![]() Stephen Macintosh |
Abstract
This award-winning case study[2]
outlines the author’s experiences introducing DIRKS at the Australian Human
Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, (HREOC) in Sydney. The Designing Information and Recordkeeping
Systems (DIRKS) methodology is an eight-step process for agencies to use to improve their recordkeeping and information
management practices, including the design and implementation of new
recordkeeping systems. The methodology is compliant with, and expands on, the
methodological framework of the Australian Standard for Records Management, AS ISO
15489 – 2002. It includes the many positive aspects he found and some of the
challenges he encountered. He also makes several suggestions aimed at improving
implementation of DIRKS by central archives and records management authorities.
DIRKS – Developing and Implementing a
Recordkeeping System: A strategic approach to managing business information
This is a methodology for
designing records management systems that was developed in Australia and has
been incorporated into the International Records Management Standard ISO
15489-2. It has is origins in business systems analysis methodologies that have
been in use in the information management field for many years. This
methodology consists of eight principal steps, as outlined in the DIRKS Manual
summary.
Over a period of two years, the records manager with the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and I - who was working in the
capacity of a consultant – recognised a number of recordkeeping tools that had
to be developed in order to strengthen the agency’s recordkeeping program.
We needed to develop a function based business
classification scheme and disposition schedule, to ensure the systematic
management of records that documented agency specific
functions and activities.
We needed to identify a
set of recordkeeping or evidence creation requirements for each of the agency’s
functions and activities.
Finally, we needed to identify the risks associated with the
agency not creating full and accurate records of each of its functions and
activities.
The first three steps of DIRKS (A, B and C) appeared to be a
methodology we could use to develop these tools. We were sure that they could
help us to fundamentally strengthen the agency’s recordkeeping program.
We applied to the National Archives Australia
(NAA) to become part of their
DIRKS work program, and were accepted.
Step A involved an initial analysis of the agency’s
business. This was set up as a series
of questions. When completed, it gave a
clear picture of the agency’s history, what it did, what it planned to do, and
what constraints and opportunities were created by the agency’s operating
environment.
We were able to use the completion of step A to introduce
senior management to the DIRKS process, and several senior managers agreed to
become part of a DIRKS working party.
This working party proved to be a very effective conduit for
getting senior management involvement and for getting feedback on our
understandings to date. We found that when we linked
the process to identifying requirements for evidence, rather than records, most
of the managers were happy to give up some of their time.
It is important to note, however, that this
commitment was conditional on the whole process not becoming bogged down in
concerns about records management jargon and pedantry. As is shown in the outline
of DIRKS step C, when the process becomes locked up with such concerns managers
of the core business of the agency will become frustrated and step back from
the process.
Step B involved using business systems analysis (BSA) tools
to analyse the business activities of the agency, and developing a business
classification scheme (BCS). This
scheme identified the overarching functions of the agency and created clear
definitions for each. It then
identified and defined the different activities that supported the functions.
Finally, it identified and defined the individual
transactions associated with each activity. These were clearly items of great
interest to senior managers and helped greatly to gain their involvement and
commitment to the remainder of the work.
Gaining such interest first opened the door to making senior
managers more aware of the role and importance of records and recordkeeping as
part of the broader information management equation.
This awareness also meant that managers became
aware of the utility of records management tools, such as the BCS, to address
other information management challenges within the agency, such as the
implementation of metadata sets to facilitate information generated for a Sharepoint
Portal.
As you can imagine, even for a relatively small agency, this
was a challenging process. With the
help of the project officer from National Archives of Australia (NAA) and
engaging agency senior management to validate definitions, interfaces and
organisations involved, we were able to produce a scheme of the work the agency
does.
This scheme facilitated a risk analysis in relation to the
risks associated with the agency not creating records, or creating incomplete
records, of its functions and activities.
It also facilitated the creation of a disposition schedule, and a set of
recordkeeping requirements. In
addition, the scheme is now being used to devise a means by which electronic
records are titled according to the function and activity they document.
In order to satisfy NAA requirements, we also had to
complete a Function Source Document (FSD) that clearly identified where we had
acquired the information to complete the Business Classification Scheme.
I think the documentation required by NAA is necessary. It does, however, make DIRKS a heavy,
time-taxing process. Indeed, the amount
of time and detail required need to be fully understood by managers before they
approve their agency’s undertaking this process.
This is not unique to DIRKS. Management involvement and
careful articulation of business process and activity definitions is common to
most business system analysis projects, whatever methodology is used. Which is
why they typically yield both good information results, plus significantly
improved management understanding and appreciation of organisational
information (including records) assets.
‘CAARA officers need to spend time in organisations where records
and archives are not the core business’
Step C involved identifying the recordkeeping requirements,
developing disposition classes and linking them to internal and external
stakeholders, for each function and activity of the agency.
We were hoping to end up with two things:
1. A clear set of reasons why the agency kept records for
each of its functions, which would be disseminated throughout the agency so
that each officer had a clear understanding as to what records they needed to
create.
2. A functions-based disposition schedule that facilitated
the systematic disposition of records and ensured they could be managed over
time.
We did this by working closely with the agency managers and
the NAA project officer. We ended up
identifying and documenting the recordkeeping requirements and disposition
classes for the three functions established in the creation of the Business
Classification Scheme.
This process was also able to show us that the steps of
DIRKS are incrementally arranged. Recordkeeping requirements and disposition
periods seemed to almost fall out of the activities and transactions we had
identified in step B.
Step C was the most challenging part of the DIRKS process.
Halfway through step C our NAA project officer left to take up another
position.
It is worth noting that at the outset the agency and NAA
appeared to have different priorities.
For the agency, the project officer was going to help develop a series
of recordkeeping tools. I think the NAA
wanted the project officer to ensure that we conformed to a National Archives
perspective in relation to any of the tools we produced.
This, I surmise, was because NAA were required,
by the legislation they administered, to ensure that any disposition schedule
that resulted from the DIRKS process met particular requirements.
Despite these different priorities we had worked
constructively with our project officer, who had come to understand the
agency’s work culture and the particular relationship the records section had
with the rest of the agency. Our project officer had acted as a facilitator in
a way that meant that the BCS was a reflection of both the agency’s and NAA’s
priorities.
The replacement project officer, while being very helpful with
regard to practical issues such as helping us reformat some of the DIRKS
tables, appeared to be more interested in ensuring that any document produced
was in line with the NAA perspective.
The changing feedback from NAA frustrated agency managers. They
could not understand why their decisions regarding recordkeeping requirements
and disposition periods were being questioned or complicated in order to fit in
with NAA requirements.
The lesson I learnt from this challenge was the need for
clear and carefully documented communication between all parties during the
DIRKS process.
·
A clear inventory and understanding of the
functions, activities and transactions of the agency, and how they produce
records.
·
A significantly improved understanding of
organisational business functions/processes on the part of management and a
greatly improved appreciation of the role of recordkeeping.
·
A functionally based Business Classification
Scheme, and a Disposition Schedule that can be used for a range of information
management tools.
·
An understanding of who our stakeholders are and
how they affect our record creating requirements.
·
An understanding of the risks associated with
not creating full and accurate records for each activity.
·
A capacity to title records according to what
function and activity they support, and a capacity to use this titling as a
records management tool.
·
A better appreciation of, and increased skills
in, business systems analysis.
·
A functions-based Disposal Authority for
agency-specific functions.
·
Clearly document and explain to NAA why we were
conducting this exercise.
·
Ensure that NAA documented and explained what
their priorities and perspectives were, and what support they could provide.
·
Attempt to more clearly understand the NAA
perspective, and attempt to harmonise NAA and our own priorities.
·
Make a more realistic assessment as to the time
and resources involved in this task.
DIRKS,
steps A, B and C had taken 18 months to complete. It had delivered us the tools
to implement a comprehensive records management program. It was a worthwhile
exercise.
Constructive
Suggestions
In
the light of my experience, I want to make a few suggestions to managers in
central archives and records agencies (CARAs). But I need to precede my
comments by saying that the National Archives of Australia has embarked on an
innovative and exciting direction with their work developing and implementing
the DIRKS methodology. I hope that they will consider any suggestions made as
being supportive and constructive.
Central
archives and records agencies are in a unique position in most public sectors.
They are the only agencies whose core business is archives and records
management.
In contrast, the position of records
management sections in most organisations is, for a whole range of reasons,
quite peripheral.
In
order to initiate and implement projects, such as DIRKS, records managers and
workers have to work very hard at winning support from management, who, quite
correctly, do not regard recordkeeping as part of their core business.
Central archives and
records agency officers need to spend time in organisations where records and
archives are not the core business, to really understand the challenges records
managers and workers face.
Central archives and
records agencies need to realise that public sector agencies, particularly the
smaller agencies, are acting with increasing autonomy in relation to their
day-to-day management.
This means that
broad, cross-government programs, such as DIRKS, need to be implemented in a
flexible, facilitative manner, that allows client agencies to develop a sense
of ownership about the outcomes of the program.
If
the client agencies feel that the outcomes do not reflect their needs, and have
been arrived at in order to meet the requirements of CARAs, DIRKS will only act
to reinforce the peripheral nature of records management in many public sector
agencies. Further, and more importantly, the many agencies will not feel
committed to meeting their recordkeeping requirements.
____________
Stephen Macintosh is a professional
recordkeeper who has designed and implemented a range of recordkeeping and
information management tools and systems for Australian state, federal and
international government organisations. He is a professional member Records
Management Association of Australasia (RMAA) and is newsletter editor for the
New South Wales Branch of the association.
He may be contacted at stedel@digisurf.net.au.
Stephen
wishes to thank to Rick Barry for providing editorial assistance during the
writing of this article.
[1] 'This article first appeared in the November 2004 issue of InfoRMAA Quarterly (IQ), official journal of Records Management Association of Australasia, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the author and of IQ. The author welcomes comments on this paper.
[2] Stephen Macintosh received a “Highly Commended” certificate for this feature in the 2004 Objective IQ Article of the Year award announced at the annual convention of the Records Management Association of Australasia in Perth, Western Australia, in September 2005.