I am often fascinated by these discussions particularly where the clash
between RM and ERM is concerned - perhaps it's 'postmodern' thinking
that clouds the issue! ERM or EDRM are facets of RM, and as such, IT is
a tool of be managed within the discipline of RM, in the same way that
an filing cabinet, archive box, paper folders, micro fiche or engine
part is managed. 2/3rds of the battle is cultural (hearts and minds) and
not technological. Technology only serves to glamorise an otherwise dull
subject in the eyes of the 'movers and shakers' flashing lights bells
and whistles are always more attractive. We need to win the hearts and
minds of the participants at all levels, by careful and thoughtful
arguments supported by tangible evidence, rather than 'I heard it on the
grapevine' must be true approach. Judging by the comments so far, I
would suggest that there are many 'professionals' within RM for RM to be
considered a 'profession' I for one am a graduate of Information &
Library Studies with Hon's incorporating RM @ degree level in my final
year of study, leading me into RM 4 years after graduating - lets not be
self depreciating - it take time to turn a tanker, however vast the
ocean is...In modernist parlance RM is the 'grand story' tree on which
the rest hangs - don't allow the technologists to dominate the high
ground - can someone pass me that 30 yr old CD?
Regards
Joseph
Joseph Wisener BA Hon's Info Sci
CAA EDRM System Manager
Civil Aviation Authority
Tel 01293 573962
Email [log in to unmask]
Web: www.caa.co.uk
P Please don't print this email unless you really have to.
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stuart Orr
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How succesful has RM been? (was RE: Comparative definitions
of Classification and Taxonomy)
I came late to this thread and was one of those to suffer, as Peter
Kurilecz predicted, because I subscribed to the daily digest which
quickly becomes indigestible as a thread lengthens. Having persisted it
made fascinating reading. I apologise for the length of this posting.
I agree with Steve; it is generally not a case of marketing. There is
an old rule of marketing that you don't market your services until you
have services to market. As Steve says, it is (in large part) the
product. If we had a product that people wanted the world, as Ralph
Waldo Emerson said, would beat a path to our door. If we really want to
form a coherent RM discipline, rather than remain as a group of
loosely-related problem-solving individuals only connected by the label
'records manager', we need to fundamentally review the underlying model;
which cannot even then remain static. Steve has made some proposals for
an 'RM 2.0' in his now famous book. Hopefully this will be a catalyst
for further discussion.
I don't think that the growth of the PC was the problem; it was yet
another missed opportunity. As Peter Emmerson points out, there was no
golden age of efficient records management in the paper world. There
were good practices but there were many bad practices and
inefficiencies. In the late 1940s the Institute of Public Administration
was able to write, "...registry delays, and unintelligent registry
filing, are suffered to a greater or lesser extent by all Government
Departments".
Ten years ago, Michael Pemberton gave reasoned arguments in the Records
Management Journal why records management could not be considered to be
a profession. He measured RM against the characteristics of "genuine"
professions [abstract and practical knowledge ('know what' and 'know
how'
being constantly extended by research); social relevance; code of
ethics; education programmes; professional culture; autonomy; sense of
commitment and client services]. Although some things have improved, the
weaknesses he identified generally still exist. He proposed a basic
action plan which was ignored.
I agree with Stephen Macintosh that we should look beyond our RM
borders.
Julie McLeod (who has been one of the great forces for driving up
professionalism in the RM world) reminded us of initiatives such as
InterPARES at this year's RMS conference in Edinburgh. We have good
peer-reviewed articles in the UK's Records Management Journal but should
not ignore the archives literature where many valuable records-related
papers appear, in particular Archivaria (Canada), Archives & Manuscripts
(Australia), American Archivist and Journal of the Society of Archivists
(UK). A recent example that should be widely read was a thought
provoking analysis of the concepts of a record (going beyond currently
accepted approaches) was contained in a pair of articles by UK-based
Geoffrey Yeo in the two most recent editions of American Archivist .
(Perhaps the RMS could look providing a Journal abstracting service).
The International Council on Archives (ICA) produces much work of great
potential value to records managers. A very recent example is the
'Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Office
Environments'. Module 3 of this (http://www.ica.org/en/node/38968)
fills a long-standing gap by setting out guidelines and requirements for
records in business systems (i.e. not in an ERMS). Valuable information
is also contained in the publications of the UK-based Business Archives
Council (http://www.businessarchivescouncil.org.uk/).
I have to stop myself writing at length on the original
classification/taxonomy discussions that initiated this thread. Coming
to RM with a degree in Biology (before later gaining qualifications in
the RM field). I found the approach to, and understanding of,
classification less than basic. It is, or should be, as Schellenberg
stated 50 years ago, "... basic to the management of current records".
Apart from anything else, in this computer age we should not be talking
in terms a single classification scheme whether hierarchical, faceted
or dynamic. Metadata offers tremendous potential. Others (such as web
information architects) are seeing the great value of classifying
information but I doubt if they often see records managers as a source
of expertise to draw on.
This has sounded negative but like others I see this thread as one
reason to see the glass as being half full. The fact too that we now
have books, such as Steve's (and others such as Carol Choksy's
Domesticating Information - whether or not you agree with all the
content) that take the literature beyond the level of introductory
textbooks is also an indicator that we are developing. However we need
to take positive and concerted action since, as Pemberton wrote, the
field of records management will not arrive at a recognised professional
standing by divine intervention.
**********************************************************************
Before Printing consider the environment.
This email, and any files transmitted with it are confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk
(e-mail: [log in to unmask] or phone: +44-1293-573333) immediately.
You should not copy or use this e-mail or attachments for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person.
Please note that all e-mail messages sent to the Civil Aviation Authority are subject to monitoring / interception for lawful business
**********************************************************************
|
