geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is' an organization oriented view on archives - part i cannot be quickly found when needed. Knowledge workers spend up to 40% of their working day searching for information (objects) (Nel, 2015; Naidoo and Nsibirwa, 2015). They spend 15-25% of their time on information-related tasks (Brocke et al, 2011). An 'information chaos' caused by the unability of EIM to capture this large influx of unstructured information objects compromises the ability of organizations to reach business objectives. This chaos is the rule rather than the exception in contemporary organizations (Redman, 2004). The abundance of (structured and unstructured) information objects leads to organizational challenges. To facilitate fail-proof information management guaranteeing accountability, compliance, and security is by no means new (Hausmann et al, 2014; Patnayakuni and Patnayakuni, 2014). Until a few years ago, organizations captured and controlled information objects in an infrastructure that did not cross the borders of the organizational structure. If accountability, compliance, security, or other business-related issues arose, there was a single 'point of control' defined (Davenport and Prusak, 1997). That 'point of control' became diffused with the ongoing integration of business processes between different organizations, stimulated by sharing information objects through (for instance) social media (McAfee, 2006) and the breakthrough of supply chain and ERP systems causing information integration (Srinivasan and Dey, 2014). As it became common practice to share information objects between different parties, it could become difficult to ascertain which of the integrated process owners was responsible for accountability, compliance, security, or information accessibility. It is proving challenging for traditional ways, methods and technologies to achieve the expected information quality, compliance and information governance (Van de Pas and Van Bussel, 2015ab). Guaranteeing an accountable, compliant, transparent, and effectively performing organization in a dynamically changing ICT environment, recognizing both structured and unstructured information objects, is problematic. EIM's focus is changing to incorporate unstructured information objects, but lacks the theoretical foundation to do so effectively. 1.2. The solution: the organizational archive and its records The key for such a theoretical foundation for EIM may be 'the archive' (Van de Pas et al, 2016). For defining business strategies, Smith and Steadman (1981) already acknowledged organizational archives as crucial resources. They are very important for organizational accountability, business process performance, and reaching business objectives. They have, unfortunately, not been recognized as such for many years and for that reason have been badly managed by organizations, do not meet quite common quality requirements, and are almost non-contextual (Redman, 2004; Groth, 2007). Without these characteristics, it is impossible to realize the primary goals of archives: a reliable reconstruction of past happenings, delivering evidence, and meaningful production (Van Bussel, 2012abc), extremely diminishing their organizational value. Organization-wide management of archives has not been a common functionality for EIM (Serova, 2012). The neglect in the management of organizational archives has resulted in [1] fragmented storage of both structured and unstructured information objects in a variety of information systems, unconnected with their metadata and the organizational archive they belong to; [2] fragmented metadata, 18 separated from the information objects that caused their genesis and not embedded into the metadata layers of the organizational archive, leading to a loss of contextuality; and [3] a declining quality of information objects, because their provenance, integrity, and preservation are in peril (Van Bussel, 2016). Two concepts are essential for integrating structured and unstructured information objects within EIM to exploit the value(s) of information in defining effective business strategies: records and archives. Records are combinations of information objects (structured and unstructured data, data sets, and data objects) and their metadata, generated and used in the course of (business) processes, actions, and transactions, stored in an organizational (or personal) archive, irrespective of format used, with a unique (fixed or reconstructable) content, context, and structure, and retained and preserved for whatever reason organizations (or individuals, groups, or families) want to set them aside (business use, compliance, accountability, evidence, future reference, curiosity, historical value, extension of human memory, etc.) or for whatever period of time they (or parts of them) are retained (Van Bussel, 2016; Yeo, 2007). Archives (or data stores) are organizational or personal constructs, embedded in and enriched by metadata about their creation, organizational environment, and management, in which records (from the moment of their creation) are persistently stored and managed with the objectives of reliably reconstructing the past, delivering evidence, and realizing meaningful production.1 The term can be used for any construct of records that is meant to be retained, like YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, etc., but also more traditional organizational or personal compositions of records (Van Bussel, 2012b). Both concepts do not differentiate between structured and unstructured information objects. To allow for the integration of structured and unstructured information objects, EIM needs a theoretical foundation based on records and archives that is aimed at realizing organizational objectives. 1.3. The objective: a theoretical foundation Both computer and Information science cannot be expected to define this theoretical foundation for EIM, although they have developed many useful concepts and theories. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, an analysis of the contents and abstracts of five top journals each for computer and information science from 2010-2016 shows that both sciences do not really acknowledge the concepts records and archives. They are rarely used, even while there are many articles in these journals describing information objects within business processes used for organizational objectives that are traditionally known as records or archives. In these journals, they are called digital artefacts, documents, data objects, repositories, archival collections, archival documents, or storage platforms. These articles were not included in the analysis visualized in Table 1 and 2, just like the three articles using the terms 'archiving' and 'archivists'. In the end, only 25 articles (from the 5.319 articles reviewed) mention the concept records or archive(s) (or both) in its title or abstract. 19 archives in liquid times 1 In this interpretation of the concept 'archive', I am following the Dutch archival tradition that uses the term 'archive' to designate an organizational (or personal) construct of [1] current (or active) records; [2] semi-active or semi-current records; [3] inactive or non-current records; and [4] permanent records, the whole body of records of continuing value of an organization or person.

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 11