geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'
an organization oriented view on archives - part ii
be deemed as not of enduring importance and, as such, not acquired by archival
repositories or kept by their creating organizations. So, although a user knows where
archives and records are ('they are findable'), he or she cannot obtain them ('they
are not available').
When archives and records are findable and available, they should be perceivable (9),
the third requirement of information access. It should be possible to perceive them,
to hear, feel, smell, taste, or view their content. If potential users are disabled in ways
that prohibit hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, or viewing, there should be assistive
and interactive technologies in operation that allow them to perceive records (Hill
2013). When records are heard, felt, smelled, tasted, and/or viewed, users have the
possibility to gather their meaning (Jones 2011). It is only possible, for even if records
are findable, available, and perceivable, that does not mean they are 'intelligible'. To
ensure accessibility and usability at both perceptual and cognitive levels of human-
computer interaction, designers of archival systems need to be constantly aware of
such design issues and should integrate those issues in evaluating their designs
(Kato and Hori, 2006).
The fourth requirement of information access is intelligibility (10). Perceivable
records can be read, heard, felt, smelled, and/or viewed, without the user having
the capabilities to understand them. Understanding is only possible if the
information literacy capabilities of users enable them to do so. According to the
Karlsruhe concept of comprehensibility, the most ideal level of intelligibility
depends on six dimensions: simplicity, structure, correctness, motivation,
concision, and perceptibility. If an information user cannot (completely) gather one
(or more) of these dimensions, it becomes more difficult to understand the records
(Göpferich, 2006). Facilitating intelligibility may be a burden for organizations
(archival repositories among them), because even in very literate countries large
minorities of the population can only read simple texts in their own language
(OECD 2015). Those minorities may be less educated people, immigrants,
untrained readers, or people with dyslexia, aphasia, intellectual or cognitive
disabilities, learning disabilities, or neuropsychiatry disabilities. Much above the
level of 'simple text' is for most of those people unintelligible. For that reason, for
large minorities of the population accessing records will be problematic. To have
access to ICTs will not solve the problem, which makes the dissemination of
knowledge quite difficult.
The last, fifth requirement, is contextuality (11). Archives and their records may
be findable, available, perceivable, and intelligible, but if their contextuality is in
jeopardy, it may be impossible to reconstruct the situational and environmental
context in which they were generated, used, and managed. This requirement is
connected with the dimension of (situational) context (2) and the principle of
(environmental) context (6) as it allows users to access archives and records in
context. Archives and records have a specific meaning in the context in which they
are (were) generated and used. If their situational and environmental context
cannot be reconstructed by a user, the meaning they were meant to have at the
moment of their creation or as a consequence of their use, will be lost. At that
moment, they lose their function as reference, as evidence of actions and
transactions, or as source of organizational knowledge. If that context is unavailable
or impossible to reconstruct, archives and records may be interesting for users, but
only in their own context of information seeking (Kulthau, 2006). This requirement
allows users to interpret the meaning of archives and records in a way that was
intended by the organization or person that constructed the archive. That
interpretation will not be complete and will be restricted by the metadata that were
allowed to be captured during creation, use, management, and preservation of
the archive and the records within it. What is done with that context by users is
dependent on their (research) questions. They may try to find other contexts
unconsciously embedded into the records or the archive, like Emmanuel Le Roy
Ladurie (1975) did for Montaillou or Catarina Bruschi (2009) for the Waldensian
heretics in the Languedoc.
The requirements of information access are defined from the viewpoint of the users
of the archive and its records. For them to be useful for the user, they should be
accessible. Meeting information access is one of the biggest challenges for EIM. The
five requirements of information access define this challenge. It means that EIM will
have to meet every requirement of information access, including all technologies
needed for users to perceive records, including generation or maintenance of
information architectures that allow users to quickly access archives, and including
all contextual metadata for archives and records to allow for a reconstruction of
the past.
4.4. The operational component of the 'Archive-as-Is':
The information value chain (D)
The three defining components of the theoretical framework of the Archive-as-Is are
to be implemented by organizations as mandatory requirements in the operational
component of the framework: the information value chain. This chain of information
processes, organized by EIM, realizes these components in the business processes of
organizations. That way EIM assists these business processes to reach organizational
objectives. EIM organizes the information value chain to identify, control, and
manage archives, records, and ICTs in and between organizations. The chain ensures
that the informational and evidential value of records is utilized in and between
business processes to improve performance, privacy and security by safeguarding the
four dimensions of information, the two archival principles, and the five
requirements of information access (Van Bussel and Ector, 2009; Van Bussel,
2012ab). It is recognized that managing records is a critical source for competitive
advantage (Holsapple and Singh, 2001). Michael Porter and Victor Miller (1985)
point out that between organizations, differences in the management of
information (thus, archives and records) have an effect on activities and lead to
differences in their competitiveness.
The information value chain identifies ten distinct, generic processes and nineteen
activities that an organization (an organizational chain and/or even a person)
performs when managing its records. The chain is comprised of five primary
processes, used to manipulate the organizational archive and its records, and five
secondary processes that guide performance of the primary processes and their
activities. These primary processes and their corresponding activities do not need to
be performed in a strict pattern, but there can be various sequences and overlaps
among them. The secondary processes influence these variations. In structuring the
archives in liquid times
56
57