5

5

(See also 5.4.1 pg 17)

13

13

Goals 2 and 3 mention shared service for storage and retrieval of digital information but do not say if this means sharing within organisations or between them.

How is “significant digital information” defined? There is no methodology described here (or in the Appraisal Policy) for appraising government functions. As only 1 year is allocated for this work, it seems to suggest that the functions will only be identified at the highest “jurisdictional” level. If so, such an approach would not necessarily succeed in identifying high-value records likely to be located at the much lower activity level.

Any methodology adopted which prioritises functions will need considerable engagement from both government agencies, professional associations and research groups and communities

There also appears to be an increasing disconnect between the approach recommended for paper versus digital records. While technology increases the risk of loss, technology issue should not, on its own define methodology.

Needs to be more precise

Include a strategy for stakeholder engagement in any consideration of methodology, etc involving archival value

Depending on the methodology adopted it appears that the time allocated is insufficient.

Recommend liaising with colleagues in Canada or Australia, depending on approach options and feasible timelines

5.2.1

15

Does Archives NZ intend to develop a list of preferred systems as is the case in Australia, UK, and USA?

If so, this needs considerable analysis, and could be a significant challenge, as most larger departments have already committed to recordkeeping systems based on assessment of the business needs and statutory requirements.

This would assist many public offices and local authorities – currently, the selection of a wide variety of systems is evident and often seems quirky if not whimsical.

Decisions on systems are most often made by people who do not well understand and appreciate requirements and implications and who, ultimately, are largely guided by issues of pricing and integration with other systems.

Requires development of a common standard – and a set of measurement criteria

5.2.4

16

The whole-of-government approach (covering everything from schools to health boards to government departments) to the storage of information will be a very large, very costly and daunting project in itself; one that, if feasible, is likely to take many years to accomplish.

Using a shared service for storage and retrieval of active records not considered to have archival value, as well as those which may be ultimately transferred to archival custody, seems to imply that we might need to keep digital records even where they are not of archival value – in which case there might be no need for any distinction between archival and non-archival

Medium- and long-term digital preservation remains largely an unknown quantity – regardless of whether it managed within government only or by commercial partnerships. This is little indication that partnerships with the commercial sector will necessarily reduce the risk of digital records not being available in future.

Are there any exemplary models to which Archives NZ can look for guidance? Is there an EDRMS or a data warehouse big enough to cater for a shared service operation? One wonders how many different document stores it would need to have.

Need to further explain what will be put in place to deal with non-archival records and how it will be managed

In the existing environment of technological uncertainty about what comes next, and quite unproven lifetime of digital technologies, the key terms must continue to be ‘regular migration’ and ‘data loss prevention’.

6.2

21

Para 3 – the lack of awareness at senior and middle management level is more often than not a greater problem than lack of awareness at lower levels in organisations. Ignorance and general lack of interest has led to dreadful losses of information – this is equally true of both central and local government

Much greater emphasis on education and awareness training for senior and middle management about their information management and recordkeeping responsibilities – and the need to provide adequate resources and treat information management as an ongoing business cost rather than a series of one-off catch-up ‘special projects’. The message must be continually reinforced.

6.2

20

Para 1 – points out the very short life of digital information. Para 2 provides an illustrative tale of woe.

Para 3 tells us everyone is worried.

Yes we are faced with issues and problems but what do we do in the meantime?

Some emphasis should be given in the strategy to the continuing need to preserve proven hardcopy media (such as paper or microform) records until such time as digital information becomes far more reliable and longer-lasting.

6.3.1

23

The strategy lists organisation types which are covered by this strategy and those which are not. Local government, although covered by the Public Records Act, is not covered but there is no explanation for this.

Strategy should explain why local government is specifically excluded and state how the issue for that sector will be addressed. Suggest you issue a similar strategy or at least a guideline that can be adopted and adapted by local government organisations

6.4

24

With rapid change now a constant expectation, and given the short life of existing digital technologies, how does the strategy intend to keep ahead of the rate of change in its thinking and planning?

7.2.2

30

It is important to remember that just “creating and maintaining” is not enough. In order to have “seamless, easy access” common, agreed rules for understanding content are required – something which is missing from this strategy.

1.