Transcript Slide 1

Records Management in the 21st Century
Putting The Pieces Together
7/21/2015
Archives and Records Management
Agenda





The Case for Electronic Records Management
King County’s ERM Implementation
What Should You Do
Summary
Questions
G
RM is from Mars, IT is from Venus
Records Managers










Manage Records
Most comfortable when managing
records
Manage archives based on content
Carefully delete files based on value
Expert on compliance
Create the electronic archiving rules
Must keep up with government
regulations
Worry about rodents in the file room
Tiny budget
Support the legal department and
compliance team
[1]
IT Managers
Manage backups
Most comfortable when managing bytes
Manage archives based on size and date
Delete or overwrite files based on storage
capacity
Expert on appliances
Manage the electronic archive file
Must keep up with Microsoft
Worry about worms in the server
Large budget
Support every end-user

G
The Case for Electronic Records
Management





90% or more of an organizations records are
created/stored electronically. The growth rate
is averaging 20 – 60 percent per year.
Employees are spending significant portions of
the work week managing electronic records
Public Records law requires e-document
retention in accordance with subject retention
schedules.
Public Disclosure/Discovery consumes large
amounts of resources on collection and review
{think revisions to the FRCP}
In many organizations information is
decentralized, making it difficult to find and
manage corporate knowledge

Manage volume

Manage time

Compliance


Manage resources
Compliance

Efficiency
G
The Case for Electronic Records
Management
Consider your Options…

Big Bucket Approach





Save everything for as long as possible
Ensures nothing is deleted
Expensive to find relevant records (needle in a haystack)
No user involvement – Extremely easy to implement
Structured Records Management Approach




Save records based upon business value (Retention Schedule)
Ensures the proper records are retained and protected
Indexing allows for quick searches
Varying levels of user involvement – Moderately easy to very difficult to
implement
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."
-Samuel Johnson British Author/Writer (1709 - 1784)
P
The Case for Electronic Records
Management
Consider the Technical Cost…

TCO has continued to rise even as media costs decline.



In the case of email;



For every dollar spent acquiring hardware, another $5 – $7 will be spent
operating those devices over their useful life. [2]
TCO for a $35,000 SAN over 5 years ranges from $210,000 - $280,000
70-80% can be considered transitory and destroyed immediately. [3]
A typical 3,000-user system will handle more than one terabyte of traffic
annually. [4]
Unlimited storage capacity virtually guarantees the unrestrained
retention of unused and useless data for indefinite periods of time. [5]
If you provide it… they will use it
G
The Case for Electronic Records
Management (cont.)
Consider the Human Resource Cost…
Discovery – Example
 100 email users with an average of 500 messages & attachments per user
 Assume that 20% of these messages (10,000) are potentially relevant
 Attorney review of 20 messages/hour @ $60 ‐ $150 per hour
Attorney costs for one review: $30,000 – $75,000 [6]
Public Disclosure – Real Life Example
 An agency may only charge the actual cost of reproducing a record
(photocopies) {RCW 42.56.120}
 Snohomish County estimated it devoted 12,771 hours responding to Public
Disclosure Requests in 2004
Unreimbursed costs for one year: $518,767 [7]
P
The Case for Electronic Records
Management (cont.)
The Bottom Line:
 Do you know what you are saving?
 Do you know what you are disclosing?
 It may be front page news tomorrow.
P
The Case for Electronic Records
Management (cont.)
Business
Admin
Finance
Personnel
Operations
Client
Files
Permits
Contracts
Projects
Legislative
Ordinances
Policy
P
King County Overview
Quick Facts
• 1.8M residents (13th largest county in the nation)
• 2,131 square miles
• County government budget - $4.05B (FY07)
• County employees - 13,300 (13,000 with email accounts)
• Average of 488,000 inbound email messages processed daily (92%)
• Average of 43,000 email messages delivered to mailboxes daily
• County services geographically distributed
• 85,000 cubic feet of records stored at the County Records Center
• Multiple IT Departments
G
Our World of Public Records
Physical
Records
Digital Imaging
Web Records
MS Office
Records
Databases
Email
"Information is the currency of democracy”. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
P
Project Overview

Implement an ERMS to manage the County’s electronic public records



Include all county agencies (approx 13,000 employees)
Project scope includes:






Strategic Technology Plan, Objective 1.6 – Standardize document
management and the management of electronic public records
Records created on personal computers (unstructured data)
Records stored at the County Records Center (physical records)
Web records
Digital imaging
Inventory/update of County retention schedules
Project staff:



Six Records Analysts
Communications/Education Specialist
Vendor project team
G
Selection Criteria









DoD Certified System (5015.2)
Integration with MS Exchange/Outlook
Integration with MS Office
Drag and Drop (email)
Business Rules (email)
Federated records management option
Physical Records Management
Digital Imaging capable
Document Management integration capability
G
Deliverables & Timeline
Sep ’07 – Sep ’08
Implementation Phase
(80)
Oct ’08 – Dec ’09
Jan ’10 – Dec ’10
Deployment Phase
(13,000)
HR Comp Mgt Srv
& Labor Relations
HR Division
Executive Agencies
Separately Elected
Officials
PC-Based
Records
PC-Based
Records
PC-Based
Records
PC-Based
Records
System Build
& Training
Curriculums
Countywide
Rollout Plan
Physical
Web
Records
Records
Module
Digital Imaging
Module
Administrative &
HR Unique
Schedules
HR Unique
Schedules
Agency Unique
Schedules
Agency Unique
Schedules
Electronic Public Disclosure Index
G
What Should You Do?
 Assemble your team
•
•
•
•
•
Records Management
IT
Legal
Public Disclosure
Risk Management
 Identify your business needs
• Do you need to manage structured or unstructured data?
• Do you need an all-encompassing solution or targeted?
• Conduct a Risk Assessment – Do you have high risk repositories?
 Are end-users ready for an ERMS (do they really need an EDMS)?
 Do you have top management’s support? (critical)
 Budget appropriately – Perform a market analysis
 Review solutions based upon your business needs
G
Summary

Electronic Records management impacts the bottom line








TCO
Employee Productivity
Corporate Knowledge
Compliance
Identify your business needs and select a solution that addresses
those needs
Be realistic on what you can deliver and how long it will take
Planning requires a holistic approach – include the right players
What works for us may not work for you
There is nothing that strengthens a nation like reading of a nation's own history, whether that history is recorded in books
G
or embodied in customs, institutions and monuments. Joseph Anderson – U.S. Statesman (1757-1837)
Questions
Gregory Trosset
Electronic Records Program Manager
Patricia Holmquist, CRM
Lead Records Management Specialist
206-296-3488
[email protected]
206-296-1572
[email protected]
Appendix
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Daniel Lucarini, “RM is from Mars, IT is from Venus!”, Captaris, Inc. (2005)
Paul Wang, “Understanding Online Archiving,” SMS 5, no. 11 (2000)
Fred Moore, “Archival Data Has a New Mission: Critical,” Computer
Technology Review, February 2003.
Bill Tolson, “Controlling the Flood, A Look at E-mail Storage and
Management Challenges,” Computer Technology Review, September 2002.
David O. Stephens, “Records Management: Making the transition from
paper to electronic,” ARMA International, 2007
Joan Feldman, “Rule 26 and Litigation Readiness: Preparing for Litigation
Holds,” Navigant Consulting
Kymber Waltmunson, “Public Disclosure Study: Snohomish County Auditor’s
Office,” 2005