The eluding denitions of

records and records management:

is a universally acceptable
denition possible?
Part 1. Dening the record

ZAWIYAH M. YUSOF AND ROBERT W. CHELL

Abstract

This article examines the various denitions accorded to the two key terms in
records management the records and records management. Variations in their
denition have lead to confusion which affects the formulation of theory to
underpin the discipline. This problem is to be discussed in two separate parts.
Part 1 discusses the changing denition of the record as it evolves from an
archives perspective, through a management perspective to an information
technology perspective. These changes have lead to changes in the status of
records. This is discussed as records as objects vs records as electronic objects.
However, this is not a new issue. I t was recognised by J enkinson as early as 1922.
The debate on the denition of records concludes that any new denition needs
to take account of the component parts of a record: the information, the medium
and the function. Part 2 will discuss the various denitions of records management.

Introduction
The topic will be discussed in two parts: Part 1 will dene the term
records while Part 2 will be on the denition of records management.
The main aim of these two articles is to investigate whether there is a
universally accepted denition of the two key concepts in the records
management eld: what do we mean by records and records manage-
ment? A search of the literature in the eld reveals that these concepts

Records Management J ournal, vol. 8, no. 2, August 1998, pp. 95112

Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
have been accorded various denitions and that the concepts have
changed over time. This leads only to confusion; especially when records
management is seeking a separate identity as a distinct discipline.
These articles take an overview of the various denitions of records and
records management as reected in the literature. In Part 1, consideration
is also given to dening records in an electronic environment as this area
is of growing concern to records managers.
Denitions of terminology
Dening terminology is crucial to better understanding; both for those
who are new to the subject and for those who are already familiar with the
field. At the present time, most organisations regard a records manage-
ment programme as a non-essential activity: it is not the organisations
prime purpose, it does not produce prot and it is discretionary (Robek,
Brown and Stephens, 1995: 15). I n addition, organisations seem unaware
of the importance of the function. McCarthy (n.d.: 1) points to this by
saying that:
businessmen expect to have ready access to relevant records, espe-
cially in crisis, but they may not take kindly to having other people
organise their records, and once organised often do not give a second
thought to those records, i.e. le destruction requests are often given
very low priority, or le retention periods are made unnecessarily long
just to be on the safe side.
Consequently, many organisations tend to ignore the evidence that
organisations without records management programmes are at risk.
Hare and McLeod (1997: 12) report that, for organisations without
records management programmes, 40 per cent of those that suffer a
disaster go out of business within a year; 43 per cent never re-open; and
29 per cent cease business within two years.
There are several reasons why many organisations cannot see the
benets of records management. A comment by Charman (1984: 6)
probably best explains the situation:
differing administrative and archive traditions as well as lack of a
uniform terminology and the fact that English records management
texts are not readily available in other languages, may be one rea-
son why these techniques are not better known internationally.
They are, however, capable of universal application, regardless of
language differences.
As a new phenomenon, the concept must be made clear so that business
can foresee the advantages and benets to be gained. I n these articles,
96
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
various denitions of terminology pertaining to records and records
management will be considered, in order to arrive at a denition that can
be easily understood, particularly within business organisations. I n that
respect, our consideration of the concepts is not intended to enhance the
philosophical debate relating to records or information and its relation
to wisdom. I n a pragmatic, records management way, it is used broadly
to refer to recorded information created as the result of business activities.
Records
One of the many problems facing any serious study of records and infor-
mation management (RI M) work is probably that of terminology.
Words and concepts such as data, information, knowledge, documents
and records are sometimes confused with each other, and many times
may mean different things to different people. The same word may be
interpreted differently by different people with varied backgrounds. This
is particularly true of records.
Even amongst the RIM group, there is not as yet a unied and generally
accepted denition for the word. One conclusion of this fact is that this
is a relatively new subject, is still evolving and there is not as yet a widely
acceptable denition to its scope and structure.
When discussing records management, either as a management tool or as
a profession, there seems to be a fundamental problem of how to dene
the core element of the subject in the eld the records. Denitions of
records seem to be continually debated in the literature. Some denitions
are based specically on the function of the records, whilst others treat
records as physical objects for posterity. I t is not our intention to list all
the various denitions of records, but a few are required to show that
there is a range of different perspectives in dening the term.
Problems in dening records have been discussed in length by Cox. He
observes that many denitions of records are complex and problematic
(1994: 3). He suggests that most archival and records management
literature suggest authors and readers know a record when they see
one, yet the essence of a record may be contrary. There is still a
fundamental problem with how both sets of practitioners (archivists and
records managers) dene records, though both are engaged in managing
the same type of resource (the records) as their main activity. As such,
Cox suggests that the denition of records should be continually debated.
The difculty in dening records is not only restricted to practitioners; it
extends to other writers in the eld. Some writers on records management
are often bogged down with the problem of establishing or agreeing a
comprehensive denition of records. Langemo (1995: 415) regards records
97
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
as the memory of the organisation; the raw material for decision
making; and the basis for legal defensibility. Langemos opinions
represent one of many views about what records are. The variety of
denitions that one encounters in the textbooks makes it essential in this
article to achieve an understanding of what records are before we can be
in a position to develop the idea of records management.
I t can be argued that any denition of records is a pragmatic one. The
denition has changed with the passage of time and as the profession
gets involved with more complex issues. This is particularly true when
one considers the subject from the perspectives of those involved with
paper, as the main records medium, and those working in an electronic
environment. Traditionally, differences in denition are based around
the records function and the records preservation for posterity. Each of
these denitions reects an existing school of thought as illustrated in
Figure 1.
The denition of records from the functional standpoint is clearly
pictured by Gagnon (1987: 299). He says records are:
all recorded information regardless of media or characteristic, made
or received and maintained by an organisation or institutions in pur-
suance of its legal obligations or in the transaction of its business.
This functional based denition has been adopted by the School of
Library and I nformation Science, University of Pittsburgh for its record-
keeping functional requirements project (Cox, 1995). However, the
Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA
I nternational), as cited by Robek, Brown and Stephens (1996: 4), rejects
Gagnons denition. This professional society denes records as recorded
information regardless of medium or characteristic. I n considering the
denitions by Gagnon and ARMA I nternational, Cox comments that
those denitions are actually describing records as a physical tangible
object. One provides a specic function while the other is rather vague.
The latter is trying to include anything similar to what a record might
be (Cox, 1995: 22).
I t appears that the denition of what a record is begins to vary and
expand as the profession has developed and shifted its emphasis from the
traditional function ling and storage to retrieval and dissemination;
and to the handling of records in electronic systems. The function of the
record has also changed from that of documenting organisational
activities to that of providing information for decision-making, and
providing evidence and compliance. This function is likely to become
more complex as advances in technology urge the profession to handle
more complicated materials and issues.
98
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
A variation in denition is found where records are viewed in the broad-
er context of information. This is best represented by Penn, Pennix and
Coulson (1994: 3) whose denition focuses on the informational content
of the record. Their denition includes any information captured in
reproducible form that is required for conducting business. This is at
variance with Smith who makes the point that:
records contain data, ...therefore are the substance of information.
I nformation is contextual, that is one cannot have information with-
out data, but one can have data without information. A record must
be viewed within the context of an organisation to be meaningful and
have value. I n isolation, a record of specic transaction, discussion,
or agreement is often meaningless. Because records are form or medi-
um oriented, whereas information is contextual, blurring the distinc-
tion between the two can create problems. While records are static
and nite, information is changing and on going. (Smith, 1986: 10)
99
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Figure 1 Records Management and its Conceptual Framework
Conceptual denition
of records and records
management
Views records
from archives
perspectives
Views records from
information
management
perspectives
While Smith suggests drawing a clear distinction between records and
information, Penn, Pennix and Coulson would like to blend both together.
Apart from the denition by Gagnon and ARMA I nternational, Gill
(1993: 5) puts a sense of archives in his denition. He denes records as:
any media... documenting communication in an enduring format
that preserves the communication and can be recalled. They are facts
to support decisions, ... and facts upon which to base future decisions;
facts to communicate to employees, to customers, to potential cus-
tomers, to the government, and to stockholders; facts to document the
history of a company.
Gills denition species a business environment. However, Emmersons
denition is more comprehensive. I t states:
records are all those documents, in whatever medium, received or
created by an organisation in the course of its business, and retained
by that organisation as evidence of its activities or because of the
information contained. Records, it must be stressed, are, rst and
foremost, products of the activities of which they form a part. They
arise naturally from the functions, activities, processes and trans-
actions, substantive and facilitative, of the creating organisation.
I ndeed, records have no existence other than as a product of business
activity, without which they have no context or meaning.
(Emmerson, 1989: 5).
Whatever denitions have been given to records it seems that the deni-
tion of the term is likely to be continually debated especially when elec-
tronics records come into existence.
The differing views in the denition of records are related to the existence
of two schools of thought underlying records management practice. One
school views records from a functional or management standpoint while
the other views it from the standpoint of archives (Cook, 1993: 24).
To date, the problem of dening records still persists. Realising this, Cox
(1994: 12) calls for the need to develop a rm denition of records. This
is crucial and essential in order to provide better understanding of what
records management is all about. What is needed, he argues, is a degree
of tolerance in order to arrive at an acceptable denition of records,
which emphasises the commonalities of the missions between the various
segments of the information management professions.
As mentioned earlier, the issue of dening records is getting more complex
as records managers become involved with technology-dependent record
100
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
systems. I n this electronic environment, records must be able to meet
certain organisational, legal, and compliance criteria (Cox, 1995: 2).
(These are contained in the University of Pittsburgh Recordkeeping
Functional Requirements Projects: Reports and Working Papers
Progress Report Two. Cox, 1995). The project investigated the problems
of records managers in confronting increasingly complex recordkeeping
systems. Its aim was to focus on a precise denition of records applicable
to the electronic environment. An appropriate denition, it argued, would
enhance the potential use of electronic recordkeeping and information
technology. Such a denition is required by records managers in the
electronic era so as to ensure they keep records able to meet the same
organisational, legal, regulatory, professional and other requirements
that apply to paper records. As such, the project emphasised the impor-
tance of records as recorded transactions providing evidential value, and
the signicance of the system that produces the records. Such value is
seen as central to electronic records, particularly as these records are
technology dependent.
Cox (1995: 22) rejects the standard textbook denition of records as
inadequate, and suggests that functional requirements, derived from the
University of Pittsburgh project, provide an excellent conceptual frame-
work in which a practical means of managing records can be developed.
He also claims (1995: 6) that in this latest conceptual framework, the
management of records requires sophisticated, technical knowledge. This
includes knowledge of recordkeeping systems, the juridicial and organi-
sational aspects of such systems, and the manner in which such systems
are used. Coxs suggestion is based on the notion that, whilst recognising
that it is the informational content of records that is managed by such
systems, not all information contained in them are records. Using a
similar premise, Ricks, Swafford and Gow (1992: 3) recommend that the
terms information and records can be used interchangeably, though
this view is not supported by the authors of this article. The only point
that makes records different from the other types of information, is the
requirement that it be managed
1
(Penn, Pennix and Coulson, 1994: 3).
Cox (1995: 2) argues that there is a distinction between record-keeping
systems and information systems within organisations. He observes that
each of these information segments will have a different role to play in
providing organisations with evidence of business transactions.
Before the advent of electronic systems, the relationship between
information and records had been seen in much simpler terms by Cook
(1993: 2). He distinguishes information as something current, up to date
and which will eventually disappear. But, he argues, some kinds of infor-
mation have much more static, permanent or long-lasting qualities.
2
Cook (1993: 5) sees records as information media which are created in
the course of business organisation. They are kept because organisations
101
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
need to use them. Cooks denition, however, emphasises the role of
paper-based documents, though he states that the medium can be
anything such as recorded sound, machine-readable disks, microform
and parchment.
Cooks denition is expanded upon by Penn, Pennix and Coulson (1994:
3) who, as discussed earlier, focus on the informational content of
records and state that:
business records are any information that is recorded on any phys-
ical medium; generated or received by a business enterprise as evi-
dence of its organisation, functions, policies, procedures, operations,
and internal or external transactions; and valuable because of the
information it contains.
They stress there are three key factors the physical form, evidence and
value that differentiate records from other type of information partic-
ularly that used in data processing.
Records in the electronic era
I n the computer era, the problems in dening records are becoming even
more critical. Skupsky (1995: 475) admits that, with the widespread use
of information management technology, it has become more difcult to
determine exactly what is a record. He questions the fact that traditional
denitions of records that have emerged from paper-based concepts have
merely been applied to these new technologies. This can handicap the
records manager today. The same point is made by Clubb (1991: 1). She
concludes that it was relatively easy to provide a denition of a record a
generation ago, however, with advances in technology, the denition of
the term needs to be reviewed.
Duff (1994: 141) claims that records in an electronic environment are
transitory, unstructured and insubstantial, as their form and content can
change with changes in the software that controls them. The principles
applied to paper-based records are no longer applicable to those in
electronic form. I n the paper environment, records are tangible, their
coming about and what function they serve can be easily recognised
(Management of electronic records; issues and guidelines, 1990: 20). But
this is not the case with electronic records. Records managers are not in
a position to see records as they are created and transmitted. The records
exist under software and hardware control.
The authors believe that with the rapid changes in technology, and the
challenges and substantial risks faced by organisations in this latest
environment, records management should incorporate another stream of
102
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
thought. The archival and information management approaches,
although they have resulted in the presently accepted principles and
practices in records management, are inadequate to cater for changes
brought about by information technology which strongly impacts upon
todays records. A blend of existing principles which comprise theories of
archives and information management, integrated with the principles
and practices of information systems, will result in improvements to the
quality and success of records management. Figure 2 illustrates the
streams of thought comprising these three elements.
As I T is incorporated into the new approach, OShea (1996: 1) realises
there are two areas that require immediate attention. Firstly, the denition
of records need to be updated, and secondly, there needs to be a
re-evaluation of the techniques required to capture and preserve records
as evidence of organisational transactions over time. Most importantly,
the records that are the main interest of both records management and
archive professionals, need to be more precisely dened in these contexts
as the term is commonly used by other information professionals.
3
103
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Views records
from archives
perspectives
Views records from
information
management
perspectives
Views records from
information
technology
perspectives
Conceptual denition of
records and records management
Figure 2 Records Management and its Conceptual Framework
The rapid changes in technology have changed many aspects of records,
particularly in respect of their physical status. In the electronic environment,
records seem to have lost their physicality. In such an environment, the
focus of attention is on the records system life cycle rather than the record
itself (Management of electronic records: issues and guidelines, 1990: 21).
OShea (1996: URL) asserts that the exponential rate in technological
change and the instability of the media means that traditional approaches
4
to both records management and archives have not been satisfactory for
electronic records. I n this article, he identies several risks associated
with the management of electronic records. These include:
5

uncontrolled accumulation of records, documents and data

inadvertent destruction of records, documents and data

unauthorised tampering with records and documents

lack of or absence of systems documentation and associated

metadata, and

poor uncoordinated recordkeeping and duplication caused by

the maintenance of parallel paper and electronic systems.
Traditionally, and practically, records have been viewed as physical
objects such as paper les, tapes, disks etc. Such descriptions present a
major problem for electronic records since in electronic systems, records
are neither purely documents nor objects. They are dependent on the
medium on which they were originally or currently held. I ndividual
records and their component parts may not be physically located in a
logical sequence (OShea, 1996: URL). Based on such characteristics, the
concept of the life cycle, which forms the primary conceptual framework
for paper-based records management, is no longer appropriate for
electronic records, although, clearly, the concept is also central to the
management of these records.
The above argument is supported by the Society of Australian Archivists.
In the Australian Archives Act 1983 records are dened as physical objects:
a document (including any written or printed material) or object
(including a sound recording, coded storage device, magnetic tape or
disc, microform, photograph, lm, map or graphic work) that is, or
has been, kept by reason of any information or matter that is con-
tains or can be obtained from it or by reason of its connection with
any event, person, circumstance or thing.
In contrasting this denition with the denition of records in an electronic
environment, we will refer to this as the records as objects environment.
104
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
The denition does not adequately serve as a denition of records in an
electronic environment. This is because electronic records are neither
pure documents nor objects, but are independent of the medium, and not
necessarily located in a logical sequence or in the same physical space.
Furthermore, the denition does not provide any evidentiary test
(OShea, 1996).
The records as objects denition needs to be further expanded by meeting
the requirement, particularly in electronic systems, for records to qualify
as evidence of business transactions. The concept of evidence is central
to this new denition. OShea (1996) stresses that for a document to be
useful as an evidential record, it therefore, must possess content, structure
and context and be part of a recordkeeping system. A document in an
information system which is, used ... for consultation only, has limited
value as evidence.
Realising the problems of applying the Australian statutory denition to
the electronic environment, the Society proposed to update the denition.
Their new denition is:
a record is that which is created and kept as evidence of agency or
individual functions, activities and transactions. To be considered evi-
dence, a records must possess content, structure and context and be
part of a recordkeeping system.
Dening records in an electronic environment poses conceptual problems.
On the one hand, Cox suggests that the functional approach is an
excellent conceptual framework in which a practical means of managing
records can be developed, whilst Duff holds that the transactional nature
of the record is the core concept in dening records (1994: 141). On the
other hand, Bearman emphasises the aspect of evidence. He rmly
asserts the importance of the characteristic as central to the electronic
records management issue (Bearman, 1995b: 201).
Bearman calls for a review of the approach and concepts used in
managing records as a result of the increasing proportion of records now
in electronic formats. He observes that in the records as objects environ-
ment, the discipline depends on the study of original texts, images and
multimedia sources. The emphasis has always been centred on the ability
to view sources which have been created in the past, the certainty
of authenticity and ascertaining provenance. However, the electronic
environment raises questions about how to create and preserve electronic
records with provable authenticity. Authentication is important to
ensure records serve their evidential function. Records will only be
evidence if the content, structure and context information (metadata)
required to satisfy the functional requirement is captured, maintained
and usable (Bearman, 1995b: 201). Since electronic records can be easily
105
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
amended, leaving no trace of the original version, special precautions
need to be taken.
The issues raised by Bearman have prompted OShea (1996: URL) to
suggest that there is a need for a re-evaluation of the techniques required
to capture and preserve records as evidence of organisational transactions.
Bearmans views are supported by Duranti; Eastwood and MacNeil
(s.d.). They agree that in the records as objects environment, a record
needs several components such as medium, content, form, persons and
actions. Records must consist both of the information and the carrier.
Since most records are created on paper, so records have traditionally
received treatment as physical materials. In other words, it is the medium
that has been the concern in the past and records are not affected by
their state of transmission.
Cook agrees that the situation discussed above is no longer practical as
electronic methods come to dominate administration. He says that in
this situation, records are both objects and components in dynamic
systems (Cook, 1993: 24). A record itself is not a physical substance, but
an abstract commodity which takes real form only when captured and
put on to a carrier. As such, the basic idea of records has been trans-
formed signicantly and the standard means of describing records are
inadequatefor electronic records. Records in electronic environments are
different in physical form, technological dependence, use and custodian-
ship (Cox, 1994: 2).
This records as electronic objects environment now seems to offer the
best way forward for an acceptable, and universal denition. That there
is now a degree of agreement can be seen in the denitions used in the
Australian Standard, the European view and the I CA Committee on
Electronic Records.
Records are dened as recorded information, in any form, including
data in computer systems, created or received and maintained by an
organisation or person in the transaction of business or the conduct
of affairs and kept as evidence of such activity by The Australian
Standard (AS 4390.1 1996:6). The European view on records as
expressed in the I NSAR document is that a specic piece of recorded
information generated, collected or received in the initiation, conduct or
completion of an activity and that comprises sufcient content, context
and structure to provide proof or evidence of that activity (I NSAR,
1997: 12). This denition agrees with that of the I CA Committee on
Electronic Records. The I CA denition of a record is recorded
information produced or received in the initiation, conduct or
completion of an institutional or individual activity and that comprises
content, context and structure sufcient to provide evidence of the
activity regardless of the form or medium (Erlandsson, 1997: 7).
106
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Conclusion
The conceptual issues brought up by both Bearman and Duranti are not
new. They had been raised by J enkinson as early as 1922 when he wrote
A Manual of Archive Administration. Though not specically talking
about computer generated records, he strongly asserted that:
any form of transaction where they have any result upon the business
transacted by the ofce shall be readily assimilated to the ordinary
paper recorded document. Thus whatever system is employed shall
secure authentication of the copy or original preserved. (1965: 139)
Both Bearman and J enkinson are stressing the same issue the
authentication of records. The only difference is that Bearman raises the
matter in relation to electronic records whilst J enkinson was concerned
with establishing archival concepts. With hindsight, J enkinson appears
futuristic when he remarks that the techniques of Archive Making
recommended in the Manual are not all practicable under modern
conditions, but the principles behind them remain sound (1965: x).
Even in a less complex environment, he concluded that dening a
document was a difcult task.
Regardless of the environment in which records are created and managed,
as Hare and McLeod (1997: 3) correctly point out, there are three
aspects common to all records. These are the message or the information
they carry, the mediumor the physical carrier of the information, and the
context or the purpose for which they were created.
The most recent denitions referred to above (the Australian Standard,
INSAR and ICA) all support the concept of the separation of the message
from the carrier, and the need to concentrate on the carrier as the means
of providing authenticity and evidence.
References
1. There are several distinguishing characteristics of records laid out
by Penn, Pennix and Coulson (1994: 4) such as:

Records must be managed by the organisation that originates

them; the importance of records lies on the information they
contain which then becomes the main consideration of records
management; and a record has its own life cycle from the
creation through the use and maintenance and nally ultimate
disposal or archiving.
2. This indicates that information has two uses. One relates to the
present and the other relates to the past. I nformation that passes
107
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
out of currency should be distinguished from current information.
This is the concern of records management.
3. This is particularly true of the management information systems
(MI S) professionals. Records, to MI S, mean an aggregate that
consists of data objects, possibly with different attributes, that
usually have identiers attached to them.
4. The traditional approach to records and archives management has
had the following general characteristics:
I . archivists deal with both records and archives management.
This is derived from the perception that archives are dumping
grounds for records
I I . signicant records management and archives dichotomy
where records management is at the beginning and middle
while archives is at the end of the records life cycle
I I I . both records and archives are physically held by archival
institutions
I V. appraisal of physical accumulations of records
V. preservation of the original media
VI . luxury of time
VI I . records managers and archivists as separate professions
VI I I .descriptive practices based on records with the same numbering
system or physical characteristics
I X. comprehensible without the need for machinery
X. large physical storage space for records is required; and the
provision of passive access to electronic records (i.e. access to
the media not the contents) (OShea, 1996. http://www. inter-
gate.bc.ca/nepac/provenance/ vol.1/no.2/features/erecs1a.htm#5)
5. I f these characteristics are present, they can cause the following:
I . system paralysis or hindrance in accessing information
I I . purchase of additional storage incurring additional costs
I I I . increased risk of wholesale, unsystematic and possibly illegal
destruction
I V. loss of valuable business and archival records
V. increased risk of security breaches
VI . unauthorised alteration or deletion of records (loss of evidence)
VI I . public embarassment
VI I I . unnecessary delays in or breakdowns in the business process;
and lack of public accountability (I bid).
108
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Bibliography
AS 4390.1. Australian standard: records management: Part 1: general.
Homebush, NSW: Standards Australia, Standards association of
Australia, 1996.
Bearman, David. 1994. Archiving and authenticity.
http://www.ahip.getty.edu/agenda/archiving.html
Bearman, David. 1995a. Towards a reference model for business accept-
able communications. I n: Richard J . Cox (ed.). University of Pittsburgh
recordkeeping functional requirements projects: reports and working
papers progress report two. (LI S057/LS95001). Pittsburgh: School of
Library and I nformation Science, University of Pittsburgh.
Bearman, David. 1995b. Interim reection on tactics for satisfying record-
keeping functional requirement. I n: Richard J . Cox (ed.). University of
Pittsburgh recordkeeping functional requirements projects: reports and
working papers progress report two. (LI S057/LS95001). Pittsburgh:
School of Library and I nformation Science, University of Pittsburgh.
Becker, L. G. 1980. I nformation resource management (I RM). Bulletin
of the American Society for I nformation Science6,6(August): 26-27.
Charman, Derek. 1984. Records surveys and schedules: a RAMP study
with guidelines. Paris: Unesco.
Clubb, Clare. 1991. Records management: the theory. I n: Gregson (ed.).
I ntroducing records management. Proceedings of one-day conference enti-
tled I ntroduction to records management, at the Shakespeare Memorial
Room, Paradise Circus Complex, Birmingham 24 May 1990. [s.l]: records
Management Group of the Society of Archives.
Cook, Michael, 1993. I nformation management and archival data.
London: Library Association Publication
Cox, Richard J . 1994. The records: is it evolving? Records & Retrieval
Report 10,3 (March):1-16.
Cox, Richard J . (ed.) 1995. University of Pittsburgh recordkeeping
functional requirements projects: reports and working papers progress
report two. (LI S057/LS95001). Pittsburgh: School of Library and
I nformation Science, University of Pittsburgh.
Duff, Wendy. 1994. Dening transactions: to identify records and assess
risk. I n: Cox, Richard J . (ed.). University of Pittsburgh recordkeeping
functional requirements projects: reports and working papers progress
109
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
report two. (LI S057/LS95001). Pittsburgh: School of Library and
I nformation Science, University of Pittsburgh.
Duranti, Luciana; Eastwood, Terry; and MacNeil, Heather.
(s.d.) The preservation of the integrity of electronic records.
http://www.slais.ubc.ca/users/duranti.
Emmerson, Peter. 1989. What is records management? In: How to manage
your records: a guide to effective practice/edited by Peter Emmerson.
Cambridge: I CSA Publishing.
Erlandsson, Alf. 1997. Electronic records management: a literature
review. Paris. I nternational Council on Archives.
Gagnon, Marlene. 1987. Glossary of technical terms. I n: Carol Couture
and J ean-Yves Rousseau. The life of the document: a global approach to
archive and records management/translated by David Hamel.
Montreal:Vehicule Press.
Gill, Suzanne, L. 1993. File management and information retrieval
systems: a manual for managers and technicians. 3rd ed. Englewood,
Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, I nc.
I NSAR. 1997. Guidelines on best practices for using electronic informa-
tion: how to deal with machine-readable data and electronic documents.
Updated and enlarge edition. INSAR (Information Summary on
Archives) Supplement I I I . Luxembourg: DLM-Forum Electronic
Records, 1997.
Hare, Catherine E. and McLeod, J ulie. 1997. Developing a records man-
agement programme. London: The Aslib Know How Series.
J enkinson, Hilary. 1965. A manual of archives administration (A reissue
of the rev. 2nd ed. with introduction and bibliography by Roger H. Ellis).
London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co. Ltd.
Langemo, Mark. 1995. Successful strategies for establishing or strength-
ening a records management program. I n: Proceeding your highway in
information management: ARMA I nternational Annual 40th Year
Conference, October 22-25, Nashville. Prairie Village, K.S.: ARMA
I nternational.
Management of electronic records: issues and guidelines/prepared by the
Advisory Committee for the Co-ordination of I nformation Systems
(ACCI S). New York: United Nations, 1990.
McCarthy, J . D. [s.d.]. Records management in business. I n: Business
Archive Council: Records Aids No. 1. London: Business Archive Council.
110
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Mellody, Michael. 1992. Records management and librarianship.
Mousaion 10,2: 3-24.
OShea, Greg. 1996. Keeping electronic records: issues and
strategies. Provenance the Electronic Magazine 1,2(March).
http://www.intergate.bc.ca/netpac/provenance/vol.1/no.2/features/erecs1a.htm
Penn, I ra A.; Pennix, Gail B.; and Coulson, J im. 1994. Records manage-
ment handbook. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Gower.
Robek, Mary F.; Brown, Gerald F.; and Maedke, O. Wilmer. 1987.
I nformation and records management. 3rd. ed. Encino, California:
Glencoe Publishing Co.
Robek, Mary F.; Brown, Gerald F.; and Stephens, David O. 1996.
I nstructors manual for information and records management: document-
based information systems 4th ed. New York: Glencoe.
Skupsky, Donald S. 1995. Legal requirements for records management
programs: advanced issues. I n: Proceeding your highway in information
management: ARMA I nternational Annual 40th Year Conference,
October 22-25, Nashville. Prairie Village, K.S.: ARMA I nternational.
Smith, Milburn D. 1986. I nformation and records management: a
decision-makers guide to systems planning and implementation. New
York: Quorum Books.
Wallace, Patricia E.; Lee, J o Ann; and Schubert, Dexter R. 1992.
Records management integrated information systems. 3rd ed. Englewood
Cliff, New J ersey: Prentice Hall.
Walters, Tyler O. 1995. Rediscovering the theoretical base of records
management and its implications for graduate education: searching for
the new School of I nformation Studies. J ournal of Education for Library
and I nformation Science36,2(Spring): 139-154.
Whitehead, Terry. 1985. What is records management? Proceedings of a
one-day seminar held at the Westgate Hotel, Newport, Gwent 22nd Nov.
1985. [s.l.]: Society of Archivists Records Management Group.
Authors
Zawiyah Mohammad Yusof is a qualied librarian and archivist. She worked as
a librarian in Malaysia for 10 years before taking up a lecturers post in the
Department of I nformation Science at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in
Selangor. She is currently a Ph.D student in the Department of I nformation and
111
August 1998 The eluding denitions of records and records management
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib
Library Studies, at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth, where she is
researching Business Records: The Neglected Source of I nformation in Malaysia.
Robert Chell is a qualied archivist. Following extensive experience as a senior local
authority archivist and records manager in Hampshire, Devon and Glamorgan,
he became Director of the Archives and Records Management Programme at the
University of Wales at Aberystwyth in 1993, where he teaches archive theory,
records management and information and communications technology.
Zawiyah Mohammad Yusof & Robert Chell, Department of I nformation & Library
Studies, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3AS, Wales, UK.
Email: smy96@aber.ac.uk and roc@aber.ac.uk
112
Records Management J ournal vol. 8 no. 2
Records Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 1998
Aslib, The Association for Information Management.
All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Aslib, The Association for Information Management
Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB
Tel: +44 (0) 171 903 0000, Fax: +44 (0) 171 903 0011
Email: pubs@aslib.co.uk, WWW: http://www.aslib.co.uk/aslib