Macro Appraisal This section examines the origins of the functional appraisal of conventional records and its recent

re-emergence in the light of thinking about electronic records. It notes the link between functional appraisal and macro appraisal, and stresses the need for archivists to become involved in the design of electronic record keeping systems. The roots of macro appraisal, though he would not recognise the term, can be traced back to the head of the Dutch Archives Van Riemsdijk who, at about the time Muller, Feith and Fruin were producing their well known Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives, [51] propounded the view that what should be studied was the record creating process, not the records themselves. His view was that in general the original organisation of records corresponds to the original organisation of the administration and not, as Muller, Feith and Fruin claimed, to the structure of the administrative body. He is thus a forerunner of the postcustodial paradigm where analysis of individual documents or series is replaced by analysis of the business functions, transactions and workflows that cause documents to be created, with the intention of identifying those important enough to merit further investigation, and of eliminating duplication. However, the success of the Manual, which concentrated on methodology and practice rather than theory, resulted in this early attempt to appraise the organisation being stillborn. [52] A later attempt at defining what can be seen in retrospect as a prototype of macro appraisal was made by the records manager of the US Treasury Board at about the same time as Philip Brooks was setting out his proposals for appraisal criteria. The author, Helen Chatfield, proposed a functional approach based on the broad hierarchical nature of the organisation. Functions consist of two elements, the subject matter and the type of energy or "faculty" [53] required to carry them out. The functions of an organisation with respect to faculty fall into certain classes common to all organisations. During the performance of the function in each of these classes, distinct types of record material accumulate and remain as evidence of performance. It is therefore important to recognise these classes wherever they be located. To her recognition of the importance of provenance: "the discovery of the principle is as important to archival economy as the discovery of the law of gravity is to the physical sciences", she added that the organisation of record material should reveal the functional history of the institution in which it is engendered, which she regarded "as being as important as the law of relativity is to the law of gravity". She urged going behind the units in the administrative structure to the functions and purposes that they supported and treating these as the units in the record scheme. [54] Little seems to have come of this, however. In 1965 the Dutch archival theorist, Panhuysen, published an article [55] in which he recommended that "archivists study closely the history of record-creating institutions. Archivists need to know exactly and with the fullest detail, how modern government agencies create records and what records they produce. They also need to know the interrelation between the competencies of these agencies, because that determines essentially the content and value of the records they create; because from that knowledge depends a good judgment about the relationship of these records and thereby concurrently the decision which records are of enduring historical value and which records can be considered for destruction". This approach, sometimes referred to as Functional Archival Science, is strikingly similar to current ideas about macro appraisal.

The recent interest in macro appraisal stems partly from the societal approaches to appraisal outlined in the previous section and partly from the theoretical study and practical use of electronic record creating and keeping systems, as well as from rather more mundane concerns about efficiency and effectiveness, in particular the effort expended in appraising the vast percentage of records that are not preserved. It may also be viewed as reverting to some degree to the traditional Jenkinsonian non-interventionist approach in so far as it views selection as one part of the ongoing administrative process, albeit one in which archivists should participate. Both Cook and Eastwood are in agreement that appraisal needs to be carried out on the basis of an analysis of organisational business functions and processes and of the record keeping systems necessary to support them, though they may differ in their views as to the precise ends and means to which these are then put. The approach adopted by the National Archives of the Netherlands involves agencies in first determining what processes are critical to their business missions and the tasks required to perform them; then the selection of records or classes of records generated should reflect these activities: "If a function does not contribute to such an act (i.e. an act which is considered to be worth preservation), the records produced by it are not worth keeping. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function". [56] The Australian Archives have adopted a similar view: "Only by a functional interpretation of the context surrounding the creation of documents can one understand the integrity of the fonds and the functions of the archival documents in their original context. The form and function of the record are determined by the business functions that have led to their creation. Therefore, before we can appraise or use records, we have to analyse and appraise the business functions". [57] The National Archives of Canada has adopted a similar approach: "Archivists no longer get stuck down in trenches facing five hundred systems in a single large agency and trying to appraise them one-by-one in a near hopeless attempt to stitch together disparate systems and applications. Rather, they adopt a top-down perspective related to corporate functions, programs and activities and focus first on the mandates and functions of the agency and its interactions with the citizens and societal groups. Only once the significance of these broad functions are clearly assessed - which requires careful research by archivists - can archivists start pinpointing key systems and records in all media for actual appraisal and possible acquisition by the Archives or for long term retention by the agency under the Archives auspices." [58] Bearman and Hedstrom argue that traditional methods of surveying and scheduling records have been wasteful. It should not be necessary to identify, list and schedule all records when only one to three per cent are of archival value:

"Reviewing all records created in order to select the less than three percent which should be saved beyond the time they are needed for on-going operations is inefficient. Scheduling approaches therefore fail to identify records of significant transactions because so much effort is involved in disposing of routine material that there is no time to locate the documentation of the more important and less routine activity. In focusing on scheduling records rather than on identifying the significant activity of the organisation, archivists miss an opportunity to

build a knowledge-base about the structure and functions of the organisation. Moreover, insisting on details of records disposal perpetuates the impression that archivists are bean counters rather than management partners." [59] The effectiveness of the functional approach is borne out by a study undertaken by the Australian Archives in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It found that the record keeping systems broke down into functional and housekeeping, and that appraisal could be limited to deal with the functional systems. The functional descriptions served three purposes: as a set of criteria to enable appropriate records to be selected; as a method of describing the records and their retention periods and as a means of providing continuing coverage over time despite changes in the systems and the organisation because functions in the broadest sense have far more stability than systems and organisations. By taking a macro view of the agency and its functions, it was possible to select records without regard to their format. The preferred strategy will therefore be to appraise an entire Department's record keeping systems by concentrating on its unique functions as part of a mega-appraisal where the focus is on the selection of the most important records regardless of format. [60] In its broad outlines, the PIVOT project [61] serves as a representative case. The growth of state functions in the post Second World War period resulted in a massive increase in bureaucracy. In time this led to decentralisation of departments and agencies, together with their record keeping function. In 1966, a new Archive Law in the Netherlands reduced the period by which selected records should be transferred to the National and Regional Archives from 50 to 20 years. Subsequently, a General Audit Office report, 'State Records Management and Maintenance', uncovered "huge amounts of unsorted records in ministries and departments which should have been transferred to the Archives". In particular, it found that important policy documents were being retained outside the formal record keeping systems, which were excessively preoccupied with problems of managing relatively low level, high volume records. The National Archives was well aware of the position, but had been unable to effect remedial measures. The Archives Law gave it three roles in this area; advising on and inspecting departments' record keeping practices, appraisal and assistance with disposal methods and schedules, and ensuring timely transfer of selected records. But it was not until a clear objective for appraisal was formulated; " records appraised as worthy of preservation should be able to reconstruct government activity along broad lines in relation to the environment (i.e. society)'', that progress could be made. In effect this objective meant that society would not be fully documented, but that there should be ample information on a specified image of society, the interrelationship between government and citizens. Although the Archive Law required government bodies to keep their records physically and intellectually in good condition, there had been no real sanction should they fail to do so, as was frequently the case. Under the PIVOT project, set up in 1991 to run for ten years in the first instance, and with the backing of the General Audit Office, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior, that is changing. The PIVOT concept is simple: "Its scope is the organisation and its environment, not the records. The activities of government departments should in the main represent government's output in society. If a government function does not contribute to the goal, it is not considered worthy of documentation for posterity. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function. In theory, the intrinsic value of records plays no role, though in practice there may be exceptional concerning specific historical events, such as the Great Floods of 1953. In short, the method of appraisal is based on organisational research rather than on documentary analysis. The PIVOT research staff read laws, regulations, policy documents and so on describing

government institutions, their mission statements, functions and activities rather than the files they produced. Many records are disposed of without being seen." The method involves identifying all actors within a sphere of activity contributing to a primary government function. This avoids duplication arising from some actors being active in more than one sphere of government. Within a sphere, the functions of each actor contributing to the activity are identified and described and the legal basis for the functions established. These functions are appraised, and the records disposed of on the basis of the importance or insignificance of the function. This process results in a Basis Appraisal Document, of which two features are key: the retrospective appraisal, based on administrative functions. It describes the main reasons for the appraisal choices which have been made, the criteria that have been applied, and for each actor, a summary of business functions. For each function the appraisal decision is also recorded. the prospective appraisal, which outlines future appraisal decisions as well as providing the structure for the future arrangement and description of records selected for preservation based on the actors' business functions. It is anticipated that this process will lead to improvements in records management and possibly to developments in archival theory.

Criticisms of the approach have been made by archivists, reluctant to exchange their traditional role as analysts of documents to business analysts, and from historians and other scholars on the grounds that less material is being preserved and that the PIVOT methodology treats organisations as totally rational entities, ignoring the human factors that inevitably come into play. [ Next page ] [ Contents ] [ Societal Models ] [SLAIS projects page ] [ SLAIS home page ] Enquiries to: Miss Elizabeth Shepherd Lecturer The School of Library, Archive and Information Studies UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT Tel: 0171-380-7204. Fax: 0171-383-0557. Email: e.shepherd@ucl.ac.uk . This page last updated: 14/8/97 Conclusions Appraisal as the attribution of value is relatively a late-comer in archival practice, though selection if that is all that is meant by appraisal, has been practised by record keepers ever since archives were created. The establishment of public national archives following the French Revolution led to a separation between record keepers in the administration and archivists in national archives. Initially archivists were content to receive records selected by the administration, seeing their role in a purely custodial light as the preservation, arrangement and description of records and providing access to them. For these purposes, they developed a coherent body of theory based on the innate characteristics of records summed up in the principles of provenance, original order and respect des fonds. In due course however, some of them strove to gain an increasing measure of control over the selection process.

Where they were successful in doing so, they were then obliged to show that they had the necessary means to carry out this new and enhanced role, a role which is arguably on the one hand in opposition to the above principles, and on the other relieves the administration of some part at least of its responsibility for the permanent record. The literature about appraisal testifies to the efforts that have been made to justify this role but despite its frequent insight and innovation, it is an open question whether a theory that justifies incorporation into the wider body of archival theory and science has yet emerged. [ Next page ] [ Contents ] [ Macro Appraisal ] [SLAIS projects page ] [ SLAIS home page ] Enquiries to: Miss Elizabeth Shepherd Lecturer The School of Library, Archive and Information Studies UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT Tel: 0171-380-7204. Fax: 0171-383-0557. Email: e.shepherd@ucl.ac.uk . This page last updated: 14/8/97