To return to your earlier questions:

* What does internationalisation mean for you, as North American
members?

As the RM for a multi-national company with many multi-national
clients, my focus is on understanding how other countries approach
records management. In addition to this focus, I also see
internationalization as an opportunity to appreciate diversity and
bring different perspectives to the table.

* Do you think that increasing international membership will assist
you?  In what ways?

I think there are opportunities here, provided that the new members are
able to contribute to the profession in meaningful ways. One of the
challenges of our profession as a whole is the overall lack of
substantive contributions by the majority of our membership. Not to
slight folks who do phenomenal jobs in their own organizations, but if
you look across the profession, I would think that most of us here can
name the folks who contribute across the profession. Increasing an
international presence can't just be a numbers game.

To return to my original statement, we need the contributions of
knowing how records management is done around the world and we need to
have the variety of perspectives that international members can provide
to the profession.

* Do you think that collaboration between the ICA and ARMA is useful?
How?  Should other similar liaisons be developed, and if so, with whom?

I think the ARMA / ICA partnership has been useful to a point. When you
consider that records management, as such, is generally unknown outside
first world countries, but archives are more broadly known (and often
perform RIM services elsewhere), I think it is important for ARMA to be
at that table, contributing to a truly international body.

I'm not certain that there are other like bodies with truly
international scope.

* Do you think that ARMA should become an international umbrella body
for the records profession, or should it remain the US professional
association, leaving another professional association (or association
of associations) to act as an international forum?  (Like the
languishing International Records Management Council, or IFLA, for
those of you familiar with the librarianship world).

Definitively NO! While ARMA is clearly the largest professional
association for records and information managers, I don't see ARMA
becoming an over-arching organization for the profession. Certainly,
ARMA can provide thought leadership and resources, but to try and
become a truly global organization would far exceed available resources
and require substantive changes in focus.

ARMA is not the "US professional association". I suppose, at times, our
Canadian colleagues may beg to differ, but clearly ARMA is a North
American focused organization. The membership is clearly centered on
North America and North America has the most extensive *body of law*
regarding RIM in the world. That's not to slight Australia or the UK or
anywhere else. Frankly, I think the RIM body of knowledge and strategic
thinking may be more advanced in other places.

I believe that there should be an overarching ICA-like body (if not the
ICA) that helps to coordinate RIM activities across the globe.

* Is internationalisation of ARMA important to you?

Internationalization for the sake of saying that ARMA has members in a
bazillion countries is not important. Getting global perspectives and
contributions to our body of knowledge is important.

* What does internationalisation of ARMA actually mean to you
- i.e. what do you understand by this term?

I think this is a key focus for the ARMA Board. I have been troubled by
ARMA using the term "International" in its name, when, for all intents
and purposes, ARMA was really the US and Canada, with lip service given
to other countries. And, in reality, ARMA is really about providing
services to the English-speaking parts of Canada in any meaningful way.
The International Ambassadors have been helpful in serving as a
conscience to the Board, to keep in mind the non-North American
members, but I think ARMA's approach to
"internationalization" has been cursory at best.

* What role do you think ARMA might play in internationalisation in
Majority World countries, where ARMA fees, in US dollars, are
prohibitive, and such members have the same chance of attending an ARMA
conference in the US as flying to the moon?  Let's face it, it's
expensive even from Australia!

The reality is that the cost of providing services is the costs
incurred where the services are created (or provided from). While there
are aspects of ARMA's infrastructure that conceivably could be
outsourced / offshored to lower cost providers, the core intellectual
capital comes from North America. A multi-tiered dues structure would
not be fair to members who would feel that they are subsidizing members
in other countries. The core cost of providing services to members
outside North America will tend to be higher than within North America,
particularly if the organization as a whole has to pick up the costs of
delivering services in multiple languages.

ARMA is able to deliver much education virtually -- and for minimal
cost. Certainly, more of this can be provided, with the sponsorship of
some key vendors.

I've long been an advocate of ARMA creating "code-sharing"
relationships with other related organizations. If you are an RMS-UK or
RMAA member, I see no issue with a member from those organizations
receiving ARMA services at the ARMA member price (and vice-versa). I
think there is great value in organizations engaging in "co-opetition"
(engaging in cooperative endeavors while also competing at some level
to advance the profession).

I would like to see people in additional countries establish national
or regional records management associations. I don't see any particular
issue with those organizations leveraging the body of knowledge that
ARMA or RMAA or RMS have. I don't see an issue with new organizations
utilizing publications or educational services. But new organizations
need to package those services for their unique markets

* In order to be international, should ARMA allocate funds to the
translation of all documents and publications into languages other
than English, and, if so, which languages?  Which non-English journals
do you read regularly?

I'm an ugly American. Unlike most of the developed world, I speak
English only, so my viewpoint on this is going to be skewed. There is a
two-edged sword here. ARMA has trouble getting good translations done
into Canadian French, much less Japanese, Korean, Chinese, or Polish.

At the same time, I wonder if translations yield an outcome that is
equivalent to "if you build it, they will come". So does ARMA take an
approach that says, "if we translate our publications to X, Y and Z
languages, will we see purchasing patterns follow from places that
speak X, Y, and Z?" or, should ARMA take the approach that "we won't
publish in X, Y, or Z until we see enough demand in those languages?"
Translations (done well) are a very expensive proposition, particularly
because we are a profession with a very technical lexicon. In addition,
publications and standards have to be tweaked to reflect local cultures
and systems of law. If you look at ISO 15489, while many of us wanted
to see a very requiring document, the first version of that standard
had to reflect many of the essential differences in approach to records
management across the world. It ended up far less requiring than we
might like, but formed a basis for people in other countries to begin
to understand what a good "standard" records management program would
look like.


So at the end of the day, I would advocate that ARMA needs to retain a
focus on North America, but welcome contributions to the profession
globally. We need to partner with related organizations in other
countries and provide support to fledgling organizations where we can.
When there is sponsorship for dissemination of publications or
educational services in non-English-speaking markets, ARMA should
provide support to local efforts to translate and deliver these
materials -- by "support", I'm not implying total subsidy of the
effort, but a proportional approach.

In my opinion, ARMA can take an approach that says something like:

ARMA is a leading professional organization for records and information
managers. It is focused upon the North American market, but welcomes
the membership and intellectual contributions of records managers from
around the globe. ARMA actively partners with local and regional
records management organizations and their members to share
publications and educational services.


Patrick Cunningham, CRM

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance