Sorry, you are all missing the point.

Barb - you need to look at the reason behind the business units' suggested
change. They are grumbling about workload for what they see as non-core
business. Upper management should be asking you to suggest ways of
minimising workload.  They are trying to impose a solution without getting
you involved in analysing the problem first.

I prefer not to have a blanket policy on indexing depth, we just tell
business units that they have to provide sufficiently detailed metadata for
them to know which box something is in. We then help them decide for each
type or series, in a way which takes disposal into account, but we stress
business retrieval needs above all else, and try to look in some detail into
risk factors as well.

We tell them that if they decide to save time by indexing at the box level
for any specific case, then the downside is that we can't pull back just a
file or document from offsite, and they may have to search through an entire
box to find what they want. I have been known to insist on folder level
indexing (as is my right under the RM Policy which I wrote), but that means
my persuasive skills haven't worked.

So maybe your solution is not to have an overall blanket policy but assist
business units to reach a practical decision on a case by case basis.

Cheers

Glenn

Glenn Sanders MRMA
[log in to unmask]
Australia

These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked
and they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and
Glenn". Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.

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]