Armedia Blog

Archive for June, 2009

Retention Policy Consolidation

June 28th, 2009 by Chris Schassler

One of the often overlooked challenges of electronic records management is the control and maintenance of retention policies.  This is particularly difficult if you are faced with a large number of members in your organization’s different record series categories.  Managed separately this means one retention policy for each individual record type.  If you only have a few different types of records to manage this is not such a big problem but it is especially difficult when you are dealing with hundreds of different types.  Additional complication comes in when you are managing permanent records that need to be archived to another organization such as NARA (National Archives and Records Administration). 

Careful consideration should be taken when creating an electronic retention policy design because trying to manage and control hundreds of retention policies that can have the tendency to change can become unmanageable very quickly.  The support and maintenance cost along with the compliance risk can eliminate your ROI and create a solution that fails to meet the goals for which it was designed.

One way to simplify and try to reduce the overhead associated with managing so many different policies is to group schedules together within your series according to their function or another applicable categorization scheme and their dispositions. 

The following basic strategy is an example of how this can be accomplished:

  • Create “buckets” representing the high-level record series areas.
  • Group record series members within the “bucket” into categories based on function and comparable disposition schedules.
  • Define and assign a common disposition strategy to each functional area that is representative and compliant for all record series members.

This concept is probably better understood using a simple example, lets use the following scenario as an illustration:

  • You have 5 different high-level record series groups.
  • Each series group has 100 individual members.
  • The schedule for each member ranges from temporary dispositions of 1 month to 10 years to permanent records with a duration of 25 years or more.
  • Each of the record series contain members that share a common purpose or function.

Using this example some basic consolidation steps would be:

  1. Define each high-level record series group as a separate “bucket”.
  2. Within each bucket you can create categories based on function such as whether the members are administrative, case related, procedural, etc.
  3. Within each of these sub-groups you would start to combine your applicable members based on corresponding disposition schedules.  For example, within a record series “bucket” if you have 25 members that are administrative records and they have temporary dispositions with durations ranging from 3 months to 5 years you can create a single retention policy with a disposition strategy of destroy/delete after 5 years and include each of these members under the policy.  By doing this you only need a single policy that can apply to 25 members instead of having 25 separate retention policies.
  4. Follow a similar process for each high-level record series and you can turn, what was in the case of our example, 500 individual retention policies into a number that is much more manageable making it easier to control and disposition your formal records.

Some items to take into consideration when consolidating retention policies are:

  • Work with your records managers and any outside agency, such as NARA, you archive records to before implementation, make sure you have their buy-in for the initiative.
  • Identify the special record series members and handle them separately with their own policy as needed to help reduce compliance risk.
  • When grouping record series members within a retention policy based on disposition schedules be wary of regulations that can be applied, it is generally best practice to only hold certain records for as long as necessary and no longer.
  • Designing an automated process for declaring formal records which will reduce workload and provide a better user experience for your records contributors/managers.  If you have or choose to implement an automated formal records declaration process you can provide more flexibility and room for growth by using an XML file or table to map the individual record series members to their applicable location in the formal file plan where the retention policy has been applied.
  • Consider structuring/restructuring your formal file plan after the consolidation strategy and apply your retention policies at the applicable level and allow the policy to be inherited by all formal records within that section of the file plan.

This information is an example of how retention policies can be simplified but in practice it is best to err on the side of caution.  Make sure you have the right people involved and do not put yourself at risk.  The goal is to reduce your overhead while minimizing risk and maintaining compliance.  You probably made a significant investment in your electronic records management solution and you need to be sure to keep the protection and savings that a solid design provides.

The Future Is So Like Old

June 11th, 2009 by Bill Hunton

“I was making my plans when life happened.”  (John Lennin)  I should have Googled that quote.

What just happened? I presented a “quote.” I discredited the quote and myself by admitting that I did not do even minimal research on a commonly used Web source. I misspelled John Lennon’s name, the person credited with saying it, and I did not use spell check to catch the misspelling. Your opinion of me is now “in the tank,” if it wasn’t already. Of course John “Lennin” is underlined in red here as I type it in Word – automatic spell check is so convenient. However, being the obtuse luddite that I am (“luddite” is also underlined in red but a perfectly good word), I consider the warning just a decorative protest. However, our relationship is now fundamentally altered all because I did not use culturally accepted technology.

Technology changes how we live. Well, duh. More than that, each advance in technology changes the social motif in unexpected ways. From each point we branch to develop faster, better, newer technologies to support our new set of expectations and the way we live. We relate to each other differently. Our language changes – “Google” becomes a verb, and the culture changes. Facebook allows me to extend my circle of friends and to keep up with acquaintances I would otherwise lose track of. I have 85 Facebook “friends.”  My daughter has over 200. We follow “Tweets” at 140 characters a pop. “Microblogging” becomes a new gerund and culture changes again. Technology that was once the “big bang,” becomes obsolete. We develop applications around Twitter. The pattern repeats itself at higher and higher frequencies, and technology twitches.

On June 9, Armedia and our partner Alfresco hosted an event in Atlanta. It was a packed room. John Newton, co-founder of both Documentum and Alfresco, made a presentation, “Simple Enterprise Content in Complex Environments.” He is an interesting speaker, and has been on the leading edge of technology at least twice, especially as it relates to content management. He spoke of open source, now fully accepted and commercially viable, and in equilibrium with closed source software models. OSS won’t go away. He looks forward to content management “officially” becoming a platform, its common law status made honest by the CMIS standard (“Content Management Interoperability Services”). He also gave us an interesting observation relative to the current world-wide recession. He said that in each of the previous major recessions, over the past 30 years or so, technology advanced in fundamental ways. Mainframes to client server, mini-computers, WWW, and now the whole “iWhatever” phenomenon and technologies to support it – all these advances changed how we live and relate to the world.

So then is “content management” as we think it will become, already obsolete, along with the tools, language, and hardware we use to support it? Just for fun, consider if “Twitter” avoids being crushed by the dinosaurs to become the dominant species, and ascends to be the normative way we relate online. How do we respond? Do we revert to building software and systems tuned to small message blocks? What becomes of the Web itself?  Are rumors of its death exaggerated? What does “content management” mean if most content is immediate and reactive? Define “version management” for Twitter. Of course the term does not apply in the context I normally think of, and that is my point.  My pondering is probably already dated.   The future is so like old.

My son designs and builds iPod Touch style applications presented in very large screen format. He builds them for point of sale applications and information kiosks. His customers are as diverse as automobile dealers and resort hotels.  Things are changing fast.  Contracts are rolling in and his company is making money.  A few weeks ago he complained that he had found only one company with the expertise to deliver the expected content in the format his company needs. The vendor is outside the U.S. Last week we talked again. He told me that he had to let the old vendor go because he had found another one who could deliver what he needs faster and better.  Such a shark!

We can plan for technology as it is, or as we think it will become. However, “Life is what happens when you are making other plans.” (John Lennon). And you can quote me.

Producing Quality Given Time Constraints

June 6th, 2009 by James Bowling

The schedule is an ever present aspect of application development. Engineers must constantly balance producing quality work against given time constraints. This is why most engineers are constantly searching for tools and techniques that allow them to deliver more quality work in less time. Techniques, like software patterns, focus on the quality aspect of the software while many tools focus on productivity. When an engineer finds something that allows him/her to both increase productivity as well as improve the quality of work delivered, it deserves special attention.

Code Generation is writing code that writes code. When used properly, it can dramatically reduce coding time. It also stands to reason that a greater degree of thought goes into the generated code and that it is likely of higher quality than an equivalent body of hand written code.

In layered software development, one area that is ripe for code generation is the data access layer. The DAO/DTO pattern is a well known and used in the industry. Couple that with the fact that most data stores provide self-describing features for the data structures and it provides a perfect opportunity to utilize code generation.

Enter Armedia CodeGen. It generates DAO’s and DTO’s for Documentum types. It utilizes DQL within the DAO’s for optimal performance (see Rahul Raina’s May 24th, 2009 blog article). It generates JUnit test cases to verify the CRUD (create, read, update, delete) frunctionality for the generated DAO’s. Having test cases to verify/validate the data access code verifies the code is in sync with the objects and their attributes in the repository. It is highly unlikely that a project hand-coding data access would afford the time to write test cases for the data access layer.

In a Documentum application with a large number of custom types, Armedia CodeGen can dramatically shorten development time, while providing more consistency and quality than will be achieved by hand-coding. For a limited time, the Armedia CodeGen is available as a free trial. Visit http://www.armedia.com/products/generator.htm and follow the forum link.

JB

Missions Trip to Rwanda

June 1st, 2009 by James Bailey

I am headed to Rwanda on July 10th for a short-term missions trip.  My church, Immanuel Bible Church http://www.immanuelbible.net, is partnering with African New Life Ministries, http://www.anlm.org.  One of our projects is to build out a computer lab for the orphanage.  With limited funds, we need to maximize the donations on hardware and software.  Also, we are planning to purchase laptops for logistically reasons.  Given that, what machine and software would you install on that machine for middle to high school students?

So what does this have to do with content management or Armedia?  I’ll take the easy one first.  Armedia and its employees are helping support the effort with funds and labor.  Also, we are planting seeds for future Armedians. : )  As for content management, the hope is to eventually deploy a CMS solution to management ANLM digital assets.  Okay, this is not exactly what you looking for however every organization produces content.  Hopefully, they are managing it in an effective manner.  What does effective mean?  I’ll save that for another blog entry.

James