GDA DevelopmentHistory, Communication, and Beginnings

Pam Thorburn, Chair,

Public Records Act Working Party

A Bit of History - PRAW

• The Public Records Act Working Party convened by New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee first met February 2007

• Membership of PRAW was a cross-functional group of university management staff including library, student services, registry, information technology etc

• There were no Records Managers employed at a NZ university when PRAW started

• PRAW’s initial focus was to develop a GDA for all 8 universities

What is a university?

Obviously a place of research and learning

In New Zealand there are 8 Universities

Collectively for all 8 institutions in 2007 there were….

staff – 24,000 (largest 5,700 – smallest 700) 

students – 175,000 (largest 40,000 – smallest 4,000)

What is a university?

• In essence to support each university takes the infrastructure and services that would equate to small to medium towns

• For instance in relation to infrastructure:

Infrastructure/ Services

To support the numbers of staff and students the university generates records on….

• Student Accommodation and related services• Lecture theatres and laboratories and related regulations

and services• IT networks and computer suites• Research spaces including private/public research

institutes• Crèches and Marae Buildings and services• Libraries and collection management

Infrastructure/ Services cont.

• Counselling and Health• Corporate services-HR, Finance, Facilities Management,

Communications and Marketing, Student Recruitment etc.• Governance and Strategic planning• Student and Academic Administration• Student Unions and Associations• Student Support services-Learning support, Career Advice• Special Collections including Art Collections and Galleries• On-site business supplying food, books etc.

GDA Development

• SWIM Ltd were selected to develop the GDA in partnership with NZVCC

• Archives NZ assisted by providing advice as and when required.

• A Project was established to achieve this outcome and a communication strategy was developed as a key part of the process

Project Management Structure

• Project Sponsor - NZVCC

• Project Steering Group – PRAW

• Project Team was made up of representatives from PRAW and SWIM

• Project Team reported to Steering Group, who reported to the Sponsor.

Project Challenges…

• Universities covered by the PRA for the first time and as seen infrastructure and services are significant

• There was a level of opposition to being covered by the PRA

• Each of the 8 universities operates, and is structured differently, to all the others for the purposes of records management…

• Universities have devolved and complex management structures, traditionally based on collaborative and consensus decision making

Project Challenges cont.

• Records management capability within universities was limited

• when the project to develop the GDA started:one university had a records management team - and this team had a vacancy for the Records Manager,

one had a consultant reviewing records management capability

one had a part time person reviewing historical records…

Project Challenges cont.

• Coverage of the PRA – the PRA excludes the records associated with teaching and learning and research and what this meant needed clarification

• Definition of what a subsidiary was …added complexity to the process...

• Most Universities have national and international strategic partnerships involving a variety of contract arrangements

Communications and Buy-in

• PRAW members had to obtain buy-in for the development of the GDA from Vice-Chancellors and senior management

• Compliance only projects do not engage or enthuse – difficult to get hard data on the cost-benefits of RM

• Most universities set up an internal cross-functional working group to oversee the project at an institutional level

Project plan for Communications

• PRAW members were the champions and first point of contact

• Workshops and one-on-one interviews with senior staff were conducted by SWIM consultants

• Important that the strategy was flexible – but the message was the same

• Suggested wording prepared for university intranet sites, and communications to staff

Project Team Communications

• Met regularly, meetings had to be useful• Built trust• No surprises!• No secrets (e.g. discussed openly how to manage

known “challenging people”-the saboteurs) • Risk and issues had to be identified and managed• All members were wearing multiple hats! (e.g.

representing PRAW, a university and a functional area)

Workshops and interviews

• Each university was visited for 2 days by the

consultants for workshops and interviews • PRAW members arranged the workshops,

introduced sessions and attended most of them – this meant they had to have a good understanding of the whole university but it built internal ownership.

• SWIM consultants ran the workshops, conducted the interviews and provided the base documentation for the GDA

Workshops and interviews cont.

• Participants were from all aspects of the university system – administration and academic (cross-functional)

• In addition to the workshops influential individuals were identified at each university and interviewed separately about the GDA by the consultants

Consultation process

• The process for review of the GDA was very much one of continued consultation and feedback

• A draft of the GDA was handed out at workshops and interviews, and participants were encouraged to share it with colleagues

• Participants commented on the draft directly to SWIM consultants (normally on the area they worked in)

Consultation process cont.

• Second versions of draft was sent to all workshop participants – who were (again) encouraged to share it….

• External key stakeholders were notified and invited to participate, and were notified when the GDA was released for public comment by Archives NZ

Approval process

• Sign off internally (by all universities)• PRAW members approved the final version

of the GDA• Following review by Archives NZ staff, they

met with SWIM representatives and the project team overseeing the GDA development project to clarify the final few issues

• Normal Archives NZ process followed

The Positives

• The GDA was developed and approved, nearly within budget (the increase in the budget was due to the number of comments made on the draft GDA by university staff!)

• A closer relationship was developed with Archives NZ– Archives NZ were kept informed throughout the

process, but where not included formally• Archives NZ staff were called upon early in the process for

clarification on a number of issues (e.g. definitions around research, teaching and learning, and what exactly is a subsidiary)

The Positives cont.

• Increased awareness of records management

• Beginning of a willingness to implement records management principles

• Within 8 months of approval of the GDA there were 7 appointments of records managers at universities

• The GDA is being implemented!

Implementation

• Universities are at the start of the journey and all are at various stages of implementation

• There has been to date one record type that was given an unworkable retention period –and a small number of minor changes have been identified

• PRAW continues as an NZVCC group to support implementation.

Implementation cont.

• The current terms of reference for PRAW is to facilitate collaborative projects, providing cost benefits to all 8 universities

• To provide advice to Vice-Chancellors’ Committee on strategic and operational implementation

• It remains a cross functional group and records management expertise has now been included

And that is Another Story

Thank you for your time

Questions?