Author: Valued Gateway 2000 Customer
Last saved by: David Bearman

Electronic Records Research 1997: Resource Materials
Compilation Copyright, Archives & Museum Informatics 1998
Article Copyright, Author

Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research

Background Briefing on the State of 
Electronic Records Research and Implementations Across the World

by David A. Wallace
Archives & Museum Informatics
5501 Walnut St., Suite 203, Pittsburgh, PA 15232 USA

I. 	Introduction

II. 	Definitions of Electronic Records
	
a. 	The Issues
	
b. 	Previous Research And Implementations

	
III. 	Developing Policy Frameworks
	
a. 	The Issues
	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

IV. 	Record Creating Events

a. 	The Issues
	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

V. 	Capturing Records

a. 	The Issues
	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

VI. 	Maintaining and Using Records

a. 	The Issues
	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

VII. 	Conclusion
Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research

Background Briefing on the State of 
Electronic Records Research and Implementations Across the World

I. 	Introduction 

On May 29-31, 1997 an international meeting of 50 researchers will explore the state of current research on electronic records management in detail and analyze, discuss, and debate each others approaches. The objective of this meeting is to identify outstanding issues and promising approaches for managing electronic records, as well as surfacing issues that are currently not being investigated or require additional research. The ultimate goal of this working meeting is to develop a highly specific research agenda that can be used by researchers in all types of settings – universities, corporations, governments and others – to move the field forward in its ability to effectively capture, maintain, and use electronic records. As such, discussions will be framed in such a way that problem areas can be clarified and alternative programmatic approaches can be dissected in detail. Whenever possible, the attendees will seek to establish consensus on pressing electronic records management issues. 
	To help frame the context within which this working meeting will focus its intellectual and analytical efforts, the report which follows provides a brief synopsis of previous meetings on electronic records research. As such it tracks the evolution of archival and records management thought on how best to confront the challenges presented to recordkeeping by the computing environment. To facilitate the connections between commentaries and findings from previous meeting and this one, this report is structured to mirror the organizing framework of the May 29-31, 1997 working meeting. As such, it is composed of five discrete sections:

The previous meeting discussed in this draft are:
•	Working Meeting on Research Issues in Electronic Records. Sponsored by National Historical Publications and Records Commission. Held January 24-25,1991 in Washington, D.C.
•	Working Meeting on Electronic Records. Sponsored by Archives and Museum Informatics. Held April 8-10, 1994 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
•	Experts Meeting on the Functional Requirements for Evidence on Recordkeeping. Sponsored by the School of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh. Held February 1-2, 1996 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
•	Electronic Records Research and Development. Sponsored by the School of Information, University of Michigan and the Bentley Historical Library. Held June 28-29, 1996 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1. 	Definitions of Electronic Records
2. 	Developing Policy Frameworks
3. 	Record Creating Events
4. 	Capturing Records
5. 	Maintaining and Using Records

Each of these five sections will be analyzed along two major dimensions:

1. 	An explication of the research issues associated with each section’s subject, delineating why the subject is considered a problem in need of research.
	
2. 	An explication of the research and implementations related to the section’s subject as described in previous meetings on electronic records research, focusing on conclusions drawn and strategies deployed for managing electronic records. 

	The value of mapping previous research onto the structure of the May 29-31, 1997 meeting is that it will highlight the meeting’s assumptions as to what the key electronic records research issues are in relation to where previous research has tread. 
Notions of a research agenda for electronic records date to the early part of this decade, specifically to 1991. At that time Margaret Hedstrom pointed out the magnitude and depth of research that was needed to effectively confront, understand, and manage the accelerating computerization of society. In Hedstrom’s opinion, research into electronic recordkeeping would need to permeate all archival functions and its results were likely to challenge “basic archival theory and practice.” She complained that the dearth of useful past research resulted in an “absence of approaches and techniques” for managing the diversity of electronic records created within computing environments. This absence, she argued, was a “major obstacle to development and growth of electronic records programs.” To overcome these challenges she advocated a research agenda on electronic records that, among other things, would investigate: 
	
•	the relationship between “activities, organizational structures, information technology, information flows, decisionmaking, and documentation;”
	
•	new forms of documentary materials made possible by computers; 
	
•	how strategically influencing systems design and the introduction of systems into organizations could facilitate electronic recordkeeping; and
	
•	how digital storage technologies could reshape recordkeeping practices in areas such as custody, use, and dissemination. 

Margaret Hedstrom, “Understanding Electronic Incunabula: A Framework for Research on Electronic Records,” The American Archivist 54 (Summer 1991), pp. 335, 336, 344-351.

Also in 1991, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) convened a two day working meeting which sought to define a research agenda for electronic recordkeeping. The report which resulted from this meeting called for projects related to analysis, advocacy, action (e.g. program development), and research and development. The report suggested that research on electronic recordkeeping was needed to determine the functions that needed to be performed, who should perform them, and the data that need to be captured in order to satisfy archival requirements in the electronic realm. The report also called for research into existing systems in order to discern strategies and tactics for incorporating archival requirements into new systems. To hone in on the cornerstone challenges posed by electronic records for the archives and records management professions, the report advocated a ten item research agenda. The questions emanating from this research agenda came to serve as the foundation for NHPRC’s electronic records grant program:

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), pp. 6, 8-10, 15-16.

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), p. v.

1. 	What functions and data are required to manage electronic records in accord with archival requirements? Do data requirements and functions vary for different types of automated applications?
	
2. 	What are the technological, conceptual, and economic implications of capturing and retaining data, descriptive information, and contextual information in electronic form from a variety of applications?
	
3. 	How can software-dependent data objects be retained for future use?
	
4. 	How can data dictionaries, information resource directory systems, and other metadata systems be used to support electronic records management and archival requirements?
	
5. 	What archival requirements have been addressed in major systems development projects and why?
	
6. 	What policies best address archival concerns for the identification, retention, preservation, and research use of electronic records?
	
7. 	What functions and activities should be present in electronic records programs and how should they be evaluated?
	
8. 	What incentives can contribute to creator and user support for electronic records management concerns?
	
9. 	What barriers have prevented archivists from developing and implementing archival electronic records programs?
	
10. 	What do archivists need to know about electronic records?

In 1995, four years after issuing this research agenda, the NHPRC issued grant suggestions for researchers seeking funding for electronic records research projects. In framing its view of needed research at this time, the document placed greater emphasis on program development, acknowledging that existing structures were inadequate to grapple with electronic records. The report contended that archives and archival programs “need to change their structures, practices, and skill bases” in order to build programs capable of addressing electronic records issues.” 

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Electronic Records Grant Suggestions, <gopher.nara.gov:70/00/about/grants/nhprc/eg952.txt > (consulted April 10, 1997).

More recently, in 1996, a two-day conference was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan reviewed prior electronic records research and development, placing particular emphasis on NHPRC-funded research. Just as the NHPRC’s grant suggestions had done, the report from this conference underscored the need for stronger electronic records programs. It concluded that recent electronic records research demonstrated that traditional program models for archival and records management needed to “assume new responsibilities, work with a broader range of professionals, and change their approaches to regulation and service delivery” if they were to have any hope of substantively influencing electronic recordkeeping and long-term preservation. This research argued that the critical success factors which best contribute to successful archival programs include a “compelling organizational need to address electronic records management issues, consistent and sustained effort, an audience and support at the highest administrative levels, demonstrable solutions, and integration of archival concerns into institutional planning and budgeting processes.” This report also noted where research is still needed, including expansion of research into private sector and personal electronic recordkeeping domains, as well as research which explored:

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. vii-viii.

•	models for electronic recordkeeping in a wider variety of organizational, legal, technological, and cultural settings; 
	
•	better and more affordable methods for long-term preservation; 
	
•	systematic data on the costs and benefits of preserving electronic records; 
	
•	better technical solutions; and 
	
•	more practical applications and methods. 

The Ann Arbor report drew attention to the need for collaborative and multidisciplinary research, assessments of existing research by archival and records management programs on the practical usability of the policies and models advocated by various research projects, and non-archival and records management peer review on the suitability of existing research.  More importantly, the Ann Arbor report asked whether or not there existed a “single universal approach to electronic recordkeeping” or do “organizational, cultural, legal, and business domain factors influence recordkeeping requirements?”

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. viii, 37.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), p. 9.

While much progress has been made over the past six years, most research has raised more questions than it has answered, indicating that the need for electronic records research is just as pressing as it was at the beginning of this decade. And though the knowledge base created by past research is rich and diverse, it must be recognized that the field of electronic records research is still in its youth. In order to arrive at generalizable results that can be applied across domains much more research needs to be undertaken. 
II. 	Definitions of Electronic Records

In order to create an electronic records regime which ensures not only that records are captured but that they serve as reliable evidence of the actions which led to their creation in the first place, it is imperative that the records professions precisely define what they mean by the term “electronic record.” According to Charles Dollar, computer created information “consist of a series of digital signals and consequently have few, if any, of the inherent physical attributes of traditional records,” such as the encapsulation of the record’s context and content attributes in the physical object. “The physical attributes of electronic records…when displayed on a monitor or printed, are largely a function of software and are separated from the information content and context of electronic records.” The electronic records research meetings reviewed in this draft spent surprisingly little attention defining the very artifact which lies at the center of the electronic records research endeavor.  

Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992). pp. 47-48.

a. 	The Issues
•	What is an electronic record? 
	
•	Do existing legal and regulatory regimes adequately define records in the electronic realm? 
	
•	What is the relationship between traditional non-electronic records forms and those produced by computers? Where are they similar and where do they differ? 

Margaret Hedstrom, “Understanding Electronic Incunabula: A Framework for Research on Electronic Records,” The American Archivist 54 (Summer 1991), pp. 345-347.

•	What is the relationship between paper printouts of electronic records and electronic versions of the same record? Is one more of a “record” than the other?
	
•	Does the computing environment necessitate any modification in the traditional concept of “record” which defines the record as direct evidence of a transaction?”

Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992). p. 45.

•	Are electronic records defined with enough clarity and specificity that they be easily  recognized and managed? 

b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

At a 1994 working meeting on electronic records, David Bearman provided a critique of existing computer systems, asserting that they do not, in fact, produce records. They do not because they were never intended to do so. The overarching design and implementation methodologies employed for computer systems was characterized by their emphasis on data and not records. As such, they emphasized manipulability of data over notions of accountability achievable through records as evidence of discrete transactions. Hence, such systems were not and could not be recordkeeping systems. For Bearman, records and recordkeeping systems capture, maintain, and provide evidence of the transactions which led to their creation in the first place. He asserted that in order for computerized information systems to be recordkeeping systems they must understand the nature of records and provide for their capture. Bearman’s definition for records contained the following three essential attributes:

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 304-308.

•	Content - the actual text and/or other data being communicated
	
•	Structure - the physical layout and documentary form of the information.
	
•	Context - the circumstances enveloping a particular transaction

The challenge of the computing environment was to provide a framework for defining records and the salient features of recordness so that they could be captured. For Bearman, the definition of record became inextricably linked to defining those organizational transactions which had to be captured in order to provide evidence of organizational actions.
	One of the major themes deriving from the 1994 Pittsburgh meeting was the realization that there is in fact an electronic “record” and that the archives and records management professions needs to be greater clarity in its definition if it was to be identified and protected. The identification of the appropriate record metatada would assist in these tasks, particularly metadata which would document the transactions from which the records emanated.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 352.

	However, in 1996, Harold Thiele pointed out that defining an electronic record can be quite problematic, especially when opening up the issue to a multidisciplinary audience. What is important here is that most commentary has underscored the importance of multidisciplinary approaches without realizing that other disciplines have different perceptions and values that may be in conflict with those of the records professions. When the state of Vermont Archives weighed in on redefining records in state law by calling for the inclusion of language that records should serve as “evidence of transactions” they were met by objections of state lawyers and auditors. The lawyers and auditors contended that, if adopted, such a clause would make most “records” in state information systems into non-records as they would be unable to meet the threshold legal definition of “evidence.” Consequently, there would be no public records in any information system maintained by the state.

Harold Thiele, “Overview of the Vermont State Archives NHPRC Grant.” Presentation at the Experts Meeting on the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping. Sponsored by the School of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh. Held February 1-2, 1996 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

	While electronic records research does need to explore more what the definition of a record is in the electronic realm, it should be recognized that whatever definition is used, it will directly drive how such records are captured and what strategies will need to be employed to ensure their long term understandability and usability. 

III. 	Developing Policy Frameworks

Grappling with electronic records involves establishing new policies or reinterpreting existing policy frameworks to encompass the new forms of business communication enabled by computers. Because organizational policies are informed by internal (business and operational needs) and external (laws, standards, and best practices) requirements, the process of constructing rules and expectations may begin at the organizational level but work its way upwards and outwards to the society and down into work group and individual practices. In 1990, the United Nations’ Advisory Committee for the Co-ordination of Information Systems (ACCIS) identified where and in what manner policy issues need to address electronic records issues, indicating that policy frameworks for electronic records management and research need to touch upon all facets of the record lifecycle and its management, including: creation and identification; appraisal; scheduling; control and use; storage; access; documentation; security; and disposition.

United Nations. Advisory Committee for the Co-ordination of Information Systems (ACCIS), Management of Electronic Records: Issues and Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 1990).

a. 	The Issues

These seven questions listed here are drawn from: United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), p. 16-17. Though they were identified six years ago they are just as pertinent today as when they were originally issued.

•	What policies best address archival concerns for the identification, retention, preservation, and research use of electronic records?
	
•	What are the essential elements of an electronic records management policy?
	
•	What criteria can be used to measure the effectiveness of policy for the identification, retention, preservation, and use of electronic records?
	
•	What processes have organizations or governments used successfully to develop and adopt policy? 
	
•	Who are the key players in the development process, and how can they be encouraged to include issues of concern to archivists, records managers, and users of archival records.
	
•	Do organizations and individuals follow such policies once approved? What can be learned form policy implementation efforts?

b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

	In 1994, based on research being conducted through the National Archives of Canada, John McDonald reported the results of the Information Management and Office Systems Assessment (IMOSA) project which was oriented towards assessing functional specifications for information management in integrated office support systems.. IMOSA’s purpose was to design and implement a software prototype, examine the results of introducing new technology into an office setting, assist individuals in managing their own electronic records, and assess guidelines and procedures that facilitate the adoption and use of the prototype. IMOSA deployed a multidisciplinary team to conduct this research. Results from the project led to several policy-oriented conclusions that would help the organization manage its electronic-based corporate memory. In developing policy it became clear that there was a need to develop policy which clearly distinguished records from non-records, as well as policy which determined what is and is not an electronic record. There was also a need to develop statements which established the continuing availability, understandability, and usability of records, including identifying loci of responsibility for these. In order to develop coherent policy, including “rules of the road,” it became imperative to understand first how offices work and how information systems are currently being used. In this absence of this policy is not grounded and thus is less likely to be taken seriously and followed by users. Accomplishing each of these goals called for new strategies, including reinventing the purposes and working operandi of the records management and archives. Two years later, in 1996 McDonald reported the findings of work which followed-up on the above, providing a vision of where the records professions needed to go. Acknowledging the evolution of information technologies to automate business processes,   the National Archives of Canada needed to develop policy guidelines to assist agencies to manage the records deriving from such activity. A key policy determination was that recordkeeping responsibility needed to be assigned across the organization as opposed to being centralized within the records management office. Instead of working on managing the records themselves the records manager would focus their efforts on issuing policy guidances and setting recordkeeping standards.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 335-338.

In the words of the vision itself, “Recordkeeping and accountability are built into the business processes and electronic work environment thereby ensuring that records are available, understandable, and usable. See: Canada. National Archives, “Record Keeping in the Electronic Work Environment - Vision,” (January 15, 1996), p. 1. See also: Canada. National Archives. Standards and Practices Division, “Information Management.” (January 15, 1996).

Remaining cognizant that such as vision is a vision of the future, to help manage the present the National Archives proffered practical policy guidance on how to manage stand alone and shared computer directories and files.

	In 1994, Margaret Hedstrom reported preliminary findings from the “Building Partnerships” project in New York State. The project concluded in part, that attempts to force agencies to comply with policy and regulations was unsuitable for achieving records management and archiving goals. Instead, emphasis need to be placed on how to effectively assist agencies in satisfying their own recordkeeping goals and responsibilities, such as helping agencies identify their own recordkeeping requirements and linking recordkeeping and retention requirements to agency functions. The absence of goods tools, guidelines, standards and models for electronic recordkeeping was impairing sound recordkeeping. Another key policy oversight identified was that policy generally tended to reflect information technology over information management concerns. As a consequence records were be undercut at the expense of data and technology management. To overcome such difficulties, Hedstrom contended that archivists and records managers needed to identify legal and programmatic needs for particular types of recordkeeping. In a such a way intelligible and useful a policy could be developed.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 344-350.

Part of developing better records policies derives from the ability of the records professions to seize opportunities when they present themselves. By making their concerns heard and inserting them into organizational dialogues, records professionals can harness policy to satisfy their requirements. In 1994, Liisa Fagerlund of the United Nations (UN) reported on how plans to migrate the UN’s archives management system provided the Archives and Records Management Section (ARMS) a strategic opportunity to reevaluate its existing practices and take advantage of the UN’s adoption of a new electronic document management system (EDMS). Here ARMS was able to take a proactive stance and help shape requirements for the new EDMS while at the same time it reoriented its emphasis from a line function to a staff function, meaning that it developed a new role in providing policy advice and guidance on records issues throughout the organization – steering rather than rowing.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 312-313.

	More recently, a report reviewing electronic records research and development concluded, in part, that recent electronic records research clearly demonstrated that:

•	A wide variety of laws, regulations, policies, standards, and professional best practices govern and influence the content, form, structure, and uses of electronic records.
	
•	Sound policy does not always serve as a solution in and of itself. Issues such as “legislative changes, turnover in top administrators, new strategic directions, and downsizing eroded support” of some archival electronic records programs.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. vii, 7.

As such, policy in and of itself is not a magic bullet for electronic records management. The Pittsburgh project on Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping made such a view explicit when it recognized that policy was just one tactic – the others being design, implementation and use of standards – that could be employed to create, capture, and maintain records. 
A review of NHPRC electronic records research projects funded between 1991-1996 found that several projects -- including those at Indiana University, Ohio State University, and the State University of New York at Albany --  were “investigating policy” as a means of managing electronic records One key finding was that electronic records were not necessarily accommodated  by “existing legislation, program mandates, and policies….” Issuing guidelines, becoming a part of analyses and reviews of systems design and procurements, as well as training and education programs for  “policy makers, information systems staff, and end users,” were seen as offering avenues for action.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. 32-35.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), p. 35.

	Taken as a whole there are several key lessons for records professionals seeking sound electronic records management in their organization. Policy must be grounded. Meaning that it must be cognizant of the existing work practices if it has any hope of shifting to more desirable policy. Forcing compliance may not be as successful as assisting entities meet their own and external recordkeeping requirements. Distributing loci of responsibility for records management can help records professionals shift from managing the records themselves to issuing and managing policy which ensures that records management goals are achieved.

IV. 	Record Creating Events

Identifying record creating events means deep analysis of the organization producing the records. Sophisticated organizational analysis is an area that is not normally taught to records professionals in the course of their education. However, recent societal-wide trends towards business process reengineering and functional analyses have inadvertently given records professional the opportunity to develop and hone these skills. As with some other general trends identified above, the focus away from managing the record to understanding and managing the processes and functions which create records provides the records professions with an opportunity to ensure that electronic information systems link functions with records.
 
a. 	The Issues
•	What is a record creating event?
	
•	How can the records professions tie the creating event to the record itself so that such a link is evident across time?  
	
•	What skills do records professionals need to recognize and document record creating events, and where will such skills be obtained?

	

	

	
	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

	One of the major themes emanating from the 1994 Pittsburgh meeting was the focus on functions and the need to develop analytical and knowledge representation frameworks and approaches that will enable the records professions to link functions, transactions, and records.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), p. 352.

	At that meeting Rick Barry reported on the implementation of an electronic document management system at the World bank to underscore the requirement for archivists and records managers to alter their traditional approach to handling records. As a result of an information environment which included an intertwined mixture of paper and electronic records systems, increased records management autonomy of Bank staff via personal computing, and poor enterprise-wide access to the Bank’s information resources, the Bank instituted a project to develop a coherent systems architecture. Part of this reengineering included the realization that the Bank needed to more explicitly integrate its information systems with its core business processes. Barry reported at the time that the Bank was in the process of implementing a desktop mail and file management system which integrated the filing of word processing documents and electronic mail, and developing the use of document typologies to develop an appraisal and retention program. The discussion emanating from Barry’s presentation underscored the need to tie archives and records management not to the records themselves – the products – so much as to the functions which create the records -- the processes. By adopting this construct records professionals were seen as being able to harness business process reengineering to meet their goals while at the same time repositioning themselves as more directly serving the mission of the parent organization. By focusing on business processes and not so much on the residuals that result form these processes -- the records – records professionals can better evaluate and interpret record creating events and thus enable more sophisticated records management and archival practices.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 308-312.

	In 1996, Phil Bantin described some preliminary findings from Indiana University’s Electronic Records Project. This project was decidedly oriented towards evaluating processes which create records and the systems which maintain them, and not specifically on the record itself. The first step undertaken by the project was to conduct a functional analysis of student information and financial information resources. Project staff discovered that identification of functions was a relatively straightforward and painless process, though they were required to collect and draft descriptions of the functions in order to document them. Once functions were known and documented the next step was to identify transactions belonging to these functions. Here project staff decided to collapse series of small related transactions into larger transactional units. This analysis resulted in a list of business transactions linked to the business functions from which they were derived. At is point the project chose to define what should be captured to document these transactions and not what existing systems were actually capturing relative to this model. Once it is known what the documentation needs to be based on the requirements established above, then analysis of existing systems could be conducted to evaluate how well they capture the evidence required to document transactions and functions.

Project staff identified transactions as:
1. 	An official action related to the business or mission of the University.
2. 	A public, not private, action involving more than one person.
3. 	An action undertaken which has a beginning
4. 	An action completed which has a definite end point.

“University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project, Advisory Group of Experts Meeting, February 1-2, 1996.” <www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/IExptRpt.html> (Consulted, May 1, 1997).

	At this same meeting Harold Thiele reported on efforts of the Vermont State Archives Electronic Records Project efforts to develop a systems to manage state electronic records. Since the Archives was relatively resource-poor in terms of both statutory authority and staff, the decision was made to harness the potential offered by the state’s reengineering efforts - the Vermont Information Strategy plan (VISP). VISP was promoting the notion the “government should be viewed as having a single common mission supported by seven high level business area functions that were common across structural lines.” To maximize the potential for capturing electronic records, the Archives introduced an “Accountability” to the Policy and Planning business area of VISP, and then ‘decomposed” accountability into four distinct subfunctions – Establish Accountability Regime, Implement Recordkeeping; Enable Access; and, Use Records. Through these means focus on recordkeeping was introduced within VISP. Once accountability needs and requirements are established, recordkeeping standards and best practices could be established and recordkeeping responsibility assigned. The “Implement Recordkeeping” subfunction  was further decomposed to ensure that recordkeeping systems documented business transactions which provide the “evidence for accountability.” Here an effort was made to identify and rank those government structures and/or functions which were most likely to reflect important business transactions, then identify those significant transactions which “have clear legal requirements for records, a high degree of risk associated with inadequate records, high sensitivity to accountability, and well known programmatic use of records.” From here the next step was to ensure record creation/retention. By harnessing policies, systems design and standards that ensured that important transactions were captured and maintained as records the accountability function in VISP could be satisfied. Decomposition of important government functions down to there significant transactions provides one strategy to ensure not only that record creating events are known but that the records associated with them are captured.

Gregory Sanford and Harold Thiele, “NHPRC Electronic Records Grant Progress Overview, Vermont State Archives, NHPRC Electronic Records Grant #94-037, January 1996,” p. 1.

“Decomposition” involved seven element levels (in hierarchical order): Business Area; Function; Subfunction; Activity; Subactivity; Tasks; and, Subtasks.

Gregory Sanford and Harold Thiele, “Accountability Function Decomposition Packet: A Sampling of Work in Progress, Vermont State Archives, NHPRC Grant #94-037, January 1996,” pp. 9-11.

	Also in 1996, Mark Giguere reported on the efforts of the City of Philadelphia to adapt the University of Pittsburgh’s Business Acceptable Communications model of metadata capture to ensure the creation of electronic record evidence in a to be developed paperless Human Resources Information System. Being an official city system it was required to create auditable and legally acceptable evidence of its workings. To ensure that appropriate electronic evidence was  created by such a system, the city created an itemized list specified 29 separate record-generating transactions, from medical evaluations, to promotions, to transfers,  leaves of absences, demotions and  disciplinary actions. By specifying these record creating transactions which the system had to document the city was able to develop a request for proposal  which called for a system that would create electronic public records as layered metadata encapsulated objects which would provide information on each records distinguishing identifiers (handle), usage terms and conditions, structure, context, content, and use history. By having identified the record creating transactions the City was able to develop a strategy to link each to the appropriate metadata needed to capture records.

United States. City of Philadelphia, “ERG RFP Preparation: Draft” (January 30, 1996).

	What is evident in discussions of record creating events is the requirement to identify key functions and the transactions which make them up. Once these are understood, electronic recordkeeping systems can be created.

V. 	Capturing Records

Where does the data that makes a record evidence come from and how is it captured? Research on metadata and on the contribution that can be made by workflow methods to the documentation of context have addressed some of the outstanding issues and exposed new problems. As seen in the previous section, how records are captured in the electronic environment depends very much on defining the functions and transactions which results or should result in the creation of records. A few years back it was noted that  most software utilities “do not automatically capture all of the contextual information of electronic records.” In order to do so records professionals needed to collaborate information system designers and software developers in order to ensure that recordkeeping functionalities were accommodated. More recently, a review of  electronic records research and development indicated signs of improvement, noting that recent research demonstrated that “[i]t is technically possible to create and maintain reliable and authentic records in electronic form.” The problem remains one largely of actually designing and implementing such systems.

Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992). p. 48.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. Vii.

a. 	The Issues

•	Can archivists and records managers articulate systems design requirements that result in the satisfaction of their needs, e.g., result in the capture of electronic records?

Margaret Hedstrom, “Understanding Electronic Incunabula: A Framework for Research on Electronic Records,” The American Archivist 54 (Summer 1991), p. 347.

•	If they can articulate such requirements, how can they convince parent organizations to dedicate the time and resources to actually build electronic recordkeeping systems which capture records?

•	How do computers alter the was organizations make and document their decisions.

Margaret Hedstrom, “Understanding Electronic Incunabula: A Framework for Research on Electronic Records,” The American Archivist 54 (Summer 1991), p. 351.

•	What are the technological, conceptual, and economic implications of capturing and retaining data, descriptive information, and contextual information in electronic form from a variety of applications?

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), pp. 10-11.

	
a. 	Previous Research and Implementations

In 1992, Charles Dollar offered recommendations related to capturing electronic records and their provenance. Included among these was the need to intervene in the systems design stage to ensue that recordkeeping functionalities were included. If records professionals could concretely articulate functional requirements of the capture of contextual information then they had an opportunity to shape information systems to ensure that, when necessary, they became recordkeeping systems. 

Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992). pp. 73-74.

The University of Pittsburgh research project Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping has developed a metadata reference model oriented towards capturing, maintaining, and providing access to records. In 1994, David Bearman pointed out that this model provided archivists and records managers with a framework for transforming information systems to recordkeeping systems. If implemented, the metadata that would be captured would provide audit trails of the business transactions which created the record and all subsequent uses of the records themselves, including who sent it, received it, altered it, forwarded it, and the like. In 1994 the challenge for the functional requirements was to translate their high level textual nature to a more detailed production rule level which was capable of being incorporated into real live information systems and software packages. It was argued that the production rules would affirmatively provide for the capture of concrete metadata which would be auditable and measurable and which would ensure the capture of record evidence. This incipient reference metadata model was seen as providing the means by which the runaway data orientation of computerized information systems could be re-engineered to capturing record evidence.

In 1994, the requirements were:
	Compliant Organization (Compliant)
	Accountable Recordkeeping System (Responsible, Implemented, Reliable)
	Captured Records (Comprehensive, Identifiable, Complete, Authentic)
	Maintained Records (Preserved, Removable)
	Usable Records (Exportable, Accessible, Redactable).
At present they are:
	Conscientious Organization (Compliant)
	Accountable Recordkeeping System (Responsible, Implemented, Consistent)
Captured Records (Comprehensive, Identifiable, Complete, Authorized)
Maintained Records (Preserved, Removable)
Usable Records (Exportable, Accessible, Redactable)

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 304-308; and, David Bearman, “Toward a Reference Model for Business Acceptable Communications,” (December 6, 1994). <www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/prog6-5.html> (Consulted May 1, 1997).

At a 1996 electronic records experts meeting held in Pittsburgh, Richard Cox reported the preliminary results of the hypotheses generated by the Pittsburgh project on Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping. The Pittsburgh project argued that “[t]he functional requirements for the archival management of electronic records are the same for traditional records, although many functional requirements will not be satisfied by traditional records systems.” Project staff determined that this argument was sound and furthermore that the concept of “literary warrant” would enable the profession to employ the literatures of law, professional standards, regulations, and best practices to provide justification for the adoption of the requirements and thus for the capture of records. Cox further noted that once it was determined to satisfy a particular requirement, satisfaction could be enabled by tactics of policy, design, implementation, or standards, either in combination or separately. Interestingly, a software case analysis of three different software packages conducted by project staff found overwhelmingly that software does not address the requirements. In terms of actually capturing records, Cox reported that the Pittsburgh project determined that to do so one would need to create either linked or encapsulated metadata on:
•	Structure metadata
•	Context metadata
•	Content
•	Use history

Richard J. Cox, “Recordkeeping Functional Requirements: Research Project Progress Report, February 1996.” Presentation at Experts Meeting: Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping, February 1-2, 1996, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

	A case study which applied the Pittsburgh functional requirements to the electronic files created by a graphic design company reported that it was “difficult to translate motivations for recordkeeping from the ones highlighted by the Pittsburgh team to ones that the managers and employees of a small business would recognize and understand. Although a small business manager might easily appreciate the issues which the Pittsburgh research team has raised, when balancing financial resources and immediate needs some of the functional requirements’ complexity may be sacrificed for expediency.” As such while the value of the functional requirements is widely held, much more research needs to be conducted to see how implementable in differing business domains and organizational settings.

William E. Landis and Robert Royce, “Recommendations for an Electronic Records Management System: A Case Study of a Small Business.” (Undated).

A review of NHPRC electronic records research projects funded between 1991-1996 reported on the results of other projects using the functional requirements, including the City of Philadelphia, Indiana University, the State University of New York Office of Archives and Records Management, and the State of Vermont. The report contended that research to date in this area supported the following tentative conclusions about the functional requirements: 

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. 30-31.

•	Generic information systems designed to collect, process, store, and disseminate information do not have all of the functionality needed to produce, maintain, and preserve reliable electronic records. Most current systems do not adequately relate the content of records to business transactions, and most systems lack sufficient metadata to monitor the creation an maintenance of records so that they will be both reliable and understandable when retrieved in the future.
	
•	Recordkeeping requirements are a subset of the requirements for an automated recordkeeping environment which also include requirements for security, compatibility, interfaces, standards, and similar issues.
	
•	The functional requirements can be used conceptually to evaluate the capabilities of systems to produce and preserve reliable records.
	
•	Little is known about costs of satisfying these requirements because most implementations are still in the design or testing phase.

	Taken as a whole, the records professions have become increasingly aware of the what is required to create electronic record evidence and where existing systems fall short. What is missing are a range mature research projects which not only demonstrate that electronic evidence can in fact be captured, but that offer tried and tested methods transaltable to other contexts.

VI. 	Maintaining and Using Records

If we capture electronic records, we are then faced with the question of how to manage them in complex systems environments over time. Approaches to maintaining and using records across time have included modeling environments for records management and developing frameworks for records migration. As with most electronic records research, these efforts are in their infancy and do not guarantee success not only within their chosen application but in their transferability to other applications and organizational settings.

a. 	The Issues
	
•	How can software-dependent data objects be retained for future use?

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), p. 12.

•	What functions and activities should be present in electronic records programs and how should they be evaluated?

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), pp. 18-19.

•	What barriers have prevented archivists from developing and implementing archival electronic records programs and why haven’t more electronic records programs been established?

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991), pp. 20-21.

•	How can records professionals ensure access to electronic records over when the information technologies they reside within are subject to rapid and sometimes revolutionary change?

Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992). p. 71.

•	How will archivists provide access and reference services to electronic records systems?
	
•	Which method will best ensure the long term protection and preservation of electronic records – centralized or distributed custody?

	
b. 	Previous Research and Implementations

In 1994, Alan Kowlowitz from the New York State Archives and Records Administration provided a detailed account of some of the metadata being produced by existing information systems within New York State government As such, Kowlowitz findings and conclusions provide detailed evidence for records professional on the types of metadata issues they are likely to confront in the near future as existing system are retired and transferred to archives. Based on analysis of six systems - a digitized policy manual, an electronic criminal justice data dictionary, a jurisdictional information file database, an agricultural real property sales database, the state archives electronic mail system, and a paper based data dictionary - Kowlowitz reported several sets of findings on the nature, utility, transferability, and preservability of metadata. On the nature of metadata it was found that the form and format of metadata was found to be very diverse and that digitized metadata sometimes provided more information than just information used to document data and systems -- it could in fact document software and programs. On the utility of metadata to support archives and records management programs, Kowlowitz reported that such use was limited by the initial purpose of the metadata itself which did not always make provisions for secondary usage. More significantly, it was found that at times existing systems metadata provided partial details on the business function of records. Finally, on the transferability of metadata, Kowlowitz found that such transfer was often hindered by the proprietary nature of the native software environment, underscoring the importance of working with existing information technology standards to ensure long term preservation and understandability of digitized records.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 313-316.

Also in 1994, Dagmar Parer of the Australian Archives, reported that, at that time the Archives had not yet decided whether or not adopt a distributed custody approach or one where the Archives took custody. She outlined the challenges and factors being considered to resolve this issue, including:
	
•	If the Archives accepts custody of a major governmental information system, some of the  systems functionality and sophistication may be lost during migration.
	
•	If the Archives takes custody it will be faced with responsibility for maintaining access to sophisticated data structures.
	
•	If the agency retains custody, then access to that information may become problematic if the agency becomes reluctant to provide access.

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 313-316.

	In 1994, Michael Miller, then with the Environmental Protection Agency, described the issues associated with scheduling and appraising electronic office records, electronic mail and geographic information systems (GIS) in particular. In performing these tasks, Miller asked what was the desired preservation outcome, Was it:

Wendy Duff, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 329-334.

•	Final products of decisions and activities?
	
•	All records necessary to support and agency function?
	
•	Only those communications which meet the formal definition of a record or do we include non-records as well?

A May 1994 EPA email policy stated in part that electronic mail was a “business utility” and not a “system of records.” A review of appraisal options for electronic mail included the following options: define records very narrowly thus making most messages non-records; develop a drop-box as a recordkeeping system for specific projects and appraise the messages based upon the importance of the project; link messages to a particular series and appraise the series; or, use an artificial intelligence engine to appraise. Deploying any one of these options requires creating a convincing business case for the one selected. Miller argued that a business case could be made for applications that were: small and focused; of great importance; likely to be supported over time; likely to generate great interest; have adequate documentation; are amenable to centralized storage and management; and, which provide easy mechanisms for identifying record status and series placement. In regard to a GIS systems, Miller noted that currently most were appraised based on informational and not evidential value. In order to develop GIS systems with evidential value the following “run documentation” was necessary: 

•	Who, what, when, where, and why
	
•	Files retrieved
	
•	Data selected for inclusion and their parameters
	
•	Modeling formulae and their manipulations
	
•	Run results

Practical concerns associated with this approach deal with determining when and for what purpose does this metadata get captured and how do you capture it? The problem with enabling recordkeeping systems in such an application is that it would generate vast amount of redundant data, redundancy which was likely to meet strong resistance. To overcome this difficulty, archivists and records managers would need to make a powerful business case for doing so. One strategy here would be to tie the metadata capture to core business processes and functions.
	In 1996, Rick Barry reported the results of a project which mapped the Pittsburgh Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping with an enterprise-wide electronic filing system (EFS) at the World Bank. Based on a limited set of literary warrant associated with individual functional requirements, the Bank conducted a “subjective evaluation” which judged the degree to which the EFS complied with a particular functional requirement. It was determined that for all but one requirement the EFS either complied or partly complied. The requirement “redacted” was the only requirement which was not satisfied. Based off this, Barry concluded in part that warrant was both welcomed and needed and that more work in this area would be fruitful, particularly in internationalizing the warrant and developing warrant profiles for different organizational sectors.

Rick Barry, “Use of UPitt Project Functional Requirements to Assess Electronic Filing System,” February 1, 1996. Presentation at Experts Meeting: Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping, February 1-2, 1996, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and, “University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project, Advisory Group of Experts Meeting, February 1-2, 1996.”

	A recent analysis of electronic records research concluded that the “experience to date suggests that significant changes are needed in the policies, mandates, and program emphasis of government and institutional archives if they are going to play a role in the long-term preservation and access to electronic records.” Common problems identified include: the inability of archivists and records managers to shape the design, procurement, and use of electronic recordkeeping systems; the need to appraise systems earlier in their lifecycle by conducting analyses of business functions and processes supported by systems; the need to obtain the assistance managers who oversee line and support programs, information systems development, information technology management, and information policy; and, the need to create internal educational and training programs as well as written guidelines.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. 6-7.

Critical success factors of archival and records management programs which were able to create effective electronic records programs included:
•	a compelling organizational need to address electronic records management issues,
	
•	consistent and sustained effort,
	
•	and audience and support at the highest administrative levels,
	
•	demonstrable solutions,
	
•	integration of archival concerns into institutional planning and budgeting processes.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997), pp. 7-8.

	

	
VII. 	Conclusion

	Based on the above a number of conclusions can be drawn. The focus on the record and the requirement to capture it is now widely accepted, as is the need to adopt a functional approach oriented towards uncovering records-creating transactions. Also recognized is that records professionals cannot solve the problems attendant to electronic recordkeeping alone. Research needs to be multidisciplinary. It must involve top management, information technologists, policymakers, users and others. Records professionals can communicate what needs to happen from a recordkeeping perspective but they need these other stakeholders to realize and implement electronic recordkeeping systems. Exactly how one not only involves such individuals but gets them to genuinely commit to projects is one area in need of further exploration. 
Most research to date has been centered in higher education and government contexts. Expansion into private sector contexts is critical. In addition, most discussion in the electronic records research filed takes place internally with other electronic records researchers. There is a need to expose the concepts and findings of this research to wider audiences for evaluation, criticism and refinement. There are enough stories in the news about impending and real electronic records problems (e.g., medical and consumer privacy are but two examples) that can be harnessed by electronic records researchers to not only identify needed research but to communicate with wider society that electronic records research is not only useful but that it is absolutely essential as we increasingly march towards a networked global society. 

Bibliography

Barry, Rick, “Use of UPitt Project Functional Requirements to Assess Electronic Filing System,” February 
1, 1996. Presentation at Experts Meeting: Functional Requirements for Evidence in 
Recordkeeping, February 1-2, 1996, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and, “University of Pittsburgh 
Electronic Records Project, Advisory Group of Experts Meeting, February 1-2, 1996.” 

Bearman, David “Toward a Reference Model for Business Acceptable Communications,” (December 6, 
1994). <www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/prog6-5.html> (Consulted May 1, 1997).

Canada. National Archives, “Record Keeping in the Electronic Work Environment - Vision.” (January 15, 
1996).

Canada. National Archives. Standards and Practices Division, “Information Management.,” (January 15, 
1996).

Cox, Richard J. “Recordkeeping Functional Requirements: Research Project Progress Report, February 
1996.” Presentation at Experts Meeting: Functional Requirements for Evidence in 
Recordkeeping, February 1-2, 1996, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dollar, Charles M. Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies: The Impact of Information 
Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992).

Duff, Wendy, David Thomas, and David A. Wallace, “Working Meeting on Electronic Records,” Archives 
and Museum Informatics: Cultural Heritage Informatics Quarterly 8 (No. 4, 1994), pp. 301-352.

Electronic Records Research and Development: Final Report of the 1996 Ann Arbor Conference held at 
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 28-29, 1996 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997).

Hedstrom, Margaret, “Understanding Electronic Incunabula: A Framework for Research on Electronic 
Records,” The American Archivist 54 (Summer 1991), pp. 334-354.

Landis, William E., and Robert Royce, “Recommendations for an Electronic Records Management 	ystem: A Case Study of a Small Business.” (Undated).

Sanford, Gregory, and Harold Thiele, “Accountability Function Decomposition Packet: A Sampling of 
Work in Progress, Vermont State Archives, NHPRC Grant #94-037, January 1996.”

----------, “NHPRC Electronic Records Grant Progress Overview, Vermont State Archives, NHPRC 
Electronic Records Grant #94-037, January 1996.”

Thiele, Harold, “Overview of the Vermont State Archives NHPRC Grant.” Presentation at the Experts 
Meeting on the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping. Sponsored by the School of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh. Held February 1-2, 1996 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

United Nations. Advisory Committee for the Co-ordination of Information Systems (ACCIS), 
Management of Electronic Records: Issues and Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 1990).

United States. City of Philadelphia, “ERG RFP Preparation: Draft” (January 30, 1996).

United States. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, “Electronic Records Grant 
Suggestions,” <gopher.nara.gov:70/00/about/grants/nhprc/eg952.txt > (Consulted April 10, 
1997).

----------, Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991).

“University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project, Advisory Group of Experts Meeting, February 1-2, 
1996.” <www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/IExptRpt.html> (Consulted, May 1, 1997).