure about that? Who else is doing it
that way successfully?
4. So you are comfortable that this use of technology will not get us into
trouble?
5. If the company is requested this information during legal actions or
audits can YOU recall it and produce it?
6. Great! Now - sign this document that says you are responsible for records
preservation and production from this system, now and in the future.
I predict you will get a new vision of what is meant by "Shock and Awe". Get
the picture? Draw them into letting you be a part of the solution design,
while not letting them out of their own responsibilities, and not getting
yourself snared into having to know all of the technologies that anyone in
the organization might use some day.
THEY need to suggest some solutions and explain how the solutions will
assure information is managed within RM and other Information Management
policies. Ask questions that identify "issues". If you do that you have
addressed the professional challenges you are expected to address.
John
****************************
John Phillips
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Rich Wilson
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Voice mail & texting
Thanks Larry & Peter for your words of wisdom. When an IT manager came to me
with this issue, my words were much like yours. Where we are now is, how do
we capture the cell phone voice mail and the texts that are records of the
organization's business? Especially since the cell being used is a personal
phone not an issued phone.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Rich Wilson
Records Management Supervisor Government Records,
Wyoming State Historical Records Coordinator
2301 Central Ave
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0001
Phone: 307-777-5586 Fax: 307-777-7044
E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public
business, is subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act and may be disclosed
to third parties.
>>> On 8/23/2010 at 1:36 PM, in message
<[log in to unmask]>, Peter
Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Larry Medina
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Rich-
>
> This is another classic case of "cart before horse" logic on the part of
an
> organization/agency. And please don't take this as any criticism of you
> personally.
>
> The concept of allowing, encouraging, or suggesting the use of a
technology
> for business purposes without first issuing a policy about how or what it
> should or should not be used for is ill planned. I'm not saying let's
> ignore or 'not embrace' the technology, but there was seemingly PLENTY of
> time before the use began to determine what the policy about it would be.
>
I agree with Larry,technology is great but implementing it before the
ramifications are understood or known can cause problems down the road.
here are a couple of links to cases that point this out
Quon Text Messages at work
http://bit.ly/dk13Y9
Blackberry use and overtime
http://bit.ly/cuQkS7
i'm sure if you sifted through the various RAIN postings from past years you
would find other examples. these articles popped up today
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
http://twitter.com/RAINbyte
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAINbyte/
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the
electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers
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]
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]
|
