I've been trying to resist the temptation to get involved in this but
some fundamental issues have been raised.
First - as Rick Barry has suggested, it is dangerous to build any long
term strategy or approach on what amounts to Microsoft (or anyone else
for that matter)thinking aloud about technological possibilities. In any
case this product would appear to be aimed at the personal, rather than
the corporate user.
Secondly - Very few corporate bodies will be attracted by the keep
everything idea, particularly in the US which will drive the market for
any successful product. If you keep it, it's discoverable (and if it's
electronic it can be more easily discovered) in any legal action.
Corporate lawyers are terrified of the 'smoking gun' - quite literally I
the case of the tobacco companies. Microsoft itself had 'discovered'
emails used against it in its recent contretemps with the US Justice
Dept and would in all probability discourage their own people from using
the product!
Thirdly - As a consequence appraisal remains a key element of any
records management programme and of the ultimate archival survival.
However, the point at which appraisal needs to be carried out has
changed. The Canadians, in particular, have highlighted the problem of
appraisal in electronic systems which has led to the development of the
theory of macro-appraisal by Terry Cook and others to which Kate Manning
referred. They recognise that retrospective appraisal of the electronic
equivalent of correspondence files, or of the enterprise systems
mentioned by Steve Bailey, or indeed of the massive volume of
non-electronic records produced by modern organisations, is no longer a
practical solution.
They propose an up-front analysis of the business carried out by the
record creating organisation which helps to identify those core
functions and activities which are most significant and are therefore
likely to produce the most important records, both for the continuing
conduct of business and for archival selection. This broad cut can then
be refined by more specific analysis. The focus is on what the business
is responsible for and what it does to fulfil those responsibilities.
Strategy, policy, programme development and reported results (impact)
are likely to provide more useful information and evidence than the
minute detail of programme delivery and cost.
In RM terms you can allocate high level retention periods to activities
and, therefore, to the records generated by those activities, including
correspondence files which would not be included in normal retention
schedules which helps to meet the needs of FOI and DPA. There is a
possibility that too much may be kept or that some records of value may
be lost but the process is much less resource intensive and will produce
results which are at least as good, and certainly more logically based,
than the finger in the wind of retrospective research which passes for
planned appraisal now. It also removes the suggestion of
self-interested 'censorship' which continues to dog the Grigg system of
review. As always it's an iterative process and the 'activity owners'
need to be involved in the appraisal process. Once decisions have been
reached you have something to take to the IT people for them to
implement on behalf of the people to whom they are proving a service.
They then build their systems around the needs and imperatives of the
business. What a revolutionary idea!
The functional approach also forms the basis of the International
Standard and its Australian progenitor, as well as AAA and DIRKS. The
Canadian Government are using it to re-develop their national retention
schedules and a replacement for their block numeric subject based
records classification scheme. It's the bedrock of our consulting
practice and we've been developing successful function based systems
since the late 1980s. My colleague Elizabeth Parker's chapter in my
book highlights the approach, based on work that she was then doing at
BP Oil and her Study of the Records Life Cycle in HEIs, which is now
being revised, is function based. It's a different way of thinking
about the appraisal process but it's an idea whose time has come. Above
all it works.
Peter Emmerson
Director
Emmerson Consulting Limited
47a Salisbury Road
Harpenden
Hertfordshire AL5 5AR
Phone 01582 769842
Fax 01582 761740
E-mail [log in to unmask]
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of it
is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please delete it immediately and notify Emmerson Consulting by
return e-mail to the above address.
Emmerson Consulting Limited is registered in England No. 3607347.
Registered Office: Charter Court, Midland Road, Hemel Hempstead,
Hertfordshire HP2 5GE
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK mailing list for archivists, conservators and records
managers. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve
Bailey, Joint Information Systems Committee
Sent: 27 November 2002 10:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: appraisal
Dear all,
Having been out of the office all day yesterday it has taken me a while
to go through the excellent range of contributions to this debate (and
its off-shoots).
A very convinving case for appraisal has clearly been made but at the
same time there appears to be recognition that we are not always clear
what we actually mean by 'appraisal', why we do it, or how we do it.
If it is the core skill we seem agreed that it is for our profession
this would seem to indicate that there is room for further professional
exploration and debate in this area. Suggestions as to how this might
occur gratefully received....
I was particularly interested in Paul's observations that
"appraisal is increasingly falling to the user, and it is our
role to educate them"
and especially that
"the important thing is that people like us are here to train them in
that, and that we try to get the tools we develop built into these
systems"
This appears to me to be critical. How many institution's retention
schedules fully apply to the records held on their IT systems? On the
one hand in most modern organisations their most important functions
have been included within specialist IT systems which control the entire
process (Finance systems, HR systems, student admission systems, even
email for correspondence). On the other hand we often have a retention
schedule which sits in isolation to these systems. Moreover, the system
may have no means of automatically carrying out the actions defined in
the schedule so effectively falls outside its scope.
This does not mean that we must all become programmers, but it does
probably mean that archivists in the future must come into the
profession with a higher degree of technical knowledge than is
currently the case.
Whilst thinking over the issues raised over the last few days I have
been trying to think through just how the archive profession can start
to change itself to start to meet some of the challenges and changes
that we all seem to agree lay ahead (even if we disagree as to their
implications). For me the answer seems logically to lay with the
professional qualification that most take as entry to the profession.
Is it time to take a step back and assess whether the whole nature of
the current courses on offer is adequate for what the profession
actually needs? Is the 'usual' route of history degree + 1 years
pre-course training + Masters necessarily the best method of preparing
new archivists? Are the right things being taught or should we
question the importance of some of the elements that have previously
been taken for granted such as 'the administrative history of Great
Britain'?
Regards
Steve
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:10:38 +0000 kate manning
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> If we accept that not everything is worth keeping then we must accept
that
> some things are. It is therefore necessary to know how to identify
what is
> worth keeping and be able to account for why we have so identified it.
Rick
> has pointed out that "the appraisal job for governments, institutions
and
> persons may all have the same goal, but may require quite different
> approaches, whether we are appraising on the importance of the person,
> system, function or "collection"." One of my concerns is that we need
> definable goals in appraisal and defendable methods in achieving these
> goals. In the arena of public records and indeed, institutional
records,
> good governance and accountability are important issues addressed to
some
> extent by records management (ensuring that the right records are kept
to
> meet legal and regulatory requirements, including Data Protection and
> Freedom of Information). But as Bruce has pointed out, scheduling is
> different from appraisal. Scheduling will account for some of what
comes
> into the archives but not all. Appraisal is a larger concern: it has
been
> argued that it is less about what documents should be kept and more
about
> what functions and activities should be documented--which opens up the
> broader questions and issues raised in the earlier quotations from
Terry
> Cook and Terry Eastwood. And of course, how you identify these
functions and
> activities (more of which anon). Bruce has also touched on the <LEFT
DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>defendable
> methods<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> aspect of my concerns, the
adequate documentation of our appraisal
> decisions, which, I suggest, goes some way to addressing your
> acknowledgement that <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>this is a process
which should be fraught with the
> realisation that we may be wrong, no matter how professional in our
approach
> we are.<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> At least with adequate
documentation of our appraisal decisions, we
> can show why we made the decisions we did.
>
> I do think appraisal is the <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>overriding
concern of the archivist<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> because
> the choices we--or others--make about what is kept affects everything
we do,
> from arrangement and description to access and use. Electronic records
are a
> good example here, the issue that started this discussion. We know the
> issues of concern with electronic records, we know that ensuring
access over
> time to these records will be time- and resource-consuming. It is
obvious
> therefore that the time and resources spent on these records, is spent
on
> the <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>right<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>
records. Identifying those <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>right<RIGHT
DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> records IS appraisal. The
> process(es) we use to identify these records is another question and
one I<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>m
> sure, many people have strong views on. I am feeling my way in this
area,
> and have much to learn still, but for what it<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION
MARK>s worth, I am very interested
> in the macroappraisal model, founded on the idea that societal values
should
> be the basis of appraisal and that functional analysis (at the centre
of
> macroappraisal) is the tool/process which enables the archivist to
identify
> and reflect societal values in order to establish targets for
documentation
> through records acquisition. It<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>s a very
interesting and rigorous process,
> that I am still getting to grips with.
>
> On your point about the justification of appraisal as serving the
> <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>continuing interests of citizens of a
democracy<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>, determining our success
> in that (if, as you say, we accept this as a desirable goal, which I
do)
> will partly depend on our <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>defendable
methods<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> and on how much society in
> general understands (or cares) about what we do.
>
> All the best,
>
> Kate
>
> >From: "Townsend, Tom" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: "kate manning"
<[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: RE:appraisal
> >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:24:20 -0000
> >
> >Hello Kate
> >
> >Identifying the dross amongst the not-quite-dross is, in my opinion,
the
> >more normal experience of most archivists. Even this is a process
which
> >should be fraught with the realisation that we may be wrong, no
matter
> >how professional in our approach we are. Perhaps even the humble
> >cheque-stub has its place in the many-roomed palace of archival
heaven
> >(though I doubt it!).
> >To be honest, I don't think that you have yet made any case for
> >appraisal as the overriding concern of the archivist other than
arguing
> >that somehow such a process will 'serve the continuing interests of
> >citizens of a democracy'.
> >How on earth are we to determine what will achieve that, even if we
> >accept that that may be a desirable goal? Does not our everyday
> >experience of regret for the lost documents of the past teach us that
> >the exigencies and imperatives of the Now rarely take into account
the
> >needs (or even merely the desires) of the future? And that goes for
> >archival imperatives too!
> >Now, I'm not arguing that everything is worth keeping (15 years of
> >dealing with business records have shown me that, if nothing else)
but I
> >am questioning just how it is we can be so sure that certain records
> >reflect the function and nature of their creator and not others.
> >Ultimately, isn't all that we are saying is that the dross reflects
such
> >a common and obvious part of their creator's nature that there is
never
> >any chance that we (Society) shall forget it?
> >Tom Townsend
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: kate manning [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: 25 November 2002 17:02
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: More on MyLifeBits - and something else
> >
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >I think the "why" of appraisal is critical. Why do we do it and why
do
> >we
> >choose what we choose? We have moved a long way from the Jenkinsonian
> >view
> >that archivists should not appraise and are moving away from the
purely
> >historical view that decisions about appraisal are justified as
serving
> >the
> >needs of research into the past, to the view (at least in some
places)
> >that
> >we are meeting some of the requirements of a modern, democratic
society
> >by
> >carrying out appraisal. That is, we must clearly identify the records
> >that
> >are being created which document the functions and activities of the
> >creator
> >not only to help us understand the past but to meet accountability
needs
> >and
> >more broadly to "document" our society (I am thinking here
particularly
> >of
> >the macroappraisal model as practised in the National Archives of
> >Canada).
> >
> >Appraisal is much more than keeping the records that were kept to
meet
> >legal
> >and regulatory requirements (simply accepting the records at the end
of
> >the
> >records management process). I heard Terry Eastwood give a paper
> >('Archival
> >appraisal in democratic societies') at a conference dedicated to
> >appraisal
> >in Salamanca, Spain last month where he said that one of the
questions
> >for
> >archivists in a democracy is how to "orient ourselves to determine
from
> >among the vast volume of records produced in modern, technologically
> >adept
> >society those that will serve the continuing interests of citizens of
a
> >democracy." And at the same conference, Terry Cook ('Macroappraisal
and
> >Functional Analysis: The importance of Governance rather than
> >Government')said that when we appraise "We are deciding what is
> >remembered
> >and what is forgotten, who in society is visible and who remains
> >invisible,
> >who has a voice and who does not. In this act of creation, we must
> >remain
> >extraordinarily sensitive to the political and philosophical nature
of
> >documents individually, of archives collectively, of archival
functions,
> >of
> >archivists' personal bias, and most especially of archival appraisal,
> >for
> >that process defines the creators, functions, and activities to be
> >included
> >in archives, by defining, choosing, selecting which documents become
> >archives, and thus enjoy all subsequent archival processes
(description,
> >
> >conservation, exhibition, reference, etc.), and, as starkly, and with
> >finality, which are destroyed, excluded from archives, forgotten from
> >memory." I think you are absolutely right when you say "Archivists
will
> >find
> >themselves swimming against a pretty powerful current if the only
> >defence of
> >the importance of appraisal that we can muster is that it is what we
as
> >archivists have always done!" But in order to do that, we have to
> >understand
> >ourselves why we appraise and what is our goal in appaisal.
> >
> >I think the not choosing is as important as the choosing. The
argument
> >for
> >not choosing is not simply that you can't keep everything but that
not
> >everything is worth keeping! Nicholson Baker's book "Double Fold" is
a
> >prime
> >example of libraries and archives not making it clear why some things
> >are
> >not worth keeping. It's finding the gold amongst the dross.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Kate
> >
> > >Hi Kate,
> > >
> > >Some further thoughts in response to your email.
> > >
> > >are we not missing the point of what we do if we keep entire
> > > > systems rather than appraise
> > >
> > >My point exactly! As I said in my first email, I see appraisal as
> > >*the* defining traditional core skill of the archive profession.
The
> > >issue is that whereas until now that skill has had an appeal born
of
> > >necessity (ie we can't keep everything so what should we keep).
With
> > >the advent of MyLifeBits and more importantly the theory that lies
> > >behind it, that skill may nolonger be seen as being important. The
> > >whole point of MyLifeBits is that we *can* keep everything and
moreover
> > >that we *should* keep everything (please note I am merely
explaining
> > >this view not condoning it) so why bother appraising?
> > >
> > > Maybe the question we need to consider, before we think about our
> > >technical
> > > > abilities, is how and why do we appraise?
> > >
> > >The 'why' is, I'm sure, open to debate. At its most fundamental
level
> > >however it is hard to deny that it was originally born of
necessity.
> > >In the paper world you simply could not keep everything. Firstly
> > >because of the practical problems of storage and secondly because
with
> > >manual finding aids it would take an age to find what you did want.
So
> > >we invented a methodology for weeding out the ephemera and
identifying
> > >and preserving historically valuable material(evidence of decision
> > >making etc etc) which kept the volume manageable and avoided waste.
I
> > >can see no theoretical argument against keeping everything, it
simply
> > >wasn't practically possible. Now if you follow the MyLifeBits
approach
> > >the whole underlying assumption on which our approach to appraisal
is
> > >based has gone (or at least will go soon) ie 'we *can* keep
everything
> > >so why not and focus our collective efforts on improving *access*
to
> > >it'. Archivists will find themselves swimming against a pretty
> > >powerful current if the only defence of the importance of appraisal
> > >that we can muster is that it is what we as archivists have
> > >always done! So is it time for us to learn new skills, and if so,
> > >what??
> > >
> > >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Steve
> > >
> > >On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:02:46 +0000 kate manning
> > ><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With regard to the developing discussion on the influence of
> >technology
> > >on
> > > > appraisal, are we not missing the point of what we do if we keep
> >entire
> > > > systems rather than appraise (even if this is time- and
> > >resource-consuming),
> > > > i.e. select the records that properly reflect the functions and
> > >activities
> > > > of the creator (government, institution or person) whatever the
> >format?
> > > > Maybe the question we need to consider, before we think about
our
> > >technical
> > > > abilities, is how and why do we appraise? When we know what we
need
> >to
> > >keep,
> > > > we can work towards the infrastructure necessary to keep it.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Kate Manning
> > > > Archives Department
> > > > University College Dublin
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
----------------------
Steve Bailey,
Records Manager
Joint Information Systems Committee
Tel: 07092 302850
Email: [log in to unmask]
|