This very interesting thread seems to have taken on a characteristic of the
undying, perhaps because of its importance in the broader scheme of things. If
the list hasn't already had enough of it, I'd like to amplify on some
comments in the past week, esp. those of Bill Benedon (competencies taking account
of the historical fundamentals of our profession and the 'birth to death"
concept of records), Russell D. James (doing vs. training others to do) and
Susan McKinney (questions about functional placement of mail and imaging).
I find it useful to think about some of the important distinctions we need
to consider in the context of whatever aspect we are talking about:
competencies, organizational arrangements, best practices, etc. Some of these relevant
to this thread are:
1) Historical vs current vs future roles. Well educated information and
records managers (more highly paid or contributing to higher-level positioning?)
should be well informed about all of these roles. Continuing education
requires focus on current best practices and likely future implications of
changing workpatterns and recordmaking technologies. So if the context is ARMA
competency standards or ICRM tests, then all aspects should be taken into account
in testing, making the distinctions among them clear. Do we view our jobs as
"just the facts, M'am" or do we see them beyond the basics and in the broader
opportunities they afford. As Ginny Jones and others have noted, the
registry system is alive and well in Europe and North America. As ARMA
"International" and "I"CRM are international professional organizations, they need to
continue to keep an international perspective on this set of issues.
2) Issues arising out of the "post-custodial" discussions (going back to
Gerald Ham's first usage of the term in 1981; see papers on this at
mybestdocs.com), especially: the physical vs conceptual, intellectual or logical
handling, "custody" and responsibility for recordkeeping. This is not to suggest
that it has become an either/or situation but rather that our traditional
responsibilities and competencies for physical records must be greatly strengthened
with those relating to logical control of records in digital form. And even
if we surrender the physical handling of certain paper records, including
snail mail, it is still incumbent upon us (all the more so than before) to
maintain logical control over information objects that meet the definition of
records. The latter roles involve quite different competencies, staffing,
staffing levels, etc. Paper vs digital records run into one another in the use of
technology to gain and maintain logical control over records, such as when we
develop and implement policies/procedures/systems to capture and manage paper
records through the use of imaging and other content
management/recordkeeping technologies. Also when we design business systems models and information
discovery schemes to ensure that paper and electronic records are linked.
3) Balance on the focus between the "Management" and "Records" aspects of
RM. Over time, the balance has shifted in important ways, as noted above,
largely because of the advent of electronic records suggesting increased focus on
the management side of RM, i.e., carrying out functions vs ensuring that
functions are carried out by others or by systems (whether by training, auditing,
having an oversight mandate...or whatever). Again, as several have noted,
this varies greatly depending on organizational size.
Regards,
Rick
Rick Barry
_www.mybestdocs.com_ (http://www.mybestdocs.com/)
Cofounder, Open Reader Consortium
_www.openreader.org_ (http://www.openreader.org/)
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|