April 2002 - Constructing a Function-Based Records Classification
System/Business Activity Structure Classification System - Paul Sabourin,
National Archives of Canada
Constructing a
Function-Based Records Classification System: Business Activity Structure
Classification System(1)
ABSTRACT
In 1995, the National Archives of Canada (NA) undertook a project to review and
replace the General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada
(GRDS). The GRDS contained the records disposition authorities and retention
periods for all common administrative records created, collected, and controlled
by the Government of Canada (GoC). It had not undergone any major revisions
since the 1960s. The replacement of the GRDS, and the manner in which it was
done, has had a profound effect on various other aspects of federal government
record-keeping, one of which is its Subject Block Numeric Classification
System. This paper briefly examines what impact the replacement of the GRDS has
had on the subject-based classification systems in the GoC, and proposes what
may be required in the future to develop function-based file classification
systems to facilitate the management of government information holdings and the
application of records disposition authorities. This paper is written in a
government context but can be applied to records management practices in the
private sector as well. It is aimed at an audience that is primarily interested
in and responsible for the conception, design, implementation, and maintenance
of record classification systems based on an analysis of business functions.
Motives for the switch
During the late 1990s, the National Archives of Canada (NA) began
adopting a methodology of macro-appraisal and structural-functional analysis of
the functions of the Government of Canada (GoC) to appraise and identify the
archival and historic records of national significance under the control of the
GoC. It was natural, therefore, that starting in 1995, the NA take a functional
approach in its review and replacement of the disposition authorities covering
common administrative records, the General Records Disposal Schedules of the
Government of Canada. This required an intellectual and perceptual shift away
from reading and interpreting records as though their primary purpose was to
describe or inform the reader about subjects, objects,(2) or end products(3) and towards,
instead, understanding the function involved. It required us to redirect our attention
to reading and understanding records as documenting and evidencing functions,
sub-functions, activities, and transactions, i.e., records were to be viewed as
being primarily about business activities. Replacing the GRDS by using a
macro-appraisal methodology required that the NA move from a subject-based (or
subject-centric) interpretation of the information contained in records to a
functions-based interpretation of information content and context documenting
and supporting the business processes of the Government of Canada. The new
Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities (MIDAs), which replace the GRDS cover the following common administrative functions:
general administration, real property management, materiel management,
comptrollership, and human resources management. These MIDAs do not contain
file lists, but simply state that they cover all records documenting and
supporting each common administrative function as described in a
"functional profile" for each MIDA. The functional
profile, unlike file lists based on subject hierarchies which are found in
virtually ever federal institution (including an older model Subject
Classification Guide published by the National Archives), describes the
functions, sub-functions, activities, and processes which constitute the entire
function. Thus, any record documenting and supporting a common
administrative activity profiled under a particular MIDA would be covered by
that MIDA.
The macro-appraisal methodology used for archival appraisal, especially
in the instance of MIDAs, raised a number of issues: (1) we needed a new
working definition of a "record"(4) to understand the
common characteristics shared by such particular things as books, maps,
photographs, blueprints, e-mail, etc., which would obviate their inclusion
under the universal idea of a "record"; 2) we needed a working
definition of a "function"; 3) we needed a new function-based file
classification model to arrange records by function, sub-function, activity,
transaction, and business process rather than by subject, object, or
end-product hierarchical structures; and 4) we needed to have the common
administrative records that were covered by the new MIDAs and the new Retention
Guidelines for Common Administrative Records to be identified and captured
within a function-based classification system, and described consistently by
these products. In order to correctly and more easily apply function-based
records disposition authorities, institutions in the future will need to
reorganize and classify their records from subject-based file classification
systems to function-based file classification systems. The impact of replacing
the GRDS with function-based MIDAs with no file lists meant that existing
subject-based classification systems which group things like
"campaigns," "committees," "meetings,"
"reports," or "studies" together as subjects would prove to
be inadequate when applying a MIDA. A MIDA requires records managers in
institutions to recognize that records about these subjects do not exist in
isolation but are produced by and document a particular function of a common
administrative or operational nature. It also necessitates that these subject
files be classified directly under the particular related function they
document.
Background
Addressing these issues begs a review of basic principles of subject
file classification systems and an explanation of what this article means when
it refers to the design of "function-based" records classification
systems. The name for the type of function-based classification system's
structure being developed and designed at the NA is the Business Activity
Structure Classification System (BASCS pronounced like the word
"basis"), and is fundamentally different from subject-based (or even
some types of "functional") classification systems being proposed
elsewhere. When we review the basic principles of classification systems, we
see the term "classify" as meaning - according to dictionaries
published at the height of when subject classification system design was being
moulded into a discipline (1960s and 1970s) - "to arrange in classes; assign
to a class;"(5) of something. The
term "class" could mean "(Nat. His.) highest
division (-, order, family, genus, species) of animal, vegetable, or
mineral kingdom."(6) Thus, a
subject-based records classification system is one which arranges records into
a hierarchy of classes and sub-classes of subjects. However, published records
management literature has been rather poor in defining what is meant by a
"subject", and this has created confusion. Dictionaries define a
"subject" as "theme of or of discussion or description or
representation, matter (to be) treated of or dealt with."(7) Thus, a subject can
be about anything and everything. Since a subject could be about objects as
well as functions, what usually happened during the design of traditional
subject-based classification systems was the drafting of long lists of all
sorts of subjects, things, entities, or objects mentioned in the content or
subject line of a record (i.e., the sentence or title of a report or memorandum
which was underlined to capture a sense of the record's content) which provided
very little insight into the actual activities carried out by institutions or
individuals and documented in the records. These items or subjects were then
arranged in alphabetical order to facilitate a record user in visually scanning
pages of a classification manual to locate a subject that closely resembled
what she or he was looking for. (Automated record-keeping systems with keyword
search capability or full text retrieval have made the argument for
alphabetical arrangement irrelevant.) Even the NA's Subject Classification
Guide in its Records Management Series of publications is not very helpful
in explaining the conceptual framework underpinning a subject-based records
classification system. It defines a "subject file" as "a
collection of papers on a specific subject or sub-subject within a single file
jacket."(8) A "subject file
classification system" is "the logical arrangement of individual subject
files within a filing system . ..."(9) In both instances,
we are offered circular definitions.
In the book, Information and Records Management: Document-based
Information Systems,
"classification" is defined as
"the process of putting like things - records of a similar subject or
category - together. A classification, then, is a group of records related by
common characteristics."(10) It goes on to state
that, "for most systems, the entire scope of subject matter is divided
into about 7 to 10 major divisions. These divisions are called majors and
usually represent the main functional areas of the organization the system
serves. Describing the records series by the function they perform is called functional
filing."(11) This is a peculiar
use of the terms "functional filing," and, as will be shown in this
paper, the record series in this model may not display actual functions
performed.
The NA's perspective, as documented in the functional profiles it has
developed for each of the common administrative functions covered by the MIDAs,
on records related to the functions performed by institutions differs from the
notion of functional filing above. It differs to a lesser degree from other
functional classification models(12)
based on the Designing and Implementing Record Keeping Systems:
Manual for Commonwealth Agencies (DIRKS) developed in New South Wales. It
appears that some of these models are not sequential arrangements of functions,
sub-functions, activities, or business processes as proposed in this paper, but
alphabetical arrangements of titles one level below the function. To illustrate
my point, we can look below at the actual example given in the Robek, Brown and
Stevens's publication about functional filing.(13) Below the function
constituting the highest level, the scheme is really about subjects and objects
listed in alphabetical order(14):
|
Human Resources |
Property |
|
Employees |
Buildings |
|
Fringe Benefits |
Equipment |
|
Job Descriptions |
Land |
|
Training |
Patents |
Under the blocks "human resources" and "property,"
provided in this American publication as an example of functional filing, we
see lists of things or objects in alphabetical order but no activities,
transactions, or processes. Moreover, the block "property" does not
denote a business activity or a business life cycle management process but,
more accurately, a subject under which real property assets, materiel property
assets, and. perhaps, even intellectual property are listed. Except perhaps for
"training," all the file titles are subject titles listed in
alphabetical order denoting subjects, objects, or end products which result
from or are otherwise related to a long series of activities. However, the
functional analysis required to construct function-based classification systems
is primarily a description and analysis of the business activities of
government and not merely about subjects, objects, or end products. Because our
traditional definition of a "subject" is so loose and may include
subjects, objects, entities, and activities, we require a new approach to file
classification which will provide the rigour and sound rationale needed in the
design of function-based records classification systems and in the application
of related function-based records disposition authorities.
This article proposes that function-based classification systems must go
deeper into analysing the function's component sub-functions, activities,
transactions, and processes in order to develop the theoretical and
methodological foundations for arranging (i.e., classifying) information
according to the structured business processes which create and use the
information in the first place. In other words, we need to create a new records
management orthodoxy (at least within the Canadian record-keeping context) for
the development of records classification systems that are not object-based but
designed according to the structure manifested within the succession of
activities forming the business process which creates and uses the records to
be classified. We conduct a business process analysis in order to discover the
underlying business activity structure. The logic for arranging files at the
functional, sub-functional, and activity levels is not determined by the
alphabet - which never really worked in a bilingual country like Canada where
the French titles translated from English were always out of order - but by a
sequential order. This approach works well for a government, its employees, and
citizens using and requesting access to government information in either
official language.
Foundation for a Business Activity Structure Classification System
(BASCS)
So as not to confuse this approach with other versions of functional
filing systems such as those mentioned above, the type of function-based
classification system being designed at the NA is called a Business Activity
Structure Classification System. The key strategy of the design methodology
is to use the structure of the functional sequencing of activities composing a
business process or business function to structure the records classification
system's sequence of block, primary, and secondary file titles. It would
normally be at the secondary, but especially at the tertiary, transaction
levels that subjects, objects, and project or individual case files would be
identified. In the development phase of such a system we ask not so much what
an organizational area does (for example, we know that Statistics Canada
conducted the 2001 Census this year and a publication or report will be among
the end products of that survey) but, more importantly, we need to know how the
organization performs that mandate by means of conception, development,
collection, processing, research and analysis, and marketing and dissemination.
We need to know this because the records to be classified contain information
that primarily documents and evidences these activities.
The foundation for constructing a Business Activity Structure
Classification System (BASCS) begins by resolving a few issues mentioned above.
What is a record? Answering this question requires a comprehensive description
of the common characteristics shared by all entities which would, in the normal
course of business, be considered "records." In the Guide for
Managing Electronic Records from an Archival Perspective, issued by the
International Council on Archives (ICA), it provides a definition of a record
which meets our requirements within either a functional or subject-based
context. The ICA guide, provides that 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 sufficient to provide evidence of the activity regardless of form or
medium."(15) From a functional
perspective, with a view to constructing functional classification systems,
there are two important insights to retain from this excellent definition:
first, records are essentially information about activities and not about
subjects, objects, end products, or themes, and, second, the definition
describes activities as having an innate sequential structure in their
initiation, conduct, or completion. These insights are the cornerstone to
constructing a BASCS. It is self-evident - to anyone who takes the time to
understand it - that everything we do or is done by institutions in this finite
universe has a beginning, middle, and an end, all of which
act towards providing the goods or services a government body is
mandated to deliver. In fact, most federal legislation, regulation, and
policies governing activity describe what is to be done in terms of a linear or
life cycle progression of activities from beginning to end. The conclusion to
be derived from this insight is that the sequence of functional activities,
mapped out and often prescribed by legislation, constitutes the structure of
the activity. In other words, what is meant by a "business activity
structure" is the deconstruction, in hierarchical order, of functional
levels, from a function, to a sub-function, and then to an activity, plus the
sequence in which activities takes place.
The nature of a function is the next issue to resolve. What is a
function? After several years of developing our skills in macro-appraisal and
structural-functional analysis at the NA, we have arrived at a consensus on
what constitutes a function. What follows is not strictly a definition but
rather a description of how the term "function" is used for the
purposes of appraisal, disposition, and records classification, though not
necessarily in that order. A function is: (1) any high level purpose,
responsibility, task or activity which is assigned to the accountability agenda
of an institution by legislation, policy or mandate; (2) typically common
administrative or operational functions of policy development and program
and/or delivery of goods or services; (3) a set or series of activities
(broadly speaking a business process) which, when carried out according to a
prescribed sequence, will result in an institution or individual producing the
expected results in goods or services it is mandated or delegated to provide.(16) The two first
meanings appear to coincide with the views held by many people on what a
function is. However, the third meaning was discovered through rigorous
analyses of the central policies and legislation which govern common
administrative functions normally described as a linear or life cycle structure
of sequential activities that institutions must carry out. Projects also
require this type of sequential planning. Particular sequential structures
evolved, not because central agencies dictated it but because the order made
sense in terms of the initiation, conduct, and completion of the function or
business process.
An analysis of business activity structure or sequence, based on the
preceding insights, revealed more of the foundation upon which to build the
business activity structure classification system's logic. But what determines
that sequence of activities to be the way that it is? The basis for the
sequence is determined by the spatial, temporal, and causal relationships(17)
between the set or series of functions, sub-functions, or activities composing
the function. In other words, if all activities have a beginning, a middle, and
an end, then the causal relationships between activities and the spatial and
temporal precedence(18)
of actions and events are the most likely factors determining the sequence of
activities and transactions. This was corroborated by analysing central agency
policies, such as the materiel management policy described in more detail
below. The next stage of building the system's logic was to understand that if
all activities have a sequence (prescribed or not in legislation and policy),
and a record is essentially information about activities, then surely the
information could be remapped and organized systematically in a sequence which
reflects the natural sequence of occurring activities it evidences and
documents. After all, textual information uses a narrative technique, presenting
in chronological order what has happened or will happen, in which locations,
and how one individual or event affects or causes another.
BASCS - Theoretical model
From this point, one can create the theoretical model and basis,
supported by sound definitions and some elementary deductive reason, from which
to construct a practical Business Activity Structure Classification System
(BASCS). In theory, the BASCS is a logical structure for the classification of
records which treats the information contained in records as by-products and
evidence of institutional functions, and whose logical sequential structure is
determined by the natural spatial, temporal, and causal relationships which
exist among the set or series of activities which compose the function. The
structure manifested within the business functions is discovered through an
analysis of the linear or cyclical business processes supporting particular
functions at the function level of a classification system (the block) and the
subsequent sequencing of sub-functions at the next (primary) level, as
described or prescribed in legislation, statutes, regulations, or policies, or
discovered through programme studies relating to the function. Therefore, the
inherent logical structure of BASCS is not characterized by hierarchical
groupings as with subject-based systems but, instead, is sequential in nature.
That sequence can be mapped out by performing the above business process
analysis through techniques from programme review and evaluation, work flow
charting, programme/project planning, or critical path mapping. In summation,
this model deconstructs broad domains of government responsibility into
basically three levels: (1) function is the highest level of activity denoted
by a block title, (2) sub-function is the second highest level of activity
denoted by a primary title, and (3) an "activity" (used as a generic
term for activity, action, or transaction) is the next level at the secondary,
tertiary, and lower levels of activity or subject. However, the overall logic
behind the architectural design of a BASCS is based primarily on the sequence
of all activities, and, second, on the hierarchy of the three levels mentioned
above.
BASCS - Working prototype
With the theoretical model sketched out, one can create a practical file
classification model, such as the example below developed by the author in 2000
in conjunction with the official dissemination of a new MIDA on the materiel
management function for the Government of Canada. The classification model was
not determined specifically by disposition considerations, even though we
believe it will eventually facilitate the disposition of materiel management
records. It was based on the functional analysis of the materiel management
function as described in legislation, regulation and policy, and designed for
the purpose of explaining to records management personnel in federal
institutions how to classify their documents according to the descriptions of
its eight sub-functions. In the following example, the traditional
subject-based classification system is on the left, and on the right is a BASCS
structure. The subject listing on the left arranges subjects, objects, or end
products in alphabetical order at the primary subject level and is taken
directly from the old Subject Classification Guide published by the then
Public Archives in 1976. This is the traditional subject classification system
with an assigned block of primary numbers (700 - 849) and nothing more needs to
be said about it.
|
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES |
MATERIEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTION |
|
|
|
|
700 - 849 |
700 - 849 |
|
700 Equipment and Supplies - General |
700 Materiel Management - General |
|
715 Building Materials |
710 Assessing Materiel Requirements |
|
720 Catalogues, Manuals, Price Lists |
720 Planning Materiel Requirements |
|
725 Clothing |
730 Acquiring Materiel Assets & Related Services |
|
750 Foods |
790 Operating Materiel Assets |
|
754 Forms |
800 Using Materiel Assets |
|
758 Fuels |
820 Maintaining Materiel Assets |
|
764 Furniture and Furnishings |
830 Replacing Materiel Assets |
|
795 Office Appliances |
840 Disposing of Materiel Assets |
|
830 Stationery |
|
|
840 Vehicles |
|
While conducting the functional analysis in support of the appraisal of
records covered by the MIDA for the materiel management function, it was
observed that the materiel management policy written and promulgated by the
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) not only lays out policy
requirements, but also described in detail how the function of materiel
management is to be carried out. The policy prescribes the actions to be taken
by federal institutions and describes this function as a life cycle approach to
managing all materiel assets of the GoC. It stipulates that the life cycle had
four sequential phases and, further, that there were eight sub-functions
composing the four phases, also sequential in nature. The policy outlines the
materiel management life cycle composed of the following eight (in italics)
sub-functions in sequence: phase 1, assessing and planning
materiel requirements; phase 2, acquiring materiel resources; phase 3, operating,
using and maintaining materiel; and phase 4 disposing and replacing
materiel. This business activity structure of four phases with eight
sub-functions was then used to construct the BASCS (right column in the example
above), using the same block of primary numbers as those in the left column for
comparison purposes. The TBS policy also described in many instances how each
sub-function is to be carried out, that is, the activities and transactions.
All this information was used to compose the MIDA's functional profile and the
function-based classification system under discussion here. The subject-based
purist's attention should be drawn to the fact that this life cycle of
activities is entirely logical and very easy to understand by both record
creators and record managers, and that the sub-functions occur in sequence and
not alphabetical order. There is the assurance that, since policy dictates how
the function is performed, a classification system based on this policy is not
arbitrary but reflects the realities of business practice. For verification,
senior officials responsible for materiel management in the federal government
were also consulted in drafting the functional profile. It is also noteworthy
that the same term for a specific activity (regardless of functional level) in
the policy was used in the MIDA for the materiel management function and is
used and copied into the file primary titles. This is especially useful when
the text of the policy defines its terms, and is a future consideration towards
possibly developing a functional (not subject) thesaurus.
The TBS policy for materiel management viewed (implicitly) activities as
having an initiation, conduct, and completion in sequence. Other TBS policies,
such as those for the management of government information holdings and real
property management, also describe the linear or cyclical nature of sequential
activities supporting and composing functions, which corroborated the
functional analysis done for the MIDAs by the National Archives at the
function, sub-function, activity, and transaction levels. A system's logic had
emerged! The sequence of primary titles, right column under the materiel
management example above, reflects the business life cycle process of managing
materiel assets from assessing to planning, through using and maintaining, to
final disposition. It seems very strange now to consider placing the title
"disposing of materiel assets" before "operating [the same]
materiel assets" in a classification system simply because "d"
comes before "o" in the alphabet, or that "planning" to
acquire assets should somehow come after actually "acquiring" the
assets because of an alphabetical structure traditionally used for
subject-based file systems. To rearrange the sub-functions or activities
artificially in alphabetical order would be to completely destroy the natural
sequence of activities obvious to anyone reading either BASCS or the policy
describing the business process, or to someone actually working within the
process. Other advantages of using legislation and policy in the design of a
BASCS are that the activities described in these instruments are more stable
than organizational structures, thus requiring less amendments to the system;
the records creators involved in that business function are more familiar and
comfortable with terms used in the legislation for the classification system,
thus providing greater buy-in and credibility in the system; and it insures a
greater consistency in design specifications and performance measurement across
all institutions subject to the same legislative and policy frameworks.
In the BASCS file system, as mentioned above, a function equates to our
old notion of the block level, and the sub-function equates to our old notion
of the primary level. These two levels of functional construction form only the
business activity structure component within the whole system as they
are derived from the business process; no files or records actually exist at
the block or primary levels. However, the secondary and tertiary file levels
can be about activities, subjects, projects, client or other types of case
files, etc., classified to the BASCS file structure. Therefore, the secondary
and tertiary file levels equate to the activity levels within the system and
form the (records) classification system component of the BASCS. Thus,
the overall structure of BASCS has two components, the first reflecting the
business activity structured sequence, and the second reflecting the records
classification system. One can construct the first component, as was done in
the MIDAs, without ever constructing the second. And the type of individuals
(with a certain analytical and managerial skills sets) required to design the
first component will differ from the type of programme area managers and
records management technicians (with their particular skills set) required for
the second component. As files are listed in descended order from secondary and
tertiary titles, etc., one will find activity, subject, and other types of
records decreasingly less amenable for sequential listing. This more granular
level of detail will require further analysis to determine the proper mix of
sequential, alphabetical, or other arrangements suitable to an
institution-specific application. Below is a scheme of how the business
activity structure, in the sequenced titles (bold type) descending from
function to sub-function, is superimposed over the activity titles of the
records classification system to expose the two components.
|
Function/Block title= |
MATERIEL MANAGEMENT FUNCTION |
|
Sub-function/Primary title= |
X.3.0 Materiel Management - General |
|
" |
X.3.1 Assessing Materiel Requirements |
|
" |
X.3.2 Planning Materiel Requirements |
|
" |
X.3.3 Acquiring Materiel Assets & Related Services |
|
" |
X.3.4 Operating Materiel Assets |
|
" |
X.3.5 Using Materiel Assets |
|
" |
X.3.6 Maintaining Materiel Assets |
|
" |
X.3.7 Replacing Materiel Assets |
|
" |
X.3.8 Disposing of Materiel Assets |
|
Activity/Secondary title= |
- 1 General |
|
" |
- 2 Disposal under Surplus Crown Assets Act |
|
" |
- 3 Disposal of hazardous wastes |
|
Subject/Tertiary title= |
- 3-1 Lead-based paints |
The example proposed above is a new numbering convention for a BASCS.
The first positioned(19)
digit (X.3.0) denotes an identified business line described in the Main
Estimates for an institution. In this case, X refers to the corporate
management services business line of an institution, i.e., all the common
administrative functions. When in doubt or dispute, there must be criteria or a
rule to help identify the function in question among the many "high"
level responsibilities of an institution. Our suggestion is to use the business
line described by institutions in the Main Estimates, which are delivered to
Parliament annually, published, and made available to the entire government and
its citizens. For example, if the business line for all corporate management
services at the National Archives is known as number 1, or the first business
line out of four, then the primary number here would start with 1, e.g. 1.3.0.
The second positioned digit (X.3.0) denotes the function and number of
the records disposition authority within the series of MIDAs covering all
common administrative functions: MIDA(20)
99/003 - for materiel management, previously GRDS schedule 3, and
is considered the third common administrative function covered by a MIDA.
Similarly, the BASCS would identify the comptrollership function with X.4.
from MIDA 99/004 - previously Schedule 4,
considered the fourth common administrative function, and so on. The digit (0)
in X.3.0 denotes the general series of sub-functions containing
multiplicities of activities, or activities of a broad general character
subsumed within the function, and begins the sequence. The third positioned
digit (X.3.1 to 8) denotes the number of a particular
sub-function within the sequence of eight sub-functions identified under
materiel management through the business process analysis. This file
classification numbering scheme can thus identify and conceptually link the
business line, function, and sub-functions in a more meaningful manner for the
records user/creator than simply assigning the block of next available four
digit primary numbers. It becomes especially easy to convince programme areas
and records users of the meaningfulness of the numbering scheme when they are
involved with the classification system designers in developing a business process
model, i.e., broadly speaking an activity flow chart, mapping out the number of
phases and number of sub-functions supporting the business function, and can
later see those numbers become their file classification numbers at the block,
primary, and even secondary levels.
Choosing blocks of numbers was always rather arbitrary in a
subject-based classification system, and was based on the availability of
numbers or, again, on the alphabetical order of your block subject, e.g., administration,
followed by buildings, equipment, finance, personnel,
etc. The proposed numbering convention for a BASCS attempts to provide a
rationale for the numbers and related file titles, thereby rendering the system
useful and meaningful to all records creators, users, and records managers.
Whereas the BASCS is designed to classify records to the appropriate function,
sub-function, activity and subject levels, the proposed numbering scheme
directly links the function to the mission or mandate of an institution as
described in a business line. If indeed all functions can be directly linked to
an institutional mission or mandate codified by the numbering scheme, then the
highest level of a BASCS would in fact be the business line and not the
function. However academic, it really depends on how an institution decides to
identify its functions at a "high level": purpose, responsibility,
task or mandate. When based on the legislative framework governing
institutional functions and a business process model of those functions, developed
down to the activity and transaction levels, the classification numbering
scheme provides comprehensive linkages between that legislative framework and
the institutional activities documented within the content, context, and
structure of the records.
One can incorporate the MIDA functional profile's description of
sub-functions and activities under a primary sub-function title of the
classification system to describe the records which should be classified to
that primary title. This is rather easy. One can simply begin with
"includes records related to . . . " and
attach the sub-functional profile description, as was the case in the following
example:
X.3.1 ASSESSING MATERIEL REQUIREMENTS
Includes records relating to this sub-function, the business processes,
and activities which produce records created by institutions while evaluating
existing assets and resources, assessing current and future organizational
needs, and reviewing alternative means of satisfying materiel needs including
re-engineering business processes; monitoring and providing feedback on the
implementation and effectiveness of Materiel Management policies; promoting the
acceptance and use of environmentally sound products and practices by
institutional managers; ensuring that Materiel Management complies with
institutional policies and standards; and ensuring the effective and efficient
management of all inventories and inventory cost distribution.(21)
Another example of a BASCS, this time for operational records, was
designed for all the records created, collected and controlled by Statistics
Canada (STC) for each of its several hundred surveys.
|
XXXX |
SURVEY XXX |
|
-0 |
Policy |
|
-1 |
General |
|
-2 |
Development |
|
-3 |
Collection |
|
-4 |
Processing |
|
-5 |
Research and Analysis |
|
-6 |
Marketing and Dissemination |
|
-7 |
Budget |
|
-8 |
Contracts and Agreements |
|
-9 |
Methodology |
When the author helped design this system over fifteen years ago at STC,
we never thought this was a function-based classification system, as we thought
everything was about subjects. One must remember (as stated above) a
"subject" could be about anything and everything. What is noteworthy
in this example is that every survey produced and carried out by STC used a
survey methodology of six phased activities in sequence. The six phases are
captured at the secondary level for any and all surveys by the following
secondary numbers: -1 General (for the initiation and conceptualization
phase); -2 Development (survey development comes after
initiation); -3 Collection (data collection takes place only
after survey creation); -4 Processing (data processing occurs after
the data is collected and that after a survey is developed), and so on in the
natural sequence of activities, ending with -6 Marketing and
Dissemination of final publishable survey information. The sequence of
activities is logical for the function of conducting surveys, is driven by a
business process methodology, easily understood by all records management
employees and record creators, and captures the essence of the working
definition of a "record" adopted here from the ICA Guide for
Managing Electronic Records from an Archival Perspective. The operating
rationale for this design was that if the survey activities have a natural
sequence, prescribed by a standard survey methodology, then
why not use the structure of that sequence to map out the file sequence since
the records document how the business activity process is carried out. This
file sequence at the secondary level is now replicated for all STC surveys and
appears to be working very well and demonstrating enduring stability over time.
One will also note that -0 Policy, -7 Budget, -8 Contracts and Agreements, and
-9 Methodology are considered more appropriately,
subjects which can impose themselves throughout multiple activities rather than
at a particular juncture in the business process. Indeed, subject files may
occur at the secondary level of a BASCS and may be listed alphabetically if no
other logical sequence presents itself. However, the primary structural design
of a BASCS is to first map out the natural sequence of activities within a business
process model composing the function and sub-functions before listing
the subjects, objects, end products, projects, and case files in alphabetical
order or using some other scheme.
Conclusion
The archival shift to macro-appraisal and functional analysis has caused
a conceptual shift in the way we read and interpret information contained in
the records we appraise. The resulting impact of this shift to functions and
business processes, and away from a subject-centric perspective, is starting to
be felt by the information and records management professionals in the
Government of Canada who are looking for information classification systems
that can directly link files to the mission, mandate, and business functions
evidenced and documented in records. They are looking for a classification
system and scheme that is as obvious to the records management staff as it is
to the program area record creator, or the Internet surfer looking for
information. They are looking for a classification structure which can
transcend and cut across departmental boundaries and cultures while arranging
records supporting and evidencing a shared or common function performed in
Offices of Primary Interest(22) (OPIs) and non-OPI
institutions, and yet survive the uncertainty of organizational change. This
paper and the proposals in it form an opening gambit in designing
function-based classification systems within a Canadian(23) context, but we
believe the Business Activity Structure Classification System can meet these
requirements, even in an electronic work environment, and be built for all
functions. More research(24) is required to fully
develop the business rules, standards, metadata schema, best practices, and,
perhaps more importantly for the immediate future, develop a new terminology
for function-based classification systems with which a rational discourse can
take place to further this project. An assessment of the value and benefits to
be obtained from developing a keyword thesaurus of functions, sub-functions,
and activities under the GoC jurisdiction should be undertaken, especially if
the BASCS is primarily sequential and not alphabetical in design. And, further
study and partnerships will be required to integrate the conceptual
classification scheme into a government-wide automated record keeping system.
This is only the beginning to revamping and perhaps replacing the
subject-based records classification systems used in the GoC for the past 170
years. This paper has addressed three out of the four issues raised at the
beginning of the paper. The fourth issue, that of revising traditional methods
and practices as a consequence of adopting the functional approach and
providing consistent theory, practical advice, and standards through new
records management products developed at the National Archives of Canada, is a
long-term work plan which cannot be addressed within the scope of this article.
It requires and awaits a team of specialists.
|
This article was originally published in Archivaria Number 51, Spring 2001, The Journal of the Association of Canadian
Archivists, and is reprinted here with permission from the author for the
RMI. The views expressed here are entirely those of the author and do not
reflect the official position of the National Archives of Canada or any other
institution. Though familiar with literature from Australia on the records
continuum, functional analysis manual entitled, Designing and Implementing Record Keeping Systems (DIRKS) and
record- keeping metadata schema, and from some American and Canadian authors
involved in functional analysis and macro-appraisal, the author has no
intention of reviewing the similarities and dissimilarities or merits and
demerits of different approaches to function-based classification systems
here. The intended audience are people interested in designing and
implementing an enduring record classification system based on functional
analysis and seeking practical advice now on constructing the systems rather
than constructing theories (not that there is anything wrong with theories). |
|
|
|
|
|
By the term "object(s)" I mean any thing or entity placed
before the eyes or presented to the senses, a tangible material thing, such
as: cabinets, chairs, computers, desks, lamps, tables. Thus records about
cabinets, chairs, etc. were traditionally listed in a file system without
much thought that they primarily documented the function of materiel
management within a business life cycle process. |
|
|
|
|
|
By the term "end product" I mean any object which is the end
result or product of a business process or series of activities, such as
agreements, books, buildings, contracts, plans, recommendations, reports,
surveys. Thus - using another example - records about such things as
asbestos, coal, copper, iron, and nickel were listed in alphabetical order in
a file system without much thought or reference to the business process
involved in the function of mining. |
|
|
|
|
|
The current definition of a "record" found in the National Archives of Canada Act and Access to Information Act includes any "correspondence,
memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work,
photograph, film, microform, sound recording, videotape, machine readable
record, and any other documentary material, regardless of physical form or
characteristics, and any copy thereof." This definition, while suitable
for the purposes of these acts, is based primarily on the structure and
medium of the record. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, fifth Edition,
University Press, Oxford, England, 1969, page 221. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ibid., page 220. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ibid., page 1285. |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Classification Guide, Records
Management Series, Public Archives of Canada, published by the Department of
Supply and Services, 1976, page vii. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ibid. page vii |
|
|
|
|
|
Information and Records Management:
Document-Based Information Systems, by Mary F. Robek, Gerald F. Brown,
David O. Stephens; Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 4th Edition, New York,
Ohio, California, Illinois; 1996, page 102. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ibid. page 105. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference here is to an excellent presentation of a model file
classification system by Ms. Jo-Anne Holm at the ARMA National Capital Region
(Ottawa) Spring 2001 Seminar. The theme of the presentation was about
designing functional classification systems based on her experience in New
South Wales using the DIRKS model (found at the http://www.naa.gov.au web site last
visited in May 2001). What struck the author during this presentation was
that the classification scheme, based on the function-based Keyword AAA
thesaurus, we were told, arranged the activities in descending order under
the function of property management as follows: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
Acquisition, Construction, Disposal, and Maintenance. When the author
enquired as to why the activity "Maintenance" of properties would
come after the "Disposal" of the properties, he was told the
activities were to be listed in alphabetical order and not in the sequence in
which the activities would normally take place. The point (not simply
quibbling) about alphabetical listings, which also appears later in the
paper, is that it completely destroys the natural sequence in which
activities actually occur. From a purely logical point of view and from the
programme/record creator's point of view, it is much more user friendly and
meaningful to construct and interpret a records classification system that
actually looks like the working business process model in place. An exchange
of correspondence with Adrian Cunningham of the National Archives of
Australia, on 10 August 2001, has clarified that DIRKS (based on the
Australian Records Management Standard - AS 4390) does not concern itself at
the function and activity level with the sequence of activities for
classification purposes, but, at the transaction level, recommends that lists
of transactions within an activity should mirror the sequence of transactions
in the business process. One could, however, implement DIRKS and arrange
functions and activities in sequence as a matter of choice without
contravening AS 4390. It was also indicated in this exchange that DIRKS is
silent on the issue of alpha/numeric or other coding conventions to classify
and identify records. A review of other classification systems based on DIRKS
from the City of Greater Dandenong and Hertfordshire Council in Australia
tend to corroborate these views. |
|
|
|
|
|
This example from an American publication cannot be considered similar
to systems based on the Australian DIRKS model as they are based on two
different methodologies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Information and Records Management: Document-based Information Systems, ibid. page 106. |
|
|
|
|
|
International Council on Archives, Committee on Electronic Records, Guide for Managing Electronic Records from an Archival Perspective, Study 8, rev. ed.
(Paris, 2000), p. 22. |
|
|
|
|
|
This definition has undergone several revisions, been tested with a
number of records managers in federal institutions and National Archives
employees, and will continue to evolve with usage. The author wishes to thank
one of the paper's reviewers for suggesting possible improvements to the
definition. These will be taken into consideration. However, as this
definition has now been adopted in a number of documents at the National
Archives, this paper is not the place to change the wording drafted by
another author. It should also be pointed out that the term
"function" may be used with all three characterizations in mind or
only one. |
|
|
|
|
|
These relationships pertain to the activities themselves and have
nothing to do with the contextual elements of space and time pertaining to
records as described in records continuum literature. However, it may be
interesting in the future to conduct more study on any possible convergence
here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here the author is influenced by the analysis of the philosopher David
Hume on the nature and difference between conjoined events where one event precedes
another but the latter event need not follow the former, and cause to effect
events where the latter event always follows the former event. Hume's
examples of billiard balls striking each other in a causal chain of events
within a spatial, temporal, and causal context is classic. |
|
|
|
|
|
What is being proposed is not a file number with three digits but a
positioning technique, commonly known as a significant position digit code. The example proposes there be (at least) three
positions separated by a dot or period (.), but one could use the forward
slash (/) for demarcation. The number of digits in each of the three
positions can be one or many, but realistically one or two digits per
position will suffice. The first position is reserved for the business line,
second position reserved for the function, and third position reserved for
the sub-function. This coding convention allows one to link and identify
functional levels from the business line to the position held by a particular
sub-function within a sequence. Secondary and tertiary titles, for
consistency purposes and to indicate a shift to actual files as opposed to
sub-functions, can continue to be demarcated by the dash (-).Without going
into too much detail here, for example, a file number like 1.5.10 or 1/5/10
would indicate the first business line, fifth function, and tenth
sub-function in an institution, or it can be read as "Common
Administrative functions/Human Resources Management/Employment Equity"
in long hand. The reader would not be mistaken to view this coding convention
as creating an artificial language of sign and symbol with numbers. The
classification number should not incorporate prefixes to denote corporate structures
such as ADMIN which can change to CORP for "corporate service" and
change again to MGT for "management services" or the newest fade
word requiring three or more amendment to the files, classification system,
and automated system. |
|
|
|
|
|
The first set of numbers "99" normally refers to the year
the Disposition Authority was developed and signed (now the NA uses four
digits, e.g., "2001") followed by a forward slash, and the second
set "003" refers to the next Disposition Authority in sequence signed
by the National Archivist that year. The official Authority number is looks
like 99/003. |
|
|
|
|
|
The description of the primary sub-function, Assessing Materiel
Requirements, and its contents is taken from the model BASCS for Materiel
Management. The sub-function was originally described in the MIDA's
functional profile. This model was developed at the National Archives and
disseminated to institutions of the Government of Canada in 2000 at an
orientation session on the new Materiel Management MIDA. Each of the eight
materiel management sub-function primaries in the BASCS model includes
descriptions taken from the functional profile. |
|
|
|
|
|
An Office of Primary Interest, is the federal government institution
-- department, agency, board, office, or commission -- to which the
authority, responsibility, and accountability to perform a particular
function on behalf of the Government of Canada has been specifically assigned
by legislation, regulation, policy, or mandate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Very little published Canadian literature and research on
function-based classification systems exists at the moment. However, the vast
amount of work done in Australia on this topic, so generously made available
through the Internet and other venues, and in the United States provides
valued resources and a solid foundation for work in this area. |
|
|
|
|
|
Research on design and construction of function-based records classification
systems is just beginning at the National Archives of Canada. The National
Archives is in the process of drafting a project plan to support the future
development of a government-wide function-based classification system with
the necessary resources required for this daunting and important venture. |
|