Mental models are mental representations of reality. They provide a kind of scaffold that we use to understand the world and how the things in it are related. When we look at the world, we don't take in all of the information we see, we attribute significance to certain things because of the mental models that we have - and they become all that we see (there is a certain amount of debate about why this happens, but not that it happens). We develop mental models just by being in the world, based on the things that happen around us, and the things that we do and the strongest models are the ones that we use the most often.
I was involved in designing a taxonomy to move into SharePoint from a network drive. We had 100 meetings (2 or 3 with each team/ stakeholder group). Then IM put it together and the teams signed it off - rolled out over 2 years. Our SharePoint Administrator built the system. The Project team had in-depth knowledge of what records were produced by staff, how (relating to what processes and procedures), why they were produced, all the different unofficial repositories. We had a PM that was IT trained and an IM Specialist especially around risk, compliance and privacy. This was my first role back in records for 5 years and it was like IT and IM had merged but still IT don’t know the value of IM. Plus I learned a lot too. It was like a revolution had taken place. Given the speed of change and anti change sentiments of new technologies of staff, I wonder if we have to look at ourselves. Break up the roles within IM but also the steps “up” the ladder. It seems there’s a lot of specialised knowledge and a lot of confusion amongst IM staff. And I think putting the IM functionality ‘behind’ end users views of their file structures like I understand the do in 365 now (I’m just being introduced to 365), people can work as they want to but IM can be integrated. I also think we need to educate ourselves more. One of the problems with IM is that there is never one way to do things - if 5 people are in a room they will come up with 5 different opinions on what process should be followed. I always found this a barrier to gaining confidence and knowledge - the loudest person can be wrong. Sticking to the basics is always a good idea.15489, your Public Records Act. The main thing was to file the record under the activity that leads to it being created - it’s the taxonomy that does this. And so gives compliance, has security applied etc. We have to promote ourselves and the reasons we do what we do. IM Is hard even for IM staff and it’s impossible to know everything. I know we need to focus on business outputs and quality inputs are the answer. Staff just want to know where to file what they’ve created - knowing the filing structure is key. Paper based systems you had to know your filing structure and electronically it’s no different. We need to get our feet on the ground again - and not get lost in the cloud. The purpose or processes involved when document is created is not necessarily known - that’s where we come in - and from there filing it correctly. We should be guiding IT in the design aspects of IM principles in records systems.
I was involved in designing a taxonomy to move into SharePoint from a network drive. We had 100 meetings (2 or 3 with each team/ stakeholder group). Then IM put it together and the teams signed it off - rolled out over 2 years. Our SharePoint Administrator built the system. The Project team had in-depth knowledge of what records were produced by staff, how (relating to what processes and procedures), why they were produced, all the different unofficial repositories. We had a PM that was IT trained and an IM Specialist especially around risk, compliance and privacy. This was my first role back in records for 5 years and it was like IT and IM had merged but still IT don’t know the value of IM. Plus I learned a lot too. It was like a revolution had taken place. Given the speed of change and anti change sentiments of new technologies of staff, I wonder if we have to look at ourselves. Break up the roles within IM but also the steps “up” the ladder. It seems there’s a lot of specialised knowledge and a lot of confusion amongst IM staff. And I think putting the IM functionality ‘behind’ end users views of their file structures like I understand the do in 365 now (I’m just being introduced to 365), people can work as they want to but IM can be integrated. I also think we need to educate ourselves more. One of the problems with IM is that there is never one way to do things - if 5 people are in a room they will come up with 5 different opinions on what process should be followed. I always found this a barrier to gaining confidence and knowledge - the loudest person can be wrong. Sticking to the basics is always a good idea.15489, your Public Records Act. The main thing was to file the record under the activity that leads to it being created - it’s the taxonomy that does this. And so gives compliance, has security applied etc. We have to promote ourselves and the reasons we do what we do. IM Is hard even for IM staff and it’s impossible to know everything. I know we need to focus on business outputs and quality inputs are the answer. Staff just want to know where to file what they’ve created - knowing the filing structure is key. Paper based systems you had to know your filing structure and electronically it’s no different. We need to get our feet on the ground again - and not get lost in the cloud. The purpose or processes involved when document is created is not necessarily known - that’s where we come in - and from there filing it correctly. We should be guiding IT in the design aspects of IM principles in records systems.