Managing Records of Citizen Engagement Initiatives: A Primer Records of Citizen Engagement...

NorthAmericanTeamStudyNumber08“OpenData,OpenGovernment,BigData:ImplicationsfortheManagementofRecordsinan

OnlineEnvironment”

ManagingRecordsofCitizenEngagementInitiatives:APrimerBy

GrantHurley,ValerieLéveillé,JohnMcDonaldTeamMembers

NorthAmerican(NA)Team-StudyNo.08

September28,2016

2

ManagingRecordsofCitizenEngagementInitiatives:APrimer

SummaryLaunchedundertheInterPARESTrust(ITrust)project,thisprimerisafinalproductofaresearchproject titled “The Implications of Open Government, Open Data, and Big Data on theManagementofDigitalRecordsinanOnlineEnvironment”(NA08).Aspartofthefinalphaseofa multi-year collaborative research initiative, the primer narrows project NA08’s focus toGovernment-Citizen Engagement (GCE) initiatives and the recordkeeping implications suchprojects could present for any organizations looking to launch such an initiative or currentlymanagingsimilarprojects.Theobjectivesoftheprimerare:

• toenhanceawarenessof the relationshipbetween recordkeepingandGCE initiatives;and

• to suggest approaches for addressing recordkeeping issues that impact trustrelationshipsbetweengovernmentsandtheircitizens.

Theprimer isa tooldesigned tohelpguide thedrafting,executionand/orevaluationofGCEinitiatives as they relate, specifically, to the open government initiatives within theirorganizationand,moregenerally,totheirrecordkeepingneedsandrequirementsandinternalinformationmanagementculture.The International Association for Public Participation Canada (IAP2) Spectrumhelps illustratethedifferentcharacteristicsofGCEs, thedifferent typesofengagementsand,asa result, thedifferent types of relationships that can develop between governments and the public. Assignificantastheseshiftsinpowerdynamicscanbeforthepartiesinvolved,thereareanequalamountofconsiderationstobemadeontheeffectsthatsuchrelationshipscouldhaveontherecords being produced, distributed, collected and retained as a result of the initiative.RegardlessofwhetheraparticularGCE initiative fallswithin the realmofan ‘Inform’-typeofengagement,wherepowerandresponsibilityaremostlyheldbythegovernmentbody,oran‘Empower’-typeofengagement,wherepowerandresponsibilityareplacedinthehandsofthecommunity,thereareimportantrecordkeepingrequirementsthatmustbetakenintoaccountwhenconsideringthemanagementoftherecordsthatsupporttheinitiative.ThesuccessofaGCE initiativemay be threatened by lapses in existing policies and procedures; by a lack ofgovernmentexperiencewithcommunityengagement initiatives;byanunclearassignmentofcontrol over a particular initiative, shared or otherwise assigned; or by weaknesses in anexistingtechnologicalinfrastructurethatisbeingrelieduponforthecreationandmanagementof the records that support the initiative. Such risks could lead to lost opportunities forgovernmentandthecommunityparticipatingintheinitiative;ahightallyofunwarrantedandunsuspecting costs, or an increase in risks to the government’s current informationmanagementframework;andchallengestothereliability,completenessandauthenticityoftherecords supporting the initiative. On a greater scale, risks may extend to the initiative as awhole,andtothetrustrelationshipbetweenthegovernmentandthepublic.

3

Effective GCE initiativesmust be supported by a solid recordsmanagement framework, onethat is built upon reliable standards and practices, enabling technologies, and resourcefulindividuals. These individuals must then in turn be supported by an effective accountabilityframework, a comprehensive policy, and a governance structure that is comprised ofindividualswithahigh levelofawarenessandunderstandingofthe importanceofrecordstothe achievement of the goals and objectives of GCE initiatives. In addition to being able toidentify the right strategies that can be employed to support a given GCE initiative, acomprehensiveplanmustalsobecarefullyoutlinedandexecutedtohelpfurthercontributetotheoverallsuccessoftheinitiativeinquestion.IncallingattentiontotheimportantrelationshipthatexistsbetweenGCEinitiativesandrecordsmanagement,theprimerhopestoofferthoseresponsibleforGCEinitiatives,regardlessofprofessionalbackground,somelevelofguidanceinaddressingthepotentialchallengesthatcouldarisewhenmanagingsuchaproject.

4


TableofContents

Summary........................................................................................................................................2

TableofContents...........................................................................................................................4

1.Introduction................................................................................................................................6

1.1 HowtoReadthisPrimer..............................................................................................................7

1.2 Background..................................................................................................................................7

1.3 Scope&Objectives......................................................................................................................9

1.4 OrganizationofthePrimer........................................................................................................10

2. OpenGovernment&CitizenEngagement:DefinitionsandConcepts..................................112.1 Definitions..................................................................................................................................11

2.2 TracingtheEvolutionofOpenGovernment..............................................................................11

2.3 TheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)................................................................................13

2.4 ThePracticeofOpenGovernmentinCanada............................................................................13

2.5 CitizenEngagementasSubsetofOpenGovernment................................................................15

2.6 TheIAP2Spectrum.....................................................................................................................17

2.7 ExamplesofEngagementsontheIAP2Spectrum.....................................................................18

3. RecordkeepingConcepts.......................................................................................................193.1 TheRoleofRecordsintheContextofCitizenEngagement.......................................................19

3.2 FrameworkforManagingRecords.............................................................................................22

3.3 ConfigurationoftheRecordsManagementFramework...........................................................23

4. CitizenEngagement:TheRecordkeepingImplications.........................................................254.1 KeyGCECharacteristicsandtheirRecordkeepingImplications................................................25

4.1.1 TheJuridical-AdministrativeContextandGCEInitiatives..................................................25

4.1.2 TheProvenancialContextandGCEInitiatives...................................................................27

4.1.3 TheProceduralContextandGCEInitiatives......................................................................29

4.1.4 TheTechnologicalContextandGCEInitiatives..................................................................30

4.1.5 TheDocumentaryContextandGCEInitiatives..................................................................32

5. TheIssuesandStrategies......................................................................................................33

5

5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................33

5.2 TheIssuesandStrategies...........................................................................................................35

5.2.1 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofPolicy........................................................................35

5.2.2 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofGovernanceandManagement................................36

5.2.3 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofPeople......................................................................39

5.2.4 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofStandardsandPractices...........................................41

5.2.5 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofTechnology...............................................................44

5.2.6 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofAwareness................................................................46

6. ASuggestedPlan...................................................................................................................50

7. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................53

References....................................................................................................................................54

GeneralRecordsManagementGuidance..............................................................................................55

InternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)...........................................................................................55

GCEToolkitsandGuides........................................................................................................................56

AppendixA–RecordkeepingConcepts........................................................................................57

AppendixB–ChecklistofStrategies............................................................................................63

AppendixC–SampleRecordsManagementPolicy.....................................................................67Recommendedcitation:Hurley,Grant,ValerieLéveillé,andJohnMcDonald.ManagingRecordsof Citizen Engagement Initiatives: A Primer. (Vancouver: InterPARES Trust, 2016), accessed[insertdate],https://interparestrust.org/trust/research_dissemination.

6


1.Introduction

Government-Citizen Engagement (GCE) initiatives are part of a rapidly developing globalexperimenttoenablecitizenstoparticipate ingovernment. Initiativesmayrangefromsimplymaking information available in a transparent manner, to highly dynamic processes thatinteractivelyinvolvecommunitiesandindividualsindecision-making.Thepromiseisthattheseinitiatives will create stronger links between citizens and governments, bolster trust ingovernment,andensurethatdecisionsandservicesadequatelyreflectcitizenneeds,fromlocalissues to national matters. The range of contexts, approaches and methods that can beattributed to citizenengagement, not tomention the various topics throughwhich it canbeexplored, is extensive and continuously growing. A quick browse through Participedia, awebsite that tracks the occurrence of a various types of participatory projects around theworld,showsspecificquestionsrangingfromhowtobestdesignalocalparkinItaly,1tobroad-basedcitizens’parliamentaddressinggovernmenteffectiveness inAustralia.2Though there isgreat promise in strengthening governance and trust in government through citizenengagement, there is also the risk that these projects are initiated only to legitimizegovernmentswithoutadequatelyaccountingforcitizeninvolvementinthefinalresults.TherearethereforemanychallengesthatmustbeovercomebythoselookingtoleadsuccessfulGCEinitiatives.This primer explores this complex domain through the unique lens of records andrecordkeeping.Bybringingattentiontotheroleof records incitizenengagement, theprimercontributes toa strongerunderstandingofGCEsasawhole, andwill assist in improvingandevaluatingspecificinitiatives‘ontheground.’Therecordsandinformationthataregeneratedfrom a citizen engagement initiative tell the story of that initiative, from itsmotivation andgoals, throughto itsprocessesandpolitics,andonto its finalresults.Agovernment’sand/orcitizensgroup’sabilitytoreadilyaccesstheserecordsmeansthattheyhavetheopportunitytounderstandtheseactivitiesandresults,aswellasproperlyassessandevaluatethem,ontheirownterms,andinwaysthatcouldbebeneficialtothemandtofutureprojectsinwhichtheymaychoosetoinitiateorparticipatein.Knowinghowtoidentifywhattokeepandhowtokeepitinacomplexanddynamicenvironmentwillassistinpreservingthatstory.Recordshavethepowertodocumentevidencetobolster(ordetractfrom)accountability.Theyprovidecitizenswith the ability to advocate for rights and entitlements based on promises made duringengagementinitiatives,aswellasprovidevaluableinformationanddataaboutwhathappenedandhow,whichisinformationthatcanbere-usedforanalysis,assessmentandcomparison.

1SeeMariaLuciaTomasello,“‘TogetherWeDesignAcqueChiarePark’ParticipatoryPlanning(ReggioEmilia,Italy),”Participedia,lastmodifiedMay29,2016,http://participedia.net/en/cases/together-we-design-acque-chiare-park-participatory-planning-reggio-emilia-italy.2SeeVickiAnneLane,“Australia'sFirstCitizens'Parliament(Canberra,Australia),”Participedia,lastmodifiedMay23,2016,http://participedia.net/en/cases/australias-first-citizens-parliament-canberra-australia.

7

Citizen engagement initiatives have a unique ability to transfer decision-making authority tocitizens. With the transfer of this authority also comes the transfer of recordkeepingconsiderations, from records frameworks, policies, and practices to the standards andtechnologies used to create, manage and store them. How will records be defined andmanaged within records management frameworks, and what new implications does citizenengagement have on records and recordsmanagement? Howwill governments and citizensnavigate this complex terrain, particularly where communities (and additional parties) aredelegated authority for recordkeeping? How will resources be managed? What role dotechnologies play? How will various parties come together to document the ‘story’ of aninitiativefrombeginningtoend?Inansweringthesequestions,thisprimertakesaholisticviewof records management through attention to policy, governance, people, standards andpractices, technology and awareness. It provides an explanation of records concepts, ananalysisoftheimplicationsofcitizenengagementforrecordsmanagement,andadiscussionoftheissuesandstrategiestohealwiththemwithdetailedexamplesituations.1.1 HowtoReadthisPrimer

All readers are encouraged to readall sectionsof theprimer; however, those coming to theprimerfromspecificbackgroundsmayguidetheirreadingasfollows:

• Records professionals should consult sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 for discussions on theconceptsandbackgroundofcitizenengagement;theimplicationsofcitizenengagementforrecordsmanagement;andtheissuesandstrategiesformovingthemanagementofrecordsrelatingtocitizenengagementforwardintheirorganization.

• Governmentcitizenengagementprofessionalsshouldconsultsections3,4and5foranunderstandingofrecordsconcepts; the implicationsofcitizenengagementforrecordsmanagement;andtheissuesandstrategiesforensuringthatrecordsmanagementisanintegralpartofGCE.

• Communitygroupsor individualswhoare interestedor involved inGCEsandwant tolearnmore about recordkeeping should consult section 2 if they are unfamiliar withcitizenengagement; section3 if theyareunfamiliarwith recordkeepingconcepts;andsections4to6fordiscussionsofhowrecordkeepingmayimpacttheirinitiatives.3

1.2 BackgroundThis primer is one of the products of a research initiative titled “The Implications of OpenGovernment, Open Data, and Big Data on theManagement of Digital Records in an OnlineEnvironment”(NA08)whichwasinitiatedundertheInterPARESTrust(ITrust)project.ITrustisa5-year collaborative, multi-national and interdisciplinary research initiative gatheringacademics,professionalsandstudents fromaround theworld.Together, theyareworking to“generate theoretical and methodological frameworks to develop local, national andinternational policies, procedures, regulations, standards and legislation” that will assist inaddressing issues concerning digital records and data entrusted to the Internet (InterPARES

3Itshouldbenotedthattheprimerdoesnotexplorealltheimplicationsofrecordsmanagementandcitizenengagementfromthecitizenorcommunity-groupsideduetothelimitationsofourstudy.

8

Trust2014).The research initiative, ledbyDr. LucianaDuranti, isbasedat theCentre for theInternational Study of Contemporary Records and Archives (CISCRA) of the School of Library,Archival and Information Studies (SLAIS) at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver,BritishColumbia,Canada.ProjectNA08has focused its researchon the implications that open government, opendataandbigdatahaveonthemanagementofdigitalrecords.Theprojectanditsdeliverableshavebeenmadepossible by the collaborationbetween its research team4 and a numberof opengovernmentleads5andrecordkeepingprofessionals6spanningacrossthecountry,whoagreedtosharetheirstoriesandexperiencesthroughoutdifferentphasesoftheproject.The project was preceded by a separate but related research initiative titled “EstablishingRetentionandDispositionSpecificationsandSchedules inaDigitalEnvironment” (NA09).Theproject,whichexploredtheconceptualevolutionofopendataandbigdataandhowthesenewinitiatives affect the setting of retention and disposition rules in government organizations,published its findings ina2014articleby JohnMcDonaldandValerieLéveillé titled“Whitherthe Retention Schedule in the Era of Big Data and Open Data?”, appearing in RecordsManagement Journal7. Subsequently,projectNA08has itself spanned three separatephases.The first phase served as introductory research into the topics identified in its researchobjectives.ItresultedinthepublicationofanarticlebyValerieLéveilléandKatherineTimmsinJune 2015 titled “Through a Records Management Lens: Creating a Framework for Trust inOpenGovernmentandOpenGovernmentInformation”thatappearedintheCanadianJournalofInformationandLibraryScience8.PreliminaryresearchandconsultationsintheearlystagesofthisresearchinitiativehighlightedthatGovernment-CitizenEngagement(GCE)initiatives,animportant aspect of open government, had yet to be explored from a recordkeepingperspective. As a result, a general consensus was reached among research collaborators torefocusthescopeoftheprojecttotouchspecificallyonGCEinitiativeswithinCanada.This shift helped usher in the second phase of the project, which aimed to gather valuablefeedback from real-world examples of GCE initiatives in Canada at various levels acrossgovernment. Semi-structured interviews with open government and GCE leaders acrossdifferentCanadianjurisdictionswereconductedinordertogathergeneralinformationonpast,

4 Team members include John McDonald (research collaborator), Jim Suderman, (City of Toronto), KatherineTimms (Library and Archives Canada), Valerie Léveillé (freelance researcher) and Grant Hurley (freelanceresearcher),andKellyRovegno(GraduateResearchAssistant,SLAIS,UBC).5Federal;Provincial:Ontario,Alberta;Municipal:Vancouver,Toronto.6ITrustleadsandkeymembers(Dr.MaryFrancolli,Dr.VickiLemieux,etc.),GovernmentofCanada(e.g.TreasuryBoard Secretariat), Government of Alberta, Government of British Columbia, Government of Ontario, City ofToronto,CityofVancouver.7JohnMcDonaldandValerieLéveillé,“WhithertheRetentionScheduleintheEraofBigDataandOpenData?,”RecordsManagementJournal,24,no.2(2014):99-121,accessedSeptember26,2016,http://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0010.8ValerieLéveilléandKatherineTimms,“ThroughaRecordsManagementLens:CreatingaFrameworkforTrustinOpenGovernmentandOpenGovernmentInformation,”CanadianJournalofInformationandLibraryScience,39,no.2(2015):154-190,accessedSeptember26,2016,http://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2015.0010.

9

current or future GCE initiatives, including the principles and purpose of the initiative, thechallenges faced throughout with regards to the creation, management and retention ofrecords, and the lessons learned and future considerations for similar projects. The result ofthese consultations led to several deliverables including case studies, a research paperassessing the impact of information technology on GCE and recordkeeping9, and a researchpaper analyzing recordkeeping and the Spectrum of Public Participation published by theInternational Association of Public Participation.10 This primer thus represents the third andfinalphaseoftheproject.

1.3 Scope&ObjectivesKnowledge gained from this research and the deliverables produced to date led to theobservation that a serious gap may exist in the capacity available within organizations toaddressrecordkeepingissuesassociatedwithGCEinitiatives.Thoughtheremaybeexceptions,itappearedthatrecordkeepingprofessionalshadyettodevelopasufficientlevelofawarenessofthecharacteristicsofaGCEinitiative,therecordkeepingissuesbeingexperiencedbythosemanagingGCEinitiatives,theimplicationsoftheseissuesforthe‘business’oftheorganization,andthemeansbywhichthe issuescanbeaddressed.Likewise, therewas littleawarenessofrecordkeepingconsiderationsbyGCE leadscontactedbythestudy.Theseobservations ledtothe decision to produce a primer that would be directed to records professionals in thoseorganizationsthatareplanningtoorarecurrentlyundertakingGCEinitiativesasapartoftheoverallopengovernmentstrategywithintheirorganization.Theobjectivesoftheprimerare:

• toenhanceawarenessof the relationshipbetween recordkeepingandGCE initiatives;and

• to suggest approaches for addressing recordkeeping issues that impact trustrelationshipsbetweengovernmentsandtheircitizens.

Itaimstoofferitsreadersatooltohelpguidethedrafting,executionand/orevaluationofGCEinitiatives as they relate, specifically, to the open government initiatives within theirorganizationand,moregenerally,totheirrecordkeepingneedsandrequirementsandinternalinformationmanagement culture. As open government has become a staple of themodernbureaucracy, all repercussions, both anticipated and unanticipated, stemming from theseprojectsmustbe taken intoaccountanddealtwith ina responsible, feasibleand reasonablemanner, one that helps increase transparency, establish a framework for accountability, andmaintainatrustrelationshipbetweengovernmentandcitizens.Theprimerwillbeof value to recordsprofessionals,GCEprofessionalsand those involved inmanagingGCE initiatives, regardlessof theirprofessionalbackground.Given that thegeneral

9Formoreinformation,pleaseseeGrantHurley’s“ContextualizingTechnologiesforCitizenEngagement:SeekingtheRecordsandSupportingTransparency”(forthcoming).10 For more information, please see John McDonald’s “The Contexts of Records and the Spectrum of PublicParticipationResearchPaper”,InterPARESTrust,NorthAmericanTeam08.

10

characteristics of GCE initiatives are common across national boundaries, it follows that theprimer will have international application beyond the Canadian context in which it wasdeveloped.

1.4 OrganizationofthePrimer

Theprimerbegins insection2withanoverviewofthekeytermsandconceptsthatareusedandreferencedthroughout.Thissectionwillgivesrecordsmanagersanopportunitytogainanunderstandingoftheevolutionofopengovernment,theOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP),andkeyconceptsofrecordkeepingastheyrelatetotheopengovernmentlandscapeinCanadaacross all levels of government. The primer situates GCE initiatives as a subset of opengovernmentandexplorestheircharacteristics,theirevolutionandthetools–forexample,theInternational Association for Public Participation Canada (IAP2) Spectrum – that help us tounderstandtheseinitiativesastheyrelatetoopengovernmentandrecordkeeping.Ananalysisofcitizenengagementandrecordkeepingwillfollows.Section3lookstogiveGCEleadssomebackgroundontheroleofrecordsandframework.Section4discussesthecharacteristicsoftheGCEenvironmentandtheimplicationsthesecharacteristicshaveforrecordkeeping.Section5identifieskeyissuesconcerningGCEandrecordkeeping,andproposesstrategiesforaddressingtheissuesinthecontextofthecomponentsoftheframework.Section6providesreaderswithguidance on establishing a comprehensive plan designed to help records managementprofessionalspositionthemselvesinamannerthatiseffectiveandrelevant,especiallyintermsoftheirrelationshipwithotherGCEprofessionalsandleads.

11

2. OpenGovernment&CitizenEngagement:DefinitionsandConcepts

2.1 Definitions

accountability:Theobligationtoanswerforactionsforwhichoneisresponsible.11citizen engagement: a communicative, interactive and iterative process or initiative thatactivelyinvolvescitizensinpolicyorprogramdevelopmentatanylevelofgovernment.12Citizenengagement processes and initiatives aim to share or transfer decision-making power fromgovernments to citizens by using “collective problem-solving and prioritization.”13 Citizenengagementinitiativesmaymakeuseoftechnologiestoconnectwithcitizens,buttechnologyuseisnotarequiredelement. synonyms:citizenparticipation;civicparticipation;civicengagement;opendialogueopendata:Dataavailabletoanyonethatmaybeusedforanypurposeandthatisinastructurethatfacilitatesitsuseatlittleornocharge.14opengovernment:Anapproachdesignedtoprovidegreateraccesstounrestrictedinformationheldbypublicbodiesinordertopromotetransparency,accountability,andcitizenengagementandparticipation, toaccomplisha largeroutcomeofbuildingandenhancingcitizens' trust intheirgovernments.15open information:thereleaseofgovernmentrecordsandpublishedmaterials forpublicuse,typicallyinunstructuredformats.16transparency: (The condition of) timely disclosure of information about an individual's ororganization'sactivitiesanddecisions,especiallytosupportaccountabilitytoallstakeholders.17

2.2 TracingtheEvolutionofOpenGovernment

Open government is a concept intended to increase trust in government through access toinformationandgreaterinvolvementingovernmentprocesses.Itbringstogethertheprinciplesof transparencyandaccountability,whichare supported throughaccess to information,withcitizen engagement, which is intended to strengthen communication between governmentsand citizens and open decision-making processes to active citizen participation. Practices11InterPARESTrust,“Accountability,”TerminologyDatabase,accessedSeptember222016,http://arstweb.clayton.edu/interlex/.12Hurley,forthcoming.13AmandaSheedy,MaryPatMacKinnon,SoniaPitre,andJudyWatling,HandbookonCitizenEngagement:BeyondConsultation(Ottawa:CanadianPolicyResearchNetworks,2008),5,accessedSeptember22,2016,http://www.cprn.org/documents/49583_EN.pdf.14InterPARESTrust,“OpenData,”TerminologyDatabase.15Ibid.,“OpenGovernment.”16LéveilléandTimms,159.17InterPARESTrust,“Transparency,”TerminologyDatabase.

12

enabling open information, open data and citizen engagement are the most commonmanifestations of open government. While open data and open information programssupportedbyseniorofficialsasstrategicdirectionshavebecomethenewnorm,thepromiseofcitizen engagement is arguably just beginning to be realized. As governments plan andimplementGCEinitiatives,itiscrucialthatpractitionersandrecordsandinformationmanagersunderstand its ideas and outcomes. Records emerging from citizen engagement initiativesprovidekeyevidenceoftheinputs,analysisandfinalproductsofanengagement.Withoutthisevidence,itisdifficultforcitizenstoknowhowtheirparticipationinfluencedactualresults.ThissectionfirstdiscussesthehistoryofopengovernmentandtheOpenGovernmentPartnership.Second,itsurveysthepracticeofopengovernmentinCanada.Finally,itdefinesanddescribescitizenengagementandthe IAP2Spectrum,anassessmenttool forCE initiatives,asauniqueanddevelopingaspectofopengovernment.Asaconcept,“opengovernment”hashadmanymeaningsoveritslonglifetime.18ItsWesternbasis extends from the challenging of many authoritarian governments during theEnlightenmentperiod,whentheprinciplethatgovernmentsshouldbeaccountabletocitizenswas still a radical idea: an “open government” was one that treated citizens equally byadmitting them to open democratic participation.19 Early concepts established during thisperiodthatlinktopost-WorldWarIIconceptsof“opengovernment”werethefreedomofthepress (instituted in the late 1700s by countries such as Sweden and Denmark) and theavailabilityof informationviapublicarchives createdby the state.AfterWorldWar II, “opengovernment”cametorefertoaccesstoinformationandtherelatedconceptsofaccountabilityand transparency.20 Challenges to the secrecy of records resulted in freedomof informationlegislationindemocraticgovernmentsfromthe1960sonward,includingthe1966FreedomofInformationActintheUnitedStates,andthe1983AccesstoInformationActinCanada.21Recently,theconceptofopengovernmenthascometoincludeusesoftechnologyasanaspectof itsprinciples. This turnoriginatedduring the late1990sandearly2000s,when theuseofnewtechnologies thatenabled faster,morepersonalizeddisseminationof informationbegantobeactively takenupbygovernments.22Asa result,opengovernmentcame toencompassnotonly the continueddisclosureofpreviouslyunavailable information,butalsomethods tomake information accessible andusable throughopendata andopen information initiatives.TheemphasisthatPresidentBarackObama’sAdministrationputontransparencywasaturning18SeeAmandaClarkeandMaryFrancoli,“What’sinaName?AComparisonof‘OpenGovernment’DefinitionsAcrossSevenOpenGovernmentPartnershipMembers,"JeDEM6,no.3(2014):248-266,accessedSeptember22,2016,http://jedem.org/index.php/jedem/article/view/227.foradetailedanalysisofthetermanditshistory.19WilliamCuninghame,PrinciplesoftheConstitutionofGovernments(London:JamesRidgway,1811),48,accessedSeptember22,2016,https://books.google.ca/books?id=fHlIAAAAYAAJ&dq=Principles%20of%20the%20Constitution%20of%20Governments&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=Principles%20of%20the%20Constitution%20of%20Governments&f=false.20ClarkeandFrancoli,248.21LéveilléandTimms,156.22HarlanYuandDavidG.Robinson,“TheNewAmbiguityof‘OpenGovernment,’”UCLALawReviewDiscourse59(2011):190-195.

13

point for open government. The Obama Administration’s Open Government Directiveimplemented its principles of transparency, participation and collaboration within atechnological framework and directed agencies to publish information online in accessibleformats.TheObamaAdministration’sinfluencehasbeentakenuptheworldoverviatheOpenGovernment Partnership’s initiatives as open government has been embraced by nationsseekingitseconomicandreputationalbenefits.23

2.3 TheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)

TheOpenGovernmentPartnershipisamultinationalorganizationthatwaslaunchedwiththeOpenGovernmentDeclaration,itskeyguidingdocument,in2011.TheUnitedStatesandsevenothercountriesendorsedtheDeclarationasfoundingsignatories,andsincethen61additionalcountrieshavesignedon.Followingapreamblethatdeclaresthevaluesofcivicparticipation,transparency, anti-corruption and “greater prosperity, well-being, and human dignity in ourowncountries,”theDeclarationisdividedintofoursections.Theyare:“Increasetheavailabilityof information about governmental activities,” “Support civic participation,” “Implement thehighest standards of professional integrity throughout our administrations,” and “Increaseaccesstonewtechnologies foropennessandaccountability.”24Anation’smembership intheOpen Government Partnership means they must prepare an action plan with set goals andtimelines, and report regularly on their progress. For example, Canada has developed threeconsecutiveactionplanstodatethatcover2012to2018,andtheirsectionoftheOGPwebsiteincludes independent reports on their progress. TheOGPhas since been a primary driver ofopen government in Canada, and though it applies to the federal level of government, itsinfluenceandprincipleshasextendedtoprovincesandmunicipalities.Indeed,inJuly2015theOGPestablishedapilotforsub-national(provincialandmunicipal)governments.25

2.4 ThePracticeofOpenGovernmentinCanada

Open government in Canada has been implemented at the federal, provincial andmunicipallevelsofgovernment.Intheir2015scanofopengovernmentinitiativesinCanada,LéveilléandTimmsidentifiedhowtheprinciplesofopengovernmenthavebeenrealizedbygovernments.At the federal level, thegovernment is concernedwith implementing theOGPactionplan inthreekeyareas:openinformation,opendata,andopendialogue.Openinformationinvolvesmakinggovernmentrecordsandinformationavailable,includingtheresults of access to information requests. In the Canadian federal context, it also includesinitiatives such as “open science” and “open contracting” to open format-specific types of

23Ibid.24OpenGovernmentPartnership,“OpenGovernmentDeclaration,”accessedSeptember26,2016,http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration.25SeeOpenGovernmentPartnership,“PressRelease:OGPGlobalSummitEndswithProgressonGlobalGoalsandImplementationofOpenGovernmentonaLocalLevel,”accessedSeptember26,2016,http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/open-government-partnership/2015/10/29/press-release-ogp-global-summit-ends-progress-global.

14

governmentinformation.Openinformationmayalsoincludetheresultsofproactivedisclosureinitiatives,whicharebasedon theprinciple thatall informationshouldbemadeavailablebydefaultexceptwhenthereareauthorizedexceptions.Open data is information made available through the disclosure of structured datasets asopposedtoindividualrecords.Opendataisdistinguishedasasubsetofopeninformationforitsemphasis on accessibility through computer processing-friendly formats or user-friendlywebportals; the large quantity of information available; its reusability to allowmanipulation andredistribution;anditsgenerallyfreeuse.However,manyjurisdictionsmakeuseofdatalicensesthat stipulate certain terms, suchas citing the sourcedata, andmay limit access to sensitivedatatocertainapprovedparties.26Asaresultofthesecharacteristics,opendataisoftenvaluedforitsabilitytosupportsignificantresearchandbusinesspurposesthroughthirdpartyuse.TheCanadian government is currently developing an integrated portal for data sets producedacross jurisdictions in Canada, including concomitant data and licensing standardsdevelopment.Finally,thefederalgovernment’sopendialogueprogramincludesasingleinitiative,“ConsultingwithCanadians,”whichinvolvesstandardizingprocessesandpracticesforpublicconsultationsanddevelopingagovernment-wideconsultationportaltoinvolvecitizens.27“Opendialogue”isa synonym for citizen engagement or participation, the concepts of which will be discussedmorefullybelow.Attheprovincialandmunicipallevels,LéveilléandTimms’scanrevealsthatthefirstresponseto open government has been the provision of open data and open information. Thedevelopment of open data catalogues and portals, and the necessary standards, businessprocesses,andeducationalresourcestosupportthem,hasgenerallytakenpriorityovercitizenengagement.ManyCanadianprovincesandmunicipalitiesnowmaintainfully functionalopendatasites,includingBritishColumbia,Alberta,Ontario,TorontoandVancouver.TheemphasisondataandinformationissymptomaticofthematurityofcitizenengagementinCanada. Provincial and municipal jurisdictions are beginning to explore this aspect of opengovernmentmore fully through consultation initiatives that address public policy, legislationanddecision-making. For example, theBritishColumbia government reachedout to industrystakeholdersandthegeneralpublictoseekfeedbackonitsrevisionofliquorcontrollawsfrom2013-14. The process involved collecting information from the public online through socialmedia, blog posts, and e-mail, and in person for identified stakeholders. The results wereanalyzedusingatextanalysistoolandafinalreportwasproducedwithrecommendationsfor

26See“OpenGovernmentLicence–Canada”foranexample:http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada.27TreasuryBoardofCanadaSecretariat,Canada’sActionPlanonOpenGovernment2014-2016:Mid-TermSelfAssessmentReport(Ottawa:GovernmentofCanada,2016),http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Canadas%20Action%20Plan%20on%20Open%20Government%202014-2016%20Mid-term%20Self-assessment%20Report.pdf.

15

new legislation, policies, and programs.28 An approach at the City of Toronto has involvedcreatingaspaceforongoing,smallerscaleconsultations.In2014-15,theCitypilotedacitizenengagement tool called IdeaSpaceTo based on a platform designed by a company calledMindMixer.TopicsandquestionsweredescribedindetailbyCityrepresentatives,andcitizenswere encouraged to submit “ideas,” whichwere specific solutions to a posed problem. Cityrepresentatives responded to ideas, andallwereable to add further commentandpromotecertain ideas. 29Another initiative that ran fromDecember 2014 to June2015 asked citizensabout new bicycle lanes in certain sections of the city and whether they should be madepermanent.While these are all noteworthy examples of opendialogue-type initiatives,mostgovernmentsinCanada,includingthefederalgovernment,arestillatthelearningstagewhenitcomestodesigningandconductingcitizenengagementinitiatives.

2.5 CitizenEngagementasSubsetofOpenGovernment

As emphasized in theOpenGovernmentDeclaration, citizen engagement is a cornerstoneofopen government. However, the concept is unique in contrast to the more straightforwardprovisionof informationanddatabecause it involvesaprocessofexchangebetweencitizensandgovernments.Citizenengagementisacommunicative,interactiveanditerativeprocessorinitiative that actively involves citizens in policy or program development at any level ofgovernment.Thelevelofengagementandflowofinformation(describedinmoredetailintheIAP2 Spectrum below) can range from simply making information available, to gatheringfeedbackand ideas, andon tomore complex relationshipswhere individuals andgroups aretransferred greater decision-making power and authority to deliberate issues and theirsolutions.30 Though many citizen engagement initiatives originate in government, otherinstancesmay involve citizen-originated initiatives that are designed to engage government.When more complex, two-way engagement initiatives are in play, citizen engagementprocesses and initiativesmay share or transfer decision-making power from governments tocitizensbyusing“collectiveproblem-solvingandprioritization.”31Inmanyothercases,citizensmaysubmitfeedbackorideas,butgovernmentswilltakeauthorityoverfinaldecision-makingpower. Successful citizen engagement programs are grounded in transparent, trustedinformation and mutual respect between all involved participants. Individuals are given anequalchancetospeakorcontribute,andtheircontributionsaretreatedwithrespect.32Theseprinciples do not assume that citizensmay not have adversarial interests in an engagementinitiativeeitherbetweeneachotherorwithgovernments,butthat inorder fortheresultsofinitiativestobetrustworthy,theprocesshastotakeplaceinanenvironmentoftrust.Asisclearfrom the difficulties in establishing definitional boundaries for the concept of citizen

28Seehttp://engage.gov.bc.ca/liquorpolicyreview/.29TheIdeaSpaceTositeisnolongerpubliclyactive.Apressreleasedescribingtheprojectisavailablehere:http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=af71df79b2df6410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&nrkey=87EB51596C675E6085257D3C0052C9BE.30Hurley,forthcoming.31Sheedy,5.32Ibid.

16

engagement,itishighlycontext-dependent:eachinitiativewilldifferinitsrationale,intentions,participantsandmethodsofdeterminingsuccess.Thebenefitsofcitizenengagementaremanifold:strongcitizenengagementinitiativescanhelpremedy the power inequities between citizens and governments, boost the value ofgovernment leadership through creating stronger governance and policy, and help citizenscultivate a better understanding of the issues their communities face.33 Critics of citizenengagementpointtotheinefficienciescreatedbythetime,moneyandeffortusedtoconsultcitizens, both on the part of governments and citizens’ lost time.34 Citizen engagementinitiativesmayalsobecriticizedasmerelytokenmeasurestomakegovernmentsappearmoreaccountable and transparent without necessarily acting on the results of an initiative. Thequestion remains for these criticswhether citizen contributions have ameaningful or lastingimpactondecisionsoractions.Theprinciplesbehindcitizenengagementhaveexistedforaslongasgovernmentshaveactivelysoughtcitizensupportandfeedback,whetherthroughthebasicfunctionofelections,ortownhall meetings, surveys, consultative studies and the influence of lobbying and protests.However,thefieldhaschangedtodevelopintoanaspectoftheopengovernmentmovementandthebroaderfieldofparticipatorydemocracy,whichactivelysolicitscitizeninvolvementatthebeginningofadecisionmakingprocessratherthanworkingtoreactivelyrespondtocitizenfeedbackafter adecisionhasbeenmade.RobertB.Denhardt and JanetDenhardtwrite in a2000 article and subsequent book titled The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering thattheseconceptscame froma reevaluationofgovernmentpractices in the1990s.Wherepriorgovernmentshadattemptedtolearnfromprivatesectorpracticesandtomanagegovernmentas a business, the “new public service” was motivated to “place citizens at the center.”35“Administrators should see citizens as citizens (rather than merely as voters, clients, orcustomers),”theywrite,“andshouldshareauthorityandreducecontrol,and...shouldtrustintheefficacyofcollaboration.”36Theseconceptsareclearlyconnectedtocurrent ideasaroundcitizenengagementinitiativesthatmakeuseoftechnologiesforinteractionwithgovernments,includingsocialmediaplatformsforcreatinginput,andprocessingtechnologiestoanalyzethisinput. For example, the British Columbia government produced a plan called Citizens at theCentre:Government2.0(2010)37tocommunicateitsplansforopengovernmenttechnologyasameansofdeliveringgovernmentinformationandservicestocitizens,andsupportinggreaterparticipation and industry innovation. The plan emphasizes the key role that technologywill33TinaNabatchi,“AnIntroductiontoDeliberativeCivicEngagement”DemocracyinMotion:EvaluatingthePracticeandImpactofDeliberativeCivicEngagement,ed.TinaNabatchi,JohnGastil,G.MichaelWeiksnerandMattLeighninger(London:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),10.34Ibid.,11.35RobertB.DenhardtandJanetV.Denhardt,“TheNewPublicService:ServingRatherthanSteering,”PublicAdministrationReview60no.6(2000):550,accessedSeptember26,2016,http://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117.36Ibid.,552.37SeeProvinceofBritishColumbia,Citizens@theCentre:B.C.Government2.0.(Victoria,BC:ProvinceofBritishColumbia,2010),accessedSeptember26,2016,http://www.gov.bc.ca/citz/citizens_engagement/gov20.pdf.

17

play“todeliverservicesthatbettersupportcitizensandhelpthemmeettheirneeds,”withtheexpectation that citizens will increasingly turn to web-based venues to interact with theirgovernmentdirectly.38Nowthatsuchinitiativesare inplaceandbeingactivelydeveloped,animportantmethodforevaluatingthekindsofinitiativesthatspringfromcitizenengagementasaprincipleistheIAP2Spectrumdiscussedindetailbelow.

2.6 TheIAP2Spectrum

The IAP2Spectrumwasdevelopedby the InternationalAssociation forPublicParticipation in1999andhasbeenwidelyusedbypractitionersmanagingengagementinitiativessince.Itwasdeveloped alongside the IAP2’s “Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation” andcorresponding “Code of Ethics for Public Participation Practitioners.” The Spectrum includesfive typesofengagement: Inform,Consult, Involve,CollaborateandEmpower (seeFig.1).AsonemovestotherightoftheSpectrum,thelevelofinputandpoweracommunityorthepublichasovergovernmentdecision-making increases.A second sectionof the chart involveswhatpromisesgovernmentsmaketocitizensateachlevel.Whereas‘inform’atthefarleftinvolvesthe presentation of accurate information (and a government’s promise to keep citizensinformed),the‘empower’levelatthefarrightinvolvesenablingdecision-makingtooccursolelyin thehandsof thepublic,witha government’spromise to implement thesedecisions. Suchpowermightbeentrustedtoacommunityorganizationorotherformalgroup,orplacedinthehandsofindividuals,asinelectionsandreferendums.Anexampleofadegreeinbetweentheseis ‘involve,’ where citizens are consulted for information throughout a process and thisinformationdirectlyinfluencesagovernment’sfinaldecision.

38Ibid.,8.

Figure1:TheIAP2Spectrum(InternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation,2014).ImagecopyrighttheInternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation,www.iap2.org.Imageusedwithpermission

18

Whilethemovementfromlefttorightgenerallyindicatesincreasingcomplexityandashift inpowerfromthegovernmenttothepublic,notypeofengagementisnecessarily“better”thananother:itsapplicationisflexibleanddescriptiveratherthanprescriptive.39Secondly,theIAP2placesastrongemphasisonthegovernmentsideofthepowerequationasinitiators,andcanimplythatparticipationisasimplerprocessthanitcanbeinreality,particularlyasthedynamicbetween citizens and governments may be complex and multi-phased. Nevertheless, theSpectrum remains a highly relevant tool for understanding and categorizing engagementinitiativesandunderstandingtheircharacteristics.

2.7 ExamplesofEngagementsontheIAP2Spectrum

The following examples are designed to help enhance understanding of the five types ofengagement.Inform:Amunicipalgovernmentpublishesinformationonitswebsiteaboutthestepsittakesforapprovingbuildingdevelopmentproposals.Thepublishedinformationattemptstoincreasethetransparencyoftheprocessonhowdevelopmentdecisionsaremade.Consult:Aprovincialgovernmentconductsasurveyandaseriesofpublichearingsoncitizenattitudes towards proposed changes to the primary school education curriculum. Theconsultation is intended toobtain feedbackand informpotentialalternativesordecisionsonthecurriculumcontent.Involve: A federal government department invites proposals for new legislation regulatingtelecommunications.Representatives fromthedepartmentmeetwith individualstakeholdersand representatives from community organizations and industry groups. The representativesseek advice on the means by which those impacted by the proposed legislation can beconsultedandhowanyconcernsraisedasaresultoftheconsultationprocesscanbebroughtforwardforconsiderationasdraftsofthelegislationareprepared.Collaborate:Amunicipaltransitauthoritywantstoimplementbusroutesinanewsuburbwitha high population density. The transit authority and a newly-formed community groupconcernedabout transitplanningacross the suburbestablisha formalpartnership todecide,jointly,onwhere,when,andhowthebusrouteswillbeimplemented.Empower:Aprovincialgovernmentdelegatestheresponsibilitytodevelopaspecificsectionofaproposedhealthservicesplanforaregiontoacitizen’sjuryofrandomlyselectedindividualsfrom the region. The government will incorporate the section in the plan and implementwhateverdecisionsthecitizen’sjurymakes.

39MaxHardy,“ReflectionsontheIAP2Spectrum,”accessedonSeptember26,2016,http://maxhardy.com.au/reflections-on-the-iap2-spectrum/.

19

3. RecordkeepingConcepts

If one is to understand the implications of GCE’s for the management of records then it isimportant to understand the concept of ‘records.’While the previous section explainedGCEconceptsthissectionexplainsfundamentalrecordkeepingconceptsandhowtheyrelatetothemanagement of GCE initiatives. The section provides an overview of the characteristics andqualitiesofrecordsanddescribesthecomponentsoftherecordsmanagementframeworkthatmustbeinplaceifrecordsaretobemanagedeffectivelyforaslongastheyarerequired.40TheGCE concepts described in the previous section and the records concepts described in thissection set the stage for the exploration of recordkeeping issues and strategies that will beexploredinSection4.

3.1 TheRoleofRecordsintheContextofCitizenEngagement

Records41areatthecoreofanyprofessionalorpersonallife.Theyarecreatedoutofnecessityor circumstance, as a result of specific procedures, events, actions, decisions and/ortransactions,andsubsequentlyretainedforpurposesofpreservingcorporateorhumanmemoryfor as long as deemed necessary. Records result from transactions supporting businessprocesses. Examples in a government context include the transactions associated with theprocessingofapplicationsforbenefits,licenses,etc.orthedraftingofpolicies,ortheconductofresearchprojects.Collectively,recordstellthestoryoftheprocessingoftheapplication,ofthedrafting of the policy, of the conduct of the research project, etc. In general terms, GCEinitiatives are little different from other government processes. They are planned, designed,executed,andevaluated.Similarly,therecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesarelittledifferentfromotherrecordsintermsoftheirrole.Whenwellmanaged,theyservetotellthe‘story’of,for example, a specific initiative by the government to disseminate information to a givencommunity group, of a sensitive consultation process between the government and acommunityorganization,orofagovernment-communitycollaboration.Regardlessofthenatureof the records’ content, their creation, capture, and preservation are instrumental in theplanning,design,executionandevaluationofGCEinitiatives.Recordsservemultiplepurposeswhentheyarecomplete,authenticandwellmanaged.

• Recordscanserveasevidence.For instance, theycanbeused todemonstrate that inthe context of a partnership between a given government organization and acommunityorganization,bothorganizationsrespectedthetermsoftheir‘collaboration.’

• Recordsenableorganizationstoholdthemselvesaccountablepursuanttovariouslaws.Forinstance,inan‘inform’engagement,wheresensitiveinformationwasdisseminatedtothepublic,citizenscanmakeaformalrequestundertheAccesstoInformationLawfor records documenting the process by which the disseminated information was

40Anexpandeddiscussionoftheconceptsdescribedinthissectionincludinganelaborationoftheconceptsof‘data’and‘information’,aswellastheconceptofa‘businessprocess’isprovidedinAppendixA.41Arecordis“adocumentthatiscreatedorreceivedinthecourseofabusinessactivityandissetasideforlateruse.”(InterPARESTrust,“Record,”TerminologyDatabase).

20

produced.• Recordssupporttheattainmentofindividualrightsandentitlements.Forinstance,inan

‘empower’ engagement, the records documenting the government’s willingness toaccept the recommendations of a given community organization concerning thedispositionofspecificcrownlandscouldbeusedtoholdthegovernmentorganizationtoaccountfortheactionsittakesinresponsetotherecommendations.

• Recordsarethesourceofvaluabledataandinformationthatcanbeanalyzedtosupportpurposesbeyondthosethatledtothecreationoftherecords.Forinstance,astheresultofa‘consultation,’thedatafromcompletedsurveyformswhenmergedwithdatafromcensusrecordsandotherrelatedsourcescouldbeusedtoperformanalysesthatwouldnothavebeenpossibleusingthesurveydataalone.

Thecontextofrecordsdefinestheircharacteristics,determinestheirmeaning,anddrivesthewayinwhichtheyaremanaged.Therearefivetypesofcontext42:

• Juridical-administrative context: The legal and organizational system in which thecreating body belongs. For instance, the government organization engaging in a‘consultation’withagivencommunityisenabledtodosopursuanttolawsgoverningitsresponsibilities,aswellaspoliciesthatbothguideandcontrolitsfunctions.

• Provenancial context: The creating body, its mandate, structure and functions. Forinstance, in a ‘collaboration,’ the mandate, structure and functions of both theparticipatinggovernmentorganizationandthecommunityorganization,aswellasanysupportingsecretariattothecollaborationwouldprovidethe‘provenancial’contextforrecordsgeneratedasaresultofthecollaboration.

• Proceduralcontext:Thebusinessprocedureinthecourseofwhicharecordiscreated.Forinstance,inan‘empower’engagement,thegovernmentorganizationwouldenabletheempowermentofagivencommunityorganizationthroughagreementsthatwouldbedevelopedinaccordancewithformalproceduressupportedinboththegovernmentorganization and the community organization. Records resulting from the process,includingtheagreementitself,woulddocumentthetermsoftheempowerment.

• Technological context: The characteristics of the hardware, software, and othercomponentsofanelectroniccomputingsysteminwhichrecordsarecreated,or,moresimply,thehardwareandsoftwareenvironmentinwhichtherecordexistsand/orwascreated.Forinstance,inan‘involve’engagement,thegovernmentorganizationmayusea range of technologies to communicate with and ‘involve’ a given communityorganization.Bothorganizationsmayuseavarietyoftechnologies,includingelectronicdocumentandrecordsmanagementsystems,tomanagetherecordsresultingfromtheengagement.

42InterPARES,FocusTaskForce,“Appendix07:DiplomaticAnalysisTemplate,”[electronicversion]inInternationalResearchonPermanentAuthenticRecordsinElectronicSystems(InterPARES)2:Experiential,InteractiveandDynamicRecords,LucianaDurantiandRandyPreston,eds.(Padova,Italy:AssociazioneNazionaleArchivisticaItaliana,2008),accessedonSeptember26,2016,http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2_book_appendix_07.pdf.

21

• Documentary context: The archival fonds towhich a record belongs, and its internalstructure. For instance, in a ‘collaboration,’ records documenting a given partnershipbetween a government organization and a community organization could be held bythree entities: the government organization, the community organization and thesecretariattothepartnership.Whiletheremaybeonefonds(i.e.recordsdocumentingthe collaboration), there may be three distinct approaches to how the records areorganizedandstructured.

The value of these records is rooted in their ability to reflect the following qualities for thelengthoftimetherecordsarerequiredtoservetheirmultiplepurposes:

• Authenticity: The trustworthinessof a recordas a record; i.e., thequalityof a recordthatiswhatitpurportstobeandthatisfreefromtamperingorcorruption.43

• Reliability: The trustworthiness of a record as a statement of fact. It exists when arecord can stand for the fact it is about, and is established by examining thecompletenessoftherecord'sformandtheamountofcontrolexercisedontheprocessofitscreation.44

• Integrity: The quality of being complete and unaltered in all essential respects.Withidentity,acomponentofauthenticity.45

As the five types of context of a record are clearly identified and established, the record’scharacteristics, as listedabove, are alsodefined,which in turn gives value to the recordanddefinestheways inwhichtherecord is tobemanagedthrough its lifecycle.Therecords lifecycleisthelifespanofarecordthroughthreestages:creation,maintenanceanduse,andfinaldisposition.Recordsmustbecapableof respecting thecharacteristicsandqualitiesdescribedabove,togetherwithcertainfunctionalitye.g.behavior,reproduceability,manipulability– i.e.theextractionandmanipulationofdatafromtherecords–throughoutallthreestagesofthelifecycle.Recordsunderpintheabilityoforganizations,includingorganizationsleadingorparticipatinginGCE initiatives, to achieve their operational and strategic goals and to hold themselvesaccountablefortheirdecisionsandactions.Recordsthatarenotwellmanaged,includingthoseresultingfromGCEinitiatives,maybeplacedatriskwhen:

• Theyarenotcreatedoracquiredwhenneeded;• Theyarenotfoundorarenotaccessible;• Theyareunreliable(notaccurate,timely,complete,relevant,authentic,etc.);• Theircreation,collection,storageareunnecessarilyduplicated;• Theyarepoorlyandinconsistentlyidentified,describedandfiled;• Theyarenotsharedwhenneeded;• Privacyandsecurityarenotprotected;• Lowvaluerecordsarekepttoolong;

43InterPARESTrust,“Authenticity,”TerminologyDatabase.44Ibid.,“Reliability.”45Ibid.,“Integrity.”

22

• Importantrecordsaredestroyedwithoutauthority;• Valuablerecordsarenotpreserved;and• Business,informationmanagementandtechnologyneedsarenotcoordinated.

InthecaseofGCEinitiatives,theserisksmaybearesultofthefollowingfactors:

• ThereisalackofunderstandingofrecordsmanagementandlimitedawarenessofitsimportanceinsupportofGCEinitiatives.

• RecordsmanagementandtechnologyrequirementsarenotintegratedorwellalignedtosupportthegoalsandobjectivesofGCEinitiatives.

• TheaccountabilityframeworkformanagingrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesisweakandfragmented.

• Theframeworkofpolicies,standards,practices,systemsandpeopleneededtosupportthemanagementofrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesisinsufficientlydeveloped.

• Thereisalackoftheknowledgeandtoolsrequiredtoassessthequalityandintegrityoftheframeworkandtotakeremedialactionasrequired.

These factorsarebeingexacerbatedbecause themajority (andsometimesall)of therecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesareindigitalform.Digitalrecordsarefragile,andtheirintegrityisdependent upon a confusing and quickly changing array of hardware and software. Unlessdigitalrecordsarecarefullymanagedandprotected,organizationsleadingand/orparticipatinginGCE initiativeswillbeunable toguaranteetheiravailability,authenticityandusabilityovertimeandacrosssites.Poor recordsmanagement threatens theabilityof governmentandcommunityorganizationsaliketoachievethegoalsandobjectivesofGCEinitiatives.Atthecoreoftheseissues,whererecordscannotbefound,theaccuracyoftheinformationintherecordscannotbetrusted,orthe records are lost or destroyed, is the erosion of trust in those organizations leading GCEinitiatives.Ultimately,theoutcomeisthelackoftrustintheresultsofGCEinitiativesandinthedecisionsthataremadebasedonananalysisofthoseresults.

3.2 FrameworkforManagingRecords

The authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability of records and their ability to serve theirmultiple roles for as long as they are required is dependent upon the quality of the recordsmanagementframeworkestablishedbyagivenrecords-creatingorganization.The components of the framework for managing records are little different from thoseestablished for themanagement of other valued assetswithin a given organization, such ashumanresourcesandfinancialresources.Allarebasedonassetmanagementprinciplesandallarededicatedtosupportingtheeffectivemanagementoftheobjectives,goals,andfunctionsoftheorganization.Inthecaseofrecordsmanagement,thecomponentsoftheframeworkareasfollows:

23

• Laws and policies that assign accountability for the activities associated with thecaptureandmanagementofrecords;

• Standardsandpracticesthatenablethemanagementofrecordsas‘records’;• Systemsandtechnologiesthatsupportthecapabilitytocapture,organize,retain,make

availableandotherwisemanagerecordsthroughouttheirlifecycle;• Peoplewhohavetherequiredknowledgeandabilitiestoplan,design, implementand

maintaintheframeworkformanagingrecords;• Amanagementandgovernancestructurethatallocatesandcontrolstheresourcesfor

managingrecords;and• A levelofawareness amongallof those involved increating, capturingandmanaging

records about the importance of records and their responsibility for their propermanagement.

Ideally, while part of the framework will reside in a central office, such as a recordsmanagement office, other parts will be integrated in the frameworks supporting theadministrative and operational programs of the organization. An example of this integrationfrom a human resourcesmanagement perspective is themanager of a program unit in theorganization hiring and managing staff according to human resources policies and rulesestablishedcentrallyby thehumanresourcesofficebut integrated intothepoliciesandrulesformanaginghisorherprogram.Anexamplefromarecordsmanagementperspective is thesamemanagermanagingtherecordsresultingfromhisorherprogramactivitiesinaccordancewithpoliciesandproceduresestablishedbytherecordsmanagementofficebutintegratedintothepoliciesandproceduresformanaginghisorherprogram.

3.3 ConfigurationoftheRecordsManagementFramework

Similartotheframeworksformanaginghumanandfinancialresources,themanagementofaframeworkformanagingrecordstypicallyexistsattheleveloftheorganization.Anexampleisarecordsmanagement office located in a central ‘corporate’ area of the organization such as‘administration’, an ‘informationmanagement’ department, or a ‘corporate secretariat.’ Thisenablestheachievementofanumberoforganizationalgoals,suchastheabilitytorespondtolegal obligations, the opportunity to exchange information across the organization andmaximize its value through policies and the application of standards, and the potential toreducecostsandachieveeconomiesofscale.Whiletheframeworkmaybeestablishedatthewhole-of-organizationoratacorporatelevel,itisnormallyconfiguredtosupporttherequirementsoftheindividualbusinesslinesorprogramsof the organization. For instance, just as human and financial resources are configured tosupport the communications function of an organization and its role in disseminatinginformation to a given community, so too should the records management framework beconfigured to capture and manage the records resulting from the dissemination activity.Similarly, it should be configured to support the capture and management of the activitiesassociated with a consultation, or with undertaking a collaboration, or empowering a given

24

community organization to carry out tasks normally associated with a given governmentorganization.Theframeworkmayalsoextendbeyondasingleorganization.Forinstance,inaGCEinitiativeitmay extend to embrace one or several government organizations and/or one or severalcommunityorganizations.Thespecificconfigurationoftheextendedframework,however,willbe influenced by the nature of the GCE initiative. In ‘inform’, ‘consult’ and ‘involve’engagements for instance, the frameworks in eachof the given government and communityorganizationsmay be distinct even though they are supporting the same joint activity. In an‘inform’ engagement, for instance, the government may support a distinct framework fordisseminating information while the community organization may support its own distinctframeworkforreceivinginformation.Typicallytherewouldbelittleifanyoverlapbetweentheframeworks. Similarly, in an ‘empower’ engagement, the government’s recordsmanagementframeworkmight be used tomanage the records documenting the empowermentwhile therecordsmanagementframeworkinthecommunityorganizationmightbeusedtomanagetherecordsdocumentingdocumenttheempoweredactivity,suchasthedevelopmentofaspecificchapterofanationalstrategyonwaterresourcesmanagementthatwouldbeacceptedbythegovernment.Thepotentialforoverlapmayincreasein‘involve’and‘consult’engagementsasthe government organization and community organization interact more closely to achievecommon goals such as the development of methods for consulting a given community ormanaging a shared consultation process. In cases such as these where the capture andmaintenance of a documentary record of the entire activity may be important, the recordsmanagementframeworksofboththegovernmentandcommunityorganizationsmayoverlap.Ina‘collaboration’,anentirelynewframeworkformanagingrecordsmaybeestablished.Onepart may reside with the participating government organization(s), another with theparticipatingcommunityorganization(s)andathirdwiththesecretariatorsimilargovernanceandmanagementstructureestablishedforthe‘collaboration.’Ifitisimportantthatacompleterecord of the collaboration be captured and maintained then it follows that the recordsmanagement frameworks of all three entities (government, community, secretariat) may berequiredtooverlap.Regardless of the type of engagement or the configuration of the records managementframework supporting a given engagement, the quality and integrity of the records will bedependenton thequalityand integrityof the framework.Atabroader level, thequalityandintegrityoftherecordsmanagementframeworkwillbedependentupontheoverallframeworkfor managing the GCE initiative itself. If there are weaknesses in the policies, procedures,standards,technologies,andgovernance/managementstructuressupportingthemanagementof the GCE initiative then it follows that the quality and integrity of the supporting recordsmanagementframeworkmaybeplacedatrisk.

25

4. CitizenEngagement:TheRecordkeepingImplications

An important pre-requisite to identifying the issues and strategies for managing recordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesisunderstandingthecharacteristicsoftheGCEenvironmentandthe implicationsthesecharacteristicshaveforrecordkeeping.Withthispre-requisite inmind,thesectionhighlightsthecharacteristicsofGCEinitiativesandtheirrecordkeepingimplicationsasorganizedaccording to the five recordscontextsdescribed inSection3.1.Thesectionsetsthestageforthefollowingsectionwhicharticulatestherecordsissuesorganizationsmayfaceas they undertake GCE initiatives and proposes strategies to address the issues. While theissues and strategies focus on the recordkeeping dimension, they should also help guidestrategiesforenhancingthequality,integrity,andeffectivenessofGCEinitiativesthemselves.

4.1 KeyGCECharacteristicsandtheirRecordkeepingImplications

The following descriptions of the characteristics of GCE initiatives and their recordkeepingimplications are notmeant to be exhaustive. They are also tentative. Although case studiesconductedbytheInterPARESNA08teamrevealedinterestingcharacteristicsaboutthespecificGCEinitiativesunderstudy,theyarenotconclusiveforallGCEinitiatives.ThismeantthatanydescriptionofGCEcharacteristicshadtobebasedonwhatcouldbefoundinvarioussources,combined with the knowledge and experience of those developing the primer. In contrast,therewas a rich body of knowledge to draw upon concerning recordkeeping and its role inmodern organizations. As a result, it was possible to make suppositions about the GCElandscape and to superimpose on that landscape some concrete perspectives on therecordkeepingimplications.The individual sub-sections are organized in line with the five records contexts described inSection3.1.TheintentistoplacethecharacteristicsofGCEinitiativeswithinthecontextofthefiverecordscontexts,thusillustratingtheclosesymbioticrelationshipthatexistsbetweentheGCE initiatives and the records resulting from such initiatives. If the records issues are tobeunderstoodeffectively,thenitisimportanttounderstandthecharacteristicsofGCEinitiativesfrom a recordkeeping perspective. For more information on the characteristics of GCEinitiatives and how these relate to the management of records, consult “The Contexts ofRecordsandtheSpectrumofPublicParticipation”(McDonald,2016).4.1.1 TheJuridical-AdministrativeContextandGCEInitiatives

Government-citizen engagements in an open government context appear to be at variousstages of maturity depending on their type. Many government organizations seem tounderstandhowtoconduct ‘inform’, ‘consult’, andeven ‘involve’engagementsbutgenerallyspeaking, only a few appear to have had much experience in conducting ‘empower’

26

engagements.46Inthecaseof‘collaborations,’manyseemtostillbelearningwhatitmeanstoestablisheffectivegovernanceandmanagementframeworksthataccountforalloftheissuesthat are associatedwith sharing accountability among participating organizations, aswell aswiththeorganizationalentitythatmayhavebeencreatedtoadministerthecollaboration;forexample,thesecretariatcreatedtoadministeracommunity-governmentpartnership.Recordkeepingstrategiesshouldbetailoredtothelevelofmaturityoftheorganizationintermsof its level of engagementwith citizens. For instance, therewould seem to be little point indeveloping recordkeeping strategies for ‘empower’ initiatives if the organization has yet tosupport this type of initiative. Similarly, if a government organization and a communityorganizationlacktheexperienceandtoolsrequiredtomanagea‘collaboration,’thiswouldbeexpected to have an impact on the extent to which recordkeeping strategies can beimplemented. If themanagement and governance structures for a ‘collaboration’ are weak,thenitfollowsthattheframeworkformanagingrecordsmaybeweak.Conversely,ifboththegovernmentorganizationandcommunityorganizationestablishawell-managedframeworkformanaging the ‘collaboration’, then it follows that the potential for the recordkeepingframework to bewell-designed is high. The problem ariseswhen one organization becomesconcerned that the other is failing to respect generally-accepted practices for managing a‘collaboration’and,asaresult,therecords.Theextenttowhichoneorganizationcanimposerecordkeepingrequirementsontheotherasapre-requisitetothe‘collaboration’canbecomeproblematic,especiallyiftheorganizationsresideinentirelydifferentjurisdictions.GCEarenotexclusivetogovernmentandcommunityorganizationsororganizedgroups.Theycanalso takeplacebetweenagovernmentand individualcitizens,orbetweenagovernmentand both individuals and organized community groups or organizations. For instance, agovernmentmayconduct(ordistribute)asurveyata‘citizen-level,’gatheringindividualresults(i.e. one survey per one citizen) as they are filled out and returned to the governmentdepartment overseeing the project. Records resulting from the surveywould presumably becapturedandmanagedbythegovernment.Fromthepointofviewoftheindividual,however,whether these records are kept or managed would be entirely up to them. As a result, inpreparing thisprimer, itwasassumed that the recordkeeping implicationsat the levelof theindividualwouldbefarlesssignificantthanwouldbethecaseforacommunityorganizationorgroup.ItwasalsoassumedthattheroleoftheindividualasanindividualinteractinginaGCEinitiativewouldbecomelessprominentasonemovedtolevelsofparticipationthatweretotherightofthe Spectrum,where formal community groupswould become the focus of attention. In an‘inform’ engagement for instance, where the focus is on the government organizationbroadcasting information to a given community – for example, disseminating information to46Thisobservationisborneoutelsewhere.AstudyofcitizenengagementinitiativesinLatinAmericancountriesconductedbytheOpenGovernmentPartnershipshowedthat79%ofthe80commitmentssurveyedfellintheInform,ConsultorInvolverangeoftheIAP2.SeeJ.PrestonWhitt,CivicparticipationinLatinAmericanOGPcommitments(OpenGovernmentPartnership,2015),accessedSeptember26,2016,http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/LatAm%20Participation%20Web.pdf.

27

individualsinacommunityaboutachangeinamunicipalpolicy–thecaptureandmaintenanceofrecordsresultingfromtheactionsofanindividualcitizenbeing‘informed’byagovernmentorganization may be important from the perspective of the individual citizen. From theperspective of community organizations representing individuals in a given community,recordkeeping at the level of the individualmaybeof less importance than the capture andmaintenance of records resulting from engagement types where the iterative and dynamicinteractions between a community organization and the government are strong. In an‘empower’initiativeforinstance,thenatureoftheinitiative(i.e.empoweringacommunitytodevelopachapterofaforthcomingstrategicplanbeingproducedbythegovernment)willlikelyrequirethecommunitytoorganizeitselftocarryoutthe‘empower’-typeactivity.Inthiscase,the community organization, rather than the individual, might be expected to play a moredominantrole.InaGCEinitiative,theextentoftheformalityoftherelationshipbetweenanindividualand/ora communityorganizationanda governmentorganizationmay range from the very informalandnearlynon-existent,inthecaseof‘inform’initiatives,totheveryformal,asreflectedinapartnership terms of reference established to oversee a ‘collaboration’ or an agreementestablished to oversee an ‘empower’ initiative. Typically, GCE initiatives do not extend tocontracts between for instance, government organizations and third party private sectorcompanies or other organizations. This definition of the scope of GCE initiatives and theirgovernance has implications for recordkeeping. On a relative scale, it is much easier toincorporaterecordkeepingrequirementsinacontract,thetermsofwhicharebeingcontrolledbyagovernmentorganizationthanitistoincorporatethesesamerequirementsina‘termsofreference’oragreementthatisbeingnegotiatedwithcommunityorganizationsparticipatinginaGCEinitiative.4.1.2 TheProvenancialContextandGCEInitiatives

There are multiple types of community organizations and multiple ways in which thegovernmentinteractswiththeseorganizations.Forthepurposeofthisprimer,

“community organization covers a series of activities at the community levelaimed at bringing about desired improvement in the social well-being ofindividuals, groups andneighborhoods. It is being oftenused synonymous tocommunitywork,communitydevelopmentandcommunitymobilization.Itcanrepresentbothcommunity-basedorganizations,operatingascivilsocietynon-profits, and also as a function of organizing within communities defined bygeographical location, shared work space, and/or shared experience orconcerns.Communityorganizingisademocraticinstrumenttocreatesustainedsocial change. Community organization is a process by which a community

28

identifies needs and takes action, and in doing so... develops co-operativeattitudesandpractices.”47

Community organizationsmay takemany forms, such as public interest groups, associationsrepresenting the interests of specific communities, and organizations created temporarily toaddressspecificissues.Someareformallyincorporated,withawrittenconstitutionandaboardofdirectors,whileothersaremuchsmallerandaremoreinformal.Regardlessoftheirsizeortype,communityorganizationsparticipatinginanyofthefivelevelsoftheIAP2Spectrumwillbe generating records. The quality, integrity, and completeness of the records will bedependentonthequality,integrity,andcompletenessoftherecordsmanagementframeworkeachhasestablished,understandingthattheconfigurationandsophisticationoftheframeworkwillbeinlinewiththenatureoftheengagementandthecharacteristicsoftheorganization.AcrosstheSpectrum,controloveraGCEappearstoshiftfromthegovernmentorganizationinthe case of ‘inform’ engagements, to the community organization in the case of ‘empower’engagements.For instance, inan ‘inform’engagement,onewouldexpect thegovernment tocontrol themeans by which amessage is communicated, such as providing updates on theprogressbeingmade indevelopinga strategicplan,while inan ‘empower’engagement,onemight expect control to rest with the community organization. An example would be thecommunityorganizationbeingempoweredtodevelopachapterofthestrategicplanwhichthegovernmenthasagreedtoaccept.Inthecaseofa‘collaboration’engagement,controlmaybesharedbetween thegovernmentorganizationand thecommunityorganization,and, in somecases, with a third ‘authority’, enabled jointly by the government organization and thecommunityorganization,intheformofasecretariatorequivalententitycreatedtosupportthecollaboration or partnership. For example, the community organization and the governmentorganizationformapartnershiptoassumesharedresponsibilityforthedevelopmentofvariousdraftsofthestrategicplan.It followsthatashift incontroloverthetypeofengagementcouldresult inashift incontrolovertherecordsresultingfromtheengagement.Forinstance,thecharacteristicsofan‘inform’engagement would suggest that most of the records would be under the control of thegovernment organizationwhile in an ‘empower’ engagement,most of the recordswould beexpected to be under the control of the community organization. In a ‘collaboration’, therecords could be held jointly by three or more authorities: the participating communityorganization(s),thegovernmentorganization(s)andthesecretariatorequivalentmanagingthepartnership. From a recordkeeping perspective, the quality and integrity of the recordsresulting from a GCE will be dependent upon the quality and integrity of the recordsmanagement practices being applied by each authority. It may be assumed that the risk torecordswouldbelesswhenthelocusofcontrolisfocusedononeorganization,theassumptionbeingthatonlyonesetofpolicies,standardsandpractices,andtechnologieswouldbebroughtto bear on the management of the records. In an ‘inform’ engagement for instance, the

47MurrayG.Ross,CommunityOrganization;Theory,Principles,andPracticewithB.W.Lappin(Harper&Row,1967).

29

governmentwouldbe thedominantplayer,whichwould suggest that records resulting fromthe engagement would be managed relatively well if its recordkeeping framework wascomplete and effective. Similarly, in an ‘empower’ engagement, the community organizationwould be the dominant player which would suggest that records resulting from theengagementwouldbemanagedrelativelywellbutagain,only if itsrecordkeepingframeworkwas complete and effective. In both cases, and in line with the nature of ‘inform’ and‘empower’ engagements, there would typically be only one organization involved; thegovernmentorganization foran ‘inform’engagementand thecommunityorganization foran‘empower’ engagement. Conversely, in a ‘collaboration’ engagement, up to three andmoreauthorities might be participating in the ‘collaboration,’ with each assuming some level ofresponsibilityforthemanagementoftherecordsresultingfromthecollaboration.Thequality,integrityandcompletenessoftherecordswouldbedependentuponthequalityandintegrityoftherecordsmanagementframeworkineachauthority,aconditionofqualitythatmightvaryfromoneauthority toanother, thus introducingthepotential for therecords tobeplacedatsomelevelofrisk.4.1.3 TheProceduralContextandGCEInitiatives

Theconductofanyofthefiveengagementtypes(i.e.howagivenengagementisundertaken)isbased on a series of related transactions which themselves are governed by policies anddefinedbyprocedures.Whileingeneraltermstheproceduresforanyoftheengagementtypeswouldbeexpectedtobethesame(i.e.initiatetheengagement‘project’,plantheengagement,designhowitwillbeconducted,testthemethodology,conducttheengagement,producetheresults,assessthe‘project’),thespecificcharacteristicscouldvary.Forinstance,inan‘inform’engagement,itisassumedthattheprocedureswouldtendtobefewinnumberanddedicatedto controlling the one-way communication of information from the government to thecommunity.Inan‘empower’engagementontheotherhand,proceduresmightbeinplacetosupporttheroleofthegovernmentinempoweringthecommunityorganization,but itwouldbe assumed that the procedures required to carry out the ‘empower’ activity would besupported by the community organization.While these could be complex and sophisticateddepending on the nature of the ‘empower’ activity, theywould be under the control of andmanagedbythecommunityorganization.Itisassumedthattherecordkeepingchallengesforanyoneengagementtypewillbeindirectrelationship to the complexity of the procedures supporting the type of engagement and,above all, the degree of control being exercised by a given organization. In ‘inform’engagements,forinstance,thenatureoftheengagementtypewouldsuggestthatmostofthecontrol, and therefore the stewardship responsibility would rest with the government. As aresult,itfollowsthatmostoftherecordsresultingfromtheengagementwouldberetainedbythegovernmentorganization.Conversely,itfollowsthatmostoftherecordsresultingfroman‘empower’engagement,wherecontroltendstobewiththecommunityorganization,wouldberetainedbythecommunityorganization.

30

It is towards the middle of the Spectrum where the design of the procedures and theirmanagementcouldbecomeespeciallycomplex.Inthecaseofa‘collaboration’engagementforinstance,uptothree(andperhapsmore)setsofprocedurescouldbeatplaydependentonthenumber of government organizations and community organizations that are involved in theestablishmentandoversightofthecollaboration.Proceduresmightalsobeinplacetocontrolthe administration of the collaboration such as managing human and financial resources,logistics,etc.Finally,proceduresmightbeexpected tobe inplace tocontrol theactualworkthat needs to be performed to support the objectives of the collaboration, such as jointlyconducting a research project, developing a policy, etc. Although some of the procedurescontrolling the conduct of the collaboration may be supported by the governmentorganization(s) on the one hand and the community organization(s) on the other, otherproceduresmay be supported by the governance structure (partnership) established for thecollaboration itself. In thisexample, if the relationshipbetweentheoftendiverseproceduressupported in each of the three organization types (i.e. government organization, communityorganization,collaboration)hasnotbeendefinedpriortoorasaresultoftheestablishmentofthiscollaboration,thenitmaybedifficulttoestablishrelationshipsamongtherecordsthataregenerated as a result of the processes; capturing the complete story of the ‘collaborate’engagementmaythereforepresentachallenge.4.1.4 TheTechnologicalContextandGCEInitiatives

Giventhe impactofcomputer-based informationtechnologiesonthedeliveryofgovernmentprogramsandservicesandtheirroleasanincreasinglydominantmeansofcommunication,itisassumed that the records generated as a result of the processes supporting a givenengagementtypewilltendtobeprimarilyindigitalform.Thisisnottosaythatallrecordsandtechnologieswillbedigital.Hardcopysurveyformsmaybemailedtoindividualsandcompletedhardcopy survey formsmay bemailed back to the government organization. Printed paper-based reportsmayaugmentorduplicatedigitaldocumentscontaining thesame information.Nevertheless,itisexpectedthatthedominantmeansofsupportingandmanagingallfivetypesofengagementsandthedominantformoftherecordsresultingfromtheseengagementswilllikelybedigital.Thetype,purposeandfunctionalityofthetechnologiesshouldbeindirectrelationtotheirrolein enabling a given GCE initiative. At the ‘inform’ level, the nature of the engagement typewouldsuggestthattheywouldtendtofocusonpushinginformationouttocitizenswhileatthe‘consult’and‘involve’levels,theywouldbeexpectedtofocusonthegatheringofinformationfromcitizens through their input.At the ‘collaborate’ and ‘empower’ levelsof theSpectrum,theymightbeexpectedtosupporttheexchangeofinformationaswellasthemoresubstantiveand long termback-and-forth conversations required to identifyoptionsandmakedecisions.Theymayalsobeusedinsophisticatedwaysthatgobeyondtheiroriginalpurpose,especiallywhen seemingly basic technologies such as email, Tweets, blogs, and other social mediaplatformsarebrought togetherandemployed to supportobjectives that reachbeyondwhattheymighthavebeenabletoachieveindividually.Forinstance,individualemailsreceivedbya

31

government organization as a result of “informing” a given community of the status of agovernmentinitiativemightnotbeconsideredofmuchvalueontheirown.Ontheotherhand,whenaggregatedandcomparedwithdata fromotherdata sources, suchas surveydataandsocialmediasuchasTweetsandblogsandthenanalyzedusingdigitalanalytics technologies,theycouldleadtofindingsthatwouldnothavebeenpossiblehadtheemailsbeenanalyzedontheir own. For instance, matching the locations where the emails were generated withdemographic data, geo-cartographic data, and related opinion survey data could lead to adeeper understanding of how citizen opinions on a proposed government policy are beingexpressedataregionallevel.Theeffectivemanagementofthesetechnologiesand,byextension,therecordsgeneratedbythe technologies normally require a framework of policies and procedures, standards, andqualified people supported by a comprehensive accountability framework and effectivegovernanceandmanagementstructures.Itfollowsthattheextenttowhichrecordsareatriskoflossordestructionwillvaryaccordingtothestrengthandintegrityoftheframework,whichin turn is dependent on the type of engagement employed and the capacity of theorganization(s)involved.Individualcommunitymembersmaybetheleastabletosupporttherequired‘framework’capacitybecausetheymaylackanawarenessofwhatitmeanstocaptureandmanagerecordsoftheiractions.DependentonthenatureoftheGCEinitiative,theymayalso lack the incentive.Communityorganizationsmay face challenges if theengagement is aone-time activity and of short duration. In such cases, there may not be an incentive toestablish a comprehensive technology-supported records management framework to theextentrequired.Ontheotherhand,governmentsnormallyhavepolicies inplacethatrequiretheexistenceofarecordsmanagementframeworkthatissupportedbyrelevantandeffectivetechnologies.Asaresult,withexceptions,theymightbeexpectedtobeinthebestpositiontoaddressthesechallengesandrequirements.A‘collaboration’engagementfacesparticularchallengeswithregardstotechnology.Incertaincases, there could be as many as three distinct technology environments: those of thegovernmentorganization,thoseofthecommunityorganization,andthoseofthesecretariatorequivalent entity supporting the collaboration. If the collaboration is addressing a highlycomplex issue where accountability for the conduct of the collaboration is crucial, wherecommunication across those involved in the collaboration is essential, andwhere all playersinvolved in the collaboration are concerned about themanagement of the records resultingfrom theengagement, then it follows that stepswill be taken toensure that the technologyenvironments are capable of meeting requirements for control, security, integrity andinformation interoperability. Conversely, if the technology environments are not compatibleacross the three organizations, it may be difficult to relate the records documenting thecollaborationtooneanother.Giventhat thesetypesofengagements tendtobeof relativelyshort duration, there may not be the incentive to establish a comprehensive technologyinfrastructure dedicated to the proper management of records resulting from the‘collaboration’engagement.Insuchcases,thesecretariatorequivalentwouldbedissolvedattheconclusionofthecollaboration,andifatechnologyinfrastructurewasinplacetosupportthemanagementoftherecordsheldbythesecretariat,itwouldbedismantled,andtherecords

32

themselvesdisposedofwithlittleornoregardbeinggiventotheroletheywouldnormallyplayindocumentingthecollaboration.Formore information on the characteristics of the technology environments supportingGCEinitiativesandtheirimplicationsforrecordkeepingseeHurley(2016).484.1.5 TheDocumentaryContextandGCEInitiatives

WhatdoesitmeantodocumentaGCEinitiativeregardlessofitstype?Whatcriteriashouldbeusedtodefinethekindsofrecordsthatwouldneedtobe inplacetoproperlydocumenttheGCE?Who decides on the criteria and how should those criteria be applied when multiplegovernmentandcommunityorganizationsmaybeinvolvedintheGCEinitiative?Theanswerstothesequestionshelpdefinetherecordkeepingpolicies,standardsandpracticesthatshouldbe established in any given GCE initiative, whether theywill be restricted to supporting theabilityoftheindividualplayersinagivenengagementtodocumenttheirindividualrolesintheengagement,orwhether theywillbeextendedtosupport theabilityofallplayers inagivenengagementtodocument,collectively,theircombinedinvolvementintheentireengagement.Records result from tasks that comprise a process (the how), that supports a function (thewhat), which in turn supports the mandate of an organization. The records resulting fromprocessessupportingGCEinitiativesmayshift intypeandcomplexity. Inthecaseof ‘inform’-typeengagements,forexample,processesinplacemayproduceemails,Tweets,blogentries,‘published’ documents, data, etc., while in ‘empower’-type engagements, emails, meetingagenda, minutes, reports, blog entries, Tweets, project management documents, statistics,data,etc.maybeproducedbyoftenmorecomplexoperationalactivitiesandprocesses.Inthecaseof‘collaboration’engagements,multipletypesofrecordsmaybecreatedandmaintainedin multiple locations by multiple technologies supporting diverse functions and processescarried out by up to three (or perhaps more) authorities. Decisions regarding the kinds ofrecords that will be created, how they are created and by whom they should be managedshould be made during the planning stage of the GCE initiative. Defining the criteria, thedocumentation standards, the requirements, and the means by which these can beimplementedafterthefactcanbechallengingwhentheGCEinitiativeisalreadyunderway.Ifsuchaplanningstep isnottakenbefore the implementationofaGCE initiative,regardlessofthe engagement type, there is a risk that the documentary story will be fragmented andincomplete.49

48SeeHurley,forthcoming.49Specificguidanceonthecriteria,standards,requirements,andimplementationstrategieswereconsideredtobebeyondthescopeoftheprimer.

33

5. TheIssuesandStrategies

5.1 IntroductionThis section is based on the premise that records are valued organizational resources. Themanagementofsuchresourcesshouldbebasedonthesameresourcemanagementprinciplesasthoseappliedtopeople,finances,andmateriel.Theapplicationofmanagementprinciplestoany organizational resource, including records, requires a framework which, as explained inprevious sections, comprises standards and practices, enabling technologies, andqualified/trained people. These criteria/characteristics must be supported by an effectiveaccountability framework, a comprehensive policy, and management and governancestructuresthataresupportedbypeoplethathaveahighlevelofawarenessandunderstandingoftheimportanceoftheassettotheachievementoftheorganization’sgoalsandpriorities.Itfollowsthatsuchaframeworkmustbealignedwiththeframeworkestablishedtosupportthebusiness functions, activities, andprocessesof theorganization, including those that supportGCEinitiatives.Theframeworkformanagingrecordsshouldformanintegralcomponentoftheframework supporting GCE initiatives and be configured to support directly the goals andobjectivesoftheseinitiatives.From a recordkeeping perspective, the absence of a strong recordsmanagement frameworkcouldleadtothefollowingoutcomes:Lostopportunity

• The inability tocommunicateandshare informationacross jurisdictions,bothexternaland internal; for instance, between government organizations and communityorganizationsparticipatingina‘collaboration’-typeengagement.

• Data incompatibility or the inability to merge data with other data to achieve newfindings;forinstance,opiniondatafromamajorsurveyblendedwithgeo-cartographicinformationandcensusdatatocreateadatabasethatcanbeusedtosupportmultipleobjectives.

• The inability to exploit information to the maximum extent possible; for instance,turninganinnovativeconsultationprocessintoadocumentedmodelthatcanbemadeavailable free of charge or at a price to others; building a database of merged dataderivedfrommultiplediverserecordssourcestosupporttheongoingneedsofagivenresearchcommunity.

Increasedrisk

• Toachievegoalsandpriorities;forinstance,thefindingsfromaGCEinitiativecannotbetrusted because the source data and related documentation has been lost or isincomplete.

• Tomakecompleteandeffectivedecisions;forinstance, decisionsconcerningthenextstepsina‘collaboration’-typeengagementareincompletebecauserecordsheldbythegovernmentand communitypartners are fragmentedand/ordifficult to relate tooneanother.

34

• To account for decisions made, funds allocated, etc.; for instance, the managerresponsible for a GCE initiative is unable to comply with an audit because theinformationdocumentingtheinitiativeisfragmentedormissing.

• To comply with legal and policy obligations; for instance, records identified by acommunityorganizationunderaformalAccesstoInformationrequestareunabletobeprovided because the records are poorly organized and scattered among the variousgovernmentprogramsinvolvedintheconsultationwiththecommunity.

• To retain and preserve the historical record; for instance, the records of a majorgovernment-community collaboration and consultation,most ofwhichwere in digitalform,havebeenlostbecauseoftheabsenceofstandardsinboththegovernmentandthecommunityconcerningwhatrecordsoughttobecaptured,thefragilityofthemediaupon which they were recorded, technology obsolescence, insufficient metadata forunderstandingtheinformationcontentintherecordsandensuringtheirongoingaccess,andtheabsenceofanyonetomanagetherecordsthroughtime.

Increasedcosts

• Increasedoperating costs as a result of growingneeds for technical infrastructure formanaging records, time taken to find records, etc.; for instance, considerableresources/timewasspentsearching throughamassofunorganizedrecords thatwerecreatedasaresultofaseriesofmulti-yearconsultations;digitalrecordsrequiredcostlyconversionbeforetheycouldbeaccessed.

• Reducedvalueoftechnologyinvestments;forinstance,thecommunityorganizationandgovernmentorganizationsupportinga‘collaboration’initiativemadeseparatedecisionsonwhattechnologiesshouldbeprocuredtostoretherecordsofthecollaboration;theinabilitytosearcheasilyacrossthetworepositoriesmeantthatoneoftheorganizationshadtochangeitsstoragetechnology,orthatbothhadtoconsiderestablishingasinglesharedrepository.

• Unexpectedand/oradditionalcosts;forinstance,failuretoaddressquestionsofwhereandhowtherecordsofa ‘collaboration’engagementwouldbestoredat theplanningstageofaninitiativeresultedinincreasedcoststopayfortheafter-the-factadditionofstoragetechnologies.

All of these outcomes are a result of weaknesses in the planning, design, testing,implementationandmaintenanceofaframeworkformanagingrecords.Collectively,theypointtotheerosionnotonlyofthequalityand integrityoftheframework,butalsooftheviabilityandintegrityoftheGCEinitiativeitself.While in ideal circumstances such a framework should be in place across the entireorganization, it should at the very least be in place within the government and communityorganizations thatare supportingGCE initiatives. This framework shouldalsobeata levelofintegrityandquality thatsupportsdirectly theeffectivemanagementof therecordsresultingfromtheGCEinitiativesandtheachievementofthegoalsoftheGCEinitiativesthemselves.

35

5.2 TheIssuesandStrategiesThe issuesandsuggestedstrategies foraddressing the recordkeepingchallengesdescribed inthissub-sectionarealignedwiththerecordsmanagementframeworkperspective.Theyarenotorganizedinachronologicalsequenceoraccordingtothestepsinaplan;thiswillbecoveredinthenextsection.Rather,theyaresetoutasbuildingblocksthatcanbeusedasachecklisttoensurethatallcomponentsoftheframeworkareaddressedwhendevelopingplanstoaddresstheissues.50Aspreviouslymentioned,focusingononlyoneorafewofthecomponents,suchas technologies, to the exclusion of the others, will result in solutions that are weak,inadequate,incomplete,anddifficulttosustain,whichcouldultimatelyundermineanyeffortsbeingmadetoestablishpositiverelationswithallpartiesinvolvedintheGCEinitiatives.5.2.1 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofPolicy

Issues• Recordsmanagementpolicies,especiallyifthecollaboratingorganizations(government

andcommunity)areresidingindifferentjurisdictions,maybefragmented,inconsistentandevencontradictory,ortheymaynotexistatall.

• The provisions of existing records management policies may not be relevant to GCEinitiatives.

• The assignment of accountability (typically enshrined in legislation or policy) for allfacetsofaGCE initiative involvingmultiple jurisdictions (governmentandcommunity)maybeweak,unclear,inconsistent,orabsent;thiswilllikelyhaveanegativeimpactoneffortstoestablishanaccountabilityframeworkfortherecordsresultingfromtheGCEinitiative.

Example:The records management policy in a municipal government organization supporting an‘empower’ engagement does not address themanagement of records generated by non-governmentorganizations,suchasthecitizens’ juryformedtoundertakethedevelopmentofasectionofaprovincialgovernment-sponsoredhealthservicesplan.Whilepoliciesandproceduressupporttheestablishmentandconductofthecitizen’s jury,apolicyonrecordsmanagement has yet to be established in the provincialministry. A recordsmanagementpolicyexistsattheleveloftheindividualmunicipalitybutitisweakandfewinthemunicipalgovernment have implemented it; accountability for records is weak or non-existent.Moreover, recordsmanagement professionals lack the required expertise, especially withrespecttomanagingdigitalrecords.Thesefactors,combinedwiththeabsenceofarecordsmanagementpolicyatthecommunitylevel, isplacingrecordsgeneratedasaresultoftheinitiativeatrisk.Compoundingtherisk isthefactthattheprovincialgovernment,which iscoordinating the development of the plans at the municipal level, has yet to providemunicipalgovernmentswithguidanceon themanagementof records resulting from their‘empower’-typeinitiatives.Eachmunicipalityisonitsownwithrespecttothemanagement

50ThestrategiesdescribedinthissectionareorganizedintoachecklistthatcanbefoundinAppendixB.

36

oftherecordsresultingfromtheinitiativeswiththeoutcomebeingfragmentedapproachestorecordscapture,classification,retention,etc.acrossthemunicipalities.

Strategies• Usesources,suchaspoliciesdevelopedinotherjurisdictions,toidentify/expresspolicy

requirementsthatrelatetothemanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiativesundertakenbythe government organization, recognizing that such policy requirements may needadaptation to account for the manner in which GCE initiatives are designed andmanaged, as well as the role played by participating records-generating communityorganizations.

• ReviewexistingpoliciesgoverningthemanagementofGCEinitiativesandidentifygaps.Use the components of the records management framework and the five recordscontexts as a checklist to assesswhere policy is required.Determine how andwhereproposed records management policy statements (i.e. records managementrequirementsexpressedaspolicystatements)couldfillthegaps.51

• Asaminimum,usethepolicystatementstodefinetheaccountabilityframeworkforthemanagementofrecordswithinthecontextoftheoverallaccountabilityframeworkforthemanagementofGCEinitiatives.

• If possible, collaborate with GCE leaders to integrate records management policystatements with policies for themanagement of GCE initiatives, recognizing that theintegration could extend to related policies supported in relevant communityorganizations.

Example:The municipal records manager assessed the impact of the policy situation on the GCEinitiativeand identifiedthepolicygaps.Thekeygapwastheabsenceofanaccountabilityframeworkthatwoulddefinewhoisresponsibleforensuringthatadocumentaryrecordofthe initiativewas inplace. Fortunately,anaccountability framework for theGCE initiativewas already described in the policy governing its planning and conduct. The recordsmanager worked with the GCE lead in the municipality to identify where recordkeepingprinciplesandstatementscouldbeincorporatedintotheGCEpolicyespeciallyasitrelatedtotheestablishmentandmanagementofthecitizenjury.Consultationswerealsoheldwiththecommunityorganizationtodetermineifelementsoftheproposedupdatedpolicycouldbeadoptedforuseinthecommunityorganizationasitparticipatedinthedevelopmentofthesectionofthegovernment-sponsoredhealthservicesplan.Theproposedupdatedpolicywasalsodiscussedwithrepresentatives fromtheHealthMinistryat theprovincial level todetermineifitmightbehelpfultoothermunicipalitiesmanagingsimilarGCEinitiatives.

5.2.2 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofGovernanceandManagement

Issues

51AtemplatethatmaybeusefulindevelopingpoliciesforthemanagementofrecordsisincludedinAppendixC.

37

• Effective management and governance structures for overseeing the ongoingmanagementoftherecordsofagivenGCEinitiativemaybeweakornon-existentand,ifthey do exist, may not be integrated in the governance andmanagement structuresestablishedfortheGCEinitiatives.

• The levels of commitment for addressing identified records issues may vary amongthoseinvolvedinleadingandmanagingGCEinitiatives.

• Those assigned responsibilities for the records in the various multi-jurisdictionalorganizations that are involved in a GCE initiative may not have coordinated theiractivities.

• ThoseresponsibleforrecordsmanagementmaybeatadistanceorganizationallyfromthegovernanceandmanagementstructuresestablishedfortheGCEinitiative.

• Recordsmanagementchallengesacrosstheentireframeworkmaybeseenastechnicalissues requiring IT solutions; this could lead to IT departments or their equivalentsemergingasthelocusofauthoritywithinthegovernanceandmanagementstructureoftheGCE initiative. This is a challenge in itself if the IT department lacks the requiredrecordsexpertise.

• Committeesestablishedtoaddressmanagementissuesrelatedtotheconductofwhatcould be a multi-jurisdictional GCE initiative may not account for cross-jurisdictionalrecordsissuesorissuesimpactingtheentireGCEinitiative.

• A comprehensive management process for identifying records managementrequirements, allocating resources, andplanning, controlling and evaluating the stepsinvolvedinmeetingtherequirementsmaynotbeinplaceand,iftheydoexist,maynotbeintegratedintheplanningandmanagementoftheGCEinitiativeitself.

• Audit standards and evaluation criteria designed to assess the effectiveness of therecordsmanagement framework for a given GCE initiativemay not be adequate andmaynotbecomplementaryorconsistentwith themeasuresandcriteria forassessingtheGCEinitiativeitself.

Example:Plansforaconsultationprocessinvolvingworkshopswithstakeholders,townhallmeetingsandsurveystookintotheaccountthehumanandfinancialresourcesrequiredtoundertakethe various facets of the consultation. Committees and steering groups were formed toimplement the plans effectively and an accountability structure was put into place tomonitor andmeasure the consultation process and results.Unfortunately, stepswere nottakentoholdsomeoneaccountable for theeffectivemanagementof therecordsresultingfromtheconsultationprocess.Theresultsof thesurveysweremoreor lesscared forbyaproject manager or statistician, who, though capable of processing and analyzing datacapturedasaresultofthesurveys,hadlittleunderstandingofhowtheyshouldbemanagedas records. The other records resulting from the consultation processes, however, weretreated in an ad hoc manner by those involved in designing and implementing theconsultation processes. The management of the records generated by individuals andorganizationsatthecommunitylevelvariedwiththeindividualsandorganization.Decisionsbyindividualsinthecommunityconcerningwhichoftheemailssentduringtheconsultation

38

processwouldbekeptwouldbedependentontheindividual.Similarly,decisionsaboutwhatrecordswouldbecapturedandretainedbycommunityorganizationswouldbedependentupon the individual organization and its policies.Given that the consultation processwasseen as government-driven (i.e. information flowing into the government from thecommunity),itfollowedthatfewinthecommunityorganizationssawtheneedtoassignorassumeresponsibilityfortherecordstheygeneratedduringtheprocess.

Strategies

• Identifyhow individualGCE initiativesaremanaged.Who is accountable towhom fortheir approval and for their management? How are they governed in terms of thestructures for overseeing the initiatives? What do the management and governancestructures look like in both the government organization and the communityorganization?Aretheydistinctorrelatedinsomeway?

• Determineifgovernanceandmanagementstructuresexistcentrallyintheorganization(governmentand/orcommunity)toensurethatconsistentapproachesareadoptedtotheapprovalandmanagementofGCEinitiatives.IsanaccountabilityframeworkforallGCE initiatives inplace?Whatdoes theapprovalpath forGCE initiatives look likeandwhoisinvolved?HowaretheresultsofGCEinitiativesassessedandwhoisinvolved?

• Identify elements of the governance and management structures required for themanagement of records. These elements should be integrated in the governance andmanagementstructuresforGCEinitiatives.

• Integrate recordkeeping governance and management elements in the terms ofreference for GCE initiatives; for instance, a partnership agreement governing theconduct of a collaboration between a government organization and a communityorganization.

Example:The records manager for the government organization leading the consultation processrecognized the opportunity being presented by the fact that the initiativewas still in theplanningstages.Intoomanycases,therecordsmanagementofficewasonlyinvolved(ifatall)after the fact,when theGCE initiativewasalreadyunderwayorhadbeencompleted.The records manager researched the governance and management frameworks beingplanned for the consultation initiative, identified the relationships between the specificgovernanceandmanagementframeworksfortheinitiativeandthebroadergovernanceandmanagementframeworksbeingsupportedintheorganizationasawhole.Forinstance,thespecific frameworks for managing the human and financial resources supporting theinitiativeweredirectlyrelatedtothosesupportingthemanagementofsuchresourcesacrossthe organization. Based on the principle that records are assets no different fromhumanandfinancialresources,therecordsmanageridentifiedwhererecordkeepingconsiderationsshould be integrated in the frameworks supporting the initiative. As a result, the recordsmanager’ssuperior(DirectorofInformationandTechnologyManagement)wasinvitedtositontheSteeringCommitteeoverseeingtheinitiativewhiletherecordsmanagerandonestaffmember were invited to serve on the team designing and conducting the consultationinitiativeitself.Therecordsmanager,workingwiththeconsultationprocesslead,discussed

39

theapproach togovernanceandmanagementwith relevant individuals in thecommunityorganizationwithaviewofassessingtheextenttowhichtheapproachmightbeuseful inthe establishment of a relevant governance andmanagement framework to oversee thecommunityorganization’sparticipationintheinitiative.

5.2.3 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofPeople

Issues• The knowledge and skills required tomanage the quality, integrity, authenticity, and

trustworthinessof records resulting fromGCE initiatives, such that they canbemadeavailabletosupporttheneedsofcurrentandfuturegenerations,maynotbeinplace.

• Theexpertiserequiredtofacilitateinformationaccess,retrieval,andinterpretation,aswell as the ability of both government and community organizations to exploit theinformationresultingfromGCEinitiativesmaybelacking.

• Theexpertiserequiredtoadviseontheframeworkrequiredtomanagerecordsmaybelacking.

• Theexpertiserequiredtoestablisha legalandethicalframeworkforthemanagementofrecordsandtospeaktothesecurityandtrustworthinessofrecords,maybeweakornon-existent.

• Theavailableknowledgeandskillsmayvaryacrosstheorganizationsparticipating inaGCEinitiative;agovernmentorganizationmaysupportknowledgeandskillsthatarenotto the same level as those found in a participating community organization (and viceversa).

• Thecompetencies(knowledge,skill,abilities)requiredtocapture,retainandotherwisemanagerecordsofGCEinitiativesinamannerthatrespectslegal,security,andethicalconsiderationsmaynothavebeendefined.

• Thegapbetweentheavailablecompetencies inboth thegovernmentandcommunityorganizationsandwhatisrequiredmaynothavebeenanalyzedanddefined.

• Jobdescriptions(orequivalents)ofthoseinvolvedinconductingGCEinitiativesmaynotaccountforthecompetenciesrequiredtomanagerecords.

• Performance measurement standards for employees may not reflect recordkeepingcompetenciesortheymayvaryincompletenessacrosstheorganizationsparticipatinginGCEinitiatives.

• Strong working relationships between records professionals (if they exist in theorganization)andthoseleadingandparticipatingincitizenengagementinitiativesmaynotbeinplace.

Example:Amunicipal authority is participating in a formal partnershipwith a community group todevelopasystemofbusroutestosupportanewsuburbbeingbuiltattheedgeofthecity.The records management office supporting the authority is staffed with recordsprofessionals who offer records management advice to employees across the authority.They also manage the hardcopy records of the organization though these are largely

40

restricted to the administrative areas of the organization. Unfortunately, while theirmandate extends across the organization, they have yet to reach the city planningdepartment.Althoughstaff inthisareahaveexpertise inmanaginggeo-cartographicdataand city plans, they know very little about what itmeans to establish and, above all, toretain effectively a documentary trail of their planning decisions. Furthermore, thecommunity organization is a temporary entity established for the purposes of thecollaboration.Asaresult,ithasyettoestablishitsownrecordsmanagementrulesandhasnot even thought about the records management expertise it might require. While afinancial plan and funding agreement have been established as part of the terms ofreference for the collaboration, a human resources plan for ensuring adequate recordsmanagementexpertisehasyettobeestablished.Theresultcouldleadtotherecordsbeingplacedatriskofloss,damage,etc.

Strategies• Identify the key players involved in leading and undertaking GCE initiatives in both

government and community organizations. Using human resources managementplanningtechniques,52definetherolesandresponsibilities thatneedtobeperformedsuchthatrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesarecapturedandmanaged,recognizingthat the nature of the roles and responsibilities will change with the type of GCEinitiative.

• Integratetherolesandresponsibilitiesinthejobdescriptions(orequivalents)forthoseinvolvedinleading,managingandconductingGCEinitiatives.Throughthegovernmentorganization, assess the extent to which the records management roles andresponsibilities(adaptedaccordingly)canbeintegratedintherolesandresponsibilitiesof those in the community organizations involved in leading or undertaking GCEinitiativeswiththegovernmentorganization.

• Adapt existing records management competency models to GCE initiatives to helpdefinethecorecompetencies(knowledge,skills,abilities)requiredtomanagerecordsintheseinitiatives.

• Identifythecompetencygapanddevelopstrategiesforfillingthegapthrough:o recruitmentorsecuringconsultingsupport,and/oro thedevelopmentanddeliveryoftrainingandorientationsessions,withaviewto

extending specially adapted sessions to those in the community organizationinvolvedinleadingGCEinitiatives.

• Adapt existing recordsmanagement performancemeasures toGCE initiatives to helpdefine the performance measures required to measure the effectiveness of those

52AnexampleofahumanresourcesplanningandmanagementguidewhereHRprocessesaresystematicallyandclearlypresentedandwhereitshouldbepossibletoseehowtheseprocessescouldbeadaptedtoaddressrecordsmanagement from an HR perspective can be found in, Human Resources Management Guide for InformationTechnology Companies, (Software Human Resources Council, Ottawa, 2004); An overview of HR planning andmanagementprocessesandtheirrelationshiptorecordkeepingcanbefoundin,HumanResourcesManagement,(Library and Archives Canada, 2011), accessed September 26, 2016 http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/services/government-information-resources/guidelines/generic-valuation-tools/Pages/human-resources-management.aspx#TOC5a

41

involvedinleadingtheseinitiatives.• Identifythegapinexistingperformancemeasuresanddevelopstrategiesforfillingthe

gap; integrate these newmeasures in the performancemeasures established for theGCEinitiatives.

Example:The records manager takes some time to research who in the city planning area isresponsibleforthepartnershipandtoidentifywhatiscoveredinthetermsofreference.Shenotesthatthepartnershipiscontroversial,especiallysincesomeareasofthesuburbwillbedisadvantaged as a result of whatever decisions emerge about the location of the busroutes.Theneedtocapturerecordsoftheconductofthepartnershipincludingthereasonswhycertaindecisionsweremadeaboutthebusroutesisclear.Sheapproachesthemanagerresponsibleforthepartnership,outlinesherconcerns,andsuggeststhatasectiononrecordsmanagement supportbe included in the termsof reference (alignedwith theexistingandproposedsectionsonthemanagementoffinancialandhumanresources).Shealsoprovidesadviceonthenatureoftheworkinvolvedinprovidingrecordsmanagementsupporttothepartnership, the kinds of records management competencies that would be required toundertakethework,and ifallorsomeofthecompetencieswerealreadyavailableamongthestaff supporting thepartnership.Basedonaquickanalysis,and recognizing that suchanalysisdoesnotaccountforthecommunityorganizationparticipatinginthepartnership,she proposes how specific gaps could be filled either through the secondment of existingstaffor throughcontracts.Themanagersupports thisapproachandagrees tocontacthiscounterpart inthecommunityorganizationtowalkthroughtheexerciseofconfirmingtheworkinvolved,thecompetencies,andhowanygapscanbefilled.Healsoagreestoreviewhowthelessonslearnedfrommanagingthehuman,financialandinformationresourcesinthepartnershipcouldbeappliedintheestablishmentoffuturepartnerships.

5.2.4 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofStandardsandPractices

Issues• Theremaybea lackofguidanceconcerningwhatconstitutesa ‘record’especially ina

digitalenvironment,andespeciallywithinthecontextoflawandpolicy.• Criteria may not be in place to help those involved in leading and managing GCE

initiativestodecidewhatinformationneedstobecreated,received,collected,etc.• Standards,practices,andtechnologiesmaynotbeinplacethatwouldotherwiseenable

theeffectivemanagementofrecordsas ‘records’fromtheirpointofcreation,totheiruse,totheirretentionandfinallytotheirdisposition(deleted/destroyedortransferredtoanarchives).

• Inconsistent approaches to the organization and classification of multiple forms ofrecordsanddataresultingfromGCEinitiativesthatinvolvemultiplejurisdictionscouldimpedeaccessandretrieval.

• Relating records to one another in order to provide the context essential tounderstandingtherecordsmaybedifficultiftheworkflowsupportingtheconductofa

42

GCE initiative and from which records are generated is fragmented across multipleorganizations.

• Keeping trackof thecorrect versionsof recordsanddata couldpresenta challenge ifversioncontrolproceduresandstandardsareabsent.

• Informationaccesscouldbe impeded if recordsofGCE initiativesarescatteredacrossharddrives, individualandsharedserverdevices,paper-based filedrawers,andotherdiscretesystemsanddatabases.

• Theretentionandongoingpreservationoftheintegrityofdigitalrecordsanddatamaybe impeded because retention specifications have yet to be established and appliedand, if they are applied, theymaybeadhoc, inconsistent, andbasedon criteria thathavenorealauthority(i.e.theretentionperiodsmaybesetbyusersorothersinvolvedintheGCEinitiativewhohavenorealknowledgeaboutwhatisinvolvedinmakingsuchdecisions).

• Aprocess for the identification/developmentofauthoritativerecordkeepingstandardsandpracticestosupportthemanagementofGCEinitiativesmaynotbeinplace.

• Processes for the effective implementation, maintenance, and review (includingcoordination across potentially multiple jurisdictions and organizations) of a GCEinitiativemaynotbeinplace.

Example:A government organization wants to involve a few key stakeholders as well as a fewrepresentativesofcommunityorganizationsandindustrygroupsintheplanninganddesignof the consultation process that will be used to support the drafting of the proposedlegislation for regulating telecommunications. The goal is to ensure that the consultationprocess is relevant and effective given the number of diverse interests that need to beconsidered.Thegovernmentrepresentativesrecognizethe importanceofdocumentingthedecisions being made but have yet to determine what it means to establish such adocumentary trail.What records need to be created and captured?Where and bywhomshould they bemanaged?What standards and procedures should they rely on? Do theyneed toworry about the records generated in the community organizations and industrygroups?Do theyneed tobeconcernedaboutcapturing thecompletedocumentary record(evidence) of a consultation planning and design process that involves multipleorganizations representing multiple jurisdictions? If so (because the process is highlysensitive),thenhowshouldtheygoaboutit?Inansweringthesequestions,theydeterminethatalthoughtheyfeelthattheycanrelyontheirorganization’sownrecordsmanagementstandards and procedures, they quickly find out that those involved in the consultationdesign process have adopted their own often unique approaches to managing records.Some,suchasthenewlyformedpublicinterestgroups,arebasedonnon-standard,adhocapproacheswhileothers, suchas thewell-established industryorganization,arebasedontheirown in-housedeveloped standardsandpractices.Thismeans thateachorganizationhas established its own unique classification scheme, retention specifications, recordsstorage facilities, and security and access controls. Bringing together the complete story

43

(should this be required) and enabling information access across the participatingorganizationswillbeachallenge.

Strategies

• Use standards and guides produced by authoritative organizations, such as theInternational Standards Organization (ISO) as well as organizations responsible forsetting standardsandpractices inother jurisdictions, suchasnational/state/provincialarchives, recordsmanagement associations, etc., to identify/define standards for themanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiatives,recognizingthatsuchstandardsandpracticesmayneedadaptationtoaccount for themanner inwhichGCE initiativesaredesignedand managed by the government organization and/or by participating records-generatingcommunityorganizations.

• Review existing standards and practices for the management of GCE initiatives andidentifygaps;determinehowandwhereproposedstandardsandpracticescouldfillthegaps.

• Identify,develop,and/oradaptstandardsandpracticesthataddressissuessuchasrulesfordocumentingdecisionsandactionsassociatedwithGCEinitiatives,capturingrecordsresulting from GCE initiatives, organizing and classifying records, retaining andprotectingrecords,andfacilitatingaccess.

• Integrate existing records management standards and practices with those used tosupporttheconductofGCEinitiatives,recognizingthattheintegrationcouldextendtorelated standards and practices supported in participating records-generatingcommunityorganizations.

Example:Therecordsmanagerwaspleasedthatthequestionswerebeingraisedbythoseresponsiblefor the consultation initiative. In too many cases, the issues connected with managingrecordsarerarelyidentifiedininitiativessuchasthisand,iftheyare,theyareoftenraisedafter the fact, when integrating potential solutions into the design of initiatives that arealreadyunderwaycanbedifficultandcostly.Inthiscase,thequestionsarebeingraisedatthe planning and design stages where there is a better chance for success. The recordsmanager quickly recognizes that thereare two typesof issue: someare related topolicy,such as definingwhat records need to be captured andwhy (i.e. defining a documentarytrail that accounts for the variations in recordkeeping configurationswhile respecting thelegal,business,andarchival requirements forcapturingandmaintaining the ‘story’of theprocess);otherissuesrelatetothestandardsandproceduresthatneedtobeinplaceinallparticipating organizations to ensure that the policies can be respected. The recordsmanager researched the records management standards, practices and proceduresemployedintheparticipatingorganizations,establishedasuiteofstandardsandpracticesthat would enable effective recordkeeping across the organizations in a manner thatrespectedthepolicydecisions,identifiedgapsbetweenwhatwasinplaceandwhatoughttobeinplace,anddevelopedastrategyforhowthegapcouldbeclosedwithinthecontextoftheprojectplanfortheconsultationinitiative(i.e. inamannerthatrespectsthescaleandtemporal natureof theprocess). The recordsmanager shared theproposed strategywith

44

thoseplanninganddesigningtheconsultationprocess(whichincludesrepresentativesfromtheparticipatingcommunityorganizations)and integratedelementsof thestrategy intheoverallplanfortheinitiative.

5.2.5 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofTechnology

Issues• Technologies used in GCE initiatives, such as email, interactive web-based services,

blogs, wikis, conferencing and networking technologies, file sharing, collaborativeediting, syndication and notification technologies, instant messaging, and digitalrepositories,maynotsupportthecapabilitytocapture,retain,preserve,andotherwisemanagerecordsofGCEinitiativesas‘records.’

• RecordkeepingconsiderationsmaynothavebeenreflectedduringtheprojectplanningprocessesleadingtotheprocurementandimplementationoftechnologiesdesignedtoenabletheconductandmanagementofGCEinitiatives.

• Functional requirements for themanagementof recordsresulting fromGCE initiativesmay not have been incorporated in the functional requirements for systems andtechnologiesenablingtheconductandmanagementofGCEinitiatives.

• Themultipleformatsofdocumentsandthemultipletypesoftechnologies,allofwhichmay be managed in multiple ways by multiple organizations residing in multiplejurisdictions, may undermine information exchange and the ability to exploitinformationgeneratedasaresultofagivenGCEinitiative.

• Access to records resulting from a GCE initiative could be impeded if the workflowsupportingtheinitiativeisfragmentedacrosstheorganizationsparticipatingintheGCEinitiative,orifpersonalratherthanorganizationalapproachesaretakentotransmitandexchangeinformation.

• The additional costs of adding technologies to address recordkeeping issues could beprohibitive,especiallyiftheyhavenotbeenfactoredinatthestagewhennewsystemsand technologies are being planned or existing systems and technologies are beingmodified.

Example:Thedecisionbythegovernmentorganizationtopublishinformationaboutthestepsittakesto process and approve building development proposalswas seen as an excellentway todemonstrategovernmentopennessandtransparency.Itwasalsoseenasastraightforwardexercise. Based on content prepared by the Building and Properties Branch, theCommunications Branch simply packaged the message and made it available on thegovernment’sweb site, sent it byemail toa listof interested individualsandgroups,andreleaseditasapressstatement.However,verysoonafterbroadcastingtheinformation,thegovernmentreceivedrequeststhattheinformationbemadeavailablethroughsocialmedia,that it be communicated through the organization’s blog, that teleconferences and othervirtualandphysicalmeetingsbeheldtohearmoreabouttheinformationbeingbroadcast.Some individualswent so far as tomake formal access to information requests based on

45

their concern that not all of the information connected with the message was beingreleased. Upper management in the government organization, concerned about theincreasedprofile resulting fromwhatwasoriginally supposed tobean innocuous ‘inform’initiative,isdemandingthatacompletedocumentaryrecordoftheinitiativebeassembledtoenablethegovernmentorganizationtoaccountforitsactionsanddecisions.Incomplyingwiththisrequirement,theBuildingandPropertiesBranchandtheCommunicationsBranchrecognized that they needed to work together to assemble the records that each hadgenerated as a result of developing the content of the message on the one hand anddeliveringitontheother.Unfortunately,theCommunicationsBranchhadlittleexperienceincapturing themultiplicity of records generated by diverse technologies supporting such awide variety of communications channels. The inability to relate the records of theCommunications Branchwith those of operational areas of the organization, such as theBuildings and Properties Branch, further complicated the situation. Bringing together thecomplete story of this seemingly straightforward ‘inform’ initiativewould be a challenge.Exacerbating the situationwas the fact that even if the story could be brought together,therewasnocentral repositoryormeansforcapturingtherecordsdocumentingthestoryandmaintainingthemthroughtime.

Strategies• Incorporaterecordkeepingconsiderationsineverystageofthetechnologyprocurement

process forGCE initiativesaswell as,onabroader front, the systemsand technologyproject life cycle: from planning, to requirements definition, to design, to testing, toprocurementandimplementation,tomaintenance,andtoreview.

• Use existing standards and tools developed in other jurisdictions, including theInternational Standards Organization (ISO), to identify functional requirements forsystemsandtechnologiesforthemanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiatives,recognizingthatsuchrequirementsmayneedadaptationtoaccountfortheoftencomplexmannerinwhichGCEinitiativesareundertakenandhowtheyaredesignedandmanagedbythegovernment organization and/or by participating records-generating communityorganizations.

• Integrate these functional requirements at the “requirements definition” stageof thetechnologyprocurementprocessand/or the systemsand technologyproject life cyclesuch that theyguide theprocurementof technologies thatwill respect recordkeepingconsiderationsevenastheyaddresstheoverallrequirementsoftheGCEinitiative.

• With the support of the government organization, assess the extent to which therequirementscanbeextendedtoguidetheprocurementoftechnologiestosupporttheneedsofparticipatingcommunityorganizations.

• Research and identify technologies that offer the potential to respond to therequirementsandoffer recommendationsconcerninghowthe technologies shouldbeassessed, procured, and implemented within the context of the organizations’informationtechnologyplansandstrategies.

Example:

46

Therecordsmanagerforthegovernmentorganizationrecognizedthatshort,mediumandlongtermstrategieswouldbeneededtoaddresstheissue.Overtheshortterm,andworkingwithrepresentativesfromthe InformationTechnology(IT)BranchoftheMinistryofPublicWorksaswellas the lead for the ‘inform’ initiative, the recordsmanager for theMinistryfacilitated the identification of the records thatwould be needed to provide an adequateand complete documentary trail for the initiative. Armed with the specifications for thedocumentary trail, the recordsmanagerworkedwith the ITBranch to identify the recordsbeingheldineachoftheCommunicationsBranchandtheBuildingsandPropertiesBranch.Somewere inhardcopy formbutmostwere indigital formand formatsandaccording toclassificationschemesthatvarieddramaticallyacrossbothBranches.Therecordsmanagerdeveloped a briefing paper that outlined the short term ‘band-aid’ steps that would berequiredtoapplyaconsistentapproachtotheclassificationoftherecords(understandingthattheclassificationschemewouldneedtobeatahighlevel),toconvertselectedhighlysignificantdigitalrecordstostandardform,tostoretherecordsinanaccessible,secure,andsafe manner, to assign retention periods that were consistent and respected therequirements for continued access and preservation, and to assign responsibility for therecordsthroughtime.Atabledetailingthecostswasincludedalongwiththemessagethatthe costs couldhavebeenminimized if stepshadbeen taken to identifying recordkeepingrequirements at the planning and design stages of the initiative.Medium to longer termstrategieswerealsoproposedthatfocusedon:

• Theidentificationofgenericrecordkeepingrequirementsthatcouldbeintegratedinthe functionalandother requirements supporting theprocurementof technologiestosupportGCEinitiatives.

• Theestablishmentoftestbedstoassesstechnologiesthatcouldhavethepotentialtoenhance both the effectiveness of GCE initiatives and the ability to capture andmaintainrecordsresultingfromtheinitiatives.

• The establishment of an accountability framework, within the context of theaccountability framework established for GCE initiatives, that would define theapproval process for the procurement of technologies supporting interoperabilityandthepropermanagementofrecords.

• The adaptation of established organization-wide records management standards,practices, and technologies, such as the use of theMinistry’s electronic documentandrecordsmanagementsystem,tothemanagementofrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiatives and other joint initiatives between the Communications Branch and theBuildingandPropertiesBranch.

5.2.6 IssuesandStrategiesattheLevelofAwareness

Issues• Thelevelofunderstandingoftheopportunitiesforexploitingtheinformationinrecords

anddata(acatalystthatcanhelpstimulategreaterconcernaboutthemanagementofthesourcerecords)maybe limitedand inconsistentacrossthedifferentorganizationsparticipatinginagivenGCEinitiative.

47

• TheremaybelittlesharedunderstandingoftheimportanceofrecordsindocumentingGCEinitiatives(i.e.theroleofrecordsinprovidingevidencethatagivenGCEinitiativewasundertaken,howitwasundertaken,theresults,etc.)

• TheremaybelittlesharedunderstandingofbasicrecordsconceptsastheyrelatetoGCEinitiativesnoranappreciationofwhatitmeanstomanagethecreation,use,retention,anddispositionofrecords.

• TheremaybelittlesharedunderstandingoftherolesandresponsibilitiesofallofthoseinvolvedinmanagingandadministeringGCEinitiatives.

Example:A community organization representing the interests of a region of the province iscollaborating with the Water Resources Management Directorate of the Ministry of theEnvironmenttodevelopachapterofthewaterresourcesmanagementplanfortheregion.Asmall secretariat, sponsored by both the government and the community organization,resides in the office of the Directorate. It is staffed by representatives from both thegovernmentand the community organization.While theneed to capture certain financialrecords and ‘records of decision’ is clear, neither the government nor the communityorganizationhavethoughtabouttheirresponsibilitiesforidentifyingandcapturingrecordsthatwouldotherwisedocumenttheconductofthecollaboration.Bothseethecollaborationasashortterminitiativewithaspecificobjective:thedevelopmentofachapterofthewaterresourcesmanagementplan.Furthermore,evenifadocumentarytrailcouldbedefinedforthecollaboration,neitherthegovernmentnorthecommunityorganizationunderstandthechallenges ofmanaging through time the digital records generated by the collaboration.They are unaware of the policies, standards, practices, and technologies that wouldotherwiseenablethemtomanagetherecordsthroughouttheirlifecycle.

Strategies• Identify the key players leading or involved in GCE initiatives in the government

organization. Recognizing that GCE initiatives are typically initiated and led bygovernmentorganizations,itwillbethroughthegovernmentorganizationthatcontactswilleventuallybemadewithrelevantcommunityorganizations.

• Determinetheknowledgegap, ifany,regardingrecordkeepinginordertoaddresstheissues, recognizing that the target audience could range from those leading GCEinitiatives,tothosesettingpolicies,tothoseinuppermanagementwhoareoverseeingtheinitiatives.

• Design,develop,anddeliverawarenesssettingsessionstoclosetheknowledgegapwithrespecttotherelationshipbetweenrecordsandGCEinitiatives.Withthecooperationofthe government organization, determine if, when, and how such awareness sessionsandtoolsshouldbeextendedtorelevantcommunityorganizations.

• Wherepossible, integrateallorpartsoftheawarenesssettingsessionsandtoolswithexisting awareness setting sessions and tools being delivered to those involved inplanning, organizing and implementing GCE initiatives, with a focus on leads andmanagers.

48

Example:The recordsmanager in theMinistry recognizes the risk to both the government and thecommunity organization of not having records in place to document the conduct of thecollaboration. He identifies and defines the risks, meets with the government managerresponsiblefortheGovernment’sroleinthecollaboration,explainstherisks,andseeksthesupportofthemanagertorefinethewaytherisksareexpressedandtodevelopaplanforminimizing the risks. Both the records manager and the manager responsible for thecollaborationrecognizethatbeforeanyconcretestepscanbetakentoaddresstherisks,allof the players involved in and overseeing the collaboration need to be briefed on therelationship between the risks and the records being generated as a result of thecollaboration (i.e.whyare records important;howare they related to the identified risks;whatneeds tobedonetocaptureandmanagethem,especiallywhenmanyare indigitalform;what are their responsibilities, etc.).With the support of themanager, the recordsmanager meets with the head of the Secretariat and the lead from the communityorganizationandbriefs themon the risksand the roleof records,aswellas secures theirsupport to conduct awareness setting sessions for those involved in and overseeing thecollaboration.Thegoalwouldbetobringeveryoneontothesamepagewithrespecttotherisks and the role records play in minimizing the risks. The enhanced and sharedunderstanding of the risks and recordkeeping implications resulting from the awarenesssessionswouldpavethewayforthedevelopmentandimplementationofconcreteplansforenhancingthemanagementofrecordsthatwouldhaveagreaterpotentialforacceptance.

AnadditionalissuethatmaypresentitselfwithinthecontextofGCEinitiativesistheabsenceofpartnershipsbetweenrecordsprofessionals(iftheyexistintheorganization)andthoseleadingand participating in the initiatives. Partnerships are excellent vehicles for ensuring thatinformationabout recordkeepingcanbecommunicatedandexchangedeffectively, initiativesfor integrating recordkeeping inGCE initiatives can be launched and subsequentlymanaged,and the effectiveness of recordkeeping practices can be monitored. The absence ofpartnershipscanunderminetheachievementoftheseobjectives.Iftheissuesandstrategiesdescribedabovearenotaddressed,thentheframeworkrequiredfortheeffectiveandrelevantmanagementofrecordsresultingfromagivenGCEinitiativemaybeweak.Itfollowsthatanyweaknessesintheframeworkcouldleadtoweaknessesnotonlyintheintegrity,authenticity,andcontinuedusabilityof the records,butalso in theeffectivenessofthe GCE initiatives themselves. Trust in the records and trust in the integrity of the GCEinitiativescouldbeerodedasaconsequence.Assumingthataframeworkisweakorthat‘trust’and‘integrity’couldbeerodedisonething,but it is quite another to know concretely that these conditions exist and that theconsequencesfortheintegrityofgivenGCEinitiativesarereal.Withoutadequatemeasurestoassess the quality and integrity of the records management framework and of the recordsthemselves, and without effective and relevant methods for conducting recordkeeping

49

assessments, any observations about the records resulting from GCE initiatives will bespeculationatbest.Theabsenceofstandardsandproceduresforassessingthemanagementofrecords resulting from GCE initiatives can be a highly significant impediment to theidentification of recordkeeping issues and their outcomes. How can a certain recordkeepingconditionbetaggedasanissueifthereisnothingagainstwhichitcanbemeasured?As previously mentioned, the issues and strategies described in this section are organizedaccordingtothecomponentsoftherecordsmanagementframework.Theyareintheformofachecklistthatcanbeusedtoassesstheextenttowhichthecomponentshavebeenaddressedfor anygivenGCE initiative. Thenext section rearranges theelementsof the checklist intoasuggested a plan for moving forward to systematically address the incorporation ofrecordkeepingconsiderationsintothedesignofGCEinitiatives.

50

6. ASuggestedPlan

Thepurposeof thissection is toexplainhowthestrategiesdescribed in theprevioussectioncanbeturnedintoaplantoaddresstherecordkeepingissuesassociatedwithGCEinitiatives,especiallyinsituationswhererecordsmanagementmaybeanestablishedprogram,butpoorlypositionedtohaveasubstantialinfluenceoverthemanagementoftherecordsresultingfromGCE initiatives. It is hoped that the steps outlined belowwill serve as a useful roadmap formovingforwardinamannerthatisrelevantandeffective.Step1:Doyourhomework:becomefamiliarwithwhatisgoingonwithregardstoGCEinyourorganization.

• HowisGCEdefinedinyourorganization;whatisthescope,theobjectives,etc.ofthesetypesofengagements?

• WhatGCE initiativesarecurrentlyunderwayandwhatare their typeswith regards totheIAP2Spectrum?

• WhichpoliciesandprocedurescontrolGCEinitiatives?• WhatstandardsandpracticesareemployedtosupportGCEinitiatives?• WhatistheapprovalprocessforGCEinitiativesandwhoisinvolved?• Whoisinvolvedinplanning,managing,andconductingGCEinitiatives?• HowareGCEinitiativesmonitored,evaluated,andmeasured?

Step2:BasedonanunderstandingoftheGCElandscape,identifywhatyouperceivetobetherecords-related issues from a ‘business’ perspective (i.e. implications for the successfulachievementofGCEinitiatives).Step3:Identify‘all-things-considered’strategiesthatyoufeelwouldberelevantandapplicabletoaddressthebusiness-drivenrecordsissuesyouhaveidentified.Step4:Identifytheindividual(s)intheGCEspacewhowillbemostconcernedabouttheissues(especiallyiftheysurfaceissuessuchasrisk,lostopportunities,increasedcosts,etc.)andthusmost interested in the strategies. These individuals could exist in both the governmentorganizationandthosecommunityorganizations involved inGCE initiatives, thoughthe focusshouldbeonthegovernmentorganizationgiventhatmostGCEinitiativesareinitiatedandledbythegovernment.Notethattheyneednotbeatthemanagementlevel,althoughthiswouldbeapreferred targetaudience.Allies couldbe those leadingGCE initiatives, thosemanagingtheresourcesallocatedtosupportGCEinitiatives,and/orthoseinvolvedindevelopingpoliciesand procedures, including the application of standards for GCE initiatives. In a governmentorganization, they could reside in policy or legal affairs areas, communications, and theoperationalprogramareasinvolvedinplanning,designingandimplementingGCEinitiatives.Step5: Arrange an informalmeetingwith the individual(s) to discuss your perceptionof theissuesand their implications forGCE initiatives.Confirm the issuesand implicationswith theindividual(s) anddiscuss your perception about possible strategies. The goal is to establish astrong, positive relationship with the individual(s) and to identify a way of positioning the

51

recordsissueswithinthecontextoftheissuesandchallengesbeingfacedintheGCEinitiativesbeingplannedorundertakenintheorganization.Step6:Withinthecontextofastrongandmutuallybeneficialrelationshipwiththeindividual(s)and as supported by the individual(s), prepare a brief or discussion paper (or equivalentdocument) that can be brought forward to higher levels of the organization for review andapproval.Thedocumentwouldarticulatetheissuesandproposegeneralstrategiesformovingforward.Onceapproved,itwouldprovidearoadmapthatwouldaddresstherecordsissuesaswell as termsof reference for thepartnershipwith the individual(s) andotherswhomaybeinvolved in leading and managing GCE initiatives, developing policies and standards,administeringresources,etc.Amongotherthings,thedocumentshouldrecommendpolicystatements(standaloneorideallyincorporatedinpoliciescontrollingGCEengagements)thattouchonatleastthefollowing:

• BasicprinciplesrelatedtocreatingandmanagingrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiatives;• The rolesand responsibilitiesof those involved inGCE initiativesas they relate to the

creation,captureandmanagementofrecords.Thegoalistoestablishanaccountabilityframeworkthat is integratedseamlessly intotheaccountability frameworkestablishedforGCEinitiatives;

• HighlevelrequirementsforthecreationandmanagementofrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiatives;and

• Aplanforassessingthepolicystatements.ThedocumentshouldalsorecommendapilotprojecttotestvariousapproachestomanagingrecordsinGCEinitiatives.

• Identifyanengagementtypewheretherecords issuesandtheir implicationsaremostpronounced and where the implementation of strategies for the management ofrecordswouldsecuresubstantialbenefits;

• Incorporate records solutions in the planning, design, execution and review of GCEinitiativeswiththegoalofavoiding‘bandaid’approaches;

• Consider the establishment of a technology testbed within the context of the pilotproject to assess the potential of various technologies for supporting GCE initiativeswhilealsoaddressingrecordkeepingrequirements;and

• Enableallparticipants,includingrecordsprofessionals,tounderstandmoreclearlywhatitmeanstoaccountforrecordkeepingconsiderationsinGCEinitiatives.

These stepsmay seem somewhat basic and evenmodest, but they are fundamental to theestablishmentof anongoing,productiveworking relationshipwith thosewhoare generatingrecords of GCE initiatives. Skipping through or by-passing these steps in an effort to imposerecordkeepingstandards,rules,andtechnologieswillleadtofailureandunderminetheabilityofarecordsmanagementprogramtoposition itself tomakeadifferencewithrespecttothemanagementof records resulting fromGCE initiatives.Conversely, theprocess leading to theestablishmentofsuccessfulpartnershipswiththoseinvolvedinmanagingandconductingGCE

52

initiatives can serve as a useful model that could be extended to other areas of a givenorganization.Theoutcomecouldbeintheformofarecordsmanagementprogramthatistrulyenterprise-wide in that it is able to demonstrate its relevance and effectiveness across allsectorsofagivenorganization.

53

7. Conclusion

GCE initiatives canhave a significant impact on the lives of citizens,whether they concern alocalparkoranationalagenda.Bytheirnature,theyclosethegapbetweencitizensandtheirgovernments and, as a result, raise the stakes concerning the ability of governments tomaintainthehighleveloftrustthatcitizensexpecttosharewiththeirgovernments.Thestakesare even higher in governmentswhere openness, transparency and accountability are beingpromoted by highly visible and increasingly significant open government initiatives. GCEinitiatives are also increasing in complexity; the introduction and application of newtechnologies,suchassocialmediatools,stimulatenewand innovativewaysforgovernmentsandcitizenstointeract.Records,whenwellmanaged,areapowerfultoolthatunderpinstheachievementofthegoalsand objectives of GCE initiatives. Their power comes from their evidential qualities, theircapacityforuseandre-use,theirversatilityinbeingabletoservemultiplepurposes,andtheirrole in providing an authoritative historical context – to tell a story. They are valuableorganizationalassetsandthusdeservetobemanagedassuch.Weaknessesinthemanagementof thesevaluedassets,however,willplacethe integrityandsuccessofGCE initiativesat risk.Justasweaknessesinthemanagementofotherimportantassets,suchashumanandfinancialresources, will undermine the integrity of GCE initiatives, so too will weaknesses in themanagementoftherecordsresultingfromthoseinitiatives.Unlikeweaknessesingovernmentprocessesandactivitiesunderwaysolelywithin thewallsofagovernmentorganization, suchweaknesseswillalsobeveryvisiblegiventheexposurethatcomeswiththeclosegovernment-citizeninteractionsthattypifymanyGCEinitiatives.TheriskisnotjustafailedGCEinitiative;itisafailedGCEinitiativethatcouldseriouslyerodethegovernment-citizentrustrelationship.TherecordsissuesfacingthemanagementofGCEinitiatives,fromthosethat‘inform’tothosethat ‘empower’ are significantbutnot insurmountable. Thisprimer is intendedas a guide tohelp in addressing those issues. As well as providing an understanding of the concepts andissues associated with managing records resulting from GCE initiatives, the primer sets outsuggestionstoguidethedevelopmentofstrategies foraddressingthe issues. It ishopedthatthose involved inmanaging, supporting and participating in GCE initiatives will benefit fromwhattheprimerhastoofferand,byfosteringtheeffectivemanagementofrecordsasassets,willstrengthenthequalityandintegrityofGCEinitiativesandultimatelythegovernment-citizentrustrelationship.

54


References

The following references provide guidance on the management of records in a digital environment.While only a few address directly the role of records management in open government, the othersprovidegeneralrecordsmanagementguidancethat,withadjustments,couldbetailoredtoaddresstherecordkeepingissuesidentifiedinGCEinitiatives.———.“RecordsManagement.”opengovernmentandrecordsmanagementguide,2015.http://www.opengovguide.com/topics/records-management/Borglund,Erik,andToveEngvall.2014.“OpenData?:Data,Information,DocumentorRecord?”RecordsManagementJournal24(2):163–80.doi:10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0012.Evans,AngelaM.,andAdrianaCampos.2013.“OpenGovernmentInitiatives:ChallengesofCitizenParticipation.”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement32(1):172–85.doi:10.1002/pam.21651.Lemieux,Victoria,BriannaGormly,andLyseRowledge.2014.“MeetingBigDataChallengeswithVisualAnalytics:TheRoleofRecordsManagement.”RecordsManagementJournal24(2):122–41.doi:10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0009.Léveillé,Valerie,andKatherineTimms.2015.“ThroughaRecordsManagementLens:CreatingaFrameworkforTrustinOpenGovernmentandOpenGovernmentInformation.”LesObjectifsVisésParLesSystèmesdeGestionDocumentaires:LaMiseEnPlaceD’unCadredeConfianceetdeLaTransparencedeL’informationDansUnGouvernementOuvert.39(2):154–90.InternationalRecordsManagementTrust2015.“BenchmarksforOpenGovernmentandTrustworthyRecords.”Accessed24August2015.http://www.irmt.org/portfolio/open-government-trustworthy-records/attachment/benchmarks-for-open-government-and-trustworthy-records-final-2.

McDonald,John.2016.“TheContextsofRecordsandtheSpectrumofPublicParticipationResearchPaper”,[RestrictedDraft,March4,2016],InterPARESTrust,NorthAmericanTeam08.

McDonald,JohnandValerieLéveillé.2014.“WhithertheRetentionScheduleintheEraofBigDataandOpenData?”RecordsManagementJournal24(2):99–121.doi:10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0010.Serra,LluísEsteveCasellas.2014.“TheMapping,SelectingandOpeningofData:TheRecordsManagementContributiontotheOpenDataProjectinGironaCityCouncil.”RecordsManagementJournal24(2):87–98.doi:10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0008.Sheedy,A.,MacKinnon,M.P.,Pitre,S.,&Watling,J.(2008).Handbookoncitizenengagement:Beyondconsultation.Ottawa:CanadianPolicyResearchNetworks.Thurston,Anne.2015.“ManagingRecordsandInformationforTransparent,AccountableandInclusiveGovernanceintheDigitalEnvironment:LessonsfromNordicCountries.”WorldBank.

55

Thurston,Anne.2012.“TrustworthyRecordsandOpenData.”TheJournalofCommunityInformatics8(2).http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/951.Yu,Harlan,andDavidG.Robinson.2012.‘‘TheNewAmbiguityof‘OpenGovernment’.’’UCLALawReviewDisclosure59:178–208.doi:10.2139/ssrn.2012489.

GeneralRecordsManagementGuidanceTheNationalArchives(UK)http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/StateRecordsAuthorityofNewSouthWaleshttp://www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/recordkeepingNationalArchivesofAustraliahttp://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/LibraryandArchivesCanadahttp://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/services/government-information-resources/information-management/Pages/information-management.aspxNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministrationhttp://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/QueenslandStateArchiveshttp://www.archives.qld.gov.au/Recordkeeping/DigitalContinuity/Pages/Default.aspxInternationalRecordsManagementTrusthttp://www.irmt.org

InternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)OftheinternationalrecordsmanagementstandardsandTechnicalReportspublishedbyISO’sTechnicalSub-CommitteeTC46/SC11-Archives/RecordsManagement,thefollowingareconsideredrelevanttothemanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiatives:

• ISO15489-1:2016Informationanddocumentation--Recordsmanagement--Part1:Generalhttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=31908&commid=48856

• ISO/TR15489-2:2001Informationanddocumentation--Recordsmanagement--Part2:Guidelineshttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35845&commid=48856

• ISO/TR26122:2008Informationanddocumentation--Workprocessanalysisforrecordshttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43391&commid=48856

56

• ISO30300:2011Informationanddocumentation--Managementsystemsforrecords--Fundamentalsandvocabularyhttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53732&commid=48856

• ISO30301:2011Informationanddocumentation--Managementsystemsforrecords–Requirementshttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53733&commid=48856

• ISO30302:2015Informationanddocumentation--Managementsystemsforrecords--Guidelinesforimplementationhttp://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54673&commid=48856

GCEToolkitsandGuidesThetoolkitsandguideslistedbelowareneitherexhaustivenoraretheythe‘bestofbreed’.TheyareillustrativeofthekindsoftoolkitsandguidesbeingusedintheGCEcommunity.AswellasprovidingexamplesofthekindsofproceduresthatguideGCEinitiatives,thetoolkitsandguidescanserveasthebasisforidentifyingwhereandhowrecordkeepingrequirementscouldbeincorporated.AlbertaUrbanMunicipalitiesAssociationandAlbertaAssociationofMunicipalDistrictandCounties,CitizenEngagementToolkit,2015https://www.auma.ca/sites/default/files/Advocacy/Programs_Initiatives/citizen_engagement/final_auma_aamdc_cet_2015.pdf_____________,CitizenEngagementResources,(CanadianInstitutesofHealthResearch,2015)http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41696.html_____________,CivicEngagementattheCityofVictoria,(CityofVictoria,2012)http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Communications/Documents/Civic_Engagment.pdf_____________,PeopleandParticipation:Howtoputcitizensattheheartofdecision-making,(Involve,2005)http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdfLukensmeyer,CarolynJandTorresLarsHasselbad.PublicDeliberation:AManager’sGuidetoCitizenEngagement,(IBMCenterfortheBusinessofGovernment,2006)http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LukensmeyerReport.pdfSheedy,Amanda.HandbookonCitizenEngagement:BeyondConsultation,(CanadianPolicyResearchNetworks,2008)http://www.cprn.org/documents/49583_EN.pdf_____________,GuidelinesonCitizens’EngagementforDevelopmentManagementandPublicGovernance,(UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,2011)

57

AppendixA–RecordkeepingConcepts

The conceptsdescribedbeloware intended toplace the conceptof ‘record’, as described inSection3,withinabroadercontextthatrelatestheconceptbacktoimportant‘buildingblock’concepts, such as ‘data’ and ‘information’. It also expands on the concept of the ‘recordsmanagementframework’inordertounderlinetheroleofthebusinessprocessinthecreationofrecordsandtheimportanceoftheindividualcomponentsoftheframeworkinensuringtheireffectivemanagementandusethroughtime.Dataaretherepresentationoffacts,conceptsandinstructionsinaformalizedmannersuitableforcommunication,interpretationorprocessingbyhumanorautomatedmeans.53

• datacanbeinmultiplephysicalformsincludingpaper(e.g.alpha-numericcharactersonapagearedata);

• 'formalizedmanner'meanssomeformofcodification,suchasacharacterset;• 'human' means the ability to communicate, interpret or process through our own

facultieswithoutmachine interventionor theuseof 'automatedmeans'.For instance,whenwereadtheEnglishcharactersonapagewecangivemeaningtothem.Itismoredifficult with Japanese characters because we don't know the meaning of thecharacters;regardless,theLatinandJapanesecharactersarebothdatabecausetheyareboth recorded information that is there toenable 'meaning' for thosewhoknowandcanusethecharactersets.

• hexadecimal, ASCII, etc. are examples of coding schemes that can only becommunicated,interpretedorprocessedby'automatedmeans'.

• adatum is the single smallestunitof recorded informationcapableof 'representingafact, concept or figure, in a manner suitable for communication, interpretation andprocessingbyhumanorautomatedmeans';anexampleisasingleletterofthealphabetsuchastheletterB.

Informationisthemeaninggiventothedata54–i.e.therepresentationofthefacts,figuresandconcepts. The keyword is 'meaning'. Information is not something that is recorded. It is the'meaning' humans give to the codes that have been developed through the ages. Latin andJapanesecharactersareanexample,butsotooarethehexadecimalcharactersetsdevelopedtoenabledatatobecommunicated, interpretedandprocessedalbeitby 'automatedmeans'.Information can be derived from either 'data' or 'records' (i.e. that special form of data orrecorded information as described below). The key concept is that 'information' is notsomethingtangible–itiswhatisgoingoninsideaperson'smind.ThisiswhysomeInformationManagement professionals have called their programs “Recorded InformationManagement”

53DictionaryofMilitaryandAssociatedTerms.USDepartmentofDefense2005.http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/d/3600.html54TheFreeDictionary,http://www.thefreedictionary.com/information

58

because technically they are not in the business of managing what goes on inside peoples'minds; that's the jobofcommunicationsspecialists (e.g.:marketing,media,etc.).ARecordedInformationspecialist’sbusinessistomanagetheintegrityofthedataandrecordsfromwhichthe information (themeaning) is derived. The ‘meaning’ thatpeople ascribe to the recordedinformation is relative. Information Management professionals are not in the 'meaning'managementbusiness,butratherintherecordedinformationmanagementbusiness.Records are a special form of recorded information. Technically, they are 'data' (recordedinformation);however,theirpurposedictatesthatgreatcareneedstobetakeninhowthedatathatmakeuparecordarebroughttogetherandmanaged.Thisisbecausethefundamentalroleofrecordsistodocumentdecisions,actions,andactivitiesor,inotherwords,totellthe‘story’.Based on their role in telling the ‘story’, records are capable of serving multiple businesspurposeswhentheyarecompleteandwellmanaged.

• Recordscanserveasevidence.For instance, theycanbeused todemonstrate that inthe context of a partnership between a given government organization and acommunityorganization,bothorganizationsrespectedthetermsoftheir‘collaboration.’

• Recordsenableorganizationstoholdthemselvesaccountablepursuanttovariouslaws.Forinstance,inan‘inform’engagement,wheresensitiveinformationwasdisseminatedtothepublic,citizenscanmakeaformalrequestundertheAccesstoInformationLawfor records documenting the process by which the disseminated information wasproduced.

• Recordssupporttheattainmentofindividualrightsandentitlements.Forinstance,inan‘empower’ engagement, the records documenting the government’s willingness toaccept the recommendations of a given community organization concerning thedispositionofspecificcrownlandscouldbeusedtoholdthegovernmentorganizationtoaccountfortheactionsittakesinresponsetotherecommendations.

• Recordsarethesourceofvaluabledataandinformationthatcanbeanalyzedtosupportpurposesbeyondthosethatledtothecreationoftherecords.Forinstance,astheresultofa‘consultation,’thedatafromcompletedsurveyformswhenmergedwithdatafromcensusrecordsandotherrelatedsourcescouldbeusedtoperformanalysesthatwouldnothavebeenpossibleusingthesurveydataalone.

A framework is required to ensure that records remain authentic, reliable, accurate andaccessible for the length of time that they are required to support the business andaccountability requirements of the organization and/or the cultural requirements of anarchives.Suchaframeworkshouldbebasedontheprinciplethatrecordsarevaluedassetsthatare littledifferent fromothervaluedassetssuchashumanand financial resources. It followsthatthecomponentsofsuchaframeworkshouldbebasedonthecomponentsthatformtheframeworksusedtosupportthemanagementofothervaluedassetssuchashumanresourcesand financial resources. Amodel thatmight be useful in illustrating the attributes of such a

59

frameworkastheypertaintothemanagementofelectronicrecordsisthemodeldevelopedbythemembersoftheElectronicRecordsCommitteeoftheInternationalCouncilonArchives55.

Themodelisbasedontwointegratedperspectiveswith the first being thebusiness perspective (see figure 1).The reference point for thisperspective is not the organizationalstructure, but rather the businessprocesses used to support thedelivery of information products tovarious clients (e.g.: citizen applyingfor a license; a company filing itscorporate taxes; a policy officerdevelopingabriefingnote for seniormanagement; etc.). The individualcanbeanexternal client (abusinessor customer) or an internal client(managers and staff within theorganization).

Agivenbusinessprocess,whichcomprisesasetofrelatedtasks,supportstherequirementsofa given function (i.e.what the organization does as distinct from how it does it) which ismanaged by accountable individuals located inside the organization. The organizationalstructure isnothingmorethanamanagementandaccountability framework for the functionandthebusinessprocess.Allofthis(i.e.theorganization,thefunctions,andtheprocesses)aresituatedwithinanaccountabilityframeworkwhichitself isderivedfromamandate(s)andanenabling law(s)orsomeotherauthority.Businessprocessescanbehighlystructured(e.g.theprocessingoflicenseapplications)orlesswell-structured(i.e.developingapolicy,conductingacollaborative research project, etc.). Ultimately their design depends on the nature of thefunctionbeingsupported.

This business-driven model of a recordkeeping framework is intended to provide acomprehensiveandholisticviewofwhatisrequiredtomanagerecords.Foranygivenbusinessprocess or for the organization as a whole, it can be used as a template to map therequirements and standards being employed to support recordkeeping, define theirinterrelationships,andassesstheirqualitiesallwithinthecontextofagivenbusinessprocess,function, and/or enterprise. It can also be used to help ensure that digital records are

55Thecoreelementsofthemodel,whichweredevelopedbytheCommitteeonElectronicRecordsoftheInternationalCouncilonArchives(ICA),wereusedasoneofthefoundationsofthe“StudyGuide8-GuideforManagingElectronicRecordsfromanArchivalPerspective”publishedbytheICA,Paris,1997http://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ICA%20Study%208%20guide_eng_0.pdf

Figure1:TheBusinessPerspective

60

addressedinthesamecontextasallotherformsofrecordsthathavebeengeneratedwithinagivenfunction,process,orenterprise56.

Itisimportanttonotethattheremaybeadisconnectbetweentheworkprocesssupportedbyanoperationalunitwithinanorganizationandtheprocesssupportedbyacommunicationsunitwithin the same organization that is responsible for making information products availablethroughthewebsiteorportal. Ifthefullstory(i.e.thedocumentarytrail) istobesupported,thentheprocessesofboththeoperationalunitand,inthisexample,thecommunicationsunitneedtobeaccountedforandrelatedtooneanother.Ifacomprehensivedocumentarytrailisto be defined for the overall work process associated with, for instance, initiating, drafting,approvingandpostingapolicy,thenthestatusofthetasksorstepswithintheworkprocessintermsoftheirsignificanceincontributingtothedocumentarytrailmustbedefined.Notethatthefocusofattentionon'significance'isonthetasksorsteps,notontherecords.Thestatusoftherecordswillemergefromanunderstandingofthestatusofthetasksorsteps.Somewillbehighly significant and others not so significant. Significance is determined first and foremostfromtheperspectiveoftheorganization(i.e.thebusiness)basedonqualifiersorcriteriathatfocusontheroleofthetasksinsupportingtheobjectivesofthebusinessfunctionsupportedbytheworkprocess.Thedocumentarytrailcreatedasaresultofthisanalysis(i.e.identifyingtheinformation objects generated from those tasks that are assessed as having 'business'significance)isareflectionoftherelationshipbetweentheprocessanditsroleinsupportoftheorganization.Forexample,anemailapprovingadraftpolicy issignificantasanaccountabilitytool;thedatasetgeneratedasaresultofaresearchprojectsupportingthepolicydevelopmenteffort could be both an accountability instrument and a source of valuable information forfutureuse.Collectively,alloftheinformationobjects(records)formingthedocumentarytrailprovideevidenceofhowagivenpolicywasdevelopedanddisseminated.This'businessperspective'ofthemodelillustratesthemeansbywhichorganizationscarryouttheirmandated responsibilities (i.e. theirbusiness). It isorganization-neutral in that it canbeapplied toany typeoforganization, fromgovernmententities to theacademicsector, to theprivatesector.

56Thisveryimportantpointisevidentinthenatureofmanyofthestandardsavailabletoday.Whiletechnicalstandardssuchasformatstandardsarespecifictotherealmofdigitalrecords,theISO15489standardandtheISO30300seriesofstandardsaremediaindependent.EventheOAISstandardandMoReq2010arecraftedinawaythatwhiletheirfocusisonrecordsinelectronicformtheydonotexclude(andrathertheyinclude)otherformsofrecordsaswell.

61

The records managementframeworkperspective(figure2)isalignedwithand ideally integratedwiththe'businessperspective'andusesthesamereferencepoint–i.e.the delivery of informationproducts to internal and/orexternalclients.Inthisperspective,however, the individual tasksthemselves generate information'products' (i.e. records) of theirown such as: the records resultingfrom the processing of a licenseapplication; the records resultingfromacompanyfilingitscorporatetaxes; the records resulting in thedevelopment of a policy or theconduct of a research project; or, the records resulting from a government-communitycollaborationorothertypeofengagement.

Inexecutingthesetasks,fouractivitiesarecarriedout,namely:1) Activitiesundertakentobringrecords intoexistencetosupportdecision-making,business

delivery, and to meet accountability requirements. These activities include: create,generate,collect,capture,andreceive.Thelabelgiventothissetofactivitiesis“create”.

2) Activities undertaken to ensure that records can be used and preserved. These activitiesincludeidentify,describe,andclassify.Thelabelgiventothissetofactivitiesis“organize”.

3) Activities undertakenwith records to support decisionmaking, program delivery, and tomeet accountability requirements. These activities include: transmit, exchange, access,retrieve,disseminate,andshare.Thelabelgiventothissetofactivitiesis“use”.

4) Activitiesundertaken to records toensure that theyareauthentic, reliable,available,andusable foras longas requiredtosupportdecisionmaking,programdelivery,andtomeetaccountability requirements. These activities include: retain, protect, store, migrate, anddispose.Thelabelgiventothissetofactivitiesis“preserve”.

The components of the framework for managing records are little different from thoseestablished for themanagement of other valued assetswithin a given organization, such ashumanresourcesandfinancialresources.Allarebasedonassetmanagementprinciplesandallarededicatedtosupportingtheeffectivemanagementoftheobjectives,goals,andfunctionsof

Figure2:RecordsManagementFramework

62

theorganization.Inthecaseofrecordsmanagement,thecomponentsoftheframeworkareasfollows:

• Laws and policies that assign accountability for the activities associated with thecaptureandmanagementofrecords;

• Standardsandpracticesthatenablethemanagementofrecordsas'records';• Systemsandtechnologiesthatsupportthecapabilitytocapture,organize,retain,make

availableandotherwisemanagerecordsthroughouttheirlifecycle;• Peoplewhohavetherequiredknowledgeandabilitiestoplan,design, implementand

maintaintheframeworkformanagingrecords;• Amanagementandgovernancestructurethatallocatesandcontrolstheresourcesfor

managingrecords;and• A levelofawareness amongallof those involved increating, capturingandmanaging

records about the importance of records and their responsibility for their propermanagement.

If theobjectiveofauthentic,reliable,accessiblerecords,well-managedthroughtime, istobeachievedthenallofthecomponentsoftheframeworkmustbeinplace.Ifoneorseveralofthecomponentsareweakormissingentirely, then thewholeof the recordkeepingenvironmentwillbeplacedatrisk.Forexample,theimplementationofanElectronicDocumentandRecordsManagement (EDRM) systemwithoutapolicyora setof standardswill fail; apolicywithoutstandardsorsystemstosupportitsimplementationwillbeapolicywithoutinfluence.Ifpeopleareunawareofand/or fail tounderstandthe importanceof therecordkeeping frameworktotheirbusiness,theneffortstodeveloprecordkeepingpolicies,standards,andsystemswillbeinvain.Eachcomponentoftheframeworkmustreflectacertainlevelofqualityandintegrityandallmustbeworking inharmonyifalloftheactivitiesperformedonrecords(create,organize,use,andpreserve)aretobemanagedeffectively.

63

AppendixB–ChecklistofStrategies

ThestrategieslistedbelowareverbatimfromSection4.Thelistisintendedtoprovideaneasy-to-accesschecklistofthestrategiesthatmaybeemployedtoaddressidentifiedweaknessesintheindividualcomponentsofagivenrecordsmanagementframework.StrategiesattheLevelofPolicy

• Usesources,suchaspoliciesdevelopedinotherjurisdictions,toidentify/expresspolicyrequirementsthatrelatetothemanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiativesundertakenbythe government organization, recognizing that such policy requirements may needadaptation to account for the manner in which GCE initiatives are designed andmanaged, as well as the role played by participating records-generating communityorganizations.

• ReviewexistingpoliciesgoverningthemanagementofGCEinitiativesandidentifygaps.Use the components of the records management framework and the five recordscontexts as a checklist to assesswhere policy is required.Determine how andwhereproposed records management policy statements (i.e. records managementrequirementsexpressedaspolicystatements)couldfillthegaps.

• Asaminimum,usethepolicystatementstodefinetheaccountabilityframeworkforthemanagementofrecordswithinthecontextoftheoverallaccountabilityframeworkforthemanagementofGCEinitiatives.

• If possible, collaborate with GCE leaders to integrate records management policystatements with policies for themanagement of GCE initiatives, recognizing that theintegration could extend to related policies supported in relevant communityorganizations.

StrategiesattheLevelofGovernanceandManagement

• Identifyhow individualGCE initiativesaremanaged?Who isaccountabletowhomfortheir approval and for their management? How are they governed in terms of thestructures for overseeing the initiatives? What do the management and governancestructures look like in both the government organization and the communityorganization?Aretheydistinctorrelatedinsomeway?

• Determineifgovernanceandmanagementstructuresexistcentrallyintheorganization(governmentand/orcommunity)toensurethatconsistentapproachesareadoptedtotheapprovalandmanagementofGCEinitiatives.IsanaccountabilityframeworkforallGCE initiatives inplace?Whatdoes theapprovalpath forGCE initiatives look likeandwhoisinvolved?HowaretheresultsofGCEinitiativesassessedandwhoisinvolved?

• Identify elements of the governance and management structures required for themanagement of records. These elements should be integrated in the governance andmanagementstructuresforGCEinitiatives.

• Integrate recordkeeping governance and management elements in the terms ofreference for GCE initiatives; for instance, a partnership agreement governing theconduct of a collaboration between a government organization and a community

64

organization.StrategiesattheLevelofPeople

• Identify the key players involved in leading and undertaking GCE initiatives in bothgovernment and community organizations. Using human resources managementplanningtechniques57,definetherolesandresponsibilities thatneedtobeperformedsuchthatrecordsresultingfromGCEinitiativesarecapturedandmanaged,recognizingthat the nature of the roles and responsibilities will change with the type of GCEinitiative.

• Integratetherolesandresponsibilitiesinthejobdescriptions(orequivalents)forthoseinvolvedinleading,managingandconductingGCEinitiatives.Throughthegovernmentorganization, assess the extent to which the records management roles andresponsibilities(adaptedaccordingly)canbeintegratedintherolesandresponsibilitiesof those in the community organizations involved in leading or undertaking GCEinitiativeswiththegovernmentorganization.

• Adapt existing records management competency models to GCE initiatives to helpdefinethecorecompetencies(knowledge,skills,abilities)requiredtomanagerecordsintheseinitiatives.

• Identifythecompetencygapanddevelopstrategiesforfillingthegapthrough:o recruitmentorsecuringconsultingsupport,and/oro thedevelopmentanddeliveryoftrainingandorientationsessions,withaviewto

extending specially adapted sessions to those in the community organizationinvolvedinleadingGCEinitiatives.

• Adapt existing recordsmanagement performancemeasures toGCE initiatives to helpdefine the performance measures required to measure the effectiveness of thoseinvolvedinleadingtheseinitiatives.

• Identifythegapinexistingperformancemeasuresanddevelopstrategiesforfillingthegap; integrate these newmeasures in the performancemeasures established for theGCEinitiatives.

StrategiesattheLevelofStandardsandPractices

• Use standards and guides produced by authoritative organizations, such as theInternational Standards Organization (ISO) as well as organizations responsible forsetting standardsandpractices inother jurisdictions, suchasnational/state/provincialarchives, recordsmanagement associations, etc., to identify/define standards for themanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiatives,recognizingthatsuchstandardsandpracticesmayneedadaptationtoaccount for themanner inwhichGCE initiativesaredesigned

57AnexampleofahumanresourcesplanningandmanagementguidewhereHRprocessesaresystematicallyandclearlypresentedandwhereitshouldbepossibletoseehowtheseprocessescouldbeadaptedtoaddressrecordsmanagement from an HR perspective can be found in, Human Resources Management Guide for InformationTechnology Companies, (Software Human Resources Council, Ottawa, 2004); An overview of HR planning andmanagementprocessesandtheirrelationshiptorecordkeepingcanbefoundin,HumanResourcesManagement,(Library and Archives Canada, 2011) http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/services/government-information-resources/guidelines/generic-valuation-tools/Pages/human-resources-management.aspx#TOC5a

65

and managed by the government organization and/or by participating records-generatingcommunityorganizations.

• Review existing standards and practices for the management of GCE initiatives andidentifygaps;determinehowandwhereproposedstandardsandpracticescouldfillthegaps.

• Identify,develop,and/oradaptstandardsandpracticesthataddressissuessuchasrulesfordocumentingdecisionsandactionsassociatedwithGCEinitiatives,capturingrecordsresulting from GCE initiatives, organizing and classifying records, retaining andprotectingrecords,andfacilitatingaccess.

• Integrate existing records management standards and practices with those used tosupporttheconductofGCEinitiatives,recognizingthattheintegrationcouldextendtorelated standards and practices supported in participating records-generatingcommunityorganizations.

StrategiesattheLevelofTechnology

• Incorporaterecordkeepingconsiderationsineverystageofthetechnologyprocurementprocess forGCE initiativesaswell as,onabroader front, the systemsand technologyproject life cycle: from planning, to requirements definition, to design, to testing, toprocurementandimplementation,tomaintenance,andtoreview.

• Use existing standards and tools developed in other jurisdictions, including theInternational Standards Organization (ISO), to identify functional requirements forsystemsandtechnologiesforthemanagementofrecordsinGCEinitiatives,recognizingthatsuchrequirementsmayneedadaptationtoaccountfortheoftencomplexmannerinwhichGCEinitiativesareundertakenandhowtheyaredesignedandmanagedbythegovernment organization and/or by participating records-generating communityorganizations.

• Integrate these functional requirements at the “requirements definition” stageof thetechnologyprocurementprocessand/or the systemsand technologyproject life cyclesuch that theyguide theprocurementof technologies thatwill respect recordkeepingconsiderationsevenastheyaddresstheoverallrequirementsoftheGCEinitiative.

• With the support of the government organization, assess the extent to which therequirementscanbeextendedtoguidetheprocurementoftechnologiestosupporttheneedsofparticipatingcommunityorganizations.

• Research and identify technologies that offer the potential to respond to therequirementsandoffer recommendationsconcerninghowthe technologies shouldbeassessed, procured, and implemented within the context of the organizations’informationtechnologyplansandstrategies.

StrategiesattheLevelofAwareness

• Identify the key players leading or involved in GCE initiatives in the governmentorganization. Recognizing that GCE initiatives are typically initiated and led bygovernmentorganizations,itwillbethroughthegovernmentorganizationthatcontactswilleventuallybemadewithrelevantcommunityorganizations.

66

• Determinetheknowledgegap, ifany,regardingrecordkeepinginordertoaddresstheissues, recognizing that the target audience could range from those leading GCEinitiatives,tothosesettingpolicies,tothoseinuppermanagementwhoareoverseeingtheinitiatives.

• Design,develop,anddeliverawarenesssettingsessionstoclosetheknowledgegapwithrespecttotherelationshipbetweenrecordsandGCEinitiatives.Withthecooperationofthe government organization, determine if, when, and how such awareness sessionsandtoolsshouldbeextendedtorelevantcommunityorganizations.

• Wherepossible, integrateallorpartsoftheawarenesssettingsessionsandtoolswithexisting awareness setting sessions and tools being delivered to those involved inplanning, organizing and implementing GCE initiatives, with a focus on leads andmanagers.

67

AppendixC–SampleRecordsManagementPolicy

The following is an example of a template thatmay be useful in developing policies on themanagement of records in government organizations (including records resulting from GCEinitiatives).ThetemplateisbasedonthestructureusedbytheCanadianfederalgovernment’sTreasury Board Secretariat in the development of its information policies. It is based on theprinciple thatapolicyon themanagementof records resulting fromGCE initiativesneednotstandonitsown.Itmaybeintegratedinanoverallpolicyonthemanagementoftherecordsofa given organization (i.e. whole-of-government, individual department, ministry, etc.) and,where possible, components of that policy should be reflected in the information and otherrelatedpoliciessupportedbytheorganizationincludingthosethatguideGCEinitiatives.

1. EffectiveDate(ofthepolicy)

2. Application(organizationalunitscoveredbythepolicy)

3. Context

Records are critical to the delivery of the programs and services of theGovernment/Department/Ministry.Whenwellmanaged,authenticandreliablerecordsdocument government activities and help the Government/Department/Ministryprovide evidence of its decisions and actions. They enable theGovernment/Department/Ministry to hold itself accountable pursuant to laws andpolicies as well as to its clients, stakeholders and partners. They also supportmanagement oversight, such as the conduct of audits, reviews and managementreporting.Records thatarecomplete,accurate,authenticandreliablealsoserveasan importantsource of information that can be used in support of decision-making, the analysis oftrends, and the conduct of both program-specific and government-wide functions andactivities.Theycanbeinvaluableincapturingthecorporatememoryofthosestaffthatare leaving theGovernment/Department/Ministryand inorientingnewstaff thathavejustbeenrecruited.All employees are responsible for documenting their activities and decisions and forapplyingrecordsmanagementprinciples,standardsandpracticesintheperformanceoftheirduties.[SeniorofficialsresponsibleforDepartments/Ministries]areaccountabletotheheadofthe Government for the effective and well-coordinated management of recordsthroughouttheirDepartments/Ministries.

68

Thispolicyisissuedundertheauthorityofthe[xxxAct].

The [central or lead organization(s) in the government] has the authority to issuedirections and standards concerning recordsmanagement roles and responsibilities tosupportthispolicy.

4. Definitions

Definitionstobeusedinthe interpretationofthispolicy,as listed inthissection,wouldconformwithgovernment-wideorinternationalstandards,legislation,etc.

5. PolicyStatement

The objective of this policy is to achieve the efficient and effective management ofgovernment records to supportprogramandservicedelivery; foster informeddecisionmaking; facilitate accountability and collaboration; and preserve and ensure access togovernmentrecordsforthebenefitofpresentandfuturegenerations.Theexpectedresultsoftheachievementoftheobjectivearethat:

• Governmentprogramsandservicesprovideconvenientaccesstorelevant,reliable,comprehensiveandtimelyinformationcontainedintherecordsundertheircontrol.

• Government records aremanaged as valuable assets to support the outcomes ofprogramsandservices,aswellasoperationalneedsandaccountabilities.

• Governance structures, mechanisms and resources are in place to ensure thecontinuousandeffectivemanagementofgovernmentrecords.

6. PolicyRequirements

HeadsofDepartments/Ministriesareresponsiblefor:• Ensuring that programs and services integrate recordsmanagement requirements

intodevelopment,implementation,evaluationandreportingactivities.

• Ensuringthatdecisionsanddecision-makingprocessesaredocumentedtoaccountfor and support the continuity of operations, permit the reconstruction of theevolutionofpoliciesandprograms,andallowforindependentevaluation,auditandreview.

• Ensuring that records are sharedwithin and acrossDepartments/Ministries to thegreatestextentpossible,whilerespectingsecurityandprivacyrequirements.

• Ensuring thecontinued relevance,authenticity,andqualityofgovernment records

69

foraslongastheyarerequiredtomeetoperationalneedsandaccountabilities.

• Designatinga seniorofficial to represent theheadof theDepartment/Ministry forthepurposesofthepolicy.

• Establishing,measuring and reporting on a Department/Ministry-wide programorstrategyfortheimprovementofthemanagementofgovernmentrecords.

7. MonitoringandReporting

7.1 WithinDepartments/Ministries

Heads of Departments/Ministries are responsible formonitoring adherence to thispolicy within their Departments/Ministries, consistent with the provisions of theGovernment’s internal audit and evaluation policies and practices. They areresponsible for ensuring that appropriate remedial action is taken to address anydeficiencieswithintheirDepartments/Ministries.

7.2 Government-Wide

The[leadgovernmentorganization]willmonitorcompliancewithallaspectsofthispolicyandtheachievementofexpectedresultsbasedonDepartment/Ministry-levelreports,resultsofaudits,evaluationsandstudies,inadditiontoworkingdirectlywithDepartments/Ministries.

The [leadgovernmentorganization]will review thispolicy, its associateddirectionsandstandards,andtheireffectivenessatthefive-yearmarkofimplementationofthepolicy(orearlierforcertaindirectivesandstandards).

7.3 Consequences

Consequencesofnon-compliancecanincludeinformalfollow-upsandrequestsfromthe[leadgovernmentorganization],externalauditsorformaldirectiononcorrectivemeasures.

8. ResponsibilitiesofCentralAuthorities

The roles and responsibilities of central authorities identified in the policy such asgovernment Departments/Ministries having government-wide responsibilities and/orgovernmentcommitteeswouldbeincludedhere.Theirrolescanrangefromfacilitatingimplementation of the policy, to reviewing and evaluating Department/Ministrycompliance,toreviewingtheeffectivenessofthepolicyitself.

Date post:	23-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times