Is there currently a commonly accepted methodology for measuring the efficiency of RM programmes?
Measuring the performance of records management is not an alien concept, with the profession's established standards of best practice including guidance on performance measurement, notably 'Performance management for BS ISO 15489-1 (BIP 0025-3:2003)' (Jones, 2003)5 and 'DIRKS Step H Post implementation review'.
Via these guides or manuals the concept of measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the records management programme is introduced.
'Effectiveness' is understood to mean the measure of how the programme performed in meeting its original objective.
'Efficiency' is the measure of how the costs of managing the organisation's records compare to before the records management initiative was undertaken.
Where detailed, the measures cover effectiveness of the management programme in relation to it becoming embedded in the organisation's culture and infrastructure, but the metrics for measuring efficiency are, once again, less prominent.
Information relating to the benefits of records management is more prevalent in the professional magazines and commercial white papers than in the academic journals. This is to be expected as the primary focus of the commercial white papers is as a sales or marketing tool. A number of the articles within the professional magazines are written by consultants and vendors in the field and inevitably some of these articles will tend to have a sales feel to them. Where references are made to the efficiencies of records management in the commercial white papers or professional magazines, it is only at a superficial level and certainly does not go into detail of how the efficiencies can be quantified or demonstrated.
There are relatively few articles, if any, relating to the methodology of measuring the efficiencies of records management and there are no articles detailing empirical data in the academic journals.
From the online survey, we have found an appetite for quantifying the benefits of records management, with 60% of respondents stating that they have attempted such activities. The main reasons cited for not measuring included little guidance on the type and reliability of metrics available, followed by other priorities and objectives. One respondent who has not attempted to measure benefits commented 'It is an area which worries me as I don't think that accurate and useful monitoring is something which has as yet been addressed by records managers'. Although performance measurement is addressed in the best practice guides, albeit a light touch on efficiency measurement, detail relating to how to measure has not made it as far as the professional magazines or journals. It should be noted though, that as we move deeper into uncertain economic times articles relating to understanding the return on investment derived from the records management programme are starting to appear in the professional magazines. The discussion is starting to happen, but it is far from the point of providing sound methodologies to address the measurement of efficiencies. This is an interesting point and coupled with a further reason from a respondent to our online survey who has not attempted measuring benefits 'The organisation's prime focus for records management is regulatory compliance' gives an insight as to why methodologies relating to quantifying efficiency gains are lacking in the literature. As noted previously this suggests that there has been a reliance on the compliance aspect of records management and in the good economic times of the past ten years there has been little demand for a cost and benefit assessment of the records management programme.
