Martin

I'll leave it to individuals to determine how good TNA guidance is for them.
It may be of general interest to know that new guidance has been published
recently on business classification scheme design (fileplans) and the
management of e-mail. These can be found in the practical toolkits at

http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/standards/default.htm#3

The metadata standard which has been available for some time at
http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/erecords/2002reqs/default.htm

has recently become part of e-GIF (e-Government Interoperability Framework,
version 5).
The foreword to the current version (e-GMS2, e-Government Metadata Standard
version 2, published on the OeE's govtalk website in September 2003)
includes the following statement on page 4
(http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/metadata_document.asp?docnum=832
):

"The e-GIF is mandated across all government information systems.  By
association, so is the e-GMS".  The main other change - other than the
introduction of this mandate - in 2003 was the incorporation of the
comprehensive set of metadata elements to support credible electronic
records management. Thus the e-GMS is relevant to public facing websites and
internal electronic records management to facilitate interchange of
information.

The mandate is important, particularly so for e-records management as a key
underpinning technology for e-government.  The aim is that [standard
metadata] will support the interoperability between records management
systems to support government reorganisations, transfer of archival records
to TNA and  the automated capture of metadata for reuse by other systems.

At present TNA is planning a general conference on ERM  for late May,
details of which will be published in March.


Ian Macfarlane
Head of Electronic Records Management Unit
The National Archives


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Green [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 January 2004 09:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Local Government and LAWS categorisation


Mike,

not so sure on the 'excellent advice' from PRO! I have had little or no
contact from PRO in recent months in respect issues such as electronic
records management. By accident, I found out on Tuesday (27th Jan) in a
letter dated 21 Jan to someone else that The National Archives (was PRO)
intended to hold a seminar on the 28th benefits realisation from ERM. I have
no idea if this went ahead but it shows that government departments are not
getting the guidance we need in particular, what do we do with all the
information that we put into electronic records ie how do we pass this info
to TNA?

However, TNA guidance may at least be a starting point.

Martin Green
Head of Information Management Projects
DCMS


-----Original Message-----
From: Marsh, Mike [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 January 2004 09:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Local Government and LAWS categorisation


Robert,

In your second paragraph, you hit the nail on the head! This is happening in
all sectors, not just LG. It is less of a problem in Central Gov't where The
National Archives (ex-PRO) gives excellent guidance to gov't departments &
agencies, who have Departmental Records Officers (DRO). But even there it
has been known for some enthusiastic person to run off with the RM ball,
without stopping to ask whether expertise already exists; or if someone else
would be the more appropriate owner for the task. Hence the many debates we
used to have about the RM role "versus" the Archivist, and DM, IM, KM, CM,
IT and even Admin roles.

In Central Gov't we had almost identical debates when "Open Government"
initiative (Forerunner of FOI) was announced; and again when Data Protection
Act arrived. Plus ca change! But local government and education sectors are
fortunate - they can look back and learn from our efforts. We can all help
our organisations to avoid re-inventing the wheel, by not confining
ourselves to a silo either. Visibility is all. Get out there and be politely
assertive. Talk to people in similar positions in other councils, government
departments, hospitals, etc... and the professional RIM
associations....there is no shortage of expertise or advice around, it is
just that many people don't realise it.

Regards, Mike Marsh.

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chell, Robert
Sent: Thursday, 29 January, 2004 9:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Local Government and LAWS categorisation


I am surprised by  Phil Bradshaw's assertion that Cardiff is new to records
management, as Cardiff, a unitary authority since re-organisation in Wales
in 1996, is (I presume) still served by a records management service
provided by the Glamorgan Record Office.  South Glamorgan (the predecessor
authority) was part of the joint service established in 1974, and
established its own puropose-built Record Centre in the new County Hall in
1988, managed its paper records according to an authority-wide retention
schedule and was one of the first to introduce computerised records
management systems in Wales.

But perhaps Phil's view is symptomatic of what is happening in the rush to
FOI compliance. One of the consequences of the silo mentality that has
developed  in local government over the last decade is that the silos don't
talk to each other, either electronically or in person.

What the S.46 code suggests is that authorities need records managers ( cf
s4.2 of the Model action Plan), whereas what many seem to have done is to
assign the records management function elsewhere.  Hence the postings on
various lists seeking basic help in managing records.

Seeking out the authority's Archivist (who will be a qualified records
manager), might be the sensible thing to do, although I'm sure Phil has
already done this.

Robert Chell
Records Manager

for general requests please use
Records Management Service



> ----------
> From:         Phil Bradshaw[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Phil Bradshaw
> Sent:         27 January 2004 09:37
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Local Government and LAWS categorisation
>
> Cardiff is pretty new to Records management but we are certainly aware of
> the schemes in the esd-toolkit and the APLAWS project (indeed Camden is a
> sponsor of the former).
>
> From a Records Management point of view these developments should not
> cause a problem and should have long term benefits. The real meat perhaps
> lies in the e-GMS (E-government Metadata Standard)from which it will be
> seen that there is a 'mandatory' element for the subject.category
> refinement for which the Local Government Category list is the appropriate
> coding scheme. The e-GMS is intended for use with all information
> resources not just web sites and FOI.
>
> The LGCL IS function based (one of its early precursors 'Go With the Flow'
> was quite clearly a hierarchical business model based on function) and
> that is one of its benefits. We have a penchant in local governement for
> permanent re-organisation and restructuring but the functions we carry out
> endure.
>
> Although much driven by ITC because of the needs of web sites and
> electronic service delivery the LG Category List has a much longer and
> wider history over 4-5 years and has been the subject of extensive
> development and consultation.
>


******************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the administrator on the following address:
        [log in to unmask]


Mae'r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef yn
gyfrinachol ac at ddefnydd yr unigolyn neu'r corff y cyfeiriwyd
hwy atynt yn unig.  Os ydych wedi derbyn yr e-bost hwn drwy
gamgymeriad, dylech hysbysu'r gweinyddydd yn y cyfeiriad canlynol:
       [log in to unmask]

*******************************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.

On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
in partnership with MessageLabs.

Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
for further details.

In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________


This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential  to The National Archives.
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 National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.