This is a cautionary tale for those of you who are ready to dive into an Information Management solution using Functional Classification. Functional Classification is a standard model for organizing and managing the retention and disposition of records with business value. It began in Australia as the AS 4390 standard and then was adopted as an ISO standard (ISO 15489-1:2001) in 2001. (For a great backgrounder, see, e.g., this old, but still good reference from 2003 Overview of Classification Tools for Records Managers from the National Archives of Australia http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/classifcation%20tools_tcm16-49550.pdf) [Note: This standard has recently been updated. See ISO 15489-1:2016 https://www.iso.org/standard/62542.html] Functional Classification basically works like this: Each organization has certain functions, activities, and transactions that it does; each transaction (also sometimes called a Records Series) consists of record types. These categories can all be mapped against a master list (i.e., a controlled vocabulary) which can be organized in an alpha-numeric or block-numeric taxonomy. The main benefit is this: a standard model is used for arranging records inside an organization and as a result the records can be managed for the duration of the lifecycle regardless of whether the business unit in which the record is found changes; even if a business unit changes its structure in the organization the record can still be identified and managed. Furthermore, classification of records in this way also supports the application of information governance requirements such as audit, disposition management, archiving, or compliance with other legal requirements. Implementing a Functional Classification model, however, can take years and is likely to be met with pitfalls and interruptions along the way. Here are some of the key things to look out for and avoid when planning an implementation of a Functional Classification records management model. 1. Trying to Make Business Users Experts in Records Management This is probably the biggest failing of the Functional Classification approach to managing records and information. Buried deep somewhere in the FC model is the implicit assumption that users will be bothered to memorize—or will even be interested in memorizing—a complex file structure. Most users are only interested in memorizing the basic number of folders or filing levels needed in order to get their work done, and no more. People lead busy lives and it already takes a lot of mental energy to manage account names and passwords, websites, and changing technology of everyday life. Adding the burden of complex records classification to a knowledge worker’s digital workspace doesn’t help adoption of records management requirements. Users need to see a direct benefit to their ability to complete a task related to their work assignments. A filing system that changes a lot—or demands that users accommodate a lot of change in order to save documents—is just one more tax on users’ already-short attention span. It isn’t reasonable to expect that people will become experts in Functional Classification in order to comply with records management requirements. Yes, there may be a few people who will either see its benefits or be willing accomplices, but most people have too much mental real estate taken up already by other priorities to ever spend much time or effort on filing, even when using a common filing system. As a result many people save documents on their computer hard drive, cloud services unconnected to a managed environment, or portable storage like USB keys. Overly-complicated equals never-implemented. 2. Focusing on File Plans Instead of Business Records Many practitioners who are working on implementing Functional Classification choose to introduce it to new business users through file plans. The advantage of this approach is that the users already have a mental model of organization of files. The key disadvantage is that Functional Classification has a lot of complexity, much of which is not directly relevant to what users do. This means that users don’t have a point of access into the model, and therefore become overwhelmed and turned off. The second disadvantage is what we can call the fallacy of intuition: each user wants the file plan to be intuitive, but designing an information system that is intuitive to each user is almost impossible. A file plan essentially acts as a mental model of how information is stored and retrieved, and no user wants to spend much mental energy figuring out how the information system works; they just want it to work. When a user needs to save a document and then get some feedback on it from a colleague or manager, it should be easy and should not disrupt the flow of work. This leads to an attitude of apathy, which brings us to: 3. Lack of Ability / Willingness to Memorize Most people just want to do their work done without having to fight against their information system just to save and recall documents. As a result there is really only a certain number of levels or folders that users will be able to remember. This creates a conundrum of complexity: too few categories and users get frustrated at a lack of specialization; too many categories and users get confused. People who need to save and recall business documents need a mental model that makes quick, relatively intuitive sense. Greater than a dozen categories or major groups and you’re going to run into implementation problems. Furthermore, if your model isn’t sufficiently flexible you will have to start accommodating new categories or record types as users create them. 4. Taxonomy Management Even the best efforts to classify records according to Functional Classification is likely to miss some records; and even the best classification model is going to need to incorporate new record types that are developed as a result of new business activities. Keeping the taxonomy managed is a key part of helping users find and administrators manage the records that are used to conduct business. Proper taxonomy management is also beneficial in other ways; taxonomies can help build a knowledge base that can be used for semantic searching, and taxonomies can act as a quick-reference guide for discovery or audit purposes. However, taxonomy management is not often supported unless there is a direct line to a critical operating requirement such as revenue generation, business or product support, or general compliance. Its value as a knowledge management enabler may be under-appreciated. 5. Delayed Pay-Off Finally, the benefit to implementing Functional Classification is that records can be retained and managed over time – often years or decades in the future. However since the pay-off to implementing a records model comes when the record is due to be disposed of managers and users need to wait a long time before the model proves its value. Trying to convince managers to assign time and resources to a complex project that won’t show its benefit for years to come is a hard sell. This makes it even harder to get—and maintain—support for implementing a Functional Classification model for managing business records. There is an opportunity amidst the content that must be curated to discover assets; information when seen in proper context (i.e., when it is always possible to determine the category and relevance of a document or record) becomes a valuable tool, which can be put to use building semantic connections that are reflexive of each users’ gaze. When users can see the inherent value of a document or record—that is, when they can determine its value based on the context in which they are viewing it—the value pay-off is immediate rather than delayed. Conclusion and Recommendations Functional Classification can be used to help users access and use business records in an intuitive way that is unique for each person. Since most people really only want to use specific records (an invoice, report, or project document) it is possible to give them only the records that they need. This means that users see what they need and don’t have to memorize or navigate the layers of a file plan. The classification model can be used as a guide or chart specific to each user’s business requirements (sales, policy, compliance, governance, legal, audit, operations, etc.); use parts of the master index to create a map unique to each users’ information assets. In response to the 5 main problems above, here are two suggestions to help overcome some of these potential problems:
Functional Classification isn’t a bad model, but it must be implemented in a way that helps users rather than gets in their way. Managed records create opportunities for improved information management, which can yield increased information value to an organization. For example, search and retrieval can be greatly enhanced by using different combinations of functional categories to serve as facets and refinements. This results in a customizable user experience that can still comply with information governance requirements and help build an information ecosystem for business. Click here to download a handy full sized infographic. Comments are closed.
|
Contents
These posts are use cases, anecdotes, stories from real-world experience, insight, and analysis. Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|