geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'
an organization oriented view on archives - part ii
These components define the dimensions, principles, and requirements that must
be met by organizations to realize EIM to be effective and to retain 'trusted' records
that can be used to reconstruct the past. The defining components must be
implemented as obligatory requirements in the lifecycle of records and the
continuum of the information management processes facilitated by EIM. These
three components are requirements for organizational records, archives, and their
management, imposed on organizations by global legal, accountability, and
professional frameworks.
4.3.1. The four dimensions of information (A)
In complex computerized environments, the trustworthiness of records is
constantly challenged. That is a problem, because records are meant to be (and are
used as) evidence for organizational (or personal) policies, decisions, products,
actions and transactions. Citizens, governments, and courts are making increasing
demands for their trustworthiness (El Kharbili et al, 2008). Four dimensions of
information allow for a reliable reconstruction of these policies, decisions, products,
actions and transactions: quality, context, relevance, and survival (Van Bussel
2012a). These four dimensions are the four elements of the first component of the
framework.
The first dimension, Quality (1), is about the quality requirements of records
(according to assumption 7) and the 'information value chain', which will be
discussed later as the fourth component of the framework. Van Bussel and Ector
(2009, p. 181-214) describe this dimension based on an analysis of organization and
information sciences literature about the quality requirements of data and
information as well as the results of digital diplomatics research. Four quality
requirements are recognized for records: integrity (they cannot be manipulated),
authenticity (they present the required (and original) content and structure),
controllability (they can be tested on integrity and authenticity) and historicity
(their content, context and structure can be reconstructed at any moment in time).
These four requirements realize the fixity of records. This means that they are
(or can be reconstructed as) 'immutable mobiles' (Latour, 1990). Fixity is a
necessity because records are meant for later consultation and are used repeatedly
for the reconstruction of past happenings. Fixity enables users to trust records and to
use them, for instance as evidence (Levy, 2001, ch. 2). The 'information value chain'
ensures that records meet these quality requirements in spite of all necessary
handling and guarantees that the necessary context is added, needed to allow for
later sensemaking and to identify specific records. The requirements for this value
chain are identical to those for organizational business processes, namely reliable
time of delivery, effectiveness, efficiency, product quality, alignment of needs,
product management, and compliance (Van Bussel and Ector 2009: 205).
The second dimension is (Situational) Context (2). According to Brenda Dervin
(1997), context is an 'unruly beast'. 'There is no term that is more often used, less
often defined, and when defined, defined so variously as context' (Dervin, 1997,
p. 13-14). The concept has been attributed with many definitions, interpretations,
and frameworks that can be divided into four classifications. There are
interpretations that use context for defining and operating robotic activities in the
((very) near) future, like oracles (Devlin, 1991), for creating a situational
environment for a user when using information, for adapting sofware applications
to the personal context of the user, and for sensemaking of (the information in)
social situations. This last interpretation of context is the subject of this second
dimension of information. The context dimension of records is about the social
situation (actions or transactions, cases, process flows, etc.) that generates them.
This dimension captures the situational context of individual records. This situational
context has some characteristics that are agreed upon in literature:
1. it is (in a phenomenological view) a complex social reality that (in a positivist
view) will be captured as a simplified metadata construct that is a mere
representation of that social reality (Penco, 1999);
2. it encapsulates records and situations to allow for sensemaking (Weick, 1979,
1995; Dervin, 2003);
3. it needs accurate documentation and definition (Groth, 2007);
4. it is in the past (Van Bussel, 2012b); and
5. it is necessary for the tracking and reconstruction of social situations, like
business processes, policies, decisions, products, actions, and transactions
(Groth, 2007; Self et al, 2007; Van Bussel and Ector, 2009).
The context of social situations provides meaning for the records generated within
that situation (Weick, 1979, 1995; Dervin, 2003; Duranti, 1997a). To extract
meaning out of situations (cases, process flows, decisions, etc.), EIM users need to
gather knowledge of the individual organizational policies, decisions, products,
actions or transactions for which records were generated (and their relationships)
(Barwise and Perry, 1983; Devlin, 1994). The dimension of context captures data of
the existing regulation(s) for the business process the records are part of, the
business process itself, the structure of the specific case, the procedures by which
records are generated, processed, and used, and their place in the information
structure they belong to (Van Bussel and Ector, 2009, p. 215-260). This situational
context of records is captured in metadata that try to generate an image of the
specific action or transaction records are part of, the changes therein over time, their
processing and use, and its management. These metadata have an unbreakable link
with the records they belong to (Van Bussel, 2016).
The third dimension, Relevance (3), is an important concept in human commu
nication and information management. As Saracevic (2007ab) explained, records
are only relevant for users if they fit the context in which they are used, managed
and retrieved. They need to be relevant for organizational or personal objectives of
performance and accountability. They need to have pragmatic quality (Van Bussel,
2012a). A special kind of relevance is appraisal, determining the 'value', relevance,
of records over time (Van Bussel and Ector 2009, p. 301-309). Appraisal is the
complex (and quite subjective) evaluation of records to determine their economic,
organizational, financial, fiscal, juridical, legal, societal, and historical relevance
and to develop organizational or personal retention schedules. Such schedules
define the periods of time that records should be kept or 'retained' (as, for instance,
stated in law and regulations), including indefinite retention for records of
'enduring value' and the (not always mandatory) acquisition of organizational
archives by archival repositories (Cox and Samuels, 1988). Appraisal is based on the
archives in liquid times
4.3. The three defining components of the 'Archive-as-ls' (A, B, and C)
50
51