The real superpower of records - and how to realise it.

We throw "record" around as a noun all the time.

It's a verb too.

In many organisations, we've somehow defined the word "record" in a way that lets us forget that 98% of the value is created in the moment that information is recorded for use by the people who record it.

Records are how we remember.

And how we give other people the ability to understand things that only we have experienced.

Ultimately, they are how we organise ourselves.

How well organised our organisations are, is largely determined by the quality of the records.

This is the superpower.

We can't organise anything that lasts longer then about ten minutes, or that includes more than a few people without records.

And the quality of the records, has a very large impact on the quality of the organisation.

Where is the quality of the records in "modern" records practices?

My answer, would be nowhere.

Modern records practices generally mean that we end up with well organised and described garbage.

It's still garbage - but it's got good metadata, and we know where the garbage is.

Much of modern records practice seems to be built on the assumption that by describing the garbage that people are creating really well, we can make up for the fact that it's garbage.

Simon Froude (the Director-General at the National Archives of Australia) remarked on the quality of records recently in an address he gave at one of RIMPA's events in South Australia.

He commented (and I'm paraphrasing, I hope I've accurately captured the spirit of what he said) on the lack of quality standards for record-keeping as a challenge.

He also said that the records of the day reflect the quality of public administration.

It's really stuck with me.

So what can we use as models for how professions work on the quality of records?

I'd start with Lawyers and Accountants.

Together, they've gone from strength to strength by recognising that the quality of organisation can largely be determined by the quality of understanding an organisation has about its money, and its commitments.

For Accountants, this started thousands of years ago, but took a noticeable step up more than 500 years ago with Luca Pacioli writing his book on the venetian way of accounting - what we'd now call double entry.

The legal profession is also based almost entirely on records.

All the legal profession does is take records of laws that have been created, interpret their wording, record the interpretations - and then use those interpretations as the basis for actions, and the basis for recording obligations. Then they make a lot of money fighting over the interpretations, and just how much "misinterpretations" should cost.

Together, they help an organisation understand what commitments it has made, and how much money it has.

An organisation that understands both of those things can operate effectively - secure in the knowledge that it's unlikely to over-extend itself, and unlikely to fail to follow through on a commitment.

The core of both of these professions, is that they are both records professions.

But they've focused differently to us.

They've focused not on what records were available, but what information needed to be recorded - and made their trades out of specifying the information that needed to be recorded.

If it doesn't meet spec - they know about it, and they do something about it - because otherwise, they are disorganised, and can't do their job.

Records is a superpower that allows us to get organised, be organised and stay organised.

The quality of the records largely determines the quality of the organisation.

The quality of the records, is where people need the most help now.

Not the quality of the bucket they're kept in.

They need help specifying the information that will be recorded, and where and how it will be recorded.

So they can be organised - that's the superpower.

And until we focus on quality, we have almost no ability to influence it whatsoever.