Want to know more about the wild world of records?

Come and check out my project site - from the archive stacks to the computer racks

The primary focus of this site is the more recent timeline starting with the 1980s and expanding to future prediction of records and information management (RIM) technology adoption.

The three areas captured are

• Early RIM digital technology adoption
• RIM transformational digital technology adoption
• Projected RIM digital technology adoption

 I will also explore the influences that impact records management technology adoption.

• Technologies that present a low level of risk and experience an increasing rise in market influence will have an increasing rate of adoption, therefore are very likely to have industry buy in and subsequent adoption.
• Technologies that present a high level of risk and experience an increasing rise in market influence will have a decreasing rate of adoption, therefore are less likely to experience industry buy in and subsequent adoption.
• Technologies that present with a moderate level of risk and experience an increasing rise in market influence will have initial increase in adoption with a gradual decrease as new technologies are introduced, therefore are likely to experience industry buy in and subsequent adoption.

From the caves of Lascaux to the papyri scrolls of Mesopotamia to the National Archives to the data vaults of today, we as a society have been creating records as long as we have been able to communicate. And as long as we have been making records, we have been struggling to hang on to what those records contain, information. Information is not just letters and numbers, or the digital 1s and 0s, the information is critical to who were and are and what we did and do. Archivist and records managers have been adapting and evolving to make that information last for generations to come.

Each era presents a new trials for those that keep our records accessible. Records have been and are generated at an ever growing rate. Those records are not only growing in volume by in form. Every time a record evolves it presents new challenges archivist’s and records manager’s occupational norms. Each evolution presents a new aspect of change and each brings new trials.

In this research presentation I will discuss the more recent milestones in the records and information management timeline. I will cover a brief modern history prior to the 1980s. The primary focus of this presentation is the more recent timeline starting with the 1980s and expanding to future prediction of records and information management (RIM) technology adoption. The three areas captured are early RIM digital technology adoption, RIM transformational digital technology adoption, and projected RIM digital technology adoption.

For the purpose of this project there will be a brief discussion regarding the deference between Archivist and Records and Information Management but will focus mostly on records. In addition most information will relate to records management in the business and non-profit sector. There will be limited information pertaining to historical and anthropologic archives. I will make no reference to library sciences.   

As the world becomes more and more computerized we need better working systems to manage our information. The management of information is not a simplistic topic or task: it is a complex ever changing reality. We as consumers are inundated with technological solutions that are sold on the premise of better information management. Some of these solutions fail to meet the diverse needs of a changing business environment, other are adopted successfully.

Information systems are computer based tools used “for recording, processing, and dissemination of information designed to support groups of people acting together purposefully.”(1)

For example, records and information management have been slow to adopt a modern perspective on the digital transition. Looming concerns regarding risk associated with the use of new technology for information management has produced a speed bump for adoption for information systems linked to cloud and digital capture technologies. Slow to adopt yet the writing is on the wall forcing the industry to evolve, preference or not. Now it is a matter of what shoe fits. Finding the right technology solution that will fit the need of both the records aspect and the business aspect is a challenge.

In an effort to better understand what makes Information Systems (IS) use and usefulness successful I read A Review of the Factors Which Influence the Use and Usefulness of Information Systems (1). The focus of this article was information systems that are primarily for environmental information management; however I believe the analysis is general enough to apply to many information systems. The following is a discussion of that article and the connective reflection on what is occurring in the records management industry.

The authors, Diez and McIntosh, define usefulness as “[IS] can, and does support collective action through the nature of the relationships between technological attributes, individual user, and organizationally situated tasks.”(1)

Diez and McIntosh raise three questions to drive their research:

• What are the outcomes of the major processes involved in the IS life cycle?
• What factors influence the achievement of these outcomes, and how?
• Which factors are controllable, by whom, how and with what effect?

What are the outcomes of the major processes involved in the IS life cycle?

Diez and McIntosh define three process categories to describe the IS life cycle:

• Pre-implementation: design - This stage is measured based on continued use and user satisfaction
• Implementation: Diffusion, adoption, implementation, acceptance, and use -This stage is measured based on perceived ease of use and usefulness
• Post-implementation: evaluation, assessment, continued use - This stage is measured based on checks of usefulness, future use, and return on investment.

For records and information the truth is in the process. Currently, managing information is on a larger scale and is dynamically more complex than any other time in history. Physical paper, digital files, hybrid information, and diversely born records put any manual process to the test. Even the most skilled managers find this multi-colored spectrum overwhelming.

“Cost containment, compliance regulations, and accessibility are the key drivers accelerating the adoption of digital HR records management solutions… A hybrid approach to managing physical and digital HR records is far more practical and economical for most HR organizations.”(2)

The expectations to have a records program that acts as a bridge between business process, information technologies infrastructure, and records management interest are becoming a common discussion. Without a purpose built product meeting this expectation is difficult. Because business management and information technologies are growing at the rate of the market and records management is not, the evolution for records management is more of a game of catch-up. Up until the recent economic crisis I would argue that the urgency for the inter-communication between the three stakeholders was not at all a concern. But now business managers are being held accountable for records management policies and procedures.

Records management IS process outcomes are fraught with disconnect. The unique adoption pattern demonstrated by the records management industry has made assessing successful pre-implementation difficult. This maybe a factor directly linked to the diverse nature of its knowledge base, e.g., records management in the healthcare field is significantly different than airplane construction.

What factors influence the achievement of these outcomes, and how?

The factors that drive the success of IS outcomes for records management, have more to do with culture and business norms. Culture aspect of records management has long been dictated by the established principles within the industry. Records management was the last stop in most business processes. The oversight was limited and records managers were notoriously removed from many business processes.

The cultural idea that there is risk associated with technology is not an easy ship to turn. With IS in records, there is limited tangible physical item to protect, there is no chart flags to guide retention, there is no shelf or bay to remind and emphasize volume. And most of all there is a dependency needed on others to help manage a closely guarded treasure of information. How do you protect a fort that is an object typically owned by others like in the cloud?

“A recent survey in Network Computing, ‘IDC Survey: Risk in the Cloud,’ found that although most organizations see cloud computing as ‘the way of the future,’ most are also very concerned about the availability of their information, performance, interoperability, and security. These concerns are well founded: Although cloud computing may change where and how an organization’s information is stored, it does not remove its legal responsibilities to manage it properly.”(3)

The stigma of where records sat on the communication hierarchy was and is still a big factor in business processes. It is easy to describe records as the dusty, old, warehouse, where records would go to die… but no more. Previously, there was no need to communicate important business changes and priorities with record management but now this is essential.

With these key influences in mind, culture and business norms, it is important that the influences are identified and addressed prior to any consideration of IS implementation. There needs to be a clear dissemination of business need and understanding of best practices to assure a successful IS integration.

Which factors are controllable, by whom, how and with what effect?

The factors that are controllable are design, usability, and post evaluation. By focusing attention on these elements, driving adoption will be less of a challenge. Keeping an IS in the perception that it is usable and useful and a tool for communication and structuring of information will win more points.

Diez and McIntosh discussed maintaining user focused as a tool for success, I think with records management this is critically necessary. They go on to say that communication and workshops are a controllable factor that can improve implementation. In addition, they discuss that adequate upper management support is an important aspect of success.

This particular factor of communication and upper level support is a major concern within the records management industry. The “management champion” for records and information is a topic of discussion on a continuous basis. In a 2009 study about industry adoption of electronic records management, it was clear that there was still a disparity in management support and understand of key issues.

“By a 2:1 margin, the findings in these two questions show that respondents believe senior level executives in their organization do not adequately understand the relationship between records management performance and good governance (33% vs. 12%), nor the role that records management plays in risk mitigation (35% vs. 11%). Perhaps more importantly is the belief that a significant percentage of C Level management (55% and 54%) only marginally understands these interdependencies.”(4)

There are still issues with records management catching up to the information world. Successful implementation of IS is highly dependent on recognition of records management’s role in business and clear, effective communication with all process stakeholders. These dependencies will be a driving factor in the evolution and adoption of electronic records in the digital age.

1. Diez, E. and McIntosh, B.S. (May 2009). A review of the factors which influence the use and usefulness of information systems. Environmental Monitoring & Software 24(5).doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.009
2. Iron Mountain. (2009). White paper. In Best practices: Shifting HR resources from records management to strategic initiative. , AL: Author. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from www.ironmountain.com
3. Blair, B. T. (2010). Governance for protecting information in the cloud. ARMA International’s Hot Topic, 1.
4. Ashley, L. J., & Williams, R. F. (2009). Call for sustainable capabilities. In 2009 Electronic Records Management Survey. Chicago, IL: Cohasset Associates, Inc and ARMA.
5. Presentation citation: Beiber. (Narrator). (2010). NJIT What is an Information System? [Online video]. New Jersey: NJIT. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJYFpwbvuDc&feature=player_detailpage

 Presentation Slide Share: Success does not come so easy

Information is the frame work of reflection. Reflecting on our past gives us our history. Through time we have collected and coveted our history. Records and information is the proof of our history. From the early cave paintings of Lascaux to the modern information vaults of today, humans have captured activity of daily living. Without these records we would be without the knowledge of our evolution. Our evolution is full of documentation of commerce. Our commerce is a big element of understanding our society.

Today’s businesses are no exception; they too are trying to leave their footprint in the sand of history. Today businesses struggle with the transformation that physical data has made; paper to “1” and “0”, the limited tangible evidence. The nostalgic connection of knowing it is there if you can see it has made this transition difficult. The dependency on technology can be frightening for some. Generations of “I like the way it was” battle on a daily basis with “this is what it could be” or should be. The “likes” feel that there are at risks of information loss and control. But feelings are being over shadowed by the reality of modern business; “How can we do more with less?”

The Sea Change: Now consider the sea change at hand: the transformation of records management from the paradigm of media-centric assets, where management was based on observable physical location controlled by humans, to the age of digitally stored information and content-centric records, where the management process is based on invisible logical location controlled by computers. This sea change reflects the radically different nature of electronic records and has resulted in exponentially greater complexity in the management process. It also has spurred extraordinary research and development efforts for capabilities to improve this process – achieving unprecedented levels and sophistication of control, effectiveness and automation. Content-centric records management is a revolution in more than concept. (1)

Modern day business records storage in paper form is becoming more and more complex, not to mention extremely expensive. As businesses age and data is generated, external storage space becomes more and more a necessity. These two factors, space and expense, are becoming a burden on many organizations. This burden is driving many companies to consider other means of data storage. This effort to discover new technologies is forcing the late adopters to consider information technology solutions.

There is evidence of an evolution from awareness to action – manifesting continuing improvement of records management programs. (2)

There is very little argument that records and information management has been and will always be in a state of evolution, actively changing in a rhythmic cycle. There is also no argument that records and information storage has been slow to adopt technology in comparison to information producers. What is still under debate is the catalyst for adoption and the methods that will be adopted in the future.

Records management has been with us since the start of recorded history. Electronic management of paper records has been available for 25 years. On the other hand, electronic management of electronic records is a much more recent development. Only in the last 5 years has the significance of written electronic communications and electronic transactions been fully brought to account in the courts1,2, and only in the last year or two, therefore, have we been in a position to measure the reliability and integrity of electronic records-keeping as seen from this new legal perspective.(3)

The debate stems from an overwhelming fear of the unknown, will the information be there in 20, 50, 100 years? Can we as records managers show due diligence in protecting records? “It is my duty as a records manager, to assure that records are legible and indelible for its entire retention period. And if I don’t know for sure, I will continue my practice”. I believe that there is a struggle of risk versus reward in the records management world.

There is an understandable reticence to entrust documents and records to third-party clouds, even if these are provided by trusted brands such as Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. Only 28% would consider using a branded cloud even if it was stored within a national (onshore) locale. Many large corporations are moving towards a corporate cloud, in that centralizing and virtualizing their data farms creates a de-facto cloud. This would encourage 51% to consider using it. Similarly, given the sensitivity of data within government organizations, there have been suggestions that the government itself might set up a trusted cloud. Even so, only 51% of government organizations would consider using a government-organized cloud. (4)

Three historical influencers included adoption of computerized technology before 2000; the economic down turn mid 2000s; and hosted and corporate cloud technologies in the present:

• Past: Influence of a computerized society – the expectations have changed, society has become computer literate and adoption of digital technology is no longer a matter of needing to adopt but second nature. As digital natives come into the work force and digital fetuses are being born, the technology is evolving; the expectation of rapid information access and availability is a reality. The fear of loss is becoming less, because the users are immersed and comfortable.
• Current: The current state of the economy has played a dramatic role and has been just as influential. The true impact has yet to be uncovered. The average worker is being expected to do more with less, leaving end processes like record and information management to happen creatively with methods to meet demand, requirements, and preservation interest. Digital storage is becoming more prevalent and accepted.
• Future: The influence of the past and current state is driving the adoption of new technologies, like cloud storage. As records and information transition to digital solutions. Cloud storage is the next step in digital image management. The risk benefit ratio has not yet been fully realized, but this is the new cost effective direction for businesses to manage information.

The evolution of records management may be slow, but I would have to say calculated. I would say that records and information managers make up a high percentage of “laggards” (5) on the Diffusion of Innovation curve, but with records, risk avoidance is the best policy. It will be a matter of time before cloud and hosted options for records and information management will be adopted, but I have no doubt adoption will happen. If not by choice, by necessity. Sheppard and Yeo describe, “…electronic systems for records management offer not only substantial space savings, but also the possibility of a speed of retrieval and range of functionality unmatched in the paper world.”[pg. 20] (6) As the world changes, people want information cheap and fast, ready or not it is happening.

1. Ashley, L. J., & Williams, R. F. (2009). Call for Sustainable Capabilities. In 2009 Electronic Records Management Survey. Chicago, IL: Cohasset Associates, Inc and ARMA.
2. Ashley, L. J., & Williams, R. F. (2009). Call for Sustainable Capabilities. In 2009 Electronic Records Management Survey. Chicago, IL: Cohasset Associates, Inc and ARMA.
3. AIIM. (2010). E-Discovery and ERM: how is records management performing in the new spotlight? In AIIM Market Intelligence. Silver Springs, MD: Author.
4. AIIM. (2010). State of the ECM Industry 2010: How are user strategies changing to meet the demands of a new decade? In AIIM Market Intelligence. Silver Springs, MD: Author.
5. Rogers, E. M. (1982). Diffusion of innovation. London: The Free Press. Diffusion of innovations from Proven Model
6. Sheppard, E., & Yeo, G. (2003). Managing Records: a Handbook of Principles and Practice (pp. 20-21). London: Facet Publishing.
7. (consideration) Hoke, G. (n.d.). Evolution of Records and Information Management. In AIIM. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from AIIM Link AIIM
8. (consideration) AIIM. (2009). Document Scanning and Capture: local, central, outsource – what’s working best?. In AIIM Market Intelligence. Silver Springs, MD: Author.

Carrier pigeons at one time were rapid communications and the pony express, well was express. Connecting loved ones, bridging the gap, conducting business, and building bonds between nations. We have been attempting to improve communications for decade. How can we make it faster, more intimate, and thoughtful? How can we stay connected? As technology has advanced we have seen out communication evolved to making communication work for us.

Wai-Yu Lo found in a 2009 study, that “a majority (78%) of the 236 respondents indicated that they would choose IM instead of e-mail… These findings provide solid evidence to indicate the gradual switch in CMC preference from e-mail to IM over the past few years – at least among college students.” (1) Does that match what are other people saying about the difference.

Anne Zelenka writes on GIGAOM, Why Instant Messaging is Better for Collaboration than Email:

• IM doesn’t allow for overthinking and overjudging of ideas–it’s too fast.
• IM avoids email-induced “cc-itus.”
• IM reduces chances of misunderstanding.
• The wisdom of IM…that if you aggregate individual decisions and ideas, you’ll get better results.
• IM flattens the hierarchy.
• IM isn’t perfect. It can be abused…

Ohio State says “of computer-using workers indicates that instant messaging in the workplace simultaneously promotes more frequent communications and reduces interruptions.”

I do think that it matches what the study concludes. IM is quick and connects you to your family and friend real time. In 2010 study IM was compared to Facebook “Facebook is perceived as a leisure pastime where one can connect with friends, whereas IM is more useful for social and emotional support. IM tends to support best dyadic exchanges characterized by intimacy and a deep level of engagement…” (2)

Considering that Facebook has its own IM function, I think it does satisfy that instant connection. I took it to the street for some informal information and I spoke with people that use IM for daily business. I got mixed answers, of the people I asked there was a sense of with rapid communication there comes expectations of rapid response and that is not always practical. It appears that there is a clear benefit to interpersonal communication in from an emotional aspect, but an added level of stress from a business stand point.

Page Webb blogs, “There have been days when I log on, and I immediately get three IMs…that’s before I even check email or check my calendar. It’s like the IM pop-ups and indicators are telling me there is a four-alarm fire somewhere. I’m hardly awake yet, but let me give you my attention towards nothing that is all that important at this very moment!”

I am sure that this was the case with email too, I recently spoke with an Executive Vice President for my company and she described email as rapid and instant. I am sure that is how it was described during early adoption. Email as a new technology was considered better than having to sort paper mail. Now it is noted as overwhelming and burdensome. As we speak IM is being replaced by new social technologies, and before those new technologies are adopted something new will be on its heels.

1. Effects of gratification-opportunities and gratifications-obtained on preferences of instant messaging and e-mail among college students. Telematics and Informatics, May 2009. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2008.06.001

2. Hogan, B., & Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Persistence and Change in Social Medi. In Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (Vol. 30, 5th ed.). , Oxford: SAGE.

As information evolved from stone tablets and papyrus scrolls to flash drives and terabytes, archivist and records managers are struggling to make the critical decision to convert information to digital format or to retain in current form.  Not to mention how to handle digital information. Leaving records managers and archivists asking the question should we digitize and retain digital or not?

• In an article by Florence Olsen, she states “archivist and records managers are in a quandary as they work to identify what types of electronic documents they should try to save and what they can safely discard.” (1)
• In a study by AHIMA they concluded “among hospitals in this study population, the majority of health records are hybrid. Paper continues to have a significant presence both in hybrid and paper-only records, existing as the only medium or as part of a hybrid storage media profile 96.5 percent of the time. As health records continue to migrate toward electronic media, the hybrid record remains a formidable presence and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.”(2)
• In a study by ARMA international they concluded, “Most organizations have serious operational shortfalls regarding the processes by which they identify, manage and preserve electronic records, one of their most important assets.”(3)

It is clear that this is an industry wide concern. But what does it mean?

In the not so distant past (and for some currently), the workflow for records was not that complicated. As a records manager or archivist, you were given a record, you classified it, assigned it a retention and value, you processed it, marked on your calendar to know when to destroy it, and packed it in a box and prayed there would be no natural disasters or facility issues and let the record live out its life cozy on a shelf in a large dusty warehouse that smelled like your grandparents house. But not anymore…

With the introduction of digital documentation and business management solutions, like Content Management Systems (CMS), Electronic Records Management Systems (ERMS), Quality Management Systems (QMS), Enterprise Management Systems (EMS), etc. records are no longer tangible in paper form. Data warehouse with miles of data points now represent the boxes of records that would fill physical warehouses. But it is not like you can assign a records retention schedule to each data point collected in these systems. And the question is, how we manage digital information when the regulations or standards say we must retain X information for Y amount of years. With data being distributed into data tables and linked documents in repositories, It is not like you can wade through each data point and figure out what to keep and destroy.

There are high tech solutions that promise to only keep what you specify, like email system managers. And there is the panic solution, “if you can’t figure out how to retain it digitally, just print it!” and then there is the keep it all solutions, no matter the media “keep it all!”, and the we can’t afford it solution, so let’s just get rid of it all, and right a policy that says we can. But wait there’s more! It is the damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you keep it, will it survive? There are horror story throughout history of information lost to tragic circumstance. Floods, fire, hurricane, earthquake, malicious individuals… a records manager’s nightmare. Let’s add digital information back into the mix. It is a new technology in the records management scheme of things. Archivists have not had hundreds of years to prefect the right scenarios and perfect conditions to make the most out of the technologies. These things take time. And like everything, records management evolves every day.

With that said, this is not a sky is falling scenario, in an society that has documented more about daily living than any other (I read at least 5 post this morning about what was for breakfast), I highly doubt that there will be no documented history of our existence in the future. Not to discredit due diligence, someone needs to recognize that there is a problem, for someone to come up with a solution. (Considering that only about 60 years ago someone discovered the perfect conditions to preserve paper, after decades of information loss). I also would like to point out that what we perceive as history is only a representation of a small portion of what was really going on at the time. One letter preserved represents hundreds of thousands lost. If there are a few terabytes lost and someone’s tweet is not preserved for generations to come, I am sure that the future digital anthropologist will make suitable judgments about what was going on during the digital transition.

So for me it is a matter of digitizing with good records keeping in mind…

References:

1. Records are conceived (generated) in several way and born in several ways. For example, paper born, generated on paper by hand; hybrid born, part of the records is digitally generated and the other is paper (like a typed document that is printed and signed); duplicate born, a records made from a copy or scan; digitally born, record that generated digitally retained on paper (like a print-out report); and pure digital born, a records generated in retained in a digital format.
2. Olsen, F. (1999). College Mulls Which Digital Records to Save and Which to Delete. In The Chronicle of Higher Education (IT ed.).
3. American Health Information Management Assoc. (2008). Perspectives in Health Information Management. In Storage Media Profiles and Health Record Retention Practice Patterns in Acute Care Hospitals (Vol. 9, 5th ed.). , AL: AHIMA.
4. ARMA International. (2009). 2009 Electronic Records Management Survey. Chicago, IL: Cohassets Associates, Inc.

The veins of mass media spread through society pumping and pulsing with a rhythmic surge of information. Message delivery is as rapid as a heartbeat and as diverse as individual cells. But what is feeding those veins that we are so dependent on? Is the information pure or tainted by corporate control? Are those veins carrying contaminants? Do we have as much control over what we are consuming as we think?

According to FreePress.net there are 6 big media owners that dominate content. The top 6 corporate owners are General Electric, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS; each owning stake in advertisements, publishing, and additional product holdings. What this means for media consumers is a stream of tailored information. Big corporate would be stupid to not attempt to drive opinion (no matter the ethics).

For many the information that comes directly via mass media is gospel, including influence and opinion shaping. This information fuels action and dictate opinions. So say that GE owns NBC, if GE wants to drive consumer adoption of a product by GE health care is blast the product on NBC, and if GE health care is in competition with another health care corporation does that give an unfair advantage to the GE product? And does that lead consumers in to a false since of product popularity?

Bagdikian (1), states “As the communication medium the public most depends on, television has become the nation’s baby-sitter, chief news source, and ever-present entertainer. When broadcasters and their corporate sponsors fail to deal seriously, fairly, and regularly with the country’s urgent issues, in a very real way they are using the nation’s own property to rob its citizens of the knowledge necessary to cope with their most urgent needs and challenges.”

In some ways we are being robbed of our rights to consume information that is beneficial to making informed decisions. But that leads to who is to blame; we are just as responsible for letting media conglomerates dominate our information sources. And we are just as responsible for being media literate.

Benkler (2) discusses the debate regarding the benefits of local ownership, stating that this would be a contribution to media diversity. “…diverse ownership of radio stations will lead to better representation of concerns as they are distributed in society…”

Local ownership versus conglomerate ownership still does not address ethical responsibility, which is what I believe this boils down to. More so than who is projecting the information and who is consuming the information or by what means, it should always come back to what is ethical or what the intent of providing the information is. But that is a utopic ideology that is neither realistic nor probable. I believe that those that are keenly aware of this influence intrusion in their daily media exposure most likely chose to ignore the idea that they are being manipulated in a slightest way. Those that are naive to the intent of corporate media outlet ownership live in a clouded bliss.

1. Bagdikian, B. H. (1997). The Media Monopoly: Afterword. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

2. Yochai, B. (n.d.). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Closing an Era, written by Richard Cox, a professor of Library Science, is an eloquently written account of the North American Archives and Records Management history. Written in 2000, he has a keen understanding of the impact of digital technology on records management. Grossly underutilized, this book could easily win the heart of any records manager. In this book Cox describes the transition in archive traditions and the distinction between records management and archivist. Much like professionals are to academics, records managers are to archivist, focused on the how and not much on the why. He has interesting insight into preparing future archivist for the challenges of evolving records. He goes on to describe the evolution within the field and the challenges surrounding records and information management in the information age.

There has always been a bit of difference between the records management professionals and traditional historical archivist, the general understanding is to preserve and manage information, however, the theory behind the general understanding is the major difference. For example, a records manager weighs cost and productivity vs. value and requirement; whereas, archivist weigh historical relevance and value vs. length of physical preservation efforts. Records managers typically are more interested in the information than the actual document itself. Cox describes the issue surrounding the Declaration of Independence in lengthy detail, perfectly illustrating the point, is it the document that is of the utmost importance or the information. As information is turning digital, the nostalgic attachment to the physical being of a record is wavering. Newspapers, books, correspondence, and historical accounts, much of what archivist packed away to protect, are rapidly being absorbed into digital form. I think this is bringing the field of thought, preserving the information, closer between records managers and archivists.

I truly believe that there is a significant need for diverse education for records manager, with a consistent model as the foundation, basic principles to incorporate into varying industries. Cox raises the question, “can students learn everything they need to know before entering into their professional positions?”(Cox 178) His concern over the difficulty in determining what will be pertinent to those in such a broad field is absolutely correct. The field is so dramatically different between historical and corporate archives. What is good for a company is a disaster to a preservationist [destroy vs. retain]. But despite the difference, principles such as records integrity and accuracy remain the same. The ARMA GARP Principles is a key example of what is a basic foundation that can be diversely applied.

Cox explains that the focus of the field should be shifted to preserving electronic records, stating, “The real reason why electronic records must be a priority over the documentary editions are not immediately threatened. Left alone and provided moderate storage, the papers of the Jeffersons and Washingtons will be there next year… This is not the case with records produced in the modern electronic systems, as the computer has become the core of modern living.”(Cox 214) He goes on to argue that traditional recordkeeping will fade as modern computerized systems will take its place.  He summarizes that there is an extreme need to educate, archivist, records management, and educators of archivist on the importance or electronic preservation. The additional professional skill requirements for archivists and records managers including computer technology literacy have increase; however, the programs to emphasizes the importance of the principles of recordkeeping have not be well established, giving students unclear, inconsistent knowledge regarding incorporating sound recordkeeping within computer science.

In summary, Cox offers an interesting perspective, primarily that thoughtful education and records solutions will prevent further deterioration of historical information. I agree that there is a lack of specific education for corporate records managers and we at times are left to our own professional judgment. With the pressure of decreasing budgets and struggling programs it is difficult to plead the case of long term preservation for the sake of history. Computerized solutions are the cheap ticket for most businesses with an automated destruction workflow; it takes the responsibility away from the manager and places within corporate policy.

From a digital perspective, I totally agree with Cox’s assessment of the panic amongst the profession, he spoke primarily in regards to digital files and internet share, but nothing about the impact of social media, I am sure because on the timing of the publication (2000). But how do records and information managers preserve a moving target? Archivist and records managers alike have felt the penny pinch maybe more so then most aspect of business just because it is far from revenue generating. Resources are short and as soon as someone has a bright and brilliant idea to get this issue under control, the technology changes. I think that professional associations are working hard to nail down this issue, records are no longer a static entity that can be piled in a back room; they are living breathing creatures that need wrangling. I truly believe, that records and information management is ready for some new information cowboys.

As for the publication as a whole, I felt this was an easy read with a diverse bit of information. Definitely, a welcomed addition in my personal collection (however, extremely expensive for 250 pages). I look forward to additional publications regarding records from Cox. He has a tone unlike most academics and the information is not lost in academic jargon. The information was comprehensive and I found it particularly interesting as a source for my personal research. Even though Cox uses the National Archives as his primary source, which may limit interest of the corporate records manager, I feel that the information is adequately applicable as a reference for archivist and records managers, since both sides of the profession have used the experiences of the National Archives.

More on the author: Richard J. Cox, Ph.D., is currently a professor of Library science at the University of Pittsburgh. His specialty includes Archives, Preservation, and Records Management. His continued attention to the archivist and records management profession is notably described in his lengthy list of publications. Cox is a noted advocate for archive and records management scholarship and an outspoken thought leader on the importance of records management practice in the digital age.

Cox, R. J. (2000). Closing an Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

see it on amazon

Also Mentioned: Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles (GARP)

When I think of “cramming”, I get an overwhelming since of anxiety. I see late night study sessions and massive amounts of reading, literally cramming information into your brain.

For example, this weekend I crammed 75% of a quarter’s worth of reading into my brain, the fact that I have chosen to front load a quarter’s worth of reading into a single weekend has not been my best or brightest idea… My mind is now mush and I have so many crazy ideas floating around that I had to slow my roll so to speak to try and boil down my ideas to some semblance of organized thought. But as Christensen explaines cramming is not limited to describing the weekend academic reading championships of a grad student.

Is Myspace cramming? or are they truly making headway in rebranding? In 2010, Myspace launched a rebranding campaign to try and combat a dropping user-ship and failing buzz rate. The campaign included a new logo and a focus on entertainment. It also included linking to Facebook. Vatornews claims that it will be a battled for Myspace to stay in the game, yet has potential to gain users. Top Ten Reviews (social media)  has Myspace website as number 2, offering more for personalizing profiles and great for sharing pictures and video. The down side are searches filled with inappropriate information and it is not known for brevity like Facebook and Twitter who dominate user-ship numbers.

Reading the blog buzz, there is quite a bit of negative connotations regarding Myspace and its attempt to rebrand. What rises to the top of a google search is not the most flattering of commentary.

So going back to the question, is Myspace cramming? or are they truly making headway in rebranding? I believe that a little unintentional cramming is happening. Myspace is taking its organic social network and adding a theme, music and entertainment. I don’t think this is far off from Christensen’s example of Kodak trying to go digital (Christensen 40). Mostly, I believe that Myspace missed the boat early on. By rebranding during a sloping user-ship it may have appeared a little desperate. They also were late on jumping on the app bandwagon. It is yet to be seen if Myspace’s rebranding attempt will help it rise up the leader board in the social media race.

Cited Source: Christensen, C. M. (2004). Seeing What’s Next. Boston, MA: Havard Business School Publishing.

Records and information management has branched into many different avenues, including but not limited to library science and historical documentation. The evolution of records management theory, standards, and technology has been a direct result of necessity. I believe that business continuity and risk management has been the driving factor behind the new industry utilization of digital technology, such as digital image repositories, content management, and cloud repositories.

Project Scope

In this project I plan to discuss early records and information management disasters leading to theories of data protection and regulations, thus, contributing to adoption of digital solutions in records management.

Preliminary Project outline

1)      Introduction

a)      The relevance of archives and historical records

2)      Timeline of early modern records and information management

a)      The impact of records and information management disasters on society

i)        Case examples – Records lost through war, natural disasters, material disasters…

ii)      Case example – Iron Mountain Oxford

iii)    Case example – 9/11

iv)    Case example – Katrina

v)      Case example – California earthquake

b)      The milestone in records management evolution; what impacted technology and adoption

3)      Timeline of modern records and information management (R. Cox)

a)      Implementation of regulation and data protection theories

b)      The digital response to cost effective and risk adverse management practices

c)      Methods of storage local, cloud, repository technology

d)     Expectations in the industry

e)      Impact of digital storage methodology on industry and society

i)        Case example – Benefits of records authentication[i]

ii)      Case example – ARMA/AIIM studies

4)      Predictions and new technologies in information management