@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Arts, Faculty of"@en, "Library, Archival and Information Studies (SLAIS), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Xie, Li"@en ; dcterms:issued "2013-05-09T09:12:57Z"@en, "2013"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """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 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."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/44450?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note " 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 deadlines 29 ), 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% 2008-2009 35 13/23 = 57% 14/(24 - LAC 36 ) = 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, 2 nd . (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, 2 nd , 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. 2 nd 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. 2 nd . 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, 2 nd . 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 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-many 171 or many-to-one 172 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 physically 188 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 institutions 211 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 Activities 212 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 systems 217 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 rotated 225 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.L39QK2.3YG 181 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 function 267 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§ion=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 Activity requires, not only those considered evidence. 284 The RM Extended Knowledge goes beyond the ARMA’s requirement for the development of its members’ RM ability. In its Records and Information Management Core Competencies, there are two domains, Business Function and Information Technology, which appear to most possibly encompass the Non-RM Activity Knowledge and the Non-RM Technology Knowledge. These two domains, however, focus only on the operation of RM as the domain examples indicate. Examples of business functions include (at Level 4) “the supervision of RIM staff, budgeting, providing customer service, identifying and mapping work processes, providing input to management, and strategic planning”; and examples of information technology tasks (at level 4) include “the RIM software application selection process, reprographics and imaging equipment, establishing requirements for IT related to managing electronic repositories, and the identification of emerging technologies”. ARMA International, “Records and Information Management Core 201 When generation of theory is the aim, one is constantly alert to emergent perspectives that will change and help develop his theory ... the published word is not the final one, but only a pause in the never-ending process of generating theory. 285 Competencies 2007,” Downloadable at http://www.arma.org/competencies/document.cfm (accessed October 19, 2012). As ARMA International is the largest association of RM professionals worldwide and is pivotal in its’ members’ development, the absence of the Extended Knowledge as one requirement makes this requirement a new extension to the qualifications of the RM profession. 285 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, Discovery of the Grounded Theory, 40. 202 Bibliography Accenture. “Value Realization: Service Overview.” http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/service-consulting-value-realization-summary.asp x (accessed June 26, 2011). ARMA. “Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms.” http://www.arma.org/standards/glossary/index.cfm?id_term=369 (accessed June 26, 2011). ARMA International. Records and Information Management Core Competencies (2007). http://www.arma.org/competencies/document.cfm (accessed June 26, 2011). Atherton, Jay. “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956.” Archivaria, 8 (Summer 1979): 35-59. Australia Government. Archives Act 1983. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00025 (accessed June 26, 2011). Bearman, David. “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping.” http://www.archimuse.com/papers/nhprc/item-lvl.htm (accessed June 26, 2011). Bilton, Tony et al. Introductory Sociology, 3 rd ed. London, Macmillan, 1996. Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. 2 nd ed. Oxford University Press, UK., 2004. Bunch, Eli Haugen. “Commentary on the Application of Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism,” Nordic College of Caring Sciences 18, (2004): 441. Caron, Daniel J. and Andreas Kellerhals. “Supporting Democratic Values through a Relevant Documentary Foundation - An Evolutionary Complex.” Archivaria 71 (Spring 2011): 99-134, in particular, 100-117. CBSA. Audit of Information Management. 2011. http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/ae-ve/2011/im-gi-eng.html (accessed June 26, 2011). CFIA. Audit of IM/IT Governance. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/cfia-acia/2011-09-21/www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ agen/eval/imitgitie.shtml#a2_1 (accessed June 26, 2011). CFIA. Departmental Performance Reports. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/ica/icapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). 203 CFIA. Departmental Performance Reports. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ica/icapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). Chang, James. F.. Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation. Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2006. Charmaz, Kathy. Construction Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Sage, 2006. Charmaz, Kathy. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivisit Methods”, in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln ed. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2 nd . Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2000. CIDA. Audit of the IM/IT Strategy, Processes and Controls. 2008. http://198.103.138.71/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Internal%20Audits/$file/IMIT-St rategyProcessesControls-EN.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). CIDA. Departmental Performance Reports. 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). CIDA. Departmental Performance Reports. 2009-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). CRA. Departmental Performance Reports. 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/index-eng.asp?acr=1453 (accessed June 26, 2011). CRA. Departmental Performance Reports. 2098-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Audit of Environmental Management System. 2006. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-envrmngmnt-378-1-210/audit_enviromanage2006_e .pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Audit of Logical Access Controls. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-lac-378-1-240/adt-lac-378-1-240-eng.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Audit of Safeguarding of Physical Offender and Staff Records. 2010. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-sposr-378-1-253/adt-sposr-378-1-253-eng.shtml (accessed June 26, 2011). 204 CSC. Audit of Strategic Performance Management Information. 2009. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-spmi-378-1-245/adt-spmi-378-1-245-eng.shtml (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Departmental Performance Reports. 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/pen/penpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Departmental Performance Reports. 2009-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/pen/penpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). CSC. Review of Health Information Management Module. 2009. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-himm-378-1-207/adt-himm-378-1-207-eng.shtml (accessed June 26, 2011). CSPS. “Courses.” http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/cat/index-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). Cunningham, Adrian. “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. Duranti, Luciana. “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. Duranti, Luciana. “The Archival Bond,” Archives and Museum Informatics 11, 3-4 (1997): 213-218. Duranti, Luciana and Kenneth Thibodeau, “The Concept of Record in Interactive, Experiential and Dynamic Environments: the View of InterPARES,” Archival Science 6, 1 (2006): 13-68. Environment Canada. Audit of Governance of Information Management. 2011. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ae-ve/default.asp?lang=En&n=A44BE2CD-1 (accessed June 26, 2011). Environment Canada. Departmental Response to Round VII (2009-10) Environment Canada Management Accountability Framework (MAF) Assessment. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33B5D371-1 (accessed June 26, 2011). Environment Canada. Departmental Performance Reports. 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/doe/doepr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). 205 Environment Canada. Departmental Performance Reports. 2009-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/doe/doepr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). Erlandsson, Alf. “Electronic Records Management: A Literature Review.” http://www.wien2004.ica.org/en/node/30028. EU. MoReq (Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records) 2. http://www.moreq2.eu/moreq2 (accessed June 26, 2011). Eugene Forsey. “Parliament of Canada.” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/index-e.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). Glaser, Barney G.. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1992. Glaser, Barney G.. Doing Grounded Theory. Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1998. Glaser, Barney G. Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1992. Glaser, Barney. “Remodeling grounded theory.” The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal. 4 (2004): 1- 22. Glaser, Barney. The Grounded Theory Perspective, Conceptualizing Contrasted with Descriptions. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 2001. Glaser, Barney G. Theoretic Sensitivity. Sociology Press. Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1978. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 2 nd . Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press, 1999. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965. Government of Canada. Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html (accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. Access to Information Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/FullText.html (accessed June 26, 2011). 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 June 206 26, 2011). Government of Canada. “Canada Health Infoway.” https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php (accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. Canada School of Public Service Act. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.13/FullText.html (accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. CGSB-192.2-2009. Competencies of the Federal Government Information Management Community. Gatineau, Canada. Government of Canada. “Departments and Agencies.” http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind-eng.html (accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. Financial Administration Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11/text.html(accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. Government On-Line (GOL) Final Report. Ottawa, 2006. Government of 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 June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. “Structure of the Government of Canada.” http://www.canada.gc.ca/aboutgov-ausujetgouv/structure-eng.html (accessed June 26, 2011). 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. Governor General of Canada. Speech from the Throne to Open the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament of Canada. 1999. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&do c=aarchives/sft-ddt/1999-eng.htm (accessed June 26, 2011). HCan. Audit of Information Management. 2010, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_audit-verif/index-eng.php (accessed June 26, 2011). HCan. Audit of Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) Governance. 2009; http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_audit-verif/2009-28/index-eng.php (accessed June 26, 2011). HCan. Departmental Performance Reports. 2008-2009. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/shc/shcpr-eng.asp?format=print 207 (accessed June 26, 2011). HCan. Departmental Performance Reports. 2009-2010. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/shc/shcpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). IBM. “Value Realization from Efficient Software Deployment.” http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247934.html?Open (accessed June 26, 2011). International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15489-1: Information and documentation – Records management. Part 1: General. Geneva: ISO. 2001. InterPARES. “Diplomatic Analysis Template.” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_07.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). InterPARES. “Part Two Records Creation and Maintenance.” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_part_2_domain1_task_for ce.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). InterPARES. “Terminology Database.” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm (accessed June 26, 2011). InterPARES. “The Chain of Preservation Model.” http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_14.pdf. LAC. “Assessment Projects.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/007/001/007001-5105-e.html (accessed June 26, 2011). LAC. “Email Management Guidelines.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/news-events/007001-6305-e.html. LAC. “Government. Products and Services.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/index-e.html (accessed June 26, 2011). LAC. “Legacy Business Records Project: Generic Plan and Resourcing Template: Overview.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/007/f2/007-1019-e.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). 208 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-record keeping.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). LAC. “Records and Information Life Cycle Management.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/007002-2012-e.html. Library of Congress. “PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) project.” http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis (accessed June 26, 2011). McDonald, John. “Archives and Cooperation in the Information Age,” Archivaria 35 (Spring 1993): 110-118. McDonald, John. “Managing Records in the Modern Office: Taming the Wild Frontier”, Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 70-79. McDonald, John. “Record Keeping Systems - Lessons Learned from the Experience of the Canadian Federal Government.” 1999. http://www.archivists.org.au/events/conf99/mcdonald.html. McDonald, John. “The wild frontier ten years on,” McLeod, J. and Hare, C., ed. Managing electronic records, Facet, London, 2005: 1-17. Marleau, Robert. “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 June 26, 2011). Mjoset, Lars. “Challenges to Grounded Theory,” http://www.scasss.uu.se/IIS2005/total_webb/tot_html/papers/challenges_to_grounded_th eory.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). NAA. “Publications and Tools.” http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/publications/DIRKS-manual.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). NARA. Functional Requirements and Attributes for Records Management Services, 2005. http://www.archives.gov/era/pdf/Functional-Requirements-and-Attributes-for-Dec07-200 5.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). National Defence. “Audit Reports.” http://www.crs-csex.forces.gc.ca/reports-rapports/rp-av-eng.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). National Defence. Departmental Performance Report 2008-09. 209 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/dnd/dndpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). National Defence. Departmental Performance Report 2009-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/dnd/dndpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). Nelson, Michael. “Federal Government Information Policy: An Introduction.” http://library2.usask.ca/gic/v1n3/nelson/nelson.html (accessed June 26, 2011). OAG. 1983 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_198311_15_e_3380.html#0.2.L39Q K2.3YG3SA.V3DX1F.T9 (accessed June 26, 2011). OAG. 2003 November Report of the Auditor General of Canada. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200311_06_e_12929.html#ch6hd4c (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. Annual Report of Information Commissioner 2005-2006. http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_ar-ra_2004-2005.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). OIC. “Report Cards.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren.aspx “Access to Information Act.” OIC. “CBSA Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_11.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “CIC Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_26.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). 210 OIC. “CSIS Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_25.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “DFO Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_29.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “IC Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_32.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “INAC (AANDC) Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_31.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “NRCan Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_16.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “PCO Report Card.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr_spe-rep_rap-spe_rep-car_fic-ren_2008-2009_17.aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OIC. “Questionnaires.” http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rep-pub-spec_rep-rap_spec-quest-2008-2009_questionnaires. aspx (accessed June 26, 2011). OSTA. “OSTA In Action: Case Studies.” http://ostadvisory.com/main/casestudies/ (accessed June 26, 2011). PCH. Information and Records Management Audit. 2011. http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1332341667177 (accessed June 26, 2011). Government of Canada. National Archives of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1. PCH. Departmental Performance Report 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/pch/pchpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). PCH. Departmental Performance Report 2009-10. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/pch/pchpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed June 26, 2011). PCO. “Canadian Federalism.” 211 http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal (accessed June 26, 2011). PCO. “About Us.” http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=index. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=about-apropos (accessed June 26, 2011). PWGSC. “Delivering Government of Canada IT Shared Services.” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/fi-fs/its-sct-eng.html (accessed June 26, 2011). PWGSC. “GEDS. CFIA.” http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/XEou%3dCFIA-ACIA%2co%3 dGC%2cc%3dCA (accessed June 26, 2011). PWGSC. “GEDS. CIDA.” http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/XEou%3dCIDA-ACDI%2co% 3dGC%2cc%3dCA (accessed June 26, 2011). PWGSC. “GEDS. Department Listing.” http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/BE#H (accessed June 26, 2011). PWGSC. “Organization.” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/rgnstnnll-rgnztnal-eng.html (accessed April 10, 2011). PWGSC. “Shared Services Integration.” http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/isp-ssi/index-eng.html (accessed April 10, 2009). Russell, Bill. “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. Schellenberg, T. R., The Appraisal of Modern Public Records: Evidential Values, http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/archives-resources/appraisal-evidential-v alues.html (accessed June 26, 2011). State Records NSW. “DIRKS.” www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/dirks. Strauss, Anselm L. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1987. Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet Corbin. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. 212 TBS. “Access to Information and Privacy Coordinators.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/apps/coords/index-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12754§ion=text#cha4 (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. Directive on Recordkeeping. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=16552 (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Foundation Framework for Treasury Board Policies.” 2008. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13616§ion=text (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Guideline for GC Employees: IM Basics.” 2009. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?evttoo=X&id=16557§ion=text (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Glossary of Terms.” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp01-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Implementation Report No. 112 -Info Source 2009 Requirements.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/impl-rep/2009/112-imp-mise02-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Information Management.” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp02-eng.asp#prn944 (accessed April 10, 2009). 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 June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). TBS. Policy on Information Management. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=12742 (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Policy Instruments Approved to Date.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/prp-pep/psri-irp-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. Policy on Management of Information Technology. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=12755 (accessed June 26, 213 2011). TBS. Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structure. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18218§ion=text (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. Policy on the Management of Government Information Holdings. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/201/301/tbs-sct/tb_manual-ef/Pubs _pol/ciopubs/TB_GIH/CHAP3_1_e.html (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF Objectives.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/overview-apercu/objectives-objectifs-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF Methodology.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2009/stewardship-gerance/stewar dship-gerance-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII CFIA.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/ica/ica-eng.asp#il (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII CIDA.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/ida/ida-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII CRA.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/nar/nar-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII CSC.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2008/pen/pen-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII EC.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/doe/doe-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII HCan. 2009-10.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/shc/shc-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “MAF VII ND.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/dnd/dnd-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). 214 TBS. “MAF VI. PCH.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2008/pch/pch-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). 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 June 26, 2011). TBS. “Management Accountability Framework.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Info Source: Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information.” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp01-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. Standard for Electronic Documents and Records Management Solutions (EDRMS). 2010. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18910§ion=text (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “Strategic Directions for Information Management and Information Technology: Enabling 21st Century Service to Canadians.” 1999. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/ciopubs/tb_oimp/sdimit-eng.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). TBS. “The Programs of the Secretariat.” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/abu-ans/tbs-sct/paa-aap-eng.asp (accessed June 26, 2011. The National Archives. “Business classification scheme design.” http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/bcs_toolkit.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). The White House. “Presidential Memorandum - Managing Government Records.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidential-memorandum-mana ging-government-records (accessed June 26, 2011). United States. “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 June 26, 2011). United States. “44 U.S.C. Chapter 33 Disposal of Records. § 3301. Definition of records.” http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/disposal-of-records.html#def (accessed June 26, 2011). United States. Department of Defence. 5015.2 Electronic Records Management Software Applications Design Criteria Standard. 2007. 215 http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/501502std.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). Unknown. “New Records Management Policy for the Government of Canada.” Archivaria, 17 (1983-84): 339-341. Available also online at http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11063/11998 (accessed June 26, 2011). Xie, Sherry L. “Digital Records Management in the Canadian Government: A Strategy for ‘Success’”. IQ – The RIM Professionals Australasia Quarterly. 29, 1 (2013): 48-52. Xie, Sherry L. “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. Xie, Sherry L. Evaluation of the Electronic Document and Record Management Program in a Canadian municipality. MAS thesis. https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/18320 (accessed June 26, 2011). Xie, Sherry L. “Function-based Records Classification Systems: A Comparative Study.” http://www.armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Sherry_Xie_Study.pdf (accessed June 26, 2011). Xie, Sherry L. “National Strategies for Digital Records: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and China,” International Journal of Information Management (accepted). Xie, Sherry L. “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. Xie, Sherry L. “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. Young, Rodney. “The Evidentiary and Probative Value of Trade Union Records,” Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 202-213. 216 Appendices Appendix 1 GC-Wide Data Open Coding & Memoing – TBS286 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Symbol   = contribute to or result in;  TBS-#: data sourced by TBS;  TBS#-i# = numbered indicator by numbered data;  [M#( TBS-#-i#): …] = numbered memo based on one indicator;  [M#(TBS-#-i#+TBS-#-i#+…): …] = numbered memo based on two or more indicators;  [M#(TBS-#-i#TBS-#-i#): …] = numbered memo based on a comparison between two indicators;  [M#(TBS-#-i#TBS-#-i#TBS-#-i#): …] = numbered memo based on a comparison between more than two indicators;  [SC(M#): …] = substantive code based on one memo;  [SC(M#+M#+…): …] = substantive code based on two or more memos;  [SC(M#+…+TBS-#-i#+…): …] = substantive code based on both memos and indicators;  [SC(M#+…+TBS-#-i#+…+other-data-source#+…): …] = substantive code based on both memos and indicators; TBS-1 287 1. TBS1-i1: Defines “Information Management”;288 2. TBS1-i2: Does not define information, but qualifies it as “in an organization”; [M1(TBS1-i1+TBS1-i2): the IM is a discipline about a subject/thing in organization that does not have a definition]; 3. TBS1-i3: Defines recordkeeping, for which the subject is “records”; 286 The substantive codes in this and other coding tables are only samples provided to illustrate the abstracting process that generated them. This abstracting process involved numerous back and forth coding, memoing, and comparing; therefore, to completely document this process is both unjustifiable and undesirable. 287 TBS, “Policy on Information Management,”. 288 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. 217 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes records are characterized as “vital business asset” and “knowledge source”;289 4. TBS1-i4: Defines “records”, using the term “information” as the definiens, considered the genus of the definiendum; records are characterized as information for “business purposes” and/or “legal obligation”;290 [M2(TBS1-i3TBS1-i4): the characterizations of records are different]; 5. TBS1-i5: Lists IM components;291 [M3(TBS1-i5+TBS1-i1): is this suggesting that all these components form one discipline? yet none of the components is defined]  [sc: lack of definition for key terms]; 6. TBS1-i6: Emphasizes records and RM among IM components;292 7. TBS1-i7: Lists 9 responsibilities for deputy heads; 8. TBS1-i8: Points out employees’ IM responsibilities; 9. TBS1-i9: Points out RM as one type of specialized expert services, providing support to departments; 10. TBS1-i10: Expects GC to provide “convenient access to relevant, reliable, comprehensive and timely information”; 11. TBS1-i11: Expects “information and records” to be managed as “valuable assets”; 12. TBS1-i12: Expects governance structures, mechanisms and resources are in place for IM; 13. TBS1-i13: Points out a “whole-of-government” approach to manage information and records; 289 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. 290 Records are information created, received, and maintained by an organization or person for business purposes, legal obligations, or both, regardless of medium or form. 291 [I]nformation management encompasses records, as well as documents, data, library services, information architecture, etc.. 292 [R]ecords and their management are mentioned at key points in the policy for the purpose of emphasis. 218 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 14. TBS1-i14: Defines Functional specialist;293 TBS-2 294 1. TBS2-i1: Expects IM governance structure to ensure IM accountability; 295 2. TBS2-i2: Characterizes Information technology (IT) as a key enabler to IM; 296 3. TBS2-i3: Characterizes the relationship b/w IM and departmental activities as “identifiable and integral”;297 4. TBS2-i4: Lists 10 requirements for the IM senior executive designated by the deputy head; 5. TBS2-i5: Lists 6 requirements for managers; 6. TBS2-i6: Lists 4 requirements for employees; 7. TBS2-i7: Lists 5 requirements for IM functional specialists; 8. TBS2-i8: Defines IM functional specialist; 298 the definition lists more IM components than TBS1-i5; [M57(TBS2-i8M3(TBS1-i5+TBS1-i1) 293 An employee who carries out roles and responsibilities that require function-specific knowledge, skills and attributes in the following priority areas: finances, human resources, internal audit, procurement, materiel management, real property, and information management. 294 TBS, “Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12754§ion=text#cha4 (accessed October 19, 2012). 295 Governance structures in departments ensure sound IM accountability. 296 Information technology (IT) is a key enabler to achieving well-managed information in support of policies, programs and services. 297 Information management is an identifiable and integral element of departmental programs and services. 298 Information Management Functional Specialist is an employee who carries out roles and responsibilities that require function-specific knowledge, skills and attributes related to managing information such as those found in records and document management, library services, archiving, data management, content management, business intelligence and decision support, information access, information protection and information privacy. 219 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes (2)+TBS1-i9): what are the advantages/benefits of grouping all these different types of specialized expertises as one discipline? And, again, none of them is defined or explained]; 9. TBS2-i9: All requirements refer to IM as a whole, i.e., they are not distinguished by IM components; [M4(TBS2-i9+TBS1-i5+TBS2-i8): lack of definitions or explanations for IM components that are not self-explanatory; will this be a problem for implementing these requirements?]; 10. TBS2-i10: Identifies the role and responsibilities of CSPS;299 11. TBS2-i11: Defines “information life cycle”;300 Note: data Below are in or after 2009. They were coded here as part of TBS IM policy instruments. When coding institutional records, consider the issuing time here. TBS-3 301 1. TBS3-i1: Defines recordkeeping in Appendix, for which “information resources” is the subject;302 [M5(TBS3-i1+TBS1-i3): the two definitions for recordkeeping are not exactly the same, and the difference is that one uses “records” and the other uses “information resources” as the genus of the definition respectively; is this suggesting that the two terms are considered synonyms?] 2. TBS3-i2: Defines “information resources”,303 listing “textual records” 299 The Canada School of Public Service is responsible for the development and delivery of a government wide core learning strategy and program for all public servants involved in the management of information. 300 The life cycle of information management encompasses the following: planning; the collection, creation, receipt, and capture of information; its organization, use and dissemination; its maintenance, protection and preservation; its disposition; and evaluation. 301 TBS, “Directive on Recordkeeping,”. 302 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. 303 Any documentary material produced in published and unpublished form regardless of communications source, information format, production mode or recording medium. Information resources include textual records (memos, reports, invoices, contracts, etc.), electronic records (e-mails, databases, internet, intranet, data etc.), new communication media (instant messages, 220 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes and “electronic records” as two types; [M6(TBS3-i2): this suggests that the concept of information resource is broader than that of record; then M5 contradicts M6]; 3. TBS3-i3: Defines recordkeeping in Clause 3.1304, for which “information resources of business values” is the subject; this is the third version of the definition for the term; 4. TBS3-i4: Defines “information resources of business value”,305 which is worded differently from that for “information resources”; [M7(TBS3-i3+M5+M6): “records”, “information resources”, and “information resources of business value” are defined differently but used without differentiation in the definitions for recordkeeping. Will this cause confusion when applying the concept?]; [M8(TBS3-i4): does not define business value, which can be roughly inferred as relevant to “decision-making in support of programs, services and ongoing operations, and support departmental reporting, performance and accountability requirements” when compare the definitions for information resources and for information resources of business value. This suggests that the concept of information resources is broader than that of information resources of business values. [M9.1(M8+TBS1-i4): it is difficult to distinguish the concept of information resources of business value from that of record, as they are defined as relevant to organizational business purposes and legal obligations. [M9.2(M8+TBS1-i4): What’s the purpose of using “information resources of business values”?]; 5. TBS3-i5: Defines record in Appendix, same as TBS1-i4;306 wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc.), publications (reports, books, magazines), films, sound recordings, photographs, documentary art, graphics, maps, and artifacts. 304 Recordkeeping is a resource management function through which information resources of business value are created, acquired, captured, managed in departmental repositories and used as a strategic asset to support effective decision making and facilitate ongoing operations and the delivery of programs and services. 305 Are 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. 306 Records are information created, received, and maintained by an organization or person for 221 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 6. TBS3-i6: Characterizes recordkeeping as a “core resource management function”; [M10(TBS3-i6+TBS2-i3): what’s the relationship b/w a resource management function and an integral element of business activities?]; 7. TBS3-i7: identifies three key pieces of legislation for recordkeeping: the FAA Act re deputy head responsibility for “information”,307 the LAC Act re “disposition authorities” and disposition of “information resources”,308 and the ATI Act;309 8. TBS3-i8: Does not define “information”; [M11(TBS3-i7+ TBS3-i8+ TBS1-i2): what’s the relationship b/w “information” and “information resources”?] 9. TBS3-i9: Defines disposition authorities in relation to “records”;310 [M12(TBS3-i9+TBS3-i7): is this suggesting that information resources = records when it comes to disposition?[M16(12)]; 10. TBS3-i10: Lists 5 requirements for departmental IM senior official designated by the deputy head; 11. TBS3-i11: Does not use the term record(s) but information resources of business value throughout the Directive; [M13(TBS3-i11+M9.1+M9.2: is this suggesting to use the term “information resources of business value” to replace “records”? if yes, why?] business purposes, legal obligations, or both, regardless of medium or form. 307 Under the management authority of the Financial Administration Act, deputy heads have the responsibility for the management and administration of information. 308 Under the Library and Archives of Canada Act, the Librarian and Archivist of Canada has the authority to issue disposition authorities and has the power to delegate this authority for the disposition of information resources. 309 Under the Access to Information Act, the President of the Treasury Board has responsibility for the general administration of the Act. 310 Disposition authorities are the instruments that enable government institutions to dispose of records which no longer have operational value, either by permitting their destruction (at the discretion of institutions), by requiring their transfer to Library and Archives of Canada, or by agreeing to their alienation from the control of the Government of Canada. 222 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes TBS-4 311 1. TBS4-i1: Defines EDRM solutions,312 with both “information resources” and “records” as its subjects without any differentiation; 2. TBS4-i2: Defines information resources313, same as TBS3-i2, which has a broad scope, including books, magazines, and databases; 3. TBS4-i3: Defines record, same as TBS1-i4; 4. TBS4-i4: Does not define document; 5. TBS4-i5: Uses the term records once in defining EDRM solutions; [TBS4-i5: there seems to be the tendency not to use the term record(s) M13(2)]; 6. TBS4-i6: Defines information resources of business value, same as TBS3-i4; 7. TBS4-i7: Define recordkeeping, same as TBS3-i1; 8. TBS4-i8: Defines information life cycle, same as TBS2-i11;314 the definition refers to the life cycle of “information management”, which includes activities for information (e.g., “its maintenance”, “its disposition”) and activities for IM (e.g., “planning”): life cycle of 311 TBS, “2010 Standard for Electronic Documents and Records Management Solutions (EDRMS),” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18910§ion=text (accessed October 19, 2012). 312 EDRM solutions are automated systems used to manage, protect and preserve information resources creation to disposition. These solutions maintain appropriate contextual information (metadata) and enable organizations to access, use and dispose of records (i.e., their retention, destruction or transfer) in a managed, systematic and auditable way in order to ensure accountability, transparency and meet departmental business objectives. 313 Any documentary material produced in published and unpublished form regardless of communications source, information format, production mode or recording medium. Information resources include textual records (memos, reports, invoices, contracts, etc.), electronic records (emails, 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. 314 The life cycle of information management encompasses the following: planning; the collection, creation, receipt, and capture of information; its organization, use and dissemination; its maintenance, protection and preservation; its disposition; and its evaluation. 223 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes information ≠ life cycle of IM; [SDM14(TBS4-i8+M7): imprecise definition] 9. TBS4-i9: Defines information technology315, using the terms “data” and “information”, yet neither of which is defined; [M15(TBS4-i9+ TBS1-i2): lack of definitions for key terms]; 10. TBS4-i10: Defines metadata,316 using the term “information resources”; 11. TBS4-i11: Lists 3 requirements for departmental IM Senior Official designated by the deputy head and CIO or equivalent; 12. TBS4-i12: Applies concepts without differentiation: Clause 3.2 uses “information resources of business value”, Clause 3.3 uses “information resources”, and clauses 3.4 and 5.1.1 uses “information”; [SDM16(TBS4-i12+ M7+M11: confusing concept application] 13. TBS4-i13: Expects “increased … access to information”;317 [TBS4-i13+TBS4-i1M16(2)]; 14. TBS4-i14: Identifies the role and responsibilities of PWGSC;318 15. TBS4-i15: Requires to follow the Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Office Environments - Module 2: Guidelines and Functional Requirements for Electronic Records 315 Includes any equipment or system that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. It includes all matters concerned with the design, development, installation and implementation of information systems and applications to meet business requirements. 316 The definition and description of the structure and meaning of information resources, and the context and systems in which they exist. 317 5.2.1 Increased government-wide access to information within and across departments to enable increased employee productivity and the efficiency and effectiveness of program and service delivery to Canadians. 318 The Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for providing common government-wide solutions to meet IM requirements of departments and agencies for delivering services such as document management, Web content management, portal and collaboration, and enterprise search management. 224 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Management Systems, by the International Council on Archives, 2008, without reasoning; 319 16. TBS4-i16: Uses “information resources of business value” in Clause 3.7, which discusses the functionality of EDRM solutions; 320 [TBS4-i16+TBS4-i1 M16(3)]; TBS-5 321 1. TBS5-i1: Defines metadata, same as TBS4-i10; 2. TBS5-i2: Uses definitions by TBS-1, TBS-2, TBS-3, and Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Glossary; 3. TBS5-i3: Uses “information” and “information resources” without differentiation, and it’s difficult to distinguish them from records or information resources of business value, 322 [TBS5-i3M16(4)]; 4. TBS5-i4: Lists 3 types of metadata: recordkeeping metadata, Web resource discovery metadata, Web content management system metadata; 5. TBS5-i5: Associates recordkeeping metadata with “information resources of business value”,323 web resource discovery metadata with 319 Their concepts of retention period and disposition authorities are different from the Canadian ones. 320 3.7 EDRM solutions enable GC employees to find, share and collaboratively develop information resources of business value, therefore increasing their productivity, and the efficiency and effectiveness of their departments. 321 TBS, “2010 Standard on Metadata,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18909§ion=text (accessed October 19, 2012). 322 3.3 The consistent creation, capture and use of metadata contribute to the objectives of the Policy on Information Management and the Directive on Recordkeeping to manage information as a strategic asset by supporting the capture, description, retrieval, use, re-use, accessibility, sharing, authenticity, reliability, integrity, and maintenance of information resources to facilitate decision-making, accountability, and the efficient delivery of Government programs and services. 323 3.6.1 Recordkeeping metadata supports recordkeeping as a management function through which information resources of business value are created, acquired, captured, and managed in departmental repositories over time, and used as a strategic asset to support effective decision making and facilitate ongoing operations and the delivery of programs and services. 225 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes “Web information resources”,324 and Web content management system metadata with “Web content”;325 yet no distinctions made between Web information resources and Web content; [TBS5-i5M15(2)] 6. TBS5-i6: Requires the application of recordkeeping metadata in conformance with ISO 23081 – Information and documentation – Records management processes – Metadata for records – Part 1: Principles; and ISO 23081 – Information and documentation – Records management processes – Metadata for records – Part 2: Conceptual and implementation issues; 7. TBS5-i7: Requires the application of Web resource discovery metadata and Web content management systems metadata to use Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Metadata Terms; 8. TBS5-i8: Indicates implicitly in Appendixes C and D the relationship b/w “Web resources”, “information resources within Web content management systems”, and “information resources of business value”: the former two can be identified as the later; 326 [M17 (TBS5-i8+TBS5-i1+M13): why manage information resources of no business value (those not identified as information resources of business value?]; 9. TBS5-i9: Lists 4 responsibilities for the departmental IM Senior Official designated by the deputy head; 10. TBS5-i10: Lists 1 responsibility for The departmental CIO or equivalent; 11. TBS5-i11: Lists 4 responsibilities for IM functional specialists; 12. TBS5-i12: Lists 3 responsibilities for all employees; 13. TBS5-i14: Uses “information resources” as key term in the body of the standard; 327 [TBS5-i14M17(2)]; 324 3.6.2 Web resource discovery metadata supports the navigation, searching, display and sharing of Web information resources. 325 3.6.3 Web content management system (WCMS) metadata supports business and technical processes for authoring, managing and publishing Web content in Web content management systems. 326 Applying recordkeeping metadata as outlined in Appendix B to Web resources that are determined to be information resources of business value, and Applying recordkeeping metadata as outlined in Appendix B to information resources within Web content management systems that are determined to be information resources of business value. 327 5.1, 5.2.1, 6.1.3. 226 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 14. TBS5-i15: Does not use the term record(s) in the body of the standard; [TBS5-i15M13(3)]; Common to all the above 1. TBSc-i1: Point out relevant laws; 2. TBSc-i2: Identify roles and responsibilities of other GC departments (TBS, LAC, Statistic Canada, PWGSC, and Canada School of Public Service); 3. TBSc-i3: Includes monitoring and reporting requirements and consequences; 328 TBS-6 329 1. TBS6-i1: designed for “all GC employees” (whose institutions are subject to TBS-1); (it can be inferred from the text that) the “all employees” are those who are not “managers” or “IM specialists”;330 2. TBS6-i2: there are times when information is under employees’ care and control; 331 3. TBS6-i3: is intended to be a base that “can be added to and customized to reflect institutional policies, procedures, directives, guidelines, tools, and best practices”; 4. TBS6-i4: focuses on concepts and their applications;332 328 During one teleconference, the IM Specialist said, regarding the unsatisfactory IM performance, “we are all in the same place’. 329 TBS, “Guideline for GC Employees: IM Basics,” Date modified 2009-06-01. Replaces Information Management - Guidelines. Date modified 1996-01-05, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13832§ion=text, which is completely about IT (accessed October 19, 2012). 330 “Your IM specialists are available to help you with these responsibilities, as needed”; “so we encourage you to consult your manager and information management (IM) specialists, as needed.” 331 “The following is an overview of some of the practices recommended for you to apply to all information while it's in your care and control”. 332 “designed to help you gain a basic understanding of information and records management concepts”. 227 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 5. TBS6-i5: Equates \"information” to \"information resource(s)\" “For the purposes of this guideline”;333 [M18(TBS6-i5): none of the previous higher level policy instruments states about this, then, how can this guideline do this? - As a lower level policy instrument, the guideline applies other than defines concepts. If information is equal to information resources, then the definition of information resources of business value means exactly records; +TBS6-i6+ TBS6-i7 = it’s difficult for TBS’ own guideline to make clear of these concepts, which can also be bypassed] 6. TBS6-i6: Uses the term “information resources” in a way that does not distinguish it from information resources of business values or records; [M16(5)] a. Every day, we create, collect, use and share information resources that provide evidence of our business activities; b. These information resources help us to make informed decisions that support our managers, our peers, and our clients and ultimately provide results for Canadians; c. Organize, file, and store information resources within repositories, ensuring easy access when needed to make decisions and to support program and service delivery; d. Be informed of and apply retention periods for information resources; e. Classification systems are designed to manage information resources according to their business value, ensuring their proper retention and disposition; f. as you go about your normal business activities each day, you generate and collect paper and electronic information resources. These information resources provide an important record of the actions you've taken, the decisions you've made, and the reasons for both, allowing for transparency and accountability. In order to ensure the ongoing value of these information resources of business value, capture them along with any relevant metadata to ensure that they are complete, authentic, and reliable. Retain information resources of business value in accordance with institutional records management standards and procedures, stored or profiled within a repository, if available, and protected 333 For the purposes of this guideline, \"information\" is equivalent to \"information resource(s)\" and these are the broadest of all terms – including any documentary material produced both in published and unpublished form regardless of communications source, information format, production mode or recording medium. The term \"information resource\" is introduced through the Directive on Recordkeeping. 228 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes against damage and loss; g. Ensure information resources of enduring business value are properly preserved; h. File or save records information resources in a repository; i. Provide definition of “transitory records” by LAC, then use “transitory information resources”; 7. TBS6-i7: difficult to distinguish “information resources of business value” from “records”; [M16(6)] a. cooperate with information specialists to properly transfer digital or paper copies of information resources of business value through the Library and Archives Canada regulations and disposition authorities; b. Information resources of enduring value will be transferred to Library and Archives Canada (LAC); c. In the section of “Document your business activities and decisions”, lists examples of “the types of information resources that are of business value”, all of which also qualifies the definition of record; d. Email messages that pertain to GC business are considered information resources of business value; e. Use “inactive information resources of business value”;334 8. TBS6-i8.1: “information resources” appears 53 times, “information” 30 times; [M19(TBS6-i8.1+TBS6-i5): 53+30=83 times in total; the most frequent usage is information or information resource]; M17(3); TBS6-i8.2: “records” 43 times and “information resources of business value” 17 times; [M20(TBS6-i8.2): the fact that the term “records” appears more than “information resources of business value” is because the reference sources the guideline rely on use the term “records” (e.g., the ATI Act and LAC documentation)]; [M21{M20M13(3)}: will this cause a gap b/w legal requirements and the TBS policy instruments?]; 9. TBS6-i9: The information contained on these sites (social networks) may or may not be considered information resources of business value but may nonetheless be subject to federal or provincial access to information legislation (which governs records); [M22(TBS6-i9): This suggests the scope of record is larger than information resources of business value M16(7)]; adversely affected applications of concepts by the introduction of this new term] 10. TBS6-i10: A repository is a preservation environment for information resources of business value. Business rules for the management of the information resources captured in a repository(ies) need to be 334 Storage of inactive information resources of business value. 229 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes established, and there must be sufficient control for the resources to be authentic, reliable, accessible and usable on a continuing basis (from Directive on Recordkeeping); 11. TBS6-i11: Capture those information resources of business value by saving them within a repository; [M23(TBS6-i10+TBS6-i11): information resources of business value = information resources captured in a repository(ies); how to capture? If the awareness is to only tell employees there is the need for capture, then this kind of awareness will not yield any concrete results]; 12. TBS6-i12: Uses “electronic information” “electronic information resources”; uses “electronic records” only in relation to the system;335 [TBS6-i11M19(2)]; 13. TBS6-i13: Lists what employees are asked to do;336 [SDM24(TBS6-i12): this displays a rather heavy workload]; [SDM25(TBS6-i12): and at the same time a great level of individual control) a. 8 responsibilities including classification and application of retention schedules; b. Employees to make a “sound IM plan” for their work; managers and IM specialists are for “further assistance”; no existing information for the job? c. As you create and collect information, identify its value to your institution and manage it accordingly, making sure that it's accessible to those who need it. d. Preserve the integrity and value of information resources of business value by keeping the structure, context, and content intact to facilitate future searching and use. e. Organize your information in a logical and systematic way so that it's easy to find and share. Where possible, use standards, rules, and procedures established or adopted by your institution. i. Information that is well organized will help you to work better and also supports your need to respond efficiently and effectively to requests regarding access to 335 If your organization doesn't have an electronic records and document management system or repository(ies), speak to your manager and consult with the appropriate specialist (e.g. the records or library functional specialist) to find out more about your internal policies on filing electronic information. 336 The only indication of the existence of an organizational RM function is the existence of IM specialists. 230 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes information, privacy, and legal discovery. ii. Organize all published material according to the classification system of your institution's library. Why even ask employees to organization library materials? f. Starting a new job provides you with an ideal opportunity to establish good practices for managing government information resources right from the start; g. Protect information against loss, damage, unauthorized access, alteration, or destruction; h. you have procedures in place to properly manage it. Name, inventory, and organize the electronic documents according to, or linking to, the institutional classification system if one is in place; i. Provide pertinent information about everything you leave for your successor, explaining why it will be needed; [how can this be guaranteed? if this is true, then there won’t be complaint about loss of corporate memory when discussing the ATI requests]; j. Ensure that information resources of business value, in all media, are organized and filed according to the policies, standards, and procedures established or adopted by your institution so that the information continues to be accessible to other employees. [How to ensure?]; k. Managing information to the way you work has many advantages. [What about others’ ways to work?]; l. It saves you time. [How? Managing information (if only emails are considered) cost time]; m. Employees to be IM advocate: If you notice ways that these practices can help your organization to be more effective, communicate them to your manager. Why should employees do this? This is not their job]; 231 Appendix 2 Institution-Specific Online Data Open Coding & Memoing – sG Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Symbol  IS-1 = organizational structure;  IS-2 year = annual report;  IS-3 = MAF assessment VII (the most recent one at the time of coding);  IS-4.# = audit report(s);  Others see Appendix 2.1 sG: CFIA IS-1 337 1. CFIA-IS1-i1: VP, Information Management & Information Technology -> Business Information Management -> Information Management -> Information Holdings -> E-Document Management; Records and Information Services: 4 positions; 1.1. CFIA-IS1-i1.1: only one with “records” in title; [M200(CFIA-IS1-i1.1): few “records” positions in org. chart]; 1.2. CFIA-IS1-i1.2: called “Records Management Assistant; [M201(CFIA-IS1-i1.2): no management positions for records in org. chart]; 2. CFIA-IS1-i2: positions under E-Document Management all have “Information Management” in titles;338 [M202(CFIA-IS1-i2): presence of E-Document Management in IM]; 3. CFIA-IS1-i3: No subdivision or position under Information Management has electronic record(s) in title; [M203(CFIA-IS1-i3): no presence of electronic/digital records]; IS-2 2008-09 339 1. CFIA-IS2(08)-i1: Identifies “Information for Decision-Making” one risk area and the Information Management Way Forward as one key 337 GEDS, “CFIA,” http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/XEou%3dCFIA-ACIA%2co%3dGC%2 cc%3dCA (accessed October 19, 2012). Organization chart changes frequently. The last time coding these charts were in 2012-05 because of the attempt to use most recent data. Many changes have happened since the Fall of 2011. 338 I asked about this during teleconference with HCan and others and site visit. 339 CFIA, “Departmental Performance Reports,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/ica/icapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed 232 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes initiative for the risk; 2. CFIA-IS2(08)-i2: RM (or records management) have no appearance; [M204(CFIA-IS2(08)-i2): no presence of RM in DPR]; 2009-10 340 1. CFIA-IS2(09)-i1: “Information Management Way Forward” has no appearance; 2. CFIA-IS2(09)-i2: uses “IM/IT”; [M205(CFIA-IS2(09)-i2): When IM/IT is used in DPR, the content is typically about IT]; 341 3. CFIA-IS2(09)-i3: IM/IT is one of the “Internal Services”;342 4. CFIA-IS2(09)-i4: RM (or records management) has no appearance; CFIA-IS2(09)-i4M204(2); 5. CFIA-IS2(10-11)-i0: The “IM environment” features “regular communications to employees, employee education and training courses”  what IM does: no actual RM work  [M71]; IS-3 343 1. CFIA-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 344 October 19, 2012). 340 CFIA, “Departmental Performance Reports,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ica/icapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 341 e.g., These strategies include the development of the Performance Management and Reporting Solution and related key IM/IT initiatives such as the implementation of a data centre that houses mission-critical computer systems and associated components. 342 Internal services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization. These groups include Management and Oversight Services, Communications Services, Legal Services, Human Resources Management Services, Financial Management Services, IM/IT Services, Real Property Services, Security Management Services, Environmental Management Services, Materiel Management Services, Procurement Services, and Travel and Other Administrative Services. 343 TBS, “MAF VII CFIA,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/ica/ica-eng.asp#il (accessed October 19, 2012). 233 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 1.1. CFIA-IS3-i1.1: an adequate governance and accountability structure (including IM presence in organization-wide committees); 1.2. CFIA-IS3-i1.2: roles and responsibilities for management are only somewhat identified; 1.3. CFIA-IS3-i1.3: participation in GC-wide IM approaches and initiatives; 2. CFIA-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Opportunity for Improvement; 2.1. CFIA-IS3-i2.1: has an IM strategy; 2.2. CFIA-IS3-i2.2: implementation is underway and there is evidence of progress; 2.3. CFIA-IS3-i2.3: some IM awareness and training activities exist but are not linked to an overall awareness strategy/plan and do not reflect current policy requirements; 345 3. CFIA-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Acceptable; 3.1. CFIA-IS3-i3.1: most of the functions, programs, and activities have been appropriately identified and described in Info Source; 3.2. CFIA-IS3-i3.2: some institution-specific “Classes of Records” need improvement; [TS2-TBS1(CFIA-IS3-i3.1+CFIA-IS3-i3.2): Info Source was identified as one extended source for coding]; [M206(CFIA-IS3-i3): the assessing criterion here is different from that of the OIC: TBS MAF assesses the production of Info Source, yet the OIC assesses the time of finding responsive records]; 4. CFIA-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities: 4.1. CFIA-IS3-i4.1: Ensure IM governance and strategic planning address, where possible, all activities described in the IM Internal Services Profile; [M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1): this means that 344 There is evidence that adequate IM governance and accountability structures are in place, including representation of IM in organization-wide governance and/or approval committees; IM roles and responsibilities for senior executives and managers are only somewhat defined; Participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices. 345 Organization has an IM strategy; IM strategy implementation is underway and there is evidence of progress against plans; Organization has some IM awareness and training activities, but they are not linked to an overall awareness strategy/plan and do not reflect current policy requirements. 234 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes in a departmental IM governance and strategic plan all IM components need to be specifically identified as activities; i.e., treating IM as a whole ((e.g., TBS1-i7.2; TBS2-i9; LAC2-i5) would fail this requirement]; 346 4.2. CFIA-IS3-i4.2: More wholly integrate IM requirements into planning, approval, management, operational, and evaluation activities; [M208(CFIA-IS3-i4.2): integration of IM requirements into other organizational activities needs improvement]; 4.3. CFIA-IS3-i4.3: More detailed reporting and monitoring on the IM strategy, e.g. timelines, results to date, resourcing, etc. [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3): insufficient details on IM strategy implementation]; 4.4. CFIA-IS3-i4.4: Ensure that the locations of all information holdings are documented and that retention plans are in place; [M210(CFIA-IS3-i4.4): the MAF methodology for 2009-10 does not define “information holding”, which is however inferable from TS2-TBS1; see TS2-TBS1-i2]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4): documentation of locations of all “information holdings” needs improvement]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4): retention plans for all “information holdings” need improvement]; 4.5. CFIA-IS3-i4.5: Develop consistent metadata that can be applied to all information holdings; [M213(CFIA-IS3-i4.5): MAF methodology for 2009-10 does not define “metadata”; the definition by TBS4-i10 347 cannot be applied here because it is defined in relation to “information resources”, unless information holdings = information resources]; [M214(CFIA-IS3-i4.5): MAF methodology for 2009-10 does not define “consistent”][M40(11)]; 4.6. CFIA-IS3-i4.6: Ensure that all Class of Record descriptions are complete, up-to-date, and comply with Treasury Board Secretariat requirements; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6): the completeness and currency of records description need improvement]; 346 From where the knowledge about all the components can be obtained to develop the plan? Only from the professionals doing the work. 347 The definition and description of the structure and meaning of information resources, and the context and systems in which they exist. 235 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes TS2-TBS1 348 1. TS2-TBS1-i1: defines “Classes of Records” as “Descriptions of the records created, collected and maintained by a government institution as evidence of and information about a particular institutional program or activity”;349 2. TS2-TBS1-i2: does not define “information holding”; its meaning, however, can be inferred as information relating to functions, programs, activities; 350 [TS2-GC1(TS2-TBS1-i2): the Access to Information Act was identified as an extended source due to its relation to the term information holding]; TS2-GC1 1. TS2-GC1-i1: stipulates that the purpose of the Act is “to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution”;351 [M216(TS2-GC1-i1): the ATI Act governs access to records; ]; [M217{M216(TS2-GC1-i1)+TS2-TBS1-i2}: information holdings therefore = records of “functions, programs, activities”; consequently M211 and M212 are RM issues]; (M217+M213)  M40(12); [M218: TBS requirement (CFIA-IS3-i4.5) cannot be satisfied]; IS-4 352 1. CFIA-IS4-i1: uses “IM/IT”; 2. CFIA-IS4-i2: all findings are general statements;353 348 TBS, “Info Source: Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information 2010,” http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emppr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 349 http://www.infosource.gc.ca/emp/emp01-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 350 Info Source “provides information about the functions, programs, activities and related information holdings of government institutions subject to the Access to Information Act. 351 GC, “Access to Information Act. s2. (1),”. 352 CFIA, “Audit of IM/IT Governance,” http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/cfia-acia/2011-09-21/www.inspection.gc.ca/english/agen/eva l/imitgitie.shtml#a2_1 (accessed October 19, 2012). 353 e.g., “The existing governance committee structure does not provide comprehensive oversight for the IM/IT function” and “A full suite of IM/IT policies and procedures has not been established, approved and communicated”. 236 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes [M219(CFIA-IS4-i2): treats IM/IT as a whole; unclear how the work of IM and IT was distinguished]; [M220(CFIA-IS4-i2): treats IM/IT as a whole; no presence of records or RM]; 3. CFIA-IS4-i3: The audit methodology uses “COBIT as a basis for audit objectives and criteria”; COBIT stands for Control Objectives for Information Technology and is “an industry standard that is widely accepted as a baseline of best practices”; [M221( CFIA-IS4-i3): although IM/IT is used, the audit is about the management of IT projects or information systems]; sG: CIDA IS-1 354 1. CIDA-IS1-i1: Information Management and Technology Branch ->Information Management and Business Management Division -> Corporate Information Management Section (CIMS)-> Agency Records Center: 8 positions; 2. CIDA-IS1-i2: 1 among the 8 position titles contains “records”: Senior Corporate Records Management Analyst; CIDA-IS1-i2M200(2); CIDA-IS1-i2M201(2); 3. CIDA-IS1-i3: all the titles of other positions including those in the other two subdivisions (about 20) under CIMS use the terms “information”, “information management”, “IM/IT”, or “enterprise content management”; CIDA-IS1-i3M203(2); IS-2 2008-09 355 1. CIDA-IS2(08)-i1: “records” appears once in “paper records”;356 2. CIDA-IS2(08)-i2: no IM (or information management); 3. CIDA-IS2(08)-i3: RM (or records management) has no appearance; CIDA-IS2(08)-i3M204(3); 354 GEDS, “CIDA,” http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/XEou%3dCIDA-ACDI%2co%3dGC%2 cc%3dCA (accessed October 19, 2012). 355 CIDA, “DPR 2008-09,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 356 Also, more than 2,500 Haitian civil registrars were trained in adapting new technologies to their work, including digitizing more than 14 million paper records as electronic files in order to allow wider access and use, which resulted in broader and better access to government services. 237 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 2009-10 357 1. CIDA-IS2(09)-i1: “information management” appears once as one internal service; 2. CIDA-IS2(09)-i2: RM (or records management) has no appearance; CIDA-IS2(09)-i2M204(4); IS-3 358 1. CIDA-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. CIDA-IS3-i1.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i1.1; 1.2. CIDA-IS3-i1.2: IM roles and responsibilities for senior executives and managers are defined; 1.3. CIDA-IS3-i1.3: Extensive participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices; 2. CIDA-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Acceptable; 2.1. CIDA-IS3-i2.1: IM strategy is current, active, and formally approved; 2.2. CIDA-IS3-i2.2: same as CFIA-IS3-i2.2; 2.3. CIDA-IS3-i2.3: IM awareness and training activities are included as part of an overall awareness strategy/program; 3. CIDA-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement; 3.1. CIDA-IS3-i3.1: some of the information holdings are not appropriately identified or described; 3.2. CIDA-IS3-i3.2: A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not comply with Treasury Board Secretariat requirements; [TS2-TBS2(CIDA-IS3-i3.2): the document on TBS requirements was identified as one extended source)]; 4. CIDA-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities: same as [M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1)]; [M208(CFIA-IS3-i4.2)]; [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6)]; and CFIA-IS3-i4.5; 357 CIDA, “DPR 2009-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 358 TBS, “MAF VII CIDA,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/ida/ida-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 238 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 5. CIDA-IS3-i5: TBS identified opportunities: [M222(CIDA-IS3-i5): the identification and description of “all institutional functions, programs, activities and related information holdings” in Info Source need improvement]; TS2-TBS2 359 1. TS2-TBS2-i1: Requirements on institution-specific Classes of Records; 1.1. TS2-TBS2-i1.1: Title (mandatory)-Reflects the records being described; 1.2. TS2-TBS2-i1.2: Description (mandatory)- 1.2.1. TS2-TBS2-i1.2.1: Identifies the records created, collected and maintained by the institution as evidence of and information about a particular institutional program/activity; 1.2.2. TS2-TBS2-i1.2.2: The Description must provide sufficient information for the general public to understand the program/activity to which the records relate; 1.3. TS2-TBS2-i1.3: Document Types (mandatory) - Identifies specific document types contained in the files; for example: contracts, statements of work, proposals, evaluation criteria, memoranda, procedures, policies, legal opinions, project plans, surveys, statistical reports, agendas, minutes of meetings, etc.; [confirms M222(TS2-TBS2-i1.2.1+ TS2-TBS2-i1.2.2+ TS2-TBS2-i1.3+CIDA-IS3-i3.2): the identification and description of records are problematic] 2. TS2-TBS2-i1-i2: Requires descriptions of the institution’s main functions, programs and activities; IS-4 360 1. CIDA-IS4-i1: uses the term IM/IT (400 appearances in the 72 pages document); CIDA-IS4-i1 M221(2): when it’s used the content is typically about IT 361 ]; [TS2-TBS3(CIDA-IS4-i1): the document Strategic Directions for Information Management and Information 359 TBS, “Implementation Report No. 112 -Info Source 2009 Requirements,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/impl-rep/2009/112-imp-mise02-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 360 CIDA, “Audit of the IM/IT Strategy, Processes and Controls 2008,” http://198.103.138.71/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Internal%20Audits/$file/IMIT-StrategyPr ocessesControls-EN.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 361 Examples include p.1, paragraph 2, p.3, both sections. 239 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Technology: Enabling 21st Century Service to Canadians was identified as one extended source for the purpose of understanding the usage of “IM/IT”]; 2. CIDA-IS4-i2: Audit criteria were taken from COBIT (Control Objectives for Information Technology); because the obvious focus of COBIT on IT, the report states that “the term IT is used in the broader sense of IM/IT in line with TBS and COBIT on organizational or enterprise information and the technology investments made to manage and control that information”; [M223(CIDA-IS4-i2): audit criteria were based on IT industry standard and the report suggests that the term IT can represent IM]; 3. CIDA-IS4-i3: “data” appears 139 times, which is in line with the COBIT audit framework; [M224(CIDA-IS4-i3): the discussions about data are mainly on technology such as data warehouse and database consolidation; even those on data quality are in fact about technological issues]; 362 4. CIDA-IS4-i4: “IM” and “information management” each appears once (excluding a couple of times in titles); [M225(CIDA-IS4-i4): “IM” or “information management” is typically associated with “IM policies, trainings”, and “governance for information management”]; 5. CIDA-IS4-i5: “records management” appears once in the full name of EDRMS; CIDA-IS4-i5M220(2); 6. CIDA-IS4-i6: “electronic records” appears once with no details; weak appearance of electronic records]; 7. CIDA-IS4-i7: “records” appears 12 times, all in titles such as EDRMS, Agency Records Schema, and Agency Records Center; “records” has no appearance in discussion]; 8. CIDA-IS4-i8: when discussing EDRMS (Enterprise Document and Records Management System) implementation, 8.1. CIDA-IS4-i8.1: the report states that “the decentralization and independence of records management across branches made the implementation of EDRMS more difficult for branches”; [M226(CIDA-IS4-i8.1): in CIDA RM is decentralized, branch-based, which is considered as hindrance to EDRMS implementation]; 8.2. CIDA-IS4-i8.2: “a major impediment to the successful implementation of the EDRMS was the lack of effective application of the Agency Records Schema and the optimized Agency master index as the foundations of an Agency data classification schema for its electronic records”; [M227(CIDA-IS4-i8.2): considered lack of records classification 362 P4., section Information Quality for Reporting, in particular paragraph 2. 240 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes application “major impediment” of EDRMS implementation]; [SDM228(CIDA-IS4-i8.2): suggests that data classification = electronic records classification; M89(1)]; [M229(CIDA-IS4-i8.2): no connection with LAC BASCS methodology or function-based records classification schema  ineffective LAC guidance]; TS2-TBS3 363 1. TS2-TBS3-i1: a strategic document aiming at supporting eGov development; 364 2. TS2-TBS3-i2: Uses “IM/IT” for 100 times; [M230(TS2-TBS3-i2): when IM/IT was used, typically about IT]; 365 3. TS2-TBS3-i3: “IM” appears twice, both used in “IM standards, techniques and tools” without details; 4. TS2-TBS3-i4: “IT” appears 15 times, used in “IT procurement”, “IT reform”, “using IT to mechanize programs and processes”, etc.; 5. TS2-TBS3-i5: “a common set of IM standards, techniques and tools” is “also an emerging priority”; [M231(TS2-TBS3-i5+ TS2-TBS3-i4+ TS2-TBS3-i3+ TS2-TBS3-i2): Although IM is put before IT, the focus of the document is apparently on IT]; 6. TS2-TBS3-i6: “records” appears once without details; 366 7. TS2-TBS3-i7: “records management” or “RM” has no appearance; [SDM232(TS2-TBS3-i6+ TS2-TBS3-i7): weak (one time) appearance of records; no RM appearance]; sG: CRA IS-1 1. CRA-IS1-i1: Headquarters -> Strategy and Integration Branch -> Statistics and Information Management Directorate -> Information 363 TBS, “Strategic Directions for Information Management and Information Technology: Enabling 21st Century Service to Canadians 1999,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/ciopubs/tb_oimp/sdimit-eng.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 364 “The IM/IT strategy will advance the federal government's citizen-centred service delivery vision collaboratively across departments and with other levels of government”. “Getting government on-line requires a new approach to our IM/IT infrastructure.” 365 Examples include s1.4, 366 “Government must lever enterprise-wide IM/IT initiatives to manage records, information and knowledge resources”. 241 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Policy and Governance Division; 2. CRA-IS1-i2: None of the position titles contains “record(s)”; [M233(CRA-IS1-i1+CRA-IS1-i2): no appearance of record(s) or RM in IM org. chart]; 3. CRA-IS1-i3: cannot discern IM/RM on the charts of regional offices either; IS-2 2008-09 367 1. CRA-IS2(08)-i1: “records” appears in relation to financial transactions; 368 2. CRA-IS2(08)-i2: IM (or information management) has no appearance; 3. CRA-IS2(08)-i3: RM (or records management) has no appearance; 4. CRA-IS2(08)-i4: the emphasis is on data; 2009-10 369 1. CRA-IS2(09)-i1: same as CRA-IS2(08)-i1; 2. CRA-IS2(09)-i2: “information management” appears in “Information Management Strategy”, which treats information as a whole;370 3. CRA-IS2(09)-i3: RM (or records management) has no appearance; 4. CRA-IS2(09)-i4: the emphasis is on data; {CRA-IS2(08)-i3+CRA-IS2(09)-i3}M204 367 CRA, “DPR 2008-09,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/index-eng.asp?acr=1453 (accessed October 19, 2012). 368 To fulfill its accounting and reporting responsibilities, management maintains sets of accounts which provide records of the Agency’s financial transactions. 369 CRA, “DPR 2098-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/ida/idapr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 370 We developed the CRA Information Management Strategy 2010-2011 to 2012-2013. Developed in consideration of program and service information requirements, as well as legislation and policies governing the management of information, the strategy identifies areas where the CRA’s information management practices are less mature and sets a collaborative change agenda across the CRA to address those areas. 242 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes IS-3 371 1. CRA-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Strong; 1.1. CRA-IS3-i1.1: IM governance and accountability structures are in place throughout the organization, including representation of IM in organization-wide governance and/or approval committees; 1.2. CRA-IS3-i1.2: same as CIDA-IS3-i1.2; 1.3. CRA-IS3-i1.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i1.3; 2. CRA-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Acceptable 2.1. CRA-IS3-i2.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i2.1; 2.2. CRA-IS3-i2.2: implementation is underway and there is significant evidence of progress; 2.3. CRA-IS3-i2.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.3; 3. CRA-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Acceptable; 3.1. CRA-IS3-i3.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i3.1; 3.2. CRA-IS3-i3.2: Response to TBS feedback is usually fully addressed; 3.3. CRA-IS3-i3.3: significant efforts made to improve and revise its 2009 Info Source chapter; 4. CRA-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities; same as [M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1)]; [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6)] and CFIA-IS3-i4.5; 5. CRA-IS3-i5: TBS identified opportunities; Finalize and approve the IM strategy; sG: CSC IS-1 1. CSC-IS1-i1: National Headquarters -> Senior Deputy Commissioner's Office -> Information Management Services -> Information Management: 34 positions; 2. CSC-IS1-i2: 11 contains “record(s)”; M200; 2.1. CSC-IS1-i2.1: 9 “Record Clerk”, 1 “Senior Clerk, Offender Records”; [M234(CSC-IS1-i2.1): most are assistant/clerk positions for RM]; 2.2. CSC-IS1-i2.2: 1 “Supervisor, Records Management”; [M235(CSC-IS1-i2.2): RM low management position]; 3. CSC-IS1-i3: cannot discern IM/RM on the charts of regional offices; IS-2 1. CSC-IS2(08)-i1: “information management” appears as one internal services; 371 TBS. MAF VII CRA. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/nar/nar-eng.asp. 243 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 2008-09 372 2. CSC-IS2(08)-i2: Activities to enhance “Information Management/Information Technology” infrastructure include: 2.1. CSC-IS2(08)-i2.1: The installation of a Security Intelligence Network in all institutions; The development of a process to test and monitor CSC’s Information Technology disaster recovery capacity for mission-critical applications; CSC-IS2(08)-i2.1M205 apparent IT activities; 2.2. CSC-IS2(08)-i2.2: The implementation of an integrated and risk-based business planning process; The implementation of a revised Program Activity Architecture to assist with improved resource allocation, activities-based reporting, accountabilities and corporate evaluations; [M236( CSC-IS2(08)-i2.2): not apparent IT activities but also unclear how they are related IM]; 3. CSC-IS2(08)-i3: RM (or records management) have no appearance; 2009-10 373 1. CSC-IS2(09)-i1: “Information Management” appears in “Information Management Branch” and “Performance Analysis”; 1.1. CSC-IS2(09)-i1.1: the Information Management Branch undertook initiatives to improve efficiency: implementation of a business plan to improve information technology planning and governance processes; finalized the System Development Life Cycle model and conducted an initial functional review of all areas within Application Services and Infrastructure Services and Operations; reduced the number of corporate applications by 50 percent and implemented application lifecycle procedures; revamped the coding structure to improve financial analysis and reporting, visibility and transparency; [M237(CSC-IS2(09)-i1.1): all apparent IT initiatives when discussing IM Branch]; 1.2. CSC-IS2(09)-i1.2: Information technology is crucial to CSC’s operations at all levels, and the relationship between the Information Management Branch and the rest of the organization can either facilitate or hinder operations; [M238(CSC-IS2(09)-i1.2): IT represents completely the IM 372 CSC, “DPR,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/pen/penpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 373 CSC, “DPR,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/pen/penpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 244 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Branch]; 1.3. CSC-IS2(09)-i1.3: In October 2009, the Police and Court Information Management Module was implemented across the country. This is a shared electronic access system whereby police reports, judges’ reasons for sentence and other official documents can be easily accessed by CSC staff. As a result of this initiative, documents are accessible immediately after scanning and are available to all authorized users simultaneously. As well, users can search for a particular type of report by date and by sentence and once captured, documents cannot be lost or misplaced; [M239(CSC-IS2(09)-i1.3): IM and document were used when discussing electronic systems, but not records or electronic records]; 2. CSC-IS2(09)-i2: RM (or records management) have no appearance; IS-3 374 1. CSC-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. CSC-IS3-i1.1: IM requirements are somewhat integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, or projects; 1.2. CSC-IS3-i1.2: IM is somewhat represented in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s); 1.3. CSC-IS3-i1.3: Some responsibilities are identified for IM policy development/ implementation; [M240(CSC-IS3-i1CFIA-IS3-i1; CIDA-IS3-i1;): CSC-IS3-i1 should be Opportunity for Improvement]; 2. CSC-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy: Acceptable; 2.1. CSC-IS3-i2.1: strategy is in development but it is not clear how it supports departmental business priorities and operations nor how it integrates with other corporate strategies, plans, and planning cycles; 2.2. CSC-IS3-i2.2: strategy implementation plan, including some timelines and resources, is underway and some achievements to date are identified; 2.3. CSC-IS3-i2.3: Minimal IM awareness activities are underway to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; [M241(CSC-IS3-i2CFIA-IS3-i2; CIDA-IS3-i2;): CSC-IS3-i2 374 TBS, “MAF VI CSC,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2008/pen/pen-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 245 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes should be Opportunity for Improvement]; 3. CSC-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement; 3.1. CSC-IS3-i3.1: same as CIDA-IS3-i3.2; 3.2. CSC-IS3-i3.2: A significant number of the organization’s functions, programs, activities and related information holdings have not been appropriately identified or described in its 2008 Chapter of Info Source: Sources of Federal Government Information; M222; 4. CSC-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities; same as [M208(CFIA-IS3-i4.2)]; CRA-IS3-i5; [M222(CIDA-IS3-i5)]; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6)]; 5. CSC-IS3-i5: TBS identified opportunities; Increase awareness activities and develop an overall IM Awareness Strategy and Implementation plan to ensure employee awareness of IM responsibilities; [SDM242(CSC-IS3-i5): even “employee awareness of IM responsibilities” is unsatisfactory, let alone apply all IM requirements + AANDC 1998 audit shows that awareness was a problem then, yet the current GC/TBS effort is still on awareness and training for employees  ineffective IM work model] IS-4.1 375 1. CSC-IS4.1-i1: one objective is “to assess if required quality analysis of wastewater treatment is conducted and that records are properly maintained”; [M243(CSC-IS4.1-i1): the use of “records” is confusing; M16(19)];376 2. CSC-IS4.1-i2: Only 2 of the nine institutions audited use the “filing system”;377 [M244(CSC-IS4.1-i2): classifying/filing records was a 375 CSC, “Audit of Environmental Management System 2006,” http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-envrmngmnt-378-1-210/audit_enviromanage2006_e.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 376 e.g., “Ensure that all documents required in the Environmental Guidelines (audits, data, records) are kept on site for five years following the date of issue”; “Confirm that all documents required by the Environmental Guidelines (records, service logs, reports, and notices) are kept on site”; “all documents required by Environmental Guidelines (audits, measurement data, records, register) are kept on site of at least 5 years following the date of issue”. 377 Finding #2 - A permanent filing system was in place in only two of the nine institutions visited. 246 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes problem]; IS-4.2 378 1. CSC-IS4.2-i1: uses “information” and “data” for performance management/reporting; the term record(s) has no appearance; [M245(CSC-IS4.2-i1): records is not associated with performance management or reporting]; M245TBS definition of records)]; IS-4.3 379 1. CSC-IS4.3-i1: uses “Information Management”; [M246(CSC-IS4.3-i1): when IM is used, it’s about IT project management]; 2. CSC-IS4.3-i2: “records” appears in “medical records”; no details; IS-4.4 380 1. CSC-IS4.4-i1: is about “physical offender and staff records”; 2. CSC-IS4.4-i2: “records” used 100 times; [M247(CSC-IS4.4-i1+CSC-IS4.4-i2): records are used in association with “physical records”]; 3. CSC-IS4.4-i3: areas audited include “policies and procedures”, “roles and responsibilities”, “training”, and “monitoring & reporting”, “classifying and filing records”, “maintaining official files”, “access to records”, and “disposal of records”; 4. CSC-IS4.4-i4: The Information Management Division 4.1. CSC-IS4.4-i4.1: is responsible for the management of corporate information at National Headquarters; [M248(CSC-IS4.4-i4.1): no definition for information]; 4.2. CSC-IS4.4-i4.2: creates information management standards, policies and programs in accordance with all Federal Government policies; 4.3. is also responsible for management of the Offender Records; 4.4. CSC-IS4.4-i4.4: also provides functional direction to both 378 CSC, “Audit of Strategic Performance Management Information 2009,” http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-spmi-378-1-245/adt-spmi-378-1-245-eng.shtml (accessed October 19, 2012). 379 CSC, “Review of Health Information Management Module 2009,” http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-himm-378-1-207/adt-himm-378-1-207-eng.shtml (accessed October 19, 2012). 380 CSC, “Audit of Safeguarding of Physical Offender and Staff Records 2010,” http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-sposr-378-1-253/adt-sposr-378-1-253-eng.shtml (accessed October 19, 2012). 247 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes regions and institutions with regards to physical offender files; [M249(CSC-IS4.4-i4.2+CSC-IS4.4-i4.4): what IM does: standards, policies; functional direction]; 4.5. CSC-IS4.4-i4.5: has minimal involvement with the management of physical staff records as this falls under the responsibility of the Human Resource Management Sector; [M250(CSC-IS4.4-i4.5): incomplete/weak control over records]; 5. CSC-IS4.4-i5: procedures and user’s manuals for offender records are comprehensive; [M251(CSC-IS4.4-i5): issues are related to application of procedures]; 381 6. CSC-IS4.4-i6: Safeguarding of electronic files was examined in the Audit of Logical Access Controls; [TS2-CSC1(CSC-IS4.4-i7): the Audit of Logical Access Controls (CSCe-1) was identified as one extended source; TS2-CSC1 382 1. TS2-CSC1.1: logical access controls means “user ids and passwords giving users’ access to the corporate network or corporate applications”; [M251(TS2-CSC1.1): Safeguarding of electronic files = IT security = user ids and passwords]; 2. TS2-CSC1.2: electronic/digital records management has no appearance; [M252(TS2-CSC1.2): even in audit relating to “electronic files”, E/DRM has no appearance]; sG: EC IS-1 1. EC-IS1-i1: Deputy Ministers' Office -> Corporate Services Branch -> Information Management Directorate -> Library and Records Management Services - > (Library Services); Electronic Documents Management Services; Records Management Services -> 6 regions; EC-IS1-i1M202; 2. EC-IS1-i2: Titles under Records Management Services include: Records Administrator; RM Assistant; Head, IM Services; Supervisor, Records Office; Records Specialist; EC-IS1-i2M200; EC-IS1-i2M203; EC-IS1-i2M235; IS-2 1. EC-IS2(08)-i1: “information management” appears once in the 381 For example, Records are not always being classified when the information is sensitive; Files being used outside of the institution are not always appropriately safeguarded; Documents given to offenders by CSC are not always properly identified; 382 CSC, “Audit of Logical Access Controls,” http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/adt-lac-378-1-240/adt-lac-378-1-240-eng.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012). 248 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 2008-09 383 development of the “business and information management processes within resource and policy constraints” of the Environmental Assessment Management System; 2. EC-IS2(08)-i2: RM (or records management) has no appearance;M204; IS-2 2009-10 384 1. EC-IS2(09)-i1: “information management” appears 7 times; 1.1. EC-IS2(09)-i1.1: information management “emerged in 2009-2010” as one of the “key risks” “that could affect the Department’s capacity to meet its priorities in subsequent years”; 1.2. EC-IS2(09)-i1.2: under Risk Analysis 1.2.1. EC-IS2(09)-i1.2.1: To improve data quality and availability, the Department is implementing an integrated information management (IM) plan by establishing key IM services and products, promoting policies and best practices for the management of information; [M253( EC-IS2(09)-i1.2.1): IM = data quality and availability]; 1.2.2. EC-IS2(09)-i1.2.2: implementing new technologies to support information management; 1.3. EC-IS2(09)-i1.3: Lessons Learned (under Performance Analysis for Strategic Outcome 3: Canadians and their environment are protected from the effects of pollution and waste); 385 383 EC, “DPR 2008-09,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/doe/doepr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 384 EC, “DPR. 2009-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/doe/doepr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 385 Greater integration and cooperation among the various Environment Canada data collection programs would better enable information that is more simplified, streamlined and aligned with departmental priorities. Lessons learned from the design and implementation of electronic submission tools to support data gathering under the Chemicals Management Plan, the National Pollutant Release Inventory and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program were integrated in the Single Window Reporting Initiative. More specifically, the lessons learned included the importance of the coordination and communication of clear and valid business rules, tools to manage data, and the involvement of information management specialists and key 249 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes [M254(EC-IS2(09)-i1.3): the involvement of information specialists is for “data” and “information”]; 1.4. EC-IS2(09)-i1.4: As one of the internal services; 1.5. EC-IS2(09)-i1.5: A 3-year (2009-2012) IM/IT plan (under Performance in support of Management Priorities); 386 2. EC-IS2(09)-i2: “IM/IT” or “IM & IT” or “IM and IT” 9 times; 2.1. EC-IS2(09)-i2.1: As one component in “integrated planning”; 387 2.2. EC-IS2(09)-i2.2: as one “key enabling function”;388 [EC-IS2(09)-i2.2M219(CFIA-IS4-i2); [M255(EC-IS2(09)-i2.2): it seems that IT here represents IM as suggested by “information technology/management”]; 2.3. EC-IS2(09)-i2.2: The IM/IT Portfolio/Client Relationship Management program has matured since its initial implementation in 2008, and continues to enhance client engagement and alignment between departmental and program objectives and delivery of IM and IT products and services. program staff to promote alignment of data requirements across programs while ensuring that reporting obligations can be met in response to provisions under CEPA 1999. 386 Implementation of Environment Canada’s three-year Information Management and Information Technology (IM & IT) Plan (i.e. the 2009-12 IM & IT Plan) continued, along with enhancement of client engagement to align funding, design process and delivery of IM and IT services and projects to the Department’s Strategic Outcomes. 387 Progress has been made on integrated planning by improving linkages across financial, human resources, information technology/management, and communications planning components. Specifically, during the operational planning process, financial resource requirements (salary, Operation and Maintenance, Grants and Contributions and Capital) and non-financial planning components (HR, IM/IT, Communications) were solicited from line managers through a single department-wide call letter and common templates. This effort was assisted by the participation of enabler portfolio managers (e.g., HR, Communications, IM/IT) who worked with line managers in defining these resource requirements. 388 “7- Strengthening the support to Program Activities through enhancement of key enabling functions” under “Management Priorities for 2009–2010” under “Contribution of Department’s Priorities to Strategic Outcomes”. 250 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Environment Canada has complementary mechanisms to ensure that both the funding and the design process align IM & IT projects with departmental and program objectives; EC-IS2(09)-i2.2: unclear how the work of IM and IT is distinguished; M219(CFIA-IS4-i2); 2.4. EC-IS2(09)-i2.3: Environment Canada’s IM & IT Services advanced in the areas of process standardization and the use of best practices; EC-IS2(09)-i2.3: unclear how the work of IM and IT is distinguished M219(CFIA-IS4-i2); 3. EC-IS2(09)-i3: RM (or records management) has no appearance; M204; IS-3 389 1. EC-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. EC-IS3-i1.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i1.1; 1.2. EC-IS3-i1.2: same as CIDA-IS3-i1.2; 1.3. EC-IS3-i1.3: same as CFIA-IS3-i1.3; 2. EC-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Acceptable; 2.1. EC-IS3-i2.1: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.1; 2.2. EC-IS3-i2.2: same as CRA-IS3-i2.2; 2.3. EC-IS3-i2.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.3; 3. EC-IS3-i3:12.4 Access to Information Act: Acceptable 3.1. EC-IS3-i3.1: Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament and addressed all of the mandatory reporting requirements; 3.2. EC-IS3-i3.2: CRA-IS3-i3.2; 3.3. EC-IS3-i3.3: CRA-IS3-i3.3; 4. EC-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities: same as [[M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1)]; [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; CFIA-IS3-i4.5; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6)]; IS-3.1 390 1. EC-IS3.1-i1: To comply with the TBS Recordkeeping Directive on Institution-Specific Classes of Records, EC will continue working on 389 TBS, “MAF VII EC,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/doe/doe-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 390 EC, “Departmental Response to Round VII (2009-10) Environment Canada Management Accountability Framework (MAF) Assessment,” http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33B5D371-1 (accessed October 19, 2012). 251 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes revising the classes of records created for the 2009Info Source Chapter, focusing on activities; [M256(EC-IS3.1-i1): the department still uses “records” in relation to the TBS Recordkeeping Directive]; 2. EC-IS3.1-i2: 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; [M257(EC-IS3.1-i2): the department also uses “IM” in relation to the TBS Recordkeeping Directive]; [M258(EC-IS3.1-i2): the plan to implement the TBS Recordkeeping Directive is to develop “awareness products”: “training, advice, guidance, presentations, communication”]; IS-4 391 (found out in 2012) 1. EC-IS4-i1: Information management involves the management of information (that has business value) throughout the information’s entire life cycle – [M600: confusing use of terms]; 2. EC-IS4-i2: The Government of Canada’s Policy on Information Management assigns roles and responsibilities generally to managers and employees … [M601: No mentioning of IM specialists – went beyond the TBS R&R model; same with CRA 2003. Information Management Policy, which did not mention IM specialists either; CFIA as well) ; 3. EC-IS4-i3: This concern has been addressed in the TB Directive on Recordkeeping …; [M602: all terms, i.e., “information”, “information (that has business value)”, “records”, “corporate memory”) used without differentiation]; 4. EC-IS4-i4: Access to timely, accurate and reliable information is an essential component for decision making and overall performance; [M603: records are not associated with decision making or performance]; 5. EC-IS4-i5: Information management issues have plagued departments across government for many years, so it is not surprising to find that EC has also been experiencing many seemingly intractable issues of its own. A number of the recommendations arising from the Review of Information Management conducted in 2001 are still outstanding 10 years later. [M604: a lingering problem]; 6. EC-IS4-i6: Audit scope: The management of all records related to the business of the Department, regardless of format, was included; records definition uses the LAC one; the audit then is in fact about records including electronic records; [M605: yet electronic records 391 EC, “Audit of Governance of Information Management. Nov. 2, 2011,” http://www.ec.gc.ca/ae-ve/default.asp?lang=En&n=A44BE2CD-1 (accessed October 19, 2012). 252 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes did not appear because the criteria sources (below) do not talk about ER]; 7. EC-IS4-i7: Audit criteria were based on: the TB Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities; the TB Policy on Information Management; the TB Directive on Recordkeeping; and the Library and Archives of Canada Act; [M606(EC-IS4-i6+ EC-IS4-i7): ineffective legal/regulatory framework  ineffective audit]; 8. EC-IS4-i8: An IM strategic plan was created in 2007 and approved; little evidence of implementing its recommendations; [M607: non-execution] 8.1. Then, a new IM strategic plan is currently under development; [M608: will developing a new one be the solution? Ineffective solution]; 9. EC-IS4-i9: The Information Management Steering Committee (IMSC) … was set up [M609: easy part of MAF assessment, thus is done] to provide strategic direction to the IMD on the impact of information management practices on business; specific responses to IM issues have yet to be developed into actionable plans that can be implemented across the organization; [M609: this is the difficult part: lack of specifics for implementation]; 10. EC-IS4-i10: In the absence of relationships between these managers and IMD key contacts , the various areas within EC conduct IM practices as they see fit, seeking only limited guidance from the IM Directorate [M610: ineffective IM guidance, “area”-independent IM; a passive IM service function); 11. EC-IS4-i11: IM training is not delivered consistently across the department. There is no training plan for IM in the Department ([M611: training is comparatively simple when compared to e.g., integration IM requirements with business processes, yet it’s a problem); training is provided only when requested ([M612: a passive IM service function); 12. EC-IS4-i12: Recordkeeping requirements and standards, such as the need to identify information resources of business value, to protect that data and the need to carry out activities that support good recordkeeping, are not consistently understood by managers [M613: need for RM professionals] across the Department; 13. EC-IS4-i13: Each directorate’s recordkeeping practices are different, and [M614: directorate-independent “recordkeeping”]; 14. EC-IS4-i14: are influenced by the tools they have at hand, such as SharePoint, shared drives, Microsoft Exchange Server, etc.; [[M615: IT influences “recordkeeping practices”]; 15. EC-IS4-i15: An inconsistent understanding of disposition authorities; [M616: issues caused by lack/insufficient understanding of records]; 253 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 16. EC-IS4-i16: Guidance is available to employees through best practices on how to dispose of administrative, operational and transitory records, but such guidance is not actively promoted; [M617: the issue is not about promoting guidance, but its executability]; 17. EC-IS4-i17: For the most part, the treatment of hard-copy information is well understood; however, there is no central inventory of these information holdings [M618: need for central control]; 18. EC-IS4-i18: the issues is the lack of “a common departmental approach”; [M619: need for central control]; 19. EC-IS4-i19: The lack of a consistent EC approach to IM limits the ability to share, leverage and find information; [M620: need for central control]; 20. EC-IS4-i20: Recommendations from prior audit work (in 2001, no online copy) 20.1. development of tools and processes for IM; [M621: this tells about the IM ability) 20.2. on-going efforts to communicate IM responsibilities and increasing overall IM awareness; [M622: the ineffectiveness of increasing employee awareness may be caused by resistance, due to the heavy workload imposed on them); 21. 3 recommendations: finalize strategic plan, ensure compliance with TB requirements, make communication plan, etc., [M623: same areas as those MAF assesses; none of them addresses the root causes, will be ineffective]; sG: HCan IS-1 22. HC-IS1-i1: Corporate Services Branch -> Information Management Services Directorate; Business Management Services Division; CIO and Director General’s Office; Client Engagement and Governance Centre; Computing and Network Services Centre; Solutions Centre; HC-IS1-i1M233; IS-2 2008-09 392 1. HC-IS2(08)-i1: “information management” appears in Operational Priorities: “The information management agenda advanced through implementation of a Proof of Concept project and the subsequent rollout of an electronic document management system in a limited number of Health Canada branches; [M259(HC-IS2(08)-i1): information management = IT project (electronic document 392 HCan, “DPR,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/shc/shcpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 254 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes management system)]; HC-IS2(08)-i1M239; 2. HC-IS2(08)-i2: “records” used in “electronic health records”; no details; 393 3. HC-IS2(08)-i3: RM (or records management) have no appearance; M204; IS-2 2009-10 394 1. HC-IS2(09)-i1: Uses IM; M246: is apparently about IT]; 395 2. HC-IS2(09)-i2: Uses IM/IT; M205: is apparently about IT]; 396 3. HC-IS2(09)-i3: records used in “Electronic Health Records”; 3.1. HC-IS2(09)-i3.1: Canada's Economic Action Plan allocated $500 million to Canada Health Infoway (Infoway) to support the goal of establishing Electronic Health Records for Canadians, to speed up the implementation of Electronic Medical Records in physicians' offices, and to integrate points of service, such as hospitals, pharmacies and community care facilities; 3.2. HC-IS2(09)-i3.2: The Department is accelerating the implementation of Health Information Systems, via Canada Health Infoway, to support the continued implementation of electronic health records and other electronic health technologies 393 Together with provinces and territories we made progress on common goals such as patient wait times and the transition to electronic health records. 394 HCan, “DPR,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/shc/shcpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 395 PeopleSoft will replace the current outdated HR IM system in order to improve enterprise information, enhance services to support program delivery, streamline processes and reduce cost. 396 IM/IT- Health Canada (HC), in partnership with PWGSC IT Shared Services, is the first federal department to adopt a new innovative interoperable Web 2.0 tool called Oracle Beehive. The Business Enterprise Enabler (BEE) initiative provides Health Canada users with access to collaboration tools such as wiki's and blogs, team workspaces and instant messaging. This will enable HC to use industry leading services for enterprise collaboration, while aligning with the Government of Canada IT Shared Services initiative. Health Canada will continue to roll-out Web 2.0 tools, in response the Clerk's directions regarding increased use of wikis and blogs in government. 255 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes (e.g. telehealth and public health surveillance); [TS2-GC2(HC-IS2(09)-i3.1+HC-IS2(09)-i3): Canada Health Infoway was identified as one extended source]; 4. HC-IS2(09)-i4: RM (or records management) have no appearance; TS2-GC2 397 1. TS2-GC2-i1: Infoway is about “transforming health care through health information technology”; all items under What We Do are about IT; [M260(HC-IS2(09)-i3+TS2-GC2-i1): even though “records” is used, the content is about IT]; IS-3 398 1. HC-IS3-i1: Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. HC-IS3-i1.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i1.1; 1.2. HC-IS3-i1.2: CFIA-IS3-i1.2; 1.3. HC-IS3-i1.3: CFIA-IS3-i1.3; 1.4. HC-IS3-i1.4: IMSO is not formally designated; 2. HC-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Opportunity for Improvement; 2.1. HC-IS3-i2.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i2.1; 2.2. HC-IS3-i2.2: implementation is nominally underway and there is little evidence of progress against plans. 2.3. HC-IS3-i2.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.3; 3. HC-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement; 3.1. HC-IS3-i3.1: A significant portion of the organization's functions, programs, and activities have not been appropriately identified or described in its 2009 Chapter of Info Source; 3.2. HC-IS3-i3.2: CIDA-IS3-i3.2; 4. HC-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities: same as [M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1)]; [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; CFIA-IS3-i4.5; [M222(CIDA-IS3-i5)]; IS-4.1 399 1. HC-IS4.1-i1: Audit of IM/IT Governance;  M221: completely 397 GC. Canada Health Infoway. https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php. 398 TBS, “MAF VII HCan. 2009-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/shc/shc-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 399 HCan, “Audit of Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) Governance. 2009,” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_audit-verif/2009-28/index-eng.php (accessed 256 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes about IT]; IS-4.2 400 1. HC-IS4.2-i1: The Government of Canada has an information management strategy that is followed by departments and agencies; Yet, the Information Commissioner of Canada has identified that across government there remains systemic issues affecting the way in which departments manage information; 2. HC-IS4.2-i2: The objective of this audit is to assess Health Canada's information management practices in relation to roles and responsibilities, systems, record classification structure, and disposition authorities; 3. HC-IS4.2-i3: The audit relied on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat core management control criteria to assess management controls and stewardship; 4. HC-IS4.2-i4: Roles and responsibility; 4.1. HC-IS4.2-i4.1: audit criteria: IM is a shared responsibility; [M261(HC-IS4.2-i4.1): the “roles and responsibility” structure follows TBS-1 and TBS-2]; 4.1.1. HC-IS4.2-i4.1.1: Within the Information Management Services Directorate, the Information Knowledge Management Division (IKMD) provides department-wide functional leadership and guidance for information management (IM); more specifically, the Division is responsible for the development and maintenance of information management strategies, policies, information architecture, standards and guidelines; 4.1.2. HC-IS4.2-i4.1.2: The Division is also accountable for the development and support of a records management solution in all media types, development and deployment of training and awareness strategies, and coordinating, to develop IM communication products; delivery of records disposition; services to facilitate access to knowledge; library services; research and mail services; [M262( HC-IS4.2-i4.1.1+ HC-IS4.2-i4.1.2): what IM does: provides department-wide functional leadership and guidance (=development and maintenance of IM strategies, policies, standards and guidelines) and “also” the development and October 19, 2012). 400 HCan, “Audit of Information Management. 2010,” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_audit-verif/index-eng.php (accessed October 19, 2012). 257 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes support of a RM solution in all media types, development and deployment of training and awareness strategies, IM communication products; delivery of records disposition]; 4.1.3. HC-IS4.2-i4.1.3: Health Canada managers are responsible for managing information as an integral part of programs, service delivery and as a strategic business resource; Branches are responsible for managing corporate information which consists of documents pertaining to the delivery of programs and services, records of decisions made, and evidence of financial and legal transactions; 4.1.4. HC-IS4.2-i4.1.4: all employees are responsible for managing the information they collect, create and use to support not only the outcomes of the programs and services, but also the Department’s operations and legislated accountabilities; ; [M263( HC-IS4.2-i4.1.3+ HC-IS4.2-i4.1.4): “managers” and “all employees” do the actual work]; 4.1.5. HC-IS4.2-i4.1.5: Branch Information Management Advisor (BIMA) and the Regional Information Management Advisor (RIMA); Advisors support department-wide information management initiatives by implementing policies, directives and standards; Advisors also develop and deliver information management services such as providing routine advice, training and awareness sessions; In addition, they are responsible for supporting integration of information management requirements into departmental business and information technology strategies; Lastly, they collaborate with all managers to address information lifecycle requirements; further investigation! – they are equivalents of the IM Division at the headquarters, still not 258 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes doing the actual work] 401 402 4.2. HC-IS4.2-i4.2: Issue: While the Department has in place a structure to manage its information, there are (thus) still roles and responsibility gaps with respect to how information is managed and monitored for both integrity and completeness; [M264( HC-IS4.2-i4.2): the problem is actual work for execution/implementation]; 4.3. HC-IS4.2-i4.3: Recommendation; [M265(HC-IS4.2-i4.3): recommendations do not address causes: recommend to update, to implement; to apply, etc., but nothing on “how”]; 4.3.1. CIO update information management policies/guidelines and directives to reflect current roles and responsibilities for managing information in the Department; 4.3.2. all Branches apply information management principles, standards, and practices; 4.3.3. CIO conduct annual assessments on the effectiveness of Branch information management practices and report annually to the Senior Management Board – Policy; 4.4. HC-IS4.2-i4.4: Management Response: numerous actions have been undertaken; [M266(HC-IS4.2-i4.4): Management Response addresses the part of the solution that is easier and quicker to be 401 Information Management Advisors have a broad knowledge of information management disciplines and provide guidance and support to program and staff functions on all aspects of managing the information resource. TBS-CIOB. Glossary - Subject: Information Management. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cioscripts/gloss/gloss-alpha_e.asp?SubjectID=28&who=/im-gi/. 402 ATI request released record: Situation Report on Records Improvement Project. 2005. IKMD assumed an advisory role with an emphasis on consensus building and collaboration. The Branches and the Regions were responsible to complete the work. Under the direction of IKMD and through the Portfolio Managers, RIP developed direct links, with its counterparts in the branches and regions through the Branch Information Management Advisors (BIMAs) and the Regional Information Management Advisors (RIMAs). These members worked together collaboratively on the implementation of common tools, processes, and standards for RM in the Department. - The linkage is comparatively strong but still it remains as an advisory role and collaborative relationship, which does not solve the problems of needing to carry out RM work professionally and of monitoring the RM performance with sufficient authority. 259 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes developed]; 4.4.1. updated the Departmental IM policies, guidelines and directives to reflect current roles and responsibilities for managing information and posted them to the Health Canada intranet; 4.4.2. reviewed and updated the IM/IT governance structure; 4.4.3. has also been creating Department-wide generic IM position descriptions to further strengthen the IM role within the Department; 4.4.4. An IM Strategy is being developed including awareness and communications; learning and training; engagement and commitment; 4.4.5. Branches are committed to developing and implementing IM action plans; 5. HC-IS4.2-i5: Records Management, Standards and Classification 5.1. HC-IS4.2-i5.1: Audit Criterion; [M267(HC-IS4.2-i5.1): “records” and “information” are used without differentiation]; 5.2. HC-IS4.2-i5.2: Issue: 5.2.1. HC-IS4.2-i5.2.1: Records classification systems (a function-based IM classification standard 403 ) are developed but not all Branches have adopted the same classification system; 5.2.2. HC-IS4.2-i5.2.2: The IM Division has been providing training but the responsibility for adopting such a system ultimately lies with the Branches; [M268(HC-IS4.2-i5.2.2): Branch does the actual work]; [M269(HC-IS4.2-i5.2.2): no institutional RM control over branch records]; 5.3. HC-IS4.2-i5.3: Recommendation: M265(HC-IS4.2-i4.3): recommendations do not address causes: recommend to monitor, to implement, but nothing on “how”]; 5.3.1. CIO monitor compliance to the departmental current classification standard for managing information; 5.3.2. all Branches implement the Department’s current classification standard for managing information as identified in the Directive on the Management and Storage of Information on Health Canada’s Network Servers; 5.4. Management Response: 5.4.1. HC-IS4.2-i5.4.1: Corporate level: 403 In 2007/08 a second generation functional classification structure (aXsv2) was implemented by Corporate Services Branch to manage information holdings to ensure that records are managed in accordance with the approved Departmental classification structure. 260 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes [M270(HC-IS4.2-i5.4.1): management responses at corporate level address those that are easy to be developed and/or implemented (to promote the classification structure, to provide training]; 5.4.1.1. continues to promote the current Departmental Classification structure, 5.4.1.2. continues to provide training sessions; 5.4.2. branch level: [M271(HC-IS4.2-i5.4.2): management responses at branch level address those that are NOT easy to be developed and/or implemented (e.g., ensure the “classification standard” is used by employees), thus the requirements are empty ones as there are only “to ensure” but no how to ensure] 5.4.2.1. all branches are to ensure Branch IM Specialists are sufficiently trained to provide support to end clients regarding the use of the department’s current classification standard; 5.4.2.2. all branches are to ensure the department’s current classification standard is used by its employees to classify/organize information in all media and document management solutions unless Business dictates otherwise; 6. HC-IS4.2-i6: Records Disposition Authority; 6.1. HC-IS4.2-i6.1: Audit Criterion; [M272(HC-IS4.2-i6.1): audit criterion uses “data” and “records” without distinguishing]; 6.2. Issue: 6.2.1. A review of Records Disposition Authorities within the Branches showed that they often did not exist, were incomplete, or were more suited as a guideline; 6.2.2. a high percentage of the Departmental business processes are not covered under a RDA; 6.3. Recommendation: 6.3.1. CIO coordinate the development and approval of the Records Disposition Authorities with all Branches; 6.3.2. all Branches, implement the Records Disposition Authorities in accordance with Health Canada’s Disposition Directive; 6.4. HC-IS4.2-i6.1: Management Response: CIO started a project and is currently coordinating the development of an MOU, negotiating with both LAC and HC’s Branches. Once the MOU is signed, Corporate Services Branch will co-ordinate the development and approval of Records Disposition Authorities (RDA) for all Branches; and, establish retention periods and application guidelines; [M273(HC-IS4.2-i6.1): obtaining RDAs 261 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes is a long process]; 7. HC-IS4.2-i7: Enterprise Information Architecture Model; 7.1. Audit criteria: Administration of an information systems function should include the maintenance of a business information model and establish the appropriate systems to manage the information holdings; 7.2. HC-IS4.2-i7.2: Issue: [M274(HC-IS4.2-i7.2): finding the right (or responsive in the case of ATI requests) records is the most noticed problem]; 7.2.1. excessive time spent looking for documents; occurrences of lost documents; incomplete or inaccurate document audit trail; and difficulties in managing the “paper mountain”;404 7.2.2. Interviews were held with Branch Access to Information (ATI) coordinators, all of which commented on 7.2.2.1. the excessive time required to find information in response to ATI requests; 7.2.2.2. Branch ATI coordinators rely on the knowledge base of employees for locating and accessing required information; 7.3. HC-IS4.2-i7.3: Existing strategies; [M275(HC-IS4.2-i7.3): existing strategies for HC-IS4.2-i7.2 are mainly IT]; 7.3.1. To address some of these challenges, IMSD has begun to develop an overarching information architecture model for managing the Department’s information holdings; 7.3.2. In addition, it has developed and implemented an Application Software Registry that contains a list of software applications owned by the Department; 7.3.3. Other building blocks include the implementation of the Records Information Classification Standard; 7.3.4. and an electronic data management tool = Electronic Document Management System (EDMS); 7.3.4.1. HC-IS4.2-i7.3.4.1: EDMS pilot has provided a number of benefits to users in HECSB, which include increased productivity and efficiency for program delivery, compliance on a number of key requirements such as ATIP business processes, ability to manage documents more effectively and efficiently throughout their lifecycle (conversion to the records classification structure), avoidance of document re-creation costs, avoidance of corporate memory loss due to employee 404 As reported in the 2008 Project Charter for Electronic Management System. 262 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes turnover, promotion of information sharing, and protection and control of records; [M276(HC-IS4.2-i7.3+ HC-IS4.2-i7.4): mentions the implementation of the Records Information Classification Standard, yet the focus is on benefits brought by technology]; 7.3.4.2. At the end of the pilot, a client survey highlighted some areas of concerns; 7.3.4.2.1. In particular, staff indicated that the proposed system had some challenges in assisting them with their day-to-day business activities such as integrating EDMS with e-mail; 7.3.4.2.2. Employees noted the need for the Department to seek a national solution to integrate with other reporting systems; 7.3.4.3. It was also noted that there was no plan to identify resources to fund an enterprise content management solution across the Department; 7.4. HC-IS4.2-i7.4: Recommendation: [M277(HC-IS4.2-i7.4): recommendation is a larger scale IT system, Enterprise Content Management Solution (ECMS), than the current RDIMS]; 7.4.1. CIO in collaboration with all Branches develop a three year plan to fund and implement an Enterprise Content Management Solution (ECMS) across the Department; 7.4.2. all Branches use the Department’s Enterprise Content Management Solution (ECMS) once it becomes available; 7.5. Management Response: 7.5.1. create a senior management Steering Committee with a mandate to develop a 3-5 year business plan to fund and effectively implement an Enterprise Content Management Solution (ECMS) across the Department; 7.5.2. HC-IS4.2-i7.5.2: In the absence of an ECMS, in the interim, Corporate Services Branch will continue with the limited implementation of Record Document Information Management System (RDIMS) to Corporate Services Branch Executive Committee members as part of its commitment to enhance management practices within existing budgets; [M278(HC-IS4.2-i7.5.2+PWGSC-i1): RDIMS is the recommended solution for GC-wide application ]; 8. HC-IS4.2-i8: “electronic records “ appears once without details;405 405 Audit interviews with various Branch and Regional Information Advisors (BIMA/RIMA) 263 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes sG: ND IS-1 1. ND-IS1-i1: Deputy Minister -> Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management) -> 10 divisions: 8 with “Information Management” -> no further info]; ND-IS1-i1M233; IS-2 2008-09 406 1. ND-IS2(08)-i1: “information management” as one “essential support activities”; 2. ND-IS2(08)-i2: Uses “IM/IT” in “IM/IT Campaign plan” and “IM” in “enterprise IM system”; no details]; 3. ND-IS2(08)-i3: records and RM have no appearance; M204; IS-2 2009-10 407 1. ND-IS2(09)-i1: “records management” used in “records management technology”; 408 no details; 2. ND-IS2(09)-i2: “Information Management” as one of the “Internal Services”; 3. ND-IS2(09)-i3: uses “IM/IT”: 3.1. ND-IS2(09)-i3.1: With reference to “contributions to the Olympics”; 409 M205: IM/IT is about an IT project; confirmed the limited use of a records information classification standard to manage electronic records within the respective branches. 406 ND, “DPR 2008-09,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/dnd/dndpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 407 ND, “DPR 2009-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/dnd/dndpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 408 (in the context of the Departmental IM/IT Campaign Plan) A departmental environmental scan of current collaboration and records management technology was completed and will inform the strategy going forward. 409 Providing IM/IT support including deployment of unprecedented Joint Tactical Data Link capability providing other government departments and decision-makers with detailed common operating picture of all aircraft, surface vessels and radar operating in the Op PODIUM area of operations. 264 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 3.2. ND-IS2(09)-i3.2: With reference to Consolidate the Departmental Approach to IM/IT;  M205: is apparently about IT]; 410 3.3. ND-IS2(09)-i3.3: With reference to the Departmental IM/IT Campaign Plan;  M205: the focus is on IT;411  M209(CFIA-IS4-i2)]; 412 3.4. ND-IS2(09)-i3.4: With reference to Lessons Learned; M205: is apparently about IT]; 413 ND-IS2(09)-i3.4M209(CFIA-IS4-i2);414 3.5. ND-IS2(09)-i3.5: Defence’s IM/IT responsibilities are wide-ranging and complex; M219; 4. ND-IS2(09)-i4: “record keeping” appears; 415 no details; 410 Defence significantly improved capacity, capability and spending within the IT Program. This enabled Defence to support a whole-of-government approach to IM/IT Planning. 411 For example, Rationalization efforts include the development of an Enterprise Shared Service approach with other government departments; a departmental Enterprise resource planning strategy was established and financial and materiel support systems have been successfully integrated to improve accountability and resource stewardship. 412 IM/IT in-theatre capabilities have been enhanced to provide integrated command and control nationally with other government departments and internationally with our Allies; 413 IM/IT security vulnerabilities and risks are on the rise, and Defence operations may be put at risk in light of the increased dependence on IM/IT systems, complexity in the environment and evolving cyber threats. 414 Departmental strategic assessments and business plans commented on the inability to provide stakeholders with the IM/IT support needed, reflecting the criticality of establishing common IM/IT services/standards. 415 (in the context of the Departmental IM/IT Campaign Plan) significant progress was made on the development of a departmental IM Collaboration strategy, the goal of which is to facilitate information sharing across Defence environments and support departmental obligations regarding record keeping, access to information, and privacy. 265 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes IS-3 416 1. ND-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. ND-IS3-i1.1: same as CFIA-IS3-i1.1; 1.2. ND-IS3-i1.2: same as CIDA-IS3-i1.2; 1.3. ND-IS3-i1.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i1.3; 2. ND-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Acceptable; 2.1. ND-IS3-i2.1: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.1; 2.2. ND-IS3-i2.2: same as CFIA-IS3-i2.2; 2.3. ND-IS3-i2.3: same as CIDA-IS3-i2.3; 3. ND-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement; 3.1. ND-IS3-i3.1: same as CIDA-IS3-i3.2; 3.2. ND-IS3-i3.2: same as CRA-IS3-i3.2; 3.3. ND-IS3-i3.3: same as CRA-IS3-i3.3; 4. ND-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities: [M207(CFIA-IS3-i4.1)]; [M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)]; [M211(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; [M212(CFIA-IS3-i4.4)]; CFIA-IS3-i4.5; [M222(CIDA-IS3-i5)]; [M215(CFIA-IS3-i4.6)]; IS-4 417 1. ND-IS4-i1: 4 audits/reviews found with IM in title: Management Review of IM Procurement 2004, Internal Audit and Assessment Reports Related to Contracted IM/IT Maintenance Support 2004, Review 418 of Contracting for Professional Services within the Information Management Group 2005, and Analysis of Information Management Projects 2009; M221(ND-IS4-i1): IM/IT is about IT; M246: IM is used but about IT (IT projects or software and hardware maintenance)]; (ND-IS1-i1+ND-IS2(08)-i2+ ND-IS4-i1)M223: ND tends to use IM to represent IT]; sG: PCH IS-1 419 1. PCH-IS1-i1: Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs -> 416 TBS, “MAF VII ND,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/dnd/dnd-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 417 ND, “Audit Reports,” http://www.crs-csex.forces.gc.ca/reports-rapports/rp-av-eng.aspx (accessed October 19, 2012). 418 The procedures for review and audit were similar to that of an audit, but without the same rigour of application. 419 GEDS, “Department Listing,” 266 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Chief Information Officer Branch -> Knowledge and Information Management -> IM Policy and Strategic Planning; Information Management Client Services: one unit with “records” in title;420 PCH-IS1-i1M200; PCH-IS1-i1M203; PCH-IS1-i1M235; IS-2 2008-09 421 1. PCH-IS2(08)-i1: uses “IM”;422 [M279(PCH-IS2(08)-i1): when IM is used in DPR, it is about an IT project]; 2. PCH-IS2(08)-i2: uses “Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT)”;423 PCH-IS2(08)-i2M219(CFIA-IS4-i2); 3. PCH-IS2(08)-i3: “Records” appears once in the name of an IT system; 424 IS-2 209-10 425 1. PCH-IS2(09)-i1: “IM” and “information management” have no appearance; 2. PCH-IS2(09)-i1: “record(s)” and “RM” have no appearance;M204; http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/BE#H (accessed October 19, 2012). 420 Supervisor, Information Holdings, Records Management Operations. 421 Canadian Heritage, “DPR 2008-09,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/inst/pch/pchpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 422 The Department advanced on implementation of its multi-year IM Strategy with deployment of the Records, Document and Information Management System (RDIMS-InfoCentre) complete in 20 to 25 percent of the Department. 423 As part of integrated business planning and leveraging existing governance structures, the Department established an IM/IT project approval process offering greater transparency, clearly identifying decision-making authorities and facilitating the prioritization of IM/IT projects. 424 Records, Document and Information Management System (RDIMS-InfoCentre). 425 Canadian Heritage, “DPR 2009-10,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2009-2010/inst/pch/pchpr-eng.asp?format=print (accessed October 19, 2012). 267 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes IS-3 426 1. PCH-IS3-i1: 12.1 Governance: Acceptable; 1.1. PCH-IS3-i1.1: same as CSC-IS3-i1.1; 1.2. PCH-IS3-i1.2: Responsibilities are identified for IM policy development and implementation consistent with the GC IM Strategy and policy instruments; 1.3. PCH-IS3-i1.3: Some participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing and leveraging IM policies and practices; 2. PCH-IS3-i2: 12.2 Strategy: Acceptable; 2.1. PCH-IS3-i2.1: A current and active IM strategy identifies support to business priorities and operations, information needs and accountabilities, IM policy considerations and is partially integrated with other corporate strategies, plans and planning cycles; 2.2. PCH-IS3-i2.2: same as CSC-IS3-i2.2; 2.3. PCH-IS3-i2.3: IM awareness activities are underway in the department to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; 3. PCH-IS3-i3: 12.4 Access to Information Act: Acceptable; 3.1. PCH-IS3-i3.1: same as CSC-IS3-i3.1; 4. PCH-IS3-i4: TBS identified opportunities; same as [M208(CFIA-IS3-i4.2)]; 5. PCH-IS3-i5: TBS identified opportunities; Increase participation in GC IM activities in order to leverage and share IM best practices across the enterprise; IS-4 427 1. PCH-IS4-i1: done by the department’s own audit unit “With the assistance of external resources”; 2. PCH-IS4-i2: Objective: to provide assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the control framework at PCH to manage and protect information in accordance with relevant acts, TBS and Departmental policies, procedures and practices; 3. PCH-IS4-i3: Scope: 3.1. PCH-IS4-i3.1: includes all information managed by PCH, regardless of format (i.e., paper, electronic) and 3.2. PCH-IS4-i3.2: covers the management of information across the 426 TBS, “MAF VI. Canadian Heritage,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2008/pch/pch-eng.asp (accessed October 19, 2012). 427 Canadian Heritage, “Information and Records Management Audit. September, 2011,” http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1332341667177 (accessed October 19, 2012). 268 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes IM lifecycle, as defined by Library and Archives Canada (LAC-3): 4. PCH-IS4-i4: The information managed by the Department is as varied as the initiatives and activities undertaken to meet the Department’s mandate; [M500: “information” here can include library materials] This includes information related to grants and contributions (e.g., correspondence, applications), corporate services (e.g., HR, policy development, analysis and research), and the operations of the Department (e.g., business plans, reports); [M501: “information” here = records]; 5. PCH-IS4-i5: The Knowledge and Information Management Directorate (KIM) within the Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB), has the mandate to provide the strategic direction, tools, and guidance related to the appropriate management of information within the Department, including the development of the Department’s Information Management (IM) Policy; [M502: what IM does]; 6. All employees of the Department are responsible for applying IM principles, standards, and practices in the performance of their duties, and for documenting their activities and decisions; [M503: in line with TBS requirements, employees do the actual work]; 7. IM resources outside of KIM vary across branches and sectors: in some branches, there is an assigned position that is responsible for IM, while in others, an individual may have part time IM responsibilities; [M504: IM responsibilities in branches or sectors are with either “an assigned” or “part time” position]; 8. In general, staff with IM responsibilities outside of the KIM Directorate act in a ‘record management’ role focused on the managing of hardcopy records, than that of an IM Specialist; [M505: a ‘record management’ role in branches or sectors is one that focuses on the managing of hardcopy records, which is different from a role “of an IM Specialist”]; 9. The majority of information at PCH resides and is managed at the program level, in both electronic and hardcopy form; [M506: weak institutional RM control]; 10. PCH-IS4-i10: While active hardcopy records generally reside with the program areas, a corporate Records Office managed by KIM is used to store inactive and/or dormant files. The Directorate utilizes Integrated Recorded Information Management System (iRIMS) to manage hardcopy records within its corporate Records Office. The vast majority of program areas still retain paper records as they need signed copies, as PCH considers ‘signed originals’ as the official record, the process to manage this information is thus intensively manual; [M507: paper RM by program areas and Records Office]; 269 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 11. PCH-IS4-i11: The main electronic information repositories include: [M508: complex electronic environment] 11.1. Email (Lotus Notes); 11.2. Corporate network drives (for example, the ‘G: drive’); 11.3. InfoCentre (Electronic Document and Record Management System (EDRMS)); 11.4. Corporate applications such as PeopleSoft (HR system), Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), and CCM Mercury; and, 11.5. Numerous program-specific applications. 12. PCH-IS4-i12: The PCH Intranet contains some IM resources that are available for staff to review; [M509: emphasize on employees for solving the problems]; 13. PCH-IS4-i13: A new PCH IM Policy has been in effect since April 1, 2010. This policy outlines roles and responsibilities for IM within the Department, consistent with the TB Policy. A comprehensive suite of IM-related standards and guidelines to support the IM Policy has yet to be been developed; [M510: emphasis on policy development]; 14. PCH-IS4-i14: The PCH Intranet contains some IM reference material available for staff to review. These resources are not well known and the content is not well understood by staff as IM awareness and/or guidance program to provide context and/or training on the use of these resources is not in place [M511: ineffective IM/RM guidance; need for RM professionals] 15. PCH-IS4-i15: The issue of inconsistence: [M512(PCH-IS4-i15): all tell the lack of RM control] 15.1. Networks drives are inconsistently organized throughout the Department, and the information within these drives are inconsistently labelled (i.e., through naming conventions) or managed. There are no coherent standards for the naming of electronic documents; 15.2. A pilot EDRMS implementation (InfoCentre) has been in place within the Department since 2006, ... For InfoCentre users, there are no standard procedures provided and classification and naming conventions are not consistent between pilot areas; 15.3. The Department utilizes a classification system using iRIMs for hardcopy records. This classification system is not consistently used with hardcopy records throughout the Department. Regional offices visited have created their own ad hoc records classification systems; 15.4. The Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS) is not being consistently utilized by G&C program areas. Each program area has developed their own standards for the information that may be placed in GCIMS and 270 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes how it may be organized; 16. PCH-IS4-i16: The current expansion of this pilot project (of InfoCentre) has been stopped. CIOB is currently developing a business case for the corporate implementation of a new EDRMS solution; [M513: the solution is to implement new IT systems] 17. PCH-IS4-i17: information of a more transitory nature and/or not of operational value is also being collected at the same time, and subsequently being retained and not differentiated from the information of business value [M514: evidence of the ineffective LAC guidance on identifying transitory records – if transitory records are not identified, how can transitory information resource (of business value) be identified?] 271 Appendix 3 Institution-Specific ATI Data Open Coding & Memoing – sG (CFIA) Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Symbol  IS-ATI-1 = Request handling data (ATI-RH Data);  IS-ATI-2 = Process responsive data (ATI-PR Data);  IS-ATI-3.# = Disclosed records data (ATI-DR Data);  Others see Appendix 2. sG: CFIA IS-ATI-1 4. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i1: The request is seeking a large amount of information; 5. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i2: Some records cannot be found428 (e.g., meeting minutes or resolutions on the establishment of the IM/RM program; records regarding RDIMS purchase and implementation);; 6. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i3: Finding and retrieving429 records involves multiple OPI 430 s, i.e., job descriptions by Human Resource, RDIMS by IT; 7. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i4: IM/RM is not responsible for finding and retrieving records unless it’s the OPI; [M300(CFIA-IS-ATI1-i3+CFIA-IS-ATI1-i4): the IM/RM program does not assist ATI requests in providing 431 responsive records]; 8. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i5: Difficult to retrieve budgetary information specifically for the IM function; 9. CFIA-IS-ATI1-i6: Difficult to find and/or retrieve records that are older than “current”, i.e., 2 years ago; [M301(CFIA-IS-ATI1-i1+i2+i5+i6): it is difficult to find and/or retrieve records created by the function/program that is responsible for managing records, i.e., the IM/RM function]; IS-ATI-2 3. CFIA-IS-ATI2-i1: A Subject File Classification System exists and is used for both hard-copy records and for RDIMS; [M302(CFIA-IS-ATI2-i1): not a functional classification system 428 “to find” means to know if the records exist and where they are. 429 “to retrieve” means to be able to deliver records to ATI for review. 430 OPI stands for office of primary interest, referring to offices/units that have direct control over records. 431 Means to allow requester access to responsive records. 272 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes based on BASCS]; 4. CFIA-IS-ATI2-i2: The ATIP unit does not use RDIMS; 5. CFIA-IS-ATI2-i3: No IM annual report; IS-ATI-3.1 432 1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1: released 2 copies of the same policy, i.e., same title and same date; a paragraph by paragraph comparison revealed that 1.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1.1: One copy has a “date modified: 2011-03-24”; 1.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1.2: Only one difference exists in content, i.e., the copy without “date modified” cites the rescinded National Archives of Canada Act and the one with “date modified” cites the current Library and Archives Canada Act; [M303(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1+CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1.1+CFIA-IS-ATI 3.1-i1.2): version issue]; 1.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1.3: Both copies cite the outdated TBS “Management of Government Information Holdings Policy”; [M304(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1.3): quality/accuracy issue]; [M305(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i1): the IM/RM function has record creation (= accuracy; quality) and management (= version distinguishing) issues]; 2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i2: Defines “record”,433 following the one provided by the rescinded National Archives of Canada Act, 434 with the addition of “electro-magnetic medium – including electronic mail”; [M305(2)]; [M306(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i2): presence of electronic records: emails]; 3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i3: Defines “Recorded Information Management”, for which the subject is definitively about “records”;435 432 Recorded Information Management Policy 2001. 433 “any information contained in any physical medium which is capable of preserving such information and includes any information contained in the original and in any copy of correspondence, memoranda, forms, directives, reports, drawings, diagrams, cartographic and architectural items, …, working papers, and any other documentary materials or electro-magnetic medium – including electronic mail, regardless of physical form and characteristics”. 434 GC, National Archives of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1, s(2). 435 “is the planning, implementation and review of the function for administering the Agency’s records system. The term includes the identification, classification and retrieval, storage and 273 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 4. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i4: Does not define “recorded information”; [M307(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i2+CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i3+CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i4 ): confusing conceptual framework: no explanation on relationships b/w concepts]; 5. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5: Defines “transitory records”,436 following LAC5-i2 and adds guidance such as no need to classify and can be deleted upon action completion, provided that they “are/will not be required for any pending or future access or legal actions”; [M308(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5): see M103 (imprecise definition); the guidance here is problematic because an action may need a long time to be completed, thus not to classify the records means to rely on individual employees’ manners of placing the records somewhere when there is a manner, or when there isn’t, on their memories. And, the deletion here means to delete records individually (because no classification done), which in fact costs time, contrary to the assumption that not to classify records saves time. Moreover, how can individual employees know the records “are/will not be required for any pending or future access or legal actions”?  ineffective guidance; 6. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i6: “all recorded information” received or created by an employee of the Agency in the course of their duties is “the property of the Agency”; 7. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i7: The responsibility to meet these Recorded Information Management obligations (= “identification, classification and retrieval, storage and protection, receipt and transmission, retention, and disposal or preservation of materials”) rests with all Agency employees and contractors; [M309(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i7): heavy workload for employees]; [M310(M309CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i6: protection, receipt and transmission, retention, and disposal or archival preservation of the records. It also encompasses the policies, procedures, systems, operations, space, equipment and Recorded Information Management staff required to administer the records”. 436 “in any media (i.e., email, images, electronic documents/spreadsheets, etc.), are those that are required for a limited time to ensure the completion of a routine action or for the preparation of a subsequent document. As transitory documents normally do not require filing to the Subject Classification Plan, they can be disposed of at the completion of the routine action or when the approval of the final document has been complete. However, care should be taken to ensure that prior to any disposal of transitory document/messages, that these are/will not be required for any pending or future access or legal actions”. 274 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes seemingly illogical policy consideration: why put the majority responsibilities on the shoulders of individual employees? Both considered supporting function, IT does not require individual employees to manage the computers and software they use. 437 ] [M311(M309): how practical are these requirements? Are they executable? no released records showing how to ensure and how to know if it’s ensured;]; 8. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8: “CFIA Employees /Contractors” is the first of the two subsections under the section Responsibilities/Accountabilities; 8.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.1: “Records are normally maintained by the employees who use them most often”; [M312(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.1): individual employee RM is the norm]; 8.2. “All employees … must ensure that the applicable policies are followed at all times”; [M309: heavy workload for employees]; [M311: “must ensure” executable?]; 8.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.3: “Records (in electronic or paper format) [M306(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.3)]: presence of electronic records: in electronic format] in an employee’s possession are considered on temporary charge-out to that employee, even in cases where they are the author of that document”; [M313(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.3): are there any mechanisms for ensuring the record to be returned to the control of the institution?] 8.4. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.4: “Staff are responsible for contributing to the identification of the Agency’s vital records and the development of appropriate Retention and Disposal Schedules”; [M314(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i8.4): “responsible for contributing to” is reasonable]; 9. CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i9: The second subsection: 9.1. “The President is accountable for all records created and received by the Agency”; 9.2. The Manager, Recorded Information Management, will conduct random monitoring of staff to ensure that they are complying with the Agency’s policy; 9.3. The Information Management Division “will undertake periodic reviews and may request Corporate Audit and Review Directorate to conduct internal audits of the Recorded 437 TBS, “Policy on Management of Information Technology,” http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=12755 OPI stands for office of primary interest. 275 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes Information program to ensure it is complying with the contents of the Policy as well as ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its implementation”; [M315(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i9): IM/RM does “random monitoring” and “periodic reviews”, two mechanisms for ensuring the IM policy compliance including “the effectiveness and efficiency of its implementation”; no records telling how this is done + MAF data (M209(CFIA-IS3-i4.3)) show implementation is unsatisfactory; this may be caused by issues with IM/RM capacity (= resources as used in audit reports) or IM/RM capability/ability (D?= possession and application of RM disciplinary knowledge and skills defined by the present project, or both]; [M316(CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i9): IM/RM does not perform any actual RM work; will this cause problems when providing guidance on employees’ performing of the actual RM work? No records telling employees’ opinions on this because no evaluations have been done for this purpose. Audit reports emphasized IM/RM capacity, i.e., unable to provide more training sessions due to resource constraints, yet here it is about IM/RM ability. One thing is factual that employees were unable to manage records to satisfaction, otherwise there would not be the IM crisis]; IS-ATI-3.2 438 1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i1: the first sentence is “Under the “Policy on Information Management” all employees of CFIA are responsible for managing Agency information, which they hold in trust, on behalf of Canadians”; [M317(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i1): emphasizes employees’ IM responsibility: to hold records “on behalf of Canadians”; yet, it’s difficult to obtain records through ATI request; an issue of policy requirements vs. the reality, and the latter has never satisfied the former, so the individual employee RM did not work, has never worked, and will not work]; 2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i2: The first section is for “All Employees”; 2.1. Every CFIA employee is responsible for the management of Agency information with the goals of ensuring: quality, accuracy, relevance, reliability, completeness, accessibility and security/protection;  [M309: heavy workload for employees; unreasonable/inexecutable requirement]; 2.2. In addition, employees are responsible for the life-cycle management of the information they hold in trust;[M309: heavy workload for employees; unreasonable/inexecutable requirement]; 438 Information Management (IM) Roles and Responsibilities (date modified: 2010-12-20). 276 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 2.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i2.3: 5 “must” requirements; basically in line with TBS requirements; 3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i3: The second section is for “Departing Employees”; 3.1. Departing employees “must ensure that the information … is organized, classified, verified for access rights and transferred to the appropriate individuals for storage and ongoing lifecycle management”;  [M309: heavy workload for employees; unreasonable/inexecutable requirement]; 3.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i3.2: 7 “must” requirements;  [M309: heavy workload for employees; unreasonable/inexecutable requirement]; 4. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4: The third section is for “Managers”; 4.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4.1: 6 responsibilities/accountabilities 4.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4.2: 5 “must” requirements; basically in line with TBS requirements; [M318(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4.1+CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4.2): many responsibility and heavy workload for managers]; 5. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5: The last section is for “Information Management Program”; The IM Program at CFIA is responsible for: 5.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.1: The development and implementation of IM policies, standards, practices and guidelines; [M319(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.1): what IM does: develop P-S-G; implement P-S-G, and “implementation” = the requiring of, in an explicit manner, employees and managers to do the actual RM work]; 5.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.2: Advice on the incorporating of IM practices and principles into Agency business processes; awareness and educational sessions and supporting materials on IM; [M320(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.2): what IM does: to advise “on the incorporating of IM practices and principles into Agency business processes”]; [M321(M320+all CFIA released records+CFIA-IS-ATI2-i1): subject classification system): no records demonstrating the RM’s understanding of “Agency business processes”; besides, if IM/RM understands the business processes, should not it be more suitable to perform actual RM work such as classifying records?]; [M322(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.2): what IM does]; 5.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.3: Strategic advice and guidance regarding the introduction of innovative IM practices; 5.4. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.4: delivery of IM solutions and services; [I sent follow up request on this]; 5.5. CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.5: No “must” requirements; [M323(CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i5.5CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i2.3: “must” 277 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes requirements for employees+ CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i3.2: “must” requirements for employees; CFIA-IS-ATI3.2-i4.2: “must” requirements for managers)]: RM has the fewest obligatory responsibilities]; IS-ATI-3.3 439 1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1: Defines record; the definition is different from CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i2; [M324: confusing conceptual framework: inconsistent definition for record within the same institution]; 2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i2: Categorizes records as “either official or transitory”; 3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i3: Defines “official record”;440 [M325(CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i3CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5: Defines “transitory records”): these two definitions are not mutually exclusive; see also M308]; 4. CFIA-IS-ATI-3.3-i4: Points to the document “What to Keep, What not to Keep” (CFIA-IS-ATI-3.4) for “identifying official records”; 5. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i5: Defines/explains “transitory record”; [M326(CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i5 CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5): inconsistent guidance; similar to CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5 but with a different emphasis; it emphasize the deletion of transitory records especially transitory email messages; CFIA-IS-ATI3.1-i5 emphasizes the caution needed for deletion; 6. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.6: Explains RDIMS but did not explain the conceptual relationships b/w record, document, and information; [M327(CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.6): confusing conceptual framework: did not explain the conceptual relationships b/w record, document, and information in RDIMS]; [TS3-GC1: identifies the Request for Proposal (RFP) entitled Records/Documents/Information Management: Integrated Document Management System (RDIMS) for the Government of Canada – Software Requirements by LAC as one extended source for understanding the 3 terms]; 7. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.7: Explains “information lifecycle” and uses “information” as a general term; [M328(CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.7): limited usefulness for application]; 439 Records Management – Frequently Asked Questions (date modified: 2010-12-20). 440 Official records document or provide evidence of the Agency’s business activities. Official records must be saved according to Agency retention schedules. 278 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes 8. CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.8: Explains TBS Policy on Information Management; the statement that “All federal government department and agencies must align themselves with this policy” is inaccurate, because the policy only “applies to departments as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA)”; CFIA-IS-ATI3.3-i1.8 M305(2); RM has record creation/accuracy issue]; TS3-GC1 1. TS3-GC1-i1: first uses RDIMS; 2. TS3-GC1-i2: Does not define the 3 them or explain the relationships among them; 3. TS3-GC1-i3: Defines “document management”, 441 including disposition; 4. TS3-GC1-i4: Does not define records management; 5. TS3-GC1-i5: Does not define information management, yet states that IM “is not limited to a single discipline, rather, it involves program areas, libraries, records management and other areas of activity in the organization”; [M329(TS3-GC1-i5TBS 2007 definition for IM: the nature of IM has never been clearly defined]; [M330(TS3-GC1-i5+4+2): incomplete conceptual framework]; 6. TS3-GC1-i6: Identifies DM-RM relationship: the ideal electronic solution would be a document management system that would contain the necessary records management functionality; [M331(TS3-GC1-i6): RM is part of RDIMS and is different from DM]; 442 7. TS3-GC1-i7: Identifies IM-D/RM relationship: The ideal software should encompass more than traditional document and records management: the ideal software product would extend to … the treatment of information as objects. In this RFP, e-mail messages, word processing files, spread sheet files, images, voice and video files are all considered to be objects; [M332( TS3-GC1-i7): could not find any reference in GC regarding traditional document management]; [M333(TS3-GC1-i7): IM as an extension to DM and 441 Document management is defined as a system for controlling the capture (when created or received), classification (cataloguing), storage, retrieval, revision, sharing and reuse, protection and disposition of documents. Documents include electronic and non-electronic objects. Electronic objects include products of word processors, e-mail, imaged material, etc. 442 See also, “The software also provides the tools required by the records management community”. 279 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes RM]; 7.1. TS3-GC1-i7.1: Defines Object: According to context, may refer to an object in the generic sense (OLE, object-oriented, etc.) or to a \"document\". In the latter sense the object may be a paper or electronic document, a video, a sound recording, a photograph, a rock sample, or any other information item to be managed; [M334(TS3-GC1-i7.1): confusing conceptual framework: no explanations on using a term (object) for another one that already exists (document)]; [M335{(TS3-GC1-i7:information=object= e-mail messages, word processing files, spread sheet files, images, voice and video files+TS3-GC1-i7.1: object=document= a video, a sound recording, a photograph+TS3-GC1-i3: document = products of word processors, e-mail, imaged material): information = object = document} M333  confusing conceptual framework: conflict conceptual relationships]; 8. TS3-GC1-i8: Characterizes IM: Information management forms an integral part of a department s business plans; [M336(TS3-GC1-i8): IM is linked to business]; 9. TS3-GC1-i9: Outlines RM roles; [M337(TS3-GC1-i9): RM is not linked to business but tightly constrained within the scope of “record keeping”: [M338(TS3-GC1-i9): what RM does: establish department RK policies and guidelines; provide trainings on RK; negotiate RDAs, set up transfers, etc.]; 10. TS3-GC1-i10: For RDIMS (in electronic environment), RM ensures 1. set up and maintain classification system management, 2. retention/disposition management, and 3. Access based on need to know (security); [M339(TS3-GC1-i10): ERM (RM in RDIMS) is not linked to business either]; [M340{(TS3-GC1-i10TS3-GC1-i3): both RM and DM manages disposition (TS3-GC1-i6): yet they refer to different functionalities of RDIMS}confusing conceptual framework: conflicting conceptual relationships]; 11. TS3-GC1-i11: No roles outlined for DM or IM; TS3-GC1-i11M330(2): incomplete conceptual framework; 12. TS3-GC1-i12: The requirements use the 3 terms and object without differentiation; [M341(TS3-GC1-i12): is it safe to assume that it will be difficult for departments to apply? check departmental RDIMS documents for “difficult to apply” proofs]; 12.1. Document(s) appears 45 times, more than record(s) (33 times), even in cases where the subject is no doubt records; 443 12.2. Information appears 77 times, more than document(s) 12.3. TS3-GC1-i12.3: Object appears 135 times, more than 443 For example, There is a need to manage \"classified\" documents in the federal government. 280 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes information; [M342(TS3-GC1-i12.3+TS3-GC1-i7.1: object defined as two “case”s): readers for 135 times need to figure out which case applies to the particular usage: difficult to apply concept]; 13. TS3-GC1-i13: Defines “users” 444 ; [M343(TS3-GC1-i13): can be used as example of worst definition due to its extreme broadness; this definition makes commenting on the roles assigned to users (p. 10) literarily impossible]; IS-ATI-3.4 445 1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i1: official records must be saved/kept; 2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2: gives 7 examples of “information” that qualifies as official records: 2.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.1: Reflects the Agency’s position on an issue’ 2.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.2: Documents a decision; 2.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.3: Initiates, authorizes or completes an Agency business transaction; 2.4. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.4: States policies or directives; 2.5. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.5: Originated from outside the Agency and forms part of a corporate record; 2.6. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.6: Provides evidence of the Agency’s business activities; 2.7. CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.7: Does not exist anywhere else in the Agency such as work schedules, status reports, meeting agendas and minutes, briefing notes, or final versions of documents and related recommendations; [M344(CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2): except CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.4, none of these criteria can be readily applied; e.g., for CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.7, how can an employee know that there are no other copies existing in the organization?; to apply CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.5 need to know what “a corporate record” is, which is not defined]; [M345(CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2): these criteria are not mutually exclusive among themselves as CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.6 can include everything]; [M346(CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2+…): are not mutually exclusive with the conditions specified in the definition of transitory records either; e.g., CFIA-IS-ATI3.4-i2.6 can only be needed for “a limited time to ensure the completion of a routine 444 User: Everyone utilizing the system, including knowledge worker, operational staff, records management specialist, the public, etc. 445 What to Keep, What Not to Keep. (no date). 281 Data Indicators  Memos & Substantive Codes action”inadequate/confusing guidance: records identification (difficult if not impossible to distinguish “official records” from “transitory records” even for trained professionals, let alone employees)]; IS-ATI-3.5 446 1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1: Contains procedures for “records to be destroyed”, “Destruction of records”, “Disposition of records”, “Preparation of records for transfer to archives or off-site storage”, and “Classification”; 1.1. CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.1: All steps are for business functions other than the IM/RM function to follow; 1.2. CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.2: Records Management Services is to be contacted “for any information or assistant”; [M347( CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.2): RM a passive service function]; 1.3. CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.3: Explains the Subject File Classification as “subjects based on the operation of the Agency”, and the classification structure refers to “the functions within the Agency and not to its specific organizational components”; [M348(CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.3): inadequate/confusing guidance: subject-based vs. functional classification system]; [M349( CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.3): no connection with LAC-4]; IS-ATI-3.6 447 1. CFIA-IS-ATI-3.6-i1: Introduces RDIMS functions to employees, including saving, profiling, finding, protection, etc; [M350(CFIA-IS-ATI3.6-i1+CFIA-IS-ATI3.5-i1.1): All policies and procedures are for employees and managers (i.e., none-IM specialists); 448 ] 446 Procedures. (no date) 447 RDIMS Training Outline, 2009. 448 “The policy has been written to ensure that all employees are informed of this (= the effective capture, storage and management of information is not only essential to the Agency’s success, but is also a legal obligation of the Agency)”. 282 Appendix 4 Alphabetic Organization of the Conceptual Building Blocks 1. Accountability-Related Activity 1.1. Specification 1.1.1. One type of Non-RM Activity 1.1.2. It requires records to be disclosed to 1.1.2.1. the public (i.e., ATI requests) with respect to the conduct of their Creating Activity or 1.1.2.2. other authorities (e.g., the Parliament) with respect to the conduct of their Creating Activity 1.2. Measurement 1.2.1. Degree of design quality 1.2.2. Degree of conduct effectiveness 2. Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge 2.1. Composition 2.1.1. Same as those for Business Activity Knowledge 2.2. Specification 2.2.1. Same as those for Business Activity Knowledge 2.3. Measurement 2.3.1. Same as that for Business Activity Knowledge 3. Activity Time Boundary 3.1. Specification 3.1.1. Activities can take place in records creating institutions or archival institutions 3.1.2. They are distinguishable by their running/operating time 3.1.2.1. A Past Activity = one that has been completed 3.1.2.2. A Present Activity = one that is currently taking place 3.1.2.3. A Future Activity = one that will take place either according to design/plan or unexpectedly 3.1.2.4. The ending of a Present Activity changes it to a Past Activity 3.1.2.5. The beginning of a Future Activity changes it to a Present Activity 283 3.1.2.6. The ending and beginning times may be determined by activity design 3.1.3. The time period is determined by activity design 3.1.4. Time can also be used for sub-activities or processes of an activity 3.2. Measurement 3.2.1. Degree of recognition by Organizational RM 4. Archival Appraisal 4.1. Specification 4.1.1. An activity carried out by an Archival Institution 4.1.1.1. Archival Institution = an organization established to preserve and provide access to records transferred to it by records creating organization 4.1.2. Assesses Record Reuse-Distant Value 4.1.3. Requires assistance from Organizational RM 4.1.4. Relies on Record(s) Maintaining Activity 4.1.5. Is the foundation of Records Disposition Authority 4.2. Measurement 4.2.1. Timeliness 5. Business Activity 5.1. Specification 5.1.1. One type of Operational Activity 5.1.2. Designed to achieve specific, mandate-related objectives of an institution 5.1.3. Objectives are not primarily for RM Activity 5.1.3.1. Primarily indicates inclusion of some RM Activity 5.1.4. Objectives are not for Accountability-related Activity 5.1.5. Objectives are not for Investigation-related Activity 5.2. Measurement 5.2.1. Degree of design quality 5.2.2. Degree of conduct effectiveness 6. Business Activity Knowledge 284 6.1. Composition 6.1.1. Business Activity Design Knowledge 6.1.2. Business Activity Execution Knowledge 6.2. Specification 6.2.1. Part of RM Extended Knowledge 6.3. Measurement 6.3.1. Degree of understanding adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 7. Business Activity Design Knowledge 7.1. Specification 7.1.1. Understanding of the design of Business Activity 7.1.1.1. The understanding is necessary for Record Identification 7.1.1.2. The obtaining of the understanding relies on RM participation in the design of Business Activity 7.1.1.3. The level of understanding is determined by the goals set for Organizational RM 7.1.2. Business Activity Design can be of constant modification 7.2. Measurement 7.2.1. Degree of understanding adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 8. Business Activity Execution Knowledge 8.1. Specification 8.1.1. Understanding of the execution of Business Activity 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 8.1.2. The obtaining of the understanding relies on RM participation in the execution of Business Activity 8.1.2.1.1. The participation is carried out through the establishment of Unit RM 8.1.3. The level of understanding is determined by the goals set for Organizational RM 285 8.2. Measurement 8.2.1. Degree of understanding adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 9. Central Digital Records Management System (CDRMS) 9.1. Specification 9.1.1. Operated by Central RM 9.1.2. Part of Record(s) Maintaining Technology 9.1.3. An information system where information on all records is available 9.1.4. It physically contain records created by Central RM 9.1.5. It does not physically contain records of Non-RM Activity 9.1.6. It can be integrated with Unit Digital Records Management System for access 9.2. Measurement 9.2.1. Degree of design optimization 9.2.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 10. Central RM 10.1. Specification 10.1.1. An independent administrative configuration 10.1.2. Relies on authority established by RM Governance Structure for operation 10.1.3. Fulfills responsibilities outlined in RM Responsibility Arrangement 10.1.4. Operates Central Digital Records Management System 10.1.5. Relies on dedicated RM Personnel for operation 10.2. Measurement 10.2.1. Degree of establishment adequacy 10.2.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 11. Centralized Records 11.1. Specification 11.1.1. Physically in the database of an Organizational Digital Records Management System 11.2. Measurement 286 11.2.1. Existence of justifications (for to be centralized or not) 12. Decentralized Records 12.1. Specification 12.1.1. Not physically in the database of an Organizational Digital Records Management System 12.1.2. Managerially controlled by an Unit Digital Records Management System 12.2. Measurement 12.2.1. Existence of justifications (for to be centralized or not) 13. Digital Record 13.1. Specification 13.1.1. One type of records 13.1.2. Currently the predominate type 13.1.3. Existence relies on Organizational Information Technology 13.1.4. Complexity determined by OIT 13.2. Measurement 13.2.1. Degree of existence recognition 13.2.2. Degree of complexity recognition 13.2.3. Percentage among identified records 14. Employee RM 14.1. Composition 14.1.1. Creation of record content in compliance with record-making rules 14.1.2. Carry out the portion of RM Maintaining Activity that can be quickly completed (e.g., Record Capture, Record Titling). 14.2. Specification 14.2.1. Structurally part of Non-RM Operational Activity 14.2.2. Structurally also part of Unit RM 14.2.3. Fulfills responsibilities outlined in RM Responsibility Arrangement 14.2.4. Carrying out is assisted by RM Procedure 14.2.5. Carrying out is assisted by Record Titling Template 14.2.6. Carrying out is integrated with the conduct of the creating activity 287 14.2.7. Carrying out is supervised by Unit RM 14.3. Measurement 14.3.1. Degree of operation effectiveness 15. Investigation-Related Activity 15.1. Specification 15.1.1. One type of operational activity 15.1.2. It requires records to be admissible as evidence in administrative or legal investigations concerning their Creating Activity 15.2. Measurement 15.2.1. Degree of design quality 15.2.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 16. Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge 16.1. Composition 16.1.1. Same as those for Business Activity Knowledge 16.2. Specification 16.2.1. Same as those for Business Activity Knowledge 16.3. Measurement 16.3.1. Same as that for Business Activity Knowledge 17. Local RM 17.1. Composition 17.1.1. Unit RM 17.1.2. Employee RM 17.1.3. Technology RM 17.2. Measurement 17.2.1. Degree of operational effectiveness 18. Non-RM Activity 18.1. Composition 18.1.1. Accountability-Related Activity 18.1.2. Investigation-Related Activity 18.1.3. Business Activity 18.2. Specification 288 18.2.1. One type of Operational Activity 18.3. Measurement 18.3.1. Degree of deign quality 18.3.2. Degree of components being distinguished 18.3.3. Degree of conduct effectiveness 19. Non-RM Activity Knowledge 19.1. Composition 19.1.1. Business Activity Knowledge 19.1.2. Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge 19.1.3. Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge 19.2. Specification 19.2.1. Part of RM Extended Knowledge 19.3. Measurement 19.3.1. Degree of understanding adequacy 20. Non-RM Technology Knowledge 20.1. Specification 20.1.1. Understanding of Organizational IT used by Non-RM Activity 20.1.2. Level of understanding limited to software/information system functionality 20.2. Measurement 20.2.1. Degree of understanding adequacy 21. Operational Activity 21.1. Composition 21.1.1. Non-RM Activity 21.1.2. RM Activity 21.2. Specification 21.2.1. Operational Activity is owned by an institution 21.2.2. Operational Activity is designed by the institution 21.2.3. The design is executed by the institution 21.2.4. Operational Activity is Record Creating Activity 21.2.5. Conduct relies on information technology 289 21.2.6. RM Application-Oriented Work (of RM Activity) is part of Non-RM Activity 21.3. Measurement 21.3.1. Degree of deign quality in terms of satisfying organizational needs 21.3.2. Degree of components being distinguished 21.3.3. Degree of relationship between components being recognized 21.3.4. Degree of conduct effectiveness 22. Organizational Information Technology (OIT) 22.1. Composition 22.1.1. Non-RM Technology 22.1.1.1. Business Activity Technology 22.1.1.2. Accountability-related Activity Technology 22.1.1.3. Investigation-related Activity Technology 22.1.2. RM Technology 22.2. Specification 22.2.1. Relating to computer or computer-like devices 22.2.2. Relating also to the Internet 22.2.3. Centrally managed in organization 22.2.3.1. Manage = plan, purchase, implement, maintain, upgrade and disposal 22.2.3.2. Maintain = routine, daily work that ensures normal operation 22.3. Measurement 22.3.1. Degree of optimization for Operational Activity 23. Organizational Digital Records Management System (ODRMS) 23.1. Composition 23.1.1. Central Digital Records Management System 23.1.2. Unit Digital Records Management System 23.2. Specification 23.2.1. Can be more than one 23.2.2. Requires Record(s) Maintaining Technology 23.2.3. Requires integration with Record Creating Technology 290 23.3. Measurement 23.3.1. Degree of design optimization 23.3.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 24. Organizational RM 24.1. Composition 24.1.1. Central RM 24.1.2. Local RM 24.2. Specification 24.2.1. Relies on RM Governance Structure for establishment 24.2.2. Relies on RM Responsibility Arrangement for operation 24.2.3. Determines RM Capacity 24.3. Measurement 24.3.1. Degree of establishment adequacy 24.3.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 25. Record Capture 25.1. Specification 25.1.1. Particularly relevant to Digital Record 25.1.2. Part of Record(s) Maintaining Activity 25.1.3. Records can be managerially captured in UDRMS 25.1.3.1. = metadata about the records created in UDRMS 25.1.4. Records can also be technologically captured in UDRMS 25.1.4.1. = an actual copy created in UDRMS 25.1.4.1.1. Triggered by saving (in the sense of computer operation) 25.1.5. Relies on Record Identification for capturing accuracy with respect to 25.1.5.1. Record content 25.1.5.2. Record documentary form 25.1.5.3. Record Metadata 25.1.6. Conducted by Local RM 25.1.6.1. by human beings or RM Technology or combination of human and technology 25.2. Measurement 291 25.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of captured records against identified records) 25.2.2. Degree of capture accuracy 26. Record Classification 26.1. Specification 26.1.1. Implementation of Records Classification Scheme 26.1.1.1. Classifying records into classes 26.1.2. Classifying applies only to individual records 26.1.3. Follows RM Procedure 26.1.4. Carried out by RM Personnel of Unit RM 26.1.5. Can also be carried out by Technology RM 26.1.5.1. Records auto-classification 26.2. Measurement 26.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of classified records against captured records) 26.2.2. Degree of timeliness 26.2.3. Degree of accuracy 27. Record Creation Purpose 27.1. Specification 27.1.1. To create a record is to satisfy the need of an Operational Activity 27.1.2. The Operational Activity is its creating activity 27.2. Measurement 27.2.1. Existence of decision for the creation 27.2.2. Existence of justification(s) for the creation 28. Record Identification 28.1. Composition 28.1.1. Identification of record content 28.1.2. Identification of record documentary form 28.1.3. Identification of Record Metadata 28.2. Specification 28.2.1. Relies on understanding of Record Creation Purpose 292 28.2.2. Relies on understanding of Record Instrumental Value 28.2.3. Relies on Unit RM/Dedicated RM Personnel to be conducted 28.3. Measurement 28.3.1. Degree of importance recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 28.3.2. Degree of identification comprehensiveness 28.3.3. Degree of identification quality 29. Record Instrumental Value 29.1. Specification 29.1.1. A record possesses Instrumental Value when it is demanded by an Operational Activity for its conduct 29.1.1.1. The demand is part of the design449 of the Operational Activity 29.1.1.2. The Operational Activity is its Creating Activity 29.1.1.3. The Operational Activity is a Present Activity 29.1.2. Record Instrumental Value is exclusive to Creating Activity/Present Activity 29.1.3. Record Instrumental Value is relevant to productivity and effectiveness 29.2. Measurement 29.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 29.2.2. Degree of realization 30. Record Metadata 30.1. Specification 30.1.1. Recorded information about individual records 30.1.2. Intended for representation and maintenance 30.1.3. In the form of discrete piece 449 The focus here is design. Design can be impacted or influenced by a variety of factor in or outside the organization. It therefore implies constant change and the need for analytical skills to accommodate the change. 293 30.1.4. Can be combined in accordance with defined rules to achieve a defined goal 30.1.5. Recorded means being affixed to a medium 30.1.6. Relies on RM Application-Oriented Work for development 30.1.7. Facilitates Record Retrievability development 30.1.8. Benefits record preservation and access in archival institution 30.1.9. Is managerially integrated with RCS 30.1.10. Can be technologically integrated with RCS 30.2. Measurement 30.2.1. Degree of accuracy in terms of representing the record 30.2.2. Degree of completeness in terms of enabling management 31. Record Nature 31.1. Specification 31.1.1. Illustrates Record Creation 31.1.2. Illustrates Record Maintenance 31.1.3. Illustrates Record Use 31.1.4. Relies on RM Collective Ability for development 31.1.4.1. Developed as a subject 31.2. Measurement 31.2.1. Degree of being understood by organization 32. Record Reuse Value 32.1. Composition 32.1.1. Record Reuse-Immediate Value 32.1.2. Record Reuse-Distant Value 32.2. Specification 32.2.1. Record Reuse Value is relevant to Future Activity 32.3. Measurement 32.3.1. Degree of recognition by organization 32.3.2. Degree of components being distinguished 32.3.3. Degree of realization by Organizational RM 33. Record Reuse-Distant Value 294 33.1. Composition 33.1.1. Record Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value 33.1.2. Record Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value 33.1.3. Record Reuse-Distant-Resource Value 33.2. Specification 33.2.1. The reuse is distant when records are used by a Future Activity taking place in an Archival Institution 33.3. Measurement 33.3.1. Degree of components being distinguished 33.3.2. Degree of recognition by organization 33.3.3. Degree of recognition by Archival Institution 33.3.4. Degree of realization by Organizational RM 34. Record Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value 34.1. Specification 34.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value when it is used by an Accountability-Related Activity in an Archival Institution 34.1.1.1. The use is a Future Activity with reference to the Creating Activity 34.1.1.2. This type of Future Activity cannot be predicted 34.1.2. The value can be assessed independently by Archival Appraisal 34.1.3. The value is relevant to legislative compliance 34.1.4. The value is relevant to government transparency 34.1.5. The value is relevant to society democracy 34.2. Measurement 34.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 34.2.2. Degree of recognition by Archival Institution 34.2.3. Degree of realization 35. Record Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value 35.1. Specification 35.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value when it is used by an Investigation-Related Activity in an Archival Institution 295 35.1.1.1. The Investigation-Related Activity is a Future Activity with reference to the Creating Activity 35.1.1.2. This type of Future Activity is unpredictable 35.1.2. The value should not be assessed independently by Archival Appraisal 35.1.3. It is relevant to legal/juridical compliance 35.2. Measurement 35.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 35.2.2. Degree of recognition by Archival Institution 35.2.3. Degree of realization 36. Record Reuse-Distant-Resource Value 36.1. Specification 36.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Distant-Resource Value when it is used by a Business Activity in an Archival Institution 36.1.1.1. Resource = information resource/knowledge resource/business asset 36.1.1.2. This type of resource maintains the characteristics of being records 36.1.2. The value can be assessed independently by Archival Appraisal 36.1.3. It is relevant to productivity and effectiveness 36.2. Measurement 36.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 36.2.2. Degree of recognition by Archival Institution 36.2.3. Degree of realization 37. Record Reuse-Immediate Value 37.1. Composition 37.1.1. Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value 37.1.2. Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value 37.1.3. Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value 37.2. Specification 37.2.1. The reuse is immediate when records are used by a Future Activity that takes place within the records creating organization and/or other organizations as determined by the design of the activity 296 37.2.1.1. The other organizations are not an archival institution 37.2.2. The types are distinguishable, but not mutually exclusive 37.3. Measurement 37.3.1. Degree of components being distinguished 37.3.2. Degree of recognition by organization 37.3.3. Degree of realization by Organizational RM 38. Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value 38.1. Specification 38.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value when it is used by an Accountability-Related Activity 38.1.1.1. The Accountability-Related Activity is a Future Activity with reference to the Creating Activity 38.1.1.2. This type of Future Activity can be regular 38.1.2. This value should not be assessed independently by RM Appraisal because 38.1.2.1. It is originated from Record Instrumental Value, and 38.1.2.2. It co-exists with other Record(s) Reuse-Immediate Value 38.1.3. The value is relevant to legislative compliance 38.1.4. The value is relevant to government transparency 38.1.5. The value is relevant to society democracy 38.2. Measurement 38.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 38.2.2. Degree of realization (inherited) 39. Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value 39.1. Specification 39.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value when it is used by an Investigation-Related Activity 39.1.1.1. The Investigation-Related Activity is a Future Activity with reference to the Creating Activity 39.1.1.2. This type of Future Activity is usually unpredictable 297 39.1.2. This value should not be assessed independently by RM Appraisal because 39.1.2.1. It is originated from Record Instrumental Value, and 39.1.2.2. It co-exists with other Record(s) Reuse-Immediate Value 39.1.3. It is relevant to legal/juridical compliance 39.2. Measurement 39.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 39.2.2. Degree of realization (inherited) 40. Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value 40.1. Specification 40.1.1. A record possesses Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value when it is used by a Business Activity 40.1.1.1. Resource = information resource/knowledge resource/business asset 40.1.1.2. This type of resource maintains the characteristics of being records 40.1.2. The value is relevant to productivity and effectiveness 40.1.3. It is the primary reason for records retention and maintenance beyond their Creating Activity 40.2. Measurement 40.2.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 40.2.2. Degree of realization (inherited) 41. Record Titling 41.1. Specification 41.1.1. Part of classifying 41.1.2. Applies titling template 41.1.3. Carried out by Employee RM 41.1.4. Can also be carried out by Technology RM (when integrated with Record Creating Technology) 41.1.5. Supervised by Unit RM 41.2. Measurement 298 41.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of named records against all classified records) 41.2.2. Degree of timeliness 41.2.3. Degree of consistence 42. Record Titling Guidelines 42.1. Specification 42.1.1. Guide the development of titling templates with structured place holders for descriptive facets 42.1.1.1. Templates developed by Unit RM 42.1.2. Relies on Record Identification 42.2. Measurement 42.2.1. Degree of pertinence to Creating Activity/Operational Activity 43. Record Usability 43.1. Composition 43.1.1. Being authentic 43.1.1.1. Record content remains unchanged 43.1.1.2. Record documentary form remains unchanged or changed as planned/expected (thus are traceable and can be documented) 43.1.2. Being contextualized 43.1.2.1. Exists in relationships with other records of its creating activity 43.1.3. Being human readable 43.1.3.1. Able to survive technological obsolescence 43.1.3.2. Relies on Record(s) Long-Term Preservation 43.1.4. Specification 43.1.4.1. Relies on Record(s) Maintaining Activity 43.1.4.2. Part of RM Control 43.2. Measurement 43.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of useful records against all identified records) 44. Record Value 44.1. Composition 299 44.1.1. Record Instrumental Value 44.1.2. Record Reuse Value 44.2. Specification 44.3. Record Reuse Value becomes Record Instrumental Value when Future Activity becomes Present Activity/records creating activity 44.4. Measurement 44.4.1. Degree of components being distinguished 44.4.2. Degree of being recognized by organization 44.4.3. Degree of realization by Organizational RM 45. Record(s) Long-Term Preservation 45.1. Specification 45.1.1. Required for records needed by the organization for a time period longer than the existence of the digital technologies supporting them 45.1.2. Continues RM Control with technological changes (e.g., system upgrade) 45.2. Measurement 45.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of records with continued RM Control against all records determined for LTP) 46. Record(s) Maintaining Activity 46.1. Composition 46.1.1. Record Capture 46.1.2. Record Classification 46.1.3. Record Titling 46.1.4. RM Appraisal 46.1.5. Records Retention Calculation 46.1.6. Records Disposition Activity 46.1.7. Record(s) Long-Term Preservation 46.1.8. Unit Digital Records Management System operation 46.2. Specification 46.2.1. Carrying out relies on RM Identification 46.2.2. Carrying out relies on RM Tool 300 46.2.3. Carrying out relies on RM Procedure 46.3. Measurement 46.3.1. Degree of completion effectiveness 47. Record(s) Maintaining Technology 47.1. Composition 47.1.1. Business Process Management System (BPMS)450 for Record Identification 47.1.2. Digital Records Management System (DRMS) for all other Record(s) Maintaining Activities 47.2. Specification 47.2.1. Part of OIT used by Record(s) Maintaining Activity 47.2.2. Design and implementation require understanding of Non-RM Activity 47.2.3. Design and implementation require understanding of RM Activity 47.2.4. Can be integrated with Record Creating Technology 47.2.5. May cause changes to record documentary form originally determined by Record Creating Technology 47.3. Measurement 47.3.1.1. Degree of optimization 47.3.1.2. Degree of integration 47.3.1.3. Percentage of users using the technology against all users with granted access 48. Record(s) Maintenance Purpose 48.1. Specification 48.1.1. To maintain a record (or a class of records) is to permit its use by its creating activity/Present Activity 450 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. 301 48.1.2. To maintain a record (or a class of records) is also to permit its use by Future Activity 48.1.3. Maintenance needs to be performed at both individual and class level 48.2. Measurement 48.2.1. Existence of decision for maintenance 48.2.2. Existence of justification(s) for maintenance 49. Record(s) Metadata 49.1. Composition 49.1.1. Record Metadata 49.1.2. Records Class Metadata 49.2. Specification 49.2.1. Necessary for RM Activity 49.3. Measurement 49.3.1. Degree of accuracy 49.3.2. Degree of completeness 50. Record(s) Purpose 50.1. Composition 50.1.1. Record Creation Purpose 50.1.2. Record(s) Maintenance Purpose 50.2. Specification 50.2.1. Derived directly from Record Nature 50.2.2. Interrelated with Record Value 50.2.3. Interrelated with RM Nature 50.3. Measurement 50.3.1. Degree of components being distinguished 51. Record(s) Retrievability 51.1. Composition 51.1.1. Record Retrievability 51.1.2. Records Class Retrievability 51.2. Specification 302 51.2.1. Development of access points based on Record Metadata enabled by Record Identification 51.2.2. Development of access points based on Records Class Metadata enabled by RCS 51.2.3. Development of location information based on Record Capture and the configuration of ODRMS 51.3. Measurement 51.3.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of records with retrievability against all identified records) 52. Record(s) Retrieval Activity 52.1. Composition 52.1.1. Record Retrieval 52.1.2. Records Class Retrieval 52.2. Specification 52.2.1. Facilitates obtaining of records 52.2.2. Relies on Record(s) Retrievability 52.2.3. Follows RM Procedure (e.g., access/security rules) 52.2.3.1. Conducted by non-RM personnel 52.2.3.2. Conducted also by Employee RM and Technology RM 52.2.3.3. Conducted also by Unit RM when Employee RM and Technology 451 RM is ineffective 52.2.3.4. In compliance with access rules 52.3. Measurement 52.3.1. Degree of retrieval timeliness 52.3.2. Degree of retrieval completeness (Recall) 52.3.3. Degree of retrieval precision 451 It needs to link the conduct to the types of activity. Non-RM personnel retrieves records when conducting the records creating activity/present activity; RM Personnel retrieves records for other types of activities. 303 53. Records Class Metadata 53.1. Specification 53.1.1. Recorded information describing records classes in Records Classification Scheme 53.1.2. In the form of discrete piece 53.1.3. Can be combined according to defined rules to structurally present the description 53.1.4. Development relies on the part of Record Metadata that describe the records in the class 53.1.5. Recorded means being affixed to a medium 53.2. Measurement 53.2.1. Degree of accuracy 53.2.2. Degree of completeness 54. Records Classification Scheme (RCS) 54.1. Specification 54.1.1. Developed to organizes records 54.1.2. Contains and/or points to Record Metadata and Records Class Metadata 54.1.3. Development reflects the design of Operational Activity, which determines the relationships between records and records classes 54.1.3.1. When the design of Operational Activity changes, the class structure of RCS changes accordingly 54.1.3.2. Changes need to be documented 54.1.4. Development relies on RM Application-Oriented Work as input, thus is jointly developed by Central RM & Unit RM 54.1.5. Supports Record(s) Retrieval 54.1.6. Supports Records Disposition through integrating with Records Retention 54.1.7. An Organizational RM has only one RCS 54.1.8. Implemented by conducting Record Classifying 54.1.9. Implementation is desired to be assisted by digital technology 54.2. Measurement 304 54.2.1. Degree of completeness (coverage of Operational Activity or records) 54.2.2. Degree of representation accuracy of relationships between records and their Creating Activity 54.2.3. Degree of currency 55. Records Destruction 55.1. Specification 55.1.1. Removes records from Organizational Digital Records System 55.1.2. The removing intends to disable recoveries of destructed records 55.1.3. Performed at the level of records class 55.1.4. May include (portion of) Records Metadata 55.1.5. Follows RM Procedure 55.1.6. Carried out by Unit RM and Central RM 55.2. Measurement 55.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of records destructed against all records with expired Records Retention) 55.2.2. Degree of timeliness 56. Records Disposition Activity 56.1. Composition 56.1.1. Records Destruction 56.1.2. Records Transfer 56.2. Specification 56.2.1. Relies on Records Disposition Authority 56.3. Measurement 56.3.1. Degree of timeliness 57. Records Disposition Authority (RDA) 57.1. Specification 57.1.1. Issued by Archival Institution to records creating organization 57.1.2. Relies on Archival Appraisal 57.1.3. Can be multiple 57.1.4. Need to be pertinent to records type 57.1.5. Obtaining RDA requires RCS with RRs 305 57.1.6. Execution of RDA is to conduct Records Disposition Activity 57.2. Measurement 57.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of covered records against all identified records) 57.2.2. Degree of pertinence to records type 57.2.3. Degree of currency 58. Records Retention (RR) 58.1. Specification 58.1.1. Time periods for records maintenance 58.1.2. Relies on RM Appraisal for scheduling 58.1.3. Scheduling jointly carried out by Central RM & Unit RM 58.1.4. Scheduling can be aided by risk analysis 58.1.5. RRs are applicable to records classes 58.1.5.1. Records are individually scheduled along with Record Identification 58.1.6. RRs need to be integrated with RCS for disposition 58.1.7. Re-scheduling occurs when legal hold of discovery order takes place 58.1.7.1. Discovery is applicable to both physical and digital records 58.2. Measurement 58.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of scheduled records against identified records) 58.2.2. Degree of retention period appropriateness (existence of justifications) 58.2.3. Degree of currency 59. Records Retention Calculation 59.1. Specification 59.1.1. Implementation of Records Retentions 59.1.2. Desired to be assisted by digital technology 59.1.3. Can be suspended when needed 59.2. Measurement 59.2.1. Degree of accuracy 60. Records Transfer 306 60.1. Composition 60.1.1. Records Legal Transfer 60.1.1.1. the handing over of rights attached to records 60.1.2. Records Physical Transfer 60.1.2.1. the changing of records storage 60.2. Specification 60.2.1. Takes place between records creating organizations and the archival institution 60.2.2. Requires formal terms and conditions 60.2.3. Only to be performed at level of records class 60.2.4. Must include Records Class Metadata 60.2.5. Must include Record Metadata 60.2.6. Carried out by Central RM 60.2.7. Relies on RDA 60.3. Measurement 60.3.1. Percentage of transferred records against records selected for transfer 60.3.2. Degree of transfer timeliness 61. RM Academia 61.1. Specification 61.1.1. Offers Formal RM Education 61.1.2. Conducts RM Research 61.2. Measurement 61.2.1. Degree of adequacy to support Organizational RM 62. RM Activity 62.1. Composition 62.1.1. RM Requirement-Oriented Work 62.1.2. RM Application-Oriented Work 62.2. Specification 62.2.1. The conduct of RM Activity determines the achievement of RM Control 62.3. Measurement 62.3.1. Degree of components being distinguished 307 62.3.2. Degree of recognition adequacy by organization as both necessary 62.3.3. Degree of recognition adequacy by organization as both requiring RM Personnel 63. RM Application-Oriented Work 63.1. Specification 63.1.1. Part of Non-RM Activity 63.1.2. Conducted by Local RM 63.1.3. Conduct Record Identification through participating in Record Creating Activity 63.1.4. Conduct Record(s) Maintaining Activity 63.1.5. Conduct Record(s) Retrieval Activity 63.1.6. Contribute to RM Requirement-Oriented Work 63.2. Measurement 63.2.1. Degree of completion/conduct effectiveness 64. RM Appraisal 64.1. Specification 64.1.1. Part of Record(s) Maintaining Activity 64.1.2. Relies on RM Capacity 64.1.3. Relies on Record Identification 64.1.4. Assesses Record Reuse-Immediate Value 64.1.5. Produces Records Retention 64.2. Measurement 64.2.1. Degree of comprehensiveness (percentage of appraised records against identified records) 64.2.2. Degree of timeliness 64.2.3. Existence of justification(s) 65. RM Capacity 65.1. Composition 65.1.1. RM Personnel 65.1.2. RM Technology 65.2. Specification 308 65.2.1. Determination relies on RM Function Design 65.2.2. Determination relies on establishment of Organizational RM 65.2.3. Critical to the operation of Organizational RM 65.3. Measurement 65.3.1. Degree of adequacy for RM Activity completion (i.e., the number of position) 65.3.2. Degree of technology optimization for Organizational RM operation 66. RM Collective Ability 66.1. Composition 66.1.1. RM Functioning Ability 66.1.2. RM Community Ability 66.2. Specification 66.2.1. Complimentary to each other 66.2.2. Supportive to each other 66.3. Measurement 66.3.1. Degree of adequacy to enable Organizational RM 67. RM Community 67.1. Composition 67.1.1. RM Academia 67.1.2. RM Profession 67.2. Specification 67.2.1. Complimentary with each other 67.2.2. Supportive to each other 67.3. Measurement 67.3.1. Degree of collaboration adequacy 68. RM Community Ability 68.1. Specification 68.1.1. Able to train RM Professionals, through 68.1.1.1. offering formal and continued education 68.1.1.2. conducting research 68.2. Measurement 309 68.3. Degree of adequacy to support Organizational RM 69. RM Conceptual Framework 69.1. Composition 69.1.1. Concepts 69.1.2. Conceptual relationships 69.2. Specification 69.2.1. Developed by articulating/codifying RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill 69.2.2. Maintained by keeping consistent with RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill advancement 69.2.3. A prerequisite for RM Activity 69.2.4. The concepts may possess relationships of being 69.2.4.1. Interrelated 69.2.4.1.1. e.g., Record Value & Record Purpose 69.2.4.2. Derivable 69.2.4.2.1. e.g., RM Nature from Record Nature 69.2.4.3. Mutually exclusive 69.2.4.3.1. e.g., Reuse-Immediate Value vs. Reuse-Distant-Value 69.2.4.4. Inclusive 69.2.4.4.1. e.g., Local RM = Unit RM + Employee RM + Technology RM; 69.2.4.5. Hierarchical 69.2.4.5.1. e.g., Operational Activity > RM Activity > Record(s) Maintaining Activity > Record Identification 69.2.4.6. Multiple 69.2.4.6.1. e.g., Organizational RM > Local RM > = Unit RM > + Employee RM 69.2.4.7. Synonymous 69.2.4.7.1. e.g., Information Technology = Digital Technology) 69.3. Measurement 69.3.1. Degree of articulation452 precision 452 Here the choice of term is “articulated”, not understood as used for Record Nature, due to the 310 69.3.2. Degree of comprehensiveness 69.3.3. Degree of relationship coherence 70. RM Control 70.1. Composition 70.1.1. Realization of Record(s) Retrievability 70.1.2. Realization of Record Usability 70.2. Specification 70.2.1. RM Control is the goal of Organizational RM 70.3. Measurement 70.3.1. Percentage of controlled records against all identified records 71. RM Core Knowledge 71.1. Specification 71.1.1. Understanding of RM Foundational Concept 71.1.2. Understanding of RM Activity 71.1.3. Understanding of RM Technology 71.2. Measurement 71.2.1. Degree of understanding adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 72. RM Development Plan 72.1. Specification 72.1.1. Relies on RM Conceptual Framework 72.1.2. Relies on RM Application-Oriented Work 72.1.3. Includes 72.1.3.1. RM Strategic Plan 72.1.3.2. RM Action Plan 72.2. Measurement consideration that understanding can be mentally acquired yet to establish a RM Function, the understanding needs to be clearly articulated. The clear articulation is needed for all kinds of RM products, policy, directive, procedure, tool, or performance evaluation. 311 72.2.1. Degree of development adequacy in terms of executability 73. RM Extended Knowledge 73.1. Composition 73.1.1. Non-RM Activity Knowledge 73.1.2. Non-RM Technology Knowledge 73.2. Specification 73.2.1. Additional to RM Core Knowledge 73.2.2. Equally necessary for the conduct of RM Activity 73.3. Measurement 73.3.1. Degree of recognition adequacy by organization 73.3.2. Degree of understanding adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 74. RM Foundational Concept 74.1. Composition 74.1.1. Concept of Record Nature 74.1.2. Concepts derived from Record Nature 74.1.2.1. Record(s) Purpose 74.1.2.2. Record Value 74.1.2.3. RM Nature 74.1.3. Concept interrelated with the derived concepts 74.1.3.1. RM Value 74.2. Measurement 74.2.1. Degree of understanding by Organizational RM (inherited) 75. RM Function Design 75.1. Composition 75.1.1. RM Governance Structure 75.1.2. RM Responsibility Arrangement 75.1.3. RM Activity 75.2. Specification 75.2.1. Relies on RM Conceptual Framework for design 75.2.2. Determines the establishment of Organizational RM 312 75.3. Measurement 75.3.1. Degree of design adequacy 76. RM Functioning Ability 76.1. Specification 76.1.1. Command of RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 76.2. Measurement 76.2.1. Degree of adequacy for RM Activity completion 77. RM Governance Structure 77.1. Specification 77.1.1. Reporting relationship b/w Unit RM & Central RM 77.1.2. Reporting relationship b/w Employee RM & Unit RM 77.1.3. Reporting relationship b/w Technology RM & Unit RM 77.1.4. Reporting relationship b/w Unit RM & Business Activity 77.1.5. Reporting relationship b/w Unit RM & Accountability-Related Activity 77.1.6. Reporting relationship b/w Unit RM & Investigation-Related Activity 77.1.7. Administrative relationship b/w Central RM and Business Activity, Accountability-Related Activity, and Investigation-Related Activity is one that is jointly responsible for = 77.1.7.1. the conduct of Business Activity, Accountability-Related Activity, and Investigation-Related Activity 77.1.8. Reporting relationship b/w Central RM and the highest level of decision making body in the organization 77.2. Measurement 77.2.1. Degree of design adequacy in terms of specification comprehensiveness (authority) 78. RM Legislative Base 78.1. Specification 78.1.1. Provisions regarding record nature in dedicated RM legislation 78.1.2. Provisions regarding RM in dedicated RM legislation 78.1.2.1. Dedicated = enacted as an independent piece of legislation 313 78.1.2.2. Dedicated = not included as part of an act that establishes an archival institution 78.1.2.3. Dedicated = not included as part of an act that stipulates access to/freedom of information 78.2. Relies on RM Collective Ability 78.3. Support RM Collective Ability 78.4. Measurement 78.4.1. Degree of adequacy 79. RM Nature 79.1. Specification 79.1.1. RM is indispensible 79.1.1.1. Managing records is part of any operational activity453 79.1.2. RM is professional 79.1.2.1. Managing records requires specialized knowledge and skill 79.1.3. RM is managerial 79.1.3.1. RM is a management filed and management includes not only records but also personnel and technology 79.1.4. RM is organizational 79.1.4.1. Records are managed for the organization as a whole 79.1.5. RM is dedicated 79.1.5.1. The ubiquitous presence of organizational records requires dedication of RM Activity 79.1.5.2. The volume of digital records requires dedication of RM Activity 79.1.5.3. The complexity of digital records requires dedication of RM Activity 453 This includes the RM decision to retain the record for a very short time. This means that whenever a record is determined to be created (made or affiliated), a RM decision must be made about its retention. This also means that non-records should never be created (made or affiliated) in the first place. For information resources controlled also by the organization for business purposes, typically items in in-house library, the term is collected or gathered, not created. 314 79.1.6. RM is centralized 79.1.6.1. Every record must be known to the Organizational RM regardless its physical location 79.2. Measurement 79.2.1.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through organizational RM) 80. RM Performance Evaluation 80.1. Composition 80.1.1. Periodical Review 80.1.2. On-demand Audit 80.2. Specification 80.2.1. Design relies on RM Conceptual Framework 80.2.2. Design relies on RM Application-Oriented Work 80.2.3. Conduct relies on RM authority 80.3. Measurement 80.3.1. Existence of involvement of RM Professional 80.3.2. Degree of specificity 81. RM Personnel 81.1. Specification 81.1.1. Recognized as RM Professional 81.1.2. Qualified as RM Professional 81.2. Measurement 81.2.1. Existence of recognition 81.2.2. Degree of qualification 82. RM Policy Instrument 82.1. Specification 82.1.1. Typically in forms of mandatory policy, directive, and standard 82.1.2. Transforms RM Governance Structure into compliance requirements 82.1.3. Transforms also RM Responsibility Arrangement into compliance requirements 82.1.4. Contains also enforceable penalties for incompliance 82.1.5. Relies on RM Conceptual Framework 315 82.2. Measurement 82.2.1. Degree of development adequacy in terms of comprehensiveness 82.2.2. Degree of development adequacy in terms of clarity 83. RM Procedure 83.1. Specification 83.1.1. Transforms mandatory compliance requirements in RM Policy Instrument into specific, executable steps on when, how and by whom 83.1.2. Relies on RM Conceptual Framework 83.1.3. Relies on RM Application-Oriented Work 83.2. Measurement 83.2.1. Degree of development adequacy for RM Activity completion in terms of specificity 84. RM Profession 84.1. Specification 84.1.1. Supports Organizational RM 84.1.2. Participates in RM Research 84.2. Measurement 84.2.1. Degree of adequacy to support Organizational RM 85. RM Professional 85.1. Specification 85.1.1. Possession of RM Functioning Ability as qualification 85.1.2. Requires support from RM Profession 85.1.3. Requires support from RM Academia 85.2. Measurement 85.2.1. Degree of qualification 86. RM Research 86.1. Specification 86.1.1. Being scientific 86.1.2. Supports Organizational RM 86.1.3. Contributing to RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill 86.2. Measurement 316 86.2.1. Degree of sufficiency 86.2.2. Degree of pertinence 87. RM Requirement-Oriented Work 87.1. Specification 87.1.1. Conducted by Central RM 87.1.2. Codifying RM Conceptual Framework 87.1.3. Designing RM Function 87.1.4. Developing 87.1.4.1. RM Policy Instrument 87.1.4.2. RM Procedure 87.1.4.3. RM Tool 87.1.4.4. Record Titling Guidelines 87.1.4.5. RM Development Plan 87.1.4.6. RM Performance Evaluation 87.1.5. Executing RM Development Plan 87.1.6. Conducting RM Performance Evaluation 87.2. Measurement 87.2.1. Degree of completion/conduct effectiveness 88. RM Responsibility Arrangement 88.1. Specification 88.1.1. Organizational RM is responsible for the effectiveness of RM Activities 88.1.2. Central RM is responsible for RM Function Design 88.1.3. Central RM is responsible for RM Requirement-Oriented Work 88.1.4. Central RM and Local RM are jointly responsible for RM Application-Oriented Work 88.1.5. Unit RM is responsible for Employee RM 88.1.6. Employee RM is responsible for titling records according to Record Titling Template determined by Unit RM 88.1.6.1. Unit RM is responsible for the development and maintenance of the templates 317 88.1.7. Employee RM is responsible for saving/capturing records into designated space(s) 88.1.7.1. For paper records, a designated space can be a physical folder pre-labelled by Unit RM or a physical location for records drop off 88.1.7.1.1. Pre-labelled = classified 88.1.7.2. For digital records, a designated space can be a digital folder pre-named by Unit RM in Organizational Digital Records Management System for records drop-off 88.1.7.2.1. Pre-named = classified 88.1.7.3. Central RM is responsible for designating space(s) 88.1.7.4. Unit RM is responsible for classifying dropped off records 88.1.8. Unit RM is responsible for Technology RM 88.1.9. Technology RM is responsible for titling records according to pre-determined templates attached to pre-determined workflow and rules 88.1.9.1. Technology RM is responsible for capturing records according to pre-determined workflow and rules 88.1.9.1.1. Capture by Technology RM replaces saving records into designated space by Employee RM 88.1.10. Technology RM is responsible for classifying records according to pre-determined workflow and rules 88.1.10.1. Classification by Technology RM replaces classification by Unit RM 88.2. Measurement 88.2.1. Degree of design adequacy in terms of specification comprehensiveness (balanced work division) 89. RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill 89.1. Composition 89.1.1. RM Core Knowledge 89.1.2. RM Extended Knowledge 89.1.3. RM Skill 89.2. Specification 318 89.2.1. Relies on RM Collective Ability to be understood/recognized by organization 89.3. Measurement 89.3.1. Degree of existence adequacy in organization 90. RM Skill 90.1. Specification 90.1.1. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Core Knowledge for completing RM Activity 90.1.2. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Extended Knowledge for completing RM Activity 90.2. Measurement 90.2.1. Degree of possession adequacy by Organizational RM (through RM Personnel) 91. RM Technology 91.1. Composition 91.1.1. Record Creating Technology 91.1.2. Record(s) Maintaining Technology 91.2. Specification 91.2.1. A type of IT 91.2.2. Part of OIT 91.2.3. Record Creating Technology is part of the Non-RM Technology that is directly relevant to the creation of record 454 91.3. Measurement 91.3.1. Degree of optimization for completing RM Activity 92. RM Tool 92.1. Composition 454 For example, a database designed for marketing is of the nature of Non-RM Technology because its primary purpose is not for the management of records but for reaching the goal of a Business Activity. However, the functions of the database that are designed to generate reports are Record Creating Technology. 319 92.1.1. Records Classification Scheme (RCS) 92.1.2. Records Retention (RR) 92.1.3. Records Disposition Authority (RDA) 92.2. Specification 92.2.1. Relies on RM Conceptual Framework 92.2.2. Relies on RM Application-Oriented Work 92.3. Measurement 92.3.1. Degree of adequacy in terms of records coverage 92.3.2. Degree of currency 93. RM Value 93.1. Composition 93.1.1. RM Constant Value 93.1.2. RM Regular Value 93.1.3. RM Occasional Value 93.1.4. RM Recurrent Value 93.1.5. RM Longer-Term Value 93.2. Specification 93.2.1. RM Constant Value is demonstrable by realizing Record Instrumental Value 93.2.2. RM Regular Value is demonstrable by realizing Record(s) Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value 93.2.3. RM Occasional Value is demonstrable by realizing Record(s) Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value 93.2.4. RM Recurrent Value is demonstrable by realizing Record(s) Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value 93.2.5. RM Longer-Term Value is demonstrable by realizing Record(s) Reuse-Distant Value 93.3. Measurement 93.3.1. Degree of recognition by organization (through Organizational RM) 93.3.2. Degree of demonstration 94. Technology RM 320 94.1. Specification 94.1.1. Structurally part of Non-RM Activity 94.1.2. Structurally also part of Unit RM 94.1.3. Carries out a portion of RM Maintaining Activity 94.1.4. Fulfills responsibilities outlined in RM Responsibility Arrangement 94.1.5. Carrying out is assisted by Central RM in the form of RM Procedure 94.1.6. Carrying out may be integrated with Record Creating Technology 94.1.7. Carrying out is supervised by Unit RM 94.2. Measurement 94.2.1. Degree of operation effectiveness 95. Unit Digital Records Management System (UDRMS) 95.1. Specification 95.1.1. Operated by Unit RM 95.1.2. Manages records of Non-RM Activity 95.1.3. Manages also records of Local RM (i.e., records created by RM Application-Oriented Work) 95.1.4. The relationship between UDRMS and the activities can be one-to-many 455 or many-to-one 456 95.1.5. The system and the activity must be managerially integrated, and may also be technologically integrated 95.1.6. The systems must be managerially integrated with each other, and may also be technologically integrated 95.1.7. The systems must be managerially integrated with Central Digital Records Management System, and may also be technologically integrated with Central Digital Records Management System 95.2. Measurement 455 An EDRMS is the typical example of this type. 456 An example can be a complex activity that crosses the boundaries of many units or institutions. 321 95.2.1. Degree of design optimization 95.2.2. Degree of operation effectiveness 96. Unit RM 96.1. Specification 96.1.1. Structurally part of the Unit 96.1.1.1. A Unit is an administrative configuration responsible for a portion of a, or a complete, Non-RM Activity 96.1.2. Structurally also part of the Organizational RM 96.1.3. Operated by dedicated RM Personnel 96.1.4. Fulfills responsibilities as outlined in RM Responsibility Arrangement 96.1.5. Carries out the portion of RM Application-Oriented Work that is not assigned to Technology RM and Employee RM 96.1.6. Carries out the entire RM Application-Oriented Work when Technology RM and Employee RM are absent 96.1.7. Operates Unit Digital Records Management System 96.2. Measurement 96.2.1. Degree of operation effectiveness 322 Appendix 5 Subject Grouping of Conceptual Building Blocks The concepts describing the RM function in institutions are grouped in relation to the major RM tasks and into five groups. The categorizations of “simple” and “compound” are used to further divide the concepts into groups of concepts containing no component concepts and of concepts containing component concepts. The numbers of the concepts associated with the groups indicate, in a simplistic yet straightforward manner, the different levels of complexity of the tasks. Group 1: RM Function Design Related (22)  Simple concepts o RM Functioning Ability o RM Governance Structure o RM Nature o RM Personnel o RM Professional o RM Responsibility Arrangement o RM Skill  Compound Concepts o Operational Activity  Non-RM Activity  RM Activity o Organizational Information Technology  Non-RM Technology  RM Technology o Organizational Digital Records Management System  Central Digital Records Management System  Unit Digital Records Management System o Organizational RM 323  Central RM  Local RM o Record(s) Metadata  Record Metadata  Records Class Metadata o Record(s) Purpose  Record Creation Purpose  Record(s) Maintenance Purpose o RM Activity  RM Requirement-Oriented Work  RM Application-Oriented Work o RM Capacity  RM Personnel  RM Technology o RM Conceptual Framework  Concepts  Conceptual relationships o RM Core Knowledge  Understanding of RM Foundational Concept  Understanding of RM Activity  Understanding of RM Technology o RM Extended Knowledge  Non-RM Activity Knowledge  Non-RM Technology Knowledge o RM Foundational Concept  Concept of Record Nature  Concepts derived from Record Nature  Record(s) Purpose  Record Value  RM Nature 324  Concept interrelated with the derived concepts  RM Value o RM Function Design  RM Governance Structure  RM Responsibility Arrangement  RM Activity o RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill  RM Core Knowledge  RM Extended Knowledge  RM Skill o RM Technology  Record Creating Technology  Record(s) Maintaining Technology Group 2: RM Requirement-Oriented Work (of RM Activity) Related (13)  Simple Concepts o Central Digital Records Management System o Central RM o Centralized Records o Record Titling Guidelines o Records Classification Scheme o Records Disposition Authority o Records Retention o RM Development Plan o RM Policy Instrument o RM Procedure  Compound Concepts o RM Performance Evaluation  Periodical Review  On-demand Audit o RM Tool 325  Records Classification Scheme (RCS)  Records Retention (RR)  Records Disposition Authority (RDA) Group 3: RM Application-Oriented Work (of RM Activity) Related (38)  Simple Concepts o Business Activity Execution Knowledge o Decentralized Records o Employee RM o Record Capture o Record Classification o Record Titling o Record(s) Long-Term Preservation o Record(s) Maintenance Purpose o Records Class Metadata o Records Destruction o Records Retention Calculation o RM Appraisal o Technology RM o Unit Digital Records Management System o Unit RM  Compound Concepts o Local RM  Unit RM  Employee RM  Technology RM o Record(s) Maintaining Activity  Record Capture  Record Classification  Record Titling  RM Appraisal 326  Records Retention Calculation  Records Disposition Activity  Records Destruction  Records Transfer  Record(s) Long-Term Preservation  Unit Digital Records Management System operation o Record(s) Maintaining Technology  Organizational Digital Records Management System  Other technologies suitable for Record(s) Maintaining Activities o Record(s) Retrieval Activity  Record Retrieval  Records Class Retrieval o Records Transfer  Records Legal Transfer  Records Physical Transfer Group 4: Record Identification (of RM Application-Oriented Work) Related (17)  Simple Concepts o Accountability-Related Activity o Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge o Business Activity o Business Activity Knowledge o Business Activity Design Knowledge o Digital Record o Investigation-Related Activity o Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge o Record Creation Purpose o Record Instrumental Value o Record Metadata  Compound Concepts o Record Identification 327  Identification of record content  Identification of record documentary form  Identification of Record Metadata o Activity Time Boundary  Past Activity  Present Activity  Future Activity o Non-RM Activity  Accountability-Related Activity  Investigation-Related Activity  Business Activity o Non-RM Activity Knowledge  Business Activity Knowledge  Business Activity Design Knowledge  Business Activity Execution Knowledge  Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge  Accountability-Related Activity Design Knowledge  Accountability-Related Activity Execution Knowledge  Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge  Investigation-Related Activity Design Knowledge  Investigation-Related Activity Execution Knowledge o Non-RM Technology  Business Activity Technology  Accountability-Related Activity Technology  Investigation-Related Activity Technology o Non-RM Technology Knowledge  Business Activity Technology Knowledge  Accountability-Related Activity Technology Knowledge  Investigation-Related Activity Technology Knowledge Group 5: Records and RM Value Related (16) 328  Simple Concepts o Archival Appraisal o Record Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value o Record Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value o Record Reuse-Distant-Resource Value o Record Reuse-Immediate Value o Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value o Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value o Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value o Record Usability o Record(s) Retrievability  Compound Concepts o Record Value  Record Instrumental Value  Record Reuse Value o Record Reuse Value  Record Reuse-Immediate Value  Record Reuse-Distant Value o Record Reuse-Distant Value  Record Reuse-Distant-Accountability Value  Record Reuse-Distant-Investigation Value  Record Reuse-Distant-Resource Value o Record Reuse-Immediate Value  Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value  Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value  Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value o RM Control  Realization of Record(s) Retrievability  Realization of Record Usability o RM Value 329  RM Constant Value  RM Regular Value  RM Occasional Value  RM Recurrent Value  RM Longer-Term Value 330 Appendix 6 Hypotheses in Propositions Within a particular institution in the Government of Canada: 1. 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 in organization = 1.1. RM Core Knowledge adequately exists = 1.1.1. The understanding of RM Foundational Concept adequately exists = 1.1.1.1. The understanding of Record(s) Purpose adequately exists 1.1.1.2. + The understanding of Record Value adequately exists 1.1.1.3. + The understanding of RM Nature adequately exists 1.1.1.4. + The understanding of RM Value adequately exists 1.1.2. + The understanding of RM Activity adequately exists = 1.1.2.1. The understanding of RM Requirement-Oriented Work adequately exists 1.1.2.2. + The understanding of RM Application-Oriented Work adequately exists 1.1.3. + The understanding of RM Technology adequately exists 1.1.3.1. The understanding of Record Creating Technology adequately exists = 1.1.3.1.1. The understanding of the part/module of Non-RM Technology directly relevant to records creation adequately exists 1.1.3.2. + The understanding of Record(s) Maintaining Technology adequately exists = 1.1.3.2.1. The understanding of Business Process Management System (BPMS) adequately exists 1.1.3.2.2. + The understanding of Digital Records Management System (DRMS) adequately exists 1.2. + RM Extended Knowledge adequately exists = 331 1.2.1. The understanding of Non-RM Activity adequately exists = 1.2.1.1. Business Activity Knowledge adequately exists = 1.2.1.1.1. Business Activity Design Knowledge adequately exists 1.2.1.1.2. + Business Activity Execution Knowledge adequately exists 1.2.1.2. + Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge adequately exists 1.2.1.3. + Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge adequately exists 1.2.2. + The understanding of Non-RM Technology adequately exists 1.3. + RM Skill adequately exists = 96.2.1. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Core Knowledge adequately exists 1.3.1. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Extended Knowledge adequately exists 1.4. adequately = sufficient in both scope and depth 2. When the RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill adequately exists, the RM Conceptual Framework (part of RM Requirement-Oriented Work) can be adequately codified 2.1. adequately = with precision, comprehensiveness and coherence 3. When the RM Conceptual Framework is adequately articulated, the RM Function can be adequately designed = 3.1. RM Governance Structure can be adequately designed 3.1.1. adequately = with all specifications = with sufficient authority 3.2. + RM Responsibility Arrangement can be adequately designed 3.2.1. adequately = with all specifications = with balanced work division 3.3. + RM Activity can be adequately designed 3.3.1. adequately = with both components = sufficiently recognized by organization as necessary and professional 4. When the RM Governance Structure and RM Responsibility Arrangement are adequately designed, the Organizational RM can be adequately established = 4.1. adequately = with all components = 4.1.1. Central RM 4.1.2. + Local RM = 4.1.2.1.1. Unit RM 332 4.1.2.1.2. + Employee RM 4.1.2.1.3. + OIT RM 5. When the Organizational RM is adequately established, the RM Capacity can be adequately determined = 5.1. RM Personnel can be adequately determined = 5.1.1. adequate = sufficient number of positions 5.2. + RM Technology can be optimally determined 5.2.1. optimal = most suitable technology 6. When the RM Capacity is adequately determined, other RM Requirement-Oriented Work can be effectively accomplished = 6.1. RM Policy Instrument can be adequately developed 6.1.1. adequately = 6.1.1.1. clearly outlined compliance requirements 6.1.1.2. + clearly outlined penalties for incompliance 6.2. + with also input from RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Procedure can be adequately developed 6.2.1. adequately = with sufficient specifics for completing RM Activities 6.3. + with also input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Tool can be adequately developed = 6.3.1. Records Classification Scheme (RCS) can be adequately developed = 6.3.1.1. adequately = 6.3.1.1.1. RCS structure is fully consistent with the design of Operational Activity 6.3.1.1.2. + RCS covers all records of an Operational Activity 6.3.1.1.3. + RCS covers all Operational Activities of the organization 6.3.1.1.4. + Records Class Metadata are consistently represented 6.3.1.1.5. + The RCS is current 6.3.2. + Records Retention (RR) can be adequately developed 6.3.2.1. adequately = 6.3.2.1.1. Identified records are all scheduled 6.3.2.1.2. + Retention periods are all justifiable 333 6.3.2.1.3. + Retention periods are all current 6.3.3. + Record(s) Disposition Authority (RDA) can be adequately developed 6.3.3.1. adequately = 6.3.3.1.1. Identified records are all covered 6.3.3.1.2. + RDAs are all pertinent 6.3.3.1.3. + RDAs are all current 6.4. + with also input from Record Identification (part of RM Application-Oriented Work), Record Titling Guidelines can be adequately developed 6.4.1. adequately = 6.4.1.1. Record titling templates are developed with pertinence to Creating Activity/Operational Activity 6.4.1.2. + Record titling templates are developed for all types of identified records 6.5. + with also input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Development Plan can be adequately development 6.5.1. adequately = with sufficient specifics permitting execution 6.6. + with also input from RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Performance Evaluation can be adequately designed and conducted 6.6.1. adequately = 6.6.1.1. led by RM Professionals 6.6.1.2. focusing on specificity (i.e., concrete results and detailed problem reporting) 7. When the RM Requirement-Oriented Work is effectively accomplished, the RM Application-Oriented Work can be effectively accomplished = 7.1. Record Identification can be effectively conducted = 7.1.1. effectively = 7.1.1.1. Record Creating Activity is fully understood 7.1.1.2. + Record Creating Technology is fully understood 7.1.1.3. + Records needed by the Operational Activity are all identified with = 7.1.1.3.1. record content 334 7.1.1.3.2. + record documentary form 7.1.1.3.3. + Record Metadata 7.2. When Record Identification is effectively conducted, the Record(s) Maintaining Activities can be effectively accomplished = 7.2.1. Record Capture can be effectively accomplished 7.2.1.1. effectively = 7.2.1.1.1. identified records are all captured (either managerially only or both managerially and technologically) 7.2.1.1.2. + records are captured with all identified components (i.e., content, documentary form, metadata) 7.2.2. + Record Classification can be effectively accomplished 7.2.2.1. effectively = 7.2.2.1.1. captured records are all classified 7.2.2.1.2. + classification is timely 7.2.2.1.3. + classification is accurate 7.2.3. + Record Titling can be effectively accomplished 7.2.3.1. effectively = 7.2.3.1.1. classified records are all titled 7.2.3.1.2. + titling is timely 7.2.3.1.3. + titling is consistent (i.e., in accordance with titling template) 7.2.4. + RM Appraisal can be effectively accomplished = 7.2.4.1. Record Reuse-Immediate Value can be effectively assessed 7.2.4.2. effectively = 7.2.4.2.1. identified records are all appraised 7.2.4.2.2. + appraisal is timely 7.2.4.2.3. + decisions are justifiable 7.2.5. + Records Retention Calculation can be effectively accomplished 7.2.5.1. effectively = 7.2.5.1.1. calculations are accurate 7.2.6. + Records Disposition Activity can be effectively accomplished = 7.2.6.1. Records Destruction can be effectively accomplished 335 7.2.6.1.1. effectively = 7.2.6.1.1.1. records with expired Records Retentions are all destructed 7.2.6.1.1.2. + destruction is timely 7.2.6.2. + Records Transfer can be effectively accomplished 7.2.6.2.1. effectively = 7.2.6.2.1.1. records selected for transfer are all transferred 7.2.6.2.1.2. + transferring is timely 7.2.7. + Record(s) Long-Term Preservation can be effectively accomplished 7.2.7.1. effectively = 7.2.7.1.1. records determined for long-term preservation all possess continued RM Control 7.2.8. + Operation of Unit Digital Records Management System can be effectively accomplished 7.2.8.1. effectively = 7.2.8.1.1. objectives of implementing the system are all achieved 7.3. + When the Record(s) Maintaining Activity is effectively accomplished, the Record Retrievability can be fully developed 7.3.1. fully = identified records all possess retrievability 7.4. + When the Record(s) Maintaining Activity is effectively accomplished, the Record Usability can be fully developed 7.4.1. fully = identified records all possess usability 7.5. + When the Record Retrievability is fully developed, the Record(s) Retrieval Activity can be effectively accomplished 7.5.1. effectively = 7.5.1.1. records are retrievable by RM personnel and/or non-RM personnel 7.5.1.2. + retrieval is fast 7.5.1.3. + retrieval is comprehensive (i.e., all relevant records are retrieved) 7.5.1.4. + retrieval is precise (i.e., only relevant records are retrieved) 7.6. + When the Record Usability is fully developed, the record use is fully enabled 7.6.1. fully = 7.6.1.1. records authenticity is readily approvable 336 7.6.1.2. records contextual information is readily presentable 7.6.1.3. records human-readable copies are readily presentable 8. 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; 9. When the RM Control is fully achieved, all types of Record Value can be fully and effectively realized; 10. When Record Value is fully and effectively realized, RM Value can be fully and concretely demonstrated; 11. When RM Value is fully and concretely demonstrated, the justification for RM Function Design can be confirmed. Beyond a particular institution:  When RM Value is fully and concretely demonstrated, o Archival Function or Archival Institution can be supported for performing Archival Activity; o + Advancement of RM Community Ability can be supported =  RM Research can be supported  + RM Formal Education can be supported  + RM Continuing Education can be supported; o + Record Community can be supported =  RM Profession can be supported  + RM Academia can be supported can be supported; o + RM Legislative Base can be adequately established, and o + RM Legislative Base can be continuously reinforced. 337 Appendix 7 The IM Crisis in Measurements 1. In the Government of Canada, because the Record Nature is inadequately understood, the RM Functioning Ability, i.e., the command of RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill, inadequately exists in institutions = 11.1. RM Core Knowledge inadequately exists = 11.1.1. The understanding of RM Foundational Concept inadequately exists = 11.1.1.1. The understanding of Record(s) Purpose inadequately exists 11.1.1.1.1. The understanding of Record Creation Purpose inadequately exists 11.1.1.1.2. + The understanding of Record(s) Maintenance Purpose largely exists 11.1.1.2. + The understanding of Record Value inadequately457 exists 11.1.1.2.1. The understanding of Record Instrumental Value inadequately exists 11.1.1.2.2. + The understanding of Record Reuse Value largely exists 11.1.1.2.2.1. The understanding of Record Reuse-Immediate Value largely exists 11.1.1.2.2.1.1. The understanding of Record Reuse-Immediate-Accountability Value largely exists 11.1.1.2.2.1.2. + The understanding of Record Reuse-Immediate-Investigation Value largely exists 11.1.1.2.2.1.3. + The understanding of Record Reuse-Immediate-Resource Value largely exists 11.1.1.2.2.2. + The understanding of Record Reuse-Distant Value largely exists 11.1.1.3. + The understanding of RM Nature inadequately exists 457 It is overall inadequate because of the inadequate understanding of the instrumental value, which is the foundation for the reuse value. 338 11.1.1.3.1. The understanding of “RM is indispensible” inadequately exists 11.1.1.3.2. + The understanding of “RM is professional” partially exists 11.1.1.3.3. + The understanding of “RM is managerial” partially exists 11.1.1.3.4. + The understanding of “RM is organizational” inadequately exists 11.1.1.3.5. + The understanding of “RM is dedicated” inadequately exists 11.1.1.3.6. + The understanding of “RM is centralized” inadequately exists 11.1.1.4. + The understanding of RM Value inadequately exists 11.1.2. + The understanding of RM Activity inadequately exists = 11.1.2.1. The understanding of RM Requirement-Oriented Work partially exists 11.1.2.2. + The understanding of RM Application-Oriented Work does not exists 11.1.3. + The understanding of RM Technology inadequately exists 11.1.3.1. The understanding of Record Creating Technology does not exists = 11.1.3.1.1. The understanding of the part/module of Non-RM Technology directly relevant to records creation does not exists 11.1.3.2. + The understanding of Record(s) Maintaining Technology inadequately exists = 11.1.3.2.1. The understanding of Business Process Management System (BPMS) does not exists 11.1.3.2.2. + The understanding of Digital Records Management System (DRMS) inadequately exists 11.2. + RM Extended Knowledge does not exists = 11.2.1. The understanding of Non-RM Activity does not exists = 11.2.1.1. Business Activity Knowledge does not exists = 11.2.1.1.1. Business Activity Design Knowledge does not exists 11.2.1.1.2. + Business Activity Execution Knowledge does not exists 11.2.1.2. + Accountability-Related Activity Knowledge does not exists 11.2.1.3. + Investigation-Related Activity Knowledge does not exists 11.2.2. + The understanding of Non-RM Technology does not exists 339 11.3. + RM Skill adequately exists = 96.2.2. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Core Knowledge inadequately exists 11.3.1. Analytic, managerial, and technological techniques identified based on RM Extended Knowledge does not exists 2. Because the RM Requisite Knowledge & Skill inadequately exists, the RM Conceptual Framework (part of RM Requirement-Oriented Work) is inadequately codified 2.1. inadequate = unclear/indistinguishable, incomplete, contradicting 3. Because the RM Conceptual Framework is inadequately articulated, the RM Function is inadequately designed = 3.1. RM Governance Structure is partially designed 3.1.1. partial = the part for RM is insufficient 3.2. + RM Responsibility Arrangement is partially designed 3.2.1. partial = the part for RM is insufficient 3.3. + RM Activity is inadequately designed 3.3.1. inadequate = the component RM Application-Oriented Work does not exist 12. Because the RM Governance Structure and RM Responsibility Arrangement are inadequately designed, the Organizational RM is inadequately established = 12.1. not all components are established = 12.1.1. Central RM is established 12.1.2. Local RM is not established = 12.1.2.1.1. Unit RM is not established 12.1.2.1.2. + Employee RM is not established 12.1.2.1.3. + OIT RM is not established 13. Because the Organizational RM is inadequately established, the RM Capacity is inadequately determined = 13.1. RM Personnel is inadequately determined = 13.1.1. the number of positions is insufficient 13.2. + RM Technology is not optimally determined 340 13.2.1. the technology selected is not the most suitable configuration 14. Because the RM Capacity is inadequately determined, the other RM Requirement-Oriented Work is ineffectively conducted = 14.1. RM Policy Instrument is inadequately developed 14.1.1. compliance requirements are not clearly outlined 14.1.2. + penalties for incompliance are not clearly outlined 14.2. + because there is no input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Procedures are inadequately developed 14.2.1. inadequate = no sufficient specifics for completing RM Activities 14.3. + because there is no input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Tools are inadequately developed = 14.3.1. Records Classification Scheme (RCS) is inadequately developed = 14.3.1.1. inadequate = 14.3.1.1.1. RCS structure is not fully consistent with the design of Operational Activity 14.3.1.1.2. + not all records of an Operational Activity are covered 14.3.1.1.3. + not all Operational Activities of the organization are covered 14.3.1.1.4. + Records Class Metadata are not consistently represented 14.3.1.1.5. + The RCS is not current 14.3.2. + Records Retention (RR) is inadequately developed 14.3.2.1. inadequate = 14.3.2.1.1. not all records are scheduled 14.3.2.1.2. + not all retention periods are justifiable 14.3.2.1.3. + not all retention periods are current 14.3.3. + Record(s) Disposition Authorities are inadequately developed 14.3.3.1. inadequate = 14.3.3.1.1. not all records are covered 14.3.3.1.2. + not all RDAs are current 14.4. + because there is no input from Record Identification (part of RM Application-Oriented Work), Record Titling Guidelines are inadequately developed or do not exist 341 14.4.1. inadequate = 14.4.1.1. Record titling templates are not developed with pertinence to Creating Activity/Operational Activity 14.4.1.2. + Record titling templates are not developed for all types of records 14.5. + because there is no input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Development Plan is inadequately development 14.5.1. inadequate = insufficient specifics permitting execution 14.6. + because there is no input from the RM Application-Oriented Work, the RM Performance Evaluation is inadequately designed and conducted 14.6.1. inadequate = 14.6.1.1. not led by RM Professionals 14.6.1.2. not focused on RM but generally on IM, and in most cases, on IT 15. Because the RM Requirement-Oriented Work is not effectively conducted, the RM Application-Oriented Work is ineffectively conducted = 15.1. Record Identification is not conducted = 15.1.1. Record Creating Activity is not understood 15.1.2. + Record Creating Technology is not understood 15.1.3. + Records created do not have complete record content, record documentary form, or Record Metadata 15.2. Because Record Identification is not conducted, the Record(s) Maintaining Activities is ineffectively conducted = 15.2.1. Record Capture is not effectively conducted = 15.2.1.1. Not all records are captured (neither managerially only nor both managerially and technologically) 15.2.1.2. Not all records are captured with all identified components (i.e., content, documentary form, metadata) 15.2.2. + Record Classification is not effectively conducted = 15.2.2.1. Not all captured records are classified 15.2.2.2. + classification is time consuming 15.2.2.3. + classification is inaccurate 15.2.3. + Record Titling is not effectively conducted = 342 15.2.3.1. Not all classified records are titled 15.2.3.2. + titling is time consuming 15.2.3.3. + titling is inconsistent (i.e., in accordance with titling template) 15.2.4. + RM Appraisal is not effectively conducted = 15.2.4.1. Record Reuse-Immediate Value is not effectively assessed = 15.2.4.2. Not all records are appraised 15.2.4.3. + not all appraised records have justifiable decisions 15.2.5. + Records Retention Calculation is not effectively conducted 15.2.5.1. calculations are not timely 15.2.5.2. + calculations are not accurate 15.2.6. + Records Disposition Activity is not effectively conducted = 15.2.6.1. Records Destruction is not effectively conducted 15.2.6.1.1. Not all records with expired Records Retentions are destructed 15.2.6.1.2. + destruction is not timely 15.2.6.2. + Records Transfer is not effectively conducted 15.2.6.2.1. Not all records selected for transfer are transferred 15.2.6.2.2. + transferring is not timely 15.2.7. + Record(s) Long-Term Preservation is not effectively conducted 15.2.7.1. Not all records determined for long-term preservation possess continued RM Control 15.2.8. + Operation of Unit Digital Records Management System is not effectively conducted 15.2.8.1. Not all objectives of implementing the system are met 15.3. + Because the Record(s) Maintaining Activity is ineffectively conducted, the Record Retrievability is not fully developed = 15.3.1. Not all records possess retrievability 15.4. + Because the Record(s) Maintaining Activity is ineffectively conducted, the Record Usability is not fully developed = 15.4.1. Not all records possess usability 15.5. + Because the Record Retrievability is not fully developed, the Record(s) Retrieval Activity is not effectively completed = 343 15.5.1. records are not fully retrievable by RM personnel and/or non-RM personnel 15.5.2. + retrieval is time consuming 15.5.3. + retrieval is incomplete 15.5.4. + retrieval is inaccurate 15.6. + Because the Record Usability is not fully developed, the record use is not fully enabled = 15.6.1. records authenticity is not readily approvable 15.6.2. records contextual information is not readily presentable 15.6.3. records human-readable copies are not readily presentable 16. Because the Record Retrievability Activity is ineffectively conducted and the Record Usability is not fully enabled, the RM Control is not fully achieved; 17. Because the RM Control is not fully achieved, the Record Value is not fully or effectively realized; 18. Because the Record Value is not fully or effectively realized, the RM Value is not fully or concretely demonstrated. In a circular way, because the RM Value is not fully or concretely demonstrated, the justification for the RM Function Design cannot be established, and the lack of an adequate RM Functioning Ability will continue to exist in the institutions of the Government of Canada. 344 Appendix 8 List of Acronyms AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (former Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) ARMA Association of Records Managers and Administrator ATI Canadian Access to Information ATI-DR Data ATI disclosed records data ATI-PR Data ATI process responsive Data ATI-RH Data ATI request handling data BASCS Business Activity Structure Classification System CBSA Canada Border Services Agency CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIC Citizenship and Immigration Canada CRA Canada Revenue Agency CSC Correctional Service of Canada CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service CSPS Canada School of Public Services DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DPR Departmental Performance Reports DRMS Digital records management system EDRMS Electronic document and record management system EC Environment Canada ERMS Electronic records management system eGov electronic government FAA Financial Administration Act FAITC Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 345 HCan Health Canada HRSDC Human Resources and Social Development Canada GC Government of Canada (the Canadian Federal Government) GEDS Government Electronic Directory Services GOL Government On-Line GT Grounded theory IC Industry Canada IM Information Management IM/RM Refers to the indiscriminating manner by which some GC sources discuss IM and RM. IM(RM) Refers 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. InterPARES International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems LAC Library and Archives Canada MAF Management Accountability Framework NAA National Archives of Australia ND National Defence OAG Office of the Auditor General of Canada OIC Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada OPI office of primary interest OSTA On Second Thought Advisory PAA Program Activity Architecture PCH Canadian Heritage PCO Privy Council Office PS Public Safety Canada PWGSC Public Works and Government Services Canada RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Policy RDIMS Records, Document and Information Management System RM Records Management 346 RM(IM) Refers 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. PRN Program Record Number RPP Reports on Plans and Priorities SC Substantive code sG Starting group TBS Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada tsG Theoretical sampling groups "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "2013-11"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0073711"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Library, Archival and Information Studies"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"@en ; ns0:rightsURI "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "The nature of record and the information management crisis in the Government of Canada : a grounded theory study"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/44450"@en .