I am wrestling with this in my organisation at the moment. We’ve been trying to impose records management on the business that adds to their workload and doesn’t really add quantifiable value to them apart from creating some more complete archival outcomes. People are already working under pressure so we have to make it easier for them to create records that are useful and valuable while still in that active phase. I also struggle with my ‘elevator pitch’ about the value of RM and IM in my local govt organisation apart from the compliance aspect. I and my team know the value but we need to learn to speak the business and exec speak to gain buy-in and not just justify our existence but show the value. I’m a long term reader of your thoughts and share them with my team regularly. They always generate interesting discussions:)
"People are already working under pressure so we have to make it easier for them to create records that are useful and valuable" - this looks like the bones of a great elevator pitch to me. Just some work to do on what valuable means!
And thank you - I'm pleased they have generated interesting discussions for you, they all come out of problems I'm wrestling with - so it's nice to hear I'm not alone!
It's definitely a salient dichotomy -- almost a tug-of-war -- between this definition of RIM's value based in records' active phase (organization! searchability! naming conventions! less clutter!) versus the inactive phase (compliance! findability for reference! reduced risk through defensible destruction! archiving!). If we want to boost our messaging around adding value to active records management, how do you distinguish what we bring to the table that's different than our colleagues in business process improvement, data management, or IT? I find those functions are more instinctively invited to be involved in active/ongoing IM at my organization than RIM is.
I am wrestling with this in my organisation at the moment. We’ve been trying to impose records management on the business that adds to their workload and doesn’t really add quantifiable value to them apart from creating some more complete archival outcomes. People are already working under pressure so we have to make it easier for them to create records that are useful and valuable while still in that active phase. I also struggle with my ‘elevator pitch’ about the value of RM and IM in my local govt organisation apart from the compliance aspect. I and my team know the value but we need to learn to speak the business and exec speak to gain buy-in and not just justify our existence but show the value. I’m a long term reader of your thoughts and share them with my team regularly. They always generate interesting discussions:)
"People are already working under pressure so we have to make it easier for them to create records that are useful and valuable" - this looks like the bones of a great elevator pitch to me. Just some work to do on what valuable means!
And thank you - I'm pleased they have generated interesting discussions for you, they all come out of problems I'm wrestling with - so it's nice to hear I'm not alone!
It's definitely a salient dichotomy -- almost a tug-of-war -- between this definition of RIM's value based in records' active phase (organization! searchability! naming conventions! less clutter!) versus the inactive phase (compliance! findability for reference! reduced risk through defensible destruction! archiving!). If we want to boost our messaging around adding value to active records management, how do you distinguish what we bring to the table that's different than our colleagues in business process improvement, data management, or IT? I find those functions are more instinctively invited to be involved in active/ongoing IM at my organization than RIM is.