JISCMail - RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK Archives

Ascham Homes Ltd. Registered in England & Wales. Company No. 04447876 Registered Office: Willow House, 869 Forest Road, Walthamstow, London, E17 4UH VAT Registration No. 809 6113 33

>>> Tony May <[log in to unmask]> 15/09/2009 11:16 >>>

I thought the crux of the argument was about a couple of things.

Firstly how to raise the profile of and advocacy (a clear large voice ) for information management as a whole.

Secondly some type of chartership/accreditation for records management

Both I think are good ideas and should be pursued

I think it would be useful to join a larger body like CILIP (already chartered, and a large organisation). However my concern is how well an organisation like CILIP will advocate on Records Management, Archives and Information Governance. As after looking at the Sue Hill blog there seem to be a perceived bias that CILIP is mainly advocating in the traditional library areas.

A second area of concern is the governmental move for Libraries, Archives and Museums to be separated or grouped into a more cultural/leisure type of area, which to me seems to be a bit divergent from the information management element.

Tony May
Documents Manager

"Whatever the cost of our libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant nation". (This quotation is attributed to Walter Cronkite)

Creating yet another new body is exactly what I am trying to avoid. The whole thrust of the debate is surely that there are too many organisations already – at least that is where I am coming from. Adding yet another would risk making the situation even worse, not better.

Surely it is better to work with and through those organisations that already exist, have established memberships and structures etc than just create new ones, even if creating a new one does appear a superficially quicker and easier path to follow? I’m looking for long term fundamental change rather than quick fixes.

From: Eldin Rammell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 September 2009 13:14
To: 'Steve Bailey - JISC infoNet'
Subject: RE: Sector representation - first steps?

Thanks for your input to this discussion. I’m in agreement with much of what you suggest but I think that progress towards IM accreditation can be made without necessarily RMS and SOA merging. I think the ICRM model needs looking at more closely. ICRM provide accreditation and (I believe) training. They don’t run listservs. They don’t hold conferences. They don’t publish journals (apart from their newsletter). They don’t hold meetings. All of these are provided for by a range of sector-specific and sector-independent bodies.

So, I can envisage a new body quite separate from RMS and SOA providing information management professional accreditation, supported by the likes of RMS and SOA. I see the question of whether these 2 organisations should merge as a separate issue to the need for professional accreditation. Having said that though, were the RMS and SOA to merge, then perhaps the resulting body might be better placed to progress the issue of accreditation…..

From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Bailey - JISC infoNet
Sent: 14 September 2009 11:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sector representation - first steps?
Hi all,

Having been out of the office since Thursday I’ve been reading the various messages regarding accreditation etc which seem to have sprung from my original email last week – the vast majority of which seem to agree that there are just too many organisations trying to represent too few people at the moment. This certainly chimes with my own thoughts – as articulated during my paper at the Society of Archivist’s conference a couple of weeks ago where I made the assertion (to a few raised eyebrows I noted) that we are a “small and divided profession”.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sarah Wickham’s sentiments regarding the common thread that binds (or at least should bind) archivists and records managers and have written along such lines previously (‘Taking the road less travelled by: the future of the archive and records management profession in the digital age’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol 28, No.2, October 2007). The balance of duties may differ depending on where the records that we deal with happen to appear on the ‘continuum’ (or lifecycle – lets not open up another can of worms!) but it is only a difference in emphasis – not of aims, objectives and core professional beliefs. In short, there is more that unites us than divides us and we weaken this link at our peril.

I have no data to confirm this assertion but it seems to me that both the major societies in question: the RMS and SOA reached a plateau in terms of their membership, reach and influence some time ago – perhaps even as long ago as 5-10 years ago. I have to admit that I have had more direct involvement with the RMS than the SOA (of which I have never been a member) but reckon it’s a fair bet that in terms of membership, conference and event attendance will have showed only minor increase in recent years and ditto their range of activities, public profile and influence. For sure, numbers may have increased here and there but with the ever-growing relevance of information and its management to individuals and organisations you would have hoped to see a doubling (or thereabouts) of membership etc during this time. Then of course there are the numerous other smaller groups which represent even smaller, specialist minorities. I am not denigrating the work of any of them, simply pointing out as others have before that as a profession this means that there are too many worthy, yet small and often overlooked affiliations which weaken our overall professional voice and identity. Providing services and support for their members should only be part of the work of such bodies – of equal importance should be raising the profile of the profession, commenting on issues which fall within our professional area of expertise and acting as a vocal and respected pressure group holding people to account. I have commented previously on our failings in this regard in relation to the personal data crises that erupted last year and the fact that our profession seemed invisible in the media when we should have had so much to say. Ditto ID cards, social care records and the ‘Baby P case’, the Digitising Britain report, the inevitable forthcoming reductions in administration and efficiency agenda, the cultural legacy of the 2012 Olympics and so the list continues. We should be making our professional voice heard as part of the debate on all of these and many more in a way that we do not at present. Perhaps a united, coordinated representative body reflecting all aspects of the archive, records and information management professions might just succeed where in the past we have failed.

I know previous contributors to this debate have all asked how we can make progress down this track. Clearly much of the responsibility for doing so rests in the hands of the executive bodies of both the RMS and the SOA and then, to a lesser extent with the other bodies who could and should be part of this. I appreciate that some moves are a foot to do this with some of the smaller bodies but if this does not include the two largest bodies in question: the RMS and the SOA then its impact will always be muted and the opportunity lost. There appears to be a few different versions of history coming forward here regarding who was or wasn’t invited to join and when (you would rather hope that at least one chain of documentary evidence existed which could clarify this!) but frankly it matters not. We are where we are and hopefully it is not too late for this to be put back on the agenda. Might one way forward be for the executive committees of both organisations to actively consult their membership on this issue: perhaps by way of a shared non-binding referendum, the results of which to be publicly announced? I’m sure agreement as to the wording of the question regarding whether members are in favour of a merger between the two bodies could be agreed (if not, there really is no hope) and it would, at least, help to demonstrate the level of commitment – if any – within the professional community that both bodies serve to such plans and as such might act as the springboard to further negotiations.

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.