The intended purpose of the I Drive Guidelines is to encourage decluttering and improve access to department files. This will improve efficiency by making it easier to locate files.

Problem

• files accumulate over time

• sometimes there are multiple versions of the same document (lack of version control)

• no clear guidelines on which documents need to be archived

Solution 1 - Weeding (using the proposed I drive guidelines)

• Pros

  1. documents remain in the same location unless they are archived

  2. documents will be easier to locate (less clutter)

  3. will help prevent future clutter (if performed on a regular basis)

• Cons

  1. may be time consuming initially

  2. does not address the AllShare folder and other "orphan" folders

• Time commitment: This solution has a major time commitment during implementation.  Staff will have to evaluate all files.  After the initial implementation, subsequent routine weeding will require less of a commitment.  The more a department is in need of organization, the more time they will need to dedicate to this project.

Solution 2 - Archiving current I drive and re-organizing file structure

The proposed plan to carry out this solution would be to move all of the current files in the I Drive, maintaining the file structure and assigned permissions, to a folder titled "Archives" which would be located on the I Drive.  At this point a new file structure would be created, possibly using the same structure as the library intranet; this would be one step towards increasing access to files.  All files in the Archives folder would be set to read-only so that this folder would serve as a snap-shot of our files at the time of archiving them.  Staff would populate their new departmental files by locating the desired file in the Archives folder and saving a copy within the new folder structure.  This process would identify the active records currently used by staff, while files that are no longer actively used would remain only in the Archives folder.  In a sense, this would be the opposite of Solution 1 and would be a reverse weeding project. 

• Pros

  1. get a fresh start with a more logical file structure

  2. file structure can mimic the organization of the library wiki, making it easier to navigate both resources

  3. in the long run, documents will be easier to locate

• Cons

  1. documents may be more difficult to find at first

  2. documents will not necessarily remain in the same location

  3. does not address the problem of clutter forming over time (unless we recommend routine weeding, as per the proposed I drive guidelines)

• Time commitment:  Although this solution does not require a set amount of time to be allotted to complete the project, there will still be a learning curve wherein staff may require more time to locate files because they will be working from both the Archives folder and the newly established departmental folder.  Staff may have to search both locations to find the desiered file, or may unintentionally recreate a document because they did not realize it was located in the Archives folder.  As with Solution 1, after the initial implementation, subsequent routine weeding will not requirement a lengthy commitment.

In either case, draft versions of documents can be collaboratively worked on in the library wiki, and then only the final version would be exported as either a PDF or Word document (if necessary). If a document needs to be revised, the revisions could also take place via the wiki and then the final revision could be exported to replace the previous version. We would also recommend routine weeding of the I drive as a means of preventive maintenance. These recommendations would help minimize clutter on the I drive and improve inter-departmental collaboration.  Departments will also be encourage to take advantage of their active consideration of their files and schedule an appointment with the University Archivist to identify types of files that may be transferred to the University Archives in the future.