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?
Over the last decade a number of writers have encouraged archivists to develop strategies and tactics to redefine their role and to insert themselves into the process of designing recordkeeping systems. This paper urges archivists to exploit the authority inherent in the laws, regulations, standards, and professional best practices that dictate recordkeeping specifications to gain great acceptance for the requirements for electronic evidence. Furthermore, it postulates that this proactive approach could assist in gaining greater respect for the archival profession.
Critical Arguements
CA The use of authoritative sources of warrant would improve acceptance of electronic records as evidence and create greater respect for the archival profession.
Phrases
<P1> The legal, administrative, fiscal, or information value of records is dependent upon the degree of trust society places in records as reliable testimony or evidence of the acts they purport to document. In turn, this trust is dependent on society's faith in the procedures that control the creation and maintenance of the record. <P2> [S]ociety bestows some methods of recordkeeping and record creating with an authority or 'warrant' for generating reliable records. <P3> David Bearman first proposed the idea of "literary warrant." <P4> [S]tatements of warrant provide clear instructions on how records should be kept and delineate elements needed for the records to be complete. <P5> The information technology field promulgates standards, but in North America adherence to them is voluntary rather than obligatory. <P6> The University of Pittsburgh Electronic Recordkeeping Project suggested that requirements for electronic recordkeeping should derive from authoritative sources, such as the law, customs, standards, and professional best practices accepted by society and codified in the literature of different professions concerned with records and recordkeeping rather than developed in isolation. <P7> On their own, archival requirements for recordkeeping have very little authority as no authoritative agencies such as standards boards or professional associations have yet to endorse them [sic] and few archivists have the authority to insist that their organizations follow them. <P8> An NHPRC study suggested that archivists have not been involved in the process of meeting the challenges of electronic records because they are undervalued by their colleagues, or, in other words, are not viewed as a credible source.
Conclusions
RQ "By highlighting the similarity between recordkeeping requirements and the requirements delineated in authoritative statements in the law, auditing standards, and professional best practices, archivists will increase the power of their message. ... If archivists are to take their rightful place as regulators of an organization's documentary requirements, they will have to reach beyond their own professional literature and understand the requirements for recordkeeping imposed by other professions and society in general. Furthermore, they will have to study methods of increasing the accpetance of their message and the impact and power of warrant."
Type
Journal
Title
Will Metadata Replace Archival Description: A Commentary
CA Before archival description can be replaced by metadata, "archivists must first study their user needs, identify processes that protect the integrity and impartiality of records, and ensure the capture of important contextual information." (p.38)
Phrases
<P1> Unfortunately, information systems often do not create records, concentrating instead on the preservation of information to the detriment of recordkeeping. Concern over this issue has lead Wallace to promote a new role for archivists, one that places them at the conception of the life cycle, establishing standards for record preservation and management as well as dictating record creation. Demarcation between archivists and records managers disappears in this new paradigm, and a new role as auditor, system designer, and regulator begins to emerge. (p.34) <P2> "Metadata are essential if archivists are to maintain the integrity and authenticity of evidence of actions. McNeil likens metadata systems to protocol registers and sees metadata itself as evidence, as well as a means of preserving evidence." (p.35)
Conclusions
RQ Will metadata replace archival description? Will metadata requirements fulfill the needs of secondary users? Will metadata require secondary descriptions?
Type
Journal
Title
Ensuring the Preservation of Reliable Evidence: A Research Project Funded by the NHPRC
CA Archivists need to propogate research projects that delineate means to engender trust and accountability for our e-records.
Phrases
<P1> "The task of preserving evidence in a hardware and software dependent environment challenges archivists to develop new techniques and new ways of of thinking about what to capture and how to preserve it. The development of the functional requirements, including the production rules, the literary warrant, and the metadata reference model, is a first step toward solving some of the most pressing problems that archivists face in the new electronic world. (p.39) <P2> As records migrate from a stable paper reality to an intangible electronic existence, their physical attributes, vital for establishing the authenticity and reliability of the evidence they contain, are threatened. (p. 29) <P3> Unfortunately, systems that create and maintain electronic records often fail to preserve the structure or the context essential for the evidentiary nature of records. (p.30)
Conclusions
RQ Can warrant increase the credibility of the functional requirements for recordkeeping? Can one type of warrant be more influential than others? Is the warrant from a person's specific profession seen by him or her as more important than others?
This paper discusses how metadata standards can help organizations comply with the ISO 9000 standards for quality systems. It provides a brief overview of metadata, ISO 9000 and related records management standards. It then analyses in some depth the ISO 9000 requirements for quality records, and outlines the problems that some organizations have in complying with them. It also describes the metadata specifications developed by the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Recordkeeping project and the SPIRT Recordkeeping Metadata project in Australia and discusses the role of metadata in meeting ISO 9000 requirements for the creation and preservation of reliable, authentic and accessible records.
Publisher
Records Continuum Research Group
Critical Arguements
CA "During the last few years a number of research projects have studied the types of metadata needed to create, manage and make accessible quality records, i.e. reliable, authentic and useable records. This paper will briefly discuss the purposes of recordkeeping metadata, with reference to emerging records management standards, and the models presented by two projects, one in the United States and one in Australia. It will also briefly review the ISO 9000 requirements for records and illustrate how metadata can help an organization meet these requirements."
Conclusions
RQ "Quality records provide many advantages for organizations and can help companies meet the ISO 9000 certification. However, systems must be designed to create the appropriate metadata to ensure they comply with recordkeeping requirements, particularly those identified by records management standards like AS 4390 and the proposed international standard, which provide benchmarks for recordkeeping best practice. The Pittsburgh metadata model and the SPIRT framework provide organizations with standardized sets of metadata that would ensure the creation, preservation and accessibility of reliable, authentic and meaningful records for as long as they are of use. In deciding what metadata to capture, organisations should consider the cost of meeting the requirements of the ISO 9000 guidelines and any related records management best practice standards, and the possible risk of not meeting these requirements."
