<many users don't approach classification the same way that records managers do,> <the user has to understand the classification system well enough to know how to match the information to that framework.> Well in a functional classification scheme (which is the way we do it these days - ISO 15489) the users, not the records manager, decide in the first place how the scheme looks - because the scheme REFLECTS the documented approved business processes and the higher level documented approved functions of the organization, the scheme doesn't CREATE a way of ordering processes and functions. The records manager doesn't set business processes nor their relationships to each other nor to top-level function(s) of the organization (which are dictated by the organization's mandate). Those documenting activities are standard requirements of organizations (ISO 9001) - not the records manager's battle. The business process approvers must explain these process and function connections to the records manager. This means approvers must be high enough up the food chain to understand how all activities (for which records are the evidence) "hang together" to support the raison d'etre of the organization. Then the records manager creates the facets in the scheme to reflect these relationships. This creates the context that makes records meaningful (a functional approach means that the context is the meaning of records, not the content of individual records themselves). The scheme is not hierarchical, it's faceted - exceptions or "problems" in grouping records can be handled because facets can be used anywhere in the scheme as needed to properly capture context. For example, if any given activity or process has it's own HR or finance function then those categories are allowed anywhere- they are not strictly contained within HR or Finance top-level functions. Maureen Cusack, M.I.St. http://www.maureencusack.net List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance