convergence of it and rim

8/8/2019 Convergence of IT and RIM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/convergence-of-it-and-rim 1/9

&

rrival of the year 2000

is only one of manyinducements for the infor-

mation professions to

look both backward and forward.

Another is information technology

(IT), which has been changing the

nature of information creation,

publication, and communication for

almost five decades. In so doing,

IT is creating changes for both

A

4 THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL / April 2000

SUE MYBURGH

information professionals and the

society in which they find them-

selves. The ubiquitous nature of IT

and its fast d evelopm ent cycles have

created confusion about the bound-

aries of specific professions and even

their very nature. It has also created

a need for reflection and analysis of

the p rofessions themselves.

Developments in today’s IT

spectrum (e.g., intranets, push tech-

nologies, and information filtering)

have profound social implications,

suggesting that IT has moved

beyond data management within

organizations and now influences

the ways in which organizational

communication takes place. This in

turn affects the nature and fabric

of societies and organizations, predi-

cated as they increasingly are upon

their information flows. IT no longerhandles raw data, or indeed, just

information. IT systems are now

being developed which address the

most intangible and un quantifiable –

yet probably the most valuable –

resource of all: knowledge.

Information and its dimensions

are perceived and dealt with differ-

ently by IT specialists, librarians,

archivists, records managers, and

corporate information systems staff.

While sup erficially a clear distinction

is understood about the nature and

work of each of these professions,

members of each have long experi-

enced conflicts with one another

and with management: clashes of

interest, overlapping duties, lack of

mutual acknowledgment, lack of

consultation, and other tu rf wars.

There are, of course, differences in

education and tra ining, differences that

serve to exaggerate the contrasts rather

than clarify the similarities between

the various groups of information

workers. Relationships between inter-

ested parties have ranged from indiffer-

ence to intolerance to outright hostility

on occasion. However, much of the

confusion about how these bodies deal

with information seems to stem fromsemantic confusion surrounding the

terms data, information, knowledge,

record, and document.

IT As an Agent of ChangeIronically, convergence is probably

the term that most describes the

changes in IT. Various aspects of IT

seem to be converging and becoming

&Convergence

A T THE CO RE

THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES

• New information managementprofessions emerging from the

convergence of informationtechnologies (IT)

• How the convergence of ITand information managementprofessions creates greater

insight by each group intothe work of the other

• Why an understanding ofRIM and IT terminology is

crucial to managing recordsin electronic form

MANAGEMENTINFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

The

of INFORMATION



6 TH E INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL / April 2000

integrated or concatenated. Multi-

functional services such as the

Internet with its array of functions

(e.g., World Wide Web, e-mail,

e-commerce, telephony, and news-

groups) causes changes as well in the

human functions or activities it affects.

We find confluence of disciplines,

a conjunction of activities and tasks,and convergence in media as every-

thing becomes digital, blurring

distinctions among visual, print,

audio, and multimedia documents.

This conjunction of even ts, activities,

and roles is even evident in our daily

lives. We act in a range of various

roles – parent, teacher, friend, cook,

chauffeur, and student – perhaps

all in one day and sometimes

simultaneously.

Will IT, as an agent of change,

lead to a similar convergence among

the various disciplines that can bedescribed as the information professions?

Or will even greater clarity and dis-

tinctions be identified among these

various roles? Some information

professionals may not view this as a

problem; in fact, they may find their

positions enhanced and strengthened

by IT.

As a contributor to the electronic

listserve RECMGMT stated, “RM is

dying. RM is thriving. Or another

way to describe it is the traditional

records management profession is

rapidly metamorphosing into RIM

(records and information manage-

ment). RIM is the convergence of

traditional records management dis-

ciplines and the IT profession.”

This is not a solitary view. Cox

(1997) agrees that convergence in IT

results in the convergence of the

information management profes-

sions, as well as emergence of new

IM disciplines:

Convergence in the information

professions is fairly easy to

characterize. It is the unifying of

the professions and professional

objectives or functions – asopposed to the continuing

schismatic nature of specializa-

tion, or divergence. It is also,

through such unification, the

harnessing of technology in

particular settings to improve

or to create new activities. Such

discussion about the information

professions is quite important

because these professions have

become distinguishing character-

istics of our information age.

Interestingly, none of the debates

on this top ic consider tha t technologyitself can supplant any of these

groups of information professions.

The emph asis in the dialogue focuses

on how information professions can

deal with such changes and how

IT can be usefully integrated into

their work. This view is supported

by the underlying belief that

technology itself neither produces,

evaluates, understands, nor adds

meaning to information.

In this scenario, the merging of

professional objectives is a result of

IT. This in turn creates a commonnessof purpose, which means a less

clear distinction between professions

in their activities and functions.

Daum (1997) explains the working

categorization of functions within

organizations, although not allowing

for internal politics and overlaps:

There are three significant classes of

information within an organization:

data, documents and published

information. What you will find

in most organizations is that

technologists are responsible for

data management, librarians are

responsible for published infor-

mation management, and docu-

ment management (paper and

electronic) slips though the crackswith no assigned management

accountability. Documents are

records and yes, they are being

managed, but often with

little overall plann ing and w ithout

standard records management

tools.

However, there has been, until

very recently, a general ignorance

of the value and importance of

information within the organization.

According to Darn ton (1992):

A glaring omission from the orga-

nizational charts of most enter-

prises is responsibility for the

enterprise’s overall information

needs. Yet it is critical to look at

the information flows of the

enterprise, together with its busi-

ness processes...Because knowl-

edge and information are key

assets in any enterprise, each

business unit is responsible for

their correct use, just as it is for

other enterprise assets such as

cash, people and facilities.

This illustrates that, until very

recently, organizations were generally

unaware of the cost of the informa-

tion they were prod ucing. They were

also ignorant of the fact that deci-

sions were often based on insu fficient

information. Organizations w ere also

oblivious to the fact that poorly

arranged and documented informa-

tion was costing a substantialamou nt in storage and staff costs.

One reason for this lack of under-

standing is that, typically, the people

who handled information were

better acquainted with data process-

ing, accountancy, mathematics, or

engineering than with information

management. They lacked a holistic

view of corporate information

We are now witnessing a profound change

in the way in which organizations perceive,

understand,and manage their information.



7TH E INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL / April 2000

resources, the information life cycle,

or how to manage information (as

opposed to managing data). There

was a lack of direct communication

between those responsible for

information handling and those

who determ ined corporate objectives

and policy. These were seen as two

entirely separate activities. Managinginformation was frequently interpret-

ed as merely having the appropriate

information technology.

Shifting Parad igms

We are now witnessing a pro-

found change in the way in which

organizations perceive, understand,

and manage th eir information. There

is now clear recognition of the value

of information, the creation of new

information, the retrieval of existing

information, the storage of importantinformation, and the disposal of

redun dant information. There is also

greater awareness of the cost of not

getting the right information to the

right person at the right time.

To fully reap the benefits of this

change, a coordinated app roach to the

work done by various information

workers in the organization is essen-

tial. This group or team includes

information technology support staff,

systems analysts and programmers,

corporate librarians, knowledge

managers, and records managers.

Records managers have been

around since the earliest days of

the Mesopotamian civilization, but

are they becoming more central to

business effectiveness? Jobs and

levels of responsibility are changing

as a result of the introduction of IT

(in the w ork dom ain in particular) to

organizations with groupware such

as Lotus Notes and PC Docs and

with various electronic documentmanagement packages.

In a paper-based world, records

management seemed clearer. Now

records managers face problems

such as the distinctions between

records and documents, privacy and

corporate ownership, and whether

an electronic document system can in

fact manage records suitably and

legitimately. They also must decide

how m uch they should know about IT.

The records and information

profession has drawn theory from a

variety of related fields. Kennedy

and Schauder (1998) wrote:

In addition to their own distinct

body of knowledge, the records

management and archives disci-plines draw on the knowledge and

skills of related fields, such as

management, information science,

librarianship, legal studies, systems

analysis and information technol-

ogy, and history. Records man-

agement may also be viewed in

the context of the broader field

of information.

Placing records management

within the broader area of informa-

tion management is an important

point and one to which we

will return.

Beyond a wrestling with the

identification of concepts unique to

records management, there is

growing concern among records

managers about their competency

and the skills required to handle

records in electronic form. This is

similar to the challenges faced by

librarians when online searching

of bibliographic databases became

widespread in the 1980s and various

media other than books began

app earing on library shelves.

The Need for Definition

A need for clarity of terminology

seems to be required, as is illustrated

by an exchange that took place on

the records management electronic

listserve. One individual wrote: “I’m

becoming more confused by the

hour…I still can not obtain a defini-

tion of ‘knowledge management’that is consistent. Does it deal with

corporate knowledge, assets, exper-

tise, resources or maybe all of these?”

to which someone replied “I hate to

disappoint you but there is no

agreed definition to knowledge

management…Knowledge manage-

ment, from what I have been reading,

comes from the management school

as opposed to information manage-

ment, which comes from the infor-

mation science school…If you look

underneath the definitions of infor-

mation and knowledge, you will see

that both have dealings with cogni-

tive processes…In other words…

they are telling u s that there is a dif-

ference, but there is no difference…Recently an academic described the

word knowledge as a new exciting

word to replace the word information.”

So, what do all of these words

mean?

Data

A commonly encountered d efini-

tion of data d escribes it as a bu ilding

block of information which, subse-

quently, in enough quantity forms

knowledge. Data can be independ ent

of context, and only in their accum u-lated and relative form can they

become information. Harris (1996)

provides an intriguing, if enigmatic,

way of distinguishing among data,

information, and kn owledge:

The lowest level of known facts is

data. Data has [sic] no intrinsic

meaning. It must be sorted,

grouped, analyzed and interpret-

ed. When d ata is processed in this

manner, it becomes information.

Information has a substance and a

purpose. However, information

does not have meaning [sic].

When information is combined

with context and experience, it

becomes knowledge. Knowledge

is the combination of information,

context and experience.

It is generally agreed that a d atum

is a single, discrete element, which is

generally factual and quantifiable.

Data can easily be assessed with

regard to their accuracy, for example,the sales figures for a certain month

or the height of a certain building.

Typically, data are used in context

with one another or with other

details in order to convey full meaning

and to be u seful.

It is rare that a fact on its own

(e.g., the number 42) will have

much meaning except where it



information is more frequently

expressed in language. Because

information uses language, the

problems of the communication

process, linguistics, and vocabulary

all play a role in increasing the

complexity of a system that seeks

to retrieve and u se information.

While many organizations (e.g.,banks and airlines) rely heavily on

data, data processing, and the

interpretation of data such as

numbers, there is a common but

rather nebulous assumption that

such manipulated or processed data

constitutes information. This rather

narrow interpretation of information

has arisen directly out of the

emphasis on internally generated

data handled by internal IT systems

and staff who called data, informa-

tion. Much data, however, does not

necessarily information m ake.

Liebenau and Backhouse (1990)

describe the confusion between

information and d ata as a fundam en-

tal m isconception:

It is crucial to understand infor-

mation w hen analyzing, designing,

establishing and managing infor-

mation systems…Unfortunately,

where people have concentrated

on computer based systems or

allowed the requirements of data

processing to become central to

organizational structure, they

have usually lost sight of what

information actually does to and

for an organization.

Whatever else an organization

may do, it must generate, acquire,

process, and use information. The

following consist of or depend on

satisfactory information:

• monitoring of the organiza-

tion’s performance and possibly

its breakdow n

• creation and commun ication of

instructions, advice, and policies

• exchange of experience and

knowledge

• scanning of the business

environment

• major and minor decisions

Organizations that are most

efficient in gathering, processing,

and distributing information and then

using it to m ake better business deci-

sions will enjoy a competitive edge

in achieving success in their field.

It is important to agree that

information professions consider

information to be a unique type of resource; this has a fundamental

value, even though it is difficult to

determine in dollar terms because it

fluctuates according to a variety of fac-

tors. Information is more complex in

nature than mere data; likewise, con-

text and interpretation are important

aspects of information. It is therefore

important to reach some understand-

ing of the significance of information

for the enterprise. While technology

may have made it easier to gather and

store large amounts of data, the key tosuccess for a business lies in its ability

to transform the data into intelligence

and knowledge and then use it more

effectively than the competition.

One w ay of evaluating information

is to distinguish between the results

of informed actions versus results of

uninformed actions or no action. It

has been said that th e value of infor-

mation lies in the value of the actions

a person takes as a result of having

information. It is preferable to have

an educated, informed population thanan illiterate and ignorant one, whether

in countries or in organizations.

Some of the w ays in wh ich infor-

mation might be valued include:

• assessing the quality of infor-

mation itself – its degree of

accuracy, comprehensiveness,

credibility, relevance, simplicity,

and validity

contextually appears as an a nswer to

a question (e.g., “Bill is 42 years

old”). Data can be entered into a

system, retrieved in its iden tical pris-

tine state, and contain the same

meaning. This has great imp lications

for the design and use of a data

retrieval system, which is, in general,

simp le. As Ashford and Willett (1988)point out:

The achievement of both high

recall and high precision is a p op-

ular target for information science

research but may in fact be not

only pragm atically but also theo-

retically unachievable. This is a

familiar topic for the information

scientists but is often found dis-

turbing by data processing staff

with a conventional computer

science background, since com-

plete recall and precision are

easily obtained in data retrieval

systems.

Another way of distinguishing

between the concepts of data, infor-

mation, and kn owledge is to examine

the d ifferent method ologies for th eir

evaluation. For example, data is

accounted for in terms of integrity

and security, as well as protection of

privacy. Methods for evaluating

information become progressively

more complex and abstract.

Information

Information itself is more thanmerely a conglomeration or combi-

nation of data. Information, in fact,

implies understanding, a context, or

an understandable relationship

among data. Here we can better

understand the argument that

everything is data, but data is not

everything. While data can often

be expressed simply as numbers,

It is preferable to have an educated,informed

population than an illiterate and ignorant one,

whether in countries or in organizations.





meaning the management of inter-

nally generated data. Alternatively,

it may be used to d escribe document

metadata systems such as biblio-

graphic databases. It is troubling

that IM is often viewed as synony-

mous with IT, as Day (1997)

mentions: “IT and related develop-

ments provide the usual slightlyambiguous backdrop to information

management. The installation and

refinement of corporate networks

continues apace and offers us some

extraordinary tools for the control

and distribution of data, but most

senior managers still regard the

technology as the end of the process

rather than as its means.”

It is useful in this context to

exclude th ose peripheral fields w here

central activities are the develop-

ment, engineering, and constructionof technologies, tools that can be

used to facilitate and assist the

professions d escribed here.

Information Resources Management

Information resources manage-

ment (IRM) is a term arguably more

simple to deal with, since it is fre-

quently used un ambiguou sly to refer

to the management of information

and information resources (e.g.,

embodiments in documents or peo-

ple or technological media). Whilelibrarians and records managers

would argue that they are IRMs, the

term has also now come to include

mainly those who deal with comput-

erized systems. This view is argued

by Beaumont and Sutherland (1992),

who state:

[Information resources manage-

ment] is not a development from

the trad itional and specialist data

processing functions. Indeed , it was

the failure of DP/ IS depar tments

to focus on the business benefitsof large-scale investmen ts that led

to increasing acceptance of the

information resources manage-

ment perspective, at least by

general managers, if not DP/ IS

managers.

Orna (1990) describes inform ation

resources as

…the services, packages, supp ort

technologies, and systems used

to generate, store, organise, move

and display information. We

manage information resources to

raise probability that th e informa-

tion content will be useful to

persons in a particular environ-

ment with specific problems. The

information in the organisation

includes material on paper, or in

machine-readable form, or in the

minds of its staff, that is capable

of being turned into knowledge

by people and applied in their

work to h elp meet the enterp rise’s

objectives.

IRM refers therefore to the

planning, organizing, directing, and

controlling of information resources

within organizations. Activities relat-

ed to IRM include identification,assessment, and use of information

resources, the ran ge of wh ich is ind i-

cated above. This seems to include

records and document management

and information and knowledge

man agement. But in action it covers a

precise territor y.

IRM needs to collect, organize,

store, retrieve, and disseminate

information; various technologies

assist with each of these activities.

The intimate relationship between

the information itself and thesupporting technology, however, is

clear. In add ition, those who manage

information resources must under-

stand how users learn, retain, and

recall information, for information

prod uces results only when it springs

into the consciousness of the user at

the appropriate time.

Documents

Why is defining a document

importan t in this context? One reason

is because of the development of electronic management systems

(EDMS), which resemble records

management systems in many

respects and even some information

retrieval systems. Another is because

the term document is sometimes used

as an alternative, if not an exact

synonym, for the term information

or knowledge, in order to distinguish

• examining the util ity of

information already held by the

organization as to its degree of

intellectual and physical accessi-

bility, ease of use, flexibility,

and presentation

• evaluating the impact of this

information on the productivity

of the organization

• assessing the impact on effec-

tiveness of organization, in term s

of contribution to new markets,

improved customer satisfaction,

meeting targets and objectives,

and p romoting more harmonious

relationships

• noting the impact on the

organization’s financial position,

such as its contribution to cost

reduction or avoidance, its sub-

stitution for more expensiveresource inputs, its role in

increased p rofits, and its outcome

as a measurable impact on a

return on investment

Information Management

Bent (1999) provides a broad

and useful definition: “Information

Management (IM) is the enterprise-

wide planning, budgeting, organiz-

ing, staffing, directing, training and

controlling of information. IM

includes the management of variousinformation resources: carriers of

information such as documents or

electronic media; departments that

provide information services; and

both computer-based or traditional

information systems.”

Information management can be

easily and usefully viewed as an

umbrella term, one which incorpo-

rates many foci, such as computer

science (developing the tools which

aid the function), records manage-

ment, archives, librarianship, andinformation resources management.

Information management can also

include telecommunications, data

resource management, office automa-

tion, systems analysis, computer

science, database m anagement, infor-

mation science, and informatics.

Information management is

sometimes used in a narrow sense,




these concepts from data. This

distinction becomes more complex

in the world of the records

manager or archivist, where it can

be understood that all records are

documents, but not all documents

are records. Adding to this semantic

Babel, the phrase information resources

is sometimes substituted for theword document .

Document is interpreted here asa container of information, or even

data, and, as such, requires a differ-

ent type of management. The

characteristics of a particular docu-

ment, such as date, title, subject,

and number, are a type of data

now known as metadata. Such data

are normally held in bibliographic

and records management systems,

even though such databases

are commonly called information

retrieval systems. What is normally

retrieved from bibliographic databases

and earlier records management

systems is data showing where to

get the information rather than the

information itself. This combination

of metadata (data describing the

information) is known as a d ocument

surrogate, a substitute for the docu-

ment itself (and thus th e information

it contains).

Document Management

Document management is dis-

tinct from records management in

that the former manages documents,

which may or may not be official

organizational records. The term is

increasingly used in relation to

electronic documents, which may

consist of digitized presentations, a

list-serve thread, or a document

containing several different formats

(e.g., text, spreadsheet, graphics).

If we consider documents as con-

tainers of information, as p reviously

described, then librarians have been

managing documents for centuries.

So, for that matter, have records

mana gers and archivists.

But they have been doing it for

different reasons and und er differentcircumstances: the management of

documents generated in the normalcourse of business by an organiza-

tion, from creation to disposition.

Document management systems are

often confused (usually by vendors)

as imaging products, perhaps

because what is envisioned is a system

that will image analog documents

and manage them in this new digital

mode (although these digital docu-

ments could be anything, including

HTML-coded Web pages).

Document management systems

will include records management

systems but cannot substitute for

them because of the special require-

ments of records for maintaining an

aud it trail for eviden tiality. Electronic

document management systems are

also sometimes used in conjunction

with, or even instead of, workflow

systems. Workflow systems allow

rapid access, even simultaneously

by several users, to documents (or

records) within an organization.

They maintain an aud it trail, manag-

ing the flow of work as the name

implies, but they do not necessarily

actually manage d ocuments.

Electronic documents need to be

managed not only in the sense of

being physically accessible and well

maintained and protected, but in the

broader sense as w ell. It is imp ortant

that their contents are intellectually

accessible to those who need them

and that they are protected from

view and from alteration by those not

authorized to peruse them. Indeed,

when talking about records, a record

needs to be kept of who viewed or

had access to certain d ocuments and

when since this type of information

may be requ ired in a court of law.

Records

While records have always been

considered important within organi-

zations, the d iscipline has d eveloped

dramatically as IT has become

widespread . Records were identified

earlier as a subset of documents.

According to Kennedy an d Schauder

(1998), “The definition of ‘record’ in

the Au stralian Standa rd A S4390-1996

reads:…‘recorded information, in

any form, including data in comput-

er systems, created or received and

maintained by an organisation or

person in the transaction of business

or the conduct of affairs and kept as

eviden ce of su ch activity.’”

This is quite distinct from

documents, which the Australian

Standard AS4390-1996 defines as

“structured units of recorded infor-

mation, published or unpublished in

hard copy or electronic form, and

managed as discrete units in infor-

mation systems.” This is consistent

with the d escription given earlier.

In the Australian Commonw ealth

Evidence Act of 1995, document

means any record of information

and includes

• anything on which there

is writing

• anything on which there are

marks, figures, symbols, or perfo-

rations having a meaning forpersons qualified to interpret

them

• anything from which sounds,

images, or writings can be repro-

duced with or without the aid

of anything else

• maps, plans, drawings, or

photographs

While records have always been considered

important within organizations,

the discipline has developed dramatically

as IT has become widespread.



At first glance, this seems very

confusing. What it means is that

anything that contains meaningful

information – be it a magnetic tape, a

database, a Braille letter, a poem, a

spreadsheet, or a piece of recorded

sound – can be considered a docu-

ment. A document is a container of

information and, as a physical entity,can be analog (such as a book, parch-

ment, score, or microfilm) or digital

(such as a word-processed file).

The critical difference between

a document and a record is that

the record provides evidence of a

business transaction. Thus, the

meaning of the information con-

tained by the document will affect

the categorization – and subsequent

handling and organization – of the

docum ent as a record or a docum ent.

In general, documents are handledquite differently from records, irre-

spective of medium. The manage-

ment of records is, importantly,

typically indicated and controlled by

legislated requirements or potential

legislative requirements. Docum ents

more generally serve informational

but non-litigious functions.

Thus far, data have been identi-

fied as discrete facts that are han dled

relatively easily in analog or digital

mode. Computers, in fact, handle

data extremely well. Information is

more complex, particularly because

there are variations of meaning pos-

sible within information. Information

is more difficult to ascertain and to

communicate. Information is most

frequently contained in documents,

which permit it to cross the bound-

aries of space and time, although

it can also be transferred verbally.

Some of these containers of

information (documents) are known

as records, with administrative and

legal qualities that d istinguish th em.

Knowledge is something that

humans acquire after learning from

documents and other people,

and experiencing life themselves.

Humans both assimilate and inter-

pret the information that they get

from these various sources (includ-

ing recondite sources such as

intuition and spiritual inspiration)

and attempt to communicate this

information to others using lan-

guage, as well as arts such as

painting, dance, and m usic.

Our understanding of informa-

tion or document management will

depend on our definitions of these

various terms, as well as the mediathat comprise the documents. Our

und erstanding is further differentiated

by the pu rposes of the information or

documents, and the tools designed

to control and access the information

or documents.

Documents are assessed in a

mann er similar to data (integrity and

security, as well as physical protec-

tion). As they are a hypothetical

construct, this seems consistent.

Records are assessed and man aged in

terms that are laid down by the lawsof evidence in each country.

Archives, treated here as part of the

records management continuum, are

assessed in a manner similar to

documents, namely for the informa-

tion they contain. Their physical

well-being is also a consideration.

Records Management

Records and documents share a

similar life cycle, or, more properly,

continuum. The main distinction in

this scenario between the two typesis that all actions that occur to a

record need to be scrupulously

maintained in accordance with the

evidential procedures of the law so

that they can be used in evidence in

court when required. Most other

documents do not need to be as

rigorously maintained. However, as

indicated, their creation, access, and

use must all be tracked and properly

docum ented in some way.

Provision needs to be made for

legitimate modifications. When thedocuments become less used, they

may need to be stored for some time

before the final decision is made to

dispose of them. Alternatively, the

docum ents may fall among that class

of materials needing to be preserved

for a much longer term because of

rarity value or because of historical

or social contributions.

13TH E INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL / April 2000

It is here that viewing records

(and document) management as a

continuum, which includes archival

management, is useful. One can

agree with Upward (1998), who

states, “A continuum based approach

is by definition an integrated one.

A continuu m is a series of points that

pass into each other. The pointsthemselves are so integrated that

they are n ot readily distinguishable.”

It could be argu ed that as records

pass into archives, they cease being

records and revert to being docu-

ments, interesting n o longer in a legal

sense, but for the information they

contain and perhaps as physical

artifacts. Records contain the vital

information of the organ ization, and

their chief characteristic is that they

provide evidence of that organiza-

tion’s business transactions.

Knowledge

Knowledge exists at an order of

complexity above information, its

container the document, and the

special document, the record. Most

seem to agree that knowledge

involves some level of human input

and manipulation. It is information

as absorbed and comprehended by

an individual. Knowledge is what

we have accumulated from all our

experiences and learning; informa-

tion is what we can convey about

it. Knowledge management is

therefore involved with recognizing

the value of knowledge, wherever it

may be found (usually in people’s

heads), and harnessing its powers

so that it can be used to the

organization’s adv antage.

Knowledge is complex, analyzed,

compound, and structured. It can be

of several types, including knowing

of something, knowing about

something, and knowing how to do

something. While information is an

important component, knowledge

has to do fundamentally with what

people know and what they have

understood and interpreted. For this

reason, it is hard to imagine or

construct a system that is truly a

knowledge system, but based wh olly



on technology. We might, however,

try to iden tify sources of knowledge,

such as experts in a particular field.

Knowledge Management

A new phrase has now entered

the information professionals’ vocab-

ulary: knowledge management (KM).

The good thing about the growth of the concept of KM is the resurgence

of interest in broader information

issues. KM is a new field emerging

at the confluence of organization

theory, management strategy, and

management information systems.

The emergence of the knowledge

society and the increasing realization

that knowledge is the most valuable

organizational asset are two of

several factors contributing to the

increased relevance of KM.

This seems to contradict directly

the earlier assertion regarding the

importance of records in the organi-

zation. So wh at is KM, and how does

it differ from the vitally important

RM, not to mention the broad er term

IRM? A working d efinition of KM is

offered by Malhotra (1998):

A knowledge-based view of the

organization’s business process

for leveraging the information

processing capacity of advanced

information and communication

technologies via translation of

information into action bymeans of the creativity and

innovation of humans to affect

organizational competence and

survival in an increasingly

unpredictable (hyper-turbulent)

competitive environm ent.

In accordance with the earlier

definition of knowledge, it would

appear that KM encompasses what

the individuals in the organization

actually know about the business,

its objectives, how it works, its

relationship with competitors and

customers, niche markets, and the

like. Although fleetingly similar to

the view of IRM described earlier,

Malhotra’s d efinition moves beyondthe mere identification and manage-

ment of information resources.

It considers information in terms

of two important aspects: 1) the

intervention of human beings as

resources, particularly in making

information useable, and 2) the trans-

lation of information and knowledge

into business intelligence that can

be used for wise decision making,

which will, in turn, ensure the

survival of the business. While

information is evaluated in terms

of authority, currency, and complete-

ness, knowledge is often assessed

in terms of philosophical arguments

related to sophisticated methods of

research an d testing.

Common GroundThe professional groups that

practice the various activities men-

tioned earlier – namely data, infor-

mation, knowledge, records, and

document management – share simi-

lar objectives. In particular, they seek

to manage information in a manner

that will ensure its integrity and useaccording to a variety of objectives.

What blurs the distinction a little is

that the technologies and software

used by these groups to achieve their

various objectives seem similar.

However, neither use of objectives or

IT as unifying factors is definitive in

merging or distinguishing between

these disciplines.

It is clear that the field of informa-

tion management is presently in a state

of flux, largely driven by develop-

ments in technology and their

concomitant organizational changes. It

is hard to avoid the technological

determinist view here, as technology

has had a profound influence on these

related professions. IT itself has forsome time now illustrated characteris-

tics of convergence, particularly

between computers and communica-

tions (informatics). These develop-

ments have been conceptual as well as

technical in that they have changed the

expectation of various professions as

well as the ways in which individual

activities and functions are executed.

IT, creating such changes within

professions, seems to have also cre-

ated a need for fresh self-examina-

tion of the professions. Changes areoccurr ing more w ithin those profes-

sions that deal with information

and knowledge and have the least

to do with the design and manage-

ment of actual hardware or soft-

ware. While the objectives of

managing information and using

technology app ropriately and intel-

ligently are common to all IM pro-

fessions, this in itself has not led to

convergence between them .

Because of the strong emphasis

on electronic information, librarians,records managers, and archivists

now hav e to work with the tradition-

ally technical information resources

personnel. This has not necessarily

meant a convergence of their roles;

however, it has created an increased

insight by each group into the work

of the other. Bookbinder (1997)

emph asizes the need for cooperation

and teamwork between these differ-

ent groups:

One would think that with the

convergence of many of the

information management tech-

nologies and applications like

imaging, document management,

work flow, COLD and records

management amongst the most

relevant to this Listserv, that

successful projects require a great

deal of teamwork. This means

IT,creating such changes within professions,

seems to have also created a need

for fresh self-examination of professions.





that for document and records

processing requirements to be

fully understood, end-users,

records managers, information

technology sp ecialists/ analysts,

customers/ clients and any other

individual that requires access

to corporate memory, must con-

tribute their requirements. Thesynergies of records mana gement

principles of file classification,

retention schedules, disposition

and destruction integrated with

electronic document manage-

ment, which could include imag-

ing, workflow COLD, microfilm,

Internet, etc. means that TEAM-

WORK is a prerequisite for suc-

cess. Without it, 50% of system

implementations become failures.

Especially now, that convergence

is a reality.

Barry’s comments (1997) add an

interesting perspective:

The chances of gaining serious

management understanding of

record keeping needs and risks

can be very favorably advanced

by the integration of IS and ARM

functions – not like hom ogenized

cream and milk but like a good

salad where the ind ividual contri-

butions remain distinct but theoverall product tastes better than

the component parts…It is also

refreshing to see increasingly that

information management and

information technology man agers

and professionals are becoming

more aware of the need to inte-

grate document m anagement and

records m anagement fun ctions in

the systems. Apart from the fact

that nowadays most organiza-

tions cannot afford parallel enter-

prise document, information or

knowledge-based management

systems and record keeping

systems, it doesn’t make

much sense in most business

environments from information

architecture point of view, not to

mention a technology architec-

ture p erspective.

Will the developm ent of technolo-

gies that form knowledge manage-

ment systems create a convergence

between groups of information

professionals such as IT specialists,

librarians, records managers, and

corporate information systems staff, or

will it make some groups redu ndan t?

While IT has created greater conver-gence between these p rofessions than

has ever existed before and changed

the very nature of each of these

professions, it has simultaneously

created a renewed attempt to define

both the knowledge and expertise

dom ain of each.

The ways in which data, informa-

tion, and knowledge (as represented

in documents) are dealt with by the

various professions is perhaps more

different and more distinct than

before because of these fresh insights.Even while similar term inology m ay

be used, the requirements of each

profession ensure their unique niche.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Sue Myburgh is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication

and Information Studies at the Un iversity of South A ustralia. She teaches corporate informa-

tion resources management and electronic document management and has particular research

interest in information retrieval and human information seeking behavior. M yburgh has had

extensive and international experience in the discipline of information management spanning

two decades. She was an academic at the University of Cape Town, and, while on a Fulbright

Fellowship, studied at Simmons College in Boston. Myburgh is currently working toward a

Ph.D. at University of South Australia. She may be contacted at sue.myburgh @unisa.edu .au.

REFERENCES

Ashford, John and Peter Willett. Text Retrieval and Document Databases. Bromley [England ]:

Chartwell-Bratt, 1988.

Barry, Rick. Electronic message to Listserv RECMGMT. 18 December 1997.

Beaumon t, John R. and Ewan Sutherland. Information Resources Management: Management

in Our Knowledge-based Society and Economy. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1992.

Bookbind er, Michael. Electronic m essage to Listserv RECMGMT. 18 December 1997.

Cox, Richard J. “Why Technology Convergence Is Not Enough for the Management of Information and Records.” Records and Retrieval Report: The Newsletter for Professional

Information M anagers, September 1997.

Darn ton, Geoffrey. Information in the Enterprise: It’s More Than Technology. Burlington, MA:

Digita l, 1992.

Daum, Patricia B. “Technology and the Four-level Information Hierarchy.” Records

Management Quarterly, October 1997: 8-14.

Day, Ian. “The Role of Records Management in Business Information Services.” Records

Management Journal, Au gust 1997: 91-99.

Harris, David B. “Creating a Knowledge-centric Information Technology Environment.

1996. Available a t www.htcs.com/ckc.htm (accessed 9 March 2000).

Kennedy, Jay and Cheryl Schauder. Records Management: A Guide to Corporate Record

Keeping. 2nd ed. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.

Liebenau, Jonathan and James Backhouse. Understanding Information: An Introduction.

London : Macmillan, 1990.

Malhotra, Yogesh. World Wide Web Virtual Library on Knowledge Management.

www.brint.com/km (accessed 9 March 2000).

Orna, Elizabeth. Practical Information Policies: How to Manage Information Flow in

Organisations. Aldersh ot: Gower, 1990.

Upw ard, Frank. “The Continuum -based Approach to Integration.” Unpublished pa per. 1998.

sJ