Further to Bill's observation on Larry's note, here's my two cents.  With 
respect, there was no requirement for RM at a national level in Australia 
before there became one.  The work done in Australia was amazing and drew 
on some great minds internationally to undertake important conceptual 
work. It is the work, not the authority, that has brought RM to a well 
respected ground in OZ (but sit down with some Aussies and the world 
doesn't seem so different). 

British registry models can be a tremendous barrier to effective records 
management. That is why virtually every former colonial government has 
moved away from them.  At the same time, they do ingrain an understanding 
of the legitimacy of the work associated with record keeping.

That, IMHO, is the crux of the issue.  

Throughout my career from Canada to Asia with plenty of exposure to 
practices in places between, time and time again one encounters the view 
that record keeping is not "really" part of the job.  This is endemic in 
executive levels--regardless of whether they proudly hold up ISO 9000, 
14000, etc. placques.  As said to me recently, "I want my engineers on the 
site, not behind some computer". Eerily reminiscent of Jude Gove's 
conclusion that a souped up IT system won't save a neglected child if the 
workers do not read (i.e. value) the records.  

In my view, ARMA as a body could do a great deal to lift recordkeeping as 
a practice.  We all could, but it can be easier to gain favour with an 
audience by bemoaning "how boring RM is", or "what a chore it is, but..." 
and then scare them with a horror story.  (There is also a whole lot of 
small "p" attitude in organizational cultures that factors in--it needs 
tackling head on.)

I'd like to see us say, "if you are not attending to the work of 
establishing an authentic and reliable record of action taken, of 
decisions made, and of the basis of those decisions, then you are not 
doing your job--and you are a risk to the business that [we] cannot 
afford".

It is a long term strategy and one that is ill served by the short term 
cycles of business reporting and career management.  But, it's the truth. 

Yes, a requirement to adopt ISO 15489 might seem a solution (despite that 
it is not a solid audit tool given the variables inherent in its frame).  
But the transformation of RM requires valuing the function and those who 
perform it in a very different way.

As an aside, I am considering writing on this topic and would value 
feedback/interest/ideas.

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