The Theoretical Framework for
the 'Archive-As-Is'. An Organization
Oriented View on Archives
geert-jan van bussel
Part II. An Exploration of the 'Archive-As-Is' Framework*
1. introduction
In Part I of this article, I presented the first part of this exploration into the problems
Enterprise Information Management (EIM) experiences in managing structured
and unstructured information objects. It dealt with the possibility of using records
and archives as applicable concepts to find a solution for that problem. It became
clear that EIM lacks an applicable theoretical framework to use records and archives
in its attemps to facilitate business processes in reaching organizational objectives
and designing business strategies. To find a usable theoretical framework, the
existing two archival theoretical frameworks were discussed. The conclusion of that
discussion was that both theories, theoretical weaknesses nothwithstanding, offer
convincing arguments for the value of archives and records for organizations.
Another conclusion was that both theories have not succeeded in linking these
values to the realization of organizational objectives, designing business strategies,
and constructing archives in a way that allows EIM to facilitate organizations
effectively in those endeavors.
In this part, I will extensively discuss the theoretical framework of the 'Archive-as-Is'.
I developed the theory as a pragmatic view on archives and records, their genesis,
construction, use, and continuous management. The 'Archive-as-Is' is a declarative
model for understanding the archive of an organization (or organizational chain),
how it has been designed, created, processed, manipulated, and managed as a
valuable business resource. This framework explains how the archive has 'grown' to
be the archive that the organization or the person that generated it, wants it to be
(in short: the 'Archive-as-Is').
I would like to thank my friends and colleagues Luciana Duranti, Arnoud Glaudemans, Erika Hokke,
Charles Jeurgens, Rienk Jonker, Eric Ketelaar, John van de Pas, Frans Smit, Anneli Sundqvist, and Geir
Magnus Walderhaug for granting me their time and wisdom in discussing and/or reviewing several earlier
versions of this article. They may (or may not) agree with the interpretations, conclusions, and remarks in
the two parts of this article, but I am very sure their comments greatly improved it. Any remaining errors,
misinterpretations, and misleading exaggerations are my own. I also like to thank all the (business)
organizations that allowed me to use the framework when they were defining strategies for Enterprise
Information Management within their business processes. If you want to remark on this article, I would
gladly receive your comments.
43
