Why you’ve got problems with information outside records systems (all records systems, not just EDRMS)

There are clearly more than one reason why you’ll have this.

Central though to all of the discussions about it is the problem of shared value.

Records systems impose a cost on the people that use them that is over and above the cost of just leaving a record where it is.

So what are they getting in return for that cost?

Does your records system provide managers with statistical information that helps them manage capacity and quality in their team?

Does the records system include enhanced capabilities that extract information from content and help people with search and research?

Does the records system help people manage the status of their work?

Does the records system help people manage the flow of work between them?

Does the records system provide templates to help people create work product?

Does the records system help people make decisions by providing guidance and information?

Systems that do these things have high rates of usage and compliance.

The core question you have to ask yourself is “does the system help?”

If it only helps you, or doesn’t help enough to balance the investment it asks for – that’s why you’ve got problems.

Why doesn’t records charge back?

One of the problems for records, is that it is always a cost centre.

It is almost never percieved as a value centre.

Why should it be though?

The organisation that consumes its service can consume an unlimited amount of service and never has to pay a dollar for it – demand just has to be met within legislated timelines.

What would happen if business units had to pay for the services they consumed from records management?

I think the main thing that would happen, is that we would be able to have sensible conversations about:

  1. Whether specific working practices are valuable to the organisation.
  2. Staffing levels.
  3. Quality of service.
  4. Outsourcing and insourcing.

At the moment, none of the records teams I work with have enough staff for the workload that they have. The problem is that the workload is largely workload that we choose because we write policy based on sensible information and records management practices. The problem though, is that their value to our organisation is rarely validated before we commit time and money to them.

Take disposition for instance. Has a business unit ever come to us and said “we’d really like you to destroy our Old (deliberately capitalised) records” – I’d bet it’s never happened in the history of records.

What would happen though, if we started to charge them for:

  • The volume of records they’re storing (paper and electronic).
  • The searches they needed done by us because they couldn’t find their own records (because the quality of what their staff are storing is so poor).
  • The service time to complete an FOI – because if their recordkeeping practices are up to snuff, they’d be able to find it themselves.

At some point, we would be able to have a conversation with them about ways to reduce their storage and search costs through disposition – and at that point we are having a conversation about how to provide an outcome for a project cost to reduce an ongoing cost – rather than just trying to fund something we’re not sure they value out of the limitless well of time and having the records pay the bill.

So why don’t we charge back?

Why do we talk about managing information as an asset when most of our information isn’t?

Managing information as an asset isn’t a new idea, but I have a significant problem with its practice.

In accounting parlance, for something to be an asset, we have to have the expectation of future cash flows into the organistion as a result of it.

So how much of the information we keep is actually an asset?

Has anyone ever done a revenue projection for their information?

If information isn’t going to generate a cash flow (or a cost saving), doesn’t that make it a liability?

What is actually important in records?

I think it’s two things –

  1. That we capture reliable business evidence.
  2. That it gets used.

I don’t think that there’s much point doing the first if the second doesn’t happen.

Number 2 is also where almost everyone has a huge opportunity to raise their game.

If we define quality as the accessability of information in our records, we can say that usage of the records we keep will be highly reliant on their quality.

High Quality = information easily accessible.

Low Quality = information hard to access.

An example using an approval as a use case:

  • Low Quality – a conversation that spans 17 emails with multiple participants dealing with tangents to the approval in the same email chain who have all then filed their emails against the transaction – so we have 17 emails x 5 participants or 85 emails that we have to trawl through to find the approval and then get confident we understand it.
  • High Quality – a form listing what is being approved, any conditions or information necessary to make the decision and a great big digital stamp on it saying APPROVED.

No one would say that the high quality example above doesn’t represent both a better record, and higher quality business information.

The problem I’ve found, is that very few records managers want to be responsible for transitioning the way people keep their records from the low quality example, to the high quality example.

The perception is that business units are the custodians – so they should manage quality. The problem with this idea, is that business units are not records experts. They’re doers with a specific field of expertise.

Organising information isn’t anywhere in their skillset.

They likely wouldn’t know a taxonomy if they tripped over it.

They have a bar to jump – “I get this information from someone, and then I get to go to the next step in my process.”

How good that information is doesn’t matter to them – as long as they jump the bar.

They’re not thinking about next time they or someone else need that information.

They’re not thinking about how their managers will use the information.

Their managers aren’t thinking about how other parts of the organisation will use the information.

So records becomes both a collective action problem, and a tragedy of the commons problem.

So SOMEONE else has to think holistically.

So who should it be?

At a time when records is struggling to get budget.

Struggling for staff.

Struggling to get people to take records seriously.

Struggling to get people to do what legislation, regulation and company policy say they should.

It should be us.

Because if we aren’t responsible for records quality, if we don’t focus on making sure that the records we spend our lives keeping are actually used.

No one else will.

Value producing elements of Records Management vs the costs.

Things in records that produce no value:

  • Storing a record.
  • Sentencing a record.
  • Archiving a record.
  • Destroying a record well.
  • Destroying a record badly.

Things that produce value in records:

  • Retrieving and using the record as an input to a process that produces revenue or reduces cost.

Keeping a record produces no value and incurs a lot of cost.

All the value is in the retrieval and use of the record.

We can be as altruistic as we like in records but we will not be taken seriously by executives, and funded like a serious business unit until we connect ourselves to revenue and cost reduction.

How useful is the evidence that we are keeping?

I think this is a useful framing question that every records manager should keep in their mind when working out how to prioritise projects and activities.

The problem with asking this question, is that it’s always subjective, so I’m proposing categories:

  1. Possibly useful to an unknown person, for an unknown need at an unknown time in the future.
  2. Likely useful for a specific need at an unknown time in the future.
  3. Useful for an ongoing and specific need.

It quickly becomes obvious where we should work first.

Why do we bother with “compliance is mandatory?”

If we don’t mean it, and our organisations don’t mean it, it just makes us look silly.

Here’s how you know your organisation is serious abour compliance:

  1. Your records are perfect.
  2. You know how many instances of non-compliance there have been.
  3. People have been fired for non-compliance.

Has anyone ever worked in that organisation?

A records strategy has to underpin your digital customer service strategy.

Most people don’t put these two things together, but they are essential for two types of organisations:

  1. Any organisation that expects to service a customer more than once and wants the past business to enable a good second experience.
  2. Any organisation that creates an entitlement that they will be expected to follow through on later.

It’s going to shock many organisations that when they try and adopt digital service, the first thing they’re going to need to do is get their records in order.

Questions they will have to be able get a machine to answer:

  1. Does the organisation know who this person is?
  2. Have they done business with us before?
  3. Do we have an obligation to serve them?

The only way to answer these questions, is with high quality records.

If your records can’t answer those questions it becomes a cost problem. The organisation will serve customers it isn’s supposed to, it will end up in court (by not serving customers it should), customers will choose to go elsewhere, or customers will be forced to engage via a more expensive channel in order to prove that the organisation does actually have to serve them.

There is a fourth question that’s also important – “What information are they entitled to?”

This question becomes of paramount importance when an organisation tries to build customer service portals. One of the many functions of portals is to provide people with information that they’re entitled to so that they don’t have to come and ask a person to get it for them.

Logic tells us that the information presented in a portal has to come from a records system.

These points do leave us with a good question to ask – why is it that so many organisations think that they can do digital customer service without records being involved?

Evidence Based Non-Custodial Records Management

Records management is a practice with thousands of years of history.

Or at least, custodial records management is.

Non-custodial records management though, isn’t the same thing.

It’s being practiced every day in systems that aren’t designed for it, by people who don’t understand it – or want to understand it.

So where is our evidence for the way we practice in this environment?

The more I read, the more I see re-interpretation of old ideas.

The problem with this is that the old ideas are based on old economics, and the new ideas are based on ideas about convenience that we don’t believe in, or that just don’t work.

Three examples –

  • Our ideas about disposition are influenced by the economics of storing a box for $5/month, do they still make sense when the cost to store an electronic “box equivalent” for 100 years is less than $1?
  • Sentencing on creation through integration of a business classification scheme and a disposal schedule is an idea that has been put into practice everywhere, but I find that about 2 in 100 organisations trust it enough to actually dispose of records based on the sentence, the others check manually – at $25+ an hour.
  • Function/Activity/Transaction is the gold standard for classification scheme design, but does it lead to higher quality records? My own experience has been that classification schemes are often a large barrier to records system usage.

Where is the evidence about what works?

How much of what we do by default now is more dogma than effective evidence based practice?

We can’t tell business units that they are the custodians of their records and then tell them that they’re not their records.

This is a strange dichotomy that I’ve run into continually over the last few years.

I’ll talk to a records team who will tell me that they’re not responsible for the quality of the records in the system because the business are the custodians of the records.

They’ll then talk to the same business unit who are not doing what the records team wants them to do, and tell them that the records aren’t theirs, they’re the organisations.

So which is it?

What are the predictable outcomes from that option?