Brent raises some very valid points.  I have always paid allot of attention to the "trigger" Brent mentioned, as this initiates the next phase in the records life cycle.  Metadata has become really important as well.  This allows us to tag records with all kinds of interesting descriptors and identifiers (see Dublin Core http://dublincore.org).  

In the past people were obsessed with knowing the who, what, when, where and why of their records.  I am seeing a trend where it is enough for users to know that they can retrieve/access their records when they want them, they are safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure or destruction and destroyed or retained as per legal/fiscal/archival requirements.  They don't necessarily want to know what the "file number" is any longer.  More and more is done by ERMS's and the user themselves.  

More and more Records subject matter experts provide the toolkits, the policies, guidelines, standards, training and awareness, as opposed to operating the colossal records offices of long ago.  I would even go as far as to say we don't have as many "records staff" as long ago and the size of records offices are shrinking, as we gravitate more towards electronic recordkeeping.  That is certainly open for discussion.

It is human nature to want to have control and people find it a challenge to let go.  There is as they say a paradigm shift in how records management is viewed today.  

With all that being said, the electronic age brings with it many new challenges.  I liken it to the records office of yesterday, before "computers".  Mail and correspondence was received in the records office, opened, stamped, classified, logged, indexed, file folders/labels created if need be and then sent to the addressee.  All done by hand.  The mail/correspondence came back and was sent to file. 

The real challenge came with fax machines, photocopiers, mainframes, then desktop PC's and so on with all the new gadgets of today.  We now have a glut of information where the definition of what is "corporate", personal, transitory etc. sometimes is blurred.  

Library and Archives Canada have even generalized the definition of  a record:  "record" means any documentary material, regardless of medium or form;".

This definition no longer lists types of records i.e.(correspondence, memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work, photograph, film, microform, sound recording, videotape, machine readable record.  The new definition is to be interpreted as including every type of record or documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics.

In saying this, the experts in archival records management are interpreting in a more general and all encompassing way, the definition of what a record is.  

Just some musing on a Tuesday afternoon.


John Gervais
613-946-0245
mailto:[log in to unmask]

The opinions expressed in this post are personal and do not represent that of my employers.

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