Progress Report 13 October 1998

greenspun.com : LUSENET : DON Records Management Working Group : One Thread

Everyone,

Time for a progress report. Things seem to have been very quiet on this forum lately, but behind the scenes, some good work is being done. It's time to bring it to your attention.

The 13 SSIC chapters we all were assigned to work on are now complete. Linda Goodwin is now bringing them together in a single document using a standard format so we can have it to work from when we begin the rask of revising the SECNAV. Henry and Steve are reday to support her if she needs it.

You may now ask when that task is going to begin. Let's say that its start is contingent on a couple of things occurring first. One is securing NARA's support for the effort in the form of an appraisal archivist assigned to work with us. NARA has now assigned Linda Ebben to the Navy and she knows what we want to do. Henry Persons, Linda Goodwin, and I have each spoken with her and are satisfied that she will give us the help we need. For her part, she has noted that before we can begin revising the current SECNAV (5212.5D), job order numbers have to be assigend to each records series authorized (via the submission of an SF 115) for dispostion in the manual. These job order numbers, once assigned, can be transferred to the next edition, the revieion we are contemplating, as long as the records series remain the same. Since the problems we have identified in the SSIC's and the SECNAV exist below the series level (i.e., generally at the secondary or tertiary file level), the series are likely to remin for the most part unchanged. The upshot is that if we get the j/o issue resolved to NARA's satisfaction, .5D will be approved, and we will be free to begin revising it. From NARA's point of view, we can't really revise a schedule that hasn't yet been approved.

On 23 October, Linda Ebben, Henry Persons, Linda Goodwin, Steve Green, Charlie Barth, and I will meet at NRL to talk about the j/o issue. Steve and Linda Ebben will give us the current j/o status and tell us how many j/o numbers still need to be assigned and approved. Ostensibly this is an issue that should concern only Steve and Linda Ebben, but I have suggested that to expedite its completion, the work group could provide assistance as needed. At this meeting we will determine where and how the work group can help to complete this work.

When the j/o number issue involving .5D is resolved we can determine how best to pursue its revision -- develop a schedule and a time period for the work to be completed, establish some milestones and make some work assignments. Some of this, as I've noted previously, depends on NARA's agenda, and some of that won't be apparent until after the resolution of the GRS 20 case. Prelininary arguments regarding NARA's appeal of the Court's original decision will be made later this month. In the meantime NARA has issued a report outlining how it intends to comply with the District Court's orginal ruling last year. The report was dated 14 September and is available on NARA's GRS 20 web site. It states that agencies will have to schedule "electronic source records" to comply with a key requirement in the original ruling, which means that agencies with currently approved records schedules will have to do some tinkering. In Appendix C of the report, three examples or "models" of how agencies might accomplish this task are presented. Henry Persons and I have discussed the report and we concur that the work group might most effectively revise the SECNAV within the context of NARA's "Model 1." Model 1 says "The agency would add an appropriate disposition for...electronic source records (i.e., electronic records created or received via office automation suites or e-mail before they are captured to recordkeeping systems and become offial records) to every disposition instruction in its manual or records schedule." NARA defines this suggestion by saying "Agencies may revise and/or develop individual disposition instructions for the electronic source records in each scheduled program and unique administrative series. As part of this model, the agency may provide varied retention periods by series. In that case, agencies would list each series and provide disposition instructions for the electronic source records." Henry and I agreed that this model assumes the agency has an approved schedule in place, which the Navy will have when we get the j/o issue resolved. The work group can, with NARA's support, then produce a revised SECNAV that incorporates the changes to the SSIC's we think need to be made, and that meets NARA requirements for manageing electronic source administrative and program records.

Remember that our end product will be an electronic document that contains all the Navy's instructions and guidance regrading filing, records, and recordkeeping. It will be available across the enterprise on every desktop via the web or in other formats as needed. It will directly link all current file numbers to disposition instructions. And it will provide end-users with a tool they can use in concert with records management application software. We ought therefore to keep in mind who our "end users" are and what they will be expected to do. DocuLabs recently published an article on the recrds mangement listserv that identifies a key element in the new information paradigm. "Due to the increase in electronic documents", says the article, "you must must involve the creators of records in the records submission and declaration process. This can open up almost the entire organization to the records management process....Success...depends on your users' acceptance and effective participation." In other words, if this project succeeds, much will depend on how well we know end-users in our commands or activites -- what their needs and concerns are; how much they know about records and recordkeeping; and how willing they are to accept new work process, methods, and technology.

I suggest that as some of us in the group work on job orders, objectives, milestones, and a work scedule with NARA, all of us get into our organizations and ask mid-level managers and end users some or all of the following questions:

(1) Do end-users distinguish between records and non-records? (2) How do they use (maintain, file, retrieve, dispose of) records to support their business activities? What medium or media to they use to do this? (3) Do they support and use the current file plan -- the SSIC's? What are their questions or frustrations about it? (4) What changes -- deletions, additions, clarifications -- need to be made to it so that it more effectively supports users' needs? (5) Do end users support and use the .5C or D as a guide and authority for records dispostion? What are their concerns about it? (6) Are they currently using any electronic tools of any kind to file, store, retrieve, or archive electronic or imaged documents?

I suggest that we ask these questions and perhaps additional ones as appropriate, collect and analyze the answers and additional data we receive, and post our findings on the discussion forum page. We ought to really get into this and get some useful data together before the end of December. This will provide us with a useful and current pool of information about Navy and Marine Corps recordkeeping practices. I would hope that this is a task that all of us could collectively work on, and that we could begin now, and continue it as long as needed -- until we are satisfied that we know enough about user needs and concerns to produce a good product for them. In the next few weeks I may query you individually via e-mail about what you perceive as your organizations' recordkeeping problems and frustrations. I hope that we can use the data we collect to tailor our product to meet user needs.

This has been a long progress report. You are probably hoping that in the future our progress will not be so significant that it requires such a lengthy polemic to document it. I'm with you on that; after all, I had to write this thing. If you have questions or comments about it, or want to develop any threads from it, please post.

Dean

-- Anonymous, October 13, 1998

Answers

Dean- Outstanding progress report. Congratulations again to the whole group and especially those of you who are actively participating. I look forward to your continued use of the virtual working group tools.

CHARLEY BARTH DON CIO

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1998


Moderation questions? read the FAQ