Another response
From: Discussion of the implications of FoI for FE and HE institutions
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dodgson, Paul
Sent: 27 January 2012 10:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Records management the true cost of FOI? (Hybrid question straddles both disciplines so cross posting)
Lawrence
Excellent thread start!
Out of lurking I come. Relevant questions, as asked, and my personal opinion
To what extent is the concern with the cost of FOI a reflection of an underlying records management weakness? Or, is it an issue of being sensitive to a change in accountability (implicit or explicit) ushered in by FOI or an organisational response to change?
The cost of FoI can reflect an underlying weakness in records management – to a degree. FoI challenges opinions regarding access to information, irrespective of RM standards in an organisation. We are also challenged (rightly) by the Transparency Agenda, enabling access to base datasets, thus allowing anyone to use these for whatever purpose (cognisant of rights iro information access). A bigger driver (in my opinion) for good RM relates to knowledge and organisational management. If one can evidence clear and tangible business benefits which provide revenue savings then the business will listen (especially now) – subject to the skills of the presenter in delivering the business value in such a way as to receive a mandate to change from the board (or equivalent).
The skills required to achieve change vary across the RM/FoI world. In my experience, many ask how they can convince their business that change is required, fewer are skilled to be able to deliver.
For those with a response to FOIA, has your records management function improved (or at least raised its profile) since the Act came into force? Elizabeth Shepherd has done some good work in this area. Also there is the JISC records management maturity model, though this only refers to FOI process rather than making a direct link between FOI and records management (although it is implicit).
Yes but not enough to improve RM on its own. FoI is not a sufficiently strong driver to engage change.
At this time, I am not focusing on the method by which the estimated cost is calculated. I have always felt that it is distorted because it is based on crude estimates rather than a rigorous approach and thus reflects an organisational (or cultural) response to FOIA than an issue of economic resources.
Totally agree. FoI costs are variable in that there is no agreed single means of calculation across sectors. Cost of the service is now in vogue. I am currently running an exercise to establish if the current management process is sufficiently “LEAN”. The cost of FoI relates not just to core staff but also those engaged in information gathering. This is difficult to quantify because many grades can be involved. A typical question can route as follows:-
Into organisation.
Recorded.
Considered by an FoI manager.
Information gathering request made
Various grades involved in gathering and considering
Information collation and response preparation
Sign off process
To calculate actuals is impossible/too expensive to record given the model above (only one of many)
Cost can relate to changes to RM but, in my current experience, any RM changes must result in revenue savings. These are possible. As I mention above, it is the competence of the change proposer which sells the case and influences change – the key bit in my view.
Just my personal musings, back to lurking.
Regards
Paul
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified
virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.