Thanks Robert. You put it more clearly and concisely than I did.
Tony, I understand and sympathise with the dilemma of sharp-end
resistance but no overall superstructure can be built on the individual
needs of the 'arts development officer'. There are ways of implementing
'the big scheme' which enable him to keep his local system provided it's
keyed to the scheme to ensure that, for example, corporate retention,
security and disclosure characteristics can be applied to his activities
(and records).
Any kind of comprehensive scheme, whether functional or subject, is a
change management project for all those who currently do something else
and people at all levels always need to be convinced of the business
benefits of such change. However, this doesn't mean that improved
approaches should not be attempted. Our experience of developing and
introducing records systems of any kind is that training and change
management are probably more important than the scheme itself. No scheme
is 'plug and play'.
Having something generic to point to - such as the proposed scheme - is
a way of encouraging people to see the wider picture. My colleague
Elizabeth Parker's work on HEI records, the revised version of which
will be published by the JISC in the next couple of months, does this
for HE institutions. Because it is functionally based, it looks at what
such institutions do which gets round the fact that they don't organise
themselves in the same way to do it. Functions provide a common, and
lasting, currency.
Records perform two key tasks. They provide information (in the
relatively short term) to support ongoing business and evidence
(throughout their life) of the activity of which they themselves form a
part. The evidential characteristic is the one that supports
accountability, business continuity, and compliance. Accountability,
business continuity and compliance are corporate responsibilities of
senior management and must take precedence in the wider scheme of
things. It's important that staff generating the records understand
that 'their records' belong to the organisation and that they have a
role to play in ensuring that the organisation can meet its wider
responsibilities which goes beyond their own local needs. After all if
you introduce an electronic records management system (for good
corporate reasons) the Arts Development Officer is going to have to give
up his colour coded files!
As long time practitioners(Elizabeth was building functional systems at
BP in the mid 80s), we just happen to be convinced, because we've seen
it work well, that functional is best - along with the Australasians,
Canadians and increasingly the Americans. The Australian Standard on
which the International Standard is based was much more positive about
this approach and it's at the heart of the DIRKS methodology.
Incidentally, it would appear that there is some misunderstanding about
function-based approaches. Perhaps we could run a master class. Anyone
interested?
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 Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tony May
Sent: 14 March 2003 13:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What do you call it?? - Local government classification
ISO standard recommends a functional approach? yes in a way it does but
I
do not recall it saying that this was the only way it had to be done. We
need to think about where records management fits within organisations
and
how much change we can bring about at this point. Functional
classification
maybe the way records are most usefully indexed for our profession (to
facilitate, disposal) but it may not be the most user friendly way to
index.
Records may result from business activity around functions, activities
and
transactions but are generally created by people and information
systems.
the info systems element is quite easy to organise we can get a script
written to say that the report will have appropriate metadata whatever
it
is , only problem is cost. People on the other hand are a bit harder try
telling an arts development officer that rather than using their system
of
colour based filing they need to call the file; Leisure and cultural
development - arts development- policy - art for schools. Going to a
structured hierarchical system where previously staff and business units
have done their own thing has large change management implications. Are
we
prepared for this?
yes it is possible to use both subject based schemes and functional
based
schemes, except for one problem. This problem is to do with the
resources
and will for any scheme to be implemented. We may be able to come up
with
a perfect scheme but if the end user will not bother about it because it
adds 2-5 minutes per document to their workload than it is unlikely to
work. If we need to use more than one scheme to enter data the
likelihood
of staff doing this is very slim unless there are very good business
reasons. I think we all agree that a controlled vocabulary is needed,
but
how many are needed ?
Tony May
Documents Manager
Hertfordshire County Council
Phone: 01992 556 729
Comnet 26729
In reply to;
Since the International Standard recommends a functional approach, you
have to have a very good reason for not following the recommendation.
Records are generated by functions, activities and transactions. A
functional taxonomy, classification scheme, file plan (the PRO guidance
makes it all one word to avoid confusion), call it what you like, will
provide a relatively stable superstructure that captures everything that
local government does. The subjects with which it deals would be almost
impossible to encapsulate except in terms of what it does. In any case,
organisations are accountable and responsible to their stakeholders for
what they do, which is why records are created, not for the subjects
with which they deal. FOI requests are likely to be about the actions a
public body has taken. There's more to records than the information they
contain (content). 'Record-ness' needs structure and context as well as
content.
Functional structures and topic/subject based approaches are not
mutually exclusive. In fact it's essential that the records system is
supported by subject indexes and/or thesauri to enable it to support
current business. It's relatively straightforward to link approaches
like GCL to a function/activity structure - through the use of subject
metadata tags in document headers for example - to provide access to
subject matter in records. A controlled vocabulary that everyone uses,
which is what GCL sets out to provide, is an essential tool. It's very
difficult to reconstruct functions and activities from records systems
organised by subject to support accountability and to manage retention.
It's pretty well impossible to apply sensible retention periods to
subjects.
Keith is right too. The classification scheme (perfectly reasonable
term)and the retention schedule, which are components of the file-plan,
should share a common structure.
Peter Emmerson
Director
Emmerson Consulting Limited
47a Salisbury Road
Harpenden
Hertfordshire AL5 5AR
**********************************************************************
The information in this message should be regarded as
confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless
explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error
it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views
expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily
those of Hertfordshire County Council unless explicitly
stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received
from Hertfordshire County Council may be intercepted and
read by the Council. Interception will only occur to ensure
compliance with Council policies or procedures or
regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the
purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email
system.
**********************************************************************
|