You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Question

Question

How to best setup RME for a contract that has an extension option?

asked on January 9, 2014

A customer manages contracts that are 3 year contracts then once it expires they archive for 7 years then destroy. With their relatively low quantity I'm looking at a yearly cutoff with 7 year retention then destruction. However, their contracts have a 24 month extension clause that if exercised extends the contract to 5 years which if exercised generate more paperwork to add to the contract record folder. Therefore it appears to me that we need to make sure that there is not a cutoff until the contract is expired whether extended or not? What would be the best way to handle this in RME to create the simplest RME process for the RM?

 

Currently my solution is Time + Event with Yearly cutoff where they have to manually fill in the Expiration Event to be 3 years in the future when adding the contract to Laserfiche. Then if they exercise the extension they manually adjust the Event date to reflect those additional 2 years before it enters retention.. Is this the best option?

 

 

0 0

Answer

APPROVED ANSWER
replied on January 9, 2014

My recommendation would be to use an Interval cutoff type, instead of Time. The difference is that time cutoff uses periods (fiscal year, monthly, etc...) while Interval is just a straight up interval - so if you had a 3 year interval and the filing date was 1/8/2014 then the cutoff eligibility would be 1/8/2017. This way you wouldn't need to worry about things like preemptively setting the event date two years in the future. Note that the filing date is set on the record folder - you'll see it in record folder properties. That's the date used for determining the cutoff eligibility.

 

Anyway, you have two cutoff instructions - One for a 3 year interval and one for a 5 year. You set them to 3 years by default (you would do this by having the parent record series use the 3 year instruction, and then all newly created record folders will have that by default), but if the extension happens, you go into the individual record folder properties and change it to the 5 year instruction. Since the filing date is unchanged, it simply pushes the cutoff eligibility date back two years. Which sounds to be exactly what you are looking to do.

 

One question - does it remain a 7 year archive period in both cases? If so, then you don't even need to touch the retention schedule instructions at all or worry about alternate retention events. Since that 7 years is based on the cutoff eligibility date, changing the cutoff instruction for the record folder will similarly push back the destruction date to match. If it's supposed to be the SAME original destruction date (that is, the extension doesn't change the total time of retention, just the percentage of it pre-cutoff), then I suppose you'll need a second retention schedule as with the cutoff instruction and change both together. But I'm guessing that's not the case.

0 0

Replies

replied on January 9, 2014

Just thinking out loud here - haven't had time to test this, but...

 

Could you use an alternate retention schedule, with the alternate  period applying if an event "extended" occurs?  Then the event could have the second retention schedule apply, right?

 

 

0 0
replied on January 9, 2014 Show version history

I tried to mock this up a bit, and I think it works for your description.

 

If you put in an alt retention schedule for the event "Contract Extended," then if they set that event "Contract extended" it changes it to the new schedule.

 

The original cutoff still applies, so they would still need to expire the contracts whenever they expire.

 

Does that work?

 

 

Otherwise... (And maybe even if it does work, if it is too cumbersome) I'd use workflow and some SDK scripts to take care of it.  It might be more user friendly to handle it on that end.  (I didn't even realize until today that the Toolkit had provisions for dealing with RME, though I should have assumed it did.)

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.