Community

• Blogs
  • Expert Blogs
  • Community Blogs
  • Create a Blog Entry
• Discussions
  • Start a Discussion
• Job Center
• Chapters

Kerosene and a Zippo: What else do you need for records management?

• 
• 
• 
• 

How come the companies that keep everything forever always get in trouble, while the folks that retain very little get off easy? If this continues to hold true, why not aggressively – I mean VERY aggressively – dispose of as much electronic content as possible?

I remember my dad marching into our backyard one summer holding a can of kerosene and a Zippo lighter, mumbling something about “hornets’ nests only get bigger; better off torching them as soon as possible.” And as a kid, I loved to see the fireball explode, and then I did my share of running to flee from any of the bugs that may have escaped the inferno.

But the basic principal is consistent: Get rid of unneeded content as soon as possible. Of course, to do this we need users – authors, email recipients, etc. – to make decisions and take action. And they need tools. So while torching a hornets’ nest might seem like the right action to take, few people would be comfortable with the kerosene (did I mention my dad would often have a lit cigarette in his mouth the whole time?).

Alternatively, my dad could have hired a “service” to remove the nest. This would be equivalent, in a corporate setting, to relying on departmental records coordinators to do the dirty work. But imagine a single individual trying to clean up the mess of 50 or 100 individuals. Their only reasonable course of action is to begin lecturing (“educating”) their department members on the merits of good document hygiene.

Why can’t we just give the users an electronic kerosene can? Could it be that simple? It all comes down to the comfort users have using the tools made available to them. Could it be as simple as having a “record” button within the Microsoft Word or Exchange ribbon? Absolutely. But what about the dialog box that pops up and asks the user to pick a record series, and there are 42 different options in the drop-down? Ouch.

So meanwhile, we as users keep everything, and corporations say, “Unless told otherwise, we will delete everything.” Ouch again.

It really comes down to simplicity. Keep the user requirements simple – for example, providing four “buckets” to choose from: 1) Declared Records, 2) Automatically Deleted in 90 Days, 3) Retained for 3 Years, 4) Retained Forever (ouch, but hopefully less “ouch”). And this might be a lot to ask of users. Time will tell. It was certainly easier for my dad to decide “torch or no torch” rather than attempting to isolate the queen hornet and dispose of her properly. Image me, the environmentally conscious son, making that suggestion!

Comments

Submitted by Wayne Hoff April 23, 2010 - 5:41 PM

Providing four buckets is a simple solution as you say, at least relative to the full retention schedule. But it is not simple relative to the current process - not having to put email or files into buckets at all. Adding that requirement creates a huge cultural shift that the average worker wants nothing of, and that in turn gives you a very complex hurdle to work through.

I'm looking at doing something along these lines in the next couple of years (we have no formal email mgmt yet), and I'm encouraged by the trend to create "zones" - zone 1 is the inbox, where email may reside uncategorized for 90 days. After 90 days all email must either be deleted (thus categorizing it as transitory) or moved to zone 2 - email of somewhat more importance. Email may remain uncategorized in zone 2 for 3 years. After 3 years, the email must either be deleted (thus categorizing it as a record with short-term importance) or moved to zone 3. Records must be categorized according to the full retention schedule before moving to zone 3. Typically only 2-5% of email makes it to zone 3.

Of course, the final number of zones and the lengths of time for each will vary with each organization. But it avoids the dialog box popping up everytime an email comes in or goes out, which I think is less obtrusive and (I hope!) more acceptable to a stubborn, change-resisting workforce.

Maybe some others out there have other good ways to manage the change?

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Reply

Subject  

Comment  

Submitted by Pilar McAdam April 27, 2010 - 5:09 PM

Loved the title of your post (Kerosene and a Zippo), but your opening premise isn't necessarily true. The quantity of records in an organization isn't a good yardstick for effective information management. After all, spoliation usually results from records that aren't there, but we're not all waiting in line for that ride! It's the destruction (and retention, etc.) of records in accordance with a consistent policy that's most likely to result in "getting off easy", not the mere fact of having few of them.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Reply

Subject  

Comment  

Submitted by Karen Payne April 28, 2010 - 4:49 PM

Zone 1, uncategorized - 30 days
Zone 2, content of "somewhat more importance" - 6 months
Zone 3, categorized - per retention schedule. This is excellent because it forces users to, um, USE the retention schedule, and it mandates that the retention schedule be updated for user and entity needs, and as new records are created.
Zone 4 (Pilar - would not co-exist with Wayne's 3-zone system) -- I would recommend quantifying "forever" both in this model and in any retention schedule. Say, 10 + review...or, Life of Corporation/Life of Structure. Records obsolesce much faster now. Five years ago, I would negotiate 50 years for "PERM" (or forever), and feel like I had won a real victory. Now, I would aim for 10; the safety for users is the "+ review" part.

Report

Was this helpful? Yes No

Reply

Subject  

Comment  

This post and comment(s) reflect the personal perspectives of community members, and not necessarily those of their employers or of AIIM International