People will always want a local expert - one of the big jobs of RMers is to be on hand to give advice and training. Think of the frustration and loathing that RM as function would attract if all that was available in terms of help was a far-off call centre with 'advisers' reading from a prepared script ..., While agreeing that locally available RM support is a good thing, this exchange illustrates (for me) the lack of recision in the term "records manager". At the management level, the records manager is accountable for ensuring training, etc. but may be less directly responsible for providing it. That might fall to records analyst/trainer positions, classification technicians or a range of such positions. This likely reflects organizational size, specialization of job function, etc. In one organization I led, there were 30 in our RIM program, four of whom had training responsibility. n another, over 100 personnel, two directly involved in providing training to 1300 annually. Advice in both cases came from a "hot line" and from local records officers. In another organzation, advice was given by the management level (where there was little practical understanding of "how to" supported by an outsourced advisory contract.
Yes and everyone to some extent is a recorkeeper and manager? The professional context and requirements is different though., How many organisations employee more than one records manager? What can one person do? - target and set policy? Should it be a strategic job or should there be some action - IT has all levels?, All members of an organisation or records creators and 'manage' records and information to a degree. The Records Manager (and other IM professionals) set the framework and parameters within which the creation and management will occur, and take a key role in EDUCATING and SUPPORTING their organisation's members to create and maintain an adequate record.
In practice, only information intended for general public use is extended to general web access. If the question is intended to address web related material used by registered "members" for business purposes, then it is mapped for application of retention management (understanding that users may have captured and separately retained content outside our control).
Would appreciate clarification here: how will search engines enable management of retention in accord with record value/business function and and compliance needs? Are not the most effective engines enabled by underlying vertical structures supported by horizontal references and tags?
Tags vs categories mindmap http://www.mindmeister.com/27845500/tags-vs-categories, Great illustration of why it is neither one nor the other, but both, that can take us forward. E.g. harness the power of the community in collaborative definition of vocabulary, etc. and build the thesaurus. Of course, the hierarchical structure has never been entirely "fixed" except in rule (versus outcome) oriented organizations. Mechanisms for evolution are a matter of good management.
An organization doesn't just need to find things; it needs to be able to account for its activities, and this means being able to demonstrate its IM and governance structures and workflows. Classification schemes etc provide the corporate view of its info management / governance, which is very necessary. This doesn't mean that finding stuff is best found by browsing through the structured scheme ..., That ought to be the logical case but outside of accounting very few organisations are made to account for their actions holistically - rather individual actions are questioned and this in the US e-discovery as a key driver developed.
Not necessarily; e.g., in giving directions communication is often far more effectively achieved by drawing a map, which is structured rather than narrative. Similarly with graphs, charts, tables.
Can agree that workplace behaviours are the make or break point; cannot agree that granular management is not realistic. Overly aggregated data is not the answer. Extreme (real life) example: classification problem perceived to be one of too many choices, so the scheme was aggregated to simply classification. The result was an unmanageable (but easily "filed") collection that necessitated longer retention with associated costs to avoid risk of premature disposition of unspecified content., New rules will ineitably develop to provide systems with a granular approach that enables decisions to be automated. So just as web search engines access information in new ways information can be deleted/managed in new ways. We need to be thinking about the feasibility of the rules and risks.
'Fixed' information is contrary to new concepts about reusing information, Solutions: in fact very little information does merit fixity?, According to records continuum theory, info can alter its form and become (part of) something entirely different from the conformation it was originally conceived in., Solution - 'unified access' but distribute management of record components and information tracking?, Technically common, and requiring an understanding of records management to ensure that the data is captured ad managed to support defined needs (another illustration of structure that underpins what may appear to be a cloud), But according to the international standard on RM the charactaristics of 'good records' are aspect that lend themselves more to archival requirements and fixity., Solution: Should RM break from its reliance on archival traditions and align more closely with IT and Information management more widely as well as risk managers, business analysts etc, But the Continuum Model arose in the context of archival studies as much, if not more than, RM. It offers an integrated approach to recordkeeping that is as valid for operational as for long-term 'archival' records. I think it would be aggravating an existing error in approach to split 'records' and 'archives' still further apart: a holistic approach is better., In the New Zealand guidance on Web 2.0 it does focus on capture which may be different than fixity? Refer to http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/government-recordkeeping-manual/guidance/guidelines/Guideline-24-Records-management-and-web-2.0/Records-management-and-web-2.0 To quote: record is information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organisation or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business . Many of the uses of web 2.0 applications may create records. It is important to remember that records are not defined by their format. New technologies such as web 2.0 are a challenge for records professionals as they produce records but are not designed for information capture and maintenance. Records professionals need to become aware of web applications being used or proposed to be used within their organisation and devise ways of capture and preservation of required information as records., New node
The joy of digital persistance is that the things people don't want you to see remain. Not so good on a personal level but wonderful when dealing with governmental bodies.