Editorial

Citation

McLeod, J. (2009), "Editorial", Records Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj.2009.28119baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Records Management Journal, Volume 19, Issue 2

The nexus between this issue and the previous one begins with the opinion piece. Steve Bailey provides it and the focus – automated records management – builds on some of the ideas in his book, which was reviewed in the previous issue. The link continues with the article by Sue Gray and colleagues on lessons learned from implementing a managed learning environment in the UK health service – lessons that can be compared with those identified by Linda Wilkins and colleagues in the last issue in the context of implementing an EDRMS. And a third link comes in a second examination of MoReq2. In part these links are coincidental, in part perhaps they also reflect the issues of interest to records professionals and represent their current activities.

Those of us who have listened to Steve Bailey speak, have read his book or follow his blog will not be disappointed with his opinion piece. Yet again he cogently argues for new ways of tackling the challenge of managing electronic records in the dynamic, web world. Controversially for some perhaps he states “that in terms of our professional response, records management and electronic records management basically amount to one and the same thing, but it is as if by adding the preface ‘electronic’ to our language that this somehow makes us more in tune with these digital times – a cosmetic makeover without substance; a re-branding exercise that gave the appearance of progression but with little to justify the claim”. He then suggests we should look at well-known, widely used successful web-based organizations, such as Amazon and Google, and the IT industry in general, for inspiration and new approaches. This leads him to his conclusion that what we need is more automated management of electronic records, based on their characteristics and use, to take us forward. As always Steve’s views make me think and re-think – I hope they do the same for you and that you might be inspired to respond with your own opinion piece.

We normally only include one “viewpoint” style article per issue, featuring it as the opinion piece, but this issue includes a second article of this type. Ganesh Vednere takes a practical view to implementing records management technology using a fictitious scenario, no-doubt developed from his experiences as a consultant, that seems to offer that magical “silver-bullet solution” for the organisation’s information management challenge and has not involved their records manager. He sees IT system implementation as one of the “key hurdles” that any records management programme faces and exhorts that selecting and deploying the right tools are amongst the many questions that need careful thought prior to starting implementation. Realistically most records professionals are not going to have the final say or the casting vote on what IT systems are chosen – business needs should be the drivers for such decisions – but we must be at the table and make an input to the decision-making process, influencing thinking in innovative ways, thinking holistically about managing the corporate memory.

Sue Gray, Caroline Plaice and Sharon Hadley provide an interesting case study about a managed learning environment (MLE) in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) which contains good learning points about recordkeeping issues. The amount of training taking place in an NHS Trust with over 30,000 staff is significant, so the deployment of an MLE was seen as a way of enabling robust and accurate recording and reporting of training activities, which had previously been fragmented across different functions in their Trust. The authors outline the aims and aspirations for the MLE and then identify what worked well and what could have worked better. They conclude that the success of the MLE was largely dependent on the quality of the legacy data, the organisation’s ability to respond to changes in data collection and processing, and the ability of their system supplier to work with them. Given that “blended learning” (ie the use of e-learning as well as traditional face-to-face learning) is gaining in popularity, at least in the UK, planning and implementing systems that can “accurately reflect training needs and achievements is vital, yet the reality is that these systems often rely at the outset on poor legacy data”, so the authors’ experience and lessons learned should be useful to others in similar positions.

In the last issue Pekka Henttonen compared the metadata and functional requirements defined in MoReq2 with those in SÄHKE, the Finnish national specification, revealing major differences between the two specifications that are a result of their different backgrounds and purposes. In this issue Philipp Wilhelm, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, expands on this by evaluating it in the context of national EDRMS standard developments in the UK and in Europe. His article is based on his own qualitative research which included interviews with 18 key stakeholders across Europe, and reveals a wide range of opinions on national and European standards and reactions to MoReq2. With limited research of this type on EDRMS standards it will be interesting for practitioners wanting to know what, if any, standards they should follow and for researchers will provide a starting point for more research on the use of standards. It is particularly good that the interviewees agreed to have their identities revealed.

The final article from Aliza Ismail and Adnan Jamaludin at the MARA University of Technology, Malaysia is also based on their own research. They attempt to establish a framework for managing trusted records in the electronic environment by first collating the criteria required to manage trusted electronic records from a review of the literature and best practice and then testing these by seeking the opinions of experts through a survey. The same number of experts (18) as in Philipp’s study participated – this must be coincidence as I am sure there is nothing magical about the number – but they came from around the world rather than only Europe. The authors’ findings show unanimous agreement with the five main sets of criteria presented to them (namely governance, recordkeeping, archival, technological, skills and competency) as an audit list providing a trusted environment for managing records in electronic environment. Indeed it would be difficult to argue against this set.

The issue would not be complete with reviews of new resources. The selection in this issue reflects the wide variety of publications of potential relevance to our profession. They include books on digital images, for anyone engaged in creating, managing and distributing digital images, on digital consumers, which explores the make up, behaviour and psychology of the e-consumer, and on the cultural and theoretical perspectives of archives, based on presentations delivered at the Society of Archivists’ Annual Conference 2006. Also included is a review of the final report into digital preservation policies in third level universities and colleges in the UK commissioned and funded by the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) and BS 10008:2008, the latest version of the British Standard on the evidential weight and legal admissibility of electronic information. Thank you as always to all of the reviewers for their careful and well-balanced assessments.

The spring and Easter are approaching but by the time you read this issue the summer (in the northern hemisphere at least) will be in full flow. Enjoy reading the issue, at home, work or perhaps even en vacances!

Julie McLeodNorthumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK