1. Effects of Social Networks on Managing Electronic Records Carol E.B. Choksy, Ph.D., CRM, PMP School of Library and Information Science Indiana University, Bloomington

2. Organizational management  Metadata and media preservation are certainly very important in the management of electronic records, but just as important is the organizational structure, both formal and informal, for managing electronic records.  Until very recently, records managers in corporations reported primarily to Facilities or Administration and had little input into any part of the management of electronic records. ◊Records managers were associated with shelving and boxes.

3. Organizational management  Information Technology departments implemented many different applications without knowledge of how records, documents, or content should actually be managed. Most of the products implemented: email, content management, even Microsoft Office were used to create and distribute documents without concern for finding the documents again, much less preservation or destruction.  The net results have been major problems that have cost corporations millions of dollars in litigation discovery and clean-up, as well as lost opportunity costs—records can be used to improve business processes.

4. Organizational management  As records managers have begun to report to the Legal department and Compliance, their roles in the management of electronic records, and the management of electronic records, has changed dramatically.  Legal and Compliance are a better fit for records management because those departments cross corporate boundaries in the same way RIM does.  And Legal and Compliance are concerned with the enterprise level, not the department level.

5. Example of difference between IT and RIM concerns  IT interested only in “high value” documents ◊Large quantities ◊High intrinsic value, like IP  Records management interested in anything that can get the organization into trouble ◊Non-business emails from one employee harassing another employee ◊Cost UBS Warburg $38 million.

6. Premise of study  That reporting higher in the organizational hierarchy, i.e., closer to the Board of Directors will create more opportunities for better electronic records management.  Measures of success ◊RM and IT are speaking together about records ◊Integrated RM and DM programs ◊Management of email as a document

7. Problem with study  Little historical information, other than ad hoc, about where records managers reported before this. ◊One study from Saffady done in 2000 of 45 records managers in “industry” reports that more than 2/3 of respondents report to Administration Facilities

8. Participation  900 potential companies ◊Fortune 500 ◊Forbes 300 ◊Transnational 100  332 contacted ◊This probably represents 80% of all potential contacts ◊Most of them belong to ARMA ◊100% of 150 cold calls of companies that did not have ARMA members did not have a records management program  48 participated = 14% participation rate

9. Reasons for not participating  #1 confidentiality  #2 do not participate in surveys  #3 not enough time

10. Method  Contact records managers for participation in the study ◊Fortune 500, ◊Forbes 300, and ◊Transnational 100.  Ask participants for comments to improve the draft survey for ◊Achieving their own benchmarking goals ◊Receiving comments to improve survey ◊Assuring confidentiality  Put survey on surveymonkey.com ◊Get anonymous responses

11. Creating the survey  Every company contacted responded enthusiastically to the study topic.  Every comment to improve the survey was directed precisely at the desired subject of study, despite the opportunity to ask other types of “benchmarking” questions.  Only 5 companies gave comments

12. Demographics & Training  Age  Gender  Highest Level of Education  Subject Degrees Received In  From where did you receive your training in records management?  How long ago did you receive your training?  All sources of RIM training received  Formal training in business  Years in Records Management  Do you have a CRM?  If you have a CRM, when did you earn it?  Years at Current Company  Years in Current Position  Your Title  Your Job Description (brief)

13. Interesting demographics  83% have college or higher degree  1/3 have a CRM ◊ARMA cohort only 1 in 10  Training ◊64% Seminars & workshops ◊81% On-the-job training  66% have 6+ years on the job  76% have 6+ years in records management

14. Records management portfolio

15. Record type responsibility #1

16. Record type responsibility #2

17. Company & department structure  Company major industry  Type of Ownership  Multinational Corporation?  Department Name  Title of officer department reports directly to?  Location in relation to your own direct report  Department Is Part of What Division?  Other information that would help us understand the chain of command to which you report within your company

18. Companies that responded  77% Publicly traded  15% Private  8% Foreign-owned  75% are multinationals (US or foreign)

19. Reporting networks—Corporate

20. Reporting networks—Legal

21. Knowledge chains  In your corporation but outside your chain-of- command, who seeks you out for advice?  Within your corporation but outside your chain- of-command, from whom do you seek advice?  Are there other records managers within your corporation with whom you discuss RIM?  If there are other records managers within your corporation, how many are there?  From whom do you seek advice

22. Who speaks to whom

23. From whom is advice sought about a particular topic #1

24. From whom is advice sought about a particular topic #2

25. Integration of RM & DM programs

27. Who files the electronic documents?

28. Integration of email into RM

29. Conclusions #1  Because of the lack of historical reporting information, it is difficult to tell whether electronic records are being managed “better” because records managers report to a “higher” level. ◊Ad hoc information would suggest that it is.  Recent headlines for large, publicly traded companies regarding email in litigation would suggest that management of electronic records has reached its nadir.

30. Conclusions #2  Disproportionate numbers of records managers reporting to General Counsel ◊Many General Counsels report regularly to the Board of Directors or are the Corporate Secretary. ◊The expensive litigation penalties resulting from corporate mishandling of email has corporate attorneys, both in-house and outside counsel, going to seminars on electronic discovery in record numbers.

31. Conclusion #3  RIM knowledge network includes ◊Legal ◊IT ◊Line-of-business managers  RM and IT are speaking together about records ◊Integrated RM and DM programs ◊Management of email as a document  Portfolio of responsibility ◊Policies and procedures for most record types ◊Advice on electronic records implementation

32. Conclusion #4  Probably should perform the same study in a few years.  Will be performing the same study on government entities within the next few months.