A lot of different threads here - and I want to call out two that aren't your main point:
"we automatically got a catalogue of the records in the form of the directory structure." - this is a fallacy that we all tend to fall for in RM, but have you SEEN some of our directory structures??? it's not the metadata silver bullet we wish it was.
My main question - how does everyone feel about RM being reduced to "functional description with retention management"?
I agree - it can be a crappy catalogue, but when we compare it to paper records that have no inherent catalogue, it ticks the catalogue functional requirement box and makes the catalogue another quality factor with different outcomes depending on how we conceptualise quality (ie. speed to find, stability over time etc). I do think we would be in for a serious argument with many business units if we asserted that records management always creates high quality catalogues (at least where quality is measured by the ability of business stakeholders to find the record they want, often the record they stored).
With regards to your main question. I am also interested to understand how people feel about that. Half the point of this article was to argue that we make many different promises in the belief that the same practice pattern can produce the. The practice pattern was designed to produce a specific outcome, so if we change the promise from retention management, we have to change the practices. I ache for the day that I find a records management program whose primary goal is something else that also has a different pattern of practice.
A lot of different threads here - and I want to call out two that aren't your main point:
"we automatically got a catalogue of the records in the form of the directory structure." - this is a fallacy that we all tend to fall for in RM, but have you SEEN some of our directory structures??? it's not the metadata silver bullet we wish it was.
My main question - how does everyone feel about RM being reduced to "functional description with retention management"?
I agree - it can be a crappy catalogue, but when we compare it to paper records that have no inherent catalogue, it ticks the catalogue functional requirement box and makes the catalogue another quality factor with different outcomes depending on how we conceptualise quality (ie. speed to find, stability over time etc). I do think we would be in for a serious argument with many business units if we asserted that records management always creates high quality catalogues (at least where quality is measured by the ability of business stakeholders to find the record they want, often the record they stored).
With regards to your main question. I am also interested to understand how people feel about that. Half the point of this article was to argue that we make many different promises in the belief that the same practice pattern can produce the. The practice pattern was designed to produce a specific outcome, so if we change the promise from retention management, we have to change the practices. I ache for the day that I find a records management program whose primary goal is something else that also has a different pattern of practice.