Hi All - Following is my experience and opinion. Does it match yours? 

As a result of assessment that results in updating a retention schedule,
it's possible that:

1. A retention period may be lowered. 

Impact: The new retention period is applied to the records; records that
have outlived the new retention period are destroyed (barring any
litigation hold requirements). 

2. A retention period may lengthened. 

Impact: The new retention and disposition requirement typically goes
into effect immediately and all records that exist within that code are
retained for the new, longer period. 

Typically, a relational database underlying RM software enables the
update to the retention period associated with a code. The field
containing the retention period value for the records series code is
modified. Links to specific records (boxes, electronic records) -
associated with that code - enable application of the new requirements.
Disposition dates are (re)calculated per the new retention value for the
code. For example a report can be run listing all records that have
exceeded their retention period that are eligible for destruction under
the new time period. Note: In cases in which an actual date was input
into the destruction date field without retaining a link between the
code and the retention period, additional work would be required to
recalculate and apply the new retention period. The logistics depends
upon the actual system and how data is entered. 

3. A records series code may be split. 

This is a more complex scenario and is most often accomplished to
differentiate between two or more record types that require different
retention periods. There are other reasons and scenarios. In the paper
world, records stored under the original code typically continue to be
retained under that code, because it is not cost effective to sort
through and divide the contents. The retention period for those records
would either stay the same - or be lengthened or lowered, to - in most
cases match the LONGEST time period of either of the new codes. 

In an electronic records world, because of the ability to capture
"record type" metadata, there is an opportunity to actually make the
needed changes on a record type basis, when a split in a record series


Confirmation or diverging experiences/opinions re the above?

Thanks in advance,


Susan K. Goodman, CRM, ERM,PECMP 
Senior Vice President 
Digital Records Program
Bank of America

List archives at
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]