Understanding functions: an organizational culture perspective
| Date | 23 March 2012 |
| Published date | 23 March 2012 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691211222072 |
| Pages | 20-36 |
| Author | Fiorella Foscarini |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Understanding functions:
an organizational culture
perspective
Fiorella Foscarini
Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to discuss the disconnection between the recognized centrality of the
functional approach to records management and archives and the actual understanding of functions
that scholars, practitioners, and records creators seem to have. It suggests that records professionals
should consider functions not in the abstract but in the specific socio-cultural contexts in which they
are enacted.
Design/methodology/approach – After analyzing the main theoretical and methodological issues
concerning the concept of function and the application of the functional approach, the paper reports
some findings of an empirical study of function-based records classification systems conducted by the
author in four different organizations in Europe and North America.
Findings – The multiple-case study research confirmed that the meaning of both function and
classification are subject to various interpretations, that a number of non-functional factors are
involved in the creation of function-based tools, and that records professionals find available
explanations of functional methods confusing. The findings also indicate that there is a relationship
between organizational cultures and the ways in which business and records processes are perceived
and translated into practice.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides a number of suggestions that may be
used to improve the analysis of functions and business processes for any records management
purposes. In particular, it discusses some of the non-functional and cultural factors that influence the
design and implementation of function-based records classification systems. However, more empirical
research is needed in order to broaden our understanding of functions in real-world organizations.
Originality/value – Based on a broad selection of professional literature on the functional approach,
this paper presents the original findings of an empirical study that uses qualitative methods to analyze
and interpret the data collected. It is hoped that it will inspire more exploratory research of this kind in
the records management area.
Keywords Function, Functional analysis, Recordsmanagement, Business classification schemes,
Organizationalculture
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
It is a rule in government that records follow functions. That is to say, when a department is
abolished, merged into another department, or otherwise reorganized, its functions are
generally transferred to another department, which of course must have the old records at
hand to carry on the old functions (Mitchell, 1975, p. 110).
In the 1940s, American archivist Margaret Cross Norton expressed in those terms the
rationale for the principle of functional sovereignty over records, a principle that, as
Heather MacNeil (1992, p. 207) put it, “lends a measure of continuity and stability to
administrative activity and the records generated from them”.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm
RMJ
22,1
20
Received 1 July 2011
Revised 16 December 2011
Accepted 9 January 2012
Records Management Journal
Vol. 22 No. 1, 2012
pp. 20-36
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
DOI 10.1108/09565691211222072
The centrality of organizational or business functions and activities to the work of both
archivists and records managers is justified by the nature itself of the records as
“by-products of action” (S chellenberg, 1956, p. 53), wh ich suggests that an
understanding of the functional context in which records are created, managed and
selectively kept be fundamental to their present and future uses. Indeed, since the time
of the French Revolution and the first intuitions of the so-called “historical method”
(Vitali, 2002) for organizing archival materials and subsequent elaborations of the
principle of provenance, archival scholars and practitioners have been well aware of
the need to be familiar with current and past functions of the record creators.
The “paradigm shift” (Cook, 1997) that has in more recent times reoriented the
archival body of knowledge towards an emphasis on the records context and away
from the materiality of the records has contributed to make of the “functional
approach” a pillar of archival methodology throughout a record’s life cycle[1] From
function-based methods to identify what records should be captured in business
systems (ICA, 2008), functional classification schemes (Sabourin, 2001; Henttonen and
Kettunen, 2011) and functional approaches to records appraisal and selection (Scott
and Fonseca, 1992; Man, 2005) to ideas of functional provenance (Menne-Haritz, 1993)
and functional access to archives (Monroe and Roe, 1990) Since the early 1990s, all
basic concepts and processing methods for records and archives appear to involve
top-down analyses, process modeling, and descriptions of functional contexts.
However, despite the fact that functional terms are widely used in the archival and
records management literature, the meaning of function, activity, business process,
and the like lacks a thorough and consistent elaboration (Hurley, 1993) and no
standardized methodology for analyzing organizational functions and structures
seems to exist (Orr, 2005). The literature on function-based records classification, for
instance, does not offer any clear guidance on how to determine the scope of a function,
how to build a consistent and comprehensive hierarchy of functions, sub-functions, etc.
or how to represent processes that cut across the organization (Foscarini, 2009). Even
appraisal, which may be regarded as the archival function that has appropriated the
most the functional language and a top-down approach – especially followin g the
development of the “macro-appraisal model” in Canada (Cook, 1992) – does not involve
any in-depth examination of the ways in which function and structure actually interact
and tends, either directly or indirectly, to make reference to a stereotyped image of
organization, where decision-making is a linear and rational process and core
functional areas are easily identifiable as the likely site of significant records.
By drawing on an analysis of a broad selection of the existing professional literature
on the functional approach and the findings of a multiple case study of function-based
records classification systems, this paper will try to highlight the main “problems with
function” that from both a theoretical and a practical perspective appear to characterize
the archival approach, primarily in relation to the management of active records. It will
then suggest some alternative ways to read and represent the context in which records
are created and used. Although a deeper understanding of function may benefit
archivists and records managers alike, this paper is particularly concerned with the
latter’s outlook. It is the author’s conviction that in order to fulfil their crucial role,
records managers should go beyond their narrow technical focus and become more
culturally sensitive participants of their organizational reality.
Understanding
functions
21
To continue reading
Request your trial