Geoff
DoD 5015.2 is of course an exact moral equivalent to, and (in its 1997
version) direct ancestor of, both PRO and MoReq specifications. That
is, it is intended to serve as a minimum specification of what a
national authority expects of an ERM system. If software, such as your
product, complies with 5015.2 (which was NOT the point of this thread by
the way) it demonstrates that the software is likely to be able to
satisfy the minimum requirements for record keeping of a foreign
authority (US DoD), which is of questionable value in the UK. It does
of course suggest that the software is likely to be a decent record
keeping system. But it does not address UK conventions and
expectations, and it certainly does not address record keeping "as we
know it".
I stick to my view that it is highly inappropriate to use 5015.2 in the
UK as a base ERM specification.
The trouble is that 5015.2 is built on many cultural assumptions which
are alien here. For example:
- Out of about 404 requirements:
* only 51 requirements correspond to PRO requirements;
* another 51 requirements correspond very approximately, or only
partially, to PRO requirements;
* the rest, 302 requirements, simply cannot be mapped to PRO
requirements.
(actually, the number of 404 requirements is debatable due to the
difficult structure of 5015.2).
- The terminology of 5015.2, and the language used, are awful.
- 5015.2 has no requirements which recognise the concept of "part"
("volume" in MoReq) or "class".
- Many requirements of 5015.2 are referenced to one of no less than 44
US Federal Regulations, NARA guidance, DOD standards and so on.
Absolutely useless outside the USA.
- The metadata model of 5015.2 is incomplete - almost trivial when held
against the corresponding PRO (now TNA) model.
- In simple physical terms, 5015.2 seems designed to prevent
customisation (try it!) while both MoReq and PRO specifications are
designed explicitly to be customised.
Sorry to go on about this, but I'd hate to think non-US readers of this
list will be misled into thinking 5015.2 is worth spending any more time
on. Reading this much is probably too much time as it is!
Marc Fresko
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Records Management mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Geoff Baldwin
> Sent: 22 September 2004 23:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: EDRMS
>
> Not sure I agree that 'US DOD 5015.2 is not very appropriate
> in a UK setting'
>
> It is a standard for an EDRMS set down for use by all US
> government (esp.
> Military) departments and as such would provide a more than
> useful guide to what such a system should be capable of.
>
> Systems that are certified to DoD5015.2 have demonstrated an
> ability to meet an extremely demanding standard (Declaration
> of interest - ours is!)
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> --------------------------
> Geoff Baldwin
> dir:
> 01428 647 577
> Business Development Director m:
> 07717 478 422
> dotDOCs Ltd web:
> www.dotDOCs.co.uk
> Longdene House
> Haslemere
> GU27 2PH
>
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: The UK Records Management mailing list
> >>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fresko,
> >>Marc
> >>Sent: 22 September 2004 22:42
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Re: EDRMS
> >>
> >>
> >>Rachael
> >>
> >>To an extent Jesse's advice is correct - you should use a
> >>publicly-available and well-regarded specification as a starting
> >>point, rather than a specification of unknown quality from
> elsewhere.
> >>However, US DOD 5015.2 is not very appropriate in a UK
> setting, and I
> >>suggest you do not devote any time to it.
> >>
> >>In the UK, MoReq is regarded as easier to work with (simply
> because of
> >>the way in which it is written), BUT all UK software suppliers are
> >>more familiar and more comfortable with the PRO
> specification. MoReq
> >>is totally generic, whereas the PRO specification is intended first
> >>and foremost for UK central government (very similar in most
> >>significant respects to local government for these purposes). I'd
> >>advise you use the PRO 2002 specification, possibly looking
> at MoReq
> >>for additional insights only if you have time.
> >>
> >>So, in a nutshell, take the PRO work, cut out all the
> requirements you
> >>do not and are never likely to need, add any requirements which you
> >>need but which are missing (highlighting that you have
> added them, out
> >>of consideration to the reader), and make all the general
> statements
> >>specific to your authority.
> >>
> >>I hope this helps,
> >>
> >>Marc Fresko
> >>EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director Cornwell Management
> Consultants
> >>plc Home Barn Court, The Street Effingham, Surrey
> >>KT24 5LG
> >>
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >>Tel. 01372 456086
> >>Mob. 07767 325630
> >>Fax. 01372 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: The UK Records Management mailing list
> >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JESSE
> >>> WILKINS
> >>> Sent: 22 September 2004 16:55
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: EDRMS
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rachael,
> >>>
> >>> Generically you may wish to consider the requirements
> >>embodied in the
> >>> Public Record Office spec, as well as those in MoReq or in
> >>the US DOD
> >>> 5015.2 - that should prove a good starting point from
> which you can
> >>> customize to meet your requirements.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Jesse Wilkins
> >>> CDIA+, LIT, EDP, ICP
> >>> IMERGE Consulting
> >>> (303) 574-1455 office
> >>> (303) 484-4142 fax
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> http://www.imergeconsult.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >From: "Steel, Rachael" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> >Reply-To: "Steel, Rachael" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> >Subject: EDRMS
> >>> >Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:48:21 +0100
> >>> >
> >>> >Does any one have a Spec for an Electronic Document Records
> >>> Management
> >>> >System (EDRMS) that they are willing to share with me. We
> >>have been
> >>> >asked to create one for this authority at very short
> >>notice and I do
> >>> >not know where to start.
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks very much and I look forward to any replies.
> >>> >
> >>> >Rachael Steel
> >>> >Information Management Officer
> >>> >Telephone: 01375 652500
> >>> >[log in to unmask]
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >The information in this e-Mail and any attachment(s) are
> >>> intended to be
> >>> >confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to and
> >>use of its
> >>> >content by anyone else other than the addressee(s) may be
> >>> unlawful and
> >>> >will not be recognised by Thurrock Council for business purposes.
> >>> >Thurrock Council cannot accept any responsibility for the
> >>> accuracy or
> >>> >completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over
> >>> a public network.
> >>> >
> >>> >Any opinions expressed in this document are those of the
> >>> author and do
> >>> >not necessarily reflect the opinions of Thurrock Council.
> >>> >
> >>> >Any attachment(s) to this message has been checked for
> >>viruses, but
> >>> >please rely on your own virus checker and procedures.
> >>> >
> >>> >If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and
> >>address to
> >>> >facilitate communications.
> >>>
> >>>___________________________________________________________
> _________
> >>> >This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
> >>> MessageLabs
> >>> >Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
> >>> >http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
|
