Dear colleagues

I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify a couple of points and offer a
few observations about how the "fileplan" issue looks from here.  This is a
bit of a personal 'stream of consciousness' in response to the conversation
on here a week or so ago, so please bear with me........... It is also -
more seriously and definitively - intended to clarify a few points about how
the PRO 2002 functional requirements and their terminology fit these
intellectual control issues.


In the PRO logical entity model (see Functional requirements - reference
document at
<http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/erecords/2002reqs/default.htm>)
 a 'fileplan' is a combination of the business classification scheme
(ISO15489) and the folders [containing records] that are registered at
'nodes' in that scheme.  The distinction between the two is one of the major
parts of the 2002 revision of the PRO Functional requirements: previously a
fileplan could [just] have been just a hierarchy of folders which is
unsatisfactory vis à vis ISO15489.  The nomenclature is unfortunately
redolent of the paper world but it is common usage and we are probably stuck
with it.

As well as producing some contribution to the organisation of administrative
records, possibly using k-AAA as a basis as I announced last week, we are
planning some formal guidance on other aspects of fileplan design.  This
will probably take the form of a few different guidance products, initially
at least with central government and the 2004 target in mind.  The first
ought logically to cover the variety of different methodologies + their pros
and cons and we have an early draft in progress on this.  I have noted the
animated discussion of the functional approach on the listserve.  I
personally find it helpful to remember the main drivers for the functional
approach: disposal management and maintenance.

The intellectual rigour of the functional approach is appealing and Peter
Emmerson is undoubtedly correct in what he says about it being easier to
maintain.  Central Government is painfully aware of the need to 'future
proof' information structures from disruption by organisational change as
far as is possible and the approach recommended by Peter and Elizabeth
[Sheppard] also has its influential exponents in Central Government.
Traditionally, every 'Machinery of Government' change that accompanies a
cabinet reshuffle causes disruption to records series that takes years to
unpick.  The underlying functions of government do not actually change very
much over time, whereas its organisation does quite frequently.  I
definitely do not favour replicating the organisational structure in the
logical structuring of information.  

There is a potential problem though - and I think both Tony May and Peter
are very much aware of it - and it is that this can be difficult and alien
for our end users as it imposes a logic (i.e. the functional analysis) that
they have no 'buy in' to.  From experience a lot of people [non-information
specialists] find engagement with a subject approach difficult, let alone
the functional model.  The latter is also problematic in accommodating case
files.  My personal view is that whilst the user viewpoint is an important
change management issue, the technology has some capability to alleviate the
difficulty through the use of user views, saved searches, 'favourites',
etc..  Of course this then in turn needs to be balanced by the objective -
and it is a substantial part of the EDRM business case - to promote
corporate information sharing and getting away from the 'silo' mentality. 
E
 RM implementation - to paraphrase Peter again - is a business change
management issue even more than a technological one.  If we cannot carry our
users with us we shall probably fail.  It is a moot point how far every end
user needs to understand from the bottom up the mostly top down disciplines
of RM but there is a level at which they do need to know what to capture and
where at the very least.  Perhaps a hybrid of functional high levels and
subject based lower ones is often the best compromise, with the disposal
rules operating at the high levels?

There is also an element of circularity to the view that the functional
approach is in some way prescribed by ISO15489: they both originate from the
same [highly respected and credible] antipodean tradition.  As Tony has
said, the ISO does not say overtly that this is the only approach and, as
Peter has said, there are good purely pragmatic reasons in support of the
functional approach, even in the absence of the statutory framework of RM in
the Australian Commonwealth [where no records can legally be disposed of
without a functionally based authority from NAA].

As you will gather - by no means a fully worked out policy position but a
reflection on the conversation to date.


Malcolm Todd
ERM Development Unit, PRO



This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential  to The Public Record Office.
If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments.  In such a case, 
please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business
of the Public Record Office are neither given nor endorsed by it.