How old is the backward looking view of records management?

The TLDR - in my opinion, only as old as archival institutions.

I've been trying to understand why the entire rhetoric of records management these days seems to be about records for things that might happen and people that might need them.

Or compliance - the idea that someone at some point might need something for an audit which might happen.

The core of these, is that records exist for some event that might happen in the future at which point we will need to look backwards.

When I look at the history of records though, I don't see organisations that wanted to look backwards.

I see organisations that wanted to predict the future.

They kept records about the trees they planted in state forests - so they would know how much revenue they could expect from their timber resources in the future.

They kept records about their armies - because they had to make payroll and needed to know how much it was going to cost them, and they needed to know how much food would be required to feed them, and water to... water them.

They kept contracts because it was the only way to ensure that everyone knew how they were supposed to behave in the future.

Simply, they were practical people with stuff to do - and records were the only way that they could do it effectively.

All of the great records stories that I find - the ones that had real impact, that really helped achieve better results - are about keeping records now to be effective in the future.

They are about things that will happen with a high degree of certainty.

They directly connect effective records management, with effective management.

Those aren't the narratives that we have though.

So why are we stuck with this backward looking view?

I think it's the archival institutions.

They're only interested in the records of historical significance.

And they regulate the records profession in a way which produces those records.

Those are the stories they need, so those are the stories.

Even if they totally ignore the real strategic power of records management.

In the archival view, the only reason we create a shopping list is in case that list turns out to be of historical significance.

Which is ridiculous.

Where has this backwards looking view left the records profession?

Personally, I think it has left it too busy managing the documents, and completely ignoring everything about records that makes it important.

Before the era of archival regulation of records, records management was done because organisations were unmanageable without high quality records.

Effective management and records management were inextricably linked.

Organisations knew that the only way to make anything manageable at any reasonable scale, was to have great records.

Records was strategic for them - it was part of their strategy for being effective.

What is it now?

Is that better?

How do we change?