by Dr. An Xiaomi

Abstract

This paper was written for the author’s presentation at an international symposium on “OA System and the Management of Archival Electronic Records: Theory and Practice” held in Hangzhou, south east China, from November 11 to 13, 2001.  It examines concepts of the records continuum theory in three phases of usage, mechanisms for best practice behind the model in contrast to the life cycle mode and a best practice framework for managing electronic records.   A Mandarin Chinese version was due to be published in Archives Science Bulletin in China in 2002.

______________________

1.        Introduction

To provide coherent and consistent service to satisfying the needs of users has long been a challenge to records managers and archivists throughout the world.  It is particularly so when we meet such needs in digital world.

Timely access of accurate, reliable, authentic, complete and readable records over time is always a difficult for both users and the custodians.  Archivists have tried hard to find appropriate approaches for managing electronic records in recent years.

This paper promotes the internationally recommended records continuum model as a best practice model for managing electronic records and archives within a broader context of archival science.  (Flynn 2001, pp.79-93, Pucknell 2000, pp.12-13).  The paper first analyses the concepts of the records continuum in its three periods of development, then explores the best practice mechanisms behind the records continuum model in contrast to life cycle model, finally it deduces and proposes a best practice framework for managing electronic records based on the mechanisms introduced.

2.       Concepts of the Records Continuum Model

A definition of the records continuum is given in the Australia Records Management Standard AS4390 that refers to “…a consistent and coherent regime of management processes from the time of the creation of records (and before creation, in the design of recordkeeping system) through to the preservation and use of records as archives.” (AS4390 1996, part 1: clause 4.22)

It can be observed that the definition suggests an ideal of integration for documents, records and archives management.

The evolution of the concepts of records continuum can be seen in three periods: origins of the continuum concept; wide use of the word ‘continuum’; and the formulation and implementation of records continuum model to the electronic and paper records management.

In the first period, the earliest view of the continuum concept came from the national archivist, Ian Maclean in the 1950’s.   He declared that records managers were the true archivists, and that archival science should be directed towards the study of the characteristics of recorded information, recordkeeping systems and classification processes (Upward 2000, p.118).  His view promoted the search for continuity between archives and records management.

In the second period, the word continuum was not widely used in Australian recordkeeping in the mid of 1980s until Canadian archivist Jay Atherton made it explicit at the annual conference of the Association of Canadian Archivists in 1985.  According to Atherton, all stages of records are interrelated, forming a continuum in which both records managers and archivists are involved, to varying degrees, in the ongoing management of recorded information.  He showed how the life cycle stages that records supposedly underwent were in fact a series of recurring and reverberating activities within both archives and records management.

The underlying unifying or linking factor in this continuum was the function of service to the records’ creators and all their users (Flynn 2001, p.80).  This view pointed out the weakness of the separation of records management and archives administration under the lifecycle model.

In the third period, records continuum as a model way of thinking was formulated in the 1990s by Australian archival theorists, Frank Upward (See Figure1.  The Upward’s records continuum model).  He states four principles of the records continuum model.

1. A concept of ‘record’ which is inclusive of records of continuing value (archives), which stresses their uses for transactional, evidentiary and memory purposes, and which unifies approaches to archiving/recordkeeping whether records are kept for a split second or a millennium…
2. A focus on records as logical rather than physical entities, regardless of whether they are in paper or electronic form…
3. Institutionalisation of the recordkeeping profession’s role requires a particular emphasis on the need to integrate recordkeeping into business and societal processes and purposes…
4. Archival science is the foundation for organising knowledge about recordkeeping…  Such knowledge in revisable but can be structured and can be explored in terms of the operation of principles for action in the past, the present and the future…

(Upward 1996, pp.275-277)

The model has four axes dealing with archivists’ concerns on four major themes in archival science: evidentiality, transactionality, identity, and recordkeeping containers.

Four dimensions of the continuum are identified: document creation, records capture, the organisation of corporate and personal memory, and the pluralisation of collective memory.

“The model provides a graphical tool for framing issues about the relationship between records managers and archivists, past, present and future, and for thinking strategically about working collaboratively and building partnerships with other stakeholders.” (McKemmish 1998, p.2)

Pederson (1999) stated that such a model has four basic recordkeeping functions: CADS

Control:  Capture, identification, organisation and control.

Accessibility:  Ensuring access and usability.

Disposal:  Setting up provisions (appraisal criteria and disposal policies or procedures) for “capturing” appropriate records and for “cleansing” the regime of records that are no longer needed, whether for business, regulation or cultural/historical purposes.

Storage:  Maintaining record authenticity, integrity and usability over time.

Pedersen pointed out that the continuum-based recordkeeping model as depicted in the general graphic model articulates a framework which identifies and manages documentary relationships, processes, systems and their outputs (records) at four levels of perspective (Pederson, 1999).   Kennedy and Schauder (1998) further explained the four dimensions that Upward used in his concept of the continuum model.   Their views can be brought together as:

• At level one, the model applies itself to identifying accountable acts and ensures that reliable evidence of them is created by capturing records of the related/supporting transactions. Records of business activities are created as part of business communication processes within the organisations (e.g. through e-mail, document management software, or other software applications)
• At level two, recordkeeping systems manage “families” of transactions and records series documenting processes at the work unit or single function scope of complexity. Records that have been created or received in an organisation are tagged with information (metadata) about them, including the ways they link to other records.

• At level three, a seamless recordkeeping regime embraces the multiple systems and families of records that service the entire documentary needs (business, regulatory & cultural/ educational/ historical) of a single juridical entity. Records become part of a formal system of storage and retrieval that constitutes the corporate memory of the organisation.

• At level four, one comprehends a regime that services the needs of the total society and its constituent functions and entities that carry them out. It takes the form of a collaborative recordkeeping establishment, under the guidance of a suitably empowered public recordkeeping authority, that services the documentary needs of many juridical entities within its jurisdiction and ensures the accountability and the cultural memory of the society as a whole. Records that are required for purposes of societal accountability (e.g., by corporate law) or other forms of collective memory become part of wider archival systems which comprise records from a range organisations.

(Kennedy and Scharder 1998 and Pederson 1999)

Flynn (2001) gave a conclusion of the work done by Atherton and Upward.  She analysed that the records continuum model has six characteristics as follows:

• A unified and homogenous system for the management of records (including archives) in any format throughout their lifetime, however long or short that life time is;

• The synchronic existence of a record or an accumulation of records in more than one “dimension” of context and use, rather than the diachronic movement of a record or accumulation of records through one discrete and compartmentalised lifecycle stage after another;

• An engagement with the establishment and design of record-keeping systems, even before records have been created;

• Co-operation and sharing of responsibility for records (including archives) and record-keeping systems, particularly between records managers and archivist;

• The concept of service to the users of records, whether internal or external to the creating organisation, throughout the lifetime of those records;

• A sense of the provenance, organisational and social context in which records are created and maintained.

(Flynn 2001, pp.83-84)

3.      Mechanisms of Best Practice Behind Records Continuum Model

Flynn (2001) pointed out the records continuum model is significant for three important reasons, among others.

• Firstly, it widens the possibilities of interpretation of records and recordkeeping systems offered by the lifecycle model, widening which is helpful given the variety of current contexts in which archivists and records managers operate, and in which archives and records are used.

• Secondly, it reminds us the fact that records (including archives) are created and maintained for their uses, as a result of business and administrative functions and processes, rather than as an end in themselves.

• Lastly, it emphasises co-operation beyond the walls of our repositories, especially between the closely related if occasionally estranged professions of archives administration and records management-a co-operation which is more important than ever in the contemporary climate of outsourcing and cross-sector working.

(Flynn 2001, p.90)

The best practice mechanisms behind the records continuum model may be explored by a comparative study of the difference between the records continuum model and life cycle model, seen in Figure 2.  It can be observed that the records continuum model differ from life cycle model in 10 aspects.

• Origins of the model,
• Elements of records definition,
• Major concerns in records management,
• Records movement patterns,
• Recordkeeping perspectives,
• Recordkeeping process,
• Criteria for selecting archives,
• Time of appraisal,
• Role of recordkeeping managers,
• Undertaking records management tasks.

Variables in perspectives	Lifecycle Model	Records Continuum Model
1. Origins of the model	Evolved from the need to effectively control and manage physical records after Second World War II (half a century ago)	Evolving from the more demanding need to exercise control and management over electronic records for digital era (today)
2. Elements of records definition	Physical entity	Content, Context Structure
3. Major concerns in records management	Records-centred, product-driven; Focus on records as tangible physical entities, the physical existence of records and records themselves; Paper world	Purpose-centred, process & customer driven; Focus on nature of records, the recordkeeping process, the behaviours and relationships of records in certain environments; Digital world
4. Records movement patterns	Time-based stage: records passes through stages until they eventually ‘die’, except for the ‘ chosen ones’ that are reincarnated as archives Time sequence: records processes take place in a given sequence	Multi-dimensional: records exist in space-time not space and time Simultaneously: records processes can happen at any point in the record’s existence, or indeed precede it
5. Recordkeeping perspectives	Exclusive Single purpose Organisational or collective memory Current or historical value	Inclusive Multiple purposes Can be organisational and collective memory Can have current, regulatory and historical value from the time of creation simultaneously not sequentially
6. Recordkeeping process	There are clearly definable stages in recordkeeping and creates sharp distinction between current and historical recordkeeping.	There should be integration of recordkeeping and archiving processes.
7. Criteria for selecting archives	Currency or historical value	Continuing value including current and historical value
8. Time of archival appraisal	End of records movement	From beginning to the end
9. Role of recordkeeping managers	Passive and reactive Locked into custodial role and strategies	Proactive post-custodian lists: Recordkeeping policy makers, Standard setters, Designers of recordkeeping systems and implementation strategies, Consultants, Educators/trainers Advocates, Auditors
10. Undertaking records management tasks	Things are done to the records in fixed stages, in a given sequence by particular professional group. Records managers and archivists have no business in directing what records an organisation creates, only are relegated to receiving the physical objects once created. Fragmented and disparate accountabilities of creators, users, records managers and archivists	Integration of business process and recordkeeping processes, the tasks can happen in almost any sequence by any professional group. Records managers have accountabilities to ensure not only the maintenance but also the creation of evidence of the purposes and functions of organisations. Integrated framework for the accountabilities of players and partnerships with other stakeholders

Figure 2.  Records Continuum model in Contrast to Lifecycle Model

The above difference between the records continuum model and lifecycle model shows the advantages of the records continuum over the lifecycle, particular in electronic records management.

The primary focus of the continuum is the multiple purposes of records.  It aims at the development of recordkeeping systems that capture, manage and maintain records with sound evidential characteristics for as long as the records are of value to the organisation, any successor, or society.  It promotes the integration of recordkeeping into the business systems and processes of organisation (Marshall 2000, p.24).

It can be argued that the mechanism of best practice behind the records continuum model is using an integrated approach for managing records and archives.  The records managers and archivists are brought together under an integrated recordkeeping framework towards the same goals to guarantee the reliability, authenticity and completeness of the records.

The framework would provide common understandings, consistent standards, unified best practice criteria, interdisciplinary approaches and collaborations in the recordkeeping and archiving process for both the paper and the digital worlds.  It provides sustainable recordkeeping to connect the past with the present and the present to the future, which can coherently exist in a broader dynamic and changeable context that can be influenced by legal, political, administrative, social, commercial, technological, cultural and historical variables across time-space (An 2001, pp.14-15).  The integrated recordkeeping framework would:

• Facilitate provenance;
• Underpin accountability;
• Constitute memory;
• Construct identity;
• Provide authoritative sources of value-added information

(McKemmish 1998, p.4)

The continuum purpose-oriented systems approach to records management fundamentally changes the role of recordkeeping.  Instead of being reactive, responding to the need to manage records after they have been created, recordkeeping must be proactive, identifying in partnership with other stakeholders those records of the organisation’s activities that need to be retained, and then implementing business systems that are designed with built-in recordkeeping capability to capture records of evidential quality as they are created.

Built-in capture and assessment means that records of value are created in the first place whenever electronic systems are used for business transactions.  With appropriate metadata to ensure that they are accurate, complete, reliable and usable, these records have the necessary attributes of content, context and structure to act as evidence of business activity.  And knowing from the outset which electronic records must be kept for the longer term means that those records can then be migrated across systems as hardware and software upgrades occur (Marshall 2000, p.25).

The lifecycle mode uses a birth to death analogy to describe records as passing through a series of stages, it provides a fragmented framework for recordkeeping in artificially dividing the mission of records and archives management; in dismantling the responsibilities of records managers and archivists into divided roles; in limited ways of thinking in terms of custody by narrowed selection criteria; in viewing records as tangible physical objects in a paper world and static environment.  (An 2001, pp.5-16)

The lifecycle model has serious problems when it deals with electronic records.  It simply regards electronic records as new media or physical records like film, recordings and microfiche but needing special handling requirements.  The life cycle’s view of a record as a physical entity having a series of distinct and separate phases of usage runs into difficulties with electronic records.  The nature and volatility of these records negates this approach.  Electronic records must be located where the hardware and software systems that provide their  ‘living’ environment are located, thus defying the traditional repository and custodial orientation of the life cycle.  As far as accessibility and use are concerned in the networked world, the actual location of the systems that store records is irrelevant (Marshall 2000, p.24).

In conclusion, it can be argued that the mechanisms of best practice behind the records continuum model are an ideal of integration for records and archives management.  This means it focuses on:

• Similarities rather than differences;
• Qualities and quantities rather than only quantities;
• Positive and cohesive rather than disparate or passive ways of thinking;
• Integrated rather than fragmented frameworks to policy making;
• Integrated control rather than separate control to policy implementation;
• Integrated rather than disparate approaches to problem solving; and on
• Giving satisfaction to clients by collaboration rather than duplication and overlap.

(An 2001, pp.1-15).

The above comparative study highlights the importance of the records continuum model as best practice model for managing electronic records in aiming to improve responsiveness, increase efficiency and satisfy users requirements.

4.       A Best Practice Framework for Managing Electronic Records

It can be assumed that the ideal of integration from the records continuum model can be developed as a best practice framework for managing records within a broader context of archival science  … to connect the past to the present and the present to the future, particularly for managing electronic records.  The best practice framework would be comprised of three components: the integrated frameworks, integrated approaches and integrated control, see Figure 3.

Within the best practice framework, the integrated frameworks would provide levels of integration as requirements for best practice; the integrated approaches would provide positive ways of thinking for archival concepts, the integrated control would provide a set of unified criteria for measuring models and methods to the best practice, see Figure 4.

The meanings of the three components of a best practice framework can be explained as follows:

4.1.1       An Integrated Framework

An integrated framework sees the management of records as an archival business geared to client-satisfaction service, cost-effective management and best value records.  It should be customer-driven and work process-integrated into records management and it should also produce good quality information.  This means that five levels of integration should be built up into the management of recordkeeping processes.  These are:

• Common culture: common understandings and expectations among creators, users, custodians and administrators on the values and functionality of documents, records and archives;
• Common standards: consistent terminology and procedures to make the records continuum regime easier to maintain and interface throughout the records movement and the recordkeeping processes;
• Information sharing: mutual use of best practice criteria, policies and standards in business processes that operate independently throughout the procedures and processes of business management;
• Co-ordination: negotiation and exchange of records management policies permitting separate but independent management to respond to each other’s needs and limitations;
• Collaboration: partnerships of creators, users, custodians and administrators in the implementation of integrated frameworks and policies as well as accountability for society.

4.1.2       An Integrated Approach

An “integrated approach” attempts to develop collaborative ways of thinking by guaranteeing a reliable, authentic and integrated memory of the organisation and society; providing consistent and sustainable recordkeeping services to meet societal needs; and by promoting professional commitments and value added contributions for best practice.

Such an integrated approach should employ three tools of integration as a basis for dealing with electronic and digital issues.  The tools are a client-led marketing strategy, post-modern archival thinking and records continuum regime model.  They would provide systematic, open and active thinking for produce universal archival principles for best practice in the digital era.

A client-led marketing strategy it means that the needs of creators and users are highlighted as the mission of recordkeeping service and such needs are met effectively.

Post-modern archival thinking considers archiving to be a key feature of society’s communication processes in shaping the reality rather than just documenting it.  It views archivists as co-creators of knowledge, culture, and society rather than just passive recipients merely guarding and retrieving records and knowledge created entirely by others.  Thus, post-modern insights suggest that archives study is a vital aspect of the pursuit of human understanding.

The study of archives is no longer just for archivists who want to be effective on the job, valuable as that is.  It is for creators who want to be accountable for the society and for users who want best value of archives service as well.  (Nesmith 1999) A post-modern archival thinking should result in a front-end control and integrated control records and archives management service and should enable a collaborative approach for recordkeeping across borders, institutions and disciplines.

With the records continuum regime model, an internationally recommended best practice model is applied as the approach for managing documents, records and archives.  Such a model should employ an interdisciplinary approach to develop integrated frameworks and integrated control through documents management, records management and archives management and through business management along the life the records to ensure the accuracy, authenticity, reliability and integrity of records.

4.1.3       An Integrated Control

Integrated control means that the control of product, process and service should be integrated into the management processes of recordkeeping which would result from integrated approaches and integrated frameworks.  It is a means for bringing together the contribution of each participant with something to offer.  It provides a means of increasing the total contribution and completeness of records delivery and of improving collaboration among creators, users and archival administrators and custodians for better quality of recordkeeping service.  In this way we can identify, preserve and use the accurate, authentic, reliable and complete records.

Such integrated control provides a set of criteria for measuring models and approaches to best practice in Three aspects.  These are: product control; recordkeeping management process control; and client-oriented service control.

Product control means that the output of a records and archives management program or system can be measured by the quality and quantity of records.  The indicators for quality would be accuracy, authenticity and reliability; the indicators of quantity would be completeness or system or integrity to records.

Process control means that the process of records and archives management can be measured by its integrated frameworks.  The indicators would be effectiveness, economy and efficiency to records management process.

Service control means the delivery of the service can be measured by the sustainability and consistency of service to the satisfaction of the clients.  The indicators would be availability, accessibility and readability of and timely access to records.

The best practice framework uses collaborative methodologies to explore the current provision of approaches to best practice.  The best practice can be measured from three aspects within an integrated framework, the product control to best value of records, the process control to cost-effectiveness and the service control to client-satisfaction.

Such a collaborative methodology is interdisciplinary, it views the recordkeeping as crossing the borders of documents management, records management and archives management.  It believes that the accountability of recordkeeping lies across organisations and the roles of creators, users, administrators and custodians under the same umbrella of an integrated framework throughout the life of a record.  (An 2001)

5.       Conclusion

The evolution of the concept of records continuum shows the processes of records management and archives management moving towards integration.  The advantages of records continuum model over lifecycle model demonstrate that the mechanism behind the best practice is an ideal of integration for the management of documents, records and archives.  It can be suggested that the idea of integration can be developed towards a best practice framework for records and archives management.  Integrated approaches, integrated control and integrated framework can be components of a best practice framework.  They should provide positive ways of thinking, integrated requirements and unified criteria leading towards best practice.  The best practice can be measured by client-satisfaction service, cost-effective management process and best value records.

______________________

The Author

Dr. An Xiaomi is an associate professor and tutor at the School of Information Resources Management at the Renmin University of China in Beijing.  In 2001, she gained a Ph.D. degree in records and archives management at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.  In the late1980’s, she achieved a Bachelor of Engineering degree in building materials from Southeast University, Nanjing, and dual B.A and B.Sc degrees in science and technology records and archives management from Nanjing University.

Dr. An is a council member of the Chinese Urban Development Archives and Information Professional Committee, a member of the Education and Training Section of International Council on Archives (ICA/SAE), the Architectural Archives Section of ICA (ICA/AR) and of the International Confederation of Architectural Museums (ICAM). She has published more than 70 academic papers and is editor-in-chief or author of seven books. In 2001, she lead the translation of the international records management standard ISO15489 into Mandarin Chinese. She can be contacted at xiaomia@yahoo.com.

______________________

For further reading on recordkeeping in the People’s Republic of China, see Dr. An’s paper: “Appraisal of Architectural Archives in China: A Critique”

__________________

References

An Xiaomi.  “Towards A Best Practice Framework for Managing Urban Development Archives: Case Studies from the UK and China”, University of Liverpool, U.K., PhD.  thesis, 2001.

AS 4390.  Australian Standard  – Records Management, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia, 1996

Birch, Rhiannon.  ” The Records Continuum”, The Newsletter 127, Society of Archivists, U.K., January 2000: pp.13-14.

Wickman, Danielle.  “What’s New? Functional Analysis in Life Cycle and Continuum Environment”, Archives and Manuscripts 26, no.1, Australian Society of Archivists, O’Connor, ACT, 1999: pp.114-127.

Flynn, Sarah J.A.  “The Records Continuum Model in Context and its Implications for Archival Practice”, Journal of the Society of Archivists 22, no.1, Society of Archivists, U.K. 2001: pp.79-83.

Kennedy, Jay and Schauder, Cherry.  Records Management: A Guide to Corporate Recordkeeping, 2nd ed., 1998.

ISO15489-1 International Standards for Records Management draft, 1997.

Marshall, Peter.   “Life Cycle Versus Continuum: What is the Difference?” Informaa Quarterly 16, no.2, Records Management Association of Australia, Sydney, May 2000: pp.20-25.

McKemmish, Sue, and Piggott, Michael (eds).  The Records Continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years.  Ancora Press and Australian Archives (later National Archives of Australia), Sydney, ISBN 0 868 62019: 1994. 252 pp.

McKemmish, Sue.  Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: A Continuum Responsibility, 1998, on-line at http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/publications/recordscontinuum/smckp2.html.   (accessed 29 December 2008)

Nesmith, Tom.  “Post-modern Archives: The Changing Intellectual Place of Archives”, Society of American Archivists conference, Pittsburgh, 24-27 August 1999.

Pederson, Ann.  Lifecycle and continuum – one viewpoint, Aus-archivists listserver, February 17, 1999, available at: http://lists.archivists.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/private/aus-archivists/1999-February/001124.html (accessed 29 December 2008).

Pucknell, Jayne.  “A Continuum Approach to Records Management.” The Newsletter 127, Society of Archivists, U.K., January 2000: pp.12-13.

Sletten, Laurie.  “Lessons from Down Under: Records Management in Australia.” The Information Management Journal, ARMA International, Kansas City, January 1999: pp.26-32

Upward, Frank.  “In Search of the Continuum: Ian Maclean’s ‘Australian Experience’ Essays on Recordkeeping” in McKemmish, S.  and Piggott, M. (eds) The Records Continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years.  Ancora Press and Australian Archives (later National Archives of Australia), Sydney, 1994: pp110-127

Upward, Frank.  “Structuring the Records Continuum Part One: Post-custodial Principles and Properties”, Archives and Manuscripts 24, no.2, Australian Society of Archivists, O’Connor, ACT, 1996: pp.268-285

Upward, Frank.  “Structuring the Records Continuum Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping.” Archives and Manuscripts 25, no.1, Australian Society of Archivists, O’Connor, ACT, 1997: pp.10-35

Upward, Frank.  “Modelling the Continuum as Paradigm Shift in Recordkeeping and Archiving Processes, and Beyond- a Personal Reflection”, Records Management Journal 10, no. 3., Aslib, London, 2000: pp.115-139

Tags: China, continuum, electronic records, methodology, RM