Edgar
I am responding as the leader of the MoReq and MoReq2
teams.
You are right about what MoReq says. More
relevant today, I think, is what MoReq2 will say. As you may know, MoReq2
will be published early in 2008. It contains many enhancements to the
original MoReq.
Both MoReq and MoReq2 are underpinned by the concept
that there is only one version of any record (I think that PRO 02 uses the same
concept, but I haven't checked) . That's a theoretical point. I
appreciate that in the real world many people think in terms of versions of a
record. What remains possible, with any of these models, is to relate
different records together - and that is what I think you currently
do.
I don't fully understand your statement that "All the approved versions sit nicely
as one object". I am not sure what this means in either IT terms or
in records management. You have, for one document (say) 30 "approved versions", each of
which is equivalent (as you say) to one record. So you have 30
records. This is not really "one object" in IT terms, (well it could be, but it would be risky
and complicated); and it certainly is not a single record (it is 30 separate
records, each with its own metadata describing its dates, authorship
and so on); but it would make sense to file all 30 together in one place
(in the same file or whatever).
All drafts of MoReq2 have been posted on the
project website (www.moreq2.eu, panellists
page). The current draft is close to final in many areas; in particular
the section dealing with document management (10.3) is stable. Here are
the four draft requirements that, together, come closest to addressing your
concern:
3418 |
Where there are multiple versions of a document the
ERMS must be able to capture the document as a record in all of the
following ways, with one being selected as default at configuration time
and the user being able to select one during
capture:
·
the most recent
version;
·
one version that is
specified by the user;
·
all versions stored,
held as a single record;
·
all versions stored,
held as separate but linked
records. |
3700 |
The ERMS must allow document version storage to be
configurable by an administrative role, at configuration time or later, at
class and file level within the classification scheme, with at least the
following default options for each class and file:
·
all versions of all
documents are stored in the class or file;
·
only the most recent
version (where an administrative role has the ability to specify major or
minor versions) of each document is stored in the class or file;
·
a number of versions of
each document are stored in the class or file, the number being specified
by an administrative role. |
2380 |
The ERMS must be capable of version control, that
is managing different versions of an electronic document as a single
entity. |
2379 |
The ERMS should be able to restrict users to
viewing:
·
only the latest version
of a document;
·
selected versions of a
document;
·
all versions of a
document;
·
versions that have been
captured or registered as records,
the choice to be made at configuration or a later
time by an administrative role.
|
MoReq2 will also support a new concept, namely
"sub-files"; you could, if you want, use a sub-files to partition a file so that
all versions and records associated with one document appear
together.
I am not sure that this fully addresses your
concern. We might be able to enhance this by an explicit requirement to
allow users to relate document versions and records, but I cannot promise that
as it needs careful thought and we are perilously close to freezing the
content. Let me know (quickly!) if you have any
comment.
Out of curiosity, in what sector/industry/business are
you working?
Marc Fresko EDM & ERM Consulting
Services Director Serco Consulting New London
Bridge House
25 London
Bridge Street
London SE1
9SG United
Kingdom |
T +44 (0)
207 089 4650 F +44 (0) 207403 0834 M +44 (0) 7767 325
630
[log in to unmask]
www.serco.com/consulting |
|
This e-mail and any
attachments are for the intended addressee(s) only and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not a named addressee,
do not use, retain or disclose such information. This email is not
guaranteed to be free from viruses and does not bind Serco in any contract
or obligation. Serco Limited. Registered in England and Wales. No:
242246 Registered Office: Serco House,16 Bartley Wood Business Park,
Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom.
|
Hi, I have been looking at the MoReq spec and have some
confusion regarding documents v's records. I have documents which have 30 or
more approved versions. Each approved version may have 10 draft
versions. In my eyes, each approved version is a
record.
I allow my users to alter the versions (minor versions) and
send them for approval (for the major version/next record). All
the approved versions sit nicely as one object.... the minor versions are
stripped out. The users only see the most current version.
I also endorse this one object approach. I really do
not want to manage 30 or more separate objects. I have 3,000 new versions
being created per week - I never want the user to see an old version
I am able to prevent older version from being
modified, prevent them from being deleted, I have the versions under
retention / classification control.
Why does it seem to infer that only a single final version of a
record should exist? Is MoReq (or TNA) pointing me to proliferating
versions as objects ... or am I reading it incorrectly?
MoReq..... An EDMS…
· allows documents to be modified;
· allows documents to exist in several
versions;
· may allow documents to be deleted by their
owners;
· may include some retention controls;
· may include a document storage structure, which may be under the control
of users;
· is intended primarily to support day-to-day use of documents for ongoing
business.
MoReq..... An ERMS…
· prevents records from being modified;
· allows a single final version of a record to exist;
· prevents records from being deleted except in certain strictly controlled
circumstances;
· must include rigorous retention controls;
· must include a rigorous record arrangement structure (the classification
scheme) which is maintained by an administrative role;
· may support day-to-day working, but is primarily intended to provide a
secure repository for business records.
Regards,
Edgar