Gordy said: <So the question becomes whether to intervene once, now, or plan for periodic future efforts.> I say once is not enough since applications are sunsetted and new applications are designed all the time (every month where I work), and periodic future efforts is too vague for IT staff who need clearly defined responsibilities and specific tasks since they are the ones doing the migration/conversion/environment preservation. My strategy to ensure access to 'legacy' data (as IT calls it) thoughout the data's lifecycle has so far been top-down repetitive reminders to IT Directors as well as bottom-up reiteration of the message. I customize the message wherever possible for specific legacy data since IT cannot do much with high-level requirements statements and are never motivated to circle back to RM and request specific instructions (why would they -it results in more work for them and they always say they are under time constraints). Since the average staff needs to hear any message about 3 times before it even registers (according to our esteemed colleagues who teach us how to market our RM programs) and since I observe that most staff need to hear and read RM formal requirements in varying levels of detail more than that, and since there may be a revolving door problem in IT staffing as well as a monomaniacal focus on 'projects' to the exclusion of consideration of daily operational processes, with no handover of RM requirements from PM to daily IT support staff, I find myself repeating and documenting the legacy-data-access message a couple of times a week and seeking ways to audit ongoing availability of legacy data. -- Maureen Cusack San Francisco, CA [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]