From the time I began work on the records survey in late May, my approach has been to gather as much information as I could concerning the way in which units create, collect, maintain, and preserve University records. This has not always been a simple process. Many units are suspicious, thinking they will be judged on their record-keeping practices. Others are dismissive of the process, believing, perhaps, that the work of their unit is unimportant, or that history itself is of secondary importance to the operation of current unit business. Despite the initial hesitation, I have found that the majority of administrators are intelligent, committed people who are very concerned that their unit, and the memory of UBC as a whole, not be forgotten. After over 80 interviews I have become convinced that record-keepers and administrators are a hidden resource, and are both enthusiastic for and anxious to begin managing their records in a more proactive fashion.
My initial six weeks at UBC were spent learning the basics of working life at an academic institution. A great deal of time was spent compiling a comprehensive contact list of the administrators campus-wide. I was naive to think that such a list could be cobbled together from the University directory, and have found that the list is ever growing and changing as units prove to be larger than I supposed or as administrative duties and personnel change and move. Many of the contacts were taken directly from the directory, but others required phone calls to the unit, and some were only revealed after a visit to the unit itself.
At the same time as I was compiling the contact list, I was also researching what work had been done in the area of university record surveys. The paucity of material relating to such surveys was a little discouraging, although I was able to find some sources, in particular from NorthEastern University and the University of Michigan. My difficulty finding Canadian universities that had conducted record surveys resulted in my looking at alternate sources, including Australian and New Zealand universities. In addition, I looked closely at the previous record survey done at UBC in 1992-1993 by Erwin Wodarczak.
After reading through much of the material, I felt that too many of the questions asked of record-keepers were of a theoretical nature, and might intimidate some, thus reducing their likelihood of opening up about how they actually keep records. Wanting to avoid a confusing questionnaire, I produced a simple document that I believe allows me to collect the information I need while avoiding the repeated explanations required to explain a more technical form. (I find the enormous amount of questions I get with a simplified form proof enough that I made the correct decision.)
In particular the question relating to electronic records has been kept conversational, to draw out as much information as possible. The reality is that many of these people have no technical experience and are unqualified to answer questions regarding databases, networks, digital preservation and long term storage. They do, however, know how e-mail is used and stored, what information is contained in databases, and, most importantly, they help to illustrate the unit’s attitude toward the digital world. I believe it is imperative, in a hybrid world, to be able to gauge which units, departments, and faculties are comfortable with electronic records and which are not. The simple fact is that people will avoid using a system if it is too complicated for them. An interview with Dovelle Buie, Records and Information Management Analyst, with the City of Richmond, confirmed this point when she told me that the biggest problem with the Electronic Document Management System they use city-wide was the reluctance of city staff to use it. While some embraced the new technology, others rejected it utterly, and only through some very patient managers and some fairly lengthy training were the hesitant employees brought on board. By understanding which units have reservations concerning technology, the University may be able to tailor education and training to those employees who most need it, while allowing tech savvy units to embrace new, inevitable technology at a quicker pace.
After consulting with the Archives staff, along with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Coordinator, the survey forms were completed in early June. The early versions of the forms were put through a ‘dry run’ at both the [Unit Name] and the [Unit Name] within the [Unit Name]. The kind assistance of these units allowed me to acquire feedback and to further refine the forms.
Information sessions were scheduled for June 19th and 25th and over 90 record-keepers and administrators attended. To have so many attend a summer time session was a positive sign that record-keepers were interested in the survey. Erwin gave a history of the Archives as well as a summary of our mandate, while I attempted to explain the importance of a record survey both to the University as a whole and to units in particular.
After the information sessions were presented the scheduling of interviews began through e-mail. This began slowly, due primarily to staff and faculty vacations. During July I was able to survey more than 20 units, but that number jumped to 34 in August, and 30 in the busy month of September. Over 20 interviews are currently scheduled for the month of October, and the month will likely see 35-40 interviews. Based on the current interview rate I expect to be able to interview all willing participants by the end of the survey.
Interviews have been conducted throughout every faculty on campus, and in locations off campus, such as Women’s and Children’s Hospital, and VGH. The variation in approach to records management is dramatic, even within faculties, with some units essentially paper-less, and others who consider paper to be the only viable form of a record. Although much has been made of the paperless office, the vast majority of offices are primarily paper based, and, according to record-keepers, the ease of printing from desktop computers has resulted in even greater amounts of paper being saved. The size of the various units varies, of course, and so too the volume of their records. Units have anywhere from a few feet of linear records to well over 1000 feet. Some are colour coded and entirely classified according to function; others are piles of paper with, seemingly, no order at all other than the names on the folders. Many units have all the records they produce within their offices, while others have massive quantities in storage.
The storage of semi-active and inactive records is an important consideration of the survey, and the reasons for retention take on many forms. Some records are valuable as evidence of decision-making at the University, some as institutional memory, and some, such as many of the records of [Unit Name] and [Unit Name], are contractual in nature. Very few units consider themselves to have enough space for their record-keeping needs, and some have begun to digitize records in order to save space. One unit has an Electronic Document Management System to maintain business records while having shipped the paper records, at some considerable cost, to be stored with Iron Mountain, a records storage company. In fact, a number of units have begun to store items with Iron Mountain, including over 300 boxes of paper records, as well as computer back up tapes. Many of these units feel the idea of a University Records Centre should be an essential part of any future Records Management program, and felt such a facility would enhance their ability to manage their records properly.
The conditions under which inactive records are being stored on campus is an area of concern. Many units are, surprisingly, unsure if they have inactive records located off-site, and if so they are uncertain as to what conditions they are being maintained in or in what volume. There are many examples of units whose management of inactive records is unsatisfactory, although three, in particular, illustrate the problems associated with inactive records remaining too long under the control of the unit.
The first example of a unit whose inactive records should be of concern to the University is the [Unit Name]. This unit is a perfect example of the packrat style record-keeping system. They are, of course, not alone in this, although they are an extreme example. The school maintains withdrawn student records dating back to 1965, as well as personnel records dating at least to 1960 and likely even further back. The records are stored in a basement storage room and are organized into general piles; that is, one wall of the room is student records, another personnel, and another general administrative records. Although staff members believe that the maintenance of these records are essential for the conduct of business, the reality is that most of these records have already been maintained ten times longer than necessary, and further, that because of their unorganized storage the records are extremely time consuming and difficult to search. The records are a drain on resources and, being located in the basement of an older building, are at risk to be damaged by vermin, mold, or a flood. As a final point, the records of permanent value that exist here will unfortunately remain in limbo, no longer necessary for business, but not yet become an historical resource for the University.
The second example is the records of [Unit Name]. Again, there is a bit of a pack rat mentality here, although staff are very unclear as to whether the records they maintain are considered to have any value to the University. The records are stored in a basement location that has flooded twice before, and many of the boxes bear water damage. Again, the resources these records draw while providing little value to either the unit or the University community is unacceptable, and the fact that they are located in a demonstrably unsafe location is further indication of the need for Records Management standards at the University.
The third example I will give is not related to the records of a particular unit, but rather the records of several units that are stored at the South Campus Warehouse. The [Unit Name], [Unit Name], [Unit Name], and [Unit Name] all have records in the building, and all are stored under inappropriate conditions. The evidential value inherent in many of these records, as well as some patient files of a highly sensitive nature require such records to be stored in a secure and controlled environment. The South Campus Warehouse is neither. As I indicated in my preliminary report, the warehouse is a storage area for equipment, construction materials, and chemicals, and is highly inappropriate for long term records storage. As well, the building is not environmentally controlled, so the building temperature and humidity fluctuate and further endanger the records. Finally, the building is located at the extreme south end of campus making records accessibility an issue. Records are either on pallets up on racking or piled in no particular order in the mezzanine. The records of [Unit Name] in particular, look as if they have been rooted through repeatedly and left that way, with boxes tipped over and some left open or with lids ripped off.
The singling out of these few units is not an attempt to vilify them or to single them out as particularly bad. However, they are examples of units with large amounts of records and inadequate storage areas. The amount of units with these problems will only continue to grow due to increasing pressure for storage space, coupled with a lack of records management direction and resources.
There are other areas of concern, of course, relating to some of the most important records the University produces. Research records are one such area of concern due to the general confusion over who is required to maintain what records. This is particularly disconcerting at an institution that considers itself a leading research University. Another area is in [Unit Name], and the potential that exists for records of the University and the records of research, institutional, and financial partners to become inextricably confused. The sheer volume of medical records, combined with the extremely sensitive nature of the records, makes this a potentially expensive situation for the University if the records were to be requested as evidence. This evidential factor is reflected as well, in the records of the development so noticeably taking place on campus. Units such as [Unit Name], [Unit Name], [Unit Name], and [Unit Name] among others, hold contractual information which the University must make sure is retained reliably in order to defend itself in the event of potential litigation. Records management is not just a useful way to ensure historical records are retained, it is an essential way for the University to protect itself in the event of legal action.
The electronic record element of the survey has proven to be essentially a mirror image of the problems associated with paper records. The issues that plague the management of paper records, such as how to classify the records, the determining of retention and disposition schedules, and the long term preservation of the records, all exist in digital form as well. Lack of records management principles result in access and retrieval problems, as well as, in most cases, a shadow record-keeping system, one electronic and one paper. The vast majority of units retain both electronic and paper versions because of an inherent distrust of digital records. A great amount of important University records in the form of e-mail are certainly deleted each year as units retain only selected e-mails and then delete the rest.
The problems associated with electronic records and their preservation are not insurmountable but do require a great deal of consideration. Issues concerning preservation, and questions of reliability and authenticity in the highly malleable world of electronic records are challenging and do not lend themselves to simplistic solutions. The gap that currently exists between the thinking of archivists and the thinking of technical support personnel must be bridged so that each group understands the needs of the other. In my experience, the most tech savvy units have little or no long term preservation plans. As I mentioned in my preliminary report "it is important to ensure that technology does not blind us to the careful analysis that must be made of the electronic material on campus. Just because it is easier to save does not make an electronic document worth preserving. As with paper, the amount of information will overwhelm us if no responsible decisions are made regarding retention and preservation." I have tried to gather as much information regarding the types of electronic records being created on campus as I could, but much research remains to be undertaken. At this point it is entirely unclear as to what electronic information is of permanent value to the University, and if that information needs to be retained in electronic form, and if it needs to be retained for legal or institutional reasons. What is clear, however, is that in the present hybrid world, the management of electronic records must be considered as an absolutely essential component of any records management program.
It is imperative that the University makes an effort to preserve the records produced during this transition period between the paper and the paper-less office. It is unlikely that paper will disappear from offices in the near future. What is more likely is the general ascendancy of electronic records to a position of prominence. What forms these records will take and what methods will be devised to preserve them is an ever evolving field unto itself. This should not be a cause for concern, provided the University has ensured, clearly, that administrative staff understand what records are to be preserved and for how long. Records Management details this process, whether in a paper based or digital world. The key to understanding the future of records preservation at the University of British Columbia is to understand that the goal is not to preserve everything, and in fact that is to exactly miss the point. The goal of records preservation is to determine what needs to be kept and then preserving it for as long as possible. In this sense, despite the myriad forms of modern information, the goal remains clear. An active and responsive Records Management policy will make clear to administrators what records need to be kept, and will make clear to the Archives what resources they will need to ensure this happens.