Further to the discussion, some observations on "Big Bucket" versus
the generally undefined alternatives ;-)
I agree that a Big Bucket approach makes the system simpler for users
to grasp and that the approach may be less feasible with paper
records. So, not disagreeing with Brent but feel the discussion
needs to go deeper (noting that a file plan that presents thousands
of choices to users and contributes to the challenges inherent in
managing records is often the result of applying one strategy over
multiple needs).
Provocative inquiry:
When we say "big bucket", do we mean defining business functions at a
level so high that retention is aggregated at the highest level so as
to guarantee longer than necessary retention of record material?
Probably not--but perhaps so depending on the specifics. Specifics
are not big bucket. The user may be given a big bucket
representation of the scheme, but the scheme itself may have smaller
buckets.
Clearly, criteria to set the size of the bucket is critical--it needs
to be just right, but for whose purposes?
An area of confusion can be in the different viewpoints of users and
managers of the information resource. An enterprise does need a
comprehensive understanding of what it knows and holds in order to
manage liability, compliance, quality, etc. An individual user does
not need to be presented with a comprehensive picture that may
overwhelm, seem irrelevant or otherwise get in the way of RIM
compliance and utility.
Random, user generated tagging has value to individual users and tag
use can be tracked and aggregated/measured so as to discern common
language for greater utility within an enterprise. Still, this is
more access than management. Meta tagging for management purposes
still requires an understanding of the purpose served by information
content - and whatever the bucket size that is advisable for end
users, it seems to me that an accountable organization needs to
understand its holdings beyond such an aggregation.
Again, users and accountable managers have different needs. Records
managers must understand and meet the needs of both.
So at the risk of getting more technical, document tagging versus
meta data within file plans implies consciousness of what meta data
is required for a defined purpose served within the file plan and
what metadata can be attached across multiple groupings of document
types for defined purposes. There is either an existing or required
mapping of data to functions at some level. To accomplish this,
somebody has gained a more granular understanding of the total
information resource (or rather, has developed capacity to grapple
with more granular issues).
This comes back to deciding the size of the bucket for relative
purpose (and these differ dramatically among users relative to their
own purpose within an organization). I urge caution in the use of the
term--it is so attractive as a concept (brings forth the "phew,
that'll be easier!") that the work behind it may not get done.
I had the dubious pleasure of straightening out a system in the Parks
service many years back in which they had perfected the easy filing
big bucket approach with whole aspects of the service assigned one
classification code--a nightmare. I have also given my head a shake
on discovering full implementation of a comprehensive, enterprise-
wide scheme in a unit of limited functions requiring only a subset of
the scheme--thousands of categories implemented with artful
interpretation (who says workplaces can't be creative?!) that made
retrieval and management virtually impossible! In both cases, the
organizations sought the "easy" way out by adopting an answer that
worked for some other organisation, some other work culture, and
slapped it over a workplace for which each was totally the wrong
solution.
We can get around our responsibility to know what the needs are, the
drivers both authoritative and social, the attributes of media and a
host of details that inform our strategy, and its best chance for
implementation. Yes, that may mean fitting our tactics to how users
actually use technology--with a behind the scenes logic that protects
the corporate interests.
It's what makes RM fun, eh?!
Thoughts?
John James O'Brien, BA, CRM, MALT
[log in to unmask]
Partner & Managing Director
IRM Strategies
Hong Kong: +852 3101 7359
Bangkok: +66 2 207 2530
www.irmstrategies.com
Associate Partner, S4K Research
Stockholm www.s4k.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]
|