Research in Records Management 9781846637094, 9781846637087

Citation preview

rmj cover (i).qxd

17/10/2007

14:11

Page 1

ISSN 0956-5698

Volume 17 Number 3 2007

Records Management Journal Research in records management

www.emeraldinsight.com

Records Management Journal

ISSN 0956-5698 Volume 17 Number 3 2007

Research in records management

Access this journal online _________________________

143

Editorial advisory board __________________________

144

Editorial _________________________________________

145

GUEST EDITORIAL The practitioners’ perspective on records management research David Ryan and Elizabeth Lomas _________________________________

146

OPINION PIECE The research imperative and the responsible recordkeeping professional Caroline Williams ______________________________________________

150

ARTICLES Disembodied information: metadata, file plans, and the intellectual organisation of records Ruth Frendo __________________________________________________

157

Non-conformist records management in Great Britain: a review Philip Thornborow _____________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm You can also search more than 150 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

169

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Documentation in pre-trial investigation: a study of using the records continuum model as a records management tool Marjo Rita Valtonen____________________________________________

179

Purposeful data: the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata Kate Cumming ________________________________________________

186

Records management and information processing on construction sites using digital pen and paper Nigel Craig and James Sommerville________________________________

201

Records management capacity and compliance toolkits: a critical assessment Julie McLeod, Sue Childs and Susan Heaford ________________________

216

PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES Publications ______________________________________________

233

www.emeraldinsight.com/rmj.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

How to access this journal electronically

Additional complimentary services available

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ rmj.htm

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts

Emerald online training services Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Non-article content Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be accessed by users. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Xtra resources and collections When you register your journal subscription online, you will gain access to Xtra resources for Librarians, Faculty, Authors, Researchers, Deans and Managers. In addition you can access Emerald Collections, which include case studies, book reviews, guru interviews and literature reviews.

Emerald Research Connections An online meeting place for the research community where researchers present their own work and interests and seek other researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/ connections

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

RMJ 17,3

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Rick Barry Independent Consultant, Barry Associates, USA Kate Cumming Researcher, New South Wales, Australia

144

Ian Day Independent Consultant, London, UK Catherine Hare Formerly Information Management Officer, Archives and Records Management Section, United Nations, USA Rachael Maguire Records Manager, London School of Economics, UK Elizabeth Man Corporate Records Manager, Policy, Performance and Complaints Division, Office of the Assistant Chief Executive, London Borough of Lambeth, UK David Ryan Director of Records, The Royal Household

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 p. 144 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698

Elizabeth Shepherd Senior Lecturer, School of Library, Archives and Information Studies, University College London, UK Mike Steemson Independent Consultant, The Caldeson Consultancy, New Zealand Malcolm Todd Digital Records Specialist, Parliamentry Archives, Westminster, UK Alistair Tough Senior Research Fellow and Archivist and Records Manager, National Health Service Greater Glasgow, Glasgow University Archive Services, UK Marjo Valtonen Assistant Professor, Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere, Finland

Editorial

Editorial In my capacity as Professional Resources Editor I am delighted to present to you the 2007 themed issue of the Records Management Journal, which is devoted to research. Beginning with the guest editorial and the opinion piece and including all of the articles and book reviews, the contributions cover the spectrum of current research in archives and records management, in terms of the types of research, the range of actors and where it is happening. In the guest editorial two very experienced practitioners, David Ryan and Elizabeth Lomas, critically review the development of research in the field, acknowledging the progress while highlighting the gaps in funding for “in-depth” research in the UK. As she leaves her academic post at Liverpool University to take up her appointment as Head of Collections and Research at The National Archives in the UK, Caroline Williams, in her opinion piece, charts the development of her realisation that true professional practice in the field of records management is not possible without undertaking research and presenting its results. The scene on research having been set from the practitioner and academic perspective, the articles go on to explore and present the full range of research activities and outcomes across the world. Ruth Frendo and Philip Thornborow draw on their Master’s dissertations and explore, respectively, the dangers for records and archives management of discrete metadata capture and the challenge of managing records in the highly distributed network which is the Methodist Church of Great Britain. There is then a shift to doctoral research and in geographic perspective with Marjo Valtonen from Finland presenting a study on records management aspects of pre-trial investigation documentation and Kate Cumming from Australia examining the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata. The final two papers are authored by academics and focus on research into records management in practice. Nigel Craig and James Sommerville investigate the potential of a very new technology, digital pen and paper, as a records management mechanism on construction sites. Julie McLeod, Sue Childs and Sue Heaford present the findings of a project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board in the UK, to evaluate records management capacity and compliance toolkits. The issue concludes with four book reviews. The first is very much in keeping with the overall theme and is a guide to undertaking research in the information field. Two others bring in the historical dimension, one a guide to retention management in historic houses and the other an exploration of preservation theory and practice. The final review considers the fourth publication in the series designed to provide practical guidance on implementing BS ISO 15489, which focuses on how to comply with the international standard. Some of the articles were invited, others submitted for consideration in the standard manner (see full details at www.emeraldinsight.com/info/journals/rmj/notes.jsp). I hope that, having read the articles, you may be encouraged to share an opinion or present your own research, ideas or an analysis of your own professional activity. We look forward to hearing from you. Catherine Hare

145

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 p. 145 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ 17,3

GUEST EDITORIAL

The practitioners’ perspective on records management research

146

David Ryan and Elizabeth Lomas London, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce this dedicated research issue of the Records Management Journal Design/methodology/approach – This paper provides a brief viewpoint on records management research. Findings – This issue should clearly demonstrate why research is so critical. Originality/value – This paper provides a brief viewpoint on records management research. Keywords Records management, Research Paper type General review

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 146-149 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833044

We are delighted to have been asked as records management practitioners to introduce this dedicated research edition of the Records Management Journal. Between us we have over 30 years of practical experience in the field of records management. When we both embarked on our postgraduate training the concept of research in the field of records management was still in its infancy within the UK. Records management was deemed to be a vocational qualification where further academic research was neither required nor funding available. At last, this view has been overtaken by the work coming out of so many universities; Glasgow, Liverpool, Northumbria, Ravensbourne College, Sheffield and UCL to name a few. This is a welcome development. Information research programmes enhance the status of information professionals and provide the opportunity to investigate potential solutions and innovations for information management practitioners. However, despite information research developments, we are still a long way from having truly comprehensive and effective research programmes to support and develop records management professional practice. The world of information management is evolving rapidly at a time when the pressures within the work place are increasing. It is important to have independent, considered research projects to inform work place developments. Practitioners often do not have the time or the distance from a problem to take a leap forward and find a truly original and beneficial solution. It can be very easy to follow general business trends and procure available products regardless of whether these are actually an appropriate business solution. For example, how many organisations have optimistically purchased and implemented an EDRM software solution that their users, including senior management, do not have the capabilities or the inclination to absorb into their working practices? The debate and research into e-working solutions has been These comments represent the personal views of the individuals and are not a reflection upon their organisation.

relatively limited in the records management sector, with efforts being primarily focused on producing EDRM models at UK Government and European levels. It is not surprising, therefore, that many records managers have concluded that an EDRM approach is the only option available[1]. Recently, good research programmes have begun to open up the debate and these offer the potential for a range of solutions to information practitioners. For example, the Glasgow University Espida project is exploring the fundamental causes that make an information project viable. A surprising number of IT projects fail despite large investments. We need look no further than at a number of the government’s recent IT projects that have hit major problems[2]. Prince 2 and other project management tools have been developed to minimise the risks of project failure. However, despite these tools many IT projects have continued to fail. This is perhaps because many project tools only minimally addresses whether a project should be initiated. Once the project is initiated it is often managed through a rigid production chain without any focus on record keeping strategies, intangible project benefits, and the actual manner in which people work. Espida seeks to address this gap. The research has provided an evaluation methodology for expressing, communicating and measuring tangible and intangible project benefits and outcomes (www.gla.ac.uk/espida) through a balanced scorecard approach (Espida Project Team, 2007). Other research is communicated through key publications, such as the recent works by Elizabeth Orna and Alastair Tough (Orna, 2007; Tough, 2006). This research is invaluable to practitioners considering and implementing any information project. However, despite the valuable work that is being undertaken it is clear that too little in-depth research is being funded in the UK. We often need to look overseas for innovation. For example, the concept of the records continuum, developed in the works of Upward and McKemmish, and the “strategic approach to managing business information”, DIRKs, have come from Australia[3]. These overseas developments have significantly advanced the records management profession. Whilst it is important that within the UK we engage with global initiatives, it would be interesting to analyse to what extent UK research has had a major influence around the globe. Within the UK there are research questions that need to be resolved. Many research projects run for very limited time periods and therefore there is a limitation to the scale of the research that is undertaken. Grants for individual records management PhDs, whilst increasing, are still rare. There is still reluctance amongst practitioners and theorists to move between academic and practical work; many practitioners limit themselves to a rare article that shares experience of a project of only local or limited applicability. As the major funding source is Higher Education the focus for the end research is often on Higher and Further Education requirements. For this reason the full benefits of research initiatives are often not engaged and implementation funds, for example JISC grants, are not always awarded to bidders. There has also been a shift in academic approaches to research that is not always mirrored in the funding. Many new information management and compliance courses have sprung up with varying relevance to records management. Technology has brought closer together the work of different professional groups (IT specialists, librarians, records managers etc). Job titles for these disciplines are numerous and information management has often been approached as a generalist subject rather than a discipline, such as records management, founded on clear academic and professional principles. However, with greater advocacy

Guest editorial

147

RMJ 17,3

148

the benefits that records management practice brings could be promoted. Research and promotion, through that research, are key to gaining wider recognition. The possibilities for business support and collaboration have not yet been tapped. How often has an IT software company engaged with records management professionals in order to develop its products? If practitioners were to engage more actively with research initiatives, to take an active role in research projects and to encourage business collaborations it would move information research into a higher sphere with less limitations. Encouragingly, Northumbria University has recently received research funding for its project “Accelerating positive change in electronic records; understanding issues and developing practical approaches”. We can hope that this will assist with enhancing research in the information management field, as its records management unit is well placed in a School positioned with IT to produce truly worthwhile developments in this area. The Records Management Journal is one of the few vehicles for stimulating records management discussion. Often, articles within this journal flag important areas for research and development. For example, in 1999 Stephen Bailey wrote an article on metadatabases and the future of retention schedules. The article called for the implementation of electronic retention software to effectively manage information assets (Bailey, 1999). Although retention has become an IT buzz word in the light of the Enron scandal and introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley in the US, nearly ten years on there is still no generic stand-alone retention product within the marketplace to record the properties, and support the management of information assets, despite the claim by records management professionals that a key records management tool is the implementation of a retention schedule. IT professionals have still not grasped the important benefits of managed retention schedules and seem to perceive undifferentiated back-ups as the only viable solution for data management other than a “crystal ball”[4]. This suggests that the profession is not truly exerting its influence across the information professions. We therefore salute the theme of this journal. This issue should clearly demonstrate why research is so critical. Through turning our attention to the important role that research does play one can hope that professional collaboration for research projects will take off. As practitioners, it gives us the opportunity to really evaluate the important role being played by researchers and those people who do manage within busy working schedules to write and research. Maybe some individuals reading this journal will be able to find funding from within their organisation to encourage further research projects. We look forward, within the next ten years (!), to someone developing a universal retention tool, which is so essential for thoroughly effective data governance. Notes 1. The National Archives published two sets of functional requirements in 1999 and 2002, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/function.htm Cornwell Consulting plc. are currently in the process of producing MoReq2, www.cornwell.co.uk/edrm/moreq.asp 2. For example the Registrars’ system, developed to record births, deaths and marriages, was suspended due to data loss; the Junior doctors’ on-line recruitment system failed to protect confidential details enabling members of the public to view individuals’ application details; the Child Support Agency’s IT system was reportedly two years late, £56 million over budget and could not accept migrated data from existing cases. Bennett, R. Register offices’ IT project a “complete system failure”. The Times, 3 May 2007, p. 10.

3. “Australian contributions to recordkeeping” http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/australia/ index.html 4. “The whole point of backups and archives is that you hopefully never need them, but you keep them just in case. If I knew exactly which files by business will need in six months time from the archive tapes, then I would reduce the storage capacity a thousand fold, yes. Waterford Technologies are more than welcome to provide me with a crystal ball that will divulge the useful information.” Ian Ferguson, www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/15/ computer_storage_excess/comments References Bailey, S. (1999), “The metadatabase: the future of the retention schedule as a records management tool”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-45. Espida Project Team (2007), Espida Handbook, University of Glasgow and JISC, Glasgow, p. 54. Orna, E. (2007), Managing Information for Research, Open University Press, Buckingham. Tough, A. (2006), Record Keeping in a Hybrid Environment: Managing the Creation, Use, Preservation and Disposal of Unique Information Objects in Context, Chandos Publishing Limited, Oxford. About the authors David Ryan is Director of Records for the Royal Household. From 2001-2004, he was Head of Digital Preservation at the UK National Archives, where he led the team that won the 2004 Pilgrims Trust Award for Digital Preservation. Prior to joining The National Archives, David was Head of Information Management at Pfizer Ltd, where he successfully introduced a major change programme in the management of electronic records. He began his career as Curator of Maritime Records at Merseyside Maritime Museum. A graduate of King’s College, London, he also holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Archive Studies from University College, London. David Ryan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Elizabeth Lomas qualified as an archivist and records manager in 1993, since which time she has worked in both the private and public sectors. From 1995 to 1999, she was in charge of the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Archive of Art and Design, and in 1999 she was appointed as The Royal Household’s first Records Manager. She is the Chair of the Society of Archivists’ Legislation Sub-Committee and has recently published A Guide to the Retention of Records on a Modern Landed Estate (Hall-McCartney, 2007).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Guest editorial

149

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ 17,3

150

OPINION PIECE

The research imperative and the responsible recordkeeping professional Caroline Williams Centre for Archive Studies (LUCAS), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Abstract Purpose – The aim of this paper is to provide an opinion on the responsible recordkeeping professional. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a useful discussion on the responsible recordkeeping professional. Findings – It is argued that anyone who does not strive to add to that discrete body of knowledge by undertaking research and disseminating its outputs for the benefit of others is not a true professional. Originality/value – The paper provides a useful discussion on the responsible recordkeeping professional. Keywords Records management, Research Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction Research is an important professional responsibility and it is very appropriate that RMJ should devote one of its issues to this subject. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reflect upon the role of research in recordkeeping – records management and archives. In terms of my own experience too, it is an opportune time to do so. Having moved from being a practitioner in local authorities, to 11 years as an academic I am about to return to a practitioner environment – albeit in a research related role – at The National Archives (TNA). My intellectual stance has moved accordingly too. In my early career I disregarded research: there was a job to do, and not much time to spend on reflecting about it. In the university environment, in charge of the postgraduate programme at the University of Liverpool I have taught nascent practitioners. As such over time the nature of my role required an increasing engagement with and commitment to research and publication. I now cannot believe that I ever conceived that one could practise (beyond the most basic level) without acknowledging the absolute necessity of engaging with the kind of conceptual, theoretical and practice-based research necessary for the development of an autonomous recordkeeping discipline. My contention in writing here is that if practitioners do not consciously engage with “research”, they do not deserve the epithet of “professional”. Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 150-156 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833053

Research defined Perhaps I should define what I mean by research. There are a number of definitions: I shall consider two, both used in the academic environment. The first, from the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Frascati manual, was used for the Higher Education Funding Council Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 2001, and was originally framed to assist research and development (R&D) in OECD member countries. It describes three types of research: basic research, applied research and experimental development. Basic research is “experimental or theoretical work undertaken . . . to acquire new knowledge of . . . phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view” – what is sometimes referred to as “blue skies” research. Applied research is the generation of new knowledge “directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective” – particularly germane in practice-based disciplines such as ours. Experimental development draws on existing knowledge gained from research in order to produce new or improved materials, products, systems or services (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002). My second definition, used in the 2008 RAE simply says “Research . . . is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and understanding . . . It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the public and voluntary sectors . . . ” Developing the research agenda Given the nature of recordkeeping, how, in the terms of these definitions, might one define a meaningful research agenda for the discipline? How relevant could this be in any case in a discipline that is primarily founded on practice? Any such agenda would need to gain the support of both academics and practitioners in order to thrive and these are known often to disagree. Perhaps the most famous quotes clearly demonstrating opposing views come from Americans: John Roberts a practitioner who, in denying that recordkeeping had a theoretical base said it was “all about shelving”, in contrast to Frank Burke who believed one could establish “a body of basic principles, a system of immutable laws, a litany of theory and dogma” (Burke, 1981; Roberts, 1987). However, in the UK a small number of academics is involved in developing research and are applying for research council funding and generating publications for the RAE in the records management and archives discipline. They have needed to articulate the research basis for what they teach, research and publish, and to ensure it aligns with the research councils” and RAE panels’ own articulations. The universities concerned (who comprise the Forum for Archives and Records Management Education and Research (FARMER) www.farmer.ac.uk) are Liverpool, Northumbria, Aberystwyth, Glasgow, Dundee, London and Dublin. FARMER came up with the following description of the scope of research in archives and records management: Research in archives and records management (ARM) investigates the creation and capture of records, their organisation as the “corporate” memory within the creating organisation, and ultimately their access beyond that original context. Within this framework ARM has both cultural (research) and evidential roles (the latter manifest in e.g. FoI legislation) both of which are severely underrepresented in the research environment. Valid areas for investigation include professional methodologies, models, frameworks and standards, ethics and professional practice, user needs, roles and responsibilities, compliance and governance issues, metadata, data integrity and preservation management.

This seems fairly uncontroversial to me. What it does not explicitly say is what such research sets out to achieve – what the anticipated benefits will be, nor who does it. Research needs to serve a clearly stated purpose – or a set of purposes – whether by

The research imperative

151

RMJ 17,3

152

adding to theoretical knowledge or leading to the development of systems, processes or products. It is clear that research is not the monopoly of university academics. As the definitions above make explicit, research has a very practical element and resides in all kinds of working environments. Nor is research all about “theory”. It used to be thought that theory and practice were entirely separate: academics developed the former for others to carry out, and that therefore theory comes first and was followed by practice. Canadian archivist Terry Cook said: Theories come first. Theory sets forth principles upon which we must agree to proceed (Cook, 2001).

According to this model someone (probably an academic) develops for example a theory of appraisal, and you apply it when considering the retention of your files. Others thought practice came first. American archivist Preben Mortensen said theory was generated through “a self-conscious reflection on a particular practice” (Mortensen, 1999). In this model lots of people appraise their files and draw general conclusions – develop and publish a contribution to theory – about the best way to do it and why this was so. But neither of the models described above really reflects what actually happens. It is an ongoing process. Chris Hurley puts it well when he says: We didn’t stay on the ground until a company named Boeing had the design concept for a 767. In the development of winged flight, conceptual thinking and trial-and-error experimentation went hand in hand. What was learned from ballooning and gliding was very much part of the conceptual development undertaken by the Wright Bros. They had to experiment and try-out their ideas (as well as thinking it through) to get a solution: thinking and tinkering at the same time. It was all very iterative. It was only in retrospect that you could say theirs became the right solution at some point (quoted in Williams, 2006).

The implication of this is that theory and practice each develop by sparking off each other – and nothing stands still. To return to my example, the development of international appraisal theories is an example of how this happens. We can see then that practice validates theory; theory provides a conceptual framework for practice – the relationship is symbiotic. So, if research is made up of the self-conscious interaction of theory and practice and the repeated revisiting of each in order to refine the solution to your particular problem, it follows that for best effect it must be undertaken – and articulated – by both thinkers and doers. It might be useful to examine the types of research projects that have benefited from this approach. Types of research Perhaps the first encounter with formal research in the professional recordkeeping arena is the Master’s dissertation: this offers an outlet for both thinkers and doers. It is now usual for postgraduate programmes to require Master’s students to undertake a piece of research as part of this qualification. The output – a 15,000 word dissertation – is intended to demonstrate that the student is able to: . frame a research question; . identify a methodology appropriate to answer the question; . collect data using the chosen methodology;

. .

analyse findings; and draw conclusions; and thus add to knowledge.

Provided these elements of the process are well managed the student is likely to be successful: the importance of the question asked or value of the findings is possibly less important at this stage than the ability to carry out the research process robustly. The kinds of research questions that they set themselves to solve might be one of the following: . Theoretical or “blue skies” – e.g. What is a record in the electronic environment? What is the relationship between postmodernism and the development of the records continuum? This is more attractive to thinkers than doers. . Have a social science element, and be set around an analysis of how people act. For example assessing user behaviour; rolling out change management. This will involve both conceptual thinking and practical investigation. . Practice-based: investigating practice with a view to improving systems and processes. For example “To what degree has the adoption of ISO 15489 affected practice in the banking sector”? This is likely to concentrate on practice. Depending on the nature of the question that has been chosen, students will need to select an appropriate methodology to answer it effectively. These will differ: a heavily theoretical question is likely to be dependent on analysis of current literature for its solution. An analysis of user behaviour will require quantitative data, collected perhaps through the circulation of questionnaires, with some interviews that generate more qualitative, anecdotal information. A case study approach might be most appropriate for practice-based enquiries. Using the apposite methodology is important for generating credible results. While some research will draw on a range of methodologies, in others specific ones must be applied. For example you would not get a very useful answer to question 1 above with a case study or through the circulation of questionnaires. Examples of some recent topics from the University of Liverpool’s Master’s programme that reflect these research types and techniques include: . To what extent are the local authorities in Northern Ireland compliant with the Freedom of Information Act? . The next Ozymandias: the preservation of weblogs. . “Allowing talking in the reading room”: user collaboration in archive web sites. . A study of community archives. The skills gained from the dissertation are intellectual rigour, logical reasoning, credible analysis and competence in problem solving. This is not always immediately apparent to the students, some of whom initially find it hard to see the point of the dissertation. Currently students may exit from the courses with a postgraduate Diploma and be recognised by the Society of Archivists and employers as a fully qualified professional without having to write a dissertation. Some are tempted to take this route because they can move into work, start paying off debts, and re-join the kind of practical environment they became accustomed to during their pre-course experience. Others think that once the dissertation is out of the way they will never

The research imperative

153

RMJ 17,3

154

have to do anything like it again. This may be because it is simply seen as a compulsory requirement of the Master’s postgraduate programme – an uncomfortable rite of passage. But at some point in their working lives real problems will arise that need a solution – and much the same intellectual and process-driven exercise (without the same academic apparatus) will need to happen, for example in project management. In my view the Society of Archivists should consider making the Master’s qualification (i.e. including the dissertation) the required qualification rather than the Diploma, and that employers too should note the “value added” element students that achieve the dissertation bring to their employment. As the recordkeeping research agenda develops and funding sources become available so there are increasing opportunities for research-minded Master’s students and mid-career professionals with significant experience and an academic bent to undertake doctoral study. There is a number of people working in the recordkeeping sphere who have doctorates. However the subject of their doctoral study is likely to be in history, or some other arts-based subject. To move the discipline forward it is essential to develop doctoral study in the area of recordkeeping or archives. Where universities have managed to acquire doctoral funding in this area it has often been difficult to recruit someone from the profession willing and able to carry out the required doctoral study, because recently qualified students are overwhelmingly interested in becoming practitioners rather than researchers. It is unlikely that we will continue as a profession that is based on a postgraduate qualification if there are insufficient people with the doctoral qualification that is becoming a required attribute for operating as archival and records management educators in universities. One (perhaps contentious) possibility would be to recruit students directly from their undergraduate programmes into doctoral study without requiring the usual pre-course experience, provided they were ready to commit themselves to doctoral study. Higher level academic research (for example of the kind undertaken by the constituent universities that comprise FARMER) is driven by a combination of the academic desire to progress the intellectual quality of the recordkeeping discipline and to gain much sought-after research council funding for their employing universities. Most applications will be directed at the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) or the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Some recently successful ones have included Northumbria’s “Accelerating positive change in electronic records. Understanding issues and developing practical approaches” and Glasgow’s “Developing archival context standards for functions in the higher education sector”. Projects such as these can only succeed through partnership and engagement with practitioners; and one of the requirements is that the findings of such research are disseminated through publication. Since 2006 national institutions have been able to bid for research council status as Independent Research Organisations. Successful ones, such as The National Archives and the British Library have the same rights of application for research council funding as the universities: this too emphasises the recognition that research engages as much with practice as with theory. In consequence of this TNA is already refocusing its research agenda and considering the areas for research that it needs to pursue in order to fulfil its mission. The importance of pursuing such initiatives cannot be emphasised enough if the UK is to compete on equal terms with the recordkeeping research initiatives, outcomes and reputations that

have long been recognised in other countries. The UK certainly has some catching up to do. Much practice-based research takes place in the absence of funding, however, indeed often probably beyond the realisation that what is being done qualifies as “research” at all. Projects based around such questions as “How do I get members of my organisation to use the EDRMS effectively?” or “How can I test our systems for compliance with Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation?” start out by being problems for your institution only. But you will use many of the processes described above – checking the literature if you are thorough (firing off a question to the list if you are lazy) gathering and analysing data, coming to conclusions and making recommendations. You may find new solutions, and better ways of doing things. Perhaps recognised theory does not quite fit your type of organisation; perhaps you had to develop new ways of achieving results. Your findings are all “additions to knowledge” – and what you ought to do is to write up what you did, how it compared with how others did it, and what you found out that was new. And thus make your research available. Knowledge sharing Most record keepers are faced with the kinds of challenge described above all the time. What most fail to do (however successfully they solve their problem) is to clear the final hurdle and disseminate their findings: of adding to knowledge and offering to fellow professionals the fruits of their research. The Records Management Journal and the Journal of the Society of Archivists do indeed publish articles that describe new practices in individual organisations that are extremely useful. What would add to their value in some cases is a reflection on their contribution to the accepted theory in the area they describe, and to the broader theoretical base of the discipline. In other words not just “this is how we did it in our organisation” but more of “we decided to do it in this way because . . . and as a result of our practice we have contributed this new insight to the conceptual basis of this activity”. Conclusion We spend a lot of time fighting and defending our professional status. We discuss the nature of the profession, wondering how to get ourselves better known and taken more seriously, how to convince those around us that what we do is crucial for the smooth running, accountable evidence base of organisations. We continually seek ways of enhancing our professional reputations. As is well documented, there are recognised and essential traits or elements that help define any profession. These normally include a code for ethical behaviour; the provision of a public service; the existence of a professional association; explicit routes for entry into it and the existence of a “discrete body of knowledge”. It follows that without this particular attribute – a recognised body of knowledge – you cannot really claim to have a profession. And the people who ought to be keeping that body of knowledge alive, and developing and articulating it are academics in universities and practitioners in organisations who, in partnership, are proactive, reflective, concerned and productive. Everyone in fact. So – to come back to where I started – I would argue that anyone who does not strive to add to that discrete body of knowledge – theoretical and practical – by

The research imperative

155

RMJ 17,3

156

undertaking research and disseminating its outputs for the benefit of others is not a true professional. Are you? Caroline Williams, Director of the Liverpool University Centre for Archives Studies (LUCAS) is about to take up the role of Head of Collections and Research at The National Archives. She is a former Chair of the UK Forum for Archives and Records Management Education and Research (FARMER) the collective voice of UK educators; and a member of the ICA’s Section on Archival Education. A recent publication is the textbook Managing Archives: Principles, Foundations and Practice (Chandos). References Burke, F. (1981), “The future course of archival theory in the United States”, American Archivist, Vol. 44, p. 45. Cook, T. (2001), “Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts”, Archival Science, Vol. 1, pp. 3-23. Mortensen, P. (1999), “The place of theory in archival practice”, Archivaria, Vol. 47, p. 17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002), Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Roberts, J. (1987), “Archival theory: much ado about shelving”, American Archivist, Vol. 50 No. 1, p. 70. Williams, C. (2006), “Studying reality: the application of theory in an aspect of UK practice”, Archivaria, Vol. 62, pp. 77-101. Corresponding author Caroline Williams can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

ARTICLES

Disembodied information Metadata, file plans, and the intellectual organisation of records

Disembodied information

157

Ruth Frendo University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Abstract Purpose – Contemporary practices of information management tend to approach information as discrete and decontextualised units. The creation and capture of electronically generated metadata, specific to individual transactions, have become a primary concern of the archival and records management literature. The prevalent model of discrete metadata capture lends itself easily to automation, but it cannot emulate the intellectual control offered by traditional classification structures such as file plans. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of the literature. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a critical review of literature. Findings – Recognition of contextual structures and relationships cannot at present be automated, natural language processing capabilities are poor, and metadata can easily become decoupled from “disembodied” discrete units of information. Discrete metadata capture has been developed in the context of commercial transactions rather than information management. Practical implications – File plans as explicit organisations of knowledge can be used to generate contextually significant metadata for records. Such metadata may then be of considerable value to digital curation processes. Originality/value – This critique will be useful in considering practical approaches to metadata capture. Keywords Records management, Information management Paper type Research paper

Introduction In his paper “What is information?”, Sholle (1999) discusses the impact of cybernetics, formulated in the 1940s by Norbert Wiener as the study of “teleological mechanisms”, on subsequent conceptualisations of information, and in particular on our self-identification as an “information society.” Sholle (1999) observes that cybernetics’ postulated communications control mechanisms require that “information must be conceived as discrete bundles, physically decontextualised and fluidly moving.” He proceeds to analyse the impact of this discrete model of information on computer science and on the engagement of cognitive science with artificial intelligence, where comparisons between computational devices and the human brain are predicated upon the belief that “information and its processing (information worked up through manipulations, reorderings, hierarchies) can exist in a disembodied form.” At the same time, the flow of information as part of the capitalist economy, as exemplified by the internet, is dictated by a system which “attempts to fix possible pathways of the network and thus to limit the possible variations immanent in the network” (Sholle, 1999).

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 157-168 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833062

RMJ 17,3

158

The flow and processing of information has always been of concern to those professions specialising in the management and preservation of records, and the trends diagnosed by Sholle are of especial relevance to current debates over the creation and curation of electronic records. In particular, the homogenising influence of the Internet, or rather of the limited variations of the Internet which have been permitted to develop, has led to a preoccupation with those techniques of information manipulation which conceptualise information as “discrete bundles.” The response of archival and records management theorists has been an occasionally obsessive focus on the development of electronic – and preferably automated – systems for the creation and capture of metadata. Such metadata, to be individually generated for and associated with each data object, will, we are told, make our records accessible to current users, and preserve their comprehensibility for future users. Of course, the creation of metadata, in such forms as catalogues, registries and finding aids, has always been a feature of information management. Moreover, the potential of electronic systems to facilitate and possibly advance metadata creation and capture should undoubtedly be explored. However, the emphasis in much critical literature on the value of metadata specific to individual transactions neglects to address some crucial problems – problems stemming from a contemporary “disembodiment” of information at times bordering on fetishism. Context, evidentiality and metadata in an electronic environment In his article “Archival science facing the information society”, Bruno Delmas investigates the nature of a “contemporary diplomatics” equipped to address the archival requirements of “dematerialised” documents – born-digital documents whose “complex elaboration is the result of networking activity and [whose] use is shared” (Delmas, 2001, p. 32). Delmas suggests that the medium of these documents is bipartite, consisting on the one hand of the “stable and virtual” medium of the metadata, and on the other, of the “physical and unstable” medium of the “electronic memory hosting the document” (Delmas, 2001, p. 32). He further points out that “to distinguish between metadata and the text itself becomes imprecise in the production continuum of some documents” (Delmas, 2001, p. 32). Hence, he concludes that the traditional archival distinction between medium and content is inherently blurred in such virtual and highly structured documentation, generating a need for “a new science of the document” (Delmas, 2001, p. 33). Delmas is, of course, writing from the point of view of an archivist rather than a records manager. Given the widening acceptance of the records continuum model by both sections of the recordkeeping community, however, it seems reasonable to consider here the archival significance of when and how a record’s metadata should be created and captured. Among archivists, Delmas (2001, p. 32) is hardly alone in his belief that “shifting from analog to digital will give metadata an importance without precedent” (Delmas, 2001). The issue of the archivist’s responsibility to participate in the creation and capture of metadata has prompted an exchange of opinions in the pages of Archivaria, with the majority of participants agreeing with David Bearman that “by failing to employ techniques of documentation available from the domain of systems design and management, archivists have overlooked a pre-existing source of documentation which would, if properly regulated, mitigate the need for archivists to engage in the post-hoc documentation of accessioned systems” (Bearman, 1993, p. 23).

The “techniques of documentation” to which Bearman refers are, of course, techniques of metadata creation. Speaking from a records management perspective which assumes a functional classification model, Bearman (1993, p. 17) is very specific about which type of metadata he wishes to see created, namely, metadata which reflect recordkeeping systems rather than information systems. It is their understanding of how the evidentiality of a record stems from its transactional traceability that Bearman wishes recordkeeping professionals to bring to the design of metadata frameworks. The crucial distinction between records and data is also elaborated by professionals such as Margaret Hedstrom and David Wallace, who endorse Bearman’s position. Hedstrom (1993, p. 54) points out that “descriptive practices originating in a computer systems environment, as well as the descriptive methods used by data archives, fall short of what is needed because they focus on data structures and content with insufficient regard for the contextual information needed to define and understand electronic records.” Wallace (1993, pp. 13-14) concurs that “not all electronic information systems are recordkeeping systems . . . Such systems do not produce records because they were never intended to do so. In sharp contrast, recordkeeping systems capture, maintain, and provide access to evidence of organisational transactions and functions.” It is the scope or content of the metadata produced by existing systems which these writers criticise, however, not the methodology by which such metadata are generated. In the Archivaria exchange, Heather MacNeil is alone in contesting the value of metadata for archival description, and while she argues in passing that “their scope is relatively narrow”, and that “metadata are [themselves] part of [the] broader context” furnished by archival description, her chief contention is that “viewing metadata systems as tools for achieving archival purposes . . . is dangerous because it encourages us to, in effect, privilege potential secondary uses of metadata over their actual primary use” (MacNeil, 1995, pp. 24-25). In other words, the main subject of debate within the archival profession has been the degree and nature of its participation in directing metadata strategies. Beyond specifying what sort of contextual/structural information should be captured, the intellectual organisation underlying metadata creation has received relatively little attention. Tough and Moss’s article addresses this oversight (Tough and Moss, 2003). The authors observe that by treating individual documents as discrete units, automated indexing erases the structures from which the evidentiality of records derive. This process also generates an unmanageably large number of query results per index term, while the subjectivity, ambiguity, and inconsistency governing natural language usage limits the effectiveness of full text retrieval (Tough and Moss, 2003, p. 25). The following discussion examines these and other limitations of the most popular current systems for creating, capturing and retrieving metadata. It assesses how these systems compare with the intellectual control offered by file plans/directory structures, and explores possible future developments. The conceptual limitations of discrete metadata capture I suggest that there is a fundamental incongruence between the intellectual structure offered on the one hand by file plans/directory structures, and on the other by metadata which is generated individually for discrete units, and which provides no form of association between records other than identity of an attribute. Records derive evidential and cultural significance from their context, and it is our interpretation of

Disembodied information

159

RMJ 17,3

160

this context that we employ when constructing classification schemes (such interpretation is inevitably subjective, and therefore acquires its own archival significance. Hence, the more explicit the interpretation, the better). The methodology of discrete metadata capture[1] lends itself particularly well to automation because it jettisons processes of interpretation and organisation, whose computational sophistication lies far beyond the current capabilities of the most advanced artificial intelligence technologies. Brackenbury and Ravin (2002, p. 524), in their article “Machine intelligence and the turing test”, set out to measure recent AI advances against the standard of Turing’s legendary requirement that “if a computer could successfully mimic a human during an informal exchange of text messages, then, for most practical purposes, the computer might be considered intelligent.” They elaborate on some of the difficulties encountered by systems developers in replicating even relatively routine human reasoning activities. Among the stumbling blocks for machine reasoning are “plan recognition and the ability to reason explicitly about plans”; crucial to such activities is “the ability to deal with large amounts of knowledge of many kinds, and to make that knowledge effective in perception and problem solving” (Brackenbury and Ravin, 2002, p. 526). In other words, technologies capable of effective knowledge representation, knowledge acquisition, and dialogue management need to be developed before “commonsense reasoning” can be achieved by a machine. As McCarthy et al. (2002, p. 531) point out in their investigation of story understanding systems, to fulfil this aim an “intelligent” machine would not only have to acquire, store, represent and utilise a wealth of implicit knowledge, it would also need the ability to make such knowledge explicit and thus available for problem-solving and planning. Thus, using current discrete unit metadata methodology to reproduce the contextual knowledge expressed in a structured classification scheme (such as a file plan) would not simply require significant human input to identify the requisite metadata. It would also require a repository of knowledge far more extensive than the record content itself. The comprehension of situations and relationships, and the consequent construction of a plan or schema, require further knowledge of the wider culture in which the immediate context is embedded and makes sense. According to Mantovani’s theory of the relationship between information and communication, “our first factor which we encounter when constructing situations is competence. We organise that little bit of the situation which we are able to see and fit it to the projects we are capable of formulating” (Mantovani, 1996, p. 11). Another drawback of current metadata creation systems, and particularly of the information retrieval systems which they support, is the complex nature of our use of natural language. Brackenbury and Ravin (2001, p. 525) explain that the ability of natural language understanding technology to handle semantics remains weak, largely due to “the many-to-many mappings between syntactic forms and semantic meanings”, with one form potentially having several meanings, and several forms paraphrasing the same semantic content. The authors observe that “this is usually no problem for humans because we interpret meaning relative to context – prior knowledge shared by author and reader (or speaker and hearer)” (Brackenbury and Ravin, 2002, p. 525). However, such ambiguities have significant implications for the implementation of full text searching. Contrary to its initial promise of disintermediation, the increased recall and frequent mismatches resulting from full text searching have prompted the development of a far more restrictive search

technique, the use of taxonomies arranged in hierarchical menus. Gilchrist (2006, p. 26) explains how such menus “[allow] the user to recognise, rather than try to think of, a likely term; and to ‘drill down’, without worrying about Boolean operators, till finding a result.” He concludes that “these taxonomies are a sort of hybrid between classification and thesauri, though[,] being nearer to the former[,] use generic survey rather than specific search” (Gilchrist, 2006, p. 26). In other words, they actually appear to restrict the user’s access to information, sacrificing the explicit structure of classification while foreclosing the possibility of specific enquiries. From discrete to disconnected: problems of metadata linkage An additional shortcoming of discrete metadata capture is the difficulty of maintaining persistent links between metadata and record content. This is a familiar problem to researchers attempting to develop metadata creation models for the preservation of digital records. Bearman’s business acceptable communications model recommends the use of embedded metadata, which, as Duval et al. (2002) explain, “resides within the markup of the resource. This implies that the metadata is created at the time that the resource is created, often by the author.” Bearman’s model recommends embedding six layers of metadata; the result is a “metadata encapsulated object” whose compliance with the functional requirements for evidentiality explored by the Pittsburgh Project is enhanced by the metadata’s immediacy of creation and close association with the record (Bearman and Sochats, 1995). Embedded metadata is easily harvested, but its creation is time-consuming, and as Duval et al. (2002) point out, “resource description expertise is a scarce and costly commodity.” The use of templates discussed in the final section of this article may ameliorate these difficulties. An alternative is to use “associated” metadata, which is “maintained in files tightly coupled to the resources they describe” (Duval et al., 2002). From the point of view of preserving the integrity of the record, the advantage of associated metadata lies in “the relative ease of managing the metadata without altering the content of the resource itself”, but as the authors add, “this benefit is purchased at the cost of simplicity, necessitating the co-management of resource files and metadata files” (Duval et al., 2002). Moreover, a question mark hangs over just how “tight” such coupling may remain following preservation measures, such as media and software migration, which in our volatile technological climate may even be necessary within the record’s active lifecycle. A further degree of separation between metadata and resource is achieved through the use of third-party metadata. Duval et al. (2002) write that “third-party metadata is maintained in a separate repository by an organisation that may or may not have direct control over or access to the content of the resource. Typically such metadata is maintained in a database that is not accessible to harvesters.” An example of this arrangement is the use in myGrid, an environment supporting in silico scientific experimentation, of an “Information Repository” holding workflow metadata and provenance logs[2]. Although the myGrid research project appears to have achieved considerable success in delivering a collaborative virtual work environment, in general the inherent danger of this model of metadata association lies in the potential fragility of the link between record and metadata. So far, persistent linkage has only been significantly explored in the context of intellectual property identification, as in the digital object identifier (DOI) system. DOIs – unique alphanumeric strings allocated to

Disembodied information

161

RMJ 17,3

162

digital objects on creation – have been successfully used by the citation-linking network CrossRef to associate metadata with digitally published journal articles[3]. However, the volume of records created by even a small organisation, and the flexibility with which they must be managed, limit the usefulness of the CrossRef model for associating metadata in record keeping systems. Social context and implications of the discrete metadata capture model The discrete unit method of metadata creation and capture has evidently been extensively developed in conjunction with library information systems (Tough and Moss, 2003, p. 25) and has wide applications across the commercial world. Indeed, the method’s primary use appears to be the processing of information as commodity – the commodification of information into discrete (saleable) units. This is a process quite apart from the physical representations of information in traditional, tangible formats such as books, manuscripts, etc., although these of course have become, or originated as, commodities. Rather, it stems from a concept of information seeking and retrieval in the context of the commercial transaction. Thus, the use of intelligent agents in web searches has been developed specifically as a marketing tool. Detlor and Arsenault (2002, p. 405) define such agents as “a newer class of software that act on behalf of users to find and filter information, negotiate for services, automate complex tasks, and collaborate with other agents to solve complex problems”[4]. In their eyes, such software may greatly enhance the user’s information retrieval capability. Yet the facilities of intelligent agents which they single out for approval seem more appropriate to a sales drive than to making information accessible: Other user information agents would be polled to determine information items of relevance from users with similar profiles. Each information agent would know its own user’s interest areas, preferences for certain library collections, and ratings of the relevance of information items retrieved from past requests. An information agent would know this from its communication with its user’s interface agent that has access to the user’s profile database. By coordinating and sharing this information among information agents servicing the needs of like-minded individuals, information agents could facilitate collaborative filtering with the goal of identifying retrieval items of higher relevance to users (Detlor and Arsenault, 2002, p. 407).

It is a technique with which anyone who uses Amazon will be familiar. The filtering technologies employed suffer from the AI shortcomings discussed above. Weaknesses of machine reasoning frequently undermine their identification of “like-minded individuals”, while deficiencies in natural language understanding spawn improbable associations. More problematic, however, are Detlor and Arsenault’s suggestions that “agents could improve information seeking and retrieval performance over time by ‘learning’ what information was deemed relevant by the user and how that information should be displayed . . . users would have access to an extensive yet restricted offering of local and external library collections. This prevents users from conducting unwieldy searches across the entire World Wide Web where relevant documents are difficult to locate, and in its place, offers a rich information space where items are catalogued to standard classification taxonomies leading to more relevant and precise information search results” (Detlor and Arsenault, 2002, p. 407). Establishing relevance is a highly developed and subjective skill. Serenko et al. (2007, p. 157) comment on the danger that

such skills may be eroded by reliance on the retrieval technologies lauded by Detlor and Arsenault:

Disembodied information

Individuals may become mere receivers of information presented by intelligent agents based on the inferences agents make about user needs[5].

Serenko and his co-authors note further that the loss of serendipity in the information recovery process significantly diminishes that process. Moreover, whether or not we wish to be “prevented” from “unwieldy searches across the entire world wide web”, having our field of enquiry automatically restricted for us on the basis of previous selections seems like a poor alternative. File plans as explicit organisations of knowledge The influence of commercially-driven information retrieval technologies on discrete unit metadata methodology results in a significant weakness largely absent from plans or directory strategies. Full text retrieval techniques presuppose that the enquirer knows precisely what he/she is looking for. A file plan furnishes the relationships between records; the enquirer identifies which records are evidentially significant without needing to guess what their contents may be. Establishing such significance through discrete metadata specifications alone is at best time-consuming, and effectively entails the conceptual reconstruction of a file plan or its equivalent. The metaphor of the “data warehouse”, which Wallace (1993, p. 94) defines as “an accumulation of integrated, subject-oriented databases created to assist managerial decisions”, sums up the problems inherent in the discrete unit model. He comments that “in this environment metadata is used to control externally-generated, unstructured data within the warehouse” (Wallace, 1993, p. 94). Although, as Wallace asserts, such a description may indeed reflect a large proportion of the material received by archival repositories, it should have no place in the world of records management. As discussed earlier, information processing, in terms of knowledge representation, and of information storage, organisation, and retrieval, requires the explicit rendition of implicit knowledge. In Cheater’s words, “‘to know’ requires no object . . . knowledge is essentially personalised, as sensory or mental constructs. In contrast, ‘to inform’ must take an object to make sense” (Cheater, 1995, p. 120). Tennis (2005, p. 8) appeals to the Marxist dialectic process whereby needs are externalised as acts, whose resulting objects are internalised in the “social act of meaning making.” According to him, this process of reification “is at work in the foundations of classificatory structures. What is considered to exist, whether it is conceptual or real, has gone through, at the very least, a rhetorical act of reification. It is then picked up as a subject in the classification scheme” (Tennis, 2005, p. 8). The rhetoric of reification employed, the language used to render implicit knowledge explicit, can never be neutral. As Neill (1992, p. 3) observes, “experts organise information in the shadow of their own perspective”[6]. If we accept this, then our most appropriate course is to expose the underpinnings of our organisational principles. A file plan is one such declaration of structure. The file plan has other benefits besides transparency of organisation. At its most basic level, a file plan states what records an organisation holds[7]. The application of retention policies generally relates to the transactional evidence supplied by a record. Hence a classification scheme which illuminates the record’s transactional nature

163

RMJ 17,3

facilitates the implementation and requisite alteration of such policies. It also aids the retrieval of records for legal purposes, and ultimately helps to establish a record’s secondary value. A researcher may identify a relevant group of records without needing to rely on preconceptions of their contents.

164

Possible implementations of metadata structures in recordkeeping systems The creation of a file plan requires a significant investment of time and work. However, devising and implementing metadata tags is hardly a trouble-free undertaking. Tough and Moss (2003, p. 29) posit that: One of the major challenges is to design systems that derive metadata from the directory structure or file plan and attach them automatically to documents at the point of creation, thereby minimising the need for human intervention and opportunities for human error.

Duval et al. (2002) outline the principles and practicalities involved in the creation and deployment of metadata. Their ideas offer the recordkeeping community some interesting starting-points for the future development of metadata structures specific to the creation and preservation of records. One significant principle is the concept of metadata modularity, through which “data elements from different schemas as well as vocabularies and other building blocks can be combined in a syntactically and semantically interoperable way.” Metadata modularity is effected through the declaration of namespaces, “metadata element set[s] . . . bounded by the rules and conventions determined by [their] maintenance agenc[ies]” (Duval et al., 2002). Combined with the principles of extensibility and refinement (“the degree of detail that is necessary or desirable”), modularity allows recordkeepers to establish a set of metadata terms and conventions particularly suited to the capture of evidentially meaningful records. Modularity and extensibility may be implemented through the use of application profiles, defined by Heery and Patel (2000) as “schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces, combined together by implementers, and optimised for a particular local application.” They see application profiles as a crucial bridge between standards makers and implementers. As they argue, “standard makers are concerned to agree a common approach to ensure inter-working systems and economies of scale. However implementers, although they may want to use standards in part, in addition will want to describe specific aspects of a resource in a ‘special’ way” (Heery and Patel, 2000). Implementing metadata frameworks in a recordkeeping context may be facilitated by the application profiles approach. On the one hand, observing metadata standards is essential for the purpose of interoperability, that is, the exchange and reuse of existing metadata between contextually specific schema (Duval, 2001, p. 592). Re-use and borrowing are mandatory in an environment where the resources available for metadata development are limited. On the other hand, the need for specifically structured and designed recordkeeping metadata is one which has been recognised, to a greater or lesser extent, by all of the records professionals cited here. As Duval et al. (2002) note, application profiles utilise the strategies of “cardinality enforcement” (constraints on whether the appearance of an element is optional, mandatory or conditional), “value space restriction” (constraints on the possible values taken by an element), “relationship and dependency specification”, and “declaration of namespaces” (making explicit the

metadata sets from which elements are drawn). These techniques may be employed to develop templates which “themselves incorporate appropriate metadata forms”, as advocated by Tough and Moss (2003, p. 29), who observe that “by working ‘with the grain’ of established practice, such templates can directly serve end users and ensure the implementation of hierarchical directory structures”[8]. The potential usefulness of metadata templates is one which Duval (2001, p. 599) expounds commenting that “authoring of data and metadata is (too) hard and time consuming: automatic generation of obvious metadata is useful and possible, but especially semantic metadata will in most cases need to be provided through human intervention. Metadata templates can help to make this process of indexation easier, especially when similar documents need to be described regularly.” Following my earlier comments about the shortcomings of automated natural language understanding and full text retrieval systems, I would argue further that automatic mapping of templates derived from file plans/directory structures is a more reliable approach to metadata capture than automatic population of metadata schema through full text extraction. Conclusions The three association models discussed earlier offer varying degrees of interdependence in the management of the metadata and of the resource. So far, the adoption of any one of them seems to be determined by established practice or cost-effectiveness. However, evidential integrity, authenticity, and robustness of linkage may be of equal importance in deciding the desirable degree of association for a metadata framework linking records with file plans or directory structures. Replacing traditional classification structures, such as file plans or directory structures, with metadata specific to individual transactions may seem like a convenient utilisation of the automatic indexing systems already developed by library and commercial sectors. However, the uncritical adoption of such systems by recordkeeping professionals would be a short-sighted measure. In discarding those proficiencies which are exclusively human – planning and contextual reasoning – we are at risk of relinquishing those attributes of records which lend them their significance, both present and future. Notes 1. In this article, I use the terms “discrete metadata capture”, “discrete unit metadata”, or variations of these phrases, to designate metadata that is specific to individual transactions. Tough and Moss (2003, p. 25) describe the methodology used to generate such metadata as follows: “Instead of being placed in context by means of a filing plan, all documents can be treated as discrete units. Then appropriate index terms can be attached to and/or derived from the documents for purposes of retrieval and use which cannot of itself guarantee structured retrievals. This is, in essence, the application of the classic ‘discrete unit’ methodology of librarianship to records where items relating to one subject are simply referenced and presented to the user as a random collection of related entities often only bound together by a single co-ordinate.” 2. See Greenwood et al. (n.d.) (www.mygrid.org.uk), although myGrid originated in the context of bioinformatics, its environment will be equally useful for other scientific disciplines whose practice entails sharing large quantities of disparately generated information. 3. See www.crossref.org

Disembodied information

165

RMJ 17,3

166

4. Detlor and Arsenault continue to describe “two general agent types. The first is interface agents, whose primary role is to assist users. These agents know user preferences and interests, are concerned with helping users perform their tasks, and largely deal with the display of information presented to users on the computer interface. They are identified by characteristics of autonomy and learning . . . and are championed as fulfilling the role of personal assistants . . . Examples include information filters and personal news-editors. The second is information agents that predominantly perform information-laden background tasks. Typically, they find, analyse, and retrieve large amounts of information and mitigate information overload . . . Examples include web indexing spiders and crawlers.” 5. The cited passage continues: “As a consequence, people risk missing potentially valuable pieces of information that might otherwise have been acquired by exercising a do-it-yourself approach to investigating adjacent and alternate paths in their search for information. A human mind is always more inventive than a machine no matter how ‘intelligent’ the latter may be. When people have an active role while searching information on the internet, innovative ideas usually emerge during the process. For instance, new branches of information are explored which may lead to interesting findings, even superior to those expected initially, before starting the search.” 6. Neill engages with Popper’s three world theory, expounded by Popper in Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, which posits that externalised thoughts become the autonomous objects populating World 3, or the human pool of usable information. 7. The JISC infoNet guidelines define a file plan as “a hierarchical classification structure . . . derived from an institution’s Business Classification Scheme, providing a framework for classifying records according to the business functions and activities which generate them,” (JISC infoNet HEI Records Management: Guidance on Developing a File Plan, p. 3, available at: www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/partnerships/records-retention-he/developing-a-file-plan) 8. Tough and Moss elaborate: “In other words, by opting to download such templates provided to assist them in their daily work end users will unconsciously be opting to assign appropriate metadata to the documents they produce.”

References Bearman, D. (1993), “Record-keeping systems”, Archivaria, Vol. 36, pp. 16-36. Bearman, D. and Sochats, K. (1995), “Metadata requirements for evidence”, Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping: The Pittsburgh Project, recovered 2002 using the Wayback Machine, currently available at www.archimuse.com/papers/nhprc/ BACartic.html Brackenbury, I. and Ravin, Y. (2002), “Machine intelligence and the Turing test”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 524-9. Cheater, A.P. (1995), “Globalisation and the new technologies of knowing: anthropological calculus or chaos?”, in Strathern, M. (Ed.), Shifting Contexts: Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge, Routledge, London. Delmas, B. (2001), “Archival science facing the information society”, Archival Science, Vol. 1, pp. 25-37. Detlor, B. and Arsenault, C. (2002), “Web information seeking and retrieval in digital library contexts: towards an intelligent agent solution”, Online Information Review, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 404-12. Duval, E. (2001), “Metadata standards: what, who and why”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 591-601.

Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Sutton, S. and Weibel, S.L. (2002), “Metadata principles and practicalities”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 4, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/ weibel/04weibel.html Gilchrist, A. (2006), “Structure and function in retrieval”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 21-9. Greenwood, M., Goble, C., Stevens, R., Zhao, J., Addis, M., Marvin, D., Moreau, L. and Oinn, T. (n.d.), “Provenance of e-science experiments – experience from bioinformatics”, available at: www. mygrid.org.uk Hedstrom, M. (1993), “Descriptive practices for electronic records: deciding what is essential and imagining what is possible”, Archivaria, Vol. 36, Autumn, pp. 53-63. Heery, R. and Patel, M. (2000), “Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata schemas”, Ariadne, No. 25, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles/intro.html McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Sloman, A., Gong, L., Lau, T., Morgenstern, L., Mueller, E.T., Riecken, D., Singh, M. and Singh, P. (2002), “An architecture of diversity for commonsense reasoning”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 530-9. MacNeil, H. (1995), “Metadata strategies and archival description: comparing apples to oranges”, Archivaria, Vol. 39, Spring, pp. 22-32. Mantovani, G. (1996), New Communication Environments: From Everyday to Virtual, Taylor & Francis, London. Neill, S.D. (1992), Dilemmas in the Study of Information: Exploring the Boundaries of Information Science, Greenwood Press, Slough. Serenko, A., Ruhi, U. and Cocosila, M. (2007), “Unplanned effects of intelligent agents on internet use: a social informatics approach”, AI and Society, Vol. 21, pp. 141-66. Sholle, D. (1999), “What is information? The flow of bits and the control of chaos”, paper presented at MIT Conference, posted October 31, 1999, available at http://web.mit.edu/ comm-forum/papers/sholle.html Tennis, J.T. (2005), “Experientialist epistemology and classification theory: embodied and dimensional classification”, available at: www.slais.ubc.ca/PEOPLE/faculty/tennis-p/ Tennis_ExpEpistPre2005.pdf Tough, A. and Moss, M. (2003), “Metadata, controlled vocabulary and directories: electronic document management and standards for records management”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 24-31. Wallace, D.A. (1993), “Metadata and the archival management of electronic records: a review”, Archivaria, Vol. 36, Autumn, pp. 87-110. Further reading Agre, P.E. (1998), “Yesterday’s tomorrow”, Times Literary Supplement, July 3, pp. 3-4. Atkinson, E. (2002), “Much ado about metadata”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-23. Charman, D. (1998), “The expanding role of the archivist”, Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 16-20. Cromwell-Kessler, W., Gill, T. and Gilliland-Swetland, A.J. (1998), Introduction to Metadata: Pathways to Digital Information, Getty Information Institute, Los Angeles, CA. Cunningham, A. (1998), “Australian strategies for the intellectual control of records and recordkeeping systems”, first delivered 23 October 1998, available at: www.naa.gov.au/ recordkeeping/control/strategies/default.htm

Disembodied information

167

RMJ 17,3

168

Currall, J., Johnson, C.E., Johnston, P., Moss, M.S. and Richmond, L.M. (n.d.), “‘No going back?’ The final report of the effective records management project”, available at: www.gla.ac.uk/ infostrat/ERM/Docs/ERM-Final.pdf Duff, W.M. (1995), “Will metadata replace archival description? A commentary”, Archivaria, Vol. 39, Spring, pp. 33-8. Ellis, D. (1990), New Horizons in Information Retrieval, Library Association Publishing, London. McLeod, J. and Hare, C. (2006), How to Manage Records in the e-Environment, Routledge, London. Parker, E. (1999), Managing Your Organisation’s Records, Library Association Publishing, London. Subramani, M., Nerur, S.P. and Mahapatra, R. (2003), “Examining the intellectual structure of knowledge management, 1990-2002: an author co-citation analysis”, Management Information Systems Research Centre, working paper no. 03-23, available at: http:// misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/2003/0323_061503.pdf Tanner, S. (1999), “Case studies in digital document management: focus on implementation”, Higher Education Digitisation Service, April, available at: heds.herts.ac.uk/resources/ papers/HEDSglasgow.pdf TNA (2002), “Requirements for electronic records management systems 1: functional requirements”, available at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/requirementsfinal.pdf Tyacke, S. (2001), “Archives in a wider world: the culture and politics of archives”, Archivaria, Vol. 52, Autumn, pp. 1-25. Van Der Noot, T.J. (1998), “Libraries, records management, data processing: an information handling field”, Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 22-6. Wallace, D.A. (1995), “Managing the present: metadata as archival description”, Archivaria, Vol. 39, Spring, pp. 11-21. About the author Ruth Frendo is a postgraduate student at the University of Glasgow where she is studying for an MSc in Information Management and Preservation. Ruth Frendo can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

Non-conformist records management in Great Britain: a review Philip Thornborow

Non-conformist records management 169

University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the current state of knowledge of records management within non-conformist churches in the UK, in the context of them not being public records or covered by specific legislation. Design/methodology/approach – Surveys, interviews, a literature review and documentary analysis carried out in the course of an MSc dissertation provided evidence for an analysis of two approaches currently being taken to records management in the organisations studied. Findings – Discontinuities between practice at national and local levels of the churches were noted. One organisation was discovered to be much more proactive than the others, and more concerned with the whole records cycle. The reasons for these discontinuities and differences are discussed. Research limitations/implications – The major focus is on one organisation, and within that organisation a small sample was taken of one key set of staff. In the other three organisations surveyed, only the view from the centre was sought. More work is required on the “sacred-secular divide” – how being a religious organisation affects administration. Originality/value – The review is the first carried out of the records management practices of a group of religious organisations whose records are characterised as “private” rather than “public”, and therefore less subject to legislation and inspection. The governance of the organisations studied is driven by theological rather than any other consideration. Keywords Records management, Religion, Churches, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Introduction The records management literature is strong on the principles of the discipline, and on how the profession operates within public or large commercial bodies. Much of the discussion relates to the implementation of legislation, which has been a powerful driver. Advocacy at the top of the organisation is recommended as the optimal method of ensuring that programmes are implemented. Less has been written about the non-governmental or non-commercial sectors. An issue of this journal in 2004 highlighted the voluntary sector in the UK, and some interesting case studies were examined (Dawson et al., 2004; Wakeling, 2004). Even so, these were of relatively compact organisations. What has not attracted attention, so far, is the situation within religious organisations. This lack of focus is not unique to the records management literature. An earlier study of voluntary organisations concluded that the nature of internal work processes in churches was an area that would reward research (Harris, 1990). Whatever one’s personal view on matters of faith, it must be acknowledged that these are large, national, organisations of some complexity. How is records management to be carried out in an organisation with 6,600 units? That was

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 169-178 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833071

RMJ 17,3

170

the focus of the research presented here which was undertaken for a recent MSc dissertation. The aims and methodology of the research The aim was to investigate to what extent records management is practised at different levels within the Methodist Church of Great Britain, a religious organisation active throughout the UK with a bipolar administration (national and local groupings). Interposed between these two poles, the church is also organised regionally. Besides surveying records management and archival practice within the church, reference was made to the organisation of these matters in other denominations – nonconformist and established. The survey was also concerned with ascertaining how the church intended managing its records in an increasingly electronic environment. Another objective was to identify any particular challenges associated with the practice of records management within a religious environment. The literature review revealed that very little research has been carried out in this field. No national survey of a British church’s recordkeeping had been attempted, with the exception of the small Moravian Church (Blewitt and Reynolds, 2001). Within England, the established church’s recordkeeping is governed by legislation (Church of England, 1978) and there are national guidelines on good records management practice (Church of England Record Centre, 2006), but no evidence as to their efficacy. The only published account (Stansfield, 2001) relates to practice in one diocese. The non-conformist churches, however, are not subject to specific legislation, and tend to more autonomous forms of government. The author carried out a national survey of the third largest Christian body in the UK, consisting of 5,900 churches (Methodist Church, 2004)[1], contacted those responsible for archives in the other major denominations, and examined their publications, to ascertain the state of records management within the British non-conformity. The extent to which The Methodist Church of Great Britain was practising records management was ascertained by a variety of survey methods. The three groups involved with records at a local level were surveyed: district archivists, secretaries of synod, and superintendent ministers. All were asked how they understood, and carried out, their role with regard to the records of the church; what training or guidance they had received, and what further support they would appreciate. They were asked to identify the difficulties they faced. Two questions examined the understanding of issues related to electronic records: had the respondent encountered electronic records within the church? What advice had they given or received regarding such records? The 33 district archivists (appointed to advise on archival matters) were all sent postal surveys, as they are located across the UK. The response rate was 70 per cent. A total of 33 secretaries of District Synod (responsible for administration at the regional level) were also sent postal surveys, with a response rate of 79 per cent. The responses from these two groups, taken together, provided evidence from 31 of the 33 districts. The 19 superintendent ministers in the Oxford and Leicester District (clergy with the legal responsibility for the records of their circuits) formed a representative sample of the 630 superintendents in the country. There was a 68 per cent response rate in this case. At the national level the church employs a records manager at its central offices in London, and a Connexional Archives Liaison Officer, who co-ordinates and advises the

district archivists. These colleagues were interviewed in a semi-structured manner. The national records of the church are held at the Methodist Archives and Records Centre at John Rylands University Library of Manchester, and the views of the archivists caring for the collection were ascertained by questionnaire. An in depth analysis of the documentary evidence for policies and procedures relating to records management within the church provided a base line against which to compare the perceptions of those involved in the care of the church’s records. Information was also obtained from those concerned with the records of United Reformed Church and the Baptist Union by emailed questionnaire; and from the Religious Society of Friends (generally known as Quakers) by means of a semi-structured group interview, material provided at the interview, and by consulting their relevant publications. The results of this research are presented in the form of a case study of the records management practice of the Methodist Church, contrasted with evidence of the practice of the Religious Society of Friends. The state of the art in the Baptist Union and United Reformed Church are noted, and conclusions are drawn. The Methodist Church The Methodist Church of Great Britain had a complex administrative history beginning in 1738, and culminating in Methodist union in 1932. There is a pyramidal structure of 5,900 chapels, 630 circuits, 33 districts and conference. All these entities create and keep records. The constitution of the church is bipolar: authority has been vested since 1784 in the Methodist conference, which meets annually, but the other key administrative structure is the circuit. The church is very well organised, and its policies and procedures are revised annually as The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church (Methodist Church, 2005b), generally known as CPD. Each unit of the organisation is required to complete annual schedules, which include questions relating to the care of the vital records (Methodist Church, 2005c). The driver, however, is a concern with the historic records of the church. It was noted that Methodism has much to say about the disposal of its records (or care of its non-current records), but little about the creation, capture and use of its current administrative records. One respondent to the survey commented that the greatest difficulty they faced was: Failure by the church to acknowledge the necessity for records management, and in particular that this does not simply involve permanent preservation across the board, but the implementation of an intelligent selection and retention procedure. The situation has however improved in recent years.

The only formal body with a remit covering records is the Archives and History Committee. Reporting to them is the connexional archives liaison officer, a professional archivist employed on a part-time basis. There is an apparent discontinuity between the national level of the church, the Connexion, which appoints this committee, and the local levels of the church, where each of the 33 districts is directed by CPD to appoint an archivist. There is no direction to consult the connexional archives liaison officer in making this appointment. Although the district archivists advise circuits and local churches as to the proper custody or disposal of all documents and records, the evidence is that they are only asked to advise on the latter.

Non-conformist records management 171

RMJ 17,3

172

Findings The findings of the research can be summarised as follows. There are marked discontinuities between the management of records at national and local level. It is nearly 50 years since the church established an archive, but management of its current and semi-current records has been a much more recent innovation. Methodism found by 1977 that it was unable to provide a suitable level of care for the archive, which is now out sourced, but it was not until 1997 that a consultant was engaged to advise on the current and semi-current records held at Methodist Church House, the central administrative offices. Formal records management is only carried out at the national level, and is a recent innovation even there. The personnel involved have had no formal training. Despite those disadvantages, a system has been created. A comprehensive retention schedule has been created, and written guidance provided, accessible on the organisational intranet. Once weeded, material is transferred to the Modern Records Store within Methodist Church House. Material is kept for 30 years (unless the retention period is less) and then reviewed before transfer, either to the Methodist Archives and Record Centre in Manchester, or the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies (for Missionary Society material). Financial records are not stored in-house, but sent to another store in Rayleigh, Essex. Within Methodist Church House, staff development sessions now include guidance on records management, and there is an attempt to educate staff in the concept of confidential waste. The need to educate the senior management of the church’s central offices in the principles of good records management is acknowledged. Elsewhere in Methodism, guidance on records management is vague and non-specific. There is no detail of why records are important and why they should be kept; no advice on the care of records; no promotion of a retention schedule, or even a general statement that most records have served their purpose within a certain number of years. As has been noted, those tasked with advising on records at the local level concentrate on the later stages of their life, as does the advice they receive from the centre. This guidance relates to which classes of record should be deposited, but is unspecific as to the point in the life cycle at which records should be deposited, and leaves decisions to the discretion of the district archivist. No attempt has been made to adapt the guidance within Methodist Church House to the local situation. A retention schedule has been written by one of the district archivists, but has not been promoted as mandatory. Responsibility for the care of current records is placed in the hands of the superintendent ministers of the circuits, but Methodism operates a system of itinerancy: clergy serve five years in an area, then move. Although short courses are provided for those assuming the role of a superintendent, responses to the survey suggested that training in records management went no further than knowledge of the data protection act. Pastoral care is the priority for clergy, and the majority of those surveyed stated that lack of time prevented them from managing their records more effectively. Whilst much administration at the local level is carried out by lay officials, they are volunteers, and limited (officially) to six years in post. There is clearly a need, therefore, for guidance, and it should be a matter of concern for the church that only one in five record holders replying to the survey indicated that they had sought the advice provided by the district archivists. Methodism attempts to ensure compliance with various aspects of legislation through the annual completion of a series of schedules, and these, like many other

resources, may be found on the Methodist web site (www.methodist.org.uk). The site does not include any advice on records management, or even the archives of the church. Methodism has devoted much effort to improving management structures in recent years. A recent report (Methodist Church, 2005a, paragraph 5.28) acknowledged failings: We have too easily allowed the practice of supervision to be lax or non-existent (under the guise of being non-managerial and informal) even whilst accountability structures have been in place.

There is an understanding of good governance, but little evidence of an understanding of the importance of good records management to governance: Governance . . . in the context of the church . . . involves . . . ensuring that the organisation complies with both its internal regulations (e.g. Standing Orders, doctrinal standards) and external legislation (e.g. accounting rules, charity law, data protection) (Methodist Church, 2005a, paragraph 1.11).

Innovations in administration are not yet reflected in written policies and procedures. It became apparent from replies to the surveys of secretaries of synod and superintendent ministers (those responsible for the records of the church at regional and local levels) that there were paid lay administrators at both levels. In the case of four districts, the administrator managed the records. The duties of these posts are not covered by CPD. It was a matter for concern that none of those tasked with advising on records at these levels mentioned administrators. Of the 33 secretaries of synod, 20 are clergy and 13 are lay. It was noticeable from the replies received that paid lay officials had the time to manage the records, did not feel uncertain about what they should do about them, and had encountered electronic records. However, awareness of electronic records varies considerably within the church, and between the groups involved in caring for the church’s records. Whilst 81 per cent of synod secretaries, and 46 per cent of superintendent ministers regularly encountered electronic records, only 13 per cent of their advisors, the district archivists had any awareness. A total of 27 per cent of the synod secretaries reported that most of the records they worked with were electronic. In response to two recent questions from within the church, the Methodist conference (Methodist Church, 2006) stated that the major reports “were being produced in electronic format . . . Moreover, all the reports of the conference are available on the Methodist church web site . . . ” and that it “recognises that the work of a circuit . . . needs to be fully supported in ways that are appropriate to the twenty-first century.” Within the responses to the survey there were some recognising that changing technologies had led to changes in the forms of record. As in other aspects of life, the email has had a major effect on communications within the church. Clearly, Methodism works electronically, but are its records recognised as being in electronic form? The move towards electronic communication has apparently taken place without consideration of the implications for recordkeeping. No official advice has been given on this matter. The issue of electronic records is a real one for the records manager at Church House. There are no electronic records in the record store, but Church House works

Non-conformist records management 173

RMJ 17,3

174

electronically. E-mail is the preferred method of communication. There are a number of issues to be addressed: . How are both security and accessibility to be achieved? . How can the need for migration be built into the system? The software on which records are created is upgraded regularly. . How are the retention schedules to be applied in an electronic environment? . How will users find the information they seek, without downloading the whole file? . How is legal persona preserved? . If electronic records are the future, what do we need to be doing now? . In an electronic age the church needs to allocate proper funding for paper and electronic storage, and gain knowledge on how to proceed. This knowledge may be summarised as “What will be saved; why it will be saved; what resources are required to do it safely, in every sense of the word”, which neatly echoes Methodist theology: All need to be saved; all can be saved; all may themselves be saved; all may be completely saved (BBC, 2004).

The Religious Society of Friends The Religious Society of Friends, more commonly known as Quakers, has its origins in the seventeenth century, and currently has 500 meeting places, with 73 regional monthly meetings. The central body is the Britain Yearly Meeting. The national archive remains in the care of Friends House in London, but the meetings are encouraged to deposit locally. Responsibility for recordkeeping among the friends is particularly assigned to specific office holders, and this regard for their records has led the society to be pioneers in religious recordkeeping. They first published guidance on the creation, custody and use of records in 1986, and this emphasis on the whole records continuum is continued in the second edition, which is designed as a practical handbook. “Creation, custody and use are inter-related, and it is impossible to consider properly any one of them out of the context of the other two.” (Library Committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, 2004, p. vii). The whole philosophy of the friends to record creation is one from which all may learn. “Is the means of creating and preserving the record good enough?” (Library Committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, 2004, p. 12). The handbook is designed to ensure that it is. The lead in this approach is taken by the Library of the Religious Society of Friends, where the central archives are stored, and which is responsible for a modern records management service for the central committees and offices of the society, functioning both as archive and records centre. Two records managers are employed. They are also the source of advice for the local meetings, but admit that they can only advise and not compel. At Friends House a Records Management Group has been set up, and there has been a cultural change leading to records management being seen as everybody’s responsibility. Specific records management advice for the central staff is available in print and on the intranet. Both records managers and record holders find the main

difficulty is finding the time to appraise records, especially when formats are changing rapidly. Administration of the Society is carried out electronically, including correspondence, and much attention is paid to backing up the network. The library is starting to institute an electronic records management policy, which has been endorsed by management. The first fruits have been the backing up of vital records onto archival quality CDs. The next stage will be to survey the records, paying particular attention to structure and metadata. The problems of format transition and migration have been identified. Following a preliminary paper on best practice for electronic records management, a leaflet giving practical advice on how to manage electronic records and how to transfer them to the Library for storage has been distributed to staff. A digital preservation policy, to confront the obsolescence of formats and media has been drafted. As employees of the society they regard advocacy as an important part of their role: they need to demonstrate the value of their work to the friends. Whereas the Methodist leaflet on the preservation of records (Methodist Church, 2002) is entitled “Treasure worth keeping?”, the second page of the Friends guidance (Library Committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, 2004) states: The main point in having records is not that ‘they will be interesting to posterity’ but that they are of administrative, financial and/or legal relevance to what has been decided; or what has been done in carrying out a decision; or what has been the united exercise of a meeting in attempting to deal with a subject.

The United Reformed Church Like the Methodists, this church is the result of a twentieth century merger. Unlike the other churches surveyed, records management is weakest at the centre. A representative revealed that guidance is still in preparation for the district and synod levels, as is advice on electronic records, but it has been provided for local churches. Whilst the advice provided is concise, it is also informative. Although a retention schedule is not included, churches are reminded that current administrative use is “unlikely to be more than 10 years from the date of creation, or . . . from the date of the final entry in the volume” (United Reformed Church History Society, 1998). There is a reminder of the importance of a safe, for the storage of vital and civil records; advice on the format of records; reference to the data protection act; and the importance of architectural plans and of identifying the subjects and dates of photographs is stressed. Churches are requested to inform the URC History Society of deposits, suggesting similar problems to those experienced in Methodism of keeping track of the records. The Baptist Union of Great Britain Despite an excellent web site (Baptist Union of Great Britain, 2006), purporting to include every administrative resource a congregation might need, advice on records management is left in the hands of the Baptist Historical Society, and more especially the archivists at Regent’s Park College. Like the Methodists, advice is given verbally, though the 1995 edition of the Church of England’s Keep or bin . . .? was circulated. Congregations are strongly encouraged to deposit locally, but inform the Baptist

Non-conformist records management 175

RMJ 17,3

176

Historical Society. According to the contact, “advice on electronic records is to migrate each time an upgrade is received, and have a printed copy of any important records”.

Conclusion The main characteristic of the organisations studied is that they operate throughout Great Britain, but have an autonomous structure. The national body exists, in one sense, to support the local meetings. This is equally true, of course, of the established churches in England and Scotland, but the non-conformists have chosen to operate as free associations, with more informal controls. As the name suggests, non-conformists do not wish to conform, posing problems for those attempting to manage their records. The different responses to records management by the four denominations examined reflect their nature and history. The Religious Society of Friends came into being before religious toleration was accepted onto the statute book, and they have needed to prove their activities were not seditious. They have kept meticulous records, for information, evidence and compliance. Because they value their records highly, they have kept their national records in their own hands, and employ professionally trained staff to look after them. They lack clergy, but appoint people to keep the records of each of their meetings. The other denominations have not placed such a high priority on maintaining their records. Theological issues, or the mission of the church take priority, and clergy lead the congregations and have responsibility for their records. The issue of the sacred-secular divide is one that has exercised sociologists and has attracted a fair deal of attention within the accountancy literature in the context of how lay professionals work within a religious organisation. The concept of being in the world, but not of it, does impinge on Christian church administration. It has to be noted that the archives of the Baptist, United Reformed, and Methodist churches are all administered separately from the national offices of the church, and in separating the archives of the national and local operations, the link between recordkeeping at those two levels also seems to have been severed. Whilst it is right and proper that the historic archives should be separated, the national expression of faith being seen in the context of other national records, and the local expression being part of the story of the local community, the current records of churches require managing in a consistent manner regardless of whether a function is being carried out at national, regional or local level. The library staff at Friends House may have no control over records management elsewhere in the country, but they have produced high quality printed advice. The other denominations clearly have other priorities. In the cases of the Baptist and Methodist churches, there is no lack of resources for most aspects of church life, and the technological advances of recent years have been utilised allowing church members to buy or download from excellent web sites. They just have not seen fit to use this, or any other channel, to promote good record keeping. How is records management to be carried out in an organisation with 6,600 units? By providing sound advice, according to one view, or by changing the organisation, according to one Methodist consulted.

Note 1. In 2004 there were 5,900 churches, organised in 630 circuits and then in 33 districts, all bodies creating records.

References Baptist Union of Great Britain (2006), “Resources”, available at: www.baptist.org.uk/resources. html (accessed 22 May 2007). BBC (2004), “The Methodist Church”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ subdivisions/methodist_2.shtml (accessed 22 May 2007). Blewitt, P. and Reynolds, S. (2001), “The Moravian Church Archives and Library”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 193-203. Church of England (1978), Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978, Stationery Office, London. Church of England Record Centre (2006), “Keep or bin . . .? The care of your parish records”, available at: www.cofe.anglican.org/about/librariesandarchives/keeporbin/ (accessed 7 June 2006). Dawson, E., Dodd, R., Roberts, J. and Wakeling, C. (2004), “Issues and challenges for records management in the charity and voluntary sector”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 111-15. Harris, M. (1990), “Working in the UK voluntary sector”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 125-40. Library Committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain (2004), Your Meeting’s Records: A Handbook for Clerks and Custodians of Records, 2nd ed., Quaker Books, London. Methodist Church (2002), Treasure Worth Keeping, Conference Office of the Methodist Church, London. Methodist Church (2004), “The Methodist Church in Britain: its structure and organisation”, available at: www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/co_mcstructure_260405.pdf (accessed 13 February 2006). Methodist Church (2005a), “The nature of oversight: leadership, management and governance in the Methodist Church in Great Britain”, paper presented at Methodist Conference, Torquay, 23-30 June 2005, Methodist Church in Great Britain, available at: www.methodist.org.uk/ static/conf2005/co_05_natureofoversight_0805.doc (accessed 13 February 2006). Methodist Church (2005b), The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 7th ed.,Vol. 2., Methodist Publishing House, Peterborough. Methodist Church (2005c), “Schedule A: checking your church – property and legal matters”, Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes, available at: www.methodist.org.uk/static/rm/ schedule-a.pdf (accessed 1 June 2006). Methodist Church (2006), “Memorials”, paper presented at Methodist Conference, Edinburgh, 22-29 June 2006, Methodist Church in Great Britain, available at: www. methodistconference.org.uk/Conf06_Memorials.doc (accessed 9 July 2006). Stansfield, M. (2001), “Parish inspections: the Kent experience”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-11. United Reformed Church History Society (1998), “What churches should preserve”, available at: www.urc.org.uk/history_soc/what_churches_should_preserve.html (accessed 10 February 2006).

Non-conformist records management 177

RMJ 17,3

178

Wakeling, I. (2004), “Preserving the organisation’s life-blood: organisational change and the role of records management in the charity sector: a case study of the Children’s Society”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 116-23. About the author Philip Thornborow is collections and learning resources manager at the University of Northampton, having worked in higher education libraries for the past 30 years. He was recently awarded an MSc in records management from Northumbria University. In 2004 he was appointed district archivist of the Oxford and Leicester (now Northampton) District of the Methodist Church. Philip Thornborow can be contacted at: philip.thornborow@ northampton.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

Documentation in pre-trial investigation A study of using the records continuum model as a records management tool

Documentation in pre-trial investigation 179

Marjo Rita Valtonen Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explore the documentation work in pre-trial investigation performed by the police from the records management perspective. The study, undertaken as doctoral research, is meant to give answers to the questions: what kind of information is recorded in the pre-trial investigation process, how are recordings made, and what are the regulatory and statutory requirements for the recording processes? The aim is to produce new knowledge of the Finnish recordkeeping field and of the relationships between work processes, record management and information systems. Design/methodology/approach – This study presents findings from a qualitative explorative case study. Data collection methods were based on triangulation of data sources. Data were collected for the period 1999-2004. Findings – Documentation of activities proved to be a coherent part of pre-trial investigation. Various activities in the investigation process are reported exactly, with information on criminal cases captured as a record or recorded in registers. Diverse information systems are used in the pre-trial investigation process. The relationships between tasks, information systems and information management proved to be slight. Information systems do not serve the pre-trial investigation process in the desired way. Several different legal and statutory requirements concern operations in pre-trial investigation and their documentation. There are divergences in compliance with legal norms and guidelines depending on types of norms, actors, tasks and cases. The records management norms are not very well-known, and compliance with them is poor. Originality/value – There is an obvious need for studies aimed at examining the relations between task performance, information systems and documentation. Keywords Document management, Information systems, Records management Paper type Research paper

Introduction In the information society and in the digital working environment recordkeeping and archiving are demanding. Records managers are operating in a multidimensional environment in terms of document creation structures, workflow procedures and enterprise control. Upward (2000) demonstrates the significant components of records management task complexity as: information technology management, business process engineering, functional analysis, facilities management, cultural heritage management, project management, quality control auditing, benchmarking, staffing, resource case presentation and financial management. Records management as a separate organisational function is not so well established in central and northern Europe as in Australia, the US and the UK. In Europe, an archivist managing archives may be a records manager, a business archivist, a manuscript curator,

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 179-185 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833080

RMJ 17,3

180

or an archivist keeping historical archives only. The records management field is not clearly defined in either Finnish public or private organisations. Both the area of operation and its practitioners are only vaguely defined. Records management is understood as a dimension of the archival function. It has been extended to also refer to recordkeeping in organisational contexts. The Finnish archival function, with its records management dimensions, has features of continuum recordkeeping (Kilkki, 2004). Since 1983 Finnish public administration organisations have been required to have a records management plan in order to fulfil the objectives of records and archives management (The Archives Act, 1981). The records management plan contains a retention schedule, which guides the registration of documents and records, filing and archiving, appraisal, disposal and preservation of records and archives. The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge of the organisational recordkeeping domain by exploring the relationships between task processes, information systems and documentation. The focus of the study was twofold: to examine how the records, tracks of everyday activities become a part of an organisation’s information assets and simultaneously as a documentary heritage a part of an organisational and social memory. This doctoral study was carried out partly in cooperation with another study, which examined information seeking in pre-trial investigation (Kostiainen, 2002; Kostiainen et al., 2003). During the research project it became obvious that information seeking, with its different components, is something also to be taken into account in records management. Documentation and the continuum The theoretical framework applied in the study is based on the records continuum model by Upward (1996, 2000). Continuum thinking includes fundamental principles of archival science and practical aims of records management. The idea behind the use of the continuum model in studying documentation was to focus on certain fundamental questions in records and archives management: what and why records are produced and preserved, and conversely what and why recorded information is destroyed; likewise how to ensure accessibility of evidential information throughout its life-time. The continuum model scrutinises the multilevel documentation of the pre-trial investigation process and its outcomes are interesting. The continuum model had many roles in this study. Firstly, the model offered a holistic and conceptual framework to study the production and management of records in pre-trial investigation. Secondly, the model combined transactional and documenting processes; the four recordkeeping dimensions of the model (creation, capture, organisation, pluralisation) encounter transactional dimensions (acts, activities, functions, mission). Thirdly, the model helped the study to focus on the documentation context, the complex world of crime investigation. Fourthly, as an analytical instrument the structure and aspects of the records continuum model helped to distinguish between the different operations in the creation, capture and organisation of records. The continuum model was moreover tested in practice by placing the examination act in the structures of the model. Documentation is a basic instrument in creating a continuum for the management of information and records through time. The concept of documentation is ambiguous. Documentation, description and metadata are closely linked in records management and archival usage; archival description systems have always been metadata systems.

Documentation refers not only to documents produced but also those actions intended to capture the relation between the activity (for instance examination of a witness) and the documents produced thereby (the examination record); the metadata of why, where, when, how and who conducted the examination and wrote the protocol. Records management and archival documentation is referred to by Bearman (1992) as the documentation of documentation. Thus the dimensions of the records continuum model may be identified as the four levels of documentation in continuum recordkeeping. This study focused on documentation in an organisational context, on the creation, capture and partly on the organisational dimension of the continuum model. The study does not address the exploration of documentary archival description needed to locate, recognise and use records in the organisational and larger social contexts. Research design The main purpose of the study was to explore the documentation work in pre-trial investigation conducted by the police. Related questions were: what kind of information and records are produced in the pre-trial investigation? How are recordings and documenting accomplished? What are the regulatory and statutory requirements for the recordkeeping processes, and how are regulations complied with? This was an explorative-qualitative case study. The case study approach also covered contextual conditions, not just the phenomenon. The case in this instrumental case study was documentation work, where the pre-trial investigation process helps to understand the documentation work. As Stake (1994) states, using a case study approach is not a mere methodological matter but also the question of the topic of the study. The case study organisation was a middle-size district police station in Southern Finland. The organisational structure divides the local police administration into local districts, of which there are currently 90 in total, each with its own district police force. The primary task of the local police is to address the public’s security needs and concerns. The local police are responsible for public order and security, crime prevention and investigation, traffic control, and “preventive action”. The police functions – like criminal investigation – are highly confidential and strictly regulated activities. Data collection methods were based on triangulation of data sources. The main sources were interview and observational data; data were collected between 1999 and 2004. The informants interviewed in the study were crime investigators, their secretaries and experts and professionals in the records and archives management field. Three kinds of interviews were conducted: (1) open-ended interviews with key informants (10); (2) focused interviews with key respondents (15); and (3) one group interview with the permanent task force for archival issues (eight members). In addition a short survey was sent by e-mail to six police trainees who had practised for some months in the police station. Observations of criminal investigation groups working in the police station were made throughout all the field visits (6), and during the staff training days (2). Special attention was paid to the use of information systems and databases in criminal investigation. Normative documents like laws, statutes and regulations as well as the input and output materials of the systems, especially reports of the investigations, and also all the other original products of the investigation

Documentation in pre-trial investigation 181

RMJ 17,3

182

process, like reports of examinations, notes, diaries, minutes and memos, were read and analysed. Archival records were studied in the archives of the District Police Station and in the Provincial Archives, where the permanently preserved records of the local police are kept. The secondary data consist of complementary comparison material of a survey answered by 77 district police stations and descriptions of pre-trial investigation processes made by six local police authorities. Multi-methods like continuum analysis, theme analysis and deep reading were used in the analysis process. All sources of evidence were reviewed and analysed together, so that the case study findings are based on the convergence of information from different sources. Findings Documentation of transactions and activities in the investigation process Documentation of activities proved to be a coherent part of pre-trial investigation. Various activities in the investigation process are reported exactly; information on criminal cases is captured as a record or recorded in registers. The official documentation result of the pre-trial investigation is a unique report, created according to precise rules, concerning only that information which has significance to the next phase of the trial process. The documented local and criminal case based information is important for the nation-wide registers, which form the basis for the strategic plans, statistics and the later analyses of crime trends and the profiling of criminals. The careful and correct recording affects the authenticity of documentation and guarantees judicial relief for the policy authorities and also for the interested parties in the investigation process. The creators of records have far-reaching responsibility for perpetuating transactions and activities as documentary evidence. To preserve activities as evidential records has functional, juridical and cultural significance. The aim of record-keeping is implemented in documentation. By metadata and description, measures are linked with records but the use, especially the access and usability of records in other domains and at other times than the original work context, demands extra metadata and descriptive information. The ideal principle “create once, use many times” (Evans et al., 2005) does not come true; in an organisational context recorded information of pre-trial investigation is not accompanied by such identification and descriptive metadata which would be useful and sufficient in the archival context – there is no production of the concrete continuum characteristics in the creation and capture phase of pre-trial records. Viewing one of the main pre-trial investigation acts – the examination act – in the continuum model revealed the usefulness of the model in the analysing creating and capturing processes; how a document, a trace of the examination act is captured as an examination record, evidence of investigation activity. Continuum analysis serves in identifying and defining records as process-bound information, which is necessary in designing recordkeeping information systems Information systems used in documentation Diverse information systems are used in the pre-trial process: in information seeking, coordinating and implementing tasks, producing the final report of a pre-trial investigation and in storing information. In pre-trial investigation the most important information systems are those relating to the police, the administration and the suspects. The central police database comprises 11 sub-registers. The relationships between tasks, information systems and information management proved to be slight. Information systems do not serve the pre-trial investigation process in a desired way.

There are shortages of user skills and also of technical usability. The design of information systems does not meet operational needs. Design is mainly based on technical grounds, not on practical requirements, and the commissioning and instructions of information systems are insufficient. Users are missing user-friendly systems and readable manuals, which serve day-to-day practices. There are conflicting user attitudes to information systems: daily use of systems is seen as a burden on the “real” police work but at the same time as a distinctly helpful tool, offering new options for the accomplishment of tasks. Participation in the design of recordkeeping information systems is one of the basic tasks in records management, and one of the essential elements in continuum recordkeeping. So far in the Finnish police organisation user and records professional participation in designing projects has been minimal. The information systems do not serve the police investigative process as extensively as might be desired. The connection between planning and use appears tenuous and users of the system have too little education in using the system compared to their needs (Kostiainen, 2002). There seems to be a very weak connection between the planning of the information systems and databases and the documentary needs of the pre-trial investigation process, and no connection at all to the documentary requirements of records and archives management. Legal and normative requirements Several different legal and statutory requirements concern operations in pre-trial investigation and their documentation. Pre-trial investigation is controlled by The Act on Pre-trial Investigation (1987), Guidelines of the Ministry of the Interior governs the creation and capture of records. The Archival Act (1994), Guidelines of the National Archives Service and the Privacy Laws (1999) control the creation, management and preservation of the records produced in the pre-trial investigation. According to the Archival Act the main instrument in managing records is the records management plan (archive creation plan). The norms are the only issues through which the documentation is explored, other than from an organisational perspective, from the collective level in the records continuum model. On the operational level the required responsibility for recordkeeping is formal, practitioners’ skills and knowledge of recordkeeping issues are not sufficient to implement best practices and the qualitative requirements stipulated by the legislation. The records management norms and the records management plan are not very well known, and compliance with them is poor. Investigators and secretaries do not use the records management plan as such an auxiliary means as was intended. The records management plan is not able to produce and strengthen integrated continuity in record life cycle management, from the creation to the destruction or permanent preservation of the records. The records management plan is not such an efficient tool or guidance in recordkeeping as was expected in the regulations of National Archives Service. Thus, the plan should be tailored to meet the practical needs of local police, not only to satisfy formal statutory requirements. There are divergences in compliance with legal norms and guidelines depending on types of norms, actors, tasks and cases. Criminal investigators see the norms both as a burden and a protection. The “non-adherence” to norms particularly concerns recordkeeping and archival norms. Detachment and remoteness from functional

Documentation in pre-trial investigation 183

RMJ 17,3

184

processes partly explain the non-compliance. A strong legalistic atmosphere is typical for the operating culture in the police (Korander, 2004; Laapio, 1999), but it does not cover the records management field. Discussion and conclusions Studying documentation work in organisational and functional contexts gives a profound inside view, which is needed to better understand the wide field of organisational recordkeeping and archives. As proved in this study, documentation of pre-trial investigation is rich in detail and produces many-faceted information of working contexts, habits and tools. Findings easily lead to questioning the criteria and principles of appraisal and disposal that the archival authority uses in selecting 10-15 per cent of records for long-term or permanent preservation. How does this selected material serve various user needs, on what criteria is the national cultural heritage created? Knowledge of organisational documentary processes provides an evaluative tool to assess how representative the material selected for permanent preservation is, how well it documents a social reality or what it leaves untold. At the beginning of the study it was assumed that the records of the crime cases themselves would elucidate the aspects of documentation in pre-trial investigation. After the first search in the records of police station archive and in the provincial archives, it was obvious that documentation activities as a process could not be examined from the records. The records of pre-trial investigation reveal only the final results – evidence and information of the completed investigation – not the documentary work accomplished in the pre-trial investigation process. Continuum thinking and the continuum model as a general orienting and analytical model were workable methods to explore manifold and layered issues in the recordkeeping field. They also helped to estimate the many requirements imposed on the field by various factors. Continuum analysis revealed the limitations of the Finnish records and archives management concept; the legal records management plan seems to function only as a preservation schedule, not as a continuum, creating an instrument for the life-cycle management of records. With help of the compact structure of the continuum model the designers of the recordkeeping systems can check the critical points of records management. Compared to the dynamic mission of the model the structure looks cumbersome and closed and, for instance, too rough for detailed analyses of the different phases in documentation. However, it functions well in analyses and in understanding the production of evidential features to recorded information. Process bound recorded information (Thomassen, 2001) has implications for the design of information and recordkeeping systems and for the development of basic archival functions in organisations. Continuum records management demands organised knowledge of the relationships between tasks, information systems and information management. The results enhance understanding and establish common ground and concepts to integrate task processes, information management and information systems. The results have practical value in planning records management strategies and policies, in developing the required records management plans and in defining the criteria for records appraisal. Through the record production process we can better understand how the work processes are implemented, how to build the relationships

between tasks, information management and information systems and the nature of the basic elements of which the organisational and social memories are constructed. References (The) Act on Pre-trial Investigation (1987), issued in Helsinki 30 April, 449/1987. (The) Archives Act (1981), issued in Helsinki 20 February, 184/1981. (The) Archives Act (1994), issued in Helsinki 23 December, 831/1994. Bearman, D. (1992), “Documenting documentation”, Archivaria, Vol. 34, Summer, pp. 33-49. Evans, J., McKemmish, S. and Bhoday, K. (2005), “Create once, use many times: the clever use of recordkeeping metadata for multiple archival purposes”, Archival Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17-42. Kilkki, J. (2004), “The Finnish functional approach to electronic recordkeeping”, presentation at the International Congress on Archives, 23-29 August 2004, Wien, available at: www. sota-arkisto.fi/inet/files/pdf/ica_vienna_kilkki.pdf (accessed 1 June 2007). Korander, T. (2004), “Poliisikulttuuri, Poliisiammatin ja -tutkimuksen va¨line”, Oikeus 1/2004, pp. 16-24. Kostiainen, E. (2002), “Esitutkinnan tiedonhankinta: Tapaustutkimus tiedonhankinnan ka¨yta¨nno¨is-ta¨, rooleista, ongelmista ja tiedonla¨hteista¨ poliisin esitutkinnassa”, Master‘s thesis, Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere, Tampere. Kostiainen, E., Valtonen, M.R. and Vakkari, P. (2003), “Information seeking in pre-trial investigation with particular reference to records management”, Archival Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-76. Laapio, M.-L. (1999), “Rasisminvastainen yhteistoiminta Joensuussa: Arvioiva raportti Pohjois-Karjalan poliisin la¨a¨ninjohdon rasismin vastaisesta yhteistoimintaohjelmasta 1996-1998”, Yhteiskuntapolitiikan laitos, Yhteiskuntapolitiikan raportteja, No. 4, Joensuu. Stake, R. (1994), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 236-360. Thomassen, T. (2001), “A first introduction to archival science”, Archival Science, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 373-85. Upward, F. (1996), “Structuring the records continuum – part one: postcustodial principles and properties”, available at: www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/publications/ recordscontinuum/fupp1.html (accessed 1 June 2007). Upward, F. (2000), “Modelling the continuum as paradigm shift in recordkeeping and archiving processes, and beyond: a personal reflection”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 115-39. About the author Marjo Rita Valtonen gained an MA in cultural history in 1982 from the University of Turku and a PhD in records management from the University of Tampere in 2005. She has worked for 20 years in the Provincial Archives of Turku and is now an assistant professor in the Department of Information Studies at the University of Tampere, where she teaches records and archives management. Marjo Valtonen can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documentation in pre-trial investigation 185

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ 17,3

Purposeful data: the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata

186

Kate Cumming State Records NSW, Gordon, Australia Abstract Purpose – Optimising metadata implementation can significantly improve records management practice. This article aims to identify a number of important issues that should be considered in any implementation of recordkeeping metadata in order to optimise that implementation. Design/methodology/approach – The research presented was part of a doctoral thesis “Purposeful data: the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata” which itself was part of a collaborative research project seeking to comprehensively specify and codify recordkeeping metadata. The purposes were identified via a research method known as warrant analysis. Findings – Literary warrant identified that metadata fulfil seven different purposes: identifying all entities at all levels of aggregation; establishing connections between related entities; sustaining record structure, content and accessibility through time; administering record-keeping business; documenting the history of recordkeeping events; facilitating discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery; and documenting metadata attribution. Practical implications – Recordkeeping systems should be designed with full awareness of the capacities of metadata and following a full assessment of the organisational needs that should be met by the system. Through better system design and well-considered metadata implementation, records management operations in any environment can be significantly improved. Originality/value – The paper establishes key roles of metadata and the importance of system design metadata implementation based on doctoral research. Keywords Records management, Research Paper type Research paper

Introduction Optimising metadata implementation can significantly improve records management practice. This article identifies a number of important issues that should be considered in any implementation of recordkeeping metadata in order to optimise that implementation. The research presented in this article was part of a doctoral thesis, “Purposeful data: the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata”. This thesis formed a part of a collaborative research project that sought to comprehensively specify and codify recordkeeping metadata[1].

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 186-200 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833099

Methodology In part, this thesis sought to identify the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata. In the thesis these purposes were identified via a research method known as warrant analysis. Warrant analysis is predicated on the understanding that the objectives metadata strategies should fulfil are outlined in the documentary sources that provide the regulatory or best practice framework, the “warrant” for recordkeeping and other

business activity. The central understanding is that requirements should “derive from authoritative sources, such as the law, customs, standards, and professional best practices accepted by society . . . rather than [be] developed in isolation” (Duff, 1998, p. 91). The thesis used the following as its sources of warrant. Each is concerned with quality recordkeeping and together they represent a range of requirements that span countries, theories and business and recordkeeping perspectives: . the records continuum framework; . the “International standard information and documentation – records management – part 1: general” (ISO 15489:1); . the University of Pittsburgh’s (1996), “Functional requirements for evidence in recordkeeping”; . the findings of the InterPARES 1 (International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems) Project; . United States Department of Defense’s DOD 5015.2-STD “Records management applications design criteria standard”; . ISO 9000 standards suite, particularly AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000 (Standards Australia, 2000), “Quality management systems – requirements”; . the Commonwealth of Australia’s (2001) Electronic Transactions Act, 2001; . the works of Australian theorist Chris Hurley; . General International Standard on Archival Description (ISAD(G), 2000), second edition; and . International Standard on Archival Authority Records (Corporations, Persons, Families) (ISAAR (CPF), 1996). Within each of these sources recordkeeping requirements that could be fulfilled by metadata were identified, specified and compared[2]. After much iterative analysis and comparison with hypotheses developed by the broader research project of which the thesis was a part, a systematic statement of the roles and purposes of recordkeeping metadata, the Classification of Recordkeeping Metadata by Purpose Scheme was developed. This determined that recordkeeping metadata are able to fulfil the following range of purposes (see Appendix): . identify all entities at all levels of aggregation; . establish connections between related entities; . sustain record structure, content and accessibility through time; . administer or resolve recordkeeping business, including terms and conditions of access, use and disposal; . document the history of recordkeeping events; . facilitate discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery; and . document metadata attribution. The meaning inherent in each of the purpose statements is examined in more detail below. The discussion of each purpose statement also includes significant practical

Purposeful data

187

RMJ 17,3

188

detail that should be considered by those seeking to implement better metadata tools to aid their records management practices. Identify all entities at all levels of aggregation Understandably, the need to identify was a key requirement discovered in all the warrant sources. What quickly became clear was the diverse range of entities that, according to the warrant sources, require identification. While all sources obviously require that records are able to be individually identified in recordkeeping systems, sources such as ISO 9000 also clearly place the identification of organisational business functions, activities and transactions within the scope of a recordkeeping framework. Records are a product of a business process and identification of this process in corporate management systems is identified as critical to accountability. The sources do not specify which specific business entities require identification. The inference is that any form of business transacted within an accountable recordkeeping framework that creates or impacts upon records will require identification. Identification of all forms of records management processes is also a consistent requirement that comes through the majority of warrant sources. The transaction of recordkeeping business is integral to the effective management, accountability and authenticity of records. The sources suggest that all forms of recordkeeping business be identified as any use of, action involving or transaction performed upon records will require identification in an accountable recordkeeping framework. The requirement for agent identification is contained in each source of warrant assessed. In a number of its clauses ISO 15489 requires that record creators and those performing recordkeeping business are identified. The InterPARES (n.d.) requirements (www.interpares.org) show that organisations with responsibility for records require identification, as do individuals involved with recordkeeping operations. In virtually each of its criterion, the United States Department of Defense (2002) DoD 5015.2 specification emphasises the need to identify the persons or workgroups entitled to perform recordkeeping business. In the Defense document this identification plays a significant role in promoting system security and accountability. In total, the sources require that an extensive range of agents be identified in recordkeeping systems. These are: . individuals that make, keep and use records; . workgroups within which records are made, kept and used; . instruments involved in record creation; . organisations within which records are made, kept and used; . individuals with authorisation to perform recordkeeping business; . workgroups with authorisation to perform recordkeeping business; . organisations containing agents with authorisation to perform recordkeeping business; . individuals that have or will perform recordkeeping business; . workgroups that have or will perform recordkeeping business; . organisations within which recordkeeping business has or will be performed; and . social institutions that encompass any form of recordkeeping activity.

Obviously not all recordkeeping systems will require this level of agent documentation. However, it is incumbent on all implementors to assess their environments and determine the range of agents that need to be described using metadata in order to meet organisational business and accountability requirements. In addition to the numerous forms of identification discussed above, a number of sources also state that identification should be provided from a business or process perspective so that like can be grouped with like. For example, the InterPARES Benchmark Requirements (www.interpares.org) state that it should be possible to identify the records that have been authenticated. Clause 9.7 of ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) requires that access status be applied to both records and individuals, while numerous criteria in the Defense standard require that only authorised individuals and workgroups be allowed to access records and perform specified tasks upon them. These statements from the warrant sources show that identification is potentially a multi-dimensional requirement, with entities requiring identification and categorisation from a number of different perspectives. Again, each implementation environment should determine which perspectives need to apply in their specific circumstances. Establish connections between related entities Research associated with the University of British Columbia’s project, “The preservation of the integrity of electronic records” concluded that “. . . archival documents or records are necessarily composed of documents and the complex of their relationships”[3]. This project demonstrated the centrality of context to record meaning, utility and authenticity. The analysis of the warrant sources has also shown that the documentation of context – the relationships or connections that exist between entities – is a significant recordkeeping requirement. The documentation of connections or context serves a valuable purpose. To know that a record is authentic its place in the world must be known; the system within which it resides must be specified, its creators must be named and the processes by which it is managed identified. The contextual representation that can be provided by metadata therefore contributes to record authenticity. The sources have also shown that the creation of multiple connections between entities is important because these serve to place entities in relationship to one another, thereby cementing their place in the world and defining their role and functionality. Examination of sources such as the continuum, ISO 15489 (ISO, 2001), the Pittsburgh Functional Requirements and the works of Chris Hurley also shows that documenting connections enables evidence to be preserved, contributes to authenticity and facilitates the transmission of meaning through time. The relationship requirements identified in the warrant sources are many and varied. The assessments have shown that multi-entity description is a necessary basis for adequate contextual description. The continuum model, ISO 15489, the Functional Requirements, the Defense 5015.2 specification, ISO 9001, the Electronic Transactions Act (2001), the works of Chris Hurley and ISAAR (CPF) (1996) all identify the need to include record, business and/or agent description as part of contextual representation. The assessments also show that contextual requirements reach through the dimensions, requiring the establishment of multiple connections between and through the layers of the continuum model. For example, all sources contain

Purposeful data

189

RMJ 17,3

190

requirements for the documentation of the interrelationships between entities that exist in the same dimension, such related agents or a document and the transaction it is related to. All sources also require contextual connections that span dimensions of the continuum. Examples include connections between agents and the workgroups they are part of, and transactions and the functions they are connected to. The sources show that multiple relationships may be established between records, agents, business and recordkeeping business entities. Connections may be established on a one to one level or they may be one to many. For example, requirement 8b of the Functional Requirements states that “record creators must have been authorized to engage in the business that generated the record”. Meeting this requirement involves establishing a three-way connection between record, agent and business entities. The Defense specification DoD 5015.2 (United States Department of Defense, 2002) at criterion C2.2.1.1 states that “RMAs shall provide authorized users with the capacity to assign metadata to file plans”. This requires a connection between an agent and the multiple records they are authorised to update. In analysing the warrant sources, a number of general principles that should govern the application of contextual description were identified. The first of these principles states that contextual representation must be contemporaneous and then fixed and maintained. This means that contextual detail must when it is created represent current connections between entities. These connections must not be removed or superseded but should be maintained as an ongoing record of contextual history. Connections should be augmented with additional contextual description as circumstances change. This principle is derived from a number of the warrant sources. Requirement 1c of the Functional Requirements states that “laws, regulations and statements of best practice are tracked”. This is an implicit requirement for contextual detail to be contemporaneous, but also a requirement for an historical record of requirements to be maintained as ongoing context for present and past business actions. Requirement 9 of the Functional Requirements states that “records must continue to reflect content, structure and context within any systems by which the records are retained over time” which can be regarded as another requirement to maintain contextual representation as a fixed record through both time and system change (University of Pittsburgh, 1996) ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) at clause 8.3.4 contains the requirement to connect records to the organisations with responsibility for them through time. This is an explicit statement for the maintenance of contemporaneous contextual detail, but is also a requirement for the maintenance of historical context. Maintaining a contextual record enables history to be tracked and provides an ongoing point of reference from which the validity and authenticity of a record can in part be judged. The second principle is that contextual description should extend to include the description of mandates, business rules, recordkeeping requirements or procedures. These requirements can be internal or external to an organisation. Their documentation is regarded as providing necessary context for recordkeeping actions. This principle has been derived from sources such as the Functional Requirements, which state at requirement 1a that “external recordkeeping requirements are known” and at requirement 2 that “recordkeeping systems must have accurately documented policies, assigned responsibilities and formal methodologies for their management”. Requirement 1b also states that “records

created by organizational business transactions and governed by external recordkeeping requirements are linked to references to the documented law, regulation, or statement of best practice”, indicating the integral connection understood by this warrant source between business process and the mandate for that process (University of Pittsburgh, 1996). As can be seen from the warrant analysis, other sources including ISO 15489, the Defence specification and ISO 9000, also regard connections between process and the mandates for process as essential elements of contextual description. This requirement is particularly strong in the InterPARES benchmark and baseline standards. These sources strongly link authenticity to the documentation of the procedural frameworks within which records are managed. The third principle states that the notion of a related record needs to be broadly defined. The Defense specification says at criterion 2.2.3.16 that related records should include related information such as notes, attachments and email receipts. The InterPARES requirement A.1 also states that annotations and attachments should be connected to the core record they are a part of. ISO 15489:1 (2001) at clause 9.3 requires the identification of logical connections that exist between records. This means that, where necessary, contextual metadata should be used to represent relationship information that was previously implicit in a record’s physical structuring or placement. Where relationships could previously be inferred, such as the implicit connection between adjacent folios on a file, the international standard requires that these logical connections now be made explicit. The Functional Requirements contain a similar requirement at 7b3. The notion of connecting related records needs therefore to be sufficiently broad to encompass these diverse requirements. As a fourth principle, the sources have also shown that relationships must be typed. When establishing relationships it is important not just to connect entities, but to connect entities in a meaningful way by specifying the nature of the relationship between them. That is, records should not just be connected to an agent, but to an agent who is connected to them as their creator, manager or destroyer. To illustrate, the Functional Requirements state at requirement 8a that “all records have creators which are documented” (University of Pittsburgh, 1996), while InterPARES requirement A.1 states that the “the names of the persons concurring in the formation of the record” are identified (www.interpares.org). The provision of detailed relationship description is a requirement that also emerges clearly through Hurley’s work. Again, implementors should determine the extent to which these principles guide their application of contextual description. Sustain record structure, content and accessibility through time All sources identified requirements relating to the physical management of records. The requirements identified were not extensive but clearly showed the importance of a record’s physical maintenance to its management and usability over time and the role metadata can play in physically sustaining records through time. The sources show that this purpose includes a number of different requirements. Firstly it involves the preservation of record structure. Structural requirements, documenting information about a record’s format and its component parts, are particularly prominent in ISO 15489, ISO 9000 and the Electronic Transactions Act (2001), sources in which the long term accessibility of information is a key requirement.

Purposeful data

191

RMJ 17,3

192

Sources such as ISO 15489 show that structural preservation can be achieved by documenting details of a record’s format and identifying its component parts. Adequate maintenance of record content is also identified as fundamental, including system specific views of content where relevant. For example, requirement 7b1 states that “meanings conveyed by presentation of data are retained or represented” and requirement 7b4 that “software functionality invoked by data values in the content of the record are supported or represented” (University of Pittsburgh, 1996). These are seen in this source as key evidentiary requirements, enabling records to be preserved exactly as they were originally viewed. The sources also contain more general requirements that relate to the preservation of accessibility and retrievability. Clause 7.2.5 of ISO 15489:1 (2001) states that records must be useable, in part a requirement to ensure that records are physically useable and accessible through time. Clause 8.3.6 states that systems must ensure the accessibility of the records they contain, another requirement to ensure the long term physical availability of records. Requirement 12a in the Functional Requirements also states that records must be available. This in part implies that form and rendering metadata should be captured to ensure that record access can be provided and preserved. The Electronic Transactions Act (2001) states in sections 9.1a and 9.2a that “information should be readily accessible and usable, both immediately and for subsequent reference” while ISO 9001 requires that records remain retrievable. These again impose a requirement to ensure that information can be accessed and used, both immediately and through time. The following specific references to structural and technical requirements that can be documented by metadata were identified in the warrant sources: . identify the physical dependencies of records; . identify system dependencies or functionality sustaining or affecting record content; . maintain original forms of data presentation, including system defined views or the effects of user permissions; . identify record technical requirements; . document details of data storage devices; . preserve the relationships that exist between record structure and content; and . document data to facilitate record retrieval and rendering. While useful, this is not an extensive list. It is very important for each implementation environment to determine how records, be they paper or electronic, are going to be maintained for as long as business needs dictate. Once a strategy or strategies have been devised, implementors can then determine the role metadata can play in sustaining record accessibility and usability. Identify, administer or resolve recordkeeping business, including terms and conditions of access, use and disposal The warrant assessment revealed this to be a major requirement within a number of the warrant sources. This purpose statement represents the management requirements, procedural framework or business rules that govern record use or management. Identifying and administering this framework is necessary for

preserving record authenticity and for enabling the efficient and accountable management of records. The warrant assessment has shown that this purpose requires the application of metadata that facilitates recordkeeping business and that protects records against inappropriate useage or poor management. According to the warrant sources, in operation this form of metadata would specify management requirements or business rules that govern record use or management. These requirements could then be applied to record, agent or business entities. For example, in the 5015.2 specification, clause C2.2.1.5 states that “RMAs shall only allow an authorized user to define and attach business rules.” This requires an active form of metadata to regulate the actions of agent entities within the system and to identify the actions these agents are entitled to perform. A number of sources, including ISO 15489 and the Defense standard indicate that metadata should be used to automatically transact stated records management requirements in accordance with specified business rules. The InterPARES assessment in particular shows that this metadata can be used to implement quite complex procedural requirements. Requirements that fall within this statement can be quite specific. This is shown by the functional requirements where requirement 13 states that records should be masked when necessary. This action could invoke the suppression of one word or a series of words within a record. It is a very specific requirement that can also be enabled by metadata. A wide range of recordkeeping business is identified in the warrant sources as requiring transaction. These forms of business include: . disposal management, including automation and authorisation of destruction actions; . access control; . user authorisation; . record modification control; . migration and conversion management; . transfer management; . redaction management; . data protection; . media management; . implementation of authentication requirements; . metadata management; . business rules application; . receipt production; and . reproduction management. Through a combination of system design and metadata application metadata could be used to document the relevant business rules and transact these recordkeeping operations. Metadata that serves this purpose therefore should have an active nature and an ability to generate views or actions that are consistent with overarching organisational frameworks for recordkeeping.

Purposeful data

193

RMJ 17,3

194

Those developing and implementing recordkeeping systems will need to determine what recordkeeping business, if any, should be transacted within their system. The sources all generally advocate for the use of metadata as an active recordkeeping tool rather than as a passive descriptive structure. System designers should therefore consider what types of activities can be automated through the application of metadata and determine the business rules that need to be in place to guide the transaction of these activities. Document the history of record-keeping events The validity and authenticity of records are contingent on their management. The tracking and documenting of recordkeeping events provides a record of management that can be used to evaluate record authenticity and integrity. Without these data, much record value and integrity is lost. As discussed in relation to the identification purpose above, all warrant sources identify requirements for the documentation of recordkeeping events, with many sources outlining multiple requirements[4]. The definition of “recordkeeping events” that can be derived from the warrant sources is broad. While specific events such as access, appraisal, disposal, reproduction, accrual, storage, transfer, document creation, generation, transmission and receipt are nominated in the sources, many sources also contain very broad requirements that map to this purpose statement. For example, at clause 8.3.2 ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) states that “record systems should contain complete and accurate representations of all transactions that occur in relation to a particular record”. Requirement 9c of the Functional Requirements states that record context should represent “all processes in which records participated”. Sections 12.2a and 12.4b of the Electronic Transactions Act outline requirements to document the “effective management” of records, while clause 8.4 of ISO 9000 requires demonstration of the “effectiveness of the quality management system”. Other sources nominate specific acts, such as the production of a digital signature which is referenced in section 10.1b of the Electronic Transactions Act (2001), as requiring documentation. The inference from such requirements is that in accountable business frameworks all actions performed upon or in relation to records need documentation. Gaps in this documentation can leave systems vulnerable and thus full documentation of recordkeeping events is required. The warrant sources therefore suggest that to document recordkeeping events is document all actions performed upon or in relation to records and the systems in which they are managed. Sources also demonstrate that the effects of recordkeeping business upon records require documentation. The InterPARES requirements state that if records are altered, a record of this alteration should be maintained. If annotations or technical modification are made, these also require documentation. According to the Defense standard, the management of specific record types, such as vital records, may also require particular documentation. The Defense specification also states that for all recordkeeping transactions, a record of the date, time and the user ID associated with the transaction should be made. The operation of records systems is also nominated within ISO 15489 as requiring documentation, as systems need to be tracked in order to account for the management of the records they contain. A key rule is identified in the warrant sources as applying to the documentation of recordkeeping events. It identifies that this form of contextual description may need to be retained longer than the records to which it relates. The Functional Requirements

state that audit trails should not be destroyed when record content and structure are destroyed. Instead this form of record context should endure as an ongoing account of management frameworks. In addition, clauses 9.2 a1, 9.2 a2, of ISO 15489 state that “information about past and present disposal decisions and activities must be maintained”. The sources in combination show that previous contextual information should be maintained, in addition to current data, as a means of documenting a record’s history and portraying an accountable history of its creation, use and management. Facilitate discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery The prominence of discovery metadata in the warrant sources demonstrates the importance of record retrieval to organisational accountability, information provision and effective business practice. Discovery data are clearly important. The ISO 15489 and ISO 9001 analyses in particular show this purpose to be a key requirement of contemporary business systems, highlighting the importance of records as sources of corporate knowledge and information. While the warrant assessment clearly shows the value of discovery metadata, it also reveals that discovery metadata are not homogeneous and not necessarily exclusively related to discovery operations. Virtually any form of metadata can serve discovery purposes. Specific elements, such as the abstract description recommended within clause 9.4 of ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) or the archival descriptive elements in ISAD(G) (2000) serve singularly descriptive purposes. But other metadata elements double up, serving an original purpose but also meeting descriptive objectives. An example is the requirement in clause 9.6 of ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) to document the physical and chemical properties of records. The principal reason to document this data is to facilitate the physical management of records. However, this data can also facilitate discovery by enabling searches to be confined to records of a specific physical format or to exclude records of a specified format. Given the diversity of data that can enable discovery, it is critical when implementing metadata to assess the implementation environment and, based on this assessment, establish the specific forms of discovery metadata that will best allow business needs to be met. Retrieval functionality that can be enabled by metadata is also referenced in the warrant sources. Retrieval requirements relate to rendering a record so that it can be read using the searcher’s technology or initiating software downloads so that the searcher’s system has the capacity to access the desired material. The Functional Requirements at 7b1, 7b2, 7b3 and 7b4 contain additional statements that require adequate retrieval of meaningful information. For example, statements such as “meanings conveyed by presentation of data are retained or represented” and “system defined views or permissions are retained and the effects are reflected in the record represented” require that records are retrieved and represented in a way that accords with their original presentation. Through its requirements to identify the location of original records or the locations of copies of records, the ISAD(G) (2000) standard is seeking to facilitate discovery, retrieval and delivery of information for users. Indeed the requirement for record location identifiers in a range of standards including ISO 15489:1 (ISO, 2001) is a requirement for discovery, retrieval and delivery functionality. The sources also indicate that a key role of recordkeeping metadata is to provide additional meaning or to facilitate understanding. The Electronic Transactions Act

Purposeful data

195

RMJ 17,3

196

(2001) requires that “information should be readily accessible and useable, both immediately and for subsequent reference” (9.1a and 9.2a). In a similar statement, ISO 9000 requires that records should be used as inputs for management reviews. For these requirements to be met adequate metadata must be provided to ensure the accessibility of records and to enable them to be understood and utilised for subsequent business processes. All implementors need to assess the additional types of metadata that may be necessary to enable records to be understood in diverse business environments or to be understood and usable years into the future. Documentation of metadata attribution The analysis of the works of Chris Hurley, ISAD(G) (2000) and ISAAR (1996) have shown the importance of providing information about metadata attribution. Each of these sources clearly flags the need for metadata describing the process of metadata description as a means of contextualising and accounting for this data. Recommended values for this data include the metadata author, the date the metadata description was compiled and the standards upon which the metadata description was based. The importance of accounting for descriptive data is well understood in the archival environment where metadata has long been both created and relied upon to facilitate the use and management of archives. This concept is less well understood in other environments that are just beginning to embrace metadata. This is potentially why requirements to document metadata attribution were identified only in three of the warrant sources. The documentation of metadata attribution is however an important purpose that can be achieved through recordkeeping metadata implementation. Implementors should determine whether accountability requirements that apply in their environments demand the documentation of metadata attribution. Where necessary, systems can be designed to automatically capture this data. Conclusion Good metadata capture and maintenance helps to demonstrate the authenticity of records. The warrant sources identified that metadata can contribute to a determination of record authenticity and/or the accountability of recordkeeping processes by: . identifying all entities at all levels of aggregation; . establishing connections between related entities; . sustaining record structure, content and accessibility through time; . administering recordkeeping business; . documenting the history of recordkeeping events; . facilitating discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery; and . documenting metadata attribution. When looking to implement metadata, system design is critical. Recordkeeping systems should be designed with full awareness of the capacities of metadata and following a full assessment of the organisational needs that should be met by the system. Through better system design and well-considered metadata implementation, records management operations in any environment can be significantly improved.

Notes 1. The project was called Recordkeeping Metadata Standards for Managing and Accessing Information Resources in Networked Environments Over Time for Government, Commerce, Social and Cultural Purposes. The main deliverable of this Project was the Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema (RKMS). Information about this project, including details about its deliverables, methodologies and copies of its publications and reports is accessible via the website of the Records Continuum Research Group at www.sims.monash.edu.au/ research/rcrg/research/spirt/index.html (as at 27 August 2004). 2. It should be noted that metadata capture and management is not the only way to meet all the requirements identified in the warrant sources. However if it was possible for the required functionality to be achieved by metadata implementation, these requirements were included in the warrant assessment. 3. From Template 1 derived during the University of British Columbia’s research project, The Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records. The Template is accessible via the Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records Project website, 1996, accessed via the InterPARES website at www.interpares.org/UBCProject/index.htm (as at 22 January 2005) 4. It should be noted that there is a close relationship between this hypothesis and hypothesis 2. There is redundancy and repetition between these purposes but it is argued that this is necessary redundancy. Hypothesis 2 describes all forms of connections that should be established between related entities. Hypothesis 5 focuses specifically on the types of connections need to be established between records and the recordkeeping business entities that impact upon them. Given the importance of this data to the maintenance of meaning and authenticity in recordkeeping frameworks, it is argued that the duplication that exists between these statements is justified and that both should be included in the final purpose classification.

References Commonwealth of Australia (2001), “Electronic Transactions Act”. Duff, W. (1998), “Harnessing the power of warrant”, The American Archivist, Vol. 61 No. 2, p. 91. InterPARES (n.d.), “The preservation of the integrity of electronic records”, University of British Columbia, available at: www.interpares.org/UBCProject/index.htm (accessed 22 January 2005). ISAAR (CPF) (1996), “International Standard on Archival Authority Records (Corporations, Persons, Families)”, ICA, Paris. ISAD(G) (2000), General International Standard on Archival Description, 2nd edition 2000, ICA, Paris. ISO (2001), “Information and documentation – Records management – Part 1: general”, ISO 15489:1, Geneva. Standards Australia (2000), “Quality management systems – requirements”, AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000, Sydney. United States Department of Defense (2002), “Records management applications design criteria standard”, DoD 5015.2-STD, Washington, DC. University of Pittsburgh (1996), “Functional requirements for evidence in recordkeeping”, Pittsburgh, PA, available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818163633/www.sis.pitt. edu/, nhprc/ (accessed July 2007).

Purposeful data

197

RMJ 17,3

198

Appendix. Summary of metadata purposes Purpose 1: identify all entities at all levels of aggregation Scope note To identify is to give a record, agent, business or recordkeeping business entity a unique identity within a specific system or organisational context by documenting its identifier, title/name and dates of creation, existence and/or transaction and documenting its connection to related entities According to the warrant sources, the following entities require identification: † Any form of business transacted within an accountable recordkeeping framework that creates or impacts upon records. This identification can occur at the level of transaction, activity, function or ambient function † Any use of, action involving or transaction performed upon records. This identification can occur at the level of recordkeeping business transaction, recordkeeping business activity, recordkeeping business function or recordkeeping business ambient function † Any agent that makes and keeps records and/or that performs recordkeeping business. This identification can occur at the level of actor, workgroup, organisation or social institution † All record entities. This identification can occur at the level of the document, record, the archive or the collective archives Identification can be applied from a business or process perspective, as well as an entity identification perspective. This means that specific types of entities may require identification. For example, vital records may need to be specifically identified or individuals or workgroups authorised to perform specific activities may need to be specifically identified Purpose 2: establish connections between related entities Scope note To establish connections between related entities is to ensure that two or more entities which share a particular form of relationship are connected and that the relationship that exists between them is specified According to the warrant sources, there are no limitations to the connections that can be established between related entities. Connections can be established between different entities or between entities of the same type Connections can be established between entities in the same dimensional layer of the continuum model or can be established between entities that inhabit different dimensions Rules that apply to contextual description are as follows: † Contextual representation must be contemporaneous, fixed and maintained and augmented through time † Contextual description should extend to include the description of mandates, business rules, recordkeeping requirements and/or procedures † The notion of a related record needs to be broadly defined to ensure that connections are established between notes, attachments, e-mail receipts etc. and that logical connections between records are preserved † Relationships must be typed to indicate the type of relationship that exists between related entities

Table AI. Summary of metadata purposes

Purpose 3: sustain record structure, content and accessibility through time Scope note To sustain structure, content and accessibility through time means to: † Identify the physical dependencies of record † Identify system dependencies or functionality sustaining or affecting record content (continued)

† Maintain original forms of data presentation, including system defined views or the effects of user permissions † Identify record technical requirements † Document details of data storage devices † Preserve the relationships that exist between record structure and content † Document data to facilitate record retrieval and rendering Purpose 4: identify, administer or resolve recordkeeping business, including terms and conditions of access, use and disposal Scope note Metadata that serve this purpose have an active nature and an ability to generate views or actions that are consistent with overarching organisational frameworks for recordkeeping. This form of metadata specifies management requirements or business rules that govern record use or management To administer or resolve recordkeeping business means to: † Specify rules that govern recordkeeping business, including the recordkeeping business functions of disposal management, access control, user authorisation, record modification control, migration and conversion management, transfer management, redaction management, data protection, media management, implementation of authentication requirements, metadata management, business rules application, receipt production and reproduction management † Automate specified aspects of recordkeeping business through a combination of system design and metadata application Requirements can be applied to record, agent or business entities

Purposeful data

199

Purpose 5: document the history of recordkeeping events Scope note To track and document the history of recordkeeping events means to document: † All actions performed upon or in relation to records and/or records systems † The date, time and user ID for all recordkeeping actions † The effects of recordkeeping business upon records Recordkeeping business events through the continuum should be documented Audit trails documenting recordkeeping business should not be destroyed when record content and structure are destroyed. Instead this form of record context should endure as an ongoing account of management frameworks Purpose 6: facilitate discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery Scope note To facilitate discovery, understanding, retrieval and delivery means to: † Provide adequate metadata to enable discovery and retrieval of records. These data can be of any type, including metadata that document record locations, data that identifys the connections between entities or data that specifys record format † Capture structural or system detail necessary to sustain meaning and understanding through time, such as the logical relationships between aspects of a record or maintenance of the data values originally used within a record † Provide adequate metadata to facilitate retrieval and delivery, including any necessary retrieval and rendering data † Provide necessary descriptive information to enable records, agents and business to be understood and their relevance assessed Purpose 7: document metadata attribution Scope note To document metadata attribution means to: Provide necessary descriptive information to enable metadata attribution to be explained and understood. This can include identification of the metadata author, date of the metadata compilation and reference to the standards used in the metadata description

Table AI.

RMJ 17,3

200

About the author Kate Cumming has worked in policy and operational areas of the National Archives of Australia and State Records NSW and was involved in the development of the NSW Recordkeeping Metadata Standard and the redevelopment of the Manual for Designing and Implementing Recordkeeping Systems (DIRKS Manual). She has conducted research into recordkeeping metadata and completed her PhD on this topic. She is a member of Standards Australia’s archives and records management committee, IT/21, and was a member of the allied ISO committee TC 46/SC11. Kate is also involved with the Australian Society of Archivists’ Committee on Descriptive Standards. Kate Cumming can be contacted at: kateandella@ bigpond.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

Records management and information processing on construction sites using digital pen and paper

Information processing

201

Nigel Craig and James Sommerville School of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to present findings from research that evaluate the defects/snagging management process at construction project level and review the potential for the operation of a novel, paper-based, records management mechanism. Design/methodology/approach – The design and use of a hybrid electronic/paper-based snagging management system are discussed. The design and practicalities of the system are considered as a means towards demonstrating that a link currently exists between modern IT systems and traditional, paper-based methods of document transfer. Findings – The paper finds that the snagging aspect of construction projects is often overlooked and under-estimated. Construction projects require systems that facilitate data input and records management processing, thus removing the reliance upon traditional methods of working. A highly advanced digital pen and paper technology is discussed which has the potential to totally revolutionise the collection of information on paper (for all organisations). The IT system can be adapted for a range of processes/needs which aids not only management but also the individuals on the frontline responsible for collecting site-based records. Practical implications – The system highlighted has the potential to be adopted within every construction-based organisation and indeed wider industrial sectors due to its unique adaptability and ease with which features can be incorporated. There are a number of business benefits to be accrued from the adoption of digital pen and paper-based IT systems. Originality/value – Extremely novel technology is discussed. The value to the construction industry and wider industrial sectors is the opportunity to continue working using existing processes, whilst at the same time becoming wholly electronic. .

Keywords Records management, Construction systems, Computer peripheral equipment, Construction industry Paper type Research paper

Introduction The communication and information/records management process in the construction industry is still heavily biased towards traditional methods of paper transfer and although the use and awareness of IT has increased over the past decade many construction site records management processes are still lacking in quality and prone to errors. The use of IT within all facets of industry is now taken for granted as the The authors would like to thank the Managing Director of Sysnet Ltd for permission to use the graphical images of the Snagmastere product. For more information regarding digital pen and paper please e-mail [email protected] or visit www.snagmaster.co.uk

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 201-215 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833107

RMJ 17,3

202

awareness of its benefits increases. However, the exception to this general rule may be the construction industry, where many of the professionals still insist on using traditional communication methods to collect and transfer a wealth of general and project information. The issue and collection of information and records on construction projects is a process still centred on the use of pens and paper. This need not be seen as a negative centric view rather, what is required is a process which still uses pens and paper as its medium whilst at the same time allowing the user the chance to turn this information into a digital record which affords the opportunity to translate this information directly into digital project databases and applications. The development and implementation of new mobile technological solutions has the ability to automate electronic data capture of construction site information making the record instantly available to all within the construction team. This will remove the information flow bottleneck and effectively bring about greater client and contractor satisfaction. When the data capture method is coupled together with the latest internet and handwriting recognition software, it has the potential to revolutionise the way in which paper-based records are captured and transferred. The adoption and implementation of digital pens and paper and associated applications will also allow construction, and other, organisations to become IT centric whilst at the same time allowing the remotely based construction, or other, operatives the opportunity to collect and transfer information in a manner which they are familiar with, i.e. using a pen and paper. If implemented correctly, the knowledge gap that exists between current paper processes and IT systems could be resolved at the tick of a box. The technology, whilst being novel, can be adopted for use in all business and management environments, e.g. the recent digital local elections in Scotland (http:// news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/5385086.stm), the specific emphasis within this paper however is on the adoption of the technology within the construction industry and specifically the management of snagging in new homes. Records management in construction During the last decade, the construction industry has widely adopted the use of IT and the concept of managing projects using web-based technologies is closer to reality than ever before (Nikas et al., 2007). Despite this widespread use of IT however the industry is still seen by many to be backward in deploying technology, not least IT (Mak, 2001) and the invasion of IT within its core processes is still relatively poor compared to other industries (Nikas et al., 2007). The current way in which construction information is generated, stored and recorded is posing problems for construction-based personnel as the majority of construction-based processes are still heavily biased towards traditional means of communication such as paper documents (Stewart, 2007). The knowledge contained within these construction-based records must be captured into the organisations or project memory if it is to be shared amongst the wider team (Beastall, 1998). However, traditional paper based systems have failed to respond to change and do not provide the flexibility needed within the modern construction environment. At its simplest, records management in construction has usually been considered to cover the basics of creation, storage and retrieval. The majority of these records however are less reliable, retrievable or accessible than ever before (Duranti, 2001). Despite the presence of IT records management processes within construction rely upon an enormous amount of information produced by many

and even if this information is produced in an environment where good records management practises exist it has to be relevant, clear and most of all accurate as day-to-day decisions are based upon accurate recorded information. In today’s business environment, it is still very common for records that are relevant to a single matter to exist partly on paper, partly on an e-mail and partly within a database (Duranti, 2001). It is essential to establish links between the different aspects of records and create a set of formatted and related records that are created either physically or electronically (Loesch and Theodori, 2004). Duranti (2001), comments that records are meaningless out of context and several decades from now users must be able to see the dossier relating to the matter, in other words the complete record. For many records management systems (and document management systems) the acquisition of documents is not the issue: the records collection will consist of items created during normal day-to-day operations especially electronic records (Veal, 2001). It is the scale and importance of records management that is the issue. The scale and importance of records management is an essential facet of overall information management (Gyampoh-Vidogah et al., 2003) demonstrated by the fact that over 90 per cent of company documentation exists on paper (Joia, 1998) although Veal (2001) indicates that hard copy creation and distribution is being overtaken by electronic methods. As paper based records for many construction projects have future uses, they need to be organised and maintained (Loesch and Theodori, 2004) especially in the event of a conflict or claims situation. Loesch and Theodori (2004) also comment that stories about records and documents locked in drawers and filing cabinets are legendary with no global access to the data/record contained within. Veal (2001) indicates the accepted view at present is that we have progressed to the less-paper office rather than the paperless office. Furthermore the less-paper office may be as far as we can go until there are further technological advances available which will aid the records management process. Experiencing the advantages of IT is crucial to the construction industry whose contractors generally welcome a system that helps record and manage enormous amounts of project based information (Mak, 2001). However Morelli (2007) indicates that the records management community has largely ignored e-documents partly due to the view that only formal or declared records need to be managed and these formal or declared documents are often held in hard copy format. Many construction organisations are taking advantage of this shift towards electronic records management. We must first understand what records management systems are currently in place and the extent to which they have been utilised. Evaluation of current systems in use within the construction management domain Many construction organisations have not fully realised the value IT can add to their organisation. A primary goal of an IT integrated construction industry is to simplify the methods for recording information generated throughout the life of a project (Rankin and Froese, 2002). This primary goal will help to reduce the high levels of waste on construction projects usually caused by information that is inadequate, inappropriate, inconsistent, and late or a combination of these (Stewart, 2007). Inordinate amounts of information must be acquired and managed in order that any integrated IT system can be useful: inter-organisational information and records management systems are now being used for this purpose (Caldas and Soibelman,

Information processing

203

RMJ 17,3

204

2003). Many construction organisations invest heavily in IT systems because they perceive IT as a means of achieving efficiency (Mak, 2001). Lam and Chang (2002) believe that an effective information and records management system based upon the internet can solve many of the information related problems within the construction sector because it is the most suitable tool available which supports collaborative working. Nikas et al. (2007) comment that online collaboration tools can facilitate not only easier management of the construction project, but also allows better access and exchange of project records resulting in time and cost savings and streamlining of the overall construction processes. Project and site managers operating within the construction industry are being constantly inundated with information and documentation. The managers are then confronted with the problems of organising, recording and disseminating these huge amounts of information and how to respond to the daily request for information (Lam and Chang, 2002). When it comes to filing information and keeping records, many managers have to physically travel to submit such information or send the information through traditional systems such as the post (Gyampoh-Vidogah et al., 2003) which in itself is not secure because records can be lost and misplaced, which can result in disputes. Perhaps the greatest challenge for construction IT systems are the creation and maintenance of reliable records and the preservation of its authenticity over time (Duranti, 2001). It is vitally important that construction records can be proven to be what they are believed to be, are immune from tampering and can be regarded as trustworthy and reliable. This is especially so in situations of conflict or dispute, reliable and authentic records have to be produced to support such processes. It becomes clearly obvious that the use of any collaborative based system to solve any claims and dispute situations relies upon the records being contained within the system: without proper record keeping these IT tools will be of little value (Vidogah and Ndekugri, 1998). The management of the many construction processes can be improved by more effective transmission, storage and timely communication of relevant information and the management of the “snagging” process is one of these. The snagging process relies heavily upon the transfer of snagging information. However, all too often restrictions placed upon site personnel limit the efficiency of data collection and snagging per se, which is a process that is slow, unstructured, unreliable, and inaccurate and most importantly, not customer focused, therefore tends to become part of embedded project culture. Snags themselves (defects) are the items that are identified close to, or at, completion stage by the “snags controller” (nominated parties such as the client’s agent, project manager, site manager, and quality manager) during their daily walk around the construction site and can amount to many thousands of items on any given project. Construction operatives waste valuable time because snagging data has to be captured, transferred and disseminated manually. Enhancing the flow of snagging information between the different members of the project team makes it easier for the snags controller to monitor, assess, process and record snagging data. Many site issues including snagging need to be resolved quickly and effectively in order to avoid dispute and more importantly cost and time overruns. The collection and recording of snagging information can also be further hindered if there is not a simple quality system in place. A number of construction based organisations have simple quality systems in place which aid the control of the snagging process although these systems are at best “basic”.

Many paper based snagging systems are used to control the snagging process (Sommerville et al., 2004a) and although these are useful when recording basic snagging data, the data cannot be transferred electronically because of incompatibility with IT systems which results in a long and laborious, time consuming, process where data has to be re-keyed, re-constructed, scanned and copied in order to disseminate amongst the differing members of the construction supply chain who still insist on communicating using out-dated paper based methods of communication. Over the past five to ten years, the uptake of mobile technological solutions has been quite slow and tools such as personnel digital assistants (PDA’s) which can be used to control snagging or other construction processes have not witnessed the adoption rates the manufacturers had hoped for. The development and implementation of new mobile technology solutions has the ability to automate electronic data capture of snagging information and make the recorded information instantly available to all within the construction team and associated supply chain. This will remove the information flow bottleneck and effectively bring about greater client and contractor satisfaction. When the data capture method is coupled together with the latest internet and handwriting recognition software, it has the potential to revolutionise the way in which paper-based information is captured and transferred. Snagging case study – internet-based digital pen and paper solution “Snagmastere” The concept behind the development of the solution In the construction industry, a knowledge gap exists between available knowledge that is held within specialist databases (including the humans) and IT systems and manually created knowledge or that which has been created using traditional pen and paper methods. This historical reliance upon paper based records often deprives others who may wish to use the record of the chance to do so because it is locked up in a strict format and inherently difficult to access. The rectification of snagging items is a fact of life on all construction projects whether it is house-building, civil engineering projects or indeed simple day to day maintenance. To bridge the knowledge gap a solution to the problem has been developed where handwritten information can be created, sent, stored and mined electronically using the latest in digital pen and paper technology. The development of this web-based IT solution has been undertaken over a four year period with extensive consultation and testing being undertaken within the construction arena. A gap was identified within the snagging process that currently operates within the construction environment and a system has been developed which will aid the control, and dissemination of snagging data within construction organisations whilst at the same time, because of its remarkable ability to integrate on any project, be available to all those operating within the built environment domain. The system is now fully operational and available for use within the construction industry. How the system works – technically The underlying concept is that of using pen and paper (which is intuitive to most people) to interface with the digital world. The functionality of the technology combines the digital pen and paper with e-mail and IT systems. The operation of the

Information processing

205

RMJ 17,3

206

digital pen and paper relies upon two things: firstly the pen itself and secondly the paper, both of which are entirely unique. The digital pen has many characteristics and contains amongst others a processor, a camera, a memory, a battery, a communication unit and a standard ink cartridge (replaceable, which all normal pens use). The functionality of the whole digital pen and paper concept relies upon paper printed with a subtle pattern of dots (c.f. longitude and latitude) printed on ordinary paper using conventional printing techniques. The pattern of dots is entirely unique and each square of 6 £ 6 dots can provide unique information and can be assigned to an unlimited amount of functions such as tick boxes etc. When collecting information, the camera inside the pen, picks up the dots you are joining as the normal writing process continues and interprets this movement across the reference dots, storing this information inside the pen until downloaded. Transferring the information can be carried out in two ways. The first is to use a solution which is “locally” based, i.e. after the information has been collected and stored inside the pen, the pen talks to a PC after it has been docked into a cradle which is attached to a PC or laptop. Data upload using the various software packages needed is complete in seconds. Once the data upload is complete the memory of the pen is wiped clean and the information uploaded can be viewed within the relevant database. The second option is to use a total mobile solution, the key to which is the use of Bluetooth technology coupled together with a mobile phone. Within this alternate solution the pen gathers the data in the same way as above and stores the information inside the pen as normal. To transfer it however requires compatibility with a second mobile device. This involves sending the information from the pen via mobile phone to the internet. Once a connection has been established with the internet the information is transferred into the relevant databases and the memory of the pen is wiped clean. If a connection to the internet cannot be established the pen will store the recorded information until a connection can be established. No information is lost if no connection is established. How the system works – on site Snagmastere (IT based snagging system) has the potential to totally revolutionise the snagging process by closing the previously un-linked process elements between paper and electronic forms of communication. The system can be adopted for use by all construction organisations on all construction projects. Within the system, all snagging based information is centralised and by utilising the latest web technology the system acts as a recording and information platform for all construction based personnel throughout the life time of a project. The snagging data can be collected at any stage of the construction project. Powerful and logical processes have been built into the whole concept and the system operates in the following way: . The snagging data are collected (for example by a project manager or site manager) manually on a specially designed digital paper application (refer to Figure 1) that was set up from the original analysis of the snagging process in construction undertaken with the IT provider and by Sommerville et al. (2004a, b) although data input can be achieved without using the pen and paper route (online). For speed of operation and ease of use, many of the data cells chosen are tick box entries or textual information chosen from a pre-determined list of words and codes. The digital pen can store up to 500 individual snagging entries in its memory.

Information processing

207

Figure 1. Example digital paper snagging application – Snagmastere

RMJ 17,3

.

208

.

.

Figure 2. pre-determined location codes and how they appear within the system if selected

Snagging data are then transferred directly into a web-based database that interprets handwritten text, numbers, location codes (refer to Figure 2), package codes (refer to Figure 3) and dates to eliminate the re-entering of data. The handwritten information is also converted into digital format using handwriting recognition software as can be seen in Figure 4. An electronic image of the actual snagging description is also uploaded into the system as a back-up for the electronic data taking away the need for scanning and filing paper based documents (you can always view what you have written even if the original paper copy does not exist). Through the upload of paper images, paper copies of the snagging items are not required and the original paper copy can be thrown away. The snagging information is recorded and verified and other manual data entry can take place. Dissemination (issuing, actioning and approval) can take place immediately after the snagging items are uploaded into the system. Automatic e-mails are sent to a pre-defined list of contractors who all receive recorded information electronically and are able to action and sign-off snagging data if they have been given access

Information processing

209

Figure 3. Pre-determined package and contractor codes and how they appear within the system if selected

. .

rights to the database (all approval information is stored together with the time, authoriser and contractor details for future auditing and tracking purposes). Signing off snagging items is carried out by the individual contractors and is verified by their system using their user name and passwords. Snagging process continues as the project proceeds. Snagging controller performs system analysis to control and manage the performance of contractors and sub-contractors.

The digital paper solution will undoubtedly speed up the snagging transfer and dissemination process. The digital paper application is also customisable which basically means the fields and terminology on the digital paper application and within the web database can be changed to suite the individual situation or for example the corporate colours of the organisation adopting the technology. The system brings with it traceability and accountability features along with in-built security mechanisms. Other features of the system to the end user are numerous and include: . Project branded digital applications and certain web site features. Each organisation can be supplied with entirely different forms and web databases depending on how they operate. . The ability to use the standard docking station option or become completely mobile and transfer the data using a mobile phone. . The system is hosted on behalf of the user by an external provider. . Password and user name protected (users can only view snagging items applicable to their given role during configuration of the system). . Automated workflow procedures. . Automatic numbering and filing of snagging information taking away the onus on the individual to file the information. . Sub-contractors can be notified of snagging items by email, automatic faxing or if traditional based a paper copy.

RMJ 17,3

210

Figure 4. Screenshot of the web-based system and identification of imported information within specified database fields – Snagmastere

.

.

.

. .

Automatic storing of a digital image of the paper based documentation for recording and legislation purposes. The ability to record written information digitally using handwriting recognition software. Comprehensive reporting and system analysis features for interrogation of and performance management of sub-contractors. The ability to work traditionally using a familiar method (paper based). The technology is hidden which greatly reduces the common human barrier to IT, that of resistance to change.

Business benefits tend to be centred on time, cost and quality. Many of the system benefits listed below are biased towards time and quality as measuring cost benefits within the construction industry is notoriously difficult due to the lack of available costing models although cost savings could be estimated through examination of data input and reporting timescales. The main business benefits of the system are: . speed of the snagging process is dramatically improved; . quicker data interrogation; . improved confidence in snagging data due to the quality of data uploaded; . legal validity of data entries becomes more robust; . convenient, safe, completely mobile and reliable form of data transfer method; . a familiar and comfortable working method is adopted although it becomes electronic; . complete electronic records of snagging data from a range of projects; . reduction in the administration burden; . eliminates the need to keep paper based records due to automatic uploading of images; and . system based upon industry best performance after extensive industry analysis. It is important however to compare and contrast the use of the pen and paper technology with a traditional approach. The main benefit of the approach is that of time-saving. The time it takes to go through a standard paper delivery process can be dramatically reduced by automating the process. Manual and physical steps such as faxing, transporting and distributing information are eliminated from the process as can be seen in Figure 5. Despite the significant benefits derived from the implementation of the snagging system it is also important to learn from the experience and note what could be improved still further such as, the integration of the system with other company systems (stand alone system) and further improvement of the handwriting recognition software. Maintenance and retention management of digital pen and paper records The management of construction records needs to be structured in a systematic manner to ensure that all project participants have instant access to all project data. With increasing focus and fuller awareness now being placed on customer quality,

Information processing

211

RMJ 17,3

212 Figure 5. Time and resource savings possible using digital pen and paper technology

quality based IT systems are beginning to emerge as powerful tools which aid the quality control process within the construction industry. The case review discussed has shown that advanced technological solutions are the way forward and the evaluation of such systems demonstrates their worth as they enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the snagging process and overall improve project quality. Being web-based allows for constant updating with additional functionality that changes the way the system works, looks and feels. Pennock and Kelly (2006) comment that the average lifespan of a web-page is deemed to be 100 days and that proper management of web-based records during the active phase of their life-cycle is vital if authenticity and integrity is to be assured at a later date should the records need to be relied upon. Web-based resources hold value over time and must be managed in a manner appropriate to their retention. Snagging and defects management records are evidence of quality management transactions and are essential for accountability and traceability reasons. Traditional paper based record keeping fails to identify and capture records in electronic format although the digital pen and paper option does allow for this and retains the original paper image as well as transferring the information directly into a database. When implementing records based management into construction systems it is important to identify what information is to be retained, how it is to be recorded and how long the records should be preserved for. Figure 6 demonstrates the life cycle of a typical snagging record. Retention periods (contained within the specific form of contractual arrangement used) specify how long the records need to be retained for; in the construction industry this can depend upon the type of project (private finance initiative/PPP projects are carried out on a typical 25 year cycle), the procurement route used (design and build, construction management) or indeed the type of contract used (JCT 05, new engineering contract). It is important that records management guidelines are applied to the retention period of web based records to ensure that contractual obligations of the contract are met and measures should be taken to ensure the snagging records are unchanged, authentic and their integrity assured (Pennock and Kelly, 2006). The possibilities of digital pen and paper and the associated forms are endless. The concept is certainly not restricted for use within the construction industry. Applications can be built for a range of industries with solutions ranging from

Information processing

213

Figure 6. Life cycle of the snagging record

renditions of simple forms such as those which use the “tick box” options as used within the world’s first digital election in Scotland were the result was known as soon as the ballot station closed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/ 5385086.stm), to complex technical forms and interactive print advertisements that use more sophisticated software and more intuitive approaches to records management such as those adopted within the manufacturing industry. In fact, the digital pen and paper services allow information on specially designed paper forms to be seamlessly transferred into IT systems, databases, workflow applications and so on – effectively creating an easy to use and natural interface that users are familiar with. Conclusions There is a compelling case for the use of IT and digital paper applications to cut costs and improve efficiency within the construction industry. Although many organisations have advanced IT systems in place a substantial effort is required to keep them up to date whilst at the same time integrating these systems with existing paper based processes. Recent trends towards the use of mobile communication tools have increased the opportunities towards improving the flow of construction information. There are many ways in which the construction operative can benefit from the use of mobile tools. The construction industry however is still heavily biased towards the use of paper and until this process area is fully addressed and researched, the use of paper in an unstructured construction environment will continue as the main mechanism for creating, transferring and recording project information.

RMJ 17,3

214

The adoption of digital pen and paper technology is a solution to the problem of collecting and recording information on standard paper and its use is becoming increasingly more widespread throughout the construction sector. Used in conjunction with handwriting recognition the technology will eliminate the duplication of effort created by the need to input paper based information manually into software packages. This method of automatic data capture will make construction records instantly available to all construction parties in a format that is compatible to all and has the potential to revolutionise the way in which paper records are collected and transferred. The construction industry at-large will benefit from the adoption of digital pen and paper technology. The convenience of using wireless communication will ultimately result in improvements to productivity and efficiency. With the aid of such systems construction based managers can overcome time and transfer restrictions and furthermore the documents are submitted in electronic format that results in cost and manpower savings. There must however be a compelling case to use the technology and therefore an initial analysis of the paper-based process will determine whether the benefits of digital pen and paper technology will improve the conventional paper based process. The success in generating value through records management lies in changing the way in which the industry currently operates. Although the use of digital pen and paper is becoming more widespread, it is often a journey into the unknown and therefore further research is recommended which should measure the productivity impacts of digital pen and paper technology versus the traditional paper based process. References Beastall, G. (1998), “Records management meets knowledge gathering”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 89-94. Caldas, C.H. and Soibelman, L. (2003), “Automating hierarchical document classification for construction management information systems”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 395-406. Duranti, L. (2001), “Concepts, principles and methods for the management of electronic records”, The Information Society, Vol. 17, pp. 271-9. Gyampoh-Vidogah, R., Moreton, R. and Proverbs, D. (2003), “Implementing information management in construction: establishing problems, concepts and practice”, Journal of Construction Innovation, Vol. 3, pp. 157-73. Joia, L.E. (1998), “Large scale engineering in project documentation and workflow at engineering consultancy companies”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 215-24. Lam, H.F. and Chang, T.Y.P. (2002), “Web-based information management system for construction projects”, Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 280-93. Loesch, J.E. and Theodori, J. (2004), “Document management: a case study”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 273-83. Mak, S. (2001), “A model of information management for construction using information technology”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 10, pp. 257-63. Morelli, J. (2007), “Hybrid filing schemes: the use of metadata signposts in functional file plans”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-31.

Nikas, A., Poulymenakou, A. and Kriaris, P. (2007), “Investigating antecedents and drivers affecting the adoption of collaboration technologies in the construction industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 632-41. Pennock, M. and Kelly, B. (2006), “Archiving web site resources: a records management view”, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland, May 23-26. Rankin, J.H. and Froese, T.M. (2002), “Information population of an integrated construction management system”, Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 256-68. Sommerville, J., Craig, N. and Bowden, S. (2004a), “The standardisation of construction snagging”, Journal of Structural Survey, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 251-8. Sommerville, J., Craig, N. and Ohlstenius, O. (2004b), “Handwriting recognition: improving the effectiveness of construction project information”, 4th International Post-graduate Research Conference (IPRC 2004), Salford University, Vol. 1, pp. 274-83. Stewart, R. (2007), “IT enhanced project information management in construction: pathways to improved performance and strategic competitiveness”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 511-17. Veal, D.C. (2001), “Techniques of document management: a review of text retrieval and related technologies”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 192-217. Vidogah, W. and Ndekugri, I. (1998), “A review of the role of information technology in construction claims management”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 77-85. About the authors Nigel Craig is a Research Fellow and active member of the research community. His recent work includes a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) in association with innovative IT Company Sysnet working on a project to design and develop IT solutions for the construction industry coupled together with digital pen and paper applications. Nigel has also recently co-authored a book titled Implementing IT in Construction. Nigel Craig is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] James Sommerville has extensive industrial experience in the UK and Middle East coupled with a range of academic and professional qualifications. His work in implementation of IT within the construction industry has centred on document management, process improvement systems and handwriting interfaces. James has recently co-authored a book titled Implementing IT in Construction. A recent Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) with IT Company Sysnet, where James was the lead academic, was awarded the highest grade for its overall performance.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Information processing

215

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ 17,3

Records management capacity and compliance toolkits: a critical assessment

216

Julie McLeod and Sue Childs School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and

Susan Heaford JISC infoNet, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Abstract Purpose – This article seeks to present the results of a project that critically evaluated a series of toolkits for assessing records management capacity and/or compliance. These toolkits have been developed in different countries and sectors within the context of the e-environment and provide evidence of good corporate and information governance. Design/methodology/approach – A desk-based investigation of the tools was followed by an electronic Delphi with toolkit developers and performance measurement experts to develop a set of evaluation criteria. Different stakeholders then evaluated the toolkits against the criteria using cognitive walkthroughs and expert heuristic reviews. The results and the research process were reviewed via electronic discussion. Findings – Developed by recognised and highly respected organisations, three of the toolkits are software tools, whilst the fourth is a methodology. They are all underpinned by relevant national/international records management legislation, standards and good practice including, either implicitly or explicitly, ISO 15489. They all have strengths, complementing rather than competing with one another. They enable the involvement of other staff, thereby providing an opportunity for raising awareness of the importance of effective records management. Practical implications – These toolkits are potentially very powerful, flexible and of real value to organisations in managing their records. They can be used for a “quick and dirty” assessment of records management capacity or compliance as well as in-depth analysis. The most important criterion for selecting the appropriate one is to match the toolkit with the scenario. Originality/value – This paper aims to raise awareness of the range and nature of records management toolkits and their potential for varied use in practice to support more effective management of records. Keywords Records management, Assessment, Benchmarking, Research Paper type Research paper

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 216-232 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565690710833116

Context Records support more effective and efficient business, underpin e-government and service delivery, help to demonstrate accountability, transparency and corporate governance, and are the source of information for citizens in the context of open government and freedom of information. But, only since the end of the twentieth century and the current millennium has the importance of effective records management been widely recognised: The project was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board (now the Arts and Humanities Research Council – AHRC).

Good records management should be seen as a benefit, not a burden (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2006, p. 1).

In the UK at least this has been due to a combination of factors. Public sector organisations realised that effective records management was key to them being able to comply with new freedom of information legislation and environmental information regulations (The Stationery Office, 2000, 2004). Many used the model action plans (MAPs) produced by The National Archives (TNA) (e.g. The National Archives, 2002) to benchmark their current practice against the recommendations for compliance with the code of practice on records management under Section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, issued by the then Lord Chancellor’s Office (Lord Chancellor’s Office, 2002). Both public and private sector organisations have been affected by scandals, failures and embarrassing situations that have involved, and in some instances been the result of, mismanagement of records. In the US the Enron and Worldcom financial scandals resulted in the US Congress passing new legislation, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or SoX (Government Printing Office, 2002), imposing more stringent recordkeeping requirements (Stephens, 2005). The Bichard Enquiry (www.bichardinquiry.org.uk/) explored issues arising from the Soham murders, including intelligence-based recordkeeping and the lack of records to support information sharing between public sector agencies. And Moss (2005) critically reviews the inadequacies of recordkeeping as revealed by the Hutton Enquiry. There are many other examples of negative scenarios which have raised the profile of records management in today’s e-information society. On a positive note ISO 15489 (2001) provides an authoritative source for promoting effective records management as underpinning effective business management. Since the publication of this important best practice standard, guides have been produced and training opportunities provided to help organisations successfully implement it. Examples in the UK are the BIP0025:1-4 guides (BSI 2002, 2003 and 2007) and workshops provided by BSI, the Records Management Society (www.rms-gb.org.uk) and TPFL (www.tfpl.com). In addition, since the publication of ISO 15489 (2001) a range of toolkits has been developed for different yet related purposes within the broad context of measuring records management capacity, compliance and/or readiness in the electronic environment. They have been developed by different organisations in different countries and from different sectors. This article shares the results of a short project, undertaken from September 2005 to February 2006, which investigated the development and application of some of these toolkits. Project aims and research questions The aim of the project was to critically evaluate four toolkits for assessing records management capacity and/or compliance from both the theoretical and practical aspects. In doing so it sought to answer the following questions: (1) Why were the toolkits developed? Why did their developers see a need for a toolkit and invest in their development? What was the rationale? (2) What is the purpose of the toolkits and who are the intended users? Are they the similar or different?

Records management capacity 217

RMJ 17,3

218

(3) What models, theoretical frameworks and/or principles underpinned the toolkits? Why were these chosen and were any others considered and rejected? (4) What is the underlying design and technology used and why was this chosen? (5) Who is actually using the toolkits, how and why? How practical are they to implement? How effective are they? What value and benefits have been gained by deploying them? (6) What are the strengths of the toolkits? (7) How do the toolkits compare in terms of appropriateness for different scenarios or contexts? The work built on the results of a previous project that assessed the impact of ISO 15489 in the UK (McLeod, 2004a, b, 2005; McLeod and Childs, 2006) and highlighted the need for practical tools to help organisations assess their compliance with the ISO standard. Records management toolkits The four toolkits selected for the study were (in alphabetical order): (1) Information Governance Toolkit (IGT). Developed by the UK National Health Service (NHS) and only available via NHSnet; designed to assess Information management (IM) governance in NHS organisations (www.igt. connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/). (2) Information Management Capacity Check (IMCC) Tool and Methodology. Developed by the Library and Archives Canada; designed to assess IM capabilities of Canadian federal organisations (www.collectionscanada.ca/ information-management/002/007002-2003-e.html). (3) Records Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS). Developed by the International Records Management Trust; designed to assess Records and Information Management (RIM) capacity in the public sector, particularly for developing countries (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/rmcas). (4) RiskProfiler. Developed by ARMA International and NetDiligence; designed to assess RIM for compliance (available to all organisations for a fee) (www.arma. org/standards/eassessment.cfm). Two of the toolkits explicitly incorporate the requirements of ISO 15489 within their design and two encompass the spirit of what the standard seeks to ensure viz. “that appropriate attention and protection is given to all records, and that the evidence and information they contain can be retrieved more efficiently and effectively, using standard practices and procedures” (ISO 15489, 2001, p. vi). The organisations producing the toolkits were keen to participate in the project, believing it would add value for the profession and wider potential user community. A literature review at the start of the project found that records management toolkits had not been widely discussed and literature on the four particular toolkits was very limited, other than press releases on the web. Three articles were found referring to records management toolkits in general. Harries (2001, p. 36) refers to “workflow and object-orientated toolkits”, in the context of software packages that address electronic document and records management. Barata

and Cain (2003) discuss a wide range of records management “toolkits” which include methodologies, standards and codes of practice. And Bailey (2003, p. 27) refers to the development of an electronic records management training package as a tool for raising awareness and promoting best practice in records management where there is none (this tool was in fact developed by Northumbria University (Hare, 2004) and has since been replaced with a training guide for administrators (JISC infoNet www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/ records-management/guide-for-administrators)). Other articles describe one or other of the toolkits covered in this project: Carlisle (2004) on the ARMA toolkit; Demb (2004) and Griffin (2004) on the RMCS toolkit; and Wells (2004) on the IGT. A few articles were found on evaluating toolkits. Thebridge (2004) and Greenwood and Davies (2004) discuss toolkits in library contexts, the latter providing interesting and relevant background from the toolkit developer’s perspective. They describe designing a toolkit for evaluating a project as a “formidable task” where affordability was key for both the funders and project co-ordinators and concluded that the toolkit development process “demonstrated the importance of properly framed evaluation in achieving excellence and in advocacy” (Greenwood and Davies, 2004, pp. 110-112). Their experience was relevant to both the evaluation process undertaken in this research project and the understanding of the outcomes from the perspectives of different stakeholders, viz. users and developers. Haswell and Banwell (2004) report on an investigation into existing toolkits for ICT evaluation but do not explain how to evaluate a toolkit. Two articles were useful in exploring definitions of “evaluation” and “toolkits”. Banwell (2000, p. 173) describes “evaluation” as a complex field, associated with a range of other concepts including “performance measurement and benchmarking, quality, validity, effectiveness, value for money, best value and audit”. Oliver and Conole (2000, p. 32) define “toolkits” as “decision making systems based on expert models” which they expand on saying: All toolkits include an expert model of a process derived from recognised theory and best practice . . . [they] produce documentary evidence of assumptions, process and outputs . . . for quality assurance and assessment purposes . . . bringing best practice within the reach of all practitioners in a usable format (Oliver and Conole, 2000, p. 35).

These definitions are important since the word “toolkit” can vary from discipline to discipline, the types of tool can vary and the scope of an evaluation must be clear. Methodology To achieve the aims and answer the research questions the project investigated: . the context and purpose(s) of each tool; . the underlying principles and models of their design; and . their utilisation and the benefits realised together with their strengths and areas for improvement from the stakeholders’ perspectives. The qualitative methodology comprised four main phases: (1) An initial desk-based investigation of the toolkits, entailing a focused review of the literature on toolkits generally, and obtaining factual information about the structure, design and output of each of the specific toolkits from manuals, background information and contact with the developers.

Records management capacity 219

RMJ 17,3

220

(2) An e-Delphi study with toolkit developers and performance measurement experts to develop a set of criteria for evaluating any records management toolkit. (3) The toolkit evaluation undertaken by different stakeholders, using the project-developed criteria in cognitive walkthroughs and expert heuristic reviews. (4) Review of the results and evaluation of the research (project) process, via electronic discussion. Development of evaluation criteria via a Delphi study The e-Delphi study was used to gather expert opinion on toolkit design and development and to determine a set of evaluation criteria. This technique was developed in the 1950s at the Rand Corporation to gather a consensus of “expert” opinion (Gupta and Clarke, 1996, p. 185). We used a relatively “classic” Delphi technique (e.g. Linstone and Turoff, 2002) although it was conducted electronically via e-mail. This approach enabled experts located in different parts of the world to participate in the anonymous generation and agreement of evaluation criteria. They were a combination of three stakeholders involved in the development of the toolkits and two objective experts, one a records practitioner, the other a researcher with expertise in evaluation. The first round was used to elicit ideas for evaluation criteria. The experts’ suggestions were analysed qualitatively to produce a first set of criteria, organised under categories. These were then fed back to them for ranking in order of importance and to identify any gaps. These results were then analysed quantitatively. However, there was little difference in ranking of the criteria; they were deemed to be of equal importance. Though developed in the context of records management toolkits, these criteria are sufficiently generic that they could be used to evaluate any type of toolkit measuring an organisation’s performance of their business processes. The evaluation criteria are given below: (1) Provenance of toolkit: . producer’s name; . producer’s category; . producer’s track record in the RM field; . sustainability of toolkit; . process of development of toolkit; . date of current version; . toolkit kept up-to-date; . vendor support; . acceptable use statements; . fees/extra charges for various support functions; and . any additional comments about provenance. (2) Toolkit audience: . toolkit targeted at different sectors; . toolkit targeted at different types of organisation within a particular sector;

toolkit targeted at different sizes of organisation; toolkit targeted at different staff categories within an organisation; and . any additional comments about toolkit audience. Toolkit coverage: . toolkit purpose; . type of records; . toolkit addresses the full life cycle or continuum of records management processes; . toolkit results accurately represent the state of the organisation’s RM situation; . toolkit results completely represent the state of the organisation’s RM situation; and . any additional comments about toolkit coverage. Toolkit content based on legislation/standards/best practice: . legislation used to develop the toolkit; . standards used to develop the toolkit; . sector policy, guidelines and compliance requirements used to develop the toolkit; . best practice used to develop the toolkit; . clear traceability of the tools evaluation criteria to specific statements in legislation/standards/policy, guidelines, compliance requirements / best practices, etc.; and . any additional comments on toolkit content. Toolkit process/format: . information gathering process; . user’s own internal documentation to be consulted when using the toolkit; . toolkit is automated for data input and analysis; and . any additional comments about toolkit process/format. Resource requirements to use the toolkit: . money; . people; . time taken for evaluation process to be completed; . time commitment of staff; and . any additional comments on resource requirements to use the toolkit. Accessibility/compatibility of the toolkit: . accessibility of the toolkit to disabled people or people with an impairment; . accessibility of the software tool from a technology viewpoint; . compatibility of the software tool; and . any additional comments on accessibility/compatibility of the toolkit. . .

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Records management capacity 221

RMJ 17,3

222

(8) Usability of the toolkit: . clearly articulated methodology; . background information provided; . training available for operators and users; . help files; . “how to guidance” to move through the toolkit from stage to stage; . easy to learn; . easy to remember; . clear language; . clear user instructions; . options for both new and experienced users; . visually pleasing; . enjoyable; . easy to recover from user errors; . easy to understand and interpret the results of the evaluation; . the software tool is accessible from many different locations; . the contents of a software tool can be printed out; . the software tool can support large amounts of data; . with a software tool, the user can save evaluation drafts and return to them at a later time; . with a software tool, the results of the evaluation can be exported to other platforms; and . any additional comments on usability of toolkit. (9) Evaluation approach: . who collects and inputs the data; . toolkit can be customised; . depth of the toolkit’s evaluation criteria; . consensus is required on answers to the toolkit’s evaluation criteria before data input; . methods for providing answers to evaluation questions and criteria; . data can be input over a period of time, on a stop – restart basis; . process for analysing the data; . ability of the software tool to accommodate conflicting information during the evaluation phase; . data can be analysed over a period of time, on a stop – restart basis; . how the results are presented; . “how to guidance” to respond to the results of the evaluation to improve practices and enable change;

. .

the toolkit can be reused any number of times under the same license; and any additional comments on evaluation approach (see McLeod et al., 2006b) for the criteria with explanatory examples and notes).

Toolkit evaluation via a cognitive walkthrough and heuristic reviews The evaluation criteria were then used to develop the structure of a cognitive walkthrough (Wharton et al., 1994; Bias, 1994) used by two researchers to conduct an independent and objective assessment of each toolkit. The cognitive walkthrough approach to evaluation has its origins in software engineering and involves a “detailed review of a sequence of actions” (Abowd, 1995). It is based on the information processing model of human cognition, i.e. a goal is set, a system is searched for available action to meet the goal, the action is selected, the action performed, the user evaluates performance and remembers success or failure. The purpose is to evaluate the system not the user. The researchers conducting the cognitive walkthrough were not records management experts though they were information management experts, and were obviously records creators and users with particular knowledge/awareness of the need to manage research records appropriately. The decision not to use records experts for this part of the evaluation was deliberate. It enabled them to evaluate the usability of the toolkit from a layperson’s perspective, to become familiar with each toolkit, and to test the suitability and clarity of the evaluation criteria. The researchers used their own organisational context (the subject team within the School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences at Northumbria University) as the context for using and assessing each toolkit, commenting on each step as they systematically worked their way through the toolkits sequentially from “introduction to conclusion”. Two further assessments were undertaken: one by a researcher with records management expertise, but no experience of using the toolkits under study; the other by a real toolkit user (one for each of the toolkits). With the help of the toolkit producers one expert user was identified for each toolkit in all but one case, where the expert user was a person known to the researchers. Asking the producers to identify these experts had the potential to introduce bias. However, it was important to identify users who were able to give a full evaluation, given only one expert user was to be used per toolkit, and this was a pragmatic approach to identifying them. The expert users had all used the particular toolkit in a real situation to ensure their evaluation was well informed and not superficial. Some were more experienced in using a toolkit than others. These assessments took the form of a modified expert heuristic review (Nielsen, 1994): Heuristic review is a type of expert evaluation, where experts review a product’s usability. It is an easy to learn method that can be quickly applied . . . to roughly determine the usability of . . . software products (OCLC, n.d.).

In a heuristic review the experts bring their own knowledge to their assessment; they have previously learned and internalised appropriate heuristics that they apply in a more informal way to the evaluation task. They do not necessarily follow the set of sequential steps used by the cognitive walkers but conduct their evaluation as a more random, non-linear process. However, in our approach the project-developed criteria

Records management capacity 223

RMJ 17,3

224

were also used by the records expert and the expert toolkit users. Use of toolkit users extended the normal scope of a heuristic review beyond an evaluation of the user interface and ease-of-use of the toolkit by, for example, reviewing the usability of the results and analysis, and the tangible and intangible value and benefits of the process and outputs within the context of everyday activities. All of the evaluation was conducted virtually, either electronically or via telephone calls and e-mail correspondence, with the exception of one toolkit, the IGT. This required access over the NHS secure intranet and entailed two on-site visits. In all but one case, the IMCC, it was possible to have face-to-face discussions with the toolkit producers to either clarify factual queries or learn about the toolkit. In both the cognitive walkthroughs and the heuristic reviews the (electronic) evaluations were conducted independently and individually for each toolkit by answering the questions that formed the evaluation criteria. The individual results were collated into one document for each toolkit. The project staff discussed in depth the results for each toolkit, noting commonalities and disagreements. A final consensus evaluation was then agreed for each toolkit. Additionally, commonalities between the results for all the toolkits enabled generic recommendations for good practice in developing and revising records management toolkits to be drawn up (McLeod et al., 2006a). The fact that two researchers had completed a cognitive walkthrough of each toolkit meant that in the analysis the project staff could be alerted to any subjectivity in the data from the expert users that could have been the result of familiarity with the toolkit. This methodological approach to the evaluation involving three types of users (expert users, a records management expert who was not a user of the toolkits in a real situation and non-records management experts who were expert researchers) enabled triangulation of the data collected and hence the robustness and validity of the results; in other words there was a 360 degree evaluation of each toolkit. Analysis of the results and research process via e-discussion The final phase of the investigation was an electronic discussion with the developers involved in the initial e-Delphi who were presented with an analysis of the evaluation results. They were asked to comment on the results and the approach taken to the research. Findings The results of the assessment are presented in two forms. First, is a brief textual summary of each toolkit, which addresses some of the research questions posed, in particular why the toolkits were developed, their purpose and intended users. This is followed by a summary evaluation under each of the remaining research questions. For further details of the toolkit features and use see the separate guide to records management toolkits (McLeod et al., 2006b, http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/ re/isrc/themes/rmarea/tlkit/). Overview of each toolkit Information Governance Toolkit (IGT). Use of the IGT is internal to the NHS and NHS organisations. Its aim is to assess NHS organisations’ information governance and their compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; records management is

included in the assessment. The toolkit is applied organisation-wide. It was first issued in the NHS financial year 2003-2004 and is revised annually. Its use is a mandatory annual requirement as part of the NHS assurance framework. The Healthcare Commission (www.healthcarecommission.org.uk) also uses the toolkit as part of their audit of NHS organisations’ performance. An NHS records management code of practice has recently been developed (Department of Health, 2006) and will inform the content of the IGT. The version assessed by the project covers the following elements: information governance management, records management (primarily health records), freedom of information (including records management for administrative records), data protection, confidentiality, data quality/accreditation, information security, and the NHS national plan for IT. The assessment, in the form of easy-to-answer questions, is completed through teamwork involving a small number of “reviewers” and “users” and one administrator. Data is input into a web-based tool via radio buttons. Results are presented in an easy-to-understand way using traffic lights. The toolkit provides a simple system for organisational benchmarking/auditing, with comparison to last year’s results and guidance for future improvement. Help and guidance on using the toolkit is available via the web, along with links to a comprehensive collection of internal and external resources (e.g. standards, legislation, good practice, examples). The results of other NHS organisations are available for comparison; NHS organisations publish their results for the public to see and the Healthcare Commission’s audits are also publicly available. Information Management Capacity Check Tool and Methodology (IMCC). The IMCC, although aimed at helping Canadian federal departments and agencies to assess their current information management capabilities, is freely available on the web in a variety of textual forms (html, rtf, pdf, ppt); it is a “methodology” not a software tool. The tool comprises six key elements of information management practices (i.e. organizational context; organizational capabilities; management of information management; compliance and quality; records and information life cycle; user perspective) with criteria under each element, and assessment of each criterion at one of five capacity levels. The methodology comprises setting up a project team, collecting data from staff (through workshops and interviews) and by analysis of documentation, establishing results and assessment through discussion, and producing a report and action plan for future improvement. Guidance on conducting the review is available but there are no explicit links to background resources (other than the Library and Archives Canada web site). The tool is very strong on the “process” of evaluating information management capacity and, by involving so many staff members, develops teamwork and communication channels, engages people with records management, and should result in the setting up of a process of continuous improvement. However, such an approach can be very human and time resource intensive. Records Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS). RMCAS is designed to help assess records and information systems capacity in public sector organisations, particularly those in developing countries. It is a downloadable software tool freely available from the web. It focuses on corporate governance issues: law, policies and procedures; ICT – records management integration; resources and training; records management programme management; awareness and ownership; business function – records management integration. The toolkit is versatile and may be used at different organisational levels (e.g. sector, organisation, department, project, system). Questions

Records management capacity 225

RMJ 17,3

226

can be answered via radio buttons or text replies. Each capacity statement is traceable to internationally recognised best practice. Assessment does not have to be completed in one go; the assessor can return to the toolkit at their convenience. A wide range of outputs is produced, e.g. 2D/3D graphical summaries, detailed and customisable reports, detailed reports for individual respondents’ further interpretation. RMCAS is a powerful, detailed, sophisticated, comprehensive tool; however this means that investment in learning how to use it is required for users to become familiar with terminology and to reap the value of its complexity and depth/breadth of coverage and analysis. A separate user guide in pdf is available from the producer’s web site and the software provides extensive online help. RiskProfiler. RiskProfiler is a web-based software tool available on payment of a fee, of a level such that it should be within the means of all but the smallest of organisations. The tool assesses an organisation’s records management programme against internationally recognised standards with the aim of identifying risks of non-compliance with legislation and regulations. It covers the organisation’s demographic details; policies and procedures; overall program structure; classification plan effectiveness; records security and protection; active records program effectiveness; inactive records program effectiveness; monitoring and training. The toolkit is very easy and intuitive to use. Questions are easy-to-answer with radio buttons and some limited textual input. Assessment does not have to be completed in one go; the assessor can return at their convenience. Summary report cards are produced showing scores for each section and any issues that should be addressed, linked to a brief summary of best practice for future improvement. Traffic light results are also provided. The tool also enables an organisation’s results to be compared against the anonymised results of other organisations in their sector, as well as with their own previous assessment. Answers to research questions What models, theoretical frameworks and/or principles underpin the toolkits? Why were these chosen and were any others considered and rejected? Relevant national/international records management legislation, standards and good practice underpin all of the toolkits. This provides authority and is a quality indicator. ISO 15489 (2001) explicitly underpins RMCAS and RiskProfiler and is referred to by the IGT, but is not explicitly referenced in the IMCC toolkit. In some of the toolkits the evaluation criteria are clearly traceable to specific statements in the legislation/standards/good practice, with links to good practice guidance to enable change and improvement. There was no indication that alternative models etc. had been considered and rejected. What is the underlying design and technology used and why was this chosen? Three of the toolkits (IGT, RMCAS, RiskProfiler) are software tools for data input, analysis and report generation. However, in each case, the automated analysis process is “hidden”, the tools functioning as “black boxes”. The IMCC comprises documentation describing the process to be undertaken. In addition to the transparent assessment of information management capabilities the process engages staff with records management and encourages change. Interestingly, none of the software toolkits explicitly catered for the needs of those with impairments (e.g. visual

or mobility) by, for example, following WC3 guidelines (www.w3.org/WAI/intro/ accessibility.php). Who is actually using the toolkits, how and why? How practical are they to implement? How effective are they? What value and benefits have been gained by deploying them? The IGT has a clearly defined user group (UK NHS organisations) and its use it mandatory. Producers of the other toolkits have their own (confidential) information about their toolkit users. In some cases the users match their target audience and in others (e.g. those freely available on the web) they are broader. In the four real examples provided by the expert users, each toolkit was found to be very effective. They were used for different purposes: . An initial consultancy assessment for a small non-profit making organisation where the outputs were valuable in communicating the state of recordkeeping. . To give “a rather complete overview of where we stood in the ‘battle of compliance’ and thus in our goal to establish good overall record and information management” in a large government department. . To self-assess the status of information management maturity in two national bodies prior to their merger and to determine a desired state of maturity post merger. “It was a great tool to bring people together to discuss issues of information management (IM) and to learn more about what other people in the institution do”. . For a mandatory annual assessment in an NHS Trust, which was an “effective way of focusing the Trust across the range of information governance (IG) requirements including RM”, the results forming an annual work plan against which to measure progress. What are the strengths of the toolkits? How do the toolkits compare in terms of appropriateness for different scenarios or contexts? All of the toolkits have strengths. Because they each have a different purpose, audience and/or design, they “complement” rather than “compete” with each other. One advantage of the toolkits is their flexibility; users can adapt them to their own needs, using them either comprehensively or in a “quick and dirty” fashion. The toolkits met their stated objectives, and were practical to implement, albeit with the need for minor improvements. The real-life users said the toolkits met their own particular objectives, were effective, and assisted in improving records management within their organizations. They would all use such toolkits again. However, the results from using any toolkit depend on the thoroughness and accuracy of the data “input” by the user. This thoroughness and accuracy would clearly be improved by the involvement of records management and archives staff in the process. Conclusions and recommendations Toolkits are so rich that ideally the evaluation of these toolkits would have been much longer involving, for example, more expert users. A more in-depth and lengthy application in our own (university) organisational context and/or evaluating each toolkit using the scenario or approach they were designed/targeted for in the university context, would have been interesting. This would have meant involving senior

Records management capacity 227

RMJ 17,3

228

management and other stakeholders in using the IMCC and RMCAS toolkits; involving the university’s records manager and consulting all of the documentation for ARMA’s RiskProfiler toolkit; and involving multiple reviewers with the IGT. But the constraints of the project design, existing knowledge of the toolkits at the time the project was designed, and the desire to conduct a timely project precluded this. Despite these limitations the project delivered some valuable outputs, namely: . a set of evaluation criteria to use for evaluating and selecting any records management toolkit and potentially, with some adaptation, other information management toolkits; . a guide to four toolkits, including real case examples, and recommendations for their practical use (McLeod et al., 2006b); and . a series of generic good practice recommendations for toolkit developers in the initial development or revision of a records management toolkit (McLeod et al., 2006a, appendix B). The results highlight the similarities of the toolkits (e.g. their design based on best practice and internal/external standards) as well as their differences (e.g. format and intended audience). They demonstrate the variety offered by just a small number of toolkits and consequently their combined potential value for many organisations. None of the toolkits evaluated was suitable for all organisations and all situations; indeed none made that claim. They are all relatively easy to use, the more detailed ones requiring more subject expertise to gain maximum benefit and ensure reliable and accurate results. They offer the potential to assess compliance and/or capacity, benchmark against standards (in some cases benchmark against other organisations), identify strengths, weaknesses and areas for improving an organisation’s records management. The case examples provided by the expert users illustrate how toolkits can be used for different purposes and at different levels, e.g. in a “quick and dirty” manner or in detail. At the same time they can be used to work with others during the data collection and/or analysis stages, to raise awareness, communicate and build partnerships for managing records effectively. So what should users look for in selecting an appropriate toolkit? The conclusion was that the most important criterion is to match the toolkit with the scenario, i.e. to select a toolkit whose purpose and intended audience matches that of the user. Developed by recognised and highly respected organisations, committed to their use, development, support and maintenance, each one offers something different and, together, they offer a valuable resource and powerful opportunity for records managers, information managers, information security managers, information and corporate governance officers, auditors and others to assess, benchmark, monitor and develop better records management in support of organisational goals. Toolkits such as these are potentially very powerful and flexible and of real value to organisations in managing their records. They deserve to be part of the records professional’s total toolkit, indeed non-records professionals may also use them. Their application is limited only by the imagination of those who use them. But judging by the limited literature on them awareness of these tools was not high at the time of the research. They were not well known or well-established in terms of being automatically considered and commonplace. However, since this project was completed the interest in toolkits appears to have increased and new ones have been

developed. For example, Anderson (2007) has discussed the ARMA toolkit in this study and the Local eGov Standards Body (n.d) began work on an information governance assessment toolkit for local government bodies (www.legsb.gov.uk/ blueprints/item.php?id ¼ 512) based on the NHS IGT studied in our project. Also in the UK, Blake (2007) profiled a new self-assessment tool developed by The National Archives in the UK. In the form of an evaluation workbook, it is designed to help public authorities assess their conformance to the Code of Practice on managing records in the context of section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Lord Chancellor’s Office, 2002). Despite these developments there remains little formal evaluation or publications about their use. A final interesting point was raised by one participant in the process of evaluating the project: I would like to have seen more analysis of the problem of evaluating records management specifically (i.e. RM is deeply integrated with business functions and ICT, how do you best address that in a RM evaluation? which viewpoint, direction do you take? How do you weigh the value of variable results?) . . . I would have liked to have seen a rough baseline of best practice for RM Evaluation.

Whilst the evaluation of records management itself was outside the scope of this project, it is an important issue. It encompasses other aspects, e.g. value, performance measurement, quality, and would be an interesting area for research. References Abowd, G. (1995), “Introduction to software engineering”, available at: www.cc.gatech.edu/ computing/classes/cs3302/documents/cog.walk.html Anderson, J. (2007), “Auditing an organization’s RIM program”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 30-6. Bailey, S. (2003), “JISC 09/02 Supporting institutional records management programme”, Records Management Bulletin, Vol. 113, p. 27. Banwell, L. (2000), “Evaluating information services”, in Booth, A. and Walton, G. (Eds), Managing Knowledge in Health Services, Library Association Publishing, London, pp. 173-81. Barata, K. and Cain, P. (2003), “Records management toolkits from across the pond”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 40-8. Bias, R.G. (1994), “The pluralistic usability walkthrough: coordinated empathies”, in Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (Eds), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Blake, R. (2007), “Assessing information governance”, paper presented at Electronic Document and Records Management in the Public Sector Cimtech/TNA Conference 22-23 May, Hatfield (for the self-assessment workbook see www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ recordsmanagement/code/assessing.htm). Carlisle, D. (2004), “The International Records Management Standard (ISO 15489): early indications and developments”, 15th International Congress on Archives, Vienna, 23-27 August, available at: www.wien2004.ica.org/fo/speakers.php?ctNv1 ¼ 48&IdSpk ¼ 163 Demb, S. (2004), “An introduction to records management capacity assessment system (RMCAS)”, ESARBICA Newsletter, Vol. 5, pp. 8-13, available at: www.geocities.com/ esarbica/esarnews5.pdf

Records management capacity 229

RMJ 17,3

230

Department of Health (2006), “Records management: NHS code of practice. Parts 1 and 2”, available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Publications PolicyAndGuidance/DH_4131747 Government Printing Office (2002), “Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”, Government Printing Office, available at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/sarbanesoxley 072302.pdf Greenwood, H. and Davies, J.E. (2004), “Designing tools to fill the void: a case study in developing evaluation for reading promotion projects”, Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 16-111. Griffin, A. (2004), “Records management capacity assessment system (RMCAS)”, Archival Science, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-97. Gupta, U.G. and Clarke, R.E. (1996), “Theory and application of the Delphi Technique”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 53, pp. 185-211. Hare, C. (2004), “JISC Circular 09/02, Supporting Institutional Records Management, Theme 3, Electronic records management training package”, final report, Information Management Research Institute, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at: www.jisc. ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISC%20Final%20report%20Theme%203.doc Harries, S. (2001), “Strategic use of electronic records: integrating electronic document and electronic records management in the government sector”, Information Management and Technology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 32-41. Haswell, G. and Banwell, L. (2004), “Toolkits and the assessment of outcomes: the ICT EVALKIT Project”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management Systems, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 92-8. Information Commissioner’s Office (2006), “Freedom of Information Act. Awareness Guidance Number 8. Records Management FAQs”, available at: www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/ library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_8_-_ records_management_faqs_v2001.pdf ISO 15489 (2001), “Information and documentation – records management. Part 1: General and ISO 15489-2. Part 2: Guidelines”, ISO, Geneva. Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (Eds) (2002), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ. Local eGov Standards Body (n.d.), “Information governance toolkit for local government”, available at: www.legsb.gov.uk/blueprints/item.php?id ¼ 512 Lord Chancellor’s Office (2002), Code of Practice on the Management of Records under Section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act, Lord Chancellor’s Office, London. McLeod, J. (2004a), “ISO 15489: helpful, hype or just not hot?”, Archives and Manuscripts, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 90-113. McLeod, J. (2004b), “Assessing the impact of ISO 15489 in practice: early indications from the UK”, paper presented at 15th International Congress on Archives, Vienna, 23-27 August. McLeod, J. (2005), “Using the ISO 15489 standard: strategic step or sterile selection?”, paper presented at Records Management Conventie Seminar, Utrecht, June. McLeod, J. and Childs, S. (2006), “Assessing the impact of ISO 15489: the first international standard for records management”, Final project report, October 2005, Information Society Research and Consultancy Group, School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at: http://northumbria. ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/themes/rmarea/iso/

McLeod, J., Childs, S. and Heaford, S. (2006a), “A critical assessment of records management capacity and compliance toolkits”, Final project report, June 2006, Information Society Research and Consultancy Group, School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at: http://northumbria. ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/themes/rmarea/tlkit McLeod, J., Childs, S. and Heaford, S. (2006b), “A guide to records management capacity and compliance toolkits and recommendations for their practical use”, Information Society Research and Consultancy Group, School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at: http://northumbria. ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/themes/rmarea/tlkit/ Moss, M. (2005), “The Hutton inquiry, the president of Nigeria and what the butler hoped to see”, English Historical Review, Vol. CXX No. 487, pp. 577-92. (The) National Archives (2002), “Freedom of Information Act 2000, Model action plan for achieving compliance with The Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records, Model action plan for higher and further education organisations”, The National Archives, available at: www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/modelactionplan.pdf Nielsen, J. (1994), “Heuristic evaluation”, in Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (Eds), Usability Inspection Methods, Wiley, Bognor Regis. OCLC (n.d.), “Heuristic evaluation”, available at: www.oclc.org/policies/usability/heuristic/ default.htm Oliver, M. and Conole, G. (2000), “Assessing and enhancing quality using toolkits”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 32-7. (The) Stationery Office (2000), “available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/20000036.htm”, Freedom of Information Act 2000, The Stationery Office, London. (The) Stationery Office (2004), The Environmental Information Regulations 2004, The Stationery Office, London, available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043391.htm Stephens, D.O. (2005), “The Sarbanes-Oxley act: records management implications”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-103. Thebridge, S. (2004), “The eVALUEd toolkit: practical evaluation help for academic libraries”, Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 72-80. Wells, S. (2004), “Information governance and records management in health and care services”, paper presented at the National Archives Conference, Brighton, October 2004. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. and Polson, P. (1994), “The cognitive walkthrough: a practitioner’s guide”, in Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (Eds), Usability Inspection Methods, Wiley, Bognor Regis. About the authors Julie McLeod is Professor in Records Management in the School of Engineering, Computing and Information Sciences at Northumbria University, joining after a career in industry. She has worked on innovative work-based and distance learning training and education initiatives with major organisations. A member of the BSI and ISO committees on records management standards work, she has conducted JISC and AHRC funded research in records management, has published widely and holds positions on the boards of several esteemed journals. She is a member of the AHRC Peer Review Panel for Libraries, Museums and Archives. Julie McLeod is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Sue Childs is a Research Fellow within the Information Society Research and Consultancy Group at the School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences, Northumbria University. Her research interests include: records management; information society; health

Records management capacity 231

RMJ 17,3

232

information; evidence-based practice particularly systematic reviews; user needs; ICT, information and critical/evaluative skills. She has worked on many research projects funded by a wide range of organisations including records management projects funded by the AHRC and JISC. Susan Heaford completed a BSc Hons degree in Criminology and Social Research in 2003 at Northumbria University and went on to complete a Masters degree in Social Research. Since then she has worked at the University as a research assistant on a wide range of projects with an education focus. She is currently a Researcher Analyst at JISC infoNet based at Northumbria University, has wide experience of both qualitative and quantitative research and an interest in user behaviour.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES

Publications

Publications Research Methods in Information Alison Jane Pickard Facet Publishing London 2007 xix þ 329 pp. ISBN: 978-1-85604-545-2 Keywords Research methods, Information science Review DOI 10.1108/09565690710833125 Though there a number of works that cover research methods, it is amazing to discover that this is the first book dedicated exclusively to a comprehensive analysis of research methods for information research. The time is ripe for this publication as research in the field of records and information management is an area of academic growth. Within the workplace there is also an increasing need for service evaluation, accountability, through metrics and benchmarking, and change management programmes to respond to new challenges. As someone about to embark upon a major piece of research, this book took me methodically through the history of research and each individual stage of the research process that I would be required to complete, in order to deliver a valid and robust research paper. It is an extremely accessible text. Pickard writes in the first person and the text is peppered with words of encouragement and enthusiastic comments enticing the reader to join in the thinking involved in each stage of the research process. Pickard has written as if teaching directly and provides a clear research framework for undergraduates and postgraduates. This is not surprising as Pickard is a course leader at the Northumbria University for courses in Information and Communication Management, Information Science and also Librarianship. The practical exercises at the end of each chapter actively engage the reader. For example, at the end of the first chapter Pickard invites the reader to consider how he/she would research the question: What role do the media play in people’s perception of internet technology and access to information? Pickard suggests that in order to ascertain whether one would conduct this research as a quantitative, qualitative or a blend of research approaches is dependent upon certain beliefs within oneself. If there is one minor criticism of the text it is that the case studies are often orientated to librarianship; it would have been advantageous to engage a wider sample of scenarios from different information perspectives. However, that said, the main body of the chapters are framed very clearly for the wider information community and this text is essential reading not just for all those embarking upon research programmes but also for all information professionals. As Dr Pickard states: Even if information professionals are not active researchers . . . it is an inescapable fact that they must certainly be intelligent and informed consumers of research.

233

Records Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 233-239 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698

RMJ 17,3

234

For those working in the information field the text provides systems to evaluate and benchmark services, to measure information performance, and to enhance professional data gathering through the range of methods explored. For the “busy information professional” the text can be dipped into. At the start of each chapter are a couple of helpful quotes that are essentially sound bites of each chapter’s contents. These allow quick access into areas of particular interest. As a professional records manager I found that the chapter on “Action research” provides a clear framework for introducing change management, which could be supported with research methods adopted from other sections of the book, such as questionnaires and Delphi studies. Equally an archivist could helpfully use many of the chapters to assist with the framework for an oral history project. The book is full of thought provoking ideas as well as being grounded with common sense advice. For example Pickard picks up on a model by Fisher (p. 32) that suggests that when evaluating any piece of research literature it is worth marking the text as follows: . a claim is identified in the text by underlining; . a reason is identified in the text by square brackets: [. . .]; . evidence is identified in the text by placing an asterisk at either side of the evidence statement: *. . . *; and . qualifiers are identified in the text by encircling them: W. Since absorbing this piece of advice it has certainly made me evaluate the literature I read in a more critical manner. Marking up the text makes one analyse the basis upon which authors are presenting their opinions and the grounding in research evidence upon which articles are based. It was also helpful to learn about key sites that assist with evaluating the quality of research information. For example, The Social Sciences Citation Index available via “The Web of Science” at http://wos.mimas.ac.uk, which allows you to investigate whether a source has been cited by other reputable authors. To summarise, the book is divided into five parts comprising: (1) Starting the research process: the history and significance of major research paradigms, the purpose and methodology of the literature review, defining research, research proposals, sampling and the ethics of research. (2) Research methods: case studies, surveys, experimental research, ethnography, Delphi studies, action research, historical research, grounded theory and method or analysis. (3) Data collection techniques: interviews, questionnaires, observation, diaries, focus groups and usability testing. (4) Data analysis and research presentation: qualitative analysis, quantative analysis, an overview of software analysis and presenting the research. (5) Glossary and references. This is an impressive volume that I would urge information professionals and researchers to read. Elizabeth Lomas Royal Household, UK

A Guide to the Retention of Modern Records on Landed Estates (2nd revised edition) Elizabeth Lomas Hall-McCartney Ltd Baldock 2007 For the Historic Houses Archivists Group, fully revised from the 1992 edition by Peter Mackay FCA Keywords Records management, Archives management Review DOI 10.1108/09565690710833134 The records of landed estates usually span long periods and reflect a surprisingly broad range of activities. Those who manage such records in the UK will therefore welcome this up-to-date guidance on the retention of modern records. It is a thorough revision of Mackay’s 1992 work, taking account of developments in legislation, land registration and devolution of government. Landed estates are part of the making of British history, as reflected as far back as the 1080s – when Domesday Book was compiled with much the same motivation as a modern assets register! Many estates survived well into modern times, but social change, urban development and two world wars have all contributed to the break-up of a significant proportion. Those remaining today are in private or corporate ownership or have been taken over by charitable trusts – such as the National Trust – for preservation and new operations. Similar structures have also been created for modern business purposes (even national museums), although they may not recognise themselves as the functional equivalents of historic landed estates. All would find this book useful, though, because they share such characteristics as unusual diversity in their operations, management and legal structures, and vested interests in their histories, both for practical purposes and for academic or private research. As noted by Lomas (p. 8): If the modern estate loses touch with its history, it loses its very raison d’eˆtre.

Starting with general issues of record formats, care and legislation (UK), 12 succinct chapters cover those aspects of an estate’s property, management and current activities that generate records, including less obvious elements such as public access, marketing and health and safety. Specific legislation is listed and types of records are described, with requirements and recommendations for record retention. Geographical differences (e.g. between England and Scotland) are noted, together with key reference works or sources of information. Appendices (A-M) contain sample documents for records management processes and a list of useful contacts. It would have been helpful to include the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA) Council here, together with equivalent bodies in Wales and Scotland. Given that most landed estates share longevity, multiple functions and administrative complexity, it is not surprising that this book takes a subjective approach, presenting its guidance in the context of a historic, multifunctional estate which not only has a tradition of good management but also an established record-keeping system. It is also assumed that at least one records professional is in post (p. 69), either an archivist who also acts as records manager or an archivist and a

Publications

235

RMJ 17,3

236

records manager. Of course, many organisations fitting the broad category of landed estates do not match all these criteria, and may also lack professional input for implementing effective records management. Nevertheless, there is much relevant advice for all types of landed estates and for smaller organisations that are committed to improving record retention processes. Readers who are experienced in records management but not familiar with historic estate records may be surprised by the strong emphasis on developing the estate archive as part of dealing with retention decisions for modern records. It is implied that decisions on selection for archival preservation can be made throughout the records management processes, for the purpose of securing material that will satisfy the future information needs of the estate and the research needs of historians. Yet, concern for the continuity and informational value of the estate archive is not surprising in the case of historic landed estates. Their records are crucial as primary source material of national importance in the UK, and the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (HMC) was established in 1869 to oversee the welfare of historically-important records of private origin and ownership. Historians were already acutely aware of the importance of these at a time when the Public Records (those of central government and the judiciary) had started to benefit from better care through the establishment of the Public Record Office. The book’s dual focus on historical needs and functional effectiveness rather overshadows the role of professional archival and records management theory in managing estate records. Current debates and growing literature on “archival appraisal” are relevant because of their impact on how records are selected for preservation as archives. Also, the definitions of “archives” and “collections” at the beginning of Chapter X (p. 60) are specific to the context of the book – the records of landed estates – but readers should be aware of increasingly flexible definitions as represented by the concept of “community archives”. Some pointers to resources on the current theoretical bases for archives and records management would benefit those unfamiliar with these subjects and encourage young professionals who must consider how to position the management of estates records within the professional theory and practice they have studied. A convenient new handbook is Managing Archives: Foundations, Principles and Practice by Caroline Williams (Oxford: Chandos 2006). Two further points are also worth noting. Mention of the Acceptance in Lieu (AIL) scheme (p. 29) alerts managers to the historical value of their estate records. AIL allows items or collections deemed to be of national importance to be accepted by the State in settlement of a tax liability; significant collections of estate/family papers have come into public ownership in this way. The section on copyright (p. 18) is brief for such an important subject – particularly complex for archives and records – and readers should be encouraged to inform themselves of the key issues. Tim Padfield’s work is properly recommended, but this is now available in its third, revised edition, Copyright for Archivists and Records Managers (London: Facet 2007). In conclusion, and regardless of comments made on detail, there is no doubt that this book fulfils a valuable purpose for its chosen audience and is to be commended for doing so. It also illuminates the nature and uses of certain types of records, such as rent rolls (they may provide the only evidence of ownership as well as tenancy), and the issues that arise from a land registration system that depends on property changing hands. Susan J. Davies University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK

Preserving Archives Helen Forde Facet Publishing London 2007 224 pp. ISBN 978 1 85604 577 3 £39.95 Keywords Archives management, Information profession Review DOI 10.1108/09565690710833143 One of a series Principles and Practice in Records Management and Archives, Preserving Archives has its origins in lectures given by Helen Forde to postgraduate archive students at University College London. It is presented in textbook style with summaries of content at the start and end of each chapter. There is copious use of sub-headings and bullet-pointed lists. “Fascinating facts” and case studies are given in text boxes throughout the book. Helpful examples are taken from an international, not just a UK perspective. Only two of the 14 chapters are illustrated with photographs, but those chosen (“a rolled map”, “a tatty file”) do not add a great deal to understanding of the subject. Although the content was originally aimed at students, the book contains a great deal of useful information for the experienced practitioner, and to my knowledge is the only published work that synthesises up to date thinking on the planning and delivery of archives services comprising a great deal more than simply preservation. It quite rightly considers how the way in which services are organised can contribute to (or detract from) the preservation of the materials in their care. Much of the book would be an extremely useful aide-me´moire to anyone planning a new service or a new building for an existing service. Dr Forde’s wide experience as an archivist, as head of preservation at the Public Record Office (now the National Archives), and latterly as a consultant inform the practical tone of the book throughout. The book starts with a consideration of the records themselves, giving equal weight to traditional and digital materials, and considers the preservation needs of different media from parchments and iron gall inks to fibre tip pens, electronic toners and inkjets. From this it works its way through archive buildings, risk management and avoiding disasters, setting up a conservation workshop and moving the records, before progressing to the more outward-looking aspects of archives – exhibitions and use by readers, including the creation of surrogates. Slightly oddly between the latter two, the subject of pest control is examined. The level of discussion varies from high level strategic considerations to very practical discussions of wall finishes, shelf construction, bench heights, insect traps and book supports. Throughout, the book takes a pragmatic rather than a totally purist view, conceding that small repositories may not be able to use all aspects of best practice and that political and public relations decisions are also important, for example in managing disaster or deciding whether to close during a move. Nevertheless preservation is put at the heart of all the operations described, and the emphasis is on preventative rather than interventionist measures. The final chapter “Putting preservation into practice”

Publications

237

RMJ 17,3

238

examines the drawing up of a preservation policy that encompasses this principle and shows how to translate such a statement of intent into strategies that will put it into practice. Again these are divided into low cost and longer-term options suitable for all types of organisation. From a strategic point-of-view this is probably the most valuable chapter for a senior practitioner. Five appendices provide useful additional information, although they do read somewhat as afterthoughts, or perhaps handouts given to students. Appendix 1, a sample exhibitions lending policy from the National Archives of Australia, can be easily found online (www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/rkpubs/advices/advice59.html), and appendix 5 simply shows a worked sample page on storage furniture from Benchmarks in collection care for Museums, Archives and Libraries. The other three appendices are lists of equipment, tools and materials for conservation workshops, straying away from preservation into active conservation. However, these minor criticisms do not detract from the overall usefulness of the work. Although discussing the preservation of archives, there is much in the book that will be of value to librarians, curators and records managers. Of particular interest to the latter are the discussions of digital preservation, disaster management and recovery, and moving repositories, all of which are applicable beyond the preservation of historical archives and contain much helpful advice and experience. Sitting as this book does alongside the two previous volumes on ethics and management skills the series is building into a useful bookshelf for archives and records practitioners at all levels. Liz Rees Tyne and Wear Archives Service, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

BIP 0025-4:2007: Effective Records Management – Part 4: How to Comply with BS ISO 15489-1 Philip Jones and Robert McLean BSI 2007 ISBN: 978-0-580-49662-2/ISBN-10: 0580496627 £30.00 Review DOI 10.1108/09565690710833152 This publication is the fourth in a series of user interpretation, illustration and application guides to help implement the records management framework provided in international standard BS ISO 15489 Information and Documentation – Records Management. Part 1: General. The first three provide a management guide BIP 0025-1 (2002), a practical implementation guide BIP 0025-2 (2002) and a performance measurement guide BIP 0025-3 (2003) respectively, and with this publication are complemented with a guide on how to be compliant with the standard. The choice of topic is highly relevant as more and more organisations are seeking to benchmark their records management operations and the authors, Philip Jones and Robert McLean, both who have been active members of the British team working on the development and revision of the standard, are extremely well placed to provide an authoritative document. They are particularly successful in identifying clearly the

compliance criteria, the requirements to demonstrate compliance, potential sources for verification and who should be responsible for providing or managing the requirements. The publication also covers the different levels of compliance requirements depending on the type of organisation involved. As is standard with this series of publications there are a series of templates and checklists, for example a sample survey and analysis form plus instructions on how to complete plus lists of top tips highlighted in shaded boxes. Overall this is a helpful publication providing a methodology for checking the level of compliance/non compliance against BS ISO 15489-1. The frustrations are that the “how to use” section is complex and not easy to follow and the sample forms provide only generic rather than specific examples. These shortcomings apart, it is a valuable guide that will provide very useful to those organisations who want to demonstrate and monitor the development of their compliance with BS ISO 15489-1. References BIP 0025-1 (2002), Effective Records Management: A Management Guide to the Value of BS ISO 15489-1, BSI, London. BIP 0025-2 (2002), Effective Records Management: Practical Implementation of BS ISO 15489-1, BSI, London. BIP 0025-3 (2003), Effective Records Management: Performance Management for BS ISO 15489-1, BSI, London.

Catherine Hare Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Publications

239