Paul
Have you a system that is cheap to operate, say on a pay as you go basis for
FOI
Tom Wilson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Headey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
> Agree FOI volumes received by local authorities does not equate to a
> business case for EDRMS in it's own right as described in my earlier
> postings.
>
> Question is what does constitute a business case for EDRMS in the Local
> Authority sector for those that haven't already acquired this type of
> technology?
> For those that have acquired it, what was the primary business driver in
> doing so, and has it delivered what was promised? Compliance as a business
> driver for EDRMS is massively hyped by the ECM/EDRMS industry. Wrongly in
> my
> opinion! How many seminars have you been to that bang on about being
> hauled
> up in front of the DCA,or Financial Officers being jailed for non
> compliance
> to the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Trying to invoke fear doesn't endear people
> into
> listening to what you have to say. The business driver should be as is
> suggested "technology to fit the people" and augment their effectiveness
> in
> the day to day processes around case management, document management,
> records management, general information governance and best practice.
> Compliance can be achieved as a by product of implementing a system in the
> appropriate manner, so is an additional benefit and a soft one at that.
> It's easier to justify IT spend for making processes more efficient, thus
> driving out cost, than making processes compliant. EDRMS is a tool that
> can
> deliver high returns by making knowledge workers more efficient,
> especially
> with the advent of Zero Click RM functionality which is seamless to the
> day
> to day knowledge workers and maintained by the specialist RM workers.
>
> 747 or Ocean Liner, which one is more efficient? Hmm, well when the
> Aurora's
> engine broke, at least it didn't plummett from the sky.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Headey
> Deltascheme Ltd.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharp, Deirdre [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 March 2005 15:32
> To: Paul Headey; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
>
> No, boosting case for RM (getting commitment to ISO 15489).
>
> Crossing Atlantic - there is the ocean liner option.
>
> EDRMS - what we have learned in 2 months of FOI is that a good team of
> trained people can work wonders. We think it just possible that RM works
> in
> the same way. Which is not to say that we won't use IT solutions - we
> will,
> just that they will be selected to fit the people, not 't other way about.
>
> Deirdre
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Records Management mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Headey
> Sent: 15 March 2005 14:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
>
>
> Mmm... Not sure what you mean?
>
> Boosting the case for RM? Was that boosting the case for EDRMS or not?
>
> Also "EDRMS isn't a must have for ISO 15489", in principle I agree. But in
> the context that a Boeing 747 isn't necessary to get from London to New
> York, but then I wouldn't want to swim the Atlantic to get there either!!
> Surely EDRMS would be beneficial in maintaining ISO 15489, and reduce the
> overhead of sustaining both the managerial and technical requirements for
> "records Sustainability on both the record and the meta-data, as
> summarised
> in the TNA definitions.
>
> Paul Headey
> Deltascheme Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharp, Deirdre [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 March 2005 10:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
>
> Yes, we are aware of it. Priority Outcomes is usually handled by an
> authority's e-Gov people. Ours picked up on the ISO 15489 reference and
> had
> the sense to talk to us, the corporate records management team - so we
> jointly drafted our response. As a result we have committed to compliance
> with ISO 15489 by April 2006 (the G19 target) and have had this commitment
> approved at the top - we were careful to stress that EDRMS isn't a 'must
> have' for ISO 15489. So G19 was very handy for boosting the case for RM.
>
>
> Deirdre Sharp
> Norfolk County Council
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Records Management mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Drew, Alison
> Sent: 15 March 2005 09:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
>
>
> Has anybody else come across this yet? The ODPM released a whole set of
> "priority outcomes" which local authorities must achieve and 'G19'
> (definition attached) doesn't require an EDRMS in place but does emphasise
> the adoption of ISO 15489.
>
> I haven't seen any reference to it anywhere before now - thought it might
> be
> of useful to publish it's existence!
>
> Alison
>
> Alison Drew
> Corporate Records Manager
> Portsmouth City Council
> 023 9268 8325
> <<G19.doc>>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> This e-mail is for the intended recipient only.
> If an addressing, transmission or other error has misdirected this e-mail,
> please notify the author by replying to this e-mail.
> If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose,
> distribute, copy, print, or reply to this email.
> This e-mail may be monitored, read, recorded and retained by Portsmouth
> City
> Council.
> E-mail monitoring/blocking software may be used.
>
> **********************************************************
>
>
> The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
> organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by
> mistake,
> please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized
> disclosure
> or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
> confidentiality
> and may be legally privileged.
>
> Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
> Council may be monitored.
>
> Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
> regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent
> on
> behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any
> legal actions or disputes that may arise.
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController -
> www.MailController.altohiway.com
>
>
> The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
> organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by
> mistake,
> please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized
> disclosure
> or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
> confidentiality
> and may be legally privileged.
>
> Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
> Council may be monitored.
>
> Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
> regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent
> on
> behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any
> legal actions or disputes that may arise.
>
|