[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Archives with research proposals



In a message dated 8/30/01 12:32:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Janet Wendt <
janet.wendt@ORST.EDU> writes:



Here at Oregon State University, the retention schedule only calls for these
records to be kept for 18 months after submission.  I quote below from the
Oregon Administrative Rules:

(6) Grant Proposal Unfunded Records
This series documents grant proposals developed by institutional units which
have not been funded. This series may include but is not limited to:
supporting statistics;
demographic data; draft proposals; suggested revisions; final proposals; and
related documentation and correspondence.


Interesting topic. No one ever said that the same documentation had to be
treated in the same way in different organizations, but this may just be a
good example of how different perspectives create different appraisal
decisions. Elizabeth was clearly thinking about these documents as having
value for their potential research interests, a value they might very well
have. The appraisal decision at Oregon State University, on the other hand,
would seem to suggest that the documents value was being judged principally
on the basis of their procurement or legal value, much as would be the case
for the treatment of losing bids on an office furniture RFP -- i.e., retain
it long enough to be sure that the winning bid doesn't fall through and you
may have to go back to other bidders; and retain as evidence against the
possibility that the organization might be legally challenged in some way by
a losing bidder.  The old saw: one person's trash....  

Not often, but once in a while someone broaches the subject of the subjective
nature of appraisal and the issues that gives rise to. Perhaps this is an
example....or maybe just reflects an objective view from the perspective of
different business managers responsible for these records in the two
institutions.  A lesson I might take from what little we know about these two
cases, is that for failed procurement or grant documents, we should weigh the
importance or value of the document class at least in part on the basis of
what kind of information they contain and whether their value goes beyond
that of simply administrative information about a bidder or grant requester.  
And of how it fits in with the mission of the organization.  Take NHPRC, for
example, whose business is research. I can imagine that failed grant
applications might have a longer retention period for NHPRC (perhaps not
permanent) for say proposals that have very little research value -- maybe
they've already done several such projects or are aware of others who have --
than they would for others that might appear to be pie-in-the-sky proposals
now but may be worthy of reconsideration later, or that had a lot of current
merit but simply were beyond their current grant budget.  I would assume that
for units within a university that are dealing with grants, very similar
arithmetic would come into play. Such decisions might not be based solely on
"historical value" but on secondary (information) value for the organization
for possible future use.

Regards,

Rick Barry
www.rbarry.com