The pattern of what we implement vs what we intended to implement in records

One of the things that I regularly hear in Australian recordkeeping circles, is how Microsoft 365 is a 'declare'/US model of recordkeeping.

The pattern that a declare model produces is one in which people work on a record (ie. recording information) for a period of time, and then at some point it "rises to the level of a record" - and they declare it as such. Either by placing it in a "records system" or using functionality built into the system it's in to denote that it is now a record, and needs to be managed accordingly.

The pattern that "Australian" recordkeeping should produce is one in which a record is created in a records system, worked on in that system and ultimately managed through its lifecycle in the same system.

How often does that actually happen?

The pattern that I think we most often see, is one in which people work on the record for a period of time, and then at some point, we hope that they put it in a records system - where it can be managed through its lifecycle.

Personally, I can't see much of a difference in the patterns.

I think we see the same thing with all of the talk of continuum as well.

We talk about continuum models a lot.

And people say that they've implemented them.

But when I look at most records systems, I see that there's a record, put in a place where it can be managed through to its destruction.

The only way the information is exposed to all of its possible future uses is based on the idea that if we put it somewhere central, people will be able to come and get the information they need from the record we've kept.

If it's a continuum implementation, it looks remarkably like a lifecycle model.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't do these things with the best of intentions, and it isn't to throw rocks at practice.

It's to say that we say "no" to lots of things because they don't resemble some idea about perfect that we have in our head.

Perfect that rarely shows up.

There's an academic discipline of records management.

And one that happens in the real world.

The academic discipline is good - practice uninformed by theory fails to learn from the past, and fails to get to the cutting edge.

Practice though that's entirely theory informed and doesn't recognise what actually happens just cuts us off from lots of opportunities to provide value to our organisations.

And it's the value that our organisations are after.