Prepared by:

Introduction

History and Assumptions

External Perception

Analysis

Recommendations

Appendices

• Presentation Slides to SCDAH Staff, December 2, 1998 
• Presentation Slides to External Focus Group, December 2, 1998 
• Presentation Slides to SCDAH Staff, December 3, 1998 
• Survey Instrument 
• Compiled Survey Results

The South Carolina State Historical Records Advisory Board (SCSHRAB) contracted with Tim Slavin (consultant) to conduct an evaluation of the electronic records management work conducted by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. The consultant was also directed to identify areas for future program development.

The consultant conducted an on-site visit to the SCDAH on December 3^rd and 4^th, 1998. Prior to the consultation, a survey was distributed to SCDAH staff and results were compiled by the consultant for discussion during the on-site visit. The full text of the survey instrument and the responses from SCDAH staff are located in Appendix A to this report. In addition, the results of the survey are discussed in section 2 of this report.

During the course of the on-site consultation, the consultant met with numerous groups, including the following:

During the course of these meetings, the consultant used Powerpoint presentations to present some of the observations and results of both the survey and the first day's discussions. These Powerpoint slides are available as Appendix B of this report.

The purpose of this section is to detail some of the activities of SCDAH in the area of electronic records, and to provide further analysis into some of the assumptions SCDAH staff members have regarding this work.

The SCDAH has been actively engaged in electronic records work since 1994. This has resulted in a number of policies being issued by SCDAH for use across state government. These policies include:

• Optical Imaging Policy
• Data Processing Retention Schedule
• Guidance on Microcomputer Records
• South Carolina Information Locator Service (SCILS)
• Email guidance
• Electronic records storage and handling guidelines
• Guidelines for the legal admissibility of electronic records

In addition to policy-based work, SCDAH has also been actively involved in a number of projects related to electronic records. These projects include:

• Department of Corrections accession. Recently, SCDAH accessioned its first official set of electronic records from the Department of Corrections. This activity was chartered by the electronic records group, and news of the accession appeared prominently in SCDAH's newsletter.
• South Carolina Information Locator Service (SCILS)
• Intergovernmental Cooperative Appraisal Project (ICAP), in conjunction with National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators (NAGARA). This includes separate projects on food stamp records, and law enforcement records.
• Pilot project with the Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop electronic records appraisal procedures.

The survey instrument (see Appendix A) was used a tool to gauge the level of perceived support and understanding in SCDAH for electronic records issues. An analysis of the survey reveals certain assumptions which underlie certain areas of program activity and development.

Overall, the results of the survey depict the SCDAH as a mature organization in dealing with the challenge posed by electronic records. Nearly 70% of respondents felt that electronic records management did bring value to the mission of SCDAH.

There was also strong support for the continuation of efforts in these areas.

There were mixed results on a number of questions clustered on the ability of existing staff to meet the mandate of managing electronic records. Roughly half of those surveyed felt that unprepared for identifying agency record keeping requirements:

There was also uncertainty on the confidence of staff in understanding the basic principles of information systems:

Perhaps the most sobering result was the response to question #4 "The staff of SCDAH is adequately trained to deal with electronic records issues." Less than 40% of the respondents felt that they were either "well prepared" or "prepared"; the remainder (61%) felt that they were either "totally unprepared", "unprepared", or "neither prepared or unprepared."

Based on discussions with SCDAH staff members on these issues, comments offered by staff members helped to point out specific areas of concern.

Staff members did not feel that they had an adequate understanding of the basic principles of electronic record keeping based on their limited experience in working with large electronic information systems. There were varying viewpoints on how best to resolve this issue: some staff members within the electronic records unit stated that more training was needed, while another member of the group stated that enough training had been completed and that it was "time to do electronic records management." In discussions with the records management, local records, and access services units, it was stated by each that basic training in desktop applications needed to continue. Some staff members stated that SCDAH had done a very good job of this in the past, but efforts in this area had waned recently.

Staff members were also uncertain as to the value of some of the work of the electronic records unit. In particular, they cited an unfocussed approach of the unit toward the issue, and an uncertain mandate as to what the extent and scope of the work of the electronic records unit has been and should be in the future.

Staff cited some confusion over roles and domains when managing electronic records. The recent accession of electronic records from the Department of Corrections was cited as an activity that, while valuable, blurred the traditional lines of responsibility between (for example) records services and the description unit. Staff outside the electronic records unit were willing to contribute to success in the area of electronic records, but were uncertain as to what was being asked of them.

The issue of resources for electronic records was raised in numerous conversations. Discussions by staff suggested that it was understood and accepted that more resources (than are currently allocated to electronic records) would need to be available, but there was uncertainty and confusion over how much would be available, and in what form. Staff were unanimous in the skepticism of the ability of SCDAH to re-deploy existing resources to achieve success in this area.

Finally, the issue of metrics and rewards-methods of measuring success and failure-was raised on numerous occasions. Many staff voiced concern over the "new-ness" of electronic records and the difficulty it was causing in adapting electronic records activities to traditional methods of measuring. In particular, records management was concerned that two traditional methods of measurement-number of records series scheduled, and amount of records destroyed-were obsolete with electronic records; collection services were equally concerned that the traditional measure of accessioning rates did not address electronic records and cited the Department of Corrections accession as an example. Staff did, however, agree that the current measure of success in electronic records was to be markedly different than the measure of success in five years. Specifically, there was consensus that the different perception of success was as follows:

• Accession electronic records
• Achieve consensus across SCDAH on electronic records
• Continue policy level work

• Serve records to the public
• Rote procedures for accessioning electronic records
• Accession electronic records

An external focus group discussion was held on December 3, 1998 from 10:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Roy Tryon of SCDAH introduced the group to the scope of their discussion and then left the room; no SCDAH staff members were present during any of the discussions.

The external focus group was comprised of the following:

The discussions of the external focus group were channeled into three areas of concern: understanding and acceptance of electronic records issues; stature/acceptance of SCDAH in electronic records issues; and opportunities for SCDAH.

Overall, the focus group was receptive and understanding of issues surrounding electronic records. The work of the IRC was cited on numerous occasions as leading toward the recognition of government information (and electronic records) as a corporate asset of South Carolina state government. In particular, more than half of the members of the focus group cited SCDAH's work in the South Carolina Information Locator Service (SCILS) project as being exemplary. Recent interest in state data center consolidation and data warehousing were viewed as opportunities for defining further the mandates of electronic records from SCDAH.

Several members of the group stated strongly that SCDAH should accept its role as the single authority for records keeping in South Carolina government, and exercise its authority accordingly. One member suggested that SCDAH needed to exercise its authority by enforcing the provisions of its enabling legislation; another member felt that SCDAH should bring functional knowledge of record keeping requirements to higher-level information policy discussions being held by the Information Resources Council (IRC). Another member suggested that in addition to these activities, SCDAH should also maintain its traditional role as custodian of records and establish an "electronic records center" for scanned images.

The IRC was cited as a critical ally for SCDAH in the development of electronic record keeping solutions. During the course of discussions, it was stated that the IRC would "strongly support SCDAH in the development and stewardship of electronic records." Moreover, an invitation to the SCDAH to become members of committees within the IRC were was extended. Immediate opportunities for SCDAH that were suggested included: a.) working with OIR in the establishment of regulations in support of the Electronic Commerce Act; and b.)working with the IRC to ensure that future requests for IT need to have "a plan for electronic record keeping."

The consultant found that the SCDAH is a mature organization in its approach and past history in electronic records work. Numerous activities have resulted in high-visibility products which support SCDAH's role as an authority in record keeping issues. These include the optical imaging policy, guidance on microcomputer records, data processing retention schedule, and the work associated with SCILS. SCDAH should be proud of these accomplishments, as they represent some of the most substantive policy-level work of any state government archival program in the country.

The consultant also found that the staff of SCDAH is willing to accept the challenge of electronic records. While most of the policy level work was directed by the electronic records unit, many members from other units were anxious for the opportunity to be involved in the overall goal of serving electronic records from the SCDAH to the public. Barriers to this included lack of training in some technical areas and unclear roles for various units in electronic records issues. Overall, however, the impression left by staff was that they were eager to maintain the same type of "world-class" approach to electronic records as they had brought to the design, construction, and operation of the new SCDAH building.

The consultant found that consensus on the issue of electronic records was strongest at the higher (more philosophical) level. In particular, (and as cited previously) nearly 70% of the staff surveyed stated that electronic records brought value to the mission of the SCDAH. There was little consensus, however, on the scope and focus of operational issues about electronic records. Specifically, staff expressed confusion over the mission of SCDAH viz. a vis. electronic records, and were uncertain as to what was being asked of them.

The consultant found that most staff outside of the electronic records unit felt polarized from electronic records issues, and thus, felt disenfranchised when it came to activities surrounding electronic records. The case of the Department of Corrections accession was cited in particular, and staff members with responsibility for such traditional areas as description and accessioning stated that they felt closed out from learning more about the process. Knowledge transfer-sharing knowledge of electronic records issues across the agency-is a challenge that SCDAH must address.

The consultant found that there was no clear, defined, and stated scope to electronic records activities, and that this was contributing to a sense of frustration for some staff members, including the electronic records unit. Clearly, the work of the electronic records unit has been at a very high-level, policy-based area, yet many members of the electronic records unit felt that they were viewed as a resource for all manner of electronic records issues-from the management of email, web pages, and GIS, to providing expert advice on storage media, to being involved in system design and development. SCDAH needs to define what the scope of their electronic records work will be and, conversely, what it will not encompass.

The consultant found that one of the most persistent and common threads running through all of the discussions was one of resources. Staff members were skeptical about the ability of SCDAH to attract new funding and also were openly skeptical about the ability to re-deploy existing funding in support of these initiatives. The use of consultants and contractors on an as-needed basis was discussed, with mixed results: some felt that there was not an adequate supply of these resources in the Columbia area, while others felt that this was a workable solution.

Definition of record. South Carolina law defines "public record" as including "all books, papers, maps, photographs, cards, tapes, recordings, or other documentary materials regardless of physical form or characteristics prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body." (30-4-20c). This definition-similar to many other state statutes defining public record-provides a broad interpretation of what constitutes a record. As such, the broad interpretation allows for "electronic records" to be included in the interpretation easily.

More refined definitions of both "electronic" and "electronic record" appear in the "South Carolina Electronic Commerce Act", passed into law in 1998:

• "'Electronic' means electrical, digital, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, biometric, or any other technology that is similar to these technologies." (26-5-30-2)
• "'Electronic record' means a record generated, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means." (26-5-30-3)
• In addition, the same statue includes this definition of 'record': "information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form." (26-5-30-5)

As such, these definitions provide the necessary latitude to ensure that electronic records are defined as public records. The consultant does not recommend any statutory changes.

 The South Carolina Public Records Act (30-1-10 through 30-1-180) provides the enabling authority for the Department of Archives and History. The statute does not offer a separate definition of "record" and uses the definition available in 30-4-20.

 The statute also cites specific programmatic responsibilities for the Department of Archives and History, including records management (30-1-80); preserving records (30-1-90); destruction of records (30-1-110); and microfilming of records (30-1-120 and 30-1-130).

 The statute does not contain a separate section relating to electronic records activities. It is the consultant's opinion that this is unnecessary at this time. The statutory authority of the department is sound and accepted, and includes numerous references to authority over records which have been created and maintained electronically (see 30-1-90D and 30-1-100A as examples). In addition, the inclusion of any separate statute which specifies the authority of the department over records maintained in a specific medium is not in keeping with the definition of public record; attempting to include such a statute may, in fact, have the reverse effect of limiting the department's authority to specific media rather than allowing it the widest possible role currently allowed by a broadly interpreted statute.

The following recommendations are made in support of ongoing electronic records work by SCDAH.

• SCDAH should adopt a "scope statement" which defines its work in electronic records.
• SCDAH should re-examine the use of an internal electronic records unit segregated from other operations in the agency. Alternatives may include: maintaining the separate unit; creating a team-based approach, staffed by each of the functional areas of SCDAH; and rotating membership onto the team through the use of "temporary duty" assignments.

• SCDAH management needs to address the issue of resources for electronic records and establish funding priorities and parameters based on an accepted scope statement and workplan.
• SCDAH management should adopt a method for procuring resources for electronic records work, which may: a.) re-training of existing staff; b.) purchase of professional services via contractors and/or consultants; c.) hiring of new staff; and/or d.) acquiring necessary equipment and media.

• SCDAH should ensure that all staff continue to receive adequate training in basic desktop applications prevalent across state government (Windows 95, Windows 98, MS Office, email systems, etc.).
• SCDAH should ensure that staff involved in electronic records work directly should have access to non-traditional training such as attendance at information technology workshops, seminars, and conferences. (N.B. This type of training tends to be more expensive than archives and records management training and conferences.)
• SCDAH should ensure that internal training programs address the issue of knowledge transfer, and that all staff members have access to that training.

SCDAH should ensure that a new system of metrics is in place for all personnel involved with electronic records activities. This should include one or more of the following:

• New measures for electronic records work.
• Adjusted measures for traditional records work.
• Adjusted work loads for staff involved with electronic records work.

SCDAH should adopt a workplan for the next "generation" of electronic records work which includes work in three areas: high-level policy work; medium-level longer-term projects; and ground-level short-term projects. In discussions with staff, the following projects were recommended, in priority order within category:

• Assisting OIR in the development of regulations in support of the Electronic Commerce Law.
• Attendance on IRC Committees. Recommended committees (by SCDAH staff) include: Indexing Standards; GIS; Enterprise Systems; Citizen Access; and Electronic Commerce.
• Obtaining electronic copies of vital (birth, marriage, death) records and serving them to the public electronically.

• SPINDEX records being migrated to new database platform and made available to the public electronically.
• Digitization of Confederate Pensioner Applications. Staff felt that this could attract special funding.
• Accessioning of local tax maps from a GIS system and serving them to the public electronically.

• Placing html versions of "accountability reports" on SCDAH web site and serve to the public electronically.
• Placing html version of "summary guide" on SCDAH web site and serve to the public electronically.
• Placing html versions of minutes of public meetings on SCDAH web site and serve to the public electronically.
• Work with Historic Preservation office to accession GIS records and serve to the public electronically.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

 Appendix E