On the pretence there’s a meaningful differentiation between records management and information management and what it's done to us

I’ve come to the conclusion that we like to confuse people - there can't be any other explanation.

This means that the corner we find ourselves in, is our own fault - and we are the only people who can resolve it, because it's the result of confused people finding certainty - with IT.

We’ve created a distinction between information and records for no real reason other than it seems to have been fashionable.

All I think it’s done is confuse people and devalue our work and our skills.

You might disagree.

But you’ll be flat out finding an instance in which anyone with the title information manager is managing information that wasn’t recorded first.

There is a place where there’s a meaningful differentiation between information and records.

Claude Shannon famously defined information as anything that reduces our level of uncertainty.

When we fail at our jobs as records people - our jobs being to provide the right recorded information, in the right place, at the right time and level of quality - people are unable to reach a level of certainty that lets them comfortably make a decision.

How do most of them/us respond to it?

Generally they’ll talk to a colleague - at which point the difference between information and records becomes meaningful, because whatever is said probably isn’t recorded.

But we’re also not trying to manage it - so our title of “information manager” becomes ironic, instead of meaningful - because at heart, we’re records managers - we’re only managing what was recorded.

We perpetuate the same pretence around "data."

Is there anything being managed by data managers that wasn't recorded first?

The kicker, is that for all of us, the most important question is “what should be recorded?”

The answer, is all the important information and data.

So why the continuing pretence about records?

It devalues us, confuses our organisations and ultimately results in confusion.

What do people do when they're confused?

Generally they go with whoever helps them find a sense of certainty.

IT have been filling that gap.

Data managers have been filling that gap.

How is it that all of these groups have been filling that gap with technology and practices whose sole goal is to create and hold records, and we are being minimised and marginalised?

The answer is relatively simple.

IT said "if it's tech, we'll manage it."

Data people said "if it's data, we'll manage it" - and kept saying "yes" when people asked if it was data.

We tried to say that electronic wasn't records.

We tried to say that data wasn't records.

We tried to say that information and records were different things.

We tried to say that it was only a record when something special happened.

We tried to say that records management was only for historical value and

We tried to say that it was a record - but only when it was in a specific system.

Or had specific metadata.

And on.

And on.

And our organisations went on recording things that were important to them, and crying out for people to help them do it better - while we tried to distance ourselves from what they were doing because it didn't thread the needle of the conditions

All it did was erode our power.

But in that, are also the seeds of taking it back.

The first step in turning records around in any organisation, is an act of leadership.

It requires us to make records simple enough for anyone to understand.

And then to take responsibility for all of it, so that there are no opportunities for everyone else.

The solution is simple.

"If it was recorded - it's us."

“If it needs to be recorded - it’s us.”

“If recording it can make things better - it’s us.”

“If analysing the recording can make things better - it’s us.”

No caveats, no disclaimers.

And then we need to turn up and follow through on it.