9/28 readings

Phillip C. Bantin (2002). Records management in a digitial world. EDUCAUSE, Research Bulletin, 2002(16).


This article described three common systems for managing electronic records: OLTP, DSS, and EDMS. Each of these systems was analyzed in terms of the five goals of e-record management: capturing records, keeping records immutable and secure, keeping records usable, automating retention or destruction, and preserving records. According to the authors, OLTPs, DSSs, and EDMS, all fall short of meeting these five goals, although the systems do have strengths.

These five goals would also apply to physical record management, but with e-records, there are new issues. Many more people have the ability to view, edit, and combine records, so security and organization of different versions within the system becomes an issue. Additionally, hardware and software deterioration and incompatibility requires a different preservation strategy than paper records. Records also come in new forms, such as e-mail or multimedia.

A takeaway message is stated by the authors early on: records are assets of a corporation, and the glue of an enterprise. Effective record management is more than just a handy feature of technology; it should be the essential focus of a company's technology.


Discussion question: I had trouble thinking of examples of the different systems. Would a database or e-library be considered an EDMS? Also, if these five goals are recognized, why have systems not updated to meet them? Are there technological or storage space or cost barriers to this goal?




Sherry Owen (2006). Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study. Arkansas Libraries, 63(1). 22-25.


This article described one company's implementation of am EDMS. The company had many of the same concerns outlined in the Bantin article, and the model they followed for selecting a system was similar to the SDLC waterfall discussed in past week's reading. Focusing on one company highlighted the realities of adopting an EDMS system: choosing a vendor, selling the idea to senior management, representatives from IT and user departments working together.

A takeaway message was how different corporate needs are from academic libraries. I was surprised that 40 vendors were contacted; I thought that sounded like a lot of options. The article also discussed the typical flow of business records usage: frequent at first and then sharply declining. I also was unaware of corporation's need for a system to automate legal compliance.


Discussion question: The author mentioned that the corporation still keeps track of paper records alongside electronic records. What should be the fate of paper records systems? Should they be standardized as a backup system? Completely discontinued to save money and time? Or should paper be gradually phased out, allowing individuals or departments to keep records, but not managing the process?




Gary P. Johnston, David V. Bowen, (2005) "The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general view of published and some unpublished cases." Records Management Journal, 15(3), 131-140.


This article began by describing the difference between documents and records, and also the difference between EDMSs and ERMSs (although some systems can function as both). Another crucial difference discussion in the introduction is between ERMSs and other types of information systems: the former stores different versions of a record as it is changed over time, while the latter values storing only the most recent version for efficiency and accuracy.

Benefits to users, organizations, and society were outlined convincingly. One surprising benefits is that ERMSs should be able to prevent fraud. This article also outlined some specific cost comparisons for ERMS versus paper storage. A takeaway message is that e-storage is not necessarily cheaper. The authors suggest that 3 uses should be the benchmark: more than this, store it electronicly, but if the record is rarely needed, keeping it as paper should be cheaper.


Discussion question: The authors state that ERMSs can manage paper records, but not databases. How can this be?