The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm
RMJ 21,1
Records management myopia: a case study Stewart Hase Stewart Hase and Associates, Iluka, Australia, and
36
Julian Galt Southern Institute of Technology, Invercargill, New Zealand
Received 7 June 2010 Accepted 11 August 2010
Abstract Purpose – This paper seeks to provide some important lessons learned from the introduction of a new records management system in a tertiary educational institution and its relation to records management. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a case study using after action review. Findings – The key findings build on the extant literature that is largely case study based. The findings were that: it is easy to lose sight of key systems issues and knowledge management in a busy world; knowledge and records management are strategic issues; records management is essential to organizational effectiveness; records and knowledge management is not just another task; implementation needs to be driven from the top and built from the bottom; training and support are essential; development is ongoing; and external expertise should be used when necessary. Research limitations/implications – The research is limited by being a single case study. Practical implications – The case study provides practical advice about implementing effective records keeping systems for those overseeing such a process. Originality/value – The case study contributes to the understanding of records management as a component of knowledge management and provides some new insights into implementation of new systems. It also provides evidence that after action review is a valuable tool in being a good knowledge management citizen. Keywords Records management, Knowledge management, Change management, Action learning Paper type Case study
Records Management Journal Vol. 21 No. 1, 2011 pp. 36-45 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-5698 DOI 10.1108/09565691111125099
1. Background to the study This paper describes what we learned from our experience in completely reorganizing the records management policy, procedures and systems in our organization, a tertiary sector education provider. The blow-by-blow description of the actual process has been reported elsewhere (Galt and Hase, 2009) and will only be outlined below as essential background. Rather, here we are reporting the “lessons learned” from our after action review. In doing so we are hoping to contribute to the understanding of change, and records and knowledge management. In addition, we are being good knowledge management citizens in using review processes that enable us, and others, to learn from our experience. Before moving on to what we did indeed learn and how this relates to the knowledge management literature, we need to provide a brief overview of our situation and what we did. In an environment of increased regulation our organization was forced into a situation where it was to be subject to an external audit process. Unfortunately, our
archives consisted of boxes hidden away being left to go mouldy and as Galt and Hase (2009, p. 2) have reported, this was, “[. . .] a sad reflection of neglect that confirmed a total lack of interest of how we managed this critical aspect of our institutional knowledge”. The reason for this state of affairs was probably the first important piece of learning and is expanded on later. Our organization had been very focussed on surviving in an increasingly global and competitive market. It had developed a sound business model that was very entrepreneurial and had shown itself to be very effective. Thus a great deal of time, resources and energy were spent on pursuit of essential business strategies. The downside to the considerable business achievement and attending to the core business of education, was that records management had fallen off the management radar. However, there is nothing like the need for compliance to put it back firmly in the sights. An initial review showed that our poor attention to records management in particular and knowledge management in general had resulted in some unfortunate behaviours. In summary these were: . Staff having little understanding of accountabilities that they may, or may not have, for records management. . People being very diligent and keeping everything no matter how irrelevant because there were no guidelines for what should be retained. . A lack of a central classification approach. This meant that individuals, or discreet areas, devised their own systems and rules. This resulted in there being no standardised procedures for records management, except for the key central functions, of finance, human resources, student admissions, and student reporting. . A lack of consistent approaches and systems that meant records auditing or enforcement, and regular disposal, had been impossible. . No regular disposal and rather rudimentary storage becoming progressively filled to overflowing (Galt and Hase, 2009, p. 2). . Duplication of effort in many areas in that there was little sharing of knowledge. In consultation with all major stakeholders a strategy was devised to quickly address the problem. The overall plan (Galt and Hase, 2009) was as follows: . Appointment of an external contractor. . Organizational archives being relocated to compliant storage. . Consultancy staff finalising the records “classification system”. . Appointment of a full-time records officer to spearhead and monitor the implementation of new systems. . Documentation in support of the organization’s own retention and disposal approval being granted by Archives New Zealand. . All involved in the introduction of new processes being consulted to resolve issues constructively as they arose (a whole of system approach). . Training to support new practices, or at least mentoring, to assist with familiarisation with new ways of doing things. . A positive approach to ensure that a “business as usual” culture was established (Galt and Hase, 2009).
Records management myopia 37
RMJ 21,1
38
The exercise was a major learning process for all those involved and although we had access to the literature and other cases it was a new experience for us. In that regard it was decided to use an action learning approach (Revans, 1980) that included planning cycles built around after action review sessions. The rest of this paper describes the lessons learned and documented during these sessions. 2. Lessons learned 2.1 Knowledge management is a strategic issue Our experience reinforced the fact that sound knowledge management practice is often neglected (Gupta and McDaniel, 2002; Levett and Guenov, 2000). Thus, behind the fac¸ade of strong educational performance, and financial results, the operating environment in regard to compliance with records management was rapidly changing. The case organization had failed to recognise the challenge that was building until legislative changes prompted the organization’s managers to reflect seriously on what had become a chaotic and serious situation. The case organization had shown a lack of integrity with records management and the broader issue of knowledge management during a time of considerable growth when, paradoxically, it needed to pay attention to both these areas. That knowledge management is a strategic issue that needs to be aligned with general organizational strategy is well known (Clarke, 2001; Hariharan, 2002; Martin, 2000; Wiig, 2000) and was reinforced by our experience. The management of information and records must be systematised and drawn into the operational fabric, into the “business as usual” of the organization. So long as this work is handled as an exception, the potential advantage of sound records management is lost. It also needs to be built into the business strategy and seen as an enabling factor contributing to the organization’s strategic direction: in this case supporting product development, service extension, and operating effectiveness and efficiency. Records management is a task in which an organization seeks to protect its information assets but which is rarely mentioned in the knowledge management literature despite being closely related. According to the NSW Department of Commerce State Records Authority of NSW (2009) records are important because they may be used as a knowledge source and in that respect records and knowledge management are related and need to reciprocate in their activities. Sanderson (2001) in discussing how records management can help store and make available tacit knowledge blurs the boundaries between records and knowledge management so that they are almost indistinguishable. He uses much of the same language and process that involves identification of knowledge, capture, storage, communities of interest, use of appropriate technology, and retrieval, for example. Moreover, its strategic importance as a means of ensuring tacit knowledge is not lost is emphasised. In an Australian case study involving the implementation of an electronic records management system Wilkins et al. (2007) found that the strategic, tactical and operational components implementation need to be aligned to avoid disastrous consequences. Hence, careful planning is required of what is a highly complex undertaking and a high level of consultation is required right from the start. If records management is linked to operations, an integral part of business operation, rather than an additional “task” then it cannot be by-passed when other pressing operating priorities arise. In this context, it must become a component of the
annual operating cycle that requires the understanding and ownership of staff responsible for knowledge management throughout the organization. The focus in the case organization is still on training and mentoring in systems required to achieve organizational purposes. In order for this to be successful the language needs to be intelligible and requirements need to be practical.
Records management myopia
2.2 Good records management practices are essential to organizational effectiveness Several key factors relating to organizational effectiveness were identified. These were: . Risk reduction. . Loss of credibility that suffers when paper trails are not easily accessible. . There is financial cost of hunting for data, duplication of work, storage of several versions of any documented item: the costs associated with inefficiency and inconsistency. . The contribution having good records makes to continuity of organizational knowledge. . Customer service by being able to access information quickly for clients. . The potential for innovation as the backlog of paper records are being refined and sorted. This allows thinking to focus on using new information technology systems to further improve knowledge management/record management and in so doing, keeping up with the technology that students have access to, and expect. . Reduction in operating costs through determining who is the “owner” of documentation, and thus enabling the destruction of duplicate files and working documents.
39
Some challenges in terms of organizational effectiveness were also identified although these appeared to be short-term issues rather than ongoing. Change of this sort is a challenging and time-consuming task. It involves ongoing training and support plus an energetic approach to breaking the “feral” culture relating to records and archiving of data and documentation. Thus, we found there was an “uneven” degree of uptake by staff depending on culture of business units, different attitudes to the tasks necessary to embed knowledge management, and the degree of support and encouragement provided by the supervisors of staff in operating roles. Senior management, therefore, have to spend a lot of time and energy throughout the change process in order to “bed” down the new culture. 2.3 Records and knowledge management is not just another task Knowledge management should assist in performing daily work (Davenport et al., 1998; Gore and Gore, 1999; Salisbury, 2003). It needs to be a core competency and not just an add-on (Clarke, 2001; Hariharan, 2002; Lim and Hase, 2007; Martin, 2000; Wiig, 2000). In the case example, which is a tertiary education institution, knowledge management and records management are indivisible. Much of the institution’s record of outcomes and student achievements are held in physical and electronic files, and the appropriate management of these is central to the management of organization knowledge – the institutional “memory”. In this context knowledge and record management are “indistinguishable”.
RMJ 21,1
40
In a tertiary operating environment key knowledge may include staff and student demographics, work and study focus, program specifications and subsequent detailed lesson plans, assessment tools and assessment results, formative and summative, the outputs of transcripts for qualifications, and data for stakeholders in central government. Such data must have reliable and consistent systems for their capture, must be stored in a manner that allows efficient retrieval, and have very high levels of confidence about the safety and integrity of such records. In addition the same requirements apply to the infrastructure supporting the effective operation of the educational services; human resources and salary records, income and expenditure, capital expenditure, and operational expenditures including everything from photocopy paper to cleaning materials. Knowledge and records management must be woven into the myriad processes required to sustain the operation; and lack of consistency and lack of attention to this increases the organization’s knowledge management risks. 2.4 Driving from the top, but building from the bottom Despite the important strategic importance of effective knowledge management practice, its adoption and implementation in an organization can be a challenging task (Barth, 1999; Bennett and Gabriel, 1999; Davenport et al., 1998; Lim and Hase, 2007; Ruggles, 1998). The rapid adoption of improved knowledge management/record management practices in the case organization is in large part attributed to the high level of “buy-in” at the senior levels of management. This high-level support encouraged the adoption of new approaches to records management and archiving in particular. There was a shared understanding of the operation difficulties and risks that had been experienced over an extended period of time. As described in Kotter’s (1995) model of organizational change, without senior management support, and in particular with the resourcing of developments, little would have been achieved. This financial assistance has facilitated the establishment of a designated role, and addressing the expenses involved in the maintenance of this function, as well as the costs attendant with the off-site commercial storage of archived records, and the current initiative to fund a pilot to develop and test the use of electronic storage and retrieval systems across several central functions. Gregogy (2005), in a case study of a major health organization in the UK, found that the implementation of electronic records management systems creates an enormous cultural change. As such, the backing of senior management is essential although outcomes are more readily achieved if senior management does not get personally involved. This means driving the project from the top, but building from the bottom and empowering others to undertake the task thereby building in ownership and accountability into the system. This approach may also assist in overcoming staff resistance, which is commonly reported in the literature (Ryan, 2005) to what will be seen as a non-core activity by most. This would include (Ellis, 2005): staff workshops designed to discuss the issues around changing to an electronic system; developing a design team to choose the system; designing a strategic plan; communicating throughout the process; aligning the implementation with business processes; integrating the system throughout the organization; testing the system; providing training; and undertaking a post-implementation review.
Building from the bottom is essential to ensure that new policies actually happen, and may include but is not limited to: . Establishing new processes within current operating routines. . Training and advice. . Inclusion of responsibilities for knowledge management/records management within position descriptions and supervision and appraisal discussions and documentation and inclusion of procedures within the organization’s operations and procedures (quality assurance) manual, that are not only related to the specific policies and procedures for knowledge management and record management, but also to the processes applicable to, for example, human resources, service delivery, assessment, and reporting to stakeholders. The fundamental ingredient in successes with “building from the bottom” is early consultation. Resistance to new processes has been limited, once staff appreciated why they needed to alter their practices and were involved in decision making about the change. 2.5 Training and support Like Kemoni and Wamukoy (2000), Johnson and Bowen (2005) and Ellis (2005), we found that staff training was an essential component of a successful records management system. The organization was operating with a single designated records management role. Thus, the only prospect for installing good practice was for the records officer to train section and faculty staff to be “self-managing” in respect to their responsibilities with records. Adoption needs to be seen by staff as rewarding rather than a repackaging of existing practices. Thus, consideration has to be given not only to meeting organizational needs, but also meeting the needs of individual staff as well, to ensure they are committed to new approaches in the long term. 2.6 Ongoing development Records and knowledge management is a complex operation as is the organizational context. Systems and processes must be robust in the knowledge management/records management areas for the span of activity from strategic planning, through service delivery and infrastructural support, to reporting and compliance in both the academic and business segments of the entity. In some operating areas, a simple adherence to basic and logical manual processes, consistent with the organization’s taxonomy is sufficient; in others a sophisticated electronic system for storage, retrieval, sharing and manipulation of data and knowledge has become a pressing requirement. Thus, the change process should never be seen as over (Laeven, 2005; Maguire, 2005; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). Rather, action-learning methods (e.g. Revans, 1980) need to be used to ensure continuous improvement. As Hase et al.(1998) discovered, champions for change are essential to organizational capability. In this regard the records management officer position continues as a support and development role. 2.7 Using expert help Given the extent of the challenge with retrieving what had become a chaotic and unsustainable situation with regard to record management and archiving, at the
Records management myopia 41
RMJ 21,1
42
outset the level of consultation with the wider staff was limited. The lack of on-site expertise in the areas of records management and forthcoming compliance requirements with the recent public records legislation resulted in senior management opting to use a consultancy firm to provide a roadmap for the way ahead. This proved to be a most effective approach; and following a detailed situation analysis, the consultant worked with senior managers to develop a records strategy, define policies and procedures, and map out a taxonomy of the records structure of the organization. Consistent with many change management theories (Kotter, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1995) and with the findings of Johnson and Bowen (2005) we found wider consultation essential to effective implementation. The Records Officer was charged with the task of working with staff to design implementation strategies. Staff were engaged in discussions about what the likely implications of the developments would be in areas of responsibility, and then subsequently, provision of specific training in the skills required to manage area records and data in accordance with the organizations requirements. The “top down first” approach, followed then by detailed work at the operational level, has appeared to be successful in establishing purpose and direction initially, and then infusing the required processes into the business operations. The ongoing objective of the organization is for there to be local “ownership” of systems and processes required, in all areas and levels of the organization, and in a consistent manner. The latter is a long-term objective, and the case organization is some way off achieving this. 3. Conclusion The lessons learned from this case study support many of the success factors found in the extant literature describing the implementing a new records management system. However, as Johnson and Bowen (2005) found in their review of the records management literature, there is no single fix to system implementation. Organizations are different and a formula-driven approach is likely to be a bad fit. Rather, constantly monitoring and responding to the data enables action to be emergent. Clearly, given the complexity of the undertaking, a whole of systems approach (Ackoff, 1999) should guide management thinking. This means being constantly aware that any change or activity in the system (the organization) will have an effect elsewhere, potentially critically. In this case we had a situation where our knowledge management practices had been completely neglected to our potential detriment given its strategic importance. During the implementation of new systems we were mindful to engage all parts of the system in planning and feedback to ensure that nothing was overlooked. It also meant that there is greater level of ownership and a more complete model given that people are indeed experts in their area and expertise outranks rank (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). This is essential if records management, and knowledge management in general are to be seen as more than “add-ons” to the work at hand. It also needs to be built into the day-to-day operational activities of the organization to avoid being sidelined or dismissed altogether. Thus, we learned a lot from incorporating an action learning approach into the project to monitor learning as it occurs and then readjusting strategy. While our implementation of this was not perfect, we are learning from that too. In future we
would include more stakeholders in this process to ensure that issues are confronted and dealt with early rather than later. Continuous feedback from all parts of the organization is essential in complex change. References Ackoff, R. (1999), Ackoff’s Best: His Classic Writings on Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Barth, S. (1999), “Knowledge-age mergers: finding the perfect fit”, Knowledge Management Magazine, May, pp. 26-8. Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (1999), “Organizational factors and knowledge management within large marketing department: an empirical study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 212-25. Clarke, T. (2001), “The knowledge-based economy”, The Australian Standard Magazine, June, pp. 13-16. Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57. Ellis, J. (2005), “Implementing a solution for electronic recordkeeping in the public sector”, in Hare, C. and McLeod, J. (Eds), Managing Electronic Records, Facet Publishing, London, pp. 163-86. Galt, J. and Hase, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and public records compliance: a forgotten world”, Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research, available at http:// sitjar.sit.ac.nz (accessed 9 May 2010). Gore, C. and Gore, E. (1999), “Knowledge management: the way forward”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 554-60. Gregogy, K. (2005), “Implementing an electronic records management system: a public sector case study”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 80-5. Gupta, A. and McDaniel, J. (2002), “Creating competitive advantage by effectively managing knowledge: a framework for knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October, available at: www.tlainc.com/artic139.htm (accessed 9 May 2010). Hariharan, A. (2002), “Knowledge management: a strategic tool”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, December, available at: www.tlainc.com/artic146.htm (accessed 9 May 2010). Hase, S., Cairns, L. and Malloch, M. (1998), “Capable organisations: implications for vocational education and training”, paper presented at the NCVER Conference, Adelaide, April. Johnson, G.P. and Bowen, D.V. (2005), “The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general review of published and some unpublished cases”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 131-40. Kemoni, H. and Wamukoy, J. (2000), “Preparing for the management of electronic records at Moi University, Kenya; a case study”, Archives and Information Science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 125-138. Kotter, J.P. (1985), Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority, Free Press, New York, NY. Kotter, J. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 59-67. Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2002), The Heart of Change: Real-life Stories of How People Change their Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Records management myopia 43
RMJ 21,1
44
Laeven, T. (2005), “Competencies – the asset that counts most: on developing human talents as a prerequisite for successful EDRM changes”, in Hare, C. and McLeod, J. (Eds), Managing Electronic Records, Facet Publishing, London, pp. 129-48. Levett, G.P. and Guenov, M.D. (2000), “A methodology for knowledge management implementation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 258-69. Lim, W.T. and Hase, S. (2007), “Knowledge management in the Malaysian aerospace industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 143-51. Maguire, R. (2005), “Lessons learned from implementing an electronic records management system”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 150-7. Martin, B. (2000), “Knowledge based organizations: emerging trends in local government in Australia”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October, available at: www.tlainc. com/articl16.htm (accessed 9 May 2010). NSW Department of Commerce State Records Authority of NSW (2009), “Recordkeeping in brief 26 – an introduction to knowledge management for records managers”, available at: www. records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/government-recordkeeping-manual/guidance/ recordkeeping-in-brief/recordkeeping-in-brief-26 (accessed 9 May 2010). Revans, R. (1980), Action Learning: New Techniques for Management, Blond & Briggs, London. Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-9. Ryan, D. (2005), “The future of managing electronic records”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 128-30. Salisbury, M.W. (2003), “Putting theory into practice to build knowledge management systems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 128-41. Sanderson, M. (2001), “Records management and the capture of tacit knowledge”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-17. Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2001), Managing the Unexpected, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Wiig, K.M. (2000), “Application of knowledge management in public administration”, Proceedings of the International Symposium Building Policy Conference, Taipei, May, available at: www.krii.com/downloads/km_in_public_admin_rev.pdf (accessed 9 May 2010). Wilkins, L., Holt, D., Swatman, P.M.C. and Chan, E.S.K. (2007), “Implementing information management strategically: an Australian EDRMS case study”, paper presented at the eMergence: Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions Conference, Bled, 4-6 June. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1995), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Further reading Hase, S., Cairns, L. and Malloch, M. (1998), “Learning in the workplace: implications of the capability learning model”, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, June. McDonald, J. (2005), “The wild frontier ten years on”, in Hare, C. and McLeod, J. (Eds), Managing Electronic Records, Facet Publishing, London, pp. 2-18. McLeod, J. and Hare, C. (2005), Managing Electronic Records, Facet Publishing, London. Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovation, The Free Press, New York, NY.
About the authors Stewart Hase is a Consultant Psychologist who mostly works with people in organizations helping them deal more effectively both personally and professionally with organizational life. Now semi-retired he spends his time, in-between consulting projects, reflecting, reading and writing: the aftermath of a 30-year academic career. There is also the travelling, golf and fishing. Stewart Hase is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected] Julian Galt is a Senior Manager at Southern Institute of Technology, the largest provider of applied vocational tertiary education in southern New Zealand. Responsibilities include strategic and operations management and the role also has a focus on the development and monitoring of systems and processes, including those for academic quality management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Records management myopia 45
