Social tagging is a method that allows users to manage content with metadata they ap- ply themselves using keywords or metadata tags. Unlike traditional classifi cation, which uses a controlled vocabulary, social tagging keywords are freely chosen by each individual.
Folksonomy is the term used for this free‐form, social approach to metadata assignment.
there should be a formal process in place to manage requests for taxonomy changes.
Begin by using low‐cost, simple tools for taxonomy development and migrate to more capable ones as your organization’s needs grow.
Folksonomies are not an ordered classifi cation system; rather, they are a list of keywords input by users that are ranked by popularity. 61
Taxonomies and folksonomies both have their place. Folksonomies can be used in concert with taxonomies to nominate key terms for use in the taxonomy , which contributes toward the updating and maintenance of the taxonomy while making the user experi- ence better by utilizing their own preferred terms.
A combined taxonomy and folksonomy approach may provide for an optional
“free‐text metadata fi eld” for social tags that might be titled “Subject” or “Comment.”
Then users could search that free‐form, uncontrolled fi eld to narrow document searches. The folksonomy fi elds will be of most use to a user or departmental area, but if the terms are used frequently enough, they may need to be added to the formal taxonomy’s controlled vocabulary to benefi t the entire organization.
In sum, taxonomy development, testing, and maintenance is hard work—but it can yield signifi cant and sustained benefi ts to the organization over the long haul by providing more complete and accurate information when knowledge workers make searches, better IG and control over the organization’s documents, records, and infor- mation, and a more agile compliance and litigation readiness posture.
CHAPTER SUMMARY:
KEY POINTS
■ 15 to 25 percent of an average workday for knowledge workers is spent searching for information, often due to poor taxonomy design.
■ taxonomies are hierarchical classifi cation structures used to standardize the naming and organization of information using controlled vocabularies for terms.
■ taxonomies speed up the process of retrieving records because end‐users can select from subject categories or topics.
■ taxonomies need to be considered from two main perspectives: navigation and classifi cation.
■ poor search results, inconsistent or confl icting fi le plans, and the inability to locate information on a timely basis are indications that taxonomy work is needed.
■ metadata, which are the characteristics of a document expressed in data fi elds, must be leveraged in taxonomy design.
■ Best practices dictate that taxonomy development includes designing the taxonomy structure and heuristic principles to align with user needs.
a folksonomy uses free‐form words to classify documents. a folksonomy approach is useful for potentially updating your taxonomy structure and im- proves the user search experience.
(Continued )
Notes
1. Cadence Group, “Taxonomies: The Backbone of Enterprise Content Management,” August 18, 2006, www.cadence‐group.com/articles/taxonomy/backbone.htm .
2. Delphi Group, “Taxonomy and Content Classifi cation: Market Milestone Report,” 2002, www.delphi- group.com/whitepapers/pdf/WP_2002_TAXONOMY.PDF (accessed April 25, 2012).
3. Ibid.
4. Cadence Group, “Taxonomies: The Backbone of Enterprise Content Management.”
5. Daniela Barbosa, “The Taxonomy Folksonomy Cookbook,” www.slideshare.net/HeuvelMarketing/
taxonomy‐folksonomy‐cookbook (accessed October 12, 2012).
6. Ibid.
7. Montague Institute Review, “Your Taxonomy Is Your Future,” February 2000, www.montague.com/
abstracts/future.html .
8. The Free Library, “Creating Order out of Chaos with Taxonomies,” 2005, www.thefreelibrary.com/
Creating+order+out+of+chaos+with+taxonomies%3A+the+increasing+volume+of...‐a0132679071 (ac- cessed April 25, 2012).
9. Susan Cisco and Wanda Jackson, Information Management Journal, “Creating Order out of Chaos with Taxonomies” May/June 2005, www.arma.org/bookstore/fi les/Cisco.pdf .
10. Marcia Morante, “Usability Guidelines for Taxonomy Development,” April 2003, www.montague.com/
abstracts/usability.html .
11. Seth Earley, e-mail to author, September 10, 2012.
12. Ibid.
13. Cadence Group, “Taxonomies,” 3.
(Continued )
■ there are three basic types of hierarchical taxonomies: subject, business‐
unit, and functional.
■ a hybrid approach to taxonomy design is usually the best.
■ a subject matter expert (smE) can be a valuable resource in taxonomy development. they should not be relied on too heavily though, or the tax- onomy may end up fi lled with esoteric jargon.
■ a document inventory is conducted to gather detailed information regard- ing the documents managed.
■ Business processes must be documented and analyzed to develop a tax- onomy.
■ user testing is essential and provides valuable feedback and allows the tax- onomist or taxonomy team to fi ne‐tune the work.
■ Begin by using low‐cost, simple tools for taxonomy development and mi- grate to more capable ones as your organization’s needs grow and mainte- nance is required.
■ a folksonomy uses free‐form words to classify documents. a folksonomy approach is useful for potentially updating your taxonomy structure and improves the user search experience.
14. Dam Coalition, “8 Things You Need to Know about How Taxonomy Can Improve Search,” May 16, 2010, http://damcoalition.com/index.php/metadata/story/8_things_you_need_to_know_about_how_taxonomy_
can_improve_search/.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Adventures in Records Management, “The Business Classification Scheme,” October 15, 2006, http://
adventuresinrecordsmanagement.blogspot.com/2006/10/business‐classification‐scheme.html.
18. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
19. National Archives of Australia, www.naa.gov.au (accessed May 23, 2012).
20. Adventures in Records Management, “The Business Classification Scheme.”
21. Ibid.
22. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
23. Cisco and Jackson, “Creating Order out of Chaos with Taxonomies.”
24. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
25. www.earley.com/blog/the‐popularity‐contest‐taxonomy‐development‐in‐the‐petabyte‐era, (accessed April 25, 2012).
26. Ibid.
27. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
28. Heather Hedden, “The Accidental Taxonomist,” Information Today, Inc. (October 2010), 3.
29. Ibid.
30. Hedden, “The Accidental Taxonomist,” 10.
31. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
32. Hedden, “The Accidental Taxonomist,” 8.
33. NISO, Project ISO 25964, www.niso.org/workrooms/iso25964 (accessed April 25, 2012).
34. This section is reprinted with permission from Barb Blackburn, “Taxonomy Design Types,” www .imergeconsult.com/img/114BB.pdf (accessed October 12, 2012); e‐Doc Magazine, AIIM International, May/June 2006, 14 and 16.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
42. Blackburn, “Taxonomy Design Types”; Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012 (regarding faceted taxonomies).
43. Blackburn, “Taxonomy Design Types.”
44. Lakshmi Stockham and Ganesh Vednere, “Best Practices in Implementing Taxonomy for Enterprise Informa- tion Management,” August 21, 2008, www.information‐management.com/issues/2007_51/10001850‐1.html.
45. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
46. Stockham and Vednere, “Best Practices in Implementing Taxonomy.”
47. Rebecca Allen, “Subject Matter Experts and Taxonomy Development,” September 19, 2008, www .earley.com/blog/subject‐matter‐experts‐and‐taxonomy‐development.
48. Ibid.
49. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Ahrenlehnert, “Cleaning up the Other Bucket,” September 5, 2008, www.earley.com/blog/cleaning‐
up‐the‐other‐bucket.
53. Ibid.
54. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
55. Stephanie Lemieux, “The Pain and Gain of Taxonomy User Testing,” July 8, 2008, www.earley.com/
blog/the‐pain‐and‐gain‐of‐taxonomy‐user‐testing.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Seth Earley, e‐mail to author, September 10, 2012.
59. Hedden, “Tools for Managing Taxonomies.”
60. Ibid.
61. Tom Reamy, “Folksonomy Folktales,” KM World, September 29, 2009, www.kmworld.com/Articles/
Editorial/Feature/Folksonomy‐folktales‐56210.aspx.
111
C h a p t e r 7
Developing retention Schedules for
e‐records
W
ith limited resources, today’s records manager is faced with an onslaught of increasingly pressing and complex compliance and legal demands. At the core of these demands is the ability of the organization to demonstrate that it has legally defensible records management practices that can hold up in court. Orga- nizations can legally destroy records—but will have a greater legal defensibility if the authority to destroy the records is identified on a retention schedule, the retention re- quirements have been met, the records are slated for destruction in the normal course of business, so long as there are no existing legal or financial holds, and all records of the same type are treated consistently and systematically.The guidance in this chapter applies generally to records in all formats, but also contains specific information for the retention and disposition of electronic records.
The foundation of legally defensible records management practices is a solid in- formation governance (IG) underpinning, where policies and processes, supported and enforced by information technology (IT), help the organization meet its ex- ternally mandated legal requirements and internally mandated IG requirements for handling and controlling information.
A complete, current, and documented records retention program reduces storage and handling costs and improves searchability for records by making records easier and faster to find. This reduced search time and more complete search capability improves knowledge worker productivity. It also reduces legal risk by improving the ability to meet compliance demands, while also reducing e‐discovery costs and improving the ability to more efficiently respond to discovery requests during litigation. Most large organizations maintain records retention schedules by business unit, department, or functional area. Some organizations, particularly smaller ones, may establish organiza- tion‐wide IG programs that call for the developing, updating, and improvement of an enterprise or master retention schedule. Developing enterprise‐wide records reten- tion schedules requires consultation with stakeholder groups who have valuable input to contribute to the overall development of the IG effort and to specific schedules for retaining record collections, and their planned disposition. Consultation by the re- cords management department, senior records officer (SRO), or records team must take place with representatives from the business units that create and own the records as well as with legal, compliance, risk management, information technology (IT), and other relevant stakeholder groups.