In answer to Peter Kurilecz's question:
I trust that friends at PRO won't object to me responding, and will put me
right if I include any errors...
The 1997 version of 5015.2 was one of several inputs to the PRO 1999
specification, from which the (greatly improved) 2002 version derives
directly. It is much, much, more detailed and is easier to use (depending
on how you count them, you find about 200 requirements in 5015.2 and just
under 400 in PRO). The PRO work is more comprehensive in its records
management functionality (e.g. file/folder management), being driven by the
need for good practice rather than legal limitations. It also includes
functionality which, though not strictly required for RM, makes sense for
new implementations (e.g. EDM). It also includes a comprehensive metadata
model (which is now somewhat subsumed into a wider government metadata
model, e-GMS) unlike 5015.2 which lists some strangely arbitrary subset of
necessary metadata. Finally, it also includes a reference model which
describes entities etc. involved in a technical way, in the interests of
rigour and good communications. Having said all this, just as 5015.2 in
effect reflects USA legal needs, so the PRO specification is based on UK
government practices. And to be fair, 5015.2's metadata model for security
markings is more sophisticated; but to be equally fair, I doubt many
organisations could implement it.
The PRO specification is the de facto standard in most of UK central
government, and as you may know, that means it is currently being
implemented on a huge scale. The PRO website lists a dozen or so solutions
tested and certified against the '99 version, so watch that space for more
'02-compliant products - soon, we hope.
You may also be interested in the European "MoReq" specification, produced
for and published by the European Commission. This is similar in concept to
the PRO work, and both the PRO and 5015.2 specifications were inputs to it
(and likewise, the PRO 2002 work is informed by MoReq). Like the PRO
specification, MoReq covers much more ground than 5015.2, and is much more
user-friendly (as examples, MoReq takes three pages to cover something
covered in one paragraph on 5015.2; and MoReq is explicitly designed to be
customised, whereas 5015.2 seems almost to be designed to prevent
customisation). MoReq's distinguishing feature is that it is not limited to
UK government; it is explicitly designed to be usable anywhere in Europe
(and beyond). It is widely adopted in continental Europe, where it
increasingly is a base requirement in ERMS procurements. It has been well
received, as an illustration of which local translations have been made.
MoReq is now available in at least four languages, and it can be downloaded
from several sites around the world including ours at
www.cornwell.co.uk/moreq.html.
Of course, I am biased as I managed the development of MoReq. But I
contributed also to the PRO '99 and '02 specifications, so I feel entitled
to comment.
Shame you didn't come to my session at the ARMA conference last year to get
all this detail and more!
Marc Fresko
EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director
Cornwell Management Consultants plc
Home Barn Court, The Street
Effingham, Surrey
KT24 5LG
United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
Tel. +44 1372 456086
Fax. +44 1372 450950
www.cornwell.co.uk
This e-mail is intentionally sent in a plain text format, for maximum
compatibility with recipients' systems and minimum virus infection risk.
As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information if you are
not (or suspect that you are not) the correct recipient or the person
responsible for delivering the message to one or more named addressees,
please telephone us immediately. Please note that we cannot guarantee that
this message or any attachment is virus free nor that it has not been
intercepted or amended. The views of the author may not necessarily reflect
those of the company.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kurilecz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 March 2003 13:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: thanks to all Re: List of Approved ERM Systems: 2002 Functional
requirements
for the links. I've downloaded the information. Now on to the second part
...
How does it compare with DOD5015.2 or has no comparison been done yet?
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
|