Hi Lawrence

I agree with Alison on this one, have a word with the person in charge of the inconsistency and ask them to validate why it is necessary. 

To answer your first question, the answer is no.  This isn’t logically justifiable to have people carrying out the same activity but to different standards based on when they joined the organisation.  If the grass needs to be cut to 6mm, that’s what it needs to be cut to.

I once had an engineer tell me that he didn’t need any of my records stuff because he had the “green book” a manual issued to him when he joined the organisation…in 1978, 20years before I met him J  The manual had been superceded, practices had changed but he had never been asked the question; why do you do things differently to everyone else?

The only time I can think this situation would be justifiable would be in terms of an individual’s employment terms and conditions; where their conditions of employment may differ from newer entrants but this would be a HR issue, and normally refers to benefits or hours of work etc and would be part of their HR file so would be disposed of with the HR as appropriate.

So, I would:

-        Ask the individuals to clarify why the changes are needed

-        Ask management to validate that the differences are important enough that they be kept (and point out what that means in practical and financial terms)

Good luck!

Paula

Hi Lawrence

Your situation seems a classic example of records management practices unearthing inconsistent and inefficient business processes.  (I like the grass cutting scenario – makes it very clear).

I think in this case with the number of inconsistencies across the organisation rather than developing records retention schedules with caveats an approach to the ‘management’ to point out the anomalies might be helpful if you have the ear of someone who can effect change at the business level.    Perhaps ask the business how they would implement a single record type multi-event / trigger retention schedule within their business process and against the 2002 / 2005 scenario. 

In the end a retention schedule is not of any use if no-one can implement it.

I don’t suppose a set of the working practices could be kept with the individuals HR record and retained in accordance with the HR retention.  That way you wouldn’t have to worry about checking when the last 2002 person left.  Just a Friday thought J

Regards

Alison

Dear All,

I think that this may be a Friday question.  I cannot seem to formulate it into a query that I can research so I hope you can help me with it.

The scenario is this:  A service has a variety of working practice documents for various activities and they want to know how to retain them for historical and business purposes.  The situation as I understand it, although I may have to clarify it, is the following. If a cohort of workers came in under the 2002 rules, they stay on the 2002 rules. If new rules are introduced in 2005, the 2002 workers stay on the 2002 rules and any workers hired after 2005 go on the 2005 rules. 

I believe that these are not nationally agreed contractual terms and conditions, but rather working practices developed within the service.  This is also different from the organisation's constitution, which will have set the context for the rules in force at that time for Council decisions or those delegated under the constitution at that time.

My questions are these, which I have not been able to formulate into a query to research.

1.Is this logically justifiable as a business practice?  By that I mean, it seems strange to have, in one service, a patchwork of working practices which only apply depending on when the person was hired.

2. How do I write a retention guideline for this approach as  I will have to retain multiple editions of rules and procedures.  Thus, I may have grass cutting procedure 2002, and a grass cutting procedure 2005 both of which are in force depending on when the grass cutter came into service.  [Don't ask me what happens when a grass cutter 2002 works with a grass cutter from 2005. It probably needs a grass cutter from 2007 to supervise. :)]

3. Has anyone else come across this issue and how have you addressed it?  Did you retain all the previous editions or do you harmonize the editions, sort of like upgrading software, so that the latest edition is the only one retained? 

Or is this the tail wagging the dog by which an attempt to harmonize business practice is being driven by a records management logic rather than being driven by a business processes logic?

Any advice or guidance or solutions would be gratefully received and certainly reciprocated.

Best,

Lawrence

Principal Information Management Officer

Durham County Council

Room 4/140

County Hall

County Durham

DH1 5UF

0191 372 8371

VPN 77778371

Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.

Click here to report this email as spam.

For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]

This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]