Functional classification of records and organisational structure

Abstract

PurposeThis paper seeks to examine how an electronic records management system has been used in a Finnish government agency. In particular, it aims to study the relationship between functional classification scheme and the way users in different organisational units and at different organisational levels have employed the system. The goal is to examine whether electronic records management systems were easier to use if the system “knew” what functional classes the user (or other employees in the user's organisational unit) typically need in their work.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on two sources. The first source is metadata in records that were captured in the electronic records management system of the agency. It reflects actual behaviour of users when they interact with the system and classification of records. The second source is distribution of functions to organisational units in the light of policy documents and a survey made in the organisation. The study compares the two sources to see how the users have employed the electronic records management system in their work and how this relates to organisational structure and supposed usage of the system.FindingsIn general, individual employees employ only a small part of the classification. However, this does not apply at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy: the higher the person's position in the hierarchy, the more classes he/she is likely to use in the work. Regardless of the position, the classes are generally those identified as belonging to the employee's unit.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on one agency with a functional organisational structure. The findings may not apply to organisations where job descriptions are fluid. They should also be tested in more complex organisational settings. One could develop new methods of automated classification which combine analysis of document content with contextual reasoning about the likely functional classes.Practical implicationsAccess to electronic records management systems could be facilitated by creating in systems user/unit profiles defining what functional classes the user is most likely to need in their work. It would also be useful if systems simply remembered what functional classes the user has needed in the past.Originality/valueThe study offers insight into how an electronic records management system is used in an organisation. This is valuable for companies developing records management software and persons trying to gain a deeper understanding of records management in organisations.

Understanding functions: an organizational culture perspective

“…Understanding of function: a question of perspective One constant claim that emerged from all four cases was that function is an alien concept to employees, as confirmed by the literature on functional classification (see inter alia, Todd, 2003;Orr, 2005;Alberts et al, 2010, Henttonen andKettunen, 2011). Therefore, most organizations showed the tendency to hide partly or completely the functional structure from the classification users' view, as it emerges from the following interview excerpts involving organizations A and D respectively: If you consider how people organize their stuff [in the electronic records management system], you realize that it is very much based on the way a department is structured, and their personal ideas about how work is accomplished.…”

“…The "paradigm shift" (Cook, 1997) that has in more recent times reoriented the archival body of knowledge towards an emphasis on the records context and away from the materiality of the records has contributed to make of the "functional approach" a pillar of archival methodology throughout a record's life cycle [1] From function-based methods to identify what records should be captured in business systems (ICA, 2008), functional classification schemes (Sabourin, 2001;Henttonen and Kettunen, 2011) and functional approaches to records appraisal and selection (Scott and Fonseca, 1992;Man, 2005) to ideas of functional provenance (Menne-Haritz, 1993) and functional access to archives (Monroe and Roe, 1990) Since the early 1990s, all basic concepts and processing methods for records and archives appear to involve top-down analyses, process modeling, and descriptions of functional contexts.…”

Recordkeeping professionals’ understanding of and justification for functional classification: Finnish public sector organizational context

“…Individual users of ERMS normally use only a small part of the classification. Thus, also automated classification such as unit or user profiles could be created to facilitate access to ERMS (Henttonen and Kettunen 2011). Seitsonen (2010) discusses opportunities provided by semantic web 2.0 to functional classification in Finnish municipal organizations.…”

“…Functional classification has recently drawn increasing attention as a method for organizing records in electronic records management (Alberts et al 2010;Bak 2012;Foscarini 2012;Gunnlaugsdottir 2012;Henttonen and Kettunen 2011). It is highly valued by records management professionals (Foscarini 2012;Orr 2005) and sometimes even presented as the only reasonable method for classifying records (Shepherd and Yeo 2003).…”

O “assunto” como elemento de classificação para documentos de arquivo no início do século XX e suas influências em abordagens contemporâneas

“…Entretanto, o fato do Eletronic Records Management System -ERMS não capturar as comunicações internas por e-mail, por exemplo, sugere que uma quantidade significativa de documentos de arquivo não são classificados, armazenados e avaliados corretamente(HENTTONEN;KETTUNEN, 2011, p. (MOKHTAR et al, 2016.As arquivistas italianas Maria Mata Caravaca (2017) e Maria Guercio (2017) se dispõem a analisar respectivamente: os elementos e relacionamentos contidos nos planos de classificação e o papel da classificação de documentos de arquivo nos sistemas documentários digitais 1 .Caravaca (2017, p. 19) aponta José Viana de Alencar, Clarissa Schmidt O "assunto" como elemento de classificação para documentos de arquivo no início do século XX e suas influências em abordagens contemporâneas Todavia, a relevância de um ponto de vista sobre o outro é uma divergência significativa. Alguns enfatizam a predominância da contextualização em detrimento da recuperação da informação, como:Foscarini (2009); …”