The University of Pittsburgh Electronic Recordkeeping Research Project established a model for developing functional requirements and metadata specifications based on warrant, defined as the laws, regulations, best practices, and customs that regulate recordkeeping. Research has shown that warrant can also increase the acceptance by records creators and others of functional requirements for recordkeeping. This article identifies areas related to warrant that require future study. The authors conclude by suggesting that requirements for recordkeeping may vary from country to country and industry to industry because of differing warrant.
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Publication Location
The Netherlands
Critical Arguements
CA Poses a long series of questions and issues concerning warrant and its ability to increase the acceptance of recordkeeping requirements. Proposes that research be done to answer these questions. Discusses two different views about whether warrant can be universal and/or international.
Phrases
<P1> As we proceeded with the project [the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Recordkeeping Research Project] we ultimately turned our attention to the idea of the literary warrant -- defined as the mandate from law, professional best practices, and other social sources requiring the creation and continued maintenance of records. Wendy Duff's doctoral research found that warrant can increase the acceptance of some recordkeeping functional requirements, and therefore it has the potential to build bridges between archival professionals and others concerned with or responsible for recordkeeping. We did not anticipate the value of the literary warrant and, in the hindsight now available to us, the concept of the warrant may turn out to be the most important outcome of the project. <P2> In Wendy Duff's dissertation, legal, auditing and information science experts evluated the authority of the sources of warrant for recordkeeping. This part of the study provided evidence that information technology standards may lack authority, but this finding requires further study. Moreover, the number of individuals who evaluated the sources of warrant was extremely small. A much larger number of standards should be included in a subsequent study and a greater number of subjects are needed to evaluate these standards. <P3> We found a strong relationship between warrant and the functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping systems. Research that studies this relationship and determines the different facets that may affect it might provide more insights into the relationship between the warrant and the functional requirements. <P4> [W]e need to develop a better understanding of the degree to which the warrant for recordkeeping operates in various industries, disciplines, and other venues. Some institutions operate in a much more regulated environment than others, suggesting that the imporance of records and the understanding of records may vary considerably between institutional types, across disciplines and from country to country. <P5> We need to consider whether the recordkeeping functional requirements for evidence hold up or need to be revised for recordkeeping requirements for corporate memory, accountability, and cultural value -- the three broad realms now being used to discuss records and recordkeeping. <P6> The warrant gathered to date has primarily focused on technical, legal or the administrative value of records. A study that tested the effectiveness of warrant that supported the cultural or historical mandate of archives might help archivists gain support for their archival programs. <P7> This concern leads us to a need for more research about the understanding of records and recordkeeping in particular institutions, disciplines, and societies. <P8> A broader, and perhaps equally important question, is whether individual professionals and workers are even aware of their regulatory environment. <P9> How do the notion of the warrant and the recordkeeping functional requirements relate to the ways in which organizations work and the management tools they use, such as business process reengineering and data warehousing? <P10> What are the economic implications for organizations to comply with the functional requirements for recordkeeping in evidence? <P11> Is there a warrant and separate recordkeeping functional requirements for individual or personal recordkeeping? <P12> As more individuals, especially writers, financial leaders, and corporate and societal innovators, adopt electronic information technologies for the creation of their records, an understanding of the degree of warrant for such activity and our ability to use this warrant to manage these recordkeeping systems must be developed. <P13> We believe that archivists and records managers can imporve their image if they become experts in all aspects of recordkeeping. This will require a thorough knowledge of the legal, auditing, information technology, and management warrant for recordkeeping. <P14> The medical profession emphasizes that [sic] need to practice evidence-based medicine. We need to find out what would happen if records managers followed suit, and emphasized and practiced warrant-based recordkeeping. Would this require a major change in what we do, or would it simply be a new way to describe what we have always done? <P15> More work also has to be done on the implications of warrant and the functional requirements for the development of viable archives and records management programs. <P16> The warrant concept, along with the recordkeeping functional requirements, seem to possess immense pedagogical implications for what future archivists or practicing archivists, seeking to update their skills, should or would be taught. <P17> We need to determine the effectiveness of using the warrant and recordkeeping functional requirements as a basis for graduate archival and records management education and for developing needed topics for research by masters and doctoral students. <P18> The next generation of educational programs might be those located in other professional schools, focusing on the particular requirements for records in such institutions as corporations, hospitals, and the courts. <P19> We also need to determine the effectiveness of using the warrant and recordkeeping functional requirements in continuing education, public outreach, and advocacy for helping policy makers, resource allocators, administrators, and others to understand the importance of archives and records. Can the warrant and recordkeeping functional requirements support or foster stronger partnerships with other professions, citizen action groups, and other bodies interested in accountability in public organizations and government? <P20> Focusing on the mandate to keep and manage records, instead of the records as artifacts or intersting stuff, seems much more relevant in late twentieth century society. <P21> We need to investigate the degree to which records managers and archivists can develop a universal method for recordkeeping. ... Our laws, regulations, and best practices are usually different from country to country. Therefore, must any initiative to develop warrant also be bounded by our borders? <P22> A fundamental difference between the Pittsburgh Project and the UBC project is that UBC wishes to develop a method for managing and preserving electronic records that is applicable across all juridical systems and cultures, while the Pittsburgh Project is proposing a model that enables recordkeeping to be both universal and local at the same time. <P23> We now have a records management standard from Australia which is relevant for most North American records programs. It has been proposed as an international standard, although it is facing opposition from some European countries. Can there be an international standard for recordkeeping and can we develop one set of procedures which will be accepted across nations? Or must methods of recordkeeping be adapted to suit specific cultures, juridical systems, or industries?
