We have often made the case that a metadata-based approach is the most forward-thinking one to take when implementing an EDRMS / GCDOCS. This post is intended as a corrective for the other extreme: “why not use as much metadata as possible?” and provides a checklist of criteria for ensuring your metadata is maintainable.
Category: Information Management
Thanks to the ARMA-NCR Board and IM Community for a fun and thought provoking discussion earlier this month.
We discussed specific change management and business analysis tools that can be used by business and IM folks alike. With foundational elements like organizational change and business processes, it’s not surprising that we have so much in common.
Change management best practice teaches us that lack of awareness is the primary source of resistance to organizational change. It seems like architects working on EDRMS or GCDOCS have to face this problem redoubled: first, they have to make their stakeholders aware of what they are attempting to design. But at a more fundamental level, they also need to confront the fact that information management itself is very often unaware of the scope of what it is asking of the organization. And it’s a big ask.
The other day I was having a coffee with a friend and she began to discuss some of the challenges and frustrations she was having around the management of information within her organization, or more precisely the lack of management over information. Towards the end of our conversation, she concluded that what was missing – and what she desperately needed to fix the problem – was an Information Management Policy. She realized that a well thought out policy would help her gain control over the feral hordes of information roaming the office landscape. I agree a well-developed IM policy will provide her with part of the solution to her problem and I yet believe that IM policy development is one of the most misused and poorly executed tools in the information governance arsenal. read more
With the March 2015 deadline for compliance with Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) Directive on Recordkeeping looming, GC departments are finalizing their efforts to do their due diligence. This, though, should be just the start of departments’ ongoing efforts to promote effective, efficient recordkeeping, and information resources of business value (IRBV) are a big part of this.
As tempting as it may be to use your unadorned PAA as a GCDOCS folder structure, be wary; what looks like an ideal shortcut, in most cases it turns out to be a “false friend” that may result in mismanaged IRBVs and severe end-user dissatisfaction. Here are 6 reasons why the PAA alone is not sufficient for your EDRMS/GCDOCS implementation.
The widespread implementation of GCDOCS, coupled with Library and Archives Canada’s move to the digital transfer of information resources as of 2017, provides Government Departments with the perfect opportunity to review any existing digitization initiatives or embark on new ones.
In LAC’s own words: as of 2017 – information resources of enduring value that are created after 2017 will be accepted by LAC in digital format only
We often tout the benefits of a metadata-driven EDRMS implementation for findability, and too often neglect the other advantage it can offer: consistency. Even just a handful of relevant tags applied uniformly across an enterprise system can make a massive impact in the quality of digital information and records management within an organization.