Recordkeeping Systems

The Bearman chapter goes to great lengths to single out recordkeeping systems as something special rather than just another iteration of information management systems. The primary point being that the basic operations of a recordkeeping system match up well with another archival theory that business functionality should be the focus of archivists and records managers, and not the organizational setting. In fact, the latest recordkeeping systems accomplish significant steps towards protecting the provenancial meaning of records, sometimes even without human intervention at the basic levels of record creation and storage.

One of the developments that Bearman likes about this approach of making recordkeeping systems the locus of evidential significance of records is the alliance it requires to be built between various interested parties, such as archivists, auditors, administration security officers, information officers, privacy officers, legal counsel and senior management. A centralized system certainly means everyone has to follow the same guidelines and procedures for record creation, storage and retrieval. This does put everyone in the same boat, so to speak. Based on this view, I would say that this development has improved organizations in more ways than just mere record keeping efficiency. Inter-disciplinary communication and sharing of common goals have both been positively impacted, for just two more examples of the positive effects.

The historical view presented by Banton in Chapter 4 of Understanding Data and Information Systems for Recordkeeping, was an enjoyable trip down memory lane. The summary statement, on page 146, that the new systems are “better in almost every respect than that found in systems a decade ago”, brought a smile to my face as I asked out loud, “Did you expect the latest developments to be inferior?” But that aside, the review of required functionality in Enterprise Document Management Systems was very helpful to me as I become acquainted with such systems from a ‘behind-the-scenes” viewpoint I have not had before.

EDM Systems that integrate with other systems within the organization, have robust classification schemes, protect record authenticity, support disposition management, self-capture metadata and provide for preservation strategies obviously contain significant functionality that did not exist only a few years ago. The latest information technology advancements have played a huge role in the transition from document management systems in the 1980’s to the sophisticated systems of today. Without the ability to scan and produce digital images of documents that can be easily transported from active storage to archival storage, let alone transmitted to interested parties electronically, we would obviously not have been able to advance such systems as we have today. So, it is important to recognize the connection between trends in document management with IT developments.

It makes the mind spin to consider where this may all be headed, or where the next big advancement, at least, will take us. Now that we create, transmit, store and archive “documents” as digital objects that never get printed on paper we can envision a time when there will be no post office. Or, we can ask the question: How many paper companies will eventually merge or go extinct as we take the next steps in document and records management? For that matter, when I started this MLS program I bought a new laptop computer. In 12 months it has already become obsolete, a fact that impresses on my mind each time I watch classmates function on hand-held digital devices or smart phones.

We are moving so rapidly into a world where no paper exists for almost all of our transactions, that records and information managers must prepare for full conversion to a digital mind set, or be left behind very soon.

Question for group discussion – How paperless are you? What has happened in the past 24 months or so of your life that has changed the way you create and store records of your own personal transactions, or business transactions that you undertake at work? How have recordkeeping systems brought about those changes?

Sources Cited:

Bearman, David. "Recordkeeping Systems." Ch. 2 Electronic Evidence: Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organizations.

Bantin, Phil. Understanding Data and Information Systems for Recordkeeping. Ch. 4

Records in Government and Corporate Settings

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

Bias in Records Assessment and Valuation

This week’s reading cut a broad path through the records management terrain. My particular interest is in appraisal or evaluation of records. I prefer to call it valuation of records, because I have become interested in the way some records have value for some people and at the same time the same records may have no value to another person. This presents, I think, the biggest dilemma for a records manager (or perhaps even an archivist) and that is, how does one come to grips with valuation without interjecting personal bias. That bias can cut both ways, too. On the one hand, an archivist may want to save everything because the record itself has value, whereas another (let’s say the business manager) recognizes that there just isn’t any way to cost-effectively save everything and some disposition decisions have to be made. Due to this particular interest (uh, ax to grind?) of mine, I will focus on Shepherd and Yeo’s Chapter 5, Managing appraisal, retention and disposition.

The historical perspective in the first part of the chapter was quite informative for me, a “non-participant” in the profession. It was intriguing to learn how the profession has generally accepted Jenkinson’s theories, but devalued their practicalities; and has apparently bashed Shellenberg’s theories on value to the point where they are now less than acceptable. This chapter gets at what I have considered the heart of the decision, and that is that the decision maker can’t help but apply her own biases in making such decisions. There seems to be an attempt in the development of professional Appraisal Theory to make it a completely unbiased decision, based solely on the value of the records. I maintain, however, that valuation can’t be unbiased and, therefore, is made somewhat differently depending on who is making it.

Even after exhaustively outlining an excellent and thorough appraisal strategy focused on the users, whether internal or external, and balancing those interests, the authors acknowledge that the decision maker’s biases will not be completely removed. In fact, taking all users’ interests into the balance and considering risks by asking such questions as, “What if the record did not exist?” continues to draw on biases of those answering that question.

Much like Luciana Duranti, the authors suggest another requirement for improvement in appraisal decisions is to move that decision earlier in the life-cycle of the record. Making such decisions at the very time the record is created will certainly help in the long-term process of appraisal and disposition. But, once again the end-users are not present at that time (may not even be known at that time), and the decision-maker is still left to try and anticipate who the users will be and what their special or specific needs might be.

For these reasons, I believe that dealing with decision-maker bias on the part of the record manager and the archivist is one of the biggest challenges in the profession. I think that the authors have presented a strong strategy to help reduce and even eliminate that bias. But, ultimately, it cannot be entirely removed.

What impact does personal bias have on these decisions? It could have a significant impact, and unfortunately most of the time we will not know the impact until it is too late. A current example might be the Library of Congress agreeing to archive the Twitter records. If that were entirely up to someone like me (a Twitter rebel), the decision may have gone otherwise. For the life of me I can’t understand or recognize any value in such records. I find Twitter to be completely obnoxious and even, dare I say it, valueless. Now, many of those reading this post will disagree. In fact, quite a large number of the class forum readers will feel that Twitter is an amazing tool and that the records present a significant view of our times and culture. I do agree that there is that to consider. But, herein we have the very dilemma being presented. One opinion against another leaves us with making a decision that is completely influenced by personal bias, and those with the loudest voice will win.

All of which begs these questions: Can personal bias be removed from the appraisal and disposition decisions? And, Should it even matter? (Meaning: Are we comfortable that someone with an Archivist’s view will always prevail, making their biases acceptable to us?)

Sources Referenced :

Duranti, Luciana (2001). "The Impact of Digital Technology on Archival Science" in Archival Science 1(1), pp. 39-55.

Geoffrey Yeo and Elizabeth Shepherd . (2000). Managing records in the electronic age: London: Library Association Pub. Chapter 5, “Managing Appraisal, retention and disposition”.

Records Management policy

There is much from this week’s readings that applies directly to my personal experience in the insurance business. In this paper I will cursorily compare my experience of setting such a policy and relate that to the key principles highlighted in the articles assigned.

Early in my career, I was not very cognizant of the importance of, or even the need for, keeping good records; although my job functions as a claims adjuster were almost entirely dictated by that need. Procedurally, I was guided into a path of following the records management policies, without really understanding them, the impact of not following them (except that my job would be in jeopardy), or certainly why they existed in the first place. As time went by and I progressed in my experience and responsibilities (and after more detailed training was given), it became more and more clear that there were many legal and good business practice reasons to follow the records management policies of my employers.

The real understanding and recognition of the importance of establishing and following such policies came after opening my own business, a small insurance agency. Then I realized it was my own livelihood on the line if I failed in this records management activity. When I had to purchase my own professional liability insurance to cover me against my own errors and omissions in my professional practices, it became more apparent that records management policies were very important and that I had better put some down on paper and start following them.

Tracing phone conversations, email communications and other customer requests became paramount in daily activities. No slip of paper could be discarded without first verifying that every detail was documented electronically, and then in most cases the paper was saved in a customer folder just to be sure. Being able to reconstruct the transaction, should there ever be any doubt what the customer did and did not request (adding or removing coverage) was the key objective.

The principles described by Shepard and Yeo are the foundation for good records management. To be sure, it was these principles that guided me in the process of establishing a records management policy in my small agency. I had to first recognize the need for a policy and then, as Shepard and Yeo suggest, I established broad parameters from which I could build a policy statement and procedures.

As I think of it now, it is apparent that saving space and cost reduction are real concerns for any business, but as a small fledgling business these were not very key considerations at the time. There weren’t any records yet and space was no problem. The real motivation for writing my own business procedures is found in the Lee article. Lawsuit avoidance can certainly be a strong motivator! I suppose altruistically, I hope there was some sense of wanting to do a good professional job for customers, too, but admitting the truth, fear of not doing it right was a more powerful force behind my taking action.

The eight components set in the Australian Records Management Standard (Shepard & Yeo, pg. 249-50) are exactly the steps I followed, albeit less formally and, to some extent at least, unintelligently. Just sort of stumbling through the process, some things are obvious. There has to be some investigation and analysis of an entity’s business practices in order to determine where a policy or procedure is needed. Identifying records handling and archiving requirements and matching that against existing procedures is the only way to figure out what needs to be changed or newly established. But, it is worth noting that these components work in the real world and are not untested academic or professional theory.

Records management policies are established to enable an entity to function professionally and to protect that entity against charges of malpractice or malfeasance. Maintaining proper records allows a reconstruction of a transaction and the events leading up to that transaction. The ability to accomplish these tasks timely and easily makes all the difference between an entity following good professional standards and one that does not.

Lastly, as a question for more thought on the subject, using my little scenario as an example, I wonder if it really matters what is the overriding motivating factor in the development of a records management policy, or is it simply sufficient that a policy has been established, for whatever reason?

Week 3 Readings

Managing records in the electronic age: Geoffrey Yeo and Elizabeth Shepherd. (2000). London: Library Association Pub. Chapter 8 (e-reserves)

Hunter Gregory S. (1995). Developing and maintaining practical archives: A how-to-do-it manual. New York: Neal-Schuman. Chapter 2 Conducting a Survey and Starting an Archival Program (e-reserves)

Lee, Andrew R. “Keep or Toss? Document Retention Policies in the Digital Era.” Louisiana Bar Journal 55 (December 2007/January 2008): 240-247.

Laurie Fischer, “Condition Critical: Developing Records Retention Schedules,” Information Management Journal, Volume Number 1, (January/February 2006), 26-34