Records management best practice and efficacy

What do you think when someone says "best practice?"

Generally, I think that whatever we're about to talk about should produce great outcomes.

Do we have any evidence for this in records management best practice?

Given we’re a profession that prides itself on the capture of evidence - surely we have some?

How many "best practice" implementations of records management would stand up to an audit?

How many audits would show a capture rate of 90%?

Or 70%?

Or 50%?

Or 20%?

At least one archival leader is on record as saying that he thinks capture rates for EDRMS are 3 to 5%.

So all this best practice.

What is it the best at?

Producing systems and programs that fail to capture records?

Why on earth do we keep doing it?

Personally, I think there are only two best practices.

Understand maturity.

Do what works.

Everything else is derivative.

As a professional group, we doing either of them?