Arc Hiv Aria Record Keeping Systems

Published on March 2023 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 5 | Comments: 0 | Views: 106
of 21
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

Articles

Record-Keeping Systems by DAVID BEARMAN*

Les cadres d e classement des dossiers constituent constituent le contexte dans lequel s Ctablit Ctablit la valeur probatoire des dossiers; pour cette raison, leur gestion est cruciale cruciale po ur la sauvegarde d e cette significati signification. on. La comp rkhension des cadres de classement classement des dossiers est auss aussii de la pre m ibe importance pour 1 Ctabliss Ctablissement ement des besoins besoins archivistiques archivistiques fonctionnels fonctionnels en vue d e la gestion des archives informatiques, pour la dCfini dCfiniti tion on des normes d e documentation archivistique, archivistique, et la concep tion des syst2mes de contr6le archivistique. archivistique. L auteur soutient que le cadre de classement de s dossiers dossiers (plut6t que le fon ds, le record group, ou la sCrie) doit Ctr Ctre admis comm e le lieu lieu fondamental de la provenance. Les cadres de classement des do ssiers doivent avoir la prCfCr prCfCrenc encee sur les autres con cepts parce qu ils ont d es frontikres conn ues e t des propri propriCtCs CtCs caractC ristiques; ls rCsolvent rCsolvent kgalemen t des difficult6s associkes aux concepts de fonds, de record group, ou de skrie dans les pratiques canadienne, amkricaine, et australienne; et do nnent enfin aux archivistes archivistes de nouveaux outils avec lesquels ils peuv ent jouer un r6le actif 1 Lge Clectronique. De plus, mettre I accen t sur les exigences fonctionnelles des cadres d e classement des dossiers a pour effet d integrer les archivistes aux vkrificateurs, vkrificateurs, au personn el de la skcuritk skcuritk adm inistrative, aux o fficiers d accbs I information, aux avo cats, et a la haute direction, lesquels on t tous une responsabilitC responsabilitC envers la mCmoire mCmoire collective collective et sa gestion. L auteu r soutient que cette intkgration est a la fois vitale au plan stratkgique stratkgique et intellectuellement intellectuellement souhaitable. bstract

Record-keeping systems are the locus of the ev idential signif significance icance of records; therefore, their management is critical to the preservation of evidential meaning. Understanding record-keeping systems is critical to formulating archival functional requirements for management of electronic records, defining archival documentation standards, and designing archival control system s. Th e author argue s that record-ke eping systems-rather than fonds, record groups, or record series series-sho -should uld be accepted as the fundamen fundamen tal locus of provenance. Record-keeping systems are preferred preferred to these other concepts because they have concrete bou ndaries and d efinable properties, properties, solve the problems identified identified with the concepts of fonds, record groups, and series in Canadian, American, and Au stralian stralian archival practices, practices, and give archivists new tools with which to play an active role role in the electronicc age. In addition, the electroni the focus on functional requirements for record-keepi record-keeping ng sysAll rights rights reserved Archivaria

6

(Autumn 1993

 

RECORD-KEEPI RECORDKEEPING NG SY STEMS

17

tems allies archivists archivists with aud itors, administrative security personn el, freedom of information and privacy office officers, rs, lawyers, and senior manage managersrs-all all of whom have a responsibility bili ty for corporate memo ry and its managemen t. Th e author argues that this alli alliance ance is both strategically critical and intellectually desirable. I

The Place of Record Keeping Systems in a Model of Archival Data

Record-k eeping system s are a speci special al kind of informat information ion system abou t which archi archivists vists should be experts. As the nam e sugges ts, record-kee record-keeping ping systems keep and suppo rt retri retrieval eval of rrecords, ecords, while information systems store and provide access to information. Record-keeping systems are distinguished from info rmation sy stems within organizations by the role that they play in providing organizations with evidence of business transactions (by which is meant actions taken in in the course of conducting thei theirr busi business, ness, rat rather her tha thann comm ercial transa transactions) ctions).. Non -record info rmation systems, on the other hand, store information in discrete chunks that can be recom bined and reused w ithout reference to ttheir heir documentary co ntext. Archivis Archivists ts ou ght to have a special expertise in in record-k eeping system s, because they are the source of archiva l records and their context and structure reveal reveal the historical historical meaning o f archives. Nevertheless, the analysis of record -keeping systems from a theore theoretica ticall or practica practicall p erspective is peculia peculiarly rly absent from archival literature.] In context this paper, earlier how pr information about the content, structure, I extendis my and of records require required d in analysis order to of ensure preservat eservation ion of evi evidence. dence. explore what archivists must understand understand about the nature of record-keeping sy stems if tthey hey are to design an d implemen t systems that capture, maintain, and prov ide access to evidence. Specificall Specifically, y, I explore how understanding the evidential purpose of record-keeping systems provides critical tools for articulat articulation ion of wo rkable strategies for the managem ent of e lectronic records. I also argue that the design of appro priate docum entation metho ds for archives depends upon appreciation of the central centrality ity of record-keeping systems to archival theor theoryy and practice and on the concept of records as evidence. Ou r societ societyy recognizes som e docum ents as records, because they carry out or documen t transa transactions ctions.. Because records are accepted w ithi ithinn this social and legal framework a s evidence of an act, tthey hey are ret retained ained in record-k eeping sy stem s designed to serve the needs of the people and org anizations that created created or receive receivedd them . To understand understand record-keep ing systems w e must recognize them firs firstt as systems, and then, then, as information system s. Systems consist of interdependent components organ ized to achieve an end; information systems are organized collections of hardware, software, supplies, people, policies and procedures, and all the maintenance and training that are required to keep these comp onents w orking toget together. her. Record-k eeping systems are organized to accomp lish the specificc functions of creating, stori cifi storing, ng, and accessing records for evidential purposes. Wh ile tthey hey may also be able to retrieve records for informational purposes, they are designed for operational staff, not for archivists or researchers, and thus are optimized to support the business processes and transactions of the crea ting organi organizati zation on rather than generic informati information on retri retrieval. eval. Although record-keeping systems are not created for archivists, archivists must appraise recordkeeping systems and m ake decisions to destroy or preserve the records that they contain. Traditionally, diti onally, archi archivist vistss have m ade these dec isions based on the examination of reco rds after the records have fulfilled their role of supporting the operational needs of the organization that created them. Th e advent of electronic records, which are not susceptible to ready examination of the physical docum ents, has led archivists to seek alternative approaches to appraisal. It was soon realized that if archivists could m ake su ch decisions on the basis of analysis of the business functions and the need for evidence of these functions, they they cou ld avoid having to review the records themselves. In addition, they they could con centrate ttheir heir efforts on records systems of continuing value, which are relat relatively ively few in number, rather than squan dering resource s on the appraisal of insignificant records systems.

 

As a m atter of principle, principle, when archivists archivists do d ecide to retain retain records, they take special care not to disturb the the relations relations defined by the record-keeping record-keeping system. These relat relations ions-whic -whichh in manual systems are limited to original order order,, but which in automated environments may involve many types of rel relati ationshi onships-a ps-are re evidence of how individual records were or could have been used within the record system and thus of what they meant in the context of the business process that they they docum ent. In manual systems, accessioning records need not disturb this original order, but in electronic records systems, removing records from the application that supported the relations relations am ong records, and between a record and the actions that it documents, runs serious risks of destroying destroying the structure structure and context information that preserves the evidential significance of the record. The relationships am ong records, business transacti transactions, ons, and record-keeping systems are illustrated in igure l

Figure are evidence of RECORDS

1

re organized in

t

  creates

manages

dictates functions of TRANSACTION

supports conduc t of

Record-keeping systemsand are activities established established serve instituti institutional onal o r personal purposes and fore reflect the functions reflect activiti es oftothe creating organization organizati on or individual. For theremo re than fifty years, archivists and records managers have assumed the role of experts who can provide assistance to the organization organization in setting up record-keeping systems to serve business purposes purpos es efficient efficiently ly and at the same time time to satisfy satisfy archival archival functi functional onal r eq ~ ire m en ts .~ ecognizing that not all records systems serve organizational purposes eq ually effectively, archivists archivists and records manag ers focused on organizing paper records into series, each of which directly directly supported the ex ecution of specific business transactions. Guidelines for e ffective ffective file management issued by the U.S. National Archives in 1968 go s o far as to suggest that that files that that require indexing to provide alternative access points are probably not designed to support a specificc function effectively, since a single fun ction, conducted in a specified specifi specified way, will need to ac acce cess s r eecor cords ds in in onl onlyy one one-- -or -or at most most a f ew ai f f er en t s cheme chemess ooff a~ ~ a n g e m e n t. ~ This may have been true as long as records systems were designed to support isolated isolated business functions, but the spread of database management systems (DBMS) has been driven by the informa tion man agem ent belief that organizational effici efficiency ency can be enha nced by reducing data redundancy through organization-wide data integration. In an integrated DBMS, each

 

RECORD-KEEPING SYSTEMS

9

area of functional responsibility within the organization is provided with views of the database that are limited to the the data it requires. Th e software supports the transactions that this functional area conducts but records of thes e transactions may not be created o r maintained if the system w as only designed to serve as an organizational data rresource esource (i.e., (i.e., be an information system) rather than to preserve evidence of business transactions (i.e., be a records system). Th e possibili possibility ty that records could be used by bringing inform ation from various sources together in a logical view at the time of m aking a decision, while not physicall physicallyy creating a record, is new to electronic methods of manipulating data, and presents the first of several serious challenges to corporate m emory and operational viabilit viabilityy b rought about by electronic recordkeeping. Archivists Archivi sts recognize that organizati organizational onal functions (or competencies competencies as the Europeans call them) a re the roots of business business processes, which in turn dictate the way in which transactions are con du ct ed .V he way that the the process is conducted is reflected reflected in the organization of records to support a function. In paper systems, the physical records (each document or file) correspond to logical logical business records (a tran transacti saction on or case); so the physical physical organization of the records in the system, within series, relates records to each other and t o the way in w hich work is done in the the organizati organization.' on.' In automated systems, logical records (representing business business transactions) do not necessari necessarily ly conform to physical records (wh ich are structured to maximize database efficiency); efficiency); business business reco rds may not on ly involve combining data from more than one logical or physical record record (as they typically typically d o in relati relational onal database manage ment systems), but may also involve processing this data in ways that are only only docum ented externally to the data itself. itself. Information systems might suppo rt tthe he ongoing business of an organization on one level, level, even though they do not create records esse ntial for accountabili accountability. ty. A second reflection reflection of the nature of activity or transactions is what I once called called the for form m of material materi al and which has more recently recently come to be known as the documentary documentary for form. m. 8 Documentary form s structure the information internal to the indivi individual dual record, d ictating what data will be present for specific types of transactions, and facilitate its recognition and use by signalling nall ing to readers, readers, by means of typography, typography, da ta structures, and electronic links, where particular information will will be located. located. In the paper w orld, organizations used used p articular documen tary form s for specific business transactions, but in automated environments the aim is to free the data from the form in which it was created, for use in other ways. At the sam e time, automated environments have spawned new, virtual, documentary forms such as dynamic documents, multimedia docum ents, and individuated individuated docum ents with properties properties that the organization and t h e b ro ro ad er er cu lt lt u rree ar e on on l y b eg eg i nn nn i ng ng t o ~ n d er st an d . ~he novelty of electronic documentary form s means that we cannot mak e assumptions-common assumptions-common in our dealings with paper records, records, whose forms we underst understandand-abou aboutt the relationship between form and content, between form and how the record-keep ing system functioned, or between forms and the processes that created them, just as other periods of radical radical cha nge in docum entary forms and method s of business communication have disrupted the relationship between the expression of structure in docu men ts and their interpreta interpretation tion by recipients. recipients. Th e relationships relationships am ong records, business business transactions, functions, documen tary forms, and record series are depicted in igure 2. '

 

ARCHIVARIA

6

Figure

are evidence of RECORDS

creates

BUS

TRANSACTION

are organized in

structures defines info. content FORM

signals info. relations

defines

_t

arranges dictates access pts. FUNCTION1 ROLE

arrangement supports

I

r

SERIES

People (as individuals and in their positions as employees), create documents of various types as a consequen ce of their positions, positions, offices, or roles roles in life. People also crea te non-record documen ts. Information created created by people only becomes a record wh en, and if, it it participates participates in a transaction. transaction. Purely private private information, not shown to others, is not a rrecord. ecord. In modern organiz ations, if if records are created, business practice requires them to be filed, filed, so that in in principle they are available to to others. Archivists and records managers instruct fili filing ng clerks to create job-, project-, project-, case-, or subject-files subject-files around functions of the organizational u nit and to file individua l records into these structures. structures. In bureaucratic organiza tions, specific form s of records (often (often literally literally numbered an d pre-printed pre-printed form s or form-letters form-letters ) a re linked linked to particuparticular business transacti transactions ons conducted by o rganizational rganizational units. Procedures may dictate that a given type of file will always contain certain of these categori categories es of records. Only specific information is present in each form of record, although the case as a whole contains all the information required for any aspect of the mission of the organization. The same principles apply to records created by individuals in in the m odem world; different different form s such as diaries, diaries, correspondence, and subject files files of personal business will make up the series series of records records in the home of a private private person. When we speak properly of the records of a family, we mean by this that the the record system was used by more than on e individual, often siblings siblings or mu ltiple ltiple gene rations, of the same family. Otherw ise the family pape rs are really an artificial artificial collection, as we call groupings of manuscripts or records made by the collectors rather than the creators. While the relationship between record-keeping systems and functions is, therefore, therefore, always straightforward, the relationship straightforward, relationship between a record system an d organizational unit unitss is not. This has been the cau se in the past of many of the problems of locating provenance in organizations. Even paper record-keeping systems are not necessarily owned, built, or maintained by the organizational unit that creates the records they contain, although they will be used by that organization. Traditional central central registry registry offices, offices, and the the contemporary data processing department which has succeeded them, were assigned assigned the funct function ion of maintaining maintaining records. The

 

RECORD-KEEPING SYSTEMS

2

records they m aintain are created and used by num erous, different different organizational organizational units. Thus records m ust be linked not only to the organizations that created created them , but also to those that maintained them, used them, them, and owned them. Each of these these organizations organizations may know the same records system by a variety of of different different names. The views of information information held by the organization that are ava ilable ilable to a given o ffi ffice ce of origin are limited by both the record system and their access to it, usually to those those views for which they have a business need. Furthermore, it must be remem bered that, especially especially for electronic electronic records systems, record-keeping systems may encompass records physically located in more than one place. Indeed, such distributed logical records systems will become increasingly commo n during the 1990s, with the acceptance of client-server client-server architectures. architectures. Logical records systems are even m ore radically the the norm in object-oriented object-oriented environments in w hich the record alone will carr carryy the methods by which it iiss searched, disseminated, and disposed, and the procedures governing the record-keeping system are distributed distributed to the level of of the individual records and d o not exist in in a higher aggregation. igure

represents the elements discussed so far and their relations. igure

are evidence of

are organized in RECORDS

----

I

BUSINESS TRANSACTION

defines defines info. info. content content signals info. relations

structures I

DOCUM ENTARY FORM defines

carries authorizes

arranges ictates access pts.

FUNCTION/ ROLE

arrangement supports

SERIES

is assigned responsible for O F F IC IC E O F ORIGINICREATOR

___

uses limits views

uses of informa tion

manages I

RECORD SYSTEMS

Although these relations among elements are the same in manual as in electronic records environments, the character of record-keeping systems is being radical radically ly transformed by automation, as is the character of series, series, forms, and records themselves. Changes that are signifisignificant to archivists include the software dependency of record-keeping systems, the existence of

 

record-keep ing system s that serve many different and physically remote offices--each offices--each office having its own views of the system and also its own functions-an functions-andd business processes that do not create records although they use information from dyn amic information systems. Before examining the implications of these changes both for archival automation and for management by archivists of electronic records of organizations organizations,, it is useful to establis establishh the relationship relati onship between the concept of a record system an d the fundamental archival principles. 11 Archival

Documentation and Record Keeping Systems

Provenance, unarguably the m ost important concept in archival science, dictates dictates that records are to be understood with with reference to their origins origins in activity. activity. As a shorthand, archivists archivists often equate the provenance of records with the organization organization in which records w ere created or received, i.e., the of ice of orig origin. in. However, as the preceding data model makes clear, clear, the provenance of archives is better understood by reference to the function of which they are evidence and the record system in which they were created, stored, preserved, and accessed by the organization. organization. Elsewhere, I have written written on why archivists archivists must recognize function, and not organizational organizati onal setting, as the locus of provenancial meaning.I2 Suffice it to say here that what systems analysts would call the business business function being conducted, not the office of origi origin, n, determines the form an d content of records and dictates the procedures for their creation creation and dissemination. As a consequence, when functions are transferred from one office to anot another, her, the records that document the function typically are stable and record-keeping systems are usually transferred lock, stock, and barrel with the transfer of responsibility. On the other hand, if a new function is assigned to an office, it will usually usually require new procedures accompanied by new documen tary forms , new series of files, and often entirely new, separate record-kee ping systems. Archives appraise and accession record-keeping systems, not individual records, because record-keeping record-keepi ng systems do not just just passively reflect reflect how the creating organization used information; they actively determine it. As such, record-keeping systems are an organic whole. Som e record-keeping record-keeping systems, such as central registries or decentralized filing systems operating with a shared classification structure (thereby resulting in virtual central registries), may be managed at the corporate corporate level during their active active life. Other record-keeping system s, such as subject files, chronological transaction files, or incoming and outgoing correspondence, may be managed at a work unit, or even a work-group level, with or without reference to a larger corporate records system. In North American organizations organizations it is even com mon for som e records to be managed by individuals, individuals, either because in the prevailing corporate culture largerscalethe systems do not exist or If because the individuals want to retain control the information that records contain.13 information or documents pass across the over boundaries between individuals, individual s, w ork groups, formal organizational organizational units, o r independent organizations, recordkeeping systems should crea te re records. cords. However, the the definition of a record-creating record-creating boundary is not absolute or fixed and depen ds on the nature of the transaction, aspects of the organizational culture, and boundary perceptions in process definitions.I4 Ability to access and use record-keeping systems, rather than employm ent w ithin the office of origin, determines the role that records play in specific business processes during their active life. Relationsh ips and structures established in record-kee ping system s determin e the connec tions that that can be m ade between records they contain both during and after their active life. Although archivists know that record-keeping record-keeping systems provide evidence of the role that records played in the organization, organization, they have not developed tools or techniques for documenting how record-keeping record-keeping systems relate to organized activities through established established procedures. In traditional paper-based systems, neither archivists nor the operating entity can typically document who accessed record-keeping systems or how the records that they re retrieved trieved were used; although, when a record is thus used, it is participating participating in a new business transaction transaction and

 

R EC OR D-KEEP ING S YS TEM S

3

should, in principle, become a record of that transaction.15 In electronic information systems, tools for representing representing such relationshi relationships ps as permissions, permissions, views, and actual uses of records exist, and data administrators and configuration m anagers can doc ume nt the participation participation of records in concrete transactions over time. Archivists have not not made use of these tools in automated ar archival chival control systems. Indeed, the history history of archival automation has not been a story of great successes. Th e relati relatively vely early adoption of a data content and interchange standard led not to the development of m ethods to bring archival documentation from active office settings directly into archival finding aids, but to a species of rigid rigid text editors designed to create databases of M AR C AMC records.I6 In so far as arch ival automation exists, it builds databases that replicate the data that was previously found in paper finding aids and indexes, although it may provide m ore access points. Data gets into these systems by m eans of archivists preparing finding aids, and it generally is used by archivists acting as refer ence intermediaries.17 Automation-as Automation-as imple men ted in archives toda dayy-is is not integrat integrated ed record-keeping systems docume ntation, contributes litt little le if anything to archivall productivity, archiva productivity, and d oes not insinuate the archival function into the operating environment of the parent organizations. Som e archivists have been work ing to analyze archival archival system s in a way that would generate requirements for archival documentation standards, which would move automated archival information systems beyond their role as fast paper? In a recent effort to define the information architecture of archives in order to provide a framework f or more integrated archival automation softwa re, it was consistently found that the need of data archivists to describe the context and structure of records originates in documentation of organizational missions and recordkeeping systems.19 systems.19 It was als o foun d that that current data mode ls and flow diag rams for archival information informat ion systems overlook the nexus of records creation and record -keeping in the recor recordd system, and that the archival function was being implemented as if it could be logically logically segregated from the record-keeping system s of the business. This segrega tion is impossible except at the expense of total redundancy, redundancy, becau se archival information systems have always been information systems about record-keeping system s, or what data administrators call metadata metadata systems. Although data administrators developed automated systems called Data Dictionaries and Information Resource Directories to document and m anage electronic record-keeping sy stems, archivists archivists have not adopted these automated system s, but have have instead tried to employ traditional traditional methods fo r describing electronic archival holdings.? Unfortunately, the prose narrative and the simple data structu res that archivists use in traditi traditional onal finding finding a ids cannot rigorously describe the my riad links of records w ith each other or transactions that are supported in in automated system s. In addition, because they are constructed after the fact from evidenc e still still visible visible after the records co me into the archives, they also do not documen t the evolution of relations relations which takes p lace over the life of a system. Wh en automated, these sim plistic representations of information systems fail to help researchers recon struct archival archival eviden ce or p ermit archivists archivists to achieve operational efficiencies. efficiencies. By failing to employ techniques of documentation available from the domain of systems design and management, archivists have overlooked a pre-existing source of documentation which would, if properly regulated, mitigate the need for archivists to engage in the post-hoc documentation of accessioned systems. systems. More importantly importantly,, archivists archivists have missed the opportunity tuni ty to m aintain systems that serve as the repository repository of org anizational memory of functions, structures, and events, even though such databases are much needed by contemporary organizations and the data is necessarily necessarily present in an ade quate archival information system.?' that serve as repositories repositories of the life-cycle software configuI know of no archival institutions that ration rati on managem ent docum entation essential for establishing evidential context and structure in an adequate archival archival inform ation system. This is especially unfortunate, as it appears that the data management requirements, and hence the metadata documentation requirements of ar-

 

chives are identical to those of vital records management, privacy administration, freedom of information, informati on, and administrative administrative security. If archivists did their jobs docum enting record-keeping systems, they could exploit the often greater political and financial clout of constituencies for these other interests. Such an integrative function speaks directly to strategic opportunities for contemporary archives. Archivists Archivist s must ways make the data that they manage or create regarding organizational functions andfind struc turestosufficiently important to the organization that othe rs will keep it up to da te and use it as a n official referent. referent. If If archivists do not becom e the authoritative authoritative sources of information information about which record-keeping sys tems exist and how they are implemented, they cannot identify the reco rds that should be preserved archivally. Ultimately, archivists will need to design ways to acquire descriptions of individual records, files, and record-keeping systems directly from the self-documenting features of electronic records systems, because they will otherwise never have the resources to obtain this level of detailed documentation. Documentation of record-keeping systems in metadata systems that contri contribute bute to fundamental organizational data management will dictate a very different agenda for standards for archival descripti description. on. Hints of of this agenda were present in the report of of the SA A Ad Hoc Com mittee on Description Practices, which defined archival description as: the process of c apturing, collating, analyzing, analyzing, and organizing any information information that serves to identify, manage, locate, and interpret the holdings of archival institutions and explain the contexts contexts and record record systems systems from which which those those holdings holdings were se le ~ te d .~ ' Carefu l readers saw a radical shift from making description, to capturing it, and from describing scribi ng records to documenting contexts and record systems . An extension of this shift of focus led to two critiques of the proposed General International Standard Archival Description (ISADG).24 The critique critique is equally equally applicable applicable to the recently-developed recently-developed Canadian R D framework (which is built built around the concept of fonds), the American reliance on record groups, and the Australian Australian primacy of series.25 series.25 believe that that what each framework framework really needs is the concept of a record-keeping system.26Reade system.26Reade rs will note that in the the mo del in able 3 fonds and record groups are unnecessary theoretical constructs constructs that do not consistently consistently correspond to any combination of other concepts. Series only provide context when they are not part of a multiple-series record system. Archivists, like Ptolemaic astronom ers, are struggling with very subtle notions to make reality fit theory. When ap plied, the theory theory of fonds leads to inherent contradictions. This is because fonds are defined defined simultaneously simultaneously as having what Te ny E astwood calls an external and internal dimension27or dimension27or what Terry Cook describes as as the product of a defined creator creator and a linked record-keeping system. system. 2R The effort to define fonds as being a theoretical construct that is simultaneoisly simultaneoisly organizationa l in in context and the relations relations amo ng records needs to be abandoned in favour of what Angelika Menne-Haritz calls functional provenancez9. Recordkeeping systems have the virtue of being the locus of functional provenance and a t the same time being real things with concrete boundaries in time and space that do not require philosophy to locate. Their characteristics are precisely the variables that are involved in defining documentary evidence: content, structure, and context. Record-keeping systems defy the traditional approaches we have taken to documentation, and even resist the mo re innovative efforts efforts to forge descriptive descriptive systems around the concept of series linked to organizational units, which was pioneered by Peter Scott in Australia and explored in North America by Max Evan Evans. s.''O Record -keeping s ystems have complex structures that give give meaning to records. Although some m anual records systems may consist of a single series, most involve multiple series, with links between them that facilitate the ongoing work of the organization. organization. Chang es in either either documentary form or arrangement that signal a chang e in record series are physically revealed in man ual record-keeping system s, but are not self-evident in electronic systems, where both format and order are logical constructs. In electronic record-

 

R ETO R D - K EEP I N G S Y S T E M S

5

keeping systems, the documentation that describes what we have come to regard as series (either a vie view w or a separate physical file with defined li links) nks) may be part of the logic of the software, the content of tables w hich the softw are reads, a function of the architecture of the system, or external to the electronic form re record cord system . Of course, iinn both man ual and electronic systems, the documentation itself is a record series that is part of the record system; however, electronic electronic records system s retai retained ned without approp riate docum entation will hold no evidence. In o rder to reta retain in eviden ce, archivists need to ensure that series of records within a record system are retained as they were employed together by the creators and users of the record system . In the process, the separate descri description ption of each seri series, es, which sufficed for manual systems, becomes inadequat inadequate. e. Record-keeping syst systems ems must be documented using data administrati minist ration on techniques fo r metadata representation, because relat relations ions between series are com plex data structures with links into elements of the business environm ent in which they operate. This will becom e more obv ious as MIS offi offices ces ttry ry to iimplem mplem ent enterpr enterprise ise computing, process control, corporate decision support systems, and object-oriented systems. Metadata documenting a record system needs to link organizational structure and function, business and archival archival processes, software procedures, and documentary form s. As such , it needs to be represented in a relational data model supporting processing along connections between the files. In defining what data is needed to describe the record record sy stem entity iinn such a mod el, it iiss clear tha thatt this data is diffe different rent from data describing an o rganization, a records creator, creat or, or an acc access essionion-alt although hough record system docum entation is linked to docum entation of these entities in the metadata system . illustrates the data about records sy stems that we m ight need in a m etadata Figure below illustrates system. As laid out in the il illustr lustrati ation, on, it appears to be a flat record of the sort we m ight writ writee in an archival finding finding aid; however, readers should no te that the fie field ld nam es indicate that numerous record types are present an d linked, and that other attributes of the entities referenced by the first word in the field label would be present in a fully coherent meta-documentation system. The data values values in the working metadata system would not contain the sorts of words used in this example for the purpose of helping archivists to imagine the meaning of these fields, but rather rather wo uld consist of pointers to other records and d ata represented in a fashion that enables it to be processed processed consist consistentl ently. y. In this il illustr lustrati ation, on, the d ata resembles ou r current archival finding aids more than that found in Information Resource Directory Systems, but is included to introd uce archivi archivists sts to the range of co ntent that is necess necessary ary to describe a record system, rather than to suggest an actual data structure for an archival metadatabase on reco rd system entities. Even so, it is is noteworthy that these fields of data about record-k eeping sy stems are absent from R A D MAD, and APPM

Figure Metadata files partiall partiallyy d escribing record-keep ing systems w ith descriptive ttext ext of the sort found in archival finding aids Disaster Record System System Syste m Name: Environmental Disaster

System Syste m Ow ner Name: Health

Public Safety Divisi Division on

System Own er Business Function: Service D elivery elivery System Authorized Record Creator Names: State Dept. of Environmental Affairs

Health Public Safety Division, City Police Departm ent, State Departm ent of Highways, S tate Department of Ed ucation, City Welfar Welfaree Services Division

System Implem entation Date: April, System Syste m A bandonment Date: active System

 

972

ARCHIVARIA

 6

6

User Name: User Views: Accident Report; S ervice Cost Analysis; Applicat Application ion fo r Assistance; Assistance; Application plicati on A pproval Hearing evidence; Grant Award; Disbursement Authorization; C ase File Summation; G eographic Locations Locations Report

User Permission View Files: Accident report file, claim file, hearing file, client file, incident file, agency file

User Permission Update Functions: relief recipient recipient data User

Hardware Configuration Configu ration CPU: Hardware Configuration Storage Devices: Hardware C onfiguration onfiguration

Data Configuration Data Elements 14,63,66-87; Data Output Products:Report 534; Report 9876; Repo rt46; G Is forms 2,9- 14,63,66-87; Stat Report form s 1-23 1

Data Input Products: Screens 1-56 Data..

Software Configuration Documentation Products: Disaster Relief Coordination System Procedures Manual

101 Disaster Response System Software Documentation; System Permission Configuration Audit Trail

Documentation Data Test Set: File 1344 Documentation Data Audit Audit Set: File 87654 Documentation Data Data Confi Configuratio guration n History: File 76 As can be seen from the above list of files and fields. which retxesents a small portion of what w ould be required to document a record-keeping system, it is not possible possible to implement a metadata system system in a flat flat format. Such a descriptive descriptive approach would not link the views views tthat hat a given department had with the content of the data in those views, and the state of the software configuration configurat ion a t any time. It would be unable, for example , ttoo determine how the input from the State Department of Environmental Affairs Affairs would be acted upon by the system, and thus whether the input files (the case record as retained in the database) or the output in response to particular user queries made as part of certain service delivery processes, would be the evidence required to document the function. While archivists will not need to create or maintain all of this metadata about electronic information systems by themselves, they will not be able to define what metadata would be required to documen t record-keeping record-keeping systems, nor how it w ould need to be represented, without understanding understanding the functional functional requirements for archival record-keeping systems. systems. These functional requirements requirements dictate what documentation w e actually require in order to preserve the evidential value of records.

 

R E C O R D - K E E P I N G SY ST E M S

111

Functional Requirements of Record Keeping Systems

In contemporary organizations, electronic electronic records systems create, store, disseminate, and retrieve trieve records. Softwa re applications developed specificall specificallyy for organizations and generic com mercial applications are operating on a wide variety of hardware to support these systems. Archivists would like to ensure that electronic electronic record-keeping systems developed or acquired to support other functions of the organization are iimpleme mpleme nted and man aged in such a way a s to ensu re that records are captured and preserved. However, electronic records systems differ from their man ual counterparts in several ways that are of considerable significance to arc archihivists,, including that they are typically vists typically des igned and o perated by p eople other than either archivists or records creators. In addition, addition, they are typically typically dependent for functioning on the hardware and software in in which they were implem ented. The professionals who manage electronic information systems demand that archivists articulate their functional requirements so that decisions ca n be m ade whether, to what extent, and how they should be satisfi satisfied. ed. Th e failure of of archivists to understan understandd records systems in their practice with paper records has left them without analytical analytical tools with which to approach electronic records. Instead of defining the functional functional requirem ents for archivall archivallyy sound records sys tems, archivists archivists have been trying to preserve machine-readable records records or output products from from systems. Instead Instead of defining how s ystems would self-document the content, structure, and context of records, archivists have tried to docum ent their provenance, their depend encies, their relationships, etc. in descriptive actiorganization, activity. vity. Without unde rstanding system in relation processes activities of the however, it is the not record possible to identify whattodata in the and system constitutes evidence of an activity, activity, and which activities activities and com petencies spawned o r used the record. From outpu t products it is not not possible to reconstruct the record record a s evidence; in addition, looking at output products has obscured the need fo r archivists to develop m ethods that will will permit long-term long-term retention retention of and access to system s. Moreove r, the least effect effective ive way to document systems is after they have been retired; ongoing documentation, maintained from design spec ifications onwards, is a much more reliable reliable and effective effective means of systems control. Because records systems are a logical construct rather than a physical one, they may span many volumes in computer disks and many offices offices in location; however, a single single documen tation tati on o r description will define the selection selection of records to the system, their arrangement within within it, and the methods of access to it. Such documentation enables systems staff to operate the system, to integrate it with other systems, and to modify its functionality and ulti ultimately mately migrate the data that it it contains to a new hardware and software environment. Unfortunatel Unfortunately, y, archivists are not conversant with such docum entation or with the formal properties of recordkeeping systems. Docum entation of record-keeping record-keeping systems is not not easily isolated isolated from documentation of the software application as a whole, because most software applications have historically stored data in their own record system. Regardless of the implementation env ironm ent, the archival man agem ent of electronic records is an inseparable component of ongoing data management in electronic record-keeping systems. It should be approached first with with a clear definition of what we want archivally archivally respon sible sible systems to do. Once w e enumerate enumerate these functiona functionall rrequir equirements, ements, we should ask when (in the life life of the system ) and how (by what m eans) w e could intervene to satisfy the requirements. The n we sh ould test these intervent intervention ion strategies in install installed ed record-keeping systems in the real world in order to refine heuristics that that can be used by others. In a study base d on these prem ises currently underway at the University University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh,, we hypothesize that the functional requirements apply to any reco rd-keeping system. They are not unique to electronic record-keeping systems , although the means for satisfyi satisfying ng a requirement will be dependent on the way that the system is implemented. Th e methods available to satisfy satisfy functio nal require men ts include policy, policy, procedu res, system design , and sta standar ndard^. d^.'^ '^ In electronic system s tthese tronic hese are often referr referred ed to collect collectivel ivelyy a s data data managem ent practices. practices. We expect that suc cess in using data managem ent practices to satisfy satisfy archival archival functional requirerequire-

 

28

ARCHIVARIA

6

ments will be a factor in the interaction of the choice of strategies with the features of the business application application the software application application and the corporate corporate culture. Different Different business applications will have differing levels of risk associated with non-satisfaction of each requirement. Different software applications applications will have different barriers to use of design implementation and standards-based standards-based approaches to requirements and will be correlated correlated with implementation at different different levels in the architecture. architecture. Different organizational organizational culture s will be correlated correlated with different approaches to satisfying each requirement. A representation of this research project show ing the variables variables their anticipated anticipated interactions interactions and the hypotheses of the researchers is show n in Figure below.15

igure 5 University o f P i t t s b u r g h

Archival fmctional Requirements 1 n

TBCtICS [given i n

Reliable Capture Comprehensive Complete Identifiable Authentic Maintaln sound Auditable Exportable Remvable

Access nvai labie Usable Understandable Redactable

BUSlneSs runct e n s/

[to be defined ult h Llteretu urr e and analysis1

DeSlgn lnplementation Standards

Software Applications

BUSlness

[ t o be defined uith survey/ analysisl

[ g llv ven in

Sector

Organizational CUI ure

Applicatio on ns

proposal Pollcy

Accountable Reswnsible Implemented

I

Electronic Records Study

exanpies may include: Financ~al Management

[ t o be defined wlth literature and Gpertsl

Cwmercial

TransBCtlon Oriented

Non-Profltl University

Data Oriented

Object Oriented

Full Bureaucracy/ Uarket Bureaucracy/ Workflow Bureaucracy PersonnelBureaucracy Central/ Decentralized

Procedural Personnel Management

The functional requirements f o r archnval management o f electronic records a r e the same as f o r t r a d i t t o n a l r e c o r d s Man Ma ny functlanal requi requiremen rements ts u i l l not b be e satasfied by tra dit ran al records system I t u i l l be p o s s i b l e t o s a t i s f y ea ch ch o f these these functional requl requlrement rements s follo wing any of the four ta cti cs Many requirements wl l l be m or Ma or e f u l l y s a t i s f l e d f a r e l e c t r o n i c r e c o r d tth h a n th th ey ey c o u l d be for paper records Different business applications # i l l s ha ha rre e different sets of func tlo nal requir requirements ements,, and and Di ff er in g degr degree ees s of r s k a r e a s s o c i at at e d u i t h n o n - s a att 8 s f a c t l o on n of r e qu qu i rre e m en en t s i n d i f f e r e n t business a p p l i c a t i o n s Diff ere nt software applications u l l l no no t d l c t a t e d ~ f f e r e n t u n c t r o on nal req qu u iirr e em m en en tts s, but Dif fer ent packag packages es with, app llc atl on c a t e g o r i e s u l l l s a t l s f y t h e f u un nctn no o n al al r e qu qu l rre e m en en t s t o d ~ f f e r e n t e gr gr ee ee s 4 c softuare dependent data objects are not records nd as evlden evldencc cc u l l l generally be s save aved d ~ an independent format 5a Fmct lonal requiremen requirements ts u i l l be the sa sam me f o r each business sector, and 5b D i f f e r e nt nt s e c ctt o r s u i l l not determine cholce of tactics as much as as dif fer ent corporate cultures 6a) 6a) T Th he best w wa ay to sa tl rf y func t~o nal equirements u i l l dep depen end d heav,ly heav,ly on c o r p o r a t e c u l t u r e la lb) 2s 2b) 3a 3b 4a) 4a) 46 46))

6b 6b)) The The technological cap abl llt les of the a r c h ~ v e s nd v t s a ge ge nt nt s w i l l b e l e s s c r i t ~ c a l s a t l s f y l n g archival requlremen requl rementr tr that u l l l be the acce accepta ptance nce of a r c h i v a t res pon s-b lll ty by ma mane nege gers rs through throughout out the organlzatron

 

I

Coverrrnent exanples may include:

Service Dellvery

Research Development

prwsall

I I

RECORD-KEEPING S Y S TEMS

9

The se functional requirements w ere initially initially identified identified through a review of the literature on electronic records managem ent, archives, archives, and organizati organizational onal information information sy stems ma nagement. A draft statem ent of the functional requirements for archiving36 archiving36was was then s ubmitted to critique critique by a gro up of experts in the field. After two day s of deliberations, a revised revised statement of functional requirements for record-keeping was prepared, as illustrated in igure below.

igure Functional Requirements for Record-Keeping

COMP L I ANT O RG ANI ZA TIONS TIONS A CCOU NTABLE S YS TEMS responsible

implemented

reliable

FUNCTIONAL RECORDS CAPTURE

MA I NTAI N

ACCES S

comprehensive

sound

available

complete

auditable

usable

identifiable

exportable

understandable

authentic

removable

redactable

To understand how these functional requirements relate to the concept of record-keeping systems, it is important to to free ourselves from a physical model of record-keeping sy stems tied to a specific specific implementation. We need to adopt a conceptual framework in which a sys tem is understood to be the totality totality of people, policies, policies, hardw are, software, and practices practices surrounding the creation or acquisition) and the use of information information within within any o rganization. Th e business business application for which these particular functional requirements are being specified is archiving. All other business applications of the organization, such as correspondence management or order fulfilment, are presumed to have their their ow n functional requirements in add itionto archiving requirements. Th e requirements are purposefully stated as outcomes rather than as methods. As mentioned earlier, each requiremen t could b e satisfied earlier, satisfied through either policy policy,, systems design, system s implementation, or standa standards rds-or -or through a combination of these functions. Indeed, it is assumed that no organization would seek to satisfy satisfy all of these requirements using a single stratstrategy. In this this the functional requirements d epart significantl significantlyy from the approaches that have been used by archives to achieve these ends in manual record-keeping systems, which have often assumed that all the unarticulated) functional requirements requirements could be satisfied at once, in the sam e way, and in in the s am e place in the the overall system design. This has significant implications for the architecture that we envision to satisfy the requirerequirements. Insofar as systems design, implementation, and standards rather rather than than policy) are employed to satisfy satisfy these requirements, the functionality required for archiving may be located located withinn the Application Software, in a service located in the Appli withi Applicati cation on Programm e Interface, in any of the the services of the Application Platform such as the operating system, user interface, network services, etc.), etc.), in in the E xternal Environment Interface, or in in the E xternal Environment i tse tsell f f o r ex am pl pl e, in in t h e co co m m u n icat icatii o ns ns sy st em s o r th th e tel tel eeco co m m u n icat icatii o n s en v i r ~ n m e n t ) . ~ ~

 

Each individual functional functional requirement may be satisfied by soluti solutions ons implemented within one or more software layers, and no two functional requirements need be satisfied satisfied in the same way. By taking the view that each transaction gene rates a record-rather record-rather than the perspec tive of the document, which views documents as participating participating in many transa transacti ctions-we ons-we save ourselve s the very complex m odelling requirements requirements posited by Richard Barry s work with state transitransition diagrams.39 Except that it is only possible to satisfy functional requirements relating to storage, preservation, and access of evidence insofar as those relating relating to its creation creation h ave been satisfied, there is no presumption that any system w ould, could, or would want to satisfy all these requirements requirements fully. It is known that these functional functional requirements are not completely satisfied within existing paper-based information systems, on which we have long relied. relied. For example, few paperbased systems m aintain evidence of of w ho used the records in the course of w hat decision-making (although som e registry functions retain retain this data with files). Virtually no paper-based paper-based system can document whether the individuals or offices named in a distribution list for a document actually received received it (or who even sent it). it). In electronic record-keeping record-keeping systems it may be ea sier in some cases, and more difficult in in others, to satisfy satisfy these these functional requirements. Always, the decision regarding the degree to which any functional requirement will be satisfied is a business decision decision grounded in risk assessment. assessment. Whether risk management methodology is formally applied or not, costs and benefits, specific liabilities, and organizational needs and priorities prioriti es w ill always be taken into consideration. consideration. Decisions not to satisfy functional requirements are just that; they do not invalidate the requirement. It is the intention of the University of Pittsburgh research project, for which this articulation of functional requirements was undertaken, to examin e business business functions, software app lications, and organizational culture variables relating to the satisfaction of these functional requirements, in order to develop develop heuristics heuristics that can guide practice. practice. In igure below, we present these requirements requirements as currently articulat articulated. ed. They suggest some of the power of the concept of record-keeping systems, as the locus of provenance, to define effective strategies for electronic records records managem ent. igure

Functional Functi onal Requirements Requirements for Record Keeping Systems

Record-keeping is a critical function that is performed through the collective action of individuals and systems throughout all organizations. Record-keeping is not the province of archivists, records records m anagers, or systems adm inistrators inistrators alone, but an essential role of all employees and of individuals in their private lives. Record-keeping systems a re information systems that are distingui distinguished shed by the fact that the information they contain is linked linked to transactions that they document. Records may be consulted for documentation of those transactions transactions or because they contain information that is useful for som e completely separate purpose, but record-keeping systems d o not just contain data to be reused; they maintain evidence over time. Record-keeping systems support the corporate memory of organizations by supporting the business functions of the organization. All business functions require records of business transactions in order to continue their day-to-day operations, satisfy administrative and legal requirements, and maintain accountability. The following functional requirements for recordkeeping systems d efine a corporate requirement requirement for any record-keeping record-keeping system, not the application requirements requirements of archives and records management systems. Archives and records records management are only o ne business application within the organizati organization, on, just just as are manufacturing, sales, service delivery, delivery, or personnel managem ent. In designing and implementing inform ation and record-keeping system s, the functional requirements requirements for any particular business applica-

 

RECORD-KEEPING RECORD-KEEPI NG SYSTEM S

tions must be considered together with various corporate functional requirements. Archives and records man agement systems have functional requirements specific to ttheir heir business application-s cati on-such uch as storage storage managem ent, records retention retention and scheduling, scheduling, reference management, and access access control control-whic -whichh are not discussed discussed in this documen t. The functional requirerequirements presented below, below, on the other hand, are univers universal al for any any record-keeping system. They may be of special interest to archivists, records managers, security officers, freedom of information and privacy adm inistrators inistrators,, auditors, lawyers, and others with special obligations towards records, but they should be of value and relevance to programme managers at all levels, from corporate m anagement to line supervisors. These functional requirements were specifically specifically developed in order to provide guidance for the managem ent of electronic record-keeping record-keeping systems, although although they are equally applicable to manual systems. Information Information systems professionals professionals should note that business functions, business processe s, business transactions, and business records-rat records-rather her than system functions, system processes, system transactions, or system records-are records-are the consistent focus of recordkeeping. Articulating functional requirements is the first step in effecting adequate control of recordkeeping systems. The next step is to determine an organizational strategy for satisfying the functional requirements insofar as is ap propriate. Strat Strategies egies m ight include adopting policies and procedures, designing new systems, implementing implementing systems in a way that supports satisfysatisfying the requirements, requirements, or developing standards. Each of these four str strategies ategies may be applied separately or in in comb ination to each separate functional functional requirement. The choice of strat strategy egy will depend on the degree of risk involved in failure to satisfy a requirement requirement w ithin the business function that the record-keeping systems is to support, the exist existing ing systems environme nt including hardware, software, and architecture), architecture), and the corporate culture in w hich the stratstrategy must succeed. Record-keeping systems capture, maintain, maintain, and access evidence of transactions transactions over time, as required by by the jurisdict jurisdiction ion in which they are implemented and in accordance with com mon business practices. Fun ctional Requ irements for Record-Keeping Systems I. Compliant Record-keeping systems comply with the legal and administrative requirements for recordkeeping within the jurisdictions in which they operate, including specific requirements not referred to below. 11 ccountable Responsible: The organization m ust have policies, assigned assigned responsibiliti responsibilities, es, and formal methodologies for m anagement of its record-keeping systems. Implemented: Records must have been created and maintained in the normal course of business, and documented procedures that were followed shou ld conform to common p ractices in in the industry. Credible: The system mu st control control quality characteristics characteristics of of information being input and process information in a fashion that is consistent and accurate. 111

Functional

Record-keeping systems must capture, maintain, maintain, and access evidence ov er time. time. If they do so, records will be:

 

Complete Records accurately capture all information recorded or generated by their creators. Records incorporate or link to, a representation of the software functionality functionality that created them, other versions or views, a data model of relations between elements of information within a record, eye-readable conventions such as placem ent or fon t, and other structural information that adds to their meaning. Records incorporate, or are linked to, information about the context of their creation. Identijiable

distinctive distincti ve and bounded record exists for every business transaction.

Authentic The system m ust validate records creators andlor authorizers. Communicated The system must capture a record of all communication in the conduct of business between tw o people, between a person and a store ooff information available to others, or between a source of information and a person. Sound The integrity of records is protected protected from accidental or purposeful dam age or destruction, and from any modification after they have been received bbyy anyone other than the creator. Auditable Record documentation traces the processes in which records participated, including indexing, classification, filing, viewing, copying, distribution, disposition, use, and destruction, throughout throughout the life of the record. Managem ent controls preserve auditabili auditability ty of interactions external to the system (such as during media migration or transfer). Understandable Records documentation should permit stored business records to be logically logically reconstructed. Information content, plus any structure and context, must be preserved in meaningful and documented relations. For records with functionality, business application procedures must be docum ented so that they they can be correctly correctly associated with the status of the system at the time of record creation and later. Removable It must be possible, w ith appropriate authority, to remove records from the system, leaving only audit trails to docum ent their prior existence. Exportable Record content, structural representation, and representation of context must be exportable in standard protocols, if such protocols exist. Available The system must docum ent all logical archival records records that it contains, indicate the terms under which they are available for research, and retrieve them for authorized users. Renderable The system m ust render records by display or otherwise otherwise as they appeared to creators with views in effect at the time any record w as used, or retain structural data necessary to determine such views. Redactable The system must support delivery of redacted, summarized, or censored copies, and keep records of the version released.

ZV Some Strategic Implications of

ocusing on Records Systems Systems

The concept of record-keeping systems as the locus of provenance provides tools for understanding archiving requirements, which a re missing if we retain traditional definitions of provenanc e equating equating it with records records creators or fonds. The recognition that records systems have concrete properties directly related related to their ability to capture, maintain, and access records is the first step in directing archival intervention intervention so that evidence can e saved. Wh en archivists understand the concept of record-keeping systems, they are freed from imagining that such intervention only takes the the form of of a unified unified policy, policy, an isolated isolated archival application, application, or a universal archival standard. standard. By taking a systems approach, it becomes evident that the satis satis-faction of each separate archival requirement can be approached separately. Thinking in sys-

 

33

R E C OR D KE E P I N G SYST MS

tems terms permits us to imagine architectures for satisfying these requirements, in which satisfaction of the overa ll requirement is achieved by s atisfying particular requirements a t various different different places, and in different ways, within the sy stem of people, procedures, har dware, software, and data. Record-keeping systems-based strategies may have fundamental implications for archival programme str~ctures.~ ocusing on functional requirements allows us to emphasize outcomes of archival actions rather than than outputs, and sugg ests a framework for regulation regulation in which the archival function of the organization can require other units to address these functional requirements for those record-keeping systems identified as li linked nked to mission-important functions,, but not dictate specific solutions or records that must be sav ed. The programm e units of tions the organization must then cons ider the risks and the opportun ities, and develop plans for data management that address each functional requirement to the degree required by the business function, and in a way sug gested by existing technology ap plications and the corporate culture. Archival data management would complement data management requirements of other corporate control functions and of op erational managers, and lead to construction of archival information systems that are operationally useful sources of information about record-keeping systems or metadata system s. Because the information that these systems contain about recordkeeping systems is inherently part of the documentation of these systems themselves, archivists would less have to describ describee records systems than to gather descriptions descriptions of them. Archivists Archivi sts will find natural allies in their their documen tation efforts because the s ame docum entation record-keeping systems required to support archi archival val needs a lso supports FOI, security, vital of record, record, and privacy requirement^.^' With control coming early in the life With life of the the system, responsi responsibil bilit ityy being ~ c e p t e d y line supervisors and senior management, and documentation collated in metadata systems, archivists would have less reason to accession records from record-keeping systems. The existing record-keeping record-k eeping systems would enable archivists to exploit search mechanisms already con structed struct ed by program me offices to retrieve retrieve records. Patrons could thereby be assured of evidentially tial ly reliable reliable records throu gh mec hanisms that themselves are evidential, and archivists would eliminate the need to create external search systems that introduce artifacts into the search process, and could retrieve retrieve information that is not a record. Th e methods employed within record-keeping systems can be augm ented by informa tion obtained through full-te full-text xt ana lysis, statistical analysis, or artificial intelligence, from records maintained by the record system. Such me thods could also be employe d for retri retrieval eval in situations where the user of the archives is interested in information that may be contained in record-keeping systems, rather than in records themselves. Archivists would then be seen as professionals who assist in in mining the records of the organization for evidence and information, rather than custodians wh o oversee the destruction or storage of old old docum ents. Record-ke eping systems -oriented thinking not not only gives archivists archivists a tool that supports documentation, appraisal, preservation, preservation, and retrieval. retrieval. It also defines for them a unique role among information informat ion profess ionals as defenders of records, rather than processors of information. information. It defines special skills that archivists can learn in their educational programmes and apply in their professional professional lives, and w hich are not the province of the other inform ation professions. It also levers the most important traditional traditional archival concep ts into tools for the information age , making it clear that the record-keeping record-keeping system is the locus of provenance. Notes

A draft of this paper was presented at the Ontario Association of Archivists Conference on Archives and Automation , Toro nto, 13 May 1993. The concept conc ept of of record sy stems, and especially of of filing systems, was was present in the United States' State s' archival literature through the 1950s but has disappeared disappea red since. The only direct direc t treatment of recordkeeping systems that I have discovered was published in

 

merican

rchivist

13 (1950), pp. 259-67).

2 3

The author, Helen Chatfield ooff the United States Bur Bureau eau of the Budget, discus discussed sed The D evelopment of Record System s with attention to the history of chronologica l, subje ct, and alphabetic classification schem es in government offices, and the role of self-indexing or separate indexes in each configuration. David Bearm an, Information Technolog y Standards and Archives, Janus (1992), pp. 161-66. This will llikely ikely involve considerable rethinking of archives iinn the United States and Canada. I found the index entry systems utter utterly ly absent from indexes to the Ame rican Archivist since its inception. Archivaria presents the same picture. It is noteworthy that the Australian literature up to and including the latest

edition of Keeping Archives is replete with references to record-keeping systems, but (following Peter Sco tt) nonetheless focuse s on the series as the fundamen tal unit of archival control. Description is linked to records about organizations and their functions rather than to documentation of record-keep ing systems. I imagine that recognizing the role of record-keeping systems will be easier for archivists in Australia, who already acknowledge the record-keeping system as an identifiable element in control but have not brought it into a rigorous model of appraisal or documentation. 4 An example of the kind of analysis of record-keeping systems that was once basic to archival practice is found in in Howard Crocker and Kenneth L. Brock, Building a Records Filing System for New Yor Yorkk State Schools, American Archivist 19 (1956), pp. 249-60. 5 U.S. National Archives and Records Ser Service, vice, Guid elines Fo Forr Effective Fil Files es Managem ent (Washington, DC, 1968). 6 Luciana Duranti, Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Scie Science, nce, (in six parts), Archivaria 28-33 (1988-1992). 7 T.R.Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (Chicago, 1956 ), p. 77, qquotes uotes Australian archival manag emen t guidelines for registry systems, which stated that they should be planned in relation to the the functions and activities ooff the department and as far as possible rreflect eflect the organization of the department. 8 I used the term in my draft of the NISTF Data Dictionary, but my definition of it appears under the heading form form alone in Nancy Sahli, ed., MARCfor Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format (Chicago, 19 85). For a discus discussion, sion, see David Bearman and Peter Sigmond, Explorat Explorations ions of Form of Material Authority Files by Dutch Archivists, American Archivist 50 (1987 ), pp. 249-53 and David Bearman, 'Who about what' or 'From whence, Why and How': Intellectual Access Approaches to Archives and their Implications for National Informa tion Systems, in Peter Baskerville and Chad Gaffield, Gaffiel d, e ds., Archives, Auromari Auromarion on Access , Proceedings of a Conference held at the the Universi of Victoria, British Columb ia, March 1 - 2 , 985 (Victoria, 1986). 9 Ronald Weissman, Virtual Virtual Documents on an Electro Electronic nic Deskt Desktop: op: Hypermedia, Emergi Emerging ng Com puter Environm ents and the Future of Information Manage ment, in Cynthia Durance, ed., Management of Recorded Information: Converging Disciplines (New York, York, 1990), pp. 37-59; also David Bearman, Multisensory D ata and Its Mana geme nt, pp. 11 1-19. 10 See for exa mp le, Barbara L. Craig, The Introduction of Copying De vices into the British Civil Service, 1877-1889,'' in Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa, 1 992). pp. 105-33; also Frank Burke, Chaos through Comm unications: Archivists, Records Managers and tthe he Communication Phenomenon, Ibid., pp. 154-77. Provenanc e is defined in Louis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, comp., A Glossary or Archivists, Manuscript Curators and Records Managers (Chicago, 1992). as the organization or individual

12 13 14

15

 

that created, accumulated nd o r maintained used records ithout any refer reference ence to recordkeeping systems. Eastwooda argues for both theand external (organizational) and internal (systematic) referent for provenanc e, but asserts their equality as elem ents of the fonds: Ter Terry ry Eastwood, General Introduction, in The Archival Fonds: From Theo ry to Practice (Ottawa, 1 992), pp. 1-14. D avid Bearman and Richard Lytle, The Powe r of the Principle of Provenan ce, Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86), pp. 14-27. David Bearman, Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy and the Management of El Electroni ectronicc Records in Europe and Am erica, American Archivist 55, no. 1, pp. 168- 180. Jon Harrington, Organizational Structure and Information Technology (New York, 199 1 , discusses the concept of perceptual boundaries in organizations and how these can be changed (or not) by implementing electronic information systems. When the perceptual boundary is not changed but the pattern of work is, the system will often fail. One notes that the concept of organizational and perceptual boundaries employed by Harrington conforms to what we are introducing here, e.g., business rules establish how a record-keeping system functions. David Bearman in UN ACCIS, Electronic Records Management G uideline s: A Manual for Policy Development and Implementation (New York, 1990 ), pp. 17-70, 89-107.

RE CO RD K E E P I N G S Y S T E M S

35

16 See the Directory of Sofm are for Archives and M useums, 1990-91 edition and 1992-93 edition (Pittsburgh, 1990, 1992), as evidence for the paucity of archival softwar software. e. In 1979 1979-80, -80, when he was involved involved in drafting a standard for archival data interchange, the author convinced his colleagues that one of the principal benefits of such a standard would be to increase the availability of archival description software; he was wrong. 17 North Carolina State Archives MARS system is an exception; its very status as the first, and still the

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26

27 28 29

only widely available online public access catalogueSystem, for archives proves the point. See David DavidcsBearman, MARS: The Archives and Manuscript Reference Archives Museum Informatics Informati 4, no. 4 (1990), (1990 ), pp. 10-11. See the reports of the Ad Hoc Committee on Descriptive Standards, American Archivist 52, no. 4 (1989)) and 53, no. 1 (1990). (1989 Archival Information Systems Architecture Working Group, working paper, unpublished, Utah State Historical Society, 1990-93. David Wallace, Metadata and the Archival Management of Electronic Electronic Records: A Review, Review, elsewhere in this issue of Archivaria. David Bearman, Documenting Documentation, Archivaria 34 (Summer 1992), pp. 33-49. The AT&T AT&T Bell Laboratories archives got itself on the mai main n menu of every employee of the company by establishing a service which reported daily on the important activities in the corporati corporation, on, including major product announcements, policies, and reorganizations. This function, initiated by archivist Marcia Goldstein and implemented under then-librarian David Penniman, is one of the most successful applications of a suggestion made by Lytle and Bearman supra, note 12), although theirs was an independent invention. Reports of the the Ad Ad Hoc Committee on Descriptive Descriptive Standar ds, American Archivist Archivist 52, no. 4 (1989) and 53, no. (1990) . (Emphasis added, though present in accompanying explanations.) explanations.) Bearman, Documenting Documentation, Documentation, and David Bearman, ICA Principles Regarding Archival Description, Archives Museum Informatics 6, no.1 (1992). pp. 20-21. Bureau of Canadian Archivists, Planning Committee on Descriptive Standards, Rule Ruless fforArchiva1 orArchiva1 De scription (Ottawa, 1990.); Steven Hensen, comp., Archives, Person Personal al Papers and Manuscript C ollections, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1990); Judith Ellis, ed., Keeping Archives, 2nd ed. (Melbourne, 1993). Interestingly, Bruce Dearstyne observes of Holmes's five levels of description that modem archives are inclined to add a sixth level, level, usually below the subgroup, of 'information system'. syste m'. The term [is] [is ] primarily associated with electronic records and databases... : Bruce W. Dearstyne, The Archival Enterprise: Mode rn Archival Principles, Practices, Manag ement Techniques (Chicago, 1993), p. 132. Unfortunately, when I inquired, Dearstyne was unable to suggest any examples of a sixth level of description in either theoretical papers or actual information systems. Eastwood, The Archival Fonds: From Theory to Practi ce, pp. 1-14. Terry Cook , The Concept of the Archival Archival Fonds: Theory, Description and Provenance in tthe he Post-Custodia Post-Cu stodiall Era, in Terry Eastwood, Eastwo od, ed., The Archival Fonds: Fonds: from Theory to Pra ctice (Ottawa, 1992). pp. 34- 85. Angelika Menne-Haritz, Introduction, in Angelika Menne-Haritz, ed., Symposium on the Impact of Information Informati on Technologies Technologies on Information Information Handling in Ofi ce s andArchive.7 andArchive.7 (New York, York, 1993). pp.9-25.

30 In this I believe Max Evans ( Authority Authority Control: An An Alternative to the Record Group Concept, American Archivist, 49 [1986], [1986 ], pp. 249- 61), may may be more at fault than Peter Sc ott, from whom he borrowed (though he probably had not read the five-part series in Archives Manuscripts, vols. 7-9, published between April 1979 and September 1981, in in which the full explanation of Scott's position was laid out). Evans essentially proposed a mechanical data representation solution for linking series to organization, elaborating on Bearman and Lytle, while Scott's model had a place for record-keeping systems even though he did not employ a formal methodology for describing them. 3 The author has been engaged in an effort with the Metropolitan Metropolitan Toronto Archives to define an archival control system that incorporates both RAD and the representation of record-keeping systems in order to enable the jurisdiction to utilize metadata created with records during their active life, and integrate it into the records management and archival life cycle control process. 32 In the future, architectures that utilize the client-server model of of computing will use use specialized applications running on servers; these have the sole purpose of filing and retrieving data for other applications (running on client machines), which will process, analyze, or disseminate it. When this concept is widely implemented, it will become easier to define record system s ystem properties, but it will will still be necessary to understand how applications were executed using the record system. Similarly, when

 

33 34 35 36

37

38 39

object-oriented systems com e into general use, it will be easier to ensure that data objects obey archival retention and access rules, provided archivists learn to articulate explicit requirements that can be translated into object-oriented methods and classes. Richard Cox , Research Prospectus : Variables in the Satisfaction of Archival Requirements for Electronic Records Mana gement, in University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Electronic Records M anagement Study (Pittsburgh, 1993), typescript. See David Bearman, Archival Principles and the Electronic Offi Office, ce, in Ang elika Menn e-Haritz, ed., Information Handling in Ofices and Archives (New York, 1993). pp. 177-93. David Bearman [University [University ooff Pitt Pittsburgh, sburgh, Electroni Electronicc Records Management Stud y], Project Methodology Overview, (Pittsburgh, 1993). typescript. Archivists have generally resisted the use of the term archives in the form of an active verb archivi archiving. ng. I am consciously adopting this terminology both because our customers use it, and we must communicate with them, and because the implication of these requirements is that they will be met through active involvement with systems at the level of policy, design, implementation, or standards development nd archiving is an active verb. David Bearman, Functional Requirements for Record Keepi Keeping ng Systems, Vers Version ion 1.0,23 May 19 93. This draft was prepared following the meeting of an experts advisory panel on 20-21 M ay and incorporates their recommendations. It was widely circulated for professional critique during the summer of 1993. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Application Portability Projile A PP ): The United States Government's O pen Systems Environment Profile (OSW l Versi Version on 1.0, NIST S pecial Publication Publicati on 500- 187, Washington, DC. Richard Barry, Barry, Electroni Electronicc Document and Records Management Systems: Towards a Methodology for Requirem ents Definition [typescript draft of a paper for OIS931, examines the concept of a record

from the point of of view of the docum ent. This reveals tthat hat a docum ent may participate in numerous transactions du ring a li life fe cycle that is not a linear sequence but a peripatetic path. Representing these states of the document requires state-transition diagramm ing. Wh ile ultimately this is equivalent to the 'result of viewing records from the point of view of transactions, Barry b elieves that the latter is significantly less complex to model and implement. 40 The author has recently published a series of articles on the possibility of new programme structures and organizational organizational model modelss for electr electronic onic recor records ds progra programmes. mmes. See David Bearman , New Models for Management of Electronic Records by Archives, Cade rnos de Biblioteconomia, Biblioteconomia, Aq uivistica, e Repository ory in the Documentacao (1992). no. 2 pp. 61-70; An Indefensible Bastion: Archives as a Reposit Electronic Age Age,,'' in David Bearman , ed., Archival Manag ement of Electronic Records, Archives Museum Informatics Technical Report 13 (Pitt (Pittsbugh, sbugh, 1991); aand nd the as yet unpublished introduct introductory ory essay on alternative alternative programme m odels co-author co-authored ed with Margaret Hedstrom, which will appear in Archives Museum Informatics Technical Report 8 (forthcoming 1993). 1 David Bearman, Organizati Organizational onal Accountabilit Accountabilityy in the Evolvi Evolving ng Electr Electronic onic Communications Environment,'' Archives Manuscripts (forthcoming).

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close