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

Abstract from DSAL Preservation Project Grant Proposal

This project creates a significant new and previously unavailable corpus of digital materials that will be of interest to scholars of all disciplines in the humanities, particularly those students, scholars and researchers interested in doing groundbreaking work in the emerging field of digital humanities. By making available a combined total of over 24,000 early audio recordings, survey maps and postcards from the British India, this project will immediately greatly expand the scope of available historical resources from the Indian subcontinent. It will also nicely complement resources currently available through the University of Chicago’s Digital South Asia Library (DSAL), which include over 100,000 photographic images, statistical abstracts, books and journals, dictionaries, and a myriad of other reference resources. DSAL provides digital materials for reference and research on South Asia to scholars, students, public officials, business leaders, and other users and is the most significant central repository of digital reference materials on South Asia.

The Digital South Asia Library (DSAL) places utmost importance on making its resources available to the public for the long term. By ensuring that the collection, preservation and presentation of these newly digitized materials is compliant with the most recent standards and accepted practices and that DSAL has a well-articulated and coherent long-term preservation strategy, we will make certain that DSAL digital resources are available for the long term. The work plan, methodology and standards adopted for the ingestation, migration, preservation and presentation of the over 24,000 early audio recordings, survey maps and postcards funded through this grant will be extended to the entirety of the DSAL digital collection.

The primary objective of this project is to present these materials to a diverse community of teachers, researchers, and students with a shared interest South Asian studies and to provide a framework for the long term preservation of this materials. This will be accomplished through delivering these materials through the World Wide Web and assembling a structure of bibliographic descriptions and supplementary resources to provide the context necessary for understanding these materials. It is our objective that this will provide for both the physical and intellectual access to these materials. This access will be provided for by making use of existing frameworks within the University of Chicago and unique frameworks that will be developed during the period of the grant. Because of this, the approach developed during the course of the grant will allow for the long term access and preservation of these materials, beyond the initial grant period.

(Full Grant Proposal available in Kent R. Palmer curriculum vitae.)

DRAMBORA Tool Evaluation

The DRAMBORA toolkit document appears to me to be very thorough and well thought out, and the progressive steps of the audit process are straight forward. It makes sense to me to follow in sequence from identification of risks, to assessment of those risks and finally to the establishment of risk treatment strategies. I found the toolkit it to be an easy to follow and self-explanatory guide for auditing digital repositories. It seems also to be flexible enough to handle almost any repository. Further, I believe the concept of basing a repository audit on risk assessment principles to be ingenious. Why else would one audit a digital repository, if not to safeguard against any and all risks of loss of the usefulness of its information?

My praise should not be taken to suggest that all is well. At times, the process in DRAMBORA seems a bit redundant, and I suppose one could argue for a consolidation of some of the worksheets. Tasks 8, 9 and 10 come immediately to mind. Each of the final three worksheets repeats the preceding sheet’s information and then adds a new step. However, it is important to take things one step at a time in such an exercise as auditing a repository. By waiting to assess risks until all risks have been identified and logged, for instance, keeps one focused on the whole of the repository at the time of assessment. In this manner it seems much easier to keep perspective about the comparative impact of a single risk when assessment comes in an organized functional sequence. Ultimately, in my view, combining the identification, assessment and evaluation of risks into the same functional step is too much to deal with at once and may overwhelm an auditor.

There is some minor repetitiveness in some of the other worksheets as well, for example where repository objectives or mandates may include initiatives that address legal issues, such sources of information may be included in multiple worksheets. We found that the same information may be listed in worksheets 2, 3, and 4, for instance. In our group we decided to handle this repetitive entry by listing the same sources of information in multiple worksheets, as long as the focused perspective of each worksheet was the cause of listing the item.

The repetitive issues did not seem that significant to me, and certainly they were not so problematic that it interfered with or belabored our audit process.

I did not find the audit project particularly difficult, but it was rather laborious and tedious, which I suppose was to be expected for audit work. All of my working experience with audits, performing them and being the subject of them, tells me this is so. But, the step by step approach of DRAMBORA keeps everything organized and very simple to follow. In the end, I liked the toolkit document, and I think the approach is a good one.

There are some aspects of IDEALS that are somewhat inflexible because of its affiliation with a University. This is especially noteworthy in the face of severe budgetary confinements. A corporate repository may have different capabilities and freedoms to respond to audit findings, and in fact, may encompass an entirely different need for an audit in the first place. With limited abilities to respond to the audit findings, IDEALS may find itself in a position of foregoing action on certain recommendations. However, this should not preclude the repository from undertaking a thorough audit of its processes, obligations and risks. It is important to understand the risks and to take action where possible. Even if some glaring risks cannot be addressed, at least the repository management becomes aware of them and can anticipate needed future changes to eventually handle the potential risk. By bringing these risks to the attention of the University’s provost and other executive leadership, such leaders will not be caught off-guard about potentially substantial financial losses as a result of the occurrence of certain events.

In my opinion, the DRAMBORA approach works fine for IDEALS. I did not perceive any significant challenges employing the audit methods for this repository. The audit steps are not complicated nor are they restrictive in their application. This flexibility, I think, allows wide-spread applicability of DRAMBORA.

As to the DRAMBORA project being useful to me in terms of its educational value, I think of some other experiences that give me reason to say confidently that is was very supportive of excellent learning outcomes in this class. For instance, in March, I participated in the GSLIS’s alternative spring break program and spent a week at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah. I mostly did some job shadowing in five different departments at this brand new facility (opened in May 2009). My experience in the digital preservation department was very rewarding, as I observed ingest, migration, audit, and archiving of text, audio and visual digital objects, some born digital and others taken from analog documents. In class, we had just finished our grant proposals in which we constructed a workflow for a digital preservation project. As I sat with the manager of the DP department at CHL, he described the workflow that his staff follows every day, which was exactly what we had just written in the group assignment. He, as did we, used the OAIS document as the basis for the workflow.

I cite this experience for two reasons. First, it is only one, but perhaps the best, example that I have found everything we have done or discussed in this class has been right at the forefront of the digital preservation world. When I discuss the concepts and principles with DP professionals, those discussions have confirmed their pertinence to real world issues. Based on that track record, I have no doubt that DRAMBORA likewise has contributed significantly to my understanding of the digital preservation process.

Second, I mention the CHL experience because it, as well as the DRAMBORA project itself, is another example of how learning through experience is the best way to learn. My experience at CHL went a long way in transitioning my understanding of the information presented in class into to real and memorable experiences in my mind. I will remember what I learned about OAIS much better for having some hands-on experience with it in a digital preservation department.

In an article about the constructivist learning theory, Cooperstein and Kocevar-Weidinger point out that learning comes from experience, and not the other way around. So, the experience of DRAMBORA (among other things in this class) has contributed greatly to my education. If we were to simply talk and theorize about auditing repositories, some of us would show up for work one day and still not know how to perform an audit. Now that we have actually completed an audit, we will be more confident, capable, and prepared to do the next one.

For a first iteration of the risk assessment based audit method, I found DRAMBORA to be quite comprehensive, and yet, user-friendly. As an old insurance guy turned librarian, I noticed DRAMBORA’s adherence to the same risk management principles used by organizations, large and small, to manage their physical exposures to loss. With that in mind, I expect DRAMBORA will only get better as new iterations are released, revised according to experiences with the first and succeeding versions.

Works referenced:

DRAMBORA, Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment. Digital Curation Centre and Digital Preservation Europe. Toolkit document, Release: Version 1.0, 2007.

Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.