Where the ISO definitions of records management and records need work - and what I'd change them to

The current definition of records management reads "the field of management responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the form of records."

Personally, I like the definition, I've used it a lot.

I think that it was fit for purpose when records was a custodial thing, and the reason for its existence was relatively obvious (ie. you needed someone to give your records to or you would have to move out of your office and into the hallway to make space for more records).

Now though, the world has moved on - and records are no longer things that we can take custody of.

They're often not even objects that we can pickup and move into a "records system."

And even the idea of a records system is flawed - it implies that there are systems that don't contain records, rather than saying we make a pragmatic, risk based decision to put some records in a different system because the risk posed by not having the features of the enhanced system makes it worth doing so - but this is me skidding off topic already.

Put simply, for me, the ISO records management definition misses hugely because it only connects the work of records to the work of records.

It doesn't connect it to improving outcomes for the organisations we serve - and the only reason anyone hires anyone is because they think that by spending that money, performance is going to improve and problems are going to go away.

To add to it, records management has competitors - data management is eating the world, mostly (I think) because records managers have tried to pretend for decades that databases don't contain records.

This idea is at best myopic, and at worst delinquent - anyone who has ever used a business application or looked at the table structure of a database would have to admit that it's data with context - ie. information, and people are using it to make and record business decisions.

Getting back to the records system rant I started above, records also has too many practices that are applied irrespective of organisational situation.

Put simply, it's a discipline that rants and raves about the importance of context, and goes to extravagant lengths to justify huge investments in metadata - all aimed at improving some contextual element - while also mostly maing absolutely no attempt to adapt practice to the environment in which it finds itself.

What the world is crying out for, is a pragmatic discipline.

One that looks at the problems that we have now, and the economics of solving them - and makes decisions about where and how to apply practice that makes sense in light of the costs of problems, likelihood of risks and the relative costs of addressing each.

One that goes right to the source of crappy business information and works out how to make sure that people get the right information in the right place at the right time and level of quality.

So here's how I'd change the definitions.

First, records management -

"The discipline of management responsible for improving organisational performance through the use of records."

Second, records -

"Recorded information."

The thing that I like most about this, is that the thing it makes us responsible for, is organisational performance.

That's what organisations want - people who will take responsibility for organisational performance.

It also makes it about recorded information - records at their most pure.

This means that anything is fair game - as long as it improves performance.

Recorded information can encompass anything from a kanban board and post it notes to an enterprise resource planning system or EDRMS - pragmatic solutions to practical problems.

WIth these in mind, all we have to do is go to work every day and think about where the next place is that we can help people perform better with recorded information.

What do you think?