Records Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS)

Abstract

The International Records Management Trust has demonstrated that there is currently little capacity or infrastructure in the developing world for managing government records as authentic evidence of policies, transactions, activities and entitlements. Records management itself will not halt corruption and bring about accountability, but it is an essential contributor to public sector integrity. The Records Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS) provides a means of assessing records management policies, procedures and resources against established international standards. It uses a diagnostic model, based on the records life cycle, to identify strengths, weaknesses and risk areas, and links with a database of training and capacity-building materials that can be used to plan improvements. Designed initially to measure records and information systems in the financial management, human resource management and legal and judicial areas, it can also be applied generically. The RMCAS software application will shortly be available, free of charge, through the Internet or in CD-ROM format. RMCAS can be applied flexibly to take account of variations in size of institutions and the administrative contexts in which they operate, as well as developmental and national aspirations. It can be applied to both paper and digital records and assesses the relationship between paper and electronic systems.

Archival Science (2004) 4: 7197 Springer 2005

DOI 10.1007/s10502-005-6991-9Records Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS)ANDREW GRIFFINInternational Monetary Fund,* 8508, 16th Street, Appt. 622, Silver Spring, MD, 20910,

USA(E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected])Abstract. The International Records Management Trust has demonstrated that there is

currently little capacity or infrastructure in the developing world for managing government records as authentic evidence of policies, transactions, activities and entitlements. Records management itself will not halt corruption and bring about

accountability, but it is an essential contributor to public sector integrity. The Records

Management Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS) provides a means of assessing

records management policies, procedures and resources against established international standards. It uses a diagnostic model, based on the records life cycle, to identify

strengths, weaknesses and risk areas, and links with a database of training and capacitybuilding materials that can be used to plan improvements. Designed initially to measure

records and information systems in the nancial management, human resource management and legal and judicial areas, it can also be applied generically. The RMCAS

software application will shortly be available, free of charge, through the Internet or in

CD-ROM format. RMCAS can be applied exibly to take account of variations in size

of institutions and the administrative contexts in which they operate, as well as developmental and national aspirations. It can be applied to both paper and digital records

and assesses the relationship between paper and electronic systems.Keywords: assessment methodology, capacity building, good practice, life cycle of records, online archival evaluation tools, standards, trainingIntroductionThe International Records Management Trust,1 working in partnership with the World Bank, has developed a Records Management

Capacity Assessment System (RMCAS) as an objective means of

assessing, against international standards, the strengths and weaknesses* The views expressed are those of the author and should not be interpreted as those

of the International Monetary Fund.1 The International Records Management Trust, based in London, is a UK registered charity

established by Dr Anne Thurston in 1989 to help develop new strategies for managing public sector

records. Its work is supported by national and international donors including the World Bank,

United Nations Development Programme, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the UK Department

for International Development, Canadian International Development Agency, as well as by other

organizations and individual governments. See http://www.irmt.org72ANDREW GRIFFINRecords Management Capacity

Assessment System (RMCAS)Figure 1. RMCAS components and their functionof records management systems. RMCAS comprises three components, shown in Figure 1: a data-gathering element consisting of assessment questions in

structured sequences a diagnostic model which maps the data gathered against statements of good practice and capacity levels a database of training and capacity building resources for records

and information management.Many archives, records and information specialists have helped with

the development of RMCAS. Major contributions have been made by

Anne Thurston and Sarah Demb, Director and Project Manager respectively of the International Records Management Trust, Justus Wamukoya and Nathan Mnjama of the University of Botswana, Don McGee

of Library and Archives Canada, and Peter Van Garderen, John

McDonald, Sue Bryant, Laura Millar, Andy Lipchak, Vicki Lemieux

and Ray Bennett, independent consultants. Others have been involved

and much of what follows is based on the work of many people. However, any lack of clarity or inaccuracies are entirely my responsibility.This article traces the conceptual development of RMCAS and explains how it can be used. The RMCAS software will be made available in an easily accessible format, free of charge, through theStakeholder

QuestionnairesRecords

Management

DiagnosticModelCapacity

Training Materials

DatabaseRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 73Internet or in CD-ROM format, and will be accompanied by an online demo and tutorial.The creation of RMCAS is part of the International Records Management Trusts ongoing commitment to support governments and

public sector organizations in nding new approaches to records management improvement. Over the past 15 years, the Trust has played a

key international role in developing systems for managing records as

the essential evidence of public sector activities, particularly in relation to accountability and the protection of citizens rights, the management of state resources and the improvement of government

services. The rapid growth of information technology has presented

major challenges for capturing and preserving fragile digital evidence

over time. In this increasingly complex environment, the Trusts aim

in developing RMCAS has been to provide a means not only of evaluating whether the infrastructure of laws, organizational structures,

policies, processes and facilities exist to manage records eectively,

but also of providing a methodology to identify problems and begin

to plan solutions.RMCAS can be applied exibly to take account of variations in

the size of institutions and the administrative contexts in which they

operate, as well as developmental and national aspirations. It is

designed to be useful in countries where resource constraints demand

practical and realistic solutions. Work to-date has focused on nancial, human resource, and legal and judicial records, and the intention

is to add land and health care records if these eorts can be funded.

However, the application can also be used generically to determine

whether records in other sectors are managed in terms of the infrastructure and control systems needed to protect them, and to meet

business, legal and administrative requirements. RMCAS can be applied to both paper and digital records, and can be used to assess the

relationship between paper and electronic systems. In particular, it

can determine whether the existing infrastructure, control systems, resources and capacity are adequate to capture and preserve records

that are created in the electronic environment.RMCAS can produce a variety of reports in various formats,

including a high-level three-dimensional graphical representation that

summarizes strengths and weaknesses in records management infrastructure and systems. The graphic can be used to highlight where

capacity building is required in relation to the life cycle of records,

from creation and capture, through active life, to preservation as

archives or ultimate destruction. It can also be used to highlight

where capacity building may be needed in relation to the institutions74

environment of policies, processes, skills and resources. Figure 2

shows a fictitious example of a graphical representation. Further

explanation of the graphic is provided later in this article. RMCAS

also supports a database of capacity building resources that can be

used in conjunction with the assessment to identify solutions and to

help plan strategies for improving records and information management.The focus of RMCAS is on records as evidence and on records

management processes to underpin eciency and accountability, good

business practices and good governance. The conceptual basis is the

records management lifecycle and organizational competencies, explicitly linked to standards and best practice sources. Assessments are

scalable and exible and can be carried out by one records manager

in one sitting or by a comprehensive series of interviews with a range

of stakeholders over a period of time.Rationale for RMCASThe development of RMCAS was undertaken as part of a Trust project, Evidence-Based Governance in the Electronic Age, initially funded

by the World Bank. The Trust had previously conducted original research work to demonstrate the relationship between records management, financial management and accountability.2 One of the aims of

the Evidence-Based Governance project was to build on this initial

work and develop tools to diagnose problem areas and indicate pathways for improvement, taking into account organizational capacity.3Good governance is increasingly recognized as key to development eectiveness and poverty reduction. Long-term success depends

on (a) the capacity of governments to spend money well and account

for its use, and (b) the maintenance of records in respect of all government functions. The Evidence-Based Governance project aimed to

address a fundamental but little recognized issue: the management of

public sector records as evidence for accountability. Its goal was to

explore, through a series of case studies and consultations with stakeholders in developing countries, the consequences of the electronic

working environment for the management of records, to raise awareness of the requirements for managing records as evidence, and to2 From Accounting to Accountability: Managing Accounting Records as a Strategic Resource.

Research project funded by the World Bank infoDev program, 20002001.3 For more information about the project and its outcomes, see http://www.infodev.org/projects/government/257accountability/index.htmANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 75Figure 2. Top-level rotating graphic of RM strengths and weaknesses.develop tools for benchmarking records management capacity against

international standards in relation to the management of core government functions.The basic premise of the project was that the lack of attention to

records as authoritative evidence of policies, transactions, activities

and entitlements has an impact on wider development objectives

(including anti-corruption; administrative and civil service reform;

decentralization; e-government; legal and judicial reform; public

expenditure management; tax policy and administration; access to

information; and electronic government).The project ndings highlighted the fact that in many developing

countries, paper-based records systems have decayed into informality,

and as yet there is little capacity or infrastructure for managing fragile digital records as authentic evidence and protecting data integrity

over time. Information technologies are being introduced worldwide

to enhance government accountability and eciency, but there has

been little attention to the quality and care of the electronic records

they create. The project developed RMCAS to support pre-project76

assessments or the design of projects where the quality of information

is important, and also to benchmark improvement.In the following sections, the three components of RMCAS

assessment questions, diagnostic model and database of capacity

building materials are described in more detail. Following this

description of the components, the RMCAS methodology is explained.Assessment QuestionsThe assessment questions were developed through an examination of

international standards for records and information systems, a variety

of assessment tools for measuring records and information management, and other relevant documentation such as literature on international development projects. In parallel with development of the

questions, the International Records Management Trust conducted

thirteen case studies of records and information systems used in support of nancial management, human resource management and judicial/court functions. The purpose was to explore requirements for

managing electronic and paper records in a range of countries with

dierent administrative systems and traditions.4The studies provided an opportunity to evaluate record keeping

and information management in a range of contexts and resource

environments. In the majority of case studies, computerization programs were either in progress or being planned. The studies were

therefore of particular value in helping to dene requirements for

electronic and hybrid paper/electronic environments. They also illustrated that, as archivists and records managers well know, sucient

attention is often not paid to the management of electronic records

over time. In many countries there is great pressure to computerize

business processes, but the planning and design of new systems rarely

takes account of the need to maintain reliable, authentic and legally

veriable records in digital form.During the case studies, drafts of assessment questions were reviewed with selected ocials, national archives sta and development

project managers in the countries visited, and a preliminary testing of

the questions was conducted. Findings from the studies were used to

rene the questions and make them suciently generic to have4 Case studies were carried out in 2002 in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Chile (two), Ecuador, The

Gambia, India, Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania (two) and Vietnam. Reports of all 13

case studies will be made available on the Trusts website in due course. Many of the case studies

are now available online at: http://www.irmt.org/downloadlist/development.html#csEBGANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 77relevance to a wide range of administrative contexts, organizational

levels and stages of development. Key ndings of the legal and judicial case studies are summarized in Table I below for purposes of

illustration.Assessment questions were designed for the three sectors examined

in the case studies: nancial management, human resource and payroll management, and courts/delivery of justice. Each sector required

a tailored set of records and information management questions

drawn from a common pool, as well as questions more directly linked

to, and specically designed for, the business processes of the sector.

In addition, a generic set of questions was created from the common

pool to provide an assessment in any sector, without reference to the

business processes.It is important to understand why assessment questions were developed not only in relation to records and information requirements,Table I Key Issues Identified by Legal and Judicial Records Case Studies the importance of having a high-level champion within the courts to promote

good practice in records and information management the need for professionally trained records managers within judiciaries

the need for formal training and training materials in judicial records

and information management the importance of having expert advice and guidance available to those

with responsibility for records and information management in the courts the need to raise the status and priority of recordkeeping

the need to allocate greater resources to supporting recordkeeping

infrastructure, for example, storage facilities and equipment (for paperand electronic records) the need to develop records management policies and standards, for example in

relation to access to and long-term preservation of paper and electronic records the recognition that computerized case management systems have the capacity

to improve case flow management and access to information, but the dangerof regarding computerization as a means of solving all management,resource and information problems the need for an information strategy and business case, based on the

requirements of all key stakeholders, before embarking on the computerizationof case administration the value of pilot computerization projects to build confidence and capacity

the importance of standardized formats and templates for common documents

the need for consistent and authoritative instructions on the preservation or

destruction of court case records (both paper and electronic)78

but also to the business processes that records support. Examination

of records systems is not by itself always an indicator of the eectiveness of the systems. Rather than examine whether the records generated and received during a judicial process are led correctly, it is

necessary to ask whether the system for capturing and managing

information supports the functions and processes of the courts (initiating/capturing new cases, scheduling cases, conducting hearings,

recording evidence, delivering and disseminating judgments, providing

management information from statistics, etc). A court case tracking

system may capture good quality data about each new case, but if

there are ineective mechanisms to record the changing status of a

case as it proceeds through the judicial process, the record-keeping

system fails in its purpose. Similarly, if records of receipts and payments are captured reliably in an accounting system but are kept in

such a way that they are inaccessible for audit purposes, the record

keeping system will have failed.Data about business processes have to be gathered to determine

whether records systems support their eective execution. Furthermore, business systems must have records management functionality

built in if they are to capture and preserve authentic and reliable

evidence of transactions. Table II illustrates the organization of

assessment questions for human resource records and information

management systems and shows the inclusion of business processes.Statements of Good PracticeRMCAS measures data, gathered by means of the assessment questions, against the requirements of good practice, as dened by recognized standards or models. The term good practice is used

rather than best practice as it is recognized that there is no single

records management model to t all organizations. Particularly at

the higher levels of capacity, it is crucial that records management

systems match the objectives, functions and values of the organization. In addition, records management systems are not static, but

must be adapted or replaced over time to meet changing business

requirements. For example, information-sharing objectives, or the

requirements of access to records, may well change as a result of

new legislative or governance initiatives. The new objectives may

only be achieved by changing or redesigning records management

systems.ANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 79Table II. Assessing Human Resource Records and Information Management SystemsThe Assessment questions are divided into two categories: the first concerns theenvironment in which records are managed; the second is more directly related tothe human resource management functionManagement EnvironmentThe questions focus on the overall framework of laws and regulations, policies andsystems that determine how records and information should be managed and theresources and capacity needed to manage them.1 Public Service Overview2 Legal and Institutional Framework for Managing Records and Information3 Responsibilities for Records and Information Management4 Policies and Standards, Procedures and Facilities and Maintenance5 Training and Competencies6 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) SystemsBusiness ProcessesThese questions focus on the relationship between human resource managementprocesses and the records that support them7 Tracking Posts and Numbers of Employees8 Recruitment, Promotion and Transfer9 Career Paths and Training10 Payroll Administration11 Individual Performance Management12 Service Standards and Measurement13 Enforcement and Disciplinary Issues14 DownsizingAs the assessment questions were rened, the Trust began to develop core statements of good practice for records and information

management against which the responses to questions could be evaluated. The Trust worked closely with the Government of Botswana

and a team of records professionals from the United Kingdom, Kenya, Canada and Botswana to review and test the data-gathering questions and examine the scope for using international standards as a

basis for good practice statements. Initially, the focus was on the

International Standard ISO 15489, Information and documentation Records management. Workshops were held in Botswana in March

and August 2003 to test the questions, to analyze ISO 15489 as a

baseline for good practice and to map questions to the standard.

These workshops represent milestones in establishing the conceptual

basis of RMCAS.80From the beginning, it was recognized that the questions and good

practice statements would be cumbersome to use in hard copy form.

Funding was sought and secured from the Governance Knowledge

Sharing Program (GKSP) at the World Bank to build custom-designed

software to support and simplify the assessment process. The aim was

to streamline the selection of appropriate questions and the analysis of

responses and to make RMCAS more ecient, robust and capable of

being used at dierent levels of detail and dierent organizational levels.To date, three standards or models have been analyzed and used

as the basis for deriving statements of good practice. Each good practice statement used by RMCAS is linked to one or more source quotations in the standards or models. Statements have been derived

from the following sources: The International Standard on Records Management (ISO 15489),

issued in 2001. This provides the basis for determining the elements that make up the records management life cycle. The standard covers issues relating to the regulatory environment, the key

components of records management programs, responsibilities of

stakeholders and the design and implementation of records systems. Its main strength is that it analyses records management

processes in terms of the records life cycle (e.g., creation or capture, registration, classification, access, disposition). It is intended

to apply to records in all formats and provides a standard for the

building blocks or essential foundations for records management. The National Archives of Canadas Information ManagementCapacity Check (IMCC), published in 2002. This methodology

was designed for the use of departments and agencies of the Federal Government of Canada to assess their information capacities.

It provides a good fit with ISO 15489 in that it focuses primarily

on organizational, management and user requirements, rather than

exclusively on the individual stages of the records management

process. The European Commissions Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records (MoReq). As a model specification

of requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems

(ERMS), MoReq is useful in preparing for, specifying or auditing

and checking an ERMS. Analysis of MoReq and extraction of

statements of good practice ensured that the management of records and information in the electronic environment was more

comprehensively covered.ANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 81Capacity LevelsIn common with other models, RMCAS identies ve levels of capacity or maturity. The purpose of the levels is to identify the current

status of records management capabilities, provide building blocks for

improvement, and isolate prerequisites for strengthening systems and

improving capacity. Use of ve levels oers the scope to dene transformation in incremental stages from a poor records management

environment to a far more mature and comprehensive one. A velevel model also provides the potential to map to other models, for

instance in the areas of nancial management or human resource

management.5In creating capacity levels for RMCAS other models were investigated, most notably the Financial Management Capability Model

developed by the Oce of the Auditor General of Canada. This model is intended to be a self-assessment tool for use in assessing the level

of nancial management in government institutions and to provide

institutions with a road map for improvement. The feasibility of

developing such a model for records management was investigated by

John McDonald in 2002.6 McDonald concluded that the Financial

Capability Model could be adapted for use in developing a similar

model for records management and he proposed a set of cumulative

maturity levels that the Trust used as the starting point for defining

the RMCAS capacity levels.Just as there is not one records management model to t all organizations, so there may be dierent pathways to reach an objective

when planning records management improvements. Nevertheless,

there are certain fundamental requirements that need to be in place at

dierent levels of capacity. The purpose in measuring records and

information management against good practice requirements is to

determine whether the building blocks are in place to enable higher

capacity levels to be achieved.RMCAS also recognizes that there is no clear-cut step up from a

paper-based level to an electronic level. Electronic systems cannot

simply be built over dysfunctional paper systems, and few organizations anywhere have moved successfully from wholly paper to digital

records in one step. Parallel or complementary paper and electronic5 Strictly speaking, there are six levels if the base or zero level (absence of records management

policies, systems and processes) is included.6 The Financial Capability Model and the Records Management Function: An Assessment

funded by the National Archives of Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada and

the Treasury Board Secretariat Canada and published by the Public Policy Forum of Canada in

2002. See http://www.forumpp.ca82

systems may need to co-exist, with linkages between the manual and

electronic components. Furthermore, paper and electronic systems

may serve the same purpose and perform to the same standard. In

such cases, RMCAS places the systems at the same level. There is no

reason why a well-functioning registry system that captures incoming

records, les them accurately, retrieves them when needed and tracks

them while in use, should not be at the same level as an electronic ling and tracking system that performs the same functions. However,

if the registry system fails to capture records created and held electronically or on paper, it must be placed at a low capacity level than

a system that captures both.At the lowest level of capacity in RMCAS, records management

policies, systems and processes are virtually non-existent, informal, ad

hoc or ineffective. At the highest level, an organization should have in

place a knowledge management environment used effectively to

support the organizations functions and increasingly stringent governance objectives. As well, at the highest capacity level, advanced technology systems and networks should enable effective communication,

collaboration and information sharing within the organization and

with external stakeholders.Moving up through the capacity levels may be as much a function

of integrating records and information management with business

processes, and with corporate and governance objectives, as it is a result of adopting technological solutions. Clearly, however, there are

also processes that cannot be carried out unless records are created

and managed using computer systems, for example, access across

repositories using keywords or controlled vocabulary, simultaneous

access to the same information by multiple users, or the management

of complex access permissions according to pre-dened user groups.

At the highest level of capacity an organization creates a record once

and allows all stakeholders to access the information in the record

according to their needs and permissions.Within RMCAS, the capacity levels are dened as follows: Level 0: Records management policies, systems and processes are

non-existent or informal/ad hoc/personal and ineffective. There is

little or no use of ICT for creating or managing records. Level 1: Basic records management policies, systems and processes

are defined but are not consistently and effectively applied across

the organization. There is little or no connection between records

management and business processes. There is little or no effective

use of ICT for managing records.ANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 83 Level 2: Key records management policies, systems and processes

are in place across the organization and are working. The organization recognizes the need to link records management and business processes but has not yet achieved this. ICT is used for

records and information management but its effectiveness is limited. Level 3: Records management policies, systems and processes are

in place across the organization, are working effectively, are linked

to business processes and support organizational management

goals. A mixture of ICT and paper systems is used in the creation

and management of records and information. Level 4: Records management policies, systems and processes are

in place, applied effectively, are integrated with all business processes and support organizational governance and accountability.

Policies, systems and processes are reviewed and improved regularly. Extensive use is made of ICT to create, manage and exploit

records and information. Level 5: A knowledge management environment is in place and

used effectively to support all organizational functions and governance objectives and the needs of all stakeholders. A learning culture exists in which monitoring, compliance and improvement

takes place continuously. Advanced technology systems and networks are used for the creation and sharing of records and to enable effective communication and collaboration within the

organization and with other partners.Level 0 represents the absence of good practice, but it is

unlikely that any organization will score zero in all areas. Similarly, the top capacity level is an aspiration, and no organization

will score 5 in all areas. Few if any organizations anywhere in the

world are at level 4 across the board, and it is likely that many

public sector organizations in the developed world are currently at

levels 24. Developing countries are more likely to be at levels 1 or

2 unless they have undergone a records management improvement

program.ISO 15489 was the main source for dening good practice at Levels 1 and 2 and some of 3. Good practice statements derived from

IMCC are spread across all levels, but tend to cluster at levels 24 as

they deal with, for example, organizational culture, strategic planning

and change management. Statements derived from MoReq also mainly populate levels 24.84Diagnostic ModelThe diagnostic model, as illustrated in Figure 1, is the conceptual core

of RMCAS. It also provides a top-level report generated by RMCAS,

based on the data gathered and assessed against good practice (see

Figure 2).The three axes of the model represent: a stage of the records management life cycle (e.g., records capture

and registration, classification, storage and preservation) a particular aspect of the organizational environment in which records are managed (eg, laws, policies and procedures, ICT infrastructure, training and resources) a level of capacity on a scale of 05.At each intersection of the three axes is a cell populated by a statement (or statements) of good practice. The assessment questions are

mapped to these statements of good practice. The response to a question or group of questions determines whether or not a statement of

good practice is achieved and helps to build up a picture of strengths

and weaknesses. Good practice statements may be linked to more

than one life cycle element and management environment category in

the diagnostic model; but statements can only be assigned to one

capacity level. Thus, the answer to one question may contribute data

to more than one cell in the diagnostic model but only to cells at the

same capacity level. A simple example of how the diagnostic model

works is illustrated in Table III.Tables IV and V provide definitions of the elements that make up

the organizational environment and records life cycle components of

RMCAS and that are indicated in the diagnostic model.Database of Capacity Building MaterialsThe third component of RMCAS is the database of training and capacity building materials, such as courses, manuals, textbooks, guidelines,

generic specications, case studies and risk management methodologies. Users of the software can point and click on cells in the diagnostic model to obtain information about capacity requirements in

specic areas, and to identify and download appropriate material.Between August 2003 and February 2004 work was undertaken to

design, develop and populate the training resources database. General

editorial standards were developed and potential sources in records andANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 85Table III. Diagnostic Model: MethodologyStatement of Good Practice (capacity level one):s Disposition schedules (formally approved schedules of classes or seriesof records, retention periods and appropriate disposition actions) aremaintained and approved by senior management and an external recordsdisposition authority. Assessment Question:s Are records that are transferred to semi-current or inactive storage(paper and electronic) always given a disposal action (e.g., a destructionor review date calculated from the date of the record or date of transfer)?Possible Responses:s Yes statement of good practice mets No statement of good practice not metA yes response may lead to follow up questions that drill down intothe area of questioningA no response may indicate that no further questions are requiredin this area to establish the capacity levelTable IV. Diagnostic Model: Organizational Environment ElementsThe organizational environment elements comprise the management anduser context in which records and business processes take placeLaws, policies and procedures: Rules that prescribe how records managementand business processes must or should be carried out in the organizationICT RM integration: The degree to which ICT is used to supportrecords management processes and records throughout their lifecycleBusiness process RM Integration: The degree to which records managementis integrated with normal business processesResources and training: The sufficiency of the budget for a recordsmanagement program, and trained staff to carry out all required tasks,proper facilities and equipment, and sufficient supplies. Training and supportfor records creators and usersRecords management program management: Records management is a key functionof an organizations planning and work programs. Includes, for example,monitoring and evaluation of records systems and resourcesAwareness and ownership: Awareness of records management in theorganization, including senior management buy-in and support for therecords management program and initiatives. It indicates organizationalcommitment and staff willingness and ability to integrate recordsmanagement activities in business processes86ANDREW GRIFFINTable V. Diagnostic Model: Records Management ProcessesEach life cycle process represents a discrete aspect of records management.The whole life cycle is also used as an element in its own right when an activityrelates to the entire spectrum of the processes listed belowRecords capture and registration: Allocation of explicit metadata embedded in,attached to or associated with the specific record regardless of format,arranged in a logical structure or sequence which facilitates subsequent useand reference and provides evidence of the existence of records in arecords system. Capture and registration may occur simultaneously withrecords creationRecords classification: Records classification systems reflect business activitiesand provide linkages between individual documents to provide continuousdocumentation of activity. Classification is consistent, assists in records retrieval,security and access and with determining retention periods and dispositionactions for records. May occur at the time of records captureRecords storage and preservation: Records are stored on media that ensure theirreliability, authenticity and usability for as long as they are needed. Records arestored in proper conditions that protect against unauthorized access, loss ordestruction, and theft and disasterRecords access: The regulation of access to which records, by whom, and in whatcircumstances. The access environment may include privacy, security, freedomof information and archival legislation. Access may relate to monitoring ofuser permissions and job responsibilitiesRecords tracking: Tracking of movements and use of records to identifyoutstanding action, enable records location and retrieval, prevent loss of records,monitor records use, maintain an auditable trail of records transactions andidentify the operational origins of individual records where systems mayhave been amalgamated or migratedRecords disposition: Disposition authorities (such as records retention schedules)governing the removal of records from operational systems in a systematic androutine basis in the course of normal business activity. Disposition mayencompass physical destruction, retention for a further period within thebusiness unit, transfer to an appropriate storage area or medium underorganizational control, transfer to a third party storage facility, or transferto an organizational or external archivesRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 87archives institutions and professional groups, primarily in the United

States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, were reviewed. Further work is planned to examine other resources including, for example,

the websites of national archives in African, Asian, Caribbean and

European countries. Some African sources, mainly in print-based journal articles, have already been included in the database.Future Action for Updating the DatabaseThe rst priority for future work on the database is likely to include

the identication and entry of the following two types of resources: Practical resources such as guidelines, manuals and directives

available through the websites of national archives Manuals, modules, textbooks and other educational monographs

available free or at cost through national institutions, national or

international associations, and other agencies.Thereafter, the following resources have been recommended for

inclusion: Educational institutions offering records and archives courses

Monograph publications on records and archives issues Journals, newsletters, and bulletins.Currently, there are gaps in the resources available on some topics,

particularly in managing function-specic records such as those that

relate to human resource management, judicial management and

nancial management. Future detailed analysis of potential resources

outside of the archives and records management profession may reveal other relevant material to be added.There may also be a need to develop new training resources. Many

guidelines and directives exist for the management of records but

practitioners, particularly in developing countries, may have diculty

in using these documents directly for self-study and capacity building. The International Records Management Trust, as part of its

Management of Public Sector Records (MPSR) program, has already

developed a set of 18 self-study training modules and associated best

practice procedures manuals and case studies. These have been distributed widely and are also available free of charge on the Trusts

website (www.irmt.org). The Trust plans to expand and revise these

materials and is seeking ways to fund this work. All of the Trusts

modules will be included in the database of resources.88Using the RMCASThe RMCAS User Guide provides details of technical requirements,

download and install information and a detailed description of the

software tool and how to use it. Guidance on preparing for an assessment using the tool is also included.As already noted, RMCAS allows users to gather data about records and information systems, analyse the data to identify strengths,

weaknesses and major risks, and then link to and select from training

and self-study resources to build records management capacity in

high-risk or sub-optimal areas. Data are gathered through questionnaires generated by the software and tailored to particular stakeholder groups, such as senior management and decision-makers,

records management sta, ICT sta and record creators/users. A

sample screen shot is shown in Figure 3.Within RMCAS, the questions are designed as logical sequences

with yes/no responses or a choice of a limited set of options in tick

boxes that can easily be scored to determine whether good practice

criteria have been met. The scores are then linked electronically to the

diagnostic model. There is a provision for inputting additional contextual information from both the interviewee and the interviewer to

allow for future follow-up analysis or to qualify an answer that may

need elaboration. A particular response also determines whether the

rest of the sequence should be asked or whether the assessor should

move on to the next sequence of questions.Each question is associated with a primary source of information

(for example, senior manager, head of business unit, head of records

management or records ocer). There are provisions in place to address the issue of credibility of the respondents/interviewees. The same

question may be asked of more than one interviewee to corroborate

information. For each question, the original answers from each

respondent is preserved, but if the assessor has doubts about the

accuracy of the answers, he or she has the ability to override the

yes/no score for a given statement of good practice in the nal calculation of the capacity levels.Data may be supplemented by relevant documentation, such as

policy statements and guidelines, gathered before or during use of

the questionnaires. The RMCAS software prompts the assessor to

note whether documentation exists to verify the response. For

example, retention schedules provide the verication of disposition

rules and can be inspected if need be. For Financial ManagementANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 89Figure 3. Screen shot showing assessment question and responses.Records and Information Systems, the documentation shown in

Table VI may be sought and reviewed.Conducting AssessmentsIn conducting an assessment, the assessor or assessment team will

need to brief the key people and/or a facilitator within the unit or

organization being assessed. It may be necessary to brief other ocials, committees or project sta involved in records and information management. The assessors should continue to liaise with the

facilitator to arrange for interviews and provide more information

as necessary. Documentation should be collected and studied before the interviews begin. This should include relevant laws, policies, regulations, manuals, system documentation and other

materials.During the initial preparations, the assessment team will familiarize

itself with the organization, its management and record keeping infrastructure and control systems. Knowledge of the activities of the organization and its structure, record keeping systems, relevant computer90ANDREW GRIFFINTable VI. Documentation for Financial Records and Information ManagementLaws and Policy Regulations Organization mission statement

Legislation that deals specifically with the mandate of the organization

and financial responsibilities Policy documents that reflect financial policy, management and regulations

Financial instructionsRules, Procedures and Manuals Accounting manual or other procedure manuals for financial management

including payments, receipts, cheque issuing guidelines, etc Procedure manuals for on line financial systems (data preparation and

entry guidelines) Records retention and disposition schedules for financial recordsSample Documents Ledgers

Way book

Print out of ledger by vote code and batch code/voucher

Payment cash books Summary cash books Input batch control forms Salaries and allowances cash book Register of documents received Voucher control forms Way book of rejected vouchers Local purchase orders LPO register Other business related information that supports financial decisions

Vote charge bookapplications, operational areas and records storage areas is essential to

the overall success of the assessment. Understanding the operational

context of recordkeeping systems will provide the assessment team

with vital information that it can use during the interviews to help

clarify questions and assess and record responses. For instance, if the

information given during the interviews gives a very dierent picture

from the information gathered from the documentation and the onsite observation, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the documentation

or override some of the responses in the interviews.RECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 91If the organization has more than one location, the assessment

team will need to understand its decentralized structure and examine

a range or sample of the units.Questionnaires can be printed and/or distributed electronically

prior to the interview if this is helpful. The length of the interview is

approximately one hour. Interviewing one stakeholder at a time provides the best results, but group interviews can be used if time is

short. It is important for the assessment team to ensure that as many

stakeholders as possible are heard.It is recommended that two members of the assessment team

should conduct the on-site interviews. This arrangement allows one

member to focus on the interview and the other member to record issues arising from the interview.Table VII provides examples of the staff at different levels of an

organization that could be interviewed in an assessment.Analyzing and Presenting the Assessment ResultsThe assessment data feeds electronically into the diagnostic model

generating the three-dimensional graphic that plots a high-level overview of the organizations record-keeping performance (see Figure 2). The graphic is used to provide an objective, executive

summary of strengths and weaknesses in the organizations records

management processes and infrastructure. By clicking on a particular part of the graphical report, a link is made to the appropriate

training resources available. Figure 4 illustrates a high-level entry in

the database.The assessment team will need to review the diagnosis generated by

the tool to ensure that it reects what they heard. They may need to

consult the notes made during the interviews to explain the results

and highlight any signicant dierences between the information

gathered during the interviews and the resultant diagnosis.When the interviews are completed and the analysis is nalized, the

assessment team will need to present the ndings to the organization.

The presentation may need to be given to dierent audiences within

the organization, and the presenter may wish to emphasize particular

points to senior managers (for instance, strategy, budgeting or mandates) and to operational sta.RMCAS can generate a variety of reports to support an assessment and provide an analysis of results. The reports are summarized

in Table VIII.92ANDREW GRIFFIN(archivist)elsewhereToolascreatorsAssessmentAgencyDepartmentAdministratorcoveredRecordsManagerArchivesuserSystemAdministratorrecordsnotofGenericofofusersHeadHeadHeadSeniorMiddlerecordsOfficerNationalICTSeniorITorsocietye.g.Administrator(archivist)Official,AuthoritycivilAdministratorJudicialAssessmentToolRegistrarJudicialCourtArchivesrepresentingCourtandProsecutingSystemofLegalSeniorSeniorSeniorLawyerRegistrarSecretaryOfficerClerkNationalICTNGOsITAdministrationBodyServiceusersResourcesAssessmentToolPersonnelGeneralPensionPublicTreasuryRecordsPayrollRecruitmentPlanningAdministratorManageruserOfficerSystemAdministratorrecordsAssessmentHumanAuditorofofofofofofofofrecordsOfficerHeadHeadHeadHeadHeadHeadHeadHeadSeniorMiddleasICTSeniorStaffingITanInterviewedinToolFinanceAccountantAdministratorManagerManagerAuditorRecordsManageruserOfficerManagerofficerOfficerofbeFinancial AssessmentrecordsMgmtSeniorAccountantSystemAdministratorofHeadChiefChiefHeadAccountsBudgetContractMiddleBudgetFinancetoasDebtICTStaffofAgencyVII.Senior ManagerMiddle ManagerofPositionLevelHeadOfficerTableRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 93ToolAssessmentGenericnotJudicialAssessmentrecordsusersToolelsewherecourtorandOthercreatorscoveredLegalOfficerCompensationResourcesAssessmentToolHumanOfficerDevelopment(archivist)ToolandOfficerArchivesFinancial AssessmentOfficerTrainingRecordsNationalITusers(Contd.)recordsOfficerArchives(archivist)ofPositionVII.LevelSeniorSpendingNationalTable94ANDREW GRIFFINFigure 4. Sample entry in the database of capacity building materials.Current Status of RMCASFrom February to July 2004, peer review of the systems core components (assessment questions, capacity statements and capacity levels)

was carried out by collaborators in Canada, New Zealand, Australia

and the United Kingdom. Experts in the elds of records management, nancial management, human resource management and legal

and judicial management contributed to the review. The Trust also

presented RMCAS at three records management and archives professional events for informal feedback.A Macromedia Flash presentation on RMCAS was developed with

a view towards making the public aware of the tool. The presentation

provides background on the Trusts aims, explains key records management concepts and demonstrates some of the features of RMCAS.

Self-tests of the RMCAS were carried out by the National Archives

of seven countries: Botswana, Ghana, Malawi, Singapore, South Africa, Yap (Federated States of Micronesia), and Iceland. The results of

the seven tests contributed to further renement of RMCAS (with

particular reference to the relevance of certain questions, the inclusion

of a specic section on electronic records and use of more generic

question terminology) and to development of a simpler, more userfriendly interface.A pilot eld test in the Kenya courts was carried out in JuneJuly

2004. The assessment team visited the High Court and Chief

Magistrates Court: Criminal and Trac Division; the High Court andRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 95Table VIII. RMCAS ReportsAssessment Summary Report: a three-dimensional graphical representation of thecapacity levels obtained by the Records Management life cycle elements andOrganizational Environment ElementsQuestion Results Report: Displays for each question asked in the questionnaire:the question, the answer choices, the primary source of information, the parentquestion, any prerequisite questions, the related capacity statements and theanswer set used to determine support or refutation of the capacity statementand the answer(s) given by the interviewee. The results can be displayed byinterviewee and by question section or the question itself. If required, the resultscan also display any questions flagged for follow-up and any conflictingstakeholder answers to questionsBlank Questionnaire: This report allows the interviewer to print out anunfilled questionnaire for review by either interviewer or interviewee priorto interview. Responses to the questions may be recorded on the blankquestionnaire in the instance where the interviewer may not have access to acomputer. In this case, the interviewer should return to RMCAS and enterresponses into the application after the interview is completeCapacity Statement: This shows a list of capacity statement informationassociated with the assessment including: capacity statements; organizationenvironment elements; RM lifecycle elements; related capacity level; capacitystatement source citationCapacity Statement Results: The report shows a list of the capacitystatements that apply to the assessment and whether they were achieved,unachieved or undetermined by the interview resultsEnvironment Element Summary: This displays a two-dimensional graphplotting the capacity levels for the chosen environment by lifecycle. It also linksto the training resources concerning different capacity statements; lists the topand bottom capacity score obtained in the assessment within the chosen lifecycle;lists the interviews completed in the assessmentChief Magistrates Court: Civil and Family Division; the Court of Appeal; Kibera and Makadara District Courts; and the Milimani Commercial Courts. Assessment interviews with stakeholders at all levels,

from clerk to magistrate, were conducted by a team comprised of one

person from the Trust and a senior records management consultant

from Kenya familiar with the court system. The team used the legal

and judicial records and information module to collect standardized

and consistent data on the current conditions of records management96

in the judiciary. Documentation was collected to support the interview

data, and site visits were made to the interviewees registries and related judicial archives. RMCAS also allowed the consultants to systematically record the presence or absence of policy and procedures

documentation that supported or refuted interviewees answers. Both

the assessment team and the court personnel conrmed that the

RMCAS analysis reected the realities of the courts records management systems. Recently, court personnel reported to the Trust that

they have devised a records management and training programme

based on the recommendations of the RMCAS diagnostic report.The eld test in Kenya courts supported the results of other selftests that were conducted and also underlined the importance of the

interviewers familiarity with the assessed organization, as the override feature in RMCAS was used on more than one occasion to ensure the scoring accurately reected observed practices.Subsequent software development took place during August and

September 2004. RMCAS software is now available for public use via

the web site of the UK National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.Gov.uk/RMCAS). The online training resources database will also

be publicly available on the same site as a separate resource.ConclusionThe International Records Management Trust has demonstrated

through its research and practical work programmes over the past

decade that there is a lack of attention to records as authoritative

evidence of policies, transactions, activities and entitlements. This

has had an impact on wider development objectives (including anticorruption, administrative and civil service reform, legal and judicial

reform, public expenditure management, and electronic government).

Records management is essential and foundational as an enabling

infrastructure which provides the basis for public sector integrity.

The Trusts project work, case studies and global consultations,

have demonstrated that the issues involved in managing records,

and particularly in making the transition to the electronic environment, are broadly common to all countries. Currently in the developing world, there is little capacity or infrastructure for managing

digital records as authentic evidence and protecting data integrity

over time. Managing ocial records eciently will not in itself halt

corruption and bring about accountability. However, these goals

cannot be achieved without trustworthy evidence.ANDREW GRIFFINRECORDS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 97Information technologies are being introduced worldwide to enhance government accountability and eciency, but there has been

little attention to the quality and care of the electronic records they

create. The present situation creates new opportunities for manipulating government information. It leaves governments vulnerable,

without access to the evidence needed to support accountable and

transparent democracies. It impedes information and communications technology initiatives and adds unnecessary risks to the signicant investments that lenders and donors make in the procurement

and implementation of information management software. There is

a need to ensure that fragile electronic records are maintained and

managed in developing countries where specialist training is lacking.The Trust has taken a major step toward addressing these issues

by developing a software-driven RMCAS that will be available free of

charge to governments and development planners worldwide.

RMCAS has the potential to enhance the quality of records and

information management programs. It can be used to support preproject assessments or the design of projects where the quality of

information, paper or electronic, is important. It can also be used to

benchmark improvement. It will facilitate the development of common solutions that can be mainstreamed into development programmes and government application systems.