For operations, records management and everyone who saves a file
Most file systems are organised around whoever created the file — by person, by year, by the project that happened to need it. Each of those is a real attribute, but none of them is stable: people leave, years end, projects close. Taking the eight cores as the top level uses a different principle of division, the functions a business performs, which changes far more slowly than the people performing them.
The problem
This is the diagnostic symptom of an ambiguous scheme rather than of careless staff. Where the categories overlap, duplication is not a risk but a certainty, and within a year the question is no longer where a document is but which copy is current.
An undocumented taxonomy cannot be taught, which makes every question about where something belongs a small tax paid by the person who already knows. It also means the scheme leaves when they do.
Projects close; brand guidelines and contracts do not. Filing both at the same level mixes two different lifecycles, and the durable material steadily disappears beneath the transient.
The method
Seven decisions. They are worth making once, writing down, and then leaving alone.
Classification schemes stay usable when each level divides by one attribute at a time — the principle behind faceted classification as set out by Ranganathan and still standard in information architecture. Mixing function, time and ownership in a single level is what produces the folders nobody can predict. The eight cores give a top level divided consistently by business function.
Each core already carries its objects — Finance, Supply Chain, Partners and Compliance under the Business Core; Brand Identity and Brand Narrative under the Brand Core. They work well as subfolders because they are named already, they are reasonably exclusive of one another, and they were derived from the business rather than from the filing problem.
Projects are time-bound work that touches permanent material, which makes them a lifecycle rather than a category. Placing them inside the Time Core keeps that distinction visible, and lets approved outputs move into the object they permanently belong to when the project closes.
Alphabetical sorting scatters related material and hides the scheme’s logic. A numeric prefix keeps the order of the framework visible in any file browser without asking anyone to remember it.
A hierarchy only holds if filenames are predictable. One convention, documented and applied throughout: ISO 8601 dates at the front for anything chronological, version marker at the end only where versions genuinely matter, and no status words in the name.
A single top-level archive quietly becomes a second scheme competing with the first. Keeping an archive folder within each object holds the classification stable and leaves the active material shallow. Retention periods sit above all of this and are set by law and policy, not by convenience.
Every taxonomy degrades without maintenance, which is a finding from records management rather than a matter of discipline. One page at the root — what each top-level folder holds, the naming convention, who decides — is usually enough to make a new colleague self-sufficient on the first day.
Take this with you
The top two levels in full — all eight cores and the fifty objects beneath them. Create only the folders you have material for, and rename freely; the framework’s own terms are a starting point, not a requirement.
00_Goal-Core/
01_Purpose/
01_Core-values/
02_Strategic-goals/
03_Tactical-goals/
04_Long-term-goals/
05_Short-term-goals/
10_Business-Core/
01_Value-proposition/
02_Monetisation/
03_Finance/
04_HR/
05_Core-competencies/
06_Business-assets/
07_Operational-systems/
08_Manufacturing-operations/
09_Supply-chain/
10_Partners/
11_Stakeholders/
12_Compliance/
20_Brand-Core/
01_Brand-promise/
02_Brand-identity/
03_Brand-positioning/
04_Brand-value/
05_Brand-perception/
06_Brand-narrative/
30_Vision-Core/
01_Vision-statement/
02_Mission-statement/
40_Market-Core/
01_Market-opportunities/
02_Competitors/
03_Target-audience/
04_Customer-journey/
05_Marketing-channels/
06_Content-type/
07_Content-calendar/
08_Sales-channels/
50_Data-Core/
01_KPI-management/
02_Data-collection/
03_Performance-analysis/
04_Reporting/
05_Data-governance/
60_Omni-Core/
01_Customer-journey-mapping/
02_Customer-feedback/
03_Customer-support/
04_UI-and-UX-optimization/
05_Personalization/
06_Loyalty-programs/
07_Omnichannel-integration/
70_Time-Core/
01_Project-management/
02_Market-timing/
03_Golden-opportunities/
04_Contingency-planning/
05_Year-wheel/
90_How-we-file/
Filing-convention.docxEach object folder may hold its own _archive/ subfolder organised by year. Keeping the archive local is what stops a second, competing hierarchy from forming above the first.
Standing on other work
The structure is an application of ordinary information science. The contribution of the framework is only that the facets are already named and already shared with the rest of the business.
Cores as facet, objects as subdivision
Ranganathan’s principle that each level should divide by a single attribute — the reason mixed levels become unpredictable.
Cores as the top level
Standard records management practice: classify by business function rather than by organisational unit, because functions outlive structures.
Archive within each object
Active, semi-active and archival phases are distinct. Retention rules sit above the scheme and are set externally.
Naming convention
Chronological sort without configuration, and no ambiguity between locales.
Data Core — Data Governance
Ownership, quality and access are governance questions; a folder tree implements them but does not decide them.
The whole scheme
The practical argument for these particular facets: the same words are already used in strategy work, so the drive and the strategy agree.
Any consistent scheme beats an inconsistent one. The case for this particular set of facets is not that it is uniquely correct, but that it is already the vocabulary the business reasons in.
Where it lives in the framework
The Omnigoal is holistic: all eight cores are in play here, each supplying something the others cannot. Follow any of them to see the objects it contains.
Strategy documents, goal hierarchies, board material.
Learn the core
Finance, HR, contracts, suppliers, compliance — usually the largest branch by some margin.
Learn the core
Logos, guidelines, tone of voice, brand assets.
Learn the core
Vision, mission and values: small, permanent, frequently cited.
Learn the core
Audience research, competitor files, campaigns, content calendars.
Learn the core
Reports, dashboards, governance and retention policy.
Learn the core
Journey maps, support material, UX documentation.
Learn the core
Projects, the year wheel, plans and contingency documents.
Learn the coreChecklist
In fairness
A classification scheme carries less weight than it is often asked to. These are the parts it does not cover.
Questions
The questions people ask most often about folder structure and The Omnigoal.
One divided by a principle that outlives the people using it. Filing by function rather than by person, department or date is long-standing records management practice, because functions change far more slowly than organisational structures. Using The Omnigoal’s eight cores as the top level and their objects as the second gives a function-based scheme whose vocabulary is already shared with the firm’s strategy work.
By function, in almost all cases. Department-based structures break at the next reorganisation and tend to conceal material from the people who most need it. A function-based scheme survives restructuring, since finance remains finance regardless of who owns it this year.
Inside the Time Core, because a project is a lifecycle rather than a subject. Working files stay in the project folder; approved outputs move into the core and object they permanently belong to at closure. Making that hand-off part of the closing checklist is what keeps the scheme from silently filling with abandoned work.
Yes — it is a naming and hierarchy convention rather than a piece of software. In SharePoint the top level often maps to document libraries; in Drive and Dropbox it maps directly to folders. Avoid spaces in folder names where files sync between systems.
Build the new hierarchy empty, freeze the old tree as read-only, and move material only as it is touched. What remains untouched after twelve months was archive material in practice. Migrations attempted in a single pass usually fail, because they ask everyone to change habit on a day when they also have work to do.
The framework continues below the object. An Object divides into Modules, a Module into Components, a Component into Elements, and an Element carries Attributes — so Business Core / Finance / Budgeting / Annual budget / Marketing line / Amount is one unbroken chain rather than four levels of improvisation. The value of continuing this way is that the deeper levels are still divided by the same principle, which is precisely where ad hoc trees usually start to become unpredictable.
Yes. Each company or unit keeps its own eight-core tree, and a shared level above holds only what is genuinely common. The practical rule is simply that one tree should not have to fit the parent company and all of its subsidiaries at once — each unit’s structure stays complete on its own terms.
If two people file consistently, nothing is duplicated and new colleagues become self-sufficient quickly, then it works and there is no case for changing it. The scheme here is offered as one that tends to hold up under growth and reorganisation, not as a correction of schemes that are already doing their job.
