Mysteries, Mayhem and Machiavellian Machinations: Records Management auditing at MFAT 1999 - 2008

Mysteries, Mayhem and Machiavellian Machinations: Records Management auditing at MFAT 1999 - 2008 Karen Bolger Manager 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) • Selling the concept of auditing – management buy-in(or lack there of) • A rose by any other name(the creative use of language) • Linking audit outcomes to the proposed relocation of the Ministry(from four buildings on the Terrace to once purpose built building on Lambton Quay) • 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

Mysteries, Mayhem and Machiavellian Machinations: Records Management auditing at MFAT 1999 - 2008