Case Study: Network Drive Re- Organization Using Retention ...€¦ · Phase 1: Test Drive. Work...
25
Case Study: Network Drive Re- Organization Using Retention Schedules, Software, and Consistent Naming
Transcript of Case Study: Network Drive Re- Organization Using Retention ...€¦ · Phase 1: Test Drive. Work...
Case Study:Network Drive Re-Organization Using
Retention Schedules, Software, and
Consistent Naming
Background
• University of Wisconsin-Madison department with around 10 full-time staff• Issues:
• Shared drive folder and file structure needs improvement• Shared drive structure does not correspond to paper structure and vice versa• No previous file naming protocol
• What was needed:• Shared drive cleanup and maintenance• Establish retention schedule
• Who was the team:• IT, Records Management, and Department Staff
Milestones/Goals
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Milestones are fluid, and you may have to go back and forth between phases.
Phase 1: Test Drive
Work Only on Shared Drive
Establish File Taxonomy
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Work Only on Shared Drive: This rule was meant to focus the project team on establishing procedures for how the new shared drive structure would take shape and what needed to be done to complete the new structure. Decided to create a new structure in a separate/quarantined area with limited access, and progressively play around with possible folder levels to determine best structure Establish File Taxonomy: Taxonomy was fluid and established over time. While it was the first step in the process, it was changed and adapted many times to meet Dean’s Office needs. To maintain the shared drives organization, taxonomy is an area to consider during maintenance conversations. Discussed mirroring digital file taxonomy to paper filing system. This did not happen as an exact mirror, but paper filing system was consult during decision process.
Phase 2: Get in Line
Learn Retention Rules:
Paper vs. Digital for Official Records
Naming Conventions
Finish File/Record Plan
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Learn Retention Rules: Discussed in the file/record plan Paper vs. Digital for Official Records This conversation progressed from paper vs. digital for official records into a conversation about record ownership and retention/disposition University rules. Naming Conventions Limiting characters in file name/path Underscores instead of spaces Think about searchability for entire staff NOT ONLY yourself Finish File/Record Plan Still in progress Guide to retention/disposition, ownership, etc.
Retention rules
• Working/temp files• Meeting minutes• General data• Dean records
Folder structure
• Decide how to organize.• Use hierarchical folder structure beginning broadly and becoming
more specific.• Minimize the depth of the folder path
File naming conventions
• File names should be short, descriptive, and easy to understand.• File names must be unique.• Only alphanumeric characters and _ instead of spaces.• Use leading zeros for sequential numbering: ScanProject_09.pdf• Dates follow yyyymmdd standard.• Version control in file names: report_v1.docx.
• When final version is determined, remove drafts and previous versions
File naming conventions – more examples
• NewPolicy_Released_yyyymmdd.doc (for a release date)• MyBook_Published_yyyymmdd.doc (for a publication date)• Policy_v1_20160401.doc (for a version number)• Appraisal_cbclifton_20160523.doc (for a creator)• 20160704_Speech_.doc (for content description)• 20160901_GeneralPublic_NewsRelease.doc (for intended audience)
Phase 3: Purge
Purge, Shred, Rename, Refile:Removed (ROT) Redundant, Obsolete, Trivial Files
Began the transition process of moving everything over to new structure and re-filing
Continued renaming files with new naming conventions discussed
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Purge, Shred, Rename, Refile: Removed (ROT) Redundant, Obsolete, Trivial Files Disposed of duplicates Disposed of obsolete file extensions and files of no use to business purposes Removed empty directories for ease of searchability and transition to new folder structure Removed other non-business files Began the transition process of moving everything over to new structure and re-filing Continued renaming files with new naming conventions discussed
Phase 3: Purge - Tools
Advanced Renamer:Renaming files with date modified in front of file name.https://www.advancedrenamer.com/
Auslogics Duplicate File Finder:Find unnecessary duplicate fileshttp://www.auslogics.com/en/software/duplicate-file-finder/
Remove Empty Directories:Removes empty directories/folders from the drive.https://sourceforge.net/projects/rem-empty-dir/
Phase 4: New Habits
Train Stakeholders
Make Refinements
Ensure Sustainability
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Train Stakeholders: it has now begun with this introduction to the project goals and accomplishments. Make Refinements: In the upcoming weeks and even months, don’t be afraid to ask questions or point out areas of the project that can be improved to project team members or records management staff. If you do have questions or comments about project improvements or changes, participate in the process to resolve your questions. Ensure Sustainability: File/Record Plan can be a go-to-source for sustainability questions Designate staff team to progressively work on maintenance Make this a part of new employee training
Metrics Before: Folder Structure
Presenter
Presentation Notes
These images show the top-level folder and file arrangement of the shared drive before any improvements were made. From the pictures you can see that there is no folder and/or file naming standards and that there are many folder levels that could be condensed or eliminated to improve the overall appearance and file findability.
Metrics After: Folder Structure
Metrics Before: File Creation Date in Varying Year Spans.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The image above shows the percentage of files created in varying year spans. As you can see, before any improvements were made, a large majority of the files were created between 4-20 years ago. One of the goals of the project was to eliminate (ROT) Redundant, Obsolete, and Trivial file. While not all of these files in the later date spans are considered ROT, it is not likely that over 50% of the files in a shared drive of this age meet the standards to not be considered ROT.
Metrics After: File Creation Date in Varying Year Spans.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What to notice: 2 to 4 year file creation went from 51% to 20%. 1 to 2 year file creation increased drastically. This was caused by disposing of obsolete and duplicate files.
Metrics Before: File Depth
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Part of the shared drive issues discussed was the difficulty finding buried files and not being able to do searches easily. You can clearly see why this was an issue in the above image, due to the large amount of files between 4 and 9 levels deep. This is not terrible, especially since we are unsure if most of these files were closer to the 4 levels deep than 9 levels deep side, but our goal was to make sure everything was not more than 4 clicks deep when all is said and done. I also found it interesting that there was even one file 10-15 levels deep, especially within a smaller department on campus.
Metrics After: File Depth
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What to notice: This is the one metric that saw minimal change and could have been caused by many reasons: (4-9 levels) is a large span for file depth. If this was split as (4-6) and (7-9), I think that we would notice many more files in the (4-6) range. As I physically scrolled through each folder, I am convinced that 85%-95% of files are now on the 4th level, compared many more being in the 5-9 levels before. This is the one area where the program cannot recognize the differences that can be visually recognized.
Metrics Before: File Sizes
Presenter
Presentation Notes
You can see a large portion of the shared drive consists of files very large in size. This comes from one large video and other media that was removed as (ROT)
Metrics After: File Sizes
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What to notice: No longer any files 4GB or larger. In fact, there are no files over 1GB now. Percentage of 32MB-1GB files went down. Smaller sized files increased in percentage. Amount of files drastically decreased. This can be attributed to cleaning up (ROT) Redundant, Obsolete, and Trivial Files. This was done by removing old/obsolete files, removing duplicates, etc.
Metrics Before: Hierarchical TreeMap
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This TreeMap visually shows the complex nature of the folder setup before any improvements were made. Each area of the TreeMap has many folders beneath it, and they are arranged in many varying ways. Also, you can see that one large portion of the drive is being taken up by media later considered (ROT). The media was eliminated, and you will be able to see the visual differences in the shared drive structure on the next slide.
Metrics After: Hierarchical TreeMap
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What to notice: May look similar, but drastically different Only five first-level folders instead of the 40-60 that were there before 2. Large media not taking up large portion of the shared drive 3. Able to explore each folder in more depth, because there is less that needs to be visualized in TreeMap. This also indicates the increased ability to search the shared drive successfully
Metrics Before: Oldest Files
Presenter
Presentation Notes
How many of these file extensions do you know? Most if not all of these files could not even be opened and were considered (ROT) after further discussion.
Metrics After: Oldest Files
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What to notice: Oldest file is now 2004 instead of 1992 Eliminated unknown and inaccessible files due to outdated file extensions. This allows for easier searchability, because you no longer have to look through files of no use anymore, and/or files that cannot be used because of their age.
Reflecting on the project
• Change is never easy• Almost 50% reduction in size of the share drive• Naming convention was more easily adopted than
anticipated• Data location was more problematic than anticipated• Stakeholder engagement is critical• Be consistent
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There are a number of steps and actions that can be taken to continually maintain and even improve the functionality of a shared drive. It must be noted that as a department expands, changes, and alters, so too does its records. Therefore, it is necessary to continually maintain shared drives for proper records management. Below are a few areas to consider while maintaining shared drives.� Staff Responsibility: There should be staff assigned who have accountability for consistent management and oversite of the Shared Drive organization. All staff should understand the importance of maintaining the structure of the shared drive and how to create and name files in them. File Plan: A file plan should be maintained. A file plan documents department activities, identifies records consistently, can help retrieve records quickly, contains information regarding retention and disposition of records in the normal course of business, and discusses legal and organizational factors.
