ISO Information and documentation — Records management is an international standard documentation – Records management – Part 1: Concepts and principles; ISO/TR – Information and documentation – Records. ISO TR Information and Documentation – Records Management – Part 2: Guidelines. ISO. Second edition. Reference number Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the.
|Published (Last):||12 May 2007|
|PDF File Size:||4.47 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Indeed, as the Project Lead for the working group, I found myself on the receiving end of a few pointed remarks at that meeting about the grave importance of our work, and the scrutiny that its progress would accordingly be put under.
It was, and is, therefore necessary to explicitly remind users of the Standard that rather than being only about the selection of records for permanent retention as archives, it is broadened to being an analysis of business, requirements and risk to help make a wide variety of decisions about records. This kind of strategic, proactive approach is particularly valuable for prioritizing work on the design jso systems and services where there are recordkeeping lso, and to dealing with the volume and 15489- of digital records.
Notify me of new comments via email. Principles [v] At the time of writing, the work in the ISO Committee TC46 SC11 on systems design and implementation isso taking the form of a revision to the three ISO Information and documentation — Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments Standards Share this: The Standard does not specify an audience.
In the revised ISO No doubt, the stakes were high. In kso time, a few attempts to do this revision had been mounted, only to collapse, perhaps under the weight of expectations. Bearing such observations in mind, we sio that in developing the Standard, we needed to build a forward —looking document, being careful not to fall into the many traps of paper-based thinking.
What form will the recordkeeping professional of the future take? The revised Standard places a strong emphasis on appraisal as the most important tool to achieve appropriate and effective recordkeeping. Thank you for this!
Crunch Time: The revised ISO and the future of recordkeeping – Cassie Findlay
Email required Address never made public. Often throughout the development process, we stopped to remind ourselves to think of records as data, whether structured to non-structured, along with their contextualising metadata, which also serves as a management tool over time.
However, for recordkeepers as a profession, it is crunch time. Since its release inI have observed that reaction to the Standard has been an interesting mix of curiosity, positivity and, occasionally, confusion. Machine learning, artificial intelligence are utilising massive volumes of data to train themselves to take over work and decision making formerly executed by people and organisations.
Clear and informative explanation of what we have done in reviewing the core standard for recordkeeping. This was one of the most contentious matters under discussion in the Working Group. What we need is to make more open minded approaches to the people we need to work with technologists in particular to build innovative solutions to recordkeeping problems, and to offer value to our employers and communities through our work of understanding changing recordkeeping needs.
We intentionally avoided certain things in the revised Standard, in order to best achieve some of the goals we set for ourselves at the start.
Skip to content Cassie Findlay. It had been formally adopted by over 50 nations and translated into 15 languages. As I stress in presentations that I have delivered on the new Standard, the unfamiliarity of some of the ideas we present, and concerns about leaving behind some of our old methods can be challenging.
We saw that information and records were no longer necessarily constrained by organizational, geographic or physical limits — that new models for business were extending responsibilities for records beyond traditional organizational and jurisdictional boundaries. Recordkeeping professionals have a unique and incredibly valuable set of understandings, but our message has often become lost amidst overly prescriptive or unhelpful, checklist-obsessed attempts to present them.
This was, we felt, the most appropriate approach for work which we know is highly contingent, and also to ensure that opportunities for taking innovative approaches were not constrained. Hi Cassie, great article! The Standard is not a compliance tool, and contains no auditable requirements.
We decided that rather than additionally specifying a systems design and implementation methodology in the new version, we would leave this to local or industry preferences, and would look at opportunities for other products in the ISO suite of records products to offer extra advice [v].
Rather, our preference was to develop a normative statement of what the work of keeping records isand leave tests of quality or compliance 1589-2 local or industry standards-setting bodies.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your WordPress. Without embracing innovation and focusing on the special 154889-2 that we make to accountable, efficient business, now and in the long term, we will simply slide into irrelevance.
ISO – Wikipedia
In my own career, ISO and its Australian parent, AShad provided the foundation for almost everything I did as a recordkeeping adviser, trainer and policy maker. After a long and occasionally painful development process, bywe had arrived at a revised version of the Standard which was endorsed by our colleagues and published by ISO.
We attempted, into commence our review by considering questions 1548-2 as these. Several of us in the Editorial Group also argued strongly for a records continuum-inspired standard, in which the keeping of records is a continuous activity for a variety of reasons and with a variety of users than should be considered outside of constraints of time, place and custody.
In this world, the analytical skills of understanding context and deciding how we want to create records in the first place, or how we make decisions about their management at critical points such as systems migrations, are vital. We thought that if the previous time lapse between editions was anything to go by, this new version could potentially remain in place up to the year To remember that such data and metadata might be presented in any number of forms, and in different types of groupings or aggregations.
It had been twelve years since the issue of the first edition. This decision was taken in part to ensure that it would not be perceived as only having relevance to recordkeeping professionals working 154892- particular contexts — records managers, archivists 15489- other — helping us to reach our continuum-thinking aspirations for the document.
You are commenting using your Facebook account. We understood that our expertise is essential in a connected and information abundant world, with appraisal and access at the heart of our contribution. In other countries, our use of the term appraisal requires additional explanation and selling of the benefits of the kind of work we describe. People and things are connected to the internet and to each other all the time. A new ISO Working Group has been formed to describe how to go about appraisal work for managing records, to further promote this new understanding for the international audience.
ISO 15489. Records management standard updated
Ubiquitous computing power and nearly unlimited storage capacity are available to everyone. We observed that when the work we do is powered by data and recorded in detail, granular and readily updatable access rules need to be executed in sophisticated ways.
Complex tools and robots once only available to high tech industries and governments are available to people in their homes. Indeed in this journal inmy Recordkeeping Roundtable colleagues and I made the case that our professional methods are not coping with the scale and complexity of contemporary recordkeeping challenges and that we are in danger of losing sight of what distinguishes our work from that of other kindred professionals [ii].