In the past 20-30 years or so, the records clerk position has changed from a physical function of preparing paper folders for tracking and orderly retrieval of records to an electronic environment, where metadata, databases and electronic retrieval systems are the new norm. The paper still exists, it has even multiplied in volume many times over; but we try to avoid it and birth our records digitally, or remove the paper whenever possible by making and preserving an electronic record (or, as Duranti calls it, the ability to reproduce the record, if needed) of a process, or transaction. In this new digital environment, the importance of incorporating a sense of archival science into institutional processes and through-out the life-cycle of a record has been amplified. Elizabeth Yakel suggests in her fine article that this more complex environment requires a more sophisticated view of organizational processes. Within that view, her thesis continues, archivists will also have to update their understanding of the part that records and record keeping play in organizations. Building on that theme, in fact, it is at the center of understanding how organizations work.
Standard Operating Procedures = Organization Memory
The (Simon’s) idea that record keeping is a way of building an organization’s memory makes sense to me and mirrors my own experience in the corporate world. Cyert and March are cited in the article for carrying that concept further and proposing that standard operating procedures are the memory of an organization. Yakel presents this a departure of their prior thinking and makes the assertion that this diminishes decision making as the heart of the organization – replaced by standard operating procedures. I take issue with that assertion. Defining operating procedures is based on decision making of organization leaders. Once that decision is made, organization leaders feel that there is no need to change that decision each time a particular transaction occurs, and consequently write it as a standard. In this way decision making is still present and at the heart of the organization, perhaps even more so, but it is the decision of one or a few leaders, and not that of individual employees within the organization. It is no longer a decision to made at each point of transaction, but has been made once and then followed over and over again.
Interpretation vs. Authenticity
As for interpretation of records by archivists Yakel overlooks the possibility that the organization’s goals can be documented and that those goals (or mission statement) can help to document and describe the processes that generated a record. But, she does cite Bearman for making this very point, when he is quoted as writing, among other things, “documentation of organization activity ought to begin long before records are transferred to archives.” Setting a corporate mission statement and standard operating procedures are two examples of junctures in an organization’s life when documentation requirements, interests and procedures can be addressed. Being mindful of that context will help an archivist or records manager to maintain healthy support of interpretation and authenticity objectives. However, I continue my theme from the Week 4 readings response that archivists can’t make assessment decisions without some bias. That statement is true for other managers and employees as well.
There is agreement from me with Yakel’s contention that “archivists need to temper [the trend of organizational theorists interpreting recordkeeping practices almost exclusively as cultural phenomena], and reintroduce traditional archival filters”, but she does acknowledge the need for some interpretation on the part of the archivist. I don’t see how they could function in any other way, apologies to the purists notwithstanding. Any records archiving decision has the potential to include some interpretation.
These two points of discussion, Organizational Memory and Interpretation, lead me to the same conclusions reached when reviewing earlier readings of the course. That is that the earlier an archival sense is incorporated into the life-cycle of the record, the better. Also, knowing the organizational culture assists the archivist immensely and it is appropriate to take that into consideration along with the traditional filters of legal, financial and administrative requirements. All of which, I suppose, places me in agreement with Yakel’s conclusions.
References:
University and Higher Ed: Elizabeth Yakel, "The Way Things Work: Procedures, Processes, and Institutional Records," American Archivist, Volume 59, Number 4 (Fall 1996), 454-464
No comments:
Post a Comment