The Information Audit - A Health Warning
There is no single approach or theoretical methodology which will guarantee success in the information audit. In an ideal world it would be an on-going process which is steadily up-dated across time. This would prevent staff and systems slipping back into more easy-going ways. Practical experience suggests that a fixed period repeat of the exercise, say every 2-3 years, is necessary to keep everything on track and to accommodate changes in organisation, business processes and personnel.
There is always a possibility that you will find something which runs counter not just to agreed records management policy but is more fundamentally against institutional policy or is simply illegal. General advice here is useless because the circumstances will be specific and there are likely to be ethical choices to be made. From a purely self-defensive point of view it is vital that you do not collude in any cover-up, no matter how important the offender, because it will come to light. In a Freedom of Information regime this will be sooner rather than later and you will castigated as an accessory (the person who knew but did nothing).
It is more likely that you will make your recommendations but for a variety of reasons, some good some bad, nothing happens. How do you deal with this? It is possible to jump up and down and although you may win the immediate battle you are likely to create opposition by this tactic and resistance to your proposals. Records Management is a long game, and the experience of this writer is that most problems come around again in time. Having a ready made analysis and solution to the situation is usually welcomed. Successes are your cumulative credit. Reasonableness and impartial advice coupled with professional competence usually means that in time you will be trusted to come up with the best solution for everyone.
It is worth undertaking a risk assessment at the start of the process. The Risk Management infoKit covers this and provides a template for assessing risk. A completed example is also available.
An over rigid or theoretical approach is likely to be counter-productive for three reasons:
It is likely that important records will be missed or their importance undervalued because they do not fit the pre-existing agenda.
There will be a tendency to 'hide' the untidy or inconvenient. From the point-of-view of the objectives outlined this will be self-defeating.
Even if the policy is implicit rather than explicit it is almost always noticeable to those at the front line. This will limit willing co-operation. Hidden agendas create reservation and fear. It is vital to have staff 'buy in'.
Above all it is a people issue. It is vital that whoever is tasked with carrying out the audit communicates with colleagues, and brings them along with the objectives. The approach should emphasise the 'carrot' rather than the 'stick'. If at all possible an identified 'quick win' which makes a demonstrable difference to working situations will produce co-operation which no amount of fine theory or exhortation can match.
The approach should be as open-minded as is consistent with achieving the objectives outlined in the section Where to Start.
