BACKROUND One of the greatest challenges faced by firms when implementing retention rules is effectively managing records that have retention periods predicated upon “event based triggers.”
Final retention periods in the schedule, however, may be longer than any regulatory retention requirements because they are based on many factors (depending upon the records and function). The set of factors determining retention typically includes (but may not be limited to): Legal/regulatory mandates (minimum retention periods prescribed by law) The longest requirement for records included in that record series
Identify roles Develop a file plan Develop retention periods Determine the scope of the retention policy Design the records repository Develop workflows and methods to move content into the repository Plan email integration Plan for compliance and reporting Keep in mind that you can create policies at the site and document library level
Fewer retention category choices (due to bigger, fewer retention buckets) in a retention schedule can lead to more consistent records management compliance as long as the risks of potentially longer retention periods are taken into account
Build and lead a team with key stakeholders to systematically streamline RM processes to enhance adoptability of future ECRM systems. Start with the retention and legal hold processes: For records, streamline your retention schedule to 50-100 record series/buckets . Julie Gable, Carol Brock, and others (including me) promulgate the benefits of applying the big bucket approach to retention schedules
Retention Basics Still Apply to Cloud The cloud is simply another option for the storage of your records, and as such, the same basic retention requirements apply
Organizations invest significant human and financial resources in developing and updating record retention schedules. What I don’t see is a follow-up effort to implement the retention schedule. In a recent project SMEs asked, “What’s the point of updating the retention schedule if retention is not being implemented, and documents are not disposed?” Clearly there are barriers to systematic disposition, and I think the people-process-technology model is helpful in classifying the barriers: People – In-house lawyers are leery of destroying records, even when retention periods have been satisfied
Some vendors are getting sophisticated about this, providing double blind key architectures, with keys held only by the customer for enhanced data privacy and security in the cloud. 4. Retention and integrity. This is obvious – but the archive should be able to retain documents for defined periods of time, taking into account legal, regulatory, fiscal, operational, and historical requirements
Review each line with the appropriate Legal expert and determine the appropriate Retention Period for each
For example, technology by itself is not the answer; to make ERM actually work requires building blocks: policies, retention rules, procedures, training, and audit
8403 Colesville Rd #1100Silver Spring, MD 20910USA
Phone: (301) 587-8202Toll free: (800) 477-2446Email: hello@aiim.org
JoinBenefitsLearn More
About UsTerms of Use