• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Electronic Records
 

Electronic Records

on

  • 890 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
890
Views on SlideShare
890
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
50
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • There are graphics behind the first nine slides that do not convey information. They show shadow images of the White House and National Archives.
  • More generally, we identified in the Profile a number of challenges that are clearly themes in the current business environment that can be addressed by the Profile Processes supporting distributed RIM Technological obsolescence Overwhelming volume of ER Difficulty assuring authenticity, reliability, and integrity Ineffective implementation of RIM #2 RM is not baked in to agency EA
  • The Profile is both a high-level framework and a tool that provides practical guidance It also provides resources for both RM and IT communities, as well as for program managers, GCs
  • There are several examples in the Profile itself on how a pilot might be done, but here is one example using an SDLC approach. You can see how RM and the Records Officer is factored into each stage of the SDLC to ensure that records reqmts are addressed at each stage before records are created. Stages include: Concept Development, Requirements Definition, Preliminary Design, Development, Integration and Systems Test, Deployment and Acceptance, Production and Retirement and Rollover.
  • 15 minutes. GAO is the Government Accountability Office. GAO, as the Federal watch dog, performs audits, evaluations, & investigations for Congress. 4200 staff – matrixed organization. 2/3 staff in HQ in DC, 1/3 spread among 11 regions. GAO produces about 1000 reports/testimonies a year.
  • GAO’s motivation for implementing RM: Leverage institutional knowledge within and across functions Provide a foundation for KM Electronically manage and dispose of e-records produced by e-business processes
  • Hummingbird DM 5.1.0.5 with RM 5.1 Subsequently purchased by Open Text (Oct. 2006) Now referred to as Open Text’s e-DOCS DM/RM GAO calls it DM/ERMS or just DM. 10 year history with DOCS 4 year history with Hummingbird 1 year history with Open Text. GAO pioneered implementation of document management in the Federal government (to support nationwide collaboration; DM has 2 M docs in it) (Began BPR 6 years ago & decided) Automated business processes needed an electronic records management system (ERMS) to capture e-records
  • Integrate with other e-business initiatives (Travel Manager, disaster recovery copies of OPFs, etc.) Minimize the end user’s responsibility for RM (i.e. PLACE NO BURDEN ON THE AUDIT STAFF) Centralize management of multiple document repositories Provide the foundation for knowledge management Utilize the existing document management system
  • Primary Stakeholders are analysts, auditors, and attorneys. Did our home work with nation-wide task forces – involved end users; all levels, HQ & Field Offices. Many original task force members are still involved – now ERMS CoP System Champions: C-LEVEL OFFICES: CG, GC, COO, CAO (model agency focus) Partnership included CIO, CKO, RMO, ISTS PM, contract support staff and Vendor’s software engineer Emphasize: First 6 bullets on slide – all end users.
  • Prototype in lab – RM & Vendor engineer 20 pilots – every major business function so everyone had a vested interest in the initiative Implementation – team by team; office by office over 26 weeks Contemporaneously with ERMS effort, we were a NARA pilot for Simplified Records & Information Disposition Schedules (RIDS). These RIDS are the key to our ERMS System: 3 retention periods (buckets) which user chooses among by selecting a profile with which to save a document.
  • Mission = Engagement Case Files 5 year retention unless historically significant This/these are our primary functions Testimonies Audits Organized by engagement number About 1200 case files a year. Note: This slide has a picture of a bucket on it.
  • Policy & Special Collections Bucket captures records of permanent or long term retention Organized by Function Title Includes: Policy Organizational Structure GAO’s History Program Agency-level Policy Boards, Committees, Task Forces Strategic Planning, Performance, & Accountability Reports Note: This slide has a picture of a bucket on it.
  • Administrative – 7 year retention (statute of limitations) Includes housekeeping & administrative program management functions that support GAO’s mission and routine operations – old GRS Also includes: Graphics and Printing IG work Mail & Couriers Payroll & Benefits Public Affairs Records Management Training Vehicle Management. Note: This slide has a picture of a bucket on it.
  • Internal customers are Auditors, Analysts, Accountants, Lawyers. The want to see cost/benefit analysis and Return on Investment on projects. Getting meaningful metrics very difficult. Measurable processes – no baseline. Current clean-up costs: $417K/yr. 4 yr. project of clean-up costs + records center storage costs are $2,080. ROI = 5 years. Perception Survey – survey pilot participants Does it make them more productive? Does it interrupt them getting the job done? Are new profiles easy to use? How did ERMS impact their work processes? Did they spend more or less time looking for documents with ERMS? Result: ERMS had no impact on doing the work.
  • User resistance to change – organizational culture heavily reliant on traditional paper processes (Used DM as a word processor) Policy did NOT change – the medium did. Translating policies into e-processes – i.e. collaboration and e-supervisory review; drafts and versions. 13 Teams had 13 flavors of implementing audit policy & RM policy – see big differences in how work is performed when working with processes instead of just products.
  • Customized the system to give us 3 profiles – 1 per retention bucket. The agency had multiple e-initiatives in process: - e-workpapers - e-case files - e-indexing & e-referencing - e-publication - e-distribution of products (Congress & the public) Multi-initiatives compounded cultural change.
  • GAO already had a culture of DM use. Automated record capture at receipt or creation. DM/ERMS provides the platform for end-to-end engagement/audit processes. New systems being developed are being integrated in to ERMS – part of our architecture. Stable platform – no serious system glitches. 650,000 records since 1/1/07. Old DM system had amassed over 2M documents over 15 years. ERMS gives us centralized management of multiple records repositories of audit documentation records.
  • DM/ERMS is the foundation for GAO’s KM efforts (Vision) Implemented 1/1/07 – Mandated use. 9/07 – about 650K docs in ERMS E-Mail – 27% of records captured 66% of users are capturing e-mail records. Cost less than $3M – 16,500 labor hours among RM, IT, & supporting contractors. Initiative has taken 5 years. GAO has well-defined lines of business so building ERM into our processes may have been easier than in most organizations.
  • Any questions? Thanks for having us!

Electronic Records Electronic Records Presentation Transcript

  • The FEA Records Management Profile & the SDLC Martha Morphy Chief Information Officer National Archives and Records Administration GSA IT Summit Washington D.C. October 9, 2007
  • Overview
    • What is the RM Profile and why is it important?
    • Embedding the RM Profile into agency IT processes: EA, SDLC, CPIC, BPD
  • Background
    • Development of an RM Profile began as a response to a number of challenges Federal agencies face:
      • Agency records management procedures do not integrate people, policies, processes and technology well
      • Agency enterprise architectures (EA) do not systemically address records management requirements
      • Agency planning and execution of IT investments often overlooks the value of records management (RM)
      • Systems are often funded, designed and implemented without adequate thought about how those records will be managed over their entire lifecycle
  • The RM Profile is . . .
      • A cross-cutting framework in the five FEA Reference Models
      • Designed to help decision-makers define RM requirements and systemically and consistently embed RM practices into existing agency IT and business processes
      • A tool to help agencies address NARA, OMB, ISO, and legislative RM requirements that will enhance agency productivity and effectiveness
  • RM Profile Objectives
    • Establish a common Government-wide framework for identifying records management requirements
    • Identify records management issues and requirements and link them to their implementing technologies and business processes.
    • Build records management requirements into agency IT governance processes for enterprise architecture
      • capital planning and investment control (CPIC)
      • business process design (BPD)
      • systems development life cycle (SDLC)
  • RM Checklist in the SDLC
    • 4-6 key RM questions for each phase of the SDLC
  • RM Checklist Questions in the SDLC
    • Concept Phase:
    • Is this system replacing a paper-based records system?
      • Are the paper records already scheduled?
      • Can the existing dispositions be used as the basis for new dispositions for this system?
    • Is this new system replacing an existing electronic system?
      • Is this existing system already scheduled?
      • Can the existing dispositions be used as the basis for new dispositions for this system?
      • Have you addressed the migration of the legacy data?
    • If the business process/workflow has or will be re-designed prior to system development, will the new business process account for all changes in the format, nature, and content of existing records?
    • Have you discussed these records management questions with your agency’s records management officer?
  • RM Checklist Questions in the SDLC
    • Requirements Definition Phase
    • Have you incorporated all records-related requirements into the system?
    • Have you identified additional records requirements based on your business needs?
    • Have you considered how the proposed records dispositions and retention times might impact the system’s records-related requirements?
      • For records of long-term value, is there a well-documented migration strategy to ensure the integrity and continued access to these records?
    • Have you incorporated all of the records-related requirements detailed in the system requirements document into the records requirements section of your draft IT Investment Proposal?
    • Have you validated the requirements and developed clear measures for each?
    • Have you discussed these records management questions with your agency’s records management officer?
  • Questions?
    • Contact Information
    • Martha Morphy
    • National Archives and Records Administration
    • Martha.Morphy @nara.gov
    • (301) 837-1992
    • NARA RM website: http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/
    • RM Profile: http://www.cio.gov/documents/RM_Profile_v1.pdf
    • FEA PMO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-1-fea.html
  • DoI’s FDMS Experience
      • Sharon Whitt, Program Manager
      • Department of Interior
      • GSA IT Summit 10/09/07
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery Regulations.Gov Operational January 2003 Agency Functionality September 2005 September 125+ Federal Entities Deployed Objective Provide the Public with easy access to Federal rulemaking Ability to comments electronically
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery
    • Docket – Administrative Record for Rule
    • Advantages Search Capability Ability to deliver electronically Identification of Holds & Freezes
    • Disadvantages Business Function not System Coordination Records Officers, Business Staff, CIO’s Office, and Solicitors
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery
    • DOI Preparation
    • Internal Set up Bureau Teams
    • Determine Scope List of Records Holds & Freezes Status of Bureaus Records Schedules Education for the Teams
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery
    • DOI Preparation
    • External
    • DOI Participate in eRulemaking Workgroups Work with other Federal Agencies Coordination with NARA
    • Work with eRulemaking’s Contractor Understanding Rulemaking Workflow
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery
    • Progress to Date DOI Senior Management Commitment Established DOI’s Internal Workgroups Participated in eRulemaking Requirements Set up Bureau, NARA, and DOI Teams Establish Implementation Schedule Work with Bureaus in Education, Acceptance
    • BLM and MMS implemented 10-7-07
  • eRulemaking and eDiscovery
    • Questions
    • ?
  • GAO on Building the Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) Explosion of Electronic Information – The Saga of Records Management GSA IT Summit 10/9/2007 Jean Nazzaro, Director of Customer Relations - OCIO
  • Overview
    • Background
    • Business Requirements
    • Stakeholders
    • Systems Development & End Users
    • Metrics
    • Lessons Learned
    • E-Repository in the Enterprise Architecture
    • Successful ERMS Implementation
    • Summary
  • Background
    • Documentation is key to GAO’s work - -- about 1200 case files generated each year.
    • GAO pioneered implementation of document management in the Federal government.
    • Automated business processes need an electronic records management system (ERMS) to capture e-records.
    • Knowledge Services, Information Services & Technology Systems, and Quality and Continuous Improvement (Policy) formed a strategic partnership to build ERMS.
  • Business Requirements
    • The ERMS had to:
    • Integrate with other e-business initiatives
    • Embed records retention into the electronic processes
    • Store documentation or pointers to documentation (paper, data sets, copyrighted material, artifacts, URLs, etc.)
    • Capture the record at creation or receipt
    • Minimize the end user’s responsibility for RM
    • Facilitate the RM staff making the RM decisions
    • Be easy to use
  • Stakeholders
    • Analysts/Auditors/Attorneys
    • DOCS Task Force
    • Work Paper Task Force
    • Automated Processes Task Force
    • KS, IT, & Policy Partnership
    • ERMS Steering Committee
    • ERMS Work Group
    • ERMS Task Forces (Processes/Metrics & Schedules)
    • Management
    • IT Investment Committee
    • Continuous Improvement Board
  • End Users: Key to Systems Development
    • Analysts/Auditors/Attorneys contributed to the:
    • Prototyped System
    • Pilot System
    • Communication, Training, & Implementation Strategies
    • Phased Roll-Out
    • Community of Practice
  • Simplified Retention and the 3-Bucket Approach Summary of 3 Bucket Approach
  • Summary of 3 Bucket Approach, cont. Summary of 3 Bucket Approach, cont.
  •  
  • Metrics
    • Background: American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council (IAC): e-Government Shared Interest Group: White Paper on The Use of Metrics in Electronic Records Management (ERM) Systems , August 2004 at
    • http://www.actgov.org/actiac/documents/sigs/egov/08032004ERMMetricsFinal.pdf
    • Measurable Processes – No baseline available.
    • Perceptions – Pilot User Survey.
  • Lessons Learned
    • Engage policy (quality control/continuous improvement) staff early on in the ERMS design process to examine the difference between electronic and traditional documentation/evidence production
    • Assign reluctant users (as well as enthusiastic users) to the ERMS pilot groups
    • Train on the ERMS but also on basic Microsoft Applications software and Adobe.
  • E-Repository in the Enterprise Architecture
    • ERMS had minimal impact on the enterprise architecture because electronic records management is fully integrated with the document management (DM) system already in place
    • ERMS required no additional hardware
    • ERMS did require additional assistance from the DM system administrator and help desk staff
    • ERMS e-repositories store records throughout their:
      • creation process
      • active use
      • retention
      • value to knowledge management (reuse & reference).
  • Successful ERMS Implementation
    • System has management support from the chief-level offices
    • System use is mandated for GAO work
    • Simplified retention schedules make system use easy and almost transparent to the user.
    • Streamlined business processes incorporate electronic records management functionality
    • Policy refined to eliminate unnecessary tasks (e.g.. eliminated the need for forms by using the electronic profiles)
    • ERMS Community of Practice integral for voicing and working user issues.
  • Summary: ERMS Works
    • Criteria for success:
    • The ERMS must be user-driven
    • E-business processes must be clearly defined
    • The ERM functions must be an inherent part of the business process
    • The ERM functions must be simple
    • The ERM functions must not place a burden on the users.
  • Questions
    • For more information, please contact:
    • Carol Brock, CRM
    • Manager, Information Assets
    • Knowledge Services
    • U.S. Government Accountability Office
    • 202/512-3435
    • [email_address]