No I do not have 'best practices' to quote James.  I do have practical
experience with this.  When I arrived at Duke Energy in 1988 the analysts
there were re-using record numbers (identifiers of records series on the
retention policy schedules) that had been retired from the retention
schedules.  Their record numbers were 4-digit non-intelligent numbers.  It
caused some confusion as certain departments had stored some of their
records in their own facilities using the record numbers, appropriately, as
identifiers and then later transferred them to the corporate records center.

The analysts were doing two things wrong, IMO.  They were retiring records
series without knowing for sure that the records no longer existed.   They
also were reusing numbers; causing problems for the client department; the
records center; and the analyst staff.  I told them that numbers were
infinitum and that there was absolutely no reason to reuse them.  Watching
their faces was like watching the proverbial light bulb come on.  Guess what
they said... "we have always done it this way."

 Best regards, Steve
Steven D. Whitaker, CRM


On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Mullen, James L <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> <<Steve Whitaker said:
>
>
>
> Bad, bad, bad idea.  Numbers are infinitum; why bring up a possible
> conflict
>
> in the future?  The potential confusion could be dangerous.>>
>
> -----
>
> We're leaning in this direction, Steve.  Do you have or know of any
> documented best practices (ARMA, AIMM, ANSI, ISO, etc.)?  Steve said so
> just doesn't solidify my case much ; )
> <snip>

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]