Records management and how professions learn

What has records management learned in the last 20 years?

This is a real question.

The most actionable definition of learning that I've ever seen is from Chris Argyris.

"Learning occurs when we detect and correct error. Error is any mismatch between what we intend an action to produce, and what actually happens when we implement that action. It is a mismatch between intentions and results. Learning also occurs when we produce a match between intentions and results for the first time."

At the most basic level, we set out to achieve successful implementation of the policy we write.

In government records, this generally means achieving systematic control of the records of the organisation - all of them.

In a paper world, we could expect that there would be a certain amount that we would never have control of - the current work in progress of the organisation, and however much else people could fit under their desks.

So records practices grew up with that basic idea in mind - eventually we'd get basically everything because people would just run out of space, and people generally don't actually want to destroy things.

But now we're in a digital world.

And while the digital office can actually fill up, you can store the entire records of most organisations on dropbox for $25/month.

So the economics are different.

So if in the past we only expected to not have control of current work product and the stuff under people's desks, what would our compliance rate be?

98%?

Probably.

How are we doing now?

Are we above 90%?

Above 50%?

Or are we where one national archive leader recently said they think we are - somewhere around 5%?

Has practice changed as a result?

Have we learned?

How is this a conscionable situation?