Managing Distinctions: Enterprise Information, Document, Records, Knowledge and Content Management
by Richard E. Barry
N.B.
This paper was originally published in Records and Information Management
Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 / February 2002 and is republished here with the kind
permission of the publisher and Richard Cox, editor of RIMR.
These are words of one contributor a few years back on an Internet discussion list for professional records managers, archivists and other information management professionals when ‘knowledge management’ (KM) was beginning seriously to emerge as an important business concept and approach to organizational performance. Others, doubting the potential impact of knowledge management on recordkeeping, thought that it didn’t matter that much whether KM was real or just another buzzword:
·
If it’s recorded, we’re interested, but then it’s just like any other
kind of information…If it isn’t…we’re not interested.
But there were other voices, not so dismissive:
· Knowledge management (KM)…will change the way we manage records.
· With downsizing, the "knowledge" is walking out the door, so records become more than just dust catchers.
· What the heck is it really, and how do record managers fit in? It seems to me that records managers should be right in the middle of knowledge management, but I don't think it's so, Horatio!
This kind of exchange is not unique to ‘knowledge management’ discussions. Rather, it illustrates the professional confusion that arises with the introduction of most new concepts or terms. A recent discussion of ‘content management’ ensued on one list that served to highlight the fact that, until something like content management is understood and established in the workplace, it may be very difficult to find papers on the subject in the professional literature, especially ones with any consideration of potential recordkeeping implications. The absence of such dialogue can result in substantial setbacks for organizations and archives and records management professionals trying to sustain a trustworthy recordkeeping environment.
The purpose of this essay is to discuss some key distinctions among important enterprise knowledge, content, information, document and records management concepts and supporting technologies in current use, and to reflect on some implications for records managers and recordkeeping. It is also to reflect on how these concepts often grow out of and reinforce one another. Before discussing those matters, however, let us consider how we learn about new ideas, technologies and product lines, so that we might better prepare ourselves for the inevitable new ones yet to come.
Where does
one look for early answers?
It seems that no sooner than one new business strategy, organizational ‘paradigm change’ or technological innovation is barely digested that a new one floods into the workplace and market. In many of these cases, archives and records management (ARM)[1] and other information management (IM) professionals find themselves asking: is it just an old house with fresh paint? Will it last any longer than the latest skirt lengths or tie widths? In short, is it substance or fluff? And, even if it is real, does it particularly matter for recordkeeping? In the words of another discouraged list discussant:
·
It appears that "knowledge management" is
a buzzword about everything! …I’m not sure how to incorporate KM into my
records strategies – or even if I should.
Who can one look to for answers that are not
self-serving, particularly early in the game, before there are established
standards? It is highly unlikely that answers will be found in professional
literature, possibly with the exception of journals associated with such
professional groups as the Society for Information Management (MIS Quarterly[2])
and IEEE Computer Society (IT Professional[3]).
But do not expect to find recordkeeping impact statements in those places.
Nor is one likely to find answers in conference presentations at ARM
professional meetings in the early days of most business or technology
innovations.
Vendors and technology ‘early adopters’ may
be among the only sources of information on technological innovations at the
early stages. Richard Cox notes, “[T]he web offers an amazing ability to
discover information about vendors offering services in archives and records
management.”[4] He later cautions, however, that there are
few places where one can go for comparative information on the strengths and
weakness of such offerings. Examples of this are used here to illustrate
differentiators. Whether and to what extent reality lives up to advertising, I
will leave to the Doculabs, Gartners, IDCs, and Yankee Groups to evaluate –
groups that do offer comparative product information once a market has begun to
mature. This need not lessen, however, the insights advertising can offer
regarding capability differential statements to help make the kinds of
distinctions with which this essay is concerned.
Because of the critical role software developers play in the way records are created, professional ARM organizations might consider rethinking their relationships with the that community, including more frequently breaking tradition and inviting vendors to make presentations at ARM conferences as was done was the NAGARA[5] 1997 Conference in Sacramento. Such presenters can be asked to speculate on how a particular innovation or new product type might impact on recordkeeping; or they might be coupled with an ARM professional who fills that role, as was done in the NAGARA conference keynote session, where Chauncey Bell, Senior Vice President of Business Design Associates,[6] a newcomer to records management, challenged some of our ritual thinking about the role of ARM professional and this author reacted.[7]
At the same conference, Raul Medina Mora, Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist for Action Technologies, Inc.[8], offered some excellent views about recordkeeping considerations for workflow management (WfM) systems. Both speakers remained for most of the conference to listen and engage other participants, breaking a habit of many IT speakers of parachuting into conferences to give their presentations and then departing immediately thereafter or simply remaining in their exhibit booths and not partaking in the conference dialog. In the case cited above, Mora invited participants to communicate with him following the conference on recordkeeping concerns in his leadership role in the international WfM Coalition Standards Committee.
Similarly, at
SAA’s[9]
1999, Pittsburgh conference, William Hooton, then-President of Tower Software
USA shared a keynote session on the development of records management applications
with Steve Matsuura of DoD’s Joint Operability Test
Command,[10] who addressed the certification of records management
application (RMA) software under the 5015.2 standard, and Authentica[11] CEO Lance Urbas spoke at the Cohasset MER 2001 conference[12] on access control of records through advanced encryption
technology. Cohasset’s MER and ARMA Houston/Tarian’s e-solutions Conferences
are considerably ahead of most professional associations in integrating private
sector speakers into their programs and in attracting key developers to
register exhibit booths; although even those conferences are still looking for
the right balance in fairly providing time for exhibitors to demonstrate their
wares.
However, vendors are not always welcomed in substantive conference sessions unless they purchase conference registrations. Users tend to think that vendors should be grateful to pay for whatever they do for us. Yet, just the cost of creating, transporting, installing an exhibit, paying the exhibit fee, possibly hosting a continental breakfast or coffee break and providing a demonstration and refreshments suite, will add up to several thousand dollars. Then they have to be tended by expensive people, limiting the number of staff that vendors can afford to send to conferences and the number of conferences they can afford to exhibit in each year. When, by necessity, limited vendor employees are on hand, it is usually necessary for them to remain at their booths to be present for visitors. If professional associations want to have vendors become more conversant and sympathetic with ARM issues, they should ensure that exhibits are closed for key sessions (as for example was done in the e-Records Solutions 2001 Conference[13]) and that exhibitors are encouraged to attend those sessions without charge. Conversely, breakfasts and breaks should be held in exhibitor spaces and reasonable periods should be specifically scheduled without conference sessions to encourage conferees to visit exhibit booths.
To illustrate the potential value of industry sources, one would have found it difficult when enterprise information portals (EIPs) were emerging to find good resources in the professional literature on what they were. Even today, what exists on the subject is principally in the trade literature, although some of us have regularly used workshops and conference presentations to alert the ARM community of such upcoming technological innovations and their potential implications for recordkeeping. An excellent analysis of the Northern Light EIP was prepared by IDC, a firm that analyses IT industry trends and products. Even if one wished to challenge analyst Susan Feldman’s conclusions about the specific product (which this author does not, except possibly with respect to her less vigorous IT usage of the term ‘archives’), one would gain the insights of at least one knowledgeable industry analyst about the key features of the best EIPs. Such insights help in distinguishing EIPs from other information product classes, such as EDMS. Feldman says:
EIPs are high-end systems that …act as a central gateway to any information the enterprise generates or needs...The enterprise information system comprises all the functions that create and manage collections: acquiring information from diverse sources such as Web crawlers or authoring tools, indexing materials, organizing those materials into a structure that is pertinent and understandable to the organization, maintaining versions and archives, and, most importantly, making the information readily accessible through advanced, easy-to-use search and browsing tools. [14]
The questions always boil down to: what, if anything, does this mean for my profession, my organization and my job? What do I need to know about this? Who do I need to warn and what do we need to do? Unfortunately, the answers are rarely unambiguous. Often there is both substance and hype in the same term depending on who is using it and for what purposes.
Other Sources
Where else can one seek information that will shed light on some of the above questions? After the concept or product line matures, some will be found in the literature (explicit knowledge in the KM vernacular) and in the heads of the relatively small number of people (in the form of tacit or implicit knowledge) who are actually implementing such organizational and technological innovations in a recordkeeping context. For example, the Indiana University Electronic Records Project[15] represents one of the first projects implementing an EIP system (MyEden) and an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (PeopleSoft™) in a trustworthy recordkeeping environment. As ERPs are a common approach to the replacement of legacy financial and human resource applications, and represent one of the largest producers of records in an organization, capturing ERP records into a trustworthy recordkeeping environment should be a top priority for executives, program managers, CIOs and ARM professionals.
As valuable as
they are, the views of ARM professionals reporting on the implementation of
innovative technologies are not without their own issues. ARM professionals
reporting on their own projects may be no less disinterested than vendors
promoting their technology and thus may also experience conflicts of interest.
Are implementers as likely to be as forthcoming about the down side of a
project experience as they are about its advantages? Not if they fear losing
the next installment of grant money or budget, or if it might expose poor
design or implementation decisions for which they were responsible. Are they
any more likely to openly profess project failure? Probably not if they are in
an organization that penalizes people for making ‘mistakes’ in ways that might
be career limiting.
Even if they
are willing to candidly share valuable case information, which obviously other
information professionals need to know, will they be allowed to publicly say so
in a conference presentation or professional journal? Maybe not if their papers
require prior management clearance. Still, objective case studies from managers
of implementation projects can be excellent sources of information. These
questions give rise to the question of whether conference papers are placed on
websites or in CD/printed proceedings and the question: would speakers be more
candid if their presentations were not published? Obviously, as one who
electronically publishes my own papers and several others, I favor publication
where possible. Perhaps there is room for more critical analysis of projects in
a conference panel setting that would not be published with the other
conference papers.
Although
non-ARM professionals are rarely invited to make conference presentations or
write papers for ARM journals, the users of implemented projects can constitute
one of the best sources of information on how the projects really went, if
allowed to speak in public about it. In the end, reporting from independent
consultants about their experiences with various technologies in an ARM
setting, without revealing client identities can yield some of the most
informative insights. This is why a relatively small cadre of senior and
well-respected consultants regularly appears on conference agenda in the US
(Rae Cougar, Julie Gable, Bob Williams), Australasia (Connie Christensen, Mike
Steemson), Canada (Terry Cook, John McDonald) and the UK (Marc Fresko, Tony
Hendley, Peter Emmerson).
In light of the
above discussion, and since most technologies with a heavy recordkeeping impact
are emerging from technology firms, ARM professionals must find better ways to
relate to such organizations. This will require such steps as:
·
incorporating into ARM organizations IT professionals who
can become specialists in recordkeeping technologies;
·
integrating the ARM function with the broader IM functions
at the policy, systems and/or organizational levels;
·
keeping tuned into developments in relevant advanced
technology research communities and in current business technologies and
practices, such as those that are the subject of this essay; including
professionals from other disciplines in conference programs;
·
providing (and taking) the time necessary at conferences to
visit vendor exhibits; and
·
giving more prominence to business special interest groups,
such as the SAA’s Business Archives Section (BAS). In recent years, there have
been some outstanding presentations at BAS pre-conference meetings that, in
this author’s opinion, were important enough to have been put forward as
conference sessions.
Making
Distinctions
· IM vs Information Technology (IT)
· Information management (IM) vs Records Management (RM)
· Records vs electronic records
· Enterprise management vs Enterprise Systems
· Knowledge, Information, Documents and Records
· Content vs Information and Knowledge Management
We should recognize up front that these
concepts are not mutually exclusive or always a complete departure from
traditional approaches. Often they represent improvements along a continuum of
ideas and technologies. Knowledge management makes use of information
management and portal technologies – and more. Content management (CM, or more
often ECM for enterprise CM) can be implemented separately but can greatly
support knowledge management. Advanced portals try to put it all together.
Information Management vs Information
Technology
Let us begin with the more traditional
and better-understood concepts of information management and information
technology before moving on to records management, knowledge management and
content management. There are important distinctions to be made even here. In
my experience, a great many people with the title ‘Chief Information Officer’
(CIO) are by education and experience really ‘Chief Technology Officers’
(CTOs). And most related organizational units with which I have come into
contact are well endowed with information technology experts but have few if
any information management specialists. Perhaps this is in part why many CIOs
consider that the balance between IT and information management in their own
organizations is out of whack – too oriented to IT and too little to
information management. This was always an important distinction to make; but
it is much more so the case today as more organizations move to knowledge
management, content management and electronic records mandates, especially when
the KM, CM and ARM functions are not collocated with the CIO function.
Information Management
The term information management
(IM)[16]
is often wrongly used synonymously with, or subsumed within, the term information
technology (IT). It is important to distinguish between these terms,
because most organizations are deficient in the former, potentially leading to
a situation in which technology interests rather than management and
operational information needs dominate management attention, resource
allocation and related design decisions.
Information management is the means
whereby the existence of needed information can be discovered by managers,
action officers and support staff. Unlike later content management systems,
vanilla IM systems require the user to know what s/he is looking for and to go
after it. IM fosters the effective use of information for specific business
purposes and information conservation, sharing and recycling throughout an
organization and among organizations with mutually supportive aims. The practice
of information management in modern enterprises, whether in the public or
private sector, may also involves data administration, information engineering
and business systems analysis to link organizational, processes and information
models. This requires understanding and analysis of the mission and objectives
of the organization (or business system) and the development of families of
information categories that are related to one another through their inherent
or organic connections with business aims and processes. The terms information
engineering and information architecture are becoming more
frequently used to embrace IM, as new tools have developed to serve IM needs in
recent years. These distinctions are more than semantics though they are that
too. I once was associated with a department called “Information, Technology
and Facilities” that emphasized the importance of integrating the technological
and physical workplace. I always made a point of placing the comma between
‘Information’ and ‘Technology,’ probably a nuance that probably went unnoticed
by most people. Beyond semantics, the kinds of people and skill sets are
different, with IT specialists more likely coming from computer science
educations and technical work experience and IM specialists more likely coming
from a liberal arts, information or library science/studies background,
including many ARM professionals.
When articulated in graphic form with
explanatory text, the information resulting from the above analyses may be used
to describe the organization's information architecture. Information
architecture shows what information is needed for, and is produced by, its key
business processes and how the sources of internal and external information
relate to one another in the context of this particular organization, which may
differ from how similar information is used in other organizations. It
articulates information standards and depicts directories or maps.
Directories may be of information stores
managed by the organization, whether internally or externally generated. They
may also be in the form of tools for the effective navigation, use and
disposition management of an organization's information assets. Directories may
be of people with needed expertise in fields of importance to the organization.
They may also be of physical assets – buildings, analog files, etc. The most
effective directories embrace, and where appropriate link, all of these assets.
Files schemes and records series familiar to ARM professionals are special
purpose directories that should be an organic part of the organization’s
information directory system, although it may be argued that the days of
records series are limited in light of other alternatives for recordkeeping,
such as business models and rich description and metadata.
Because of the manner in which business systems analysis (BSA) is carried out to model various aspects of the organization and develop its information architecture, it is referred to as a ‘top-down’ approach. It uses various BSA techniques to ‘decompose’ the organization from the top, first examining:
§ the organization’s ultimate purpose/mission; then its:
§ aims and objectives,
· major business areas or functions (operations, human resources, finance), including but not limited to organizations by the same names
· supporting business processes (hire staff) and sub-processes (check references) and related workflows that typically involve multiple units,
· information needed and produced by processes and related
· information categories and other metadata
Those may, in turn, assist in: linking information assets (including records) to corporate aims; developing directories and schemas; and determining appropriate information technology. This approach also has the potential for assisting in making records appraisal and disposition management decisions based on macro-level value assessments and possibly value-chain like analyses at the process level. Information management is important because it facilitates the intellectual or logical control over information assets that is necessary for the effective management of information toward strategic ends, including electronic records.
More often, however, a ‘bottom-up’
approach is used – inventorying existing records in individual offices and
focusing on record content and creating organization rather than the importance
of the business aims, processes/functions and context in which they are
created. This approach concentrates more on the physical control of records
and, in my opinion, inadequately on their intellectual control. This is partly
because of the fact that up until recently, most recorded business information
has been created in the form of paper documents. Digital creation systems can
facilitate the management of records in much more powerful, efficient and
effective ways if appropriate provisions are made for their trustworthy
control, integrity, preservation and long-term access, in the face of rapidly
changing technology. Such systems also facilitate the ‘macroappraisal’ approach
outlined above.[17]
Information Technology
Information technology is about
hardware and software infrastructure. In the Internet age it often also
embraces communication technology, described with terms taken from the
transport sector – information super-highway, info-bahn, info-strada. IT makes
it possible to do a much better job of information management today than was
possible even a few years ago, but it is not to be confused with information
management any more than information is to be confused with technology. Just as
organizations must develop information architectures to understand how they can
most effectively organize and use their information resources, they must also
develop technology architectures specifically geared to serve related business
needs and to articulate technological/communications standards..
The higher the level of organization to
be served, the more generic the technology architecture must be. Thus, at a
national or international level, the technology must be such as to support the
most diverse needs in terms of kinds of information to be transported and
common protocols for access to the network. For example, the Transmission
Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, better known simply as the
"TCP/IP" standard, at the transport layer of the Internet technology
architecture was created to permit access to, and use of, the global Internet
worldwide. At lower levels, such as the individual enterprise level, technology
standards may be required at the application level, such as word processing,
email, document management, recordkeeping, etc. (Ironically, in the standards
literature, the application layer (interoperability level) is seen as at the
top of the standards reference model and the transport layer (interconnectivity
level) at the bottom end.)
The traditional relationship between
information and technology – that business needs should dictate information
requirements that in turn should drive technology decisions – is being
challenged. This age-honored axiom has been giving way to a new reality in
recent years as managers see technology as a way of streamlining operations.
Although large companies may be unwilling to openly discuss this subject, many
are using technology to drive their businesses and redesign their
organizations. This is true because in a free market economy, there are
tremendous pressures to exchange capital (technology) for labor (people)[18].
This is happening especially where
front-office, customer-facing systems (a.k.a ‘business-to-customer (B2C)’
systems such as customer interface management (CIM) or relationships management
(CRM) systems) are integrated with back-office (ERP) systems (a.k.a.
‘business-to-business (B2B) or business to enterprise (B2E) systems). In the
old days, in-house systems programmers became experts in one of their
organization’s major functional area systems (finance, personnel, operations),
and maintained such systems in ways that supported changing organizational
needs. This was done often at high cost in terms of patchwork systems and turf
protection on separate mainframe systems that resulted in ‘stovepipe’
information systems, unable to ‘speak’ to one another, usually with little
current documentation and an enormous and risky dependence on one or two system
programmers who have it in their heads.
Integrated enterprise systems are
changing that and now such systems are often integrated and cohabitate on
single mainframes or networked servers. Now, many large companies (some well
known to all of us) are taking the position that these new major enterprise
systems will not be maintained in house. (Not a bad approach, in principle,
since most user organizations do not have the level of expertise needed to fool
with that kind of software.) Not only will such systems not be massaged to
adapt to the internal organization, but just the opposite: the internal
environment, organizational structure and staffing will bow where necessary to
accommodate upgrades in these large systems. If an upgrade means that some
sub-process should be changed and automated in ways that might reduce the need
for organizational entities and related people, policies or procedures, then so
be it. It is just one more way that organizations can gain a competitive edge
even for a short period. Management says: why not? Often, no one has a good
reason to the contrary.[19]
Many aspects of recordkeeping make prime
candidates for automation, in some cases enhancing recordkeeping. Archivists
and records managers need to be discerning in making those distinctions
honestly for themselves, their profession and their particular organizational
settings and either make the case against such automation or lead the way. If
ARM professionals are seen simply as Luddites, their influence will be
diminished when there is a good case against automation or outsourcing of ARM
functions.
The emergence of ubiquitous digital
recordkeeping
In the recent five years or so, we have
seen the emergence of electronic recordkeeping systems such as those that were
originally certified under the US DoD 5015.2 Records Management Applications
(RMA) standard or that were short listed as a result of RFI/RFP evaluation
exercises by national archives (e.g., in Australia and the UK) as being
trustworthy RMAs. If you had an EDMS, you needed to couple it with a
recordkeeping system to get it right. The 5015.2 standard did a great deal to
get the attention of software developers concerning the importance of
recordkeeping and recordkeeping functionality in systems. Now, some of those
RMAs have become full-fledged EDMS in their own rights with full traditional
document management capabilities and industrial-strength recordkeeping
functionality, as well as possibly workflow and knowledge management supporting
capabilities. In the remainder of this paper I refer to such systems as EDMS Plus
or EDMS+. So what we now have are: EDMS without serious
recordkeeping functionality; RMAs that are lacking in rich EDMS capabilities;
and EDMS+ that have both. Unless an organization has some very
unusual needs, they shouldn’t require more than one EDMS+ to do it
all.
Integration of recordkeeping
functionality is further developing as EDMS+ vendors make deals with
developers of noncompliant recordmaking systems. There are a number of ways
that recordmaking systems can be matched up with recordkeeping systems. First,
we are all familiar with the old “OEM” (original equipment manufacturer)
arrangement whereby one company purchased hardware from another and packaged it
under its own name brand – e.g., PCs.
This approach has begun to appear with recordkeeping software. Something
with the look, feel and functionality of Tower Software’s TRIM Captura™
(because it is Captura™) is repackaged by a former competitor such as Tower
Technologies’[20] (no
relation) in its T2E™ system. It works seamlessly with Tower Technologies’ Web
Capture™ software and the client sees it as the product of a single company,
and deals with Tower Technologies for its support, not Tower Software that
produces TRIM Captura™.
A second way of converting recordmaking
systems into recordkeeping systems is through the use of an application program
interface (API). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) uses an
AMS financial management system called Momentum™, which is an important
financial recordmaking system, but not a trustworthy recordkeeping system.
DARPA uses Tower Software’s[21]
API with Momentum™ to capture financial records into a trustworthy
recordkeeping environment, effectively making Momentum™ a recordkeeping system.
Tower Technologies has also partnered with Authentica[22]
for industrial-strength security and access control with encryption, making for
a most powerful web recordkeeping solution. (ARM professionals commonly take
the view that they see no relevance for security systems in unclassified
records systems, because they are promoting the use of records. However, even
in unclassified systems, one of the strongest hallmarks of a trustworthy
recordkeeping system is its ability to properly control access and prevent
accidental or malicious alteration or deletion of even open records.)
A third way is the ‘commercial gateway’
approach whereby the recordkeeping system is integrated with the recordmaking
system at the source code level, as exemplified in TrueArc’s (Foremost™) recent
alliance with Filenet. Depending on the method chosen, end users will be
working with one company or two companies for support. In each of the above
cases, an EDMS or EDMS+ is involved. However, all recordmaking systems are not
EDMS. A fourth approach is one in which recordkeeping software is integrated
directly into the business application software. This is the approach taken by
Tarian Software[23].
Finally, there are other experimental
approaches to recordkeeping being undertaken for different reasons, including
in some cases budgetary necessity. For example, the Indiana University project
cited above is exploring the use of simpler WfM instead of EDMS+ tools to
manage electronic records, simply because of budgetary decisions taken at
higher levels that pulled the rug out from under the latter possibility. On the
other hand, the Army Information Warehouse (AIW) proposed by Edward Arnold,
Deputy Director for Army Records, would make use of warehouse-based
technologies.[24] Other
strategies focusing on long-term (hundreds of years) preservation and access to
electronic records, including software emulation and IM techniques in which
information is preserved in application-independent form, as in the joint
NARA/ARPA/San Diego Supercomputer project.[25]
Together, these strategies constitute the
beginning of ubiquitous recordkeeping. One way or the other, recordkeeping
functionality will become integrated with business processes and practices.
More of the now troublesome big-volume recordmaking systems, such as ERPs, that
are not currently trustworthy recordkeeping systems, will become so. The good
news is that the trend has definitely begun. The bad news is that it will take
some years to fully come about. We can’t just wait for that to happen.
Information Management vs Records Management
Senior line managers and information
technology managers often suffer from misconceptions about the relationships
between information management and records management, which many
regard as very different activities. Yet, well-implemented records management
is simply a rigorous, efficacious form of IM to serve broader and more
demanding personal, organizational, legal, regulatory and societal
requirements.
Misconceptions about this are chiefly due
to historical accident, because of the fact that usually hard organizational lines
have been drawn that should not exist between computer-based and paper-based
operations of most organizations. Further, IT professionals traditionally have
been more interested in the medium than the message. ARM practitioners have
typically been more interested in the message than the medium – traditionally
paper and microform. The paucity of IM professionals in IT organizations, and
IT professionals in ARM organizations, has made it difficult for ARM-based IM
concerns to be properly addressed.
For some reason, managers are usually
very interested in the use of information in the workplace, but are
disdainful of records. This observation has caused the author to ask
senior executives in interviews: what is it that happens to information when it
moves from paper form to electronic form that transforms it into something
important? Confronted this way, executives usually acknowledge that there is no
sense in such a rationale. For relevant information policies to be established
and enterprise document management systems to be developed, policy makers and
developers must see the highly interconnected nature of information, documents
and records.
While all records constitute documentation of some kind or another, and may be referred to generically as "documents," irrespective of storage or presentation medium, the reverse is not true. Some documents do not qualify as records as they are purely reference documents. Dynamic database information and external economic intelligence information resources may be consulted in an organization through a computer-based information system or through printed reports; but that information do not usually constitute records until imported into internal document that are records. The reference material becomes part of that record it becomes part of something else that qualifies as a record. In like manner, documents in preparation or at some early draft stage are not normally regarded as records until such time as they leave that state and are communicated into the business unit or corporate (institutional) domain in support of some business process.
We should also distinguish records from evidence. Yes, all records constitute evidence; but the reverse is not the case. A scrap of paper in a person’s handwriting with a potentially incriminating telephone number on it, taken from her wastebasket, may become important evidence; but it wasn’t ever a record. And, or course, there are all manner and sorts of physical evidence that do not constitute records. Better making this distinction, in order to streamline recordkeeping so that records only truly essential for legal evidentiary purposes, has been central in the discussions of the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM)[26] C-22 Committee, chaired by Dan Schneider. Its Evidentiary Support Project, approved 11/01 by the AIIM Standards Board, covers Internet, intranet, and extranet web-based activities (e-mail, on-line transactions, web advertising, voice-mail, videoconferencing, etc.) and the evidentiary management issues in the other recorded information holdings related to litigation discovery judgments.
Likewise, in his e-Business Solutions 2001 keynote session, Edward Arnold characterized the traditionalist’s definition of ‘record’ as: “Everything created by anyone for any reason (e.g., Post-it notes, unsigned draft documents, etc.),” in contrast to the AIW’s definition:
“Information documenting agency operations.” I believe most ARM theorists
will agree with the proffered AIW definition. If so, this highlights continuing misunderstandings between professionals coming from a strong records management and archival backgrounds. With so many other electronic records challenges, there is little excuse for continued misunderstandings in our own community.
Records vs Electronic Records
There has been a great deal of discussion
and debate in recent years about the difference, if any, between records
and electronic records, and it is not the purpose of this paper to
review that field of literature. While there may be nuances that theorists will
debate about such distinctions, for all practical purposes electronic records
are simply records that are created, captured or maintained in digital
electronic forms rather than in paper or other analog forms. There is no compelling reason (at least not
yet) to conclude other than: the technology or medium in which documentation
is created, stored, used or presented should not be what decides whether it is
a record or not. To say that we should destroy all email after a week or
month or whenever, would be little different than saying that we should destroy
all paper after a given period. What gives documentation recordness, or makes
it recordworthy, is the fact that it represents the conduct of business.
Drawing again on Arnold’s excellent
presentation, he understands the traditionalist definition of ‘electronic
record’ as: “All information created electronically, e.g., email,
all drafts, etc.,” compared to the AIW definition “Records readable only
by computers (e.g., email and database out-put).”[27]
This again appears to suggest more by way of misunderstanding between
archivists and records managers than disagreement.
Perhaps the underlying issue in both C-22
and AIW is not so much one of definition of recordness but more one of what
records are worthy of retention and for how long, if at all. The choices of
whether to keep such records, or for how long, are separate questions. That
brings us back to the central importance of the records appraisal process. It
also draws attention to negative effects of the bifurcation between national
and state/provincial governments’ management of so-called “current records” at
the department/agency level and the management of archives at the
state/provincial or national levels. It further stresses the importance of
ensuring greater integration of archives and recordkeeping skills and
experience at all levels, including in private sector organizations.
Thus, while technology does not change
the nature of recordness, it substantially changes the manner in which
records must be managed, the related skill needs and the design, development
and implementation of information systems. It also raises complications
regarding the integration of paper and electronic records. Finally, whereas
recordkeeping was a matter of little interest to CIOs and IT managers when they
were all in paper, now the omnipresence of electronic records makes
recordkeeping a high risk area in which CIOs and IT directors must be deeply
involved and can ill afford to ignore.
Still, many CIOs are of the opinion that
it is necessary to have both EDMS and records management applications to cover
both general document management needs and recordkeeping requirements. That was
true when RMAs were in their infancies. Now, however, at least some of the
5015.2-certified RMAs have are full EDMS+ offerings. The rationale
for using both is disappearing, and the penalties for having both are also
becoming very high in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO) – a term well
known in the IT world to indicate the full costs of specific technology
solutions – licensing, technical staff and user-training, testing, conversion,
implementation, technical support, future upgrading, etc. CIOs and ARM managers
should ask short-listed EDMS and EDMS+ vendors to demonstrate
satisfaction of both traditional document management and records management
requirements. Then decide if dual systems are really needed.
Enterprise, the Adjective
Like so many terms in business and
technology today, the noun ‘enterprise’ has come to be overused. As recently as 10 years ago, some dictionary
treatments of the term limited its meaning to business entities, undertakings,
projects or initiatives, often with a connotation of risk. In its broadest
usage, it was synonymous with ‘business’. The adjective form was
‘enterprising’. Today, we hear the term enterprise used more as an
adjective than as a noun to emphasize the application of a concept or
technology to the whole organization – ECM, enterprise content management; ERM,
enterprise relationships management; ERP, enterprise resource
planning system; and of course EDMS, enterprise document management
system.
For many years, EDMS meant electronic
document management system, and technically still does when used to reflect
isolated systems in parts of the organization.[28]
As organizations came to realize the importance of instituting
organization-wide rather a hodge-podge of fragmented, non-interoperable
departmental systems, and as developers responded to ever increasing
scalability requirements, EDMS began to mean enterprise document
management system.[29] It was not just fashion, but business
bottom-lining that made the term a modifier for virtually any kind of business
concept or technology. Yet, most RMAs and EDMS have not been implemented on an
enterprise level, or have been for only very limited aspects – correspondence
tracking, management of paper records, etc. Needed enterprise-level
recordkeeping necessitates either upgrading recordmaking systems to become
recordkeeping systems, or porting the records they products into a trustworthy
enterprise recordkeeping system. Either way, it entails executive and CIO
appreciation of the requirement for enterprise recordkeeping to be a central
part of the organization’s IM and IT architectures.
The growing use of the term enterprise to
reflect scope and scale of application has important connotations for ARM
professionals and systems for two principal reasons. Firstly, enterprise
systems are now frequently being introduced to replace legacy systems –
especially financial and human resource systems – mainly in the form of ERP
systems that integrate all of the business process transactions within and
between the financial and/or HR functional areas and possibly other areas as
well, such as CRM. Since elimination of paper and other analog forms is often
one of the central objectives of introducing ERPs, the recordkeeping capturing
mechanisms of the old legacy systems disappeared with many ERP implications –
and in too many cases, so did the records.
Secondly, enterprise systems are major
recordmaking systems. Recordmaking systems may be distinguished from
recordkeeping systems because the former produce large quantities of
transactions, with or without documentation, that meet professionally accepted definitions
of records; however, they lack the recordkeeping functionality necessary to
qualify them as trustworthy recordkeeping systems.
In the remainder of this paper, I refer
to EDMS that also have robust recordkeeping functionality as EDM Systems Plus
or EDMS+. Having recordmaking systems that are not also
recordkeeping systems is a formula for serious trouble, because it means the
organization is very much at risk creating evidence of its functioning outside
of a sound recordkeeping environment.
Knowledge, information, documents and
records
A
Washington Post story about the placing of NASA’s Triana program in ‘cold
storage’ for a few years, expresses part of the rationale behind the knowledge
management movement in modern organizations.
Valero, the
lead scientist, and Jim Watzin, the Triana program manager at Goddard, fear
that the greatest loss during Triana's storage period will be intellectual.
Engineers will drift away to other projects. Information could be misplaced,
lost or forgotten. Even certain pieces of technology, currently assigned to
Triana, might be carted away for other purposes. "That's another risk of
going into long-term storage -- the predatory projects," Watzin said.[30]
Management
guru, Peter Drucker, stated it more generally:
[I]ndividual
accountability is key, says Drucker, who scoffs at the notion of knowledge
management. "You can't manage knowledge," he says. "Knowledge is
between two ears, and only between two ears." To that extent, Drucker says
it's really about what individual workers do with the knowledge they have. When
employees leave a company, he says, their knowledge goes with them, no matter
how much they've shared.[31]
Few
would disagree with Drucker’s proposition that knowledge is an inherent
property of the human mind. Yet many corporations are investing heavily to
build organizational climates and human and technology infrastructures,
including Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs) and supporting programs and
organizations, that facilitate human collaboration, expertise discovery,
conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge, timely deployment of experts and
quick delivery of expert knowledge wherever needed. At the same time, they are
also attempting to capture what can be captured in the form of documentation
and to distill large quantities of information into knowledge kernels to ease
the path for others.
Bain & Company, a Boston-based
strategic management consulting firm, discovered a few years ago that it was
having difficulty responding rapidly to client needs and that staff were often
unknowingly plowing over old ground in addressing similar client problem
environments. Bain found that some of
the most important documentation of its client work was in the form of hundreds
of PowerPoint™ slide presentations constituting in many cases the firm’s
intellectual products for their clients. By definition, these were important
corporate records and assets, as they probably are in most organizations. Yet,
they were clearly not being managed as records or systematically in any other
fashion. With the involvement of their records manager, Chris Bednar, Bain
developed an extensive database of the PowerPoint™ files. It turned out to be
among its most important records and one of the best knowledge sources in the
organization, both in terms of providing models for how certain situations were
handled and for identifying subject-area experts or skills, an idea that goes
back at least as far as the Middle Ages guilds.
At
about the same time, the World Bank saw several barriers in the management of
its diverse intellectual assets that led it to making major organizational,
work culture and technology changes needed to support a KM mandate. These
included divergent information capture
processes; much uncaptured information, divergent capture destinations,
divergent processes to maintain, no single catalog for information, and
divergent cost recovery models, access services and sourcing strategies. These
factors were all exacerbated by the Bank’s size and physical presence all over
the world. How could the organizations they serve in Harare, or even their own
staff, hope to know that similar development issues were being addressed in
Delhi? In the mid- and late-1990s, to begin to break down these barriers, the
Bank introduced an enterprise-wide KM mandate and support system, including a
Director of Knowledge Programs, first under the CIO and later moved to the
Operational Core Services Network vice presidency, and cross-organizational
communities of practice networks oriented to major thematic areas reflecting
the Bank’s core business aims and led by ‘anchors.’
We will not go into a literary review or
scholarly discussion of knowledge management here. Bruce Dearstyne has done a
brilliant job of that already in these pages.[32]
Readers will also find an excellent series of KM papers in a dedicated issue of
IEEE Intelligent Systems.[33]
In this paper, the discussion of knowledge management is focused
principally on differentiating it from the other management modifiers –
information, records, content, etc., and considering recordkeeping
implications. We will spend more time on KM, because it may be thought of as
the center of a web that has threads out to all of the others (IM, EIP, CM,
RM).
Perhaps
the most distinguishing feature of knowledge management that separates it from
the traditional concepts of information, document, and records
management, as suggested above, is that KM is more human-centric than
object- or docu-centric. Of course,
humans make use of documents and information in all forms and both information
and technology play heavy supporting roles in KM. However, KM is more about establishing an organizational climate
and culture that encourages identifying expertise and creating and establishing
‘communities of practice’ that gather both virtually and actually to share and
update experience and bring that experience to bear on current issues facing
the organization and its clients. KM isn’t easy. Perhaps that is why Bain &
Company research discovered that only something more than 20% out of 631
worldwide interviewed companies apply knowledge-management. Because of its
human-centric nature, ARM professionals may mistakenly conclude that KM is of
little import to recordkeeping.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada offers an excellent example of innovative use of records metadata to support the human-centric side of KM. The records database has been used to search for authors on particular topics and lead Department staff to living knowledge sources. In further support of one of the most challenging aspects of KM – knowledge capture – FAITC developed a scenario in which a metadata server would allow staff at missions and HQ to search across their combined collections.
Documents,
like other forms of information, are basically inert objects, neutral as to
their usage. It is largely up to the reader to discover their existence, find
and access them and determine their relevance. They are amenable to the
application of information management techniques and technologies such as EDMS,
EDMS+, resource planning systems, databases, warehouses, etc. By
contrast, and design, KM-based information and systems are not inert. At least
in theory, they merge and extract and may imply or suggest a course of action
based on experience or best practice.
As with other innovations, as soon as the
KM concept caught on, many software developers declared their products as KM
Systems. To the extent that they were information systems and KM requires
information, a case could be made. But many contributed little to our
understanding of KM technologies that support an organization with a KM mandate
in ways beyond what any IM product does. By understanding the concepts behind
KM, and the ways in which KM has been implemented in such organizations as Accenture,[34]
Dow Chemicals and the World Bank, we can surmise that the key differentiators
between KM and traditional IM technologies are that KM support systems have
specific functionality beyond simply something that requires writing custom
APIs to the IM systems. KM systems must facilitate the identification of
individuals with special expertise of interest to the organization and the
collection, distillation, dissemination of, and access to, that expertise as
well as intelligent discovery of not only the source of the expertise, but its
target interest groups.
In 1998, InformationWeek Labs and
Doculabs combined forces to evaluate five software products targeted at the KM
market, including Wincite™, Intraspect™, ChannelManager™, Backweb™ and
KnowledgeX™. KM differentiators included:
·
Context relationship analysis and tools for augmentation by
subject-area experts.
·
Creation of group memory stores mapped to individual needs
through context-sensitive user subscription profiling and automated alerting.
·
Linking of historical, current and emerging information.
·
Automated linking of email, attachments, word-processing
files, web pages, by subject, topic, etc.
·
Multidimensional data design allowing correlation of
information from disparate platforms and formats and viewing from multiple
perspectives or in different contexts.
Other products, e.g., Tacit's KnowledgeMail™ [35] and Verity’s Knowledge-to-Enterprise (K2E) ™ [36] support subject-expert discovery and directory building. This is done through continuous analysis of email, other documentation, and user’s search patterns and behavior[37]. Experts are linked up with clients or others requiring such expertise. Automatic classification and document spidering technologies are also employed for these purposes. Unlike documents, which typically can stand on their own, records exist in the context of other records related to the same business process, action, transaction, policy or decision. Trustworthy recordkeeping systems thus also can use some of the same technologies that support KM to capture context and relate records to the business processes that produce them. Some system developers have or are working toward EDMS+ systems that incorporate functionality to support KM requirements.[38]
KM and ARM are in important ways sisters, although there is scant evidence that CKOs and ARM managers have done much to recognize or build on their relationships. ARM and KM are both oriented to actions – KM’s whole thrust is to guide best future practice and actions. ARM reflects actions taken, but also provides a source of information regarding the contexts of prior actions to help guide future actions. An organization’s records constitute perhaps its best source of legacy information on which to build the explicit end of a KM system. Records provide excellent pointers to expertise in an organization that can be used to develop communities of practice. Oral history programs and records can be especially effective in this way, although this is an area that is often sadly neglected in organizational budgets and ARM programs.
KM knowledge-capture mechanisms sometimes provide mechanisms and technology to facilitate the expert’s preparation of what are sometimes called ‘knowledge kernels’ that summarize lessons learned and best practices. Kernels may be prepared purely from memory in the absence of documentation. A recent example of this, caused not by a KM mandate but rather by the 911 disaster, is taking place in the Department of the Army where staff have been asked to prepare such documents to substitute for many, many paper records lost in the Pentagon attack that were not being maintained in digital form. In other cases, knowledge kernels may be prepared by experts at the end of a project to distill and summarize key project decisions and lessons from project records. Such documentation may be thought of as ‘macrorecords’ that also could be seen and used as part of a high-level form of archival description.
From the above, it can be seen that ARM professionals need to have an excellent understanding of KM for more reasons than simply keeping abreast of trends in business practices. Rather, it is important because advanced business practices are organic to modern recordkeeping, and because they offer opportunities for more enhanced recordkeeping.
For these reasons, one of the best business cases for the implementation of advanced recordkeeping systems is the support that RM provides to the KM culture and knowledge base. But even sisters sometimes have disagreements. So it is with KM and ARM. Communities of practice anchors may have a different view on the value of legacy records and want to retain them beyond their established retention periods. If this is just related to context, to point to sources of expertise, it can be remedied without necessarily retaining the records beyond established destruction dates by simply retaining related metadata.[39] If it is because the content of the records is seen as having enduring KM value, then it is a matter suggesting reappraisal. Since leaders of communities of practice will not ordinarily be program managers responsible for the business processes in which the records were created, their legitimate concerns can easily be overlooked. This suggests that those leaders are serious stakeholders in the appraisal process, and this is a topic that should be addressed in policy governing the appraisal and scheduling of records.
Intermediation is not dead! People are back at
the Council!
KM and content management systems often make considerable
use of intermediaries in both back office and front office operations – welcome
news to librarians, archivists and other IM types. Some websites use ‘virtual
humans’ to try to make us think we are still dealing with humans. Listen to
perky, green haired Ananova[40]
deliver the world news, for example. However, a countertrend in the making is
for sites to provide links to live chat help when visitors want true human
interaction – old-fashioned intermediation. Accenture and Dow Chemical are
examples of large corporations that make use of knowledge officers to work with
experts to facilitate – cajole, urge – the capture and organization of
knowledge and otherwise help serve knowledge needs of the user communities of
interest served by communities of practice. We are likely to see some of these
needs filled by ARM professionals. Records managers have historically been very
familiar with the substance and context of paper records, because they had to
physically work with the records and their creators to ensure proper
disposition. That makes them an interesting commodity to CIOs and others
looking for content managers. Bain & Company is a good example of where a
records manager was integrated into the knowledge management team. Similarly,
in Queensland Rail (Australia), senior archivist Del Cuddihy was made a part of
the business systems analysis team where she has made leading contributions in
modeling the whole organization and its information and records assets.
KMWorld, a KM technology trade magazine, regularly
announces new products aimed at supporting KM. Some of them, in this author’s
opinion, do not differentiate themselves. Others do, if you can trust but
verify. A recent Smartlogik announcement purports to differentiate its product
in ways that help us understand what KM technology ought to do in addition to
traditional IM technology. Smartlogik has developed search and categorization
technology that it says integrates human insight and expertise with corporate
information stores.
Content vs. Information Management
The Wall Street Journal, earlier than most, introduced a
rudimentary ‘Personal Journal’ portal that was limited to news – a service that
continues today. Using key words, company names and stock symbols, the on-line
subscriber could define, what subject-specific and company/stock-specific
articles should appear in the user’s daily ‘personal edition’ of the Journal.
Such providers as AOL and Yahoo deployed portals in the form of their home
pages with broader capabilities in the public domain. Portals were seen as the
door to the Internet and the big players wanted you to get to the Internet only
through their door, hopefully pausing to read advertisements and perhaps
purchase services and products along the way. Their focus was to supply the
individual client with whatever resources that individual wanted each time they
logged in – email, chat, news, weather, etc. In web lingo, well-designed
portals created ‘stickiness’. Investors and advertisers like sticky websites.
Yahoo subsequently invented MyYahoo, a welcoming page personally and easily
designed from a menu by the user to choose news, weather in their favorite
cities, local movie schedules, lowest airfares to their favorite destinations
(and of course the ability to actually book tickets), etc., each time they
enter the space. Now, the MyEden portal being created as part of the IU
Electronic Records Project uses the same philosophy to help make record capture
sticky.
As KM matured, it became clear that what was needed was that
same kind of portal technology but internalized to meet KM and other needs
within the organization. Internal portals developed into channels for
delivering information of particular interest to each individual subscriber.
Such portals could then be used for drawing together people with common expertise
or interests. Thus, EIP technology was channeled into KM where it filled a
large need. It was also seen as a means for channeling information to an
organizations market via its own website. In other words, the organization
would become its own Yahoo, serving its own employees and client needs.
Content management began chiefly
as a way of managing dynamic information that organizations placed on their web
sites. One might ask: what possible difference is there between content
management and information management? Aren’t they the same thing? In some ways they are. Both deal with
documentation of one or more kinds. In other ways they are not. Information
management and information systems, as noted earlier, tend to be inert objects.
They house the documents produced by the organization, and possibly externally,
in some logical manner. Content management is much more dynamic and aggressive.
Content managers do not wait for documents to appear on their desks for proper
filing. They are informed of or see needs within the organization or on the
part of its clients for information that may not exist. They hunt it down. They
make use of good graphics and other marketing skills to keep their internal and
external customers coming back. While webmasters originally handled content
management as well as technical tasks for the website, nowadays at least larger
organizations have separated those jobs because different skill sets are needed
and because they are both full time jobs.
Unlike more traditional information managers and records
managers, content managers are regularly changing the content that is available
on the web, again to draw and keep people interested and happy with the
usefulness of what they are finding on the website. Everyone who manages a website
knows that the owners of the website must constantly be changing the content in
ways that keep the attention of internal and external customers’ attention.
Otherwise, the website turns into a candidate for the Yellow Pages. People
don’t ordinarily visit the same Yellow Pages entry more than once or
twice. One industry analyst group, the
Aberdeen Group, states that content flow is as important as cash flow.
Interwoven, a supplier of CM products and
major holder of market share in this field say:
Its content
infrastructure product suite includes content aggregation, content
collaboration, content management, content intelligence and content
distribution.[41]
AIIM has established this definition for content
management:
The
technologies used to create, capture, customize, deliver and manage enterprise
content to support business processes.
Noticeably missing from these definitions
are classification, preservation and disposition management.
As noted earlier, Filenet has described
its own CM product (Panagon ECM™) in ways that help to understand how CM
differentiates from other products. Some of those differentiators are listed
below:
·
Content
interchange utilizing XML capabilities for extracting and exporting metadata
·
Template-driven
and HTML content authoring
·
Web
content lifecycle management to maintain accurate and time-sensitive content
·
Process
management and reporting
·
Web
site staging and publishing to make exporting content to Web application
servers significantly easier
·
Search
feature enhancements to provide multi-library searching
Dynamic web content is one of the most
significant ways in which organizations interact with clients and the public.
This heightens the necessity of ensuring that such content/records are properly
captured and preserved in a trustworthy recordkeeping environment unless they
have already been reflected in such an environment prior to being
electronically published to guard against there being more up-to- date
information on the website than exists in the record systems. The NHPRC-funded
Syracuse study of federal and state websites found that, “Many agencies use disclaimers to state
that the information on their websites is not the ‘official version.’ Despite
these disclaimers, in-depth interviewing revealed multiple cases where
record-quality materials appear uniquely in agency web postings…because
agencies continually explore…modalities that no one anticipated even a few
months ago.[42]
Conversely, as John Harney and others
have noted, content managers are discovering the potential of organizational
records and are ‘repurposing’ legacy information by filtering it and
integrating it with other resources to meet new needs.[43]
Geoff Moore addresses migration concerns as entities become integrated through
mergers and acquisitions or simply through reorganizations. Existing content
must be migrated into new websites or other information resources. For these
reasons, and as CM technology and our understanding of KM have improved, the
concepts underlying CM have been extended beyond website management to embrace
intranets, extranets and actually information in all formats and data types. CM
is no longer limited simply to websites.
Conclusion
While identifying some important ways in which current business practices – IM, KM, CM, RM, etc. – may be distinguished from one another, it is also evident that these concepts are not isolated from one another. Each one is more of an outgrowth of what came before it than an independent movement of its own. New concepts and technologies are being integrated with current practices to take business to the next higher level of operations. Using the same calculus, perhaps we will become better at envisioning ways in which gaps in current practices will foster new developments and lessen their negative recordkeeping impact.
Most business practices and technologies have consequences for the manner in which records are managed. Unless practices such as information management, knowledge management, and content management specifically provide for legitimate enterprise recordkeeping needs, ARM professionals should assume that such functionality is not provided and perhaps isn’t even intended. They should act to ensure that CIOs and other senior executives: appreciate that most recordmaking systems that support current business practices are not trustworthy recordkeeping systems; understand the risks such systems give rise to; and foster remedial actions to integrate recordkeeping requirements in organizational information and technology architectures and systems. Conversely, I hope this discussion will stimulate the adoption of advanced business concepts and technologies in ways that will contribute to improved recordkeeping solutions and more trustworthy recordkeeping environments.
© 2004 Richard E. Barry
[1] The term ‘archives and records management (ARM)’ is not commonly used in Australia and Europe where there is purportedly not the same bifurcation we have in the U.S between the management of so-called ‘current records’ and ‘permanent’ or ‘archival records’ as personified by records managers and archivists. Underlying is also the debate between advocates of the life-cycle records management (which advances distinctions between “current” and “archival” records) and the continuum approach (which fosters integration of recordkeeping at a broader recordkeeping environment level). My use of the term and the shorthand ‘ARM’ is not religious here, but rather is simply to make it clear that I am referring to professionals and programs associated with the management of all public and private records.
[2] <http://www.misq.org/> URLs cited in this paper were accessible at time of writing in December, 2001.
[3] < http://computer.org/itpro/>
[4] “Records Professionals and the World Wide Web: Resources and Responsibilities: Part One: Basic Professional Information Sources,” by Richard J. Cox RIMR, Vol 16, No. 8, October 2000, p.7.
[5] National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators <http://www.nagara.org/>.
[6] <www.bda.com>
[7] Bell’s presentation can be found at <www.rbarry.com> under HOT TOPICS/Organizational Change along with other conference papers (including Mora’s presentation) on that subject. Mora’s presentation and a subsequent version of Bell’s paper presented at the Society of California Archivists 1998 meeting are also in the Guest Authors section.
[8] <http://actiontechnologies.com/>
[9] Society of American Archivists <www.archivists.org>.
[10] <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/recmgt/>
[11] <www.authentica.com>
[12] <http://cohasset.com/mer/index.htm>
[13] See program at <http://www.erecordsconference.com/>.
[14] “Northern Light: New Model for the Enterprise Information Portal: an IDC White Paper,” (Analyst: Susan Feldman), pp. 1-2. This paper can be purchased at <http://www.infoworld.com/research/articles/01/05/11/01051124586.xml>.
[15] Indiana University Electronic Records Project, Phase II: 2000-2002, Phillip Bantin, IU Archivist, Project Director, <http://www.indiana.edu/~libarch/ER/NHPRC-2/index.html>. Also see three presentations at the September 2001 Society of American Archivists conference at <www.rbarry.com> under Guest Authors.
[16] One has to be careful these days with the use of the term IM. The rapidly emerging use of instant messaging for substantive business communications has resulted in X- and upcoming Y-generation IT professionals more often using the acronym ‘IM’ to mean ‘instant messaging’.
[17] For an excellent discussion
of macroappraisal, see Terry Cook’s “Archival Appraisal and Collection: Issues,
Challenges, New Approaches,” accessible at <www.rbarry.com> in the Guest
Authors page.
[18] Unfortunately, technologists too often fail to understand or guard against unintended consequences due to human error in automated systems, a point well illustrated in “Crazy Clocks: Counterintuitive Consequences of ‘Intelligent Automation,’” by Kim J. Vicente, IEEE Intelligent Systems, in “Human-Centered Computing section, Vol. 16, Nov-Dec 2001, p 74. Automation that eliminates human involvement can introduce error instead of eliminating it: <http://www.computer.org/intelligent/ex2001/pdf/x6074.pdf?SMSESSION=NO>.
[19] There are many worrisome, often unintended, social consequences of modern technology – employment, privacy, intellectual property rights, ethics, accountability, quality of life, digital divide, etc. It is not the purpose of this paper to address the impact of technology on society or the ARM profession. Still, ARM professionals may have to face up to them in their organizations. Interested readers are invited to consult Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility resources <www.cpsr.org>, papers on ethical and social issues for IM professionals in the Recent Papers section of <www.rbarry.com> and the Forthcoming Book [Richard: please insert latest book title/info] by Richard Cox and David Wallace on these subjects.
[20] <www.towertechnologies.com>
[21] <www.ustrim.com>
[22] <authentica.com>
[23] <http://www.tariansoftware.com/>
[24] See Edward Arnold’s November 6, 2001 presentation on the AIW project at the e-Business Solutions 2001 conference in the Guest Author’s section of <www.rbarry.com>.
[25] “Knowledge-Based Persistent Archives,” by Reagan W. Moore, SDSC, January 18, 2001 <http://www.sdsc.edu/TR/TR-2001-07.doc.pdf>.
[26] <www.aiim.org>
[27] See slide 8 in “Army Information Warehousing: Advanced Army Records Management,” by Edward Arnold. Ibid.
[28] In the niche but growing facility management and construction sectors, EDMS means engineering document management system. With growing use of such systems, they are becoming important organizational electronic recordmaking systems, but typically not trustworthy recordkeeping systems.
[29] For further discussion of enterprise document management, see this author’s review of Document Management for the Enterprise: Principles, Techniques and Applications by Michael J.D. Sutton at <www.rbarry.com> in the Other Papers section; and, better still, read the book.
[30] “For Gore Spacecraft, All Systems Aren't Go: Earth Observation Satellite Shelved,” By Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, Wednesday, August 8, 2001; Page A01.
[31] Kontzer, Tony, “Management Legend: Trust Never Goes Out Of Style,” Informationweek.Com News, June 4, 2001, accessed July 20, 2001 at <http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010604S0011>.
[32] Dearstyne, Bruce, “Knowledge Management: Concepts, Strategies, and Prospects,” RIMR, Vol. 15, No. 7/September 1999. See also, “Knowledge Management and Records Management: Is There a Difference?” by Susan Mybrugh, RIMR, Vol 14, No. 7/September 1998.
[33] See IEEE Intelligent Systems, January/February 2001 <http://www.computer.org/intelligent/> for excellent papers on knowledge management, including use of advanced ontologies and technologies. These do not address recordkeeping implications.
[34] Formerly Andersen Consulting
[35] See < http://www.tacit.com/>.
[36] See <http://www.kmworld.com/news/index.cfm?action=readnews&news_id=2449>.
[37] It can be appreciated how some people resist KM because they regard analysis of their behavior as an invasion of their privacy.
[38] See “Managing Business Information – Content in Context,” by Geoff Moore, July 2000 <http://www.ustrim.com/product/files/context.pdf>.
[39] I played with this idea in a 1993 paper “EDMS and ERMS: Towards a Methodology for Requirements Definition,” at <www.rbarry.com> in the Other Papers section.
[40] <http://www.ananova.com/>
[41] <http://www.interwoven.com/news/press/2001/1024siebelpr.html>
[42] “Analysis and Development of Model Quality Guidelines for Electronic Records Management on State and Federal Websites,” by Charles R. McClure and J. Timothy Sprehe, Ph.D., January 1998, Chapter 6. The report and guidelines may be accessed at <http://istweb.syr.edu/~mcclure/nhprc/nhprc_title.html> or, along with other related papers at <www.rbarry.com> under the HOT TOPICS/WWW vs. Records section.
[43] “Content Migration: The Race to Repurpose,” by John Harney, e-doc <www.edocmagazine.com>, Nov/Dec 2001, p. 24.