12:00:00 Mar 2, 2007 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Institutional Records Management and E-mail. |
 |
|
 |
Final Report |
 |
Increasingly, wherever e-mail can be readily accessed, the business of H.E. institutions is being transacted by individuals using e-mail. Consequently, e-mail correspondence is now being routinely used to transact and record decisions that were previously often in paper form only; e-mails are frequently the only record of these transactions. In this context e-mail and their attachments are records of value and need to be managed within the University's records management system like any other record.
Recognising the growing importance of e-mail records and the need for their organised retention, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) has funded a pilot study to examine their management as institutional records. The pilot study is expected to develop policies and practices for the retention and disposal of e-mail. Loughborough University has undertaken this study.
The pilot study was structured around eight work packages which sought initially to examine the way staff managed their e-mail and also the way other H.E. institutions were addressing the management of e-mail. Other work packages examined what technological solutions are available for the archiving of e-mail and what training options might be used to disseminate best practice on the management of e-mail.
During the progress of the study, a number of key issues were identified and some solutions are offered to address them.
The pilot study explored a number of issues, in particular:
E-mail records management in the H.E. sector
Individual staff management of e-mail
Retention and disposal of e-mail
Technological solutions
To help understand these issues, a number of independent processes were proposed to gather information which would help develop policies and practices as follows:
Two series of interviews were undertaken, one with e-mail users and the other with I.T. staff.
A number of interviews were undertaken to understand the way staff were using e-mail across the campus. A questionnaire was designed which would explore the way staff managed their e-mail and their perception of how legal issues affected the way they worked. In particular, the Data Protection & Freedom of Information Acts were highlighted as two important pieces of legislation which may potentially affect the way staff should manage their e-mail. To help inform interviewees of these issues, briefing documents were appended to the questionnaire which helped explain the Acts in relation to records management and e-mail in particular. There was a general perception amongst staff that they did understand the implications of the Data Protection Act, but were less confident about the implications that the Freedom of Information Act would bring.
All staff interviewed felt that e-mail had become an essential tool in the way they worked and that it had superseded both the use of paper-based systems and of the telephone. E-mail was extensively used by all staff to manage the way they worked. Decisions and responsibilities were often agreed and recorded using e-mail and which were usually kept as evidence of such agreements. Appending draft attachments to e-mails and using these as a way of building the contents of the attachment was a common way of working.
The way staff managed their e-mail was affected by the responsibilities of their job. Those who felt themselves directly accountable to staff or students often kept extensive archives. Frequently staff backed this up by the keeping of paper archives in which important e-mails were inter-filed amongst paper records so that a comprehensive record was available to them on a single medium.
The way staff retained / stored their e-mail varied from the users who simply kept them as a single sequence in both their Inbox and their Sent Items, to those who had created extensive folder structures to store and manage their e-mail. Decisions on which e-mails to keep and which to delete were based on how important the staff member thought the e-mails were, rather than any reference to a retention schedule. Staff often retained e-mails that related to issues of a sensitive nature, to personnel matters and to e-mails that contained evidence of a specific decision that affected them or was part of a continuing process. Rather than viewing their e-mail as the corporate property of the University, staff generally felt a sense of ownership of it, often due to the sensitive nature of some of the contents. This feeling of ownership transferred itself to any archive facility that might be provided. Staff wanted to feel that they had some control over who would have access to their archive. Additionally, they would expect the archive to be readily accessible, easy to use and to look familiar.
From a technical perspective, localised I.T. staff were presiding over departments which had a mixture of e-mail clients and had staff who were accessing their e-mail from university and non university locations. The I.T. staff had differing views on the qualities of the e-mail clients and the hardware on which it resided. Whilst such diversity is tolerated, it causes management difficulties for those I.T. staff who have a centralised role in the management of e-mail on a campus wide basis.
An external survey of other universities was undertaken to identify examples of policies and technological solutions for e-mail storage, management and archiving. It was hoped that the results from this survey would identify examples of good practice in the management of e-mail which would be fed back to the contributors and then made more widely available in anonymised form.
The survey was undertaken, primarily, by placing requests for information on a number of mailing lists; respondents were asked to share their experience of managing e-mail across several broad categories. Overall, 39 responses were obtained from seven lists. In general, the responses were consistent in showing that the sector was in the very early stages of trying to resolve the issues that e-mail archiving was presenting to them. Whilst e-mail was the subject of a number of general policy documents, these were broadly concerned with how individuals should use and manage their e-mail accounts. It was apparent that none of the respondents were currently archiving their e-mail records, but that all were backing them up. The purpose of backing up records and the keeping of an archive are quite different and the two terms are defined below to make this difference clear.
Whilst there was a high level of interest in the outcomes of the project, no higher education institution was identified currently that had a well defined and active e-mail archiving policy in place. Two local authorities were approached who, it was thought, might be able to give guidance on how they had developed e-mail retention policies.
An external consultant shared his expertise on the implementation of electronic records management systems which included e-mail. This expertise was, however, generalised and specific details were not available given the need to retain client confidentiality. It was apparent, however, that this issue is being successfully addressed in both the private and public sectors by including e-mail management within a general records management structure.
It was originally intended that, from the external survey, a number of case studies could be developed which would illustrate the way some institutions had developed e-mail policies and implemented an archiving process. These would then be disseminated to the wider university community as models of good practice, potentially capable of adoption. Given the lack of success in obtaining case studies from the wider community, it was thought appropriate that a number of the interviewees from the cycle of staff interviews should be approached to write up their e-mail management practices as case studies. This process resulted in six staff providing a narrative record of their e-mail management and work style associated with their particular responsibilities.
All six case study candidates agreed that they used e-mail as their main form of communication and that its loss would mean a loss of efficiency and immediacy in transacting the business of the University. The candidates used the system features of their e-mail client to manage the storage and retrieval of their e-mails but the style was noticeably different, with those having commercial responsibilities generally keeping more extensive files of their e-mails. All of the candidates were systematic in their scanning and management of incoming e-mails deleting irrelevant e-mails and prioritising the remaining e-mails for action throughout the day.
All of the case study writers kept important e-mail records that were evidence of decisions or agreements. Some writers systematically printed off some of these e-mails and inter-filed them in paper archives where, together with related documents, they formed a complete record of the particular activity. One writer, uniquely used a web based archive for e-mails which help manage a distance learning programme. The main advantage of this is that it allows correspondence from a number of people involved in the programme to be brought together in one easily accessible form. The Case Studies can be found at the following U.R.L.: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/computing/irm/case-studies.html.
A literature search was undertaken and a reading list developed. It is apparent that there is considerable discussion in the literature about how e-mail is used and should be managed in the working environment. The importance of e-mail as an effective means of communication is recognised, as is the fact that it is admissible as evidence. There are British and International Standards which detail how electronic records and in particular e-mail, should be managed. Adherence to these standards helps to ensure these records are authentic and can be used as evidence. The need for Government to manage and capture electronic records has led to the development of information resources by the National Archives. These resources outline the management, appraisal and preservation of electronic records and relate this to principles and practice; some reference to e-mail is made. Likewise there is available from the National Archives, and the JISC in its study of the records lifecycle, extensive guidance on retention schedule.
The importance of the Data Protection & Freedom of Information Acts in relation to universities is reflected in the legal briefings available from the JISC and the Office of the Information Commissioner. E-mail records are already being accessed by data subjects who wish to see the correspondence related to their subject access request under the Data Protection Act. Whilst there is guidance on building an e-mail policy, this is in general terms and little was found that provided material to build an e-mail retention policy. The Reading List may be found at the following U.R.L.: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/computing/irm/reading-list.html.
There are three broad strategies available for the archiving of e-mail:
For any implementation to be acceptable, there must also be powerful and user friendly interfaces for both the user and the system administration to access archived material, and there must be controls or procedures to implement retention policies with time scales of up to 21 years or more. In addition, the archive software must integrate with existing e-mail systems or a major migration to a single environment may be required for all users.
The first strategy of automatically archiving all e-mail seems to be applicable to tightly controlled environments where all email is defined as company property. This may be appropriate in a legal or financial institution. Given the diversity of business transacted in the H.E. sector this seems unlikely to be successful.
The second option of selectively archiving e-mail using a set of policies or rules is an approach adopted by all the leading products aimed at the corporate market. Six products were identified and their relevant features examined. The products offer a range of features to capture, store and manage email within an archive. They predominantly use Exchange server technology and Outlook related email clients, although one of the products is based on open standards.
No suitable products were found which matched the third option of providing a sophisticated archive tool for users to tailor their archiving of email records.
The software cost of these systems is in the order of about £85 - 100K
+ Vat with 15 - 20% annual recurrent costs. In all cases the cost of additional
server hardware and suitable long term storage would be of a similar order.
A detailed Technical Report can be e-mailed by request to I.T. managers in the
UK HE/FE sector. The report discusses email archiving and also includes an analysis
of the products offering suitable systems. Requests can be made by e-mailing
C.M.Thomas@lboro.ac.uk or telephone
+44 (01)1509 222312. Link
to Technical report restricted to members of Loughborough University.
The policy was developed from the literature search and from the responses from the interviews. The policy assumes that the institution has in place an established general records management structure which incorporates the management of electronic records, including e-mail. The policy recognises that the University has a statutory obligation to manage its records effectively. The main points of the retention policy are concerned with the responsibilities of the individual and of the University. Briefly, the individual using e-mail has a responsibility to:
The responsibilities of the University are:
Two versions of the policy have been produced. The first as a draft document which will be taken forward for consideration by Loughborough University. The second as a generic form of the policy which other institutions could use as a template for writing their own policy document. The Generic Policy may be found at the following U.R.L.: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/computing/irm/generic-policy.html.
Once adopted, the E-mail Retention Policy requires that the University provides adequate training and support to its staff to manage their e-mail effectively. A number of approaches are recommended, which fall into distinct categories, notably:
Presentations and briefings should be given to influential groups to inform and gain commitment to the e-mail element of the corporate records management policy. Target groups should include those at Directorate level, I.T. Committees, Heads of Department, technical and senior staff forums.
Key contacts should be identified within departments who can be given formal training and who, in turn, could then provide guidance to other members of staff who need assistance in the management of their e-mail.
The E-mail Retention Policy recommends that all staff should receive training in the use of an e-mail archive. Formal training should be available through staff training centres and supplemented by the use of key contacts within each department.
Literature should be provided in paper and electronic formats giving a range of guidance material, including:
The University wide electronic notice board can be used disseminate latest advice and updates as well as using in-house newsletters and magazines.
Generally, it would appear from the research that the management of e-mail as an important institutional record in the H.E. sector is in its infancy. This is apparent from those H.E. institutions who responded to the external survey, where none were able to offer any policies or technological solutions on the archiving of e-mail.
Specifically, this lack of policy and guidance in the way e-mail is currently being managed by individuals, is exposing the University to risks from for example, business loss and legal action. Currently, when staff leave the University, their e-mail is deleted and there is no evidence that their personal e-mail archive is being systematically preserved. The lack of any electronic archiving system for e-mail inevitably compounds these difficulties.
Whilst Computing Services recommend a particular e-mail client, departments and individuals may choose which they prefer and on which type of machine it is operated. This freedom does not lead readily to the adoption of a uniform approach to the archiving of e-mail. In general, the incoming and outgoing e-mail traffic is managed centrally by Computing Services. Once e-mail is delivered however, the way that it is handled at departmental level varies considerably, with a range of hardware and e-mail clients in use across the campus.
Differing skill levels and the use of disparate e-mail clients and systems means that staff have developed distinct approaches to the way they manage their e-mail. For all staff interviewed, the use of e-mail as a communication device has become essential and generally all staff recognise that it has grown in importance and is as significant as the importance afforded to paper records.
Whilst it is clear that e-mail and e-mail records are important, there is no evidence of any specific policies on its use, management or archiving. Few staff make reference to formal retention schedules except where they feel directly accountable to staff, students or known legislation. Staff often delete or retain e-mails without reference to any retention schedule and this may mean that important records are lost or retained inappropriately. The University does provide, however, a retention schedule which is directly related to the provisions of the Data Protection Act and the University's own requirements.
Whilst training is available for staff on the use of e-mail, it is not compulsory and uses as its model the preferred e-mail client offered by Computing Services. This effectively leaves most (but not all) staff to develop their own working style. To provide training on the scale required to successfully implement an e-mail archiving policy will require extensive resources of personnel and time.
The technological review did not find an off the shelf package which could be readily adopted by the University. This may mean that there is not a suitable technical solution, which fits the preferred option of allowing individual staff to manage the disposition of their e-mails to an archive.
It is essential to recognise that e-mail correspondence is an institutional record that should be managed under a records management system like any other record. The University should therefore develop an integrated corporate records management policy which includes all records of value irrespective of the medium on which they are held. Part of the policy should deal with electronic records and as a subset of this, e-mail records should be treated as potentially legally admissible documents and a policy developed appropriately. The University has in place both an Information Strategy and Information Policy, providing the framework for such an integrated approach.
A Records Manager should be appointed to oversee the development and implementation of such an approach. Careful consideration should be given to where, in the organisation, such an individual should be placed in relation to other functions. Necessarily, they will need to be able to influence and build structured relations with key departments and individuals.
Specific e-mail policies (separate from the general Acceptable Use Policy) should be developed, which provide guidance on acceptable use and address, where necessary, particular issues that differing staff responsibilities may bring.
Given the increasing importance of e-mail, if records are to be managed and archived then a single e-mail system should be installed across the campus that has itself an appropriate archiving function or the e-mail client can be linked to a suitable archiving system. It is acknowledged, however, that paper based systems are being migrated to integrated electronic records management systems. It is recommended therefore that, in the longer term the University should install an integrated system for the archival of electronic records, of which an e-mail archive would be a part.
A single integrated electronic records management system and e-mail system is envisaged which will include an e-mail archiving facility. Using a standard e-mail client would allow a uniform approach to training, to technical support and to the transfer of skills between users.
The responsibilities of staff and the University need to be incorporated into a policy which defines the disposition of e-mail records. The draft E-mail and Retention and Disposal policy explicitly states that staff will take responsibility for the disposition of e-mails in line with University policy. The e-mail policies developed, should make reference to the use of retention schedules and document appraisal. The retention schedules and the document appraisal guidance should be developed with the need to meet legislative requirements and the particular needs of the University. They should cover records irrespective of the medium on which they are held. Guidance on how to use document appraisal techniques should be available to help staff classify documents. Staff should make reference to the retention schedules when deciding retention periods for e-mail records.
Since the use of e-mail is largely unsupervised, compulsory training should be given to help users manage any new e-mail client and its archive, such that there is a uniform understanding of its use and purpose. The archive should not be used as a general archive for documents that are not related to e-mail. Training should also cover the use of retention schedules and document appraisal techniques.
For universities such as Loughborough where the e-mail systems are not based wholly on one of the major products from Microsoft or Lotus, the new regulatory requirements to archive e-mail present a major dilemma. Most of the commercial offerings do not integrate into such environments.
An option might be for the universities to develop an open source solution. This approach has been used on a number of major research projects which have had specific data archive requirements. The unique nature of e-mail with its massive volumes of small documents, high volatility and potentially very long retention periods, however, make this very unattractive.
Thus, before selecting an archiving product, it would be prudent to consider whether the email environment in use is one which permits a choice of fully developed archiving products with integrated user interfaces. At the current state of development of the market, this is believed only to be the case for MS Exchange Server and MS Outlook, and the products available could provide a suitable path for some institutions. Migration of platform could be problematic in institutions where there is a long established, highly developed, stable and very successful email culture based on non Microsoft products and a variety of email clients in use. However, it could be very popular in many user circles as it could offer much greater user interface functionality, for example groupware features such as calendar handling and shared folders.
Alternatively it may be possible to bolt on certain features from some of the products identified allowing the user to see the archive as a separate email system and / or use a web interface to manipulate the archive.
In either case a major procurement exercise would be required to evaluate the several established products.
1. Prytherch, R. ed., Harrod's librarians' glossary, 9th ed., 2000, p. 31.
2. Pountain, D. ed., The new Penguin dictionary of computing, 2001, p. 33.
Michael Norris
10 November 2003
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.
