Mysteries, Mayhem and Machiavellian Machinations: Records Management

auditing at MFAT 1999 - 2008

Karen BolgerManager Records and Archives,Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

PRESENTATIONOVERVIEW

• MFAT Context: who, what, where and when

• Establishing a paper based records management audit (the Machiavellian part)

• Implementing the paper based records management audit (the Mysteries part)

• What worked well • What didn’t work (the Mayhem part)

• Where to now – preparing for the 2010 audits & future developments: Paper plus…

MFAT Context: Who, what, where and when

• what we do?• Where we operate?• Special security requirements for MFAT information and

records• Records management in the Ministry

– decentralised model – a core Records and Archives team creating policy and undertaking training, management of core systems and the RM auditing programme

– Dedicated Records Management Staff in every business unit and post….

MFAT Context: Who, what, where and when (cont)

•The MFAT love affair with paper• a strong culture of using and managing records (historically) •The gradual adoption of technology

Establishing a paper based records management audit (the Machiavellian part)

1. Selling the concept of auditing – management buy-in (or lack there of)

2. A rose by any other name (the creative use of language)

3. Linking audit outcomes to the proposed relocation of the Ministry (from four buildings on the Terrace to once purpose built building on Lambton Quay)

4. Adopting Standards against which we could audit (MFAT standards and AS 4390)

Establishing a paper based records management audit (the Machiavellian part cont.)

• Borrowing ideas – financial audits, any audits!• Begging for assistance - pilot participants• A light bulb moment - linking RM audits to training needs

of staff• Limiting audit to Wellington (post audits a future goal)• Just doing it – drafting audit documentation and then

auditing the records in our unit….

Implementing the paper based records management audit (the Mysteries part)

• First physical audit of Ministry records took place between November 1999 and April 2000

• We physically checked over 300 files across 25 units• We checked against basic internal records management standards

including:– Papers in sample files: filed in date order– File had correct metadata on the cover (dates, titling etc)– Files were correctly registered on our central database– We had adequate files for core business activities, events etc– Files were appropriately sized and stored– Each unit had a standardised (hmm) File Classification List that was up

to date, complete and accessible to all staff

Implementing the paper based records management audit.

• We checked that each unit had sufficient shelf space to adequately store the files they needed - with correct shelving (as per our internal storage standard developed in 1998)

• We checked that each records person had a dedicated space to sort and file papers (cupboards not permitted)

• We checked stack areas and open file shelves for collections of unfiled papers

• We checked cupboards and cabinets (where possible)• We checked mysterious boxes and containers full of papers loitering …• We had an amnesty for the discovery of unregistered records including

other media and formats (complete with chocolate fish rewards)• We even “persuaded” some of our well known “hoarders”

to let us view their hidden caches….

Implementing the paper based records management audit

• We had to re-write our survey, assessment and reporting documentation (updated for most audits)

• We had to link recordkeeping audit documentation to each unit (not the individual) as part of our preparation to move premises - a first attempt to get staff to take responsibility for the information they received created and managed

• We “mostly” persuaded management that they wanted to know audit outcomes (I managed to get a hot spot at the weekly SMG meeting early on in the audit programme)

• We had to really work on our use of language (neutral language) in our reports and wording outcomes “diplomatically”

What worked well

• We knew what we had and where it was – over progressive audits our knowledge about our paper holdings grew

• We had comprehensive records management data necessary for determining current and future storage requirements

• We discovered many exciting unregistered and colourful “records” that were not registered on our system– In offices – In boxes without labels– In boats– In art crates– In rooms that we had never seen before– In locked cabinets / suitcases / cupboards

What worked well

• Paper based recordkeeping practises in the Ministry’s Head Office improved• The audit supported the appointment of additional staff in NZAID and Legal

and at some posts• We managed to increase the profile of recordkeeping across MFAT• In 2005/06 we linked into the Ministry’s Post audit programme and our

internal auditors now have a 10 point check list for recordkeeping at post – audit staff now get an in person briefing from me prior to any post audit visit

• We identified policy staff with an understanding of records management – these people became future allies for recordkeeping projects and were generally more supportive of records management staff

• We “know” about those staff that need to be actively managed (@#$!)• We developed good working relations with a core of hardworking records

management staff across the Ministry

What didn’t work well

• The audit has a paper focus – this needs to be expanded and linked into the Ministry Knowledge Management Programme

• the rotational nature of Ministry staff did mean that new problems emerge with the return of untrained (yet to be indoctrinated) staff from post…some with poor recordkeeping habits

• Follow up actions from audits has been erratic – three times staff have completed our internal RM audits and then swiftly headed off to post (usually a promotion!)

• Management buy-in following audits has varied greatly – some managers would rather not address issues (wait for person to rotate)

What didn’t work well

• The audit doesn’t cover or address recordkeeping and information management behaviours of Ministry staff – one dimensional

• Records management staff in divisions feel “targeted” • The audit process was very labour intensive and hard to fit in during

very busy periods of work (i.e. when we are also doing project work etc)

• The audit didn’t always provide adequate evidence to address some records management problems

Where to next

• We are looking at expanding our audit programme to include electronic records – linking into our Knowledge Management Programme (slowly happening)

• We are using Archives NZ Assessment tools to gauge where we are at and where we need to focus in the coming months

• We are working more closely with our internal Audit Division to better address records management issues at post

• We remain optimistic and keep going• Karen puts off retirement for another year or two …

Conclusion