The decision to adopt new technologies is not an easy way out to managing records as per existing regulatory requirements. Sorting out institutional records management mess should always be a sine qua non to moving on to new information management technologies. This is the only way to avoid the "garbage in, garbage out" scenario which renders the migration to new systems unhelpful, if not even worse staying with your known mess - better the devil you know! Among tasks that I would require users to do would be to provide them templates to describe and list their records into definable broader categories and capture those record categories in terms of the listed categories according to which they will be captured int the cloud.

@Paul Mullon I fully agree with your last statement 👍

@Douglas Maina absolutely!

This is not an easy question to answer. Consistency and flexibility are equally important in records management, but rigidity is something else! Practicality is necessary to avoid rigidity, not only in records management but in all matters of governance compliance. The need for flexibility in records management should be dictated to by the situation at hand. For instance, in the disposal of non-archivally valued legacy records, which were not captured or created in terms of records classification systems, the need for such records to be retrospectively classified in terms of approved classification systems can be dispensed with for practicability. These records could simply be identified, accounted for in the form of a record and lawfully discarded. A rigid application of rules can lead to performance and compliance failure.

Absolutely Paul👌