How meaningful is an aggregation if it doesn't include structured data?

Last week I wrote a post about how records and data management are finally starting to bleed together.

To me, this issue is the core of it.

No one else cares that it's structured or unstructured - except people in records or data management who want to create a distinction.

Mostly, we want to create the distinction because the bodies of practice in each discipline make it difficult to deal coherently with the hard issues of structured or unstructured content.

The challenge is that much of what we talk about as the value of our profession falls flat without meaningful aggregations.

And without structured data, they're often meaningless, and the frequency with which an aggregation is meaningless without structured data is rising.

For decades, structured data systems have been the ones managing processes for businesses of all sizes.

The reason we've been able to get away with ignoring structured data, is because we generally require processes to be initiated by some form of document, and produce some form of document at the end of the process to communicate an outcome.

But that's going away.

Cases in point -

1. A little while ago, I switched to using a couple of the neo-banks as my primary banking platforms.

2. The only thing I've ever received from them, is a bit of plastic that's completely irrelevant because my cards are on my watch and phone.

3. The share market fund that I use has never sent me a document.

4. Until I downloaded my university testamur recently, it didn't exist - but I applied for a masters and a graduate certificate without ever having to provide documentary proof that I had an undergraduate degree - it was all handled system to system.

The basic issues for records management are not going to change - it's about memory and organisation.

The technology is changing though, and we have to change with it.

Or what we do will be meaningless.