Research Issues in Records Mangement Theory, Modelling and Practice
William E. Underwood
Electronic Records Meeting
Pittsburgh, PA
May 29, 1997
This paper is a synopsis of results achieved in addressing research questions and issues in the management of electronic records. The formulation of records management theory within the context of set theory is briefly described. Steps toward establishing functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping are summarized. The use of software prototyping to develop software techniques for classifying, profiling, and records disposition are described. New research issues and approaches to their resolution are proposed. The methods used in this research suggest the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing research issues in the management of electronic records.
Keywords: archival theory, electronic records, functional requirements, recordkeeping, records management theory
This paper discusses research in records management sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Department of Defense (DoD) Records Management Task Force. An objective of this research has been to demonstrate the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) recordkeeping software in supporting classification, filing, retrieval and disposition of electronic records according to MARKS, the integrated records classification, filing and disposition schedule of the US Army. This has involved reengineering the Army's integrated file plan and records schedule and manual filing system for paper records to operate with the COTS electronic recordkeeping system. The objective has been generalized to address electronic recordkeeping needs in all DoD agencies. The question of functional requirements has been pursued in collaboration with the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies (SLAIS) of the University of British Columbia (UBC).
In this section, progress achieved by this project on research questions and issues are summarized. New questions and research issues are raised and approaches to their answers and resolution are suggested.
Research Question: Can logical theories of archival and records management concepts be formulated within the context of set theory?
This question is motivated in part by the need for generic models of records classification, records filing and retrieval, and retention scheduling. In other words, not just examples of these, or schemes of a particular style, but a generic model of which one can prove theorems that are true for each of these functions.
Another motivation for this research question, is that in defining a business process model for recordkeeping, when one considers the classification, filing, retrieval or disposition activity, the operations (controls) and data structures required for that operation are defined by the theory. It's easier to say what the functional requirements of a particular activity (function) are if there is already a precise logical theory of that function within the context of set theory. It's also easier to program the function.
Logical theories of business activities, records classification, filing and retrieval, and records disposition have been formulated and some interesting theorems proven.[2] One of the theorems implies that if an agency and offices within an agency have a well-structured business activity model in which the creator of a record is able to associate a record with the business activity, then a functional record classifications scheme is not needed for record classification. Such as classification scheme might be of use for retrieval of noncurrent records by business activity, for Freedom of Information Act retrieval, or for archival description, but its not needed for record classification.
Another implication of the theories is that a coding scheme is not an essential element of a records classification scheme. It is an abbreviatory device and one way of associating a record with the proper record class.
This initial success suggests that this is an important research question that should continue to be pursued. It raises research issues such as "Can the a logical theory of the reliability and authenticity of records be formulated within the context of set theory? Can a logical theory of principles such as respect du fonds and the concept of aggregation in archival description be formulated within the context of set theory? Can logical theories of business and documentary procedures be formulated within the context of set theory? Positive resolution of these issues could result in an organized body of knowledge of records management and archives that could be more readily applied to such practical issues as developing functional and information requirements for electronic recordkeeping?
Research Question: What are the functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping? What are the Information and data requirements for electronic recordkeeping?
If electronic records are to be managed by an electronic recordkeeping system, software developers need to know what functions they must implement and what data must be maintained. If an organization decides to purchase a commercially available electronic recordkeeping system, it must be sure that the system performs the functions and maintains the data required by the organization. A functional requirement is a statement of a function which a system must implement. A data requirement is a statement of the logical data structures that must be created, used, and maintained by the system.
The DoD Records Management Task Force has reengineered the process of managing electronic records in the DoD.[3] The IDEF0 and IDEF1x modeling methodologies were used to develop a TO BE business activity model and data model for managing electronic records.[4] A statement of baseline functional requirements for a records management application (RMA) was developed from these models. The functional requirements were formulated as a standard for software acquisition.[5]
A research project conducted by the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, UBC has addressed the development of functional requirements for a recordkeeping system that preserves the reliability and integrity of the electronic records. Collaboration with the DoD Records Management Task Force involved adopting the IDEF0 and IDEF1x methodologies and software tools that support these methodologies. From the agency perspective, a business activity model and data model were developed for Managing the Archival Fonds. [6]
One difference between these models and those previously developed by the DoD Records Management Task Force is that the former were developed by records management practitioners in the DoD, while the latter were developed by people conversant with the principles of Archival Science and Diplomatics.[7] Functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping have not yet been developed from these models, so the research question is not yet answered.
Archival Science and Diplomatics are among the controls on the business activities of the IDEF0 activity model. A conscious attempt has been made to justify procedures and data elements in the model in terms of archival principles and Diplomatics. To a certain extent, the business activity and data models are models of the theories of Diplomatics and Archival Science. That is they are a partial interpretation of the theories.
One of the issues that arose during this research is "To ensure the reliability of records, must records of transactions and communications external to an agency be registered and the register preserved, even when records are destroyed?" In the United States, when records can be destroyed and are destroyed, one doesn't maintain a register summarizing the basic elements of the record. In some countries, e.g., Italy, the register is retained even when the original record is destroyed to ensure accountability of the government agency. In the Italian juridical system, an agency's records cannot be used against it in litigation. Not so in the United States. Should a capability to register external records be a functional requirement of an electronic recordkeeping system? If so, what should the retention period be? These are important issues in the United States.
Research Issue: Can a methodology be defined for developing functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping from an IDEF0 business activity model and an IDEF1x data model for a business activity such as Manage Archival Fonds?
IDEF0 and IDEF1x are not integrated methodologies. It is possible to derive a model for a business activity that is not coherent with a data model for the same activity. Furthermore, together they do not provide a complete methodology for defining functional requirements. Nor is there any other IDEF methodology, of which there about a score, for defining functional requirements. These issues are business process reengineering issues, not archival and records management issues. But their resolution is a prerequisite to the question of functional requirements of electronic recordkeeping, if adopting the IDEF methodologies.
A solution to this research issue has been developed.[8] Briefly, to support functional requirements definition, IDEF0 must require something comparable to rule-based definition of controls on the lowest-level business activities in the model. A method is suggested for defining IDEF1x data models based on the information referenced in the rules defining the lowest level activities of the IDEF0 activity models. The definition of IDEF1x data models requires an iterative return to the IDEF0 activity model to ensure the rules defining the lowest level activities reference all and only the data elements in the data model. Then a method is suggested for defining functional requirements from the rules. The plan is to develop functional requirements from the UBC/DoD models using this methodology.
In this section, records management research issues and results are discussed that involved software prototyping. Rapid (software) prototyping also can be used as a method of determining functional requirements for an information system. This approach to requirements definition involves demonstrating the function to be performed, and obtaining the concurrence of an organization that this is the function that is needed. Then a statement of the function is abstracted from the behavior of the prototype that does not commit one to a specific procedure.
Research Issue: How can creators of records be assisted in classifying a record according to a functional classification scheme?
This research question was originally motivated by the fact that officers in Army offices must assign a file code to records that they receive or create. The file code must be from an office file list which is constructed from approximately 3000 MARKS filing categories. Records are then filed by this file code. Retrieval and proper disposition depend on assignment of this file code. People have a great deal of difficulty assigning these codes, due in part to the imprecision of the descriptions of filing categories.
This issue was investigated by developing a well-defined records classification scheme, an automated filing assistant that had the knowledge to interpret the record and to interact with the officer to classify the record. Syntactic and semantic models of functional records classification scheme were developed.[9] It was demonstrated that an intelligent filing assistant could support the records creator in classifying paper, e-mail, word processing and scanned documents in close to 100% of the cases.[10] This is accomplished easily and very quickly. This performance is better than human performance on the same task. Note that this is not automated classification, but assistance to the officer who makes the decision as to the proper classification.
Research Issue: To what degree is automated support of electronic records disposition possible?
This question was motivated by the fact that in US Army offices and other Federal Agencies, someone has to determine from generic disposition instructions for record series, the specific disposition dates or events for record series. Someone has to type these specific instructs on labels of file folders or enter them into an electronic recordkeeping system. They have to do this at least annually. Someone has to check these record series at least annually and apply the specific disposition instructions, not only to paper records but electronic records and records on other media. This is a tedious, time consuming job that often is delayed due to a shortage of office administrative personnel.
The disposition instructions of MARKS and NARA's General Records Schedule were analyzed to determine the types of generic disposition instructions. A grammar was developed that defines all and only the language of disposition instructions. The semantics of generic disposition instructions was defined. A syntax checker and translator were developed.[11] It was demonstrated that when files and folders (dossiers, cases) are created in an office, the specific disposition instructions for the record series containing the file is automatically generated. The person authorized to carry out the disposition instructions is notified of the disposition action on the occurrence of the disposition date or event. They are supported in cutting off, transferring, or destroying electronic and other records.[12] These grammars and tools suggest the possibility of a standard form for retention schedules and disposition instructions along with guidelines and automated tools for constructing and applying them.
Research Issue: To what degree is automated profiling and filing of electronic records possible?
This question is motivated in part by the need during filing to identify attributes of records for indexing for use in subsequent retrieval. Personnel do not want to have to identify attributes of a record needed in the profile.
Analysis of MARKS filing categories resulted in the discovery that there are different indexing and retrieval criteria for different document types. Furthermore, for electronic records other than standardized forms, it was desirable to define electronic document templates for different document types that identify fields containing values for the attributes needed in the profile.
To a certain extent this has already been accomplished for electronic mail. Attributes that are needed for managing electronic mail as electronic records are provided as attributes in the header of the electronic mail. Electronic mail is an example of an encapsulated object.
Software prototypes that automatically profile electronic mail, automatically file it according to MARKS, and that support retrieval based on these attributes have been demonstrated. Retrieval of these records for different combinations of attributes, and even the information content of the records, also has been demonstrated.[13] It can be concluded that electronic templates for different document types are a good solution to the record profiling issue.
It has been shown that logical theories are a method of organizing knowledge of records and archival management. This is a promising approach to establishing theoretical foundations of archives and records management. Unanimity among archivists as to the basic principles of records and archival management would facilitate the development of such formal theories. The development of such formal theories also should contribute to greater unanimity among archivists as to the foundations of their discipline.
The question of functional requirements for electronic recordkeepng is unanswered. However, significant progress has been make in collaborative research of UBC, DoD and ARL. The methodology formulated for defining functional requirements from IDEF0 and IDEF1x models should contribute to a solution to this research question. Continued sponsorship and collaboration is needed to carry this work to completion.
New software techniques have been demonstrated for records classification, profiling and records retention. This suggests that the functional requirements for electronic recordkeeping can contain functions performed by the system that were previously performed by office personnel.
The research results summarized in this paper were based on process and data modeling methodology, the axiomatic method and software prototyping. These are not the customary methods of archival and records management studies. If the research questions and issues and the results discussed in this paper are appropriate to the discipline, interdisciplinary research is probably required on those questions and issues.
1 This research is supported by the Army Reserach Laboratory (ARL),
Computer Systems Technology Division (CTSD), Atlanta, GA,and the
DoD Records Management Office under contract DAKF1-93-C-0043 (OCT
93-July 1997) to Artificial Intelligence Atlanta, Inc., Decatur,
GA. The findings in this article are not to be construed as an
official Department of Army or Department of Defense position
unless so designated by other authorized documents. [return to text]
2 Underwood, W. "Formal Models of Business Activities and
Records Classification, Filing and Retention" AIAI TR 97-04,
ARL, CSTD, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (1997). [return to text]
3 Thibodeau, K. and Prescott, D. "Reengineering Records Management:
The DoD Records Management Task Force." Archivi and Computer,
Vol. 6, no. 1, 1996. [return to text]
4 US Department of Commerce, Federal Information Processing Standards
Publication 183, Integration Definition for Function Modeling
(IDEF0), December 21, 1993.
5 Department of Defense, Standard for a Records Management Application,
DoD 5015.XX-F (Draft) (www.dtic.mil/c3i under records management). [return to text]
6 Duranti, L., MacNeil, H., and W. Underwood, Protecting Electronic
Evidence: A Second Progess Report on a Research Study and its
Methodology, Archivi & Computer, Vol. 6, no. 1, (1996),
pp. 37-69.
7 Duranti, L" Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science,"
Archivaria (1988-1992), Part I, 28:7-27; Part II, 29:4-17;
Part III, 30:4-20; Part IV, 31:10-25; Part V, 32:6-24; Part VI,
33;6-24. [return to text]
8 Underwood, W., Duranti, L, Prescott , D and Kindl, M. "Extensions
of IDEF Methodology based on US DOD CIM Experience in Reengineering
the Records Management Process." Sci'97: International
Symposium in Business Process Reengineering, Caracus, Venezuela (1997). [return to text]
9 Underwood, W. The Language of Records Classification, AIAI TR
97-02, ARL, CSTD, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
(1997). [return to text]
10 Underwood, W. and S. Laib, Evaluation of a Reengineered MARKS
in Managing Electronic Records, ARL, CSTD, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA (1997). [return to text]
11 Underwood, W. and S. Laib, The Language of Records Disposition,
AIAI TR 95-01, ARL, CSTD, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
GA (1995). [return to text]
12 Underwood and Laib, Reengineered MARKS in Managing of Electronic
Records. [return to text]
13 Underwood and Laib, Reegnineered MARKS in Managing of Electronic
Records. [return to text]
US Department of Commerce, Federal Information Processing Standards
Publication 184, Integration Definition for Information Modeling
(IDEF1X), December 21 1993. [return to text]
U.S. Department of Defense, Records Management Program Management
Office and University of British Columbia, SLAIS, Applying IDEF
Methodology to Describe Archival Science, Report 5, October 30,
1996 [return to text]