Overcoming Barriers to Major Users in Accessing Electronic Records: Results of a survey on Electronic Records Policy Working Group Reports

The Survey instrument with aggregate results is shown in Annex I. The below findings are further discussed in Annex II (Analysis of Survey Results) showing significant differences among respondent groups by profession, organizational location and creator/user categories with cross references to the Survey questions and question cross-tabs. Write-in comments are in Annex III.

· This survey was related to ERPWG's reports to the ICGI and not to the later ICGI report that disposed of those findings.[2]

· Several ERPWG recommendations are already in planning and implementation in NARA, e.g., development of IT, legal and program staff training modules—it is not known to the author whether recommendations outside of NARA have been implemented.

· Though targeted at the US federal government, there is striking agreement (91%) on the relevance of the reports' findings including other sectors and internationally that suggest high expectations outside of the federal government that NARA will develop solutions that will be adaptable in smaller government and private sectors and internationally.

· Most respondents were unaware of the ERPWG reports.

· Most respondents learned of the ERPWG reports on professional discussion lists (54%) or from the Survey announcement (29%).

· Fewer than 2% of respondents—no ARM professionals—had commented to ERPWG

· Other related barriers and recommendations are also seen as critical.

· About two thirds of all respondents disagree with the proposition: agencies that create records (program departments) understand the respondent's working needs for records; 86% of respondents requiring almost daily access disagree.

· About half of all respondents agree with the proposition that the agencies that manage records understand respondents' working needs for records; but half of those requiring almost daily access disagree.

· In addition results on ERPWG findings, other useful information was revealed from other questions and feedback, e.g.: the need to more formally identify and systematically reach out to NARA "stakeholder" communities; and that there was no substantive discussion of ERPWG findings on principal ARM or historian professional lists.

Background

Under the US "E-Government Act of 2002,''[3] the Interagency Committee on Government Information (ICGI) established the interagency Electronic Records Policy Working Group (ERPWG)[4] to make recommendations to the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council (study sponsor), the Archivist of the United States and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fostering effective management of federal electronic records. Under executive sponsorship of Lewis Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the US and chaired by Michael Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for Federal Records (both of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)), ERPWG published "Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records" in two reports, respectively on barriers and recommendations (hereinafter "findings").

Based on ERPWG's final report, the Executive Committee of ICGI sent its final report, "Recommendations for the Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records,"[5] to OMB, December 16, 2004. ERPWG findings will be used by NARA, the CIO Council, the Office of Management and Budget and other federal government agencies for electronic records policymaking purposes.

Focus of This Survey

This Survey[6] attempted to determine the extent to which key users of records (including creators) and managers of records (archives and records management (ARM) professionals) were aware of and agreed[7] with ERPWG findings and related issues. The 203 respondents were about evenly divided between users and managers. (See About This Survey section for survey limitations.)

Stakeholders: Creators, Users and Managers of Records

The target communities for this Survey were the creators, users and managers of records. Underlying the rationale for the Survey were two beliefs:

Those who create, use and manage records are all key stakeholders in the development of policy and systems requirements and the execution of related ARM programs and services whose perspectives should be obtained.

Research and debate on ARM policy and related issues including system requirements definition has too often been undertaken largely within the community of those who manage records (ARM professionals) with relatively little input from other stakeholder communities—creators and users.

If these are valid beliefs, even if we wish we could make it different, our concept of ARM stakeholders remains inward looking and worthy of review.

The Survey included demographic selections among: managers of records (archivists and records managers and related professionals); creators of records (program managers and staff); and users of records (historian, accountants/auditor, journalist, educators, lawyers/legal staff, other information managers (librarians, data administrators), CIO/CTO/IT Director/IT staff, program managers/program staff, consultants and vendors.

Managers of records constituted 41%, creators 7% and users 38% respectively. (See Annex II for a breakdown of respondents by disciplinary (Q1), organizational type (Q2) and creator/Manager/User (Q6) Categories.) While creators were treated as a separate group, they are also important users. When added to the other user groups, 45% of respondents were records users, making for a relatively evenly balanced set of respondents at that level.

Managers of Records

This major stakeholder group includes archivists and records managers and related professionals, e.g., conservators, digital archivists, IT archivists, etc. (To avoid statistical confounding, two separate demographic groups were established in Q2: "US Federal government agency (non-NARA)" and "US Federal government agency (NARA)." Half of the NARA respondents counted themselves as archivists or records managers, which reveals a diversity of professional groupings (internal NARA stakeholder groups) that might come as a surprise to outsiders. That isn't to suggest that such a split is representative of the entire NARA staff population, which it probably is not. I assume that well more than half of the NARA staff is ARM professionals.

Without trying to read more into what may just have been luck-of-the-day reasons for that split, if NARA hasn't already done so, it could prove beneficial to survey NARA staff (with anonymity) to better understand the different perspectives of different internal NARA stakeholder groups including, for example, the extent to which non-ARM staff are more likely to be interested in electronic records issues than ARM professionals may be. (Q1x2)) The broad ARM stakeholder group is perhaps the one that is most easily reached for gaining feedback on draft reports, policies and standards regarding recordkeeping. They constituted 41% of responses to this Survey.

While there was no scarcity of announcements on professional lists by ERPWG staff, there is little evidence that they resulted in substantive professional discussion on the lists. The SAA and ARMA professional archives and records management associations did provide official association comments to ERPWG, but as I understand it this was not done through any association member surveys or circulation of requests for feedback from their respective members. And while it would have been preferable to have had a greater number of participants in this survey, the feedback it provides is vastly more than will be found on professional lists.

A search of the Archives List and Records Management (RECMGMT-L) List archives showed no scarcity of announcements concerning ERPWG and its reports and invitations to provide comments. NARA also posted invitations on its own Website, in the Federal Register and elsewhere. Two postings were made by the Archives Listserve Coordinator extending the ERPWG invitation to interested persons to provide written views on issues relating to “implementing section 207(e)(1)(A) of the E-Government Act of 2002,” and inviting interested parties to a March 30 ERPWG meeting (dated March 8, 2004 and March 14, 2004 respectively).

Another (October 22, 2004) posting from NARA (Nancy Allard) requested review and comment on a draft ERPWG document, "Recommendations for the Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and other Electronic Records," for the Interagency Committee on Government Information (ICGI)http://www.cio.gov/documents/ICGI/ERPWG_Recommendations.pdf. The other postings were either “RAIN” postings by Peter A. Kurilecz or others, with press announcements regarding ERPWG, or were posts related to this Survey. However, despite ERPWG’s heroic measures to seek consultation on its process and reports and the announcements of this Survey, no substantive list postings on the ERPWG report findings were observed or found in the list archives.

Creators of Records

Records are created by business processes in organizations—by program managers and staff and their systems, and by government historians working in program agencies—in the pursuance of laws and corporate aims and in the execution of related business functions. Program managers have considerable influence over the disposition management of the records produced within their functional areas. In many, if not most, organizations working-level program staff are also expected to make serious decisions about the recordness of papers and email that they produce and to see to it that those that they do declare as records get properly routed into a trustworthy manual or electronic recordkeeping environment.

Making this kind of approach work is largely dependent upon records managers providing adequate training for records creators. Records managers often say that they are uncomfortable in a teaching role, have little time for it, lack the necessary training skills and lack the clout to get program staff to show up for training that they do provide, in part because those staff also don't have the time for such training. In one client office where I was engaged, the director of human resources candidly confessed that the department was understaffed and unable to meet all organizational priorities, and recordkeeping was one that was one of the lowest of the list, despite the fact that the department was subject to HIPAA requirements. In any case, teaching people how to do recordkeeping properly is not the same thing as asking them how carrying out their recordkeeping roles could be better done, what their needs are, how the systems interfaces that capture records could be improved from their point of view, etc.

Good trainers will use the opportunities afforded by the training sessions to elicit views on such questions and to make certain that the answers get back to those responsible for ARM policymaking and requirements definition. Furthermore, program managers and staff, and government historians, are also among the most important records users. Direct input on recordkeeping policies and requirements definition from program managers and staff is therefore very important.

Much of the contact with the program community has been with the records managers within program agencies rather than with the front line executives and staff doing the core agency work. Certainly the better agency records managers do their best to reflect the views of their agency clients. Still, these reflections are through the eyes of records managers, no matter how prescient and disciplined. Moreover, among the commonly heard belief systems in the ARM community are:

§ records managers in the central recordkeeping functions are among the lower professional grades, often because they are lacking in educational credentials that are increasingly found among archivists;

§ most recordkeeping functions are low on the organizational totem pole and remote from executive contact;

§ senior managers of program departments seem to give little thought or priority to recordkeeping, especially where there is a higher management climate fostering reduction of public access to records; and

§ it is very difficult for records managers to reflect criticism on their own bosses and boss's bosses.

Thus, while their needs and perspectives are critical in any ARM policy making, agency records managers likely would be the first to say that they should not be regarded as substitutes for direct communications with senior level officials or working-level program staff. Indeed, often the main contact that central recordkeeping staff have with their program departments is through departmental "records coordinators" who may fill still lower-graded positions and carry out recordkeeping functions on a part-time basis. None of this is to denigrate the roles of either records managers or their departmental records coordinators, all of whom the organizational recordkeeping systems rely upon to make it work. Nor is it to suggest that their needs and perspectives should not be sought in developing requirements and policies. It is only to say that those views should be sought in their primary ARM roles as managers of records, not as creators of records.

Users of Records

Who are the user stakeholders? Who are the users of records? For public records, could we say that they are largely identifiable groups who rely in an important way on easy access to public records to carry out their day-to-day jobs? If so, wouldn't some of the most important users at all levels of government be auditors, inspectors general, government historians, and officers of the court? While academic and private sector historians have always been considered a key, if not the key, user professional community, much less is heard about the importance of government historians as key stakeholders who use and make important records. (Statistically speaking, genealogists likely constitute the largest NARA user stakeholder group.)

Records creators more generally also are, or should be, among the most important records users in the sense that organizational policymaking and operational decision-making should benefit in a very large way from corporate knowledge and lessons represented in current and legacy records in all analog and digital-media forms—the most basic of organizational knowledge assets, second only to human staff experience and memory. In this Survey, because of their small numbers, program managers and program staff are combined in reporting Survey results. They are also included in statistical references to records "users" when referencing results to Q6, "My interest in public records is principally as". Though it is rarely acknowledged, many if not most such users take for granted the continued presence of complete, well maintained and accessible public records at all levels of government. This is an increasingly questionable and risky assumption because of generally low priorities, staffing and other resource allocations for the ARM functions, especially in program agencies where records are created.

Users outside of government would certainly include genealogists (in this Survey they are assumed to have counted themselves among "other researchers" or "other") when answering Q1, " I am currently working as (select most applicable)". This group typically represents the largest group of users of archives by a long shot, as much as 75% or more in the national archives of some countries. Other key users outside of government include journalists, non-government historians, attorneys and the general public for other than genealogical purposes, especially at the local government level. Other users may not be making regular direct use of records but are nonetheless very interested stakeholders in government policymaking, standards and systems for both analog and digital records. These include educators (especially those involved in ARM academic programs), CIOs/IT directors and staff, many who are either responsible for ARM programs or are wrestling with electronic records issues, as well as consultants and vendors supplying ARM products or services. This is particularly likely for those who responded to this Survey.

Thus, it was important to try to reach as many of these communities as possible in a short period of time. As the Survey did not have a staff of researchers who could visit such communities, it was largely limited to the use of professional discussion lists. This turned out to be a daunting task that is discussed below.

Lack of more direct contact and engagement by ARM professionals with users may be both because many of the former feel more comfortable within their familiar professional environment, and because of experience with failed efforts to seek involvement of other stakeholder communities. There are noteworthy cases where archivists have engaged users from other disciplines to gain a better understanding of their needs and perspectives regarding records, recordkeeping and access to records with positive results. To mention a few, all but the last of which were funded by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC):

Indiana University: The "Indiana University Electronic Records" project, co-chaired by the University archivist and IT director. The project also involved a special collaborative project with the University audit director.
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, SC: "Electronic Records Training and Awareness Program" project to develop and conduct six workshops on electronic records issues engaging the State IT directors' community.
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY: Project on "Secondary Uses of Electronic Records," that produced "Exemplary Practices in Electronic Records and Information Access Programs."
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: "Managing the Digital University Desktop" project to study end user practices in managing e-mail and electronically transmitted documents in selected offices throughout the UNC system and at Duke.
State Archives of Vermont: "Continuing Issues" project. An independent project to learn more about the needs of state legislators and to provide appropriate State Archives responses.

In the report on the "Secondary Uses of Electronic Records" project, which studied practices Anthony Cresswell recommends regular surveys of users and instituting advisory boards among mechanisms for engaging user participation in decision making.[8] He later notes "Providing appropriate access is complicated by the mix of users, running from lay persons seeking small targeted items of information for personal use (e.g., parents seeking information about a school system), to policymakers working on national issues, to researchers seeking large data sets, ad hoc queries, or new sophisticated analyses… Their attention to the needs of their user community is also reflected in substantial investments in user support."

Similar beliefs have been expressed by well known practitioners and theorists in the ARM community. Terry Cook, former manager in the National Archives of Canada, now consultant, author and educator wrote: "[A]rchival thinking over the century should be viewed as constantly evolving, ever mutating as it adapts to radical changes in the nature of records, record-creating organizations, record-keeping systems, record uses, and the wider cultural, legal, technological, social, and philosophical trends in society. Archival ideas formed in one time and place reflect many of these external factors, which ideas are often reconstructed, even rediscovered in another time and place, or reshaped across generations in the same place."[9]

Historians

Historians have always been considered a key, if not the key, user professional community. This is engrained in recordkeeping DNA going back to the time when archivists were almost always historians by education and training and when the general belief was that records were kept for later historical research, by historians. Only in the mid-twentieth century when leading archivists saw the growing need to gain special administrative and technical skills (description, appraisal, conservation) did the archives profession begin to spin off on its own, although even then many still obtained history credentials. At the same time, a body of archival theory began to evolve including a belief that appraisal should be a totally objective process with little or no consideration for the perceived needs of historians or other users. Who knows to what extent this came about because of a genuine belief that records had a life of their own that had to be protected and not tainted by the temporal needs of any group, or because of competition between the new professional archivist group and the long established professional historians? Or both?

This is not the place for a review of that literature; however, perhaps the best and most current summary of the history of these developments is Tom Nesmith's "What's History Got to Do with It?"[10] Nesmith made numerous references to the changing user, especially historians: "[S]ociety’s historical information needs have been radically transformed since the 1970s, in volume, variety, and complexity, and we find ourselves in need of responding to that with the new ways of employing historical information in our work... Indeed, we cannot advance the administrative, technical, and contemporary aspects of the profession’s agenda without doing so."

While there were high hopes that many historians would participate in that conference, their representation was woefully sparse as noted by Terry Cook in his closing conference remarks.^[11] Cook pointed out how historians typically bury archival references in footnotes or endnotes, and any discussion of sources to prefaces, in contrast to how other social scientists credit their sources, and discus their problematic natures, right in the main text of the body of their writings. Cook suggests this as a metaphor not so much for the relative value that many historians place on archives and archivists, as for their failure to engage in the relative, changing, and problematic nature of those sources and of "the archive."

One prominent presidential historian recently put it to me this way: I'm working on President [X] right now. The only records or records issues I'm interested in are those directly related to President [X]. Historians are very busy people and they don't have time to engage with archivists about recordkeeping more generally. This is consistent with the experiences related by other historians in private discussions, i.e., that their attempts to raise discussion about records and recordkeeping issues with their historian colleagues simply don't generate interest.

In an exchange on interdisciplinary communications where this subject recently came up on the RECMGMT discussion list, former American Archivist editor and current editor of Records and Information Management Report (RIMR), Richard Cox, took issue with this point of view:

"Historians and other scholars are pretty much locked in to their conferences, and they are also more focused on writing for publication, publishing in scholarly journals and monographs (and while there have been more opportunities for e-publishing, much of the scholarly communication remains traditional peer-review print outlets). In other words, we can see the same barriers between records professionals and scholars as we face in our own records and information profession community."[12]

Cox did not totally disagree. "I am not arguing that some of the problems discussed…are not serious...These are serious problems (although when it comes to the scholarship of records and information management professionals, there may be problems far more serious – such as continuing weaknesses in research, over reliance on basic textbooks, and educational preparation of practitioners), but there may be a number of positive signs and potential solutions to these problems…."

Cox pointed to examples of historians who do take considerable interest in records, "such as Roy Rosenzweig, who are even reading our literature and debating with us about some of the most fundamental aspects of digital preservation and the definition of records. Reading the work of scholars such as Donna Merwick, Robert Darnton, Thomas Tanselle, Barbie Zelizer, JoAnne Yates, and the list could go on . . . , is essential for records professionals" He suggested some remedies for improved interdisciplinary communications:

Establishment of clearinghouses of interdisciplinary writing. The SAA is extending its publication project coverage with historians and other scholars.

Provide more opportunities for interdisciplinary writing and reading. Archivists tend to limit their reading to the American Archivist, records managers to the Information Management Journal. RIMR readership includes both.

Archivists and records managers also needed to do better. "[W]e need to design conferences that bring together archivists and other records professionals with the scholars who use the holdings of our programs. I have been recently involved in beginning to design a conference that will invite key historians and archivists to dialogue about the meaning of archives in public memory and understanding. The idea behind it is to develop a venue for sustained in depth discourse about how archivists and historians (and other scholars) perceive archives and their use and meaning – exactly the kind of dialogue that is difficult to achieve at existing professional conferences that don’t always attract the right mix for such discussion or that conflict with academic, professional, and vacation schedules."

In a 2003 Federal Computer Week column[13], I quoted a posting of Air Force historian Eduardo Mark on the H-DIPLO professional discussion list: "It will be impossible to write the history of recent diplomatic and military history as we have written about World War II. Too many records are gone, and with [them] public accountability of government and rational public administration." Private feedback on that column from other government officials confirmed Mark's comment. Subsequent conversations with such individuals indicate that little has changed since that time.

Tom Blanton, Director of the non-profit National Security Archive has expressed reservations concerning Mark's view. He sites cases such as the hugely increasing volumes of White House email and the New York Times reconstruction of the final minutes inside the World Trade twin tower buildings during the September 11 attacks from presumably personal family voicemail and email records and from police and fire department audio tapes. These examples suggest that historians may be inundated with electronic records: "This does not refute Ed Mark’s point in the least, because the disappearance of computer-based files at the operating level is a very real and very dangerous problem. But at policymaking levels, our problem as historians will likely be too many sources, not too few, and it is only their preservation as digital files that will allow us to overcome the numbers and actually work through them."[14] But "disappearance of computer-based files at the operating level," is a key point of Mark's premise. Moreover, few will argue that there isn't an almost unmanageable amount of electronic records being produced. In fact, the lack of manageability is a big part of the problem.

And are the records of "policymaking levels" the only or always the most important levels? One Department of Defense records manager, reflecting on the above Federal Computer Week column wrote:

Subject: Recordkeeping

Mr. Barry,

I read your article "Saving the Future Now" that was in the Federal Computer Week, June 2, 2003 edition.

I am glad to see people write about recordkeeping issues. You are correct that agency heads, legislators, journalists, auditors, lawyers, and historians do not support recordkeeping practices, sound or otherwise.

Did you know the [Agency] does not audit their records….

Another problem is the low pay recordkeeping officials receive….

Command nonaction and low pay is why recordkeeping and the other programs are in such disarray. Up to the early 90s recordkeeping was in pretty good shape. We had the salaries and the personnel to perform the mission. However, in the late 80s and early 90s is when we started getting the cuts in personnel. My office was reduced …[by three quarters of its staff and at least two grade levels]. We are trying to handle the same programs and the same responsibilities. We are no longer able to go out and evaluation offices on their recordkeeping practices as we did in the 80s. This practice ensured records were being kept and long-term records were being captured and turned in for forwarding to Federal Records Centers and to NARA. Even the development of electronic storage systems will not curb the destruction of long-term records. The [Agency] is trying to develop a program to capture long-term electronic records electronically. Unless the records managers are able to visit the offices and ensure the action officers are aware of the requirements, we still will not properly capture long-term records. Also, action officers are going to need recordkeeping training. Since recordkeeping is such a low priority, actions officers do not attend this type of training. Also, we do not have the staff to conduct such training. As [the senior records manager], I am only able to devote a small percentage of my time to recordkeeping. My other duties are marked as higher priorities by command.

Until Congress takes the bull by the horns, DOD will not change its recordkeeping practices. The FBI finally grabbed the horns and is trying to do something. However, it looks like they are upscaling their high up management, but what are they doing for the low level recordkeeping personnel? Are they hiring more staff, increasing salaries to retain or hire qualified personnel? The lower level recordkeeping personnel need the most help, they are the ones that have to ensure action officers save the data they create.

In a November 2005 posting to the H-Diplo discussion list, Dr. Mark, one of a small handful of historians speaking to recordkeeping issues stated:

I must note in conclusion that one of the most serious obstacles to a redress of the national crisis of record-keeping resides in the yawning indifference of historians to it. I have agitated this issue for some years, finding that with only the rarest exceptions historians are so narcissistically engaged in their own research that they care not a whit for their professional descendants. The issue of declassification arouses them, predictably, but the usual attitude toward the problem of record-keeping is, "I've got mine. After all, the Eisenhower Administration kept good records." Even organizations that style themselves champions of declassification, and which, like so-many bloodhounds, will pursue records under the FOIA to prove that he United States was beastly to their favorite third-world dictators, have remained resolutely indifferent to the crisis of record-keeping. They have theirs - or will in time.

One needn't agree with every view of Mark's to recognize him as a historian-champion of improved electronic recordkeeping in a community that could use a few more like him.

Beyond these serious issues regarding the management of records, it would further seem that a great many electronic records are not being captured at all, let alone into trustworthy recordkeeping environments where, with the necessary resources, they could be properly managed and preserved. Yes, there are many personal records from the front in Iraq in the form of email from military personnel to their families, as there were letters from the front in World War II. But are families keeping copies of those as they did in the Civil War and subsequent wars? Such records constitute important personal electronic records (another important subject that has received little attention in the ARM community, even surprisingly among manuscript archivists, where professional focus is nearly always limited to organizational archives).

But then what about those that are not being captured but are created by people and systems carrying out organizational business processes? And what about modern corporate and political leaders, philanthropists, authors, scientists, military leaders and others whose personal records traditionally have been the subject of manuscript archives? Aren't important people in these categories increasingly maintaining their own personal records in electronic form like the rest of us, including email and possibly Weblogs (blogs), Websites and wireless appliances? If so, how will we approach what David Rothman, in his TeleRead blog, refers to as the Tower of Babel of proprietary, incompatible publication formats? Won't this require open standards, open source viewers and other tools for capturing such records very early and in the future accessing and intelligibly reading them?

During the panel discussion that ensued following presentations at NARA's 20^th anniversary as an independent agency, having earlier been asked to stimulate some panel discussion, I made the provocative assertion: few authors from the user communities publicly acknowledge in their writings how much they rely upon easy access to trustworthy records and more generally the importance of records to their work. One of the panel members, non-government, Cold War historian Timothy Naftali, reacted that historians were not relying much now on archives for their primary source material. This is an important view from an important representative of the historian user community. The comment certainly got my attention, as I expect it did for many others in attendance at that session, in the room or as remote participants in the Webcast.[15] The ARM community should be very interested to learn more about how prevalent this view is among historians and other users, and ask the question: if it is prevalent, why is it so? Is it because the records aren't there? Because they aren't easily accessible? Because we don't fully understand the working needs of historians and other users relating to records?

Bruce Craig, Editor of the NCH Washington Update, announced the ERPWG reports and this Survey in the National Coalition for History’s NCH Washington Update during the course of ERPWG's work. On the history lists there was one posting by government historian Maarja Krusten (on the History Network News (HNN)) http://hnn.us/ announcing the Survey and inviting historians to make their views on the ERPWG findings known through the Survey. In response, one historian complained about “boilerplate bureaucratese” that was followed by a thoughtful response by Ms. Krusten.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=50071#50071 HNN editor, Richard Shenkman also kindly published a second announcement of the Survey. Searches of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) and American Historical Association (AHA) sites yielded no results. In addition to Maarja Krusten’s postings on HNN, and by courtesy of colleague Terry Cook, announcements of this survey also appeared on the Ten Thousand Year Blog, the Government Information Locator Service (GILS), Women's Historians (H-WOMEN), and History Canada (H-CANADA) discussion lists.

I do not know how many academic, private sector and government historians made their views known directly to ERPWG, but 31 of them did so in this Survey. At least that is a start.

Other Users of Records

There is much less that can be said about other user groups of records in this Survey. Efforts to contact senior members or insiders of audit, accounting, journalist and court groups were either not answered or the group had no easy vehicle to disseminate an invitation to participate in the survey, such as discussion lists. I had asked hoped that ARM professionals would request their own program offices, CIOs, auditors and attorneys to participate. Except for a small number of program staff and CIOs/IT staff, this didn't happen. For most of these groups, their input can not significantly be considered in their subgroups, but can be considered collectively as part of the larger user community. Similarly, there is no easy way to get to the general public with a survey, unless done by a well funded project by a group such as the Pew Research Center, part of the Pew Charitable Trust,[16] which would be an excellent thing to do.

About This Survey

Survey Issues/Shortcomings

There were 203 respondents to this Survey. This figure might have been a good deal larger had it not been for lack of success in reaching key groups of records creators (program officers and staff) and records users (historians, journalists, auditors, inspectors general, etc.) due to the absence of, lack of knowledge of, or lack of access lists for most of those groups. Where there was relatively easy access to and credibility with the ARM professional community though professional lists, it was possible to get reasonable participation taking account of the timing of the Survey. I lacked such access to lists for creator and user groups. Attempts at contacting of accounting/auditing and journalists' professional associations proved unsuccessful. Adding to this was short staffing in public and private sector organizations due to end-of-year holidays and (in Washington) Inauguration Day during December 2004 and January 2005 when the Survey was undertaken. Many employees who were on the job were backing up one or more of their absent colleagues.

These factors limit what can be taken from the Survey results and I do not wish to overstate what can be read from the results. Nonetheless, many fine research projects obtain excellent input from a relative handful of staff in focus-group inquiries, so long as such groups are representative for the purposes of the research. In this case, historians were the best represented discipline in the users group, constituting 15% of the total respondent population. However, when grouped with other user communities (records creators (who are also key users), educators, IT, educators, journalists, CIO/IT staff, consultants/vendors and other researchers) there was nearly an equal representation between users and managers of records. Thus, if not on a profession-specific level except possibly historians, there was good representation at the overall user/manager level. On this level the Survey is credible and should produce useful results. Where more results were limited by the numbers of stakeholders responding, hopefully this report will stimulate further follow-up work by ERPWG, NARA and others on issues raised here.

Part of the value of surveys such as this is that they help raise awareness to important reports and hopefully create interest and feedback on important issues. This view is supported by findings of other public and client-based surveys of ARM issues with which I have been associated, including the "Report on the Society and Archives S urvey,"[17] (2003) and a survey done as part of an early UN study of electronic records, "Managing Electronic Records: Issues and Guidelines," (1987-90).[18] In the latter case, most responding organizations were not treating email as record material. A follow-up study done three years later revealed that the earlier report had been a wake-up call for many UN organizations and email was being addressed in policies. This also happened with this Survey.

Because of announcements on the ARM and history professional lists, many who had not been aware of the ERPWG work became so and responded to the Survey. It was thus possible to obtain substantive feedback on the ERPWG findings from over 200 respondents who had not otherwise made their views known on any list and, for the great majority, had not earlier been aware of the reports or commented on them directly to ERPWG or through their agency representatives on the ERPWG team.

Conclusions and Recommendations

General

Overall, the ERPWG findings found great resonance among the respondents to this Survey—just short of unanimous agreement (Q22). There is no significant standard deviation in this observation among the respondent groups by professional category (Q1) or organizational type. (Q2) Moreover, only one respondent (consultant/vendor) disagreed with the applicability of the findings. (Q1x22, Q2x22) Otherwise, where respondents didn't agree, they indicated that they didn't know with a few who said they didn't care.

A "Don't Care" response selection was included for applicable Survey questions where I felt that was a legitimate response that should not necessarily have a negative connotation but rather might simply reflect that a particular subject is seen as being of little or no concern or interest to the respondent. We might gain tips for ARM education and training efforts from a significant incidence of such responses to a particular question. As it turns out, there were 21 such selections for the 14 questions where "Don't Care" was among the multiple choices. The highest incidence of this response was "Program people are too busy or worried about their jobs to worry about records or recordkeeping and bosses aren't going to press them," (Q16) among "Other Barriers" with which over three fourths agreed. These results speak very highly to the quality of the representatives on ERPWG, the consultations it undertook and its related staff work.

Stakeholders

More efforts should be invested to reach out to key records users groups to engage them as stakeholders on issues and requirements for improved recordkeeping in general and electronic recordkeeping in particular. Similarly, more effort is needed to reach the broader mass media to help gain greater public understanding and appreciation of the importance of inviolate records in protecting citizen's human rights and supporting our democratic institutions through the rule of law; and for what national, state and local government, and academic and private sector ARM professionals do and why. Part of the feedback received during the review of the draft of this report reflected a view that NARA has not been as attentive or successful in its outreach efforts as it needs to be, possibly because it does not see itself as having the resources, skills or mandate to do so effectively. This is consistent with findings of the earlier "Report on the Survey on Society and Archives" including:

Where it is seen as having an opinion, society values records mainly for their genealogical, historical, cultural and secondary information and research content (ranked 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and much less for the loftier values that professionals typically consider of importance to civil society: protection of human rights; creating and maintaining public confidence in government; enabling government by the rule of law; and promoting democracy through public accountability of its officials.[19]

It is not clear to what extent the stakeholder groups outlined in this report are already part of a standing NARA stakeholders list. My understanding is that while NARA makes considerable use of "stakeholders" it has not yet defined what those groups constitute, neither for NARA or the ARM community more broadly. It is my experience serving on NARA advisory committees that several groups that would appear to be important to NARA (and ARM) were not represented. It is recommended that such groups be identified (conceivably somewhat different depending on the function being considered) and reached, where appropriate through representatives of their professions within NARA. For example, accountants and auditors could be approached by NARA executives in those professions through their professional associations or by collaboration with the Government Accountability Office. Given the fact that the "standards to include recordkeeping compliance in audits and inspector general reports" was considered critical by 79% of respondents, further consideration of this recommendation should be explored with the audit community.

Similarly, inspectors general and journalists could be approached by their NARA counterparts.

This reference to the inspectors general as an important stakeholder group underscores the importance of the first recommendation of the ERPWG report that:

NARA and OMB (Office of Management & Budget) work together with the Inspector General community through the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE) to identify appropriate mechanisms for evaluating compliance with existing legislation and establish incentives for agencies to take action to properly manage and protect their records as valuable Government assets."

It seems apparent from the results of questions concerning the responsiveness to the records needs of respondents on the part of the creators and managers of records (Q7-8, Q1x7-8, Q2x7-8) that more could profitably be done to consult with and gain better understandings of the needs of subgroups in different stakeholder groups, for example, academic, private-sector, public sector and even international historians. In some cases, ten or more percent of respondents answered "Don't Know". Perhaps these are simply explained by the fact that there was a diversified group of respondents, at various levels of the public and private sectors and internationally who simply may not have understood some of the federal-speak in the ERPWG findings.

The high figures disagreeing with the responsiveness of records creators in meeting records needs of respondents, and especially in NARA and the ARM community more generally, are consistent with findings of the ERPWG reports. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this issue with respect to the quality of records and recordkeeping in records-creating organizations and to the missions of NARA and other similar agencies at the national, regional and local levels of government. It suggests that more consideration be given to further exploring remedies beyond those already articulated in the ERPWG findings. This is an issue that has been the source of complaints by ARM professionals for many years. In fact, it isn't just one issue, but potentially a set of issues: legislation, compliance, outreach, education, training, leadership, etc. Examples of such possibilities might include:

Increasing emphasis on the part of NARA and other records-managing organizations on this set of issues;
Including this set of issues in the research agendas of academic institutions, NARA, NHPRC, and even private sector organizations such as software developers—for example by hosting executive presentations to managers of system developers to gain their assistance in minimizing the demands on records creators by improving system user interfaces and providing better technical solutions for automatic classification systems;
Placing this set of issues higher on the agenda of ARM professional associations and journals;
Investing resources to develop and promulgate stronger knowledge, information management and risk management business cases for recordkeeping that will have greater resonance in records-creating organizations where currently records management is too often seen as peripheral and with little direct payback;
Establishing stronger staff rotation/visitation policies and practices between agencies creating and managing records;
Giving more recognition to models where recordkeeping has become an executive function, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency Department of Defense and Department of Interior; considering establishment of a policy requiring recordkeeping positions leading recordkeeping practices in creating agencies be designated as Senior Executive Service (SES) positions, through Executive Order or legislative initiatives;
Creating more opportunities and expectations for ARM managers and ARM professionals to interact with managers and other staff in records-creating organizations, e.g., by carrying out much more outreach on the part of senior ARM managers in records-managing organizations to records-creating organizations—a recommendation also supported by findings of the Society and Archives Survey;[20]
Finding ways and means to create interesting case-based training programs aimed at records-creating agency managers and staff that build upon experience with successful existing educational programs such as NARA's "Teach For America" program with its libraries and regions partnering with local school districts:
Encouragement of records-related issues in senior-level management meetings of creating agencies by urging briefings by senior managers of with records-creating organizations.

Similarly, where there was little or no representation among respondents in other important stakeholder groups, such as journalists, attorneys, auditors, inspectors general, etc. This is particularly true in the latter two groups, given that the highest ranked recommendation of all those offered beyond those outlined in the ERPWG findings was the establishment of standards to include recordkeeping compliance in audits and inspector general reports, which 79% of respondents considered critical.

International Respondents

International respondents constituted an important segment of Survey respondents, reflecting a high level of interest in ERPWG and related studies and standards. Many professionals in other countries clearly would like to be considered stakeholders in key NARA policymaking, research and implementation initiatives. As a minimum, NARA can ensure that US federal lingo is explained in reports so that those who wish to use them as models for consideration in their own countries are better positioned to do so. Beyond that, NARA might consider inviting comments from international sources on such initiatives.

Finally…

The ERPWG study and findings have made an important contribution for policymaking, planning and implementation of sound federal government recordkeeping. They also make a considerable contribution to the needs of ARM professionals and practitioners of all stripes and in all organizational settings. Where the focus of those reports was on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal government recordkeeping, the focus here has been on the wide and diverse communities of users of those records.

Hopefully, the results of this Survey will give further impetus to the NARA vision that speaks to its role as the:

public trust on which our democracy depends. We enable people to inspect for themselves the record of what government has done. We enable officials and agencies to review their actions and help citizens hold them accountable. We ensure continuing access to essential evidence that documents: the rights of American citizens; the actions of federal officials; the national experience.[21]

The NARA Vision Statement continues:

To be effective, we at NARA must do the following:

§ determine what evidence is essential for such documentation

§ ensure that government creates such evidence

§ make it easy for users to access that evidence regardless of where it is, where they are, for as long as needed

§ find technologies, techniques, and partners worldwide that can help improve service and hold down cost

§ help staff members continuously expand their capability to make the changes necessary to realize the vision

… to which I would respectfully recommend adding:

§ systematically determine who are the users of records, in and out of government, and encourage new groups of users by seeking their perspectives on records and their access needs; and

§ find solutions for providing improved access to records that will serve not only the needs of the federal government but, to the extent practical, other stakeholders less well positioned to develop such solutions—other levels of government, other institutions and their users.

__________________

Annex I

Survey Instrument and Aggregate Results

Top of Form

Overcoming Barriers to Major Users in Accessing Electronic Records
Report created on: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:30:00 PM

The results of your survey are displayed below. If your survey includes text responses, click the “View” button to read individual results.

As a reminder, survey results are maintained for a period of 10 days after launch.
You may view reporting on a maximum of responses per survey. To view reporting on more than responses or to increase your storage time, become a zPro member.click here

Or contact Support for more options.



		Overcoming Barriers to Major Users in Accessing Electronic Records: An independent survey by Rick Barry INTRODUCTION: IF YOU RECEIVED THIS SURVEY IN YOUR ROLE PRINCIPALLY AS A USER OR CREATOR OF RECORDS OR ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE COMPLETE IT YOURSELF RATHER THAN SENDING IT TO YOUR RECORDS STAFF TO COMPLETE. YOUR PERSPECTIVES ARE IMPORTANT TARGETS OF THIS SURVEY. RECORDS STAFF HAVE ALSO BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE. NO INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE SURVEY AUTHOR OR BE PROVIDED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY EXCEPT WHERE PARTICIPANTS WISH TO INCLUDE SUCH INFORMATION IN FREE-TEXT, “OPTIONAL” COMMENTS SECTIONS. A FEW DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ARE ASKED TO DIFFERENTIATE REACTIONS AMONG DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. The purpose of this survey is to determine the extent to which key users of public records are aware of two major interagency reports on “Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records” and their issues and recommendations. If approved, they will be used as major government electronic records policymaking resources. It is thus important to obtain views of stakeholders in the public, private and non-profit sectors and academia – historians, auditors, journalists, educators, information managers and other researchers – who require easy access to trustworthy electronic records to carry out their work. It is also important to determine if key user stakeholders may not have been aware of these reports and their findings. Thus, even stakeholders who were not aware of, or haven’t read, these reports are requested to complete this survey. The survey also seeks views of those who produce or manage public records at all government levels as well as CIOs/CTOs/IT professionals involved in enterprise systems architecture and systems. The survey quotes, but is not limited to, findings and recommendations identified by the Electronic Records Policy Working Group (ERPWG) in two reports addressed to the Interagency Committee on Government Information: “Barriers to the Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records” (Draft, June 28, 2004), and “Recommendations for the Effective Management of Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records” (Draft, October 20, 2004). http://www.cio.gov/documents/ICGI/ERPWG_Recommendations.pdf Although this survey has not been requested/underwritten by any organization, like a previous survey conducted by this author, “Report on the Society and Archives Survey,” 29 January 2003, its results will be published on www.mybestdocs.com and be accessible to all participants as well as ERPWG and other interested parties. In the interest of producing timely results, respondents are urged to take the few minutes necessary to complete the survey as soon as possible but in any case not later than Thursday, January 20, 2005 and to make the survey known to other colleagues privately and by posting to professional discussion lists/blogs and encourage them to do the same. Thank you for your participation.



		DEMOGRAPHICS: Critical for differentiating interests of different groups of responding stakeholders.

I am currently working as (select most applicable):

Historian

15%

Accountant/Auditor

Journalist

Educator

Lawyer/Legislator/Jurist/Other Legal

Other researcher

Archivist

18%

Records Manager

23%

Other Information Manager

CIO/CTO/IT Director/IT Staff

Program Manager

Other Program Staff

Consultant/Vendor

Other

203

100%

I currently work in (select most applicable):

US Federal government agency (except NARA)

US Federal government agency (NARA)

US State government agency

15%

US Local government agency

US Private sector organization

12%

US Higher academic institution

20%

US Private individual capacity

Other including non-US organization Please Specify

23%

202

100%

How did you learn about the ERPWG Reports? (It is not necessary to have read the reports to complete this survey as the critical findings are included here.)

Was a member of ERPWG

Was informed by my agency

On a professional discussion list/Internet

110

54%

In the news media

When learning about this survey

29%

Other

202

100%

How familiar are you with the findings/recommendations of the ERPWG reports? (It is not necessary to have read the ERPWG reports to complete this survey.)

I've read one or both reports

19%

I've been briefed by others on the reports

12%

I'm unfamiliar with the reports

137

68%

201

100%

Have you personally commented on the ERPWG reports

Yes, to ERPWG through my agency representative

Yes, directly to ERPWG

Yes, privately to ERPWG colleague(s)

Yes, internally within my agency/organization

Yes, on a discussion list(s)

186

93%

199

100%



		YOUR NEEDS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS:

My interest in public records is principally as a:

Records producer: program mgr/staff

Records User: historian, auditor, journalist, etc

29%

Manager of records: archivist, records manager

48%

Indirectly: info manager/educator/consultant/vendor

15%

Other

202

100%

Most agencies that create records understand the records needs of people in my line of work.

Strongly agree

Agree

17%

Don't know

11%

Don't care

Disagree

107

53%

Strongly disagree

13%

202

100%

Most agencies responsible for the management of records understand the records needs of people in my line of work.

Strongly agree

Agree

45%

Don't know

11%

Don't care

Disagree

32%

Strongly disagree

200

100%

Easy access to trustworthy public records is:

Almost always important in my work

117

58%

Frequently important in my work

30%

Infrequently important in my work

Almost never important in my work

202

100%



		BARRIERS TO TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS: ERPWG’s first report outlined four principal barriers to the effective management of government information on the Internet and other electronic records. In this group of questions, rank these barriers from your perspective:

10.

Barrier 1: "Records and information are not managed as agency business assets."

Strongly agree

29%

Agree

106

52%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

10%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

202

100%

11.

Strongly agree

44%

Agree

44%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

202

100%

12.

Barrier 3: "Marginal support for records management has led to a lack of training, tools, and guidance for all staff within Federal agencies."

Strongly agree

36%

Agree

45%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

15%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

202

100%

13.

Barrier 4: "The records management and information technology disciplines are poorly integrated within Federal agencies."

Strongly agree

30%

Agree

45%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

19%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

201

100%



		OTHER BARRIERS not specifically included in the ERPWG list of barriers. Please write in additional critical barriers in the Optional General Comments section at end of the survey:

14.

Lack of public awareness of importance of electronic records

Strongly Agree

36%

Agree

110

55%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

201

100%

15.

Lack of adequate legal mandate for archives/records agencies to require agency compliance

Strongly Agree

38%

Agree

41%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

Don't care

Disagree

13%

Strongly Disagree

199

100%

16.

Program people are too busy or worried about their jobs to worry about records or recordkeeping and bosses aren't going to press them

Strongly Agree

35%

Agree

43%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

10%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

201

100%



		RECOMMENDATIONS: ERPWG’s second report outlined four principal recommendations to overcome current barriers to the effective management of government information on the Internet and other electronic records. In this group of questions, rank the recommendations from your perspective:

17.

Recommendation 1. "Improve accountability for records management. Addresses the low priority assigned to information and records management. Agencies must have an expectation that their actions have important positive or negative consequences, and there needs to be an effective mechanism for evaluating agency actions. Recommendation 1 proposes that NARA and OMB (Office of Management & Budget) work together with the Inspector General community through the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE) to identify appropriate mechanisms for evaluating compliance with existing legislation and establish incentives for agencies to take action to properly manage and protect their records as valuable Government assets."

Strongly agree

41%

Agree

102

51%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

201

100%

18.

Recommendation 2. "Support agencies through effective leadership and clear records management guidance. To be accountable for information and records management compliance, agencies must have a clear understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it. OMB and NARA should work together to provide agencies with clear, non-conflicting guidance on information management that is easily identifiable and widely available. One of the activities proposed in this recommendation is that NARA sponsor and manage a central Internet portal for agencies to share and obtain proven information and records management guidance."

Strongly agree

103

51%

Agree

44%

Don't know/Don't understand question as written

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

201

100%

19.

Recommendation 3. "Create a Records Management Profile in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). Information and records management permeates all Government business processes and crosses all lines of business, but is not in itself a separate line of business. It is an integral part of the Government's operations…ERPWG proposes using the recently issued FEA Security and Privacy Profile as a model for a Records Management Profile to tie together records management considerations throughout the FEA models. The Records Management Profile would provide a methodology that uses relevant FEA reference model information (i.e., context and conditions) to help business owners accurately determine information and records categorization and establish an appropriate set of information and records management controls so that records management can be as seamless and transparent as possible to the end user."

Strongly agree

31%

Agree

100

50%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

18%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

199

100%

20.

Recommendation 4. "Establish a Federal Records Council to advise and support agencies, the PCIE, and the CIO Council with implementation of these ICGI recommendations. Recommendation 4 supports the other three recommendations by proposing a Federal Records Council to be an ongoing support system to agencies as they implement the ICGI recommendations and NARA guidance developed for section 207(e) of the E-Government Act of 2002. This recommendation also provides a formal mechanism by which the agencies can share experiences and work together to identify strategies, best practices and solutions to electronic information and records issues."

Strongly agree

29%

Agree

107

54%

Don't know/Don't understand statement as written

10%

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

199

100%



		OTHER CRITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS not specifically listed in ERPWG Report recommendations. Please write in additional critical recommendations in the Optional General Comments section at end of the survey:

21.

Other critical recommendations (select any/all that apply)

Greater public outreach on part of archivist/records managers to create public demand for electronic recordkeeping compliance

133

71%

Greater public outreach on part of historians/auditors/other users to strengthen public awareness of importance of electronic records

126

67%

Greater leadership by CEOs of agencies that create records

132

70%

Greater involvement of central budget offices in requiring recordkeeping compliance

113

60%

Standards to include recordkeeping compliance in audits and inspector general reports

148

79%

Stronger legislation to improve mandate of archives/records authorities in achieving recordkeeping compliance

131

70%

Provide for more automated recordkeeping so program departments don't have to worry about records

109

58%

Other: Please explain in Optional General Comments section at end of survey

22.

Although the ERPWG report was written for federal government consumption, I believe that recognition of its barriers and implementation of corresponding recommendations at the state or local levels of government would be useful. (International respondents should answer on the basis of the general applicability of the ERPWG findings/recommendations to their own circumstances.)

Strongly agree

41%

Agree

100

50%

Don't know

Don't care

Disagree

Strongly disagree

200

100%

23.

Optional: other general comments:

36 Responses

Bottom of Form

Responses provided by respondents in this section are shown below in Annex III, Optional Write-in Comments (Q23).

__________________

Annex II

Analysis of Survey Results

· Though targeted at the US federal government, there is striking agreement (91%) on the relevance of the reports' findings to respondents' situations at state/local government levels, the private sector and internationally (Q22)[22] even and though most respondents were unfamiliar with the ERPWG reports.

· Most respondents were unaware of the ERPWG reports. 68% of all respondents were unfamiliar with the reports (Q4)—a much higher percentage among vendors and local government categories (Q2x4); 19% of all respondents, 14% of archivists and 24% of records managers had read one or both reports. (Q1x4) Quite remarkably, 25% of non-US (international) respondents had read one or both reports. (Q2x4)

· Most respondents learned of the ERPWG reports on professional discussion lists ("lists"), (54%) or from the Survey announcement (29%). (Q3) This pattern was fairly consistent across professional categories. (Q1x3) Only NARA and state government agency respondents learned from their agencies. (Q2x3)

· Fewer than 2% of respondents—no archivists or records managers—had commented on the ERPWG reports directly to ERPWG or through their agency ERPWG representatives. About 5% indicated they had commented otherwise within their agencies or on lists.[23] 92% had not commented at all. (Q1x5)

· There was virtually no discussion of the ERPWG reports or the important findings they raised on the principal ARM or historian professional lists.

· Other related barriers and recommendations are also seen as critical (Q1x21):

· Other Critical Barriers (Q14-16)

§ Lack of public awareness of importance of electronic records (91%).

§ Lack of adequate legal mandate for archives/records agencies to require agency compliance (79%).

§ Program people are too busy or worried about their jobs to worry about records or recordkeeping and bosses aren't going to press them (78%).

· Other Critical Recommendations (Q21):

§ Standards to include recordkeeping compliance in audits and inspector general reports (79%)

§ Greater public outreach on part of archivist/records managers to create public demand for electronic recordkeeping compliance (71%)

§ Greater leadership by CEOs of agencies that create records (70%)

§ Stronger legislation to improve mandate of archives/records authorities in achieving recordkeeping compliance (70%)

§ Greater public outreach on part of historians/auditors/other users to strengthen public awareness of importance of electronic records (67%)

§ Greater involvement of central budget offices in requiring recordkeeping compliance (60%)

§ Provide for more automated recordkeeping so program departments don't have to worry about records (58%)

§ Other write-ins (9%) (see Annex III) including (paraphrased):

§ Electronic records have always been societal issues at heart requiring a broadly based strategy and response on a par with education policy that brings together key players in this area from various governments, the academy, private sector and other users of records.

§ NARA/federal precedents often become internationalized so this is not just a US issue.

§ State and local governments and the private sector look to the Federal Government for guidance.

§ Records managers ought to answer to CEOs. Auditing regulations should get CEOs' attention.

§ It is as important to assure that there is not over-recording as it is to conserve records.

§ Lack of top government commitment to open records.

· While 21% agree, about two thirds of all respondents disagree with the proposition: agencies that create records (program agency/departments) understand the respondent's working needs for records (Q7), including about: four fifths for both educators and consultants/vendors; three fourths for ARM professionals, NARA staff (half of whom are ARM professionals) and other federal agency staff; over half for historians; and about half of program managers/staff. (Q1x7, Q2x7) More importantly, also disagreeing with the same proposition was perhaps the most important user group constituting 86% of those who in response to the question "Easy access to trustworthy public records is:" placed themselves highest on the scale of responses–"Almost always important in my work." (Q9x7) (In moments of truth or good humor, three respondents including one archivist chose "Don't Care"!) In the overall user group, 25% agree, 59% disagree and 16% don't know/care. (Q6x7)

· There is more diversity of view on the proposition that the agencies that manage records understand respondents' working needs for records. About half of all respondents agree. (Q8) While 58% of ARM professionals and about half of the program managers/staff, educators, historians and other researchers agree with this proposition, 39% of all respondents disagree, including about a third of ARM professionals and historians. (Q1x8) The latter may reflect different needs among the historians, of which 26% are public-sector, 13% private sector, 35% academic and 26% other historians. Departing significantly from the overall respondent population, half of what is perhaps the most important users disagree: those counting themselves in the group that almost always requires easy access to trustworthy public records,

· In addition to the results on the above substantive matters, other potentially useful information was revealed from other questions and research.

§ Beyond postings announcing ERPWG reports and this Survey, there was virtually no discussion of ERPWG findings on principal ARM or historian professional lists.

§ It was very difficult to engage stakeholders in the non-ARM user communities, suggesting that more thought needs to be given to how to reach out to these communities to achieve their involvement.

Barriers Outlined in ERPWG Report

Barrier 1: "Records and information are not managed as agency business assets." 81% of all respondents agree (Q10), with ARM professionals somewhat higher than users. (Q6x10) Concentrations of disagreements with this Barrier were in the Records Manager professional category (13%) and the Local Government (28%) and Other Including Non-US (13%) organizational categories. (Q1x10, Q2-10) Historians show almost no agreement, but only 67% agree, the difference being that 29% were uncertain (didn't know/understand/care).

Barrier 2: "Records management is not viewed as critical to agency mission. It is either not incorporated into business processes, or not incorporated early enough, particularly as these processes are automated." 88% of all respondents agree (Q11), with ARM professionals higher than users. (Q6x11) Main professional disagreements were with Records Other Researchers (19%), Records Managers (9%) and Archivists (8%) and organizationally with Other/Non-US (13%) respondents. (Q1x11, Q2-11)

Barrier 3: "Marginal support for records management has led to a lack of training, tools, and guidance for all staff within Federal agencies." (Q12) 81% of all respondents agree (Q12), with ARM professionals higher than users. (Q6x12) There was disagreement within the Other Researchers (13%) categories.

Barrier 4: "The records management and information technology disciplines are poorly integrated within Federal agencies." (Q13) While 75% of all respondents agree with users higher than ARM professionals, 19% were uncertain. This was the highest show of uncertainty among the Barriers. There was disagreement within the Other Researchers (19%) and State Government (10%) categories. In this Barrier alone, users show much less uncertainty (16% don't know/understand/don't care) compared to ARM professionals. 30% of archivists and 24% of records managers were uncertain.

Other Barriers

Annex I contains the survey instrument for this Survey. During the review of the original version of this instrument by a small number of colleagues, it was suggested that, since the ERPWG study was aimed primarily at federal government recordkeeping, the survey should include additional barriers and recommendations not outlined in the ERPWG findings that might have resonance with respondents outside of the federal government. This was done and three additional barriers and seven additional recommendations were postulated in the final survey instrument. In addition, respondents were invited to write in other barriers and recommendations if they wished and some did. The additional barriers, are shown below ranked according to agreement by the respondents.

“Lack of public awareness of importance of electronic records.” (Q14) 91% of all respondents agree, and users and ARM professionals were virtually equal in their agreement. (Q6-14)

“Lack of adequate legal mandate for archives/records agencies to require agency compliance. (Q15) 79% of all respondents agreed, with ARM professionals ranking this one higher (91%) than users. (Q6-15)

“Program people are too busy or worried about their jobs to worry about records or recordkeeping and bosses aren't going to press them.” (Q16) 78% of all respondents agree with ARM professionals ranking this one higher (81%) than users (74%). An almost equal number of historians (19%) are uncertain or disagree (16%). (Q1x16)

Other barriers noted in write-in comments included:

16 NARA cannot provide adequate electronic records management (ERM) leadership because NARA itself does not understand ERM, never having practiced ERM on its own agency records. Nor does NARA understand the place of ERM in Enterprise Content Management, never having attempted to practice ECM within NARA itself. Also, records management is NOT "mission critical." RM is "critical infrastructure" for any enterprise. There is a difference and NARA does not understand the difference.

17 This questionnaire is a NARA and OMB funding manifesto. It does not directly address the perception that government recording entities pursue secrecy and propaganda; and that the lack of electronic records is intentional prior to question #21.

24 Management of electronic assets (or paper for that matter) is largely ignored and little understood. While all the ideas listed above are good, what we really need is to understand how people use and manage digital materials and partner with the IT industry to produce better management tools that relate to how people use digital information and documents. Until we do this we will always fail because short of a police state we cannot force people into "better" management practices if these are not meaningful and natural practices for them.

27 Records management is one thing. Maintaining valuable historical archives is another. In the name of records management (retention schedules, et al.) much material of historical value is discarded.

30 I don't see anything about the fact that archivists and records managers are all too often at the very bottom of the totem pole: records managers within an agency ought to answer to the CEO, and auditing regs ought to make the CEO pay attention. Further: records managers ought to be required to have substantial technology qualifications or IT will ignore or work around what they have to say.

32 Need also to assure that Internet communications are not hampered by an overzealous program of record capturing and requirements. It is as important to assure that there is not over-recording as it is to address the need to conserve certain records. This aspect needs to receive a greater emphasis. This by a retired Federal employee.

35. There are two critical issues here: 1) creating a compelling business case for agencies to deploy and use electronic record keeping systems and 2) building public demand for electronic records. Private businesses are complying with electronic recordkeeping laws because there's an internal business benefit, and because shareholders care that companies be able to adequately defend themselves if they get sued.

36 A major barrier to accessibility of good public records is lack of top government commitment to open records and FOI. It is apparent in the President's Executive Order 13233 and in the views of his appointees to senior government positions. We can't change that if, as it seems, it is conscious government policy. But we should recognize the highly negative impact this has on the commitment of agency managers to carry out effective records programs and resulting staff and budgetary reductions making it increasingly tough in agency RM units to do an effective job. If properly budgeted and supported, it would help to give FOI responsibility to the agency RM units.

Recommendations outlined in ERPWG Report

Recommendation 1: "Improve accountability for records management. Addresses the low priority assigned to information and records management…[24] (Q17) 91% of all respondents agree, with little difference between users and ARM professionals, except that the latter showed more uncertainty than did users. (Q6x17)

Recommendation 2: "Support agencies through effective leadership and clear records management guidance…[25] (Q18) 95% of all respondents agree and with very little variance between users and ARM professionals, and also with little uncertainty in any group.

Recommendation 3: "Create a Records Management Profile in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)…[26](Q19) While 81% of all respondents agree, 19% are uncertain making it the Recommendation to be ranked highest in the uncertainty columns. There is little difference between users and ARM professionals as groupings (Q6x19); however records managers ranked this much higher (93%) than did archivists (73%). Archivists and historians showed more uncertainty about this recommendation than any others, 24% and 23% respectively. (Q1x19)

Recommendation 4: "Establish a Federal Records Council to advise and support agencies…”[27] (Q1x20) While 83% of all respondents agreed, oddly a smaller percentage did from federal government respondents where 77% of NARA respondents and 73% of other federal agencies respondents agreed. On the other hand, 88% of respondents from higher educational institutions agreed.

Other Recommendations Considered Critical (Q21)

1. Standards to include recordkeeping compliance in audits and inspector general reports (79%). This receives the highest ranking among archivists (84%) of all the Other Recommendations. It also ranks first among program managers/staff, consultants/vendors and, along with "Greater leadership by CEOs, etc.," among records managers (78%). (Q1x21)

2. Greater public outreach on part of archivist/records managers to create public demand for electronic recordkeeping compliance (71%). This is the most favored other recommendation of the educator user group, who unanimously rank this as critical. It is also the top choice among CIOs/IT directors/IT staff and other researchers.

3. Greater leadership by CEOs of agencies that create records (70%). This is tied for highest ranking of other recommendations among records managers and consultants/vendors (along with "Standards to include recordkeeping compliance, etc.")

4. Stronger legislation to improve mandate of archives/records authorities in achieving recordkeeping compliance (70%) 78% of records managers, 77% of historians and 70% of archivists rank this as critical.

5. Greater public outreach on part of historians/auditors/other users to strengthen public awareness of importance of electronic records (67%). This was the favorite of the other recommendation among historians and second most favored with consultants/vendors.

6. Greater involvement of central budget offices in requiring recordkeeping compliance (60%). This received relatively high grades from consultants/vendors. ARM professionals favored this somewhat more than users of records.

7. Provide for more automated recordkeeping so program departments don't have to worry about records (58%). This was more highly favored by CIOs/IT directors/IT staff, program managers/staff, consultants/vendors

8. Other write-ins (9%) (see Annex III).

___________________

Annex III

Optional Write-in Comments (Q23)

Overcoming Barriers to Major Users in Accessing Electronic Records

Questions that required written responses are displayed by individual query. The "Report Overview" button or "Back" button will return you to your survey results.

Each individual respondent is referenced under the # column.

23.

Optional: other general comments:


1	21. Management of electronic information is frequently tied to IT "projects". Info management it seems must be rediscovered or at least reapplied with every project. Which is the tail wagging the dog, in my view. Not sure what an FEA is, so it may be that the Report recommendation #3 (RM Profile) will address this.
2	Integrate documentary and business procedures.
3	As I am not personally familiar with the US federal government environment, all of my responses are based on the applicability of the findings/ recommendations to my own circumstances.
4	Some feel that Federal Records Officers belong within the CIO's organization and are working to make that the recommended structure. I believe that is a mistake because it removes the check and balance made possible by an independent organization.
5	In my view, the electronic records issues have always been societal issues at heart. That is, this challenge requires a broadly based strategy and response. The information provided about the ERPWG in the survey implies that the US government ought to focus its efforts on internal concerns primarily -- internal government institution mandates, councils, awareness raising, etc which is all fine and important. In the past, though, we've tended to have such single interest group responses as well -- from concerned academics or records and archives management professions, which is also fine. But might the US government convene a wider investigative/advisory (or action-oriented) body (in Canada we call them Royal Commissions of Inquiry) that brings together a variety of key players in this area -- from various governments, the academy and other users of records, including private sector corporate institutions and private individuals, such as literary figures, and the information technology manufacturing and design world. Might it be attached to a more broadly conceived education policy? ("No valuable electronic book or record left behind!") It must be more than that, I realize, but my point is that we may need a broad, varied interest group to try to go at this issue in a high profile way, linking it to society's key agenda items, such as education. Get Bill Gates to head it up. He's expressed concern in the past about education in the computer age. He's been a bit like an electronic age Andrew Carnegie, so he might get behind such a major societal issue -- the future of knowledge, democracy, business efficiency etc in the electronic age. (Of course, he's seen the down side of e mail too at Microsoft!) Make it something like the major commissions of inquiry into race relations in the mid-twentieth century. That might be stretching it in some minds, but that level of attention is where we should strive to go to try to fix this. It can be fixed. Given the technological wonders computing specialists have already achieved, going to the next frontier -- viable e records and archives management seems laughably easy by comparison. That seems to be the exciting AND frustrating thing. But it needs a major societal breakthrough to do so it seems, and maybe this sort of 'commission' might help greatly.
6	There needs to be a job classification at the federal level for records managers. That would also help bring importance of the issue and program to the forefront.
7	can't comment on US-specific stuff
8	The public and most personnel in agencies is not aware of the technical problems involved in the long term maintenance of electronic records and the consequences if a solution is not found. From an historic point of view it would be a disaster.
9	As a State Employee and a Records Manager am not aware of what other employees or Federal Employees do in keeping track of records. I can only answer questions, according to what I believe to be true. I feel that the public is very aware of governments' records since I have encountered some of the OPRA [Open Public Records Act] requests that have come in. I also believe that the public does not fully understand that although we must adhere to OPRA regulations, that each department/agency is an entity unto itself and a request must be made to the appropriate agency. Because of this, at times, the OPRA requestor becomes frustrated and may blame the agency that it is requesting information from that they are not responding to their request, especially when they are told that the information they are asking for belongs to another agency. I believe that a statement in either the OPRA request form or in the regulation should be listed to help them understand that an agency can only produce the records that pertain to that agency. It's a fuzzy area that I believe should be addressed.
10	I think is highly important to establish more academic programs on RIM and an International organization responsible for this issues, supported for all the countries as possible.
11	Need to explain to non-US audiences that NARA and US federal govt standards and successful precedents often become internationalized and incorporated into software (DOD 5015.2 as eg), and so this is not just an internal USA issue.
12	While there is still a wide gap between records management and IT, it is narrowing, and we should take steps to ensure that it continues. With the decentralization of recordkeeping, a lot more training of individual staff needs to take place.
13	Legislation & procedures already exists. The issue is the disappearance of clerical record management staff in frontline offices. Overworked staff cannot do two jobs well. The electronic office has destroyed project management information flow. The new recommendations will lead to more, not less, irresponsible record destruction in order to "comply." The last of the record management (Orcs&Arcs trained)employees are retiring or dying. In short this is not an archival problem at all -- it is a system-wide management and human resourcing problem. Record destruction is primarily now by those who created it but are not trained and have no time to be trained in what to preserve. FOI legislation and sloppy record keeping by overworked staff create "embarrassment" over sending files on and those two facts tip the balance in favour of accelerated destruction of government's memory. This is not a problem of the electronic era, but one of the destruction of the clerk as an information manager, the true "frontline" of the archive and government's memory.
14	Government could fund key operations by making these records accessible to genealogists. In point: vital records; military records etc. are highly sought by genealogists. Most vital record repositories make the search difficult. The process should be reversed. The agencies should index their records, put the indexes online and recoup their costs by selling the documents at a nominal fee Government agencies should actively catalog their holdings into OCLC (which will pay them per record) and use similar 21st Century approaches to getting their records open, searchable. Genealogists are the highest % of users of these govt agencies ... most, restrict their access or prevent it to reduce their workload/interaction with the public. This is actually a "product" that should be provided to the public ... if not free, then at moderate rates which would reap big $$ to these agencies. Private sector agencies have licensed govt data and made millions. Why shouldn't the govt administrators catch the vision & potential value of their resources and become a profit center instead of just a budget consumer. It is easy to do. If you need specifics, then call me and I'll discuss the options with you. Onward!
15	The greatest barrier to good record keeping is one which is unlikely to be acknowledged publicly by most officials--the political environment. Consider these extracts from an article, “A presidential history less recorded; Documenting of White House," in the Austin-American Statesman, February 11, 2001: [BEGIN EXTRACTS FROM ARTICLE] "Increasingly, historians warn, the fear of litigation is threatening America's ability to understand its past presidents. "White House aides are reluctant to put things on paper," presidential historian Michael Beschloss said. "Bill Clinton was very specifically advised not to keep a diary. He is on record as saying he sent only one or two e-mails during his presidency." . . . . "My guess is that most presidents of modern times are going to be subject to the same thing," said Beschloss, author of books about John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and other presidents. "Sources are really drying up." "It's a tragedy for historians and for all of us Americans," he said. "We're being deprived of a part of our history." . . . .Gonzales has told White House staffers and Bush that they can use e-mail for personal communication without fear that it is disclosable under the Presidential Records Act. The dividing line between personal and official is content, not the recipient, he said. . . . Gonzales cautioned, however, that the rules change if somebody seeks to subpoena White House communications. . . . .That is what worries many presidential aides. "Anything they write down can be subpoenaed," said Sharon Fawcett, the National Archives' deputy assistant archivist for presidential libraries. "The archives clearly define what are official and what are personal records," Fawcett said. "However, even personal records can be subject to subpoena" from congressional committees, prosecutors and lawsuits. "I've talked to many people high up in the White House who said they don't keep journals or even take notes at meetings," she said. "In the future, we will be missing the kinds of journals that presidents and aides kept in past." [END EXTRACTS FROM ARTICLE] The disappearance of secretaries from offices, the ease with which officials can use the delete key, advice, such as that in the January issue of Government Executive, which tells officials not to write down anything they wouldn’t want published on a newspaper’s front page, combined with the environment described in the 2001 article, all combine to create enormous barriers to good recordkeeping.
16	NARA cannot provide adequate electronic records management (ERM) leadership because NARA itself does not understand ERM, never having practiced ERM on its own agency records. Nor does NARA understand the place of ERM in Enterprise Content Management, never having attempted to practice ECM within NARA itself. Also, records management is NOT "mission critical." RM is "critical infrastructure" for any enterprise. There is a difference and NARA does not understand the difference.
17	This questionnaire is a NARA and OMB funding manifesto. It does not directly address the perception that government recording entities pursue secrecy and propaganda; and that the lack of electronic records is intentional prior to question #21.
18	At this time, the top of the executive branch seems intent on eliminating records (white house email, editing white house press conference transcripts, doctoring old documents) or preventing public access to those records (e.g. the energy task force). Record keeping is a step towards accountability and transparency, neither of which are current federal priorities.
19	Not only for other levels of government, but for other agencies outside of government.
20	We need to insure that mandates are clear, properly funded, meet current technology applications, and even push the envelop for development of newer technology and applications across all three levels of government with open architecture.
21	I notice that the survey does not envisage as the norm the situation pertaining in my agency i.e. an integrated archives and records management service incorporated into the Group Information Management function. As a non-US commentator I do not have a detailed knowledge of the capabilities and role of NARA in the federal governmental system. However, if I compare the performance of the UK National Archives in developing codes of practice and guidance for public sector bodies, the cultural/historical focus of their mission has led to some distortions in the records management practice recommended i.e. some of the best practice guidance has limited 'on the ground' practicality. In addition to NARA, it would be helpful to have a balancing input from practicing records manager embedded in agencies as well. We looking at the international perspective, it is also worth noting that ARMA International, despite is name, is too USA-centric to be a credible representative of international records management practices. If the objective is to develop something with global credibility, there would be a need to consult more widely.
22	I believe the public is well aware of the importance of record keeping, perhaps not specific details, but in general. I would caution that providing guidance at the federal level can become as cumbersome as following HIPAA. The overlap of Federal state and industry standards could become overwhelming.
23	State and local governments as well as the private sector businesses look to the Federal Gov't to set the pace and establish the standard and provide the guidance.
24	Management of electronic assets (or paper for that matter) is largely ignored and little understood. While all the ideas listed above are good, what we really need is to understand how people use and manage digital materials and partner with the IT industry to produce better management tools that relate to how people use digital information and documents. Until we do this we will always fail because short of a police state we cannot force people into "better" management practices if these are not meaningful and natural practices for them.
25	Should have included librarians in question 1 and so listed myself as other legal, since we work with govt records all the time. I am also an historian (Ph.D.), but full time job is law librarian.
26	The importance of records management and archival administration cannot be overemphasized.
27	Records management is one thing. Maintaining valuable historical archives is another. In the name of records management (retention schedules, et al.) much material of historical value is discarded.
28	In assuring access, it is also important that government not be swamped by the current hysteria over identity theft / terrorist threats into taking hurried steps that only appear to offer greater protection against these threats.
29	The most important statement is that the records are an asset and resource - not just a bookkeeping exercise. The records are a duty, a national treasure and a revenue generating resource.
30	I don't see anything about the fact that archivists and records managers are all too often at the very bottom of the totem pole: records managers within an agency ought to answer to the CEO, and auditing regs ought to make the CEO pay attention. Further: records managers ought to be required to have substantial technology qualifications or IT will ignore or work around what they have to say.
31	Training in record management and archives administration should be made an essential module for IT study programme at College level.
32	Need also to assure that Internet communications are not hampered by an overzealous program of record capturing and requirements. It is as important to assure that there is not over-recording as it is to address the need to conserve certain records. This aspect needs to receive a greater emphasis. This by a retired Federal employee.
33	As one of the only state archivists with time to work on electronic records, it sounds like this report closely parallels my own observation at the state level.
34	I work with local government records, so I am not personally familiar with some of the federal programs, but I answered the questions as if it were dealing with local and state agencies.
35	There are two critical issues here: 1) creating a compelling business case for agencies to deploy and use electronic record keeping systems and 2) building public demand for electronic records. Private businesses are complying with electronic recordkeeping laws because there's an internal business benefit, and because shareholders care that companies be able to adequately defend themselves if they get sued.
36	A major barrier to accessibility of good public records is lack of top government commitment to open records and FOI. It is apparent in the President's Executive Order 13233 and in the views of his appointees to senior government positions. We can't change that if, as it seems, it is conscious government policy. But we should recognize the highly negative impact this has on the commitment of agency managers to carry out effective records programs and resulting staff and budgetary reductions making it increasingly tough in agency RM units to do an effective job. If properly budgeted and supported, it would help to give FOI responsibility to the agency RM units.

[1] © 2005, Richard E. Barry. All rights reserved. This paper may not be reprinted or republished without the author's written permission. Rick Barry is an author and consultant in the field of information and records management, focusing on electronic records management, and is a cofounder of the OpenReader Consortium. Biographical information may be found here.

[2] It should be noted that this survey was conducted on the basis of the two ERPWG reports—the "Barriers" and "Recommendations" reports—and did not survey respondents on the subsequent ICGI report "Recommendations for the Effective Management Government Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records," of December 16, 2004, which reflected the ICGI's disposition of the ERPWG report findings and was the final report to go to the OMB and Archivist. No attempt has been made here to compare the ERPWG and ICGI versions except to note that the ICGI's final report, eliminated ERPWG's fourth recommendation to establish a Federal Records Council to advise the Federal CIO Council. This recommendation was, nonetheless, adopted by the Archivist and the FRC has been established to advise the Archivist of the US. The ICGI report also reordered the ERPWG recommendations with "Support agencies" becoming Recommendation 1 (from 2), "Create Records Management Profile" becoming recommendation 2 (from 3) and "Improve Accountability" recommendation becoming Recommendation 3 (from 1).

[3] 44 United States Code (USC) 101.

[4] Key ERPWG papers, Work Program, Members, First report on Barriers, Second report on Recommendations, ICGI final report to the Archivist and Director of OMB.

[5] The ICGI final report included the same statement of barriers and recommendations that were in the original ERPWG reports with one exception. Recommendation #4 of the ERPWG Recommendations report was not included ("Establish a Federal Records Council to advise and support agencies, the PCIE, and the CIO Council with implementation of these ICGI recommendations…") However, a Federal Records Council was established in the spring of 2005.

[6] This unsolicited Survey was conducted independently on a pro bono basis by Rick Barry, without the solicitation or endorsement of any organization. A draft of the Survey instrument and this report were sent to a small number of colleagues and the Chairman of ERPWG prior to finalization. The author thanks those who provided feedback on the survey instrument and the draft report but takes full responsibility for the final versions of the survey instrument and this report. See "About This Survey".

[7] Unless otherwise specified, for shorthand purposes, the term "agree" reflects the percentage of Survey respondents who ranked the subject as "Strongly Agree" or "Agree". Similarly, the term "disagree" reflects the percentage of Survey respondents who ranked the subject as "Strongly Disagree" or "Disagree". "Percentage figures are rounded.

[8] Cresswell, Anthony M., "Exemplary Practices in Electronic Records and Information Access Programs," July 2004, Center for Technology in Government University at Albany, SUNY, p. 6.

[9] Cook, Terry, "What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898, and the Future Paradigm Shift", Archivaria, the journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists, 43 (Spring 97).

[10] Nesmith, Tom, "What's History Got to Do with It?" keynote presentation to the Association of Canadian Archivists 2004 annual conference by the same title, June 10-14, 2004 and published in the Guest Authors section (.pdf, 1,700kb).

[11] Cook, Terry, Association of Canadian Archivists Annual Conference 2004, June 10-14, 2004, unpublished.

[12] Cox, Richard, in a July 5, 2005 20:38:45 +0000 posting to the Records Management List. http://lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507A&L=recmgmt-l&P=R2414.

[13] Barry, R, "Saving the future now: Commentary," Federal Computer Week, June 3, 2003.

[14] Blanton, Thomas S., "The End of History? The Beginning of Global Perspective? The Threat to Sources", luncheon address to the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations 2003 Conference, June 7, 2003, George Washington University, Washington D.C.

[15] View the NARA 20th Anniversary Webcast

[16] http://www.pewtrusts.com/index.cfm

[17] "Report on the Society and Archives Survey" on findings of an international survey that was conducted to obtain feedback in advance of an International Round Table Conference on Archives (CITRA) meeting of heads of national archives and other members of the International Council of Archives leadership in Marseilles, November 13-16, 2002. The CITRA meeting theme was "How does society perceive archives?" Among other things, the survey to which 671 professionals responded revealed that national archives and national professional associations had not surveyed their members on the theme of the meeting.

[18] "Management of Electronic Records: Issues and Guidelines", an international, interdisciplinary research study conducted by the United Nations Technical Panel on Electronic Records Management (1987-89), R. E. Barry, Chairperson. Published by the UN Sales Office, publication GV.E.89.9.15, N.Y., 1990.

[19] "Report on the Survey on Society and Archives," by R. E. Barry, January 29, 2003.

[20] Ibid, noted above revealed that heads of national and regional archives and professional associations were seen as having among the most unexploited potential for making positive changes in society's perceptions of the importance of records and recordkeeping.

[21] http://www.archives.gov/about/info/mission.html#vis

[22] Parenthetical notations refer to referenced survey questions, e.g., (Q1) refers to the total figures for Question 1 of the Survey results, a breakdown of respondents by professional category; (Q21) shows the total results for Question 21 (Other Critical Recommendations); where two questions are shown with an "x" between them, as in (Q1x21), this refers to a cross-tab of the two questions showing the breakdown of the responses to Q21 by respondent professional categories; where two or more questions are separated with a hyphen, as in (Q10-13), this refers to Survey Questions 10 through 13 (Barriers), etc.

[23] Although there were announcements of the ERPWG reports on the professional discussion lists, there appears to be no evidence of substantive discussions of the reports' findings. This will be discussed later in the report.

[24] Recommendation 1. "Improve accountability for records management. Addresses the low priority assigned to information and records management. Agencies must have an expectation that their actions have important positive or negative consequences, and there needs to be an effective mechanism for evaluating agency actions. Recommendation 1 proposes that NARA and OMB (Office of Management & Budget) work together with the Inspector General community through the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE) to identify appropriate mechanisms for evaluating compliance with existing legislation and establish incentives for agencies to take action to properly manage and protect their records as valuable Government assets."

[25] Recommendation 2. "Support agencies through effective leadership and clear records management guidance. To be accountable for information and records management compliance, agencies must have a clear understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it. OMB and NARA should work together to provide agencies with clear, non-conflicting guidance on information management that is easily identifiable and widely available. One of the activities proposed in this recommendation is that NARA sponsor and manage a central Internet portal for agencies to share and obtain proven information and records management guidance."

[26] Recommendation 3. "Create a Records Management Profile in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). Information and records management permeates all Government business processes and crosses all lines of business, but is not in itself a separate line of business. It is an integral part of the Government's operations…ERPWG proposes using the recently issued FEA Security and Privacy Profile as a model for a Records Management Profile to tie together records management considerations throughout the FEA models. The Records Management Profile would provide a methodology that uses relevant FEA reference model information (i.e., context and conditions) to help business owners accurately determine information and records categorization and establish an appropriate set of information and records management controls so that records management can be as seamless and transparent as possible to the end user."

[27] Recommendation 4. "Establish a Federal Records Council to advise and support agencies, the PCIE, and the CIO Council with implementation of these ICGI recommendations. Recommendation 4 supports the other three recommendations by proposing a Federal Records Council to be an ongoing support system to agencies as they implement the ICGI recommendations and NARA guidance developed for section 207(e) of the E-Government Act of 2002. This recommendation also provides a formal mechanism by which the agencies can share experiences and work together to identify strategies, best practices and solutions to electronic information and records issues."