41
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
v
Introduction
In February 2005, the SAA Council embarked on a strategic planning initiative that
began with identifying a “radar screen” of 10 to 12 challenges to the archives
profession—disruptive forces that will likely have a significant impact on the Society’s
mission and that could be harmful if not addressed. Council members narrowed that list
to the three highest priorities, defined desired outcomes for each, and developed lists of
concrete activities to achieve those desired outcomes. With the assistance of member
feedback, successive Councils have repeatedly reexamined and reaffirmed the
significance of these three highest priorities: Technology, Diversity, and Public
Awareness/Advocacy.
As expressed by the Council’s issue statement, “rapidly changing information
technologies challenge archival principles, practices, and communication protocols,
demanding effective leadership from the archives community to access, capture, and
preserve records in all formats.” When SAA and the archival profession successfully
come to terms with this challenge, the following desired outcomes will be achieved:
1. All archivists will possess recognized core competencies on how to manage,
appraise, acquire, and provide access to electronic records and other digital assets.
2. Archivists will be able to communicate and collaborate with information
technologists and members of allied professions at a basic level.
3. Some archivists will have advanced knowledge of electronic records and digital
asset management techniques so that they can serve as a source of expert
knowledge, conduct research, and anticipate changes in technology so that the
profession is better prepared to respond.
4. Archivists, records managers, and IT professionals will develop, accept, and
implement widely accepted standards for archival functions (e.g., accessioning,
appraisal, arrangement and description, preservation, access) for born-digital
records and digitized archival assets utilizing readily available tools.
5. Archivists will have a variety of educational opportunities to acquire and improve
electronic records-related competencies at the introductory, advanced, and
continuing education levels.
6. Archivists will formulate appropriate advocacy strategies based upon a
sophisticated understanding of the role of information policy in the creation and
accessibility of records.
In 2006, when the technology issue statement and its desired outcomes outlined above
were first articulated, the highest-ranking activity recommended by the Council was to
“identify competencies and standards and collect, review, and clarify best practices
relating to all areas of archival practice that are affected by electronic records and digital
asset issues.” Subsequently, the Council appointed the Technology Best Practices Task
Force, which was initially charged to work with appropriate SAA groups and “compile an
DocImage SDK for .NET: Document Imaging Features types, including EXIF tags, IIM(IPTC), XMP data, and TIFF users to add metadata in the form of EXIF TIFF Type 6 (OJPEG) encoding Image only PDF encoding support.
extract data from pdf form fields; pdf data extraction to excel
39
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
vi
annotated bibliography and/or summary report (to) post on the SAA website.” The Task
Force compiled a working document, Managing Electronic Records and Assets: A
Bibliography, as a first pass at such a compilation.
As reported in the task force’s August 2007 and February 2008 progress reports, the
working document was put out for comment. Feedback on the bibliography was critical
of its scope and the lack of satisfactory criteria by which to define and identify “best
practices.” Consequently, the task force revisited and refined its methodology. As the
task force May 2008 progress report stated:
Applied research in the professions often takes place without the academic
rigor of method, especially when it comes to measuring and testing
outcomes. Most information is published because of its usefulness to
professional practice and not to offer prescriptive solutions. Also,
archivists believe that repository context is everything, making the
generalization of solutions difficult. Determining best practices for
electronic archival records may be considered suspect by some.
On this basis, the task force identified four criteria for best practices research. As outlined
in the May 2008 progress report, best practices:
1. Present innovative and creative solutions to common problems;
2. Are sustainable;
3. Have the potential for replication; and
4. Provide at least some empirical evidence for the above.
To test the new methodology, the task force sought to apply these criteria to a more
focused “pilot study” on the management of email records. The pilot study was very
time-consuming and revealed few practices that met the definition above.
The task force then reviewed the draft working bibliography for entries that would meet
the four criteria for best practices. As the task force’s final report (February 2009; see
Appendix) concluded:
We have adopted a definition of best practices and criteria for recognizing
them, and we do not believe that there is yet a body of best practices out
there that would meet those criteria. As potential best practices emerge,
specialists will be needed to evaluate whether there is empirical evidence
that the practices provide innovative solutions to common problems.
These findings underscore the veracity of the SAA Council’s issue statement on
technology and the urgency for “effective leadership from the archives community to
access, capture, and preserve records in all formats.” The Task Force's final report is
presented here with the bibliography as an appendix, not as prescriptive solutions but
rather as a resource that will help with the identification of best practices as they emerge.
46
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
1
Society of American Archivists
Council Meeting
February 26 – 28, 2009
Washington, DC
Final Report: Technology Best Practices Task Force
(Prepared by Task Force Chair Naomi Nelson)
Current Task Force Membership
•
Naomi Nelson, Emory University (chair)
•
Mark Conrad, Electronic Records Archives Program, NARA
•
Pam Duane, Madison Gas and Electric (ARMA)
•
Nancy Lenoil, California State Archives
•
Rob Spindler, Arizona State University
•
Carla Summers, Archives and Special Collections Consulting
•
Brian Doyle, SAA Staff Liaison
BACKGROUND
Task Force Charge (September 2006): To develop an inventory of best practices and
standards for implementation that are based on practical knowledge rather than theory.
For all materials with which practicing archivists in smaller shops are dealing (both born-
digital and digitized).
2
DISCUSSION
Summary
The task force feels that it has gone as far as it can, given 1) the breadth of the charge and
2) the current state of best practices for technologies related to archives. We have
adopted a definition of best practices and criteria for recognizing them, and we do not
believe that there is yet a body of best practices out there that would meet those criteria.
As potential best practices emerge, specialists will be needed to evaluate whether there is
empirical evidence that the practices provide innovative solutions to common problems.
We propose that the work of identifying best practices related to technology become a
part of the charge of the Standards Committee, which can then use working groups of
specialists to evaluate potential best practices as they emerge.
2
Staff Note: The Task Force charge, per Elizabeth Adkins’s charge in September 2006, was as follows:
“Work with appropriate SAA groups to identify competencies and standards and to collect, review, and
clarify best practices relating to all areas of archival practice that are affected by electronic records and
digital asset issues. Compile an annotated bibliography and/or summary report and post on the SAA
website.” Staff is not aware of any Council-directed change in that charge.
41
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
2
The Breadth of the Charge
The task force has struggled with the breadth of the charge. It covers all forms of
electronic records and digital assets (both born-digital and digitized) and all forms of
electronic records and digital asset management. It also initially included standards.
This is simply too much territory for a task force to cover well.
The charge also did not define “best practices,” and we discovered that this term means
very different things to different constituencies within SAA (including, initially, within
the task force). We have adopted some definitions that clarify what we mean by best
practices and some criteria with which to evaluate whether a given practice meets that
definition. We assert that any practices promulgated by SAA as “best practices” must
meet this kind of more rigorous definition because 1) they will appear under SAA’s brand
(and therefore be understood to be authoritative) and 2) the archivists most likely to use a
compilation of best practices are also most likely least able to evaluate whether the
practice has a proven track record. Feedback from the Electronic Records Section
strongly reinforced these points.
Current State of Best Practices
We surveyed the websites of institutions and organizations, SAA instructional materials,
reports to granting agencies, some laws and policies, and bibliographic databases looking
for practices that would give us a place to start. We found some standards, many reports
on projects, some policies, and a few practices. In most cases, organizations have not
made their practices publicly available. We feel that best practices simply have not
emerged yet in most areas of electronic records and digital asset management.
Need for Specialists
We piloted the criteria and process we had adopted to see how labor-intensive it would
be. We were most interested in testing the methodology, so we decided to use low-
hanging fruit—the easily available e-mail policies for states, nations, and organizations.
(We recognize that these policies are not practices, but there isn’t a similar body of
practices available for electronic records and digital assets.) We were able to identify
parts of the policies listed by four or more organizations (indicating replication), but the
work was very time-consuming and would be hard to sustain for a single task force. We
then consulted experts identified by task force members to determine whether the results
were useful. The feedback indicated that information about common policies would be
useful to policymakers and that further input from experts would be needed to weed out
policies that may be common but are not in fact “best policies.” In other words, the
results would be useful to experts but might mislead those new to the subject.
We had initially hoped that graduate students might help with the work of identification
of best practices (using the criteria). Our experience with the pilot indicated that the
expertise needed both to identify individual practices and to determine that they are
“optimal and efficient” would make it difficult for graduate students to do this work. In
35
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
3
addition, the Standards Committee shared their experience that using graduate students to
help compile lists of relevant standards was too labor-intensive to be sustainable, and we
feel that best practices will be more difficult to compile than standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the SAA Council ask the Chair of the Standards Committee to create
working groups to identify common practices and best practices in focused areas of
electronic records and digital asset management;
THAT the membership of a particular working group would consist of practitioners
working within the areas of electronic records and digital assets assigned to that
working group;
THAT sections, roundtables, and individual members be solicited by the working
groups for emerging common practices; and
THAT the results of the working groups’ investigations be made public through the
Standards Committee’s website or portal.
Support Statement: Very few archivists are engaging in any kind of practice when it
comes to electronic records.
3
Because few archivists are working with electronic records,
best practices are not being developed. This recommendation seeks to “institutionalize” a
process for best practices development.
At the SAA Annual Meeting, the task force chair briefed the Standards Committee on the
conclusions outlined above and met with Nancy Kunde and Aprille McKay from the
Standards Committee in a separate meeting to brainstorm. The Standards Committee is
struggling with some of the same issues relating to the labor of identifying and evaluating
standards. We discussed whether the work of identifying best practices might logically
belong within the Standards Committee, and there was some initial agreement that it did.
Fiscal Impact: None.
3
See Susan E. Davis, “Electronic Records Planning in ‘Collecting’ Repositories,” American Archivist,
Volume 71, Number 1 / Spring - Summer 2008, pp. 167-189, and Marcia Frank Peri and Lisl Zach,
“Determining Current Practices for College and University Electronic Records Management Programs,”
available at http://www.ils.unc.edu/nhprcfellows/conf2006/zachperi.ppt
. Accessed 14 January 2009.
54
Managing Electronic Records and Assets
4
Appendix 1
The Task Force recommends the following working paper on best practices research:
Stephanie Myers, Hayden P. Smith, and Lawrence L. Martin, “Conducting Best Practices
Research in Public Affairs, Working Paper No. 3” (November 2004), Center for
Community Partnerships College of Health & Public Affairs, University of Central
Florida, pg. 14, <http://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/ccp/library/workingpaper3.pdf
> (03/07/08).
Defining Best Practices
Practice, n.
2. a. The actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to the
theory or principles of it;
From the Oxford English Dictionary, Draft Revision Dec. 2007 (accessed at
http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl
on February 13, 2008)
Classification of Best Practices
•
Evidenced Based Practices (EBPs) – practices supported by a substantial body of
outcomes based research
•
Best Practices (BPs) – practices supported by a substantial body of research findings
generally acknowledged as superior or state of the art
•
Emerging Practices (EPs) – practices believed by at least some knowledgeable
professionals or professional groups to represent superior approaches
From Stephanie Myers, Hayden P. Smith, and Lawrence L. Martin, “Conducting Best Practices
Research in Public Affairs, Working Paper No. 3” (November 2004), Center for Community
Partnerships College of Health & Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, pg. 14,
<http://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/ccp/library/workingpaper3.pdf
> (03/07/08).
Criteria for Identifying Best Practices
Criteria:
The task force has combined Bendixsen & de Guchteneire’s (2003) and Bretschneider,
Marc-Aurele, & Wu’s (2001) criteria for best practices research. We are looking for
practices that
•
present innovative and creative solutions to common problems
•
are sustainable
•
have the potential for replication
•
provide at least some empirical evidence for the above
Bendixsen, S. & de Guchteneire, P. (2003), “Best Practices in Immigration Services,” Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 677-682. Bretschneider, S. Marc-Aurele, F. & J. Wu (2001),
Best Practices Research: A Methodological Guide for the Perplexed,
<http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/ctip/Working%20Papers/0101/A%20Guide%20 . . .> (08/16/04). Both
cited in Stephanie Myers, Hayden P. Smith, and Lawrence L. Martin, “Conducting Best Practices
Research in Public Affairs, Working Paper No. 3” (November 2004), Center for Community
Partnerships
College of Health & Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, pg. 14,
<http://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/ccp/library/workingpaper3.pdf
> (03/07/08).
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
