Greg wrote: <Maybe you can use ECS/BCS instead of Taxonomy/BCS if you
need to implement multiple BCSs. >
I agree. I think this discussion is more about semantics than anything
else now. However I want to point out that you actually helped to make
my case a bit.
Greg wrote: <1. The BSC which is developed as a standard to be used
across the organisation is called the Enterprise Classification Scheme
(ECS).
2. When a business unit is implementing their federated instance of the
EDRMS, they take the ECS and determine what Level 1 and Level 2 terms
are appropriate to their business. This is then called their BCS.>
As you point out the BCS, at the organization level, is actually called
the ECS. And a department will take from the ECS to create their
department-level BCS. And I am just assuming that *most* organizations
- save the smallest and most specialized - would require multiple
department-specific classification schemes, hopefully derived from an
organization-level standard (you say ECS, I say taxonomy ... tomato,
tomahto).
I'm not sure where the concern is regarding being in the 21st century
and using an EDRMS, or not, applies here. Using a taxonomy does not
necessarily relegate the organization to only classifying paper, or not
being able to manage electronic records (either in or out of their
original format). Taxonomy development is most often done outside of
any specific technology, and I would argue that's the way it should be.
Classification schemes should be based on information needs, not
technological functionality/constraints.
Long story short, we're saying the same thing. Classification is a good
idea. Classification should be approached from the enterprise level
first then paired down/adjusted, when necessary, to meet
department-level needs.
Whether you call your classification scheme a taxonomy, ECS, BCS, etc.
is of less consequence. Terminology used should match the organization
you're working with - if the term "taxonomy" confuses them, don't use
that term - find something they are comfortable with. If I were to have
a conversation with my IT Director and I started throwing around the
ECS/BCS terminology, he'd probably look at me like a deer in headlights.
But when I say Taxonomy, we both understand what I'm talking about.
Thanks for the banter - it's a good exercise!
Julie
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Greg Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Define Taxonomy
Hi All
Julie wrote in response to Laurie: I have to disagree, just a bit, and
argue that we are doing taxonomy development (or at least I am!). It
seems to me that what you are coining as "BCS" would be considered a
portion of the overall taxonomy. As Carol put forth, the taxonomy is
typically at the organizational level and is made up of
department-specific information.
I disagree, To say that a BCS only relates to a department and you
should use the term "taxonomy" for the overall business I believe will
only confuse the issue.
I suppose it depends at the end of the day as to whether an organisation
has moved to the 21st century and realised that the best way to manage
records (in most cases) is to manage the records in the format that they
were first created ie electronic. If an organisation is attempting to
manage electronic records then it should be using an EDRMS. If the
organisation hasn't got an EDRMS, unless it is small and has limited
resources, it needs to get serious about RM and commit and implement the
appropriate technology (ie EDRMS) whilst also addressing the other
important issues such as change management, training, support, project
management etc etc.
So if an organisation is using an EDRMS, the BCS needs to be developed
and implemented (hopefully before you implement the EDRMS!!!!!!).
Generally speaking only the one BCS is still required across all
departments (dependent on requirements and the security capability of
your EDRMS). An enterprise wide perspective (not a 'silo' Department
perspective) should be taken when developing the BCS. Except for
department specific Functions/Activities, there will be common
Functions/Activities that are performed by each Dept such as those
relating to supply, finance, strategy, governance etc. The organisation
should not have to implement a BCS for each dept in the EDRMS.
CSC is currently working with a large global company who is implementing
a federated EDRMS that will have staff accessing the system in
approximately 20 countries.
If you have any issues defining the BCS from an enterprise wide
perspective to a business unit perspective then who may want to use the
following approach:
1. The BSC which is developed as a standard to be used across the
organisation is called the Enterprise Classification Scheme (ECS).
2. When a business unit is implementing their federated instance of the
EDRMS, they take the ECS and determine what Level 1 and Level 2 terms
are appropriate to their business. This is then called their BCS.
Maybe you can use ECS/BCS instead of Taxonomy/BCS if you need to
implement multiple BCSs.
Regards
Greg Wilson
Records Management Lead Consultant
"Preserving yesterday, managing today, preparing for tomorrow"
_____________________________________________________________________
For more information on Records Management join the CSC Records
Management
Community (CSC staff only) at:
https://portal.csc.com/wps/myportal/RMCommunity
_____________________________________________________________________
Global Transformation Solutions
CSC Australia
Level 7, 570 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004
AUSTRALIA
Ph: 61-3-9536 4346
Fx: 61-3-9536 4553
Mob: 0401 714 270
Email: [log in to unmask]
_____________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use
of
e-mail for such purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
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
|
