Records Management and Knowledge Mobilisation. A Handbook for Regulation, Innovation and...

Records Management and Knowledge Mobilisation

CHANDOSINFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES

Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski(e-mail: [email protected])

Chandos’ new series of books is aimed at the busy information professional. They have

been specially commissioned to provide the reader with an authoritative view of current

thinking. They are designed to provide easy-to-read and (most importantly) practical

coverage of topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals.

If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please visit

www.chandospublishing.com or email [email protected] or telephone

+44(0) 1223 499140.

New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles; if you would like to write

a book for Chandos, please contact Dr Glyn Jones on email [email protected]

or telephone number +44(0) 1993 848726.

Bulk orders: some organisations buy a number of copies of our books. If you

are interested in doing this, we would be pleased to discuss a discount. Please contact on

email [email protected] or telephone +44(0) 1223 499140.

Records Management and Knowledge

Mobilisation

A handbook for regulation, innovation and transformation

STEPHEN HARRIES

Chandos PublishingHexagon House

Avenue 4Station Lane

WitneyOxford OX28 4BN

UKTel: +44 (0) 1993 848726

Email: [email protected]

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Woodhead Publishing Limited

Woodhead Publishing Limited80 High Street

SawstonCambridge CB22 3HJ

UKTel: +44 (0) 1223 499140Fax: +44 (0) 1223 832819

www.woodheadpublishing.com

First published in 2012

ISBN:978 1 84334 653 1

© S. Harries, 2012

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the Publishers. This publication may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published without the prior consent of the Publishers. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The Publishers make no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this publication and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions.

The material contained in this publication constitutes general guidelines only and does not represent to be advice on any particular matter. No reader or purchaser should act on the basis of material contained in this publication without fi rst taking professional advice appropriate to their particular circumstances. All screenshots in this publication are the copyright of the website owner(s), unless indicated otherwise.

Typeset by Refi neCatch Limited, Bungay, SuffolkPrinted in the UK and USA.

ix

List of fi gures and tables

Figures

3.1 Records, knowledge and outcomes 664.1 Records continuum model 794.2 Global model showing three axes 814.3 Global model showing four perspectives 814.4 Records management design view 844.5 Knowledge mobilisation design view 844.6 Regulation-centred design view 864.7 Innovation-centred design view 864.8 Knowledge-centred design view 914.9 Action-centred design view 925.1 Records management as a self-reinforcing

regulatory system 1106.1 Lowering the barriers to innovation 1326.2 Layered framework for knowledge governance 1397.1 Relating knowledge processes to functions 1587.2 Knowledge strategies bridge policy and delivery 1668.1 Competing public values model for an

iKR strategy 1919.1 Role of iKRS in the knowledge value chain 1999.2 Developing a knowledge-based intervention

strategy and plan 1999.3 Example outcome relationship map for iKRS

strategic alignment 203

x


9.4 Mapping stakeholder behaviour to knowledge processes and fi leplan structure 207

10.1 Fostering new knowledge: sharing and learning cycle 222

10.2 Examples of social networks maps 23310.3 Collaborative knowledge architecture at the

organisational layer 238

Tables

3.1 Knowledge paradigms 634.1 Comparative aspects of records and knowledge 764.2 Expansion of key features as allocated in global

model 937.1 Models of policy-making and research

utilisation 1478.1 Claimed tangible and intangible benefi ts of

records management 1759.1 Example stakeholder knowledge map

(simplifi ed) 2069.2 Alternative conceptions and differing tactics

for a knowledge-sharing issue 212

xi

AcknowledgementsThis book examines new and potential currents in records management, and its relationship to knowledge, in the context of ideas and work from related disciplines, drawing in particular on work in public policy, economics and information science, and aiming to draw these sometimes disparate strands together; in the process it builds on the work of others in all these fi elds. I am grateful to former colleagues in the UK National Archives with whom I worked closely in the early development of electronic records management to develop new ideas and thinking, in particular to Richard Blake and Malcolm Todd for their generous personal support and encouragement over many years. I am also most grateful to the many practitioners in the fi eld, particularly those working in UK government organisations, for the opportunity to test this approach against practical contexts, and for their valuable responses – whether expressing interest, critiques or bemusement, all have been helpful in its development. My thanks go to Julie McLeod for commissioning an article which allowed an early expression of these ideas, and to Kate Cumming and Elizabeth Lomas for the encouragement offered by their citing of that article in the annual Emerald awards; to Frank Upward for kind permission to use his records continuum model as a platform for incorporating a knowledge dimension (hoping that he will fi nd something of interest in the use I have made of it); and to the people at Chandos for

xii


commissioning the book in the fi rst place. I am also indebted to the many authors from other disciplines whose published work I have drawn on, in examining records and knowledge issues from these various perspectives.

xiii

About the authorStephen Harries is a consultant and researcher in the use of knowledge, information and records in the public sector, with particular interests in governance and public policy management. He has extensive experience across the public sector as a senior programme manager and information professional, working with modernisation, reform and transformation issues to improve policy and delivery. Increasingly, his work focuses on the role and organisation of knowledge for a broad public participation.

From 1998 to 2003, he joined the team at the UK Public Record Offi ce (now National Archives) responsible for developing electronic records management, and led the programme to implement EDRM across central government as part of Modernising Government, producing the PRO functional requirements and setting up the EDRM software testing and certifi cation scheme. A spell at the UK Offi ce of Government Commerce followed, setting up programmes for embedding best practice in government projects and policy programmes, helping to improve delivery of outcomes and best value; delivering effi ciencies in procurement and major projects; and carrying out OGC Gateway reviews.

Previously, he spent ten years as a senior lecturer in information studies at Brighton University and worked as a systems analyst in the computer software industry in library automation. He has a BA in History, an MSc in Information Systems Design and an MRes in Public Policy

xiv


and Management. He held Chartered Membership of the British Computer Society from 1986, and several Information Science professional memberships. He is also a Fellow of the RSA.

1

1

Managing records and growing knowledge: an interactive

strategy

Abstract: Early initiatives in electronic records management showed promise for contributing to government transformation, but concentrated more on regulating information governance. Public sector modernisation has gained momentum, and a central feature of reform is the trend from delivery through hierarchies to networks. Records managers are seeking to refocus their professional role on information and knowledge. The key problems of government transformation are knowledge-based. Knowledge mobilisation and records management working together are well placed to meet these challenges.

Key words: electronic records management; government transformation; modernisation; public sector reform; professional role; knowledge mobilisation.

In 1997, an energetic, reforming, New Labour Government was elected in the UK, ousting the weary incumbent which had been in power for many years. The newcomers promised a sweeping programme of modernisation and reform, a ‘new dawn’ which would permanently change the face of the public sector; a transformation into effi cient, effective, integrated and increasingly electronic public services. At that time, many government information systems were still

2


largely paper-based, existing electronic systems tended to be uncoordinated silos that simply automated manual practices, and government websites remained unsophisticated public communication channels. Inspired by the heady beliefs of the dot-com boom, rapidly moving to a fully electronic mode of working, creating large and interlinked databases of government records, the large-scale application of IT systems and building integrated public-facing electronic services through a coherent network of websites seemed the obvious course to follow. The new administration set out enthusiastically to apply the digital effi ciencies and disciplines of the private sector to the conduct of government business.

At the same time, records managers and archivists responsible for government records were concerned about the long-term implications of electronic business systems for capturing, managing and preserving digital records. The essential mutability of the digital format, and dependency on fast-changing technology for access to the content, threatened the authenticity and longevity of the corporate record and, for the permanent archive, the continuing fl ow of historical records in the future. In response, records management practice aspired to bring electronic records under managed control much closer to the point of creation than with paper records. The new strategy for a sweeping digitisation of government business represented, on the one hand, a threat that could not be ignored, and on the other, an opportunity to hitch these issues onto a more glamorous carriage.

The new strategy was articulated in a government White Paper entitled Modernising Government, which set out a range of initiatives and targets for the delivery of ‘information-age government’. Some way into this document, it mentioned:

3

Managing records and growing knowledge

. . . a strategy across government for managing and accessing archives, using modern IT to support service delivery and accountability. It is our aim that by 2004 all newly created public records will be electronically stored and retrieved.

With most broad-based policy documents, the original wording of its detailed elements is collated from many sources and edited together by a central policy team. It seems most likely that those who originated this statement were thinking of the creation of interim electronic archives for semi-active records – those no longer needed for day-to-day business, but deemed important for compliance and reference purposes – rather than of current business records in day-to-day business systems. This seemed a good way to ensure that ‘born-digital’ documents produced by electronic business systems would be preserved for later selection by the permanent archives. Clearly this strategy would be diffi cult to justify in cost–benefi t terms on its own – and hard to engage senior management interest within departments – if the primary benefi t is understood as the historical value for future generations. Linking this objective into public service reform initiatives – arguing that it will improve electronic service delivery and build public trust and confi dence through greater accountability – reframed the strategy as an essential underpinning infrastructure for the modernisation initiative.

The arguments developed thus: a radical move to online public services requires an equal attention to the effi cient capture, management and presentation of operational information behind the public face of the system – tax-collecting organisations, for example, need to know what guidance they have placed on their websites in the past, the e-mail communications that staff have had with individual customers, any precedent-setting policy and case decisions,

4


and so on; and to be able to make this knowledge reliably accessible at the point of contact with the customer. Some of this information will be held in structured databases, but some also in unstructured and poorly controlled documents, e-mails or spreadsheets, without benefi t of version control or audit trails. A ‘print-to-paper’ policy is not sustainable in online working; therefore all this material must be brought within a managed electronic environment and placed under the necessary disciplines that would assure their status as reliable and authentic formal records. In turn, this managed environment would need to refl ect new ways of working, rather than simply automating paper-based routines, whilst also retaining a degree of compatibility with legacy material.

A second major theme of modernisation, at the inter-agency level, was tagged as ‘joined-up government’. The citizen/customer should be able to interact with pubic services in terms of their own needs, without having to understand how functions are allocated across the physical structure of government agencies; the focus should be on the outcome rather than the process. Therefore electronic records management should be consistent and compatible between, as well as within, different organisations, to enable the appropriate sharing and update of information regardless of its physical location. At the same time, the managed environment must take account of privacy and data protection rules, and reconcile these with the innovatory needs for information-sharing between organisations.

The logic of these arguments reinforced the belief that electronic records must be brought within the managed environment at or near their point of creation, else their authenticity might be in question. Driven by the consequences of locating it within the modernisation initiative, the brief policy statement on interim electronic archives quoted above quickly evolved into a target to install electronic document

5


and records management (EDRM) systems in business areas across all central government departments and agencies by the end of 2004, meeting a common standard of requirements – quite a different challenge! This in turn generated a range of supporting activities, functional and procedural standards, departmental business change programmes and incentivisation of software product development.

This story illustrates the surprising ways that public policies, in general, come about. It is often assumed that they are generated through a fully rational process of evidence-gathering, evaluation of options and considered rational choice; but many other factors infl uence the process. In this case, a pre-existing solution – interim electronic archives – fi tted well with a broad archival concern about the impact of IT on the quality of records and future transfer to the permanent archives. The redefi nition of the problem as one of rapid modernisation offered an entrepreneurial opportunity to attach this solution to a problem passing in the stream of wider policy issues. Now framed in this new perspective, it began to evolve a different aspect. The logic and momentum of this innovation reworked the proposed solution into something rather different: about current business systems rather than historical archives.

This shift put the records management function potentially at the forefront of business change, introducing new tensions. The conventional formal structures of records management tend to stress a regulatory function, constraining the actions that can be taken on corporate information in order to ensure authentic records and compliance with information governance regimes. Potential constraints include, for example, requiring users to: store electronic records in corporate fi ling structures they do not understand and fi nd diffi cult to retrieve from; apply retention policies, security and other (to them burdensome) metadata about the record,

6


adding additional processes for largely administrative reasons; or refrain from sharing information between business units where there may be risk of compliance issues. A concentration on regulation can then easily become a battle against innovation, in which records managers are perceived as ‘information police’, always in the position of saying, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ In such a situation, it becomes more diffi cult for them to demonstrate how these apparent obstructions do in fact contribute to real business benefi ts.

This tension between regulation and innovation is inherent in records management. On the one hand, the unique contribution of records management disciplines is to produce a structured and sustainable body of material which accurately records what happened, supporting accountability and transparency: a focus on order and stability. On the other, it must engage with issues of modernisation and reform, contributing to business benefi ts and effective outcomes delivery, helping to improve agility, effi ciency and quality: a focus on change. A central question of this book is: how can we resolve these competing demands in a consistent and coherent way?

The ‘2004 initiative’, as it became known, found it diffi cult to articulate precise business benefi ts from EDRM that would be capable of justifying the substantial costs of implementation across the whole of government. Benefi ts tended to stress the avoidance of costs from lack of compliance, savings in space management and effi ciencies in records management processes themselves; and generalised assertions on improved decision-making and evidence-based policy. Fortuitously, an alternative platform emerged in the shape of Freedom of Information legislation, new to the UK and to be implemented by 2005; and to a lesser extent, in revisions in data protection and other legislation. The attraction to offi cials and politicians of some assurance

7


against surprising revelations, through improved records control, offered supplementary justifi cation. To the question: ‘what is EDRM for?’ the answers shifted between an initial ‘to save today’s records for future generations’, towards ‘to avoid the potential embarrassment of failing to comply with information policy’, whilst ‘to radically help transform the way government works’ slipped down the agenda. When seeking to meet a diffi cult target, the familiar is more attractive than the unknown, and for many organisations it seemed the spotlight shifted from service transformation towards information governance; from enabling innovation and change towards corralling and restraining new approaches; from proportionate risk management towards precautionary risk avoidance; and from a user perspective towards a records manager perspective.

This and subsequent initiatives in health and local government have succeeded in building a strong narrative around information policy and governance: defi ning a comprehensive set of rules on the application of data protection and data-sharing, freedom of information and information security, confi dentiality and transparency; and turning these into institutional rules that are embedded in the expected culture and behaviour of public sector bodies. They have been less successful – as with many other government IT programmes – in radically transforming the way that government delivers services and outcomes. There are few studies quantifying the benefi ts realised by the various programmes that have implemented EDRM over the last decade or so, and no systematic review of the returns from the substantial investments made in these initiatives. Undoubtedly many records managers have achieved a great deal in promoting a corporate model of records and a compliant information governance regime in their organisations, and in improving the effi ciency of

8


records management processes themselves. What is not clear, though, is the extent to which these achievements have directly added value to the primary objectives of those organisations – shaping and delivering public policy outcomes.

This diffi culty is certainly not unique to the records and information management world. Policies and strategies not only emerge from unexpected sources, they also take unexpected courses as events unfold, not always following an obviously rational course, and with those responsible for implementation ‘muddling through’ as circumstances permit. The biggest constraints on achieving change are often the factors inherited from the past, entrenched pathways which have their own momentum and cannot easily be changed. Our ability to bridge the gap between ambitions and expectations is moderated by our ability to reframe and redirect those ideas and ways of thinking that are already embedded in our understanding of what should and needs to be done.

An aim of this book is to make a contribution towards bridging that gap, by asking how the activity of managing records can be focused more directly on the delivery of policy outcomes through an energetic engagement with transformation across the public sector, without losing its own unique qualities. This implies moving beyond the regulation of information, to embrace fl exibility and innovative change as well – and these two pull in different directions.

Records management in a turbulent world

In 2010, an energetic, reforming, Coalition Government came to power in the UK, ousting the weary incumbent

9


which had been in power for many years, following a period of recession and a national debt crisis. A fresh administration with a different political mix naturally brought with it different priorities and objectives, but it also embodied trends in thinking which have been gathering pace across the political spectrum for many years. These are discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but the key points are:

■ radical reductions in public spending, reversing the trend over recent years, and resulting in reductions to budgets, staff and services;

■ a shrinking state, in size and scope, with a transfer of functions elsewhere;

■ from direct delivery to commissioning of services, with others delivering on behalf of central and local government;

■ renewed public service reform, with an emphasis on increasing competition, choice and marketisation in public services;

■ a greater diversity of organisations – private and not-for-profi t companies, professional consortia, charities and voluntary bodies, community representatives – introduced into the delivery chain, with more autonomy and less direct accountability to ministers;

■ decentralisation of powers away from central government to local authorities and communities themselves;

■ efforts to engage the citizen in taking direct responsibility for policy issues which involve behaviour change, as partners in the co-production of (and sometimes co-payment for) services.

Taken together, these trends demonstrate a continuing change, across the political party spectrum, in the perceived

10


role of government: from a top–down ‘command and control’ planning model which directly delivers or commissions services itself, to one in which the state manages the framework within which a wide range of others deliver, perhaps outside of its direct control. It aims to set the agenda and control the infrastructure, but cede much of the responsibility and accountability to those nearer the point of production and delivery: an agile, enabling state rather than a bureaucratic, directing state. It shifts the emphasis from hierarchy towards network.

This is a challenge to the future place of records management. As a modern professional discipline, records management developed its own distinct techniques, standards and codes of practice, in parallel with the growth of the bureaucratic state and corporation. As more aspects of society and economy were drawn into regulatory regimes, so record-keeping and its governance expanded its scope. Universal health care, welfare benefi ts, the regulation of markets and standards are all examples which led to the creation of new categories of records and requirements for their management. The model of records management took on the same essential characteristics: a top–down, reductionist approach, working at the level of a single organisation, as represented by its records, laying out its component functions for management and accountability purposes.

An enabling public sector stresses innovation as much as regulation; it seeks out new ways of doing things that are more responsive and dynamic, able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. In this view, too much central control leads to ineffi ciency and poor outcomes; better to leave those closest to the problem the freedom to determine the best solution. Records management seeks to impose order and structure on a chaotic environment, and bring activity

11


within a formal rule structure. Innovation sometimes requires a looser environment which promotes experimentation, one in which new ideas can be tried out, debated, refi ned, adopted or abandoned. This tension is at the root of the common disconnect between the relative perceptions of records managers and the users of a corporate EDRM system: the one is concerned with ensuring conformance with corporate rules and procedures, bringing different users together in a common structure in which information can be shared to best advantage; the other with producing results from the task at hand in the most effi cient and effective way. The records manager complains: ‘Why don’t they understand the importance of all this?’ while the user complains: ‘Why can’t I just focus on what works now?’

At heart, regulation and innovation are in tension with each other because they deal in different (but complementary) kinds of knowledge: the formalised knowledge that is encoded in documents and procedures, and the informal insights, ‘know-how’ and intuitions that emerge from engagement with grassroots problems. The fi rst is fi xed and inert, the second fl uid and dynamic. Innovation may draw on lessons from the experience of others, observing what has worked elsewhere and seeking to adapt those lessons for local use; or come from exploring original ideas through an experimentation, testing and refi nement process, leading to new insights and methods, which can in turn inform more innovation by others. Both routes require the space and freedom to innovate and to engage in a dialogue between learning through telling and learning by doing. The challenge for records management is to engage with, and support, the innovation process without unduly restraining it, but at the same time to guide compliance with formal structures and governance where this is appropriate – and to do so within

12


the context of rapid and unpredictable change in the public sector.

The key challenges for records management in this climate are:

■ economic – doing more with less: shrinking budgets imply fi erce choice on allocating resources to where they deliver the most (and most wanted) value;

■ strategic – focusing on outcomes: for an enabling and commissioning government, the greatest benefi ts lie in knowing how best to produce outcomes and deliver the conditions for success;

■ organisational – working with diverse partners: the delivery environment is steadily evolving from hierarchy and top–down delivery towards coordination of diverse efforts through networks of organisations and groups; the infrastructure of records, knowledge and information needs to change too, recognising and meeting the needs of all partners in the business of delivering outcomes;

■ cultural – joining up knowledge processes: partners come with quite different sets of values, priorities, knowledge structures and ways of thinking about the issues; focusing on outcome delivery by diverse partners means supporting the dynamism and innovation that fl ows from cultural diversity, as well as structuring the shared production, management and exploitation of knowledge and records;

■ technological – managing the ends not the means: joining up knowledge processes across, not just within, organisations requires a ‘soft’ as well as ‘hard’ analysis: understanding how different working cultures put knowledge into action takes precedence over the details of technological systems.

13


The turbulent world of records management

This is a demanding set of challenges. Successful responses to transformation of the public sector will themselves transform the role and practices of managing knowledge, records and information, reframe how they are seen within the organisation and change the profi le of practitioners. Records management practitioners have generally found it diffi cult to achieve a high profi le for their discipline within the organisation. In the past, it has been most closely associated with the archival function and has been perceived as an ‘end-of-process’ add-on – a burden that has to be done (but as little of it as possible), rather than a value-adding activity. Records managers have responded to this diffi culty by associating themselves with the information management strand in organisations, seeking alliances with IT professionals, and in some cases by adding the term ‘knowledge’ to their portfolio, eliding the concept of ‘corporate memory’ with that of ‘intellectual capital’.

In fact, the world of records management seems to be undergoing something of an existential crisis at present. The Records Management Association of Australia, a country from which much of the modern approach to records emerged, has recently renamed itself as Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia. In the UK, the practitioner body formerly known as the Records Management Society has gone a step further, relegating ‘records’ to secondary position in its new title of Information and Records Management Society; meanwhile the UK Society of Archivists has become the Archives and Records Association. The UK Civil Service has recognised a new professional grouping of knowledge and information

14


managers working in central government. This profession’s formal website suggests that it encompasses librarians, information and records managers, knowledge managers, information rights professionals and archivists, ‘KIM professionals [who] are focused on an aspect of managing a part of government’s information effectively’, but is less clear about how these various roles fi t together: ‘It can be hard to defi ne a unique characteristic of the profession, as the defi ning feature is the degree of expertise, rather than a particular qualifi cation, or having an understanding of the issues.’1

This plethora of titles suggests a restless search for identity, as records professionals struggle to retain their footing in a turbulent world and to gain recognition for the value they believe they can add to the organisation. If we imagine a spectrum which places archives on the leftmost end, moving through records, information governance, information management, to knowledge on the rightmost, there seems to be a steady movement rightwards as practitioners seek to reposition themselves and reframe their roles – a movement driven more by aspiration than by disciplinary development. Yet there are also dangers, as well as advantages, in such repositioning.

The turn to information management highlights records as a special class of information, one which happens to demand stricter management disciplines in order to maintain their status as authentic and reliable. The argument here says: in carrying out their tasks, people make transactions, using and creating information that needs to be recorded and managed appropriately; records management and information governance is just one aspect of that function. But information in general is by its nature a looser concept than records, because it is present almost everywhere, managed in some way by almost everyone and open to questioning and

15


interpretation. It is the context in which information-as-records is placed – as evidence, for accountability, as an agreed narrative of events – that requires them to be treated as records. A change in the context – e.g. as timely information solely to solve an immediate business problem – changes the requirements for the way the information needs to be managed. This context (e.g. the solved business problem) may in fact be where the benefi ts for the organisation as a whole are actually realised. Frequently, users need just enough information to satisfy their immediate needs, which may be political as much as factual, and are unconcerned beyond that point. If the benefi ts can be obtained through a form of information management which is less strict, and less costly, than that required by records management – through workfl ow, perhaps, or a data mining system – then the case for the latter still needs to be made and the additional benefi ts which it brings identifi ed.

It is, of course, an important corporate strategy to integrate and, as far as possible, rationalise all manifestations of internal information management; and each manifestation needs to justify its existence, or risk being rationalised away. Standing records management shoulder to shoulder with other forms of information management may, rather than taking on their hue, simply result in highlighting the differences. Enabling compliance with external regulation is a worthy, but not necessarily compelling, justifi cation for existence in a period of severe fi nancial constraint; absent the conviction of a necessary and unique contribution to organisational goals, the temptation must be to reduce costs by reducing the strictness of records management disciplines. There is a danger that the concept of records becomes diluted in the surrounding sea of information and that records managers lose their unique identity amongst competing information professions.

16


The turn to knowledge highlights the idea of records as an organised body of formal knowledge: the argument here says: in fi nding ways to deliver their objectives people use existing, and create new, knowledge that is a corporate asset to be captured, retained over time and transferred to others; much of this knowledge can be codifi ed and managed as records. This edges the focus away from the rationalisation of processes towards the production of outcomes, and from regulation to innovation. There is some correlation between the features that set records apart from other forms of information – as authentic, reliable and agreed narratives that constitute a corporate memory – and those characteristics that typify formal knowledge. Nevertheless, in connecting records to knowledge similar issues arise as with the connection to information. Managing formal, inert knowledge is only one part of the picture. People also, perhaps primarily, use knowledge that they possess in themselves, expressed as experience, intuition or ‘know-how’, in delivering their objectives – and this is often where creative innovation springs from. Knowledge that would be useful for solving a problem has only potential value until it is brought to bear, whether it is locked in unassimilated research or in the heads of stakeholders that are not engaged and participating. Community regeneration programmes, for example, benefi t from the knowledge of problems and issues possessed by members of that local community, as well as the expertise of professionals; and both need to be mobilised in order to solve the problem. To demonstrate how it can realise benefi ts and contribute directly to production of outcomes by connecting to knowledge, records management needs to engage with these sorts of issues, as well as managing the outputs of the process.

Some argue that a convergence between information professions is taking place: that records, information and

17


knowledge managers, IT managers and business analysts, librarians and archivists, are all working to the same objectives and will evolve into one powerful profession underpinning a knowledge-based society. This may be one scenario, although history does not support it so far; and it is equally possible to argue that all these professions are in contention for the same ground. Whether this is so, there are still fundamental differences in practice between roles: in an integrated approach, how, for example, is the functional fi leplan of the records manager reconciled with the taxonomy of the knowledge manager (an ‘understanding of the issues’ would certainly be helpful here)? Integration is a valuable goal if it adds more value to the objectives of the public sphere, but needs to be founded on clear recognition of differences as well as similarities, and an understanding that exposure to these differences might result in fundamental change in one’s own way of seeing the world. Enjoining a false consensus creates, rather than resolves, problems.

In a transformed public sphere, such an integration also needs to move beyond the single organisational perspective to work across the kind of networks that public policy now operates in, involving public, private and voluntary organisations, geographical communities as well as communities of practice, and competing interest groups. We need to know how the knowledge and experience of these various groups can be mobilised – put into action – to deliver outcomes, as well as capturing and pluralising this knowledge through the records they produce. We need to understand how managing records and mobilising knowledge interact with each other, reconcile concepts and practices, and demonstrate how this can deliver added value in the changing public policy and delivery environment.

18


What is knowledge mobilisation?

The literature of knowledge and its management is fraught with ambiguous and contentious terminology and this book does not attempt to reconcile the whole fi eld with records management. Instead, it concentrates on one distinct concept, that of knowledge mobilisation. Although it can overlap with other concepts, such as knowledge exchange or knowledge transfer, its particular advantage is the stress on the second word – mobilisation. To mobilise is to make something ‘capable of movement’2 or to ‘bring it into circulation’ as well as to ‘make or become ready for action’; to catalyse the latent potential of a quality or resource, to recognise its power and give it identity, and to focus it upon action. The term makes the connection between knowledge and action – between knowing and doing.

This idea captures two complementary aspects. One is to lay out and marshal a set of known resources, bringing them to bear on an objective purpose and setting them in motion, as in mobilising troops for a military campaign. Another is to give shape to, and animate, some potential capability which is present but not yet realised, by making connections with others and focusing on an objective, as in mobilising public opinion for a policy campaign. Economists speak of mobilising resources in the economy for growth, clinicians of the action of vitamin A in mobilising iron from the liver, and sociologists of the ‘mobilisation of bias’ to describe how some issues become prominent on the political agenda and others fade away.

Similarly, we can speak of the mobilisation of knowledge in these two ways: fi rstly, as a process of knowing what we know and making what we know ready for action by connecting new knowledge to professional practice. Knowledge transfer programmes, such as those in industry,

19


for example, seek ways to move the results of scientifi c research into operational production. Healthcare professionals seek to bring the results of proven medical research on new therapies into clinical practice, not just by changing explicit policy instructions, but also by changing the way practitioners think about diagnoses and treatments. Academics argue for public policies based on evidence of ‘what works’ gained from research studies and statistical analysis. Records managers can take an active approach to exploiting the evidential value of records.

Secondly, we can speak of the mobilisation of knowledge as a process of discovering new knowledge by drawing on the knowledge resources of all relevant participants. This could be described as knowing what we don’t know, identifying and working to fi ll gaps in knowledge coverage: which could be by commissioning research as a result of systematic reviews, or by brokering connections between groups and individuals, or simply encouraging an innovative environment which promotes refl ection, exchange of ideas and experience, and collaborative problem-solving.

The fi rst aspect emphasises the transfer of knowledge between a producer and a consumer; making it explicit, encoding it in a way that can be transmitted and creating the right conditions for its effective assimilation by the receiver. This aspect is more closely associated with a linear approach to learning, through formal evidence, explanation or worked example, story or case study – learning by telling. Innovation is analysed and structured in order to transfer lessons from one situation and apply them to another. The UK National Institute of Health Research, for example, has initiated a programme to investigate ‘bridging the gap between research and practice’ in healthcare management, investigating how mobilisation of knowledge from research in that fi eld

20


can infl uence managers’ behaviour and decision-making, combining with other knowledge to produce organisational value.

The second aspect emphasises the co-production of knowledge by the interaction between contributors and participants, in which new knowledge is constructed by a process of refl ection, dialogue, experimentation and review. Here, the stress is more on making the connections between participants possessing different kinds of knowledge, bringing new voices and experiences into the dialogue to encourage exploration. This aspect stresses learning by doing, and the innovation produced by interaction with a situation or issue (knowledge which may later be formalised and encoded for transfer to others); the process is recursive rather than linear. It is concerned not only with ‘knowing about’ something, but also with knowing how to put it into practice, knowing why it is appropriate to do so, knowing who is involved and how well their interests are represented.

These two aspects are complementary and not exclusive. Both are trying to solve two related diffi culties: the ‘knowing’ problem – working out where the knowledge gaps are that hinder delivery, and producing the right kind of knowledge to fi ll them; and the ‘doing’ problem – bridging the knowledge–practice gap so that it can be put into action in better ways to deliver results. The better the fi t between the answers to these two problems, the more successful they will be. This is because bridging the gap is not just a simple matter of assessing evidence and applying the fi ndings; the context is as relevant as the content. Knowledge mobilisation is not only a matter of evidence, but also of ideas, interests and institutions; and of how all these interact.

21


Connecting records management and knowledge mobilisation

Although records management and knowledge mobilisation have different orientations and practices, they also have much in common. Both are concerned with knowledge structures and the way in which organisations and institutions are represented through them. Both deal with evidence and its interpretation, with context as well as content, and with questions of interests and accountability. Both aim to make connections between knowledge structures and the functions and outcomes that are the objects of public policy, increasingly to enable modernisation and transformational change. Together they complement each other and offer a powerful combination.

The second aim of this book is to explore some of the connections and to sketch out a suggested approach to integration within the public sphere, in the context of modernisation and reform. In doing so, it outlines a strategic role that combines practices of knowledge, records and information governance, one in which such practitioners can play a key role in public sector transformation – an interactive knowledge and records strategy (iKRS). This is intended to include some aspects of information management, but avoids ambiguities in use of such a widely applied term. The book assumes a basic understanding of the principles of records management and focuses on strategy rather than technology. It is primarily aimed at practitioners in the public sector, especially those who see opportunities in contributing to the development of the sector, and their senior managers who have an oversight responsibility. It may also be of interest to policy and delivery managers who are interested in the contribution that knowledge and records can make to their work.

22


Part 1 sets out some principles of integration between the two fi elds: Chapter 2 covers trends and issues in the changing role of government in more detail, while Chapters 3 and 4 consider the conceptual relationship between records and knowledge, and build a global model for examining the relationship. The following two chapters examine the impact of records and knowledge from complementary perspectives: the institutional framework of regulation and the dynamic context of innovation. Part 2 presents practices relevant to developing an integrated approach: Chapter 7 makes the case for a knowledge-based intervention in policy-making and programme delivery and Chapter 8 develops a framework for understanding the different kinds of value that it can add. Chapters 9 and 10 offer a suite of practical techniques for: analysing and designing interventions; working with knowledge cultures; and building a knowledge architecture. The fi nal chapter considers the wider implications for professional development in a reframing of records management.

Notes1. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/improving/psg/psg-identifi er/

framework-KIM.aspx (accessed February 2011).2. Taken from defi nition in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

25

2

The changing role of government: transformation

Abstract: Public service reform is a constant theme of governments, but we are now entering a time of turbulent change. Effi ciency is a necessary but insuffi cient response to radical budget reductions. To address the central policy problems requires engagement with the private sector, civic society and the citizen directly. The role of government is to stimulate and coordinate delivery through other multiple channels. Transformation means rethinking how government works in this new context. Knowledge and accountability are central issues.

Key words: public service reform; public policy; joined-up government; public administrator role; civic society; accountability.

Modernisation and reform is a constant theme of government. Newly elected governments produce zealous civil service reform programmes as a matter of course, the staple ingredients including a reduction in staff numbers, abolition of specialised agencies and non-governmental bodies, and an attack on waste and ineffi ciency; such programmes are popular with everyone except those they abolish. As their term progresses, and as the complexities and contradictions of political life pile up and entropy sets in, civil servant numbers start to rise, new bodies are created

26


to satisfy various interest groups and the fragmenting tendencies of public administration re-assert themselves. Public offi cials, who have seen many such initiatives pass through, well know that with patience one day the storm will pass and ‘normality’ will return.

With this in mind, it may seem foolish to argue that, in the coming decade, things will be a bit different – why should it change now? For one thing, we can see that the pace of reform has quickened since the 1980s, as succeeding changes in government have made various attempts to tackle the same underlying issues. Although the response has usually focused on managerialism as a strategy – aiming to strengthen the management abilities of public administrators whilst reducing their policy advisory role – these issues arise from long-term trends in the economy and society which are much more structural in nature. These trends are:

■ continually increasing demand for, and expectations of, public services such as health, education, welfare;

■ demographic change: a continuing trend of fewer younger working people supporting more older non-working people, implying the need for a step-change in productivity;

■ fl at or decreasing resources, accompanying rising demand to pay for public services, a situation which will continue beyond the fi nancial defi cit crises;

■ intractable policy problems – such as child poverty or climate change – with complex and interwoven roots to which the best policy response is unclear or contentious, but which require changes in values, attitudes and behaviour to have an effect;

■ widespread scepticism of government by the general public, disengagement of citizens from the democratic

27

The changing role of government

process, and a decline in trust and confi dence about accountability;

■ professionalisation of politicians and a re-imaging of the political role from ‘public service’ to ‘executive direction’ of the nation state;

■ a ‘hollowing out’ of the state, at least in Europe, with some functions and spending ceded to the trans-national level above, some devolved to the regional level below, and others replaced by the market.

In short, a set of wicked problems1: demand is up, but budgets are down, so services cannot just keep growing; a set of problems that government cannot solve itself, but a citizenry that refuses to be engaged with them because it doesn’t trust politicians; and politicians seeking lifetime careers as corporate managers, but with less access to the levers of power.

Mere effi ciencies, however rigorous, will not address these problems alone. They require a different way of thinking about what government should try to do, how it should go about doing it, whom it should work with in doing so, in which kind of relationships, and so on. It is not about doing the same things but for less money, or even doing them in a better way; it is about doing different things altogether – rethinking, not reworking. Transformative modernisation and reform add up to a new mindset, and the signs are that we are moving towards a tipping point.

The role of government is changing at national, regional and local levels: it is becoming more about shaping the environment in which others operate, in order to infl uence their actions and direction, nudging them towards taking responsibility for perceived issues and delivering solutions themselves. This change in role will have an impact on records management too: records, information and

28


knowledge can all play an important role in the new challenges of transformation, but all the old certainties can no longer be relied upon. The conventions that matched the model of highly bureaucratic, top–down government will have to adapt to the more fl uid approaches of a networked world. The purpose of this chapter is to set out some of the most relevant issues, to help think about the challenges that the transformation process will make to the fi eld of knowledge, records and information governance, and how it can transform itself.

Of course, all countries are not the same, and the balance of issues varies from state to state. The analysis in this chapter is based on UK experience; however, there should be enough commonality that others will recognise some or most of these features. It is also important to note that these trends and responses are observed across the political spectrum; although there are differences about the specifi cs and issues such as where the precise boundaries of the state lie, there is in fact more agreement about the broad sweep of change than is often acknowledged.

The changing economic environment

The most evident theme in 2011 is the retrenchment in public spending in most Western countries. The recent wave of EDRM initiatives which brought records management to the fore took place in a period of expanding budgets, when resources for extensive internal-facing administrative programmes were relatively easy to acquire. At the same time, government strategy emphasised stronger central management and planning, accompanied by a strong faith in the effectual powers of information systems and structured databases. Records management took advantage of this

29


favourable climate to experiment with EDRM systems and build stronger information governance regimes, promoting a philosophy of corporate control over all organisational information. Those years of plenty have now passed, and in the lean years of austerity such government-wide investment programmes will be quite unlikely: budgets are tight and big systems development is out of fashion.

The fi nancial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent economic recession leave most agreed on a reduction in public spending (although disagreeing about the rate and extent). It is clear that administrative – sometimes called ‘back-offi ce’ – functions face the greatest pressure, with reductions in operational size and scope, mergers of authorities, and a severe contraction in the capital, especially IT, spending. This is a very poor climate in which to argue for records management investment programmes for the sake of compliance – better to be slightly embarrassed than bankrupt – and a tough one in which to justify rather intangible and unquantifi ed broader operational benefi ts.

As suggested already, there are also longer-term dynamics at work in public fi nances; it should not be assumed that after a few years of retrenchment, the situation will return to a pre-crisis ‘normality’. Public spending has been rising steadily for some years and many believe that it is now near the limit – as a proportion of national income – that is sustainable. At the same time, demand is increasing at a faster rate than the capacity of resources to meet it, in ways that are very diffi cult to infl uence: healthcare, for example, experiences an ever-increasing demand as people live longer and expect more conditions to be treated, an increasing supply in medical capability as new treatments become available and yet, even in times of prosperity, limited resources to meet these needs. These are big, structural problems that demand new, creative thinking and radical and complex

30


solutions. We can therefore expect a continued pressure on public fi nances, beyond the immediate defi cit crisis.

The initial pressure is to improve effi ciency at the organisational level. This goes beyond simply improving the cost or quality of outputs at the unit level: it involves questioning the extent to which existing processes contribute to the overall goals of the organisation as a whole – stopping some activities now past their time and perhaps starting others that are more innovative. It urges a systemic view: tackling the problem process by discrete process may improve each separately, but end in reducing overall effi ciency for the system as a whole: it is how the parts work together that counts.

For records management, it is insuffi cient to look only at improving the throughput of processes such as document capture and indexing, search response times, storage and retention, if we are unclear about precisely how these processes, in themselves, contribute to improving effi ciency in the organisation as a whole. If they are seen as generic service processes, such as accounting and payroll, then one response is to establish shared corporate services with other organisations of a similar type to gain economies of scale; or to consider outsourcing to a professional services company. If they are seen as integral to the delivery of aims and objectives, then another (not necessarily exclusive) response would be to strengthen the bond with key strategic and front-line activities.

A second perspective focuses on effi ciency between different organisations that are working on the same, or related, issues from different directions. Despite repeated e-government initiatives, much of the public sector continues to operate from within quasi-independent, poorly connected ‘silos’ containing duplication of effort and resources, with different professionals tackling the same issues from their

31


own, sometimes confl icting, perspectives, overall presenting a fragmented and confusing face to the public. Successive administrations have attempted to deal with this situation in two ways: by reducing duplication through greater co-ordination and shared budgeting; or by introducing competition between service providers in the belief that improvements in effi ciency and quality will result.

Total place and community-based budgeting

‘Total place’ is a ‘whole area’ approach to the funding, design and delivery of public services in the UK. The idea was tested by 13 pilots in 2009. Essentially, it surveyed all public spending in a geographic area by all agencies, identifi ed duplications around themes (such as care for the elderly) and aimed to rationalise service design and delivery through planned co-ordination and collaboration. The then Labour Government suggested a possible saving of £20 billion.

The new Coalition Government has taken forward the principles, combining them with a localism agenda, in community-based budgeting pilots planned for 2011. This approach gives greater freedom to local authorities to follow local priorities, but with fewer resources. It allows local agencies to combine in:

■ joint commissioning of public services;■ sharing staff, management, assets, systems;■ pooling or aligning budgets.

And to engage the wider community in:

■ local agreement on desired outcomes;■ co-production of outcomes by professionals and citizens/

communities working together;■ investment partnerships with social entrepreneurs and

local enterprises;■ a cycle of innovation, evaluation, evidence.

Issues for resolution include:

32


■ persuading vested interests to give up power and money;■ costs may draw from one agency’s budget while benefi ts

may fall to another;■ waiting for long-term results;■ local authority role changes from service manager

to social entrepreneurship and community empowerment.

There are two distinct issues here for records management and information governance: fi rstly, contributing to economies of scope by improving the coordination of formal records and the fl ow of working knowledge between the different user communities, supporting collaboration and harmonisation; and secondly, regulating the formal records practices of competing organisations to ensure proper accountability and transparency.

A focus on outcomes is essential for the success of both the intra- and inter-organisational perspectives. Speaking of ‘outcomes’ focuses attention on the desired change in the world which policy action is trying to achieve, rather than the processes or products which might help to achieve it: for example, the goal of the commercial regeneration of an area is the criterion for judging intermediate steps such as road-building, business park development, or the fi nancial grants and incentives that help to achieve it. Outcomes are more ambiguous and harder to defi ne than the specifi c outputs which contribute to them; it is frequently diffi cult to predict exactly which combination of actions will deliver the fi nal result, and continuous evaluation may call for a change in strategy as circumstances develop. In principle, programmes focus on outcomes, coordinating a suite of projects which each produce the intermediate outputs, that together act on the problem in order to achieve the desired change.

What does a focus on outcomes mean for records management and information governance? The operational

33


side tends to deal with the outputs of processes: customer centres in local government; case management of service users; planning registers; corporate services; project documentation; management meetings; freedom of information requests; and so on. The argument is not to change or abandon this strength, but to build on it. The analytical side of records management maps out the functions and business processes of the organisation, producing fi leplans, categorisation schemes, assessments of useful retention, or workfl ows; and this is a platform to extend from. A focus on outcomes shifts the interest from recording what happened in a programme, project or service, towards using existing knowledge about the activity to assess whether it is having the desired impact, drawing on other sources of knowledge to complement what is known, and understanding where gaps in existing knowledge need to be fi lled. It means balancing regulation and control with innovation and change – from past events to future possibilities.

The changing policy environment

The policy environment is where issues are recognised as salient and placed on the agenda; where desirable outcomes – the goals of public policy – are debated, shaped and defi ned; and where programmes of action are sanctioned and initiated. The combination of diminishing resources and wicked policy problems pushes policy-making towards more innovative and creative thinking about effective courses of action. In the healthcare problem, for example, a set of complex and interconnected issues concerns much more than the timely application of medical treatments to illness. They include planning and management problems within a complex web of related organisations and occupational groups, value

34


judgements on the use of evidence and cost–benefi t decisions in assessing appropriate medical interventions, issues of promoting behaviour change as preventative healthcare, decisions on the relative roles of profi t-making and public service incentives, amongst others. These issues involve different stakeholders, different interests and different kinds of knowledge.

The most salient policy problems – and the most intractable – are related to long-term structural changes in society and economy, with trade-offs in which actions to alleviate one may exacerbate the incidence of another. Well-known examples include: an ageing population making greater demands on pensions and adult social care accompanied by a fall in the proportion of economically active workers; greater fl exibility in employment markets in response to globalisation contributing to a falling regard for community solidarity; perceptions of crime and the stubborn persistence of anti-social behaviour; balancing energy production, recycling and waste reduction; the confl ict between consumerism and citizenship; reconciling action to mitigate climate change with the promotion of growth in a market economy.

The most effective policies addressing these types of problem are preventive interventions which tackle the causes of the problem (if we know what they are) rather than alleviating its symptoms. The main focus of innovation in public policy lies in the shaping of preventive rather than curative policies: promoting self-management of individual healthcare rather than later medical intervention; favouring active ageing in the transition to pensions provision; developing early years interventions as a primary means of reducing poverty and inequality. The main locus of action is shifting away from a centralised ‘command and control’ which sets out a universal top–down policy assessed by standard targets towards localised responsibility and

35


experimentation which draws on the knowledge and abilities of a range of partners and perspectives.

This shift does not mean that government is giving away control of policy and delivery issues. Policy has always been shaped by a range of interests, interacting together in networks of infl uence – including such actors as academic experts, industry lobbies, professional associations, social entrepreneurs or public participants, as well as professional politicians. The shape and scope of those networks may be changing and the means of engagement now draws on new developments in collaborative technology. The search for new sources of funding to replace government spending programmes (such as Social Impact Bonds, which draw on private investment to fund social programmes that will return a future dividend to the investor when successful), draw in new players to the mix. Government, however, retains control by detailing the framework in which things can happen, sanctioning allowable and non-allowed actions, regulating the operation of that framework and setting expectations across society through the political process. Government controls the environment in which delivery happens, but steps back from the responsibility (and if possible, for politicians, the blame) for actual delivery.

This all seems a long way from records management as we know it – but these are the challenges of the future. If the business of records management is to support the business of government, rather than simply to record it for posterity, then it must be able to demonstrate a contribution. The connection to knowledge is surely the key here: it is not only the collecting of information about a problem which is important, but also possessing the knowledge to resolve it – how to turn it into action. There is more to this than just analysing the options and selecting an optimum solution; these are collective problems, involving many different actors

36


and interests, and their alleviation or resolution has to be a collaborative one. Policy-shaping, in this environment, is less about determining what is best from a distance, as working through what is feasible in conjunction with all the various stakeholders, engaging with them at all levels and judging where the best achievable value for the public sphere lies – it is less about hierarchies and more about networks. Perhaps we need, then, a records management that is fl uent in enthusiastic collaboration across the spectrum of organisations, institutions and interest groups, able to work with and complement other sources of knowledge, making the systemic whole greater than the sum of its separate elements.

The changing delivery environment

In this emerging transformed public sphere, who is in the full delivery chain and what are their roles? Public policy can be delivered by a mix of elements: the state and its bureaucracy, in the shape of central, regional and local government, and its agencies; companies operating in the market, in which private enterprise and investment is harnessed to deliver public goods; and the community, in the shape of participating citizens and civil society organisations. The relative proportions of the mix, and the relationship between the elements, depend upon the prevailing values and philosophy of the time; from the post-war development of the state-backed welfare state to a renewed role for the market from the 1980s onwards. Many commentators believe we are now in the midst of another sea change in the balance of relationships (e.g. Kaletsky, 2010; Hutton, 2010; Blond, 2009).

37


The role of the state

The state has for some time been shifting from direct delivery of public services to the commissioning of delivery by others – ‘steering not rowing’, to use the 1990s phrase. The argument in favour is that central planning and delivery of services, as a monopoly, is inherently wasteful and ineffi cient, slow and cumbersome in responding to a changing world, and that departmental managers develop ‘empire-building’ instincts that makes them resistant to change. Therefore introducing elements of competition and choice is necessary to drive improvements in performance and operational effi ciencies through market-style disciplines. The state may retain a regulatory oversight role, with a lighter or heavier touch, or shape the environment in which competitors operate through instruments such as legislative change, fi scal rules or public opinion.

The state will always oversee some kinds of services directly, for example:

■ where all its citizens are guaranteed rights to a minimum level of access to fundamental public goods, such as secondary education and healthcare;

■ where there is no business case that is attractive to private enterprise and the market fails;

■ where government must provide the basic infrastructure for other services to develop;

■ where issues of equity and justice are the most important concerns, such as in civil justice;

■ where the security of the state and its citizens is paramount, such as defence.

The move towards the market as the means for innovation has, in many areas, also been accompanied by a devolution

38


of powers away from the centre to the regional and local level. The result is that service delivery has been outsourced, left to competitive markets or devolved to local or regional organisations, and central government departments that previously managed volume processes focus instead on regulating those markets, setting the conditions in which they operate or managing them through fi nancial controls. Records management has, similarly, been devolved to those organisations and coordination lost.

The role of the market

From the 1980s onwards the idea of the market as a driving force in change has steadily grown in infl uence, affecting either the way that services are structured or the manner in which they are managed. Some examples are:

■ privatising of previously state-owned assets, such as railways, and the provision of privately funded infrastructure, such as toll roads and bridges, with ‘light touch’ regulatory regimes;

■ introducing elements of internal markets into universal state services: such as patient ability to choose between competing healthcare providers, retaining a central state funding that ‘follows the patient’;

■ importing private sector management practices into the public sector, particularly in the ‘new public management’ movement;

■ setting performance targets and payment-by-results systems;

■ allowing open access to government data.

39


Most recently, though, the 2008 crises have led to a re-examination of the relative roles of state and market, and the way in which both relate to the individual as both citizen and consumer. On the one hand, this leads some towards renewed calls for regulation in areas where the impact of failure in one market has exponential implications for others (as in the banking industry, for example). This strand recognises that government differs from the market in some fundamental ways, for example:

■ While private enterprise is profi t-seeking, government is responsible for creating public value and more general public goods, such as economic growth or social cohesion.

■ It is responsible for balancing public value across the community, both geographically – for example, in regional development – and socially.

■ It remains accountable for the delivery of others, even though it has no direct control over them, and takes the blame when things go badly wrong.

The Gov 2.0 example illustrates this debate: should government develop and supply information services directly? Or should it make the data which it collects (and only government is capable of collecting much national scale data effectively) freely available to all comers, whether private sector companies building chargeable services, social enterprises working on a non-profi t basis or enthusiastic individuals distributing free applications? Should government work out for itself what is needed, attempt to specify and commission detailed information-based services, building them itself or directing what is produced competitively, or simply provide a platform of data, without attempting to guide the shape of services that emerge, relying on the inventiveness of others to fi ll the need

40


with various offerings and consumer choice to determine which will thrive?

Government as a platform (Gov 2.0)

The idea of government as a platform emerged from the experience of Web 2.0, in which general purpose products, such as Google Maps, offer a common platform on which many more applications can be quickly built. ‘Mash-ups’, for example, combine open data – spatial, economic, statistical – from different sources maintained online, building them into innovative new products. This approach stresses experimentation, rapid evolutionary development, open systems and learning from users.

‘Gov 2.0’ argues that government should follow this lead, providing open standards and mechanisms for making the substantial datasets which it collects freely available. This lets companies, non-profi t organisations, other agencies and interested individuals develop interactive interfaces, particularly as applications for personal and mobile devices, in ways that government would never have thought of. It should leverage this option in preference to spending on complex, long-term development of its own big systems. Some examples are:

■ The Apps for Democracy initiative makes the contents of its data catalogue of the Washington, DC, administration available as open public data; for example, real-time crime incident feeds; school test scores; local poverty indicators.

■ After the Massachusetts transport system made real-time bus arrival time data available, third party developers built more than a dozen applications for mobiles, smartphones, SMS and an LED display within two months.

■ The UK Government has committed to establishing a public right to data and is making various datasets available for public use on data.gov.uk.

■ The World Bank makes its datasets in its data catalogue

available via API access by default.

41


This example illustrates the underlying structural tension between innovation and regulation: innovation is vital, especially in a time of austerity, in order to modernise and transform existing institutions, whose size and complexity makes change diffi cult, but the responsibilities of government also require a concentration on stability and cohesion, keeping transformation within bounds which do not disrupt the goals of public policy or weaken trust and confi dence in the state itself. Regulation must promote innovation, but the purpose of innovation is not for its own sake, rather to achieve social outcomes more effectively.

The role of the community

The search for an appropriate balance in the instruments of public policy brings the community to the fore. The term community is used here in a general sense, to include civil society organisations – charities and voluntary organisations – as well as those structured as mutuals or cooperatives, professional associations, local geographical communities, social networks centred on a particular interest or issue, and so on. Community is the space in which individuals and groups can cooperate together for mutual benefi t, for themselves or on behalf of others, that lies between the hierarchy of state bureaucracies and the competitive terrain of the market. These kinds of groups interact with the delivery of services and social outcomes in various ways:

■ charities which contract with central or local government to provide a defi ned service, for example, citizens’ advice services;

■ mutualisation of public agencies, shifting from state-owned bodies to a cooperative, employee-owned structure, as an alternative to privatisation;

42


■ social enterprises working on a not-for-profi t basis, for example, in developing environmentally sustainable industries to create local employment;

■ volunteer-based associations taking on specifi c local tasks;

■ participative and community-based budgeting in setting local spending priorities.

At one level, promotion of community engagement can be seen as an opportunity for the state to retreat from some areas of public service in the face of fi nancial constraints; but it has deeper implications as well. The current interest in localism is a way of delegating responsibility, as well as decision-making powers, whilst still retaining a guiding control – keeping control of the size of the purse, but allowing others to distribute whatever is available. This strategy follows modern management practice in locating decision-making on an issue with those who have best local knowledge of it, since they are closest to the problem, at the same time as constraining the boundaries of action. This is attractive to central government, often overwhelmed by the huge amount of local detail which must otherwise be processed in a central planning strategy, and to politicians and elected offi cials, who are then well-placed to take credit for enabling achievements but also to shrug off failure as the fault of others.

A higher profi le for community as a locus of policy action is also attractive as a means of addressing those complex policy issues which represent the greatest challenge. Broadly, at the core of their resolution lie two kinds of change, which are linked:

■ changes in behaviour at the individual level: for example, in reducing energy use, tackling the obesity epidemic or levels of anti-social behaviour;

43


■ changes in perception of problems: for example, measures which reduce the actual incidence of crime do not seem to change perceptions at the same time – against the evidence, a majority believe that crime in general is actually increasing in the UK overall, except in their own area.

The localism agenda – aiming to empower communities to have a greater say on local issues – is complemented by an emphasis on personal rights and responsibilities, which requires the individual to take more responsibility for doing things for themselves. In part, this is increasing choice by providing alternatives to state monopolies, where the market does not wish to step in; and in part, it is both requiring and empowering (which takes precedence depending on your point of view) to make either/or choices for themselves and their area: a healthier lifestyle versus (possible) co-payment for treatment of avoidable illness; better community facilities versus lower local taxes, or a contribution of personal time and effort to run alternatives.

Marketised services encourage a consumerist attitude: for continually improving quality and access at no greater cost; community-based participation calls for co-production of results – clients and practitioners, citizens and service providers, working together to produce value – or co-payment for the increased costs of service improvement. Competition and choice encourage the consumer; but now the money has run out and the big issues do not respond well to that approach – and so the citizen must be engaged as well.

The role of public manager

The effect of these trends is to increase the number and range of different actors involved in the delivery chain – public and

44


private sector, charities and community groups, clients and professionals – and to decrease the amount of direct control which public administrators can exercise. What is the role of the public manager in this emerging landscape?

The traditional role for the administrative decision-maker in bureaucracies was to ensure that the public interest predominated, by advising on the making of policy choices from a position of expertise and reason, and to implement policy by devising and operationalising a set of standardised rules under which all cases received the same treatment; to separate politics from administration. This is the tradition in which the disciplines of records management evolved and which is refl ected in the kind of system requirements for EDRM, which the European Union MoReq2 project typifi es.

The new public management (NPM) movement reoriented this role by the introduction of a customer services model. The role of the public manager is to convert policy choices into market (whether internal or external) choices and to assess relative value on the basis of cost–benefi t calculations. This role gave precedence to the professional manager over the practitioner as the principal decision-maker in allocating resources: measuring what could be measured, setting targets, managing programmes and monitoring achievement. The professional manager is an agent of the political will, held to account through performance contracts and ensuring that it is not interpreted through the lens of specialist practitioner interest.

While business effi ciency remains central, the emphasis is shifting towards the practitioner as implementer: those – head teachers, medical practitioners, local residents – most engaged with day-to-day delivery on the ground, bringing decision-making, value-creation and accountability closer to the point of production. In this context, a new role is added to public management, as expert facilitator rather than expert policy-

45


maker: to work within systems of governance to uncover the range of issues and problems, to seek out common values among all the interests involved, to articulate alternative programmes of action for producing public value and to guide the choice between them. In some ways, this turns things on their head: from overseeing and implementing policy choices from above, to working up from problems on the ground by building consensus on future action. Rather than knowing the right answer, knowing how to work out feasible alternatives and choose between them is the most important skill.

Accountability and legitimacy

This is the fi nal piece of the jigsaw: one of the most critical problems of the age is the disengagement of the general public from the government arena. Democracies depend on this engagement to give their governments legitimacy and to afford elected members and public managers a platform for making decisions and implementing programmes of action; and a ‘crisis of disengagement’ is commonly acknowledged. The symptoms can be seen in a general disappointment with politics, lower voter turnout, a decline in trust and credibility of politicians, and a growing belief that government action is ineffective. This is a diffi cult issue for government, because it is less a problem about performance of individuals, parties or institutions that could be reformed, than one linked to broader social trends: a decline in deference coupled with a desire to make more personal choices on lifestyle; multiple individual identities, with more varied and sophisticated demands, which involve the state in many more aspects of personal life; and the decline of social institutions, such as religion, trade union, or neighbourhood, which previously shaped collective life.

46


The turn towards community and individual responsibility is one response to this crisis: putting into place the scaffolding which nudges people into greater engagement with the choices available for resolving their daily problems; attention to accountability is another. Accountability operates at different levels:

■ rendering an account of what happened: a chronicle of the turn of events;

■ answering for why it happened, of the debates, options and choices, missed opportunities and errors;

■ taking responsibility for the choices that were made and their results;

■ ensuring well-informed understanding and choices of action, by drawing in all relevant knowledge, viewpoints, experience and opinions.

Accountability, coupled with transparency, informs knowledge of the public sphere and helps to deliver trust and confi dence, which in turn engenders engagement; and the kind of public manager role outlined above is intimately bound up with both. The complementary strategy to that of co-production through personal responsibility and community engagement, is one to encourage direct oversight by the citizen of the performance of government agencies, through access to performance data. In the traditional public manager role, the line of accountability is through the department to the Minister; for the new public manager, it is by performance contract to the appointing authority as principal; in a decentralised strategy it is rather more to the citizen, those who are consulted on, and give departmental legitimacy to, the setting of priorities. This is a very practical strategy through which the professional politician is able to set a corporate direction whilst also diluting the lines of direct accountability.

47


UK Transparency Initiative

The current government has initiated a publishing programme for government administrative data including:

■ the COINS database of historical government spending;■ local government expenditure for all items over £500;■ government spend and tender on items above £25,000;■ names and salaries of all senior civil servants.

Knowledge is central to the success of this strategy. Transparency is delivered by the publication of the kind of information previously considered to be for internal consumption only: expenditure accounts, performance indicators, detailed information reports on general business plans – in fact, items which are the staple of records management systems. Although the information may not necessarily be in a form which is easily assimilable by the general public, it is the fact of publication which is the essential commitment of engagement on both sides.

Accountability is also, of course, a central principle of records management, focusing on the fi rst and, to some extent, the second types. These strategies rely on the full sweep of accountability: what could have happened and what should have happened, as well as what actually did happen. The challenges of transformatory government for records management are:

■ going beyond effi ciency to deliver more added value for fewer resources;

■ working with a much wider and more varied range of bodies to deliver policy outcomes;

■ rooting the virtues of continuity and stability in an engagement with innovation and change;

48


■ integrating the inert knowledge of records with the dynamic knowledge of action;

■ building trust and credibility in government by assuring governance and accountability.

Subsequent chapters explore the implications of these challenges.

Key principles of transformatory government

■ Holding on by letting go: shaping the environment and decentralising implementation retains more control than trying to command a network.

■ Integration through greater diversity: opening up to multiple infl uences promotes engagement and delivers better value in outcomes.

■ Delivery through responsiveness: the defi nition of issues and delivery of responses is a two-way process in which each defi nes the other.

■ Digital governance through access to knowledge: trust and legitimacy relies on knowledge fl ows as much as recorded information.

Note1. Ones of extreme diffi culty – uncertain, contradictory, fl uid,

interdependent – in which the solutions are diffi cult, expensive, unpopular and controversial, and require short-term sacrifi ces now for the longer-term benefi t of others – and which may make another problem worse.

49

3

Concepts, codes and meanings: bridging knowledge

and records

Abstract: Records are a distinct category of information that must conform to strict management disciplines, unlike many other categories. There are two aspects of knowledge and information: as a physical entity, similar to explicit knowledge, and a cognitive process, similar to tacit knowledge, and both can be true. A codebook is necessary to encode and decode working knowledge as information and holds part of the meaning. Knowledge is related to action and in three forms: encoded, embedded, embodied. Records are a kind of encoded knowledge that capture working knowledge. Knowledge mobilisation mediates between working knowledge and action.

Key words: codifi cation; embedded knowledge; information paradigms; knowledge and action.

The famous Rosetta Stone is often cited as a metaphor of the problems of digital preservation – what happens to the record when the ability to read the format is lost? – but it offers other lessons for records management too. The Stone was produced two millennia ago in Egypt as a priestly decree with, as is well known, the same text repeated in three languages: Greek, then the language of the modern administrative state; Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, endorsing

50


the document with the sanction of the established church, just as Latin is used in Papal encyclicals today; and the demotic language of ordinary people. The copy in the British Museum is one of several made for public display in temples around the country, to be rediscovered by French, and requisitioned by British, troops in nineteenth-century Egypt, and eventually providing scholars with the key for uncovering the lost meaning of hieroglyphics, using the Greek version as a ‘decoding language’.

Decoding, though, was also an issue when the Stone was fi rst made: as a formal record, it is written in three different languages in order to communicate its message clearly to three different communities – priests, administrators and the general public – and conveying the power associated with use of each language. In just the same way, modern records that are produced by specialist communities are often inaccessible, in their full meaning, to others who do not have the knowledge and background to decode them correctly (rather like an EU treaty, as noted in McGregor, 2010). As explicit statements, they must be reinterpreted for different audiences.

Contemporaries would also have decoded the document in different ways. The text records the priests’ recognition of the 13-year-old Ptolemy V as new ruler and god (a necessary qualifi cation at the time), gratefully acknowledging some concessions to them – confi rming the religious centre of Memphis, rather than the administrative city of Alexandria, as the seat of formal ceremonies, together with some attractive tax breaks for priests. More subtly, it is a public statement of the adjusted balance of power between church and state on the accession of a less powerful child king. No doubt contemporaries would quickly have worked out the implicit meaning, in the same way that seemingly inscrutable statements of modern autocrats are examined for their implied messages.

51

Concepts, codes and meanings

There are two kinds of knowledge, and two kinds of meaning, at work in the same record: one explicitly recorded in the language of bureaucracy (though requiring the specialist ‘jargon’ to decode it), the other implied ‘between the lines’ and able to be decoded with an understanding of the current institutional rules and values – knowledge of the way things work in practice. Interestingly, the record was amended on its edge with a later inscription ‘captured by the British in 1801’, conveying the power relationships of a more recent era.

Records and knowledge have an uneasy relationship. Intuitively, they seem to be closely related, but the connection is ambiguous: the record can contain several layers of meaning that require background knowledge to decode. Knowledge is fl uid and multi-faceted and only some of those aspects are captured in a record. Records aim to form a well-defi ned, structured and managed body of corporate knowledge, based on the explicit activities and functions of the organisation. Knowledge is the quality necessary for the members of that organisation to successfully carry through those activities. Both refl ect issues of different interests, institutional rules, values and behaviour, but these are often embedded below the surface and take some effort to unpack. The relationship between the two concerns the people associated with each, more than the systems that process them.

This chapter lays the foundations for an integrated model that brings together records management and knowledge mobilisation as complementary aspects, to help think about the relationship between them. While of necessity somewhat theoretical, it does not aim to develop a universal theory of records and knowledge, either by redefi ning records management or by attempting to navigate the ‘what is knowledge/information’ quagmire – such discussions do not easily inform practical action. Rather, the intention is to

52


develop a working framework for considering pragmatic issues of regulation and innovation, policy-making and delivery, adding value and transforming the public sphere, discussed in later chapters.

Distinguishing records, information and knowledge

Firstly, though, we need to note how the terms records, information and knowledge are used here. These terms (especially the latter two) are often used quite loosely, sometimes interchangeably, and to signify completely different meanings, a practice surprisingly diffi cult to avoid. The intention here is to clarify the sense in which they are intended in this book, without entering into a debate on which meaning is correct.

Records and information

The term records has a formal defi nition set out in the ISO15489 standard (ISO, 2006), which lists the particular characteristics – authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability – which records should be able to demonstrate. These are closely related to the idea of evidence; but some might argue that these same characteristics should be displayed by well-managed information in a corporate system and see little difference between the two concepts. Information, though, can serve many needs other than the evidential: sometimes it is suffi cient to be indicative rather than precise, ‘good enough’ rather than complete, supportive rather than authentic. A record here is taken as belonging to a category of information which is subject to particularly

53


stringent management disciplines – more so than in most information management systems – because these four characteristics are of over-riding importance: without assurance of their presence, it does not qualify as a record. Many other information management systems do not, and could not afford to, meet this standard.

Both types of system may also, of course, be closely integrated and they both have one particular relationship with knowledge in common, which emerges in two main ways. Firstly, records management systems, if they follow the ISO standard, are structured on the lines of a functional categorisation of record types; records are grouped together according to the function (fi nance, public relations, childcare, transport strategy, etc.), or a component activity of the function, which produces them. By this means, they outline the perceived anatomy, as it were, of the organisation – the inherent nature which remains constant even through restructuring of teams and units. Structured information management systems can present a similar map of the organisation, for example, in the form of a relational database, which decomposes the surface line operations and workfl ows into a single, integrating, ‘picture’ of the organisation as data.

Secondly, these same workfl ows and operational lines of business both take and process organisational information in certain rule-defi ned procedures that are designed into the system as a whole; they also shape the kinds of records that are produced by them. Both the information processing and record-keeping aspects work with a particular understanding of these rules and norms which defi ne what can be done with them, but the rules are not normally made explicit (except perhaps in a system manual); they are embedded into the information system, either as automated processes or as assumed and unquestioned working practices. Novices

54


absorb them as they learn, and experienced staff do not even think about them.

These embedded procedures have, though, been thought about at some point; they have been developed and refi ned over time and are based on particular ideas and ways of thinking. Behind the procedures of a routinised decision-making process, for example, are certain assumptions on the way that a decision is made, the criteria and data that are relevant and the available options that result – a model of decision-making. The old, hackneyed adage that information management is ‘delivering the right information to the right person at the right time’ begs the question of who, what and when is ‘right’. There is always an answer (right or wrong) to that question, but it has been given a while ago and is now assumed or unspoken – the model is also embedded as a deeper layer in the system.

Embedded knowledge, then, is present in the assumptions of records management as it is put into practice in any given situation; embedded both in procedures and ways of working, and in the very structure of information in the records. It consists of both the rules for carrying through some activity and a mental model of what that activity involves; and the mental model is in turn built on a set of norms and values that defi ne the features which are important and relevant. Embedded knowledge regulates an activity to ensure that it is always carried out consistently and fairly – in that the same inputs result in the same outputs – without having to think through each case from fi rst principles each time. There are disadvantages, though; when change becomes necessary, it is more diffi cult, because the change initiative has to challenge not only the rules, but also the underlying model and the assumptions which drive it. New knowledge has to thoroughly unpick the old – to decode, take apart and re-assemble it using different

55


assumptions and values – before change can establish itself. The more deeply embedded the knowledge, the more diffi cult is the innovation.

Information and knowledge

If records can be seen as a special type of information, distinguishing between information and knowledge is more complex. This is partly because both terms are commonly used with two different meanings, but interchangeably for each. The fi rst meaning of information and/or knowledge conceives of it as a physical objective entity which can be passed from one person to another. Knowledge, expressed as information, is encapsulated within a physical or electronic artefact so that it can be communicated from one person to another; in this sense, we might speak of a textbook, a research paper, a website or a documentary fi lm as containing knowledge which has been articulated by the author and which can be interpreted by many others without any loss of meaning.

Encoded knowledge is expressed in terms of an accepted ‘language’ which is understood (or must be learned) by the recipients – professional ‘jargon’, accepted disciplinary concepts, technical languages such as statistics or the argot of street language – and which is used to decode the meaning. One piece of encoded knowledge does not exist in a vacuum; it makes reference to many other such pieces and takes part of its meaning from that context. Taken together these make up both a body of accepted knowledge on a topic and the ‘language’ which is used to express it. In this view, knowledge is a form of information expressed according to a particular set of rules and meaning lies with the producer; successful communication is determined by whether recipients ‘get the message’ or not.

56


In the second meaning, knowledge (and information) is seen as a cognitive, sense-making process rather than a product. Information is an inherent, or potential, quality in something and must be interpreted to make sense. New information is processed by the recipient in the context of an existing system of personal knowledge, beliefs, values and assumptions; the reader of the physical artefact tries to make sense of the information which it contains by fi tting it into the frame of what they already know or believe. The success of this process of sense-making may depend on whether the information makes a ‘good fi t’ with the recipient’s existing mental structures, or perhaps on whether it effectively challenges and changes existing beliefs and assumptions. As Raber (2003) suggests, information is a matter of impact – how it is used; how we decide to put it to work says something about our view of the world around us and our place within it. Meaning lies with the consumer; embodied knowledge is in the mind of the individual.

Do we have to choose between these two seemingly contradictory ideas, or can both be true? In the context of information, Ellis (1998) suggests that they can: we do not have to choose between these two paradigms, as he calls them: it is an and/both, not an either/or, situation. He draws a parallel with the example of modern physics, in which rival theories on the nature of light, as either a stream of particles or a wave-form, were eventually resolved by a realisation that it has a dual nature – it behaves as both a wave and a particle stream – and is consistent with both the Newtonian and quantum physics paradigms. In a similar way, information can be understood to possess a dual nature, as both an entity that can be passed from one person to another and also a mental activity inside the mind. Each way of thinking about information or knowledge highlights different aspects and uses different sets of criteria to draw

57


out insights; what is important is to know which is being used at any given time.

Knowledge and action

This is somewhat similar to the common distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge: that some forms of knowledge can be made explicit, by eliciting, capturing and encoding; but others are inherently tacit in nature and cannot be captured in this way. Tacit knowledge underlies the skilful performance of an expert, but she is not aware of it and cannot articulate it: it can only be learned by doing. Therefore, in this view, attempts to formalise and transfer such knowledge are doomed to failure. But this is not quite the concept as originally put forward by Michael Polanyi (1958). He gives the example of an expert swimmer, who stays afl oat without being consciously aware of how; nevertheless, the principles of buoyancy that he is unconsciously using can be formally captured. What is explicit for one person may be tacit for another, depending on the context and degree of expertise.

The tacit/explicit dimension was initially formulated to describe forms of personal knowledge, and it is particularly helpful in understanding how skills-based learning takes place in organisations. In doing so, it makes clearer the link between knowledge and the idea of action. Knowledge is distinguished from information by the ability to put something into practice: to use the information in order to achieve something. It seems intuitively obvious to say that these two are linked: we choose to do one thing rather than another – study a particular topic at college, follow a career, choose a pension plan – because of the knowledge we have about it: not just the published facts, but also our own beliefs and assumptions on what the right course of action is, what

58


is expected of us by family and friends, what is acceptable within our own culture or religion, among other factors. And yet many models of information management suppose otherwise: they assert that individuals make rational decisions by gathering and processing all relevant inform-ation, evaluate the options and make a choice to maximise the personal use value.

This is the crux of the problem:

■ Is knowledge mobilisation a matter of capturing, ordering and formalising, and making explicit as a physical entity, the personal and collective knowledge of some, so that it can be transferred and independently assimilated by others? Initiatives attempting to record the knowledge of key staff leaving a post by asking them ‘What do you know?’ so that the new recruit can learn from it, would answer: yes. The issues are then about improving the capture and encoding process, and bringing about the culture change that encourages people to use the resource.

■ Or is it a matter of building an environment which encourages individuals and groups to exchange knowledge in ways that are meaningful to each other, that they can make sense of in the context of working and professional cultures and institutional expectations? A new recruit will see things in a different way (possibly why they were recruited); a face-to-face handover might be more productive for both. The issues here are about how to make or augment effective connections between people in ways that focus action on objectives and outcomes, and make the knowledge they embody more productive.

■ Is records management a system for capturing the objective truth about organisations as corporate memory, aiming to encompass the full complexity of activities and regulate their proper application? Or does it represent one,

59


necessarily selective, view of the organisation incorporating both embedded knowledge about values and assumptions that will change over time and encoded knowledge fi xed into documents?

This book suggests that both are, in fact, all of these things, in different measure, and that the relationship between records and knowledge is one of balance and appropriateness in a period of rapid institutional and governmental change.

Knowledge in organisations is of three kinds:

■ embedded in institutional rules, organisational procedures, information systems and legislation;

■ encoded in physical and digital documents and products of various sorts;

■ embodied in the members of the organisation and their associates.

All three are related to action, and the diffi culties essentially lie in understanding the inter-relationships of the three forms and the range of infl uences which each are subject to. Without some sort of framework to map these issues, to help devise strategies which encourage a synergy between the three kinds and to select the tools and techniques to put the strategy into practice, initiatives can easily be misdirected.

Role of the codebook

To encode knowledge, to take what an individual or group knows and make it explicit, by writing it down, say, requires some form of code for it to be produced in. Both the producer and the recipient must have a common understanding of, and access to, this code for the meaning to be transferred intact. This is more than just words on the page; most writing

60


does not explain everything from fi rst principles, but rather in a kind of shorthand which assumes a level of understanding about existing ideas and concepts, explaining new ideas in terms of them. Specialist language works like metaphors to refer implicitly to this background understanding, without stating it; and this context-dependent knowledge is necessary in order to interpret the words correctly. This is the well-known problem of the ‘stickiness’ of tacit knowledge; it works in one context, but does not easily transfer to a different one.

Writing about the economics of knowledge, Cowan et al. (2000) develop the idea of a ‘codebook’ to help explain this problem. A codebook contains the shorthand, or the contextual background, necessary to produce the encoded knowledge; producers need to make use of it and recipients need to have access to it. Many government documents are written in this way – policy briefs, project documentation, case reports, statistical analyses – where the unspoken is as important as the spoken, sometimes perhaps deliberately to restrict understanding to a small circle. For most outsiders, professional discussions in science and technology are impenetrable without understanding of the relevant codebook and this can take much time and effort – perhaps years of training – to acquire. The transaction costs, then, of transferring explicit knowledge are more than the effort which it takes to produce or distribute it; although text can be duplicated as information very cheaply, each recipient must make sense of it for themselves by mobilising their own cognitive resources (Foray, 2006). The extra costs of putting it into practice are associated with each and every recipient.

Cowan and Foray also point out a further complication: that the encoded knowledge itself adds to the codebook. Each new piece of knowledge in a topic area adds something

61


to the overall body of assumed, contextual knowledge: as the discipline progresses, the codebook keeps changing, incrementally. It is not simply a matter of translating into a different, fi xed language, because the translation itself changes the language. Professional communities have developed robust and well-established systems for coping with this problem – networks of seminars, conferences, specialist journals, peer review, formal education – which rely on informed debate and dialogue to fi lter new ideas and affi rm new knowledge. These systems are backed up with commonly shared values and norms of behaviour, accepted formal and informal rules which make it work: defi ning, for example, acceptable research methods, collaborative spaces, opportunities for mentoring and development.

Four categories of situation are identifi ed by Cowan et al. (2000):

■ where knowledge is encoded and the codebook is present and accessible: the knowledge is well established and regulated, and there are mature distribution channels reaching out to a wide community (such as manuals, textbooks, standards, etc.);

■ where knowledge can be encoded, but the codebook is implicit: the knowledge is accessible to a limited and experienced community, but for the outsider, dialogue is much more diffi cult, or the meaning just opaque, across the community boundary; the use of professional ‘jargon’ is a typical example;

■ where knowledge is not yet articulated, although it could be in principle, and no codebook (yet) exists: typically, in the emergence of new knowledge areas or where innovation produces rapid change;

■ where the knowledge cannot be articulated in principle.

62


The point to note is that the problem of knowledge transfer is not just about extracting embodied knowledge and encoding it as a physical entity; in fact, misdirected efforts may only make the situation worse. If, as the trends in government transformation suggest, successful policy outcomes result from coordinating interaction between different communities participating in the process, then the problems are to do with building understanding between different kinds of knowledge, different encoding mechanisms and different sets of assumptions and values. Knowledge-transfer activities should be more concerned with making the connections between communities that support collaborative knowledge development. This will involve developing shared codes, shared meanings and shared values.

For members of the public, a common experience of government is the need to deal with several different branches for aspects of what, to them, is the same issue. For example, families with children who have been classifi ed as having special needs must deal with teachers and the school authorities, social workers and healthcare workers, each separately. Each of these professional groups projects their own particular slant on the child in their environment, to some extent overlapping, to some extent inconsistent with each other, each seeking information from forms and interviews. The answer to a ‘joined-up’ response is not to link all these elements together in one, integrated but unchanged, information process: this simply compounds the problems of disjunction and puts the burden of resolution on the service user. A joined-up response should try to present the user with an integrated knowledge process, expressed meaningfully to all concerned. Table 3.1 summarises the comparative features of the physical and cognitive knowledge paradigms.

63


Reconciling structured records and fl uid knowledge

How, then, to reconcile the structured world of records with the fl uid world of knowledge? Records management aims to capture the essence and purposes of an organisation as a formal information model, a ‘deep structure’ that is sustainable over time and independent of surface organisational change. It is a syntactic view of the organisation in both senses: showing the rules and policies through which the functional elements are combined to form the whole and conveying the meaning inherent in the relationship between those two.

Knowledge mobilisation aims to support the generation, sharing, assimilation and practical application of the most effective knowledge available in order to improve the outcomes that are the purpose of the organisation. It is concerned with the semantics of the organisation: it turns up the focus to show the more specifi c meanings understood by the programmes and activities, and puts these in the context of the culture, norms, values and behaviour of the organisation. Both are concerned with the same aspects, but stress different facets.

Knowledge paradigmsTable 3.1

Physical Cognitive

Encoded/embedded Embodied

Being informative Being informed

Focus on source producing new knowledge

Focus on destination producing new knowledge

Knowledge of external codebook required to interpret

Tacit knowledge or implicit codebook required to assimilate

Rule-based/empirical Pattern-based/experiential

Collective knowledge Personal knowledge

64


Records structures are the warp of the organisation, the tightly strung threads that form the basic structure in the loom; and knowledge practice is the weft that weaves through these threads to form many and varied designs across the piece.

Knowledge is an action-based, interactive sphere in which individuals collaborate with each other to produce the desired outcomes, drawing on a range of ideas, interests and the institutional ‘rules of the game’, the formal and informal ways of working. These individuals struggle with outcomes that are hard to pin down, trying to make a workable relationship between the framework of what they know and their understanding of the results they are trying to achieve – to work out how to make things happen. This we might describe as working knowledge. Experience gained from attempts to put this knowledge into action, to produce the desired outcomes, adds new working knowledge for individuals and groups. This is the space of the refl ective practitioner who is engaged in analysing practical experience, questioning established practice, developing new ideas and thinking, incrementally building up the knowledge base and fi nding new ways to translate it into action. It is also the space where the encoding process begins, where knowledge embodied in practical action and experience starts to become encoded and the codebook itself evolves as part of the same process. The fundamental challenge for knowledge mobilisation lies in fi nding ways to mitigate the tensions between working knowledge and knowledge in action, and to help improve the quality of the fi t between knowing and doing.

Records aim for solidity and a tangible presence, capturing the fl uid and messy struggle of working knowledge at fi xed points in time and freezing these into an offi cial narrative. Records are themselves struggling to create structure and order from these changeable knowledge processes. In this sense, records management systems themselves make use of

65


a kind of codebook, an overarching structure which gives meaning to each separate part of its contents. Given an overall classifi cation or category structure, each new record has to be located somewhere within it, and in part takes its meaning from that location. New classes or categories may be created as new sets of records emerge, but these too must fi t within the overall arrangement. Infl uence also works in the opposite direction: new records tend to be created with an eye on fi tting within the existing structure. If it is infl uential and taken to heart, the knowledge structure of a records management system has the effect of channelling and restricting – encouraging into pre-formed categories – the working knowledge of its users.

Although records and knowledge intuitively seem to be complementary, they can also fi nd themselves in opposition, depending on the quality of fi t between the two at any one time. If the records management codebook, oriented towards regulation and governance, and the working knowledge codebook, oriented towards practical action, make a poor fi t with each other – if each is structuring the world of action in a different way – then serious disconnects result in user frustration and culture clashes. Initiatives which attempt to extract embodied knowledge from the right-hand side of Figure 3.1, asking staff ‘what do you know about?’, hoping to encode responses as inert information directly into the record on the left, ignoring the codebook issue, are unlikely to succeed. Working knowledge is the meeting ground for records management and knowledge mobilisation. To be able to see the two together, we need to build an integrated model in which the complementarities, and the tensions, can be contrasted and balanced. An integrated model does not resolve all issues; rather, it provides a framework for comparing perspectives: between getting things straight and getting things done.

66


Key principles

■ Records are a strong form of information, more stringently managed than most forms.

■ Knowledge is information in action, characterised by the ability to put it into practice.

■ Both records and knowledge are context-dependent; they take their full meaning not just from content, but also from the organisational, institutional and mental structures and norms in which they are located.

■ Encoded knowledge = coded content + codebook; some of the meaning is in the codebook.

■ Both have layers of meaning for different communities, in different contexts, using different codebooks.

■ Building bridges between codebooks is central to an integrated approach to records and knowledge.

Records, knowledge and outcomesFigure 3.1

67

4

Records, knowledge and action: an interacting design

model

Abstract: A design model is developed to integrate records management and knowledge mobilisation, using the recordkeeping continuum model as a starting point. From records, the model highlights four elements: a functional map, corporate memory, policies and procedures, and information governance rules; from knowledge: ideas and evidence, interests, institutional rules and social norms. These are mapped onto a three-dimensional model as axes of function, structure and behaviour.

Key words: continuum model; design model; function–behaviour–structure design framework.

Mapping the landscape of records and functions

The physical sense of knowledge as an encoded product is closest to the concepts of records management. Records managers speak of the records repository as being the corporate memory of an organisation, which aims to ‘capture today’s experience, knowledge and know-how for tomorrow’s management team’ (National Archives, 2009). They have an

68


understanding of the information that is being created in records and how it relates to current corporate activities. The assumption is that capturing and structuring the information necessary to retain as evidence of corporate activities captures the essential ‘intellectual capital’, or knowledge base, of the organisation in a way that favours a productive distribution and re-use.

Records are commonly said to possess three features: content, context and structure:

■ Content is the subject matter of the record or document – what it is about – and its understanding is aided when the record itself displays a sound intellectual structure through which topics are ordered and treated.

■ Context relates to the web of relationships within which the record was created and used: how it relates to other records in groups or series; its purpose and how it relates to the activities and functions of an organisation; who it was created by and how it was used.

■ Structure is present in these two forms: in the structure of the record itself and in the wider schema in which it is only a small unit.

All three features contribute to the full meaning of the record: content that is taken out of context can be interpreted in diverse ways and may be misleading; structure ‘frames’ the content by making it familiar, in effect saying: ‘read it like this’.

Records management aims to bring all these aspects within a managed environment that refl ects the origin of the records, usually based on a single organisation. Preferably, records are structured into functional categories which map out the purposes and scope of the organisation, and are also managed on the basis of these categories (although both organisational structure and subject classifi cations are sometimes used as

69

Records, knowledge and action

ordering principles). Records management aims to maintain evidential value by keeping accurate records of what was said or done, by managing them from creation and capture through to eventual disposal or permanent preservation; and by this to support accountability, in the sense of being able to render a valid account of events.

There are four key characteristics which a formal record must possess, set out in the ISO standard:

■ Authenticity: that it is genuinely what it purports to be in itself, correctly identifi es when and by whom it was created, and is demonstrably protected against subsequent changes in content or documented context.

■ Integrity: that it remains complete and not lacking in any original part.

■ Reliability: that it is a full and accurate representation of the actions or transaction that actually took place (otherwise it might authentically purport to represent something that did not in fact occur).

■ Usability: that it can be retrieved, made accessible and interpreted without loss of its content, context or relationship to other records.

In one direction, records management faces towards archival management: capturing and preserving important information as an authentic record over time; and in another towards information management: ensuring the information produced by, and available to, current business processes is up to date, reliable and accessible to those who need it.

Best practice prescribes grouping and ordering records through a functional analysis of business structure; while organisational structure changes frequently, functions remain relatively stable. A functional analysis also aids application of management rules to whole categories of records, rather

70


than each individual document: for example, standard periods for retention; rules governing access, share and re-use; levels of security and privacy conditions; whether published under freedom of information; how and when to migrate through changes in technology and data formats. Some of these rules are set by the organisation itself, based on their assessment of risk, some derive from institutions of state, including legislation, court rulings and government regulation.

Records management, then, produces four key elements:

■ a map of formal transactions, drawn from an analysis of the organisational purposes, functions and activities, and transactions;

■ a corporate memory in the form of an organised set of recorded information, with a content and structure refl ecting that analysis, that is managed under strict disciplines to retain authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability, and which extends the memory capabilities of individuals;

■ a set of information governance rules that apply to the categories of information held in that organised set, for maintaining regulatory compliance and accountability;

■ a set of policies and procedures, as organisational rules for relating the production and use of records in formal transactions to the requirements of corporate memory and governance rules.

Mapping the landscape of knowledge and outcomes

The functional approach is excellent for the business of managing records effi ciently and is well liked by records managers; but it is frequently disliked by users concerned

71


with the day-to-day problems of the organisation. The average business user does not often think in functional terms, rather in terms of the knowledge needed to get the work done – much more like a subject-based approach. From this perspective, the focus is on outcomes rather than functions.

Most important to the user is the task to be achieved, how success will be evaluated, the knowledge and resources necessary to complete it, and a confi dence in their fi tness for purpose. While the records requirement is to capture evidence into a repository that accurately refl ects past events, the user requirement is for evidence that guides choice between possible forward actions. Whether this evidence stems from personal experience or is acquired from an external source, the kinds of question that the business user asks of this knowledge are: Will it help to produce the right result? Is it from a trustworthy source? Is it biased or slanted? Will it work for me in these circumstances? Is it practical and actionable? Can I persuade others?

It is helpful to distinguish between services and outcomes:

■ Services, whether delivered by public, private or voluntary sector organisations, are transaction based and experienced individually; they are usually well defi ned by formal rules and procedures and measured by objective performance and quality criteria. Examples include: job-seeking services offered by the government employment service; GP consultations; social work case management.

■ Outcomes are broader based and assessed at a collective level, as an aggregation of individual cases, and at a systemic level, where the value of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They are more intangible, harder to defi ne, measure and produce, and are bound up with ideas and values: whether an outcome is considered desirable is contentious, its effects are contestable and its priority

72


subject to change. Example outcomes include: low unemployment and fast return to work; patient lifestyle changes resulting in reduced hospital admissions; reduction in child abuse through improved parenting skills.

Outcomes can be delivered through services, but not usually by services alone; intermediate outcomes may work together to produce a more far-reaching fi nal outcome. For example, in tackling the obesity epidemic, a service focus is on individual patient episodes, which form the backbone of patient records – a knowledge-based intervention could infl uence the diagnosis and treatment options accessible to GPs or widen the range of referral services; success in many patient episodes accumulates as an intermediate outcome, perhaps backed up by other initiatives aimed at long-term lifestyle changes, focusing on, say, a media campaign on fi ve-a-day healthy diets of fruit and vegetables, action on school meals or greater food standards regulation. All together reinforce each other to produce, or so we hope, an overall fi nal social outcome: a healthier population which makes fewer demands on healthcare services and takes less sick leave from work, improving national productivity and growth. Records map out detailed progress on outputs in each strand, but all acting together make up the knowledge process which produces the fi nal outcome.

Professionals, practitioners and policy-makers are operating in an uncertain and changing knowledge environment. Many of the problems which they are trying to solve are highly intractable and it is diffi cult to predict the right mix of actions that will successfully deliver the desired change. Typical issues are:

■ Ability to direct action: unlike operational management, issues to be tackled will exist outside the environment of the organisation and cannot be controlled directly.

73


■ Embedded values and ideas usually underlie the process of diagnosing problems and setting outcomes resulting in confl icting views on what the problem is and what constitutes success: is child poverty, for instance, best reduced by targeted welfare payments, by ensuring parents are able to remain in work through subsidised childcare, by child-centred preventive intervention at the pre-school stage, by compulsory parental education or by some mix of these? Any one answer is likely to be determined by prevailing values and ideology.

■ Behaviour changes in the general population may be a signifi cant element in policy action – in tackling, say, obesity or climate change – and we cannot be sure how to achieve these.

■ Unintended consequences: some outcomes may improve one aspect or problem, but work against each other overall; for example, reducing the use of private transport may reduce carbon emissions but also reduce economic growth.

■ Multi-organisational participation brings different interests into play: engaging private enterprise for public good introduces commercial interests that then have to be taken into account.

■ Transferability: lessons from ‘what works’ in one context may not be applicable in another where the conditions are different.

This is a fl uid knowledge environment in which practitioners do much more than simply apply proven practice. They must fi t what they know with actions that are affordable and achievable; they must reconcile different meanings and interpretations across all the relevant actors and coordinate potentially confl icting interests; they must anticipate the future as well as analyse the past. In short, they must attempt

74


to make some order out of a chaotic and messy world, be innovative in responding to new situations and be accountable for deciding on that course of action.

Knowledge mobilisation draws on a range of sources to assist this process: the explicit knowledge that exists in past practice, formalised accounts and lessons learned; the potential knowledge that can be mined from recorded information; the experiential knowledge that can be tapped by engaging with interest groups and stakeholders. It aims to mobilise these resources and draw them into practice through an understanding of the overall knowledge processes necessary or likely to produce outcomes, the range of participants and their potential contributions, available evidence and its limitations, and the social and institutional norms, values and behaviours that form the context.

Knowledge mobilisation produces:

■ a set of ideas and evidence which are considered relevant to the issues and which may be encoded as explicit knowledge or be shifting, partial and subject to debate by participants;

■ a set of interests, drawn from all participants and stakeholders, which guide their perspectives and actions;

■ a set of formal institutional rules governing relationships within and between organisations in the policy environment and delivery chain;

■ a set of informal norms and values, cultural factors which infl uence accepted ways of working within that delivery chain.

Dimensions of an integrated map

The sphere of knowledge is concerned with understanding how ideas, interests and action work to produce the outcomes

75


which public policy believes add value to the public domain. It does this by drawing on the experience, skills and expertise of participants and stakeholders, and on explicit knowledge gathered by records and information systems, focusing both experience and reason on the problems of action: what is to be done, and how? The sphere of records is concerned with building a static, well-ordered structure that, on the one hand, maintains secure evidence of decisions and transactions for future use, and on the other, has the potential to contribute to the production of new and useful knowledge through analysis and interpretation of this evidence.

The challenge is to design initiatives in which the complementary aspects mutually reinforce each other, without imposing one ‘view’ on the other – to support innovation and change which is linked to an underlying sustainable structure. To help address the challenge of integrating knowledge mobilisation and records management, we need to bring the various aspects together in a way which defi nes the boundaries of the problem – what elements must be dealt with – and of the solution space: how they relate to each other. A model helps to think about aspects and dimensions which both have in common, from different perspectives, without losing sight of the whole.

In considering the aspects of knowledge and records discussed above – compiled together in Table 4.1 – two points stand out: in many ways, the aspects complement each other as pairs, offering together a more rounded view of the whole picture; but in doing so, each of the pair is often looking at a different dimension of the issue. For example, in the mode aspect, records focus on a structural, ‘horizontal’ view of narrative and events, whilst knowledge slices through the timeline to examine common problems from an analytical viewpoint.

76


Aspect of . . . Records Knowledge

Structure Functional; syntactic Subject-based; semantic

Context Document-based User-based

Content Passively evidential Actively evidential

Perspective Looking backwards Looking forwards

Focus Organisational Institutional; social (in public sector)

Mode Narrative; events Analysis; problems

Accountability What was done? Why was it done?

Should it have been done?

Accuracy What did we do/say? Are we getting it right?

Authenticity Real, genuine; legally valid

Authoritative; trustworthy

Integrity Original state; complete Sound in principle; sincere; justifi ed

Reliability Accurate representation of action taken

Safe, secure to use; repeatable by others

Usability Content accessible through lifetime

Can be put into action

Comparative aspects of records and knowledgeTable 4.1

Regrouping the separate elements in Table 4.1 into different categories, one can identify three broader dimensions:

■ a structural dimension, bringing together elements of organisation and order: accountability and perspective; documents, evidence and narrative in recordkeeping;

■ a functional dimension, concerned with purposes, bringing together the focus aspect (identity is the frame for interests) with the criteria for achieving outcomes: the analytical mode, authoritativeness and justifi cation;

■ a behavioural dimension, co-ordinating aspects of action with the practical knowledge to achieve results: content and context as enablers, reliability and usability.

77


An advantage of this approach is that we can connect it to the well-known continuum model for recordkeeping, which delineates its fundamental concepts independent of any technological implementation, as well as to a more general design method, which proposes behaviour – what people do in practice – as the bond between the other two dimensions. This offers both a model which encompasses the key features of records and knowledge together, and a way of working with that model to deliver design solutions in practical situations.

Continuum model of recordkeeping

The traditional model for describing records management is the lifecycle model, borrowed from traditional information systems methodologies, which sets out a series of stages in the life of a record, from capture, storage and management, through retention as a semi-active record for reference purposes, to eventual disposal or permanent preservation in an archive. The continuum model, emerging in Australia some 15 or so years ago, broke away from this sequential model with a framework which maps the ‘essence of records . . . how they are made, kept and used’ that is independent of their changing aspects through time. A major aim of this model was to unite the records management and archival perspectives in a single coherent view that is not process-driven or sequential. It ‘recognises that records serve multiple purposes . . . [and] mean different things to different people in different contexts. . . . They therefore need to be made and maintained in ways that represent and enable these different perspectives, understandings and uses’ (Cumming, 2010). Although it is not universally accepted, it is a well-formed and tested model that offers a sophisticated and elegant statement of recordkeeping and has been infl uential in projects to re-assess records management practices for the present day.

78


This statement made by the continuum model is taken here as a basis for the records management aspects of an integrated record–knowledge model. The intention is not to critique the model or dispute its importance for the purposes for which it was developed: the details of records management aspects are taken as given. The bases of the model are used here to inspire development of a platform that can reach out for, and encompass, those other aspects also necessary to describe knowledge mobilisation; in doing so, though, it is necessary to generalise and adapt somewhat.

The structure of the model has two types of element:

■ two paired axes, radiating from a central point, rather like spokes on a wheel, that represent essential aspects of the record: with recordkeeping and evidence at opposite ends of a vertical axis; and transactions and identity opposing each other on a horizontal axis;

■ four dimensions, concentric circles rippling out from the central point, each representing different perspectives on the record, from the individual at the core through the organisational to the collective.

A version of the model is shown in Figure 4.1; a full version and commentary is available at Upward (1996).

In order to bring knowledge into the model, it is necessary to step outside the frame of recordkeeping, whilst still retaining recognisable reference points back to this statement of it. Some problematic aspects of the model for incorporating the concept of knowledge in a network-based polity are:

■ The intention of the model was to integrate records management and archival management; knowledge brings a third axis pair into the model, making it three-dimensional.

■ The language used might be confusing in this context; as it stands, it is essentially a two-dimensional model using the

79


term axes to defi ne those dimensions, and the term dimensions to defi ne inner and outer layers. For clarity, the adapted model here will continue to refer to three axes as each representing the three planes of a three-dimensional model, but use the term perspectives for the inner and outer layers.

■ In order to incorporate knowledge concepts, the scope of the axes will be widened and generalised somewhat by re-labelling with a more general term.

■ Referring to the concentric layers as perspectives de-emphasises the rather hierarchical decomposition and introduces the possibility of more fl exible relationships; for example, an individual is not simply part of an organisational unit, but brings knowledge, values, experience and ways of acting from outside that environment; one perspective is not wholly encompassed within the other.

Records continuum modelFigure 4.1

80


It is hoped that, with these adaptations, those already familiar with the description of records management in the continuum model can map their existing understanding onto the more generalised model developed below.

Developing a global representation

Incorporating a ‘knowing and doing’ axis through these adaptations gives three axes (see Fig. 4.2):

■ an identity–outcome axis representing functional aspects: the purposes, interim and fi nal outcomes, functions and work routines; and the roles and rationale of those carrying them through – what is to be done, who is to do it, and why they are bothering;

■ a recordkeeping–accountability axis representing the structural aspects: the formal systems for defi ning and organising knowledge; fi xing and ordering records; the institutional frameworks that set the formal governance rules between and within organisations; and a broader accountability concept (choosing what to do as well as answering for what was done) – how purpose is defi ned, organised and accounted for;

■ a knowledge–action axis representing the behavioural aspects: the embedded, informal knowledge processes; the cultural norms and values – the informal rules – that govern participants; and how these are expressed in action – how ‘knowing’ relates to ‘doing’;

■ four overlaying perspectives, rather like the layers of an onion, refl ecting differing, not necessarily consistent, frames of reference: the individual; the organisational; the institutional; and the social (see Fig. 4.3).

Collaboration can take place at all levels.

81


Global model showing three axesFigure 4.2

Global model showing four perspectivesFigure 4.3

The layers are not mutually exclusive: for example, an individual working within a collaborative and organisational context might have various roles and identities as an individual decision-maker, as a member of a community of practice, as an employee of an organisation and as a citizen; the organisational, the institutional and the social are likely to have different degrees of infl uence in different sectors of the model. Its value is to help us ask systematic questions, not just about how aspects work within each layer, but also

82


about the relationships and transitions between one layer and another. How does knowledge move from the individual to the organisational space? What is the impact on accountability of actions taken by an individual as a professional and as an employee, and what should be recorded? Who are the participants or stakeholders relevant to an outcome defi ned in social terms and how can their knowledge be mobilised to inform the decision-making process? Are formal policies and procedures consistent between the various levels? How best to structure and organise knowledge and records, and other information management systems, to support that focus?

Mapping the territory: design views

The purpose of the model is to locate the key elements of records management and knowledge mobilisation identifi ed earlier within the model, by allocating each to one or other of the sectors defi ned by the three axes. It is not intended to be a detailed description of any particular implementation, rather a way to strip away some of the detail in order to see these key elements and their inter-relationships more clearly; and to be able to ask systematic questions about those relationships.

The traditional four-box matrix is easy to work with, but requires all characteristics to fi t within one of only four options; a three-dimensional model is more fl exible, but is harder to visualise. It is best thought of as a solid sphere, like a globe of the world, with each of the three axes running right through the core of the earth at right angles to each other. Looked at from one side, there are four sectors, or segments, defi ned by the two fl at axes facing you; revolve the globe on an axis and there are another four on the reverse

83


side, making eight sectors in all. Each sector is defi ned by the space between three coordinating points – the end points of the axes, where they meet the surface of the globe.

One can then allocate each of the eight key elements of records management and knowledge mobilisation to one or other of the eight sectors. For example, one sector is defi ned by the three points of recordkeeping, outcomes and action, and the key element functions and transactions is allocated to that sector in the model; another sector is defi ned by knowledge, accountability and outcomes, to which ideas and evidence is allocated.

This can be quite complicated to visualise in three dimensions, but once the mapping is grasped the model is very versatile. (I found drawing it out on the skin of a whole orange with a felt pen quite helpful!) The main advantage is that the model can be turned, changing the viewpoint to highlight different confi gurations of the key elements, just as a globe of the world can be turned to show different views. A view of the world with China at the centre looks very different from one centred on western Europe; but we know that the side not visible still exists. A half-turn would put the Americas at the focal centre, again a different view.

This is advantageous because the model can be used to show different design views without losing the connections with elements that are not visible at the time. Two possible design views are shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5; the fi rst centres on recordkeeping as the main focal point and the second of the pair (the reverse side) on accountability. In thinking about the design of recordkeeping systems, we are concerned with bringing together these four key elements: designing policies and procedures to support the organisational functions and transactions, so that the records they produce can be captured, stored and made accessible in the corporate memory in ways that comply with the formal

84


Records management design viewFigure 4.4

Knowledge mobilisation design viewFigure 4.5

85


rules of information governance. In thinking about mobilisation of knowledge, we are concerned with making the best use of available ideas and evidence, by putting them into practice within the existing frameworks of formal institutional rules and informal working cultures made up of accepted norms and values that infl uence behaviour, in ways that take account of the interests of all participants and stakeholders.

Even though they are not shown in that particular view, we know that the material held in ideas and evidence (including perhaps work in progress from professional and social networks, published knowledge, statistical data, unrecorded discussions and debates, etc.) is backed up by the existence of a corporate memory, which holds evidence on past actions and decisions, policy statements, consultations, and so on. Similarly, the formal rules of information governance must fi t with the rules of institutional governance to be effective.

Several design views are possible, created by turning the globe to change the viewpoint. Some of these views will share some of the key elements and, where they do, we are then in a position to compare their treatment between views and to ask whether they are consistent with each other. In this example, a half-turn to the left from the Figure 4.4 position creates another pair of views: one brings together the formal and informal institutional framework with internal policies, procedures and information governance, with a focus on identity – a view that stresses regulation; and the other highlights the interplay of ideas with interests (what could be done) with corporate memory and transactions (what has been and is being done) to produce outcomes – a more innovation-centred view. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show these design views.

This comparison is a helpful tool in thinking through the consistency of design decisions from different perspectives.

86


Regulation-centred design viewFigure 4.6

Innovation-centred design viewFigure 4.7

87


How well, for example, do policies and procedures designed with records management in mind stand up when seen in the context of the wider landscape of organisational regulation and governance? Do they make a good fi t with existing cultural norms and expectations; and if not, should the policies be adapted to meet the culture, or is some sort of change initiative needed to make the existing culture more hospitable to these policies? How well does the material associated with ideas and evidence, and that held as corporate memory, fi t with each other as accessible resources – are they complementary or contradictory?

Recalling the four perspectives – social, institutional, organisational, individual – that also make up the model, a second type of comparison is possible. The surface layer of the globe is the social perspective, which is surely correct: the purpose of government, and other activity in the public sector, is to produce social outcomes that add public value, not for its own sake; and so the starting point for design, management and transformation must be to consider the effects on the wider social world. The fi rst step is to discover what it is we are trying to achieve – what is the point of it all? – and the second to work out how to go about it; and only here should the constraints and opportunities that emerge from considering issues of feasibility and achievability, practicality and affordability, moderate these initial ambitions. Many records and knowledge initiatives start from the position of what already exists and so fail to question assumptions or prejudices, quickly becoming a force for stasis rather than change.

Peeling away the layers of the globe – to view the component geological strata, as it were, that support the whole – tightens the focus, bringing issues of confl ict or inconsistency between the various implementation perspectives to the light. Are proposed policies and procedures feasible and acceptable

88


from both the organisational and individual perspectives? Are different cultures present, perhaps following a merger between two organisations, so that there is a disconnect between what different groups know and do? Are organisations collaborating on common outcomes subject to the same rules for information governance, and what implications would any distinctions have for the purposes of that collaboration?

In summary, the global model is a tool for thinking about:

■ co-location of the key elements, harmonising them for one purpose while retaining their wider context;

■ comparison between design views, to work through issues of consistency and confl ict between purposes;

■ de-layering of perspectives, to work through issues of feasible implementation at different granularities.

The aim is to adjust the design of elements with each other, taking into account different viewpoints and perspectives, to reach the best available fi t so that all elements are interacting with each other in a balanced manner.

Scaling the maps: a design method

The problem when all elements can adjust to each other is: which takes precedence and sets the benchmark? This is a central problem in attempting to harmonise records management and knowledge mobilisation – each perceives itself as the priority – and is a major cause of frustration and disharmony. The earlier analysis identifi ed the three principal axes as representatives of three generic concepts: structure (the recordkeeping–accountability axis); function (the identity–outcome axis); and behaviour (the knowledge–action

89


axis). This section draws on some ideas proposed by John Gero in his work on a function–behaviour–structure (FBS) design framework (Gero and Kannengiesser, 2004), as suggesting an approach to this problem.

The FBS framework emerged from work on artifi cial intelligence, but is applicable to a range of complex adaptive systems; there is not space here to explore the framework in detail, but some of its key insights are highly useful. The framework is an alternative to more conventional methods, which assume design is focused on a fi xed, unchanging world, and the problem is to describe something in suffi cient detail to extend it with a new artefact or system. Instead, Gero and Kannengiesser observe that all features cannot be known beforehand and that the act of design itself changes how we understand the problem; what we do changes what we are looking at in an interactive dynamic process.

This seems quite central to successful knowledge mobilisation initiatives, which are interventions in the real world: the knowledge which is mobilised – put into practice – must by defi nition change the knowledge frameworks and professional practice already possessed by participants. The knowledge we are working with changes organically, in response to the work we do with it. It is also an important insight for records management implementations, which all too often attempt to automate the existing physical environment, capturing its problems whilst blocking off potential opportunities as yet unarticulated. The experience of implementing an EDRM system, for instance, changes our understanding of records management in this new context in ways that cannot be predicted in advance. Becoming locked in to a too detailed standard that is based on the past (such as the MoReq2 standard) closes off the opportunity to benefi t from this experience.

90


The purpose of government is not to maintain itself as an institution (although this may be the purpose of some in government), and neither is the purpose of records management to create records in order for them to be managed. Objectives and outcomes, and the creation of public value, should be the starting point for transformation. A design rule promoted by the FBS approach is known as the no function in structure principle. This says that one cannot derive a function directly from a structure: an organisation, or a set of procedures, or a software program may be structured in a particular way for many reasons – because it is misunderstood by users, because past practice lives on even though outmoded, to accommodate political or cultural pressures. It is not possible to work out the purpose of something that is complex and adaptable, just by examining how the parts are put together. Instead, function and structure are linked by behaviour. Three examples of common practices which illustrate the importance of this rule are:

■ Software evaluation: to test the capabilities of an EDRM programme, say, one must fi rst determine a functional requirement and work out the expected behaviour that will deliver it; then observe the system’s behaviour and compare the two; the results may lead to an adjustment of requirement, a reworking of the expected behaviour or a change to the software. Behaviour is the switching mechanism between function and structure.

■ Outcomes mapping: programme management aims to map the projects and activities of an organisation onto the programme outcomes; but starting from a description of the projects that exist, and fi nding a way to connect them to outcomes, simply justifi es the present structure. One must start from the outcomes, determine the activities

91


necessary to deliver them and then map these onto a working structure (or adapt the outcomes if unfeasible).

■ Information audit: an as-is descriptive analysis of the records that are being created in an organisation is a necessary, but insuffi cient, part of the business analysis; proactive to-be analysis, stemming from organisational objectives, of what should be created in the future is needed for transformative action.

The implication – that to coordinate function and structure we need to go via behaviour – points towards an orientation of the global model that focuses on knowledge and action as the starting point for analysis.

This design view prompts asking questions about:

■ Knowledge process and fl ows: what do we need to know to achieve policy aims? Where is that knowledge located,

Knowledge-centred design viewFigure 4.8

92


what needs to be shared, what kept private? What counts as evidence? What needs to be remembered and what forgotten?

■ Knowledge networking: what actions are needed to achieve programme outcomes? Are the relevant actors putting their knowledge into practice? Are new knowledge and ideas generated by participants connected and captured? Is there a match between knowledge and interests, where are the gaps? Whose knowledge needs to be brought in to the processes?

■ Information resources: what is appropriate to capture as inert knowledge? What is fl uid and dynamic? Which activities are formally documented? How can formal records be fed back into knowledge generation?

The answers to these kinds of question form the foundation for building a knowledge strategy and determining practical

Action-centred design viewFigure 4.9

93


Expansion of key features as allocated in global model

Table 4.2

Feature Coordinates Illustrative examplesInstitutional rules

KnowledgeAccountabilityIdentity

Relevant political, economic and social structures.Statutory powers and responsibilities.Organisational rules and relationships.

Information governance

KnowledgeRecordkeepingIdentity

Principles and case rules governing uses of records and information: data-sharing, information security, privacy, freedom of information, capture, retention, disposal.

Ideas and evidence

KnowledgeAccountabilityOutcomes

Strategies, evidence, argument and persuasion for shaping policies and objectives; methodologies for delivering outcomes; ideological frameworks and professional values.

Corporate memory

KnowledgeRecordkeepingOutcomes

Formal record-keeping systems.Formalised procedures and business processes.Narratives, ‘war stories’, mentoring, apprenticeship.

Interests ActionAccountabilityOutcomes

Interest groups, stakeholders and participants.Advocates, coalitions, organisational roles, communities.Politics and bureaucracy: offi cials and elected members.

Functions and transactions

ActionRecordkeepingOutcomes

Functions, activities and transactions.Business processes and strategies.Formal statements and communications.

Norms, values and behaviour

ActionAccountabilityIdentity

Accepted ways of working, informal exchange, ‘hidden’ work processes; cultural values: ‘fair dealing’, appropriate behaviour in roles, patterns of incentives and rewards.

Policies and procedures

ActionRecordkeepingIdentity

Formalised records management policies and practices.Embedded procedures in business processes.Corporate strategies, risk management, governance.

94


action, based on outcomes rather than inputs. The next two chapters expand the regulation-centred and innovation-centred views, and Part 2 offers some practical interventions.

Key principles

■ Records management is organisation-centric: mirroring an analysis of the organisation as records assemblies, together with rules and procedures for their management.

■ Knowledge mobilisation is outcome-centric: coordinating the knowledge base inherent in ideas, interests and institutions.

■ Both offer complementary aspects: records management and knowledge mobilisation are ‘two sides of the same coin’.

■ Model the whole landscape: compare different views and contrast key elements in each to reveal issues.

■ Behaviour mediates between function and structure: start design from the outcomes and the knowledge needed to produce them.

95

5

Regulation and institutions: rules, roles and frames

Abstract: Governments are a kind of institution with established practices, rules and ways of behaving, and regulate change through various institutional devices. Records management promotes stability and continuity through institutional rules, as an internal regulator. It promotes a logic of consensus, which tends to draw all members of an organisation into common knowledge structures which frame their way of seeing the world. Innovative change must challenge these embedded values to be successful.

Key words: government institutions; institutional norms; institutional change; regulation; knowledge structures; self-reinforcing systems.

Opinions on the relative virtues of the administrative state have always differed, and yet it has a tenacity and resilience in maintaining its traditions and practices that endures through time and events. Government is an institution with characteristics and a ‘spirit’ that continues regardless of changes in political complexion, economic and social developments, and personnel: an institution that has the ability to both respond to, and absorb, change whilst maintaining continuity. Many of the features of government administrations have evolved to serve this end, providing checking devices and counterbalances to the pendulum of

96


politics and management fashions. Yet some periods call for a rapid pace of change, when a failure to respond to wider social developments risks losing credibility, and then the institutions of government are a barrier not a bulwark.

In general, government has both a regulatory and a service provider function: it provides some services itself and regulates the market for others. Innovation, fast or slow, is always necessary: in planning outcomes, in deciding how best to deliver objectives, in determining which partners to work with, in drawing effectively on all available resources, in adapting methods of regulation, and so on. Government is a knowledge-based business: innovation drives new knowledge within the public sector, but regulation constrains the extent to which new knowledge can be generated, by setting the conditions in which it operates.

As part of its remit, records management too plays a regulatory role within public bodies, overseeing the information they generate and its conformance with the formal rules of management and governance. The turn towards information management reinforces this role, embedding records management disciplines within business processes and workfl ows, and requiring users to conform to them. Information management systems also have an innovatory aspect; new systems aim, for example, to rationalise information fl ow through business processes, to improve decision-making through better information access or to share common data between business processes. This has the effect of reinforcing and polishing existing fundamental structures, often expressed as a wish to organise records and information management around the shape of the business. In contrast, the turn towards knowledge highlights a different role in innovation, shifting the emphasis from a top–down implementation focus to a bottom–up support of knowledge development – emphasising the innovations that bubble up

97

Regulation and institutions

from the business, from seeing new ways to do better things at ground level.

The dilemma for records and information management is: how to be both regulator and innovator at the same time. These two roles are normally separate functions: the innovator enthusiastically forges ahead, overcoming barriers and breaking new ground; and the regulator keeps a (light or heavy) hand of restraint on progress, ensuring that innovations remain within the bounds of legality, balance and good governance. These contrasting roles suit two different kinds of mindset and personality – and how can the two operate successfully in the same body at the same time? Conventionally, records management is seen as a force for stability, while knowledge mobilisation is a force for change, and yet they both have a role in generating, systematising and sharing knowledge. How regulation and innovation can work together to best effect is explored in this and the next chapter.

The role of institutions

Regulation operates through institutions. An institution is not the same as an organisation, although the terms are often used interchangeably. The UK National Health Service is an institution which is made up of many different organisations that share common principles; the university is an institution of higher education which has a well-defi ned purpose and ethos that is put into practice by many individual universities as independent organisations. A national civil service is an institution, with an accepted role and set of values, sometimes set out in a code of practice with sanctions for its enforcement, and in some countries also operates as a single organisation for administrative purposes. The laissez-faire marketplace is

98


an institution, within which many different commercial organisations compete with each other; their interactions are constrained by formal legal rules (with physical penalties if they are broken) and informal conventions (which, if broken, result in loss of reputation): together, these represent our modern beliefs on the acceptable ways of doing business.

Institutions, as the term is used here, are composed of three sets of elements:

■ formal and explicit rules which determine behaviour and govern interaction between members, and to which all are subject;

■ informal values, norms and conventions – professional, social, ethical, etc. – that are understood by members, and which inform acceptable behaviour and interactions;

■ sanctions which can enforce the rules: through legal statute, corporate policies, peer group pressure, economic incentives, for example.

Institutional arrangements play a vital role in structuring the social bonds that hold a society and economy together, because they give it order and form, and establish a set of practices as standard and routine. These formal rules, conventions, behavioural norms and sanctions promote trust and confi dence among participants because they are predictable, reliable and widely understood. Markets rely on a common understanding of contracts, so that each transaction does not have to be negotiated from scratch; governments rely on political institutions that shape the relationships between state and citizen to demonstrate their legitimacy; regulatory regimes delineate the areas that fall within their scope and develop repeatable procedures to ensure fair and consistent treatment.

Institutional practices run across, and operate within, organisations. A lecturer, for example, can relocate to a post

99


in a different university and still expect things to work in broadly the same way: what is expected of her, and what she expects of others, will be similar. The formal and informal rules which govern behaviour are much the same across all central government departments, and across local government administrations. In the National Health Service, patient expectations of medical behaviour are constant regardless of the particular hospital or surgery they are attending; the same conventions of healthcare are enforced across the range of health providers, even though quality may vary, and they are effectively in competition. ‘Institutions are the rules of the game, organizations are the players: it is the interaction between the two that shapes institutional change’ (North, 2005: 59)

Institutions regulate behaviour through highly developed enabling, coordinating, motivating or constraining mech-anisms to which all participants are subject because they represent ideas deeply embedded in society as a whole. Formal rules and conventions are often encapsulated as organisational procedures, and sometimes backed up by statute. Procedures can be seen as a kind of knowledge base, accumulating and refi ning a store of tested and accepted responses to commonly recurring problems; not as objective technical solutions, but as accepted social conventions about the way something works. The point is not whether it actually is the best way or not; the point is that we all, at least for the time, tend to believe it is.

Organisations consist of members brought together by a common interest, whether commercial, professional, economic, political or religious. They work within a framework of institutions and their rules in order to reduce uncertainty and build confi dence; but they may also, in pursuit of their own interests, seek to infl uence the rules and conventions which govern acceptable behaviour – to set the

100


‘rules of the game’ – in their favour. The participants in a public–private partnership (PPP), for example, will each draw on the resources of parallel institutions – the free market and the bureaucratic state – to infl uence the formal arrangements in their favour. Organisations respond to the constraints of institutional rules, depending on the nature of the situation, their degree of entrepreneurship and the opportunities for change. In a stable situation, a high consensus on accepted values and acceptable behaviour prevails, and institutional change is low; in a turbulent environment, where ideas are in fl ux and accepted norms are adapting, public opinion can be infl uenced and priorities are in debate, or where tools, methods and technologies offer new possibilities, the possibilities for change are higher.

Individuals – how they behave and make decisions, within organisations and within society in general – are also infl uenced by institutions. In a seminal work, March and Olsen (1989) defi ned two distinct institutional logics that shape the way decisions are made on policy and practice issues, which they called:

■ a logic of consequentiality, which is driven by expectations about the consequences of choosing a course of action; individuals make a rational calculation about the costs and benefi ts, and likely results, in terms of their own self-interests and preferences, attempting to make outcomes fulfi l their own wishes; and

■ a logic of appropriateness, in which an understanding of the formal rules and procedures, and informal norms and expectations, shapes what is considered appropriate behaviour; individuals understand their own role in a situation, what is expected of them, what they expect of others, and act accordingly.

101


In any one organisation, one type of logic or the other will tend to be dominant. Private sector organisations work within the bounds of legally defi ned market institutions, but show a much stronger logic of consequentiality in their culture: getting results, even by breaking rules, is prized above following correct procedures. This means that they can respond quickly to changes in their environment, adapting rules and operating procedures, and allowing greater latitude to individual judgements. Public sector organisations, which have a strong institutional bias, conventionally display a logic of appropriateness, stressing the importance of following correct and proper procedures. These embody established ideas of accountability and public service, and insulate staff from the pressures of inappropriate infl uence by sectional interests; but at the expense of agility and rapid change.

Stability, continuity and change

Institutions are a force for stability and continuity. They stress a logic of appropriateness that is embodied in explicit procedures and codes of practice, as well as implicit ideas about appropriate behaviour and values. Normal change comes through adaptation and refi nement, in a dynamic process between common understanding of a problem and accepted responses to it. More radical change to institutional procedures is diffi cult due to:

■ high costs and the greater uncertainty which embarking on change invokes;

■ existing interests and power relations embedded in procedures;

■ path dependency: past choices limit future actions;

■ embedded knowledge structures: the ‘stickiness’ of taken-for-granted ideas and social categories.

102


Rules and procedures may take the form of explicit instructions or programmed workfl ows in IT systems, but change means much more than simply rewriting them; they represent deeply embedded patterns of thinking and working which have been assimilated by staff over a period of time. Rules cannot make every variation explicit and rely on the ability of staff to apply the principles correctly in new situations. It is the quality of the fi t between the formal rules and the informal norms and conventions that guides this interpretation: the two adapt and evolve together, and the costs of redesign can be high, involving cultural as well as procedural change.

Because institutional procedures govern the way individuals, groups and organisations interact with each other, they represent a balance of interests that has evolved over time – in which some interests are more dominant than others. Operational policies and procedures embody a particular set of values – by making clear what is important and what is not – and these in turn are an expression of particular interests, conferring power on some by removing it from others: for example, in the UK, annual settlement budgets fund local government and the central core executive can vary its control over local policies by increasing or decreasing the proportion of ring-fenced grants (which specify allowable spending) to the main formula grant (which does not). Procedural change involves a change in the balance of relative status and powers – here, amending the overall structure of the budget is also a symbolic statement on the relative importance between central and local controls over policy implementation – creating both winners and losers.

An institution evolves over time and is already on a pathway that is determined by decisions taken in the past, which may have made commitments that cannot easily be reversed. The legacy of these inherited commitments

103


constrains the choices that are available for the future: the concept of path dependency. It may be more benefi cial to continue on the same path rather than risk the uncertainty of change, even though new thinking suggests that some form of change would give better results: visible in the confl ict between evidence-based proposals that promote ‘what works’ and past experience that reinforces ‘we’ve always done it this way’. There may be a high reputational cost to reversing past commitments: for example, once a particular welfare benefi t has been established, it tends to be perceived as a right and any attempt at abolition involves signifi cant political risks.

As well as embedding explicit knowledge in procedures, institutions embed a ‘deep structure’ of concepts and categories in the mental models of those who participate in them – a working classifi cation system. This enables fast processing of cases when applying procedures and effective communication about them with others, allowing selection from a set of pre-arranged categories, rather than working through every case anew on each occasion. The concept of family and marriage provides categories such as spouse, civic partner, working parent; the welfare state fi xes categories such as benefi t claims, unemployment, disability or paternity leave; the concept of immigration classifi es individuals as visa-holders, emigrants or asylum-seekers. These knowledge categories are refl ected in procedure design and in turn embedded in information systems as organising structures for data: for example, the functional fi leplans of records management systems implement a particular categorisation of functions, although there are many possible ways of dividing up the wealth of documents they hold.

In these ways, such knowledge structures are expressed as a common language for perceiving the world they describe, one which is closely bound up with the perceived identity of

104


organisational members that work with them. On the one hand, this is advantageous in building a common culture and purpose, and a more cohesive organisational vision; on the other, it makes changing that culture more diffi cult. For example, changing an organisational vision of the tax and revenue government department from one of ‘detecting and punishing tax avoidance’ to ‘helping clients to meet their tax responsibilities’ involves a fundamental change in staff ways of perceiving and representing the world of tax – a reclassifi cation of its features – as well as simple changes in procedures.

Records management as an internal regulator

Records management has conventionally assumed its scope to be focused on the organisation by which its managers are employed. From this perspective, its role is to secure the body of core information which is regarded as constituting the formal corporate record, to avoid discovery of a lack of compliance with external regulatory regimes and to protect organisational information against unwanted use by others. It stresses compliance, continuity, stability and retention of corporate memory through a top–down approach that requires users to conform to standard practices and organising principles. Particularly in an electronic environment, users are required to: recognise a record when they create one, categorise it correctly and fi le it in the right place; know the formal rules that apply to exchange and re-use; and retrieve information from existing records as required. They are discouraged from hoarding personal ‘information silos’, such as individual e-mail inboxes; instead they are expected to make these available to their colleagues.

105


In short, they are expected to know, and follow, the ‘rules of the game’.

While records management is primarily seen as a function within organisations, the rules and systems of information governance which it draws upon have some of the aspects of an institution in themselves, at least within the public sector. There exists a set of formal rules, many of which are formulated in legislation – data protection, freedom of information, certain retention periods, rules for due diligence – with sanctions for infraction; and a set of professional norms and values that guide practice and, for users, inform the ‘right thing to do’ (whether or not they actually do the right thing is a slightly different question). It counts as an institution to the extent that the same formal rules and informal norms are applied across the range of organisations that make up the sector. These institutional aspects of the regulation of information are clearly set to grow: the trends towards greater public–private coordination, collaboration between public sector organisations, professional direction and community participation all imply the need for a more robust set of rules on information-sharing, knowledge-generation and ownership, and rights of public access; and the ubiquitous nature of networks and the consequent ‘leakiness’ of information systems will set the framework for them.

Records management also inherits many of its rules from the institutional frameworks to which the parent organisation belongs. As well as being subject to their infl uences as an overall framework, in some ways it is part of the interface between organisations and institutions. It sits astride the organisational boundary, enabling the organisation to demonstrate that it is meeting expectations and following the formal rules. In fact, there appears to be a good fi t between the exhortations of records management and the

106


expectations of institutions: both stress the idea of appropriateness, a desire that members understand and practise correct behaviour. Records management is thus a good partner to institutional forces when there is no clash with organisational working cultures; but where there is, issues of user resistance predominate. This point illuminates, for example, the diffi culties that many EDRM systems implementations have found, clashing with users who feel it to be a restrictive and unnecessary administrative burden on their work. This resistance can be understood as a clash between the institutional logic of appropriateness (‘doing the right thing’) and a logic of consequentiality (‘getting a result and moving on’) which may be dominant at the organisational level. In this light, there are implications for the success in the culture change initiatives that records managers often feel are needed: such change is about much more than attitudes to information governance and risk. It involves changing values and assumptions that are deeply embedded in people’s beliefs about their individual and organisational identities: ideas about ‘who we are’ that guide everyday decisions.

Within the organisation, records management promotes a parallel kind of appropriateness that we might call a logic of consensus. It aims to consolidate all corporate information within one, or a very few, organising frameworks and to draw all members of the organisation into this schema. These organising schemas – functional fi leplans or business classifi cation systems – are constructed of sets of related categories, which together make up a ‘picture’ of the organisation. All documents which users create must be slotted into one or other of these categories, a repeated process that slowly nudges individuals into thinking about their work in these terms. Schemas ‘frame’ an approved view of the organisation, in the same way that a picture of a landscape is defi ned by the borders of a physical frame.

107


Many pictures are possible; setting the position of the borders determines a particular one by defi ning what is within, and what is without, the frame. Since individual users must create, store and retrieve information for their daily work from these schemas and systems, they are required to match their individual mental models of their work – how they structure their own knowledge and act upon it – to these corporate categories. This is a powerful unifying force, which has particular advantages, because it helps to:

■ build a common identity and a common sense of purpose, and to integrate newcomers into this common understanding;

■ promote operational effi ciency by regulating behaviour, reducing uncertainty and decision-making time, since repeated activities become more automatic;

■ promote effectiveness, to the degree that individual and corporate models match up, and the fi t these make with wider institutional and social perceptions.

In contrast, it also has disadvantages, where:

■ incremental institutional change is not refl ected and the fi t becomes poor, so the organisation suffers ‘information drift’: information structures mirror the world as it used to be, not as it is now;

■ radical institutional change, responding to sudden shocks to the system, challenges the organisation to keep pace, so that fi xed ways of thinking and acting can become part of the problem;

■ exploration and production of new knowledge, involving partner organisations, service users or experience from other administrations, must be mobilised to reframe – change the perception of – diffi cult problems, in order to fi nd new solutions to them.

108


Records management as a self-reinforcing system

From this perspective, records management has a self-reinforcing tendency, with both advantages and disadvantages: the more successful it is as a dominant corporate information system, the more it channels users’ ways of thinking and acting into the model schema it represents, in a positive feedback loop, reinforcing embedded ideas and knowledge structures. Put another way: one of the building blocks of an EDRM system is the business classifi cation scheme which it uses to organise and structure records, and this is derived from an analysis of business functions and the pattern of records they create. At the same time, the existence of the scheme mediates between the individual user and the kind of records they create, constraining and channelling what is possible, rewarding behaviour that reinforces consensus and discouraging attempts to step outside the frame and look at issues afresh. This has important implications for considering the ways that evidence is created and used in public policy and delivery.

A common model for decision-making supposes a hierarchy of data, information and knowledge: fi rstly, at the base, raw data about a problem is collected as input; then analysed and interpreted as meaningful information; and fi nally abstracted and synthesised as tested and proven knowledge – each is a building block for the level above. An idealised rational decision-making process assumes that problem-solving proceeds in stages: identifying a problem; researching options for possible solutions; evaluating all options and selecting the best; determining indicators of success and implementing the chosen course of action. We can make this more specifi c for a records management system: reliable and authentic records on a topic are captured and organised in a particular structure, and these collectively

109


form a base for the production of evidence by analysing their content and context; accumulating a weight of evidence which in turn delivers insights that improve knowledge about that topic (see Figure 5.1). This approach typifi es the physical paradigm of knowledge as an explicit entity.

Yet we know, from the work of Simon and others on ‘bounded rationality’ (e.g. 1991), that the ability of individuals to interpret quantities of data is quite limited and that decision-makers with limited time are often seeking justifi cation for a course of action they have already decided on by a more intuitive process. We look for patterns rather than process data. We tend to decide on the categories of evidence that we expect to fi nd and then seek it out; and the more fi rmly these categories are built into the frame of an all-encompassing corporate information system, the more likely it is that such evidence will be created. We tend to create that which we expect to fi nd.

Michaels et al. (2006; see also Tuomi, 2000) describes how the conventional data–information–knowledge hierarchy can be reversed: ‘. . . knowledge is a prerequisite for information and information is a prerequisite for data . . . all data is collected with specifi c purposes, assumptions and expectations in mind and in a particular social and theoretical context.’ First, we have to know about the problem, know why we think it is important, what a better outcome would look like and how to bring it about; then we can decide what constitutes evidence of change and set about collecting the data within the framework defi ned by those answers. In a records management context, knowledge structures frame ideas about allowable evidence, which in turn stimulates the creation of records. We create the appropriate tools to measure what we are looking for, and this in itself fi xes some of the meaning in the data which those tools are working on. This scenario is a manifestation of the cognitive paradigm of knowledge.

110


These two aspects are brought together in Figure 5.1. Starting from the lower left-hand box, evidence is derived through analysis of the content and context of available records and the results are woven into existing knowledge structures by a process of synthesis – fi tting the new knowledge into a recognisable framework of understanding, which is extended incrementally rather than being challenged and radically altered. This predominant knowledge structure, in turn, provides the frame through which other problems and issues are perceived, and sets the criteria that determine what does, and does not, count as legitimate evidence to aid understanding of those issues. Seeking this evidence, codifying and systematising it according to expectations, creates new records which feed back into the start of the cycle. The effect is self-reinforcing: we tend to be more receptive to evidence that fi ts well with our existing ideas and to look for new evidence that we can make best sense of within the context of what we already know.

Records management as a self-reinforcing regulatory system

Figure 5.1

111


Self-reinforcing consultation

One example of this self-reinforcing effect can be observed in a typical public consultation (rather than participation) process. Initial research work is synthesised as a draft report, structured and presented in a particular way, setting the agenda for items that can be discussed.

Comments are invited on these items, or questionnaires designed, which frame the evaluation, and evidence from outside this frame is treated as errant and systematised out. The resulting ‘good fi t’ of the consultation with the original draft report reinforces its broad assumptions and reasoning. The consultation can infl uence the details within the existing framework, but any challenges to the overall shape or direction are lost.

The infl uence of this self-reinforcing effect is present within records management system implementations, in that a logic of consensus encourages conformance with business classifi cation systems, rules on record creation, capture, fi ling, retention and disposal. This intention to promote a corporate information model aims to pull all staff into the knowledge structures embedded in the records and information systems, to improve consistency and continuity. Without any intervention from outside the system, there is little opportunity for different and challenging forms of knowledge to enter the mix. From this perspective, records management appears quite closed as an information system; good for supporting consensus, stability and continuity, but poor at supporting change.

On the ground, of course, there are many other infl uences on individuals and organisations, and other routes by which new forms of knowledge are brought in; and the activity of knowledge mobilisation is to encourage the production and synthesis of this new knowledge, from participants, stakeholders, lessons learned elsewhere, and so on. Indeed,

112


the sea-changes that are fl owing through the business of government will purposefully bring different organisations and institutions, cultures and perceptions, knowledge and understanding, into the public policy mix, with the hope of benefi tting from a broader base of ideas and interests.

Regulating knowledge

The suggestion that knowledge is, and especially that it should be, regulated is at fi rst sight a controversial proposal. The arguments for regulating the production and fl ow of information are widely understood; such regulation takes two forms:

■ preventing the generation, and particularly exchange, of information – examples include: restrictions on the re-use of personal data; security classifi cation of sensitive material; rules for automatic declassifi cation of public records (e.g. after 25 years in the US, now 20 years in the UK); commercial information that carries a competitive advantage;

■ requiring the production and distribution of information – examples here include: provision of performance data by public sector agencies and others; contractual details revealing the terms of fi nancial services; company reporting and accounts; requests which do not qualify for refusal under freedom of information legislation.

The idea that knowledge might also, in some circumstances, be subject to regulation tends to raise spectres of totalitarianism and bigotry; but in fact there are many examples where such governance is accepted unquestioningly by most people:

113


■ The transfer of knowledge and expertise on nuclear weapons technology to some countries is controlled at an international level.

■ Scientifi c research and development activity in technologies such as genetic engineering and reproductive cloning are closely regulated.

■ National and international systems to oversee intellectual property rights restrict opportunities to deploy knowledge for social and economic development in less advanced countries.

■ Foreign policy is largely based on the ability to acquire, and restrict others from acquiring, knowledge for competitive advantage.

The infl ow and outfl ow of knowledge is also controlled in more subtle ways, for example in:

■ the description of records management as self-reinforcing, in which the system as a whole acts as a kind of restrictive codebook, in which some forms of knowledge can be encoded as records and made explicit, but others do not have the means to take a recognised form;

■ distributing the encoded knowledge, but retaining the codebook through which it can be interpreted; for example, by controlling access to a professional level of practice and experience through membership associations;

■ social networking technologies which adopt a restricted language and categories, reinforcing the self-selection of members and ‘silo’ style thinking;

■ organisational cultures in which the norms and values of dominant interest groups are so strong as to ‘blank out’ challenging ideas which do not fi t the mould.

114


An interactive knowledge, records and governance approach has to ask:

■ How does records management become more hospitable to innovation and change, while still retaining the virtues of governance: stability, continuity and memory, compliance?

■ How does knowledge mobilisation make the most productive connections between knowledge resources (generators, synthesisers and users) while still respecting and upholding principles of information governance?

■ How does an interactive approach distinguish between situations in which knowledge should be brought within the formal information management regime, and those in which it should be given free rein to develop as it will?

Key principles for an integrated knowledge, records and governance approach

■ Understand the rules of the game: both the formal and informal rules, at organisational and institutional levels, and the dominant logics at work.

■ Map the relationship between knowledge and records, linking the networks of knowledge with the hierarchies of records.

■ Focus on infl ows as well as outfl ows: the positive as well as the negative aspects of governance – making good things happen as well as stopping bad ones.

115

6

Innovation and change: ideas, networks and communities

Abstract: Innovation and change is as essential to the public sector as continuity. Innovation is both a creative and a collaborative process, in which new ideas are generated, tested, refi ned and embedded in practice. New knowledge emerges from a shaking-up of the established order, followed by a synthesis between old and new: fi rst dialogue, then consensus. Social networks and communities of practice and action are central venues for the emergence and diffusion of new knowledge and practice. Knowledge mobilisation helps to lower the barriers to innovation by bridging organisations and network levels, supporting social learning, making connections and fostering dialogue.

Key words: innovation; knowledge generation; knowledge transfer; social learning; communities of practice; social networks; knowledge governance.

The challenges facing twenty-fi rst-century government – meeting increasing demand with reducing resources, addressing seemingly insoluble policy problems, restoring trust and confi dence – demand a radical innovation in the shaping and delivery of public policy and services. Meeting these challenges adds up to far-reaching changes: rethinking what government should aim to achieve and who it should work with, as much as the processes by which it works. These changes go well beyond improving effi ciency – aimed

116


at squeezing more value out of an established framework – towards, at times, questioning and reworking the basic assumptions that underpin those frameworks. If regulation tends to focus on the ordering and systematising of knowledge, holding it within established bounds and focusing on consensus and corporate objectives, innovation seeks to liberate knowledge to challenge those boundaries through dialogue and to seek a new balance.

This does not negate strategic management: the case is not to substitute a free-for-all struggle in place of overall governance and direction. Rather, it recognises that strategy sets the overall aims and the conditions in which (we believe) they can best be achieved, but may be fl exible about the means for reaching them; and that governance now operates at multiple levels. Innovation draws strength from those with most experience of, and close engagement with, the issues at each level: drawing, for example, on the insights of those at the front line of public services concerning ‘what works’ on the ground. It also draws on different sources of knowledge – lessons from other sectors, the knowledge of other professions, the lived experience of service users – comparing and contrasting with accepted wisdom to adapt, refi ne or supplant current ideas. These sources bring with them their own knowledge structures, frames of reference, assumptions and understanding, ways of thinking and working, which are unlikely to have evolved a close fi t with each other. This is fertile ground for innovation, but one which calls for some relaxing of the institutional rules to prosper.

Drivers for change

The previous chapter stressed the role of institutions as a force for stability and continuity, but they are also themselves

117

Innovation and change

part of a change process. Institutional change tends to be slow and stately, but sometimes fi nds it necessary to break decisively with the past or to respond rapidly to quickly changing circumstances. For example, the adoption of a Supreme Court to replace the House of Lords as the fi nal court of appeal in the UK broke away from a centuries-old tradition by formally separating the judiciary from the legislative power – not as the result of some scandal, but because the elderly institution no longer fi tted with the expectations of the modern world. New institutions are invented, others fade away; and others must adapt to remain sustainable.

Institutional change tends to come from four main sources:

■ Institutional entrepreneurs: for example, the last few decades have seen the appointment of chief executives from the private sector as heads of government agencies, with an explicit remit to introduce new management practices and cultures.

■ Structural overlap between participating organisations: the boundary between public, private and voluntary sectors is increasingly blurred, bringing in new participants with different backgrounds and interests to old-established territory.

■ External shocks from the working environment, such as radical changes in economy or technology: for example, new networking technologies not only provide new capabilities and opportunities for public sector institutions, but their use is so taken for granted by other sectors and the public that they cannot but be deployed, fundamentally altering information and communication fl ows.

■ Competing institutional logics that guide choice and decision-making: changes in the practices, beliefs and underlying values that shape behaviour and actions

118


growing out of changing social and economic conditions in society as a whole – a different set of accepted ideas about what should be done and how.

Implications for transformation

All of these infl uences are now working to increase the pressures on the role of government, manifested by:

■ fi nancial and economic crises that are reducing budgets for many and halting increases for the rest;

■ changing public expectations that expect more to be delivered but respect government less;

■ new kinds of organisations that are being introduced to the mix, bringing new cultures and values;

■ public engagement becoming an essential criterion for delivering public value;

■ information becoming harder to contain within organisational boundaries;

■ entrepreneurial decision-making logics becoming pre-dominant.

Innovation in the public sector

Although there is little consensus on a precise defi nition of public sector innovation, most commentators include similar aspects; it involves:

■ new ideas or approaches to an issue, a new way of doing something and/or a new product or service;

■ many contributors, in unexpected ways, whose collabor-ation is as important as the outcome;

119


■ conversion of new knowledge into improved economic or social value;

■ changes in products and services, processes or the platforms from which they are offered.

Barriers to change

Private companies in a competitive market must innovate to survive, but public sector innovation is historically more diffi cult to promote, perhaps due to differences in workforce incentives, organisational structures and judgements of performance. Since the purpose of government is to promote economic and social value, innovations must demonstrate a contribution to improved public value: the purpose of innovation is not just to be more effi cient in what is done, but to fi nd innovative ways to add value to the public sphere, ways that are also effi cient. Some barriers to change stem from this distinction:

■ An over-riding focus on effi ciency disadvantages innovation: if there is no space to try out new ideas, then the prospects for change are poor, yet the fi nancial pressures and public oversight do not encourage this.

■ The possibility of failure – which is a necessary condition for success – then becomes a reputational issue.

■ Risk-averse behaviour in turn becomes the norm: the tried and trusted – though less effective – is preferable to the new and uncertain, in which both rewards and risks are higher.

■ A blame culture results from insuffi cient management support in such circumstances.

■ Knowledge becomes a scarce resource whose possession confers power and privilege.

120


■ Records become a means of managing blame rather than recording reality.

Joining up child development policy

The UK SureStart initiative is an example of ‘joining up’ different government services to provide more effi cient and unifi ed delivery of childcare, early education, health and family support; but its primary purpose is to improve the life-chances of disadvantaged children by early years intervention and reduce the demand for policy responses to social issues arising in later life.

Knowledge and records are a fundamental underpinning for innovation and change, but can also have negative effects. If the rationale for a staff member to create a record is to ensure against possible future criticism, rather than as a step towards successful delivery, then the activity of records management fi nds itself in a dysfunctional relationship with its own organisation: an understanding of ‘how government really works’ may give useful insights, but what should a professional response be to such a situation?

How does innovation work?

Innovation is a creative process that needs space and freedom to thrive, but it is also a collective process that needs engagement and dialogue to mature. In a report on public sector innovation, the Sunningdale Institute (Bessant et al., 2010) points out that the ‘lightbulb’ moment of having a good idea is only the fi rst step; a good idea may not necessarily work in context, and working through the issues of development and widescale adoption is the most powerful determinant of success or failure. Although the vocabulary varies with the defi nition, the three broadly agreed stages of innovation are:

121


■ invention: the generation of a new idea or approach, that often challenges current assumptions, understanding and accepted wisdom, which can come from frontline staff, partner organisations, service users, suppliers, external researchers or professional colleagues;

■ translation: scaling up an initial idea within a particular social, technological and organisational context, turning it into a practical plan for implementation;

■ diffusion: adopting the innovation in practice, replicating and spreading that practice across the relevant sector.

To which best practice adds a fourth:

■ evaluation and learning: feeding refl ection and assessment of successes and failures back into the creative process.

It is clear that both knowledge and records are relevant to all four of these stages, from providing knowledge inputs in the initial creative phase through to implementation and communication of lessons learned. The knowledge and records professional has unique skills to offer here: an ability to map the whole landscape of information and knowledge-based activities and expertise across the organisation, and link them to categories of records; an understanding of which information is important and which less so, and of its currency. She has the ability to connect people and knowledge in different parts of the organisation that are unaware of each other, to stimulate the synthesis of explicit knowledge and potential learning in new ways, and to design diffusion systems.

The Sunningdale report suggests several different models of how public sector innovation happens. Innovation can be:

■ R&D-based: developing and promoting new product and service ideas externally, particularly deploying new technology; relatively small scale in the public sector;

122


■ incremental: small-scale changes driven by frontline staff developing and adopting new ideas locally, based on insights gained through direct experience;

■ collaborative: by networks and communities (e.g. professional groups) working across and between organisations;

■ radical: thinking the unthinkable; the equilibrium of continuity is punctuated by periods of rapid change which overturn and reshape accepted practices;

■ entrepreneurial: particularly involving social enterprises, both for- and not-for-profi t, and social investment funds;

■ transfer: adopting and adapting ideas from other similar organisations, often other governments, as part of a continuous learning process; but with pitfalls if differences in context are insuffi ciently understood;

■ co-production: user-led innovation, enabling service users to make independent decisions through choice, and participate by voice, working collaboratively with professionals in developing new approaches.

Innovation in UK central government

In 2009, the UK National Audit Offi ce investigated innovation practice in central government (NAO, 2009). It identifi ed several key barriers:

■ Confusion about the purpose of innovation, and where it fi ts with priorities and business plans, prevents uptake of opportunities.

■ Few agencies have thought strategically about where they need, and how to support, innovation.

■ More needs to be done to develop ideas from the front line, suppliers and service users, not just those generated internally.

123


■ There is diffi culty in overcoming cultural and structural barriers by giving access to support and expertise.

Examples of praised innovation included:

■ the Environment Agency’s Innovation 4 Effi ciency Team, which acted as an ‘ideas broker’, connecting those with a new idea with others in the agency who could help develop it, encouraging knowledge-sharing and the fl ow of information, and cutting across functional and geographical boundaries;

■ Luton and Dunstable Hospitals’ initiative to reduce the local stillbirth rate, which was above the national average; review and analysis of cases, augmented by follow-up work with patient groups, identifi ed a number of trends and innovative solutions, which led to a reclassifi cation of all cases as ‘avoidable’ and ‘unavoidable’. Avoidable cases dropped signifi cantly over a three-year period.

Understanding of the innovation process is changing from seeing it as a linear production process which progresses from initiation through development to implementation, to one in which a web of connecting fl ows of knowledge and information through social networks generates each of these stages. Innovation is essentially a social process, in which the bright ideas of individuals are only one part.

Ideas generation may start with an individual, but many others will be involved in its evolution to maturity. These range from participants in a knowledge transfer programme engaged in science-based work, through collaborating practitioners (for example, social workers and healthcare staff jointly working on adult social care), to the recipients of services themselves. The most far-reaching innovations have a multiplier effect, acting as a platform from which many variants can be launched.

124


Producing new knowledge

Where are such new ideas generated and how is new knowledge produced by individuals and networks? In particular, how is it promoted or impeded by the management of knowledge, records and information governance within organisations and institutions; and what kind of interventions could lower barriers and improve fl ow of knowledge and ideas? In the context of social science research, William Starbuck (2006) described the production of new knowledge as a cycle of disturbance and renewal – deliberately shaking up accepted ideas about some topic, to be able to look at it afresh and reconstruct our understanding in a different way. He divides this process into three stages, which he calls: disturbing oneself; disturbing one’s environment; and building consensus. (The term is used in the sense of disturbing the settled order of things – creating a disturbance – rather than becoming unstable!)

The fi rst stage involves opening oneself out to new infl uences, challenging one’s own preconceptions and seeking out seemingly confl icting ideas on the same issue. It is a universal human characteristic that once we have settled on a view of something, we tend to seek out the information that confi rms our established ideas, rather than contradicting them: people read a newspaper that fi ts with their political views and are confi rmed in them; or participate in Internet social groups with others of a like mind, narrowing the range of views received. Essentially, this stage encourages the individual to step outside their normal frame of reference and set about mobilising the full range of knowledge resources available to them, rather than the most salient. The aim is to seek out confl icting ideas which also appear to be valid and, by contrasting them, to clarify thinking and practice, and to resolve the confl ict through new integrative

125


frameworks – reframing issues in new ways. ‘We make progress by framing issues as confl icts, and then convincing ourselves gradually that the confl icts do not exist’ (Starbuck, 2006: 148). A window puts a frame on a larger landscape to create a picture; multiple windows reframe that landscape in different ways – but it is the view that changes, not the landscape.

The second stage for Starbuck is to widen this process out to other participants. Knowledge progresses by sharing with others who bring different perspectives, developing and refi ning understanding through deliberation and dialogue: new ideas that are convincing enough to gain new adherents probably have something to them. The challenge here is two-fold: to engage a wide enough range of participants in ways that are meaningful to them; and to be prepared to ‘unlearn’ some things along the way. The most natural community to turn to, in order to test the validity of new ideas, is that of one’s peers: fellow practitioners or those from the same organisation; but as we have seen, this is likely to reinforce rather than challenge assumptions. Other kinds of knowledge may be expressed in less formal ways, but equally as valid; the most obvious for public policy issues is the knowledge gained from ‘lived experience’ of a problem – the people subject to it. For example, the problem of anti-social behaviour in public places can be seen from the perspective of social science – interventions, statistical measures, social theory – and from the perspective of the local community, highlighting experiences, motivations and attitudes. A strategy which ignores the latter is unlikely to succeed.

The second challenge is essential for the transition to practical application. Learning something new requires that one fi rst ‘unlearns’ the old, and this applies both to an individual’s understanding of an issue and to the ability of an organisation to forget old beliefs, attitudes and ways of

126


acting, and to put new ones into practice. Forgetting is as much a part of learning as is remembering.

The third stage – building consensus – is similar to the translation stage, in which an innovative idea is turned into a workable proposal. In the same way that the translate phase moves from the ‘what’ to the ‘how’, so building consensus is concerned with integrating new knowledge into a shared framework of understanding and action. It is helpful here to distinguish propositional knowledge – new ideas about an issue – from prescriptive knowledge, or new ideas on what to do about addressing the issue; a large part of building a consensus is translating from the fi rst to the second – from ideas to action – and in the public sector is concerned with integrating the new into an existing institutional structure. This process of institutionalisation is not primarily a technical issue of systems implementation; it involves reconciling new approaches with existing interest groups, motivations and incentives: overcoming the barriers to adoption and gaining commitment for their diffusion.

Overcoming barriers to adoption of new knowledge

Producing new knowledge, then, is at fi rst a creative process which proves itself through progressive engagement and dialogue with others, adapting and refi ning itself in the process. The literature suggests that there are four main barriers to the integration of new knowledge within institutional frameworks (Mokyr, 2002; Bland, 2010):

■ Diversity of ideas: the degree of consistency or confl ict between different kinds of knowledge input will infl uence the ability of participants to agree a mutual understanding of issues and approaches.

127


■ Openness of knowledge: an inability to ‘decode’ recorded knowledge expressed in a restricted language prevents others making sense of it and is a barrier to collaboration, critical debate and the collective validation of insights.

■ Diversity of interests: where participants have quite different interests and motivations which must be reconciled within the same objectives (although their end goals may differ); this includes problems of agenda-setting – when participants attempt to control which issues reach the agenda for discussion, promoting some and crowding out others – which also infl uence the degree of mutual trust and accountability.

■ Constraints of current norms and values: gaining commitment to new thinking which challenges accepted institutional values is more diffi cult in a multi-organisational, networked environment, in which the winners and losers (from whom one can expect resistance) are more diverse.

Diversity is the common linking thread and it is a strength as well as a barrier. Science-based evidence is improved by peer review and the efforts of others to replicate the results of new work, and successfully tackling the same problem in different contexts can demonstrate a robustness in the proposed solutions. A diversity of perspectives and ideas that can successfully be synthesised makes for strong and resilient concepts, and evidence that is ‘triangulated’ – confi rmed from three or more different sources – is more compelling. A diversity of interests and agendas that can be reconciled by focusing on those objectives held in common makes for strong coalitions. On the other hand, diverse knowledge that cannot be integrated or viewpoints that cannot be reconciled are a block to progress, decreasing motivation and disrupting co-operative action. What are needed, therefore, are some

128


strategies which work at the integration and reconciliation of new knowledge – not to direct and shape the knowledge itself, but to help create the conditions for its effective assimilation.

Mobilising knowledge and records to lower the barriers

From the perspective of regulation, the previous chapter identifi ed records management as a self-reinforcing system that displays a logic of consensus; that is, it is a primary means for developing the cohesiveness of an organisation among all its members. It reinforces an all-inclusive mental model of what the organisation is and does, and the individual’s role within that, by managing organisational knowledge as formally ordered records: ‘this is where you fi t in’, it says. This chapter is approaching the issue from the other side of the global design model; from the perspective of innovation, ‘getting everyone onto the same page’ is not always a good thing, particularly when that page is getting out of alignment with the rest of the world. Sometimes, the dominant thinking, and accepted ways of doing things, have to be challenged for the organisation (or institution) to be jolted into recognising and responding to external change or potential opportunities; new ideas, new thinking, new knowledge is required. This new knowledge may eventually become encoded and made explicit, but that is far from the fi rst step. We can all, for example, think of advisory organisations which publish streams of material offering new ideas and knowledge that is never actually read. The new knowledge needs to be embodied in the thinking of individuals and teams within the organisation and embedded in their practices, not just presented to them.

129


In the private sector, owners and investors are able to choose the direction and focus of companies in turbulent times: if well chosen, the company fl ourishes; if not, it soon disappears. The public sector is not like this: public managers alone, however senior, are not able to make such crucial decisions, because it is not their investment which is at stake. The purpose of government is to create public value, and the overall outcomes of primary functions such as education, health or social welfare are, essentially, determined by a dialogue between many participants – government ministers, elected representatives, citizens, professionals, suppliers, service users – if they are to be sustainable. Different participants bring different kinds of knowledge: the expert knowledge of professionals, the political nous of ministers, the lived experience of citizens and clients or the commercial knowledge of suppliers. The core issue in determining the quality of the dialogue is: how well do these different forms of knowledge interact with each other and do they coalesce into a (perhaps temporary) resolution?

This points to a logic of dialogue for knowledge mobilisation initiatives. Rather than drawing newcomers into an established framework, the objective is to break open the reinforcing circle and introduce some instability – to create a disturbance – by bringing different sources or kinds of knowledge into the dialogue. This instability creates room for innovation to fl ourish and eventually leads to a new synthesis as ideas and practices are absorbed and assimilated, or to a continuing creative debate in which opposing viewpoints are clarifi ed and made visible, so that legitimate policy decisions can be made. Much policy action is in fact a means for stimulating and shaping this kind of dialogue; and some policy issues cannot be resolved without it. Healthcare policy, for example, will not be effective without the cooperation of a majority of healthcare professionals.

130


Long-term strategies that take decades to plan and implement, such as energy policy, are founded on the acceptance by the general public of, for example, siting and building of nuclear power stations or extensive wind farms.

Dialogue and consensus are not polar opposites, in which more of one means less of the other: they are in a kind of dynamic tension, always connected, but with each sometimes pulling in one direction or the other. Neither is total or fi nal: consensus follows dialogue and dialogue follows consensus; a failure to follow on, rather than the swings in emphasis, indicates a breakdown of the discourse. Strategies to facilitate knowledge dialogues should also facilitate the re-establishment of a stable working consensus. Some elements of such a strategy might include initiatives to:

■ nudge people towards dialogue, by creating disturbances;

■ nurture knowledge fl ows and networks by making prospective connections;

■ work with communities that share commonalities of practice or action;

■ support dialogue by developing explicit knowledge products from the records and information base;

■ link knowledge mobilisation and records management activities more closely into the governance framework of institutions.

Working with invention: creating a disturbance

We have already identifi ed one of the unique skills of a knowledge and records management professional as the

131


ability to map a systemic landscape of information and knowledge in a ‘bird’s-eye’ view. Conventionally, this focuses at an organisational level; but the analysis of public sector transformation suggests that analysis and delivery of policy outcomes across a network of actors will be typical of the future. Putting these two together points towards the potential of an overarching knowledge and records strategy mapping knowledge landscapes across organisations or institutions engaged with the same issue or outcome, although perhaps at differing levels of detail. In the energy policy example, central or federal government departments dealing with energy, business, environment, urban planning, as well as regulators, local government administrations, citizen groups, academic centres and industry associations are all interlinked – but often have less than full awareness of the connections.

This is not proposing the knowledge professional as overseeing expert, able to take a god-like view of the whole and direct a master plan; there may be several possible maps, overlapping or discontinuous, refl ecting different perspectives. Rather than one overarching blueprint, the point is to develop tools appropriate for a particular situation or context that, where the logic of dialogue is clear and visible, uncover opportunities to intervene positively, making connections that may or may not bear fruit, but would otherwise be less likely to occur. For example, by:

■ making connections between individuals or teams, in the same or different departments, working on complementary topics, to assist invention and creativity;

■ using professional connections to make links with other organisations to help with the translation or scaling-up of new ideas in practice;

■ making codebooks explicit or visible as well as encoded knowledge;

132


■ fi nding ways to give all relevant participants a voice and be able to draw on their knowledge;

■ linking information risk with programme risk at the corporate and strategic level.

These kinds of link provide support for the knowledge dialogues shown in Figure 6.1, which illustrates the two logics. Here, existing organisational knowledge is subject to a critical dialogue – questioning, validating, refi ning – with other sources through a comparing and contrasting process, supplemented by explicit personal and collective refl ections on experience of practice. This leads to a reframing in which new questions are asked and new evidence sought and captured as records, refreshing the cyclic process. The implication of this diagram is that reframing is echoed in later parts of the cycle – so records systems must adapt to accommodate the new as well.

Lowering the barriers to innovationFigure 6.1

133


Supporting social learning

From a broader perspective, this approach describes support for the process of social learning; not dictating what is to be learned, but helping to create the best conditions for it to take place. In public policy terms, social learning refers to the accumulation of knowledge which is gathered by all the actors or participants around a particular issue or theme. It includes lessons from the experience of other countries as well as our own situated experience. The sum of social learning sets the framework for debating and deciding on policy action and programme outcomes. At its best, social learning leads to:

■ converging goals and knowledge amongst participants, which in turn improve mutual expectations and agreements on collaborative action;

■ co-creation of knowledge (typically between professionals and their clients) that offers insights into the causes of an issue and the means to change them;

■ changes of beliefs, attitudes, behaviour and action as a result of learning by doing (Collins, 2006).

It can also be the case that social learning is the arena for a struggle between competing interests, in which each protagonist promotes those lessons that best serve its own interests within the particular institutional context; very typical is the struggle between regulators and regulated: for example, is alcohol consumption best regulated by price deterrence (i.e. tax) or by changes in the drinking culture; are bankers’ bonuses a cartel culture or a response to market demand? It is not, of course, the role of the knowledge professional to mediate between these interests but, by helping to make them visible, to assist in a resolution.

134


Working with diffusion: priming social networks

The same combination of nurture and nudge can support diffusion of knowledge about new innovations: building and nurturing networks of contacts by brokering connections that gently nudge people towards adoption of new ideas. Social networks, as used here, means a collection of people who have a specifi c set of connections to each other; digital social media are one means of connection, but there are many other forms – the important thing is the connection itself, not the medium. Members do not necessarily have the same interests in common (although they may have) or all be in communication with each other; two people can be connected through one or two intermediaries (such as ‘friends of friends’) and never actually know each other. People are also members of many different networks – at work, in their community, through college attendance, etc. – and the strength of the connections will vary according to the type of network. For example, project managers are strongly connected into a network of people working in their current project area, but are also connected to others through their work on previous projects, and perhaps to each other through a professional specialism.

Recent research suggests that social networks have a powerful infl uence on members’ attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Christakis and Fowler, 2009). People are more likely to be smokers, to be overweight, to feel happy, if that is signifi cant for others in the network, even if there is no direct connection; social networks infl uence factors such as voting behaviour, investment decisions, health and social status. The effects spread through the links of the network like a contagion and can also span networks which have members in common. The rule which appears to govern this is known as three degrees of

135


infl uence. The infl uence of the ideas, attitudes or behaviour of one individual has a signifi cant infl uence on connections up to three links along the chain (‘friends of friends of friends’) but no further. This suggests that the spread of innovations and new knowledge can be supported by making judicious connections between members of social networks: if resources are limited, it is more important to select people with many connections, or who act as an entry point to another network, because this amplifi es the contagion effect.

Social network analysis, covered in detail in Chapter 10, is a useful tool for mapping the nature and type of contacts. Some networks are quite tightly bound, with multiple connections between members of a cohesive group; others have more contacts between distinct clusters or groups. Sometimes analysis can identify particular individuals who are members of many such groups, who act as ‘gatekeepers’ that offer entry into multiple networks. Making a connection between these people and the source of innovation or new knowledge is a nudge tactic that has a multiplier effect through the three degrees rule of contagion.

Communities of practice and action

Communities of practice are an example of a tightly bound social network, a community of individuals engaged in the shared pursuit of a common enterprise (Wenger, 1998). They provide a space for producing new knowledge by debating and refi ning practice, but also act as a conservative force: as gatekeepers to accepted knowledge for newcomers, as custodians of communal memory and by controlling access to membership. They encourage incremental change but resist radical equilibrium shifts.

‘Learning as membership’ tends to reinforce existing categories that apply to practice – learning how the

136


community ‘sees’ and validates the world. ‘The more at home you are in a community of practice, the more you forget the strange and contingent nature of its categories seen from the outside’ (Bowker and Starr, 1999). A prime source of learning lies in the overlaps and on the boundaries with other communities – a collision between different worlds of experience – on the peripheries of practice. Wenger describes the ‘brokering’ role, an authoritative member able to connect discontinuities and elements of one practice with another and in the process ‘open new possibilities for meaning’.

Since these communities are already oriented towards learning and change, they are important networks for the knowledge professional to work with. Making credible connections that span the boundary between communities helps to provoke the development of new knowledge and feeds directly into the training process for initiates into the practice. A particularly important type of boundary-spanning links communities of practice with communities of action – the thinkers with the doers.

In the context of transformation, a community of action identifi es the group that actually implements and delivers outcomes. Typically, expert practitioners diagnose, develop strategies and create the conditions for action, but others carry it out: for example, urban planners develop district regeneration plans which are acted upon by commercial developers, community groups, social entrepreneurs, and so on. Making connections between communities of practice and action improves the delivery of outcomes by bringing different kinds of knowledge together, enabling a synthesis. A better understanding by practitioners of the action perspective is likely to produce better strategies and vice versa; and issues arising from framing clashes of knowledge perspectives are more likely to be resolved.

137


Support for unlearning

New knowledge and innovation usually means that old ideas have to be un-learned: to learn new ways of doing things, we have to forget about the old ways of doing them. These old ways can be deeply embedded, both in accepted norms and values – such as in professional practice or workplace culture – and in the formal rules and procedures of the organisation. If these need to change, the learning process is social and collective, as much as individual, and one to which the formal knowledge structures and processes of the organisation must adapt. Often these structures embody the interests of dominant interest groups, refl ecting their perspectives and privileging different kinds of knowledge, and change is problematic – whose knowledge should take precedence? In healthcare, for example, over the last two decades the UK has seen struggles over which kind of knowledge should predominate in making resource allocation decisions: the clinical knowledge of the specialist consultant; the management knowledge of the administrator; or that of the GP closest to the patient.

For records management, retaining knowledge and practice in the corporate memory is an important concept. Retention policies discard records that are considered no longer to have value to the organisation, but by no means all material related to un-learning will be covered by these. Unless this material is retired, or its retrieval is qualifi ed in some way, there is potential for it to disrupt successful change and innovation. Support for un-learning should consider:

■ incorporating the explicit recognition of change into records management structures;

■ creating packages which support the transition by pointing from outdated material to representations of new knowledge;

138


■ trawling the records base to identify material to be signposted, in advance of demand.

Knowledge governance

An integrated approach to knowledge and records, innovation and regulation requires an integrated governance strategy. Information governance covers some of this by focusing on physical aspects of information, but says little about knowledge; a governance strategy here has to take many other factors into account: the relationship between ideas, interests and institutional practice; the trend towards a network-focused delivery mode; and confl ict between different kinds of knowledge. Figure 6.2 presents a layered framework for considering these issues.

The organisational layer at the base focuses on the physical manifestations of information and records, and its organi-sation and control; Figure 5.1 (reproduced on the left) slots into this layer. Services are essentially delivered by organisations and so the delivery of service outputs is located here; but in any specifi c application of the framework, several different organisations are likely to be involved. The layer represents organisational aspects, not the entity itself. The social layer, cutting across organisations, represents the participants and stakeholders: communities of practitioners; of interest, those who share a common policy and programme objective; and of action, those who carry it through. Policy outcomes are determined here: the wider behavioural, social and economic changes, sometimes drawing on service delivery outputs.

The knowledge layer mediates between the organisational and social layers, linking formal and informal knowledge and expertise drawn from participants with its representation as evidence and records, fi le structures and subject

Laye

red

fram

ewor

k fo

r kn

owle

dge

gove

rnan

ceFi

gure

6.2

140


classifi cations. The strategic layer receives policy actions, determines strategies for their knowledge aspects, and oversees risk and governance. One can visualise, although not shown in the fi gure, parallel frameworks sitting alongside this: a policy framework, on the one hand, which debates policy issues and sets strategies; and a programme management framework, which coordinates policy outcomes with service delivery outputs. The strategic layer here does not duplicate or replace these; it coordinates the knowledge governance aspects by acting as a bridge between the two.

Knowledge layer as contested terrain

The real work of the framework takes place in the knowledge layer. The knowledge drawn down from the social layer represents different embedded interests, world views, ideas, institutional rules and cultures, which are unlikely to form a consistent and coherent whole. The layer is a contested terrain, a fi eld of potential confl ict between different frames of knowledge; its mobilisation is not a mechanical task of simply slotting the right knowledge into the right place (as it appears from the organisational layer), but a dynamic one of dialogue and resolution, addressing:

■ framing clashes, through the approaches discussed earlier in this chapter, and related

■ entitlement clashes, through positive, enabling, approaches to information governance issues.

Key principles

■ Focus knowledge on the production of outcomes and social value.

141


■ Don’t crowd out innovation: allow space for new knowledge to develop.

■ Promote new knowledge by making connections.

■ Work with social networks to spread innovation.

■ Recognise contested knowledge and work to resolve framing and entitlement clashes.

145

7

Bridging policy and delivery with knowledge: the case for

intervention

Abstract: Public policy is shaped in many different ways and uses research for different purposes. Evidence-based policy-making occurs within this context of competing values, knowledge sets and power relationships. Understanding the knowledge architecture, and developing a knowledge strategy, underpin intervention within an interactive knowledge and records strategy. Policy outcomes are delivered through knowledge processes, involving multiple actors, and knowledge landscapes map out their resources and venues. A knowledge strategy bridges policy-making and delivery by coordinating knowledge fl ows and deployment.

Key words: policy-making; programme management; knowledge strategy; knowledge processes; social media.

Part 1 suggested that formal knowledge and records systems not only record what happens in public sector organisations; they also, in subtle ways, help to shape the way those organisations work and the outcomes they achieve. The conventional view is that knowledge and records professionals deal objectively with the physical outputs of public sector business processes, and that records management structures and practices are value-free: that they are in the business

146


of managing objective truth. Yet these working structures and practices refl ect the predominant organisational and institutional roles, values and norms, and records management norms appear objective to the extent that they make a ‘good fi t’ with the predominant norms and remain unquestioned. Transformation is now questioning those norms.

The conventional approach of records management has worked well with the hierarchical, top–down, model of government in the past; but this model is now steadily being transformed, across the sector and across changes in administrations. The keystones of government – the central principles on which all else depends – are being repositioned, and the cornerstones – the underpinning supports – must adjust too, or face replacement. We are moving from hierarchies to networks, from clear structures to shifting alliances, from the directive to the collaborative, from functions to outcomes, and from designing processes that deliver products towards shaping the environment in order to infl uence behaviour.

This chapter explores how an interactive knowledge and records strategy (iKRS) can add value to the policy-shaping and programme delivery process, looking at how policy-making works in practice – where it comes from, and what infl uences its shape.

Where does policy come from?

Firstly, it is necessary to map the variety of ways in which policy issues are recognised, and decisions negotiated and implemented, in order to determine where support and interventions can be most effective. There are many theories which try to explain public policy formulation: some focus on a rational process of choice, and others on the dynamics

147

Bridging policy and delivery with knowledge

of interacting networks. The main theories are outlined in Table 7.1 In the right-hand column is a list of the main approaches to research utilisation – how research gets used

Public policy-making model Research utilisation model

Sequential – policy process passes through a series of stages: a problem is recognised, options are formulated and the best one chosen through negotiation, and is fi rst enacted in law, then implemented in practice.

Problem-solving – research is commissioned by a user to solve an identifi ed problem and the results are used as evidence in determining the best possible solution.

Rational choice – individual choice is the basis for policy decisions: individuals make a calculated choice based on assessment of their own best interests, cooperating with others if necessary; for example, senior civil servants try to shape policies which accumulate power to their department.

Tactical – research is used to justify a predetermined position, rather than to enlighten decision-making; the fact that the research is being done at all, rather than the knowledge it communicates, lends weight to the existing preferences of the decision-maker.

Incrementalist – ‘muddling through’ – decisions are unplanned and disjointed: each is dependent on the balance of agreement reached at the time by all the groups involved, some of whom may be more interested in blocking than promoting change.

Conceptual/political – research may change decision-makers’ understanding of an issue, but may not result in a change of policy, if uncertainty about outcomes outweighs the incentives to change.

Ideas-based – the force of new ideas and argument sets the policy agenda; as these circulate and gain adherents, they become embedded in networks and policy communities and in institutions, shaping those policy questions that are asked and the answers found.

Knowledge-driven – new knowledge and leading-edge research drive the recognition of issues and point the way to new policy proposals.

Models of policy-making and research utilisationTable 7.1

(Continued overleaf)

148


Public policy-making model Research utilisation model

Policy networks – policy emerges based on the values and interests of closely bound policy communities associated with a particular topic (e.g. healthcare, energy, agriculture), which include participants from government, academic experts, industry representatives; or on coalitions from unrelated areas who happen to be pursuing an interest in common.

Interactive – the dynamics of the interactions between policy-makers, researchers and users shape the results; knowledge is sought from multiple sources, dependent on the make-up of the policy network, until the network reaches an equilibrium.

Policy streams – problems, policies and politics fl ow in three separate streams, which sometimes combine to produce solutions; these are contingent, not absolute answers; solutions may precede problems, owned by entrepreneurs seeking an opportunity to hang them onto; periods of stability may be punctuated by rapid change when a topic becomes highly salient and subject to intensive public and media interest.

Political – policy-makers work to a pre-determined political agenda, and those policy entrepreneurs with knowledge solutions that fi t this agenda well prosper, if the prevailing conditions are right; policy-makers seek research which supports their current perceptions and positions.

Models of policy-making and research utilisation

(continued)Table 7.1

to solve real problems. The range of this table demonstrates the complexity of the landscape both in seeking ways to utilise knowledge for better public policy, and in understanding the knowledge content of records created through the policy-making process. The main policy theories are listed in increasing power of explanation, matched with relevant research utilisation models.1

The point here is not to argue that one model is correct above the others, but to demonstrate that there are many perspectives on a complex and messy process, that cannot be

149


predicted and defi ned precisely, and is therefore a poor candidate for programming and workfl ow. The iKR strategist who is aiming to contribute to the process cannot rely on using one model alone to understand the situation and judge where to make an intervention: there is no ‘one size fi ts all’ approach. Often the least explanatory model – the sequential stages model – is assumed as the ‘correct’ formal process, although at the same time understanding that other, unspoken, infl uences are at work. It is necessary to look behind the formal institutional ‘rules of the game’ in order to understand how to work with the situation.

Often, several of these ideal models can be observed in play during the lifetime of a single policy initiative; for example, the story of the UK EDRMS initiative in Chapter 1 demonstrates the infl uence not just of new ideas and knowledge, but also of tactical and incremental decision-making. The research models themselves can be used as strategic weapons in an underlying struggle; see the box for an example of evidence-based policy-making used as a strategy to determine ‘who decides?’

UK Advisory Committee on Misuse of Drugs

The committee, formed by legislation, consists of independent experts appointed to advise the UK Home Secretary on drug-related policy. This committee repeatedly advised that cannabis should be downgraded from a class B to a class C (less dangerous) drug, based on the results of scientifi c research. This recommendation was accepted in 2002.

In 2008, the then Home Secretary proposed to reclassify the drug back to class B again, following reports of the effects of long-term use on mental health that attracted strong media interest. The Chair of the Committee, Professor David Nutt, publicly criticised this decision, arguing that scientifi c evidence showed that alcohol and tobacco caused

150


more harmful effects to society than cannabis; and that punishment did not deter users, but did cause severe social harms to offenders. He was sacked from his post in October 2009 and cannabis re-classifi ed as planned.

Professor Nutt subsequently formed an Independent Scientifi c Committee on Drugs with support from other scientifi c colleagues and continued to campaign for drug liberalisation policies. From this perspective, policy should be formed according to the evidence supplied by scientists, which politicians should then enact into legislation. The Government now proposes to remove the legal requirement for scientists to be members of the Advisory Committee.

Defenders of the Minister pointed to the balancing policy arguments: the weight of public opinion on the issue; mixed messages given to young people on related behaviour such as binge drinking; diffi culties with police enforcement; and the right of elected politicians to take (and be accountable for) controversial decisions over that of unelected (and unaccountable) advisors.

In this case, the scientifi c evidence pointed in one direction, and political realities in another; and politics trumped science.

Evidence-based policy-making

Support for evidenced-based policy is a common potential benefi t claimed from the implementation of electronic records management systems. In 2001, a line I wrote in the E-government Policy Framework for Electronic Records Management document – ‘effective ERM supports evidence-based policy making by providing reliable and authentic information for the evaluation of past actions and decisions’ – can now be found, in this or close variations, in the policy statements of several dozen public sector agencies (so a Google search reveals). One must now admit that there were then, and remain now, very few good examples of this

151


support in practice. This is unsurprising, because asking ‘what did we do last time?’ is a poor guide to transforming practice for the future, unless it is part of a critical evaluation – ‘what went right and wrong last time?’ Understandably, decision-makers may be reluctant to have their own decisions evaluated in this way if the organisational culture is one of blame rather than learning; and records managers are not usually in a position to pursue the point.

Clearly, records management can contribute to formal reviews which are instigated elsewhere, providing a narrative of events and thinking at the time: experience of the 2001 UK outbreak of animal foot and mouth disease led to systematic reviews and lessons learned which were successfully applied in the smaller 2007 outbreak. But can iKRS professionals themselves identify and stimulate similar evidence-based analysis drawing on (but not necessarily limited to) the base of formal records? In parallel with the cultural issue, part of the problem lies in timing: once an issue becomes salient and in need of action, there is little time for evidence-based results that are not already to hand, to infl uence decision-making. The work must be anticipated and done beforehand, and we can rarely predict in advance, without a systematic approach, those issues that will actually rise up over the horizon and demand attention.

The issues that do demand attention are rarely completely straightforward to characterise. Taking evidence as the justifi cation for action catches up with it a bundle of values that shape what counts as valid evidence, and how it should be evaluated and used; mobilising the evidence for action is also, to some extent, mobilising these values. For example, in an initiative to infl uence the behaviour of medical practitioners in treating a depression episode, from prescribing pharmaceuticals to referral for cognitive behaviour therapy, different evidence will appeal to different constituencies:

152


health ministers may be persuaded by lower costs and a quicker return to work for the patient, doctors by the long-term success of treatments; but the latter, as business managers, might also be infl uenced by a healthcare system in which economic incentives follow from one choice or the other. Whose evidence takes priority and what is the appropriate balance of outcomes? Evidence-based policy does not fl oat free and independent; it is part of the institutional structure.

A structured and systematic approach that aims to work at the inter- as well as intra-organisational level, will need to include strategies for:

■ working with knowledge architectures: backing up cultural interventions with analysis and design, understanding knowledge processes and contributing to their evolution, developing knowledge strategies for joining up; aiming to sustain and strengthen a regulated knowledge infrastructure that serves and fi ts well with its environment;

■ fostering a knowledge culture: using techniques to encourage sharing, making connections between knowledge users and producers, creating knowledge packages; aiming to nurture and empower a dynamic self-regulating knowledge culture;

■ achieving public value: supporting programme management in the delivery of outcomes; encompassing but transcending effi ciency improvements, seeking to add value directly by building public trust and confi dence;

■ embedding in governance: linking an iKRS into corporate and public governance, including risk and programme management.

These four – architecture, culture, value and governance – are the key features of the interaction between records management

153


and knowledge mobilisation: between records and knowledge. They are bound together by a knowledge strategy, which articulates, for a particular situation, how these three work together to underpin the delivery of public policy outcomes and public services: understanding a knowledge architecture informs development of a strategy, which in turn guides interventions to foster a knowledge culture and embed governance. The knowledge strategy demonstrates the relationship between investment in mobilisation of knowledge and records and achievement of public value.

Developing a knowledge strategy

The concept of a knowledge architecture is analogous to the architecture of a complex building. An architect designs a building for use, but cannot predict all the possible uses in advance. Some requirements will be specifi ed by the customer, but over time the needs and wants of the building users will evolve, as they respond to changes in the world at large; and since the building must remain a useful investment it must also be capable of evolving. The physical elements of the building – walls, rooms, facilities – either encourage or constrain the uses that can fl ourish within: they form the circulation spaces in which people live, work, have meetings or conduct transactions – the building is defi ned by the spaces between the walls. The skill of the architect lies in developing a suffi cient understanding of underlying needs to design-in potential for stability, fl exibility and change in the seamless use of possible spaces. The most brilliantly designed artefact is the one that we hardly notice using.

Similarly, knowledge architecture conditions the processes and activities that can fl ourish within its frame. Knowledge,

154


in the cognitive sense, cannot be managed directly, but the environment in which it is put to work can be more, or less, conducive to producing expected outcomes. Information managers are used to thinking in terms of rational goal-directed methodologies that aim to analyse, defi ne and design the inputs, processes and outputs of information systems as clearly as possible, so that uncertainty and discretion are designed out. A knowledge mobilisation strategy aims to galvanise likely knowledge which has a bearing on a problem, but not to defi ne exactly how it will be used or what the result will be: we do not know how complex policy problems will evolve, or exactly which solutions will work, else they would not be so diffi cult. Therefore a knowledge architecture, also, must aim to understand and anticipate, identifying and bringing resources to bear, whilst retaining qualities of fl exibility and resourcefulness.

Here, a tension with records management arises. The kind of collaborative approaches which knowledge mobilisation engenders are a concern to records managers, to the extent that they produce evidence of business transactions, decision-making and other activities to which individuals or organisations may reasonably be held to account. Few would wish to capture as a record the ‘water-cooler’ scenario, where ad hoc groups exchange serendipitous information; but what of social media usage, or Sharepoint collaborative groups? What lies within the realm of formal records management and what lies outside? How can records management deploy resources beyond these boundaries to offer added value through integration with knowledge mobilisation?

155


Healthcare episode as a knowledge process

Conventionally, a healthcare episode is considered as the managed care of a patient for a specifi c illness over a set time period, normally from referral to discharge. This is a legal defi nition, oriented towards clarity for accountability and liability purposes, and focuses on outputs: a (perhaps temporarily) repaired patient. Considered as a desirable policy outcome – the promotion of long-term health and the reduction of avoidable demand on health services – there is clearly more involved.

Many conditions can be treated but not cured: diverticulitis is a disease of the digestive system, often related to diet, in which the intestinal wall is prone to infection. A patient who develops this disease and begins to notice symptoms, may fi rst discuss these with friends or family, or perhaps attempt to research them via Internet sources. Suffering a painful episode, she refers herself to a general practitioner, who makes a preliminary diagnosis, and in turn refers her on to a specialist (or perhaps a hospital admission in a particularly severe case).

Once the infection is treated, the medical aim is to stabilise the condition, which may involve diet and lifestyle changes. These require understanding and insight on the part of the patient, advised by the specialist and possibly aided by support services. A successful outcome is one in which self-management by the patient controls the disease and avoids further serious infection wherever possible, reducing demands on GP, specialist and hospital time, and the use of prescriptive drugs.

Taken together, this is a knowledge process which involves practitioners and patient in generating, exchanging and using knowledge. Some elements are clearly appropriate for records management – patient/doctor records – and others equally clearly not. Part of the patient’s medical record is her own lived experience and is highly relevant at the points of diagnosis and stabilisation. Framing one part – specialist treatment – as an episode is useful for target-setting and performance management, but ignores the full richness of the scenario. The successful outcome is co-produced by practitioners and patient working together.

156


A knowledge architecture does not provide a single ‘one size fi ts all’ answer but does offer a framework for working through such questions in a particular situation. A knowledge architecture consists of three elements:

■ people and processes: the interactive knowledge processes that produce, or infl uence, policy outcomes;

■ content, broadly defi ned: a map of the knowledge landscape, featuring types and forms of knowledge available to relevant people and processes;

■ technology: the tools which shape information and communication fl ows.

Analysing knowledge processes

The term knowledge process is widely used in the knowledge management literature, with two different meanings: some refer to knowledge-intensive business operations that draw on a wide range of knowledge sources, require high expertise to complete, and present multiple choices between options that call for knowledge-based judgements; others refer to internal knowledge management functions that provide a service to such business processes. In this context, the use of the term is close to the fi rst meaning, describing a multi-way interaction between the generation and use of knowledge in the pursuit of a public policy outcome. Knowledge processes include:

■ putting knowledge into action: the acquisition of useful knowledge, the capability to deploy it and the incentives to do so to achieve an expected goal;

■ communicating and informing through knowledge translation: either as marketing – ‘selling the message’ – or as dialogue, in order to infl uence action;

157


■ generating collaborative knowledge: through working together on an issue;

■ embedding shared knowledge: growing a shared knowledge base in communities, institutions, professions, organisations;

■ sustaining and remembering knowledge: retaining knowledge over time and making it available for re-use.

Thinking of overall outcomes, knowledge processes work at a higher level than organisations: they operate across all the actors involved in the resolution of a public policy problem, which may include public agencies, private and social enterprise, citizens, customers, academic experts and so on. They are framed by a public policy process which sets the parameters, expected outcomes and benefi ts, and impact on the public good. The process can be characterised at various levels:

■ as an individual case scenario, as in the healthcare example here;

■ as a generalised process for a single discrete policy outcome;

■ as a set of interacting processes working together to produce a complex policy outcome.

The more complex and intractable the policy issue, the more knowledge processes are likely to be involved, the more fl uid are the interactions and the more uncertain the results. Aiming to reduce the incidence of anti-social behaviour, for example, cannot be reduced to a defi nitive set of proven actions; different approaches frame the issues and structure their knowledge in different ways that may be inconsistent with each other. Several different aspects are inter-related, and positive infl uences in one area may have unintended negative effects in another. Analysis of knowledge processes should therefore also reveal:

158


■ potential areas of confl ict, which should be addressed as part of the policy prescription;

■ issues of accountability, where responsibility does not match capability or infl uence.

Accountability provides the link between knowledge processes and the conventional records management view of functions, activities and transactions. The ability to put knowledge into action implies some form of capability and the power to command the resources necessary to do so. Knowledge processes are social processes emerging from the social layer (see Fig. 6.2), a result of collaboration or interacting social groups; formal functions and transactions take place at the organisational layer; powers and capabilities are associated with the knowledge layer – these frame the knowledge embodied in the social layer and that embedded in the organisational layer. Knowledge informs and legitimises capabilities, and capabilities grant the power to act.

One obvious source of such power is the legislative basis of public agencies: in the UK, an Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument confers defi ned ‘powers’ on agencies

Relating knowledge processes to functionsFigure 7.1

159


such as local government administrations and regulatory bodies, which legitimate their actions and determine their accountability. The powers and accountability of private and non-profi t corporations operating in public services are determined by contracts made in the marketplace; one issue here is the different level of accountability from that of public bodies. Regulated professions, such as lawyers, add a level of capability and accountability acquired through recognition by their professional bodies.

The relationship to organisational functions, and to records management, is straightforward; there is a clear requirement to create, capture and manage records, and to demonstrate accountability, although to different degrees. Accountability differs when looking across the whole landscape: for example, the same professional has different, possibly confl icting, types of accountability as an organisational employee, as a regulated professional, and as a member of an informal community of practice; but may be involved in public knowledge processes in each of these roles. Revealing such confl icts through analysis brings them to clear light and makes them available for resolution at the policy level.

Capabilities also derive from softer sources – personal, social and democratic powers – and here the relationship of accountability to records management is blurred. In the healthcare example, for matters that are under her control, an individual is ultimately responsible for her own health; and few would want to formalise this accountability as record-keeping. And yet some policies do sometimes suggest this: as in recent proposals that the persistently obese, or alcohol-abusers, should be denied free healthcare if their conditions are caused by lack of self-discipline. Public participation in shaping and delivering policies raises similar issues: in what conditions is it appropriate to include within the records management realm; would doing so restrict the kinds of knowledge that are deemed

160


legitimate contributions and exclude some citizens from the process; how do the formal managed elements interface with informal self-managed dialogues?

Surveying knowledge landscapes

Processes characterise the fl ows between people, while knowledge landscapes describe the artefacts, their types and content, where they are located and the tools to work with them.

Standard types of knowledge are:

■ Professional and expert knowledge: representing the expertise of administrators, scientists and technologists, academic experts in areas such as social policy, lawyers and other professionals. It is closely associated with communities of practice and has a tendency to become exclusive through a high degree of codifi cation; whether or not written down, access to a professional language (or ‘jargon’) is necessary to utilise it. Innovation may be promoted by making connections across boundaries to other communities and types of knowledge.

■ Experiential knowledge: representing knowledge gained through experience of everyday life, by practitioners working on the ground – ‘how things really work in practice’ – but also by communities, citizens and customers through lived experience – ‘what it really feels like’. It is particularly important in instances of public participation, in programmes that focus on co-production of results (for example, community regeneration), and for overall governance. Innovation and generation of new knowledge can occur through productive confl ict between professional and experiential knowledge.

161


■ Directive knowledge: representing expertise derived from organising for action and achieving results – ‘how to get things done’. It includes managerial knowledge, typically in organisational settings, but also leadership for co-ordination across networks, for inspiring and guiding collaboration, and for empowering others to innovate.

■ Institutional knowledge: representing the knowledge which is embedded in institutional procedures and organisational functions, both formal rules and informal ‘ways of doing things’. Understanding institutional knowledge is a form of expertise possessed by some who know ‘how to work the system’; those who do not are disadvantaged and will seek compensating strategies.

■ Social knowledge: representing knowledge that comes from social interactions, participation in social networks and understanding of shared social values (that is, what it is like to live in society, rather than expert knowledge about society); knowing ‘how things are going’ or, perhaps compensating for lack of institutional knowledge, ‘knowing someone who can’. Social knowledge is self-regulating and cannot be shaped; but is often critical to success of an initiative.

To which we should add:

■ Meta-knowledge: representing knowledge about know-ledge, in particular, the kinds of strategies discussed here to mobilise knowledge and manage records about it. This is vital to consider, because the very process of analysing, mapping and intervening will, perhaps, itself change the outcomes. The effects of intervention and the activities of an iKR strategy are also part of the landscape.

162


Soft and hard networks

In UK central government, the Association of Departmental Record Offi cers forms a close-knit ‘hard’ network of practitioners in main departments and agencies that is not open to other practitioners in the public sector. Members also, no doubt, participate in ‘soft’ networks of practitioner associations that span records and information managers in local government and healthcare, archivists, librarians and so on.

Unexpected sources

Tesco supermarket retailers run a loyalty card scheme which records shopper purchases in exchange for reward offers, with the intention of collecting marketing data and infl uencing customer behaviour. It is suggested they pass on anonymised data to third parties. Looked at in a different way, the database would provide a very large information set on diet and health if available to evidence-based policy-makers. Data privacy prevents linking to other personal data, but an innovative approach might be to develop a government-sponsored rewards-based scheme nudging customers towards healthy purchasing.

The location of knowledge types may be, but is not always, evident from their nature:

■ organisations: the source for organised, highly structured explicit knowledge, such as that held in records management systems; and of formal directive knowledge;

■ communities of practice: these are the repositories for expert knowledge that is not organisation-bound, but requisite knowledge may span several communities and gain value from interchange between them. For example, both town planners and community organisers are

163


practitioners holding knowledge relevant to issues of urban regeneration;

■ communities of action: the natural home for experiential and social knowledge, for example, the workers and residents in the geographic area of a regenerating community;

■ communities of interest: ad hoc coalitions with an interest in a particular issue; policy communities are a typical example;

■ ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ networks: different communities may be linked more or less tightly; in the regeneration example, urban developers form a loosely connected ‘soft’ network between themselves and may also participate as members of interest communities on specifi c issues with other networks;

■ unrelated organisations: relevant knowledge exists in unexpected places; reframing an issue in a different context may reveal innovative sources that, if available, radically change the scenario.

Social media technology

Technology provides tools for organising, structuring, managing and making accessible codifi ed knowledge packages, and to support the exchange and debate of ideas and experience across networks for collaboration and learning. The forms and types of technology are well known and do not need to be listed again here. However, it is worth pausing to consider the role of social media in the knowledge landscape.

A recent debate in records management has contrasted the features of EDRMS – heavyweight, organisation-wide,

164


regulatory systems – with the emergent social media, questioning the future role of records management as open networks supplant closed organisations. One aspect of this centres around the concept of the ‘wisdom of the crowds’; as one example, that collaborative record scheduling could best be achieved by network members ‘voting’ on the correct retention period (Bailey, 2008): ‘follow the user’ to achieve the best customer service, because they know their own business best. This thinking borrows a market metaphor: users are an assembly of individuals each making their own rational choices, and the optimum solution is reached by aggregating individual preferences – a kind of ‘invisible hand’ of records management. As we have seen, though, a theme of modern public policy is that, in some instances, both state planning and market mechanisms fail; progress on some intractable problems depend on behaviour changes that arise from the interplay of deliberation, collective understanding of social values and the right incentives – that is, they are knowledge-based.

Social network technologies undoubtedly liberate many people from dependence on centralised information resources and offer the potential for reciprocal communication and collaboration. They allow, but do not determine, different kinds of uses; in contrast, there is strong evidence that networks can also be powerful reinforcers of social norms: behaviour is contagious across social networks (Christiakis and Fowler, 2009). In general, people do not always make rational choices based on their own best interests (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), an observation well known to EDRM implementors; we tend to:

■ follow routine choices rather than give each occasion due consideration – fi ling a document as they have previously done, rather than where it should go;

165


■ heavily discount future benefi ts for today’s convenience – when the benefi ts of future knowledge-sharing seem outweighed by the inconvenience of capturing and storing a record, the temptation is to take the course of least effort;

■ follow the herd, agreeing to options others have supported even if we think they are wrong, rather than stand out as different;

■ make decisions which conform to expectations of others, if we know that is expected;

■ interpret a situation as stereotype, in a way that conforms to our own expectations – we see what we want to see.

Researching social media groups, Sunstein (2010) has shown that people often seek to restrict their exchanges only to others of a like mind, self-selecting those with whom they predict they will agree, rather than opening themselves out to the wealth of opinions and information available. Social networks can follow a logic of consensus as much as of dialogue. The challenge, from a knowledge mobilisation perspective, is not simply to connect to the network, stand back and let it do its work; it is, as with other technologies, to understand both positive and negative effects, and to design a strategy that guides and suggests productive interchange, without dictating its course or result: to promote innovation without controlling it.

Designing knowledge strategies

A knowledge strategy can take many forms, but its purpose is to relate the landscape of resources to knowledge processes in ways that will promote the delivery of desired impacts and

166


outcomes. This may include revealing hidden confl icts, thereby making resolution possible, or deliberately disturbing consensus to give new ideas space to fl ourish. It may prioritise developing packages to support evidence-based policy, or make likely connections between different communities to encourage new knowledge to emerge. It may involve questioning or de-coupling old knowledge from established ways of doing things, enabling ‘un-learning’ that makes way for the new. It may be necessary to lower barriers to collaboration, mediating framing clashes by developing switching mechanisms. It may make risk-based assessments

Knowledge strategies bridge policy and deliveryFigure 7.2

167


to resolve entitlement clashes, as an aspect of corporate or institutional governance.

The knowledge strategy bridges policy and delivery both by linking the formulation of policy and the delivery of outcomes to a mapping of knowledge processes and resources, and by linking these with the infrastructure services of records management and programme management. The strategy enables:

■ a strategic dialogue about knowledge and its mobilisation between all stakeholders;

■ linked to governance at corporate, institutional and democratic levels;

■ which facilitates accountability and builds public trust and confi dence;

■ by recognising and valuing the role of knowledge in shaping and delivering public policy;

■ balancing innovation with effi ciency and accountability in its deployment;

■ and embedding these values in the activities of organisations and the culture of participants in the policy process.

The strategy is a working document rather than a statement of aspiration. It should be a means for:

■ managers to understand how the landscape of knowledge resources, capabilities and connections helps them to achieve their objectives;

■ policy-makers to identify and draw in all relevant participants and stakeholders, and to understand how their knowledge helps shape policy and deliver outcomes;

■ organisations to create programmes that balance delivery with accountability; and to assess the fi tness of, and improve where necessary, their knowledge-based processes;

168


■ records managers to develop an integrated approach to knowledge, records and information governance, and to identify opportunities for demonstrating the added public value thus achieved.

Developing a knowledge strategy is returned to in Chapter 9.

Note1. For more detail, see for example: (public policy) John, 1998,

and (research utilisation) Weiss, 1979.

169

8

Achieving added value: effi ciency, effectiveness and

public value

Abstract: The value of records management is not intrinsic, but determined by supply and demand; improving demand means demonstrating added value. Claimed tangible benefi ts are derived principally from better management of information, and many intangible benefi ts stress cost-avoidance. Pressures for economy suggest reducing the scope of records management to a minimum, and technical effi ciency mainly focuses on improving its processes. A focus on allocative effi ciency and outcomes highlights the contribution of knowledge and records to achieving public value, in particular, via accountability to public trust, confi dence and legitimacy. A competing public values model is proposed as a framework for balancing benefi ts.

Key words: value; effi ciency; benefi ts realisation; effectiveness; performance measures; competing values framework; public value.

This chapter discusses the ways in which an iKR strategy can assist records management in adding more value to the public sphere. It develops a framework for thinking about:

■ value – what this term means in a public sector context, and how to assess it;

170


■ economy – assessment of costs, or inputs to the records management process;

■ effi ciency – distinguishing outputs, benefi ts and different kinds of effi ciency;

■ effectiveness – contribution to overall outcomes, drawing on the competing values model and concepts of public value.

What do we mean by value?

Between 2007 and 2010, the University of Northumbria (2010) carried out a project which ‘aimed to investigate and critically explore crucial issues and practical strategies to support accelerating the pace of positive change in managing electronic resources’. As part of its work, this innovative project held a series of workshops with practitioners and Delphi (expert opinion) studies to identify and analyse the most important issues and some of the possible strategies to resolve them, and set out the results in a series of reports. These covered a broad range, but one theme that seems to emerge from comments reported verbatim from practitioners revealed serious concerns from participants on the perception of records management within their organisations: that its benefi ts were not well (or at all) understood by managers and it was not highly valued as an integral organisational function – many other will probably recognise this issue. From the reports, many seemed to recommend strategies that focused on demonstrating the potential benefi ts to users who had not yet uncovered them, on promoting change management as a vehicle for making cultural values and norms more sympathetic to the principles and practices of the discipline, and on reinforcing such initiatives through formal processes such as personal performance appraisal. A

171

Achieving added value

minority suggested that the problem could be read in the opposite direction: that records managers had insuffi cient understanding of the needs and priorities of users.

One strand of opinion seems to understand value as an intrinsic property that is inherent in records management itself: it has a potential value to the organisation, or to society at large, which is there already but may or may not be realised. The problem, in this view, is how to spread recognition and understanding of this potential value, so that it can be realised in practice; and the principal diffi culty lies in communicating that understanding in terms that are convincing to the recipients.

Economists have long debated intrinsic value – something that has value for its own sake, as opposed to for the sake of something else – and how to determine its level. This is diffi cult because setting a potential value on something is largely subjective: different people, organisations and cultures will have different ideas on the right level. Modern economists now take a simpler approach: they agree that value (while subjective in itself) is a result of the interaction between supply and demand, and simply refl ects the amount that an organisation or individual is willing to pay for something. We are used to this idea in a consumer context – a house, a car or an oil painting is worth as much as someone is prepared to pay for it, regardless of the costs of its manufacture. The painting may have a high personal value for a seller as a thing of beauty, but when exchanged for money, it is the value set by the buyer that counts.

Of course, records management in not traded in the marketplace, nor completed in a single transaction; it has to be built and sustained over time to deliver benefi ts. Some of those benefi ts accrue to a different generation: archive-building, for example, is an investment in the future. Nevertheless, the decision to support and promote records

172


management and knowledge mobilisation is one that is taken today, using today’s resources, even if the pay-off is tomorrow. In a situation of fi nite resources, who should make the decision to allocate some to one particular use, rather than elsewhere? In any organisation, there are two ultimate sources of decision-making power for resource allocation:

■ senior managers, who might believe records management will help them achieve their operational objectives for the organisation more effi ciently or effectively, and/or that it will allow them to avoid some potential cost: for example, fi nes for non-compliance, or the reputational cost of poor governance exposed;

■ shareholders, who supply the resources which enable the organisation to operate for particular defi ned purposes, and who expect it to be accountable to them for what it does.

In the public sector, shareholders equate to the citizens, on whose behalf public policies are made and public services are delivered, and who place their trust in, and grant legitimacy to, the government which represents them. Many things may be thought worth doing, but only some can be resourced: ultimately, over the long term, those that the general public is prepared to back. At any rate in liberal democracies, the settlement between government and the citizen charges the former with overseeing delivery of public services and social outcomes that have a value to the general public and which other channels, such as the competitive marketplace, cannot or do not wish to provide. They can be paid for in various ways: by giving a portion of taxation, by relinquishing rights to personal data or privacy, by donating time and effort, and so on. Some element is delegated for discretionary use by senior management, but nearly always accompanied by accountability mechanisms to oversee its proper use.

173


From this perspective, an iKRS might aim to achieve and measure value in three areas:

■ internal agency management: positively by reducing the cost, or improving the effi ciency, of operations and outputs; or negatively by avoiding potential costs from, say, litigation or non-compliance (as a kind of insurance);

■ contributing to social outcomes: positively enabling the agency to be more effective in achieving its wider goals – improving health outcomes or educational attainment, reducing inequality or crime levels, changing anti-social behaviour, ensuring equity in justice, etc.;

■ wider accountability: demonstrating responsibility to the public and its governing representatives in return for allocated resources; and promoting trust and confi dence in the agency, and government in general, in return for legitimacy.

These are different aspects of value, which operate at different levels of granularity, and cannot be measured by the same mechanism, or summed to one overall fi gure. They are sometimes in competition – prioritising accountability may have a negative impact on effi ciency, for example – with trade-offs between levels of achievement. The rest of this chapter examines each in the context of records and knowledge, and proposes a framework for balancing them.

The economic case for records management

During the last decade or so, many projects in electronic records management across the public sector have produced business cases, or similar documents, which justify the costs

174


of investment by setting out the potential benefi ts and the rate of realisation. Although mainly oriented towards the introduction of IT systems, they encompass the legacy of earlier physical (paper-based) records systems, and taken together represent an up-to-date statement of the case as seen by practitioners. Recent work done by the JISC support body for UK higher education on metrics for records management (JISC, 2010), and guidance produced by national agencies such as the UK National Archives, also contain summary lists of potential benefi ts. Analysis of these three sources, taking differences of wording into account, shows a broad level of agreement on the main benefi ts at the organisational level. They are listed in Table 8.1 categorised as:

■ intangible: benefi ts that are anticipated but diffi cult to substantiate, or to quantify in monetary terms; for example, improved reputation has a value that is hard (in the public sector) to quantify precisely, although it may be measured by a proxy;

■ tangible: where the value can be predicted in quantitative terms, with varying degrees of certainty;

■ cashable: where savings translate into actual money that is no longer spent; for example, a process improvement that reduces the number of staff leads to an actual reduction in staff costs;

■ non-cashable: where savings can be quantifi ed but not banked; faster response improves customer satisfaction, which can be measured but not directly cashed. Intangible benefi ts are by defi nition non-cashable;

■ cashable enabler: a benefi t that is a necessary but not suffi cient condition for making savings elsewhere, avoiding the error of double-counting the same benefi t in different contexts. For example, electronic records reduce the need

175


Claimed tangible and intangible benefi ts of records management

Table 8.1

Intangible benefi ts

Description Tangible benefi ts

Description

Compliance with legislation

cost avoidance: reputational risk, penalties

Satisfying regulatory regimes that oversee the organisation.

Safeguarding personal data; responding to FoI requests.

Retaining records for due period (e.g. pension, fi nancial, etc.).

Effi cient records management: internal processes

cashable; partly IT-based

Improved control of records (structure, retrieval) leads to faster RM processes, quicker response times, reduction in cost inputs (staff, etc.).

Faster processes reduce user staff time taken in capture, classifying, etc.

Compliance: accountability

cost avoidance: reputational risk

Giving an account of events/knowing what was said, if asked.

Allocating responsibility for events (e.g. public inquiry, Select Committee) – internally unpopular.

Supporting publications programme (FoI, public datasets)

Effi cient records management: storage costs

cashable; IT-based

Electronic records reduce storage costs for physical paper records (but set against additional costs for digital preservation).

Enables automated disposal, reducing staff time and improving security.

Compliance: legal admissibility

cost avoidance: reputational risk, fi nancial loss

Ensuring evidential weight when presenting documents to court.

Ability to produce evidence, especially if part of core business (e.g. investigative bodies, administration of justice).

Due process.

Space management: workspace

cashable enabler; IT-based

Reduction in stored paper (electronic/less duplication/timely disposal) shrinks staff footprint and frees building space for re-use/sale.

Supports fl exible working (hot desks, home working).

(Continued overleaf)

176


Intangible

benefi ts

Description Tangible

benefi ts

Description

Performance: decision-making

cashable enabler if measurably improves effi ciency

Improved quality of information leads to better decision-making.

Improved access to complete information reduces mistakes.

Performance: process automation

cashable enabler; IT-based

Improved effi ciency in processing operational information; document templates; workfl ows; faster retrieval.

Performance: collaboration

cashable enabler if measurably improves effi ciency

Facilitates joined-up working.

Improved data-sharing encourages knowledge transfer, leads to more innovation.

Performance: staff time

non-cashable; IT-based

Proxy saving in time staff spend seeking information available for alternative use.

Performance: security

cost avoidance: operational risk

Improves information security by restricting (classifi ed, commercial, personal, etc.) information to qualifying staff.

Performance: consumables

cashable; IT-based

Reduction in paper, print, post, etc. costs.

Performance: corporate memory

cost avoidance: operational risk

Business continuity/disaster recovery.

Re-use of information reduces duplication of work.

Improves staff induction to new role/handover.

Performance: customer service

reputational; non-cashable

Improves customer communication and satisfaction by supporting more accurate, timely, informed transactions.

Claimed tangible and intangible benefi ts of

records management (continued)Table 8.1

for physical space for paper, but savings are only made cashable by some other initiative, e.g. workspace reorganisation or selling unrequired buildings;

■ cost avoidance: these benefi ts are risk-based; they avoid the potential costs that would accrue if a particular situation came about, by taking precautionary action to

177


prevent it from occurring – savings are notional and non-cashable because they are not budgeted for in the fi rst place. For example, ensuring regulatory compliance avoids penalty fi nes for non-compliance; ensuring a correct response to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests avoids the reputational embarrassment of being found in error;

■ IT-based: these benefi ts are dependent on introduction of digital systems.

Chapter 3 distinguished between the more stringent requirements of records management – as exemplifi ed in the European MoReq2, or the US DoD 5015.2 standards – and those typical of information management alone: this is the core distinction between electronic records and electronic document management, for instance. The tangible benefi ts in Table 8.1 fall clearly into two groups: those concerned with improving effi ciency in records management processes themselves – getting more for less from the existing service – and those improving effi ciency in organisational performance.

In this second group, the benefi t is derived largely from electronic working, and it is not clear that the actual benefi t is realised from the stricter set of records management, rather than from the information management, components. Process automation, faster responses, savings in managers’ time (unproven though this is!) seem, in principle, to be achievable without the additional cost of records management. One could argue that the stronger records disciplines improve accuracy and reliability, but this seems somewhat marginal: for many user tasks the information does not have to be perfect, just ‘good enough’ to satisfy immediate needs. For many, the task infrequently demands complete information and a risk-averse just-in-case approach is costly. Building up an information base to support knowledge-sharing demands

178


just such an investment because staff must contribute effort now so that others can benefi t in the future.

The intangible benefi ts seem to be where the heart of records management lies, and these again fall into two groups: compliance and performance. The benefi ts of compliance are very often framed in terms of risk management – asking ‘what would happen if something went wrong? Here’s what we can do to guard against that’ – and promoted to senior management on the basis of fear rather than inspiration. Cost-avoidance is an unreliable argument in periods of fi nancial retrenchment, since it calls for an investment of sunk costs into assets that cannot be fully realised (it’s hard to sell off a records management system), in order to avert an uncertain threat. The second group takes a more positive view; this is akin to the knowledge management argument that knowledge is an intellectual asset that can itself generate value. Management studies have shown, though, that simply having access to more information, or information of a higher quality, does not necessarily lead to better decisions; nor does greater access alone necessarily improve the results of collaborative activity. Many other factors infl uence decision-making and collaboration: as with the distinction between encoded and cognitive knowledge, it is the sense one makes of it that counts.

This is the problem of the economic case for records management. If it is reduced, essentially, to intangible benefi ts that fall into either the ‘ought to have’ category of compliance, or the ‘nice to have’ category of enablers, it is harder to justify investment in a context of reducing resources. The turn towards information management brings records and information together, claiming the more tangible benefi ts of information systems management, workfl ow and process engineering for the whole; but the danger of this strategy is that, driven by fi nancial cutbacks, a hard look at

179


the detail suggests that these tangible benefi ts can be realised without the additional cost of formal records management. This is not an argument against information management, whose benefi ts are vital to the survival of modern organisations. Organisations can survive for long periods without records management – although they may not survive a consequent crisis if one happens – but they cannot thrive for long without managed information that matches their needs.

Is it possible, though, to strengthen – to enhance the compelling aspects of – the case for the largely intangible benefi ts of records management itself through the turn to knowledge? Could there be a broader range of benefi ts that build on the dimensions of accountability, collaboration and decision-making by making the link to knowledge mobilisation? To think about this, it is helpful fi rst to distinguish the different ways in which value can be added.

Distinguishing economy, effi ciency and effectiveness

Any organisation has to make choices about where it allocates its limited resources, balancing out competing demands in ways that are sustainable for the long term. For administrative functions, the focus is on improving the productive ratio of allocating resources – people, budgets, infrastructure – to results achieved by some combination of: reducing the total cost of inputs; increasing the resulting outputs by improving the process; or by redirecting activity to more productive objectives, stopping some activities and starting others. These are different kinds of value which have different strategies and implications.

180


Responses to the resource crisis?

Economy adds value by reducing the inputs into a process, making it cheaper to run, even though this may reduce service outputs. Each resource allocation has an opportunity cost – the uses it could otherwise have been put to – and reduction in one area frees resources to create additional value elsewhere. The inputs to records management are primarily staff time, process (including software) support, space and maintenance support. Some potential strategies for making economies are:

■ Staff time: while practitioner time is relatively low, that of users is higher, including both time spent capturing records into a software package, adding additional metadata, or setting security levels but also draws on a user’s cognitive resource in navigating the structure of a fi ling system to retrieve records. Improved software design, or automation of routine processes, might reduce staff time, but the cost of re-implementation must be set against this. More certain is to reduce the demands on staff by: capturing fewer documents as records; devolving responsibility to the local level; or reducing the quality of data where it is not essential for immediate business purposes.

■ Using existing tools: full-blown modern records management requires specialist EDRMS software, or more complex systems that integrate EDRMS functionality within a broad offering. An option for economy is to forgo specialist packages in favour of generalised tools (Microsoft Sharepoint is a popular choice) that exist already in the organisation; although these might fulfi l some but not all of the EDRMS functions, a ‘one size for all’ approach aligns information management principles with justifi able cost. Other existing tools that can be cheaply deployed

181


include e-mail systems, shared network drives – a return, in fact, to pre-EDRM days – or the use of open source software (but without professional support, reliability is prejudiced).

■ Space: electronic records reduce physical space, and this has often been the primary business justifi cation for digitisation. This contribution to reducing the public sector estate is relatively small and can only be achieved once; reductions in the overall number of staff have a much greater effect on space savings.

■ Maintenance support: paper-based records take up physical space but require little maintenance over time; for electronic records the position is reversed, reducing storage costs but creating a regular need for migration between digital formats to retain accessibility as technologies change. Strict appraisal and disposal mean fewer records must be migrated, but require specialist software to automate. The ‘keep it all and rely on search technologies to fi nd things’ argument removes the cost of appraisal and disposal, but either increases the cost of migration, or accepts that many records (unless of a very standard format where migration is simple) will become inaccessible relatively quickly – apart from the cost to the user of false hits in retrieved records.

In the context of severely reduced resource levels, the logical response to a ‘should do’ case for which senior managers have little enthusiasm is to ‘do the bare minimum’. The conventional compliance case promotes a precautionary response to risk: include all possible cases to ensure that any occurrence is covered. The immediate response on economy, on the other hand, may well be to restrict the scope of records management, and the scale of records held, to a clearly necessary core defi ned by a proportionate response to an

182


assessment of organisational risk: covering only those cases most likely to occur, or most serious in their impact. In these conditions, the tangible benefi ts from integrating records and information management are also harder to achieve.

Focusing on process or outcome?

Effi ciency seeks to make the best possible use of resources allocated. This is usually interpreted in terms of processes, seeking to improve the input/output ratio: doing the same with less, and doing more with the same, are both increases in this type of effi ciency. Value is created by improving productivity – getting more value for money.

The JISC report offers a good technical framework for records management assessment along these lines, calling for the establishment of performance benchmarks before and after an improvement initiative to identify the effi ciency gain actually made. What, though, should the performance measures be? The British Standards Institution (2003) suggests performance measures that are centred on the records management process itself, such as the existence of appropriate policies and classifi cation scheme, based on the tenets of the main ISO 15489 standard, or on measures of systems quality, such as the number of security breaches. The UK National Archives has produced guidance1 which collates relevant standards, recommending performance measures that fall into two groups:

■ quantitative measures: for example, the number of records created, inspected (perhaps meaning retrieved for re-use), appraised and destroyed; reduction in fi ling delays; access and retrieval response times; percentage of teams that capture and store records; service user satisfaction;

183


■ qualitative assessments: including elements such as information-sharing; promoting learning and under-standing; more effective evidence-based decision-making; improved productivity; retention of knowledge; and extracting better value from documents.

The key problem with effi ciency measures for records management refl ects the division between tangible and intangible benefi ts. Performance criteria that can be quantifi ed straightforwardly as measures tend to refl ect the processes of records management itself, assessing whether it is working well on its own terms. Qualitative assessments focus on organisational and business improvements, but as intangible gains they are hard to measure, even using a proxy indicator, because they are usually embedded in the business processes of the organisation. It seems intuitively correct to claim that improved access to, and currency of, recorded information will improve operational performance, but in reality many other factors are present, and it is hard to determine the portion of improvement that is due to a records initiative, let alone measure it.

These other factors may in fact be in tension with the records management claim: here also, management studies have questioned assumptions on rational decision-making, suggesting that the particular needs of the situation, and the outcome that is wanted, lead decision-makers to look only for the information they want to fi nd. They use their own judgement to decide what works, then look for evidence to prove it – and this often seems to reach the best decision. To assess whether, and how, records management should make an impact here requires a prior assessment of whether it is desirable to change that process, and if so, in which ways? The focus should move closer to the business outcome, understanding the kind of knowledge to mobilise in order to

184


achieve that outcome (or to work out what the outcome should be), where and in whom it resides, and to orient the production of records towards that goal.

Meeting the target and missing the point?

There are two kinds of effi ciency: technical and allocative. In assessing the best use of available resources, technical effi ciency – the kind discussed above – asks: for the things we are doing, are we doing them the right way? The new public management (NPM) movement of the last couple of decades focused on technical effi ciency, seeking to identify and measure those things that can be measured – service inputs and service quality – as indicators of performance, and to set targets based on them as a yardstick for performance management. This approach has driven public management thinking (although there is argument over whether, and by how much, public sector productivity has actually improved over this period) and ideas about accountability, tending to replace upwards accountability to departments and ministers with performance contracts, and outwards accountability to service users as customers by choice and market mechanisms. One can see the infl uence of this thinking in the emphasis on indicators of records management processes and outputs, rather than impact on outcomes. At the same time, recognition has grown of two key problems with this approach:

■ Doing one right thing at the expense of another: where one is measured and the other not, inclusion in performance contracts can create a perverse incentive to prioritise the achievement of a target indicator above all else, distorting the proper balance of effort by channelling it away from other valuable activity, and reducing service quality overall.

185


■ Doing the wrong thing very well: sometimes activities should be stopped altogether, either because they were misconceived in the fi rst place, or have become unnecessary; improving effi ciency may prop up these activities by defl ecting attention from questioning their existence.

Value for the organisation or for the public realm?

Allocative effi ciency asks: are we doing the right things in the fi rst place? It helps to determine whether resources should be allocated to one activity in preference to another; technical effi ciency then follows on from this allocation. Allocative effi ciency is concerned with spending limited resources in the areas that are best able to maximise public value and is the province of elected representatives and citizens; technical effi ciency is concerned with making the most of resources allocated and is the province of managers. The purpose of government is to add public value; although a full discussion of all that entails is beyond the scope of this book, any particular function must still be capable of expressing how it adds to public value:

■ using a common framework to demonstrate added value that facilitates comparing and contrasting with other services and functions;

■ clarifying the kinds of value that are created and fi nding a balance between them;

■ discerning the impact which that added value has on the delivery of outcomes;

■ developing a suite of measures that is appropriate to the balance of values determined.

186


Effectiveness in the public sector is concerned with the extent to which activities achieve their purpose – why they exist, how they create value. Many organisations have policy statements along the lines of ‘effective records management is necessary to achieve compliance/improve decision-making/reduce costs’, but if we only consider effectiveness as the achievement of records management purposes, we are still caught in the self-referential cycle – that the purpose of records management is diligent records management – and by under-substantiated claims about benefi ts for organisational performance. Considering effectiveness leads to considering the impact, potential or actual, on delivering those wider outcomes which increase public value.

Creating public value

The basic concepts of a public value framework were fi rst established by Mark Moore (1997) in the mid-1990s and have steadily grown in popularity as a means of assessing the activities of public sector organisations. The BBC uses a complex public value test (BBC, 2004) to help decide which activities it should pursue; the UK NHS has developed a methodology (National Health Service Institute, 2011) to help resolve the dilemma of waning resources and waxing demand; and the approach has at times been taken up by the UK Government Cabinet Offi ce. The approach is intended to help public managers actively seek opportunities to increase value, not just in terms of economic growth, but also in terms of value to citizens and communities, focusing on three aspects of performance: delivering services; achieving social outcomes; and maintaining the trust and legitimacy of public agencies.

This is a strategic role, but one which is closely related to the ‘front line’; since public managers are directly accountable

187


to elected offi cials and the public, the approach depends on a high level of public engagement to ‘develop confi dence, trust and loyalty between the people and the public authorities’ (Benington and Moore, 2010). Public value is co-produced through the interaction of the citizen, the manager, professionals and other stakeholders: between doctors and patients working together; between the unemployed, benefi ts agencies and job-creating social enterprises; between civil society and the state. Trust engages loyalty, which in turn encourages co-operation and participation in delivery; and this collaboration legitimises the allocation of resources to public value aims – the service user is active co-producer rather than passive recipient, taking more control over their own lives.

The role of the public manager is to negotiate these interactions to identify potential value, understand what is feasible in terms of available resources and their effi cient deployment, and build legitimacy by mobilising a coalition of interests and networks through public dialogue. This discourse takes into account longer-term public interests and the value added by pursuing consistent and cohesive actions that build up and mature over time, as well as the current views of today’s public, reconciling the tensions between what the public values with what protects and enhances the public realm (Benington and Moore, 2010): reconciling the immediate needs of the moment with long-term investment, and regulation and control with creative innovation. In doing so, the public manager must align three strategic aspects: the aims of public value initiatives, accountability to mandating authorities and operational capability; or put another way, the requirements of value, legitimacy and feasibility.

This is an attractive approach to thinking about value in records management because it:

188


■ locates accountability as a core value, as a generator of trust, confi dence and legitimacy, making the link with compliance as a key strategic enabler across the public sphere;

■ incorporates an ‘invest for the future’ perspective as part of that strategy, which supports a long-term approach to realising the information value of records collections and archives for future generations;

■ offers a framework for resolving tensions between effi ciency and effectiveness, between regulating information and supporting innovation, and between the logics of consensus and dialogue;

■ recognises collaborative value-creation, moving beyond a single organisational perspective to encompass issues of partnership working and co-production, and so accommodating frame and entitlement clashes;

■ recognises that knowledge itself creates value by drawing on multiple stakeholders to shape and improve more appropriate outcomes, an implicit claim that underlies qualitative assessments of effi ciency.

Competing public values

Although this method takes into account those important features not easily incorporated in a standard NPM approach, the problem of how to measure public value remains. Many possible measures are proposed, tackling different aspects, but even with these, how can different sorts of measurement be added together to fi nd a comprehensive single gauge of public value? In tackling the problem of integrating different approaches to measuring performance in the public domain, Colin Talbot (2008, 2010) proposed a

189


framework which combines the concept of public value with the competing values framework (CVF).

The CVF model was developed in the 1980s with the aim of assessing organisational effectiveness (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983) and is now very widely used. The authors observed two dimensions of effectiveness, which are both present in any organisation to different degrees. One, drawn vertically, places an orientation towards fl exibility, innovation and change at the upper level, and an emphasis on stability and control at the lower end. Some organisations esteem dynamism and an ability for rapid adaptations (for instance, companies operating at the leading edge of technological change) and some stress order and predictability – public sector organisations typically fall into the latter type. The second dimension, drawn horizontally, distinguishes an organisational focus on internal capability (left side) from one on external opportunities (right side); typically, private enterprise seeks to create value by exploiting opportunities in the marketplace and state bureaucracies focus on creating value by developing their own people and processes.

Putting these two dimensions – fl exibility versus control, internal cohesion versus external differentiation – together creates a four quadrant matrix (see Figure 8.1), each of which represents different cultural characteristics:

■ Control occupies the lower left quadrant, bounded by an internal focus and an emphasis on stability, creating value from order and predictability.

■ Collaborate is upper left, with an internal focus, but more emphasis on fl exibility, creating value from human potential.

■ Create is located in the upper right quadrant, defi ned by fl exibility and external focus, creating value from innovation.

190


■ Compete takes the lower right slot, with an external focus that emphasises stability, creating value from competitive activity in a marketplace.

A central point, that distinguishes this model from most other matrices, is that an organisation (or institution) does not fall uniquely within one or another quadrant. Instead, an organisation exhibits characteristics or values from each one of the quadrants, to a greater or lesser degree; and the emphasis – which values are strongest – will differ at different times, in response to changes in the wider world. Public sector organisations naturally tend to be strongest in the control quadrant: stability and predictability are important in ensuring fairness and accountability in public service, and we do not value governments that are arbitrary and opportunistic. At the same time, public sector reform under new public management has stressed values of greater agility, choice and competition, and innovative solutions; it has, in other words, tried to strengthen values derived from other quadrants on the right-hand side. More recently, we have seen an emphasis on collaboration and citizen empower-ment, moving towards the upper quadrants.

The particular value of the CVF model is that it captures a wide range of values, which are sometimes paradoxical, competing or in confl ict with each other within the same organisation, without trying to squeeze messy reality into a single convenient archetype. Just like people, organisations and institutions can be contradictory and confusing, full of ambiguities: different situations call for different responses, and the ability to reframe a situation in order to discern the varieties of potential it possesses is an effective way of creating added value.

191


Adapting competing public values to an iKRS view

This is a helpful way to think about records and knowledge together. Figure 8.1 draws on the CVF model, and Talbot’s work on competing values, to incorporate the key values of an iKRS view. Records management primarily falls into the control quadrant, with core values stressing continuity, consistency and structure, and compliance with institutional rules. It is largely accompanied by the view of knowledge as an objective entity that is encoded and embedded, a view of policy-shaping and programme delivery that focuses on gathering and analysing data as evidence, and performance

Competing public values model for an iKR strategy

Figure 8.1

192


measures drawn from technical effi ciency. Putting knowledge into action, though, is a messy and ambiguous skill, drawing on a wider range of human potential, and depending on learning, cognitive understanding and collaboration between different frames of reference. This view of knowledge is refl ected in the upper quadrants, where allocative effi ciency and impacts are more valued, and the delivery channels are typically networks and communities.

An iKRS can draw public value, and measurements sets, from each of these quadrants, according to the balance of the situation. Assessing formal records and information management processes by means of service outputs is well advanced; but the framework also offers the ability to assess a contribution to social outcomes, and to impacts on the external world conditions.

All aspects also make a contribution to the core values of accountability, and the building of trust and confi dence, at the centre of the framework:

■ compliance and control ensure an ability to render an accurate and reliable account of actions, and safeguard the proper governance of information;

■ evidential analysis draws on explicit and transparent knowledge and information to justify decisions and actions;

■ accessibility and appropriate re-use of government data offer market choice and extract economic value;

■ mobilisation of knowledge resources in collaborative initiatives, facilitated by analysis and knowledge strategies, enables all stakeholder voices to infl uence policy-shaping and delivery;

■ learning and feedback from collaborative processes enhance and give context to evidence and build understanding and insight;

193


■ transparency and participation mobilise the creative potential of citizens, service users and clients.

In the public values approach, trust and legitimacy, built on the foundations of accountability, participative dialogue and a robust confi dence, is the keystone which absorbs the tensions between policy-making, service delivery and the production of social outcomes. Locating knowledge and records as a prime creator of trust and legitimacy, delivered through the central value of accountability, places them at the heart of public policy and knowledge as the bridge between policy and delivery.

Note1. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/module8.pdf.

195

9

Planning a knowledge-based intervention: strategy,

tools, analysis

Abstract: An interactive knowledge and records strategy bridges both the formal structures of records management with the dynamics of knowledge mobilisation, and the knowledge-based activities of policy management with those of delivery and programme management. A knowledge-based intervention plan aims to add value by infl uencing areas for improvement in knowledge-related activities. It is developed by: analysing the intended future state and comparing with the current state from a knowledge and records viewpoint; identifying gaps, aligning with risk and business issues, and determining possible interventions.

Key words: knowledge value chain; knowledge strategy; outcome relationship mapping; knowledge audit; risk appetite; gap analysis.

The earlier parts of the book have walked through aspects of the interaction between formal records management and dynamic knowledge development, building on successive frameworks as tools for thinking about the relationship. Based on this platform, this chapter suggests a broad process for creating an iKR strategy and knowledge-based intervention plan. It is not intended as a prescriptive methodology to be followed step by step; it sets out an

196


approach and some accompanying tools for analysis, which should be tailored to the particular situation, selecting from the toolbag as appropriate. Equally, it is not intended for a system-wide or extensive application; it is a fairly intensive method that is suitable for fairly discrete areas which are targeted for their importance or potential high value.

Aim, context and structure

Aim: to develop a knowledge-based intervention plan

Knowledge strategies abound as abstract documents that set out general principles and broad ambitions for an organisation as a whole. While thinking things through carefully is always a useful discipline, and a general strategy is a good starting point as a fi rst step in the fi eld, an interactive knowledge and records strategy pursues a closer engagement. The aim is to use limited resources to the best effect by making selected interventions, limiting the scope to those areas where they can achieve the most.

Interventions are not big project engineering efforts to rework business processes or organisation-wide culture change initiatives. They aim to work with the grain of the situation, by fi nding those points at which a small nudge in a promising direction has a much larger overall effect – using the specialist expertise of the knowledge and records practitioner to spot those opportunities and help people see what they might otherwise miss. Interventions which create signifi cant user resistance are not working; change in small but signifi cant steps creates momentum.

197

Planning a knowledge-based intervention

Context: the knowledge value chain

An iKR strategy aims to build two sorts of bridges: the fi rst between knowledge and records, and to make use of this for the second, between policy and delivery. There are two aspects of knowledge mobilisation: developing potential knowledge not yet realised and deploying existing knowledge locked up in some way. Knowledge development is largely a collaborative process, oriented towards fl exibility, adaptability and change, although often within an ordered context – it tends towards the upper half of the competing public values model. Knowledge deployment is also the domain of conventional records management, where the two meet: it tends towards the lower half of the model, characterised by integration within a controlled environment. Development and deployment are complementary and interactive, each shaping and being shaped by the other: rather like the famous Escher print of two Drawing Hands, each one holding a pencil and drawing the other.

An iKRS also sits between policy management and programme management, augmenting both but replacing neither. Policy management is responsible for identifying issues and problems, developing an understanding of them, engaging with stakeholders, negotiating competing values, agreeing on desirable outcomes and determining overall strategies. Programme management turns policy into delivery, setting up projects and activities that achieve those policy outcomes in practice – it is about making the change happen and delivering added value. While both are inward- and outward-facing, policy management is essentially about crafting an internal response to the wider world, while programme management is essentially about working with that wider world to make the response real. An iKRS helps to bridge this divide – between the inner and the outer worlds

198


– through its own programme of knowledge development and coordination. It works with both as part of the knowledge value chain, adding value to policy-making and helping programmes deliver improved public value.

The strategy must interact with both policy management and programme management to carry through its initiatives and activities, not work in isolation:

■ knowledge strategy development draws on stakeholder analysis and risk management from each, identifying knowledge-based problems and issues through an . . .

■ analysis of processes and landscape at the social layer (Figure 6.2 on p. 139) that is informed by a strategic alignment with business processes and objectives, and which in turn prompts . . .

■ activities to mobilise actual and potential knowledge, by fostering sharing and learning and by networking knowledge sources in the knowledge layer, and . . .

■ building knowledge architecture at the organisational layer, from formal records and other information resources, and presenting this in views recognisable by different participants.

This chapter deals with the fi rst two layers in Figure 9.1 and Chapter 10 covers the lower two layers.

Structure: developing knowledge-based strategy and intervention

The general development of a knowledge strategy is covered in Chapter 7, which put forward the case for intervention, and is not repeated here. This section builds on that introduction with a method for strategic analysis of problems and opportunities in selected areas (see Figure 9.2) in fi ve stages:

199


■ setting the scope and boundary for action, and understanding expected outcomes;

■ analysing desired knowledge-related behaviour and resources to reach those outcomes;

■ auditing existing behaviour and resources and maping to records structures;

Role of iKRS in the knowledge value chainFigure 9.1

Developing a knowledge-based intervention strategy and plan

Figure 9.2

200


■ comparing desired and existing behaviour to identify gaps, aligning with risk and business issues, and identifying intervention areas;

■ developing stakeholder profi les as the focus of interventions.

The method may be iterative: gap analysis and strategic alignment may point to a reworking of earlier steps – pointing to a revision of desired behaviour, perhaps, or a redefi ned boundary. Iteration is an important part of the collaboration with programme management because it may reveal knowledge-related problems not recognised in the delivery framework; or more fundamentally, with policy-making if the revealed issues challenge the basis of expected outcomes.

Knowledge analysis

Set the boundary and outcomes

The boundary is determined by the nature of the policy initiative or service improvement; it may cut across the organisation, including some parts but not others, as well as people or groups in organisations or communities elsewhere. The boundary should be closely drawn to focus on a quite specifi c area or problem. It should make clear the:

■ size and scope of the intervention area;

■ intended outcomes of initiatives in that area;

■ relevant stakeholders involved and the nature of their involvement.

Boundary-setting takes its lead from policy and programme management and should coordinate work with stakeholders with programme and project teams. Essentially, setting the

201


boundary and outcomes is drawing on the vision of a desired future state, for the organisation or for overall delivered value, and the steps that follow are envisioning how that change can come about.

Stakeholders might include, for example:

■ political interests: ministers, elected representatives, lobbying groups, campaigns, industry associations;

■ management interests: departmental managers, executive boards, fi nancial, audit, etc.;

■ client interests: service users, service providers, residents, at-risk populations, specifi c communities;

■ expert interests: academics, practitioners, information providers, research utilisation providers;

■ commercial interests: suppliers, developers, data service applications, business partnerships.

Analyse knowledge processes and landscape

A general approach towards analysing knowledge processes and surveying knowledge landscapes is covered in some detail in Chapter 7 in discussing knowledge strategy development. In the context of an intervention plan, this work should be driven by an understanding of outcomes and progress in conjunction with mapping these to knowledge processes and resources. The intention is to develop an understanding of the knowledge-related behaviour that is desirable for achieving outcomes – the kind of behaviour that the change initiative is trying to make. This ‘ought to’ view may or may not exist in some parts at present: the point is to be able to see the gap between what is desirable and what exists now.

202


Map knowledge to outcomes

Knowledge processes and resources need to be linked to the production of outcomes as determined by the relevant policies and programmes; the mapping can progress by asking:

■ Who is involved in producing the expected outcome (the stakeholders within the boundary)?

■ What kind of knowledge interchanges are, or could be, involved: generating, transferring, acting on, embedding, sustaining?

■ Are they consistent, or do some participants have a different world view from others; what framing clashes are present and who do they affect?

■ Are there differences between participants in access to, use or ownership of information; what entitlement clashes are present?

■ How do the knowledge fl ows deliver policy results, e.g. by changing behaviour; is this realistic?

■ At which points do processes generate explicit knowledge that should be formalised as records or synthesised in packages?

■ How do knowledge fl ows relate to governance mechanisms?

Outline relationship mapping is an established programme management tool (Offi ce of Government Commerce, 2007) for modelling the links between activities and the intermediate and fi nal outcomes they produce. The key point is to work backwards from the desired outcome, including all, and only, those activities logically required to reach it, rather than forwards from existing activities, which may not be necessary. These programme maps will have done much of

203


the work and the task here is to add the knowledge resources and fl ows that identifi ed activities require.

For convenience of the narrative, Figure 9.3 shows an example of a map that models the strategic alignment of an internal iKRS intervention strategy with departmental business plans; in most cases, normally maps would describe externally focused outcomes. Activities are shown by rectangles and intermediate and fi nal outcomes by oval shapes. The types of knowledge that feed into activities are drawn from analysis of knowledge fl ows and landscape. In this example, they might include:

■ analysis by an iKR strategist on stakeholders, landscape and fl ows;

■ organisational priorities and policy objectives; human resource expertise; business change;

Example outcome relationship map for iKRS strategic alignment

Figure 9.3

204


■ departmental business plans; performance indictors; public value analysis.

Carry out a knowledge audit

The knowledge audit is a principal tool for constructing an ‘as is’ view of the knowledge landscape. This technique is well described in the literature and focuses on producing an evidence-based assessment of the current state of an organisation’s knowledge strengths and weaknesses, asking questions such as:

■ What relevant knowledge resources exist now and where are they located?

■ How does knowledge fl ow between people and groups now?

■ Where are gaps in knowledge known about, and where are known barriers to knowledge fl ow?

A conventional knowledge audit has three limitations for a network-based approach:

■ It assumes an organisational focus and tends to focus on outputs rather than outcomes.

■ In practice, it tends to focus on explicit knowledge and physical resources.

■ It looks for a systematic expression of known knowledge needs in order to identify gaps.

The audit complements the ‘to be’ analysis by enabling a comparison with the ‘as is’ perspective; the fi rst emphasises desired behaviour within an organisation or network, and the second existing behaviour. A comparison between these alternatives is the platform for development of an intervention

205


plan. Clearly, the boundary for the audit has to be compatible with that set in the fi rst stage.

Map knowledge to records

To work with the interaction between knowledge-in-action and formal records, it is helpful to link the two through the medium of a stakeholder profi le. A profi le collects together relevant information about identifi ed stakeholders (usually as groups, not individuals) as a basis for planning and managing specifi c interventions. The earlier work on mapping knowledge processes to intended outcomes identifi es the types of knowledge that are inputs to the various activities and their sources. The audit will have identifi ed relevant records and information categories and their creators that currently exist. Stakeholder identity is the link between these two: they are the embodiment of the formal powers and informal capabilities which enable knowledge to be put into action and which give authority to the records they produce. Table 9.1 shows a simplifi ed example of a stakeholder matrix relating personal budgets in adult social care: cash payments given to users for their own allocation, in lieu of providing an actual service for which they have been assessed, allowing them greater choice and personalisation.

The leftmost column lists the various interests – client, professionals, administrative, etc. – against the kind of knowledge they contribute to the process and the records they create (which latter a records classifi cation schema specifi es more precisely). Knowledge indicators are drawn from outcome relationship mapping and record indicators from the audit. The matrix is read as a statement of stakeholder behaviour – knowledge-generating/using and

Example stakeholder knowledge map (simplifi ed)Table 9.1

Knowledge Interest

Client case history

Charging policies

Benefi t rules Benefi t to client Health conditions Council policy Evaluation / review

Service user K K K

Carer/partner K K K

Doctor/GP K, R K K, R K, R K

Health visitor K, R K, R K, R K

Social worker K, R K, R K, R K

Service broker K, R K K K K K, R

Academic/researcher

K K K K, R

K = has knowledge about; R = produces records on

207


record-creating behaviour – that should be consistent with, and appropriate for, their legitimate powers and capabilities. For example, doctors and health workers can create records of the client’s health conditions, but a service broker (an adviser to the client on available services) cannot, although she would have knowledge of them.

Stakeholder profi les mediate between the purposes of putting knowledge into action and the structures that support and record action.

Mapping stakeholder behaviour to knowledge processes and fi leplan structure

Figure 9.4

K = knowledge-generator/user; R = records-creator/user

Often, the aim of knowledge-based intervention is to change stakeholder behaviour in some way, through development or deployment of knowledge, or perhaps through strengthening the links to formal structures. Alternatively, analysis of the profi les may also prompt a revised understanding of how knowledge processes contribute to outcomes or offer greater insight into the outcomes themselves; or suggest issues with the ability of certain stakeholders to interact with, or benefi t from, formal structures that prompt system revisions. Stakeholder knowledge and records maps are a basis for:

■ cross-checking inconsistencies between knowledge and records behaviour;

■ incorporating issues of trust and accountability in terms of powers and capabilities against knowledge and records;

208


■ considering changes to analysis of purposes and delivery expectations, or to supportive records and information structures;

■ suggest possible intervention initiatives and tactics to infl uence stakeholder knowledge-related behaviour;

■ actions to improve support, cover and capabilities of the records base;

■ possibilities for packaging and synthesising existing records and information;

■ designing productive user views within the knowledge architecture.

Business and stakeholder analysis

Conduct a gap analysis

The purpose of a gap analysis is to understand the difference between current and intended future states, in relation to knowledge and records. Identifying the gaps is essential for exploring alternative approaches to meeting the objectives that the gap indicates – for understanding how to make the future vision a reality.

Recalling the FBS design method discussed in Chapter 4 (that behaviour mediates between structures and functions) the purpose of comparison is to:

■ compare the existing knowledge behaviour with the desired knowledge behaviour to identify gaps;

■ assess these gaps in the context of policy aims, delivery strategies, risk appetite and business issues;

■ determine which of the following is indicated: action to change existing behaviour; a refi ned analysis of desired

209


behaviour or a redefi nition of intended outcomes; or structural change to support and delivery mechanisms;

■ if necessary, rework and reiterate the comparison;

■ select initiatives to promote the agreed changes and determine appropriate impact measures.

One purpose of gap analysis is to identify issues to be addressed – what are their causes, what needs to change and in which ways – so that they can be expressed as business issues.

Align with risk appetite

Methodologies for risk analysis and management are well known (e.g. OGC, 2010); but some aspects of information and knowledge risk can be missed. Information risk is often interpreted as risks related to (a lack of) IT security, of inappropriate disclosure of personal, commercial or confi dential data, or of failure to meet compliance regulations – downside risks that identify possible errors. Risks can also identify possible opportunities which may otherwise be lost. Examples of possible knowledge-related risk to consider are:

■ the opportunity cost of not sharing information, knowledge or expertise;

■ loss of new knowledge that would have been created by engaging with stakeholders;

■ networking knowledge connections produces an opposite result to the one intended;

■ undue infl uence by undeclared stakeholders in an organised campaign to crowd out competing knowledge;

■ misleading knowledge fed into a knowledge process to subvert the intended outcome;

210


■ inappropriate use of transferred knowledge due to a disregarding of changed context;

■ excessive secrecy restricts free availability of data to external application developers.

Risk appetite is an indicator of the degree of risk which an organisation is comfortable with: how much risk of what kind is it prepared to take? The public sector is known to be risk-averse, partly because some consequences of failure have severe social impacts and partly due to a culture in which failure is usually seen as a lack of competence. This encourages people to aim at a low level of achievement, as a precautionary measure; however, where the returns will be high, a higher level of risk is justifi ed, even if they initially result in a loss.

Mobilising knowledge is an inherently risky activity because one cannot predict the result with exactitude. For example, connecting together someone who has experience of an innovation with another who is sceptical, in the hope that the fi rst infl uences the second, may in fact result in the opposite: two sceptics, both resisting change! This is a risk, but its realisation may indicate that it is the expectations, not the resulting behaviour, that are wrong.

Residual risk is the remaining degree of risk, once some remedial actions have been taken on a risk identifi ed and made visible. The aim is to match the residual risk with the risk appetite – with just as much on the plate as you like to have – whether both are set higher or lower. Gap analysis should take account of the level of risk appetite in assessing the likelihood and impact of knowledge and information risks, and the effect on expected outcomes. It should take account of the risks of a knowledge mobilisation initiative, as well as those inherent in the knowledge process.

211


Align with business issues

The comparison between audit and strategy may also highlight the two different manifestations of knowledge: as an explicit commodity that can be captured transferred between contexts without loss, or as an attribute possessed by individuals. Depending on which is predominant, the same issue will be treated in different ways because each implies different root causes and symptoms, different behaviour changes and different incentives to change. Table 9.2 illustrates the differences for a knowledge-sharing issue, when seen from the cognitive (A) and physical (B) viewpoints.

How should we choose between alternative interpretations? One can fi nd many strategic plans for knowledge development which set out laudable objectives in principle but are never implemented because they are not feasible in that particular situation. A strategy that swims completely against the tide of organisational culture is unlikely to reach its objectives intact; and yet the intention is to promote change actively and to seek fresh insights, not simply respond to prevailing ways of thinking. A strategy must plot a middle way between attempting the possible and leveraging change where it can; and while some elements will be implemented as highly visible initiatives, others will be more opportunistic, based on a new way of thinking about professional practice – spotting opportunities for brokering knowledge connections requires good relations with a user community, not a formal project.

Alignment with business strategy validates knowledge mobilisation, records and information management issues by rephrasing them as recognisable business problems. It is insuffi cient to simply draw out statements from formal business plans, since this will refl ect and reinforce the current understanding, and fi lter out those issues that are challenging

What is the problem?

What are root causes? What needs to change? What are levers of change? What makes the levers work?

Version APeople do not want to share their knowledge with others.

Staff believe knowledge-sharing is prejudicial to career success.

Participants are not protective, but cannot see benefi ts to themselves.

Staff are willing, but believe they do not have time.

Knowledge-sharing to be seen as expected behaviour / the norm; valued part of teamwork skills.

Staff motivated because sharing is openly recognised and rewarded by organisation and peers.

Improved opportunities for sharing; time recognised in work schedules.

Aligning individual’s performance incentives with desired outcomes, creating positive attitude to sharing, a virtuous circle (carrot approach).

Performance appraisal includes discussion of sharing in context of personal development (what did you learn this year, what can you pass on to others and how?).

Participation in peer group activities for sharing (e.g. workshops, networks) raises individual’s profi le and status, and promotion prospects.

Buy-in and commitment by HR to embed knowledge-sharing as an organisational value, on a par with professional development and target appraisal.

Positive role models from senior management.

Cascading commitment to the principle through line management.

Organisation encourages participation in peer group events.

Alternative conceptions and differing tactics for a knowledge-sharing issueTable 9.2

Version BPeople do not want to share their knowledge with others.

Staff don’t want to pass on what they know because to do so is seen as prejudicial to career success.

Staff do not fi le their records properly / in the right place / at the right time.

Staff lack self-discipline, do not follow the rules; line managers don’t enforce sanctions.

Staff willing to share, but feel they do not have time / too diffi cult.

Knowledge-sharing to be seen as a requirement of the job.

Staff know about relevant policies / procedures, understand the risks of non-compliance, and act appropriately.

Staff who don’t shape up should be disciplined by their line manager.

Improved opportunities for sharing and reduced costs to user.

Necessary knowledge-sharing requirements formalised in job descriptions.

Embed user training in induction programmes, personal and professional development requirements.

Individuals incentivised to correct behaviour by threat of sanctions in performance appraisal (stick approach).

Accessible tools for users to populate with captured knowledge.

Support from HR in job defi nition.

Fear of failure; emphasising downside risk; awareness of examples and consequences of failure in compliance.

Implementation by line managers of appraisal sanction.

Leadership set an example.

Users see practical benefi ts in conformance, even if they don’t agree.

214


to embedded preconceptions. Alignment needs to be a process of critical debate with the key infl uencers, both internal and external: senior management, business strategists, programme managers, policy leaders, external advisers and perhaps ministers. The iKR strategist takes the role of a critical friend, engaging others on their own ground, being well prepared and challenging, and prepared to be challenged in return. Alignment needs to keep the relationship between knowledge issues and business problems at the centre of the debate, avoid agenda-change, maintain a brisk pace and result in an agreed list of problems and issues on which to intervene.

Some other candidate business problems are:

■ When people leave, their knowledge leaves with them.

■ People do not know about and make the best use of the knowledge resources available to them, sometimes causing project and programme failure.

■ There is a need to be more consistent and objective in the creation, use and interpretation of evidence for problem-solving.

■ Policy-makers do not pass on the knowledge they have gained from developing the policy to those responsible for implementing it.

■ Policy-makers are not well enough connected to external participants, e.g. professionals and service user communities, which leads to misunderstanding of issues and bad policy design.

■ Long-term programmes fail to take account of changing knowledge about the issues they are addressing, leading to ‘issue drift’.

■ Sometimes projects fail because the project team do not know about knowledge that someone elsewhere has that could have been available to them.

215


■ The cost – in time, effort, money – of fi nding the best knowledge available is too high.

■ There is a need to be able to measure knowledge value and deliver business benefi ts.

■ There is a need to be more innovative in the way knowledge and information is used to solve problems.

■ There is a need to regulate the use of own, and partner organisation, knowledge and information resources to ensure proper and proportionate use.

Develop impact measures

Impact measures of successful interventions follow on from a sound understanding of the relationship between business problems and outcomes achievement. They should ideally measure the impact of knowledge mobilisation on successful delivery of outcomes, but this can be diffi cult to do directly. Some alternatives are:

■ proxy measures take some other measurable factor as an indicator of improvement: e.g. an improvement in levels of public trust in government, underpinned by stratifi ed example cases citing traceable knowledge initiatives;

■ staff satisfaction levels on knowledge-related tasks, taking into account expectations: e.g. high satisfaction in a challenging environment indicates success;

■ multi-attribute analysis for qualitative benefi ts: agree functional business problem; identify alternatives to intervention; assess functional adequacy and make comparative economic analysis of each alternative; results guide choice of the alternative;

216


■ in-process evaluation: instances in which knowledge strategy analysis identifi es elements that change misconceived policy or delivery mechanism;

■ qualitative narratives or case studies debated and validated by participants.

Impact measures should emerge from the debate on strategic alignment to ensure they are properly grounded in a realistic understanding on all sides; if an impact measure cannot be agreed, the change may not be worth making. They are a broader concept than service performance indicators, which are suitable as measures of technical effi ciency, but may have a perverse effect if applied as measures of knowledgeability or accountability. Knowledgeability – the quality of knowledge possessed – and trust are subjective qualities; while surveys can ask ‘how knowledgeable or trusting do you feel?’ and reach a percentage, this is only meaningful in the context of the shared understanding between all involved.

Build up stakeholder profi les

Stakeholder profi les, discussed above, are a central integrating point and often the focus of interventionist action. They should be maintained and revised as work progresses and linked to the similar profi les used by project and programme management teams. The common touching points of this activity with programme management (see OGC, 2007) are primarily in: identifying stakeholders; developing interest profi les; and planning engagement.

The term stakeholders as it is used here refers to all the participants whose knowledge is implicated in delivery of the intended outcomes, some of whom may have only an indirect stake in their achievement; better to start with a broad canvas and narrow it down than miss an essential participant.

217


Project managers often speak in terms of ‘managing stakeholders’ and of developing detailed communication plans to inform them of progress; but stakeholders can be relied upon to dislike being ‘managed’ – not conducive to the aim of drawing on, or drawing in, their knowledge. Engagement should be seen as a two-way process, which draws insight from their perceptions, concerns, expertise and knowledgeability, as much as informing them.

Determine and structure knowledge-based intervention

This chapter has outlined the platform for constructing an iKRS intervention plan. The plan is able to select from a wide variety of actions and techniques, according to the issues and problems identifi ed, an agreed understanding of their roots and of what needs to change, and how to understand the success of interventions. Chapter 10 outlines some potential techniques in three categories: fostering learning and sharing; networking knowledge; and building knowledge architecture.

219

10

Fomenting knowledge development: plans,

techniques, architecture

Abstract: A range of initiatives for intervention in the knowledge environment is described in three categories. Initiatives for fostering knowledge-sharing and learning support a cycle of activities, from the personalised and situation-specifi c to the generalised and formalised, by promoting the right conditions for success. Networking knowledge initiatives aim to make connections between knowledge sources and actors by augmenting existing network patterns; social network analysis is a key tool. Collaborative knowledge architectures can be structured as a set of discrete but interconnected layers or services; one aspect is collaborative records management.

Key words: knowledge-sharing; learning cycles; social network analysis; collaborative knowledge architecture; collaborative records management.

Why fomenting? The term is intended to describe a broad process, with many potential factors involved. Knowledge in action is a dynamic process: a strategy can start knowledge development in motion, but cannot defi nitively predict where it might come to rest. There is a tension between knowledge and action: action can sometimes be commanded – within organisations, by legislation, etc. – but knowledge cannot.

220


As a management process it is much less about implementing a fi xed and detailed programme and much more about promoting potential and responding to growth within an ordered framework. Sometimes that might mean stirring things up as much as getting them all in line. As explanation of the term foment, the dictionary lists: foster, stimulate, instigate, warm, promote, excite, irritate. An iKR intervention should be all of these things.

Fostering knowledge-sharing and learning initiatives

This section covers initiatives to encourage knowledge-sharing, within and between organisations and individuals, and its complement, learning from knowledge shared. They operate in the knowledge layer (see Figure 6.2 on p. 139) – the contested terrain in which different kinds of knowledge struggle towards an accommodation with each other, subject to framing and entitlement clashes. The general aim of these initiatives, and those in the next section, is to mediate between the communities of interest, practice and action in the social layer, responsible for producing outcomes, and the services and structures in the organisational layer, which are concerned with organising and managing records, information and technology. This latter is covered in the fi nal section: building knowledge architecture.

The fi rst step is to clarify the objective of knowledge-sharing initiatives: is it to create the right kind of environment for sharing of learning to occur naturally; or to extract, catalogue and disseminate as much knowledge as possible? Records and information management practitioners commonly start out with the second aim, but frequently fi nd this the least productive because it fails to really engage

221

Fomenting knowledge development

people and quickly generates resistance. The overall aim is surely to develop a dynamic knowledge environment which supports people working with knowledge to both inform others and be informed themselves, to collaborate, be creative and innovative, matching knowledge development to the changing needs of the task; but not primarily to build a database of inert knowledge that is divorced from the context of use. A strategy should consider knowledge-sharing and learning as:

■ complementary and interactive processes, in which sharers also learn and learners also share; and in the process refi ne the knowledge which they are interchanging, the way they make sense of it, and the way they communicate it;

■ operating in a conducive environment for this interaction, one over which the participants feel they have control and are motivated to participate in; people cannot be made to share what they know, or learn from others, in any meaningful way if they do not want to;

■ offering positive incentives which match individual goals will motivate sharing and learning; sanctions do not;

■ in which encoding knowledge is a means, not an end, and its use driven by participants, not information practitioners; once encoded, knowledge becomes fi xed and inert, and steadily out of date, and is inappropriate for areas where rapid adaptation and innovative responses are needed;

■ using tools that are light and agile, able to show quick rewards, not ponderous projects in danger of drift.

People work with all three manifestations of knowledge – embodied, embedded and encoded – together, but some sharing/learning modes fi t better with one or the other type. A supportive environment provides a range of activities that

222


can work together, but avoids ‘hard-wiring’ too much into them; the aim is not to engineer a programmed workfl ow, rather to understand the features, and to signpost and nudge people in a preferred direction, leaving the actual choice with those closest to the issues. Figure 10.1 illustrates a cycle of sharing and learning modes.

The right-hand side represents knowledge in specifi c situations – a particular role, individual or highly specialist fi eld – and the left a generalised knowledge made more widely accessible. The upper part of the cycle shows increasingly formalised modes of sharing as it moves leftwards, and the lower part increasingly personalised modes of learning. Sharing involves encoding – an individual expressing their knowledge in terms others can grasp – but this can take different forms and does not imply fi xing as

Fostering new knowledge: sharing and learning cycle

Figure 10.1

223


text or data: the codebook may be implicit. For example, professionals participating in a workshop are transferring their knowledge, but not writing it down. There are two inter-related boundaries to set:

■ The formal/informal boundary: sharing and learning sometimes occur by foreshortening the cycle – e.g. in mentoring; informal activities should be encouraged and given space to develop their own dynamic, formal ones require more organisational oversight. At which point do activities cross the boundary of formality?

■ The records management boundary: the left hand is well within the realm of records, but attempting to capture the activity on the right is inappropriate. At which point, moving rightwards, should the boundary for records management be drawn?

The answer will be different for different organisations and networks, but caution rather than ambition is wise: asking people too often to populate a database responding to ‘what do you know?’ quickly becomes dysfunctional. The aim is to mobilise knowledge so that it can be put into action by those who need it, not to take a snapshot in time.

The remainder of this section briefl y outlines some example tools and initiatives for the iKR strategist to illustrate the approach.

Embed knowledge-sharing in performance appraisal

Records management policies often seek inclusion of a formal responsibility to capture records which they create in the performance appraisal of staff, with sanctions for bad behaviour. Whether or not this works for records, it

224


certainly will not work for knowledge. An injunction to ‘share what you know, or else’ does not create the climate of trust and reciprocity necessary for knowledge-sharing. Many people, especially long-term employees, see their knowledge as a career asset which confers promotion, with a personal value that is reduced not enhanced by sharing, and performance systems may inadvertently reward knowledge-hoarding. People will not share something that may be used against them, and the possibilities for prevarication are endless; there are no means to enforce knowledge-sharing.

What needs to change

■ Human resource systems need to reward knowledge-sharing and learning.

■ Senior managers need to role-model appropriate behaviour and reinforce through line management.

■ Organisations need to create venues for sharing and recognise participation as part of working time.

■ People need to feel reassured that knowledge that is shared now will not be used against them later.

Taking action

■ Request inclusion of a knowledge-sharing discussion in performance appraisals: what was learned, with whom it could be shared, what knowledge is required to support future objectives and where found.

■ Make extracts from knowledge landscape mapping available for use in these discussions.

■ Organise events series (e.g. lessons learned workshops) as venues for knowledge-sharing, promoting them as

225


reputation-building career moves – being perceived as the expert on a topic – and actively recruit participants through team leaders. Publish summaries.

■ Engage senior management (board members are the worst knowledge-sharers) to accelerate culture change; get a fi rm, explicit statement of support as a pre-commitment; challenge mixed messages.

■ Seek out and promote examples where knowledge-sharing has improved organisational success.

Promote a culture of after-action reviews

After-action reviews (AARs) are a technique for participants in a project or activity to assess what happened – good or bad – and why, so that they can learn from it. AARs can be formal events, informal discussions, or personal refl ections: i.e. a habit of the refl ective practitioner that is sometimes formalised into an organisational procedure and sometimes not. AARs were fi rst developed by the US military – hence the name – but are now widely adopted. AARs have four main steps, asking in turn:

■ What results we expected, and how we expected to assess them – what was supposed to happen?

■ What results we actually achieved – what did happen and could we assess it as expected?

■ Were they different and why – e.g. did expectations change, or achievement fall short?

■ What did we learn . . . to do differently next time?


■ In a blame culture, people learn how to avoid blame rather than recognise and learn from failures. Records are treated

226


as cover rather than a source for learning. AARs can help to change this culture – but not alone.

■ They need to be embedded at all levels, as a habit of mind, sometimes linked to other formal mechanisms.

■ They need to be seen as a professional discussion, not a judgement of success or failure.

■ They don’t have to take much time at all and can pay for themselves many times over.

Taking action

■ Identify one or two enthusiasts and organise test-case informal AARs; mine relevant records for evidence; learn lessons on conducting AARs and slowly extend to other examples; build support and success stories.

■ Offer to synthesise lessons learned across several AARs and draw on other review sources.

■ Promote options for embedding in culture as a regular feature of team management to HR.

■ Select a high-profi le project willing to undergo a formal AAR review: test, refi ne and widen.

■ Build coalition with senior business change manager and link AARs to corporate risk management.

Open up to network-based peer reviews

Peer reviews of projects and initiatives – where fellow practitioners review and offer advice on work in progress – are commonly carried out internally by members of the same organisation. This is effi cient because they are familiar with the background, but for that reason tends to reinforce the

227


dominant culture. Where outcomes are network-based, different viewpoints are important for successful delivery: public and private, citizen and service user, social and gender status. Peer reviews are more effective if they refl ect a range of stakeholders, but organisations are wary of allowing outsiders an inside view.


■ Programme teams should become more hospitable to collaborative review and involve delivery partners and co-producers from outside the organisation.

■ iKRS practitioners need to build up networks of contacts from all of these sources and broker connections between potential reviewers and project teams.

■ The organisation should be prepared to learn lessons generated externally, without feeling threatened.

Taking action

■ Use knowledge process maps to identify a small number of suitable programmes to promote this approach, identifying ones which depend on external knowledge for delivery of outcomes.

■ Gather support from senior management and project/programme management by use of evidence.

■ Develop a framework for peer review in collaboration with others.

■ Develop a network of contacts using knowledge landscape maps, organisational members and own professional network.

■ Ensure lessons learned are captured but anonymised for dissemination.

228


■ Don’t expect teams to populate and use a peer assist database; make personal contacts initially, gradually develop more formal mechanisms.

Support communities of practice appropriately

Communities of practice (CoPs) websites are a common initiative that rarely works well: many people take a look, few contribute; more ask questions than give answers. Mature CoPs are organic and dynamic, creating their own tools in response to felt needs; when the need declines, the CoP fades away and participation cannot be engineered. Without mutual trust, people will not take the risks of contributing and possibly losing face; if expert practitioners feel they do not own the means of communication, they have little reason to participate beyond goodwill. Better to promote the possibility, create a secluded digital space and tools for CoPs to form themselves around if they wish to, respect its privacy and pick up what comes out it.


Users need an environment that encourages creativity and innovation rather than a developed service. False assumptions on how practitioners interact tend to restrict the capacity for adaptation and change. CoPs should be located outside the formal records system, unless they choose to opt in – it’s work in progress.

Taking action

■ Make sure that an organisation-wide ICT system (e.g. intranet, MS Sharepoint) reserves an area in which staff

229


can create their own access groups and directly post material that is restricted to members only.

■ Do not try to over-manage or archive social networking tools; instead make sure everyone is aware of organisational and governance control on exchanging information.

■ Offer innovative tools – e.g. virtual second worlds in which policy-makers can model the effects of new policy ideas with real participants, instead of just talking about it.

■ Allow practitioner groups to invite outsiders in if they feel confi dent enough to do so.

■ Identify target practitioner groups and promote CoP tools; persuade a trend-setter to take leadership.

■ Use own network to identify possible external participants.

■ As they develop, build an interface for mature products to be captured and become visible for the outside world (with practitioners controlling what crosses over). This is the records management boundary.

■ Link products to other knowledge-sharing activities, e.g. workshops, for wider consumption.

Knowledge nuggets

When initiating and fi rst promoting the activities illustrated above, they are better kept relatively informal; developing products and procedures too soon fi xes mistakes and prejudices success. As they become more established, building trust and confi dence among participants, lessons learned and knowledge gained are more mature, and encoding is more productive. Change should be gradual, not all-embracing.

230


Taking action

Knowledge nuggets are short encapsulations of such things as a case review, a brief presentation, an idea, a lesson learned, a resource pointer on some topic. They are capable of standing alone and are not part of a longer reasoned argument (at this stage). They need to be highly assimilable and quickly browsed, available via a network, website, social media tool, etc. They can be sourced from peer reviews, AARs, CoPs and similar activities, used with permission of the owner; the iKR practitioner needs to work with participants to actively identify material, rather than just setting up a system.

Options might include:

■ short multimedia presentations – e.g. extracts from PowerPoint slides used in a workshop – no longer than fi ve minutes in length, enhance with voice;

■ whiteboard-style animations illustrating a spoken text;

■ a wiki-style facility which users can populate directly with insights, resources, ideas, requests;

■ augmented browsing with user ratings and demand-led editing (most popular fi rst).

Networking knowledge initiatives

This section suggests potential initiatives to help connect up knowledge within and between organisations, in ways that stimulate innovative new development. The aims of initiatives outlined in the previous section is to shape the conditions and create opportunities in which sharing and learning will fl ourish; networking knowledge initiatives focus on more direct actions to actively join up knowledge sources,

231


based on analysis of the situation. Potential initiatives might aim to:

■ interconnect parts of an organisation to link processes with those who have relevant knowledge;

■ connect actors in different organisations with complementary knowledge and interests in common;

■ span the boundaries between different communities of practice and action;

■ engage with new knowledge sources and bring them into play.

The aim is to augment, but not engineer, network effects: identifying potential opportunities through analysis, helping to make the connection and animate knowledge fl ows, nudging people towards a productive direction without attempting to control the result. Innovation does not happen to order and the turns it will take cannot easily be predicted: over-engineering may cause more problems than it solves. The aim is to stir things up – make a disturbance that sets innovation in motion.

Social network analysis

Social network analysis is a major analytical tool which aims to map the existing connections between actors to reveal the type and nature of the interaction within and between groups and individuals; its scope is far broader than users of a social media technology – only one form of interaction among many others. Connections include regular work-based interactions – reports, work groups, board meetings, etc. – as well as through membership of a practitioner community, contacts with other organisations, inter-departmental activity and community representation. Once again, it is usually

232


infeasible to attempt a wholesale analysis of an entire organisation; the point is to select productive areas judiciously, drawing on maps of knowledge processes and priorities, and to set the scope accordingly: the boundaries of the network observed, the granularity of detail and the type of interactions.

The network is represented as a set of nodes, normally representing individuals, and a set of links that connect nodes together, representing interactions. The resulting graph, or map, is a tool for understanding the nature of the connections and diagnosing interventions. The map shows:

■ the structure of the network: some archetypal patterns can be identifi ed;

■ the strength of the links: the more connections between two nodes, the stronger the link;

■ the type of node: the kind of roles which a node plays, and its power and infl uence.

The social network is not the same as an organisational structure, which would show formal line management, departmental and unit structure. Communication patterns do not usually follow the organisational hierarchy: some people are well connected across the organisation, others depend on a few sources of information; some have the ear of senior management, others have infl uential contacts outside the organisation. In the same way that knowledge process maps show how knowledge interactions produce an outcome, social network maps show the practical interactions that have evolved over time, rather than the management structure. The value lies in the contrast between these differing views and the opportunities that this identifi es. Figure 10.2 shows three examples of social network analysis: each node/person is represented by a letter.

233


The network on the left, centring around A and B, illustrates two different kinds of infl uence. The A node exhibits centrality with the highest number of direct connections – six – but some of the chains are quite long: three steps to several other nodes, and four to Z; in contrast, the B node exhibits the quality of closeness: B is connected to everyone else in the network in two or fewer steps, through the clusters centring on D, F and A. Research shows that closeness is more powerful than centrality, because of the ‘three degrees of infl uence’ rule: a node can usually exercise an infl uence up to two steps away, and occasionally a third, but no more than that.

The upper right network is an example of boundary-spanning; the diamond-shaped network is tightly concentrated, with all members directly connected to all others, and the other is more diffuse. Both Q and T are the links between networks and are well placed to bring knowledge from one over to the other and distribute it through the network in two steps. For example, practitioners who are members of two separate communities of practice can act as the bridge between them, able to broker

Examples of social networks mapsFigure 10.2

234


understanding and build a synthesis between the two fi elds of knowledge. The lower right network illustrates a gatekeeper role: a stands aloof, like a remote chief executive, depending on b and f for connection to the rest of the network; and f has a powerful position as a fi lter for all communication passed to and from both a and b.

Making connections

The dotted lines show potential connections that could be made to augment these networks:

■ Linking B directly to Q brings Q’s network connections (and the link to T) within two steps of B, and B’s network within three steps of Q, amplifying the infl uence of both.

■ Linking B to f adds the other two networks into the gatekeeper function. Making a direct link from B to a would be more powerful, but is probably infeasible.

Success in establishing these two dotted connections will span the boundary between three networks, augmenting the infl uence of most members, easing knowledge fl ows and stimulating the development of new knowledge through transfer and synthesis. Comparison of knowledge process and social network maps provide the basis for selecting potentially fruitful new connections:

■ Analysis of knowledge maps in the context of a knowledge audit indicates points where improved knowledge fl ows could assist policy action and delivery, and production of outcomes.

■ Analysis of social networks suggests nodes where an augmented connection should improve fl ow between those points.

235


■ Stakeholder profi les make the link between knowledge users and records users and indicate how records-based initiatives can reinforce knowledge-networking.

Records-based initiatives

Some initiatives drawing on the records and information base, and aimed at augmenting selected knowledge fl ows, might include:

■ Creating resource packages: working with key stakeholders to create packages which marshal existing available resources using organisational records and document bases, and relevant external information resources (electronic publications, statistics, etc.), into collaborative packages that signpost, summarise and synthesise existing knowledge. One example would be to support boundary-spanning between two communities of practice, by working with professional colleagues in other organisations to jointly create resources packages in areas of overlapping interest.

■ Rapid evidence review: this is a Delphi technique which asks experts for their opinion on a selected topic, backed by evidence, and organises the results in some way which gives a structure for exploring the topic. This is not the same as a systematic review, which works through all relevant evidence to reach a consensual view; it is a quick review to identify key issues and topics for debate and resolution. It helps the transfer and exchange process between connections by contrasting approaches, viewpoints and world-views, as a platform for further dialogue and knowledge development.

■ Information-sharing solutions: a proactive approach that prefi gures requests for information-sharing between

236


different areas by setting out the legal and policy restrictions to avoid, but also suggests alternative approaches to achieving the same ends: anticipating and facilitating demand rather than dampening and denying new initiatives.

■ Horizon-scanning: keeping track of major trends in policy-making and delivery strategies, to anticipate changing patterns in knowledge development and use, to refi ne iKRS tools, and to identify and feed back potential diffi culties and pitfalls to the policy management process.

Programme consultancy and review

An external viewpoint, acting as a ‘critical friend’, is a very valuable resource for a programme team, because it is able to stand back and identify strengths and weaknesses that are harder to see from a close engagement with day-to-day issues. An iKR strategist is well placed to offer a knowledge-based review to programmes – not as a compliance check, but as a ‘health check’ on whether:

■ the programme is making the best use of knowledge, records and information resources available to it;

■ the iKRS tools are accurate, up to date and their potential is recognised;

■ learning and sharing is built into the programme structure;

■ knowledge-networking could be augmented by an iKRS intervention;

■ any additional records and information-based initiatives would support delivery.

An iKRS review should always be based on face-to-face interaction with relevant stakeholders, rather than a documentation review.

237


Building collaborative knowledge architecture

This section deals with the underlying infrastructure that services the knowledge-sharing and networking activities outlined in the previous two sections; it is located at the organisational layer. It proposes a framework of sub-layers to structure the kinds of services offered, as a starting point for thinking through issues of design and implementation. It does not deal with specifi c technological or software systems, which are specifi c to a situation, or recommend one product above another. This approach, however, does suggest that moving towards a more standardised, integrated framework for defi ning and structuring services will move the discussion forward from a focus on specifi c products towards greater support for transfer and exchange of knowledge and records.

The scope of the framework should not be limited to a single organisation: the aim is to support exchange and dialogue between as well as within organisations, and to facilitate greater open access, re-use of public data and inclusiveness of a range of stakeholders and participants. The framework focuses on this opening out for collaboration and action, rather than on capturing and controlling organisational information; the latter is assumed within the lower layer. Figure 10.3 shows the separation and structuring of the fi ve sub-layers.

Records storage is at the base sub-layer, the foundation of organisational information resources. The physical storage may be within the organisation’s own EDRMS, outsourced to a specialist supplier, or utilising a generalised service such as the proposed UK Government Cloud. Operational systems – offi ce systems, databases, workfl ow – feed into this level separately. The key point for a knowledge architecture that is capable of serving a network-based public policy is the

238


ability to apply a higher-level management to the records captured in this underlying storage that is applicable across organisational holdings.

Collaborative records management is located at level 2. This represents the determination of governing rules and structures; their technical implementation results from the interaction between the two lowest levels. Shared management, retention, categorisation and classifi cation of records, and an integrated approach to information governance require a collaborative, cross-organisational framework in which to operate.

The resources sub-layer collocates formal records with other relevant information resources and provides related services for their presentation and use. This level can bring together internal organisational information with commercial services and can also make open government data accessible as a platform for external development as well as making

Collaborative knowledge architecture at the organisational layer

Figure 10.3

239


those developed applications accessible to a public policy community. Value-added services include the ability to switch between the different explicit categorisation and search languages that are linked to communities’ views above, to improve precision in searching; and the application of a quality control that validates accuracy, currency and pertinence. At this level, the skills of the records manager meet those of the information resources manager, librarian and information retrieval specialist.

User collaboration is supported at layer 4; various collaborative technologies – social media, interactive virtual spaces, intranets and virtual LANs – can act in a semi-detached relationship to formal management systems (some may produce records, many not) but still draw upon the integrated information resources provided by level 3.

Presentation, at the highest level, offers alternative user views on the range of resources that are made available, overseen by appropriate information governance, to the various communities of practice, interest and action involved. This is the essential resource which supports the interaction of knowledge in action with the formal knowledge resources within the organisational layer; hyperframes are a mechanism for framing those resources in a recognisable way for different user communities, mapping between them where the semantics are commensurable and highlighting confl icts where they are not.

This framework and its commentary is of necessity a very brief outline of a highly complex topic. The main thrust of the book is to argue the case for an interactive and collaborating approach to both records and knowledge, as a vital underpinning for the mobilisation of the knowledge resources needed to deliver public policy in a transformed public sphere. The case is a strategic rather than technical one; if one accepts the strategy, the kind of framework

240


outlined here is a logical outcome of the implications. Too often, discussion in this fi eld starts with the abilities of current software products and the need to react to new user technologies with management and archiving strategies. Moving from the back foot to the front involves starting from the questions – how can we best add public value to the public policy sphere? where is it moving towards and how can we augment that trend? – and then working back to technical implementation.

Towards a collaborative records management

The slow but steady shift from centralisation and top–down hierarchy towards decentralisation and networks as the basis for the delivery of public policy implies an equivalent move from organisation-based to collaborative records management (which means much more than records management of collaborative applications). What are the issues to be confronted in inter-organisational records management? Ten points to consider are:

■ From single ownership to records communities: private organisations seek a competitive edge through the data they own, but publicly funded organisations are custodians of records on behalf of society. If delivery of public policy outcomes is owned by a community of stakeholders, the associated records are owned by them too. Ownership does not automatically grant access – rules for security, governance, confi dentiality, etc. still apply – but it does imply a regard for all stakeholder needs in making management decisions. The archives profession has begun to recognise the concept (e.g. Ketelaar, 2005; Bastian, 2009) but it has yet to make much headway with information managers.

241


■ From joining-up to mutual cooperation: joining-up usually implies developing and working to a comprehensive map across the public sector to, in this case, manage all public sector records through one big management system – National Archives, who are surely best placed to do so, have made little, if any, progress with this. The reason is that the public sector does not join up, purposefully, because it works through a complicated balance of checks and counterweights. Different communities draw on overlapping but different sets of records for subtly different, though in part shared, purposes. Mutual cooperation helps to bring those shared interests together productively, without alienating through over-management.

■ Effi ciency through cost sharing: mutual cooperation within communities implies that some pay the costs of others’ convenience, and in diffi cult fi nancial times, goodwill is the fi rst thing to cut. Establishing a formal recognition that some of the customers for records managers are outside the organisation is a platform for promoting development of more-innovative cost redistribution mechanisms. It is more effi cient for a smaller number of records to be accessible to a larger number of approved users, than for each to hold their own copy: this is a justifi cation for corporate EDRM and so surely applies at a network level.

■ Collaborative retention: retention is driven by legal compliance and business need; where business need stretches across different, cooperating entities and actors, justifi ed retention periods are likely to differ. Sometimes, organisations will need to retain records for longer on behalf of others – as part of a cost-sharing arrangement.

■ Mobilising as well as managing: the purpose of life is not to make history, but to live it – and so with records.

242


■ Changing the default from closed to open: some jurisdictions – and others such as the World Bank – are making this move with structured datasets, publishing them by default, unless there is reason to withhold. Changing to an open default requires records managers to work out the categories which should be kept closed in advance (which is in itself a good discipline) and encourages recognition of professionalism. Within organisations, this is normal for EDRM systems, because we wish to discourage information-hoarding and a misplaced embrace of the ‘knowledge is power’ syndrome; logically, the same applies externally.

■ Standards for exchange and collaborative access: (especially electronic) records management standards have tended to focus on functionality for capture, management, disposal and preservation of records. Standards development is excellent for focusing attention and establishing a norm, but can swiftly become an end in itself, creating its own industry and pursuing ever more bureaucratic refi nements. Time now to widen scope and look to supporting standards that help to realise the potential value of records through sharing.

■ Publishing open government data: beyond open access, making (already publicly funded) government data available through an application programming interface as a platform for developers, and maintaining its accuracy and currency, is the most straightforward way of mobilising its added value.

■ Reviewing policies and procedures for collaboration: records management systems are part software, part policies and part procedures. Policies and procedures that work well for regulation may perhaps work to hinder innovation and collaboration: review against not just

243


records management itself, but also to resolve confl icts with an information security or governance context, will produce a more elegant and pithy set.

■ Segmenting policies by stakeholders: policies do not need to be all-embracing and comprehensive in every manifestation; segmenting the audience and targeting policies accordingly make them more digestible.

245

11

Reframing records management: towards knowledge governance

Abstract: Structural changes in the public sphere call for innovative responses from records and knowledge practitioners: knowledge is central to public policy; public governance is a contested issue; and information is now hard to contain. The governance of knowledge is moving to centre stage and opens up the possibility of a new strategic role which is active, intervening, accountable and highly professional, calling for independence and a well-developed ethical sense.

Key words: public sector; governance; professional role; ethics.

In a sense, this book has been about the problems of balancing the present with the future. We are used to thinking about this in terms of the big issues of the day, such as climate change and biodiversity loss: how important is it to take action now to reduce carbon emissions, costing some degree of lost economic growth and wealth-creation, set against a reliance on future technology to produce alternative solutions; how to agree suffi cient international restraint in the exploitation of sea fi sh that will support sustainable stock levels? Economists frequently use a device called discount

246


rates to quantify this sort of calculation: the further off in time, the less future benefi ts are worth, calculated equivalently to today’s present value, because future generations will be wealthier and more productive. The cost to today is in the lost opportunity: what alternative work could limited resources be put to instead that would give a faster return on investment? Human nature is always tempted to value the present much more than the future: but with such big issues, the calculation has a cliff edge: once a fi sh species is extinct, a food source is gone forever; the consequences of global warming may be irreversible.

The future direction of records management is the subject of a similar balancing. On one hand, the philosophy of information management – just-in-time delivery of the ‘right information to the right person’ – values the present much more than the future. This strand pushes records management towards an integration with operational problems, merging it with IT management as another branch of technology; it directly addresses today’s problems, seeks immediate solutions and a rapid return on investment. On the other, the archival tradition argues the case for the future; archivists are custodians of past memory, but are also concerned with capturing the present for the benefi t of future generations. This strand emphasises the fragmenting effects of IT on records creation, problems of digital preservation and the dangers of a future ‘black hole’ or ‘dark ages’, a cliff edge over which today’s records will be lost. We need to invest now so that future generations can reap benefi ts.

Relatively recently, the archival world has been recognising that they are shapers of memory about the past, as well as custodians (e.g. Schwartz and Cook, 2002; Johnson, 2008). A very small percentage of records are selected through appraisal processes for entry to the archives; some people and narratives are written into history and others written

247

Reframing records management

out. The recognition is that the selection process is not a neutral one, even though based on theory and methodology; these principles themselves refl ect a set of current values that defi ne which records are, and are not, important – and a set of interests and world-views that are embedded in those values. Archival appraisal is another frame through which today’s records are fi ltered, knowingly representing our present to the future; archival records are an expression of power in the society which they represent.

This is not intended as a criticism of archival science; from the earliest, archives have necessarily documented the institutions they represent in this way. As earlier chapters have tried to demonstrate, the information management strand also works in the same way, as a frame which fi lters current information, embodying a set of values based on corporatism and business management; and the information systems world has yet to show a widespread recognition of that role. From this point of view, the archival and information management strands have as much in common as separates them. The introductory chapter suggested that the trajectory of the discipline appears to be shifting from archives, through information, to knowledge, at least in terms of public positioning. Perhaps, though, it is more productive to see knowledge as the common ground between the established church of archives and the reformist chapels of information management.

Structural change in the public sector

The fundamental aim of this book is to attempt (at least the beginnings of) a synthesis between these two positions that is able to make a strategic response to the challenges of some very relevant structural changes in the public sector. The fi rst

248


structural change is in the central role of knowledge to public policy, not just in the sense of knowing about how to do public policy, its problems and pitfalls, as an expert; knowledge is also central to the objects of government: economic growth, core behaviour change, citizenship, maintaining legitimacy, social cohesion and a sustainable society through rapid social, economic and technological change. Working with public policy is less about applying knowledge and more about working with knowledge as a force in the wider society and economy.

Knowledge, interests, identity and action are tightly bound together, as I have tried to show in earlier chapters – not all the same thing, but interlinked, so that a change in one factor is refl ected by adjustment in the others. The wider objectives of public policy are brought to pass by working with this interlinked web of factors, because the problems they are addressing can only be alleviated through collective action by the widest range of interests and cannot be commanded outright: targets for climate change can be fi xed in legislation, for example, but the action to achieve them presupposes a voluntary acquiescence of the general public. Creating the right climate for acquiescence is as much about creating a knowledge climate – made evident in knowledge structures and processes that shape how it is created, used and viewed – as anything else.

This makes the role of the archivist, records manager, information manager or knowledge specialist a central and strategic one because these are the people who have the capabilities to:

■ build and manage the frames through which knowledge is created and used;

■ select and validate the knowledge which they contain, writing some in and others out;

249


■ infl uence the fl ows of knowledge between participants;

■ marshal the agreed narrative which defi nes policy problems and delivery actions; and

■ strengthen or weaken trust and legitimacy in government, by the degree to which all the above are recognised through, and match with, public experience.

The second structural change is a growth of public interest in active governance. This might seem an odd claim in view of the well-observed decline of public interest in electoral politics and voting. Certainly respect for politicians – whom opinion polls regularly place lowest in lists of trusted professions, even below estate agents – and engagement in the political party process are low. But interest in many issues that are largely governance ones is higher: in the UK, for example, in the controversy over the (now cancelled) introduction of identity cards and in the outrage over parliamentary expenses; in the turn towards direct engagement on practical issues in many parts of Europe; and more widely in the demands for more democratic constitutions in the Middle East.

This interest in accountability goes beyond the presentation of evidence released through freedom of information or the simple assurance that such records are being kept. It is more focused on the practicalities of everyday life: people are more concerned with the local level, on whether their views are being taken into account, and with the impact of decisions on public services. For the reasons above, governments need to engage with active citizenship to deliver many public policy outcomes; and the demonstration of good governance is central to this purpose. The CIPFA Good Governance Standard for Public Services (2004) lists some key characteristics:

■ a focus on outcomes and organisational purposes for citizens and service users;

250


■ effective performance and clear defi nitions of functions and roles;

■ promoting and demonstrating public service values through behaviour;

■ well-informed and transparent decision-making, backed by effective risk management;

■ real accountability through engaging with stakeholders.

These characteristics make a good match with the public values framework described in Chapter 8, including both the performance outputs of the control quadrant and the outcome focus of the collaborate quadrant. The shift from hierarchies towards decentralised networks as delivery mechanisms requires that these characteristics be distributed amongst participants, coordinated at the network level rather than centralised in one organisation. The capabilities of the strategic role outlined above combine with these characteristics by:

■ guiding knowledge fl ows, and making new connections, to focus on outcomes, informed by analysis of knowledge processes;

■ supporting good performance and decision-making by building and populating knowledge architectures that frame, select and validate available resources in the knowledge landscape, so as best to refl ect public service values in the context of an outcome-focused risk management;

■ demonstrating public service values by drawing participants and stakeholders into knowledge fl ows and connecting them with knowledge architectures, agreeing the narrative through a dynamic interaction;

■ demonstrating accountability, in the wider sense, through these activities to mobilise and record knowledge as well

251


as by production of evidence, so building trust and confi dence.

The third structural change relates, but is not restricted, to technological developments: information is harder to contain within restricted channels. The most obvious example is in Internet-based developments, with, in many countries, an almost ubiquitous access to online sources and the ability to exchange information rapidly and in real time. The network infrastructure transcends the restrictions of geographical space and time, social media enable personal network-building, and communication channels such as Twitter amplify the spread of comment and opinion. Other media, such as the availability of satellite television with multiple news channels, have a similar effect. People are much better, or at least more, informed and have become used to this. The effects on professional practice are evident: for example, 20 or so years ago, it was common for medical libraries to refuse enquiries from patients about their type of condition, referring them back to their general practitioner; now it is common for patients to research their symptoms online before visiting their doctor – with signifi cant implications for both medical and information specialists.

One should be careful to avoid excessive utopianism, remembering some of the caveats expressed in Chapter 7; the effects can be negative as well as positive. The current Internet culture emphasises the free fl ow of information and relatively cheap access; but the attitudes of the small number of corporations that own the Internet infrastructure, or a more robust regulatory attitude by state administrations, may change this. Despite this, there are signifi cant impacts for citizen engagement:

■ Citizen expectations are higher, taking access to relevant information for granted, though not necessarily being aware of how best to fi nd it.

252


■ Policy debates and political processes are more visible through these media, encouraging a culture of performance rather than expertise, and making a culture of secrecy more diffi cult to maintain.

■ Rumour and misunderstanding spreads as quickly as facts and informed opinion.

■ Recognition and resistance to persuasion strategies is widespread, and unwelcome attempts are quickly disregarded.

■ Attention is a scarce commodity, attention spans are low and interest quickly changes focus.

The use by government of social media is immature at present. It appears to be mainly used for one-way communications, for instance, as a channel for ministers to present to their constituents a human, day-to-day face showing ‘what it’s like in government’, but without really engaging on important or contentious issues; as a substitute for paper consultation processes; or as an adjunct to press releases. One could imagine much more innovative uses, perhaps:

■ A testing ground for policy ideas using a Second Life style virtual space, to see how people would actually interact with them in practice: of course, virtual space offers participants an opportunity to swap their real-life identity for a preferred alternative and to act in ways normally constrained by their feelings of real-world propriety. But this is exactly the problem with understanding how a new policy will work out in practice: in a conventional consultation, people will tend to respond as they think they should feel, rather than as they will actually behave. Better to fi nd this out in a simulation than through a costly failed implementation.

253


■ Engaging with citizens to develop knowledge and understanding: questionnaire-based consultations and opinion polls are quite blunt instruments, which rely on correctly predetermining the possible options that respondents can select from, and assume that all the necessary background knowledge to understand the range of options offered is present. Interactive multi-way media offer an opportunity to engage in a critical debate in which, as the knowledge of participants develops, their opinions may change. Learning through dialogue is an essential part of clients and professionals working together to co-produce a social outcome.

■ Creating social networks to connect service users/clients: moving from a mode of conventional service delivery to a passive user, towards one which encourages active users to take more responsibility and control, means changing the communication platforms. An active, engaged client base that is well connected can spread positive infl uences more effectively than conventional broadcast communication from a centralised service; and also requires offi cials to respond innovatively to feedback and negative infl uences through service changes.

These are just illustrative possibilities to make the point, and no doubt actual applications will evolve in their own course; but it does seem inevitable that, sooner or later, things will move in this direction. As these types of tool mature, we are less in the business of circulating information (whether considered objective and value-free or not) and more that of developing knowledge – this is inherent in the tools. One characterisation is that knowledge is information with an attitude; as we have seen, much of this attitude is already embedded in records, although not always recognised. The really key issues are less about ‘how to archive a virtual

254


space’ – is that really desirable anyway? – and more about the complex and thorny governance problems of knowledge development.

Governance and knowledge

One way of reading these structural changes is as a changing relationship between knowledge and action in the public sector. As both action and responsibility are decentralised, the role of knowledge grows: knowledge, in a sense, mediates between the state and the citizen. This puts knowledge-related issues of governance and accountability at centre stage, for example in moving from:

■ Services that do things to clients, towards services that do things with them: connecting people in social networks loses some control over the outcome – where does accountability lie? Administrators who do not want to let go may attempt to retain control by fi ltering relevant knowledge: is it enough to make information available without the ability to decode it correctly? How much responsibility lies with the provider, and how is that accountability demonstrated?

■ Consultation to critical debate: if policy and delivery is strongly infl uenced by networks and opinion-changing, who is connected into those networks? Are real citizens crowded out by lobbying or pressure groups – easier to engineer through Internet anonymity and poorly designed ‘crowdsourcing’? Are participants self-selected by social group and access, disadvantaging those across the digital divide? What is the right balance between digital and face-to-face interaction, and what kinds of knowledge contribution are considered acceptable? Who, in other words, gets to write the record?

255


■ A culture of secrecy to a culture of openness: secrecy engenders a cycle of fear about uncertainty, leading to distrust and to entrenched opinions, defensiveness and cover-seeking, and a culture of blame, reinforcing secrecy; openness to a culture of engagement, challenging and being challenged, opinion-forming, learning, trust-building and greater openness. How do ideas of accountability translate into a more open culture? How do records act as evidence in open government?

■ Risk-averse to risk-taking: the opposite of avoiding risk wherever possible is not seeking out risk, but understanding, taking and managing proportionate risks in relation to potential outcomes. Risk is central to accountability in use of public resources and knowledge is central to risk. How to embed information risk and knowledge risk within corporate governance and public governance?

A central issue for public administration is: who is accountable for what, and when? Accountability concerns what should have been done, as much as what was done, and as noted, is central in developing public trust and confi dence. As knowledge moves centre stage, judgements about what should have been done concern not just compliance with legal and policy requirements, but also assessments of judgement in making better or worse choices, based on that knowledge; and in turn, whether the knowledge base for dialogue and decision-making is itself of suffi cient quality. This puts the dyadic relationship between knowledge mobilisation and records management, and its three inter-related dimensions – the balance between knowing and doing, evidence and accountability, and who is working to deliver what outcome – at centre stage too; and this in turn points to the need to develop governance concepts for this wider environment – to progress from information governance towards knowledge governance.

256


A strategic role for knowledge governance

If we are concerned that knowledge and records make the best possible contribution to the new governing environment – that can serve to both guide and refl ect action – then we also need to be working at the institutional and social levels, since these are increasingly where outcomes are delivered. In thinking about knowledge structures and processes, we are incorporating a change in perspective – from organisation to network, from functions to outcomes – that needs to be refl ected in roles and professionalism.

A knowledge governance role will be:

■ strategic: focusing more on making change and less on maintaining stasis, but concerned with long-term sustainability, appropriate use of evidence and demonstration of public accountability;

■ analytical: basing intervention on a robust understanding of how structures and fl ows deliver outcomes and underpinning this with an inclusive strategy;

■ interventionist: actively seeking opportunities to improve outcomes, knowledge fl ows and networks, making connections and mobilising knowledge for action in both systems and people;

■ accountable for responsibility: accepting a share of responsibility for success and failure in delivering outcomes, and aiming to declare and make an impact;

■ professionally independent: in the sense that an engineer or lawyer must act and make judgements appropriately, regardless of the organisation they are employed by;

■ rewarding: seeking and justifying an essential key role in the future shape of the public sector.

257


The emerging activities of such a role, extending beyond the accepted current norms of records management and information governance, have been suggested through this book:

■ nudge: creating the opportunities and making the connections that encourage people in promising directions for knowledge development and deployment, without requiring that they do so; using analytical skills to help make available to people choices that they might not otherwise have spotted;

■ nurture: augmenting social networks and institutions with a supportive environment, fostering a culture of sharing and learning, and connecting people with the existing knowledge and information resources they need; helping the latent potential in the network to emerge;

■ respond: being responsive to emergent needs and adapting systems accordingly, working at the systemic level to include stakeholders and participants, ensuring a form of knowledge development that refl ects their full range and best delivers public value;

■ build: maintaining the longer-term perspective, building a knowledge architecture that exhibits broad features of integrity and authenticity, and managing attention as a scarce resource by imbuing it with focus, relevance and precision; and helping build public trust and confi dence, and legitimacy, by delivering accountability in all its aspects.

Professional ethics

It seems clear that this sort of role – taking records and knowledge out to the front line – is a powerful one, in which

258


a highly polished sense of professional ethics and responsibility is vital. To the extent that the focus of the role evolves beyond the organisation to the network, or institutional, level, existing professional ethics and codes of practice must also evolve to match this new platform; and this is likely to introduce new kinds of confl ict.

A fundamental question for a developed professional ethics asks: who is the client? For the records manager working solely within one organisation, the answer is relatively straightforward: the employer, and its senior managers, is the client, and the task is to manage the records and information that are owned by the organisation in its best interests (including advising the client on issues where their responsibilities may be unmet). For the knowledge strategist working in the public sector, matters are less clear: one client is the employing organisation but the strategist is also involved, at the systemic and network levels, with other organisations and stakeholders, and has a responsibility to help deliver the wider social outcomes and add value across the whole piece, not just for the employer. Confl icts of interest will be more frequent and the responsibility to resolve them oneself more diffi cult to avoid. And as a public administrator seeking to achieve the most feasible and best public value, one client is the public good itself.

It also seems clear that such confl icts are extremely hard to resolve at the personal level. Strong professions have strong professional associations, which regulate membership through education and training standards, validate professional standards of behaviour and legitimise appropriate, or sanction inappropriate, resolution of interest confl icts through various codes of practice. Although some codes have been developed by professional associations in records management, they are less developed than those in longer established professions, such as doctors and

259


lawyers – but the demands of a transformed sector will need such a mature and well-backed code.

The US-based ARMA International has a Code of Professional Responsibility for records and information managers, which divides responsibilities into two parts: social principles and professional principles. The four social principles derive from the manager’s responsibility to society and include the maintenance of proper standards and governance (citing the need to affi rm ethical and moral as well as legal uses) and a general responsibility to support a free fl ow of publicly available information that helps to inform and educate society (ARMA, 2011). The ten professional principles derive from responsibility to employers, clients and profession, and cover the ground of a model professional code.

The Australasian RIMPA has a more integrated Statement of Ethical Practice, which sets down ten general principles as core values of the profession, commencing with a clear statement of professional role: to maintain accountability and protect the wider public interest (RIMPA, 2011). From this promising start, the statement elucidates various other responsibilities mostly with an organisational focus, but at points recognising a responsibility both to employers/clients, and loyalty and duties to a wider community, and its social and political institutions – although it does not spell out what these are. This works well for records alone; but if we were, as an experiment, to substitute the word knowledge (and of course, this is not intended to be within its scope) some of the confl icts become more apparent.

A statement of ethical principles which aims to cover issues of knowledge governance might need to address such problems as:

■ where confl ict and rivalry between public sector organisations – e.g. competing government departments –

260


leads to knowledge disconnects, discourages sharing and prejudices successful delivery;

■ where confl icting policy strategies imply alternative, competing, knowledge processes – e.g. between central and local government;

■ where acceptable levels of accountability are threatened;

■ where the integrity of a knowledge resource is degraded;

■ where equitable access to information and knowledge confl icts with organisational policy.

A broad-based professional association has a wider scope than the public sector, so a code would by its nature be somewhat general; a starting point might be to consider cross-sector ethical issues within a specialised sector and look to developing some appropriate institutional mechanisms for resolving them: for example, the UK knowledge and information manager professional specialism could do some useful work here.

Options for the future

One option for records managers is to retain local and organisational focus, as custodian of memory and a record of past actions; but this role is unlikely to advance in profi le and more likely to suffer through drastic budget cuts in the foreseeable future, reducing rather than expanding scope.

Another is to merge with information managers and technologists of various hues, perhaps losing a unique identity among the ambiguities and varieties of the trade. The recent emphasis on ERM technology has made this an attractive option to some; but the glory days of IT are fading fast, as technology becomes ubiquitous and user-led. An alliance with knowledge management appears to offer a

261


brighter option; but this also has lost much kudos with users when suppliers often appear as another branch of IT in disguise.

The theme of this book has been to suggest a third option: strategically aligning the specifi c qualities of records management with the problems of knowledge mobilisation – putting knowledge into purposeful action, rather than trying to manage it. This is perhaps a foolhardy option to develop, since it requires an attempt to make out the lines of a future, transformed and transforming, public sector when much of the old remains familiarly in view. Yet it does seem that we are entering a period of rapid and transformative change, although there are undoubted problems en route: politics is a short-term business dealing with long-term problems; and humans by nature value the present more highly than the future. Yet also, it is clear that the key problems of the age are ones of changing behaviour: climate change, health, sustainable economic growth, energy and fossil fuels, and so on – problems of knowledge development and mobilisation for present and future benefi t.

The time to position oneself is now. Once discerned, the future is just waiting to be grasped.

263

ReferencesARMA. (2011) Code of Professional Responsibility.

Available online at: www.arma.org/about/overview/ethics.cfm (accessed March 2011).

Bailey, S. (2008) Managing the Crowd: Rethinking Records Management for the Web 2.0 World. London: Facet Publishing.

Bastian, J. (2009) Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory. London: Facet Publishing.

BBC. (2004) Building Public Value: Renewing the BBC for a Digital World. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.

Benington, J. and Moore, M. (2010) Public Value: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bessant, J. et al. (2010) Beyond Light Bulbs and Pipelines: Leading and Nurturing Innovation in the Public Sector. Sunningdale: National School of Government/Sunningdale Institute.

Bland, T. et al. (2010) Enhancing Public Sector Innovation: Examining the Network-Innovation Relationship. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. Vol. 15(3).

Blond, P. (2009) Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain, and How We Can Fix It. London: Faber.

Bowker, G. and Leigh Starr, S. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classifi cation and its Consequences. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

British Standards Institution. (2003) Effective Records Management: Performance Management for BS ISO 15489-1. London: British Standards Institution.

264


Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. (2004) The Good Governance Standard for Public Services. London: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Christiakis, N. and Fowler, J. (2009) Connected: The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How They Shape our Lives. London: Harper-Collins.

Collins, K. and Ison, R. (2006) Dare We Jump off Arnstein’s Ladder? Social Learning as a New Policy Paradigm. In: Proceedings of PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology) Conference, 4–7 June 2006, Edinburgh. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/8589/1/Path_paper_Collins_Ison.pdf (accessed June 2011).

Cowan, R. et al. (2000) The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codifi cation and Tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 9(2), June.

Cumming, K. (2010) Ways of Seeing: Contextualising the Continuum. Records Management Journal. Vol. 20(1), January.

Ellis, D. (1998) Paradigms and Research Traditions in Information Retrieval Research. Information Services and Use. Vol. 18(4), December.

Foray, D. (2006) The Economics of Knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Gero, J. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004) The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework. Design Studies. Vol. 25, pp. 373–91.

Hutton, W. (2010) Them and Us: Changing Britain – Why We Need a Fair Society. London: Little, Brown.

International Standards Organization. (2006) Information and Documentation – Records Management – Part 1: General. Geneva: International Standards Organization.

JISC InfoNet. (2010) Records Management Impact Calculator Project Results. Available at: www.jiscinfonet

265

References

.ac.uk/records-management/measuring-impact/impact-calculator.

John, P. (1998) Analysing Public Policy. New York: Continuum.

Johnson, E. (2008) Our Archives, Our Selves: Documentation Strategy and the Re-appraisal of Professional Identity. American Archivist. Vol. 71(1), Spring–Summer, pp. 190–202.

Kaletsky, A. (2010) Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy. London: Bloomsbury.

Ketelaar, E. (2005) Sharing: Collected Memories in Communities of Records. Archives and Manuscripts. Vol. 33(1), pp. 46–61.

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.

McGregor, N. (2010) A History of the World in 100 Objects. London: Allen Lane.

Michaels, S. et al. (2006) Considering Knowledge Uptake within a Cycle of Transforming Data, Information and Knowledge. Review of Policy Research. Vol. 23(1), pp. 267–9.

Mokyr, J. (2002) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Moore, M. (1997) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Archives. (2009) Business Archives. London: National Archives.

National Audit Offi ce. (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. London: National Audit Offi ce.

National Health Service Institute. (2011) Tackling Tough Choices: Creating Public Value. Available at: www.institute.nhs.uk/commissioning/tackling_tough_choices/tackling_

266


tough_choices_creating_public_value_homepage.html (accessed March 2011).

North, D.C. (2005) Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nutley, S. et al. (2007) Using Evidence: How Research can Inform Public Services. London: Policy Press.

Offi ce of Government Commerce. (2007) Managing Successful Programmes: MSP. 3rd ed. London: The Stationery Offi ce.

Offi ce of Government Commerce. (2010) Management of Risk: MoR Guidance for Practitioners. 3rd ed. London: The Stationery Offi ce.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Public Record Offi ce. (2001) e-Government Policy Framework for Electronic Records Management, Version 2.0. London: Public Record Offi ce.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983) A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science. Vol. 29, pp. 363–77.

Raber, D. (2003) The Problem of Information: An Introduction to Information Science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

RIMPA. (2011) Statement of Ethical Practice. Available at: www.rimpa.com.au/membership/statement-of-ethical-practice/ (accessed March 2011).

Schon, D. and Rein, M. (1994) Frame Refl ection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Schwartz, J. and Cook, T. (2002) Archives, Records and Power: The Making of Modern Memory. Archival Science. Vol. 2(2–3).

267

References

Simon, H. (1991) Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science. Vol. 2(1), pp. 125–34.

Starbuck, W. (2006) The Production of Knowledge: The Challenge of Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sunstein, C. (2010) On Rumours: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can be Done. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Talbot, C. (2008) Measuring Public Value: A Competing Values Approach, a Paper for the Work Foundation. London: Work Foundation.

Talbot, C. (2010) Theories of Performance: Organizational and Service Improvement in the Public Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tuomi, I. (2000) Data is More than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organisational Memory. Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 16(3), pp. 103–17.

University of Northumbria. (2010) AC + ERM: Accelerating Positive Change in ERM. Results available at www.northumbria.ac.uk/acerm (accessed March 2011).

Upward, F. (1996) Structuring the Records Continuum: Postcustodial Principles and Properties. Archives and Manuscripts. Vol. 24(2). Also available at: www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/recordscontinuum-fupp1.html.

Weiss, C. (1979) The Many Meanings of Research Utilisation. Public Administration Review. Vol. 35(9), September–October, pp. 426–431.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

269

Index2004 initiative 3, 5, 6, 28, 29, 149

accountability 45–7, 76, 158–9, 184, 187, 192–3, 255; and delivery 9; and governance 249–50, 254–5, 259–60; and interests 127; and knowledge strategy 167; and records management 6, 10, 15, 32, 69, 80; and value 173, 188

action, design view 92adult social care 34, 123, 205–7Advisory Commission on Misuse

of Drugs 149–150after-action reviews 225–6antisocial behaviour 34, 42, 125,

157, 173appraisal 246–7appropriateness, logic of 100–1,

106ARMA International 259

behaviour change 9, 26, 34, 42, 73, 117, 135, 146, 164, 204, 207, 208, 211, 248, 261; and knowledge 199–202, 204, 207–8; and norms 51, 61, 63, 74, 85, 98, 100–1

behavioural dimension 76–7, 80, 88boundary setting 200–1

bounded rationality 109British Broadcasting Corporation

186British Standards Institution 182brokering 19, 123, 134, 136, 207,

211, 227, 233–4business alignment 211–15business classifi cation scheme 106,

108, 111business processes 33, 69, 72, 96,

156, 196

Cabinet Offi ce 186capabilities 158–9, 167, 205, 207,

248Chartered Institute of Public

Finance and Accountancy 249

Christakis, N. 134, 164civil service 13, 25, 47, 97, 147co-production 9, 20, 30, 43, 46,

122, 155, 160, 187, 188codebook 49, 59–62, 64, 65, 66,

113, 131, 223, 239codes of practice 258–9codifi cation 16, 160, 163, 264collaboration 32, 36, 80, 88, 105,

123, 125, 152, 156, 158, 161, 163–4, 178, 187, 188, 189, 191–2, 197, 237–43

270


communities, 41, 43, 122, 130, 157, 186, 192; of records 240–1; role in delivery 9, 38, 62, 192

communities of action 136, 163communities of interest 163, 220communities of practice 17, 61,

81, 135–6, 159, 160, 162, 228–9, 223, 233, 235, 239

community budgets 32community regeneration 16, 32,

136, 160, 163competing public values 188, 191,

197Competing Values Framework

189–91compliance 3, 5–6, 15, 29, 70,

104, 173, 177, 178, 181, 188, 192, 209, 241, 255

connections 18, 20, 21, 58, 62, 114, 131, 134–5, 152, 160, 230–1, 232, 234–5, 250, 256–7

consensus 126, 130; logic of 106–7, 95, 111, 128, 132, 165, 188

consequentiality, logic of 100–1, 106

consultation 111, 254corporate memory 13, 16, 51, 58,

67, 70, 83, 85, 104, 137Cowan, R. 60–1

decision-making 6, 20, 54, 82, 96, 108–9, 151,178, 183, 250, 255

design model 75, 80–82; perspectives 93–4; key features 93

design views 83–92

dialogue 20, 61, 116, 120, 125, 129, 130, 131, 140, 167, 187, 235, 237, 253, 255; logic of 129–30, 131, 132, 165, 188

directive knowledge 161discount rates 165, 246DoD 5015.2 177

economy 170, 180–2effectiveness 107, 170, 173, 186,

188, 189effi ciency 119, 167, 170, 173, 177,

182–6, 188; allocative 185; in records management processes 177; organisational 30–1, 107; technical 184

electronic records management 150; benefi ts 6, users 11, 80, 164, public service reform 3–4; EDRM systems 44, 180, 237, 241, 242; business cases 172–4; implementation 89, 90, 106; and social media 163

Ellis, David 56embedded knowledge 54, 59, 101,

128, 157, 221embodied knowledge 56, 59, 62,

65, 221encoded knowledge 55, 59, 60, 61,

113, 128, 131, 191, 221energy policy 34, 42, 130,131, 261entitlement clashes 140, 167, 188,

202, 220Ethical Practice, Statement of 259evidence 19, 20, 33, 74, 78, 85,

92, 109, 132, 138, 191, 192, 251, 255, 256; and blame 151; and records 15, 52, 71, 75, 108–90

271

Index

evidence-based policy 5, 6, 19, 103, 149, 150–3, 162, 166, 183

experiential knowledge 160expert knowledge 160

framing, and archives 247; and information management 247; and innovation 124–5, 132; and knowledge architectures 153, 155–6; and schemas 106–7, 109–10; and social learning 136;

framing clashes 140, 166, 188, 202Function-Behaviour-Structure

design 89–91, 208functional analysis 33, 53, 68–9,

71; fi leplan 17, 103, 106; as knowledge structure 63, 106

functional dimension 76, 80, 88functions 4, 5, 9, 10, 21, 27, 51,

70, 108, 129, 146, 158, 185, 250, 256

gap analysis 208–9Gero, John 89governance 11, 45, 48, 87, 97,

114, 116, 130, 138, 140, 152–3, 160, 167, 202, 249, 254–5

Government 2.0 40government, changing role 9, 27;

as institution 95–7

healthcare 19, 29, 33, 34, 62, 72, 99, 129, 137, 152, 154–5, 159

horizon scanning 236hyperframes 239

ideas 19, 20, 60, 64, 71, 73, 74, 85, 92, 101, 118, 110, 124–6, 135, 255; and change 8, 11,

100, 113, 118, 119, 122, 128, 129, 134, 166

iKRS 21, 146, 151, 152, 173, 192, 195–211, 214, 220, 227, 236

impact measures 209, 215–16incentives 34, 64, 98, 119, 126,

156, 164, 184, 211, 221individuals 41, 58, 100–1, 106,

111, 131, 135, 164, 231–2; mental models 103, 107

information, as physical entity 55, and regulation 6, 11; regulation of 112, 251; as cognitive process 56

information access 98, 176, 202, 237, 251, 260; government data 38, 46, 48, 242; performance 176, 183; rules for 70, 105, 240, 242

Information and Records Management Society 13

information audit 91information governance 5, 7, 14,

21, 32, 70, 83, 85, 88, 105–6, 192, 238

information management 13, 21, 177, 180, 182, 211, 220, 246, 247; and innovation 96; models 58, 69; and regulation 96–7, 114; and records 53; turn to 14–15, 178, 246

innovation 19, 33–4, 37, 52, 167, 231, 242; barriers to 122–3, 132; and change 61, 75, 189; characteristics 118–19; and creativity 120–1, 189; design view 86; key principles 140–1; and knowledge 16, 20, 55, 96, 116, 129, 134–5, 137–8, 160;

272


models 121–2; tension with regulation 6, 33, 41, 167, 187; and records 6,7 97, 114, 128

institutional knowledge 161institutional rules 7, 51, 59, 67, 70,

74, 83, 95, 98–100, 116, 140institutions 20–1, 36, 41, 70, 96,

103, 105, 106, 112, 191, 247, 259; change in 100, 101, 104, 107, 117; elements 98; logics 100–1, 117; and knowledge 124, 131, 157; regulatory role 97–101

interests 35, 45, 73, 74, 76, 102, 105, 117, 126, 127, 133, 134, 137, 241, 249; and governance 101, 138, 187, 201; and knowledge 20, 21, 34, 51, 64, 74, 92, 140, 231, 248

intervention plan 196, 204, 207, 208, 220

invention 121, 130–2ISO15489 52, 69, 182

JISC 174, 182joined-up government 4, 25, 62,

120, 176, 241

knowledge, and action 57–9, 64, 126, 156, 207, 219; adoption of new 126–7; as cognitive process 56, 109; compared with records 76; and delivery 167; design view 91; paradigms 63; as physical entity 55; production of 124–6, 166; regulation of 112–13; sources of 116; tacit 57; turn to 16–17, 179, 246; value 119

knowledge architectures 152, 198, 219, 237–40, 250, 257

knowledge audit 195, 204–5, 234knowledge governance 112,

138–9, 254–5, 256–7, 259knowledge landscapes 131, 160–3,

198, 201–4, 224, 227knowledge mobilisation 18, 58,

63–5, 66, 75, 88, 111, 114, 154, 179, 192, 197, 198, 241–2, 255; aims 63; characteristics 58; defi nition 18–19; design view 78, 82–3, 84; key elements 74; and innovation 96; and records 21, 24, 75, 88, 97, 130, 153, 172, 255, 261; and risk 210

knowledge nuggets 229–30knowledge processes 12, 62, 64,

74, 80, 91, 152, 165, 167, 198, 201–4, 227, 232, 256, 260; analysing 156–60, 207, 232

knowledge resources 19, 114, 192, 203, 204, 214, 239

knowledge sharing 220–3knowledge strategies 152, 153–68,

192, 196, 198, 199–200; analysing 156–63; designing 165–8

knowledge structures 21, 65, 101, 103, 108–11, 116, 137, 248, 256

knowledge transfer 18, 60, 62, 122, 123, 176

knowledge value chain 196–8, 215

learning 122, 136, 151, 163, 183, 198, 220–3, 230, 236, 253, 257; by doing 20, 133; by telling 19;

273

Index

from evaluation 121, 192; see

also social learning, unlearninglegitimacy 45–7, 98, 172–3,

186–8, 193, 248, 249, 251lifecycle model 77local government 9, 33, 41, 99,

102, 131, 159, 260localism 30, 35, 42, 43

March, J. 100markets 34, 40, 43, 44, 96, 100,

101, 109, 164, 189, 190, 192; role in delivery 38

memory, shaping 135, 246meta-knowledge 161Michaels, S. 109Modernising Government 2–3Mokyr, J. 126Moore, Mark 186MoReq2 44, 177

National Archives 174, 182, 241National Audit Offi ce 122National Health Service 97, 99,

186networks 92, 105, 122, 130,

162, 163, 187, 192, 204, 230–1, 240, 257; see also social networks

new public management 38, 44, 46, 184, 188, 191

norms and values 54, 61, 63, 74, 80, 85, 98, 100, 102, 105, 113, 127, 137, 146, 164, 167, 170; and evidence 151–2

Northumbria University 170nudge 46, 106, 130, 134, 135,

196, 222, 232, 257nurture 130, 134, 152, 257

Offi ce of Government Commerce 202, 209, 216

Olsen, J. 100openness, culture of 127, 255organisational culture 104, 106,

113, 151, 211organisations 97, 99–100; and

knowledge types 162outcomes 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21,

32, 41, 62, 64, 71–3, 80, 87, 92, 131, 136, 138, 152–3, 156, 167, 172–3, 184, 186, 197, 199, 201, 208–10, 215, 249, 256

outcomes mapping 90, 202–3, 205

path dependency 8, 101, 102–3peer reviews 226–8performance appraisal 223–5performance measures 182–3policy management 197–8, 200,

236powers 9, 38, 42, 102, 158–9,

205, 207practitioners, associations 13–14,

17; ethics 257–60; role 121, 131–2, 145, 248–9, 250, 260–1

procedures 70, 71, 82, 83, 87, 99, 101–1, 102, 103, 137, 161, 242; embedded 11, 53–4, 59

Professional Responsibility, Code of 259

programme management 90, 167, 197–8, 199, 200, 202, 216, 227

programme review 236–7public engagement 26, 45–6, 118,

187, 249, 251–2public manager, role 43, 44, 46,

129, 187

274


public policy, and change 8; delivery 36; key issues 26–7; and knowledge 248; models 147–8; networks 35; rights and responsibilities 43; sources of 5, 146–9; wicked problems 33–4; see also policy management

public private partnerships 100public services 3, 26, 30, 37, 71,

116, 118, 153, 159, 172, 186public spending, reductions 9, 29public value 40, 45, 87, 90, 119,

129, 152, 170, 185, 186–91, 193, 198, 240, 257, 258

Quinn R. 189

rapid evidence review 235rational choice 5, 58, 100, 108,

146, 147, 154, 164, 167, 183Records and Information

Management Professionals Australasia 259

records continuum model 77–79records, characteristics 68–9;

compared with knowledge 76; as information type 52–5, 58; and outcomes 71–2

records management, benefi ts 170, 174–8; collaborative 238, 240–3; design view 84; key challenges 12; key elements 70; and innovation 10; regulatory role 10, 96, 104–7; self-reinforcing system 108–11; users 71, 108; see also electronic records management

regulation 16, 23, 40, 41, 96, 97, 116, 187, 242; design view 86;

and information 15, 87, 105, 112; and innovation 6, 11, 116

research utilisation 147–8, 201resource allocation 12, 28–9, 44,

47, 137, 172, 179, 180, 182, 185, 187

resource packages 235retention, collaborative 241risk 7, 70, 106, 131, 132, 140,

152, 176–7, 178, 181, 198, 226, 250, 255; appetite for 209–10, 255; and blame 119–20; information 209; residual 210

Rosetta Stone 49–51rules of the game 99, 64, 105, 114,

149

Second Life 252secrecy, culture of 210, 252, 255Sharepoint 154, 180, 228Simon, Herbert 109social knowledge 161, 163social learning 115, 133, 135social media 134, 145, 154,

163–5, 230, 239, 251, 252–3

social networks 41, 113, 115, 123, 134–6, 161, 164–5, 253, 257; analysis 135, 231–4

stakeholders 16, 34, 36, 74, 82, 85, 138, 167, 187, 188, 197, 200, 202, 209, 216, 217, 236, 237, 243, 250, 257; profi les 205–8, 216–17, 235

Starbuck, William 124structural dimension 76, 80, 88Sunningdale Institute 120SureStart 120

275

Index

Talbot, Colin 188three degrees of infl uence 135, 233Total Place 32transactions 14, 70, 75, 78, 83,

85, 154, 158transformation 7, 8, 13, 21, 28,

41, 82, 87, 90, 118, 131, 136, 146, 191; key principles 48; structural change 247–52

transparency 6, 7, 32, 46, 47, 192; Transparency Initiative 47

trust 3, 27, 41, 45, 46, 98, 127, 152, 167, 172, 173, 186–8,

192–3, 207, 215, 216, 229, 249, 251, 255, 257

university 97, 99unlearning 125, 137, 166Upward, Frank 78

value, economic 169, 170–3, 185; adding 197–8

values, see norms and values

Wenger, E 135–6working knowledge 64

Records Management and Knowledge Mobilisation. A Handbook for Regulation, Innovation and...

Documents

Transcript of Records Management and Knowledge Mobilisation. A Handbook for Regulation, Innovation and...