UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The nature of record and the information management crisis in the Government of Canada : a grounded theory.. Xie, Li 2013-05-08

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_xie_li.pdf [ 3.11MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0073711.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073711-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073711-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073711-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073711-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073711-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073711-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0073711-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0073711.ris

Full Text

    THE NATURE OF RECORD AND THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CRISIS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA:  A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY    by   Li Xie   MLIS, McGill University, 2004 MAS, The University of British Columbia, 2006    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in   The Faculty of Graduate Studies  (Library, Archival and Information Studies)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   April 2013    © Li Xie, 2013 ii  Abstract  Information is considered by the Government of Canada its “lifeblood” and its management is regulated by both law and government policy. Being part of information management, records and their management are required to facilitate “accountability, transparency, and collaboration”, including “access to information and records”. The right to access government records is granted by the Canadian Access to Information Act, which, since 1985, has been the main mechanism for the public to inquiry about the government’s conduct and decision-making. The Office of the Information Commissioner was established to monitor the administration of the Act, including assessing government institutions’ performances under the Act. In 2009, the Office reported that almost 60% of the institutions it assessed were rated with a below-average performance, based primarily on their delay in releasing requested records. The Office thus concluded that “The poor performance shown by institutions is symptomatic of what has become a major information management crisis”. This information management crisis motivated the present study, which aimed at finding explanations for it. Within the framework of the grounded theory methodology, data were collected from thirty government departments, including publications, emails, site observations, notes of conversations/teleconferences, and internal records released by Access to Information requests. These field data, along with relevant literature, were coded, memoed, and constantly compared for formulating the explanations, or discovering the substantive theory. At the center of the theory lies the core variable record iii  nature, which underlies ninety six concepts and the hypotheses based on the concepts. According to the theory, when the understanding of record nature is incomplete, the management of records is ineffective and unable to deliver any concrete results, causing in departments the marginalization of the records management function, the disappearance of records, and ultimately, the inability to perform basic yet critical tasks in supporting government operation and accountability, that is, the information management crisis. The study contributes to archival science in general, and to records management in particular, both theoretically and methodologically. It specifies the concept of record nature, clarifies popular misconceptions, elaborates on records management principles, and offers a records management work model conforming to the generated theory.  iv  Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... ix Dedication ........................................................................................................................ xii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. The Research Setting ........................................................................................ 1 1.1.1. Record Management & Information Management ................................ 1 1.1.2. Government of Canada .......................................................................... 3 1.1.3. Records Management & Information Management in the Government of Canada 6 1.2. Determining the Area of Interest ...................................................................... 7 1.2.1. Information Management Crisis by the Information Commissioner of Canada 8 1.2.2. Information Management Crisis in Statistics ........................................ 9 1.2.3. Relationship between the Information Management Crisis and Records Management .......................................................................................................... 13 1.2.4. Rationale for Determining the RM(IM) Crisis as Area of Interest ...... 14 1.2.4.1. Significance of Researching the Information Management Crisis ................. 14 1.2.4.2. Feasibility of the Original Research Interest .................................................. 15 1.3. Selecting Research Methodology ................................................................... 16 1.3.1. Origin of Grounded Theory Methodology .......................................... 18 1.3.2. Versions of Grounded Theory Methodology ....................................... 21 1.3.3. Rationale for Selecting Classic Grounded Theory Methodology ........ 26 1.4. Chapter Organization ...................................................................................... 32 2. Conducting the Grounded Theory Study.......................................................... 33 2.1. The Starting Group of Institutions .................................................................. 33 2.2. Investigating the Starting Group – Data Collection ....................................... 35 v  2.2.1. Institution-Specific Data Online .......................................................... 36 2.2.2. Institution-Specific Data by ATI Requests: ATI Data .......................... 38 2.2.3. GC-Wide Data ..................................................................................... 46 2.3. Expanding the Starting Group – Data Collection by Site Visit ...................... 50 2.4. Investigating the Starting Group – Data Analysis – Constant Comparison.... 51 2.4.1. Substantive-Open Coding & Memoing ............................................... 52 2.4.2. Emerging Substantive Categories ........................................................ 53 2.5. Saturating the Emergent Categories ............................................................... 62 2.5.1. Formulating Groups of Institutions by Theoretical Sampling ............. 63 2.5.2. Analyzing the Theoretical Sampling Group Formulation ................... 66 2.5.2.1. Relationship: Adverse IM/RM and ATI Performance ........................ 67 2.5.2.2. Relationship: Elements of Unsatisfactory IM Performance ................ 69 2.5.2.3. Relationship: Strong IM/RM and ATI Performance ........................... 70 2.5.2.4. Relationship: Elements of Strong IM(RM) Performance .................... 71 2.5.2.5. Relationship: IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC ...................... 72 2.5.2.6. Relationship: Elements of Strong IM(RM) Performance by MAF VIII  ..............................................................................................................75 2.5.3. Investigating the Theoretical Sampling Groups – Data Collection ..... 76 2.5.4. Investigating the Theoretical Sampling Groups – Data Analysis – Constant Comparison ............................................................................................ 77 2.5.4.1. Category Confirmation ................................................................................... 77 2.5.4.2. Additional Indicators for Categories .............................................................. 77 2.5.4.3. New Indictors for Categories .......................................................................... 80 2.5.5. Ending Open Coding ........................................................................... 81 2.6. Emerging Core Concept: Record Nature ........................................................ 82 2.6.1. Substantive-Selective Coding of Record Nature ................................. 83 2.6.1.1. Definition/Appearance of Record(s) in IM/RM Relevant Legislation ........... 83 2.6.1.2. Definition/Appearance of Record(s) in TBS RM and IM Policies................. 86 2.6.1.3. Definition/Elaboration of Record(s) in Relevant Literature ........................... 89 2.6.2. Record Nature Properties ..................................................................... 94 3. Discovering/Formulating the Grounded Theory ........................................... 100 3.1. Conceptual Building Blocks ......................................................................... 100 3.1.1. Record Value, RM Value & The Related ........................................... 103 3.1.2. RM Requirement-Oriented Knowledge & The Related ..................... 118 3.1.3. RM Application-Oriented Work & The Related ................................ 129 3.1.4. RM Extended Knowledge & The Related ......................................... 135 3.1.5. RM Control & The Related ............................................................... 137 3.2. Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 138 3.2.1. High Level Propositions .................................................................... 138 vi  3.2.2. Hypotheses in Narratives ................................................................... 139 4. Explaining the Information Management Crisis ........................................... 147 4.1. The Root Cause: Lack of Sufficient Understanding of Record Nature ........ 147 4.2. Representative Symptom: IM as a Single Discipline ................................... 148 4.3. Representative Symptom: Weak/Non-Existent Digital Records Management  149 4.4. Representative Symptom: Lack of Understanding of Record Creation Purpose & Record Instrumental Value .................................................................................. 152 4.5. Representative Symptom: Insufficient & Ineffective LAC Support ............ 156 4.6. Representative Symptom: Missing Part of Departmental RM Activities ..... 160 4.7. Representative Symptom: RM(IM) Distant/Passive Work Model ............... 172 5. Prediction, Future Studies & Conclusion ....................................................... 180 5.1. Prediction of Outcomes of the GC IM Improvement Measure .................... 180 5.2. Future Studies ............................................................................................... 190 5.3. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 195 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 202 Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 216 Appendix 1 GC-Wide Data Open Coding & Memoing – TBS................................... 216 Appendix 2 Institution-Specific Online Data Open Coding & Memoing – sG .......... 231 Appendix 3 Institution-Specific ATI Data Open Coding & Memoing – sG (CFIA) .. 271 Appendix 4 Alphabetic Organization of the Conceptual Building Blocks ................. 282 Appendix 5 Subject Grouping of Conceptual Building Blocks .................................. 322 Appendix 6 Hypotheses in Propositions ..................................................................... 330 Appendix 7 The IM Crisis in Measurements .............................................................. 337 Appendix 8 List of Acronyms ..................................................................................... 344    vii  List of Tables Table 1 Information Management Crisis in Statistics ............................................. 13 Table 2 The Starting Group (sG) ............................................................................. 35 Table 3 Sources of Institution-Specific Data Online .............................................. 37 Table 4 Summary of ATI Data Type ....................................................................... 45 Table 5 GC-Wide Data ............................................................................................ 48 Table 6 Types of Site Visit Data .............................................................................. 51 Table 7 Substantive Categories with GC Specific Characterization ....................... 54 Table 8 Substantive Categories with General Properties ........................................ 58 Table 9 Comparing Records Issue with ATI Performance in tsG1 ......................... 67 Table 10 Comparing IM(RM) Performance Elements in tsG2 ............................... 69 Table 11 Comparing Strong IM/RM by Institutions and ATI Performance by OIC in tsG3 ..................................................................................................................... 70 Table 12 Comparing IM(RM) Performance Elements in tsG4 ............................... 71 Table13 Comparing Unsatisfactory IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC ....... 72 Table14 Comparing Strong IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC ................... 73 Table15 Comparing Methodologies of TBS MAF and OIC Report Cards on IM .. 74 Table16 Comparing IM Performance Elements in MAF III ................................... 76 Table 17 Additional Indicators for Categories ........................................................ 78 Table 18 New Indictors for Categories ................................................................... 80   viii  List of Figures Figure 1  ... .............................................................................................................29  Figure 2  ................................................................................................................. 99  Figure 3  ... ...........................................................................................................146  Figure 4  ... ...........................................................................................................179  ix  Acknowledgements  I express, first and foremost, my deepest gratitude – along with love and respect – to Dr. Luciana Duranti, my dissertation supervisor, who advised me not only on digital records management but also on conducting academic research and teaching at graduate school. She fully appreciated – in her unique “tough love” fashion – my passion and ability in these areas, and encouraged and enabled me to pursue the path that I have been truly enjoying ever since joining the Master of Archival Studies program at the University of British Columbia, which she chairs, and the InterPARES project, which she directs, both in 2004. Although rigorous and precise on fundamentals, she allowed me plenty of freedom in conducting the dissertation research – without her belief in me or her timely answering to my questions all along the way, the research would not be able to yield the outcomes that it does today. All my major milestones during the research I own to her!    I thank also Prof. Terry Eastwood, who supervised my MAS thesis, which informed an important part of the dissertation research. Prof. Eastwood advised me on the subject of Canadian public administration, my minor area of study, and served also on my Dissertation Committee until 2010. Dr. Victoria Lemieux, or Vicki, who also served on my Dissertation Committee, has been for me not only a true inspiration in my study of digital records management but also a good and lovely friend ever since we first met in 2007. If Luciana showed me that a life focused on digital records can be fun, Vicki has demonstrated that it can also be fulfilling.  My heartfelt gratitude goes to you, Vicki!  My heartfelt gratitude goes also to Dr. Carson Woo for serving on my Committee and for x  helping me with his expertise on information systems. Prof. Woo’s advice on developing “a graphic roadmap” in my text proved to be a wonderful idea, as the roadmap was later on appreciated by every person who listened to my presentation – including the university examiners. His approach to discussing information technologies certainly helped us in the Faculty of Arts, where narratives are paramount!    Special thanks go to Dr. Deborah O’Connor, who assisted me in the choice and articulation of the research methodology at the research proposal stage. Also, thanks go to Dr. Edie Rasmussen, Dr. Rick Kopak, Dr. Luanne Freund, Dr. Aaron Loehrlein, and Dr. Giovanni Michetti for coming to my “mock defence”, “pressing” me with questions on my methodology, and “forcing” me to reduce my overly detailed presentation to a concise yet much more effective format. I am particularly grateful to Edie, who reviewed my revised presentation slide by slide, and in whose class I learned about the research methodology of grounded theory, which I enjoyed so much in applying it to my research!     Sincere thanks go to Dr. Julie McLeod, Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering & Environment Northumbria University, England, who served as the external examiner of my dissertation, for her appreciation of the significance of the research, and for her careful review and detailed suggestions.    Thank-You to University examiners, Dr. Yair Wand from the Sauder School of Business and Dr. Gerald Baier from the Department of Political Science, who commented so favourably on my opening presentation before they started “grilling” me. Their questioning indeed made of the examination a truly enjoyable process. Their interest in the subject warms greatly my records heart!  xi  I offer also my sincere gratitude to the Access to Information and Privacy analysts and the Information Management personnel in the Government of Canada who were interested in the research. I also wish to thank the officers of the Office of Information Commissioner of Canada, who helped solve the complaints I made against a number of departments, which disagreed with me on the way of disclosing their records.  Last but definitely not least, I thank my family members, who not only supported me during this journey in innumerable ways – noticeably, the provision of the food I love  – but also – indeed more delightfully  – became familiar with and interested in my research. Ask them about records management and grounded theory next time you encounter them – you will be surprised!  xii  Dedication  To my parents, Bing Zhong, Xie and Ping, Deng, who raised me to be me. I know I’m lucky to be your daughter. If there is a next life, let me please still be your daughter. And I promise, I will be a better one.    给我的父母谢炳忠和邓平: 是您们培育和成就了今天的我。我知道成为您们的女儿是我的幸运。如果有来世, 请允许我继续做您们的女儿。我保证,我会做得更好。1  1. Introduction This introductory chapter presents basic information on the research setting (i.e., the environment where the research took place), the determination of the research interest, the research methodology, and the chapters that make up the dissertation.    1.1. The Research Setting The research setting requires two areas of knowledge for it to be understood: one concerning the professional field called Records Management and the other concerning the Canadian public administration, in particular the Canadian Federal Government or the Government of Canada. 1.1.1. Record Management & Information Management Record management (RM) is a field that focuses on the management of records. For the purpose of general introduction, the term “record” refers to “[a] document made or received in the course of a practical activity as an instrument or a by-product of such activity, and set aside for action or reference”, and RM refers to “[t]he whole of the activities of a creator aimed at the creation, use and maintenance of records to meet its administrative, programmatic, legal, financial and historical needs and responsibilities”.1 It is necessary to point out that in the RM field, records and records management definitions vary widely, due to the variety of sources, including archival legislation,                                                  1 InterPARES, “Terminology Database: Record; Records Management,” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm (accessed October 19, 2012). 2  national and local archival authorities (when legal definitions are not available), and international bodies. For example, the Library and Archives of Canada Act defines record as “any documentary material other than a publication, regardless of medium or form”, and government record as “a record that is under the control of a government institution”.2 The ISO 15489 defines records as “information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business”,3 and RM as “[the] field of management responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the form of records”.4 The understanding of records and RM, therefore, is context specific. The meanings of information and Information Management (IM), like records and RM, also vary according to context. Unlike records or RM, though, information and IM do not appear to have definitions that are provided by authoritative sources comparable to the law or to an international standards body that is widely recognized. Their meanings are specific to the local environment where the terms are utilized, such as the Government of Canada.                                                     2 Canada, “Library and Archives of Canada Act. S.C. 2004, c. 11, s. 2,” http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-7.7/FullText.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 3 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 15489-1: Information and documentation – Records management. Part 1: General (Geneva: ISO. 2001), s.3.15. 4 Ibid., s. 3.16. 3  1.1.2. Government of Canada  The Government of Canada (GC) is Canada’s national government, also frequently termed as the Federal Government, due to the Canadian federalism. In the federalism context, the Government of Canada operates at the national level as the first order of government, collaborating with the second order of government, that is, the ten provinces and the three territories.5 The powers of the Government of Canada are derived from the Canadian Constitution Acts, which defines the areas over which the Federal Government and the provincial/territorial governments have either exclusive or concurrent authorities. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has the power “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada,” except for “subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.”6 Within this framework, the Federal Government is responsible for such areas as foreign affairs and international trade, defence, the monetary system, criminal law, patents, bankruptcy/insolvency, financial services, and telecommunications. The provincial legislatures have powers over, for example, direct taxation, natural resources, health care, municipal affairs, securities regulation, and education. In some areas, such as agriculture, immigration, and pensions, power is shared between the Federal and the provincial governments. The area of records management or information management is governed by the two orders of government separately.                                                    5 Privy Council Office, “Canadian Federalism,” http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal (accessed October 19, 2012). 6 Government of Canada, “Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982,” http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 4  In a country based on a constitutional monarchy, the Government of Canada is a parliamentary government, with a Governor General representing the Queen, an appointed Upper House (the Senate), and an elected Lower House (the House of Commons). The Governor General governs through the Cabinet, headed by a Prime Minister and functioning as the government’s Executive Branch. The Prime Minister chooses the other Ministers of Cabinet and recommends them to the Governor General for formal appointment. The Cabinet Ministers are responsible for particular departments and agencies, typically described as Ministers’ “portfolios”.7 These portfolios have different focuses, some in the area of public policy, for instance, the Treasury Board of Canada, while others in service delivery, for instance, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Individual Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons or the legislature for their portfolio departments, and, as a whole, they are answerable collectively to the House of Commons or the legislature for the policies and conducts of the entire Cabinet. The Privy Council Office is the hub of public service, supporting the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and its decision-making structures.8 A complete list of departments and agencies can be found on the GC’s website,9 thirty of                                                  7 Eugene Forsey, “Parliament of Canada,” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/index-e.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 8 Privy Council Office, “About Us,” http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=about-apropos (accessed October 19, 2012). 9 Government of Canada, “Departments and Agencies,” http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 5  which emerged in the research process of the present study as relevant to the study. There are two other branches within the Federal Government, namely, its Legislative Branch and its Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is responsible for constructing and debating parliament legislation and the Judicial Branch is responsible for interpreting such legislation in courts at both government levels. Parliament legislation establishes departments/agencies and enacts public laws.10 For example, the Financial Administration Act (FAA) establishes the Treasury Board of Canada and assigns it responsibilities for the GC’s general administration, which includes records management in GC departments and agencies.11 The Access to Information Act provides the Canadian public right to information under the control of GC departments and agencies.12 The Canadian judiciary enjoys complete independence from the other two branches, and all government actions are subject to the scrutiny of the courts.13                                                   10 The term “public law” is used here to refer to “Laws designed to safeguard the public interest, and those governing and regulating the interaction of government and the people”. “Foundations of the Canadian Legal System,” http://www.scribd.com/doc/11471228/Law-Text-Law-30 (accessed October 19, 2012)..  11 Government of Canada, “Financial Administration Act,” http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11/text.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 12 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act,” http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-1/ (accessed October 19, 2012). 13 Government of Canada, “Structure of the Government of Canada,” http://www.canada.gc.ca/aboutgov-ausujetgouv/structure-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 6  1.1.3. Records Management & Information Management in the Government of Canada  Records management in the Government of Canada is currently part of information management, as records as well as “documents, data, library services, information architecture, etc.,” are all “encompass[ed]” by information management.14 Information management in the GC is defined as “a discipline that directs and supports effective and efficient management of information in an organization, from planning and systems development to disposal or long-term preservation”.15  In this RM-as-part-of-IM context, “records are information created, received, and maintained by an organization or person for business purposes, legal obligations, or both, regardless of medium or form”.16 Records management, termed recordkeeping, refers to “A framework of accountability and stewardship in which records are created, captured, and managed as a vital business asset and knowledge resource to support effective decision making and achieve results for Canadians”.17  The expression IM(RM) is therefore used to refer to the IM-including-RM-as-a-part situation in GC, when IM is discussed as a whole yet it is necessary to make RM visible.                                                  14 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “Policy on Information Management,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=12742 (accessed October 19, 2012). 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 7  The expression RM(IM) is used to refer to the RM-as-part-of-IM situation in GC, when RM is indeed the real/sole focus yet it is necessary to point out its GC context. The expression IM/RM is used to refer to the indiscriminating manner by which some GC sources discuss IM and RM.         1.2. Determining the Area of Interest The research started with an interest on the relationship between electronic/digital records management, currently a major component of records management, and the development of electronic government (eGov), which refers to the governmental utilization of digital technologies – in particular the Internet – for providing information and services online.18 This interest was inspired by one of the research focuses of the second phase of the InterPARES (International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems) project, namely, its Focus 3, Electronic Government. The InterPARES project had centered on electronic/digital records and their management, including long-term preservation, for more than a decade, and this corresponded to the research interest of this author.19 Digital/electronic records management was thus identified as the major area for the dissertation project. The eGov movement contributed to the InterPARES research                                                  18 With regard to both electronic records management and electronic government, the term digital is more accurate than the term electronic as both refer to digital technologies represented by computers and the Internet. Electronic records and eGovernment are used in this dissertation due to their predominant usages in their early development histories. Digital records and digital records management are also used when there is the need to make the distinction.   19 This author was a Graduate Research Assistant for the InterPARES project from 2004 to 2007 and an InterPARES researcher from 2008-2012. 8  eight case studies in various governmental settings. In carrying out the case studies, this author observed the apparent impact of the processes and technologies employed by the eGov projects on the creation, usage, and maintenance of digital records, which presented the eGov movement as an interesting field for studying digital records management. Therefore, the eGov movement, including its origin, developmental history, achievements, as well as the research efforts treating it as an independent field, was determined to be the minor area of study for the dissertation research. The study revealed that the Government of Canada was a worldwide leader in developing electronic/digital government, and this prompted the further choice of the Federal Government as the research setting, which, in turn, led to the comprehensive study of eGov development in the Government of Canada. The information management crisis in the Government of Canada surfaced during this process. 1.2.1. Information Management Crisis by the Information Commissioner of Canada  The expression “information management crisis” appeared in 2009 in the speech entitled “A Dire Diagnosis for Access to Information in Canada” by the then Information Commissioner of Canada, Robert Marleau. Considering it one of the systemic issues, the Information Commissioner stated that “The poor performance shown by institutions20 is                                                  20 The term institution is used in the context of the Access to Information Act, referring to the departments and crown corporations that are subject to the Access to Information Act. See s. 3.     9  symptomatic of what has become a major information management crisis”.21  In specific terms, the information management crisis means that “There is currently no universal and horizontal approach to managing or accessing information within government. Some institutions don’t even know exactly what information they are holding”.22 “But in today’s digital environment”, the Information Commissioner continued, “outmoded ‘paper’ practices, inconsistencies, overlapping or duplication of information have serious ramifications. Such unsound practices slow down the retrieval process, lead to unsuccessful or repeated searches, and generate huge amounts of pages to review. This in turn translates into unacceptable delays in responding to information requests”.23 This crisis, according to the Information Commissioner, “is only exacerbated with the pace of technological developments”; “Access to information has become hostage to this crisis and is about to become its victim”.24 1.2.2.  Information Management Crisis in Statistics The information management crisis pointed out in the Information Commissioner’s speech was revealed by the assessments of the performances of GC departments and                                                  21 Robert Marleau, “A Dire Diagnosis for Access to Information in Canada,” Speech at the news conference on the tabling of the 2007-2008 Report Cards. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/med-roo-sal-med_spe-dis_2009_4.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 22 Ibid.  23 Ibid.  24 Ibid. Italics added.  10  agencies under the Canadian Access to Information Act (ATI), conducted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC). The Canadian Access to Information Act is the equivalent of the freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions, including the Canadian provinces. This Act was enacted to extend the rights in existing Federal laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government, and, for the purpose of administration, established the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner ranks as a deputy head of a department, has all the powers of a deputy head, and engages exclusively in the duties of the office of Information Commissioner.25 The Information Commissioner may, at any time, make a special report to Parliament referring to and commenting on any matter within the scope of the powers, duties and functions of the Commissioner where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the matter is of such urgency or importance that a report thereon should not be deferred until the time provided for transmission of the next annual report of the Commissioner.26 The “special reports to Parliament”, alternatively called report cards, are issued by the OIC to show “how well federal institutions have met their responsibilities under the ATI [Act]”.27                                                   25 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1,” s. 55. (1). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/FullText.html (accessed October 19, 2012).  26 Ibid., s. 39. (1). 27 OIC, “Report Cards,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren.aspx. 11  The report cards process started in 1998 and, by 2010, a total of twenty-seven institutions had been assessed. In April 2010, the year this author started to collect field data, a special report was submitted to Parliament containing assessments on institutions’ ATI performances for the fiscal year 2008-2009. This report has “timeliness as its chief focus”.28 Timeliness in this context has three indicators: average completion time with reference to the 30-day statutory timeframe for providing access to public records, deemed refusal rate (i.e., the percentage of requests that have exceeded statutory deadlines29), and the number of requests responded to after statutory deadlines have been missed.30 The deemed-refusal rate was the main base by which institutions’ ATI performances were assessed.31 The OIC selects institutions for assessment using the criterion that at least five delay-related complaints against the institution were filed to it                                                                                                                                                  Italics added (accessed October 19, 2012).  28 OIC, “Out of Time. Special Report to Parliament 2008–2009 Systemic Issues Affecting Access to Information in Canada,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_2.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 29 Statutory deadlines include those that are extended by citing statutory justifications.   30 OIC. “Out of Time,” 31 There are other factors such as whether or not notices under subsection 9(2) were sent to the Information Commissioner, but the deemed-refusal ratio is the main one. See Appendix B of the report cards for how the OIC determined the rating for each institution. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_37.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 12  during the assessment time period.32 An overall rating was given to each institution indicating their performance, which could be Outstanding (A), Above Average (B), Average (C), Below Average (D), or Unsatisfactory (F).33  In the 2010 special report, twenty-four institutions were assessed, including ten that were assessed in the fiscal year 2007-2008 and re-assessed in the fiscal year 2008-2009. This assessment was thereby considered “unprecedented in scope” in terms of the number of the institutions assessed. The OIC considered the twenty-four institutions to represent statistically the overall ATI performance of the Federal Government as the requests these departments received accounted for eighty-eight percent of the access requests submitted to all of the two hundred and forty one federal institutions subject to the Access to Information Act in 2008–2009 (i.e., 29,845 out of 34,041).34 These two years’ assessments are used to statistically illustrate the IM crisis. See Table 1 below.                                                     32 Ibid., “Executive Summary,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_2.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012).  33 OIC, “Out of Time: Appendix B,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_37.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 34 OIC, “Out of Time,”  13  Table 1 Information Management Crisis in Statistics Year of Assessment % of OIC ATI Rating < C % of IM or RM Problematic 2007-2008 6/10 = 60% 8/10 = 80% 2008-200935 13/23 = 57% 14/(24 - LAC36) = 61% 1.2.3. Relationship between the Information Management Crisis and Records Management  The information management crisis (hereafter the IM crisis) in the Government of Canada is in fact the crisis of RM, not only because the Government considers RM one constituent part of IM, but also because the problems revealed by the OIC are specifically about records retrieval. The relationship between access to information and RM is articulated by the OIC as follows:   “access to information relies heavily on sound records management. Institutions that are unable to effectively manage information requested under the Act face time-consuming retrieval of records, uncertain, incomplete or unsuccessful searches,                                                  35 For this year, there were two institutions rated as Outstanding (A), three as Above Average (B), and five as Average (C).   36 LAC, i.e., Library and Archives of Canada, was excluded due to the fact that the ATI requests it processes are mainly about records of other GC institutions, i.e., not about its own operational records. 14  as well as the risk of substantial delays and complaints”.37 1.2.4. Rationale for Determining the RM(IM) Crisis as Area of Interest  The surfacing of the IM crisis made this author change her research interest from the relationship between electronic records management and electronic government to the IM crisis. This section presents the rationale that supported the decision for the change.   1.2.4.1. Significance of Researching the Information Management Crisis The significance of researching the IM crisis derives from the importance of administering the Access to Information Act, due fundamentally to its relationships with the transparency and accountability of the operations of the Federal Government and, ultimately, with democracy of Canada as a country. In government operations, records document the decisions that have been made and witness the actions that have been taken; the releasing of them thus becomes the most direct channel that enables the public to inquiry about the government’s operation and decision making. Without the existence or accessibility of records, transparency, accountability, and democracy would be difficult – if not entirely impossible – to be realized. As evident in both the words of the Information Commissioner (section 1.2.1.) and the IM statistics (section 1.2.2.), the issues surrounding IM in the Government are grave. An academic investigation – which did not exist – was thus considered warranted.                                                    37 OIC. “Out of Time,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_2.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). (Emphasis original).  15  1.2.4.2. Feasibility of the Original Research Interest  In addition to the seriousness it displayed, the IM crisis raised questions about the feasibility of pursuing this author’s original research interest, due to the complexity of the eGov environment.  Electronic government is at this time the most advanced development of governments’ utilization (i.e., configuration and deployment) of digital technologies; it has thus caused dramatic changes to operational infrastructures and processes. As a result, the impact that the eGov movement has on RM is unprecedented and the associated challenges are much more complex than the RM practices established in the non-eGov environment, which could be considered basic.38 The 1985 Access to Information Act permits the production of a record that “does not exist but can, …, be produced from a machine readable record”,39 yet the environment of the “machine readable record” did not possess the same level of complexity of the eGov development, which started, in the case of GC, in 1999.40 Moreover, such records “need not be produced where the production thereof would                                                  38 Sherry L. Xie, “Electronic Records Management: The Missing Player in the eGov Movement”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on eGovernment (Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University, 2008), 481-489. 39 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act,” ss. 4. (3). 40 Governor General of Canada, “1999 Speech from the Throne to Open the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament of Canada,” http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&doc=aarch ives/sft-ddt/1999-eng.htm (accessed October 19, 2012). 16  unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution”.41 Therefore, the complex records associated with the eGov development are highly unlikely to be the records that are mostly requested under the Access to Information Act. The RM issues revealed by the IM crisis thus fall into the realm of basic RM. It was deduced that it would be more appropriate to investigate the basic RM issues than the more complex ones, as the former is the foundation of the latter and the latter can only be researched on the basis of the former. The area of interest was thus determined to be the IM crisis, with a goal to find explanations for it.    1.3. Selecting Research Methodology The research methodology selected for the study is grounded theory. Grounded theory is one type of social science research method that focuses on the generation of theory, either substantive (i.e., developed for an empirical area) or formal (i.e., developed for a conceptual area).42 It features for researchers the requirement of theoretical sensitivity, the principles of no literature review and all-is-data (including literature relevant to the research interest), the process of open, selective, and theoretical coding, and the techniques of theoretic sampling, memoing, and sorting as well as constant comparative analysis. This self-contained system allows the generation of a theory (i.e.,                                                  41 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Regulations SOR/83-507,” s. 3. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-507/FullText.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 42 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 2nd. (Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1999), 32. 17  concepts/categories and hypotheses) to be able to explain the social phenomenon or process for which it was developed. As the theory is grounded in empirical data relevant to the particular/substantive area, it is believed that it will “fit the situation being researched and work when put into use”.43 The focus and strength of this methodology thus correspond to the goal of the research, which, as stated in the previous section, is to discover explanations for the IM crisis.  In the process of searching background information on the IM crisis, it was found that at the time when the research interest was being formed, there was no published academic research on this subject (i.e., the IM crisis in GC). This observation added significance to the research on the one hand and on the other hand, permitted ready bypass of the program requirement on literature review. Not reviewing relevant literature for the purpose of conceiving a research framework with specific research questions prior to embarking on research is one of the foundational principles of grounded theory, although it goes against the standard procedure of traditional social science research. The non-existence of scholarly literature centering on the area of interest overcame the difficulty of satisfying program requirements of traditional social science research while, at the same time, following the principle of the methodology.44 This section introduces                                                  43 Ibid., 3. Here, “fit” refers to that “the categories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study” and “work” refers to that “they must be meaningfully relevant to and be able to explain the behavior under study”. 44 The non-existence of scholarly literature on the area of interest does not solve completely the problem presented by the need to satisfy traditional research requirements for doctoral students while at the same time following the grounded theory principles. When literature review is a mandatory requirement, it must be conducted even though there is no published scholarly 18  the origin of the methodology, the different versions of it, the rationale for the selected version, and the illustration of the process of the selected version.   1.3.1.  Origin of Grounded Theory Methodology The grounded theory methodology was first articulated by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, in 1967.45 The book was a response to readers’ inquiry about the methodology employed in their study on dying patients, which received tremendous attention.46 The method attracted attention due mainly to its emphasis on inductive theory generation, an idea that was the opposite of the then predominant deductive theory verification method.  The two originators of the grounded theory methodology, Glaser and Strauss, have distinctive academic training in social science research methodology. Glaser received his PhD in the Department of Sociology of Columbia University where he was trained as a                                                                                                                                                  research directly on the subject: the search for relevant literature can be extended and the criteria for relevance can be modified. For a discussion on this problem see Sherry L. Xie, “Striking a Balance between Program Requirements and Grounded Theory Principles: Writing a compromised Grounded Theory proposal,” The Grounded Theory Review, An International Journal, 8 (2), 2009: 35-47.       45 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 2nd, 1999. 46 The study was published as a book, Awareness of Dying (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965).  19  quantitative researcher. Strauss studied and worked at the University of Chicago – a place famous for its qualitative approach – where he was influenced by interactionist and pragmatist writings.47 Their research collaboration started soon after Glaser’s arrival at the University of Chicago, where the stage for the development and testing of the new methodology was set. Discovery does not reveal in any details how the ideas of the grounded theory methodology were conceived and how the methodological training of the authors contributed to its formation. Some details were offered in their later separate publications. According to Strauss in 1987, what contributed to the development of the grounded theory methodology were two streams of thought: the general thrust in American Pragmatism and the Chicago Sociology tradition. American Pragmatism brought in the melding its emphases on action and problematic situation and the Chicago tradition added to it its extensive use of field observations and interviews as data-collection techniques. Strauss also pointed out that both streams placed social interaction and social processes at the center of attention and the Chicago Sociology tradition especially stressed the importance of understanding social phenomena from the                                                  47 Interactionism is a theoretical perspective in sociology and social psychology that views social interaction as taking place in terms of the meanings actors attach to action and things. Alan Bryman. Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, UK., 2004), 544. Pragmatism is a philosophy of US origin which treats values and knowledge as means to practical human ends. Concepts and values are regarded as true for so long as they prove useful. Knowledge and social life itself are therefore fluid, changing, human creations. Tony Bilton et al., Introductory Sociology, 3rd ed. (London, Macmillan, 1996), 667. 20  actors’ viewpoints.48 In 1990, Strauss again traced the origin of the grounded theory methodology, describing briefly Glaser’s input: “Glaser especially saw the need for a well thought out, explicitly formulated, and systematic set of procedures for both coding and testing hypotheses generated during the research process. The Columbia tradition also emphasized empirical research in conjunction with the development of theory”.49  Glaser’s version of their respective contributions was presented in a book published in 1998, in a chapter tracing the “roots of grounded theory”. The chapter explains in detail the linkages between his quantitative research training and the corresponding aspects of the grounded theory methodology. In the last section, Glaser expressed his appreciation for learning symbolic interaction from Strauss, and his excitement about analyzing qualitative data using quantitative ideas. In his view, the success of Discovery came directly from the melding of these two fundamental traditions.50                                                    48 Anselm L. Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1987), 5-6.  49 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990), 24-25. 50 Barney G. Glaser, Doing Grounded Theory. Issues and Discussions (Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1998), 21-33. 21  1.3.2. Versions of Grounded Theory Methodology  After its initial development, grounded theory methodology has developed into three versions: Glaserian (or the classic grounded theory), Straussian, and constructivism. Their major differences need to be elucidated to clarify the choices made to conduct the research for this thesis. As an introductory book on a new methodology, Discovery focuses on presenting the grounded theory ideas at a general level. Many of its chapters serve primarily the purposes of comparing it with other qualitative methods and of justifying the new method’s credibility. As a result, detailed procedures of conducting a grounded theory research are left out, and this, in turn, resulted in an urgent request for publications that specify procedures and clarify confusions.  The publications following such call were written separately by Glaser and Strauss, and revealed major, irreconcilable differences. Despite the two originators’ earlier close collaboration in research and the successful combination of their distinctive methodological trainings in Discovery, Glaser and Strauss never worked together again. They were both active in the grounded theory field but took different directions. In 1990, Strauss published his book, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques,51 to which Glaser replied with the book Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing, criticizing the content of Strauss’ book chapter                                                  51 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.  22  by chapter.52 The following two excerpts, from Strauss and Glaser respectively, clearly show the differences: “[with respect to the separate publications after the Discovery]…some of the terminology and specific recommended procedures are not always identical. Mainly, this is because of the additional reflection but also because of different experiences resting both on teaching and our specific research projects.”53  “Gone in Strauss’ method was our initial clear approach in Discovery of Grounded Theory to the systematic generation of theory from data! Strauss’ techniques are fractured, detailed, cumbersome and over-self-conscious. They interfere with the emergence and discovery which comes from the constant comparative method of coding and analysis.”54 Although with different tones,55 they both believe that the major difference between their approaches lies in “procedures” (Strauss) or “techniques” (Glaser), that is, how to execute                                                  52 Barney G. Glaser, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1992). 53 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 8. 54 Barney G. Glaser, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 60. 55 “Glaser and Strauss remained very close friends … and had daily contact until Strauss died in 1996. During meetings and conversations the two friends discussed their differences. It became obvious that Strauss had no strong feelings as to the direction his and Corbin’s ‘interpretation’ of Grounded Theory developed.” From Eli Haugen Bunch, “Commentary on the Application of Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism,” Nordic College of Caring Sciences, 18, 23  a grounded theory study. As the first author of Discovery who wrote most of the chapters,56 Glaser views Strauss-Corbin’s Basics as the result of Strauss’ failure of grasping the methodology in the first place.57 Although in Glaser’s view the method presented by Strauss and Corbin is no longer grounded theory,58 practitioners have classified it as the Straussian grounded theory, while labeling Glaser’s ideas the Glaserian/classic grounded theory.  The development of the constructivist version of grounded theory is tied to the criticism to the method. Criticism has accompanied the methodology since its birth, coming from different camps in different time periods. As a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, the methodology can be attacked from both sides as it does not fully adhere to either side. As summarized by Lars Mjoset, grounded theory was criticized as being “extreme inductivism”, “adhockery”, or “excessive conceptualization”, because it “escapes the testing of theory” and is “unextended”.59 This type of criticism, however, does not appear to have been influential and seems to be fading away with the widespread                                                                                                                                                  (2004): 441.  56 Barney G. Glaser, Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussion, 22 57 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 2. 58 Glaser asks in his rebuttal book, “You wrote a whole different method, so why call it ’grounded theory’?. Barney G. Glaser, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 2. 59 Lars Mjoset, “Challenges to Grounded Theory,” http://www.scasss.uu.se/IIS2005/total_webb/tot_html/papers/challenges_to_grounded_theory. pdf (accessed October 19, 2012).  24  application of grounded theory as one additional method for social science research and with the end of the “war” between quantitative and qualitative research.  The more influential criticism of the methodology arose from the insiders of the grounded theory field, most noticeably, Kathy Charmaz. Her criticism mainly points to the positivist root of the two versions. She does not distinguish the two versions and collectively addresses both as objectivist grounded thoery.60 In her view, “A constructivist approach necessitates a relationship with respondents in which they can cast their stories in their terms. It means listening to their stories with openness to feeling and experience.”61  “A constructivist grounded theory recognizes that the viewer creates the data and ensures analysis through interaction with the viewed. Data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts.”  Glaser responded to the constructivism grounded theory method by stating that the criticism mixes the grounded theory analysis with techniques from other types of qualitative data analysis, such as preconceived categories, establishing data accuracy,                                                  60 Kathy Charmaz, “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivisit Methods,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd. ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2000), 524; Kathy Charmaz, Construction Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (London, Sage, 2006), 129 -132.  61 Kathy Charmaz, “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivisit Methods,” 525. 25  thick description, etc. He is very much concerned about the “Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA)’s numerous remodelings of [grounded theory] and the subsequent eroding impact.”62 He views the mixing of QDA and grounded theory methodologies as having the effect of downgrading and eroding the grounded theory goal of generating conceptual theories.  “I have said over and over again that GT is not findings, not accurate facts and not description. It is just straightforward conceptualization integrated into theory – a set of plausible, grounded hypothesis. It is just that – no more – and it is readily modifiable as new data come from whatever sources – literature, new data, collegial comments, etc.”63 Despite Glaser’s suggestion that it is not grounded theory, Charmaz’s constructivism grounded theory method has been categorized by practitioners as the third version. This may be due to two reasons. The first is associated with the influence of postmodernism, which fundamentally rejects the notion of the existence of an objective external world that can be discovered and explained through scientific methods. Consequently, the generation of a universal theory for a given substantive area – as promoted by the original grounded theory – is both ontologically and epistemologically impossible. With the pervasive influence of postmodernism in today’s social science world, a version of                                                  62 Barney G. Glaser (with the assistance of Judith Holton), “Remodeling Grounded Theory”. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315 (access October 19, 2012). 63 Ibid. 26  grounded theory subscribing to constructivism perspective – which claims the social world is a pure social construction – certainly has its own audience. Secondly, as Charmaz has been working with her version for more than twenty years, with the publication of both guidance books and practical examples, she has established the framework and techniques for conducting constructivism grounded theory.      As a consequence of the fact that there are different versions of grounded theory with distinctive philosophical roots and methodological requirements, grounded theory researchers face the challenge of having to study all three methodological approaches in order to decide which to use. This author selected the classic grounded theory methodology for her research. 1.3.3. Rationale for Selecting Classic Grounded Theory Methodology The classic grounded theory (hereafter GT) methodology was selected based on this author’s understandings of the three versions of the methodology. It was clear that the methodology’s ability to generate plausible theories in the social world comes solely from its combination of positivism and symbolic interactionism – the originating sources of the methodology. The positivistic thinking gives the methodology its belief in theory generation and its systematic analysis, and the symbolic interactionism influences its emphasis on field data as the main source of theory generation. In contrast, the Strauss-Corbin book “introduces a completely different process of coding and theorizing data, including a new type of coding, axial coding, and a new tool, the conditional matrix”. The axial coding “does not rely on constant comparing of incidents to generate 27  categories”,64 and the utilization of the “coding paradigm” and the “diagram” of the conditional matrix imposes in effect a fairly strict coding framework.65 As a result, the process of theory emergence becomes one that forces data into categories. As Glaser puts it,  “Thus the outright choice of any one code is clearly the beginning of forcing the theory and derailing its grounded character. The analyst would not know beforehand which to choose. But Strauss ‘knows’ beforehand and exhorts the reader to always show conditions and consequences.” 66 The Strauss-Corbin coding approach thus reduces the power of interactionism, thereby undermining the methodology’s ability of generating theories/explanations that are “grounded”. Constructivism GT limits the ability of generating theory with explanatory powers as well, but in a different manner. As this version rejects positivistic thinking, it over-emphasizes the interpretive, constructive nature of the social world, and ignores entirely the systematic measures in the classic GT that are designed to address the interpretive nature of social reality. Although one could argue that everything relating to language and communication in the social world is subject to interpretation, this                                                  64 Barney G. Glaser, The Grounded Theory Perspective, Conceptualizing Contrasted with Descriptions (Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 2001), 152. 65 Barney G. Glaser, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 62. 66 Ibid. 28  argument should not be used to dismiss the generation of theories that can be applied to an environment that is not the one under examination. Instead, the interpretive, constructive nature of the social world should be consciously recognized by researchers as a possible source of bias, which requires handling mechanisms. The classic GT’s constant comparative analysis is a mechanism that addresses the interactive, constructive feature at a sufficient level. This author believes that concepts and hypotheses can be abstracted from empirical data regardless of how the data were interpreted by individuals in the first place. Moreover, theories with sufficient levels of abstraction that can be modified in the face of new incidents have a much higher level of practical significance than those comprising only interpretations or descriptions constructed by researchers. For these reasons, the classic GT was determined to be the research methodology of the present research. Figure 1 below demonstrates the classic GT process that the author followed to conduct her research, followed by a list of definitions or explanations of the key techniques displayed in the illustration.     29     Coding: Conceptualizing data by constant comparison of incident with incident, and incident with concept to emerge more categories and their properties;67  o Coding includes substantive coding and theoretical coding, and substantive coding includes open coding and selective coding;68 o Substantive codes conceptualize the empirical substance of the area of                                                  67 Barney G. Glaser, Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Sociology Press. Mill Valley, CA, USA. 1992), 39. 68 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretical Sensitivity, 55-73. 30  research;69 o A category stands by itself as a conceptual element of the theory. A property, in turn, is a conceptual aspect or element of a category;70   Open coding: the initial stage of constant comparative analysis, before delimiting the coding to a core category and its properties or selective coding. The analyst starts with no preconceived code and remains entirely open; 71 o  Selective coding: To selectively code means to cease open coding and to delimit coding to only those variables that relate to the core variable, insufficiently significant ways to be used in a parsimonious theory;72  o  Core variable: a core category [that] accounts for most of the variation in a pattern of behavior;73    Constant Comparative Coding: Fundamental operation in the constant comparative method of analysis. The analyst codes incidents for categories and their properties and the theoretical codes that connect them;74    Memoing: Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and their                                                  69 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretical Sensitivity, 55. 70 Ibid., 153. 71 Barney G. Glaser, Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 39. 72 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity, 61. 73 Ibid., 93. 74 Barney G. Glaser, Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 39. 31  relationships as they strike the analyst while coding. Memos lead, naturally to abstraction or ideation. Memoing is a constant process that begins when first coding data, and continues through reading memos or literature, sorting and writing papers or monograph to the very end;75    Theoretical sampling: is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges;76   Theoretical Coding: A property of coding and constant comparative analysis that yields the conceptual relationship between categories and their properties as they emerge;77 o Theoretical codes are conceptual connectors to be used implicitly and explicitly in the way and style in which the analyst writes.78                                                     75 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity, 83. 76 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 2nd. 1999, 45. 77 Barney G. Glaser, Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 39. 78 Ibid., 39. 32  1.4. Chapter Organization This dissertation includes five chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction (the present chapter); Chapter 2 Conducting the Grounded Theory Study, which presents the research process, the emergent core variable, and substantive codes/categories; Chapter 3 Formulating the Grounded Theory, which presents the emerging theory in the formats of conceptual building blocks and hypotheses, Chapter 4 Explaining the Information Management Crisis, which presents explanations of the information management crisis in the Government of Canada utilizing the discovered theory; and Chapter 5 Prediction, Future Studies, and Conclusion, which presents the prediction on the outcomes of the latest attempt of improving the IM situation in the Government of Canada, identification of future studies, and contributions of the research.  33  2. Conducting the Grounded Theory Study The first step in grounded theory is to enter the substantive field for research without knowing the problem.79 The problem will emerge.80 2.1. The Starting Group of Institutions   Guided by the IM crisis, the general questions of what exactly does IM mean in departments and how is it performing were used to direct the selection of institutions for the first round of data collection, that is, the starting group of institutions. The determination of this group relied on the 2008-09 report cards produced by the Office of the Information Commissioner, which were the latest available in 2010, the year when this author started data collection.     As introduced in the previous chapter, the 2008-09 report cards assessed twenty-four institutions, including ten assessed in 2007-08 that were reassessed in 08-09.81 Library and Archives Canada (LAC) was excluded from the group identification process due to the fact that most of the Access to Information (ATI) requests the institution receives are for transferred records of other government institutions, rather than for its own business                                                  79 Barney G. Glaser, Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions (Sociology Press. Mill Valley, CA, USA. 1998), 122. 80 Ibid., 116. 81 OIC, “Out of time”.  34  records.82 Describing the objectives of the creation, the enabling act of LAC reads that the institution is established “to be the permanent repository of … government and ministerial records that are of historical or archival value”, which entails the transfer of records.83 LAC was later on included in the group of visited government institutions due to another objective of its creation: “to facilitate the management of information by government institutions”.84 For the identification of the members of the starting group, twenty-three report cards were analyzed, relying on a criterion that combined the below average ATI performance ratings with the explicit indication of IM/RM as an adverse factor to the ATI performance, symbolized as OIC<C (Average) + IM/RM Adverse. The following text is an example of the indication of the adverse impact of IM/RM:  “Information management continues to be a challenge for Health Canada. Access officials noted that employees at all levels rely heavily on email and common drives                                                  82 OIC, “Follow-up on an institution assessed in 2007–2008,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_9.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012); and Ian E. Wilson, “Access and Preservation: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” Speech delivered to the Access to Information: Managing Reform and Change Seminar on September 25, 2006. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/about-us/012-214-e.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 83 Government of Canada, “Library and Archives of Canada Act,” s2 and s7. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-7.7/FullText.html (accessed October 19, 2012).   84 Ibid., s7. 35  to store documents, which makes locating relevant records difficult.”85 Eight institutions qualified as members of the starting group, with IM/RM issues represented typically by records retrieval difficulties. Table 2 lists the institutions. Table 2 The Starting Group (sG)  Selection Criterion OIC<C (Average) + IM/RM Adverse ATI Rating Records Issue  Name of Institution D Yes  1. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) F Yes 2. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) D Yes 3. Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) F Yes 4. Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) F Yes 5. Environment Canada (EC) D Yes 6. Health Canada (HCan) D Yes 7. National Defence (ND) F Yes 8. Canadian Heritage (PCH) 2.2. Investigating the Starting Group – Data Collection  In order to investigate the records issues in these institutions, it was necessary to obtain first an overall understanding of the RM(IM) function in the instittions. Within each institution, data revealing the RM(IM) function should be locatable in institutional records such as organizational charts, plans, policies, procedures, and reports. The data                                                  85 OIC, “Institutions assessed in 2007-08 and reassessed in 2008-09,” Health Canada. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_14.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 36  collection process involved two complementary steps: first, searching for relevant publications on the websites of the eight institutions and, second, submitting ATI requests to the institutions for internal records that were unavailable online. The two steps generated two types of data and were labeled as institution-specific data online and institution-specific data by ATI requests (ATI data). The use of institution-specific as one of the two qualifiers for the two types of data was due to the existence of GC-wide data, which surfaced in the ATI request processes. For the purpose of clarity, the term data is used to designate either the actual data or the specific data container (i.e., government records and the records generated by the research process such as conversation notes), and the term data source is used to indicate the types of documentation (i.e., legislation) or the channels (e.g., conversation) from which the actual data were collected. 2.2.1. Institution-Specific Data Online The search for data online was guided by this author’s study on the government’s electronic/digital government initiative, Government On-Line (GOL). According to the final report of the GOL project, one hundred and thirty departments and agencies had transformed their information provision and service delivery using the Internet.86 The websites of the eight institutions, the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (TBS) (which hosts certain institutional documentation such as the departmental performance report), and the Government Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) were identified as relevant to online data collection. The data sources found on these websites included organizational                                                  86 Government of Canada, Government On-Line (GOL) Final Report. (Ottawa. 2006). 37  charts, Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPP), Departmental Performance Reports (DPR), audit reports on IM/RM, and the assessment of institutions’ management performance under the GC’s Management Accountability Framework (MAF). Table 3 summarizes this type of data. Table 3 Sources of Institution-Specific Data Online Website Source Individual Institution Organizational chart (high level) Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) (recent years) Departmental Performance Report (DPR) (recent years) Audit report on IM/RM TBS TBS MAF assessment on IM(RM) (since 2006)  Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) (since 2006)  Departmental Performance Report (DPR) (since 2006) GEDS IM/RM organizational chart (detailed) All sources, except the MAF assessment, are self-explanatory as they are common to the establishment and operation of organizations regardless of type. The MAF assessment “is a key performance management tool that the federal government uses to [s]upport the management accountability of deputy heads [and to] improve management practices across departments and agencies”.87 Administered by TBS, this tool aims to  clarify management expectations of deputy heads and support ongoing dialogue on management priorities with their executive team and the                                                  87 TBS, “Management Accountability Framework,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012).  38  Treasury Board Secretariat;  provide a comprehensive perspective on the state of management practices and challenges in the federal government; and  identify government-wide trends and general issues in order to help deputy heads set priorities and resolve issues.88 Among the “management practices and challenges” assessed by MAF is the area of IM(RM).89  2.2.2. Institution-Specific Data by ATI Requests: ATI Data The decision to submit ATI requests for internal records was reached soon after the analysis of the collected online data had begun, due to two reasons. First, the insufficient information provided by the online data (e.g., there were no institutional IM policies online), and second, the difficulty of discerning RM among the online data, which typically focus on IM as a whole (e.g., the MAF assessments). The decision to submit ATI requests rather than to conduct invited interviews was due to the consideration that records represent the actions/decisions of the institution while interviews capture only the opinions of the interviewees, and that the focus of the research was institutional behavior, operation, and performance, rather than personal insights, perceptions, or observations. In                                                  88 TBS, “MAF Objectives,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/overview-apercu/objectives-objectifs-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012).  89 TBS, “MAF Methodology,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2009/stewardship-gerance/stewardship-ge rance-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012).  39  addition, to gather data by ATI requests allowed this author to experience the ATI administrative process, which was the very channel that revealed the IM/RM crisis. Because the ATI requests asked for records generated by the IM(RM) function, the process also tested the effectiveness of the IM(RM) programs’ own RM practices. Interviews could still be conducted when the need arose (e.g., to clarify content of released records) or the opportunity surfaced (e.g., voluntary interview), and the generated data would serve as one additional type of data that can be compared with other types of data (following the principle of the GT methodology “all is data”). For the potential interviews, ethics review approval was obtained prior to the data collection process.90 To prepare the submission of ATI requests, a component study91 was conducted to familiarize this author with the ATI administration in the government. The right and procedures of obtaining government records were stipulated jointly by the Access to                                                  90 Many conversations took place during the data collection process, which constituted the ATI request handling process. As such, these conversations did not require invitations for interview (see data types of the ATI data later in this section). There was one voluntary interview conducted with the Director of the IM program in the Privy Council Office, for which the interview invitation was sent.     91 A component study in the context of this project refers to a study, regardless of scale, that emerged in the process of carrying out the main research activities (i.e., collecting, coding, and memoing data) and was considered necessary because it contributed to the making of research decisions and to the rigor of the study. The major difference between the main study and a component study is that the data collected for the component study is not open coded in relation to the general research question, i.e., what is going on with IM/RM in the Government of Canada. 40  Information Act92 and the Access to Information Regulations.93 Canadian citizens or permanent residents all have the right to access government records,94 as long as they submit the Access to Information Request Form with “sufficient detail to enable the officer to identify the record”.95 To help applicants provide sufficient detail, the ATI Act requires the designated Minister (currently the President of the Treasury Board of Canada) to publish information on government institutions, including: (a)  a description of the organization and responsibilities of each government institution, including details on the programs and functions of each division or branch of each government institution; (b)   a description of all classes of records under the control of each government institution in sufficient detail to facilitate the exercise of the right of access under this Act; (c)   a description of all manuals used by employees of each government                                                  92 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1,”.  93 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Regulations. SOR/83-507,” http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-507/page-1.html#h-4 (accessed October 19, 2012). 94 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1,” s4. (1) Subject to this Act, but notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, every person who is (a) a Canadian citizen, or (b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution. 95 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Regulations. SOR/83-507),” s4. 41  institution in administering or carrying out any of the programs or activities of the government institution; and (d)   the title and address of the appropriate officer for each government institution to whom requests for access to records under this Act should be sent.96  The publication that contains information regarding the categories (a), (b), and (c) is called Info Source,97 published annually online by TBS. The appropriate officers in (d), addressed as ATI Coordinators98 in government institutions, are listed on the TBS website with contact information.99 The IM(RM) in GC is considered a function common to all institutions, and the records generated by it are called Standard Classes of records, defined as “records created, collected and maintained by most government institutions in support of common internal                                                  96 Government of Canada, “Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1),” s5. Publication on government institutions. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-3.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 97 Government of Canada, “Info Source,” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp01-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 98 It is in fact called ATIP Coordinator because the unit is typically also responsible for administering the GC Privacy Act. 99 TBS, “Access to Information and Privacy Coordinators,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/apps/coords/index-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 42  functions, programs and activities”.100 In the Index of Standard Classes of Records, records created by the IM(RM) function were assigned a Record Number, PRN 944, and described as related to the cost-effective and efficient management of information under the control of the institution throughout its life-cycle and regardless of format. Also includes the acquisition, control and disposal of library and other information products, items kept for reference purposes, and the provision of information management services to employees. May also include records related to the management, use and maintenance of an automated document, records and information management system. This type of system is used to capture and manage documents, records (including e-mail) and information created, collected or received by the institution in support of its business functions, programs and activities.101 The ATI requests to the eight institutions were drafted based on this general description and on the analysis of the online data, which had helped identify the records needed. The requests were identical, with only two variations: the time period for certain records and the technology used for managing information/records in a particular institution. The specific time period for each institution was suggested by the institution’s ATI performance assessment history, that is, from the year when the institution was first                                                  100 TBS, “Glossary of Terms,” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp01-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 101 TBS, “Info Source,” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp02-eng.asp#prn944 (accessed October 19, 2012). 43  assessed by the OIC to the present year. For example, the time period was “since 1998” for the Department of Health Canada and “since 2008” for the Department of Environment Canada, because 1998 and 2008 were the years when the departments were first assessed for their ATI performances by the OIC, respectively. To gain knowledge of the technology used for managing information/records in these institutions, a component study was conducted regarding the developmental history of such technology in GC, which revealed (1) the name of the technological system, that is, RDIMS (Records, Document and Information Management System), which was established as a GC-wide shared service, and (2) the department responsible for the deployment of the system, that is, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). PWGSC is the department “responsible for providing and managing services to the Government of Canada, Canadians, and internally to the department”,102 and the supply of RDIMS (i.e., system configuration and licence issuing) is one type of service provided.103 To confirm whether the eight institutions had indeed implemented the RDIMS, an ATI request was submitted to PWGSC to obtain institution names and the numbers of user licences, which revealed that not all of the institutions had implemented the system and numbers of user licences varied greatly. With this information, the ATI request template was constructed as follows:                                                    102 PWGSC, “Organization,” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/rgnstnnll-rgnztnal-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012).  103 PWGSC, “Shared Services Integration,” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/isp-ssi/index-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 44  Please provide, with reference to PRN 944, meeting minutes or resolutions regarding the establishment of the IM/RM program; detailed organizational charts for the IM/RM function, job descriptions for IM/RM positions, and the numbers of IM/RM personnel since [the year when the institution was first assessed by the OIC]; IM/RM policies and procedures since [the year when the institution was first assessed by the OIC]; IM/RM operation and performance reports (e.g., annual reports and/or any audit reports unavailable online) since [the year when the institution was first assessed by the OIC]; budgetary information including both annual and special budgets since [the year when the institution was first assessed by the OIC]; reports on significant IM/RM projects since [the year when the institution was first assessed by the OIC] and here “significant” means that the project either had an impact on the entire organization or was reported to the TBS in MAF assessment; copies of all editions of records classification systems/schemes; and copies of user manuals or guide for RDIMS [or the technological system used for managing information/records in the institution that did not have RDIMS implemented]. Data generated in this process were categorized as three types: request handling data (ATI-RH Data), ATI process responsive Data (ATI-PR Data), and ATI disclosed records data (ATI-DR Data). The ATI-RH data refer to those that emerged in the process of the institution processing the request, in particular the step called request clarification. Data sources include phone conversations and email exchanges between this author and the ATI analyst(s) assigned with the requests. Data generated by this step reflected, in an indirect manner, the operation of the IM(RM) function. The ATI-PR data refer to those emerged during the same stage of request clarification and directly responsive to the 45  inquiry on the IM/RM function. Data sources include phone conversations, teleconferences, and email exchanges with IM(RM) personnel in the institutions. The ATI-DR data are internal records considered pertinent to the requests by the institutions and were released to the requestor after they were processed in accordance with the ATI Act (i.e., reviewing, reduction, and withholding). The ATI-DR data include the records released from PWGSC on the RDIMS. Table 4 summarizes the three ATI data types. Table 4 Summary of ATI Data Type Type Source Data ATI-RH Data  Phone conversations  Email exchanges  with ATI Analyst(s)  Notes  Emails ATI-PR Data  Phone conversations  Teleconferences  Email exchanges with IM(RM) personnel  Notes  Emails ATI-DR Data IM/RM Internal records  Departmental IM policy; IM strategic plan; IM business case; RDIMS implementation report; …  Observations of disclosed records (i.e., their creation and management quality)  46  2.2.3. GC-Wide Data  As stated at the beginning of section 2.2, the ATI request processes revealed the existence of GC-wide data. GC-wide data refer to the policies, directives, standards, etc. on IM(RM)  at the government level, that is, they were developed and issued by the central agency TBS. The TBS IM(RM) responsibility was stipulated by the Financial Administration Act (FAA), the law that established the agency. The TBS IM policy instruments (i.e., policy, directive, and standard) were referenced by the IM personnel and/or the ATI analysts in some of the institutions when discussing with this author the ATI requests. The key message was that their institutions followed the TBS policy instruments for planning and operating their IM(RM) functions. Therefore, TBS policy instruments became necessary for understanding the IM(RM) functions in these institutions. In other words, they were relevant data. For other institutions in the starting group, a component study was decided needing to be conducted to determine whether or not they were subject to the TBS policy instruments. All TBS IM(RM) policy instruments state that they are applicable only to institutions possessing a department status established in accordance to section 2 of the FAA.104 The examination of the ATI Act, on the other hand, revealed that the act encompasses more institutions than the FAA, indicating that not all of the institutions subject to the ATI Act (among which the eight institutions were selected) respond to the FAA definition for department (to which, the TBS IM policy instruments were issued). The component study established that all of the eight members of the starting group qualified as departments according to the FAA definition, thus were all subject to the                                                  104 TBS, “Policy on Information Management,” s2.1. 47  TBS IM(RM) policy instruments. Also due to this component study, the terms institution and department will be used as synonyms in the rest of the dissertation.  The TBS site was then systematically searched for all relevant policy instruments, and so were the sites of LAC, the Canada School of Public Services (CSPS), and PWGSC for information relevant to IM/RM, as these three institutions were identified in the TBS Policy on Information Management as relevant institutions. The CSPS is part of the Treasury Board Portfolio and was established to, among other things, “formulate and provide training, orientation and development programs for public sector managers and employees, particularly for those in the public service” and to “assist deputy heads in meeting the learning needs of their organization, including by way of delivering training and development programs”.105 The training programs include courses on IM. This systematic search examined the entire list of TBS policies and followed “Related Instruments” and “Related Links” for legislation, policy, directives, and standards.106 The search results were filtered first by an apparent IM/RM relevance (i.e., IM or RM in the title or objectives of the policy instrument) and then by their currency. The issuing year was particularly noticed due to the consideration that it would take time for departments to implement the policies, and this, as a result, became relevant to the coding of institutional data (which may or may not reflect the most recent policies).                                                   105 Government of Canada, “Canada School of Public Service Act,” s4, ss(e), (f). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.13/FullText.html (accessed October 19, 2012).   106 TBS, “Policy Instruments Approved to Date,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/prp-pep/psri-irp-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 48  In order to understand the authority of and relationships between these policy instruments, a component study was conducted to examine the Foundation Framework for Treasury Board Policies. According to this framework, policies, directives, and standards are instruments of a mandatory nature while guidelines are of a voluntary nature.107 All selected TBS policy instruments, LAC tools and guidelines, and information on CSPS IM courses and PWGSC shared services were grouped under the category GC-wide data, summarized in Table 5. Table 5 GC-Wide Data Data Source Data  TBS   Mandatory Instruments 1. Policy on Information Management, 2007 2. Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities, 2007 3. Directive on Recordkeeping, 2009 4. Standard for Electronic Documents and Records Management Solutions (EDRMS), 2010 5. Standard on Metadata, 2010 Voluntary Instrument 1. Guideline for Employees of the Government of Canada: Information Management (IM) Basics, 2009                                                  107 TBS, “Foundation Framework for Treasury Board Policies 2008,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13616&section=text (accessed October 19, 2012). 49  Data Source Data  LAC108 1. The Legacy Business Records Toolkit, 2006109 2. Information Management (IM) Capacity Check, 2006 3. Records and Information Life Cycle Management, 2006 4. Email Management in the Government of Canada, 2006 5. Email Management Guideline, 2008 6. Business Activity Structure Classification System (BASCS) Guidance, 2010 7. Retention Guidelines for Common Administrative Records of the Government of Canada, 2011 8. Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities (MIDA), 2012 PWGSC110 1. Delivering Government of Canada IT Shared Services                                                  108 LAC, “Government. Products and Services,” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/index-e.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 109 All dates are based on the year of website modification, which may not accurately reflect the dates of document creation. Accurate dates were unavailable on the sites. 110 PWGSC, “Delivering Government of Canada IT Shared Services,” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/fi-fs/its-sct-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 50  Data Source Data  CSPS111 2. Information Management: Environment and Vision in the Government of Canada (I110) 3. Information Management: Legal and Policy Framework (I120) 4. Information Management: Assessment and Evaluation (I210) 5. Managing Government Information Throughout its Life Cycle (I220) 6. Information Management-Personal Awareness and Capacity Test (IM-PACT) (I004E) 7. Records Management (I001) 8. Fundamentals of Recordkeeping (I003E) 2.3. Expanding the Starting Group – Data Collection by Site Visit Three institutions, TBS, LAC, and PWGSC, were added to the starting group due to their unique roles in the GC IM/RM landscape. They were identified as suitable for a site visit for the same reason. Before the site visit, ATI requests were sent to these departments utilizing the same template developed for the departments of the starting group. The generated ATI data followed the same categorization. Table 6 summarizes only the field data generated by the site visit.                                                     111 CSPS, “Courses,” http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/cat/index-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 51  Table 6 Types of Site Visit Data Institution Data Source  Data  TBS  Meeting with IM/RM personnel  RDIMS demo  Notes   Observations  LAC PWGSC These data constituted part of the data coded for investigating the institutions in the starting group. 2.4. Investigating the Starting Group – Data Analysis – Constant Comparison The term data analysis is used to encompass all the methodological steps that include “open coding of the data soon after collection of research data, theoretical sampling, generating many memos with as much saturation as possible and emergence of core … problems and processes, which then become the basis for more selective theoretical sampling, coding and memoing as the analyst focuses on the core”.112 As introduced in 1.3.3. Rationale for Selecting Classic Grounded Theory Methodology, these steps are analytical techniques, the effective application of which ensures the emerging of concepts. The techniques of theoretical sampling and memoing need to be applied for multiple steps: data collection, open coding, substantive coding, theoretical coding, etc., as directed by the needs of the research. The method of constant comparative analysis is used throughout the entire process of analysis.                                                    112 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity, 16. 52  2.4.1. Substantive-Open Coding & Memoing  The open coding, along with memoing, of the institutional online data, the ATI data, the GC-wide data, and the site visit data was conducted both sequentially and simultaneously. As introduced in the section of data collection, the institutional online data were first analyzed, which led to the collection of the other types of data. This analysis was not a line-by-line coding but a quick digest for determining whether the data were sufficient for understanding the IM(RM) function in these institutions.  As processing times for the ATI requests varied, the times of receiving the disclosed records varied accordingly. When this author began writing this dissertation, the requested records of the departments of Environment Canada and National Defence had not yet arrived, due to the complaints filed by this author against the ATI request handling procedures of the two institutions. The open coding therefore followed the availability of data at the time, as well as emerging questions, such as how the RM performance was evaluated. The GC-wide data were coded before the ATI disclosed responsive data but together with the ATI request handling data and the process responsive data. Within the GC-wide data, the TBS data were coded first, due to its central-managing role in GC-wide IM, and those of LAC documentation followed for its central-guiding role in GC-wide IM. Some data were coded multiple times due to their different usages for answering questions. Moreover, as directed by the constant comparative analysis method, many data and sometimes one entire type of data were re-coded when new data became available and/or when comparisons generated new questions or ideas. The institutional online data were re-coded in a more systematic manner (i.e., line-by-line coding) after the 53  coding of the GC-wide data, and this led to the recoding of some of the ATI disclosed responsive data, those arrived and coded before the systematic coding of the GC-wide data, the institutional online data, and the site visit data. The site visit data were constantly compared with those of the other institutions in both the processes of coding and memoing. As illustrated by the GT methodology, the entire theory-discovery process “is a process composed of a set of double-back steps [:] as one moves forward, one constantly goes back to previous steps”.113 Re-coding consists of re-thinking/memoing about the generated codes in light of newly emerging codes and of discovering codes from the same data that did not emerge previously.  Appendixes 1 to 3 are samples of the interrelated coding and memoing process, presented in the form of coding tables. 2.4.2. Emerging Substantive Categories  Lower level categories emerge rather quickly during the early phases of data collection. Higher level, overriding and integrating, conceptualizations-and the properties that elaborate them-tend to come later during the joint collection, coding and analysis of the data.114 The substantive categories/codes first emerged in association with their characterizations or status in the government, as presented in section 2.4.2.1 (with the characterizations in italics). Subsequently, the analyzing process went through the abstracting exercise that                                                  113 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity,16.  114 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, 36. 54  distilled the specific characterizations into general properties (P) and sub-properties (sP), as presented in section 2.4.2.2.   Table 7 Substantive Categories with GC Specific Characterization GC Indicator Substantive Category Clearly outlined  IM(RM) Governance-Accountability Structure Much emphasized  IM(RM)Whole-of-Government Approach High  IM(RM) Expectation Much emphasized  IM(RM) as a Single Discipline Much emphasized  IM(RM) as Internal Service Much emphasized  IM(RM) as Resource Management Function Much emphasized  Integration of IM(RM) Requirements with Business Needs  Much emphasized Notion of IM(RM) Shared Responsibility  Much emphasized Employee IM(RM) Responsibility Much emphasized IM Awareness of Employees Much emphasized IM Communication with Employees Much emphasized IM Training for Employees Inadequate   Conceptual Framework IM(RM)  Inadequate = definitions are unclear   Inadequate = there are no definitions  Inadequate = lack elaborations of conceptual relationships Confusing IM(RM) Concept Application  Confusing = different concepts were used without 55  GC Indicator Substantive Category differentiation   Confusing = concepts were used not in accordance with their definitions Unclear IM(RM) Policy Requirements on IM Specialists  Unclear = requires only what-to-do without how-to-do Less emphasized IM Specialist IM Responsibility  Unclear  TBS IM(RM) Guidance  Unclear = there are no details regarding the IM constituent parts Confusing  LAC IM(RM) Guidance  Confusing = guidance is insufficient for application Limited execution of  IM(RM) Policy Requirements Non-execution of  IM(RM) Policy Requirements Reversed   IM(RM)/IT Relationship  Reversed = much stronger presence of IT than IM(RM) Unsatisfactory  IM(RM) Performance Lingering unsatisfactory  RM(IM) Performance  Lingering = IM(RM) problems long revealed by the OIC, the Auditor General, and departmental internal audits Insufficient specifics in  IM(RM) Evaluation IT-centered  IM(RM) Audit Limited GC IM framework in  IM(RM) Audit 56  GC Indicator Substantive Category Lack of specifics in  IM(RM) Strategic Plan Non-existence of  IM(RM) Strategic Plan Lack of specifics in  IM(RM) Strategic Plan Implementation Non-existence of  IM(RM) Strategic Plan Implementation Less emphasized  RM(IM) Practice  Less emphasized = the fact that IM practice was not evaluated by MAF until the most recent round (round VIII) Passive   IM(RM) Work Model   Passive = provides only policies, guidelines, and trainings   Passive = waiting for employee inquiries   Non-existence of  RM-ATI Relationship Non-existence of  RM-Business Activity Integration Non-existence of  RM Practice Work Low level of demonstration of  RM(IM) Value Weak  Record Presence in departments   In departments = in departmental organizational structures; performance reports; audit reports Non- Record Presence in departments Weak  RM Presence in departments Non- RM Presence in departments Extremely limited  Electronic Record Presence Extremely weak  RM(IM) Control 57  GC Indicator Substantive Category Extremely weak =   Records retrieval relies on employees: their experiences and memories  Records retrieval relies on their currency: whether or not they are created recently   Unsatisfactory RDIMS Implementation, including leading agencies TBS, PWGSC and the particularly worse case, LAC Technology-driven   IM(RM) Solution  Technology-driven = the focus is on replacing existing technologies with new ones Ineffective   LAC-Institution Relationship  Ineffective = LAC’s extremely limited assistance to departmental IM(RM) Most problematic IM Practice  Most problematic = when compared to IM Governance and IM Strategic Planning  Most problematic = difficult in finding relevant records Inadequate   RM(IM) Ability   Inadequate = insufficient for demonstrating IM(RM) value  Inadequate = insufficient for improving the unsatisfactory IM(RM) performance    58  Table 8 Substantive Categories with General Properties Substantive Code General Properties Deputy Head IM(RM) Responsibility  P. Establishment  P. Fulfillment  Classification   P. Characterization   P. Development  P. Implementation  P. Effectiveness  Disposition   P. Characterization    P. Establishment  P. Effectiveness   Document    Presence  Characterization   Electronic Document    P. Presence  P. Characterization   Electronic Records    P. Presence  P. Characterization  Electronic System   P. Presence  P. Role   Electronic Records Management    P. Presence   P. Characterization   Employee IM(RM) Responsibility    P. Establishment   P. Fulfillment  Employee IM(RM)     P. Presence   P. Effectiveness   Information     P. Presence  P. Characterization   Information Lifecycle  P. Presence 59  Substantive Code General Properties    P. Characterization   Information Management    P. Presence  P. Characterization  Information Resource    P. Presence  P. Characterization  Information Resource of Business Value  P. Presence  P. Characterization  IM(RM) Ability   P. Presence   P. Characterization     IM As a Whole     P. Presence  P. Impact  IM(RM) Practice Work    P. Establishment  P. Effectiveness   IM(RM) as Resource Management Function   P. Presence  P. Impact   IM(RM) as Service     P. Presence  P. Impact  IM(RM) Audit    P. Methodology   P. Effectiveness  IM(RM) Functional Specialist    P. Presence  P. Characterization  IM(RM) Requirement-Business Need Integration   P. Presence  P. Effectiveness   IM(RM) Capacity    P. Presence  P. Characterization   IM(RM) Compliance Requirement      P. Establishment   P. Execution  60  Substantive Code General Properties  IM(RM) Conceptual Framework   P. Development  sP. Method   sP. Quality  sP. Precision   sP. Comprehensiveness  sP. Coherence  P. Application    sP. Accuracy   sP. Clarity   IM(RM) Directional Work     P. Characterization     P. Effectiveness   IM(RM) Expectation    P. Presence   P. Characterization   IM(RM) Guidance   P. Development    sP. Sufficiency  sP. Quality  sP. Precision   sP. Comprehensiveness   P. Application  sP. Existence   sP. Effectiveness  IM(RM) Governance Structure     P. Presence  P. Effectiveness   IM(RM) Performance Evaluation  P. Methodology  P. Effectiveness  IM(RM) Specialist Responsibility     P. Establishment  P. Fulfillment    IM Specificity  P. Presence  61  Substantive Code General Properties  P. Impact   IM(RM) Strategy Plan    P. Existence   P. Effectiveness  IM(RM) Whole-of-Government Approach   P. Presence   P. Effectiveness  Improvement Mechanism  P. Development  P. Effectiveness  IM(RM)/IT Relationship     P. Presence  P. Characterization   IM(RM Role Model     P. Presence    P. Impact  Information Technology (IT)  P. Presence   P. Characterization    Institutional RM(IM)     P. Presence  P. Effectiveness   LAC IM(RM) Responsibility    P. Establishment  P. Fulfillment  Local RM   P. Presence   P. Impact   Manager IM(RM) Responsibility    P. Establishment   P. Fulfillment   Publication     P. Presence  P. Characterization   RDIMS    P. Presence  P. Characterization   P. Implementation  sP. Condition  sP. Effectiveness 62  Substantive Code General Properties  Record(s)    P. Presence  P. Characterization   Recordkeeping    P. Presence   P. Characterization   Record Retrieval  P. Method  P. Effectiveness   Records Management  P. Presence   P. Characterization   P. Performance   Records Transfer    P. Presence   P. Effectiveness   Retention     P. Presence  P. Effectiveness  RM Decentralization    P. Presence   P. Impact  IM(RM) Responsibility    P. Establishment  P. Fulfilment  2.5. Saturating the Emergent Categories As indicated by the method of formulating the starting group, the above data collection and analysis focused on the group of GC institutions whose IM/RM performance was considered having adverse impact on the administration of the ATI Act. The categories generated from this process were thus limited to the situation where IM/RM is adverse and the ATI performance is unsatisfactory. In order to investigate the overall RM(IM) situation in the government, it was necessary to collect more data outside the starting group; or, in the terminology of the GT methodology, to saturate the emerging categories.     63  A saturated category is indicated by the fact that “no additional data are being found whereby the [researcher] can develop properties of the category, [a]s he sees similar instances over and over again”. At this moment, the researcher “becomes empirically confident” with the category generated.115  The process of saturating emergent categories serves also the purposes of category verification, modification, and/or correction, actions that are carried on inherently by the method of open coding, which features line-by-line analysis.116  2.5.1. Formulating Groups of Institutions by Theoretical Sampling  Two methods were employed to sample groups for more data collection and analysis:   Selecting all departments that the OIC report cards discussed with regard to their IM/RM programs and   grouping these departments by their IM/RM program being   adverse (i.e., identified by the OIC as adversely contributing to the administering of the ATI Act), or   positive (i.e., reported by institutions as positively contributing to the administering of the ATI Act or at least not an issue), and   Selecting all departments whose performance was assessed by the TBS MAF                                                  115 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 61. 116 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity, 50; 60.  64  VII (the most recent round at the time of data collection) and  grouping these departments by their IM(RM) performance being  unsatisfactory (i.e., rated as Opportunity For Improvement or Attention Required in either 12.1 IM Governance or 12.2 IM Strategy Planning and Implementation) or   satisfactory (i.e., rated as Strong in either 12.1 IM Governance or 12.2 IM Strategy Planning and Implementation).  For the second method, the MAF middle-point rating, Acceptable, was not used for grouping departments, because it was expected that the results of its use would be encompassed by the two ends of the rating scale. Four groups were thus identified as follows:  Theoretical Sampling Group 1: IM/RM Adverse to ATI by OIC Report Cards, including  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)117   Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)  Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)  Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO118)  Industry Canada (IC)                                                  117 Previously called Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The name was changed on May 18, 2011. 118 DFO standards for Department of Fisheries and Oceans and is used by the Department.  65   Public Safety Canada (PS)  Theoretical Sampling Group 2: Unsatisfactory IM Performance by MAF VII, including     Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)  Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)  Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)  Health Canada (HCan)   Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC)  Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP)  Theoretical Sampling Group 3: IM/RM Positive to ATI by Institutions in OIC Report Cards, including  Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)   Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)   Privy Council Office (PCO)  Theoretical Sampling Group 4: Strong IM Performance by MAF VII, including  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)  Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)  Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (FAITC)  Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 66   Public Safety Canada (PS) An additional group, i.e., theoretical sampling group 5, emerged when MAF VIII became available in late 2011. Although the coding process at that time was reaching its end, the theoretical sampling process identified the potential that this new document may have for the research, due to the fact that MAF VIII assessed IM practices, a new element of IM performance, which was evaluated for the first time. The formulation of this group thus focused on this new element and identified the following institutions based on their ratings as Strong:   Canadian Security Intelligence Service  Transport Canada 2.5.2. Analyzing the Theoretical Sampling Group Formulation Observations emerged in the process of formulating the theoretical sampling groups (tsG), that is, before the open coding of the institutional data. They were included as part of the analysis process due to the high relevance they possessed. The following tables demonstrated the analyses.     67  2.5.2.1. Relationship: Adverse IM/RM and ATI Performance  Table 9 Comparing Records Issue with ATI Performance in tsG1  Department Records Issue  OIC ATI Rating AANDC Yes C (Average) CBSA Yes B (Above Average) CIC Yes A (Outstanding) DFO Yes C (Average) IC Yes B (Above Average) PS Yes C (Average) The comparison between the columns of Records Issue and OIC ATI Rating demonstrated that the correlation between records issues and ATI performance as indicated by the starting group did not exist here. In order to find an explanation, the report cards of the six institutions were open coded, which showed that there were other reasons accounting for the acceptable or satisfactory ATI performances, despite the fact that records issues were present. These reasons included: strong leadership, 119 added resources,120 streamlined ATI procedures (or reliance on extension rules),121 and the                                                  119 For example, CBSA and DFO. OIC. CBSA. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_11.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012); DFO. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_29.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 120 For example, DFO.  121 For example, AANDC and IC. OIC. INAC (AANDC). http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_31.aspx (accessed 68  characteristics of record types. The case of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) demonstrated that the type of records could make a major difference in the ATI performance. Typical CIC records were case files regarding individuals and were organized according to the names of individuals, which made the retrieval of records simple and easy. Because it is this type of records that was mostly requested,122 the CIC ATI performed exceptionally well. This observation indicated that:  Institutions’ ATI performance could be improved by mechanisms other than effective RM;  Yet, the improvement would be limited when records issues do exist (i.e., the outstanding ATI performance could only be achieved when records retrieval was not a problem);     In addition, unsatisfactory ATI performance is only one indicator of poor RM. The last point further confirmed the need to analyze the assessment of TBS MAF on IM(RM).                                                                                                                                                       October 19, 2012); IC. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_32.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). PS is the example of relying on extension rules to reduce the rate of delay.  122 OIC, CIC. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_26.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 69  2.5.2.2. Relationship: Elements of Unsatisfactory IM Performance  Table 10 Comparing IM(RM) Performance Elements in tsG2 Institution  MAF VII  12.1 Governance 12.2 Strategy Planning & Implementation Unsatisfactory Information Management CBSA OFI Attention Required CFIA (Acceptable) Opportunity for Improvement CSIS (Acceptable) Opportunity for Improvement HCan (Acceptable) Opportunity for Improvement HRSDC (Acceptable) Opportunity for Improvement RCMP (Acceptable) Opportunity for Improvement The comparison between 12.1 and 12.2 demonstrated that the percentage of Acceptable was much higher for the requirement of Governance than that for the IM Strategy Planning and Implementation. In other words, the requirement of IM Governance was much easier to satisfy. This confirmed the observation generated with the starting group, where all eight institutions had an Acceptable or a Strong rating for 12.1, yet not all of them had an Acceptable rating for 12.2 (see Appendix .2).         70  2.5.2.3. Relationship: Strong IM/RM and ATI Performance  Table 11 Comparing Strong IM/RM by Institutions and ATI Performance by OIC in tsG3 Name Strong IM/RM OIC ATI Rating Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) “CSIS has a strong information management structure”;123 D (Below Average) Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) “NRCan reports that its information management structure is strong, allowing for ease of records retrieval”;124 F (Unsatisfactory) Privy Council Office (PCO) PCO “has a disciplined and localized information management capacity, which enhances its efficiency in responding to requests”;125 D (Below Average) The most obvious result of this comparison was the non-existence of a correlation between a strong IM/RM program and satisfactory ATI performance. The open coding of                                                  123 OIC, CSIS. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_25.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 124 OIC, NRCan. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_16.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012).  125 OIC, PCO. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_17.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 71  the report cards of the three institutions demonstrated that there were three common factors other than the IM/RM impact that accounted for the poor ATI performance: “staffing instability/large turnover”, “lengthy consultation”, and “delegation of authority”. Together with the observation from 2.5.2.1, which indicated that unsatisfactory ATI performance is only one indicator of poor RM, this result suggested that, despite the inherent relationship between information and the ATI Act, the fields of IM/RM and ATI administration remain distinct, and each requires unique conditions for success.     2.5.2.4. Relationship: Elements of Strong IM(RM) Performance  Table 12 Comparing IM(RM) Performance Elements in tsG4 Institution Name MAF VII 12.1 Governance 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation AANDC Strong (Acceptable) CRA Strong (Acceptable) DFO Strong (Acceptable) FAITC Strong Strong NRCan Strong Strong PS (Acceptable) Strong The comparison between 12.1 and 12.2 indicated that, again, it was easier to obtain a better rate for 12.1 than for 12.2 (with PS as the only exception), which confirmed the result of the comparison conducted in 2.5.2.2 as well as the result by the starting group 72  (see Appendix 2).126     2.5.2.5. Relationship: IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC The comparison between the respective IM(RM) performances by MAF VII and OIC report cards was directed by the inconsistency displayed in the two sources for some institutions. All institutions were then systematically compared. Tables 11 and 12 present the results.         Table13 Comparing Unsatisfactory IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC  Total No. tsG2 (MAF VII) tsG1 (OIC) sG (OIC) Result No. = 6 No. = 6 No.= 8 1.   AANDC  MAF ≠ OIC 2.  CBSA CBSA  MAF = OIC 3.   CIC  MAF ≠ OIC 4.  CFIA  CFIA MAF = OIC 5.    CIDA MAF ≠ OIC 6.    CRA MAF ≠ OIC 7.    CSC MAF ≠ OIC 8.  CSIS   MAF ≠ OIC 9.   DFO  MAF ≠ OIC 10.    EC MAF ≠ OIC 11.  HCan  HCan MAF = OIC                                                  126 This is an example of how one code was saturated. All these comparisons here (by 3 groups) saturated the category insufficient/lack of specifics in IM plan and work (i.e., it is difficult to specify the IM program in institutions) first generated by the starting group. 73  Total No. tsG2 (MAF VII) tsG1 (OIC) sG (OIC) Result No. = 6 No. = 6 No.= 8 12.  HRSDC   MAF ≠ OIC 13.   IC  MAF ≠ OIC 14.    ND MAF ≠ OIC 15.    PCH MAF ≠ OIC 16.   PS  MAF ≠ OIC 17.  RCMP   MAF ≠ OIC No. of Institution where MAF = OIC 3 Table14 Comparing Strong IM(RM) Performance by MAF and OIC   Total No. tsG4 (MAF VII) tsG3 (Institution in OIC Report Card) Result No. = 6 No. = 3 1.  AANDC  MAF ≠ OIC 2.  CRA  MAF ≠ OIC 3.   CSIS MAF ≠ OIC 4.  DFO  MAF ≠ OIC 5.  FAITC  MAF ≠ OIC 6.  NRCan NRCan MAF = OIC 7.   PCO MAF ≠ OIC 8.  PS  MAF ≠ OIC No. of Institution where MAF = OIC 1 It was apparent that, in the above two comparisons, only a small number of institutions (namely, 3 among 17 and 1 among 8, respectively) had received consistent evaluation results from TBS MAF and OIC report cards. This inconsistence led to a comparison 74  between the methodologies employed by TBS and OIC, presented in the following Table. Table15 Comparing Methodologies of TBS MAF and OIC Report Cards on IM Method  Source Criteria OIC Report Card  Answers provided by institutions to Part C of OIC ATI Assessment Questionnaire: Contributing Factors127   Whether “Difficulties to retrieve records” was a significant issue that affected the institution’s ability to respond to access to information requests in a timely manner (within 30 days and/or statutory timelines) TBS MAF Reports with supporting documents submitted by institutions128   12.1 IM Governance: The IM governance structure effectively supports the organization's business lines and participation in setting government-wide strategic directions for IM; 12.2 IM Strategic Planning & Implementation: The organization’s IM strategy supports the effective management of information and records to meet program and service outcomes, operational needs and accountabilities. The comparison demonstrated that the TBS and OIC approaches toward IM/RM had                                                  127 OIC, “Questionnaires,” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rep-pub-spec_rep-rap_spec-quest-2008-2009_questionnaires.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 128 TBS, “MAF Methodology for 2009,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2009/stewardship-gerance/stewardship-ge rance-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 75  different focuses. The OIC report cards focused on a very specific aspect of IM/RM, that is, records retrieval, yet the TBS MAF methodology focused on high level aspects of IM(RM), with general criteria. This result confirmed the observations made when analyzing the starting group (see Appendix 2): MAF evaluation on IM(RM) was insufficient (i.e., it focuses only on high level aspects) and ineffective (i.e., it is unable to reveal specific issues).  2.5.2.6. Relationship: Elements of Strong IM(RM) Performance by MAF VIII MAF VIII (i.e., for the year 2010-11) assessed IM Practice (12.3) in addition to IM Governance (12.1) and IM Strategy Planning and Implementation (12.2). The assessment of 12.3 IM Practice focused on “information repositories, recordkeeping practices, retention, and disposition activities”.129 The following table presents the relationships between these elements as indicated by the ratings of the thirty departments to which the author had sent ATI requests.130 Eight of the thirty departments were not assessed by                                                  129 TBS, “MAF VIII Methodology. Area of Management 12: Information Management: Lines of Evidence,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2010/elements-elements-eng.asp#toc12 (accessed October 19, 2012). 130 The total number of departments that released records on their IM(RM) functions includes: the starting group (8), the theoretical sampling groups (13), TBS, LAC, OIC, OAG (the Office of the Auditor General of Canada), and the group of institutions that were assessed in 2006, including the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The records that were not open coded were used to verify the generated codes. In addition, AAFC was visited for the purpose of experiencing its RDIMS.     76  MAF VIII, reducing the number of comparable departments to twenty two.  Table16 Comparing IM Performance Elements in MAF III IM Performance Elements MAF VIII Rating Strong Opportunity for Improvement or Attention Required 12.1 IM Governance 9/22 = 41% 2/22 = 9% 12.2 IM Strategy Planning & Implementation 4/22 = 18% 8/22 = 36% 12.3 IM Practice 2/22 = 9% 15/22 = 68% The comparison demonstrated that the requirement that was most difficult to satisfy was 12.3 IM Practice, as 68% of the institutions assessed were rated lower than acceptable and only 9% were rated strong. This result confirms the OIC experience that, when it comes to specific IM(RM) practices, the IM performance has become worse. This comparison confirmed also the previous observation that the element 12.1 IM Governance was the easiest one to achieve, as it possessed the highest percentage of the rating Strong and, accordingly, the lowest percentage of the rating Opportunity for Improvement including Attention Required. 2.5.3. Investigating the Theoretical Sampling Groups – Data Collection The data collection process for all the theoretical sampling groups followed the same process of the starting group, except the parts relating to the GC-wide data and the site visit data. The search for GC-wide data was considered systematic and comprehensive, 77  and the data so collected, as well as those collected by visiting TBS, LAC, and PWGSC, were all applicable to the theoretic sampling groups. For institution-specific data, both online and ATI data were sought, the organization of which followed the same typology. The ATI requests sent to the departments of the theoretical sampling groups followed the same template developed for the departments of the starting group.      2.5.4. Investigating the Theoretical Sampling Groups – Data Analysis – Constant Comparison Data of all theoretical sampling groups were open-coded, memoed, and constantly compared with the emerging categories established by the starting group data. The results were characterized as confirming, additional to, and new to the existent categories. 2.5.4.1. Category Confirmation The tsG coding and comparing process confirmed overwhelmingly the starting group categories: all of them were supported by tsG data. Moreover, for a large number of categories such as IM(RM) Conceptual Framework, IM as a Whole, IM(RM) Guidance, IM(RM) as Service, IM(RM)/IT Relationship, IM Specificity, etc., not only was the confirmation universal for each theoretical sampling group but also consistent with many indicators in one institution.    2.5.4.2. Additional Indicators for Categories     Table 15 lists exemplar indicators by the tsG data coded as additional to the emergent sG categories. “Additional” here refers to the indicators that are similar to those suggested by 78  the sG data. The list is not exhaustive as many institutions offered data for more than one category. Table 17 Additional Indicators for Categories Indicators by tsG Data Emergent Categories by sG Data AANDC   5470.00 CND search fee estimated for the ATI request (= more than 500 hours GC work time)  Record Retrieval - Effectiveness CBSA  IM Skills = attending training courses offered by the Canada School of Public Service  IM(RM) Capacity - Characterization CIC  Retention schedules as means to identify records  Records Retention – Presence  Records Retention – Characterization  DFO   RDIMS implementation considered having negative impact on business effectiveness  RDIMS Implementation - Effectiveness IC   A Business-based Classification Structure to be developed over a 36 month period with an estimated $3.2M budget; LAC developed methodology BASCS was not referenced  Record Classification - Development  IM(RM) Guidance - Application: Existence  PS  Electronic documents representing RDIMS  Electronic Document(s) - Presence  79  Indicators by tsG Data Emergent Categories by sG Data HRSDC  Guidelines on Managing Electronic Information, Mail and Documents  Stronger encouragement than GC requirements  Electronic Document(s): Presence  Electronic Record(s) - Presence    Employee “RM” – Presence  NRCan  Quick achievement of developing an IM Policy and of designating an IM departmental senior officer   IM(RM) Compliance Requirement – Execution PCO  Employee high turnover  Employee “RM” – Effectiveness  Institutional RM – Effectiveness DFAIT  Identical set up of institutional IM policy instruments as with that of TBS   Clean-ups for various drives mostly welcomed  Frozen shard drives for RDIMS take-up  Longer finding/searching time with more documents in RDIMS  Abandoned/orphan documents in RDIMS  IM(RM) Compliance Requirement – Execution  RM Practice Work – Effectiveness  RDIMS Implementation – Condition  RDIMS Implementation - Effectiveness TC  Strong focus on awareness and training  Close work relationship with IT  Active participation in GC IM  IM(RM) Directional Work – Performance  IM(RM)/IT Relationship – Characterization  IM(RM) Whole-of-Government Approach – Presence  80  2.5.4.3. New Indictors for Categories A small number of indicators offered by the tsG data were new to some of the sG emergent categories – yet still encompassed by the categories. Table 16 lists all of them. Table 18 New Indictors for Categories Indicators by tsG Data Emergent Categories by sG Data CBSA   Difficulty caused by changing compliance requirements  IM(RM) Compliance Requirement – Execution CIC   Resources are in place  Senior Officer IM(RM) Responsibility – Fulfilment  IM(RM) Capacity - Characterization IC   electronic records = records in employee personal folders  Electronic Records - Characterization PS  After implementation required shared drives to be blocked and training must be attained;  ATIP unit has access to implemented RDIMS  RDIMS Implementation – Condition  RDIMS Implementation – Effectiveness  CSIS  classifying each and every record, including emails   Record Retrieval - Effectiveness HRSDC  long time period for departmental IM strategy approval  IM(RM) Directional Work – Establishment   81  Indicators by tsG Data Emergent Categories by sG Data NRCan  a wiki and Google environment to lessen user and manager burden   fewer responsibilities for employees and managers  difficult to find all responsive records  Improvement Mechanism – Development  Improvement Mechanism – Effectiveness PCO  Identified responsive records were comprehensive  capturing records into RDIMS done by RM officers  A stronger focus on RM actual work  Retention schedules used as reasons for not releasing certain records  No records documenting the disposition  Record Retrieval – Effectiveness  RDIMS Implementation - Condition  RDIMS Implementation - effectiveness  RM Actual Work – Completion  Records Retention – Presence  Records Disposition - Effectiveness 2.5.5. Ending Open Coding  [Researchers] look for patterns so that a pattern of many similar incidents can be given a conceptual name as a category, and dissimilar incidents can be given a name as a property of a category, and the compared incidents can be seen as interchangeable indices for the same concept. And when [researchers] get many interchangeable incidents [the categories] get saturation. That is, it is unnecessary to keep collecting more incidents which keep indicating the same pattern and no new properties of it.131  As the categories/codes were considered saturated and the core variable emerged, the                                                  131 Barney G. Glaser, Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 40. 82  open coding process ended.   2.6. Emerging Core Concept: Record Nature  The open coding process pointed strongly to the significance of the code IM(RM) Conceptual Framework, as its GC characterization, inadequacy, was indicated by all types of data and at both GC-wide and institution-specific levels. The indicators include:  Imprecise definition for key concepts (e.g. information lifecycle);  Lack of definitions for key concepts (e.g., information and document);  Inconsistent definition/characterization for the concept of record;  Inconsistent definitions for the concept of recordkeeping;  Lack of relationship deliberations for key concepts, in particular o document and record in digital technological environment; o information and information resource; and  o record and information resource of business value.   Among these indicators, the inadequate and inconsistent information surrounding the concept of record appeared to be most problematic. This observation led to the emerging of the question: “what is the nature of a record in the context of GC IM?” or “how is a record fundamentally different from other IM constituent parts?”. The code record nature was used to capture this emergent question and was identified as the core variable entailing selective coding.    83  2.6.1. Substantive-Selective Coding of Record Nature The data collection for the selective coding relied on information on record(s) provided by three types of sources: IM/RM relevant legislation in the GC setting, TBS IM/RM policies, and representative RM literature.         2.6.1.1. Definition/Appearance of Record(s) in IM/RM Relevant Legislation The coding of the first type of data (T1) included the following GC acts, identified by TBS IM policies as key to IM/RM. They are listed below in chronological order:  Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11  Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1  Statistics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-19  Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5, amended 2000  Library and Archives of Canada Act, S.C. 2004, c. 11 The analysis included two steps: first, coding the appearance/use and/or definition of record(s), including electronic or digital records (S1), and second, coding the appearance/use and definition of the terms information, document, information resource, information resource of business value. The indicators and memos (I&M) from the first step coding (labeled as T1-S1-I&M-#) are:   T1-S1- I&M-1: record is defined by the Access to Information Act and the Library and Archives of Canada Act: o Both consider records as “any documentary material”, 84  “regardless of medium or form”, yet o The latter qualifies “any documentary material” as “other than a publication”;  T1-S1- I&M-2: The Canada Evidence Act defines record132 in the context of the admissibility of business records as evidence in legal proceedings, and generally refers to it as any recorded information;   T1-S1- I&M-3: Record(s) appears in all other acts, and is used  o in association with specific spheres of activity, e.g., “records of public property”, “records of land management”, or o as synonym of document;  T1-S1- I&M-4: Electronic record(s) or digital record(s) does not appear; o The phrase “machine readable records” appears in the Access to Information Act. The term is not defined but machine readable records are qualified as being produced by “using computer hardware and software”;  The indicators and memos generated by the second step (labeled as T1-S2-I&M-#) are:  T1-S2-I&M-1: information is not defined by any of the acts;  T1-S2-I&M-2: information is used                                                   132 “record” includes the whole or any part of any book, document, paper, card, tape or other thing on or in which information is written, recorded, stored or reproduced, and, except for the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), any copy or transcript admitted in evidence under this section pursuant to subsection (3) or (4). 85  o as a general term, or o in parallel with record, or o as being contained in record;  T1-S2-I&M-3: document is not defined by any of the acts;   T1-S2-I&M-4: document is used o as a general term (with less frequency than information), or o in parallel with “books, papers, and accounts” or o in parallel with “records”;  T1-S2-I&M-5: electronic document is defined by the Canada Evidence Act, following the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PART II Electronic Documents, S.C. 2000, c. 5, as “data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer system or other similar device and that can be read or perceived by a person or a computer system or other similar device. It includes a display, printout or other output of that data”;  o “data” means representations of information or of concepts, in any form;  T1-S2-I&M-6: Information resource or information resource of business value has no appearance in any of the acts. The overall results of the coding of the first type of data are:  The legal definitions only partially answer the question of what a record is (i.e., any documentary material, other than a publication), and are 86  therefore unable to effectively distinguish record from information or document as all can possess both the characteristic of being documents and published;  The terms information and document are commonly and extensively used, but are used without differentiation and in parallel with records as different entities;  The inclusion of digital records in the definition of records is suggested by the phrase “regardless of medium or form”, but being implicit as it is based on interpretation; o This inclusion is not made explicit in institutional IM/RM policies, plans, or tools either;  The association of electronic documents with the computing environment is made clear; and  No linkage is made between electronic documents and business records. 2.6.1.2. Definition/Appearance of Record(s) in TBS RM and IM Policies  The coding of the second type of data included the three predecessors of the current TBS Policy on Information Management (2007):    Chapter 460 in TBS Administrative Policy Manual, Records Management, 1983;  Policy on the Management of Government Information Holdings, 87  1994;133  The Policy on Management of Government Information, 2003. The coding of the policies issued in 1994 and 2003 was done by using the actual copies of the policies, but for the one issued in 1983, the coding was done based on a surrogate, that is, a review article on it published in Archivaria.134 Efforts to gather a copy of the 1983 policy as well as a copy of the Records Management policy in the TBS Administrative Policy Manual published in 1978 were made by contacting both TBS and LAC. TBS does not keep rescinded policies and relied on LAC for long-term access. The response from LAC indicated that administrative policies were kept but they would not be open for access until 2013. As a result, the policy issued in 1978 was not coded; its title, however, signaled that the focus of the policy was on records not information. The coding of these policies yielded the following indicators and memos:  T2-I&M-1: The policy changed its focus in 1994 from records (1978) and “information contained in records” (1983) to “information holdings” (1994) and                                                  133 1994 is the year of the last revision of the policy. A copy of the last revision can be retrieved at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/201/301/tbs-sct/tb_manual-ef/Pubs_pol/cio pubs/TB_GIH/CHAP3_1_e.html (accessed October 19, 2012). The issuing year of the policy is 1989. See Michael Nelson, Federal Government Information Policy: An Introduction. http://library2.usask.ca/gic/v1n3/nelson/nelson.html (accessed October 19, 2012).     134 Unknown. “New Records Management Policy for the Government of Canada,” Archivaria, 17 (1983-84): 339-341. http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11063/11998 (accessed October 19, 2012). 88  “government information” (2003); o   information holdings were defined as “all information under the control of a government institution, regardless of physical mode or medium in which such information may be stored”; o   government information was defined as “information created, received, used, and maintained regardless of physical form, and information prepared for or produced by the Government of Canada and deemed to be under its control in the conduct of government activities or in pursuance of legal obligations”;  T2-I&M-2: The 1994 policy did not define records but used the term in phrases such as “essential records”, “records of enduring value”, “historical records”, “personnel records”, and “ministerial records”;  T2-I&M-3: The 2003 policy considered records a related term to government information and provided a definition from the National Archives of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act:  o   Records: “Includes any correspondence, memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work, photograph, film, microform, sound recording, videotape, machine readable record, and any other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, and any copy thereof”; The overall findings of this coding process include:  The existence of no intention or effort to distinguish records from “information 89  holdings” or “government information”; or, in other words, to make explicit the relationships among these terms;  There is a tendency to use the term information in association with the operation of government institutions; and  o  The use of the term record(s) was limited to   traditional (i.e., paper-dominant) RM;   the non-current-use stage of the records lifecycle, confirming the tendency discovered when coding LAC data; o  The term information resource, or information resource of business value, is not present in any of the policies. 2.6.1.3. Definition/Elaboration of Record(s) in Relevant Literature  As an established profession, RM produces literature regarding records and their management. As an established academic discipline, archival science studies records and their administration, and has generated a sizable body of scholarly literature. Due to the different development histories of RM and archival science in different countries and cultures, a universally accepted definition for the concept of record does not currently exist. What exist are numerous definitions offered by a variety of bodies such as legislatures, archival institutions, RM and archival educators, RM and archival professional associations, national and international standards, guidelines, glossaries and dictionaries, and research projects. For the selective coding, three sources were considered sufficiently representative of the relevant literature: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) RM Standard 15489, the Association of Records 90  Managers and Administrator (ARMA) International, and the International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES) project. ISO 15489 is the first and still current international standard dedicated to RM, ARMA International is the largest professional association in the RM field, and the InterPARES project is the largest research project on digital records, which had also run for the longest time period among similar projects. In addition, the project features the Canadian setting, involving several Canadian partners, including LAC. Although weak, all three sources had a presence in the GC IM landscape, at either the government or the institution level, and this was the other factor that guided their selection for analysis. The three definitions are:  ISO 15489: records [means] information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business; “information” is not defined;135  ARMA: [A] record [is] recorded information, regardless of medium or characteristics, made or received by an organization in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business; “recorded information” is not defined;136                                                  135 ISO, “15489 – 1,” http://www.javeriana.edu.co/archivo/07_eventos/preservaciondigital/memorias/index_archivos/no rma/iso_15489-1.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 136 ARMA, “Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms,” http://www.arma.org/standards/glossary/index.cfm?id_term=369 (accessed October 19, 2012). 91   InterPARES: [A] record [is] a document made or received in the course of a practical activity as an instrument or a by-product of such activity, and set aside for action or reference;  o [a] “document” [is] an indivisible unit of information constituted by a message affixed to a medium (recorded) in a stable syntactic manner. A document has fixed form and stable content;  o information [is] an assemblage of data intended for communication either through space or across time; and  o data [are] the smallest meaningful units of information.137 The coding of the definitions yielded the following facets:  Fixity o indicated by the term “recorded” in the ARMA definition; o indicated by the term “document” in the InterPARES definition and its definition provided by the project; o only the first type of information in the ISO definition presents this feature as indicated by the term “maintained”; the second type of information does not, because oral information, e.g., a phone call, may be able to make a transaction take place under certain circumstances;   Relationship with an activity (that is part of the usual and ordinary operation of the organization or person); sub-categorized as association and connection:                                                  137  InterPARES 2, “Terminology Database,” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm (accessed October 19, 2012). 92  o  association: indicating the existence of a linkage     indicated by the phrase “in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business” in the ARMA definition;   indicated by the phrase “in the course of a practical activity” in the InterPARES definition;    only the second type of information in the ISO definition presents this feature as indicated by the phrase “pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business”; the first type of information does not, as creating, receiving, and maintaining evidence can be an deliberate action that is not part of the usual and ordinary operation of an organization or a person but has simply for the purpose of producing evidence;   o connection: indicating an explicit relationship    indicated only by the InterPARES definition as “an instrument or a by-product of such activity”;  Purpose of record creation o as “evidence” for the first type of information in the ISO definition; the relationship of being associated with an activity can be considered the purpose of record creation for the second type of information; o the relationship of being associated with an activity can be considered the purpose of record creation in the ARMA definition; o as “an instrument or a by-product of such activity” in the InterPARES definition; 93   Purpose of records maintenance o same as that for record creation in the ISO definition; o same as that for record creation in the ARMA definition; o “for action or reference” in the InterPARES definition.  As the InterPARES definition of record yielded more facets than the other two definitions, the tool developed by the project to dissect the definition of record called Diplomatic Analysis Template and the definition of activity were further coded.138 The results include:  There are relationships between records of the same activity;  There are roles in the records creating process;  There are roles in the records maintaining process;  There are environmental factors impacting records creation;  There are (hierarchical) relationships among action, activity, and function.139 Neither the ISO 15489 nor the ARMA Glossary provided definitions for activity or action. In the text of ISO 15489, activity and business activity are both used, and business                                                  138 InterPARES, “Diplomatic Analysis Template,” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_07.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012).  139 InterPARES 2, “Terminology Database,” Action: The conscious exercise of will by a person aimed to create, maintain, modify or extinguish situations; Activity: A series of acts or actions aimed to one purpose; Function: All of the activities aimed to accomplish one purpose, considered abstractly. 94  activity is used mostly alongside function, transaction, and/or business process. In its section of Design and implementation methodology, however, the standard suggests that a hierarchical relationship should be established among function, activity, and transaction.140 A further tracing was conducted for the term business process, or process, and the result was that neither the ISO 15489 nor the ARMA Glossary provide a definition for it, while the InterPARES project defines a process as “the series of motions, or activities in general, carried out to set oneself to work and go on towards each formal step of a procedure”. The project further defines procedure as “the body of written and unwritten rules governing the conduct of a transaction, or the formal steps undertaken in carrying out a transaction”. The ARMA Glossary also defines procedure as “instructions, exhibits, and/or other methodologies to follow in order to complete tasks in a predictable and orderly way”.141 2.6.2. Record Nature Properties By synthesizing the above coding in relation to the GC context (e.g., removing the parts relevant to personal activities), the concept of record nature can be described by three properties: creation, maintenance, and use, each with a number of specifications. Creation refers to the manner by which a record comes into existence, that is, it is created (made or received and set aside) as part of an operational activity, which entails the understanding of the characteristics of such activity and the implications of making, receiving, and                                                  140 ISO, “15489-1,” 10.  141 ARMA, “Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms,”. 95  setting aside (i.e. keeping) a record. An operational activity is an activity that is carried out as part of an organization’s planned operations. It may consist of a series of procedures (steps or phases) or workflows (i.e., processes) or several sub-activities, each consisting of one or more procedures or processes, but it is at the lowest action level at which the work is being carried out. The procedures and/or processes may not be limited to one business unit or organization; depending on the need of the activity, it may develop across multiple administrative configurations. The specific acts and the relationships among activities, sub-activities, procedures and processes, their phases, and the acts that are part of them are determined by the organization, which designs all its activities in order to achieve its goals and objectives. The design of the activity reflects its operational environment, consisting of the juridical, administrative, and technological contexts,142 where the juridical-administrative requirements may include those for the creation of records. As part of the design for execution and management purposes, each activity needs an owner and a number of players, which can be human beings or information systems143 with assigned roles and responsibilities, including those for the creation of records. Records are created at specific steps as the byproducts of acts, and creation attaches to each record attributes derived from the operational environment that are definite and specific at that moment. For the design to enable consistent operation, all activities need to have clearly defined boundaries that delimit them as independent                                                  142 Adapted from the five contexts in the InterPARES, Diplomatic Analysis Template.  143 Strictly, an information system is not a player in acting as either a natural or juridical person. It is used as a player here with the implication that it functions in accordance with the requirements of a juridical person, that is, the records creation organization.  96  entities, despite the interrelations they may possess with each other. To facilitate automation, requirements and conditions stipulating the conduct of each activity, including records creation, need to be broken down as much as possible within each step. The activity that causes the creation of records is a records creating activity and for a particular record, there is always only one creating activity. To be created encompasses two types of actions: to be made or received and to be saved to an aggregation of records, and the difference lies in the authoring of the record. To make a record is to produce a document (i.e., information affixed to a medium in a stable form) at a specific step of an activity and to follow record-making rules or documentary procedures. The specific step in question is a record-making step of the record creating activity. Record-making rules determine the documentary form144 of the record being made, that is, the manner by which the content of a record, its administrative and documentary context, and its authority are communicated. 145 The development of record-making rules requires adequate understanding of the creating activity, including its operational environment and the RM principles ensuring that the resulting record both satisfies the need of the activity and fulfills legal requirements. Receiving a record takes                                                  144 Documentary form consists of the rules of representation that allow for a message to be conveyed, and comprises extrinsic and intrinsic elements. Extrinsic elements constitute the external appearance of a record and intrinsic elements constitute the internal composition of the record, conveying the action in which the record participates and its immediate context. Luciana Duranti, “Chapter 5 The Form of Documents and Their Criticism,” in Diplomatics: New Uses for An Old Science (Chicago, Ill.: SAA, ACA and Scarecrow Press, 1998), 133-150. 145 InterPARES 2, “Terminology Database,” Record-making. 97  place also at a specific step of an activity, but enters the records creation procedure from a different direction as the received record was made and issued by an entity external to the activity. Both the record-making and record-receiving steps are followed by the action of setting the record aside (or saving it to a records aggregation), which gives the record its archival bond146 and establishes its record status within the organization’s fonds. For digital records, setting aside needs to take place at the same time of saving (in the sense of computer science, i.e., affix it to a certain medium), which typically takes the form of assigning the records classification codes and placing them in the records maintenance system of the organization. For receiving a record, saving requires first downloading (e.g., from an email or a website) or uploading (e.g., from a removable memory device) the transmitted record, which may cause changes to the external appearance of the record if the technologies used to open/reassembly the record are different. RM procedures thus need to be developed to require the documentation of such changes, following the guidance of the concept of fixed documentary form.147 It needs to be pointed out that digital records have become the predominant type of records in today’s records creating organizations.                                                       146 For a detailed discussion on the concept of archival bond, see Luciana Duranti, “The Archival Bond,” Archives and Museum Informatics 11, 3-4 (1997): 213-218. For its application in digital records management, see InterPARES, Diplomatic Analysis Template, http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_07.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 147 For a discussion on fixed documentary form with respect to digital records, see Luciana Duranti and Kenneth Thibodeau, “The Concept of Record in Interactive, Experiential and Dynamic Environments: the View of InterPARES,” Archival Science 6, 1 (2006): 13-68 98  The property of maintenance emphasizes that maintaining records requires decision-making and conscious actions carried out for intended outcomes. A record needs to be maintained in order to continue its existence after creation and the quality of maintenance determines the quality of its existence, that is, the fact that the record is retrievable and usable. Record usability can be specified using the factor of time, and can be categorized as present and future148 uses. Record present use refers to the use of it by its creating activity during the period that the activity is taking place. Although the usages may happen at different times and locations, they all happen within the boundaries of the activity. The activity therefore determines the maintenance of the record. Record future use refers to its use by a future activity, which takes place not only in different times and locations but also outside the activity, and this can, therefore, be termed reuse. As it is difficult to predict the occurrence of future activities, the taking of maintenance decision for future use requires multiple sources of input and takes a much more complicated path.   These properties collectively depict the nature of record and therefore, are capable of distinguishing records from document, information, publication, information resource, knowledge resource, and business asset, and of examining the IM(RM) function in the study setting.                                                     148 The term future use is chosen to distinguish subsequent use, which, as an additional facet to present use, refers also to the use of records within the same activity.    99  Figure 2 below summarizes the research process:  The next chapter presents the emergent grounded theory that utilized the grounded theory mechanism of theoretical coding.            100  3. Discovering/Formulating the Grounded Theory The essential relationship between data and theory is a conceptual code. [Theoretical]  codes conceptualize how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the theory. Thus, in generating a theory by developing the hypothetical relationships between conceptual codes (categories and their properties) which have been generated from the data as indicators, we “discover” a grounded theory.149 This chapter presents the grounded theory generated through theoretically coding the substantive categories. It emerged first in the form of conceptual building blocks and then hypotheses, which were formulated on the basis of the building blocks. The grounded theory centers on the core variable Record Nature and displays the relationships among concepts and hypotheses. The specifications of each concept are not intended to be universally applicable but relevant only to the study setting. In addition, the specifications are modifiable in the face of new data and/or new coding. The term record in this and subsequent chapters is synonymous with the term digital record, which is also used for the purpose of emphasis when needed. Both the building block concepts and the hypotheses are presented in an alternative form, which are listed as appendices to the dissertation.      3.1. Conceptual Building Blocks The building block concepts, marked by capitalized first letters in this section and the rest of the dissertation, are described below utilizing properties that characterize them as                                                  149 Barney G. Glaser, Theoretic Sensitivity, 55. 101  indicated by both the substantive and theoretical codes. The properties resulting from the substantive coding are mainly those of a descriptive nature, that is, they possess no relationships with other properties or concepts. For example, the property “An independent administrative configuration” of the concept Central RM, describes only an inward characteristic of the concept rather than pointing out any outward relationship with other building block concepts or their properties. In contrast, the properties resulting from the theoretical coding describe mainly relationships. For example, the property “Relies on dedicated RM Personnel for operation” of the same concept (i.e., Central RM) indicates that a dependent or conditional relationship exists between the concepts of Central RM and RM Personnel. These properties are called specifications in the presentation of the building block concepts, in conformance with the methodological guidance that “conceptual specification is the focus of grounded theory, not conceptual definition”.150 To further specify the relationship, or in other words, to functionally enable the usage of these concepts in formulating hypotheses, the property measurement is added to all concepts designating the requirement(s) associated with their practical applications, for example, to be timely, comprehensive, or adequate. These measurements are used to indicate the level of achievement of the activities involved in putting the concepts into practice and, when connected to the relationships captured by other properties, they reveal relationships among concepts, thus facilitating the formulation of                                                  150 This is because the operational meaning of the concept derives from the use of its learned distinctions in the theory. In this way the meaning of a concept can be modified or added to-as indicators change-thereby changing the applicable distinctions. It is hard to keep changing a conceptual definition. Barney G. Glaser, Theoretical Sensitivity, 64. 102  hypotheses. For example, the effective operation of the Central RM (effectiveness is one measurement for Central RM) relies on adequate RM Capacity (adequacy is one measurement for RM Capacity). The other feature regarding measurements is that they are inheritable. When a concept is a compound one, that is, it contains component concepts, its measurements are inherited by the components. For example, the compound concept Organizational RM has two components, Central RM and Local RM, both of which inherit the measurement of effectiveness of operation established for Organizational RM. Although many component concepts have their own measurements, there are situations where component concepts have inherited measurement(s) but not their own, for example, the components constituting the concept Record Value. This group of component concepts inherits the measurement “Degree of recognition by organization” and “Degree of realization by Organizational RM” from its upper level concept and possesses no other measurements specific to them.        There are in total 96 building block concepts, all of which are traceable back to the concept Record Nature, either directly or indirectly. Their description in this section starts with the concepts that are in a direct manner derived from the core concept Record Nature, collectively termed the RM Foundational Concept (including the concept Record Nature). It then follows the thread as indicated by the relationships in properties, that is, the specifications and/or measurements. This order implies, in a loosely manner, the different degree of importance of the building block concepts in formulating the theory/explanations; however, it does not suggest any differences in their necessity or usefulness for presenting a coherent theory. In other words, all concepts are considered necessary for illustrating the situation as indicated by data in the study setting and for 103  identifying the cause of the problem being studied.          3.1.1. Record Value, RM Value & The Related In addition to Record Nature, the RM Foundational Concept includes the concepts of Record(s) Purpose, Record Value, RM Nature, and RM Value. The concept Record(s) Purpose consists of two components, Record Creation Purpose and Record(s) Maintenance Purpose, 151 and is measured by the degree to which the two components are distinguished by the records creating organization. Record Creation Purpose emphasizes that records are created for, and only for, satisfying the needs of an Operational Activity, and the Operational Activity, correspondingly, is the sole reason that causes the creation of the record. An Operational Activity can be any activity that the organization determines to be necessary for its operation, the conduct of which typically requires resources allocation and records creation. This indicates that, within the context of conducting an Operational Activity, records must be created when needed, and must not be created when not needed, and the reasoning for creation is needed for each and every record, as creation is relevant only to individual records. This notion is well documented in archival literature and is also widely adopted by practitioners of both the                                                  151 The use of the expression record(s) in relation to Maintenance Purpose is to emphasize that the action of maintenance needs to be performed at both individual and aggregation levels. This usage applies to all other instances where both levels are the concern. When only one level, either individual or aggregation, is considered, the expression record or records is used, such as in the case of Record Creation Purpose, which emphasizes that the purpose of creation must be understood in relation to individual records. Whenever a component concept is expressed using record(s), its upper level concept reflects it.  104  professions of archives administration and records management. Moreover, it is extensively elaborated by the InterPARES project in the context of digital records management and long-term preservation.152 The guidance offered to practice by this notion is that the creation of records must be analyzed and determined when the Operational Activity is being conceived and designed, which was largely absent in the study setting. This analytic result prompted the codification of the concept Record Creation Purpose, which emphasizes the notion of record-creation-as-part-of-operational activity and differentiates it from the purpose of Record(s) Maintenance. The concept Record(s) Maintenance Purpose was codified as a response to the fact that information management policies excessively emphasize that information (including records) needs to be managed as “business assets” and “knowledge resources”. Because no definition for these two terms could be found in all collected data, the understanding of their meaning relied on the analysis of relevant literature153 in conjunction with indications offered by other data (e.g., the establishment of IM(RM) as a resource management function). As the analysis displayed, the term business asset or knowledge resource emphasizes the use of                                                  152 See, for example, Luciana Duranti and Kenneth Thibodeau, “The Concept of Record in Interactive, Experiential and Dynamic Environments: the View of InterPARES,” Archival Science 6, 1 (2006): 13-68; “Part Two Records Creation and Maintenance,” in Findings of InterPARES 2, http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_part_2_domain1_task_force.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012); and “The Chain of Preservation Model,” in Findings of InterPARES 2, in particular, the module Managing Records in a Record-Making System, http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_14.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012).   153 The relevant literature consists of typically RM professional literature including RM consultants’ publications. 105  records by activities that are different from the records creating activity, that is, records reuse or repurposing. Records do have the potential for being reused or repurposed as business assets and/or knowledge resources; however, it is critical to realize that records are not created (i.e. made or received and kept) in order to be business assets or knowledge resources, but may become such after having exhausted their usefulness for the activity that required their creation. This differentiation is of critical importance because:   It guides the understanding of the different types of value that a record may possess to the different activities that create and reuse it. A record that is indispensable for an Operational Activity (e.g., an ATI request form) is however typically not considered as a business asset (in the sense of contributing to the generation of business intelligence) or a knowledge source (in the sense of contributing to organization’s strategic planning or of becoming part of the archives that are significant to Canada);  It indicates that the degree of knowledge of activities required for records creation and maintenance is different: for record creation, it is only the understanding of the creating activity that is required, while for enabling record(s) reuse, the understanding of as many future activities as possible is desired; and   It points out that record creation is the foundation of record(s) maintenance, which relies on the creation quality.  Based on these distinctions, Record Creation Purpose is measured by the existence of a decision and justification for creation, which, when implemented, form part of the records 106  of the creating activity. Record(s) Maintenance Purpose is measured by the existence of a decision and justification for maintenance, which, when implemented, form part of the records of the activity of RM Appraisal. Decision and justification are separately measured as data indicate that either or both may be absent in institutions. The concept Record Value includes two components: Record Instrumental Value and Record Reuse Value, and is measured by the degree of recognition, distinction, and realization by the organization and the Organizational RM. The concept Record Instrumental Value is tightly related to Record Creation Purpose and, as such, it is exclusive to the activity creating the records. It communicates the idea that a record required by the conduct of an Operational Activity possesses value to the activity, an idea that is conveyed by the term instrumental. This value is relevant to work productivity and effectiveness as the conduct of the activity relies on the quality and availability of the record. The degree of institutions’ recognition of the Record-Instrumental Value impacts directly the recognition of the importance of Record Identification and the adequacy of the establishment of an Organizational RM. To ensure the Record-Instrumental Value, records must be identified one by one with content, documentary form, and metadata sufficient for enabling their lifecycle management. To facilitate Record Identification, a work relationship between the writer of the record content (i.e., employees designated to a particular Operational Activity), the originator of the extrinsic elements of the documentary form (i.e., the part of Organizational IT supporting the activity),154 and the                                                  154 The concepts of writer and originator are used here in conformance with digital diplomatics as developed by the InterPARES project.   107  RM Personnel dedicated to the activity must be administratively enabled. Dedicated RM Personnel and their continued work relationships with Organizational IT are required for ensuring the quality of records and their availability to the creating activity during its operating time. This implies that this type of work should not be temporary.155 The demonstration of this type of value supports the RM Function Design, that is, the establishment of the RM Governance Structure, the RM Responsibility Arrangement, and the RM Activity. As the Instrumental Value of a record is limited to its creating activity, it is irrelevant to the determination of Records Retention for future activities. In other words, the requirement for records maintenance/retention is defaulted by the need of their creating activity: the records exist for as long as the activity requires them. The extension of the retention period beyond the operation time of the activity is determined by Record Reuse Value.  Record Reuse Value, the other component of Record Value, follows, or is subsequent to, the Record-Instrumental Value. It consists of two sub-components, Record Immediate Value and Record Distant Value, both of which further include three sub-components: Record Accountability Value, Record Investigation Value, and Record Resource Value,156                                                  155 The typical temporary personnel include consultants and students. This is not to diminish the reasonableness of having such temporary help under certain circumstances, but to emphasize the demand of dedicated attention to the work, which is necessary to realizing the record instrumental value. 156 As the criteria used to categorize components are descriptive facets of the concepts, they serve as qualifiers in the names of the component concepts. For example, the full name of the 108  corresponding to the types of Operational Activity, which are Accountability-Related Activity, Investigation-Related Activity, and Business Activity. These three activities form the category Non-RM Activity, and together with the category RM Activity, constitute the Operational Activity. The relationship between the Non-RM Activity and RM Activity is not exclusive as the term may suggest, but instead, inclusive, that is, every type of Non-RM activity includes certain forms of RM Activity.157 The use of Non-RM vs. RM is intended to highlight the differences in their primary purposes of establishment and, accordingly, the different kinds of knowledge needed for their respective operation.   To understand Record Reuse Value requires the introduction of the concept Activity Time Boundary, which categorizes Operational Activity as Past Activity (one that has been completed), Present Activity (one that is currently taking place), and Future Activity (one that will take place either according to design/plan or unexpectedly).158 The time boundary of activity indicates that the ending point of a Present Activity changes it to a                                                                                                                                                  sub-component concept Record(s) Accountability Value is Record(s) Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value. 157 This relationship is detailed in the specifications of the concept Organizational RM and its component Unit RM. 158 It needs to be pointed out that this characterization is limited as it does not accommodate the possibility that activities may last for a very long time. When this is the case, accountability- and investigation-related activities may take place before the activity ends. This however does not invalidate the use of the time factor because it can be used within the long lasting activity to separate sub-activities or processes, which then can follow the past, present, and future categorization. A more important point is that the discussion on records creation and management must be rooted in the design and conduct of activity.          109  Past Activity and the starting time of a Future Activity marks it as a Present Activity. Time boundaries between activities assist the understanding of the transformative relationships between activities and the different types of Record Value associated with the transformation, in particular with regard to Record-Reuse Value. Being reusable by different activities is one characteristic of records: those created by a Past Activity can be reused by a Present Activity and those created by a Present Activity may be reused by a Future Activity. When a record is being created and used by an activity, this activity is its creating activity, which is also a Present Activity, and the record value for the activity is instrumental. When this activity ends, it becomes a Past Activity and its records need to be assessed for reuse by either identified or potential Future Activities. The assessment is typically conducted in two forms of appraisal: RM Appraisal and Archival Appraisal. RM appraisal assesses Record Reuse-Immediate Value in consideration of the institution’s operations, which determines retention periods of records in the organization. Archival appraisal, in contrast, assesses Records Reuse-Distant Value, which determines the requirement for records to be transferred to an archival institution/unit/program where they can be permanently preserved and made accessible. Archival appraisal159 requires as a foundation the quality work of the organizational RM program, including that of RM Appraisal.   When a Future Activity becomes present (i.e., starts to take place), the document reused                                                  159 The specifications of the concept Archival Appraisal are limited to its relevance to the present study, including only its relationship with RM Activity (i.e., it requires RM work as a foundation) and the impact it has on the conduct of RM work (i.e., it needs to be conducted in a timely fashion and in supportive to the issuing of Disposition Authorities).   110  by it becomes its record and its reusable value becomes instrumental. It is critical to recognize that this change transforms the document (created by a Past Activity) into a new, different record, despite the fact that it may still maintain the same content and external appearance under certain circumstances.160 The major difference lies in the archival bond that the two records possess: the archival bond of the record being reused as a document indicates its relationships with the Past Activity and the archival bond of the new/transformed record indicates its relationships with the Present Activity. These indications need to be made explicit and the typical RM Tool used for doing so is Records Classification Scheme (RCS). When logically designed, a RCS is capable of depicting a network of relationships weaved by linkages between individual records, between classes of records, and between records and activities. The reuse of the document by another activity does not change its archival bond with its creating activity, which makes of it a record of such activity (now a Past Activity), but causes the formulation of a new archival bond between the document and the reusing activity (a Present Activity), thereby producing a new record. This is easier to be understood with respect to paper records because the reuse of a paper record typically results in a production of a physical copy and it is this copy – not the original – that becomes the record of the reusing activity. This physical reproduction not only differentiates the two records by appearance (even if the reproduction is by photocopying) but also by the change of physical location (the copy is in a paper folder different from the one that keeps the original). In other words, both the                                                  160 For example, in the context of a Present Activity B reusing a PDF document created by a Past Activity A, the PDF document may look like exactly as the same as the PDF record - when the software for both activities is the same.  111  birth of the new record and the formulation of a new, different archival bond are visible. It becomes much more difficult to understand the changes in archival bond when the document is a digital one and managed in an electronic document management system (EDMS) that lacks the functionality for managing records. An EDMS makes it possible for one document to be reused/accessed by many activities without making duplicates of the document itself 161 and without any location change. The relationships between the record and all its reusing activities may only be documented in the audit trials of the system, thus invisible to regular human users. For regular human users, there is only one document in the system and can be accessed unlimited times (assuming compliance to security rules are in place). This technological reality, however, does not diminish the need of conceptually distinguishing records on the basis of their archival bond because this understanding is the foundation on which consistent and effective digital records management rests. A case in point is constituted by certified Electronic Records Management System (ERMS)162 which can be configured to allow access to audit trails                                                  161 Making digital copies in the context of an electronic document management system is indeed discouraged. Accordingly, such system’s functionality of providing multiple/unlimited access to a single instantiation of an electronic document is a highly praised advantage. 162 The North American de facto standard for certifying ERMSs is the US Department of Defence (DoD) 5015.2 Electronic Records Management Software Applications Design Criteria Standard (2007), a product originally generated from the joint research of the UBC-MAS project and the DoD. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/501502std.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). The NARA Functional Requirements and Attributes for Records Management Services (2005) is another example that applied the concept of archival bond. http://www.archives.gov/era/pdf/Functional-Requirements-and-Attributes-for-Dec07-2005.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). In addition, MoReq (Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records) 2 discusses multiple classification codes, for example, Requirement 3.4.5. 112  not only to system administrators but also to RM personnel. The display of the “history” of a record to ordinary users by showing access information is useful to make evident the uses of the record by different types of activities. This design indeed imitates the RM practices that predates the time of photocopying documents for reuse, which required metadata (i.e., classification codes) to be added to the reused document to make it a new record without duplicating the document. Thus, all future uses of the document were explicit in corresponding classification codes, the accumulation of which tells the reuse history of the document. Lack of such understanding typically contributes to the chaotic status of records management in organizations.163   The facets immediate and distant are used to distinguish the environments where the reuse takes place. The term immediate designates the environment as the conduct of a Non-RM Activity of the records creating organization, which may involve other organizations that cooperate with the organization in question on the Non-RM Activity. These cooperating organizations are not an archival institution. In contrast, the term distant designates the environment as outside the boundaries of the records creating organization including its partners, indeed, an archival institution. The reuse activities that take place in the archival institution do not belong to the records creating institution. A record possesses Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value when it is used by an                                                                                                                                                  http://www.moreq2.eu/moreq2 (accessed October 19, 2012).     163 For the relationship between the concept of archival bond and digital records management, see Sherry L. Xie, “Preserving Digital Records: InterPARES Findings and Developments,” in Victoria Lemieux, ed. Financial Analysis and Risk Management: Data Governance, Analytics and Life Cycle Management (Springer, New York: 2012), 187-206, in particular, 190 and 198.  113  Accountability-Related Activity, that is, an activity that responds to inquiries from the public (i.e., ATI/FOI requests) and/or authorities (e.g., Parliament) in the form of disclosing records that account for the conduct of their creating activity (hence the term accountability). The value is of a reuse nature because the records used by the Accountability-Related Activity (which is a Present Activity) were created by a Past Activity (which is currently being inquired on). When Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value is being assessed for maintenance/retention, the Accountability-Related Activity acts as a Future Activity. This type of Future Activity may be regular and expectable, and institutions can design procedures and workflows for its conduct even though the activity is initiated outside it. This value is characterized as not directly164 relevant to institutions’ operation but significant to their status of being public organizations in a democratic country. Associated with this value are thus the requirements for institutions to be legislatively compliant and operationally transparent. This value, however, cannot be assessed independently for retention decisions because the Access to Information Act and the Access to Information Regulations do not stipulate the time periods for records to exist in institutions.165 When the inquiring activity (i.e., the sending of requests to institutions) takes place, the calculation of retention periods of potentially                                                  164 The term directly is used to qualify the irrelevance due to the understanding that an unsatisfactory performance of accountability-related activities may very well impact the operation of the institution as it results in damages to its reputation and loss of public trust.  165 This indicates that when there are legal or regulatory requirements existing that stipulate specific retention periods or appraisal criteria for establishing specific retention periods, this value can be independently assessed. 114  responsive/relevant records is suspended and the Reuse-Immediate-Accountability value becomes the sole value by which the retention period of the records can be determined. As the inquiring activity is now the present and the records creating activity, the Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value has become Record-Instrumental Value and the retention periods for all records of the activity are defaulted by the completion of the ATI process. After completion, records need to be re-assessed for retention based on their reusable value. This indicates that, even though the requirements for being accountable, transparent, and compliant are widely used by organizational RM programs to build RM business cases, the recognition/advocacy of this value alone does not assist RM work in any concrete manner.  A record possesses Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value when it is used by an Investigation-Related Activity, that is, an activity that requires records to be admissible in a court of law or an administrative tribunal for legal or administrative investigations regarding the records creating activity. The creating activity is now a Past Activity and the investigation activity is a Present Activity. As with the Reuse-Immediate-Accountability value, the Reuse-Immediate-Investigation value has the nature of reuse and is assessed in consideration of a Future Activity. It is not directly166 relevant to institutions’ operation, but may be significant to the protection of the rights and interest of the institutions. Associated with this value are thus the requirements for institutions to be legally compliant with, in particular, the order of electronic discovery                                                  166 The term directly is used to qualify the sentence because the results of litigations may in fact affect the regular operation of the institution.  115  and to satisfy the digital evidence rules. The occurrence of this type of Future Activity is typically unpredictable, even though the handling procedures can be designed and established based on the known legal/juridical environment. As a result, this value cannot be independently assessed for retention decisions. When the investigating activity takes place and a litigation/legal hold is issued to suspend the calculation of established retention periods, the Reuse-Immediate-Investigation value becomes the sole value by which the retention period of the records can be determined. As the investigating activity is now the present record creating activity, the Reuse-Immediate-Investigation value has become Record-Instrumental Value and the retention period for all records of the activity becomes the time defaulted by the completion of the litigation process. After that, records need to be re-assessed for retention based on their reusable value. Therefore, emphasizing this value alone will be unable to demonstrate the value of RM activities.167 Both Reuse-Immediate-Accountability value and Reuse-Immediate-Investigation value are embedded in, or co-exist with, Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value. A record possesses Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value when it is used by a Business Activity that is not its creating activity. The term resource in this context captures its meaning in the expressions of information resource, knowledge resource, and business asset, which is predominant in the study setting as well as in professional literature. The use of this term is intended to facilitate communication with practitioners. It is necessary to point out that, even when records are used as resources, they possess the unique characteristics of records (e.g., the archival bond) and are distinct from other types of                                                  167 There are organizations where law suits can be frequent (e.g., investment banks), but this is not the typical situation in the study setting.   116  information such as publications, which can also serve as information/knowledge resources or business assets for Operational Activities. . When a record is being reused by a Business Activity, the activity is a Present activity (which is transforming the document into its record) and the creating activity of the record becomes a Past Activity (which produced a record with reusable resource value). A Business Activity is an activity designed to achieve a specific, mandate-related institutional objective, thus, is not an Accountability-related Activity or an Investigation-related Activity. As such, it serves as the primary reason for records retention decisions. The assessment of this value can be rather precise in terms of the determined retention periods when the design (including modifications) of all Operational Activities of the organization is in place. The realization168 of the Reuse-Immediate-Resource value encompasses the realization of the Record-Reuse-Accountability value (in cases where there are no retention periods stipulated by legislation or regulations) and the realization of the Record-Reuse-Investigation value. In other words, the need for records to be retained for accountability- and investigation-related activities is subsumed by the need for records to be retained for business activities, as the legal/juridical system permits approved destructions of records that are based on justified business needs. A clearly identified and                                                  168 The term realization was chosen for the coding because of its usage in the IT field, which focuses on demonstrating the detailed benefits it can bring to the organization. The intention is to emphasize that the RM profession should learn from other professions in particular IT in terms of realizing value in a concrete manner. Examples of using the term from Accenture and IBM: http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/service-consulting-value-realization-summary.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012) and http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247934.html?Open (accessed October 19, 2012). 117  managed Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value therefore assists the institution’s preparation for legal compliance. In this sense, it is justifiable to emphasize the significance of Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value. However, it must be recognized that the realization of Record-Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value requires as a foundation the recognition and realization of Record Instrumental Value, which is not present in the study setting. Because of this absence, policy requirements do not distinguish the types of value and the relationships among them, causing difficulties to the development of pertinent, specific mechanisms.    The concept Record-Reuse-Distant Value includes three components: Record Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value, Record Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value, and Record Reuse-Distant-Resource Value, corresponding largely to the components of the Record-Reuse-Immediate Value, except that their realization takes place in an archival institution rather than a records creating institution. Like Record-Reuse-Immediate Value, Record-Reuse-Distant Value follows Record-Instrumental Value, but unlike Record-Reuse-Immediate Value, Record-Reuse-Distant Value is assessed through the conduct of Archival Appraisal.    The concept RM Nature is specified as indispensable (i.e., the management of records is part of any Operational Activity including RM Activity), professional (i.e., it requires specialized knowledge and skills), managerial (i.e., it includes the administration of personnel and technology in addition to records), institutional (i.e., it is conducted on behalf of the institution), dedicated (i.e., it requires dedicated personnel and technology due to the volume and complexity of digital records), and centralized (i.e., it aims to 118  control every record of the organization, regardless of its physical location). The concept is measured by the degree of recognition that the records creating organization possesses. The concept RM Value includes five components: RM Constant Value, RM Regular Value, RM Occasional Value, RM Recurrent Value, and RM Longer-Term Value, and is measured by the degree of recognition and distinction by the organization and the degree of demonstration by Organizational RM. Relationships exist between RM Value and Record Value. The RM Constant Value is demonstrable by realizing Record-Instrumental Value, the RM Regular Value is demonstrable by realizing Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability value, the RM Occasional Value is demonstrable by realizing Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value, the RM Recurrent Value is demonstrable by realizing Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value, and the RM Longer-Term Value is demonstrable by realizing Record Reuse-Distant Value.    3.1.2. RM Requirement-Oriented Knowledge & The Related The understanding of RM Foundational Concept constitutes one specification of the concept RM Core Knowledge, which includes also understanding of the concepts RM Activity and RM Technology. RM Activity consists of RM Requirement-Oriented Work and RM Application-Oriented Work. RM Requirement-Oriented Work focuses on the development of requirements that impact the entire institution, including the design of RM Function, the construction of RM Policy Instrument, RM Procedure, RM Tool, Record Titling Guidelines, and RM Development Plan, the design of RM Performance Evaluation, and, as a prerequisite for developing these requirements, the codification of RM Conceptual Framework. RM Conceptual Framework consists of concepts, originated 119  from RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill, and relationships among these concepts, including interrelated (e.g., Record Purpose and Record Value), derivable (e.g., RM Nature from Record Nature), mutually exclusive (e.g., Reuse-Immediate Value vs. Reuse-Distant-Value), inclusive (e.g., Local RM = Unit RM + Employee RM + Technology RM), hierarchical (e.g., Operational Activity > RM Activity > Record(s) Maintaining Activity > Record Capture, multiple (e.g., Organizational RM > Local RM > = Unit RM > + Employee RM), and synonymous (e.g., Information Technology = Digital Technology). RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill encompasses RM Core Knowledge, RM Extended Knowledge (i.e., understandings of Non-RM Activity and Non-RM Technology), and RM Skill (i.e., the analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Core Knowledge and RM Extended Knowledge). The command of RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill enables an organization’s RM Functioning Ability. RM Functioning Ability is measured by the degree of adequacy with respect to the conduct of RM Activity, and as such, it serves as the most foundational condition for the success of an Organizational RM program. RM Conceptual Framework focuses on articulation, and this distinguishes it from RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill, which emphasizes understanding. RM Conceptual Framework is measured by the degree of precision, comprehensiveness, and coherence, and it requires maintenance to be consistent with the advancement of RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill.  RM Function Design refers to the conception of RM Governance Structure, RM Responsibility Arrangement, and RM Activity, and is measured by design adequacy with respect to the establishment of Organizational RM. An adequate RM Governance Structure should establish the following administrative relationships: 120   Reporting relationship between Unit169 RM and Central RM;  Reporting relationship between Employee RM and Unit RM;   Reporting relationship between Technology RM and Unit RM;   Reporting relationship between Unit RM and Business Activity;   Reporting relationship between Unit RM and Accountability-Related Activity;  Reporting relationship between Unit RM and Investigation-Related Activity; and  Reporting relationship between Central RM and the highest level of decision making body in the organization.  In addition, the administrative relationship between the Central RM and all other operational activities should be one that requires a joint responsibility for the conduct of those activities. In this structure, Unit RM, Employee RM, and Technology RM constitute the Local RM and, together with Central RM, constitute Organizational RM. Central RM refers to the independent administrative configuration to which adequate authorities are assigned for its operation. It fulfills the responsibilities as outlined in the RM Responsibility Arrangement and operates the Central Digital Records Management System (CDRMS). A CDRMS is part of Record(s) Maintaining Technology (of RM Technology), an information system that manages the records of Central RM (i.e.,                                                  169 The choice of the term unit is suggested by its usage in the study setting where it refers to the various kinds of administrative configurations, including department, directorate, division, office, and programs.  121  records created by RM Requirement-Oriented Work). A Unit RM is structurally part of the Organizational RM and also of a unit, an administrative configuration responsible for a Non-RM Activity.170 It manages the creation and maintenance of records of the Non-RM Activity and also of the Local RM, that is, that of the RM Application-Oriented Work. It operates the Unit Digital Records Management System (UDRMS), which can be designed to have either a one-to-many171 or many-to-one172 relationship with the records creating activities. A UDRMS must be managerially, and is desirable to be technologically, integrated with the records creating activity, and UDRMSs must be managerially, and are desirable to be technologically, integrated with each other. Moreover, UDRMSs must be managerially, and are desirable to be technologically, integrated with the Central Digital Records Management System. Employee RM includes two types of work: one which refers to the creation of record content that is in a manner compliant with record-making rules and one which refers to the tasks of record maintenance, such as record capturing and titling, which can be quickly completed. The carrying out of Employee RM requires assistance from the Central RM in the form of a detailed RM Procedure, including templates and supervision from the Unit RM for the                                                  170 A unit may be responsible for a portion of an activity or for a number of activities, depending on how the activities are designed and how the administrative structure is configured to accommodate the design. Here the situation where one unit is responsible for one activity is only one example and is used for illustration purpose only.   171 An EDRMS is the typical example of this type. 172 An example can be a complex activity that crosses the boundaries of many units or institutions.  122  purpose of quality control. Technology RM refers to the technological capacity that enables automation of the portion of RM Maintaining Activity (e.g., capturing, titling, and classifying records), which is identified to accommodate the digital records reality and to take advantage of the development of information technology. Like the conduct of Employee RM, the carrying out of Technology RM requires detailed RM Procedures, including templates issued by the Central RM and supervision from the Unit RM for quality control. With all components established, Organizational RM manages all records of the organization.173 In concert with the Governance Structure, the RM Responsibility Arrangement should require that  Central RM to be responsible for RM Requirement-Oriented Work;  Local RM to be responsible for contributing (i.e., providing input) to RM Requirement-Oriented Work;  Unit RM to be responsible for the conduct of RM Application-Oriented Work, including  o  The carrying out of all RM Activities assigned to it (e.g., Record Identification, Record Capture, Record Classification, Record Retrieval, etc.); o   The ensuring of Employee RM quality; and  o   The ensuring of Technology RM quality  Employee RM to be responsible for                                                  173 This includes making decisions on not to manage certain records based on risk analysis, but no records should exist without any RM decisions.  123  o  Capturing records; o  Titling records; and  Technology RM to be responsible for o  Capturing records according to pre-determined workflow and rules (i.e., auto-capturing), which, when enabled, replaces saving records into designated space by Employee RM; o  Titling records according to pre-determined templates attached to pre-determined workflow and rules (i.e., auto-titling), an activity which, when enabled, replaces (fully or partially) titling by Employee RM; and o   Classifying records according to pre-determined workflow and rules (auto-classification), an activity which, when enabled, replaces classification by Unit RM. The design of RM Function and, in particular, the establishment of Organizational RM, determines RM Capacity. The concept RM Capacity consists of two components RM Personnel and RM Technology, which are measured respectively by establishment adequacy (i.e., the sufficient number of dedicated RM positions) and design optimization (i.e., pertinence to the achievement of RM objectives). RM Personnel must be recognized by the organization as RM Professionals, who possess the RM Functioning Ability as a qualification. The RM Technology is one type of Information Technology (i.e., relating to computers and the Internet) and a component of Organizational Information Technology, including, as two sub-components, Record Creating Technology and Record(s) Maintaining Technology. The Record Creating Technology is part of the 124  Non-RM Technology that is directly relevant to the creation of record,174 and the Non-RM Technology is the other component of the Organizational Information Technology, referring to the technologies utilized by Non-RM Activities, that is, the Business Activity, Accountability-related Activity, and Investigation-related Activity. The Record(s) Maintaining Technology is the technology utilized by the Record(s) Maintaining Activity, including Business Process Management System (BPMS),175 which is useful for Record Identification, and Digital Records Management System (DRMS), which is needed for all the other Record(s) Maintaining Activities. The design and implementation of the systems require an understanding of both Non-RM Activity and RM Activity, a condition that facilitates technological optimization. The Digital Records Management System can be integrated with the Record Creating Technology to facilitate Record Capture. Depending on the configuration of the technologies, the DRMS technology may cause changes to the records documentary form which was originally determined by the Record Creating Technology, and this needs to be documented in the conduct of RM Maintaining Activities as part of Record Metadata. As one type of IT, the RM Technologies change in accordance with the changes in the IT field. RM Technologies are necessary for managing records in particular digital records and can be                                                  174 For example, a database designed for the marketing activity of an organization is by definition a type of Non-RM Technology because its primary purpose is to achieve the business goals set for the marketing activity. However, the function of the database that is designed to generate reports regarding the various transactions of the activity qualifies as Record Creating Technology.   175 The type of software application specializes on the design and management of business processes. James. F. Chang. Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation (Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2006), 49-69. 125  very complicated, depending on the types of records they aim to control. To be effective, the technologies have to be configured based on specific RM needs and the implementation has to fully enable RM Control. The advent of RM Technology for digital records creation and maintenance added new requirements to RM Professionals, who have to understand technologies in order to specify RM needs, communicate with the IT personnel, and operate Organizational Digital Records Management System.   The RM Policy Instrument refers to the mandatory policies, directives, and standards that regulate the RM Governance Structure and RM Responsibility Arrangement in the form of compliance requirements, with enforceable penalties for non-compliance. To be effective, they need to be comprehensive and clear. The RM Procedure transforms the mandatory compliance requirements into specific, executable work steps with instructions on when, how, and by whom they should be carried out. To be specific and executable, it requires input from RM Application-Oriented Work for development. Correspondingly, it is measured by the degree of executability with respect to the conduct of RM Application-Oriented Work. RM Tool consists of Records Classification Scheme (RCS), Records Retention (RR), and Records Disposition Authority (RDA). A RCS is developed to organize records by relationships and may contain or point to individual records, records classes, Record Metadata, and Records Class Metadata. The concept Record Metadata refers to recorded information about individual records that is intended for their identification, retrieval, and maintenance. Record Metadata take the form of discrete items and can be combined in accordance with defined rules to achieve a defined goal. Their development relies on the conduct of RM Application-Oriented Work, from Record Identification to Record(s) Disposition, indicating a continuous process of development. 126  When adequately developed, they facilitate the long-term preservation of records at item level.176 The Records Class Metadata refers to recorded information that describes the records classes in a Records Classification Scheme. Like Record Metadata, Records Class Metadata takes the form of discrete items, which can be combined according to defined rules to structurally present the description. The development of metadata about a class relies on the metadata of the records in the class, in particular the portion that describes the records. Records Class Metadata facilitates the retrieval of records at the class level.  The development of RCS needs to be integrated with Records Retentions, which facilitates the conduct of Records Disposition Activity. The relationships among records and records classes are determined by the design of Operational Activities; the structure of the RCS thus corresponds to the structure of the activity, which is generally hierarchical.177 As it aims to capture individual records (either actually or through pointers to their locations), it                                                  176 Long-term preservation of records at item level refers to the technological maintenance of records with respect to their existence and accessibility. Long-term preservation of digital objects, including records, is itself an independent field, encompassing more aspects, such as planning, issuing policies, building systems, etc., than technologically maintaining the existence and accessibility of digital objects. One example of a strategy comprehensively addressing the long-term preservation of records is offered by the InterPARES project’s Chain of Preservation Model, and one example of focusing on preservation at the level of individual object can be the Library of Congress’ PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) project. http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis (accessed October 19, 2012). 177 This does not suggest that hierarchy is the only type of relationship existing in the design of an Operational Activity. Other types of relationships, such as, parallel and conditional, may also exist. The emphasis here is the overall feature of the structure depicting the activity, that is, from general to specific.   127  relies on RM Application-Oriented Work for developing the lower level structure. In other words, the development of a RCS requires a joint effort from the Central RM and the Unit RM. As an indicator of Centralized RM, an Organizational RM has only one RCS. For a RCS to be effective, it needs to be comprehensive in terms of the coverage of Operational Activities or their records, to be accurate in representing the relationships between records and their creating activity, and to be current, that is, keeping abreast with the creation of records. The effectiveness of RCS relies on its implementation, which includes the deployment of the RCS using digital technology and the conduct of the activity of Record Classification (part of RM Application-Oriented Work). Utilizing digital technology for deploying a RCS is necessary due to the volume and complexity of digital records, and currently the most advanced technology for this purpose is the Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) or Electronic Records Management System (ERMS).178  The concept Records Retention consists of two aspects: scheduling, which is carried out as part of RM Requirement-Oriented Work by Central RM, and calculation, which is carried out as part of RM Application-Oriented Work by Local RM.179 Based on the results of RM Appraisal (and of risk analysis when warranted), scheduling sets up time periods (i.e., retentions) for records maintenance. Records should be individually scheduled along with Record Identification, and the individual retentions in a record class collectively determine the retention period of the class. The establishment of retention periods entails a joint effort                                                  178 ERMS and DRMS (Digital Records Management System) are used as synonyms.  179 Retention calculation will be detailed when introducing the RM Application-Oriented Work. 128  by the Unit RM, which is responsible for individual scheduling, and the Central RM, which is responsible for synthesizing schedules for records aggregations and integrating retentions with the organizational RCS. Retention periods can be modified to respond to changes in appraisal decisions or to accommodate unusual events such as litigation. Like the RCS, retention rules need to be comprehensive, covering all identified records, and current, reflecting the present status of RM decisions. The concept Records Disposition Authority (RDA) is the mechanism employed by an Archival Institution to express authorization for records destruction and to prevent records loss. It is issued to records creating organizations based on Archival Appraisal; it is typical for one institution to have multiple RDAs. For RDAs to be effective, they need to be pertinent (i.e., respond to records types), comprehensive (i.e., cover all identified records), and up to date (i.e., stay current with records creation). This requires the existence of a current and comprehensive Records Classification System as a foundation. To obtain RDAs from the archival authority and to enable Archival Appraisal, records retention rules need to be established and integrated with the Records Classification System. Record Titling Guidelines are developed to guide the construction of record titling templates, which are required to be in the format of structured place holders for content descriptive facets. The development relies on input from Record Identification, including knowledge of the technologies utilized by the creating activity. The concept RM Development Plan is specified by RM strategic plan and RM action plan. Their construction relies on the RM Conceptual Framework and the RM Application-Oriented Work, which jointly ensure the clarity and executability of the plans. The RM Performance Evaluation includes periodical review (e.g., annually) or on-demand audit (e.g., when 129  programs end or issues are discovered). The review or audit needs to be RM focused in terms of both design and conduct, that is, with scope and evaluation criteria centering on RM and RM Professionals as the reviewer or auditor.    3.1.3. RM Application-Oriented Work & The Related The completion of RM Requirement-Oriented Work with effectiveness requires the conduct of RM Application-Oriented Work (the other component of RM Activity) as a necessary condition. The concept RM Application-Oriented Work includes Record Identification, Record(s) Maintaining Activity, and Record Retrieval Activity. The concept Record Identification refers to the determination of content, documentary form, and metadata of each and every record of an Operational Activity, on the basis of the achievement of objectives set by both the activity and the Organizational RM.180 The identification of metadata serves as a powerful mechanism for all subsequent RM Activities, including the management of vital records. When a vital status is identified in a record’s metadata, it permits the cycling of the status as either being renewed or removed.  Record Identification relies on the recognition of Record Creation Purpose and Record Instrumental Value as fundamental to the conduct of all other RM Activities and ultimately                                                  180 The code Record Identification was inspired by one of the major research activities of the InterPARES project, namely, diplomatic analysis. This activity assessed digital entities’ record status that the project investigated. Diplomatic analysis in the context of the InterPARES project is methodologically different from the Record Identification articulated in this section because first, it encompassed both the creation and maintenance environments of the digital entities being assessed and second, it was conducted in a retrospective manner as the digital entities were created before the research team started its investigation. As a core RM Activity here, Record Identification is advocated to be conducted along with activity design and project planning. 130  to the effective operation of the Operational Activity. The conduct of Record Identification requires the establishment of Unit RM with sufficient and dedicated RM Personnel participating in both the design and conduct of Operational Activities. The concept is measured by the degree of importance recognition, identification comprehensiveness, and identification quality.   The concept Record(s) Maintaining Activity consists of Record Capture, Record Classification, Record Titling, RM Appraisal, calculation of Records Retentions, Record Destruction, Records Transfer, Record(s) Long-Term Preservation, and operation of Unit Digital Records Management System.181 Record capture marks the beginning of record(s) maintenance as it embodies the identified record content, documentary form, and metadata in the form of a complete record. Record Capture is performed at the level of the individual record and needs to be accompanied by Record Classification and Record Titling. Capturing records can be managerial only, or both managerial and technological, and is measured by the percentage of captured records against all identified records. To managerially capture a record is to create (or associate it with pre-created) metadata about the record in the Unit Digital Records Management System (i.e., to establish intellectual control), where the identified record cannot be saved.182 This implies that the identified record exists physically in its originating technological environment with its archival bond                                                  181 The operation of the UDRMS in fact includes the other activities. They are separately listed for the purposes of explaining them individually and of emphasizing their status as key features of the system.    182 For example, a database or a large portion of a website. 131  identified in the Unit Digital Records Management System. The maintenance of such records would require the integration of a digital records management module (DRMM) with the Record Creating Technology for ensuring the records authenticity and permitting disposition. This way, Decentralized Records are RM centrally managed. To both managerially and technologically capture a record is to save the identified record and create (or associate it with pre-created) metadata for it in the Unit Digital Records Management System. This may result in two different scenarios, one which leaves a copy of the record in the record-making environment (e.g., Microsoft SharePoint) to allow local access, and one which leaves no copy of the record in the record-making environment and requires all subsequent accesses to take place in the Unit Digital Records Management System. Centralized Records are produced in the second scenario, which permits RM Maintaining Activities to be performed with efficiency and effectiveness. The issue with the first scenario is that the Reuse Immediate Value of the record is manifested in relation to the local access copy and not the record, and this requires the Unit RM to monitor the usage of the copy and add this information to the metadata of the record. Moreover, the Unit RM has to ensure that the copy is destroyed when the retention period for the record expires, regardless of the disposition decision for the record (i.e., destruction or transfer).  Except for the records created by RM Requirement-Oriented Work, Record Capture is carried out by Local RM and is desirable by Technology RM. To capture records by Technology RM involves auto-capturing, which requires foundational work by both the Organizational RM and IT. The captured records may be identical to or different from the copies in the record-making environment, depending on the complexity of the records, the different types of value they possess, and the RM solutions conceived to manage them. The 132  differences must be documented, which can be in either the form of records of the capture activity or of record(s) metadata. The capture itself creates metadata additional to those identified as necessary for the records when they were in their originating environments. Record Classification refers to the determination of the location of individual records in classes of a Records Classification Scheme and is measured by the percentage of classified records against all identified records, the degree of classifying timeliness, and the degree of accuracy. To ensure efficiency and effectiveness, classification needs to be completed by RM Personnel in Unit RM and/or Technology RM under the guidance of RM Procedure. To classify records by Technology RM implies auto-classification, which, like auto-capturing, requires foundational work on the part of both the Organizational RM and IT. Record Titling is part of records classification and can be carried out by employee RM and/or RMT RM, with quality assurance from the unit RM. The activity of titling is measured by the percentage of named records against all identified records, the degree of description sufficiency (i.e., how many facets), the degree of description accuracy (i.e., pertinence to the content), and the degree of titling consistence among similar records. Being at the lower or lowest levels of a RCS, this type of work cannot be completed without having the details on records creating activities. In fact, when a step-by-step activity design is absent, no RCSs can be developed that is truly functional, that is, able to follow the way activities are conducted (grouped into functions in a function-based scheme), thus achieving the goal of reducing the burden of records classification.  Although RM Appraisal is not needed for records existing within the period of their creating activities (i.e., when they possess Instrumental Value), it may be performed at this time to permit the design and implementation of the records long-term preservation 133  strategies.183 Calculation of retention is typically planned, with specified triggers, but they can be suspended when needed (e.g., to respond to ATI requests or comply with e-discovery order). When retention periods expire, Records Disposition Activities then take place. The concept Records Disposition Activity includes two components: Records Destruction and Records Transfer. Records Destruction refers to the removing of records from the Organizational Digital Records Management System with the goal of disabling any possible recovery from the destructed records. Destruction relies on Records Disposition Authorities for authorization, which prevents loss of valuable records. Destruction is carried out at the level of records aggregation and is required to be carried out in a timely fashion. The effectiveness of destruction can be measured by the percentage of destroyed records against all records with expired retention periods that are not selected for transfer. The concept Records Transfer includes two aspects: Legal Transfer and Physical Transfer; in most cases, the two types of transfer are negotiated and take place together. Transfer refers to the moving of the custody of records from a records creating organization to an archival institution. Legal transfer involves the reassignment of the rights associated with records (e.g., ownership right, copyright, etc.) and physical transfer means the reassignment of storage location. The reassignments typically require legislative and legal support and can be effectively executed only with formal terms and conditions. Records Transfer should only be performed at the level of records aggregation, but the metadata regarding both records aggregation and individual records should be transferred. The concept Record(s) Long-Term Preservation—in the context of the creator—refers to                                                  183 Long-term preservation takes place within the records creating instituting when records are needed for a time period longer than the life of the technology supporting the records’ existence.  134  the situation where records are needed by their creating organization for a time period longer than the existence of the digital technologies that support their management and use. The conduct of Record(s) Long-Term Preservation aims at continuing the RM Control after technological changes (e.g., system upgrade) and, as such, is measured by the percentage of records with continued RM Control after the technological change against all controlled records before the technological change. The Record(s) Retrieval Activity refers to the locating of a record or an aggregation of records including the obtaining of copies of records. It relies on Record(s) Retrievability and is conducted typically by Employee RM and Technology RM in compliance with access/security rules. When the retrieval by Employee RM or Technology RM is ineffective, Unit RM should provide assistance by locating the records being requested and forwarding the access information to the requester. The Record(s) Retrieval Activity is measured by the time needed for finding the record(s), the retrieval completeness, and the retrieval precision. The Record(s) Retrievability refers to the development of access points/descriptive facets for both individual and aggregation of records. The development of Record Retrievability relies on Record Metadata enabled by Record Identification, and the development of Records Class Retrievability relies on Records Class Metadata enabled by Records Classification System. For both Record and Records Class Retrievability, the information regarding the location of records in Organizational Digital Records Management System must be included.       135  3.1.4. RM Extended Knowledge & The Related The concept RM Extended Knowledge consists of two components: Non-RM Activity Knowledge and Non-RM Technology Knowledge, and is specified as additional to the RM Core Knowledge but equally important to the conduct of RM Activities. The component Non-RM Activity Knowledge encompasses the knowledge of business activity, accountability-related activity, and investigation-related activity, each of which is further specified as Business Activity Design Knowledge and Business Activity Execution Knowledge. The understanding of activity design is necessary for record identification, which is obtainable through the Unit RM’s participation in activity design. The scope of understanding is determined by the goal that the organization sets for the Organizational RM. For example, if the goal is to manage each and every record that the organization creates, then all activities need to be understood, and this, in turn, determines the level of understanding of the activity. When the goal is to manage each and every record, then the Unit RM needs to understand the activity to the level of each and every step at which records are created. As activities may change, the RM understanding of them needs to be renewed accordingly. The understanding of activity execution is necessary for the Unit RM to conduct RM Maintaining Activities and Record(s) Retrieval Activity including the supervision of Employee RM and Technology RM. Obtaining such understanding relies on the RM’s participation in the execution of the activity, working side-by-side with the players of the activities. Like the understanding of activity design, the scope and level of the understanding of activity execution corresponds to the goal set by the organization for the Organizational RM.  136  To participate in activity design and execution requires the understanding of the digital technologies employed by the activity, that is, it requires Non-RM Technology Knowledge, because of the ubiquitous deployment of digital technologies in today’s organizations, and their impact on records creation and maintenance. This requirement may seem to be difficult to satisfy due to the complexity of digital technology; it is, however, necessary. The current situation with digital records management is that either the RM Profession commits itself to command digital technologies as part of their expertise, or the IT (or even the business) unit decides to take on the challenges of digital records, while they may not choose to inherit the terms record or RM and indeed considers it a “new” field/discipline.184 The level of understanding of technologies is determined by the goal set by the organization for the Organizational RM and is limited, in most cases, to functionality (i.e., not the underlying coding of the software or the technical architecture of an information system).185                                                       184 The disappearing of records and RM in the Government of Canada serves as one (sad) example of the latter scenario. 185 It is necessary to recognize that, for certain records, the understanding of the technical architecture of an information/data processing system is necessary for Record Identification. For example, the understanding of data availability and the relationships among data fields permits the determination of record content (i.e., which types and instantiations of data need to be assembled) and documentary form (i.e., how the technology can make up the appearance of the assembled data and affix them to a medium). The understanding is thus necessary for satisfying both the business and RM requirements.  137  3.1.5. RM Control & The Related  The concrete results of RM Activities and the evidence-based demonstration of RM Value are both manifested in the achievement of RM Control. The concept RM Control refers to the existence of Record(s) Retrievability and Record Usability, and is measured by the percentage of controlled records against all identified records. The concept Record Usability encompasses the characteristics of records that are authentic, contextualized, and human readable. A record is authentic when, after creation, its content and documentary form remain unchanged,186 which ensures its authority in reuse. A record is contextualized when its archival bond is explicit or identifiable, which ensures the accuracy of its interpretation. An authentic and contextualized record can only be useful when it is human readable, that is, it survives technological obsolescence. The percentage of useful records against all of the identified records reflects directly the performance of the Organizational RM and ultimately the performance of the organization.  Appendix 4 lists the concepts in alphabetic order and Appendix 5 groups them in relation to RM major tasks.                                                    186 The documentary form of certain records can be changed as long as the changes are planned or expected and are traceable (i.e., known to the RM program). This type of changeable documentary form is considered still a fixed documentary form, and when the changes are documented in accordance with RM rules, the authenticity of the record is considered ensured. For an in-depth discussion on fixed documentary form, see Luciana Duranti and Kenneth Thibodeau, “The Concept of Record in Interactive, Experiential and Dynamic Environments: the View of InterPARES,” Archival Science 6, 1 (2006): 13-68.  138  3.2. Hypotheses This section presents the hypotheses formulated on the basis of the building block concepts, illustrating the relationships among the concepts. It starts with a list of high level propositions, which is then followed by narrative explanations.  3.2.1. High Level Propositions  When Record Nature is adequately understood by the institution, the RM Functioning Ability, i.e., the command of RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill, can adequately exists    When the RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill adequately exists, the RM Conceptual Framework (part of RM Requirement-Oriented Work) can be adequately codified   When the RM Conceptual Framework is adequately articulated, the RM Function can be adequately designed   When the RM Governance Structure and RM Responsibility Arrangement are adequately designed, the Organizational RM can be adequately established   When the Organizational RM is adequately established, the RM Capacity can be adequately determined   When the RM Capacity is adequately determined, other RM Requirement-Oriented Work can be effectively accomplished   When the RM Requirement-Oriented Work is effectively accomplished, the RM Application-Oriented Work can be effectively accomplished  139   When Record Retrievability Activity is effectively accomplished and Record Usability is fully enabled, the RM Control, or the goal of the Organizational RM, is fully achieved   When the RM Control is fully achieved, all types of Record Value can be fully and effectively realized   When Record Value is fully and effectively realized, RM Value can be fully and concretely demonstrated   When RM Value is fully and concretely demonstrated, the justifications for RM Function Design can be confirmed. 3.2.2. Hypotheses in Narratives Records have existed long in human society and are generally recognized as valuable to human conduct. Yet, their nature seems not to be understood as widely and thoroughly as one may think. The level of understanding of Record Nature directly impact the framework of their management – it is only by this understanding that a records creator can truly appreciate the different purposes of record creation and maintenance, the different types of use a record may have, and the different types of value a RM program can/should offer to the records creating organization. An organization can design its records management program based on this understanding rather than on influential technological trends.187 An organization’s understanding of the nature of record relies on the professionalism of its RM staff, which derives from its formal education in archival                                                  187 The influence is evident with the government’s focus on “information resources” and “business assets”. 140  science. For an Organizational RM program to demonstrate its value, it must be equipped with RM Functioning Ability, that is, with RM Professionals. This will allow for the development of an accurate, comprehensive, and coherent RM Conceptual Framework, which illustrates both concepts and conceptual relationships, and acts as the foundation of all RM Activities.  The construction of the RM Conceptual Framework is of critical importance because, as a blueprint, it canvases the knowledge that is core to records management, as well as the extended knowledge related to handling digital records, and the skills necessary to implement the two types of knowledge. Guided by this framework, the RM Function can be designed with adequate authority (represented by the RM Governance Structure), logical division of work (represented by the RM Responsibility Arrangement), and specific job requirements (represented by RM Requirement-Oriented Work and RM Application-Oriented Work). Based on this design, a pervasive Organizational RM program can be established, one that is part of each and every Operational Activity, or acts wherever records exist. Due to the complexity of Record Creating Technologies in today’s organizations and the lack of tools that are able to integrate Record Creating Technology and Record Maintaining Technology in a cost-effective way, digital records may need to be decentralized, i.e., exist physically188 in the technological environments of Operational Activities as opposed to being within a Central Organizational Records Management System. Decentralization of records, however, does not imply decentralized RM. When Unit RM is in place, RM Application-Oriented Work (i.e., capturing,                                                  188 This means that the servers and/or drives where the records are kept are in different units. 141  classifying, retrieving, etc.) can be either conducted or supervised by dedicated RM Personnel. As a Unit RM would be administratively part of the Organizational RM and the Unit Digital Records Management System under its control would be managerially (and perhaps also technologically) integrated with the Central Digital Records Management System, the management of decentralized records would be centralized.  Centralized RM aims at the control of individual records, not simply of the repository. To enable such centralized RM, RM Capacity needs to be determined with adequacy, that is, with sufficient number of personnel and necessary deployment of technologies. When adequate RM Capacity is in place, the design for RM Activities can be fully implemented. RM Requirement-Oriented Work can offer sufficient support to RM Application-Oriented Work, and RM Application-oriented Work can realize the goal of managing records at the item level and provide input to Central RM for refining the products of its RM Requirement-Oriented Work (i.e., the development of policies, standards, and tool). When RM Personnel assigned for RM Application-Oriented Work possess RM Functioning Ability, they are able to identify records among all kinds of information. The command of RM Core Knowledge allows conceptual recognition of records regardless of technological variations, and the grasp of RM Extended Knowledge permits clear, specific representations of record content, appearance, and metadata. The foundation laid by Record Identification then permits RM-assisted records creation and high quality conduct of RM Maintaining Activities. In cases where the necessity/benefits of Record Identification is not recognized at the stage of activity design,189 retrospectively                                                  189 The study indeed observed that the design of activities may be an issue in the studied 142  identifying digital records could be resource-intensive and time-consuming, especially when the records exist in complex technological environments.190 For organizations with limited resources, retrospectively identifying records may be practically impossible.  Although risk analysis can be applied to such situations to determine the scope and level of retrospective records identification, the decision not to identify records early on has serious consequences for records maintenance. It is therefore critical for organizations to understand that to identify records at the stage of activity design is both cost-effective in terms of resources and performance-indispensable, as it facilitates the realization of Record-Instrumental Value. To identify records at the stage of activity design eliminates the need for change management with respect to digital records management. Change management techniques may still be needed when the activity is being re-designed with dramatic modifications. 191 However, they would be needed for the entire activity, not separately for RM initiatives. As records identification would be conducted by Unit RM, which administratively resides with the activity, the RM Personnel and other employees would form one team and work side-by-side. This mutually-dependent relationship makes                                                                                                                                                  environment. Although the Treasury Board requires institutions to develop Program Activity Architecture (PAA) for budget allocation, from the publically available information, the PAAs are all at very high level, far higher than the level at which records are created. See TBS, The Programs of the Secretariat, for an example. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/abu-ans/tbs-sct/paa-aap-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012).     190 Many InterPARES case studies demonstrate the difficulties of retrospectively identifying digital records. www.interpares.org (accessed October 19, 2012).  191 Many IT initiated projects failed due to the lack of recognition of the necessity of change management.    143  buy-in from either side a non-issue.  With records being identified at the item level, RM Tools and Procedures can all be developed at a level of detail that would allow for a comprehensive representation and step-by-step execution. The design of a Records Classification Scheme can be truly functional – more accurately, activity-compliant – and systematic, presenting individual records and aggregations of records in metadata-assisted contexts, thus forming a coherent whole. Such a structure not only captures the relationships that records possess but also facilitates record(s) retrieval by search or navigation. All descriptive facets in the names of the aggregations and records could be used as access points for search and, being the structure highly consistent with the design of activities, finding records by navigation would not need to start with the whole scheme but only with the portions pointed by the specific tasks. Navigating by following specific tasks rather than records locations eases the difficulty of finding records and reduces (or, in other words, increases the usability of) the reliance on human memory. In addition, because all descriptive facets are determined by the Organizational RM, based on analyses of Operational Activities, these facets constitute a set of controlled vocabulary, and can be used for more than RM purposes. For example, when consistently used, they facilitate communications about the organization either internally (e.g., during employee orientations) or externally (i.e., during press conferences), thus contributing to a culture that values the organization as a whole.  When all operational activities are diligently designed, RM Appraisal can be conducted at the same time of Record Identification, because the needs for records use and reuse as 144  resources are known.192 Retention periods therefore can be established for every identified record, which allows the collective retention period for an aggregation to be determined with a high level of precision. Because the collective retention period typically follows the longest one for the records included in such aggregation, the condition of not filing transitory records (i.e., those with short retention periods) into the aggregation needs to be satisfied. Transitory records are created everyday and they should be allowed to be removed from the workspace when not needed (assuming the existence of a pertinent RDA). Relying on the analytical results of Record Identification, transitory records can be explicitly labeled as such within the context of the activity, and managed in a way that separates them from official records. The Organizational RM can designate spaces particularly for transitory records and attach to the spaces appropriate (typically much shorter) retentions periods. This way, transitory records can be removed on a timely basis from the corporate records maintenance system. This removing of transitory records on a daily basis constitutes routine maintenance, which is necessary to complement periodic maintenance, that is, to destroy or transfer records by aggregation. The conduct of routine maintenance requires the identification of records to be precise in terms of the authority and value (i.e., its non-transitory status) a particular a record possesses.   When step-by-step execution is designed, automation of RM Maintaining Activities can be enabled. Under the control of RM Personnel records can be captured as designed and                                                  192 This is not to suggest that the design, identification, and retentions are established once for all. On the contrary, they are frequently changed. What is emphasized here is the process, the work model that recognizes the need/benefits of working together. Frequent organizational changes are indeed another reason for the establishment of Unit RM. 145  classification can be instantaneous. When a RCS and the records it describes are current, all information needed by Archival Appraisal becomes available and Records Disposition Authorities can be issued with pertinence and currency. When records are managed by an Organizational Digital Records Management System, their physical instantiations are known to both the Organizational RM and the Archival Institution – the designated custodian, which enables transfer. When records are maintained routinely, they can be easily located and, equally important, useful, both within their creating organization and the archival institution. A record that cannot be found does not really exist and a record holding no usability is not worth retrieving. Only by establishing an Organizational RM with RM Personnel possessing the RM Functioning Ability can both records retrievability and usability be achieved.   The complete set of hypotheses is presented in Appendix 6, where the conditional relationships are displayed not only as linier but also circular and/or interrelated.  Figure 3 displays the work model for RM informed by the generated grounded theory, labeled as the Records Management Penetrating Model.   146   The next chapter presents the explanations on the IM crisis in the Government of Canada utilizing the emergent grounded theory.   147  4. Explaining the Information Management Crisis In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept.193  4.1. The Root Cause: Lack of Sufficient Understanding of Record Nature An insufficient understanding of Record Nature has directly resulted in the underdevelopment of RM Functioning Ability in the Government of Canada. The most representative indicator of this is the treatment of records as part of information without distinguishing adequately between these two concepts. Specifically, information is not defined, but simply used as a colloquial term, and the definition of record – “records are information … for business purposes, legal obligations, or both, regardless of medium or form”194 – is unable to identify record with respect to organizational operation because information in an organization can only exist justifiably for “business purposes”. IM(RM) policies or guidelines have never explained with sufficient specificity and clarity the creation process of records, that is, how records are made or received and kept in the processes of conducting operational activities, and in which manner they play their roles. For example, records are typically not associated with performance management and reporting or decision making, for which is the terms information or data that are exclusively used. This conceptual confusion surrounding record and information is at the                                                  193 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, 23. 194 TBS, “Information Management Policy,” 2007. 148  root of the ineffective establishment and conduct of IM(RM) in the Government of Canada.  4.2. Representative Symptom: IM as a Single Discipline  The first issue is the employment of the strategy that treats the areas covered by the term IM as the sphere of a single discipline. IM is defined to include “records and document management, library services, archiving, data management, content management, business intelligence and decision support, information access, information protection and information privacy”.195 By this strategy, TBS policy instruments, guidelines, and evaluation mechanisms, and LAC tools, as well as CSPS training courses, are all developed under the umbrella term of information management or IM, without, however, further breakdowns for the constituent parts of this overarching “discipline”.196 Records and RM are basically invisible in this IM-as-a-whole strategy, at both the government and departmental levels. Specifications for each constituent part are absolutely necessary for individual government institutions to follow the government-wide policies and                                                  195 Ibid.  196 One additional example can be the CGSB-192.2-2009 Competencies of the Federal Government Information Management Community, issued by the Canadian General Standards Board. This standard includes two types of competencies, one called Behavioral Competencies and the other called Functional Competencies (IM is a function in the government). Throughout the standard, it is only the term IM that is used (for example, 6.3 Application, Implementation and Use of IM Rules, Tools and Resources), without specific requirements for any of the IM components identified by the TBS Information Management Policy. The usefulness of this standard is certainly in doubt.      149  guidance, and for employees to discharge responsibilities or to fulfill job duties with effectiveness. In the case of RM, to create and maintain records require analysis and decision making, which, in turn, requires record-pertinent specifics. Lack of specific directions for IM(RM) related work is a common/ubiquitous problem in the Government of Canada. This problem is evident as revealed by both disclosed and online data (i.e., departmental IM strategic and implementation plans as well as TBS MAF assessments). TBS requires all departments subject to its IM Policy to produce IM strategic and implementation plans, which are evaluated as one of the operational aspects of the IM function. All departments were able to produce high-level strategic plans but many were unable to produce implementation/action plans. Moreover, most of the produced implementation/action plans were evaluated as unsatisfactory. These plans typically lack clarity, that is, they address IM as a whole, making it difficult if not impossible to discern information about the constituent parts, in particular, RM. These plans were inexecutable due to the lack of specifics for carrying out the concrete work. Because of the absence of recognition pertaining to the root cause, the solution for this unsatisfactory performance is typically to produce new plans. Producing high-level strategic plans is thus at the center of IM work in the Government of Canada, and the majority of the studied departments were able to obtain a higher than Acceptable rating (inclusive).   4.3. Representative Symptom: Weak/Non-Existent Digital Records Management  The second issue is the extremely weak, almost non-existent management of electronic or digital records.197 Digital records and digital records management (DRM) have never                                                  197 For a more detailed account of the weak digital records management, see Sherry L. Xie, 150  appeared to have an official status in the government, and the universal deployment of digital technologies has only added to the IM function the responsibility of managing “digital information” and/or “electronic documents”. Despite the all-encompassing definition of record that includes information “regardless of medium or form”, only emails are somehow discussed as electronic records.198 Digital records created using applications such as the MS Office Suite are typically called electronic documents,199 and complex digital records, such as dynamic databases or websites/systems supported by such databases, are not considered in any relation to records, but as “digital information” that requires data management and web content management. Complex digital systems, such as dynamic databases and websites, do require specialized care other than records management, for example, the attention on data quality and currency as well as the ability of presenting relationships among different sets of data, etc.; however, it must be realized that, regardless of how different these digital systems look, they are expected to and should function as records systems. The entire second phase of the InterPARES project was devoted to dynamic and interactive records, and, according to the project, specialized care for systems producing such records constitutes part of the job of records creation,                                                                                                                                                  “Digital Records Management in the Canadian Government: A Strategy for ‘Success’,” The RIM Professionals Australasia Quarterly, 29, 1 (2013): 48-52, in particular, 51-52. 198 In some departments, the IM guidelines issued to employees refer to “information in your personal folders” as “electronic records”. For example, the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada.  199 The term electronic document or document is rarely defined in departmental IM policies or guidelines. Even the ready definition of electronic document provided by the Canada Evidence Act is not cited.  151  which is conceptually not different from using a typewriter to write a letter. The only difference lies in the different levels of technological complexity and capability, which should not cause the disconnection between records created by these advanced technologies and their management. In fact, because of technological complexity, records management in today’s digital environment needs to participate in records creation in a proactive manner, working with database specialists and website developers/administrators to identify records in those systems at the time when activities/programs are being conceived.200 In this sense, digital records management starts with digital records creation – just as paper records management includes record forms design. As all operational activities in an organization are records creating activities, all of them, and the technologies utilized by them, should be analyzed for identifying relationships with records creation and management. However, this understanding does not exist in the Government of Canada. In the Government of Canada, the appreciation of records has largely remained linked to paper, and, as a result, the RM                                                  200 This “participation-in-records-creation” idea may sound familiar as the notion of “intervention-in-records-creation” was proposed and advocated in the early 1990s when the unprecedented challenges of managing electronic/digital records were recognized by the archival community. The ideas are the same in the sense that both recognize the volatility of this type of records, which serves as the justification for intervention or participation. They, however, differ fundamentally in the method of implementing the idea. The “participation” idea emphasizes that it is the organizational RM program that should assume this task, yet the “intervention” idea relies on archivists. As the discussion on the role of LAC indicates, relying on the archives to identify records is impractical, which, according to the present study, underlies the unsatisfactory performance of digital records management in government institutions. For details on the archival intervention idea, see Alf Erlandsson, “Electronic Records Management: A Literature Review,” http://www.wien2004.ica.org/en/node/30028 (accessed October 19, 2012). 152  function has not advanced with the proliferation of digital records in departments. On the surface this has caused the weakness or absence of the function of RM in departmental organizational charts, but more seriously, it has resulted in the lack of linkages between records and operational activities, including the technology that supports these activities. Associated with this phenomenon is the reversed IM/IT relationship.201 Since the early stage of its IM journey, the Government of Canada has been promoting IM as the focus of work and IT as its enabler, and this explains why IM precedes IT in the expression IM/IT. Yet this exists only in written policies. In reality, IT is the only visible constituent part of IM in IM strategic plans and departmental performance reports, the sole representative in IM/IT or even IM audits, and the real focus of IM work when there is any.202 This reality renders the emphasized importance of records and RM in the TBS IM Policy simply an empty slogan. 4.4. Representative Symptom: Lack of Understanding of Record Creation Purpose & Record Instrumental Value  An insufficient understanding of Record Nature also contributed directly to the insufficient understanding of Record(s) Purpose. In the Government of Canada, the goal of “recordkeeping” is to create, capture, and manage records as “a vital business asset and knowledge resource”, and this overlooks the difference in purpose between creating and                                                  201 For a more detailed account of the IT focus, see Sherry L. Xie, “Digital Records Management in the Canadian Government: A Strategy for ‘Success’,” : 50-51. 202 See Appendix 2 for numerous examples.  153  maintaining records. To create records by making or receiving and keeping them is for the purpose of carrying out an activity, while to maintain records, regardless of how long, is for the purpose of further action, reference, or evidence. The recognition of Record Creation Purpose is largely absent in the study setting, as no data has indicated that considerations for record creation in relation to activity design and conduct were in place.203 Although IM policy instruments require information management to be “integrated” with business needs,204 none of the institution-specific data demonstrated the existence of a sufficient understanding of the inter-relationship between the creation of records and the conduct of an Operational Activity – at least not to the level that the necessity of Record Identification is adequately recognized.205 In fact, the IM integration requirements were vague, utilizing the general, collective term “information”, thus                                                  203 The exception found is that, for projects in some departments (e.g., PWGSC), records in the form of deliverables may be pre-identified for project management purposes. This is however different still from what is advocated here because not all records produced by the projects are determined, nor are the management requirements associated with them.   204 The “integration” requirement is also frequently termed as “alignment”. For a more detailed description, see Sherry L. Xie, “Digital Records Management in the Canadian Government: A Strategy for ‘Success’,” : 50.  205 The action of identification is in fact currently going on in the Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Library and Archives of Canada. The identification, however, aims at “information resources of business value”, not records. The discussion on “information resources of business value” will be presented in the last chapter in association with the Directive on Recordkeeping, issued by the Treasury Board in 2009. Because of the recentness of this Directive, it is not coded as data in the research process, under the consideration that institutions need time to implement the Directive. From the released records, only three departments mentioned the Directive, all in the context of making future plans.     154  ignoring entirely the differences in a business unit’s “information need” for a journal article or an internal report. Moreover, the requirements emphasize that it is the business unit that should take the initiative to identify information needs and then “bring” them to the IM(RM) unit for suggestions/advice on solutions. There was no data, however, indicating that integration – understood as the activity of systematically analyzing, identifying, and designing records creation in relation to the completion of operational activities – had ever happened.    Associated with the insufficient understanding of Record(s) Purpose is the insufficient understanding of Record Value. In the Government of Canada, the emphasis is exclusively on Record Reuse-Resource Value, that is, the value of records as informational resources and, accordingly, the value of IM as a resource management function. The Record Instrumental Value is entirely left out. Sufficient understanding of the Record Instrumental Value would guide the recognition of the necessity of RM participation in records creation, that is, to conduct Record Identification. The participation in records creation permits RM to identify each and every record that the organization creates or should create for all Operational Activities, to develop RM Tools and RM Procedures with sufficient specifics for the operational steps by which records are created, and to switch on mechanisms for ensuring record quality at the moment of records creation. RM participation in records creation has been reduced to almost null after the wide deployment of personal computers in organizations, which permit employees unprecedented freedom for dealing with “their” records. 206 It is now the time                                                  206 It appears that the Government of Canada encourages employee ownership of records. In the 155  to re-emphasize that record identification is the indispensable first step of the records lifecycle management process, which impacts each and every subsequent step, as well as the overall results of RM. This recognition invalidates the notion of IM(RM) as a resource management function that is comparable to financial or human resource management. Unlike financial or human resource management, RM cannot afford to take any distance from records creating activities: it is part of each and all activities in an organization, including those concerning financial management or human resource management. RM concerns not only the management of records as reusable resources, but also, and more fundamentally, the management of records as instruments of Operational Activities. What is also absent (or at least only unclear) is the recognition that Record Instrumental Value is the foundation of all types of Record Reuse Value.  Except for the existence of an overall statement that records are “knowledge resources” or “business assets”, a clear understanding of the Record Reuse Value - in terms of the corresponding and transformative relationships between the different types of value and the different types of activities - does not exist in the Government of Canada. This has affected adversely the Organizational RM’s ability of realizing either Record Reuse Immediate Value or Record Reuse-Distant Value. Because the realization of the Reuse-Distant Value is outside the records creating institution, legislation has to be enacted to enable reuse activities. In other words, without legislative support, the realization of Record-Reuse-Distant Value could be difficult, due to the fact that it                                                                                                                                                  IM Basics developed by the Treasure Board (2009), the expressions “your records” and “your information” are excessively used.  156  requires close cooperation with records creating institutions and it relies on the work of Organizational RM, it, however, does not contribute directly to the institutions’ operation. It must be pointed out that, depending on the formulation of the legislation, the legislative support for realizing Record Reuse-Distant-Value does not necessarily assist RM Activities.  4.5. Representative Symptom: Insufficient & Ineffective LAC Support In the Government of Canada, archival legislation (i.e., the enabling act for LAC) focuses primarily on preventing unauthorized destruction (i.e., without the consent of the archivist) and stipulates on RM Activities in a nominal manner only (e.g., one provision in the entire act). RM Activities are left to the records creating institutions, which, however, do not have RM dedicated legislation to rely on. Although the TBS Information Management Policy mandates the operation of departmental IM functions, it relies on LAC for “functional guidance”, which it does not sufficiently provide for digital records management. When this is the case, the prevention of unauthorized destruction is practically meaningless because the poor quality of records hinders Archival Appraisal and the Reuse-Distant Value of transferred records is compromised. In light of this, the relationship between records creating organizations and the archival institution requires re-consideration.207 In a time when paper records predominated, the greatest help that an archival institution could provide to a records creating institution was to offer                                                  207 For a discussion relevant to the role of national archives in digital records management, see Sherry L. Xie, “National Strategies for Digital Records: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and China,” International Journal of Information Management (accepted).  157  management for its semi-active records (i.e., those less frequently used), allowing them to be removed from the office area and to be stored in an inexpensive repository. This helped the bottom line of the institution and was greatly appreciated. The archival institution also offered courses to departmental RM Personnel on the management of active records (those frequently used), including the provision for guidance on common RM Tools, which, to a certain degree, ensured that records were managed as expected by the archival institution in terms of records quality. This assistance was and is, however, inevitably limited. As stated by the LAC, with reference to the Legacy Business Records Project, “[t]he plan and costing templates are guides not answers. They help you think your way through the process. Only you can develop the answers that are right for your institution.”208 The advent of digital records has further limited this assistance. The records creating organizations do not now have the same level of pressure as before regarding their paper records storage, and what they need are solutions – pertinent and effective ones – for addressing the challenges brought by the volume and complexity of digital records. LAC, however, is unable to provide such solutions because the technologies used by departments to create records are typically much more complex than those available to the archival institution. Therefore, for archivists to offer guidance on and provide tools for digital records management, they need to go into the departments and study their operations, including technologies. The traditional set up of an archival institution does not readily permit this, because its primary responsibility is not RM but the preservation and provision of access to “records with enduring value” under its                                                  208 LAC, “Legacy Business Records Project: Generic Plan and Resourcing Template: Overview,” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/007/f2/007-1019-e.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 158  custody. This task has increasingly become impossible due to reduction in resources and growing system complexity. As a result, LAC now has neither the capacity (i.e., the time to be spent within the records creating organization) nor the ability (i.e., the archivists’ understanding of the record-making technological environment) to assist Organizational RM programs, despite the fact that this remains its legislated responsibility. Moreover, the management of digital records in LAC may be itself an example of poor quality: the operation of the digital records management system in LAC is the worst among the departments to which the author paid a physical visit. The conceptual confusion exhibited in TBS policy instruments are indeed originated from LAC guidance, which typically does not provide clear definitions for key concepts and does not differentiate their usages in application. For example, the LAC guidance to departments called “Records and Information Life Cycle Management” provides no definition for information and no explanations for the relationship between information and records, and uses the terms “classification for Records Management” and “classification for Information Management” without differentiation.209 Because IM in the GC includes library services, this indiscriminating usage seems to suggest a classification system for records can be equated with a classification for books. This Guidance also uses extensively the term “IM practitioners” in association with job fulfillment; without, however, making it clear to whom it refers or by what criteria they can be distinguished from “IM Specialists”. The effectiveness of such guidance is certainly in doubt. To confirm this observation, none of                                                  209 LAC, “Records and Information Life Cycle Management,” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/007002-2012-e.html (accessed October 19, 2012). 159  the institution-specific data, including site visit data, demonstrated the reception of any effective assistance from the archives. As indicated by the records released by the Department of Natural Resources Canada, it is currently cooperating with LAC on a project called NRCan Recordkeeping and Disposition Authority Project, which required LAC to assist the identification of digital records produced by the Department. As stated earlier, the identification of digital records constitutes the most time-consuming task of RM work, as it requires an adequate understanding of both the Operational Activity and the technologies used by it. The time spent by the archivist onsite (i.e., in the Department), however, is two hours maximum per Branch.210 This is entirely inadequate. Perhaps, the relationship between the archival institution and the records creating institution should be reversed in today’s digital records environment. The archival institution should withdraw from the duty of assisting digital records management in institutions211 and, instead, should join forces with the organizational RM programs to raise the profile of RM and to advocate its importance. By the same token, the departmental RM programs should realize that they can no longer rely on the archives for assistance and that they can now                                                  210 The project was indeed mainly conducted by a consulting company.  211 The idea of archival institutions in the public sector not to focus on “the entire spectrum of information management” in government organizations was expressed by John McDonald in 1993, who advocated for the archives to “consider focusing their energies on providing advice on those policies, standards and practices which address the management of corporate memory”. It is unfortunate that this advice seemed to have not made any influence on the IM/RM practices in the GC – both the TBS and individual departments still rely on LAC for guidance and assistance. See John McDonald, “Archives and Cooperation in the Information Age,” Archivaria 35 (Spring 1993): 110-118. 160  rely only on themselves – that is, on RM professionals that are equipped with renewed and advanced abilities.   4.6. Representative Symptom: Missing Part of Departmental RM Activities Without the recognition of Record Instrumental Value, the RM Constant Value cannot be demonstrated, and this has caused, in turn, the limited establishment of the GC IM(RM). Without sufficient elaboration of the relationship between Record Value and RM Value, it is difficult to justify the establishment of an Organizational RM that presents a strong Governance Structure, an adequate RM Capacity, and a close collaboration with operational units. In the current GC IM situation, the establishment of departmental IM(RM) functions typically lacks authority, RM personnel, and necessary RM technologies; in other words, it is limited to the part of RM(IM) Requirement-Oriented Work and does not have the part of RM Application-Oriented Work. The establishment, therefore, is not in conformance with RM Nature, which requires an Organizational RM to be truly organizational (i.e., it manages records on behalf of and for the organization, not individual employees or units), dedicated (i.e., with a sufficient number of full-time RM Personnel), and professional (i.e., RM Personnel are all qualified RM Professional). The specific indicators are the imbalanced work division and the unreasonable responsibility arrangement between the IM(RM) program and the rest of the organization. With this model, the “IM Specialists” are unable to acquire sufficient RM Functioning Ability for accomplishing RM Activities212 and the part of the RM Application-Oriented                                                  212 It is worth pointing out that the lack of knowledge and skills needed for managing digital records had long existed in departments. According to John McDonald in 1995, a senior manager 161  Work is left to operational managers and employees, including the most important task of Record Identification in the digital environment and the most time-consuming work of classification.213  Digital records identification needs to be conducted in relation to Operational Activities and in a manner that is systematic and thorough. As such, it can only be conducted by Local RM as part of RM Application-Oriented Work as it is out of the reach of the RM(IM) Requirement-Oriented Work. The RM(IM) Requirement-Oriented Work in GC focuses on developing policies and guidelines, and, when sufficient resources are in place, some training. The non-existence of RM Application-Oriented Work by Organizational RM caused the lack of systematic identification of digital records, which, in turn, has made all the other aspects of RM groundless. As two most noticeable indicators, the                                                                                                                                                  in one department “established parallel units of expertise to deal with the records and information access/retrieval issues because he could not rely on his own records management and library staff”. What this manager hoped for is that “the librarians concentrate on developing flexible and relevant access and retrieval strategies across all domains (records, information, data)” and “the records management staff could extend their knowledge of what it means to keep records (i.e., provide context) to help other communities (e.g., librarians, data managers, etc.) ensure that when information is provided to users, that it can be understood and authenticated in terms of the activities and circumstances (i.e., context) that gave rise to its existence”. This hope, unfortunately, remained largely still a hope, as confirmed by McDonald ten year later and by the present study, almost another ten years later. See, John McDonald, “Managing Records in the Modern Office: Taming the Wild Frontier” and John McDonald, “The wild frontier ten years on”, in McLeod, J. and Hare, C., Managing electronic records (Facet, London. 2005), 1-17. 213 In the words of the IM Specialist of the Canada Revenue Agency, “we don’t manage operational records”. And in the case of the Correctional Service Canada, the EDRMS was implemented to be used by “the operational side”, to which the IM Division does not have access.  162  conduct of IM(RM) Requirement-Oriented Work has been ineffective and the implementation of RDIMS has been unsatisfactory. Without records being identified and the RM Application-Oriented Work being professionally/effectively conducted, the policies and guidelines produced by the IM(RM) Requirement-Oriented Work are only words: they produce no measurable value. It is common that the implemented RDIMSs – regardless of technological configurations – have failed the goals for which they were put in place. These costly initiatives typically resulted in low user take-up (i.e., the ratio of the times of user access to the system against the number of licences granted to system users), system abundance, and/or replacement with new systems.214  Records Classification,215 in most departments, is left to be carried out by employees                                                  214 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Health Canada can be two examples of “spotty” or “poor” user take-up of the RDIMS implement. In the case of the DFO, the system was asked to be removed because employees considered the implementation had had a “negative impact on business effectiveness”.   215 Records classification, including the development of an organizational RCS, is currently a serious problem in the Government of Canada. A summary of the aspects of the problem includes 1) no existence of a RCS, 2) out-of-date RCSs, 3) no implementation of a RCS, 4) inconsistence of RCS implementation, and 5) no integration with records retentions. The ineffectiveness of the RCS is also reflected by the issues with Info Source, which has been constantly rated by MAF as lacking comprehensiveness and accuracy in describing activities and the records associated with them. Even the Department of Public Safety Canada, which claims to have a PAA-based RCS, received in MAF VII an unsatisfactory rating regarding its Info Source. The TBS comment is that “A significant portion of the organization’s information holdings have not been appropriately identified or described in Class of Record descriptions”. Info Source can be both comprehensive and accurate when a comprehensive, detailed, and up to date RCS is in place as all the information required by Info Source can be supplied by the RCS.    163  who are not RM professionals. This is evident with digital records and in the environment of RDIMS. It is, however, not the type of work that should be assigned to employees because of the time and skills entailed. Classification is time consuming, due to the high volume of records and can be complex due to the nature of subject analysis. Regardless of how a Records Classification System/Scheme (RCS) is constructed (i.e., utilizing subject- or function-based methodology), the analysis of subject matter is always required to code a record for item level retrieval. The difference between a subject-based RCS and a function-based RCS lies only in how and when the subject analysis takes place: the former typically uses subjects at a higher level, and the latter uses subjects at the lowest level, that is, in the titles of the records. The function-based (or functional) RCS is thus considered easier for users to follow. Among all the departments investigated, only three stated that their RCSs were function-based, yet none of them relied on the methodology developed by LAC in 2006 for developing function-based RCSs.216 According to the released copies, however, none of the schemes went down to the level of workflow or the steps where records were created. Furthermore, the names of functions and activities are simply used at the higher levels of the scheme, without presenting relationships between the functions, activities, and transactions. In the process of obtaining records as data for                                                  216 The methodology is termed as BASCS (Business Activity Structure Classification System) and was developed with input from the Australian DIRKS methodology. Informants in some department (e.g., Health Canada) indicated that the methodology for their departments’ construction of a function-based RCS would most likely be the DIRKS (through the hiring of RM consultants), not BASCS. For more information on these two methodologies, see Sherry L. Xie, “Function-based Records Classification Systems: A Comparative Study,” http://www.armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Sherry_Xie_Study.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012).  164  the present study, the three departments, along with the absolute majority of the study sample, had difficulties in retrieving records. Only the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) had no problems finding records because the CSIS classifies every record created, including emails, and the PCO relies on dedicated RM personnel for classifying records – even though neither of the two institutions claimed their RSCs were function-based. This confirms the premise that classifying records requires sufficient resources and qualified specialists, and this requirement is still valid in the situation where a digital records management system/ERMS is implemented.  Compared to the implementation of a RCS in the shared drive, an ERMS is able to implement a RCS in its hierarchic structure (which facilitates navigation) and to assist classification by providing a drop-down list with classification codes and scope notes explaining them. However, classifying records is still the biggest challenge affecting the effectiveness of such systems217 and the main reason for user resistance. User resistance causes a low rate of take-up (as mentioned above, this is the number of actual users of the system vs. the system capacity). In the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the system implementation team invoked the measure of freezing the shared drives that had previously served as “recordkeeping repositories” to facilitate the use of the system. It was soon found out, however, that the number of records in the                                                  217 For an analysis on classification in the context of digital/electronic records management system, see Sherry L. Xie, “Evaluation of the Electronic Document and Record Management Program in a Canadian Municipality,” https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/18320 (accessed October 19, 2012). 165  system stopped growing shortly after the surge that occurred when the shared drives were first frozen. User resistance resurfaced due to the heavy workload. The most common, mainstream solution to the issue of user resistance is change management, which focuses on increasing employee buy-in through enhancing communications with users and engaging them in the planning phase (part of the regular IM work of IM awareness and training).218 These measures, however, are not pertinent to the issue of greatly increased workload, and even the award-wining training programs yielded little results in improving the quality of IM work conducted by employees.219 User buy-in does not produce more work time or the skills needed for professional classification; the agreement to participate is thus easily offset by everyday work pressure. The only apparent method for reducing user resistance when introducing new technologies is to allow users to do less (e.g., by offering powerful search tools) or to do what they are willing to do (e.g., tagging to their like), and this is the solution currently employed by the Department of Natural Resources Canada. The Department reported to the Office of Information Commissioner that it had a strong IM infrastructure, which enjoyed high employee take-up and greatly facilitated records retrieval. This “strong” infrastructure                                                  218 One example of emphasizing change management as a way of improvement is the IM action plan of the Canada Border Services Agency. See CBSA, “Audit of Information Management 2011,” http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/ae-ve/2011/im-gi-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012).   219 The Department of Transport Canada and the Department of Natural Resources Canada had reported on their award-wining IM training programs. In fact, relying on employees’ IM awareness for improving IM work has long proven ineffective, as the IM audit conducted in 1998 by AANDC indicates.   166  features a wiki-style portal with Google style search. It is therefore easier for employees to find “records” because, compared with the situation where “records are all over the place” and “there are an unknown number of servers”, records are now centralized. In addition, as the portal was recently implemented, records saved into it are current, and being current means that they are still in the memories of the employees who saved them.220 Because of the existence of memories, records can be located even in situations where the tags that the employees created make sense only to them and not to anyone else. In fact, the more unique (or odd) a tag is, the higher the level of search precision will be. This, however, accommodates only the needs of these individuals and only for a short time period, which is not intended or desired by the institution. The issue is that when professional classification is not implemented, such portals are highly unlikely to be effective for information searches in the long run, let alone for performing authorized destruction and contextualized transfer. In fact, neither the Department’s ATI performance nor its MAF rating for IM Practice is strong.      To enable employee classification, time needs to be allocated in addition to employees’ regular work hours, and training needs to be offered. No justification was found in                                                  220 The reliance on human memory – as opposed to memory enabled by records – is a common practice in departments, despite the long history of RM as a program in the Federal Government. The ATIP analyst in the Department of National Defence stated that “if an experienced employee (i.e., one who remembers where the records are) cannot find the records, then the records cannot be found”. The statement that “the person who worked with the file you are asking for has left the department/agency” appeared to be the second most frequently cited reason for institutions’ inability of finding the requested records. The first and the most frequently used one is that “you are asking for too many records”. 167  released records as to why employee classification is more economical than RM personnel classification, or on how the quality and effectiveness of employee classification can be ensured. In the case of the Department of Public Safety Canada, the implementation team (which also prohibited the continued use of shared drives) reported that there was a steady growth of records in the system, yet it did not report on any evaluations on the accuracy of records classification or even whether or not the records were classified. The account of records in the system was the only criterion for the after-implementation evaluation. The Government of Canada began its implementation of a digital records management system as early as the 1990s;221 yet, after these many years,                                                  221 In 1990, the then National Archives of Canada completed a project called FOREMOST (Formal Records Management for Office Systems Technologies), which aimed at developing functional requirements for managing information in the networked office. In 1991, the final report of the project IMOSA (Information Management and Office Systems Advancement) was published, which led to the development of the Guideline on the Management of Electronic Records in Office Support Systems: Exposure Draft, in 1994. In support of the Guideline, a companion document was issued entitled Records/Documents/Information Management: Integrated Document Management System (RDIMS) for the Government of Canada - Requirements. In 1996, the RFP Records/Document/Information Management (RDIM): Integrated Document Management System was issued, calling for bids for a system to be used by the Government of Canada. For additional information, see Government Records Branch, National Archives of Canada, Managing Information in Office Automation Systems: Final Report on the FOREMOST Project (National Archives of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1990); John McDonald, “Managing Records in the Modern Office: Taming the Wild Frontier,” Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 70-79; and John McDonald, “Record Keeping Systems - Lessons Learned from the Experience of the Canadian Federal Government, 1999,” http://www.archivists.org.au/events/conf99/mcdonald.html (accessed October 19, 2012). The RFP for RDIMS is accessible through the MoReq 2 site at www.moreq2.eu (accessed October 19, 2012).   168  very few departments are proud of their RDIMS implementations.222 The requirement for employees to classify records proves to be the predominant reason.223 There may also be the reason of dysfunctional system configuration, as in the case of LAC, where the system crashes every time more than ten users try to log on, and where it works properly only when three users are active.224 However, this reason should not be considered as predominant for the failure of RDIMS implementation, since there will always be solutions for technological malfunction. The issue with LAC is that there is not even a classification scheme implemented in the system, and when asked whether there was a RCS established based on BASCS (Business Activity Structure Classification System), the methodology of constructing function-based RCSs that the institution developed and recommended to be used by all GC institutions, the answer was, “No. There isn’t one”.                                                  222 Among the departments that the author visited (i.e., the Treasury Board of Canada, the Library and Archives of Canada, the Department of Public Works and Government Service Canada, and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC), only the AAFC proudly demonstrated its RDIMS. According to the informants, the success of their system is attributable to the support from the senior management, the administrative structure of the IM Division (which facilitates cooperation with IT), and the control over the system by the IM Division.        223 Employees in general enjoy many of the functionalities provided by the system such as search, creating their own workspaces, controlling versions, etc. When classification is carried out by RM personnel, the system may be quite successful. A case in point is the implementation of an EDRMS in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, where employees enjoyed the convenience and autonomy that the Electronic Document Management System (i.e., Microsoft SharePoint) offers without being required to classify records according to RM rules. The records are declared, captured, and filed into the ERMS component by RM personnel, entirely invisible to employees.  224 The observation was gained in April, 2011, when the author was visiting the institution. 169  The released records showed that there were many discrete, piecemeal efforts toward the improvement of the system; yet, no records indicate that a comprehensive plan was being developed. According to the informants, the most feasible solution would be to abandon the existing system and purchase the MS SharePoint.         The argument that employees are the best candidates for carrying out classification because they are the ones that understand the work best does not in fact hold up. This is because first, depending on the nature of the work, records created by certain types of activities may contain a variety of subjects, which then requires time-consuming analysis and cross-referencing, and second, when high employee turnover is the norm, the required familiarity with the work for quick classification will be out of many employees’ reach. It is rather common that, due to the lack of professional RM, new or rotated225 employees cannot find or make sense of the records left to them by their predecessors and end up re-creating records from scratch. Despite the fact that even RM practitioners are now stating that, in the digital world (in particular the ERMS environment), “we are all filing clerks now”, 226 and that employees seem to all have their own ways of handling “their records”, the quality of classification can only be ensured by dedicated RM Personnel who qualify as RM Professionals. The only method that may free RM personnel from daily, routine classification is auto-classification, an indicator of seamless                                                  225 Employee rotation is a common practice in some departments such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.  226 The National Archives, “Business classification scheme design,” 17 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/bcs_toolkit.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 170  integration between records creation and records maintenance. Its effectiveness, however, depends on the availability of detailed Operational Activity designs and in-depth RM analysis. The more specific the analysis is, the higher the automation level can be. Neither the intellectual analysis of the Operational Activities, including the identification of records, nor the technological capacity of integration, are however simple tasks.227 Nevertheless, this should be the direction towards which an Organizational RM should move. Records auto-classification cannot rely on computer analysis of subjects, at least not with the currently available technologies.228 The issue associated with ineffective classification is the out of date Records Disposition Authorities. To have pertinent and current RDAs is currently one of the most challenging tasks facing both the GC institutions and LAC. To appraise records for issuing a RDA, the archivist needs to understand the records in terms of their origins and the services they offer to the organization. The most effective method of obtaining such an                                                  227 The complexity associated with the analysis of operational activities including the identification of records are exemplified by the research of the InterPARES project, and the complexity associated with integration technologies for business process management is evident in the IT literature, see, for example, James. F. Chang, Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation. 228 For some details on the currently available auto-classification tools, see IBM, “InfoSphere Classification Module, Version 8.7.+,” http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/classify/v8r7/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.classify.admin.doc %2Fc_ag_scenario_0.htm (accessed October 19, 2012) and OpenText, “Auto-Classification Solution,” http://www.opentext.com/2/global/company/news/press-releases/press-release-details.htm?id=354 442799299477CB4BC196BADC1A3A0 (accessed October 19, 2012). 171  understanding is to access a comprehensive and activity-compliant RCS, as well as the decisions of RM Appraisal that are reached based on a sufficient understanding of Operational Activities. Such quality RCSs and appraisal decisions do not exist in the GC institutions, where records are largely under the control of employees, including the many institutions where an RDIMS or RDIMS is implemented. Records are thus “all over the place”. 229 In the case of the Department of Health Canada, records (both paper and digital ones) were found in all possible places, including washrooms, because, according to the Department, it cannot find any more storage for records, and it does not have all necessary RDAs for records destruction. Another example comes from the Canada Revenue Agency where a search for the keyword “RDIMS” by employees, identified as relevant for responding to the ATI request, returned “18 thousands” hits due to the lack of timely disposition. LAC blames the records creating institutions for not providing a sufficient foundation for its archival work, and the records creating institutions complain about the archival institution for too long a waiting period for them to receive a renewed or new RDA.230 The lack of current RDAs is also reflective of the fact that the legitimate reason that “the records that you are requesting were destroyed in xxx year under xxx RDA” was not used in responding to the author’s ATI requests by any of the institutions except the Privy Council Office.                                                   229 This expression occurred numerous times during the conversations that the author had with ATIP analysts or IM personnel.   230 According to the records released by the Department of Natural Resources Canada, the memorandum between the Department and LAC for renewing its RDAs cost more than six months for preparation.   172  The transfer of digital records, in particular the complex ones, is currently not happening in the Government of Canada. As the same with destruction, the transfer of records requires quality RM as its foundation, that is, records (at least) need to be known to the RM program and the archivists in order to be selected and transferred. As revealed by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, institutions do not know what records they have and where they are, which causes difficulties in responding to Access to Information requests. This observation is confirmed by the present study, which requested records from the IM(RM) institutional units concerning their activities and experienced difficulties in receiving records. The IM(RM) units are mandated to manage (or to provide guidance for other units to manage) records, yet they learned that locating and retrieving records of their own were no easy tasks. According to the informants, it is getting harder and taking longer to find records, and sometimes records that are still useful to the creating institution cannot be found. The issue of losing control over records was also confirmed by the most recent round of MAF assessments, which revealed that many institutions did not have a complete “inventory of structured or unstructured repositories”. In fact, among the twenty-one institutions assessed by this round of MAF, and to which the author sent ATI requests, only two (i.e., the Department of Transport Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service) satisfied this requirement. 4.7. Representative Symptom: RM(IM) Distant/Passive Work Model  Accompanying this reliance on operational employees for RM Application-Oriented Work is the notion that IM is an internal service (hence the expression “IM and its clients”). This work model makes departmental IM(RM) programs excessively passive in 173  that they only provide assistance to managers and employees for their conduct of RM related work, and the services are provided only when the “IM Specialists” are being asked. In an environment where records are predominately under the control of individual employees or business units, it is not considered necessary for them to ask for guidance or assistance, as this is, in their opinion, irrelevant to their methods of managing information. These non-“IM Specialists” are unwilling to spend time on work that they do not consider to be theirs, which results in classifying/profiling records being the primary source of user resistance. To reduce user resistance, many departments removed the mandatory classification requirement, including the TBS, while others never established one as they learned “best practices” from other departments. Without standardized, consistent classification, RM Maintaining Activities, such as destruction and transfer, suffer, and search and retrieval are ineffective. This distant, passive work model fundamentally violates the nature of records and contradicts the TBS’s own assertion that IM is integral – therefore not external – to departmental activities. As the provision of services relies on initiatives taken by business units or employees, the IM(RM) function adds no value at all to departments when business units or employees do not require any services, which is typically the case. An example in point is the non-participation of RM(IM) in the ATI administration. In handling ATI requests, the ATI unit is responsible for identifying request relevance with the “program area”, and the program area, called OPI (Office of Primary Interest) in the Government of Canada, is responsible for finding records capable of responding to the inquiry. The IM(RM) function is not part of the process. In the words of the ATI analysts who answered the question “does the IM unit help with the ATI unit in handling requests?”, “No. The IM people don’t help. They never 174  have”. Because of this passive work model, the internal service status of IM has become a source of budgeting challenge for many IM(RM) programs. IM(RM) initiatives typically need to require a special budget, which is outside the regular budget allocation for operational activities. To request a special budget requires a business case to be made demonstrating connections with operational activities and with the “strategic goals and outcomes” of the department. As internal service functions are not considered mission critical, IM projects can be delayed, even though the business case may be adequately built. In situations where a budget cut is inevitable, the IM(RM) program is always the first function to be reduced or eliminated. It seems that it has never been able to compete with other internal services such as the financial management or human resources management, despite the fact that information is emphasized as the government “lifeblood”231 and “strategic asset”.232  From another angle, the current IM(RM) work model is inappropriate for operational managers and employees, who are required to take on an apparently very heavy RM(IM) workload. The IM policies in some departments emphasize so excessively the IM responsibilities of the business managers and employees that the responsibilities assigned to the IM Specialists appear to be the fewest, as demonstrated by the records of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Human Resources and Social                                                  231 TBS, “Information Management in the Government of Canada: The Business Problem Assessment,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/resources/bpa-epo/bpa-epo02-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 232 TBS, “Information Management in the Government of Canada: The Vision,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/resources/tv-lv/tv-lv02-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 175  Development Canada.233 In the case of the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH), the emphasis is that “IM must become a way of life for everyone who works for PCH” and in the case of the Canada Revenue Agency, the emphasis is on the entire organization except the “IM Specialist”.234 In other words, the increasingly complex RM work has been increasingly imposed on non-“IM Specialists”, who are not trained RM professionals and whose primary job is not to manage records but to be concerned with the content of records. If individual employees, rather than RM Professionals, were able to complete all the RM Application-Oriented Work, there would be no need for a RM program in departments. The RM Requirement-Oriented Work as it is currently completed in the Government of Canada can be easily accomplished by consultants. To further disable this work model, the guidelines and training developed for the employees’ conduct of RM related work are themselves unclear and insufficient, due to the lack of first-hand                                                  233 One example at the GC level can be the LAC’s Email Management Guidelines. According to the Guidelines, employees are required to classify and manage emails, and in order to so, they need to “understand pertinent provisions of legislation, regulations, standards, guidelines, policies, and procedures related to email”. Managers “should monitor employee compliance with these Email Management Guidelines including arrival/departure and orientation/exit protocols, the proper classification and storage of records and information, and the application of appropriate retention periods”, and “should ensure that employees have at their disposal any pertinent reference materials on the subject of email management, or that they know where and how to obtain such materials when needed”. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/news-events/007001-6305-e.html (accessed October 19, 2012).   234 CRA’s Information Management Policy 2003. The policy specifies requirements for the Commissioner, all Assistant Commissioners, the Senior General Counsel of the Legal Services, and all employees, not, however, for IM Specialists. 176  understanding of the complexity of digital records management on the part of the IM(RM) program. As introduced above, the IM(RM) program in GC features only RM Requirement-Oriented Work and does not perform any RM Application-Oriented Work. When RM Application-Oriented Work is not conducted in the context of Organizational RM, the harm to the organization increases: RM function is unable to achieve RM objectives (including the completion of RM Requirement-Oriented Work), and employees avoid RM, perceiving even training and awareness communications burdens, let alone the actual fulfillment of the series of responsibilities assigned to them.235 This is one reason that accounts for the common difficulty of executing policy requirements and implementing plans in departments, which has been consistently revealed by MAF assessments.    If RM Application-Oriented Work is established as part of RM Function, non-RM employees can be ensured that their retrieval of record(s) is always assisted by the Unit RM, that is, whenever they cannot find records, the Unit RM will find records for them. In the Government of Canada, however, retrieval of records is solely the responsibility of the employees or sometimes their managers (including retrieving records for responding to ATI requests), and if they cannot find the records, the IM(RM) program will not find them either. This reality, in addition to indicating the IM(RM) program’s inability of adding value to the organization through records retrieval, accounts for also employees’                                                  235 According to the Policy on Information Management (TBS, 2007), employees are required to be responsible for “applying information management principles, standards, and practices as expressed in Treasury Board and departmental frameworks, policies, directives, and guidelines”. 177  (including their managers’) resistance to classifying records according to an organizational RCS, because they benefit little from this time-consuming task. Since retrieving records is the sole responsibility of employees, why should not they follow their own “filing rules” to organize records, which they typically consider more convenient than a RCS? When human memories exist, employees’ own “fling rules” permit records to be located even if sometimes they were saved into a folder called “File Me”. Classifying records in a consistent, standardized manner, that is, according to RM rules, benefits the RM program, which requires classification as the foundation for disposition, and the organization, which needs to retrieve records long after the fading of human memories. The shifting of this professional job to non-professionals (advocated in the Government of Canada as responsibility-sharing IM) has resulted in prolonged search processes and imprecise search results (i.e., the return of incomplete and irrelevant records),236 all of which contribute to the delay in records release. In other words, non-professional RM work compromises the development of Record(s) Retrievability as the quality of record(s) metadata (including access points and location information) is not ensured. To achieve RM Control, that is, to enable Record(s) Retrievability, RM must be centralized. Computers and networks can be deployed to every employee’s desk with a set of straightforward rules requiring non-violation, yet RM cannot. In today’s digital                                                  236 These problems were evident with the author’s ATI requests experience. Many institutions asked for narrowing down the scope of the request and for extensions to the 30 days timeline. Irrelevant records were not released in large numbers, which is, however, due to clarifications and reviews, not to search precision.     178  environment, records can be decentralized, but records management should not.237 The decentralized RM as encouraged by the current GC IM(RM) regime underlies, as one more factor, the ineffective conduct of RM Application-Oriented Work, which contributed directly to the overall performance of the IM(RM) program. This inadequate, passive IM(RM) work model has reduced the value of RM to departmental operation, distanced organizational RM function from lines of business, made useless the strong IM governance-accountability establishment, and caused the chaotic, incomplete, and difficult-to-retrieve status of records, that is, the RM(IM) crisis.  Figure 4 below illustrates the current RM(IM) Model that has caused the IM crisis, labeled as the RM(IM) Distant/Passive Model.                                                   237 For legitimizing decentralized RM, see, for example, The National Archives, Business classification scheme design. Decentralized RM is currently the mode of work in the Government of Canada and is constantly cited as the source of inconsistence for Branch/Directorate/Region RM practices and as one major problem for implementing the ERMS (e.g., the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). It is worth pointing out that records regarding the decentralized RM are difficult to find (or do not exist), which includes not only those documenting the justification, but also the structure of the decentralization, e.g., the number of RM positions throughout the entire department.   179   The next chapter presents the prediction on the outcome of the GC’s latest improvement measure to the RM(IM) crisis, which is currently being undertaken by the government. As the last chapter of the dissertation, it identifies as well future studies and concludes the dissertation. 180  5. Prediction, Future Studies & Conclusion  5.1. Prediction of Outcomes of the GC IM Improvement Measure This process [of grounded theory study] generates theory that fits the real world, works in predictions and explanations, is relevant to the people concerned and is readily modifiable.238  Although it is the reporting on the IM crisis in 2009 that inspired the present study, the issues surrounding RM or IM in the Government of Canada had existed long before 2009. In the 1983 Report of the Auditor General of Canada,239 the Auditor General noted that “The records management function was not receiving recognition or full top level management support in departments”, and as a result, “the records management program in many departments was incomplete”.240 It concluded that “the present quality of                                                  238 Glaser Barney, Theoretical Sensitivity, 142. 239 There were RM issues before 1983 and in fact, since the inception of RM as one type of work in the Canadian Federal Government after it was founded. There are, however, no systematic studies found on RM in the government. For some details on the RM situation in the early years, see Bill Russell, “The White Man’s Paper Burden: Aspects of Records Keeping in the Department of Indian Affairs, 1860-19141,” Archivaria 19 (Winter 1984-85): 50-72. Jay Atherton, “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956,” Archivaria, 8 (Summer 1979): 35-59. This early time period was not included as one part of the detailed analysis due to the dramatic changes that had taken place after the introduction of personal computers into the workplace. This is not to suggest that the early time period of RM does not bear any relevance to the investigation of the current RM status, but simply that it is out of the scope of the current study.     240 Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “1983 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 15 - Public Archives of Canada,” http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_198311_15_e_3380.html#0.2.L39QK2.3YG181  records management in departments 241 and the low importance attached to it will not assure the systematic flow of valuable records to the Archives, facilitation of public access to government records or the intended economy and efficiency in government operations”.242  In 1989, TBS issued the Policy on the Management of Government Information Holdings (MGIH), outlining the objectives of the policy in correspondence with the areas criticized by the Auditor General, including access to information.243 This policy went through a number of revisions and its last revision of 1994 remained in effect until 2003, when the new Policy on Management of Government Information was issued. In 2003, the Office of the Auditor General published its report on the protection of cultural heritage in the Government of Canada, which included a section on Archival Heritage. According to this report, the “records disposition authorities regime”, administered by the then National Archives, was in a “crisis situation”: disposition authorities (RDAs) were “limited”, “obsolete”, and failed to “transfer records at the time prescribed in the authorities”. 244  Although the MGIH was not assessed for its impact                                                                                                                                                  3SA.V3DX1F.T9 (accessed October 19, 2012). 241 One example of the RM quality is the situation regarding “records retention and disposal scheduling”, which, as the OAG noted, had worsened considerably since 1973. 242 OAG, “1983 Report, Chapter 15 - Public Archives of Canada,”. 243 The Access to Information Act was enacted in 1985. 244 OAG, “2003 November Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Chapter 6 – Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government,” http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200311_06_e_12929.html#ch6hd4c (accessed October 19, 2012). 182  on the management of records/information, the issues surrounding the records dispositions authorities reflect sufficiently the unsatisfactory status of information management in departments. The Office of the Information Commissioner regularly included in its annual reports from 1996 to 2005 the unsatisfactory performance of IM/RM in departments, utilizing the expressions “poor records management” and “information management crisis”.245 The reporting of unsatisfactory performance continued after 2005 in the special reports to Parliament (i.e., the report cards). In 2006, the TBS conducted an assessment on the IM problem, asking the question, “What is wrong with IM today?” 246 Aiming at finding root causes, this exercise brought together over one hundred individuals from fourteen departments and agencies “representing IM and its clients”, who participated in more than twenty workshops and working sessions, and consulted forty documents considered both authoritative and representative. Among the documents discussing the serious problems with IM are the reports of the Office of the Auditor General and the Office of the Information Commissioner. The products of this assessment included “IM-related problem statements” and the “root causes” of these problems. The IM-related problem statements, more than four hundred and eighty of them, were subsequently summarized into fifty                                                  245 See, for example, OIC Annual Report 2005-2006, 22. 246 TBS, “Information Management in the Government of Canada: The Business Problem Assessment,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/resources/bpa-epo/bpa-epopr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 183  five,247 and the root causes were categorized as five areas, including the IM program management, IM rules and practices, IM capability and capacity, information handling, and IM community and culture. The problem statements and the root causes are comprehensive; all of them, however, are general, that is, referring only to “information” or “IM”, and vague, that is, without specifics in terms of reasoning and identification. Based on this analysis, the TBS proposed a vision for IM that, “In the Government of Canada, information is safeguarded as a public trust and managed as a strategic asset to maximize its value in the service of Canadians”.248 To materialize this vision, a new policy on information management was issued in 2007, replacing the 2003 Management of Government Information Policy. Accompanying this new policy were the Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities, issued also in 2007, and the Directive on Recordkeeping, issued in 2009.249  The continued reporting on the “poor records management”/“information management crisis” indicates that the government improvement strategy has been unsuccessful, and this is confirmed by the difficulties experienced by this thesis research when the author was requesting records of departmental IM(RM) functions. There is much hope now                                                  247 Some examples of the problems are: information cannot be found; departments often do not know what they have or what records contain; poor IM causes personal stress; difficulty aligning information and business processes amongst service delivery partners; governance frameworks for the IM program are weak, inconsistent and fragmented across government; and IM Program design and planning are inadequate. 248 TBS, “Information Management in the Government of Canada: The Vision,”. 249 Both the policy and the directive issued in 2007 were coded in the research process.  184  focused on the 2009 Directive on Recordkeeping, the GC’s latest measure of improvement, which is required to be implemented in the departments subject to it by June 2014.250 The Directive was not coded as data in the research process of the present study under the consideration that it would take time for its impact on departmental IM programs to be observable. It is analyzed in this section for the purpose of predicting the outcomes of its implementation in departments, utilizing the generated grounded theory. When comparing the Directive with the previous unsuccessful improvement measures, a prediction can be made that it will be unable to deliver the expected results or fundamentally improve the grave situation of RM in the government.  The Directive continues the confusing conceptual framework of the previous TBS policy instruments, and, in fact, it further derails from the guidance offered by foundational RM concepts. The Directive utilizes a new term called “information resource of business value” and avoids entirely the use of the term record. Except for being listed as one term in the definitions appendix and for appearing in the term recordkeeping as a part of it, the term record is invisible in the text of the Directive. Recordkeeping is indeed about “information resources” and it is defined as “A framework of accountability and stewardship in which information resources are created or acquired, captured, and managed as a vital business asset and knowledge resource to support effective decision-making and achieve results for Canadians”. 251 When comparing this definition                                                  250 LAC, “New Service Model and the Directive on Recordkeeping,” http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/news/Pages/new-service-model-and-the-directive-on-recordkeeping .aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 251 TBS, “Appendix – Definitions. Recordkeeping. Directive on Recordkeeping,” 185  with the one included in the 2007 Information Management Policy, one finds that the two definitions of recordkeeping are almost identical: the only difference is that the term “information resources” now replaces the term “records”. 252 Information resources in this context refers to “Any documentary material produced in published and unpublished form regardless of communications source, information format, production mode or recording medium … includ[ing] textual records (memos, reports, invoices, contracts, etc.), electronic records (e-mails, databases, internet, intranet, data, etc.), new communication media (instant messages, wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc.), publications (reports, books, magazines), films, sound recordings, photographs, documentary art, graphics, maps, and artefacts”.253 However, the conceptual relationships among the various types of “information resources” are not provided, and this raises questions. For example, what is the difference between the types “electronic records” and “new communication media”? Blogs are listed as one example of the “new communication media" type, however, they qualify also as “electronic records”, because the “electronic records” category includes “internet” as one example and blogs exist on the Internet. Also, “reports” are used as one example of two different types, “textual records” and “publications”, then how should one distinguish them? Again, when, for convenient access, a contract (one example of “textual                                                                                                                                                  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=16552 (accessed October 19, 2012).  252 The definition reads as “A framework of accountability and stewardship in which records are created, captured, and managed as a vital business asset and knowledge resource to support effective decision making and achieve results for Canadians”. TBS, Policy on Information Management.  253 TBS, Policy on Information Management.  186  records”) is placed on the organization’s “intranet” (one example of “electronic records”), to which type does it belong? Finally, since the definition of recordkeeping centers on information resources (their creation, management, and significance to the government operation) rather than records (which are only a type of information resources), why is the Directive not entitled “Directive on Information Resources”?  Furthermore, the text of the Directive focuses on “information resources of business value”. The Objective, Expected results, and many requirements utilize this term, not simply “information resources.”254 Information resources of business value are defined as “published and unpublished materials, regardless of medium or form, that are created or acquired because they enable and document decision-making in support of programs, services and ongoing operations, and support departmental reporting, performance and accountability requirements”.255 Despite the different wording, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern the difference between information resources of business value and the meaning implied by the definition of recordkeeping for information resources (not the definition of information resources). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish information resources of business value from record, which is defined in the 2007                                                  254 The details of the objective and one exemplar requirement are: Objective. Ensure effective recordkeeping practices that enable departments to create, acquire, capture, manage and protect the integrity of information resources of business value in the delivery of Government of Canada programs and services. Requirements. The departmental IM senior official designated by the deputy head is responsible for ensuring the following: Establishing, implementing and maintaining retention periods for information resources of business value, as appropriate, according to format. (italics mine). TBS, “Directive on Recordkeeping,”. 255 TBS, “Directive on Recordkeeping,”.  187  Information Management Policy as “information created, received, and maintained by an organization or person for business purposes, legal obligations, or both, regardless of medium or form”.256 Two problems can be identified with this situation. First, there are no justifications for the replacement of records with information resources of business value. This appears to continue the tradition in GC’s IM/RM policy development as the replacement of RM with the management of “information holdings” in 1989 happened without sufficient justification, so did the replacement of “information holdings” with “government information” in 2003 and the replacement of “government information” with “information” in 2007. Changing policy constantly may be itself justifiable (e.g., to respond to environmental impact), but changing without sufficient justifications is hardly so. As the nature of the subject regulated by these policies remained unchanged, the constant changing of terms in policies is a sign of the policy makers’ lacking of firm understanding of the subject. Furthermore, these changes only cause difficulties/confusions for departments, rather than guiding and assisting them in their daily, routine IM(RM) jobs.257 Second, the definition of the new term information resources of business value (as well as the entire Directive) fails again to sufficiently capture the meaning/implications of the nature of the subject the Directive intends to regulate, because it does not convey the transformative relationship between information                                                  256 TBS, “Information Management Policy,”.  257 The situation with the Canada Border Services Agency is one such example. CBSA, “2011Audit of Information Management,” http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/ae-ve/2011/im-gi-eng.html (accessed October 19, 2012).  188  resources and information resources of business value and does not differentiate the purposes of records (or information resources or information resources of business value, to use the Directive’s term) creation and maintenance. With respect to the departments’ implementation of the Directive, in particular the first task of identifying information resources of business value, therefore, questions need to be asked regarding effectiveness. If the identification of records in the past was one of the biggest challenges of managing digital records, then how can the identification of information resources of business value – which are required to be entirely in digital format by 2017 – be any easier? The confusion has already started to show. In the guidelines developed by the TBS for all GC Employees regarding their IM responsibilities, information is equated to information resource, and information resource and information resource of business value are used without differentiation.258 In disclosed records, departments equate information resources                                                  258 For example, “Every day, we create, collect, use and share information resources that provide evidence of our business activities” and “These information resources help us to make informed decisions that support our managers, our peers, and our clients and ultimately provide results for Canadians”. “A repository is a preservation environment for information resources of business value” and “Organize, file, and store information resources within repositories, ensuring easy access when needed to make decisions and to support program and service delivery”. “File or save records information resources in a repository”. (Italics mine). See many other examples in the Guideline for GC Employees: IM Basics (Date modified 2009-06-01), where records, information resources, information resources of business value, record of enduring value, and information resources of enduring value cannot be effectively distinguished.  189  of business value to “records of business value” 259 or “business records”.260 Furthermore, the Directive maintains the distant, passive IM(RM) work model and continues relying on non-RM employees and when a project is in place, consultants, for carrying out the part of RM work that should not be assigned to non-RM professionals or temporary help. RM professional work such as Record Identification and Record Classification requires in-house RM Functioning Ability on a continuous basis and, as such, cannot be accomplished by non-professionals and is not suitable for projects that feature temporary consultants for a limited time period. As stated in the previous chapter, to identify and classify records necessitates both Core and Extended RM Knowledge, which can only be enabled by formally establishing close work relationships between the RM program and all other non-RM units, and by permitting its existence as part of the organization’s operation. With only limited on-site time, it will be difficult for consultants to acquire the needed knowledge and in cases where consultants are able to complete the initial phase of the project, the quality of RM work will be unable to be maintained or continued.261 Without addressing the fundamental issues/root causes, the Directive will be unable to make any substantial improvements to the current grave situation. Ultimately, the performance of information management, information resources management, records                                                  259 For example, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 260 For example, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. 261 As revealed by the disclosed records regarding the pilot project on implementing the Recordkeeping Directive between the Department of Natural Resources Canada and LAC (e.g., the document entitled Current State Overview, by a consulting company commissioned by LAC), there are already difficulties reported on “collecting data”.   190  management, or the management of information resources of business value – regardless of the choice of term – will remain unsatisfactory. The expected outcome, that is, “Effective recordkeeping practices that ensure transparency and accountability of government programs and services”,262 will not be satisfactorily delivered, and the objective, that is, “to enable departments to create, acquire, capture, manage and protect the integrity of information resources of business value in the delivery of Government of Canada programs and services”,263 will not be fully achieved. 5.2. Future Studies  Since substantive theory is grounded in research on one particular substantive area, it might be taken to apply only to that specific area. A theory at such a conceptual level … become[s] almost automatically a springboard or stepping stone to the development of a grounded formal theory. Substantive theory is the strategic link in the formulation and generation of grounded formal theory. The linkage between research data and formal theory occurs when a particular substantive theory is extended and raised to formal theory by the comparative analysis of it with other research data.264    Future studies inspired by the present research that are relevant to the further development of the emergent grounded theory can be categorized in relation to the Government of Canada, other governmental settings, and non-governmental settings.  Future studies in the context of the Government of Canada were identified directly by the                                                  262 TBS, “Directive on Recordkeeping,”. 263 Ibid. 264 Glaser G. Barney, Discovery of Grounded Theory, 79; 33-35; and Theoretical Sensitivity, 146.  191  field data and/or data coding as encompassing five areas. The first area centers on the implementation of the Directive on Recordkeeping in the government. The following departments emerged in the research process as potential study subjects:   The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which set the goal of identifying and defining its “records of business value” by March 31st, 2012;     The Department of Environment Canada, which, in responding to the Round VII (2009-10) MAF assessment, stated that “the Department will finalize its communication and implementation plans on the TBS Recordkeeping Directive by developing IM-awareness products: training, advice, guidance, presentations, communication of best practices, and guidelines and procedures”;265   The Department of Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Public Safety Canada, and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which were selected as testbed institutions by LAC and are working with the On Second Thought Advisor consulting company for implementing the Directive.266 The second area focuses on records creation, which is indicated as significant by the observation of the quality of disclosed records of both the ATI function267 and the                                                  265 Environment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33B5D371-1 (accessed October 19, 2012). 266 OSTA, “OSTA In Action: Case Studies,” http://ostadvisory.com/main/casestudies/ (accessed October 19, 2012). 267 In addition to records relating to the IM/RM function, the present study requested also records relating to the ATI function in the institutions. 192  IM/RM function,268 as well as the lack of procedures for creating adequate records pointed out by the OIC’s report cards. Moreover, this focus is motivated by the Documentation Standards for Government Programs, Services and Results: A Developmental Framework and Guide for Business Managers and Information Resource Specialists (draft),269 developed by LAC, which emphasizes the importance of the creation of records and the connections between the creation and the TBS’s requirements on the establishment/identification of the Program Activity Architecture by the departments.270 Three departments participated in LAC’s pathfinder projects:    The Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada:                                                  268 Many released records do not have a date, have no version control, or cite rescinded acts or policies. Another example is the records released by PWGSC (in the form of reports produced by databases), which states that the Department of Natural Resources Canada has implemented RDIMS. According to the Director of the IM program in the Department, however, the department does not have any form of configuration of RDIMS.   269 This draft document was released in 2008 as part of the improvement effort for the IM crisis, in particular the conceiving of the “recordkeeping regime”. Although it is inadequate in recognizing the necessity of in-house RM functioning ability, its emphasis on records creation in tight relationship with the PAA is what the present study found strong agreement with. This document was not coded as data in the research process due to the fact that it has remained as a draft and the final product of all these improvement efforts is the Directive on Recordkeeping. For additional information, see Daniel J. Caron and Andreas Kellerhals, “Supporting Democratic Values through a Relevant Documentary Foundation - An Evolutionary Complex,” Archivaria 71 (Spring 2011): 99-134, in particular, 100-117.    270 TBS, “Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structure,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18218&section=text (accessed October 29, 2012). 193  Documentation Standard development for departmental business records - Policy function;   The Canada Public Service Agency: Documentation Standard development for departmental business records - Human Resources function;    The Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada: Documentation Standard.271 The third area focuses on selected departments for examining specific aspects as indicated by the disclosed records including:    The Department of Industry Canada’s construction of a “Business-based Classification Structure”;     The Department of Health Canada’s implementation of “an Enterprise Content Management Solution (ECMS) across the Department”;   The Department of Canadian Heritage’s “Information Architecture/Classification Project”, which aims to “build an information architecture/classification structure for the Department, applicable not only to an eventual Electronic Document and Record Management System (EDRMS) implementation, but to other information repositories throughout the Department”. The fourth area focuses on the GC’s IM/RM audits, which can be assessed according to                                                  271 LAC, “Assessment Projects,” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/007/001/007001-5105-e.html (accessed October 29, 2012).  194  three aspects: criteria selection/establishment,272 auditor qualifications with respect to the RM Requisite Knowledge, and the effectiveness of the recommendations made in audit reports, that is, their acceptance, execution, or rejection by institutions.  The fifth area should continue this study’s focus on the GC’s development of digital government and its impact on the management of digital records, which is considered at a higher level of technological complexity. The other governmental settings identified as of immediate pertinence to the further development of the generated theory include the national/federal governments of the United States and Australia. Both governments have established a national archives with the responsibility of assisting records management in departments or agencies,273 similarly to the Government of Canada, and both have reported issues relating to records management in departments or agencies 274 which are also similar to those encountered                                                  272 The coding of the many IM audits revealed that the criteria for the audits were mainly based on IT standards.  273 United States of America, “44 U.S.C. Chapter 29 Records Management by the Archivist of the United States and by the Administrator of General Services,” http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/records-management.html (accessed October 29, 2012); and Australia Government, “Archives Act 1983,” http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00025 (accessed October 29, 2012). 274 The White House, “Presidential Memorandum - Managing Government Records,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidential-memorandum-managing-gov ernment-records (accessed October 29, 2012); and Adrian Cunningham, “Good Digital Records Don’t Just ‘Happen’: Embedding Digital Recordkeeping as an Organic Component of Business Processes and Systems,” Archivaria 71 (Spring 2011): 21 - 34. 195  by the Government of Canada. Besides the comparisons on the overall quality of records management, specific aspects can be studied as well. For example, it would be interesting to examine the application of the DIRKS Manual in the Australian setting as the National Archives had ceased the use of the methodology,275 which, however, continues to be recommended by the State Records New South Wales for use by government agencies.276     Relying on the technique of theoretical sampling, future studies pertinent to governmental settings can be extended to include other levels of government, either using the same or different criteria. Similarly, relying on the technique of theoretical sampling, future studies can also be extended to include non-governmental settings such as private or not-for-profits organizations. By continuing theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis, a substantive grounded theory can be raised to the rank of formal theory with a higher level of generality and a broader scope of applicability. 5.3. Conclusion  To manage a subject it is essential to understand it. This understanding may be widened, deepened, or adjusted, but should always focus on the nature of the subject. Only by a firm understanding of its nature can the subject be managed with effectiveness and not be influenced/confused by factors that are external to it. Because of the lack of a firm                                                  275 NAA, “Publications and Tools,” http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/publications/DIRKS-manual.aspx (accessed October 29, 2012).  276 State Records NSW, “DIRKS,” www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/dirks (accessed October 29, 2012). 196  understanding of the nature of records, the influence of the concepts of information or information resources in the Government of Canada has remained strong since 1989, when for the first time a policy replaced RM with the expression “management of information holdings.” 277 Not only have all TBS policy instruments focused on information but also the voices that have been in strong support of RM, such as the Canadian Auditor General and the Information Commissioner, do not distinguish RM and IM. This, according to the current study, is the root cause of the GC’s inability to develop mechanisms that are sufficiently pertinent and specific to all the components identified as parts of its IM regime. This lack of specifics made it difficult for the RM program to demonstrate value despite of a seemingly well constructed policy. The rescinded 2003 policy was, according to the TBS, “the result of several years of research and consultation across the federal government”, and for which, the TBS planned to “develop and manage a comprehensive and phased strategy implementation plan” including the implementation of “sound information management practices”.278 The policy, however, did not deliver any concrete results in improving the IM(RM) situation during the four years of its existence, and its successor, the 2007 IM Policy, proved to be no better. The most recent MAF assessments (2010) of departmental IM practices revealed an extremely weak performance - the weakest one indeed among all aspects assessed. Many departments received high and higher ratings in the aspects of establishing governance structure and                                                  277 The term information holding has been exclusively used by TBS in relation to the administration of the Access to Information Act.  278 OAG, “2003 November Report,”. 197  developing strategic plans, but the daily practices have been commonly inadequate.279 One may argue that the lack of specifics in developing plans and carrying out specific tasks is attributable to the lack of resources, but this, according to the present study, is only a symptom, not the root cause.  According to the findings of this research, a full understanding of the nature of record and a RM program equipped with adequate RM Functioning Ability should be able to address the issue of resources by requiring a sensible operation budget. More significantly, the understanding of Record Instrumental Value should be able to facilitate the proposal of embedding the RM Application-Oriented Work within operational activities; therefore, the budget required for RM would become a part of the budget of the operational activities. This way, even with program reviews,280 the RM work would be assessed along with the Operational Activity, not separately as a not-mission-critical, internal service function that can be reduced to a nominal existence. If the activity is to be eliminated, the RM work within it would be eliminated with the activity, and if the activity is retained, the RM work (including the RM personnel) would be retained as well. Either way, there would not be a chaotic situation due to records left behind. In addition,                                                  279 Departments can be skillful in writing strategic plans, which permits them to receive a high MAF rating. When the strategy cannot be or is not implemented, a new strategy can always be drafted. The current development of the Department of the Canadian Heritage’s IM Strategy is such an example.   280 Program reviews in the Government of Canada is the mechanism utilized to cut budget and reduce services. 198  there are cases where resources are not the issue,281 yet the IM(RM) performance is still unsatisfactory and is even criticized as having not effectively utilized the allocated resources. This reinforces the deduction that it is the inadequacy of RM Functioning Ability that is the root cause. To avoid being marginalized or even completely replaced, the RM program in the Government of Canada needs first to be separated from the all-encompassing, thus practically useless, IM container and then, based on the RM Functioning Ability, promote a RM function that is able to deliver concrete results for the organization and demonstrate the value of the RM profession.   Compared with the sources of the relevant literature identified for coding in the research process (i.e., the InterPARES project, ARMA International, and ISO 15489), the present study has specified and extended them in the following ways:      It codified the implications embedded in the definition of record, the development of digital diplomatic analysis, and the findings on interactive and dynamic records of the InterPARES project into the concepts of Record(s) Purpose, Record Value, and RM Nature;     It further developed Record Value into a set of values distinguished first as being instrumental or reusable and then by different types of reusable value;282                                                    281 As showed by the disclosed records, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Department of Public Safety Canada mentioned that resources were adequately allocated.  282 This is an extension to ISO 15489’s emphasis on records as evidence. The standard’s emphasis on evidence is excessive and imbalanced as it ignores the other types of value. Moreover, the use of the term evidence does not differentiate between the implied meanings of 199    It specified the relationships between the different types of Operational Activity and the different types of Record Value;   It specified the guidance offered by Record Nature to establish RM Nature;   It specified the relationships between RM Value and Record Value and established that RM Constant Value, the value that is most visible to organizations, is demonstrable by realizing Record Instrumental Value;     It elaborated on the design of Operational Activities as the foundation for organizational operations including the conduct of RM Activities;   It analyzed the role of Record Identification in completing RM Activities with effectiveness (i.e., satisfactory performance) and emphasized the importance and necessity of managing digital records at individual level (in addition to class level, which has been long established); 283                                                                                                                                                  evidential (as in T. R. Schellenberg’s records value categorization) or evidentiary (as treating records as documentary evidence in legal proceedings). For additional information on this distinction, see T. R. Schellenberg, “The Appraisal of Modern Public Records: Evidential Values,” http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/archives-resources/appraisal-evidential-values.ht ml (accessed October 19, 2012) and Rodney Young. “The Evidentiary and Probative Value of Trade Union Records,” Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 202-213, in particular, 203-205.   283 It may be useful to point out that the idea of managing individual records is not as the same as “item level control” as proposed by David Bearman in “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping,” http://www.archimuse.com/papers/nhprc/item-lvl.htm (accessed October 19, 2012). Although the former encompasses the creation of metadata for individual records (i.e., at the item level), which is the focus of the latter, differently from it, it emphasizes the identification of records in the process of designing/re-designing operational activities/programs and considers it the foundation of all subsequent RM activities, including, but not limited to, metadata creation at item level. The emphasis on records identification also extends the ISO 15489’s requirement 200    It specified the establishment of Organizational RM with a focus on RM Application-Oriented Work;   It specified a design of RM Function that includes Governance Structure, Responsibility Arrangement, and the integration of Central Digital Records Management System and Unit Digital Records Management Systems in compliance with RM Nature;   It extended the RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill to include knowledge of all Operational Activities and knowledge of all technologies supporting the activities in qualifying RM Professional/RM Personnel, including the method of determining the required level of the extend knowledge.284                                                                                                                                                  for records creation, which focuses on the creation of evidence. For example, on page 6, the Standard requires that, “Rules for creating and capturing records and metadata about records should be incorporated into the procedures governing all business processes for which there is a requirement for evidence of activity”. Record Identification emphasizes the analysis of each and every record that an Operational Activit