Tom,
The answer is yes.
Deltascheme have a range of options for managing FOI ranging from fully DCA
compliant Case Management built on EDRMS from some of the leading software
vendors and to cheaper, less functionally rich FOI case tracking solutions.
Funding options would be open for discussion
Regards
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: tom wilson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 January 2005 17:11
To: Paul Headey; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ODPM Outcomes 'G19'
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.
>
|