3 ms·
A lot of companies used to have in-house historians and they did a surprisingly good job in some cases. However, their efforts are always susceptible to a back
by projektfu 3y ago
A lot of companies used to have in-house historians and they did a surprisingly good job in some cases. However, their efforts are always susceptible to a back room deal followed by some sort of public performance to attempt to make the public record look good.
These days I can only think of a handful of companies that do that, usually the old industrial giants like IBM, GE, etc. And who knows at what level the historians are involved or if they have access to internal communications.
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoCompanies are limited liability. FOR THE INVESTORS. What is interesting to me is that corporations currently pursue some means for having as short a lifetime of retention as legally allowed. But if corporations keeping detailed decision records led to management being the recipient of liability rather than the corporation/profits (and therefore the actual owners of the corp) .... I'm surprised corporations don't actually track internal comms better. Probably because tort law likes big fat corporations to be the target of class action lawsuits, rather than some far more limited pocket middle manager, and law has aligned to that abstraction (for the good of the lawyer profession).
- eep_social 3y agoAs I understand it, the main driver behind retention is discovery. It’s simply that reducing the corpus that must be searched reduces the likelihood that something bad will be found. And even things which seem reasonable at the time can seem bad in retrospect.