Functional classification of records and organisational structure
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691111152035 |
| Date | 12 July 2011 |
| Published date | 12 July 2011 |
| Pages | 86-103 |
| Author | Pekka Henttonen,Kimmo Kettunen |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
ARTICLES
Functional classiïŹcation of
records and organisational
structure
Pekka Henttonen and Kimmo Kettunen
Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media,
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
Abstract
Purpose â This paper seeks to examine how an electronic records management system has been
used in a Finnish government agency. In particular, it aims to study the relationship between
functional classiïŹcation scheme and the way users in different organisational units and at different
organisational levels have employed the system. The goal is to examine whether electronic records
management systems were easier to use if the system âknewâ what functional classes the user (or other
employees in the userâs organisational unit) typically need in their work.
Design/methodology/approach â The study is based on two sources. The ïŹrst source is metadata
in records that were captured in the electronic records management system of the agency. It reïŹects
actual behaviour of users when they interact with the system and classiïŹcation of records. The second
source is distribution of functions to organisational units in the light of policy documents and a survey
made in the organisation. The study compares the two sources to see how the users have employed the
electronic records management system in their work and how this relates to organisational structure
and supposed usage of the system.
Findings â In general, individual employees employ only a small part of the classiïŹcation. However,
this does not apply at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy: the higher the personâs position in
the hierarchy, the more classes he/she is likely to use in the work. Regardless of the position, the
classes are generally those identiïŹed as belonging to the employeeâs unit.
Research limitations/implications â The study is based on one agency with a functional
organisational structure. The ïŹndings may not apply to organisations where job descriptions are ïŹuid.
They should also be tested in more complex organisational settings. One could develop new methods
of automated classiïŹcation which combine analysis of document content with contextual reasoning
about the likely functional classes.
Practical implications â Access to electronic records management systems could be facilitated by
creating in systems user/unit proïŹles deïŹning what functional classes the user is most likely to need in
their work. It would also be useful if systems simply remembered what functional classes the user has
needed in the past.
Originality/value â The study offers insight into how an electronic records management system is
used in an organisation. This is valuable for companies developing records management software and
persons trying to gain a deeper understanding of records management in organisations.
Keywords Records management,Electronic records management,Metadata, Information media,
ClassiïŹcation schemes , Finland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
One of the challenges in records management is coming to terms with the
unprecedented volumes of electronic data, records and information, in an era when
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm
RMJ
21,2
86
Records Management Journal
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2011
pp. 86-103
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
DOI 10.1108/09565691111152035
privacy, retention and security requirements have become stringent. Traditionally,
records management processes have been undertaken by records management staff,
but manual application of access and security rules and retention policies do not keep
pace with the volumes. Transferring the work to end-users is not proving successful
either. Employeesâ primary responsibilities may leave them little time to do these
administrative tasks. Therefore, even persons with a proper training may fail to
accurately determine how long a ïŹle should be retained, to what classiïŹcation it
belongs, or how long it must be preserved for litigation (Christensen, 2008; Santangelo,
2009).
Asking employees to spend a large amount of time manually classifying data
greatly affects productivity (Santangelo, 2009). Thus, the problem is how to automate
records management processes, like assigning metadata. End-users are highly
resistant to capturing metadata that does not relate directly to their own business
processes (Christensen, 2008).
The Finnish approach
Metadata has to be added to records with minimal user intervention. This is achieved
in Finland by a records management tool known as AMS (an abbreviation from the
Finnish word âarkistonmuodostussuunnitelmaâ). An AMS is a combination of
functional classiïŹcation scheme, retention schedule and ïŹle plan. An AMS identiïŹes
records that are created or received by the organisation and instructs their handling.
An AMS works as a guidebook for the organisation. In an electronic environment it is
the source of record metadata values.
A functional classiïŹcation scheme is the core of an AMS. ClassiïŹcation is deïŹned in
ISO 15489-1 as âsystematic identiïŹcation and arrangement of business activities
and/or records into categories according to logically structured conventions, methods,
and procedural rules represented in a classiïŹcation systemâ (International
Organization for Standardization, 2001). A functional classiïŹcation scheme âis based
on what an organisation does, its functions and activitiesâ (Orr, 2005). It describes
functions of the record-creating organisation.
Class by class an AMS lists record types that are created in functions. âDecisionâ,
âmemorandumâ, and âletter receivedâ are examples of record types. For each record
type AMS deïŹnes default metadata values controlling access and retention times.
When a record is captured in an electronic records management system the recordâs
functional class and type are used to retrieve from the system AMS default metadata
values, which are then assigned to the record.
For instance, an AMS may state that:
.there is a function called âhuman resources managementâ with a sub-function of
âïŹlling vacanciesâ;
.âjob applicationâ is a of record type created in the sub-function;
.a job application should be retained for two years; and
.be considered as conïŹdential.
When a record is added to an ERMS default metadata values come from the system
AMS. In some cases the user can change the default value by selecting another value
Functional
classiïŹcation of
records
87
To continue reading
Request your trial