Paradigm shifts in recordkeeping responsibilities: implications for ISO 15489's implementation

Records Management JournalEmerald Article: Paradigm shifts in recordkeeping responsibilities: implications for ISO 15489's implementationPauline Joseph, Shelda Debowski, Peter Goldschmidt

Article information:

To cite this document: Pauline Joseph, Shelda Debowski, Peter Goldschmidt, (2012),"Paradigm shifts in recordkeeping responsibilities: implications for ISO 15489's implementation", Records Management Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 1 pp. 57 - 75

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09565691211222108

Downloaded on: 29-03-2012

References: This document contains references to 70 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 12 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by CURTIN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Paradigm shifts in recordkeepingresponsibilities: implications for

ISO 15489’s implementationPauline Joseph

Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Shelda Debowski and Peter GoldschmidtUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to point out paradigm shifts in recordkeeping responsibilitiesfrom records and information management professionals (RIM professionals) to knowledge workers,caused by advancements in information and communication technologies and by user andorganizational expectations. The impact of these changes on the implementation of professionalrecords management (RM) principles and guidelines particularly in ISO 15489 is discussed.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper looks at the issues from an academic viewpoint byreviewing ISO 15489’s RM principles presented in Part 1 and guidelines in Part 2 of the standard. Thecurrency of the standard in capturing the changing practices that are flowing into RM approaches arethen evaluated against four of the principles. These four principles are reviewed against three keyparadigm shifts.

Findings – The authors present evidence of significant paradigm shifts relating to changingtechnology, work practices, devolution of recordkeeping responsibilities to users, their growingexpectations, and increasing organizational concerns for RM accountability. These are generatingpressure on RM systems to change and become more responsive. This review highlights the criticalneed to better appreciate the changing RM context and its implications for broader policy andprofessional practice.

Practical implications – The key practical implication identified in the paper relates toreconceptualisation of the roles of RIM professionals, knowledge workers and senior managementfor recordkeeping.

Social implications – The changing nature of RM in organizations will necessitate strongerengagement of knowledge workers and senior management with their RM services.

Originality/value – This paper focuses on the user responsibilities for RM versus traditional RIMprofessionals having this role. The paper offers an innovative view of professional RM practice andsuggests some new directions for RIM professionals to better accommodate user needs andexpectations.

Keywords Records management, ISO 15489, Electronic documents and records management systems,Information management, Standards, Classification schemes

Paper type Viewpoint

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

An aspect of this paper was presented at the September 2011 inForum convention held inDarwin, Australia, organized by the Records and Information Management ProfessionalsAustralasia (RIMPA). Also, aspects of this paper were adapted from Joseph’s PhD thesis. Theauthors would like to express their gratitude to the Editor especially and “blind” peer reviewersfor their comments.

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

57

Received 30 July 2011Revised 21 January 2012

Accepted 27 January 2012

Records Management JournalVol. 22 No. 1, 2012

pp. 57-75q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0956-5698DOI 10.1108/09565691211222108

IntroductionThe International Standard for Records Management, ISO 15489 (InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, 2001a, b) has been widely accepted as an influentialand critical set of principles and guidelines that ensure records management (RM)systems are fit for purpose. First established in an era when records managersmaintained tight control over the majority of records management practices and aspecific range of records, it has continued to guide the move toward electronic recordkeeping and embedded organisational retention of information, knowledge andrecords. The growth in electronic document and records management systems(EDRMS)[1], social network media technologies, and Web 2.0 records have opened upfurther opportunities for innovative approaches to RM. The move away from a highlystructured records environment to a more fluid institutionally-driven context reflectinguser needs and expectations offers both opportunities and challenges for the recordsand information management profession (RIM).

The impact of changing organisational expectations and practices has been littlediscussed in the professional literature – particularly with respect to the implicationsfor the standards and associated guidelines (International Organisation forStandardisation, 2001a, b). This paper therefore explores three key paradigm shiftsthat are likely to change the scope and management of organisational records, namely:technological developments; changing user expectations with regard to managing andaccessing information and the requirement for greater transparency, compliance andaccountability by organisations. We argue that these paradigm shifts alreadychallenge traditional perceptions of recordkeeping responsibilities and have widerimplications for the interpretation of the ISO 15489 standard and associated guidelines(International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001a, b). While the broader principles(International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001b) remain pertinent as signpoststo good practice, a number of the guidelines (International Organisation forStandardisation, 2001b) could benefit from a fresh consideration as to how theseparadigm shifts might be better accommodated.

Professional practice relating to assigning metadata, designing classificationschemes, assigning retention periods and establishing security permissions is rapidlymoving to a new level of sophistication that is largely not addressed in the guidelines.While the ISO15489 standards are not intended to provide a proscriptive approach toRM system implementation, this paper argues that the profession is at a stage wheresome of the basic assumptions need to be reviewed.

ISO 15489 – an overviewThe industry standard, ISO 15489 Parts 1 and 2: Information and Documentation –Records Management (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001a, b),hereafter referred to as ISO 15489 or 15489, is a voluntary code of practice. It offersguidance on how RM principles and practices can be implemented in organisations(Healy, 2010, p. 98). The international standard derives from the Australian standard,AS 4390-1996: Records Management and has since replaced it (Steemson, 1999, 2002).Cumming (2002) provides a detailed comparison of the similarities and differencesbetween ISO 15489 and AS 4390, concluding that AS 4390 “has played a verysignificant role in the development and codification of the records managementdiscipline” in Australia and globally.

RMJ22,1

58

ISO 15489.1-2001, Records Management – Part 1: General provides a high-levelframework for RM, with emphasis on the requirements for the design of an RM system,the benefits of RM to the organisation, the requirement to comply with legislation andthe need to assign and assume responsibility for adequate RM policies and procedures.It also identifies the requirements for RM training and support systems. ISO15489.2-2001, Records Management – Part 2: Guidelines is a technical report thatprovides practical guidance on how to apply those principles to implement an effectiveRM system using the DIRKS (Design and Implementation of RecordKeeping Systems)methodology (National Archives of Australia, 2001). It provides practical guidance forthe development of records processes and controls, and addresses the development ofkey recordkeeping tools like classification schemes, thesauri and retention schedules.

ISO 15489 is a widely accepted international standard (An, 2006; Steemson, 1999,2002, 2005; Weinstein, 2005) commonly used by organisations as a benchmark whendesigning and implementing their RM regime. It provides guidance on managingpaper-based or electronic records, offering best practice guidelines for the managementof corporate memory and information assets. Steemson (2005) reported thatincreasingly “non-English speaking countries have translated” ISO 15489 and“information management training groups and consultancies worldwide have focussedon its dissemination” (Steemson, 2005, p. 44).

Internationally, 15489 was endorsed by the United States National Archives andRecords Administration (NARA) (Weinstein, 2005) and has been internationallyaccepted and used as a best practice standard in the US, the UK, France, Jamaica,Australia and New Zealand (Alexander-Gooding and Black, 2005; An, 2006; Dherent,2006; McLeod and Childs, 2007; State Records Commission of Western Australia, 2002;Steemson, 2005; Weinstein, 2005). In fact, Archives New Zealand has funded the licensepurchase for their public offices as defined by their Public Records Act (Archives NewZealand, 2006). The 2009 Cohasset survey reported that 47 per cent of records andarchives professionals cited the ISO 15489 as their primary source of guidance todetermine their organisation’s RM requirements and practices (Williams and Ashley,2009, p. 21). The fact that ISO 15489 complements other international quality assurancestandards like the ISO 9000 series, and uses simple language to explain complex RMprinciples, has contributed to its global acceptance (White-Dollmann, 2004).

ISO 15489’s use and acceptance internationally and in Australia has been reportedwidely via case studies in practitioner publications more than in scholarly publications.Case studies since the release of the standard have reflected the practical application ofthe principles into organisations in Jamaica (Alexander-Gooding and Black, 2005, p. 66)and more systemically in Commonwealth African nations (Tough, 2004, p. 157), Spain,China, Iceland, the Baltic states, Great Britain, the USA and France (Steemson, 2005).Examples of ISO 15489’s implementation include it being employed as a benchmarkingtool to critically analyse RM issues in China (An, 2006; An and Jiao, 2004), as a guide bythe National Library of France to design RM best practices for the management ofelectronic documents (Dherent, 2006) and to assist with managing email records of theInternational Committee of the Red Cross (Willemin, 2006).

Nonetheless, a concern that has emerged is that this critical international standardlacks guidance on developing or implementing the tools referred to in the standard(McLeod and Childs, 2007, p. 163). ISO 15489’s objective is to set out the strategicdirections on how to implement a RM system by identifying the key principles and best

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

59

practices that make up a good RM system; it was not intended to be a “how to” guide(McLeod and Childs, 2007, p. 154). It is therefore generally perceived, and used, as abenchmarking and/or compliance standard by organisations implementing a RMprogram (McLeod and Childs, 2007; Steemson, 2002, 2005; White-Dollmann, 2004). ISO15489’s (Part 2) does not include guidance on implementing change management, or onhow senior management and employee support can be elicited for successful RMimplementation. In fact, a reviewer of this paper noted that the methodologies outlinedin the guidelines (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001b) were of littlevalue for implementation, a strong confirmation that it is a good time to revisit theprofession’s approaches.

The recent release of the first of the ISO 30300 series of standards (InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, 2011a, b) highlights the profession’s ongoing effortsto introduce guidelines for requirements (ISO 30301) for a “Management System forRecords” (MSR) which will include implementation (ISO 30302), certification (ISO30303) and assessment (ISO 30304) components. The latter three standards were yet tobe published at the time of writing this article. The convenors of Working Groups 8and 9, ISO TC46/SC11 (Ellis and Bustelo, 2010, June 18) noted that these 30300 series ofstandards “do not replace ISO 15489”. They suggest the new series is aimed at seniormanagement to position RIM practices at the management systems level so that it isstrategically aligned with similar quality management, security management andenvironmental management systems. The 30300 suite of standards also providepathways for organisations to seek certification for compliance with a managementsystem for records (MSR). This is similar to how organisations’ seek certificationagainst the ISO 9000 series of standards to assure customers and suppliers that theirproducts are manufactured adhering to the specified quality assurance processes. It isworth pointing out that in the introduction sections of both the ISO 30300 and 30301standards, it is noted that “ISO 15489 is the foundation standard which codifies bestpractice for records management operations” (International Organisation forStandardisation, 2001a, b).

The nature of a recordISO 15489 defines a record as:

information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by anorganisation or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business(International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001a).

Yeo (2011) suggests that RIM professionals’ perceive records are primarily in theformat of a document because “documents were perceived as written or printed text onpaper” (p. 10). There is a widely held view that “all records are documents, but not alldocuments are records” (Barry, 1993; Livelton, 1996; Peterson, 1991). Yeo (2011) arguesthat documents “connote media and formats” (p. 10) and that the notion that “allrecords are documents” (p. 11) is no longer valid. Technological developments have ledto electronic information content that ranges widely from in-house sources to broaderelectronic platforms. The range has blurred the traditional boundaries of whatconstitutes documents, records, data and data-centric records. For example, records arecreated and received in non-document formats from social network media and recordscan be housed in social media settings like FaceBook and Linked-In applications.

RMJ22,1

60

Importantly, electronic documents in.docx and.xml formats contain both text andmetadata describing the context and content attached to them, thereby making themboth textual and data-centric electronic documents (Yeo, 2011, p. 12).Yeo also argues that RIM professionals’ “idea that a record’s status depends on formaldesignation” is incorrect (Yeo, 2011, p. 16). The practice of classing records based onthe fact that humans will take action to “identify” and “declare” information as recordsin repositories like the EDRMS is optimistic. Research by Joseph (2009, 2010a), forexample, found that few EDRMS users made the effort to declare their documents asrecords in their EDRMS while also finding it difficult to source documents that werenot declared as records. This not only poses dilemmas for knowledge workers but alsorecords managers who take the approach of first, only managing records and second,relying on knowledge workers to change a document’s status so that it can beidentified as a record in their EDRMS.

The increasing range of electronic business systems and repositories has alsonecessitated a more expansive view of the nature of records. Records now encompassdocuments, records, quality records, working drafts, data-centric records, data, photos,Web 2.0 records and a growing range of records in different media. There needs to berecognition that information is created, received and transmitted in many forms andmedia (audio, video and web) or may reside across multiple platforms. When the scopeof information is widened to encompass information that resides in multipleline-of-business information applications or repositories it is clear that goodinformation management also needs to expand beyond the traditional concept of arecords repository, which is usually an EDRMS.

Thus, it is vital for organisations and their records managers to consider how theymight best manage all corporate information content that is core to the business needs(Debowski, 2006). To accomplish this, it will be necessary to reconsider what is meantby information, how information exists in different formats and system repositories,and how organisational support for records management might best be achieved. As afirst step, better understanding of the evolving organisational context can assist.

Drivers for shifting recordkeeping responsibilitiesThere have been notable paradigm shifts in traditional recordkeeping responsibilities,particularly stemming from the devolution of records management roles from skilledrecords managers to individual knowledge workers, who now create, receive andmaintain records relevant to their roles. This has operated in tandem with three driversthat are also challenging traditional perceptions of records management structures:technologies, user and organisational expectations.

TechnologyDevelopments in information and communications technologies (ICT) and especially insocial network media have changed the ways in which knowledge workerscommunicate and collaborate in organisations. “A 2009 Gartner study found that 31per cent of the enterprises surveyed indicated they regularly use social media tools andsocial networking sites, and that 52 per cent planned to increase their budgets for socialmedia tools and collaboration software in 2010” (Bell et al., 2010). Bell et al.’s (2010)findings support Everingham’s (2011) observation that community engagement withstakeholders (both internal and external to the organisation) is carried out using a

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

61

range of additional social network media communication channels.. Recentrecommendations to RIM professionals to manage Web 2.0 records have recognisedthe increasing importance of integrating RM for social media resources (Steve Bailey,2008; State Records Authority of New South Wales, 2009). Further, communication andcollaboration is made possible using diverse technologies and media. Mobileknowledge workers can work from anywhere and at any time to achieve their requiredoutcomes – and this expansiveness needs to be reflected in the records managementstrategy that is integrated into organisational practice.

User expectations of how they manage and access corporate informationWhile these technological developments have altered the way mobile workers receive,create, transmit, communicate, collaborate and access corporate information, they havealso changed knowledge workers’ expectations of how they might work and accesstheir organisation’s corporate resources, drawing on a range of applications andbusiness systems (Chiera, 2011).

The growth in portals, where a staff member can interact with various corporateinformation sources through a single user-access point illustrates the growing move tocreate user-driven and customisable platforms to manage work activities. This push isalso partly driven by the increasing tendency to work 24/7/365, thereby requiring openaccess to work tools such as the Microsoft Office suite of applications and othercorporate information systems. In effect, user expectations are guiding the ongoingdevelopment of information architecture that ensures they are satisfied with theirexperience and interactions with particular systems. This satisfaction can relate to theaesthetic design features of the systems, the ease with which the user understands howthe system works or the appropriateness of the system in serving the informationneeds of the user (Alben, 1996, p. 15).

In summary, knowledge workers want business solutions that are aligned to howthey work, so that their daily work experience is made easy, saves them time and effortand importantly does not frustrate their information seeking and work effectiveness.This is in line with the “Principle of Least Effort” (PLE) articulated by George Zipf in1949 and cited by Case (2005): users tend to use systems that require the least amountof effort. As technological advancements occur, corporate systems, including EDRMS,will need to parallel those innovations to keep employees committed to deploying theircapabilities. This issue is also reflected in the work of Bailey and Vidyarthi (2010,pp. 279, 87-8) who argue that future records management system designs need to takenote of human-computer interaction (HCI) design principles so that user needs arebetter supported. Interestingly, the concept of designing around user expectations hasbeen little explored in the professional literature to date.

Organisational expectationsSenior management in organisations may be aware of these technologicaldevelopments and the types of user experiences their employees are seeking.However, these drivers need to be balanced against organisational responsibilities toadhere to and comply with standards and legislative requirements; be accountable; andbe able to demonstrate transparency of business operations and decision making.

Organisations need to manage their electronic information content to protectthemselves against costly e-discovery litigation processes (Kahn and Silverberg, 2008;

RMJ22,1

62

Nelson and Simek, 2009; Swartz, 2009; Unger, 2007). Penalties or high litigation processcosts have been incurred on various counts: for not having good recordkeepingpractices (Coleman Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co.) (Dirking and Kodali, 2008,p. 57); for prematurely destroying evidence during litigation (Applied Telematics v.Sprint) (Kahn and Silverberg, 2008, p. 52); and for not implementing or adhering toretention and disposition programs (Murphy Oil v. Fluor Daniel) (Kahn and Silverberg,2008, p. 52). Courts were favourable when organisations proved they had destroyed therequired records in compliance with the organisation’s retention schedules (Moore v.General Motors) (Kahn and Silverberg, 2008, pp. 50-1). Court cases or e-discoverylitigation concerning malpractice or mismanagement of corporate information byprivate and government organisations[2] have led to government and industryregulations and legislation[3] which pressure organisations to become disciplinedabout their electronic documents and records management practices (Miller, 2006,p. 40). With e-discovery and Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation failing todifferentiate between documents and records, it is clear that records managers wouldbenefit from a reconsideration of their traditional distinction of the two.

Legislation such as the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposes compliance not only oncompanies[4] but on individual executives, who can be exposed to serious penaltiesincluding jail sentences if they fail to put the right measures in place (Harvey, 2003;United States Congress, 2003b). The Gartner Group estimates that the Fortune 1000companies have each spent about US$2 million to bring themselves into line with theSarbanes-Oxley Act: about 20 per cent of that expenditure went on software, butemployee time on email is still mismanaged (Harvey, 2003). In spite of theseinvestments, knowledge workers are failing to find efficient ways of searching foremails and documents, thereby affecting an organisation’s efficient running of its corebusiness.

It is clear that the traditional RM approach has not achieved the organisationaloutcomes and widespread engagement by users that were initially intended.

Implications for the implementation of ISO 15489’s records managementprinciplesThese drivers in technology, user and organisational expectations have shiftedrecordkeeping responsibilities from records managers to individual knowledgeworkers who are generally unskilled in records management practices. There has beena marked shift in the focus of the records manager’s role from opening and registeringincoming and outgoing correspondence to strategic roles targeted on governance;training; quality assurance and auditing records management practices. Bailey andVidyarthi (2010) highlight the need to redefine the role of the records managers asknowledge workers become more active contributors to the records managementprocess:

It is simply implausible for the records manager to seek to directly influence the creation andmanagement of each and every record created by so many people engaged in so manybusiness processes. Instead, he or she must work “by extension”: to define the systems,processes and rules and by doing so to create the environment and provide the tools by whichhundreds or even thousands of record creators and users can then appropriately manage suchrecords themselves (p. 280).

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

63

However, the risk in this devolution of role is that users will not be as committed toensuring compliance when record management practices are enacted. Given thesetechnological trends and the shifts in recordkeeping responsibilities, there is a need forRIM professionals to review how some of the RM principles are best undertaken formanaging the twenty-first century organisation’s information.

Re-thinking records management concepts and toolsISO 15489 offers eight records management principles that guide professional practice:

(1) Policies.

(2) Procedures.

(3) Metadata standards.

(4) Classification schemes and thesauri.

(5) Retention and disposition schedules.

(6) Security permissions.

(7) Training.

(8) Monitoring and auditing.

However, these principles were designed for managing paper based and electronicrecords in the pre-Web 2.0 era, when organisational control of records wassubstantially overseen by trained RIM professionals. Although, all of these principlesremain appropriate, we argue that a review of how they might be implemented istimely in this changed context. In reviewing the impact of the previously discussedparadigm shifts, it is evident that four of the principles are particularly affected bythese emerging influences. These are discussed next.

Classification schemesISO 15489 defines classification as a:

systematic identification and arrangement of business activities and/or records intocategories according to logically structured conventions, methods, and procedural rulesrepresented in a classification system (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001a,p. 2).

A number of researchers (Calabria, 2004; Foscarini, 2009; Gunnlaugsdottir, 2006;Joseph, 2010b) have identified knowledge workers’ difficulty in understanding andapplying classification schemes implemented by records managers. Given theparadigm shifts in recordkeeping responsibilities to knowledge workers, assigningclassification schemes to the information they create and receive is one of the importantrecords management task knowledge workers need to perform. However, EDRMSparticipants in Joseph’s (2010b) research pointed out their difficulty in assigningclassifications to register as well as search for information stored in their EDRMS. Thedifficulties participants reported included the scheme not being intuitive and/or userfriendly; a lack of understanding of how the scheme worked; and poor user trainingand awareness of the scheme (Joseph, 2010b, pp. 275-6). There is a need to simplifyclassification schemes, develop user friendly classification schemes (pp. 284-6), and tobetter train users on the scheme’s structure and application ( Joseph, 2010b, pp. 275-6).

RMJ22,1

64

Auto classification possibilitiesAnother challenge for records managers concerns providing alternatives to traditionalclassification approaches, so that user-based errors and omissions pose less risk to theRM process. There are a number of new options to minimise the complexity ofclassification to ensure more effective record categorisation in the EDRMS. Automatedclassification technologies are designed to reduce human intervention and error, avoidmisclassification and ensure accurate and consistent classification to improve searchand retrieval from the information repositories. Instead of manually classifyinginformation in the EDRMS, it may be preferable to use these applications to undertakethe indexing or classification functions that would otherwise need to be carried out byusers.

Current developments in heuristics technology enable automatic capture of staticmetadata from structured documents and records into EDRMS, using speciallydeveloped common document templates. It is possible, using these heuristic or artificialintelligence technologies, to automate the accurate entry of metadata fields such asinvoice number, date of invoice or name of supplier, to register incoming records intothe EDRMS (Woodward, 2009). These technologies enable the automatic classificationof common record types such as forms and invoices. There are a number of vendorswho provide software with heuristic functionalities and offer integration services toEDRM systems (see, for example (Kofax Incorporated, 2011).

Although, heuristic technology would improve automatic classification and datacapture of structured information into the EDRMS, its ability to perform the same forunstructured information is yet to be seen. Rules based search engines offer thecapacity to automate the classification process as new business process work flows arecreated in the EDRMS. This option offers useful support for the classification ofunstructured and structured information.

Thus, auto classification technologies offer a possible approach to ensure theorganisation’s information is well managed.

Folksonomies versus taxonomies and the semantic webIn emerging web based EDRMS implementations it is possible for users to insert theirown tag clouds to label the content they create, receive, and/or use for collaboration.The tag cloud functionality provides users with the opportunity to intuitively assignclassification to content in their preferred way, in contrast to working with corporateclassification schemes imposed on them. This method, labelled as folksonomies(Serewicz, 2010, p. 174), offers both promise and risk. The effectiveness of folksonomiesfor search and retrieval of corporate information in organisational settings has not yetbeen researched. Quattrone et al. (2011), for example, caution that:

as tags are informally defined, continually changing, and ungoverned, social tagging hasoften been criticised for lowering, rather than increasing, the efficiency of searching, due tothe number of synonyms, homonyms, polysemy, as well as the heterogeneity of users and thenoise they introduce (p. 1).

Search engine technology has constantly been improving from humble beginnings thatoffered Boolean logic searching, to free text searching, then to context based searchingand with functionalities that enable saving and logging users’ search histories. Now,with the semantic web architecture whereby electronic information is presented inmachine-readable formats so that it can be linked and searched with other web content,

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

65

the power of “semantic search engines” has increased. This is because the informationon web sites is presented in smarter, marked up language instead of plain html,making it easier for meaning to be derived from each site. A good example is the FOAF– Friend of a Friend – machine readable ontology which is used extensively acrosssocial network sites. This is because the semantic web now understands meaningsbehind the web page. Serewicz (2010) states that “the semantic web draws on the dataand information whose meaning is the basis for establishing the interoperabilitybetween systems” (p. 174). The progress in semantic web technology and in particular,linked data, has enabled search engine technologies to evolve to become semanticsearch engines, similar to the “linked data” technology used by Amazon.com andFacebook sites. The Amazon site for example, learns about users’ buying preferences,suggests items of interest to users to purchase and informs them about other productsthat were also purchased by buyers of the same product as Facebook, eBay and manyother sites employ similar approaches.

From observations in development trends with the semantic web, linked data andsearch engine functionalities, these technologies have the potential to create RMsystems that learn about users’ classification and search preferences and suggestfrequently used classification terms for their registration, search and retrieval optionsof corporate information in web based corporate information applications.

The various classification innovations that are now possible highlight the need toreview the mechanisms being used in records management. Tag clouds, folksonomiesand the semantic web illustrate the increasing power that knowledge workers possessto classify and subsequently search and retrieve critical corporate information. The2009 Cohasset survey reflects this sense of a new direction: 66 per cent of the recordsmanagers surveyed believed that with developments in search technologies, a friendlymethod to classify information would be an aggregated or “big bucket” approach(Williams and Ashley, 2009, p. 25).

MetadataMetadata is best described in an RM context as “data describing context, content andstructure of records and their management through time” (International Organisationfor Standardisation, 2001a, p. 3). It has been also simplistically described as “dataabout data” (Reed, 2003, p. 19), as metadata is structured information that describes thecharacteristics of digital and non-digital information resources ( Jones and Skelton,2008, p. 83). Examples of record metadata properties include author, document orrecord title, date of creation, classification scheme terms and record number.Recordkeeping metadata provide labels to electronic documents and records registeredand managed in business systems, like a label on a can of food describing its contents,ingredients and expiry date ( Jones and Skelton, 2008, p. 84).

A primary purpose of metadata is to enable information search and retrieval. Forinformation discovery, metadata comprise the particular set of elements that containthe data necessary for the effective retrieval of information. Metadata are alsoimportant in the management of the complete lifecycle of records registered in forexample the EDRMS as they bind each record to the “context of its creator and thebusiness activity that creates it” ( Jones and Skelton, 2008, p. 82). Further, metadata areimportant to the management of electronic records as they ensure the “authenticity,reliability, integrity, and usability of a document as a record” (Chester, 2006, p. 12).

RMJ22,1

66

The ISO 23081: Metadata for Records (Parts 1 and 2) (International Organisationfor Standardisation, 2006, 2007) is an extension of the RM standard ISO 15489. It isintended both as a guide and framework to understand, implement and use metadatawithin the framework of ISO 15489. Its scope is to assist in understanding metadatafrom an RM and archival perspective. ISO 23081 does not define a mandatory set ofRM metadata to be implemented, since these metadata differ in detail according toorganisational or specific requirements for jurisdiction. However, it does assesswhether the main existing metadata sets are in line with the requirements of ISO 15489.ISO 23081 identifies two forms of recordkeeping metadata:

(1) The point of capture metadata[5].

(2) The recordkeeping process metadata[6] (International Organisation forStandardisation, 2006, 2007; Jones and Skelton, 2008, p. 84).

Metadata is and will continue to play an important role in the increasingly electronicinformation centric world. The semantic web relies on embedded metadata inelectronic file formats like.docx and.xml to convert content into machine-readableformats which then enables electronic information to become linked data. It ismetadata that enables the semantic search engines to study users’ information seekingbehaviours and information preference patterns so that proposals for existinginformation and resources on the web could be drawn to users attention. Currently,terms from the corporate classification scheme are not automatically captured asmetadata in the.docx and.xml file formats, although these file formats are embeddedwith metadata that describes the format of the container and how it is presented. Thereis a need to explore how classification and other helpful metadata could beautomatically captured in these file formats, particularly as user records expand inform and function.

In summary, the continued growth of post Web 2.0 electronic informationemphasises the continued importance of capturing comprehensive and accuratemetadata. To protect the integrity of the EDRMS, reducing the reliance on usersassigning metadata to information they create, receive and collaborate with, will becritical. Desirably this recordkeeping task needs to be simplified and automated wherepossible. This is achievable by implementing controlled metadata pick lists in EDRMSand integrating automated indexing strategies highlighted earlier.

Retention and disposition schedules (RDS)ISO15489 states that records need to be assigned a retention period “based on anassessment of the regulatory environment, business and accountability requirementsand the risk” to the organisation (International Organisation for Standardisation,2001b, p. 11), the rationale for selecting a retention and disposal strategy is stated inSection 4.2.4.3 (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001b, pp. 11-12).

Currently, retention and disposition schedules implemented have various retentionperiods assigned to different types of records held in the organisation. In general,legislation states how long a specific record needs to be retained. It is challenging toimplement such varied retention periods if the “big bucket” approach to classificationis implemented. A further complexity is the linkage of existing classification schemesto retention schedules. If the use of alternative classification processes is adopted, theretention strategy will also need decoupling as there may not be a clear relationship

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

67

between classification elements and the assignment of retention periods or the flaggingof records with archival value. Therefore, it is time to rethink how retention anddisposition periods are conceived and implemented and perhaps to consideraggregating to common retention classes and fewer retention periods of five, ten, 15,20 years. For example, records that must be retained for at least two years, or threeyears, and five years could all be grouped in the “five year” retention period.

The National Archives of Australia (NAA) has adopted this approach of mergingseveral record classes with similar retention periods to form one record class with anequal or longer retention period. The Administrative Functional Disposal Authority(AFDA) (National Archives of Australia, 2010a) has 1,068 general retention classes butthe streamlined version referred to as AFDA Express (National Archives of Australia,2010b) has only 89 retention classes.

Implementation of RDS still remains an issue, as evidenced in US organisations.Although 88 per cent of the RM professionals in the 2009 Cohasset survey reportedtheir organisation had a retention schedule, only 65 per cent stated their retention ofelectronic records was included in their schedule (Williams and Ashley, 2009, pp. 22-3).Furthermore, approximately 78 per cent reported they had not implemented retentionpractices for emerging sources of Web 2.0 records like blogs, web pages and instantmessages (Williams and Ashley, 2009, p. 8).

The changing technologies, use and organisational expectations are challengingtraditional RDS strategies, thereby recommending the need for careful review toidentify suitable approaches that ensure compliance and business risk are addressed.

Security and access to recordsAgain, ISO 15489 states that “organisations should have formal guidelines regulatingwho is permitted access to records and in what circumstances” (InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, 2001a, p. 14). This advice is important especially inregards to the management of electronic information that is vulnerable to computerhacking or possible security breaches of corporate information.

Currently, some organisations have implemented tight security models in EDRMSusing a combination of user groups, caveats and classification levels ( Joseph, 2010b,pp. 183-5). First, the combination of these elements makes the security model complex.Second, it is time consuming to manage and maintain accurately these security settingsas staff leave, get transferred or move to other projects. Third, users do not understandhow this complex information security models work. Currently, records staff areresponsible in most organisations for creating new folders and assigning securitylevels to these folders in the EDRMS for their users. However, as recordkeepingresponsibilities are transferred to users, assigning and maintaining such complexsecurity models will become more difficult for them to understand and potentiallyimpossible to manage.

Given that knowledge workers are likely to be assigning security permissions toinformation they register in electronic records management systems, it is time tosimplify security models. Perhaps records managers could consider implementingsecurity models that generally provide knowledge workers access to informationacross departments, but restricts information related to areas concerning privacy,personnel, commercial and/or operationally sensitive information (InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, 2001a, p. 14). Or this could remain a records

RMJ22,1

68

management responsibility that is not delegated to users until better solutions areidentified and tested.

Conclusion – implications for RIM professionals implementing ISO 15489in twenty-first century organisationsThis paper argues that ISO 15489 was written for RIM professionals in their role asprincipal record-keepers primarily to manage paper based and electronic recordspre-Web 2.0. However, it also recognises that individual users are required to supportthe records management process as stakeholders as they have “a duty to create andmaintain records” (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001a, p. 1). Weargue that it is this shift in ownership and practice that necessitates the review of thefour highlighted RM principles. We have argued there are several key areas that needto be reviewed by the profession to successfully implement ISO 15489.

First, RIM professionals need to decide whether to continue to only manage“records” or widen the mandate to more fully manage corporate “information”. Second,the profession needs to better understand user expectations and capabilities, offeringsimple records management tools that are user, not system, focused. Third, RIMprofessionals need to be proactive in harnessing technology to automate recordkeepingprocesses, so that they more readily support knowledge practices. Fourth, it is time toreview organisational expectations of records management and its purpose to ensurethe service reflects the long term strategic information needs of organisations to beaccountable, transparent and compliant. Fifth, the complex link between systemdevelopment and user practice, acceptance and adoption needs to be better understoodand reflected. Finally, there needs to be considerable debate over the role of the RIMprofessionals and knowledge workers in ensuring records are effectively managed inthis new world. Devolution to users without understanding the implications of thesedecisions may be placing organisational systems at considerable risk.

We acknowledge that an information culture (Oliver et al., 2010, p. 44) that isembedded in the organisation is just as crucial for successful paradigm shifts inrecordkeeping responsibilities. This raises the need to explore how organisationalmembers can build better ownership and support for integration of RM practices.Perhaps it is time to include recordkeeping responsibilities in the twenty-first century’sknowledge workers’ job description to recognise these growing roles.

The discussed paradigm shifts in technologies, organisational and userexpectations highlight the need for RIM professionals to simplify and rethink theimplementation of RM principles. In particular, how the principles relating toclassification, retention, metadata and information security are being implemented arestrongly challenged by the post Web 2.0 and EDRMS environment.

These paradigm shifts also flag the need to educate and guide RIM professionals ininformation governance and to explore their imperative roles as auditors, qualitycontrollers, trainers and change managers.

In summary, ISO 15489 defines RM and its core principles and practices and offersflexibility in how it is implemented internationally across jurisdictions and industrytypes. As HofmAn (2006) points out, RIM professionals working with the standardneed to be aware that “one size does not fit all”, and complementary standards andguidance publications need to be consulted when working with ISO 15489. It is clearthat many contemporary trends are absent from this important source ISO15489 (Part

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

69

2) (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001b). The growing globalcommunity of users would benefit from an enhanced set of international guidelinesfrom the International Standards Organisation (ISO) that recognise and explore thegrowing complexity of the profession and its functions. The recent development of acomplementary ISO 30300 (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2011a, b)series of standards highlights the efforts of the professional community to addressthese challenges. It may also serve to encourage robust debate regarding the impact ofthese emerging paradigm shifts.

Notes

1. An EDRMS is defined as an automated, electronic document and records managementsystem that enables organisations to manage semi-structured and unstructured informationcaptured in paper and electronic formats ( Joseph, 2010b, p. 31). It also includes ISO 15489’sdefinition of a records system: an “information system which captures, manages andprovides access to records through time”. EDRMS have functionalities that preserve thecontent and context of records thereby ensuring the authenticity and evidentiary value ofcorporate information stored in the EDRMS.

2. Such as Morgan Stanley (Leon, 2006), Enron and Arthur Andersen (Fowler and Flood, 2002;United States. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2002; UnitedStates Supreme Court, 2005), and Heiner Affair (Lindeberg, 2009).

3. Examples of these compliance drivers for organisations to manage their information in theform of legislation are: Freedom of Information Acts; the Privacy Acts in different countries;various states’ Records Acts in Australia (Government of South Australia, 1997;Government of Western Australia, 2000); Health Insurance Portability and AccountabilityAct (HIPAA) 1996 (United States Congress, 2003a); and Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2003 (UnitedStates Congress, 2003b).

4. Refers to companies listed in the US Stock Exchange in New York, including subsidiaries ofthese companies trading outside the US (United States Congress, 2003b).

5. Point of capture metadata “contain information about the context of the record’s creation,including the business context driving the creation of the record and the agents or peopleinvolved in the action, as well as information about the content, structure and technicalattributes of the record itself” ( Jones and Skelton, 2008, p. 84).

6. Recordkeeping process metadata capture the processes about managing records such as thealterations, linkages, and uses of the record tracked over time as the record progressesthrough its record continuum lifecycle processes ( Jones and Skelton, 2008, p. 84). Thus,recordkeeping process metadata ensure the integrity and authenticity of the record, as anymodifications to the record are authoritatively documented over time” ( Jones and Skelton,2008, p. 84).

References

Alben, L. (1996), “Quality of experience”, Interactions, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 11-15.

Alexander-Gooding, S. and Black, S.S. (2005), “A national response to ISO 15489: a case study ofthe Jamaican experience”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 62-6.

An, X. (2006), “RIM in China: a critique”, Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 28-31.

An, X. and Jiao, H. (2004), “Assessing records management in China against ISO 15489 and theimplications”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-9.

RMJ22,1

70

Archives New Zealand (2006), “Fact sheet: ISO 15489”, available at: http://archives.govt.nz/(accessed 10 January 2008).

Bailey, S. (2008), Managing the Crowd: Rethinking Records Management for the Web 2.0 World,Facet Publishing, London.

Bailey, S. and Vidyarthi, J. (2010), “Human-computer interaction: the missing piece of the recordsmanagement puzzle?”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 279-90.

Barry, R.E. (1993), “Addressing electronic records management in the World Bank”, inHedstrom, M. (Ed.), Electronic Records Management Program Strategies, Archives andMuseum Informatics, Pittsburgh, PA.

Bell, T., Shegda, K.M., Gilbert, M.K. and Chin, K. (2010), “Magic quadrant for enterprise contentmanagement”, available at: http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open¼512&objID¼260&mode¼2&PageID¼3460702&resId¼1470317&ref¼QuickSearch&content¼html(accessed 28 June 2011).

Calabria, T. (2004), “Case study: evaluating Caloundra City Council’s EDMS classification”,available at: www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_caloundracouncil/index.html (accessedOctober 2007).

Case, D.O. (2005), “Principle of least effort”, in Fisher, K.E., Erdekez, S. and McKechnie, L.E.F.(Eds), Theories of Information Behavior, American Society for Information Science andTechnology (ASIS&T), Silver Spring, MD, pp. 289-92.

Chester, B. (2006), “Metadata”, AIIM E – Doc Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 5, p. 12.

Chiera, D. (2011), ECM for everyone: How Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010 Delivers on thePromise, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

Cumming, K. (2002), “Two peas in a pod: comparison of ISO 15489 and AS 4390”, InformaaQuarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-13.

Debowski, S. (2006), Knowledge management, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Brisbane.

Dherent, C. (2006), “Document management at the French National Library”, RecordsManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 97-101.

Dirking, B. and Kodali, R.R. (2008), “Strategies for preparing for e-discovery”, InformationManagement Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 56-61.

Ellis, J. and Bustelo, C. (2010), “New draft International Records Management Standards – ISO30300 and 30301 [[email protected]]”, June 18,available at: http://lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2¼ind1006C&L¼RECMGMT-L&P¼R995(accessed 21 January, 2012).

Everingham, A. (2011), “Managing online engagements efficiently”, paper presented at theinForum 2011, available at: http://members.rimpa.com.au/lib/StaticContent/StaticPages/pubs/nat/inForum2011/Everingham.pdf.

Foscarini, F. (2009), “Function-based records classification systems: an exploratory study ofrecords management practices in central banks”, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, unpublished electronic thesis or dissertation.

Fowler, T. and Flood, M. (2002), “Arthur Andersen gets the maximum sentence”, available at:www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/andersen/1619985.html (accessed 10 October2009).

Government of South Australia (1997), “State Records Act 1997”, available at: www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/STATE%20RECORDS%20ACT%201997.aspx (accessed 16 January2005).

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

71

Government of Western Australia (2000), “State Records Act 2000”, available at: www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/be0189448e381736482567bd0008c67c/3988e10065ed24a948256a5d0004cf94?OpenDocument (accessed 13 November 2007).

Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2006), “The implementation and use of ERMS: a study in Icelandicorganisations”, PhD thesis, University of Tampere, Tampere, FL.

Harvey, F. (2003), “Software lends a helping hand to compliance. Fiona Harvey looks at the roleof information technology in ensuring that corporate governance are met”, FinancialTimes, 5 September, p. 5, survey edition, available at: http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/pqdweb?did¼547793271&sid¼7&Fmt¼3&clientId¼20923&RQT¼309&VName¼PQD.

Healy, S. (2010), “ISO 15489 records management: its development and significance”, RecordsManagement Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 96-103.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2001a), ISO 15489-1: Information andDocumentation – Records Management – Part 1 – General, International Organisationfor Standardisation, Geneva.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2001b), ISO 15489-2: Information andDocumentation – Records Management – Part 2 – Guidelines, InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2006), ISO 23081-1: Information andDocumentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records – Part 1:Principles, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2007), ISO 23081-2: Information andDocumentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records – Part 2:Conceptual and Implementation Issues, International Organisation for Standardisation,Geneva.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2011a), ISO 30300: Information andDocumentation, Management Systems for Records – Fundamentals and Vocabulary,International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

International Organisation for Standardisation (2011b), ISO 30301: Information andDocumentation, Management Systems for Records – Requirements, InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

Jones, K. and Skelton, K. (2008), “An exploration of metadata implementations: EDRMS andbeyond”, in Pember, M. and Cowan, A.C. (Eds), Electronic Document and RecordsManagement in Australasia, Records Management Association of Australasia, Perth,pp. 81-102.

Joseph, P. (2009), “Barriers to information seeking in EDRMS: an empirical study – part 1”,Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 38-42.

Joseph, P. (2010a), “Barriers to information seeking in EDRMS: an empirical study – part 2”,Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38-40.

Joseph, P. (2010b), “EDRMS search behaviour: implications for records management principlesand practices”, PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Kahn, R.A. and Silverberg, D.J. (2008), “Eight steps for keeping information management ande-discovery on target”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 48-54.

Kofax Incorporated (2011), “Home page of Kofax Incorporated”, available at: www.kofax.com/about.asp (accessed 1 July 2011).

Leon (2006), “Morgan Stanley’s email woes continue”, December 20, available at: www.soxfirst.com/50226711/morgan_stanleys_email_woes_continue.php (accessed 5 April 2010).

RMJ22,1

72

Lindeberg, K. (2009), “Where best practice recordkeeping ends, corruption begins: the Heineraffair”, in Pember, M. and Cowan, A.C. (Eds), iRMA Information and RecordsManagement Annual 2009, Records Management Association of Australasia, Perth,pp. 61-83.

Livelton, T. (1996), Archival Theory, Records and the Public, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.

McLeod, J. and Childs, S. (2007), “Consulting records management oracles – a Delphi in practice”,Archival Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 147-66.

Miller, R. (2006), “Get a grip: strategies and insights for managing electronic records”, EContent,Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 38-43.

National Archives of Australia (2001), “Designing and implementing recordkeeping systems(DIRKS) manual”, available at: www.naa.gov.au/records-management/publications/dirks-manual.aspx (accessed 15 January 2012).

National Archives of Australia (2010a), “Administrative Functions Disposal Authority (AFDA),a records authority for administrative functions linked to keyword AAA: a thesaurus ofgeneral terms modified for Commonwealth use”, available at: www.naa.gov.au/Images/AFDA%202010%20-%20Version%20published%20November%202010_tcm16-44429.PDF

National Archives of Australia (2010b), “General records authority: AFDA express”, available at:www.naa.gov.au/Images/AFDA%20Express_tcm16-47393.pdf

Nelson, S.D. and Simek, J. (2009), “Technology tips for cutting e-discovery costs”, InformationManagement Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 6-9.

Oliver, G., Evans, J., Reed, B. and Upward, F. (2010), “Achieving the right balance: recordkeepinginformatics – part 2”, Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 42-5-52.

Peterson, T.H. (1991), “An archival bestiary”, American Archivist, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 192-205.

Quattrone, G., Ferrara, E., De Meo, P. and Capra, L. (2011), “Measuring similarity in large-scalefolksonomies”, paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on SoftwareEngineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2011).

Reed, B. (2003), “Recordkeeping in business systems”, Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 18-22.

Serewicz, L.W. (2010), “Do we need bigger buckets or better search engines? The challenge ofunlimited storage and semantic web search for records management”, RecordsManagement Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 172-81.

State Records Authority of New South Wales (2009), “Guideline No. 24: records management andWeb 2.0”, available at: www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/government-recordkeeping-manual/guidance/guidelines/Guideline-24-Records-management-and-web-2.0/Records-management-and-web-2.0 (accessed 2 April 2009).

State Records Commission of Western Australia (2002), “SRC standard 1: governmentrecordkeeping”, available at: www.sro.wa.gov.au/pdfs/src-standard1.pdf (accessed14 January 2008).

Steemson, M. (1999), “The international records management standard ISO 15489: you’re gonnaneed it – so remember it!”, Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 10-13.

Steemson, M. (2002), “ISO 15489 set it to music: you’re gonna need it!”, Informaa Quarterly,Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-8.

Steemson, M. (2005), “ISO 15489: the global din grows louder”, Informaa Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 44-5.

Swartz, N. (2009), “New rules for e-discovery”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 6,pp. 22-6.

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

73

Tough, A. (2004), “Records management standards and the good governance agenda inCommonwealth Africa”, Archives and Manuscripts, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 142-61.

Unger, K. (2007), “10 critical decisions for successful e-discovery”, Information ManagementJournal, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 70-3.

United States Congress (2003a), “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)1996”, available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/HIPAALaw.pdf(accessed 15 June 2008).

United States Congress (2003b), “Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”, available at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/sarbanesoxley072302.pdf (accessed 15January 2005).

United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (2002),“Destruction of Enron-related documents by Andersen personnel: hearing before theSubcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy andCommerce House of Representatives”, available at: www.ethicsinstitute.com/pdf/Enron%20congressional%20hearings.pdf

United States Supreme Court (2005), “Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States”, available at: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html (accessed 10 October 2009).

Weinstein, A. (2005), “NARA enter new ‘era’ of electronic records management”, Information andManagement, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 22-4.

White-Dollmann, M.M. (2004), “ISO 15489: a tool for records management in mergers”,Information Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 39-44.

Willemin, G. (2006), “The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) official e-mail system:an example of records management”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 82-90.

Williams, R.F. and Ashley, L.H. (2009), “Call for sustainable capabilities”, Electronic RecordsManagement Survey, Cohasset Associates, Inc. and ARMA, Chicago, IL.

Woodward, A. (2009), “Managing records in the 21st century using automatic capture andclassification”, paper presented at the RMAA 26th International Convention, September20-23, Adelaide.

Yeo, G. (2011), “Rising to the level of a record? Some thoughts on records and documents”,Records Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 8-27.

About the authorsPauline Joseph (PhD) is a Lecturer in Records and Archives Management at the Department ofInformation Studies at Curtin University. Pauline completed her PhD at the University ofWestern Australia in 2011. Her PhD research is titled “EDRMS search behaviour: implicationsfor records management practices”. This study investigates the efficacy of electronic documentrecord management systems (EDRMS) in enabling effective capture and dissemination ofcorporate information. The thesis examines the degree to which these systems are designed inaccordance with the records management principles outlined in ISO 15489 and support theeffective retrieval of records by knowledge workers. Pauline’s research interests are in the areasof design and implementation of EDRMS, information-seeking behaviour of knowledge workers,training and education of RIM services and programs for both knowledge workers and for theRIM profession. Recently, SharePoint 2010 has been added to the list, too. Pauline Joseph is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Shelda Debowski (PhD) is Winthrop Professor of Higher Education Development at theUniversity of Western Australia. She has published extensively in the field of knowledgemanagement and user behaviour in information search contexts. Her current role includes

RMJ22,1

74

oversight of organizational change and capacity building initiatives for the university. She has along-standing interest in the information sector, having initially worked as a librarian andinformation science educator for many years.

Peter Goldschmidt (PhD) is a Professor in Information Management at the University ofWestern Australia Business School. He is currently working in the areas of knowledgemanagement, decision support, agent technology, and artificial intelligence applied to business,compliance infrastructure and asset management work flow decision support. Since completinghis PhD, Peter has investigated and proposed new approaches to support compliance monitoringfor anomaly detection (CMAD) in complex environments. Since then, Peter has extended thisresearch from compliance monitoring of stock exchange transactions (stock market surveillancefor compliance) to areas such as the energy and petroleum industry; asset management inengineering; aerospace and defence.

Paradigm shiftsin recordkeeping

responsibilities

75

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints