Is really a tradeoff between the cost and quality of records.
There’s an interesting trend in records.
We’re de-professionalising record keeping.
Record keeping duties have been given to non-professionals – “business users.”
What hasn’t moved though, is accountability.
Records managers still have accountability for the quality of organisational records.
Their ability to ensure quality though generally boils down to the ability to “ask nicely again”.
So the quality of records we’re producing is deteriorating, while at the same time the compliance statements are being signed, and the bill for the records team is going down.
What’s really happening is that we’re –
- Moving the cost of records from a records team to business users (non-professionals).
- Accepting a deterioration in the quality of our organisational records.
- Making large portions of the cost of records invisible.
The reasons are understandable, if record keeping is always done by professionals, the number of record keepers required scales linearly with the size of the organisation.
I have to wonder though, if the long term costs will be more expensive than the perceived gains.
Are we making a trade off? Or just making it harder to understand the costs we’re incurring, and making the value that we’re providing look like it came at no cost?