The must and the should in records management
We like to talk about ‘must’ a lot in records management.
We also like to talk about ‘should’.
“You must” - because of legislation.
“You should” - because it’s ‘obviously’ a good idea (to follow records management practices).
What’s missing is the ‘or’ - the consequences.
You must, or….
You should, or…
To be effective, the ‘or’ has to be real.
We spend too much time on musts, and shoulds with no consequences.
Too much time telling people that if they don’t do what we tell them to, ‘bad’ things will happen.
What I think we need to take a really good look at though, is how many of the bad things our practices would prevent.
Many failures occur because records aren’t made.
Many failures occur because the quality of records is not up to the job they’re supposed to do.
Mostly, the failures occur because the records were made, but people didn’t use them - often because the quality was so poor, that they stopped looking before they found what they needed, or they were so used to the quality being poor, that they didn’t try to look.
Records management should have a point of view on these things.
We think we do.
But classification, arrangement and description are a long way down the list of things that have an impact. If the record isn’t made, description is irrelevant. If the information someone needs isn’t there, a well described absence seems an interesting way to spend time. If that’s how we’re spending our time, it seems as though the only thing our work can be connected to, is an absence of results - and probably an increased expenditure on the absence.
We must spend our time doing work that improves results.
If it doesn’t improve results, we shouldn’t do it.
The most important aspect of our work, is choosing the work that improves results. Choosing the other work undermines us, and our entire profession.