The UK National Archives (TNA) used to
be the main champion and driving force behind EDRM (Electronic Document and Records Management). In 1999 they
issued a specification that defined the key features of EDRM systems
as we know them, systems that:
TNA instituted a testing regime and approved those EDRM systems that met their standard. In the years after 1999 whenever a UK Government Department needed a corporate document management system they routinely specified that it must be TNA approved.
In 2005 the National Archives ceased testing new systems against theirtandard. One of the reasons for that they ceased testing was their preception that it led to an over focus on the technology. Just because an organisation implemented software that complied with TNA standards did not automatically mean that a couple of years later it would be churning out robust and reliable electronic records. So much depended on the configuration of the system, how it interacted with other systems on their IT estate, the quality of the fileplan and how (or whether!) users adopted it.
Not only have the National Archives now eased testing EDRM systems, they have also started adopting a distinctly neutral tone when talking about EDRM. Although they succesfully use an EDRM system (Objective) themselves in their own office, their official stance is that EDRM is one possible solution, that works for some organisations in some circumstances.
In 2007 Roger Smethurst, then Head of Information and Records Management at DEFRA, decided to pull the plug on DEFRA's implementation of a TNA approved EDRM system. Instead he implemented SharePoint, a system not built on the EDRM model (out of the box it has no place to store a fileplan). DEFRA chose not to plug in an EDRM system behind SharePoint, instead they made customisations to SharePoint to put in as much records management functionality as they felt they needed. DEFRA's implementation is seen by some as a model of how to implement SharePoint as your main document and records repository.
Roger is a refreshingly straight talking person. His has made his views on EDRM clear in many presentations over the past couple of years: he thinks the problem with it is that it requires ordinary staff to think and act like records managers.
Roger Smethurst has just been appointed Head of Knowledge and Information Management for the Cabinet Office. The appointment brings Roger back in contact with EDRM, after ditching it at DEFRA. The Cabinet Office have recently finished rolling out an EDRM system to all of its staff. My mind flashes back to the 2nd TFPL SharePoint conference - Roger had just finished his presentation about DEFRA's SharePoint implementation. A member of the audience asked him what he missed about the EDRM system after DEFRA ceased using it. 'Nothing' replied Roger.
It is hard not to read into Roger's appointment further evidence of the TNA's cooling towards EDRM: Natalie Ceeney, Chief Executive of the National Archives, was on the interview panel.
James Lappin
hold a corporate fileplan
hold retention rules and access rules
allow record folders and the documents inside them to inherit retention and access permissions from their place in the fileplan
TNA instituted a testing regime and approved those EDRM systems that met their standard. In the years after 1999 whenever a UK Government Department needed a corporate document management system they routinely specified that it must be TNA approved.
In 2005 the National Archives ceased testing new systems against theirtandard. One of the reasons for that they ceased testing was their preception that it led to an over focus on the technology. Just because an organisation implemented software that complied with TNA standards did not automatically mean that a couple of years later it would be churning out robust and reliable electronic records. So much depended on the configuration of the system, how it interacted with other systems on their IT estate, the quality of the fileplan and how (or whether!) users adopted it.
Not only have the National Archives now eased testing EDRM systems, they have also started adopting a distinctly neutral tone when talking about EDRM. Although they succesfully use an EDRM system (Objective) themselves in their own office, their official stance is that EDRM is one possible solution, that works for some organisations in some circumstances.
In 2007 Roger Smethurst, then Head of Information and Records Management at DEFRA, decided to pull the plug on DEFRA's implementation of a TNA approved EDRM system. Instead he implemented SharePoint, a system not built on the EDRM model (out of the box it has no place to store a fileplan). DEFRA chose not to plug in an EDRM system behind SharePoint, instead they made customisations to SharePoint to put in as much records management functionality as they felt they needed. DEFRA's implementation is seen by some as a model of how to implement SharePoint as your main document and records repository.
Roger is a refreshingly straight talking person. His has made his views on EDRM clear in many presentations over the past couple of years: he thinks the problem with it is that it requires ordinary staff to think and act like records managers.
Roger Smethurst has just been appointed Head of Knowledge and Information Management for the Cabinet Office. The appointment brings Roger back in contact with EDRM, after ditching it at DEFRA. The Cabinet Office have recently finished rolling out an EDRM system to all of its staff. My mind flashes back to the 2nd TFPL SharePoint conference - Roger had just finished his presentation about DEFRA's SharePoint implementation. A member of the audience asked him what he missed about the EDRM system after DEFRA ceased using it. 'Nothing' replied Roger.
It is hard not to read into Roger's appointment further evidence of the TNA's cooling towards EDRM: Natalie Ceeney, Chief Executive of the National Archives, was on the interview panel.
James Lappin
The first version of this post contained a factual error: I had stated that the EDRM system that Roger had ceased implementing at DEFRA was the same product (Meridio) as the one that the Cabinet Office have finished rolling out. In fact DEFRA had piloted a different product. My apologies to Roger for this error.
Posted by: James Lappin | 04 November 2008 at 11:10
Given this post, it might be helpful if I explained The National Archives' position on EDRM?
It seems clear to me that, despite massive spend and huge energy on EDRM solutions, we haven't solved the issue of making sure we keep electronic records effectively. Why? Because I don't think we've been asking the right questions or have approached the challenges of e-records in the right way.
We believe that the first question to ask needs to be 'what do we need to keep?' and then, and only then 'so how do we keep it?'. If organisations did this systematically, most would probably find that some bits of their organisation create far more critical records (e.g. Procurement: legal contracts, CEO's Office: board minutes, HR: personnel records) than others. And they'd also identify a number of important records needing to be kept which were not on people's personal systems - e.g. discussions happening on intranets or wikis, or blog sites, or web announcements. And they'd probably also find huge swathes of their organisation which never create or use any of these records beyond their initial reading. We have to start here if we know what problem we're trying to solve.
Only when we've done this should we consider 'capture'. The problem with EDRM implementations is we've seen them as 'the solution' whereas, in reality, they are part of a jigsaw of solutions depending on what you're trying to keep. The solution to capturing the wikis and blogs might be web harvesting, allowing the discussion to continue freely. The solution to keeping records of contracts and associated negotiations might be to set up an automatic feed from the contracts team's shared drive into a secure repository. And for only some of the key records, and for some of the organisation, the answer might be an EDRM system. And even there, the 'answer' might be to use EDRM as a back office infrastructure component and not a front end interface, harvesting clearly identified information from email boxes or shared drives. And we may not need to pay for licenses for everyone if not everyone needs to use it.
And there is another key component here - our users. Records are rarely created by anyone other than as a by-product of their job. And the main beneficiary of records is usually the organisation, or others in the organisation, and not the creator. The problem with many EDRM implementations is that we've made the user do more work. And so that user has a choice - work more hours, or skip the filing. Unfortunately, most of us know that the latter tendency predominates. And this is a potential disaster for organisations whose reputation and financial stability depend upon good record keeping. We need to make record capture easy, and ideally invisible to the creator, whilst focusing the creator of records on the need to do their job, and record decisions, well. This will make their lives easier, and really help organisations in terms of risk and governance.
So, in summary, The National Archives does support 'EDRM'. But only as a tool for capture, not as 'the solution to e-records'. The priority for our community is to make sure that the key information created is kept for appropriate periods - for the sake of the long term of the organisations we support. Starting by asking about 'what needs to be kept' rather than about EDRM might take us far further forward to achieving this goal.
And finally, in response to comments above, I can assure anyone reading this that when interviewing people for senior roles, I am looking for a broad range of information management as well as influencing and wider engagement skills, and do not base my assessment on their position on EDRM technology!!
Posted by: Natalie Ceeney, Chief Executive , The National Archives | 03 November 2008 at 10:10