What does it mean to be strategic in records and information management?

This is both simple and incredibly complicated at the same time.

I think that the simplest way to contextualise it, is to consider the difference between operating records, and strategic records.

People who are operating records competently know their role, know what's expected of them, and get it done.

Being a competent operator is extremely valuable.

Organisations that work well are built on competent operators.

They have a system, they know the role they play in it - and they operate the system.

Being strategic though, is something different.

No system is perfect.

Part of the difference between low-paid people and better-paid people, is that the better-paid people see the bits of the system that aren't quite right, and they know how to deal with the problems that those parts of the system create.

Records is almost entirely made up of people like this because most organisations write a policy that says "this is the records system" - and then leave their records teams to deal with the fact that the words don't mean anything in practice.

So what of strategists?

Simply, strategists have a view on how the system should change, and are working to make it happen.

Strategists listen to the feedback that the system they work in is giving them.

The bits of the system that "aren't quite right" that I mentioned earlier, are clues that something doesn't quite fit - and while in the short term, fires have to be put out, in the long term, if you're getting the same fire in the same place - you should probably work on whatever is starting the fire so that it stops being a problem.

A good strategist identifies these bits, investigates them and then works out how the system needs to change so that those problems disappear.

Change can be lots of things - it can be better defining the service, adjusting a process, putting in a new system - lots of things.

The difference between a good problem solver engaged in continuous improvement and a strategist, is that strategists also understand how activities and choices act to reinforce each other (or undermine each other).

In general, they understand the value of momentum, and solid foundations - and that you can't build a program to do a lot of work without a solid foundation underneath it that lets you organise and manage the high volume of work - work that is often new.

What separates a good strategist from a bad one?

Good strategists implement things that work, and take advantage of interdependence to make the gains from each change reinforce what has already been done - this means that generally, they make complex choices.

Mediocre strategists implement things that work - but generally miss opportunities for the choices that they've made to reinforce the success of future choices, and often they'll miss foundational capabilities that may seem unrelated, but are critical to operating a service at speed.

Bad strategists implement things that don't work.

There are obviously degrees, but that's the crux of it.

What's interesting to me, is that as an industry, we appear to have a set of strategies in place that don't work.

It's also interesting that it's a fractal pattern - it repeats at different scales.

We have regulators who have chosen a regulatory strategy that doesn't work (archival regulators, no one would question whether regulators like AUSTRAC are successful), but they cheerfully carry on with a set of regulatory activities despite ample evidence that they are failing miserably.

To me, this means that the real strategic question for the industry, is "why do we keep choosing strategies that don't work?"