KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: The Archivist's and Records Manager's Perspective.

AuthorYAKEL, ELIZABETH

AT THE CORE

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES:

* How records professionals can compete with other "information collecting centers" in organizations.

* What it means for records professionals to focus more on outcomes rather than outputs

* Why knowledge management is not enough; the desired outcome is organizational learning

Concepts such as knowledge management (KM), intellectual capital, and digital asset management abound in today's organizations. Records management professionals, however, are seldom associated with these terms. This lack of connection is further complicated in the post-custodial environment, where records are distributed (rather than centrally housed in records centers and archives), and the responsibility for electronic records is dispersed as well. In this world of knowledge workers and knowledge-creating organizations, records managers and archivists cannot afford to be perceived solely as information providers and curators of data.

Archivists and records managers have long been knowledge managers. The challenge is to move beyond this. Specifically, records management professionals need to recognize the intellectual capital they control and to capitalize on opportunities for knowledge creation and the enhancement of organizational learning. This means that archivists and records managers must rethink traditional identity markers, such as the records center, as the sole domain, physical records as the object of work, and records management or archives as the core area of administrative and service responsibility. In accepting this alteration of the all-too-comfortable and traditional paradigm, archivists and records managers must view records and records issues globally, think about physical -- as well as virtual -- records throughout the organization as sources of knowledge, and participate in enterprise-wide organizational learning.

From Information Collecting Centers to Centers of Knowledge Creation

In organizations, information is critical for reducing uncertainty and guiding decisions. However, it is distributed unevenly and is often inaccessible because it is located in geographically dispersed locations. There is often a lack of knowledge concerning what information even exists. "Recordkeeping is at the heart of ... `data cultures,' and effective data management is essential to their success" (Davenport and Prusak 1998). Effective data management is difficult, and the elements that constitute an effective data management program can be disputed.

Davenport and Prusak relate the following story in Working Knowledge. During a research project on new approaches to information management, they asked 25 client companies, including American Airlines, Hewlett Packard, IBM, and AT&T, "what they most needed to know that they didn't currently know, and how we [Davenport and Prusak] could best help them know it." Almost all of the executives replied that they had no idea how to manage value-added information and knowledge. Surely there is a role for records professionals here, though it may differ from their more traditional roles.

Records managers and archivists are not alone in trying to fill this void. Organizations develop multiple and overlapping structures to spot trends and filter data from the environment. These structures operate throughout organizations with different reasons for collecting information and establish diverse filtering rules for the information that they collect (Stinchcombe 1990). Records centers and archives have long acted as one of these information-collecting centers, focusing on non-current information that has been created and compiled by the parent organization in carrying out its functions.

Records professionals must be able to identify and acknowledge the competition in their organizations in order to influence the corporate information ecology. In the college and university environment, for example, multiple offices are in direct competition with records managers in providing information (i.e., libraries, academic departments, intranets). In fact, Brown and Yakel (1996) maintain that the records center may not be the first choice for information seekers. After identifying the competition, records professionals must determine which services they are in the best position to provide in an exemplary manner and how to better target the clients most in need of those services.

From Physical Records to Knowledge Management

As noted earlier, archives and records centers are only one of many information-collecting centers in organizations, often working independently of one another. Organizational knowledge, then, is usually as divided as the organizational structure. Furthermore, there are cultural, intellectual, and structural...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT