Are records in Records Systems lower or higher quality - and how do you know?
One of the most significant tensions in records management at the moment, is the tension between three things -
1. Organisational needs.
2. Employees needs.
3. The ideas of the records profession.
Organisational needs and employee needs will almost always be in tension of some kind - that's just part of the organisation having a different purpose and needs than an employee does.
The ideas of the records profession though are an interesting source of tension.
It's really our ideas about quality that are most interesting.
Quality is subjective.
One person's definition of high quality, is not another person's.
One of the universal truths about quality though, is that people will gravitate towards the things that are at the right quality level for them, and away from things that impose costs on them that aren't justified by a gain.
In a business context, quality just means "meets the specification."
A high quality record should meet the specification.
A low quality record doesn't.
This is where the ideas of the records profession come into play.
We set the specification.
We set it based on ideas the records profession has about what a high quality record is.
If the quality specification we set is meaningful to our organisation, it will enforce its usage.
If the quality specification we set is meaningful to the employees of our organisation (our users), we won't have to enforce its usage.
How often though, does the specification prove to be implementable?
How often do people come up with work arounds because the quality we are asking for is meaningless to them? How often does our organisation then signal agreement by not enforcing the quality standard?
How often does our organisation tell us that our standard is a low quality record to them?
How often do the ideas of the records profession get in the way of great records management outcomes?
How long do we think organisations will continue to employ us if we don't resolve this tension?