Keep everything?
In my opening introduction at our Witness Conference on the challenges of managing email, I quoted from an article by Adam Gifford (New Zealand Herald, 14 March 2007): “emails can’t be thrown away.” Email ‘archiving’ software is often marketed on the fact that retention of email doesn’t need to managed closely, that everything can easily be retained and, importantly, easily retrieved. But I asked (rhetorically) “surely I’m not the only person here who has trouble with the concept of needing to keep all emails for legal or any other purposes?”
In a later seminar the notion of ‘keeping everything’ was raised and lead to some real debate.
What are the arguments for keeping all emails vs managing their retention according to value, record series etc? What are the benefits and the risks? Which approach do you support and why?
6 comments:
I guess I should hold my hand up as the prime instigator of the 'keep everything' debate!
I published some of the thoughts which led me to this particular piece of heresy on my own Records Management Futurewatch blog http://rmfuturewatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-perspective-on-email-management.html. It has since prompted some interesting comments both from some of those who were there and some who were not which might help frame some of the terms of debate here.
The notion of keeping every email is one that is used by email archiving vendors regularly as if that is somehow a good thing! After all, storage is cheap and you dont have anything to worry about - what about DPA, FoI, Sarbanes Oxley etc etc etc?
People would not accept a physical in tray to be the size of a small theatre so why do we make an exception for electronic information? Just because you can store for ever doesnt mean that you should! After all even paper files get destroyed at some time.
Which brings us neatly back to the question of how we actually use email and other applications. Lots of institutional knowledge is being transmitted through email but because it is 'added value' and not really part of a business transaction in many cases it is not being captured except in personal mail boxes - there is a perception taht 'oh thats interesting to me, but noone else will care'. Perhaps this is another issue that needs to be addressed.
The organisation I now work for runs a PC induction for all new staff - and tells them how to use the technology, how to send, how to forward, how to use the calendar in outlook. But what is missing in this and many organsiations is the other side of the equation, when and why do i use this tool, what do i do with the stuff that i then create or receive?
We go to great lengths to train people in how to use word, excel outlook etc without ever training them, or at least not to the same degree, in the 'why' and 'when' of the information they are actually creating.
Most users recognise that they have created a word document or an email message but still do not understand that they have created corporate information and actual records which are the property of their organisations.
The UK and European Union spent great amounts of money ensuring everyone has a basic foundation in using computers - the ECDL (European Computer Driving License). May I suggest that they should put the same effort and resources into a European Information Management Driving License.
We need to stop thinking that the applications we roll out to users are somehow going to be panaceas to all ills. A system, any system is more than the software - is is a combination of software/system, processes and people. Therein lies the challenge.
:)
We should be encouraging users to think of their email messages as a corporate not a personal resource and to store their messages with other related information on their shared drive. Part of the problem is that the nature of email is to make it feel private and personal to you.
Restricting users Inbox size can also work well to focus the mind, 50mb gets you into better email habits!
As Paula says, orgnisations need to train their staff in information literacy to enable them to better manage the tools available to them.
There are few different schools of thought on this,even in a corporate environment. Part of what drives the practices used for managing e-mail is how heavily regulated the industry in which you operate is. If, for example, in the US you're regualted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), then you're more likely to place a heavy scrutiny on what e-mail is retained, and for how long. If you're in the Pharmaceutical industry, you may have similar concerns about retention. But if you manufacture widgets that present no risk to the public, have a short life expectancy, and you're privately held... well, a 6 month retention of whatever you feel is importasnt may be enough. =)
There are risks, benefits, and costs associated with whatever model you choose to deploy. It's incumbent upon any organization to evaluate these and determine how risk tolerant (or averse) they are and then establish a formal policy, supported by adequate training and periodic audits to ensure compliance with whatever your policy dictates.
I think the primary guidance, as with all retention, is to at minimum, meet your legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements, consider any business needs that may exceed those, and then take into consideration any potential historic, enduring, or intrinsic value of the information that may exceed either of the first two criteria.
Keep it all? Well, depending on how much there isa nd what you do, this may be an option. Just make sure if you do this that you make "e-mail" a record series in your retertnion schedule and assign a retention period to it, so your practices are consistent with your policy. BUT... you had better be able to find anything in what you keep, and that's where it starts getting expensive.
I have just had a wee read at Steve's piece on his blog, following the event in Newcastle. After an initial, probably preconditioned, reaction that the "keep everything" position is indeed a heretical position for an RM professional to take, I took a leap of faith and found my position shifting closer to that of Steve's.
However I think we need to stop putting the burden, in terms of what to keep and what to delete, on users. Instead we need to clearly identify what technology tool should be used for what and apply consistent information architecture across these system tools. Secondly we need to stop giving special attention to email management.
By passing on our specific concerns with email management to users , we re-inforce in them the sense that email is somehow different from all other information we create, receive and exchange. This is a little ironic, given that what we are actually trying to do is pull them back into the corporate information fold!
In my opinion, the effort needs to be shifted to providing users with technology tools that are fit for purpose, and create an information architecture that ensures that the information created and received by them is governed and controlled consistently and appropriately with as little user effort as possible.
The emphasis should be on ensuring users know which tool to use for what, and providing adequate design, development and training (how, why, what and when) of each of these tools to ensure they are actually usable. I do not think we have created clear demarcation lines between use of email, intranet - and collaborative spaces within these, shared directories, content generating line of business apps etc.... Equally we have not consistently planned the information architecture of these to aid subsequent immediate and longer term use, control and management of the information held within them.
I believe that until we take this holistic approach, the “keep everything” vs “put the burden on users to apply our principles” will rage on.
If "keep everything" was a valid position, surely it would apply equally to other record containers. Contrary to McLuhan's view (in another vein), the medium is NOT the message.
In my view, meaning is the issue. Meaning, mapped to purpose and utility in a recognisable regulatory, operational and historical context, governs media selection and migration in line with planned retention and disposition.
Post a Comment