Thursday, 23 April 2009
Records Management Today Podcast
The second of Northumbria University's Records Management Today podcast series mentions the RMS London event at which we presented our online training course. Our part starts a bit after 10 minutes into the podcast, but you should really listen to it all.
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Online Training
On Wednesday just gone I delivered a presentation on an online training course that we've developed at the BBC to the RMS London group. There seemed to be a fair amount of interest in it, so I thought I'd post some of the details about it.
Training in the BBC is delivered through classroom sessions, face-to-face or online. Our department (Information and Archives) and the Information Policy and Compliance department (responsible for FOI and DPA compliance among other things) jointly commissioned an online course to assist in promoting FOI messages, particularly with regard to understanding the need to manage records according to our retention schedule.
Overall it's taken nearly two years to reach the point where we're ready with the course. In terms of work effort, it's far less than that, however there have been any number of delays caused by administrative issues and a few by technical problems.
The course was written using Mohive's e-learning publishing system. This is a standard piece of software used by BBC Training.
The script was written by records management staff (mostly me). As it is intended for general BBC staff, we took the approach that it should be largely jargon free, that it should explain basic records management concepts and that the key priority was to get people to start thinking about records management - not teach them how to do it.
When recording the narration for the course, we decided we wanted Radio 4's Charlotte Green for the job. We wanted a presenter with a distinct and interesting voice - and as we have a couple of Radio 4 fans in the department, she was the first choice. Fortunately she was willing to do it. And on a personal note she was nothing but pleasant and professional to work with - not sure my word counts any with job references, but I'd certainly hire her again.
We also wanted a senior manager to introduce the course. In this case, after much internal debate (which led to one of those delays I mentioned), we finally asked Caroline Thomson, the BBC's Chief Operation Officer to do the honours. The idea here was to put some official weight behind the course - something that's quite important when you're trying to get people to treat seriously something they've probably never heard about before.
The course was structured in line with BBC Training's advice with an introduction and summation to each learning section in order to emphasize the key learning points.
We used BBC content throughout the course - both in examples and in some of the accompanying images. The idea there was to make the course more interesting and to add a local theme to it so that it could be relevant to people's jobs.
There are a number of interactive exercises used in part to add variety to the course, but also to reinforce the learning with some actual doing. We used a number of different types of exercise to again add variety.
Where we had screens that contained a lot of flat information, we would try to break it up as much as possible. Sometimes this would involve giving the user control over playing out the information through clickable icons. Other times we relied on keeping the screen busy with images and text appearing, synchronised with the spoken narration.
At the end of the course we included a couple of hypertext links to lead participants to further information about records management services within the BBC.
Training in the BBC is delivered through classroom sessions, face-to-face or online. Our department (Information and Archives) and the Information Policy and Compliance department (responsible for FOI and DPA compliance among other things) jointly commissioned an online course to assist in promoting FOI messages, particularly with regard to understanding the need to manage records according to our retention schedule.
Overall it's taken nearly two years to reach the point where we're ready with the course. In terms of work effort, it's far less than that, however there have been any number of delays caused by administrative issues and a few by technical problems.
The course was written using Mohive's e-learning publishing system. This is a standard piece of software used by BBC Training.
The script was written by records management staff (mostly me). As it is intended for general BBC staff, we took the approach that it should be largely jargon free, that it should explain basic records management concepts and that the key priority was to get people to start thinking about records management - not teach them how to do it.
When recording the narration for the course, we decided we wanted Radio 4's Charlotte Green for the job. We wanted a presenter with a distinct and interesting voice - and as we have a couple of Radio 4 fans in the department, she was the first choice. Fortunately she was willing to do it. And on a personal note she was nothing but pleasant and professional to work with - not sure my word counts any with job references, but I'd certainly hire her again.
We also wanted a senior manager to introduce the course. In this case, after much internal debate (which led to one of those delays I mentioned), we finally asked Caroline Thomson, the BBC's Chief Operation Officer to do the honours. The idea here was to put some official weight behind the course - something that's quite important when you're trying to get people to treat seriously something they've probably never heard about before.
The course was structured in line with BBC Training's advice with an introduction and summation to each learning section in order to emphasize the key learning points.
We used BBC content throughout the course - both in examples and in some of the accompanying images. The idea there was to make the course more interesting and to add a local theme to it so that it could be relevant to people's jobs.
There are a number of interactive exercises used in part to add variety to the course, but also to reinforce the learning with some actual doing. We used a number of different types of exercise to again add variety.
Where we had screens that contained a lot of flat information, we would try to break it up as much as possible. Sometimes this would involve giving the user control over playing out the information through clickable icons. Other times we relied on keeping the screen busy with images and text appearing, synchronised with the spoken narration.
At the end of the course we included a couple of hypertext links to lead participants to further information about records management services within the BBC.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Written Archives
Quick link to videos of Jacquie Kavanagh talking about the BBC's written archives. Jacquie's a Multimedia Archivist now rather than the Written Archivist that she's credited as being as all the information management disciplines in the BBC are blurring into one.
Or perhaps that should be two as we have media management and media archiving both taking place within the BBC - and the needs of the archive are not the only thing that drives the requirements of actively managing media. Although these have always been very closely linked at the Beeb - more within the records management discipline than other areas, but the joined-up information management-archive management approach has spread as we're moving general archival policies up to the point of creation rather than just worrying about material at the point of capture.
Anyway, that's all beside the point - the videos give a brief look at the richness of the BBC's archive. Sadly this type of detail is more and more likely to be lost as our written conversations become increasingly ephemeral using today's communication technologies. What may be good for business isn't necessarily good for posterity.
And now I'm starting to sound like a Luddite, so I'll stop now.
Or perhaps that should be two as we have media management and media archiving both taking place within the BBC - and the needs of the archive are not the only thing that drives the requirements of actively managing media. Although these have always been very closely linked at the Beeb - more within the records management discipline than other areas, but the joined-up information management-archive management approach has spread as we're moving general archival policies up to the point of creation rather than just worrying about material at the point of capture.
Anyway, that's all beside the point - the videos give a brief look at the richness of the BBC's archive. Sadly this type of detail is more and more likely to be lost as our written conversations become increasingly ephemeral using today's communication technologies. What may be good for business isn't necessarily good for posterity.
And now I'm starting to sound like a Luddite, so I'll stop now.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
BBC Records Management Standards
Top result in Google if you type in BBC records management, so they're not exactly hard to find, but I thought I'd put in a link anyway.
I co-wrote these with a colleague back in 2003 and we did so with the stated aims that the standards should be necessary, understandable and accurate.
Necessary - we decided that the standards should not be over-burdensome. Correspondingly we eliminated anything that we saw as being less than strictly necessary to meet the requirements for records management at the time. There are probably still some elements that are more aspirational than practical, but there was an awful lot that we omitted.
Understandable - looking through a number of standards (both records management standards from other authorities and some of the BBC's own documents), we found it was more the rule than the exception that these are written in overly-technical language with dense blocks of text in a way that seems designed to make them as difficult to read as possible. Considering the subject matter is less than compelling to most potential readers, we thought we'd try for the opposite effect instead. Revolutionary thinking, eh?
I will say though that it takes a lot longer to write a simple, clear sentence than it does to write an overly-wordy, badly phrased one. Editing time was quite long - but hopefully worth it as the standards have needed very little alteration since they were written.
Accurate - probably goes without saying, but we did check our sources fairly carefully. Any mistakes are undoubtedly in my interpretation.
I co-wrote these with a colleague back in 2003 and we did so with the stated aims that the standards should be necessary, understandable and accurate.
Necessary - we decided that the standards should not be over-burdensome. Correspondingly we eliminated anything that we saw as being less than strictly necessary to meet the requirements for records management at the time. There are probably still some elements that are more aspirational than practical, but there was an awful lot that we omitted.
Understandable - looking through a number of standards (both records management standards from other authorities and some of the BBC's own documents), we found it was more the rule than the exception that these are written in overly-technical language with dense blocks of text in a way that seems designed to make them as difficult to read as possible. Considering the subject matter is less than compelling to most potential readers, we thought we'd try for the opposite effect instead. Revolutionary thinking, eh?
I will say though that it takes a lot longer to write a simple, clear sentence than it does to write an overly-wordy, badly phrased one. Editing time was quite long - but hopefully worth it as the standards have needed very little alteration since they were written.
Accurate - probably goes without saying, but we did check our sources fairly carefully. Any mistakes are undoubtedly in my interpretation.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Building a Better Retention Schedule (Part 2)
We've started work on how we think our new retention schedule should work. The diagram below (click on the image for a larger view) illustrates the relationship between data tables for the database which (budgets permitting) will run it.
It's similar to the data relationships in our current retention schedule database, however there are a number of tweaks that we've made:
State as part of the Retention Rule is new. Previously we've had fairly narrow retention instructions (e.g. Review after 3 Years). State allows us to be more specific about what that actually means. Our current thinking is that the values for State would be: Maximum (a record must be kept no longer than), Minimum (a record must be kept no less than), Required (a record must be kept for exactly) and Advisory (we don't really care, but here's some guidance just so you don't end up swamped in unnecessary records).
Genre is something I'm willing to bet wouldn't be found on most retention schedules. We certainly haven't had it on ours in the past. Previously our retention schedule only managed the BBC's written records. Now we're expanding it to manage elements created as part of the programme making function such as rushes, stock shots, finished programmes, reversions of programmes and so on. Different types of programmes in the BBC have different retention requirements (e.g. dramas would be considered more important than gameshows). The Genre field will allow us to be able to differentiate between these types of programmes. At least that's the current thinking - we're still deciding whether this is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue.
The Local Record Type and Local Retention Rule are not completely new, but we haven't managed them in this way before. However, the background to that will probably take me more than a paragraph to explain, so I'll save that for a later blog entry.
It's similar to the data relationships in our current retention schedule database, however there are a number of tweaks that we've made:
State as part of the Retention Rule is new. Previously we've had fairly narrow retention instructions (e.g. Review after 3 Years). State allows us to be more specific about what that actually means. Our current thinking is that the values for State would be: Maximum (a record must be kept no longer than), Minimum (a record must be kept no less than), Required (a record must be kept for exactly) and Advisory (we don't really care, but here's some guidance just so you don't end up swamped in unnecessary records).
Genre is something I'm willing to bet wouldn't be found on most retention schedules. We certainly haven't had it on ours in the past. Previously our retention schedule only managed the BBC's written records. Now we're expanding it to manage elements created as part of the programme making function such as rushes, stock shots, finished programmes, reversions of programmes and so on. Different types of programmes in the BBC have different retention requirements (e.g. dramas would be considered more important than gameshows). The Genre field will allow us to be able to differentiate between these types of programmes. At least that's the current thinking - we're still deciding whether this is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue.
The Local Record Type and Local Retention Rule are not completely new, but we haven't managed them in this way before. However, the background to that will probably take me more than a paragraph to explain, so I'll save that for a later blog entry.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Charles Stross and the pit software vendors have dug for us
Usually I try to use links as extra value to my posts rather than letting the post be about the link. If the linked-to website disappears then the post becomes useless. But in this case I'll make an exception as the blog entry I'm linking to discusses planned digital information obsolescence and I think the potential irony of playing with another form of information obsolescence is worth the risk.
Author Charles Stross sums up the problems (which I've been banging on about at work for at least the last six years) with the ever changing face of word processor files in his blog. He also provides his own solutions for it, which are not currently possible at the BBC where we're very closely aligned with Microsoft.
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment on our corporate ties with that (or any other) firm, so I'll refrain from editorialising. You may read into my silence whatever you chose.
Author Charles Stross sums up the problems (which I've been banging on about at work for at least the last six years) with the ever changing face of word processor files in his blog. He also provides his own solutions for it, which are not currently possible at the BBC where we're very closely aligned with Microsoft.
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment on our corporate ties with that (or any other) firm, so I'll refrain from editorialising. You may read into my silence whatever you chose.
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Digital Preservation
Received a link to this through the JISC Records Management list. It questions the thinking around what should be preserved when considering digital objects. It's a question that we still need to get around to answering at the BBC, but my thinking is increasingly in line with Dr James Currall's when he talks about the importance of preserving the information but not fetishising the container. While there is a degree to which we want to look at digital objects as artefacts, given the amount of information we need to manage, I don't see that it is even remotely possible to consider all digital objects as artefacts. Rather it is better to retain enough to be able to recreate a picture of how we used information, but to the extent that we can recreate how we used every single piece of information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
