Managing electronic records in the 21st century: as Michigan's State Archives and Records Management Services discovered, records management application (RMA) software can solve many electronic recordkeeping problems, but it also presents many challenges.

With recent cases Of improperly forwarded, deleted, or stored e-mail grabbing business headlines, the heat is on records and information management (RIM) professionals everywhere to implement a solution that will ensure proper classification and retention of their organization's electronic records.

The State Archives of Michigan and the state's Records Management Services began discussing electronic records issues more than 25 years ago. In 1998, the two units collaborated to create a Michigan Government Electronic Records Committee (ERC), with representation from a variety of professional disciplines. An early concern was formulating some type of policy or guideline for e-mail retention. A draft e-mail policy that proposed printing out official e-mail for retention purposes was rejected by the information technology community, which favored a technology solution. Ultimately, the ERC wanted an automated solution for classifying electronic records created by desktop applications--such as e-mail and word-processed documents--and implementing retention requirements.

Initially, it was not clear what this automated solution might look like. Nor was it readily apparent whether a custom-designed product was best or whether commercial products were available that would better meet the state's needs. It also was important to determine what functionalities were needed or wanted.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued the first version of its 5015.2 Standard for records management applications (RMAs), and several commercial products that complied with this standard became available. After learning about the DoD standard and the various RMAs on the market, it became clear that the first step in finding a solution had already been completed; while not perfect, the DoD standard answered the question about desired functionalities. Two questions remained: How well would the commercial products work, and would people use them?

A list of existing RMA users working with this standard was compiled. They were interviewed by phone about implementation of the products and about their users. A few vendors were invited to conduct demonstrations of their products. It was important to determine whether existing users were endeavoring to achieve the same functionalities as ERC--records management for desktop electronic records. Most existing customers were using these products to manage paper records, although a few federal agencies had tested them on electronic records.

It was also important to test RMA software in the ERC environment to determine if it would solve the existing records retention problems. A grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) helped the state answer this question and purchase the RMA software. Staff was employed to administer the software and train the users. The two-year pilot project began May 1, 2000, and ended September 30, 2002.

VENDOR SELECTION

A multi-disciplinary vendor-review team (including three members of the project team) was assembled in October 1999 to select the software that would be tested during the pilot project. A request for information (RFI) was issued and proposals from five vendors were received. Four of the products were certified by the Department of Defense. The team reviewed the proposals and invited three vendors to provide demonstrations of their product. To gather additional information about these products, the team contacted several existing customers of these vendors after the demonstrations.

The team considered several topics to be of special concern, including the product's ability to operate in the current technology environment, ease of participant use, especially how long would it take to file a document, and the product's market share. A 1998 Doculabs report that contained a comparative analysis of six RMA products was extremely useful to the vendor selection team in designing the selection criteria. After the investigation, the vendor-review team unanimously selected ForeMost Enterprise (recently acquired by Documentum, but formerly Provenance and TrueArc) because of the simplicity of its user interface.

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

The project plan called for two phases of evaluation. During the first phase, the RMA software was installed in the Department of Management and Budget (DMB) and the Office of Support Services (OSS), which was, at the time the project started, the parent agency of the records management program. Other agencies within the OSS included print and graphics services, mail and delivery/materials management services, state and federal surplus, and the consolidated print center.

Approximately 60 people from OSS were selected to participate in phase 1. The director of OSS volunteered to purchase the RMA software and to support its use among her employees. Her support would be crucial for encouraging participants to use the RMA software. Phase 1 participants used the RMA software for the duration of the grant project.

The project team recruited the DMB executive office staff for phase 2 of the project, which started almost one year after phase 1 commenced. Approximately 20 people were selected to participate in phase 2. However, a few months after the project started, various personnel changes and reorganizations, including the departure of the OSS director, resulted in the decision not to use the DMB director's office for this phase. Instead, approximately 20 people from the director's office of the Department of History, Arts and Libraries (HAL)--the new parent agency of the State Archives of Michigan and eventually the home of the Division of Archives and Records Management--were recruited to participate.

FILE PLANS

Unlike other programs, RMA software cannot be simply installed and used directly out of the box. User accounts, security controls, and file plans must be custom designed by the records administrator before users can get started. File plans are essential because RMA software is the only type of software capable of implementing the retention requirements for the records that are stored in its repository. Other software products that store electronic records retain them indefinitely.

The primary change users experience with RMA software is a new location for storing and retrieving their records. Users no longer need to store their records in multiple places, such as on a hard drive, a network server, individual e-mail accounts, floppy disks, or as a hard copy. Instead, they can store a variety of electronic records together in a central repository. Once the records are in the repository, the RMA calculates their final disposition according to the retention period assigned to the particular file in the file plan.

The record administrators developed file plans for groups of users based on their shared responsibilities. Rather than a unique file plan being created for each user, the users were assigned to the file plan specifically designed for their agency. This approach has multiple benefits. First, it is less time consuming to create one file plan for a group. Second, a common file plan for specific work groups promotes the centralized storage of records and encourages file sharing. Standardized file plans also make searching for co-workers' records much easier. It is important to stress, however, that security controls allow individuals using a shared file plan to see and access only those files and documents that they have permission to use.

It is essential that users have a sense of ownership and control over their file plan. Therefore, users must help develop their file plan, which needs to be based on users' current work processes. This helps users understand where to store their records and promotes accurate filing.

If users do not participate in the development stage, either they will misfile records or, worse, not use the RMA at all. If this happens, the benefit of the RMA is lost to the entire agency, and proper records management is nearly impossible.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULES

In 1997, after a series of consulting projects related to the management and preservation of electronic records, the State of Michigan began including electronic records on retention and disposal schedules. In Michigan, government agencies cannot legally destroy public records without the authorization based on an approved retention and disposal schedule. Records Management Services is responsible for developing these schedules.

Applying retention requirements to the records stored in the RMA is the primary purpose of the software. RMA software requires that all files be linked to a record series. A file can only be linked to one record series; however, multiple files can be linked to a particular record series. It is the responsibility of the records administrator to link the files to the correct retention and disposal schedule. Many of the agencies involved in the pilot project received new schedules beginning in 1997. But all schedules were reviewed during the file plan development process to ensure that all files could be linked to an approved schedule.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

When the project team began developing file plans, two things were certain: first, this would be a time-consuming process and, second, the project participants' cooperation was imperative. Unfortunately, delays by the vendor in delivering the RMA software prevented the project team from demonstrating it to the participants before the file plans were developed. Therefore, a one-hour orientation presentation was developed to introduce the project participants to the RMA product, records management terms, and the purpose of file plans. Appointments to begin developing the actual file plans were scheduled with each project participant after he or she attended the orientation.

Record inventories were conducted with all participants. The project team evaluated all existing electronic and manual filing systems. Participants were interviewed about their work responsibilities and with whom they shared records. This activity helped map business processes and identify records that were used by multiple participants. Inventories of people who were involved in the same business process were then compared. This comparison was essential for the development of a shared file plan.

Next, a file plan for each group of participants was drafted. Each group reviewed the drafts and provided feedback about their proposed file plans. This input was crucial (1) to give the participants a sense of ownership of the file plan and (2) to create a file plan that the participants would recognize, understand, and feel comfortable using to file documents. Therefore, some drafts were revised several times to accommodate participants' needs.

Once each group approved its file plan, the files were mapped with the appropriate retention and disposal schedule. This additional check helped to ensure that all records series created by the agency were listed on a schedule.

CHALLENGES

From the beginning, the project team knew that it would have to make changes to the file plans. As business processes change, the users' needs change. A process was established for participants to request necessary changes. However, participants were accustomed to modifying their file systems on the fly as the need arose. Now, they had to rely on the records administrators to create new files for them, and many participants were apprehensive about this lack of control.

Shortly after the participants began using the RMA, the project team realized that the file plans designed were overly detailed; they had primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. It also became clear that the file plans were based on experiences with paper and older electronic filing systems. The file plans reflected the philosophy that records needed to be classified in a precise manner. Some participants were happy with the hierarchical file plans. They liked the precise classification of records and the ability to navigate to a specific file for their documents. For others, however, this was confusing and tedious.

Many project participants associated each navigational click of the file plan with time. In addition, some were concerned that navigating the file plan increased the risk of inconsistent and inaccurate filing. It became clear that RMA file plans are very different from those in the paper world.

In an RMA file plan, if the secondary and tertiary files have the same retention period as the primary file, it often is not necessary to subdivide the primary or secondary files. For example, in the paper world it would make sense to file the work orders for each customer separately to facilitate retrieval. However, because the RMA's search engine can search for work orders by job, date, and other characteristics, it is not necessary to file the orders separately when storing them in the RMA repository--unless they have different retention periods. As a result, the project team decided not to use the traditional hierarchical file plan structure when designing RMA file plans. The team determined that as long as the records remain organized by topic, this approach would save the RMA user time when filing documents and at the same time maintain the integrity of the filing system. However, for this approach to be effective, RMA users must be careful when naming documents and must develop their searching skills so they can effectively use the search engine to retrieve documents.

DISPOSITION

Once the file plans were in place, the software was installed on the project participants' computers and they were trained to file and retrieve their documents using the RMA. Next, the project team began evaluating the disposition process for the electronic records that were stored in the repository.

The team modeled the electronic records disposition process on that used for paper records. In Michigan, the State Records Center provides offsite storage for state government records. Versatile Enterprise, a software product from Zasio Enterprises, controls retention and disposition of boxes stored at the center. On a bi-annual basis, disposal notices are generated to notify creating agencies about their boxes that are eligible for disposal (destruction or transfer to the State Archives).

The project team decided to generate similar bi-annual disposition reports from ForeMost to identify which electronic documents were eligible for disposal. However, several issues had to be addressed before the project team could receive authorization to dispose of any electronic documents.

ForeMost employs two types of retention periods: chronological and conditional. A chronological retention period will quality a document for disposal based on the date it is filed into the ForeMost repository plus a specified number of days, months, or years. Chronological retention periods are relatively simple to implement.

On the other hand, a conditional retention period will retain all documents in a file until a specific event occurs (a contract expires, an employee leaves, a project ends) and then will qualify all documents in that file for disposal a specified number of days, months, or years after that event occurs. Unfortunately, the records administrator who runs the disposition report rarely knows when these events occur. Someone must notify the records administrator about these events, so the project team established a procedure for requesting this notification.

The team designated disposition coordinators from each of the participating offices who agreed to be responsine for the review and approval of the disposition reports. Coordinators have 30 days to review the report and identify any files that should be closed. In addition, the coordinators receive their chronological disposition reports on a bi-annual basis. These reports list each document that is eligible for disposal, the file in which the document is stored, and the name of the person who filed the document.

PROJECT RESULTS

The project team developed and reorganized 14 file plans during the course of the pilot project. Toward the end of the project, analyses of the similarities and differences between each of these file plans were made. These analyses will be used to develop a template for future file plans. The template addresses general administrative, financial, and personnel files that every agency needs, and it accommodates those functional records that are unique to a particular agency. Furthermore, the template provides a file-numbering scheme that allows for growth and flexibility. The template is mapped to the general retention schedules that are approved for use by the executive branch.

However, effective file plans are only one component of a successful RMA software installation. Eventually, people have to use the file plan within the RMA.

In this case, most project participants did not perceive a problem with their prior filing system and, therefore, saw no benefit to changing filing systems. Many were comfortable using other tools to share documents with their co-workers. The features that their existing filing systems lacked were security, version control, and records retention. However, these features alone were not sufficient to compel the participants to convert electronic records from their existing filing system into the RMA.

Most important, the management support that the pilot project received at the beginning was not sustained when key personnel left. Without this support, project participants had little incentive to change their filing behavior and use the RMA software.

When the pilot phase of the project ended, the project team identified which project participants had actually adopted the RMA software into their normal recordkeeping habits. Many participants did not use the software after they attended the introductory training, and most indicated that this was due to a lack of use by their supervisors and co-workers. Because their commitment to participate in the pilot phase had been fulfilled, an offer was made (and some accepted) to uninstall ForeMost. As a result, only about a quarter of the project participants are still using ForeMost. Some use ForeMost as their primary recordkeeping system for electronic records, and others use the software only for specific functions.

The RMA industry is growing and changing, and the project team still believes that RMA software can solve many electronic recordkeeping problems. However, top administrators must accept responsibility for ensuring that their agency's records are properly managed. Without their support, sophisticated software tools will be useless. The Department of History, Arts and Libraries continues to support the installation of ForeMost. The project team will be prepared to make sound recommendations to Michigan government agencies when they are ready to address electronic records retention.

References

Doculabs. "Special Report on Records Management Systems." Chicago: Doculabs, 1998. Available at www.doculabs.com (accessed 23 September 2003).

DoD 5015.2-STD and list of certified RMAs. Available at http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/recmgt/ (accessed 23 September 2003).

Michigan's RMA Pilot Project Final Report. Available at www.michigan.gov/hal (suggested search term "records management application") (accessed 23 September 2003).

Editor's Note: Records Management Services recently joined the State Archives of Michigan as part of the Department of History, Arts and Libraries, Michigan Historical Center. The two programs will be merged into a single Division of Archives and Records Management in the future.

At the Core

This article

* discusses the process and steps involved in Michigan's records management application (RMA) pilot project

* examines the challenges of creating an automated solution for classifying electronic records

* presents the results of Michigan's RMA project

Caryn Wojcik, State Records Archivist, is responsible for appraising Michigan government records for their historical value and for developing electronic records management and preservation strategies. She is a certified archivist and received her bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She may be contacted at [e-mail].

Deborah Gouin worked as a project archivist on the Michigan RMA pilot project. She is a certified archivist, an eRecords Analyst for the IBM Records Manager product (formerly Tarian Software), and teaches records management for the Library and Information Science graduate program at Wayne State University. She may be contacted at [e-mail].

Mimi Dionne worked as a project archivist on the Michigan RMA pilot project. Currently, she works for Vinson & Elkins LLP, where she handles the categorization of information in all media formats. She received her master's degree from the Universty of Texas, Austin. She may be contacted at [e-mail].