Future Proof – Protecting our digital future

When building an archive for digital records, there are many things that you need to consider. Everything from where will your cabling go, to what types of racks, how many servers are needed, what will the flooring be and so forth.

However, as servers are being created smaller and faster, they are also using more and more energy. The 2006 Worldwide Server Power and Cooling Expense: 2006-2010 Forecast report by IBM Data Centre estimated that in 1996 a small to medium sized server required 150 watts of power and approximated that by 2010 this will have increased to 450 watts. The report also estimated that in the year 2000, for every dollar spent on new servers, 21 cents was spent on power and cooling. By 2010 it is predicted that for every dollar spent on new servers will require 71 cents to be spent on power and cooling. Whilst servers and hence data storage may be considered cheap now, the associated costs of power and cooling, including environmental costs are increasing.

Simple measures that can limit power usage include:

• Ensuring airflow is sufficient – In general, unrestricted air flow requires less power for cooling efforts.
• Dust and dirt – Dust can clog equipment and cling to the sides of active equipment. There should be an active program for the regular cleaning of the entire digital repository.
• Moving more cables into overhead raceways opens up airflow underneath floor panels.
• Only use lights when necessary or use a motion control or timer – lights use electricity and generate added heat which requires cooling.
• Reduce overall data centre lighting by using portable lights within each cabinet. This also helps technicians as light can be adjusted and directed where it is needed.

Each small adjustment results in less power and cooling and should be an aspect of the design plans for a digital archive. As NSW and Australia move towards reducing their carbon pollution, it is imperative that all digital repositories whether public or private are aware of the environmental impacts as well as the potential expense of their endeavours and aim to minimise their energy consumption.

Support climate change www.blogactionday.org

At the recent NSW Public Sphere event at Parliament House hosted by Penny Sharpe MLC, NSW government organisations including the NSW Police, the Department of Education and Training and NSW Transport and Infrastructure spoke about initiatives in their organisations that are taking advantage of new and popular web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, microblogging (Twitter), photo and document sharing sites and blogs.

Many of us can feel threatened and anxious when new ways of working appear on the scene, expecially when they are associated with technology which we may not fully understand. However the flipside of this is to recognise that when any new technology is introduced into your organisation, it is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of recordkeeping advice and how it can help with managing risk.

How?

Let’s imagine that your organisation has set up its own Twitter account. The purpose of it might be similar to Mosman Council’s, that is, to inform constituents of what’s happening in Mosman (see http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/web/external/twitter).

Or like the NSW Police it might be to report news and events that might affect the public or seek assistance in investigations (see http://twitter.com/nswpolice).

Just from these two examples it is clear that this technology can be used for purposes that have different degrees of risk associated with them. In each case, a recordkeeping professional can advise on matters like:

• What recordkeeping requirements exist for these types of communications? Are they going to be regarded as formal or informal communications and what risk would be associated with not keeping them as records?
• How long do they need to be kept?
• What other records are being kept that document this kind of interaction with the public and how can we relate them?
• What records of the establishment and management of the Twitter account should be kept?
• What are some options for routine capture of Tweets to an official recordkeeping system?
• What information has to be kept with the Twitter records (Twecords?) to ensure they can be found and used (metadata)

Answering these and other questions will be an important part of establishing a set of rules and practices for the use of the Twitter account, which would also address matters such as privacy, complaints and appropriate use.

Getting a seat at the table

..is not always easy, especially when the records team is traditionally left out of ICT driven initiatives.

One way might be to offer a practical, low cost solution such as one of the free tools explained in Charnita Fance’s blog posting ‘How To Backup Your Twitter Archive’ posted on MakeUseOf.com (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-backup-your-twitter-archive/ – thanks to Katharine Stuart for finding this!) These include TweetBackup – which allows you to export up to 3,200 tweets in RSS, text or HTML – Tweet XML or Tweettake.

For further information on managing records of web 2.0 business, check out our guidelines Records management and web 2.0

What does NSW government recommend and how can I work out what’s best for me?

As you’re probably aware, a number of software products whose specific purpose is managing records and other information assets are available in the marketplace.

The NSW government has assessed a wide range of these products and selected a small number that best meet the challenge of managing the State’s information assets. The chosen software solutions are identified in Contract 2602 GSAS Information Asset Management Systems (IAMS) Software Applications, discussed in detail at State Records’ Future Proof site [/selecting-recordkeeping-software-to-suit-your-organisation/]

In summary, what is offered by the contract is a range of different solutions selected to meet a range of different needs. This type of approach has been adopted because information management abilities, capacities and needs differ significantly across government organisations. Some organisations already have good levels of recordkeeping compliance and are looking to progress their information management beyond the basics into increased levels of automation, web content management and knowledge sharing. Consequently the contact lists specific vendors who offer specially chosen software packages and combinations that will enable these advanced levels of information management to be achieved.

In contrast, a large number of organisations are still working hard to achieve minimum levels of recordkeeping capacity. They are working to get the basics of records control, classification, use and disposal right and so the contract therefore also offers a range of vendor and software solutions to enable these critical outcomes to be achieved.

To work out how the solutions listed on the contact can best help your organisation, the Government Chief Information Office has developed a tool you can use to assess the current state of your organisation’s information management and to identify where you’d like to move to in the future. Based on the input you provide to the range of specific yes/no questions, the tool, called the Information Asset Management Maturity Matrix and Assessment Tool, then calculates which information management solutions available on the contract will best meet your current and future needs.

Remember, it’s horses for courses

It’s important to note that not all products available on the contract will suit all environments. Vendors and solutions have been chosen for their ability to meet particular needs. Some were chosen because they have highly developed solutions that are appropriate for those organisations with advanced recordkeeping and information management capacities. Others are much simpler solutions, designed for environments with more minimal requirements. So it’s really important to know your environment, know your requirements, use the assessment tool and choose a solution that best works for you.

The process of assessing the software solutions was massive…

All solutions on the contract had to measure themselves and report against a massive functional requirements statement developed by State government experts.

The functional requirements statement covered 18 specific areas of information asset management – records and document management processing, user and identity management, document relationship management, storage management, security and access management, search and retrieval, reporting, audit management, email management, content management, content input/output management, workflow, content quality and organisational controls, content rights management, web content management, collaboration and productivity, knowledge management and operational and technical support. In total, there were 1547 lines of detailed requirements specified.

Because the functional requirements were so extensive, a number of the solutions proposed are combinations of software which, when implemented together, offer a comprehensive solution but which, as separate products, may not meet your specific needs. Where products are bundled together on the contract it’s important to realise that these products have intentionally been combined and implementing one without the other runs the risk of not meeting your stated recordkeeping needs and requirements.

What about SharePoint?

There has been a lot of discussion in records management circles about Microsoft’s Sharepoint software, with many records managers being asked why they should not implement it for all their information asset management needs including records management. This product is listed on the GSAS Contract but it is only listed as a component of a specific software combination and it should not be regarded as a stand-alone option for providing records management capabilities. Under the terms of the contract Sharepoint on its own is not approved for use for basic records management; that is, it was not approved for use in Levels 1A&B (Basic physical / electronic document / records management, Level 2 (Document tracking and user/security management and Level 3 (Advanced workflow and administrative controls).

SharePoint is on the contract because it offers excellent abilities in workplace collaboration and is useful for web content management. When it is combined with the very comprehensive TRIM records management software system (as it must be under the terms of the contract) it helps to provide a solution that can address all 18 of the areas specified in the functional requirements.

Which vendors are on the contract and why should I use them?

The following vendors have been appointed to Contract 2602: GSAS Information Asset Management Systems Software Panel:

• Alphawest Services (TRIM + Microsoft SharePoint Server)
• ELO Digital Office
• EMC (Documentum)
• Interwoven
• Netcat
• Objective
• Opentext
• Oracle
• Tower Software Engineering (TRIM)
• Vignette

Using the contract allows you to purchase software that you know as been comprehensively assessed and will give you significant cost advantage, due to the government’s buying power. So use the assessment tool, work out your own specific needs and requirements and implement the solution that is going to work best for you.

Share your IAMS knowledge and experiences!

The Government Chief Information Office has set up an online information sharing and collaboration site to support the GSAS IAMS contract that NSW public sector staff, including recordkeeping professionals, are invited to join.

The purpose of the Information Asset Management Systems Knowledge Resource Centre (IAMS KRC) Group is to enable the NSW Government to take advantage of the collective knowledge and skills, IAMS implementation experience and intellectual capital of members and their organisations. To do this the KRC will provide for a discussion on topics of interest, a repository for material or relevance, and areas to collaborate on projects of interest.

If you are interested in joining the IAMS KRC contact Peter Clare peter.clare@commerce.nsw.gov.au

New technologies are transforming the way organisations work. Thoughtfully planned and implemented, they can bring real business benefits. Too often, however, we rush into the adoption of new tools and fail to properly consider their role and purpose. Similarly, we often fail to consider how our existing records management practices will cope with these new ways of working, and seek to fit old methods to new problems. In response to this problem, one UK records management author has come up with the concept of ‘Records management 2.0’.

Steve Bailey, in his book Managing the Crowd: Rethinking records management for the web 2.0 world (Facet Publishing, London, 2008) argues that traditional records management as we know it needs to evolve in order to meet the needs of the web 2.0 world. Factors driving this change include the increasing breadth, complexity and volume of digital information that we are creating and using, the control and management issues raised by cloud computing, and changing behaviours in relation to information, as evidenced by the popularity of social networking, folksonomies and user reviewing. Bailey asks: how can we harness this change for our own purposes? For example, how can records managers learn from the fact that many users will tag a resource on the web but are unwilling to enter metadata in an EDRMS?

Bailey proposes a radical rethink of the role of users in recordkeeping systems. He suggests allowing users greater ability to describe, review and even rank information resources based on their usefulness and relevance, enabling users to suggest access levels and contribute to the decision making process about the retention of information. To continue to achieve our information and records management goals, Bailey argues, we need to find ways to make records management tools popular in the same way that online services such as the bookmarking site Del.icio.us are popular – by adopting their functionality, format and style. In this way, he argues, records managers can both make the recordkeeping system a tool that users ‘love and can’t manage without’ and can take greater advantage of users’ in depth understanding of the information they create and use every day.

Understanding users’ information requirements and preferred ways of working will be key to succeeding with more user-centric recordkeeping strategies. Methods such as surveys, observation and interviews can allow you to gather information on your users to help improve your recordkeeping systems and processes to ensure they are appropriate and effective in a web 2.0 world.

Future Proof blog watchers may have seen today’s Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Fake emails: how easy are they …to spot or make?’
(go to: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/fake-emails-how-easy-are-they–to-spot-or-make-20090623-cuzq.html)

It is interesting to see the following advice in the article from digital forensics expert Graham Thompson:

“The trick in exposing what’s fake or real, Thompson explained, is to obtain an electronic copy of the email and look at the ‘interrnet headers’.

Thompson later goes on to say:

“I mean, you’d ask your advisers, show me some more proof, show me other things, not base it all on one piece of flimsy evidence that could be something totally different to what it is.”

In other words, check the metadata! This means both the metadata showing the electronic provenance of the message and metadata applied for recordkeeping purposes when an email is registered in a recordkeeping system. Both are vital for proving the email’s authenticity as a true record of what was communicated.

To learn more about capturing authentic email records that will stand up under scrutiny, go to our short guide Recordkeeping in Brief 49: FAQs Email and recordkeeping.
To find out more about metadata for records, go to Recordkeeping in Brief 18: Introducing recordkeeping metadata.

More and more NSW public sector organisations are moving to fully digital recordkeeping, bringing a range of benefits including faster access to information and reduced records storage costs. It is important, however, to remember that digital information can be vulnerable to a range of risks, including:

• loss of authenticity – if, for example, you cannot show that the record has been kept tamper-proof or if records management actions like transfer or migration of the record were not properly authorised
• becoming unreadable – as a result of relying on a piece of software that has become outdated or which a vendor has stopped supporting
• being lost altogether – because of a computer virus, ‘bit rot’ or damage to the medium it resides on.

Some of these problems are highlighted in an entertaining way in a recent video made by Digital Preservation Europe following the adventures of ‘Digi-Man’ in his quest to rid the world of threats to digital information. You can view the video here (requires access to You Tube).

So what steps can you take as to protect against these types of threats to your digital records? Here are some strategies that you can start implementing today:

1. Keep digital records in recordkeeping systems – when digital records are registered and tracked using recordkeeping metadata, they can be shown to be authentic, reliable records if challenged. Check the Standard on digital recordkeeping for the minimum requirements relating to recordkeeping metadata.
2. Use a limited number of formats to create records, preferably open standards – by using formats like ODF (Open Document Format), your information is less at risk from software companies changing their systems making information created in older versions of their products unreadable
3. Try to avoid putting digital records on removable media- ‘Out of sight out of mind’ means that one of the most common reasons behind digital information becoming unreadable is that it has been sitting on an old floppy disk or some other medium in a drawer for years. Also by keeping the records online they will be protected by your organisation’s virus protection and back up processes
4. Take care when migrating records – this can be one of the riskiest times in a digital record’s life! Our Managing digital records guidelines contain detailed information on managing the migration process.

Is your organisation being choked with emails? Are so many emails being sent and received that the problem of managing them has become gargantuan in proportion? Does it sometimes seem easier to ignore the problem than look for those elusive solutions?

The good news is you are not alone!

NSW government organisations receive millions of emails each year, with an estimated 40% – 80% of these related to official business. State Records has estimated that government organisations only capture between 0% and 40% of business emails. An estimated 119 million emails are not being captured each year.

The bad news is there is no silver bullet for this monster of a problem. State Records often receives enquiries regarding email management and our advice is always the same. It is the responsibility of all NSW government organisations to ensure that email is appropriately dealt with as a record.

State Records advises that to effectively manage your corporate email there are three requirements necessary. These are:

• An appropriate technical solution in place
• Clear policy and procedures
• Ongoing staff training in email management.

Almost all email – related enquiries relate in one way or another to the above requirements.

Technical Solution

An appropriate technical solution will enable people to place emails in the correct location and remove the need to use email vaults and back up tapes.

Policy and procedures

Clear policy and procedures help to identify what needs to be captured, who should capture and when emails should be captured.

Ongoing training

Staff training encourages correct practice.

All organisations have different cultures. Some will enthusiastically jump on the email and records management train while others will prefer to leave the problem to someone else or worse – ignore it. No matter the organisational culture, the quicker you begin to deal with emails, the faster you will see results and the problem will begin to reduce in size. Slowly people will begin to change their practices and the monster within that is email mismanagement will be tamed.

If you have any suggestions or helpful hints to your fellow ‘Email tamers’ please let us know! The Future Proof blog is there for your use.

State Records recommends that anyone trying to manage emails review the email management section in Managing Digital Records guideline as well as looking at Recordkeeping in Brief 49: Emails and recordkeeping.

State Records is pleased to announce the release of their new guidelines – Records management and web 2.0.

The guidelines

These guidelines were developed to help NSW public offices understand the changing environment of the web and the emerging use of many new online tools, thus encouraging records managers to carry out their recordkeeping duties with regard to these new technologies.

The need

It is difficult to not be aware of the many new technologies available at our fingertips. Blogs, wikis, social networking, collaborative editing, RSS and more are increasingly being used by NSW Government to do business. As with any new form of creating information, it is important that appropriate recordkeeping strategies are developed. With the introduction of many web 2.0 technologies it is more important than ever that records managers devise ways to fulfil their recordkeeping duties and tease out the important records from the wealth of information these technologies are creating.
The guidelines on records management and web 2.0 were developed to encourage records managers to begin assessing the use of web 2.0 technologies in their organisations and devise strategies for the capture of records created using these technologies.

Updating

The rate of change for many web 2.0 technologies is much faster than other technologies used for creating information. State Records envisages that these new guidelines will be regularly updated to reflect these new changes and developments as well as new recordkeeping strategies.

Have your say

State Records encourages anyone who has had practice using web 2.0 technologies and managing records created by these technologies to share their experiences on the Future Proof blog. Your comments and advice are greatly appreciated and will help State Records remain up to date and relevant in their advice regarding records management and web 2.0.

Most digital recordkeeping improvement projects require an investment of funds and time and often involve a certain degree of upheaval in the way your organisation does its business. How can you make the case for change so that management are willing to support your proposal?

One method that makes a lot of sense to managers is to predict a return on the investment (ROI) using real examples. A business case with strong ROI indicators will stand out from other projects that may be considered for funding.

Calculating the return on investment (ROI) is about proving that an investment will bring rewards, usually best described in monetary terms – either earnings or savings.

For a given cost saving idea you can calculate the ROI by looking at:

• Time saved (hrs per month) – This is the time savings you can achieve each month by putting your cost saving idea in to effect. Don’t forget to compute saved hours for all people whose time you actually save!
• Labour rate ($ per hour) – The labour cost of the person/s whose time you’re saving. If you will save time for most staff in the organisation an average salary can be used..
• Annual savings – This is the time savings of your idea multiplied by the labour rate and adjusted for an entire year.
• Costs – This is the total cost of implementing your idea. Don’t forget software, hardware, warrantees, training time, subscriptions, etc, when you compute the total cost.
• ROI (%) – Savings divided by costs displayed as a percentage. The higher the number the better.
• Payback (years) – The number of years it will take for your idea to pay for itself. The lower the number the better. [1]

Some examples of cost saving arguments for digital recordkeeping that could be put into the ROI framework described above include:

• time saved by individual staff as a result of being able to save documents electronically rather than the print and file method
• time saved by the FOI officer searching for records, or
• time saved by project officers on compiling reports as a result of reusing previous information.

Footnotes
[1] Green, R, A sample ROI worksheet for computing purchasing scenarios, CadManager 2009, Viewed 19 March 2009 <http://www.cad-manager.com/tools>