Everyone,

NARA issued a "GRS Transmittal No.8" on 21 December 1998. I pulled it off the GRS 20 web site just before the new year, but have been busy with other things here at NRL, and so have not commented on it until now. I hope all of you have had a chance to look it over. It has some relevance to the work with the SSIC's and SECNAV we may eventually do.

This document explains the changes in the GRS since they were last issued in 1995 -- in other words, since the Public Citizen law suit and the establishment of the Electronic Records Work Group (ERWG) last year. The changes are based on ERWG recommendations. The Transmittal includes a chart summarizing changes to the various GRS, and it includes commentary regarding a "final item to GRS 1-16, 18, and 23, to provide disposal authority for electronic mail and word processing documents..." "Disposal" in NARA-ese for destruction. The transmittal authorizes the deletion or destruction of word processing and e-mail documents "used solely to produce records described in these GRS, (essentially administrative or housekeeping records common to most or all agencies) after a recordkeeping copy has been produced, and electronic copies used for dissemination, revision, or updating that are maintained in addition to the recordkeeping copy." "Electronic mail and word processing documents used solely to produce records..." are 'source records' as described in the ERWG Report of 14 September, 1998. "Recordkeeping copies" are the official records captured into agency or activity recordkeeping systems from these 'sources.'

I interpret all of this to mean that in a few months or a year or so, when we have desktop RMA's available to us, after the official record is captured into a records database by TRIM, or ForeMost, or Quadra, or whatever we use, the 'source' document can be deleted from our word processing directies or e-mail files. Any revision of the SECNAV or of our activity or command schedules may have to include instructions to that effect, perhaps in the manner of a "final item" notation as with the GRS, if they are to be approved by NARA.

In addition to the commentary on 'source records', as I mentioned, the Transmittal includes a chart listing changes to specific records series in individual GRS. The thing to note here is that NARA is trying to eliminate as much as possible disposition instructions that contain wording such as "destroy when no longer needed", and is replacing them with retention and disposition guidance that is time-specific. NARA has eliminated the "when no longer needeed" wording for 39 different items in this Transmittal.

I think it's clear that the trend here is away from indistinct or process-driven retention periods and towards those that are time specific, because RMA's deal more effectively with them, requiring less user intervention. And there may be a developing trend, articulated by Ed Arnold at the Army and Chris Olson at CIA, towards a small number (two or three) of standard short-term retention periods for administrative or support records, which will also enhance the effectiveness of RMA software. These are trends that we should keep in mind as we think about how a revision of the SECNAV might look.

Awareness of what the industry or professional "best practices" are, coupled with an understanding of how recordkeepers in our own activities keep records, use technology, understand RM requirements, and use (or don't use) the file plan and SECNAV, with an awareness of program shortcomings and user frustrations, will enable us to do a better job.

Finally, I was struck by a comment I saw on the records management listserv this morning. Quote: "The single greatest challenge facing RM professionals is the convergence of [recorkeeping and information management] technologies and the impact these changes will have on the role of the records manager." In the RM comunity this has been Gospel for years, but it cuts both ways. There is now a real need for IT managers and administrators to understand how electronic records and recordkeeping requirements impact IT and IRM. There is a need for RM and IT professionals to be connected organizationally at the highest possible level (it's no good, as many of us know, trying to "talk up" to management), and for them to work together in conceert with end-users to manage all of an organization's knowledge resources.

Dean

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999