>... an initiative to develop a records management
>methodology, comparable to the Australian DIRKS model for the government.

I definitely compliment your Government on having the foresight to
recognize the value in doing such a thing, and wish you the greatest
possibility of success in your efforts.  One thing I'd think would make
sense would be to ensure the product remains consistent with the guidelines
in ISO 15489, which differ slightly from AS4390, the document from which
the DIRKS were developed.  While I find the DIRKS to be extremely well
written, ISO 15489 is the standard WE ALL should be shooting for compliance
with at this time.

>The new methodology  will fit the Alberta context and culture, will move the
>records management program forward to enable the management of electronic
>records, will serve as the foundation for our training program and will
>foster the standarization of systems and practices.  Three of the primary
>components will include business functional analysis,
>classification/taxonomy design, and retention and disposition schedule
>development.

Will this be done in concert with your present methodology for managing
physical assets, such as paper based records, microfilm, media libraries
and such?  It would seem logical to at least consider these items, and to
the extent possible, to ensure the processes, practices and policies are
compatible.

>         1. Has anyone used or modified formalized information architecture
>or IT analysis methodologies such as the Zachman Framework in the analysis
>of business functions for the development of records management systems? Do
>they work or are they too complicated?  By using them, are you better able
>to ally yourselves with the IT community?

Analysis, yes.  Successful implementation, no.  When I was first exposed to
the models, the employers I had (and subsequently, most of the clients I
worked with) had a central IT unit, but had distributed control of
repositories and few (if any) procedures for file naming, directory
structures, backing up data to servers, retention policies for files (aside
from typical tape rotation), or usage of applications other than
institutional applications.

While they are very good models and apply sound principles relative to
information architecture and "best practices" to implement a sound
information architecture, they go against many of the methods and
procedures organizations have come accustomed to applying to their own
business practices.  Because of this, the model is met with strong
resistance and while there may be a myriad of sound reasons for changing
existing practices, it's very difficult to get a "buy in" from management,
and while one example for this is a "top down" model, few organizations are
willing to issue a proclamation from the top down to make such sweeping
changes when they become aware of the cost to implement.

As far as allying with the IT community goes, few of the people in IT were
more than peripherally aware of the Framework.  It seems that there is more
interest in it now that people are obviously losing complete control of
systems and enterprise architecture, but it's real tough to harness a
raging river.   What was easy RELATIVELY to accomplish in the 80s during
the "mainframe and terminal days" became more and more difficult to apply
and implement in the "desktop and server days", simply because control was
distributed to the user level.

>         2. We are contemplating a change in terminology - file
>classification systems, file plans, records classification systems,
>organizational records structures  etc. are all terms that have been used
>interchangeably.  Yet the term taxonomy is emerging.  What term would make
>most sense as we try to move our program forward into the electronic records
>management context?

Attempt to "crosswalk" the existing terms to ERM context.  One of the
examples I've used for some time in comparing the two models is:

Archival Storage
Record Center = Server Backups
Carton = Tape Volumes
Folder = Directory Structure
Document = User Files

Local/Desktop Storage
File Cabinet = Hard Drive
Sectional Dividers = Applications
Folder = Document Repositories
Document = Files

This is pretty simplistic, but it seems to get the idea across to people
who can't grasp the concept that there REALLY ISN'T that much difference
between managing physical records and electronic records, because when you
store things in a computer environment, you do things in much the same manner.

One thing that is more difficult to establish is the understanding relative
to retention based on record series in an electronic environment,
especially when it comes to writing information to WORM media and/or backup
tapes.  Issues relative to expungement/disposition of electronic records
are much more tricky to deal with, especially when it comes to subsequent
holds, moratoriums, freezes and such that require the retention of portions
of what's in WORM media or backup repositories to be retained longer than
the balance of the records.  It becomes necessary to migrate those records
to media to be retained for the period required by the action applicable to
them prior to destruction of the media, and ensuring the process can be
authenticated and verified to show that they were not tampered with.

>         3.  Has anyone else attempted to develop such a methodology - or
>parts of it - and would you please share your information/documents?

As stated earlier, attempted yes.  And unfortunately, because the work was
all done with either past employers and/or while under contact as a
Consultant to various firms, it's proprietary, so I can't share any of the
documentation.

Best of luck to you in this effort.  It's quite possible because this is
being done in a Government environment, it may be easier to accomplish...
but it won't be any less expensive.

Larry

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance