The inventorying process in not a one‐shot deal: It is only useful if the records inventory is kept up‐to‐date, so it should be reviewed, at least annually. A process should be put in place so that business unit or agency heads notify the records management head/lead if a new fi le series or system has been put in place and new records collections are created. 34
The following fi ve tips can help ensure that a records management program achieves its goals:
1. Records management is everyone’s role : The volume and diversity of business records, from e‐mail to reports to tweets, means that the person who creates or receives a record is in the best [position] to classify it. Everyone in the organization needs to adopt the records management program.
2. Don’t micro‐classify : Having hundreds, or possibly thousands of records classifi cation categories may seem like a logical way to orga- nize the multitude of different records in a company. However, the records appraisal is based upon the information contained in the records inventory.
average information worker, whose available resources are already under pressure, does not want to spend any more time than necessary classifying records. Having a few broad classifi cations makes the deci- sion process simpler and faster.
3. Talk the talk from the top on down : A culture of compliance starts at the top. Businesses should establish a senior‐level steering committee comprised of executives from legal, compliance, and information tech- nology (IT). A committee like this signals the company’s commitment to compliant records management and ensures enterprise adoption.
4. Walk the walk, consistently : For compliance to become second nature, it needs to be clearly communicated to everyone in the or- ganization, and policies and procedures must be accessible. Training should be rigorous and easily available, and organizations may con- sider rewarding compliance through fi nancial incentives, promotions and corporate‐wide recognition.
5. Measure the measurable : The ability to measure adherence to pol- icy and adoption of procedures should be included in core business operations and audits. Conduct a compliance assessment, including a gap analysis, at least once a year, and prepare an action plan to close any identifi ed holes.
The continuing growth of data challenges an organization’s ability to use and store its records in a compliant and cost‐effective manner. Contrary to cur- rent practices, the solution is not to hire more technology services vendors or to adopt multiple technologies. The key to compliance is consistency, with a unifi ed enterprise‐wide approach for managing all records, regardless of their format or location. 35
So a steady and consistent IG approach that includes controls, audits, and clear communication is key to maintaining an accurate and current records inventory.
CHAPTER SUMMARY:
KEY POINTS
■ nArA recommends that e‐records are inventoried by information sys- tem, versus file series, which is the traditional approach for physical records.
■ generally Accepted recordkeeping Principles or “gAr Principles” or “the Principles” are “information management and governance of record cre- ation, organization, security, maintenance and other activities used to effec- tively support recordkeeping of an organization.”
■ It may be helpful to use a recordkeeping methodology such as the gAr Principles or d.I.r.K.s. to guide inventorying efforts.
(Continued )
Notes
1. “Disposition of Federal Records: A Records Management Handbook,” The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2000, web edition, www.archives.gov/records‐mgmt/publications/disposition‐
of‐federal‐records/chapter‐3.html.
2. Ibid.
3. State and Consumer Services Agency Department of General Services, “Electronic Records Management Handbook,” State of California Records Management Program, February 2002, www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/osp/recs/ermhbkall.pdf.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Six Steps to Better Files,” updated March 8, 2012, www.epa.gov/records/tools/toolkits/6step/6step‐02.htm.
5. Margaret Rouse, “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles,” updated March 2011, http://
searchcompliance.techtarget.com/defi nition/Generally‐Accepted‐Recordkeeping‐Principles‐GARP (accessed March 19, 2012).
(Continued )
■ Perhaps the organization has a handle on their paper and microfi lmed re- cords, but e‐records have been growing exponentially and spiraling out of control.
■ Whatever the business goals for the inventorying effort are, they must be conveyed to all stakeholders, and that message must be reinforced periodi- cally and consistently, and through multiple means.
■ An appropriate scope might enumerate the records of a single program or division, several functional series across divisions, or records that fall within a certain time frame, versus an entire enterprise.
■ the completed records inventory contributes toward the pursuit of an org- anization’s Ig objectives in a number of ways.
■ there are basic three ways to conduct the inventory: surveys, interviews, and observation. combining these methods yields the best results.
■ Additional information not included in inventories of physical records must be collected in any inventory of e‐records.
■ Be sure to tie the fi ndings in the fi nal report of the records inventory to the business goals that launched the effort.
■ records appraisal is based upon the information contained in the records inventory.
■ records can have different types of value to organizations: historical, admin- istrative, regulatory and statutory, legal value, fi scal value, or other archival value as determined by an archivist.
■ consistency in managing records across an enterprise, regardless of media, format or location, is the key to compliance.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Public Record Office, “Guidance for an Inventory of Electronic Record Collections: A Toolkit,”
September 2000, www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/implementation/general/guidance_
for_inventory_elect_rec_collection.pdf, pp. 5–6.
9. Public Record Office, “Guidance for an Inventory of Electronic Record Collections: A Toolkit.”
10. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Inventories,” updated October 27, 2000, www.archives.gov/records‐mgmt/faqs/inventories.html.
11. William Saffady, Managing Electronic Records, 4th ed., Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947138/.
12. Jesse Wilkins, “The First Step: Inventory Your Electronic Records,” IMERGE Consulting, http://
pr1vacy.blogspot.mx/2005/11/first‐step‐inventory‐your‐electronic.html (accessed October 11, 2012).
13. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Inventories.”
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Charmaine Brooks, e‐mail to author, March 20, 2012.
19. www.archives.gov/records‐mgmt/faqs/inventories.html (accessed April 9, 2012).
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Six Steps to Better Files,” updated March 8, 2012, www.epa.
gov/records/tools/toolkits/6step/6step‐02.htm.
21. Wilkins, “The First Step: Inventory Your Electronic Records.”
22. Ibid.
23. Government of Alberta, Records and Information Management, www.im.gov.ab.ca/index.cfm?page=
imtopics/Records.html.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Charmaine Brooks, e‐mail to author, March 20, 2012.
28. The Scottish Government, “Compiling a Records Inventory,” updated April 22, 2010, www.scotland .gov.uk/Publications/2010/04/22093418/5 .
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Maryland State Archives, “Retention Schedule Preparation,” June 1, 2012, www.msa.md.gov/msa/
intromsa/html/record_mgmt/retention_schedule.html.
33. Ibid.
34. NHS Connecting for Health, www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk (accessed April 10, 2012).
35. Wortzman Nickle Professional Corporation, “Effective Records Management—Part 4—Ensuring Adoption and Compliance of RM Policy,” 2009, www.wortzmannickle.com/ediscovery‐blog/2011/12/14/
rmpart4 (accessed April 12, 2012).
79
C H A P T E R 6
Taxonomy
Development for E‐Records
Barb Blackburn, CRM , with Robert Smallwood ; edited by Seth Earley
t
he creation of electronic documents and records is exploding exponentially, mul- tiplying at an increasing rate, and sifting through all this information results in a lot of wasted, unproductive (and expensive) knowledge‐worker time. This has real costs to the enterprise. According to the study, “The High Cost of Not Finding Information,” an IDC report, “knowledge workers spend at least 15 to 25 percent of the workday searching for information. Only half the searches are successful.” 1 Experts point to poor taxonomy design as being at the root of these failed searches and lost productivity.Taxonomies are at the heart of the solution to harnessing and governing informa- tion. Taxonomies are hierarchical classifi cation structures used to standardize the naming and organization of information, and their role and use in managing electronic records cannot be overestimated.
Although the topic of taxonomies can get complex, in electronic records man- agement (ERM), they are a sort of online card catalog that is cross‐referenced with hyperlinks that is used to organize and manage records and documents. 2
According to Forrester Research, taxonomies “represent agreed‐upon terms and relationships between ideas or things and serve as a glossary or knowledge map help- ing to defi ne how the business thinks about itself and represents itself, its products and services to the outside world.” 3
Gartner Group researchers warn that “to get value from the vast quantities of in- formation and knowledge, enterprises must establish discipline and a system of gover- nance over the creation, capture, organization, access, and utilization of information.” 4 Over time, organizations have implemented taxonomies to attempt to gain control over their mounting masses of information, creating an orderly structure to harness unstructured information (such as e‐documents, e-mail messages, scanned records, and other digital assets), and to improve searchability and access. 5
Taxonomies for electronic records management (ERM) standardize the vocabulary used to describe records, making it easier and faster for searches and retrievals to be made.
Knowledge workers spend at least 15 to 25 percent of the workday searching for information with only half the searches being successful.
Search engines are able to deliver faster and more accurate results from good taxonomy design by limiting and standardizing terms. A robust and effi cient taxonomy design is the underpinning that indexes collections of documents uniformly and helps knowledge workers fi nd the proper fi les to complete their work. The way a taxonomy is organized and implemented is critical to the long‐term success of any enterprise, as it directly impacts the quality and productivity of knowledge workers who need orga- nized, trusted information to make business decisions.
It doesn’t sound so complicated, simply categorizing and cataloguing information, yet most enterprises have had disappointing or inconsistent results from the taxono- mies they use to organize information. Designing taxonomies is hard work. Developing an effi cient and consistent taxonomy is a detailed, tedious, labor‐intensive team effort on the front end, and its maintenance must be consistent and regular and follow estab- lished information governance (IG) guidelines, in order to maintain its effectiveness.
Once a taxonomy is in place, it requires systematic updates and reviews, to ensure that guidelines are being followed and new document and record types are included in the taxonomy structure. Technology tools like text mining, social tagging, and auto‐classifi cation can help uncover trends and suggest candidate terms. (More on these technologies later in this chapter.)
When done correctly, the business benefi ts of good taxonomy design go much further than speeding search and retrieval; an effi cient, operational taxonomy also is a part of IG efforts that help the organization to manage and control information so that it may effi ciently respond to litigation requests, comply with governmental regu- lations, and meet customer needs (both external and internal).
Taxonomies are crucial to fi nding information and optimizing knowledge worker pro- ductivity, yet some surveys estimate that nearly half of organizations do not have a standardized taxonomy in place. 6
According to the Montague Institute, “The way your company organizes informa- tion (i.e., its taxonomy) is critical to its future. A taxonomy not only frames the way people make decisions, but also helps them fi nd the information to weigh all the alter- natives. A good taxonomy helps decision makers see all the perspectives, and ‘drill down’ to get details from each , and explore lateral relationships among them ” (italics added). 7 Without it, your company will fi nd it diffi cult to leverage intellectual capital, engage in electronic commerce, keep up with employee training, and get the most out of strategic partner- ships.
With the explosion in growth of electronic documents and records, a standardized classifi - cation structure that a taxonomy imposes optimizes records retrievals for daily business opera- tions and also legal and regulatory demands . 8
Since end‐users can choose from topic areas, subject categories, or groups of doc- uments, rather than blindly typing word searches , taxonomies narrow searches and speed search time and retrieval. 9
to maximize effi cient and effective retrieval of records for legal, business, and regulatory purposes, organizations must develop and implement taxonomies.
“The link between taxonomies and usability is a strong one. The best taxonomies effi ciently guide users to exactly the content they need. Usability is judged in part by how easily content can be found,” according to the Montague Institute. 10