So we go back to basics
emails may be records
it depends on their function and what values are assigned to them
the same criteria is assigned to email as any other record in deternmining whether it is a record
Are there staisitcs?
Back in the day there was a lot of attention paid to email.
Statistical analysis was relatively easy coompared to now mainly do to the vastly smaller volume
In those days the internet was new and information sharing was all the rage.
today the work involved in doing this sort of analysis has value
the result is that if you want it you are going to have to pay for it.
The numbers we used to throw around were that 85% of all emails were not records.
My hunch (you folks got that right, just a hunch) is that a much smaller volume of emails are records across the board.
Those emails that have record value have not lost or in any way diminished in importance
One of our tasks, as Records Managers, is to identify and schedule these records as early as possible.
Another task, one that many Records Managers find the most difficult, is to allow IT to manage the rest.
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:13:30 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: E-Mail Statistics--Are There Any?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> I'm a bit taken aback by your statement that most email is valueless. Not
> that you're wrong - you're not - but that truth is not restricted to just email.
> Most paper is valueless - the vast majority is a copy of existing electronic
> data. Same with electronic information in general, whether including email or
> not: most of the full collection of electronic information at most organizations
> has never been touched in years and has little to no value.
> The problem is in the word "most." That means that some email is valuable,
> and in some cases extremely valuable. Applying an arbitrary 4-year retention
> across all email is as sensible as applying the same thing across all electronic
> information, and across all paper too. There absolutely will be content in
> some email messages that had better be retained for more than 4 years,
> unless you've done a deep cost-risk evaluation and you're willing to endure
> some sizable risks for simplicity. Alternatively, a more robust program to apply
> the organization's retention schedule to email content is a better route.
> Wayne Hoff, CRM
> Calgary, AB
> 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]
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]