The fundamental conflict between archives and records, and information and data

Is that archives and records seem to have no interest in, and no point of view on the quality of what they hold - other than to say it’s not their responsibility. Where they do have a point of view on quality, it’s about what the quality level tells you about the institution and how well organised it was or was not.

That’s why every conversation about quality is about some form of description.

The quality of description drives archives and records management, without it, archives and records management just can’t operate.

Try having a conversation with information (where it isn’t just a rebrand of records practices) and data people about quality though, and all they’ll talk about is the quality of the information and data itself.

Why is this an important distinction?

The quality of the information and data drives the organisations the information and data people work for.

So archives and records are focused on driving the archives and records, information and data people are focused on driving their organisations.

Is it any wonder that information and data people are getting the lions share of the funding?

The great tragedy for organisations hiring archives and records focused people, is that we may look back and find that the accumulated collections tell us the organisations were disorganised and a mess because the people who understood how records worked were focused on using what they knew to get a better archive rather than a better business.